XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.astro   
   From: gherbert@retro.com   
      
   Steve Pope  wrote:   
   >Christopher M. Jones  wrote:   
   >>Also, I believe that it would have been enormously difficult   
   >>to design Huygens and provide a large enough RTG to keep it   
   >>operating in the event of a landing in liquid hydrocarbons,   
   >>which was, and still is, a substantial possibility for a   
   >>Titan lander.   
   >   
   >My understanding is Huygens was designed to survive such   
   >a landing and continue to function while floating in   
   >hydrocarbons.   
   >   
   >I could be mistaken however.   
      
   I think the better phrasing would be that it was designed   
   with some thought that they'd like to to survive landing,   
   and that they were aware that it might land on land or   
   a liquid ocean, but that it wasn't really a huge design   
   priority.   
      
   If it had landed on very very solid strong material,   
   it would probably have broken.  Same for on a loose   
   soil, but on top of a big enough rock.   
      
   If it landed in a liquid with enough sideways velocity   
   or tilt, I think it would have tipped over (and then   
   probably have sunk).  It had moderate dynamic stability   
   afloat in likely liquid sea materials for Titan;   
   nothing like what you'd want to see for a real long   
   term surface probe.   
      
   They had a tight weight budget and dollar budget,   
   and did what they could to keep it survivable on   
   the surface, not knowing what that surface was   
   going to be.   
      
      
   -george william herbert   
   gherbert@retro.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)