Phoenix Site |
Phoenix Site |
Jan 22 2005, 01:21 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Rover Driver Group: Members Posts: 1015 Joined: 4-March 04 Member No.: 47 |
|
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Aug 25 2005, 05:18 AM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
Yes, the problem with this one (as with Polar Lander, had it succeeded) is the inevitable coming of the polar night. But as for its lifetime not being long enough: it will achieve 90% of its official science goals in 2 months, for Heaven's sake -- with the rest (weather data) being achieved during the next 3 months.
And to say that it's not scientifically worthwhile is nonsense. While the MERs explored Mars horizontally, this one will explore it vertically by being the first subsurface mission -- and also the very first examination of a Martian environment water-rich enough to be potentially habitable by current-day microbes. (Given its mass spectrometer's ability to detect methane and surface organics, it's also the first potentially biological Mars mission since Viking.) Despite all the official claims about the selection of the first Scout mission being "fully competitive", the word at the first Mars Strategic Roadmap meeting was that NASA HQ virtually demanded this mission precisely because it fits in so well with the central thread of Mars exploration -- and does so at minimum price by using an already-built spacecraft. To quote Bette Davis, don't ask for the Moon when you have the stars. |
|
|
Aug 25 2005, 11:33 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Aug 25 2005, 05:18 AM) And to say that it's not scientifically worthwhile is nonsense. While the MERs explored Mars horizontally, this one will explore it vertically by being the first subsurface mission -- and also the very first examination of a Martian environment water-rich enough to be potentially habitable by current-day microbes. (Given its mass spectrometer's ability to detect methane and surface organics, it's also the first potentially biological Mars mission since Viking.) Despite all the official claims about the selection of the first Scout mission being "fully competitive", the word at the first Mars Strategic Roadmap meeting was that NASA HQ virtually demanded this mission precisely because it fits in so well with the central thread of Mars exploration -- and does so at minimum price by using an already-built spacecraft. To quote Bette Davis, don't ask for the Moon when you have the stars. To be fair, I think this was good manipulation. Using already designed instruments on an already built lander allows a mission to fly for less than it would have cost (yes, if you calculate the true total cost you would count original develoment, but it isn't like the already spent money can be reallocated) that will provide valuble science. The competing Urey proposal, while interesting, had, from what I have read, a high probablility of an even more severe busting of the cost cap. Deception: I have to strongly disagree. This will be an essential science mission. The people on this board, myself included, have a strong bias towards image data because we like to work with it - and in that sense, a rover would be much more appealing. But in terms of science, I am really glad this mission is going to fly (and, as has been said so well by others, it will, in addition to trench imagery and a pan of some semi-polar terrain for the first time, the highest resolution imagery of the martian surface to date, thanks to its microscopes. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 07:07 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |