« We can't afford today's DoD | Main | In the Valley with the connoisseur »

14 June 2012

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Paul Deavereaux

Nice little animation...

http://www.engadget.com/2011/04/13/nasa-animation-depicts-curiositys-soft-landing-on-mars-courtes/

Brien J Miller

Having worked with NASA as a contractor, several possibilities come to mind: perhaps prior budgetary reductions resulted in an undesired limited range on the rover; perhaps the science goal requires the mission to have more time in an viable area of interest (this is also a funding justification issue), perhaps other funding limitations require operations to take place in a shorter time span. In some way, I suspect that some budgetary driver is probably inducing a higher risk than you and I would take given mission structures of the past. I agree, this sounds like a recipe for disaster. How many multi-billion projects go in with 40% catistrophic fail potential? Follow the money probably applies here.

Rocketrepreneur

Pat,

I know a few people on the Entry, Descent, and Landing team for MSL. I have to admit that in spite of being a Vertical Takeoff and Landing rockets sort of guy myself, the Skycrane concept still has me uneasy. That said, the reason they went with Skycrane was that existing approaches couldn't land a payload that big. The MER rovers were as big as you could go with the parachutes and airbags approach. Personally, I think taking the MERs and adding some capabilities with them (to reuse as much of the design and software as possible) would've been a better approach, but I'm not a Mars scientist.

~Jon

Berta Hargrove

The quality of your articles and contents is great.

http://www.jomacltd.com/mechanics_service_trucks.html

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

July 2020

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  
Blog powered by Typepad