Elegant and simple.
Too much, IMHO: I wold have exploited the situation to attempt a full retro-rocket landing and to collect data for future human-landing. I don't think humans will be landed by a sky-crane... or will they?
The skycrane didn't replace rockets.... it just made the lander land at a height of 21' above ground level, avoiding backwash (easier to control) and dust (keeping things cleaner), and simplified the separation of the motors and tanks (to save roving weight) to a single cut of a tether.
There are rumors on twitter about a post-MDL MRO image...
Too much, IMHO: I wold have exploited the situation to attempt a full retro-rocket landing and to collect data for future human-landing. I don't think humans will be landed by a sky-crane... or will they?
Why? There is no need to test anything for humans for many years
Elegant and simple.
But contaminating, wasteful, and not beautiful.
The tanks are expected to burst, I presume? I quite realize that early missions need not conform to "EPA" standards, nor am I claiming that they should have in this mission. Still, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion.
That data would have been far more informative for future missions.
Still, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion.
How much more would you have been willing to pay to get that ability?
Elegant and simple.
But contaminating, wasteful, and not beautiful.
The tanks are expected to burst, I presume? I quite realize that early missions need not conform to "EPA" standards, nor am I claiming that they should have in this mission. Still, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion.
That data would have been far more informative for future missions.
That is your personal preference. A different options was chosen that delivers the same mission objectives at less risk and cost.
Still, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion.
How much more would you have been willing to pay to get that ability?
Isn't the real question "How much science would you be willing to give up?"? TANSTAAFL.
Why? There is no need to test anything for humans for many years
Data don't get old.
That is not a relevant reason. It is a waste to compromise a vehicle to gather data that is useless for the near term
Elegant and simple.
But contaminating, wasteful, and not beautiful.
The tanks are expected to burst, I presume? I quite realize that early missions need not conform to "EPA" standards, nor am I claiming that they should have in this mission. Still, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion.
That data would have been far more informative for future missions.
Future rovers are planning on using this method.
Isn't the real question "How much science would you be willing to give up?"?
In the context of a clearly HSF-centric forum, one could put it that way as well...
Still, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion.
How much more would you have been willing to pay to get that ability?
JWST program has plenty of cash margin. Come on.
Everybody knows that cost is an issue for capability. Would it be helpful for me to incorrectly extrapolate your thinking? Continue to insist upon a throwaway exploration budget? Never consider reusability? Abandon the idea of controlled landings? Ridicule the idea of contamination?
I didn't think so.
...Still, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion.
That data would have been far more informative for future missions.
That is your personal preference. A different options was chosen that delivers the same different mission objectives at less risk and cost.
Of course it is. A controlled landing will always be a different mission objective, not the "same". With different risks and costs, as is well known.
Future rovers are planning on using this method.
Which method? Landing or skycrane?
Still, I would have rather seen it land upright, in a controlled and predictable fashion.
How much more would you have been willing to pay to get that ability?
JWST program has plenty of cash margin. Come on.
As long as noone touches the HSF budget, yes, let's raid the unmanned budgets for demonstrations trying to prove something I don't know what and of what use to the unmanned arena.
Never consider reusability? Abandon the idea of controlled landings? Ridicule the idea of contamination?
Reusability? Really? On hardware landed on Mars? Come on. We can'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?
Who's ridiculing the idea of contamination? You're trying to blow it out of proportion.
Reusability? ... Who's ridiculing the idea of contamination?
As I said:
Would it be helpful for me to incorrectly extrapolate your thinking? I didn't think so.
I simply suggested that I would rather see it land upright in a controlled fashion. 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?
In the larger picture of HSF and even unmanned exploration, we've continued to dispose of hardware, while wondering at the incredible unsustainability of all space exploration, manned and unmanned. If we never "start thinking" about re-usability, it will never happen.
The truth is, as I see it, after forty years of putzing around in space we
don't even
attempt re-usability. It is not the case that we
can't do this, due to some law of physics. It is not the case that re-usability will be "easy". It is the case that reusability will be necessary for humanity to maintain a permanent presence in space. The time to start thinking about this is now.
There's less and less about MSL in here and more about nonsense. Please take the "lets put LM landing gear on the Skycrane" stuff someplace else.
And if you don't know what a LM is you shouldn't be here anyway.
