Quote:
Originally Posted by MaDeR
.....Not again suggesting things that I never wrote...  .....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djellison
So we should just have spent millions redesigning the MSL bus to incorporate the instruments or even spend millions more redesigning the instruments for the MSL bus?
|
|
Umm - you're busted - I never said that, OP9 did.
However putting your suggesting things that I
never wrote to one side for a moment - by suggesting that MSL would be a better thing than Phoenix - by saying that for the price of just 2x Phoenix you could have MSL going there instead, by saying that a rover would be better than Phoenix - by suggesting that MSL could and should be going to the Martian polar regions - you are insinuating in the strongest possible way that Phoenix should not fly...it is the only logical assumption based on your argument, if you think something else, then what is your argument about....but hey...at least I didn't put actual words into your mouth that you never spoke like some around here.
Bottom line :
Phoenix is the best spacecraft - in ATLO or just the drawing board - to investigate the polar regions for several reasons. 1) It has the right instrumentation to answer the questions we need to answer. 2) It has the arm of sufficient size and ability to do the digging required. 3) It is a comparatively cheap lander appropriate for a short life mission that will end with the arrival of the long dark polar winter. 4) The landing site in question does not require mobility as the terrain and science is such that any one spot is good for the science required.
MSL would be totally wasted by sending it to polar regions...it would be an utter disgrace, a waste of time, money, and 18 months of the vehicles life. And yes, I do know that MSL is RTG powered and thus doesn't require sunlight to operate - but the requirement of floodlighting on the vehicle, inability to image long rage, and indeed the fact that it would be slowly frosted over during winter whilst wandering around terrain that's the same as the place it landed and the same as anything it could go and visit.
http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/...P_001337_2480/ - THAT requires a cheaper, short life, volatile focused static lander to ground-truth an orbital observation
http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/...P_001468_1535/
http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/...A_000873_2015/
http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/images/...A_000861_1530/ - THOSE require a highly mobile, geologically equpied long-life rover.
Right tool for the right job.
Doug