Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover Ready for Risky Descent into Crater

Riding with Robots writes "After months of scoping out the terrain, the robotic geologist Opportunity is ready to drive down into Victoria Crater on the Meridiani Plains of Mars. Mission managers acknowledge the hardy rover may never come back out, but say they think the potential for discovery is worth it. 'The rover has operated more than 12 times longer than its originally intended 90 days. The scientific allure is the chance to examine and investigate the compositions and textures of exposed materials in the crater's depths for clues about ancient, wet environments. As the rover travels farther down the slope, it will be able to examine increasingly older rocks in the exposed walls of the crater. '"

45 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. It will make it! by ILuvRamen · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think it will survive it. Obviously that sucker was built Tonka tough lol. It's funny though cuz every time it's about to do just about anything, the scientists say "well this might be the last thing it ever does" just because it's way past the 90 days. It's kinda like how people every year say "yep, those AS400's are on their way out any day now" and then there I was, still sitting in front of an ugly green screen for one of my classes (I changed degree fields after that) I think the rover will be there long enough to bump into an astronaut's foot lol. Unless of course it gets attacked my martian crater monkeys. Those things are vicious.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:It will make it! by Original+Replica · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One way to get new toys is to break the old ones. If you had driven those greenscreen monitiors down a crater, they would have been replaced with some new shiny CGA monitors. I don't htink NASA is setting out to break "the little rover that could" but they are getting more and more adventerous with it, doing things that may have previously been ruled out for safety concerns. "The last thing it ever does" is better than saying "Hey everybody, Watch this!"

      --
      We are all just people.
    2. Re:It will make it! by MaineCoon · · Score: 3, Informative

      On the other hand, Victoria crater is pretty big (about a kilometer across), and could take many months to explore. The next closest crater is 25km away. In 3 years, Opportunity has travelled less than 11 km.

      --
      Hunt your preferred prey at Aliens vs Predator MUD. Join the war at avpmud.com port 4000
    3. Re:It will make it! by TrevorB · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm actually surprised they're that concerned about getting out again. Literally, there's nowhere else to go. We already have 2 years of survey data from the non-cratered surface.

      This mission will end in Victoria crater, regardless of how long the rover lasts. The only reason to leave is to test the engineering capabilities of an aging rover to climb back out again.

    4. Re:It will make it! by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      so if aliens landed on earth and drove 11km you'd think they had seen everything earth has to offer?

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:It will make it! by ichigo+2.0 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, but there isn't much else in the immediate vicinity. With the speeds the rover is moving, it will take literally years to get anywhere interesting.

    6. Re:It will make it! by RockWolf · · Score: 3, Insightful
      It's similar to landing in the middle of the Sahara Desert with no way to get out: you know there's something interesting far away, but the only way to examine it is to plan another mission, rather than just drive there. After everything in the crater has been examined, if there's no other scientific targets within range, the only objectives remaining are engineering ones, which are also important, certainly more interesting than just turning off the "little rover that could".

      ~wolf

      --
      February 9th, 2009 8:55pm: Slashdot becomes self-aware.
  2. For all of NASA's problems by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The MERS mission has been an incrediable sucessess that one doesn't hear much about, unless you read slashdot. A 90 day mission that has lasted 3 years and shows no signs of stopping as funding has been approved to at least september and so long as they are showing results, I doubt that is going to change. Most of the costs is in launching and building the damn things. From that stand point, looks like they've gotten their money worth out of them.

    --
    "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    1. Re:For all of NASA's problems by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

      You gotta love the creative genius of designing a mission that lasts 20 years and claiming that it will only last 90 days...

      If they had said the rovers would last 20 years upfront, they never would have gotten funding for it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:For all of NASA's problems by cyriustek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It sounds to me as if the engineers at NASA took Scotty's advice to heart when he was shocked that Geordi told the truth about how long it would take to make a repair. (TNG: Relics)

      Under Promise and Underperform.

      The flip side of this is that we have to wonder if there is a downside to the NASA engineers under promising? Is it possible that if they gave a more realistic estimate, better plans for research could have been developed?

      Regardless, I say good job NASA!

    3. Re:For all of NASA's problems by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, if you wanted to build a rover that'd last for a long time in a desert-like environment then I don't think you'd have problems finding a contractor to do that. It's not like regular cars die from travelling through desert areas, and top it off with high quality seals and whatever it should last until it breaks down internally (or the wheels are broken, IIRC one of the Mars rovers is limping.

      It's when you say "build us that rover, but after three months it'll have to run on no power" that things get ugly. The solar panels were supposed to get clogged up with dust, and someone really did think it'd go on for many years instead of months they were damn silent about it. It's like thinking you're building a laptop with a battery, only to find out you've got line power. That would throw your estimated operating time off by several orders of magnitude too.

      While the idea they said three months to get the funding is entertaining, there's really nothing to suggest that was actually the case. They're scientists doing an experiment, thought they had a limiting factor which was wrong. Now we know that if we go to Mars, we can build solar panels that won't clog and will be a pretty much permanent power source which changes everything. Maybe someone hoped, dreamed or wished for it but I doubt many if any knew and said "hey, let's go wih three months anyway".

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    4. Re:For all of NASA's problems by jafiwam · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On that note, wasn't the difference in the battery life that they did not expect the panels to get cleaned off by the winds like they are getting cleaned?

      Perhaps a trip into a crater is not the best way to stay in the cleansing winds....

    5. Re:For all of NASA's problems by ghmh · · Score: 2, Funny

      You gotta love the creative genius of designing a mission that lasts 20 years and claiming that it will only last 90 days...

      If they had said the rovers would last 20 years upfront, they never would have gotten funding for it.

      Actually, it's only lasted this long because the little green men come out and fix it when noone's looking.
  3. John Callas Vid by TrevorB · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/video/movie s/opportunity/VictoriaDigitalStory.mov

    JPL produced Video of Project Manager John Callas discussing the entry.

  4. sandy dunes and icy crater by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Informative

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_crater if there is water ice underneath MArs' surface or even temporarily exposed ice, this is the spot. what ever created the crater whether a deorbited moon, asteroid or comet likely left water behind after the impact. so even if the rover doesnt come out again it will be well wortth the sacrifice.

    --
    Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
  5. Just wondering by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder how many probes like this we could've launched with the gigantic money wasted^H^H^H^H^H^H, er, I mean spent on the space shuttles and all the launch support. With some mass production techniques, maybe 1,000? More?

    --
    Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
  6. Oh jeez.. by necro2607 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "the chance to examine and investigate the compositions and textures of exposed materials in the crater's depths for clues about ancient, wet environments."

    Oh jeez... investigating and exploring the depths of ancient, wet environments?... This sounds like some kind of MILF joke gone wrong... *cringes*

  7. How long would it take? by Ub3rT3Rr0R1St · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If it's taken us this long to reach a hopefully significant leap in the exploration of Mars, how long do you guys think it would take for a man to be able to set foot on Mars to actually get some first person perspective on the planet itself?

    I ask, because I've seen a lot of planning going on in terms of living on Mars, but I can't help wonder, "Why all this planning and scheming, when we haven't even had concrete, indisputable evidence that Mars can sustain life, much less had someone actually get there?"

    1. Re:How long would it take? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny
      Not you again. Could you just please plug yourself into an ungrounded electrical outlet and test out your theories first hand?

      Geeks have enough issues with social acceptance to begin with. We don't need your help.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:How long would it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Rather than ridiculing the EU Theorists, people should put serious effort into debunking them if they feel that they are wrong because what they are saying is very important"

      It's actually pretty hard to debunk these claims without ridiculing them, because they are so poorly informed. You want "serious debunking"? Okay, I'll try.

      Just as an example, the article about the "blueberries" doesn't make any sense, because it is founded on the mistaken impression that geologists think concretions form as isolated rocks on the sea floor that roll around for a while and then get incorporated into sediments. It's bizarre nonsense that even a casual glance at the literature (or a wikipedia page) would reveal. It reads like something out of the 19th century. Everything about concretions is inconsistent with such a scenario. For example, many concretions have sedimentary layers (bedding or laminations) that pass right through the concretion. Some of the "blueberries" also show hints of laminations on their surface, and they don't show the features typical of separate rocks (clasts) that are deposited.

      Concretions are thought to form after deposition of the sediments by minerals being precipitated in the tiny spaces between the sediment grains, cementing the grains together as the minerals precipitate. It is usually fairly easy to tell if a particular structure formed separately and was incorporated into the sediment versus forming post-depositionally, and the "blueberries" are pretty clearly post-depositional.

      Sometimes the growth of the precipitating minerals also causes expansion of the spaces, causing the concretion to displace surrounding sediments outward. This can create spaces within the interior of a concretion if the cementation and expansion is happening mostly on the outer surface (imagine the outer shell expanding in volume), resulting in some types of geodes (some types, because other geodes have nothing to do with concretion formation, and form by infilling of pre-existing cavities, such as bubbles (vesicles) in lava flows, but I digress...).

      There is a fair amount of variation to the way concretions form, but there are probably hundreds of papers about them, including some good papers on the "Moqui marbles" that have been compared to the Martian "blueberries". There are some alternative interpretations for the "blueberries" (e.g., as condensate from impacts), but I don't think these are consistent with the bedding surrounding the structures, and they are quite different from anything "electrical".

      Anyway, if "Electric Universe Theorists" can't even keep the very basics of the conventional theories straight, why should people take anything the "Electric Universe" people say seriously? And I don't know what is so "alarming" about supposed electrical effects -- the rovers seem to be driving around just fine without getting zapped, and they've got exposed electrical connections on their surfaces (i.e. the solar panels, as can be seen in the pictures).

  8. Rover life... by dex22 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    'The rover has operated more than 12 times longer than its originally intended 90 days.'

    So, it's a pre-DRM rover, then? It certainly wasn't built by HP's printer division. ;)

    1. Re:Rover life... by RasputinAXP · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Someone's never owned an HP Laserjet II.

      I've hit them with hammers, dropped them, kicked them, used them as doorstops, and they don't quit printing. Just keep them happy with toner and paper.

      We believe we killed one once. It was locked in the back of our campus transport vehicle, and some kids with nothing better to do stole it, torched it and left it on railroad tracks to get hit.

      When we got the smoldering wreckage back, the LJII was in the middle of what used to be the cargo cab. It was black.

      If you dropped it on a piece of paper, you'd be hard pressed to prove that it wasn't still putting toner on the page.

  9. A moment of reflection... by D-Cypell · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You know, sometimes it is easy to get wrapped up in the details of these rover missions, but I am always pretty humbled when I think of this remote controlled do-dad, once pieced together by earth-bound scientists, sitting on some planet 50 (or so) million miles away and still responding to our every command. Just to think that thing is out there, on mars, right now.

    Reading story after story about the various space exploration projects and we can get a little desensitized to the pure 'awesomeness' of the kinds of things our space exploration agencies are doing. So a moment to just consider this achievement is warrented I think.

    How great would it be to have a go at driving that thing? :)

    1. Re:A moment of reflection... by Kadin2048 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm totally with you. Although, I think the Voyager missions are even more humbling.

      Voyager 2 weekly reports (from 1995 to 2007, not sure where the 1977 to 1995 ones are) available:
      http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/weekly-reports /

      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:A moment of reflection... by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Wrong, and i'll use a simple example to show it. If the engineers issue a command to the robot to move, it takes 4 minutes for that command to reach the machine (given that radio waves travel at the speed of light give or take a little), the machine still moves 4 minutes later, not at the exact moment we issue the command even though according to your logic the machine being 4 minutes in the future would mean it would move at the exact moment the engineers issued the command.

      our ability to OBSERVE the machine is delayed by 4 minutes, this however does mean it's 4 minutes ahead in time.

      what you are reffering to is the very cool effect of large distances on light in space which means when you look up in the sky your exactly gazing into a patch work of events which happened millions of years go.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:A moment of reflection... by Fatalis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Taking the average light travel time to be larger than 10 minutes is probably not a bad guess.

      If it was a game, the latency would be around 600000. That's some bad lag.
      --
      Deus est fatalis
  10. Oh.. can I play too? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How many of these probes could we have launched if we spent money making a cheap launch system instead of ICBMs?

    Or.. how many Mars rovers could we make if we spent the national health care budget on making them?

    As cool as the Mars rovers are, they had enough trouble getting money for a 90 day project, let alone a freakin' armada. To the people who control the bucks, this is just boring geek stuff. At least the shuttle gives them some national heroes to say they support.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:Oh.. can I play too? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 2

      How many of these probes could we have launched if we spent money making a cheap launch system instead of ICBMs?

      You're talking about shifting one from one part of government to a totally different part of government. I'm talking about using money in the SAME BUDGET for different stuff. If you want to use a military analogy, it's do we get more bang for the buck from cruise missiles or more aircraft carriers?

      As cool as the Mars rovers are, they had enough trouble getting money for a 90 day project, let alone a freakin' armada.

      That's my point. We got so much more out of this little project than we get with the manned space shuttle missions that it's ridiculous.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    2. Re:Oh.. can I play too? by QuantumG · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, I didn't make myself clear.

      If NASA was to spend 90% of its budget on unmanned space exploration and 10% on manned space exploration, there would be no astronauts. They wouldn't have enough money for them. Without astronauts, they wouldn't attract as big a budget, because that's what gets the bucks. You're talking as if NASA's budget is mandated somewhere and can never fluxuate. It's not. They have to justify every dollar and Mars rovers just don't cut it.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    3. Re:Oh.. can I play too? by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually aren't most of our space launch vehicles essentially modified ICBMs? I mean, isn't that true of most space launch vehicles? Von Braun and all that?

      I think the general idea, as discussed in documents like this one, is that the primary design goal with ICBMs was maximizing the ratio between payload weight and rocket weight/size. This is great for ICBMs, where you want to cram missiles into tiny places, but not so good for space launches, where you should ideally be maximizing the payload/cost ratio. However, since most modern rockets are direct descendants of ICBMs, the original design constraints are still present in their current design, and are arguably embedded in the rocket engineering culture.

      Most people say that the solution is then to pursue things like space elevators and scramjets, but groups like SpaceX are trying to show that low-cost rockets can still be developed if one designs them from the beginning to maximize the payload/cost ratio.

    4. Re:Oh.. can I play too? by Reality+Master+101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They wouldn't have enough money for them. Without astronauts, they wouldn't attract as big a budget, because that's what gets the bucks.

      Hmm. I agree and disagree. On the one hand, certainly astronauts help sell NASA to the public, which probably helps keep NASA in the budgetary eye. On the other hand, one of the reasons NASA is so f***ed up is because they are mandated to spend money on various projects in various politician's districts, which is what they truly care about (mmm, love that pork).

      So I would say that as long as the sweet, sweet money was being spread around, the politicians would be happy. And if we truly had 1,000 probes constantly sending back neat-o images and data, I bet the sheer volume of discovery would actually exceed the romance of humans in space.

      But I admit the point is arguable.

      --
      Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
    5. Re:Oh.. can I play too? by flyingsquid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I bet the sheer volume of discovery would actually exceed the romance of humans in space.

      When is the last time the manned space actually really made you feel inspired? For me, it was the Hubble repair mission. Which says a lot: the last time NASA's manned program made me feel excited was when people were repairing a robot.

      And the fact that we're discussing the Mars rovers instead of astronauts says volumes. The only time the manned program generates any press these days is when a shuttle blows up, the space station malfunctions, the shuttle gets delayed, or hit with foam yet again. The manned program spends tens of billions just treading water and malfunctioning, while for a fraction of that the unmanned program is doing science, and pushing out into the unknown. We're seeing the future: the explorers of the next century are going to look like remote controlled refugees from Radio Shack, not like Captain Kirk.

    6. Re:Oh.. can I play too? by Schemat1c · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Without astronauts, they wouldn't attract as big a budget, because that's what gets the bucks. Looks like someone's been watching 'The Right Stuff'. Come on, who can name a single astronaut since they ended Apollo? The space race is long gone as well as the glamor, no one cares about astronauts anymore.

      I think people have been more impressed with the Hubble pictures more than anything else from NASA these days. I agree that if they would have blanketed the solar system with probes there would have been a lot more to show in the way of pictures and data and would have gained much more public interest.
      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    7. Re:Oh.. can I play too? by dpilot · · Score: 3, Informative

      >Come on, who can name a single astronaut since they ended Apollo?

      You really shouldn't put a challenge like this on Slashdot. Wrong audience.

      Robert Crippen and John Young - flew the first space shuttle flight, though I believe John Young also flew on both Apollo and Gemini, not sure about Crippen.

      Sally Ride - first American woman in space.

      Judy Resnick - Hometown (Akron, Ohio) woman killed on Challenger.
      Crista McAuliffe - New Hampshire schoolteacher also killed on Challenger.

      Shannon Lucid - Spent a looooong time on either Mir or ISS.

      "Pinky" Nelson - Prominent role in fixing a satellite, I believe the Solar Max.

      Then without knowing the names, we have the Hawaiian astronaut who died on Challenger, and had an Enterprise-D (fictional) shuttle (Okuzu?) named after him. There's also diaper-woman who recently made the news.

      I know it's not a very long list, but you did say, "one".

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  11. Good for rover by L.+VeGas · · Score: 5, Funny

    Old martian crater,
    Love her or hate her,
    Waited for someone to come.
    Before it's all over,
    Rover comes over,
    And crawls right into her bum.

  12. I'd hit it by originalnih · · Score: 4, Funny

    With my rover!

  13. Re:These missions seem pre-scripted by dl107227 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But where does this confidence come from that they know that all of these formations are caused by water?

    We use our experience on Earth to form a hypothesis about similar features on another planet.

    Every week that goes by, our probes and telescopes bring more unexpected observations. Our theories of the universe are constantly changing. Objects that we thought were completely different increasingly appear to have similar characteristics.

    We form a hypothesis but we can't support or deny it until we observe evidence. If the evidence supports then it looks like we knew it all along. If the evidence denies then it raises more questions.

    As far as I can tell, nobody's ever even observed an impact occur on any planet.

    We have observed minor impacts on the Moon and a major one on Jupiter.

    At some point in time, their speculation hardened into consensus without ever thinking to validate it. Many of the craters we observe in the universe have highly unusual features that don't appear to strictly correlate with physical impacts.

    Consensus is built with mathematical models. Probes and telescopes are used to validate our hyptheses. Again, if observational evidence does support a hypothesis then more questions are raised and new ones are formed. As for not correlating with physical impacts (I'm not entirely sure what you are referencing here) there are craters formed by volcanoes and probably some caused by exploding meteors (meteorites).

    My point is that the overall predictive track record and the large number of unsubstantiated consensuses within astrophysics today do not support the notion that we should be able to accurately predict our findings on Mars at this point in time.

    We have hypotheses. Yes we want water to be found on Mars and it shouldn't be unexpected. There is an incredible amount of water in the universe and it would be foolish to only expect to find it on Earth or the moons of Jupiter.

    Mars was a molten ball of magma that eventually began to cool. Why would anyone not expect that sometime between being a molten ball of magma and its current state as a presumably cold, dead world that there wasn't flowing water on it?

  14. It's not coming back out. by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 3, Informative

    The talus slopes that it has to traverse to get back out are covered with the little hematite 'blueberries.' Its wheels will just slip and slide. It's like driving on ball bearings. You can check in but you can't check out.

    1. Re:It's not coming back out. by fbjon · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's simple: drive on the slope until the crater is filled with blueberries, then you can easily get out.

      --
      True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
    2. Re:It's not coming back out. by Yoozer · · Score: 4, Funny

      You can check in but you can't check out.
      On a dark desert planet, with no atmosphere there
      Red columns of dust, rising up through the air
      Up ahead in the distance, I saw a shimmering light
      My wheels grew heavy and my camera grew dim
      I had to stop for the night


      (etc.)
    3. Re:It's not coming back out. by hcdejong · · Score: 3, Funny

      Its wheels will just slip and slide.

      NASA should have added a Confederate flag and a 01 decal. They'd have been able to get out of anywhere.

  15. Obligatory by moosesocks · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
  16. So if it survives to crawl back out again... by Kingrames · · Score: 2, Insightful

    will it check out that featureless black spot we found recently? I sure as heck would like to know what's in there.

    --
    If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
  17. Re:These missions seem pre-scripted by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Ah what?

    They increasingly presuppose their findings before even embarking upon the mission, as if the future holds absolutely no unexpected findings.

    OK smart guy, let's work this out from an engineering point of view - after all, the engineers have to build the things.

    You: I want to build a Mars probe, looking for things we don't understand and don't expect.
    Engineer: What kind of sensor platform do you want? Visible light? UV? IR? Radio? Gravitational waves? Do you want to pick stuff up and look at it or just wander around? Take some measurements perhaps? Of what, pray tell?
    You: I dunno, there's just.... just stuff out there that we don't understand.... I want to learn about it. But no preconceived notions - well, wait, maybe something about electric fields, but no other preconceived notions.
    Engineer: Maybe come back when you're sober, eh? (Goes back to reading Digg).

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  18. Re:These missions seem pre-scripted by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and load up sensors to test every single one of them,

    The landed weight is 348 kg. It's mission is not to "explore strange new worlds and go boldly where no man has gone before..." it is:

    The scientific goals of the rover missions are to gather data to help determine if life ever arose on Mars, characterize the climate of Mars, characterize the geology of Mars, and prepare for human exploration of Mars. To achieve these goals, seven science objectives are called for: 1) search for and characterize a variety of rocks and soils that hold clues to past water activity, 2) determine the distribution and composition of minerals, rocks, and soils surrounding the landing sites, 3) determine what geologic processes have shaped the local terrain and influenced the chemistry 4) perform "ground truth" of surface observations made by Mars orbiter instruments, 5) search for iron-bearing minerals, identify and quantify relative amounts of specific mineral types tha contain water or were formed in water, 6) characterize the mineralogy and textures of rocks and soils and determine the processes that created them, and 7) search for geological clues to the environmental conditions that existed when liquid water was present and assess whether those environments were conducive to life.

    Very limited, very specific. Hopefully one of the first Mars landers, not the last. It took some five years (IIRC) to go from that paragraph to the actual spacecraft. During that time there were innumerable meetings / arguments / pointed emails about what scientific packages would fly on the landers. Some of those decisions were likely pretty prosaic - It might simply have been that they actually had some or all of the technology in a package that could be built and tested in the time frame and budget allotted.

    You somehow manage to find some deep, dark defects in the soul of NASA in a pretty mundane engineering exercise.

    You should get out more often.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!