Spirit and Opportunity. Time for a second production run.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...?id=news%2F110
14top.xml

See this story. Given their success, why not send some more of essentially the
same model? With just minor improvements design costs will be minimal, and they
can learn from their mistakes.

Send a half dozen to other perspective sites, that can be more challenging.
losses can be expected, but big returns are possible from very rough terrain.

Now go ahead with newer models.... but why ditch what proves to be a excellent
design?

Personally I would like to see a rover visit some previous landing sites.

Spacegeek34 wrote:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...?id=news%2F110
14top.xml

See this story. Given their success, why not send some more of essentially the
same model? With just minor improvements design costs will be minimal, and they
can learn from their mistakes.

Send a half dozen to other perspective sites, that can be more challenging.
losses can be expected, but big returns are possible from very rough terrain.

Now go ahead with newer models.... but why ditch what proves to be a excellent
design?

Personally I would like to see a rover visit some previous landing sites.

Astounding success yes, but no life has been found, and
seems like finding it requires a different mindset.

You can't find something if you do not believe it is there...

Spirit and Opportunity weren't designed to look for life. They
roam around making holes, and measuring the rocks.

But it is not geology but biology what makes Mars interesting.

Life there could be quite different to what we know.

Months after the landing, I would like to know if there are
any measurements of movement in the soil.

Because at least the dust is moving, as it shapes the surface.

It would be really interesting if the mindset of the
vehicle drivers would change a bit.

The measurement I am speaking about is very simple:

1: Photograph a piece of terrain.
2: Turn the camera left a bit.
3: Compare the last photograph of this terrain
with this one. Are they identical?
Has something moved?

if (yes) {
Filter it, and wait 2 units. Did it move
again?
if (yes) {
call earth.
Take a photograph each unit until
earth replies.
}
else {
mark this point as interesting
}
}
else {
Take a new photograph of the new terrain.
goto 2:
}

This program doesn't use much power, and no movements
outside the camera are needed.

The characterization of dust particles is maybe beyond
the reolution of the cameras, but small rocks are pushed
by the wind. The wind moves a global dust layer around
the whole planet. We *should* see things moving, flowing
very slowly. And it could be interesting if we found something
isn't it?

Methane has been found, something is breathing there!!!

Ahh what a missed opportunity.

A missed opportunity because there is no spirit.

No spirit of adventure damm.

jacob navia writes:
Astounding success yes, but no life has been found, and
seems like finding it requires a different mindset.

You can't find something if you do not believe it is there...

Spirit and Opportunity weren't designed to look for life. They
roam around making holes, and measuring the rocks.

*Please* read
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-...ence-00k1.html (a long
article, but it explains how all signs being interpreted pro-life on
Mars can be interpreted without life in a much more interesting manner
scientifically).

But it is not geology but biology what makes Mars interesting.

Life there could be quite different to what we know.

Even if there never was and never could have been life, Mars can be
interesting. Is science just for looking for life? No. This is just
silly. Most sciences just don't care for life and when you're fixed to
look for life (or accept just findings supporting life) you may be
throwing away major insights. IMHO the current hype for water on Mars
is close to betraying. In science you have to keep an open mind and not
to strive to prove what you're looking for. OK, finding life outside
Earth would be a breakthrough, but you don't find that by lying to
yourself. Stick to the facts and accept the most simple answer, this
leads to the truth. Fueling nothing but hope leads to nothing but
rumours and delusion. Occam's razor is still a valid tool.


Jochem

--
"A designer knows he has arrived at perfection not when there is no
longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away."
- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

Jochem Huhmann wrote:
jacob navia writes:

Astounding success yes, but no life has been found, and
seems like finding it requires a different mindset.

You can't find something if you do not believe it is there...

Spirit and Opportunity weren't designed to look for life. They
roam around making holes, and measuring the rocks.


*Please* read
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-...ence-00k1.html (a long
article, but it explains how all signs being interpreted pro-life on
Mars can be interpreted without life in a much more interesting manner
scientifically).



This old article (2000) makes nothing of the sort: It just
resumes the knowledge about dry/wet Mars we had in 2000
Now, the question whether Mars had any water is solved: It is a
YES, and there was a LOT of water, Opportunity is in the
middle of a dry sea floor!

But it is not geology but biology what makes Mars interesting.

Life there could be quite different to what we know.


Even if there never was and never could have been life, Mars can be
interesting. Is science just for looking for life? No. This is just
silly.

Even more silly is saying that life doesn't exist even if there
is evidence like methane that can't have any other origin!

Most sciences just don't care for life and when you're fixed to
look for life (or accept just findings supporting life) you may be
throwing away major insights. IMHO the current hype for water on Mars
is close to betraying.

"Hype for water on Mars" ???
I mean if you find chemical traces of water in the rocks I do not
see that as "hype" but as a scientific fact!

In science you have to keep an open mind and not
to strive to prove what you're looking for. OK, finding life outside
Earth would be a breakthrough, but you don't find that by lying to
yourself.

I suggested an experiment to find if anything moves. That would be
useful for finding out the size of the dust grains moved by the
wind even if it doesn't find any life.

Stick to the facts and accept the most simple answer, this
leads to the truth. Fueling nothing but hope leads to nothing but
rumours and delusion. Occam's razor is still a valid tool.

As I said: You can't find something when you are convinced
it doesn't exist. It is a self fulfilling belief.

Spirit and Opportunity. Time for a second production run.

Sure the search for life is important!

But close up lok at the planet is useful in many more ways!

Scouting areas for future missions.

Go back and take a look at earlier probes and their surroundings.

heck even learning more about building robotic crawlers, and how to make them
better.


..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....

In article ,
jacob navia wrote:
1: Photograph a piece of terrain.
2: Turn the camera left a bit.
3: Compare the last photograph of this terrain
with this one. Are they identical?
Has something moved?

It's been done. The Viking Landers did such comparisons over a period of
several years. Nothing of great note was found -- some blowing dust,
frost in winter that went away in spring, not much else.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |