home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.space.policy      Discussions about space policy      106,651 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 105,218 of 106,651   
   Jeff Findley to All   
   Re: Landing on Mars   
   28 Feb 21 09:39:44   
   
   From: jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com   
      
   In article ,   
   jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...   
   >   
   > On 2021-02-26 21:25, Sylvia Else wrote:   
   >   
   > > And risk an explosion near the rover that could damage it.   
   >   
   > The lander was purposefully crashed, so I would assume the risk of   
   > explosion would have been evaluated. Also, considering the lack of   
   > oxygen on Mars and very thin atmpsphere, is the risk of explosion   
   > seriously diminished?   
      
   After separation, the skycrane was program to get as far away from the   
   rover as possible to minimize risk.  Trying to land the skycrane would   
   mean it couldn't get as far away, which would increase risk to the   
   rover.   
      
   > > You're talking about additional weight and complexity.   
   >   
   > But if you make lander survive landing and it has some equipment, it   
   > adds to the science/data collected by the mission.   
      
   Still, the increased risk to the rover, which is the primary mission,   
   wouldn't be worth the risk.   
      
   > > The poles would have to fold up to fit inside the aeroshell, and then   
   > > unfold once the aeroshell is jettisoned, and before the rockets can   
   > > fire, which is yet more complexity with risk of failure.   
   >   
   > Fair point. That option not workable. But I still feel it is a waste to   
   > crash the lander nearby instead of trying to land it. Yes, landing on   
   > engines sort of destroys them, but that isn't really important.   
      
   Again, the skycrane got as far away from the rover as possible to   
   minimize risk.  Everything you are suggesting would increase risk to the   
   primary mission, which is something you simply can't do.   
      
   Even adding the microphones and video cameras which captured the descent   
   and landing could not add risk to the rover landing.  There was a   
   discussion of this in the post landing press conference.  That's also   
   why we didn't get any audio from the microphones during descent and   
   landing.   
      
   Jeff   
   --   
   All opinions posted by me on Usenet News are mine, and mine alone.   
   These posts do not reflect the opinions of my family, friends,   
   employer, or any organization that I am a member of.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca