How am I ignoring the differences between a photo-op-seeking NASA Mars rover, and a science performing lander like Beagle 2? Is the NASA rover not akin to GoreSat (Triana) where a little science was packed on to justify the ego-boosting, "pot boiling" project? Some people sure do seem to think so:
http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/09/15/mars.race/index.html
&
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/sci_tech/2000/festival_of_science/
Meanwhile, as for:
>>>You should also not that NASA's "redundant" rovers are going to different sites and are two missions not just a mission and a back up.<<<
NO two Ford Broncos enduringly travel exactly the same path, but the cost of making the 2nd is still considerably cheaper than the cost of making the first. Do you dispute that the 2nd NASA Rover ESSENTIALLY at least SHOULD HAVE cost only 30% of what the first one did, DESPITE Lockheed's cost-plus-related perverse incentives to jack up prices?
Space/Science » in reply to Sometimes You Get What You Pay For
Photo-op-seeking NASA twin rovers vs. a science-performing British lander
The whole thread (28 posts)
- Great Googly Moogly, The Europeans have some splainin' to do.
- C'mon guys...ease up a bit.
- The ENTIRE Mars Express mission will cost around $353 million. NASA's redundant twin rovers: OVER $800 million.
- One of the ways Mars Express will save money...
- Wait until AFTER Mars Express has successfully orbited Mars and ....
- Japan's Nozomi Mars Mission cost just $86 million
- Good thing Space Daily isn't running the show
- When ESA offers competitive prizes (like DARPA), they'll achieve more
- re: Great Googly Moogly, The Europeans have some splainin' to do.