From: jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com   
      
   In article ,   
   jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...   
   >   
   > On 2021-03-01 16:38, Jeff Findley wrote:   
   >   
   > > Attempting to land so that at touchdown you have exactly zero propellant   
   > > in the tanks would be risky.   
   > >   
   > > Any way you look at this problem, attempting to land the skycrane   
   > > increases risk to the rover.   
   >   
   > What is wrong with dropping rover, then move sideways as you hover over   
   > ground until there you run out of fuel and drop a foot or two to the   
   > ground and fall on the legs/engines?   
      
   Hovering and moving sideways would kick up a lot of rocks and dust which   
   would pelt the rover.   
      
   Note that the nozzles on skycrane are canted away from the rover, not   
   straight down.  That's to help protect the rover from the rocks and dust   
   kicked up by the exhaust.  It's also why skycrane lowered the rover on   
   cables.   
      
   > Even if you're not garanteed it will work, why not try?   
      
   Because you're going to destroy the rover with your harebrained ideas.   
      
   > They already plan on having enough fuel to have lander more away and   
   > climb. So why not just move away and land?   
      
   Because that would pose a non-zero risk to the rover.  Is JPL being   
   paranoid?  You may think they are, but I don't.  They're not about to   
   risk a $2.7 billion dollar rover for *anything* that doesn't contribute   
   to the primary mission.   
      
   Cite for the cost of the program:   
      
   https://www.planetary.org/space-policy/cost-of-perseverance   
      
   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)