You responded with the classic (around here) snark of "How much more would you have been willing to pay..."You do get that snark is not helpful in the discussion.
We can't don't even make hardware get to LEO and be reusable and you're suggesting we start thinking about not throwing away spent hardware because it's just... well, a waste of good, spent hardware?
Still, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion.
Quote from: JohnFornaro on 08/07/2012 02:43 pmYou responded with the classic (around here) snark of "How much more would you have been willing to pay..."You do get that snark is not helpful in the discussion.It was an honest question which you didn't even attempt to answer but also snarkily pointed at JWST. ...
We can't don't even make hardware get to LEO and be reusable [modified by JF]...You can argue semantics if you want. Trying to levy a reusability requirement on a Mars lander at this point, ...
Think about what you were asking for:Quote from: JohnFornaro on 08/07/2012 01:36 pmStill, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion. Prior to this, guided entry on Mars was undemonstrated. ... Among all that, you'd also love to have the descent stage do a nice flyaway and a soft landing? Who pays for that capability and for what purpose on this particular EDL?
Isn't it pas time to close this thread? We're al;ready onto Sol1 and there really aren't any more "updates" for this thread.