They keep going and going and going...
-
Mars rovers celebrate 5 years on Mars [^] very :cool:
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
Mars rovers celebrate 5 years on Mars [^] very :cool:
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
Mars rovers celebrate 5 years on Mars [^] very :cool:
Steve _________________ I C(++) therefore I am
-
"supposed to last 90 days" :wtf:
Visit http://www.notreadytogiveup.com/[^] and do something special today.
Trollslayer wrote:
"supposed to last 90 days"
I remember that statement. With this amount of money involved I don't understand how sane people would authorize a mission that was scheduled to last only 90 days (especially how slow the rovers move in 90 days). I know that space can be difficult but to me that (only making 90 days) would have been a major disappointment. Maybe its a bit of setting the bar so low to make achieving victory easy..
John
-
Trollslayer wrote:
"supposed to last 90 days"
I remember that statement. With this amount of money involved I don't understand how sane people would authorize a mission that was scheduled to last only 90 days (especially how slow the rovers move in 90 days). I know that space can be difficult but to me that (only making 90 days) would have been a major disappointment. Maybe its a bit of setting the bar so low to make achieving victory easy..
John
And that is based on how many years of your experience in space exploration?
-
And that is based on how many years of your experience in space exploration?
Based on financial terms. And all the footage of previous missions.
John
-
Trollslayer wrote:
"supposed to last 90 days"
I remember that statement. With this amount of money involved I don't understand how sane people would authorize a mission that was scheduled to last only 90 days (especially how slow the rovers move in 90 days). I know that space can be difficult but to me that (only making 90 days) would have been a major disappointment. Maybe its a bit of setting the bar so low to make achieving victory easy..
John
John M. Drescher wrote:
Maybe its a bit of setting the bar so low to make achieving victory easy..
More likely it's a bit of serendipity. Back when the US fielded the Minuteman ICBM, its design lifetime was ten years, and spares were produced for the expected failures in that period. Tech Orders were produced containing instructions for replacing the failed parts, too, though the procedures were not tested (validated). It was common practice to validate TOs when they were first used. That was 1960. In 1991, when I was laid off the first time, the Minuteman missiles were still functioning reliably (though decommisioned), and there were spares on the shelf that had never been needed, along with a number of TOs that had never been validated. Sometimes things just work out better than planned...:cool: Conversely, when we fielded Peacekeeper and needed some spares to support deployment, we discovered that the stock of spares sent to Hill AFB long before had already been disposed of as unneeded. Somebody forgot to properly date them, and some E3 grunt surplused them without a look back. SOP. :sigh: It's always a crapshoot, isn't it? :laugh:
"A Journey of a Thousand Rest Stops Begins with a Single Movement"
-
Trollslayer wrote:
"supposed to last 90 days"
I remember that statement. With this amount of money involved I don't understand how sane people would authorize a mission that was scheduled to last only 90 days (especially how slow the rovers move in 90 days). I know that space can be difficult but to me that (only making 90 days) would have been a major disappointment. Maybe its a bit of setting the bar so low to make achieving victory easy..
John
If you call it a 90 day mission you only have to budget 90 days of ground support. When your probes last longer you keep going be having someone elses development budget looted. Barring another fortuitous windborn dusting of the solar panels Spirit's not going to survive the next winter. Fortunately the martian year's roughly twice as long as ours.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall