New update. Hat tip to redliox.We need a translation of what they are saying.
Guessing from the video, they probably selected Ganymede to complement ESA's JUICE and to avoid the radiation hazards deeper in the system.
Quote from: redliox on 08/01/2016 07:16 pmGuessing from the video, they probably selected Ganymede to complement ESA's JUICE and to avoid the radiation hazards deeper in the system. The Russians seem to make their selections based upon three factors:1-What the Americans are not doing;2-A significant accomplishment in its own right (in other words, a "first" and not simply repeating what another country has already done);3-Availability of foreign money/partnership.All of those things seem to be in equal play these days.I actually think that the Russians should instead focus on rebuilding their planetary science program from first principles--meaning starting with a few small, less ambitious missions, like lunar orbiters, in order to gain experience, before moving on to bigger and bolder missions. The problem is that they have a lot of pride, so they won't do that. The result is a mission like Phobos-Grunt, that was hugely ambitious and never even made it out of Earth orbit.
Quote from: Blackstar on 08/01/2016 07:20 pmQuote from: redliox on 08/01/2016 07:16 pmGuessing from the video, they probably selected Ganymede to complement ESA's JUICE and to avoid the radiation hazards deeper in the system. The Russians seem to make their selections based upon three factors:1-What the Americans are not doing;2-A significant accomplishment in its own right (in other words, a "first" and not simply repeating what another country has already done);3-Availability of foreign money/partnership.All of those things seem to be in equal play these days.I actually think that the Russians should instead focus on rebuilding their planetary science program from first principles--meaning starting with a few small, less ambitious missions, like lunar orbiters, in order to gain experience, before moving on to bigger and bolder missions. The problem is that they have a lot of pride, so they won't do that. The result is a mission like Phobos-Grunt, that was hugely ambitious and never even made it out of Earth orbit.But surely they are planning Lunar missions, some with ESA yes but it still fulfills you remit of back to basics.
Quote from: Star One on 08/01/2016 10:03 pmQuote from: Blackstar on 08/01/2016 07:20 pmQuote from: redliox on 08/01/2016 07:16 pmGuessing from the video, they probably selected Ganymede to complement ESA's JUICE and to avoid the radiation hazards deeper in the system. The Russians seem to make their selections based upon three factors:1-What the Americans are not doing;2-A significant accomplishment in its own right (in other words, a "first" and not simply repeating what another country has already done);3-Availability of foreign money/partnership.All of those things seem to be in equal play these days.I actually think that the Russians should instead focus on rebuilding their planetary science program from first principles--meaning starting with a few small, less ambitious missions, like lunar orbiters, in order to gain experience, before moving on to bigger and bolder missions. The problem is that they have a lot of pride, so they won't do that. The result is a mission like Phobos-Grunt, that was hugely ambitious and never even made it out of Earth orbit.But surely they are planning Lunar missions, some with ESA yes but it still fulfills you remit of back to basics.Look at what they are planning--landers with extensive science packages landing in previously unexplored areas. They're trying for firsts. I think they should start smaller, with some modest-sized orbiters, to build up their skills and train their workforce.
I see your point now but unfortunately doubt that such modest proposals would gain the support of the politicians. I suspect the missions chosen have to be as they are to gain the necessary political and financial support to even have a chance of becoming reality.