|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
...Military Space Plane (X-37b) to Launch February 26
On Dec 16, 9:42*am, " wrote:
in typical *nasa fashion they abandoned the successful model which could of been duplicated easily on a production line basis, and many more sent to explore. You aren't understanding the way this works. If we were seriously going to be exploring to prepare for a landing that is surely what we would do. (In fact, that's what we did do for the moon in the 1960's with the Ranger, Surveyor, and Lunar Orbiter programs, each of which had several coordinated missions). But this isn't about exploring different spots to see where the best and most interesting places to land and explore further with humans would be (any such work would be in the future, once Congress actually starts seriously funding the Constellation program). This is about answering as many different questions as possible on a given budget. Spirit and Opportunity answered the big top-line questions that they were supposed to: was there ever liquid water on Mars? (Answered affirmatively by the two rovers.) With more rovers, you could get more detailed and better answers to that particular question, or you could send a different set of instruments on a different platform (to support these different sensors) and try to answer a different top-line question (like looking for actual evidence of life, say). And all of the people who are working on questions other than evidence of water in the Martian past want a chance to get their questions answered. So instead of building more rovers to better explore that question we get new craft designed to give a general answer to other questions- say about Titan, or Europa, or the Martian atmosphere. The rovers don't really work well as a general purpose bus. Spirit and Opportunity would be poor platforms for looking for life, as an example. In order to do that properly you need to sterilize the craft before launching (so you can be sure you aren't finding earth microbes that have hitched a ride), and the rovers were not designed for that- and you really need to design the electronics to survive being baked like that, or you just built a very expensive brick. In addition, the air bag system would probably be dropped for future missions- it turned out to be far more complicated than expected (in particular, they tried to avoid the need for a steerable braking rocket system with the airbags, but the mass of the rovers meant that they had to have such a system anyway- if you have to have a steerable braking rocket you might as well soft land). So it was pretty much inevitable that the next generation of rover would not be like Spirit and Opportunity. People have looked at using a common bus design to support multiple missions with different sensors to answer different questions, but it turns out to not be a great solution. Look at the history of the Planetary Observer program for reasons why. Or Netlander, which didn't even get that far. Chris Manteuffel |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Current US military thinking on launch needs | Allen Thomson | Policy | 20 | March 13th 05 01:31 AM |
Russia to launch military satellite | JimO | Policy | 1 | March 23rd 04 06:30 PM |
ESA hopes to launch Rosetta late February | Hop David | History | 1 | February 16th 04 06:08 PM |