Space/Science — HabitableZone

Space/Science » in reply to How to Lower the bar and increase science success probability

Great idea
dtb — (archived)

Yep, that's the right way to think, in my non-rocket scientist opinion. Sounds like a great idea.

Few quick things to think about, though:

1. Landing accuracy?

How much can we improve landing accuracy without redesigning the system? Reducing the size of those ellipses would make a lot more interesting targets feasible.

-- Better atmospheric models?
-- Better surface mapping?
-- Better in flight tracking?

Where does most of the dispersion come from, and how much can we reduce it with an unguided entry like MER? Have we reached those limits yet?

2. Minor new science

I know this way lies madness, but maybe a couple of quick and easy things to bolt on, maybe. The Planetary Society's microphone.

Or to end the debates here about "true" colors and which filters do what damage to the image, how about the guys go down to Fry's and pick up a $300 Canon digital camera or whatever else you think takes "true color" pictures of grandma at Christmas. Send that and we all agree that whatever it beams back is what Mars really looks like.... :)

3. Power

If one could swap out the solar cells for an RTG of equal output and equal mass, that would be great and worth investing in some redesign -- I'd take six new rovers vs 12 if they had years worth of power. Except RTGs are quite a bit heavier, I know, but it's a nice dream.

Log in or register to post.

The whole thread (46 posts)