Andrew Gray wrote:

In article , Derek Lyons wrote:

NASA has an increasing problem when it comes to doing science, in that
each new probe/experiment/sensor must be *new*, in order to generate
new and exciting press releases.

Or, at least, "better".

Better isn't bad, better is in fact a damm good idea, and very common
in science.

Getting a significantly more high-powered camera
around Mars will get good PR, even though many missions have
photographed it...

There's photographs, and then there's photographs. You need different
resolutions, different sun angles, different seasons.... And that's
just visible light. (But you are right, cameras get a
disproportionate amount of PR, even if they are a valid payload,
because it's something that John Q. Public can relate too.)

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.