tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post1580036469745918134..comments2024-01-03T20:28:17.727-08:00Comments on Future Planetary Exploration: Mars 2020 Rover: Science There, Here, or BothVan Kanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14227978868817989527noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-55435406948669730612013-03-12T17:30:00.103-07:002013-03-12T17:30:00.103-07:00Mars exploration at NASA has become like an altern...Mars exploration at NASA has become like an alternative universe where what would seem obvious logical steps are reversed.<br />For example, consider the instruments for MSL-2. Logical, rational thinking would dictate that the instruments to go to the next rover should be designed to improve on the performances of previous ones and possibly refined or changed in order to answer to whatever question was raised by Curiosity's instruments. Even if that means to wait for Curiosity's results.<br />Instead no, the instruments choice is based on cost, well ahead of any results from Curiosity. One gets the distinct impression that MSL-2 is being rushed through in order to work as a placeholder and make sure that the funds are earmarked for Mars, regardless and independently from any scientific result.<br />Same reverse logic applies to Sample Return. One would expect that, before such an expensive mission is recommended, that a rock worth returning has actually been found. This is not the case.<br />Hopefully Van's guess that "the congress will provide the funds for a sample return if a rover finds complex organic molecules suggesting past or present life" will hold true.<br />Fortunately, NASA obsession with Mars is starting to get noticed :<br />http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=has-nasa-become-mars-obsessed<br />The author suggets that this might be because NASA has become more risk adverse. This can be easily be disproved if one thinks about how risky it was to bet that the $2.5 B Curiosity landed properly with the complex and never flown before sky crane.<br />It worked, ok, but was it risk adverse ? Stop making excuses, it's just bias for Mars.Enzonoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-84608336472255377462013-03-12T13:55:18.828-07:002013-03-12T13:55:18.828-07:00Great post. Although I would suggest the rover foc...Great post. Although I would suggest the rover focus on reconnaissance rather than detailed analysis. Let's see how a MSL-type rover with a MER-type payload would do on Mars. How much ground could it cover? Sometimes with geology it is how many outcrops you are able to see that helps you understand what is going on rather than how much you know about one outcrop.Paul Nilesnoreply@blogger.com