From: jfindley@cinci.nospam.rr.com   
      
   In article ,   
   jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca says...   
   >   
   > On 2021-03-02 14:25, Jeff Findley wrote:   
   >   
   > > 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.   
   >   
   > And letting the lander crash is a non-zero risk?  After secering cables,   
   > the lander moves away the same way, so no difference in terms of   
   > impingement or dust on the rover. It is only once away that the lander   
   > would land instead of turn off engines and crash.   
      
   Bullshit.  Any attempt to land skycrane would require precious   
   propellant that would otherwise be used to get the skycrane *further*   
   away from the rover.  And you ignored the fact that skycrane runs the   
   engines to propellant depletion before falling to the ground to minimize   
   any chance of chemical contamination.  Any attempt to land skycrane   
   would undo this vital safety feature of skycrane.   
      
   Furthermore, any additional hardware added to skycrane would be extra   
   mass to carry all the way through descent and landing of the rover and   
   during the skycrane maneuver which takes it away from the rover.  This   
   would be part of the overall mass budget.  So, you're likely taking away   
   some scientific instruments off the rover to make the skycrane a lander.   
   This doesn't make any sense and does *not* contribute to the rover's   
   primary mission in any way.  In fact, it would *detract* from the   
   rover's primary mission.   
      
   I don't understand why you don't get this.  JPL has optimized skycrane   
   to accomplish the primary mission of the rover.  Any changes to skycrane   
   would undo that optimization.   
      
   > In terms of contribution, my point is that you have a valuable piece of   
   > equipment that is "this close" to landing, ipon which you could put   
   > limited instruments (such as weather station, radio releay) that would   
   > add to relisiency of project AND add weather data from a fixed position   
   > (which you can then compae against the data mo the rover that has moved   
   > a fair distance.   
      
   Bullshit.  The rover can serve all those purposes.  Increasing risk to   
   the rover would not "add to relisiency of project".   
      
   Smarter people than you or I have come to a conclusion you don't seem to   
   be accepting.   
      
   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)