So, are you saying that a Descent Stage built more than 10 years ago was made in a way that cant be improved?
That it's impossible to design today a Descent Stage with the same T / W, even using the same engines if you will, but carrying more equipment to provide a controllable soft landing?
I know it can. And that's why we are saying that looking to a future project with the mind in an old one is not what was pointed out here.
And yes, we are talking about flying hardware, in an atmosphere, with gravity. So the Descent Stage it's not a spacecraft, it's more an aircraft than a spacecraft. With different variables, but with the same principles.
And we will see another one performing a Skycrane maneuver, for sure.
Anyways, I'm convinced that, for some reason, it's impossible to debate here. It's more like a "convince Jim" thread than a Perseverance thread. I prefer not to play that game.
From what information I could find, it seems like the fly away descent element is throttled pretty low when landing. The 8 engines and structure seem pretty beefy and overpowered. This makes sense for the first efforts with Curiousity & Perseverence, but what now? What lessons have been learned that may contribute better mass efficiency to future mission like sample return or prepositioned equipment for human exploration?
, but will land more like Viking or Pathfinder.
Quote from: Stan-1967 on 02/28/2021 09:20 pm, but will land more like Viking or Pathfinder. Not like Pathfinder ever again
Jim's memory is better than mine. I meant to say "Phoenix" lander, not Pathfinder. At least I didn't suggest we land via the method of Mars Polar Lander
Quote from: Stan-1967 on 02/28/2021 09:53 pmJim's memory is better than mine. I meant to say "Phoenix" lander, not Pathfinder. At least I didn't suggest we land via the method of Mars Polar LanderMPL and Phoenix and InSight all used the same lander hardware.
It is impossible to modified the Mars 2020 descent stage to allow it to land without taking mass from the rover using the same aeroshell.
Whatever comes after these missions, if anything, will probably depend on how interesting Mars is for science & human exploration.
If Perseverance or any other missions fail in finding compelling biosignatures, I could see the scientific community lose interest in prioritizing Mars & move on to Europa, Enceladus, & Titan.
And what happens with SpaceX's plans... Well - if they remain limited to current mission types, possibly yes. But I think if human missions to Mars are happening, bringing those scientific payloads along (small mass in comparison) would be a lot cheaper & would keep happening.I think what happens with Mars science post-Perseverance will be determined by whether SpaceX's human Mars plans succeed or fail.
Quote from: Stan-1967 on 02/28/2021 09:20 pmWhatever comes after these missions, if anything, will probably depend on how interesting Mars is for science & human exploration. And what happens with SpaceX's plans... QuoteIf Perseverance or any other missions fail in finding compelling biosignatures, I could see the scientific community lose interest in prioritizing Mars & move on to Europa, Enceladus, & Titan.Well - if they remain limited to current mission types, possibly yes. But I think if human missions to Mars are happening, bringing those scientific payloads along (small mass in comparison) would be a lot cheaper & would keep happening.I think what happens with Mars science post-Perseverance will be determined by whether SpaceX's human Mars plans succeed or fail.
Whatever comes after these missions, if anything, will probably depend on how interesting Mars is for science & human exploration.
If Perseverance or any other missions fail in finding compelling biosignatures, I could see the scientific community lose interest in prioritizing Mars & move on to Europa, Enceladus, & Titan.