"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
"Dholmes" wrote in
:

Only $420 million over five years for the Moon which is supposed to be
enough for a orbiter and a rover?
The rovers on Mars now cost $400 million EACH.

What exactly made them most expensive? Developing them, building them
or getting them to Mars? Is there some breakdown of the rovers' costs
somewhere at NASA's site, because I can't find any.

(Actually I read a prognosis where it said the second rover would cost
only half of what the first cost--$200 vs. $400. So what happened?)


Either they must be planning on winning Discovery mission funding,
using lots of left over Mars equipment or being really wimpy.

Or they're counting on being able to do moon probes more cheaply.

Hmm, the advantage of the Moon is that you can be there in a matter
of days rather than months, on much less fuel. That would make them
cheaper. Also if you lose a rover you can send another one in a mat-
ter of weeks rather than waiting another two years till Mars comes
back around. You can also remote control the things in almost real
time and have a higher bandwidth for sending back data. Not quite as
much sophisticated or powerful radio equipment is needed on either
side.

What makes them more expensive is the much more extreme temperatures
and the stickier dust. Also if you want to operate them for longer
than a fortnight you have to find a way of making them survive the Lu-
nar night.

Could the Mars rovers operate on the Moon without heavy modifications?
I doubt it.



--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.” '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'