« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Down

Curiosity rover

  • 154 Replies
  • 32421 Views
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #30 on: August 07, 2012, 04:26:34 PM »
Did they deliberately pick the method least likely to succeed? And for 2.5 BILLION dollars, I hope the tax payers are going to get better pictures at some point. I can't imagine what Industrial Lights and Magic could do with that kind of budget.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

Particle Person

  • 5944
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #31 on: August 07, 2012, 04:31:31 PM »
They will release high quality pictures once the dust covers are removed from the mast cameras.
Logged
?

Lorddave

  • 19852
  • +29/-61
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #32 on: August 07, 2012, 04:40:16 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 04:26:34 PM
Did they deliberately pick the method least likely to succeed?
It was the one most likely to succeed.  Mars's atmosphere is too thin to allow for a save parachuting landing and the rover was too heavy for the cushion airbag landing of the last rover.  Did you know that even with the parachute, the rover was falling at 200 miles per hour?  The rockets are the only thing that kept it from crashing.

Quote
And for 2.5 BILLION dollars, I hope the tax payers are going to get better pictures at some point.
Only one camera has been used so far: The lower right hazard camera.  It's designed to look at the ground directly in front of the rover to make sure there isn't any large rocks near it.  That's all it's for.  And as PP said, the high resolution camera hasn't been activated yet. 

It takes 14 minutes to get a signal to or from Mars.  So if they want to turn on "Camera number 2" and make sure it's working, it takes 28 minutes before they know it worked.  So it takes a long time to confirm everything works.


I can't imagine what Industrial Lights and Magic could do with that kind of budget.
[/quote]
Logged
Gone.
*

Space Cowgirl

  • MOM
  • Planar Moderator
  • 52394
  • +100/-95
  • Official FE Recruiter
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #33 on: August 07, 2012, 05:04:44 PM »
Logged
Quote from: Thork on November 27, 2012, 12:25:43 PM
I'm sorry. Am I to understand that when you have a boner you like to imagine punching the shit out of Tom Bishop? That's disgusting.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #34 on: August 07, 2012, 05:23:30 PM »
Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 04:26:34 PM
Did they deliberately pick the method least likely to succeed?
It was the one most likely to succeed.  Mars's atmosphere is too thin to allow for a save parachuting landing and the rover was too heavy for the cushion airbag landing of the last rover.  Did you know that even with the parachute, the rover was falling at 200 miles per hour?  The rockets are the only thing that kept it from crashing.

Why introduce a "skycrane" at all? Have you seen the laughable animations of the system? Wouldn't retrorockets have been much simpler? Granted it lacks the sci-fi excitement of the animations, and so is less likely to "inspire" the public to fund the monstrosity.

Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

LolaTheRabbit

  • 185
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #35 on: August 07, 2012, 05:28:06 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 04:26:34 PM
Did they deliberately pick the method least likely to succeed?
It was the one most likely to succeed.  Mars's atmosphere is too thin to allow for a save parachuting landing and the rover was too heavy for the cushion airbag landing of the last rover.  Did you know that even with the parachute, the rover was falling at 200 miles per hour?  The rockets are the only thing that kept it from crashing.

Why introduce a "skycrane" at all? Have you seen the laughable animations of the system? Wouldn't retrorockets have been much simpler? Granted it lacks the sci-fi excitement of the animations, and so is less likely to "inspire" the public to fund the monstrosity.

Because if the rockets landed all the way on the ground it would stir up too much dust and may damage the rover.
Logged
?

Lorddave

  • 19852
  • +29/-61
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #36 on: August 07, 2012, 05:31:45 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 04:26:34 PM
Did they deliberately pick the method least likely to succeed?
It was the one most likely to succeed.  Mars's atmosphere is too thin to allow for a save parachuting landing and the rover was too heavy for the cushion airbag landing of the last rover.  Did you know that even with the parachute, the rover was falling at 200 miles per hour?  The rockets are the only thing that kept it from crashing.

Why introduce a "skycrane" at all? Have you seen the laughable animations of the system? Wouldn't retrorockets have been much simpler? Granted it lacks the sci-fi excitement of the animations, and so is less likely to "inspire" the public to fund the monstrosity.
Because the dust it kicked up (not to mention the heat) could have damaged the very sensitive instruments. 

Sure you could have put the massive platform under the Rover and had it land that way, but then you'd still have dust kicked up.  So put it inside an enclosed container you say?  Sure.  That'll be an extra 500 million due to the weight.  Besides, don't want to blow away all the evidence for or against ancient life do you?

This was a brilliant idea that worked.  The 2 ton rover landed safely without so much as a heavy bump and all is well.
Logged
Gone.
*

garygreen

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #37 on: August 07, 2012, 05:35:39 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 04:26:34 PM
Did they deliberately pick the method least likely to succeed?
It was the one most likely to succeed.  Mars's atmosphere is too thin to allow for a save parachuting landing and the rover was too heavy for the cushion airbag landing of the last rover.  Did you know that even with the parachute, the rover was falling at 200 miles per hour?  The rockets are the only thing that kept it from crashing.

Why introduce a "skycrane" at all? Have you seen the laughable animations of the system? Wouldn't retrorockets have been much simpler? Granted it lacks the sci-fi excitement of the animations, and so is less likely to "inspire" the public to fund the monstrosity.

If you spent just five minutes on the Mars Science Laboratory website you could find the answers to all of these questions.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
*

Rushy

  • 8970
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #38 on: August 07, 2012, 07:05:54 PM »
NASA is my favorite source of novel science fiction media.
Logged
?

LolaTheRabbit

  • 185
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #39 on: August 07, 2012, 07:25:30 PM »
Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 07, 2012, 07:05:54 PM
NASA is my favorite source of novel science fiction media.
k
Logged
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3459
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #40 on: August 07, 2012, 08:22:54 PM »
Quote from: Irushwithscvs on August 07, 2012, 07:05:54 PM
NASA is my favorite source of novel science fiction media.

Does that mean NASA is writing books?

But in all seriousness, if they landed a rocket, it could tip, and damage the rover. If they landed a rocket, they'd need a ramp for the rover, and it could fall off the rover. If they landed the rocket, and got it off the ramp, the retro rockets would have made craters in the ground that the rover could fall in, in addition to all the things other people said.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #41 on: August 07, 2012, 08:31:59 PM »
So the use of "proven" retrorocket technology they've been claiming to use for years would be too difficult to reproduce, but the use of those same rockets in combination with a parachute and never before used "skycrane" seems safer to you.

They made a fancy video and a gimmicky "spaceship" and you are all lapping it up. Give me a break.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
*

garygreen

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #42 on: August 07, 2012, 08:40:55 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 08:31:59 PM
So the use of "proven" retrorocket technology they've been claiming to use for years would be too difficult to reproduce, but the use of those same rockets in combination with a parachute and never before used "skycrane" seems safer to you.

They made a fancy video and a gimmicky "spaceship" and you are all lapping it up. Give me a break.

If you spent just five minutes on the Mars Science Laboratory website you could find the answers to all of these questions.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
*

Tom Bishop

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 18033
  • +6/-9
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #43 on: August 07, 2012, 08:54:17 PM »
Quote from: garygreen on August 07, 2012, 08:40:55 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 08:31:59 PM
So the use of "proven" retrorocket technology they've been claiming to use for years would be too difficult to reproduce, but the use of those same rockets in combination with a parachute and never before used "skycrane" seems safer to you.

They made a fancy video and a gimmicky "spaceship" and you are all lapping it up. Give me a break.

If you spent just five minutes on the Mars Science Laboratory website you could find the answers to all of these questions.

I didn't see any question marks in what you quoted.
Logged
*

garygreen

  • 598
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #44 on: August 07, 2012, 09:04:13 PM »
Quote from: Tom Bishop on August 07, 2012, 08:54:17 PM
Quote from: garygreen on August 07, 2012, 08:40:55 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 08:31:59 PM
So the use of "proven" retrorocket technology they've been claiming to use for years would be too difficult to reproduce, but the use of those same rockets in combination with a parachute and never before used "skycrane" seems safer to you.

They made a fancy video and a gimmicky "spaceship" and you are all lapping it up. Give me a break.

If you spent just five minutes on the Mars Science Laboratory website you could find the answers to all of these questions.

I didn't see any question marks in what you quoted.

Captain word-play strikes again!

Ski is obviously questioning the skycrane method of deploying a rover on Mars.  He's essentially asked, "Why would NASA use a skycrane over other "proven" technologies?"  It's really easy to find the answers to those questions.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/savvy-scientist/nasas-sky-crane-over-mars/500?tag=mantle_skin;content

It took me roughly 90 seconds to find that article, and it answers every "question" Ski has asked about why NASA chose to use that particular method.

Spend less time on these trivial threads and more time explaining why you don't accept the abundant third-party observations of missions like these.
Logged
Quote from: Tom Bishop on July 27, 2012, 10:59:03 AM
Also, the people on your websites are specifically framing their claims, not to learn the truth of the matter, but because they want to "debunk" Apollo Hoax claims --
*

DDDDAts all folks

  • 1283
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #45 on: August 07, 2012, 11:54:44 PM »
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on August 07, 2012, 05:04:44 PM
https://twitter.com/BiCuriousRover

This is my favourite:

Quote
Rumors that I banged the trash out of Wall-E at Matt McConaughey's Cinco De Mayo party, while fabulous, are not necessarily accurate.
Logged
*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12631
  • +0/-4
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #46 on: August 08, 2012, 01:18:40 AM »
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 08:31:59 PM
So the use of "proven" retrorocket technology they've been claiming to use for years would be too difficult to reproduce, but the use of those same rockets in combination with a parachute and never before used "skycrane" seems safer to you.

They made a fancy video and a gimmicky "spaceship" and you are all lapping it up. Give me a break.

Since the 'proven' tech had a success rate of around 50% I think it was entirely sensible to try something different.
Logged
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #47 on: August 08, 2012, 06:15:11 AM »
Quote from: Chris Spaghetti on August 08, 2012, 01:18:40 AM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 08:31:59 PM
So the use of "proven" retrorocket technology they've been claiming to use for years would be too difficult to reproduce, but the use of those same rockets in combination with a parachute and never before used "skycrane" seems safer to you.

They made a fancy video and a gimmicky "spaceship" and you are all lapping it up. Give me a break.

Since the 'proven' tech had a success rate of around 50% I think it was entirely sensible to try something different.

It makes perfect sense to use a skycrane. Of course, if we really wanted to use proven technologies, we could always go for the airplane-like landing, see how well that goes with an atmosphere that's like 1% as dense as earth's.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2436
  • +0/-0
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #48 on: August 08, 2012, 11:25:26 AM »
No it doesn't. It's redundant. A nozzle system (like a Harrier) would surely have worked far better for less and it's well proven.
Logged
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.
?

LolaTheRabbit

  • 185
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #49 on: August 08, 2012, 11:51:47 AM »
They didn't do that because it would stir put too much dust and possibly damage the rover.
Logged
?

Lorddave

  • 19852
  • +29/-61
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #50 on: August 08, 2012, 12:41:24 PM »
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 08, 2012, 11:25:26 AM
No it doesn't. It's redundant. A nozzle system (like a Harrier) would surely have worked far better for less and it's well proven.
Jet wouldn't work in the thin atmosphere anyway. The atmosphere on the surface of mars is like 85,000 ft here. Which is the highest flixed wing flight height. Certainly not the Harrier.
Logged
Gone.
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3459
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #51 on: August 08, 2012, 12:44:25 PM »
Quote from: Lorddave on August 08, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 08, 2012, 11:25:26 AM
No it doesn't. It's redundant. A nozzle system (like a Harrier) would surely have worked far better for less and it's well proven.
Jet wouldn't work in the thin atmosphere anyway. The atmosphere on the surface of mars is like 85,000 ft here. Which is the highest flixed wing flight height. Certainly not the Harrier.

Also, the Harrier is notoriously unstable during VTOL.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #52 on: August 08, 2012, 12:46:54 PM »
One would be hard pressed to design a shuttle that can come down into an atmosphere like mars and expect to land safely on uneven terrain. Also, like many have said before me, the dust and rocks kicked up from conventional retro-rocket technology could damage the rover's equipment. This was OK for the moon landings because the equipment was protected inside of the lander (as were the people). The rover's equipment is open to the elements.

Quote from: EnigmaZV on August 08, 2012, 12:44:25 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on August 08, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 08, 2012, 11:25:26 AM
No it doesn't. It's redundant. A nozzle system (like a Harrier) would surely have worked far better for less and it's well proven.
Jet wouldn't work in the thin atmosphere anyway. The atmosphere on the surface of mars is like 85,000 ft here. Which is the highest flixed wing flight height. Certainly not the Harrier.

Also, the Harrier is notoriously unstable during VTOL.

Yes, the F-35 is much more stable, as is the Osprey. But still, jets and props like that wont work in such a thin atmosphere.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
?

Syntax

  • 71
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #53 on: August 08, 2012, 01:02:08 PM »
Hey,
High resolution images coming from Curiosity. First image from descent:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/multimedia/pia16021.html
Logged
?

Hazbollah

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2436
  • +0/-0
  • Earth Shape Apathetic.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #54 on: August 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM »
Quote from: Lorddave on August 08, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 08, 2012, 11:25:26 AM
No it doesn't. It's redundant. A nozzle system (like a Harrier) would surely have worked far better for less and it's well proven.
Jet wouldn't work in the thin atmosphere anyway. The atmosphere on the surface of mars is like 85,000 ft here. Which is the highest flixed wing flight height. Certainly not the Harrier.
Use a rocket then. Still less complex than dropping it from a cable.
Logged
Always check your tackle- Caerphilly school of Health. If I see an innuendo in my post, I'll be sure to whip it out.
*

ThinkingMan

  • 1830
  • +0/-0
  • Oh, Really?
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #55 on: August 08, 2012, 01:55:06 PM »
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 08, 2012, 01:49:12 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on August 08, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
Quote from: Hazbollah on August 08, 2012, 11:25:26 AM
No it doesn't. It's redundant. A nozzle system (like a Harrier) would surely have worked far better for less and it's well proven.
Jet wouldn't work in the thin atmosphere anyway. The atmosphere on the surface of mars is like 85,000 ft here. Which is the highest flixed wing flight height. Certainly not the Harrier.
Use a rocket then. Still less complex than dropping it from a cable.

It has been explained why this was not done. You can test this for yourself. Of course, you probably don't have rockets, so let's use something else that has thrust from a reaction mass. An air compressor!

Place some cameras on the ground, with some rocks and stuff. Get a 90cfm air compressor, point nozzle at the ground, let it rip, see how much dirt and rocks get all over, inside, and around your cameras.
Logged
Quote from: BoatswainsMate on August 24, 2012, 12:18:02 PM
When Tom farts, the special gasses released open a sort of worm hole into the past. There Tom is able to freely discuss with Rowbotham all of his ideas and thoughts.
*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11852
  • +10/-5
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #56 on: August 08, 2012, 01:59:28 PM »
Quote from: LolaTheRabbit on August 07, 2012, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 04:26:34 PM
Did they deliberately pick the method least likely to succeed?
It was the one most likely to succeed.  Mars's atmosphere is too thin to allow for a save parachuting landing and the rover was too heavy for the cushion airbag landing of the last rover.  Did you know that even with the parachute, the rover was falling at 200 miles per hour?  The rockets are the only thing that kept it from crashing.

Why introduce a "skycrane" at all? Have you seen the laughable animations of the system? Wouldn't retrorockets have been much simpler? Granted it lacks the sci-fi excitement of the animations, and so is less likely to "inspire" the public to fund the monstrosity.

Because if the rockets landed all the way on the ground it would stir up too much dust and may damage the rover.



Wny would rockets stir up dust as the lunar lander stirred up nothing.
Logged
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth
*

EnigmaZV

  • 3459
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #57 on: August 08, 2012, 02:07:56 PM »
Quote from: hoppy on August 08, 2012, 01:59:28 PM
Quote from: LolaTheRabbit on August 07, 2012, 05:28:06 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 05:23:30 PM
Quote from: Lorddave on August 07, 2012, 04:40:16 PM
Quote from: Ski on August 07, 2012, 04:26:34 PM
Did they deliberately pick the method least likely to succeed?
It was the one most likely to succeed.  Mars's atmosphere is too thin to allow for a save parachuting landing and the rover was too heavy for the cushion airbag landing of the last rover.  Did you know that even with the parachute, the rover was falling at 200 miles per hour?  The rockets are the only thing that kept it from crashing.

Why introduce a "skycrane" at all? Have you seen the laughable animations of the system? Wouldn't retrorockets have been much simpler? Granted it lacks the sci-fi excitement of the animations, and so is less likely to "inspire" the public to fund the monstrosity.

Because if the rockets landed all the way on the ground it would stir up too much dust and may damage the rover.



Wny would rockets stir up dust as the lunar lander stirred up nothing.

http://www.space.com/4956-lunar-landers-sandblasted-moon.html

It seems that they stirred up a whole lot.
Logged
Quote from: Saddam Hussein on February 27, 2009, 03:43:45 PM
I don't know what you're implying, but you're probably wrong.
*

Ski

  • Planar Moderator
  • 8781
  • +1/-2
  • Homines, dum docent, dispenguin.
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #58 on: August 08, 2012, 02:41:00 PM »
Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 08, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
One would be hard pressed to design a shuttle that can come down into an atmosphere like mars and expect to land safely on uneven terrain. Also, like many have said before me, the dust and rocks kicked up from conventional retro-rocket technology could damage the rover's equipment. This was OK for the moon landings because the equipment was protected inside of the lander (as were the people). The rover's equipment is open to the elements.

NASA is not smart enough to rig a lens cover now? Give me a break. You're probably too young to remember the days before the space shuttle, but I assure you space agencies have been claiming to use retrorockets for decades. Not once has dust from retrorockets been blamed for a space agency failure.  Even engineers involved in the program said it had higher risk than established methods. Why throw the most complicated method you could devise onto your multi-BILLION dollar program? The skycrane idea was used because it makes for good animations. It's pure propaganda. I'm only slightly surprised that they didn't claim the mission to end in a catastrophe requiring another 3 billion dollars.
Logged
"Never think you can turn over any old falsehood without a terrible squirming of the horrid little population that dwells under it." -O.W. Holmes "Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne.."
?

LolaTheRabbit

  • 185
  • +0/-0
Re: Curiosity rover
« Reply #59 on: August 08, 2012, 03:00:29 PM »
Quote from: Ski on August 08, 2012, 02:41:00 PM
Quote from: ThinkingMan on August 08, 2012, 12:46:54 PM
One would be hard pressed to design a shuttle that can come down into an atmosphere like mars and expect to land safely on uneven terrain. Also, like many have said before me, the dust and rocks kicked up from conventional retro-rocket technology could damage the rover's equipment. This was OK for the moon landings because the equipment was protected inside of the lander (as were the people). The rover's equipment is open to the elements.

NASA is not smart enough to rig a lens cover now? Give me a break. You're probably too young to remember the days before the space shuttle, but I assure you space agencies have been claiming to use retrorockets for decades. Not once has dust from retrorockets been blamed for a space agency failure.  Even engineers involved in the program said it had higher risk than established methods. Why throw the most complicated method you could devise onto your multi-BILLION dollar program? The skycrane idea was used because it makes for good animations. It's pure propaganda. I'm only slightly surprised that they didn't claim the mission to end in a catastrophe requiring another 3 billion dollars.

They've also never landed a rover on Mars using retrorockets. They have either been bounced onto the surface or been lowered on cranes.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 6   Go Up
« previous next »