XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.astro   
   From: bondage@frontiernet.net   
      
   George William Herbert wrote:   
   >   
   > dexx  wrote:   
   > >Is it true that Huygens ceased transmission less than 2 hours after   
   > >touchdown? Whilst it was a magnificent achievement to travel so far and   
   > >land perfectly, it seems a great shame that the probe was so short   
   > >lived.  I'm suprised the designers didnt make it rugged enough and   
   > >powered enough to survive several days.   
   >   
   > A lot of people have responded already, but I haven't seen the single   
   > most critical point made yet.   
   >   
   > There was no certainty as to what type of surface lay under the   
   > clouds.  We knew there were light and dark areas, what the temperature   
   > and pressure probably were.  But we didn't know if it was liquid or   
   > solid, how much topology was there, whether it was smooth or rough   
   > with rocks or ice boulders, etc.   
      
      
      And even with what we know now, those problems don't go away for the   
   next probe, either. Indeed, we can see we were somewhat lucky. Huygens   
   might've floated, but solid ground was preferable, and we got it. If we   
   want to land, say, a long-duration rover next time, one *must* then be   
   certain of not landing in a body of liquid methane...not a sea/lake, not   
   even one of those channels...   
      
      We never had these issues on the Moon, Venus, Mars, or Jupiter (where   
   we didn't even pretend it was anything but an atmospheric probe). It's   
   more like a semi-random landing on Earth.   
      
      
   --   
      
      You know what to remove, to reply....   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)