Then be surprised. Mobility heating represents a significant portion of the daily power budget. Indeed some previously considered landing sites were expected to be so cold that there would be significant no-drive periods as the mobility heating requirements would be so bad, they were unsustainable. This is covered in earlier landing site selection meeting documentation.

Again - if that's the case, send a lander. We've spent a fortune making a mobile vehicle...yet you're advocating not using it. It's like dangling keys infront of the science team, but not letting them use them. Moreover, again, all the landing sites have good stuff within their ellipses, and Mawrth would require driving just like the wrongly titled 'go to' landing sites.

Oh, the oft repeated and oft corrected myth. Curiosity will have a power budget just like MER. Just because it's got an RTG doesn't mean it's awake 24/7. It'll be asleep at night, just like MER. What MSL will be doing at night is recharging its batteries. Moreover, in shade - it'll be colder than average and thus require even more actuator heating (already a significant power budget burden)

The RTG renders the power supply more reliable. It doesn't render it infinite.

I'll repeat myself : The sites all have interesting science within their ellipse, and, repeating myself again, Mawrth involves driving to science targets as well. Your entire premise is flawed. You clearly have not read the presentations that the landing site meeting put online.



So how long do YOU think it will last. What assumption are you going to make about its lifespan that drives your preference to Mawrth. What drives your decision to think you know how long the vehicle will last better than the engineers responsible for designing, building, testing...and driving...the vehicle? The level 1 requirement is 2 years. To make ANY assumption regarding longevity other than that is folly.



Yet you're making assumptions about Mawrth, and indeed the other sites, that the data simple doesn't support. If you wish to make a case for Mawrth, then you need to demonstrate that it is scientifically more attractive or safer to land on or drive around.

The project scientists and engineers were basically unable to do that.

Oh, we knew that already. Infact, one of UMSF's admins was introduced to UMSF by Steve as he used it to catch up on Spirit's photographic adventures at the summit of Husband Hill.

If that were the case, we would be sending a lander. Mawrth, as with all the others, has specific targets that require driving. Moreover, all the sites have good science within their landing ellipses. Mawrth is not special in this regard.



We DO have a requirement for 2 years on the ground. All of the sites driving requirements and science requirements can fit within that time span.

They are essentially indistinguishable in terms of scientific merit and EDL safety.

You have to click the option to see it 'full size'

You're lucky - 49hr before Open House the rover was upside down, had it's wheels off and had the belly-pan off. It didn't look like much of anything.

How do you know? The facts show the exact opposite.

We've seen wheel-tracks erroded away in less than a year. We've seen dust move overnight. 'Fresh' geologically is still tens, hundreds of thousands of years. PLENTY of time for vast swathes of dust to blow in and out of the crater.

How do you know? The same symptoms are visible at Eagle, Fram, Endurance, Victoria, Santa Maria, Conception etc etc.

Clearly the crater did no such thing and we're simply seeing dust settled in the middle of a local depression thanks to the wind.

Heck, call it James Caird.

I can't see any benefit to such a thing. The resolution, even with super-res, is still orders of magnitude less than we see thanks to HiRISE.

Hey - we could call it TiME.

They certainly weren't fake.

Amundsen and Scott were names for the DS2 microprobes, so that's out.

Given that the metric value is expressed to one significant figure, it's accurate.

Get out.

Moreover - TiME will be quite a warm thing - so heat will drive off and evaporate any splashes - residual residue isn't out of the question. The camera should be fairly high above the surface anyway, so it unlikely to get a splashing - especially given how smooth we know the lakes to be. Something over 500 watts of heat are involved in the 130 watts of electricity generated by the ASRG

And Squyres would have told you the rovers would be dead after 120, maybe 150 sols.

I'm in good company.

You will also see that over time, I come around to the idea.

The FR wheel starts drawing a lot more current if they drive forwards. Driving backwards, it's elevated above the others, but not as much and not in an upwardly trending way.

It would have been a few months after Victoria they made the switch I think.

At this point, the level of detail is enough to differentiate which rover you're actually modelling

I'm reading it right now. Really not sure what to make of it. It's no 'Roving Mars' that's for sure.

I think you went wrong right away - none of the decadal plans had a shared cost plan involved. They didn't infer or assume any ESA involvement at all.



I don't think that happened either.



By removing the NASA rover entirely.



It was zero. The decadal could not estimate, guesstimate, assume or infer an ESA contribution. In every mission it was 'how much would it cost US to do all of this'

The only odd-ball was JEO which didn't need to worry about JGO. They're independent.

That's because the none of the mission were proposed that could do that, moreover, the Decadal survey was done with a budget in mind that is now clearly not going to be available. Plus - that's the NASA part of the project budget... the total expenditure would still be very very firmly in the $2B+ range.

Thus take the Max-C architecture and split it between US and ESA and it becomes affordable and the logical next mission going on the recommendations of the Decadal.

This new idea essentially gets both NASA and ESA a large stake in a flagship mission, and little more than New Frontiers costs to each.

Nope - NF is <$1B + LV.

This is nearly half a discovery mission more than that.

Moreover, the budget is essentially none existant to think about spending significantly more than that.