Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by mecsred 879 days ago
Mechanisms weigh a significant amount, long mechanisms like arms even more so. The more mass you spend on contingencies the less science you bring and the less valuable the mission is, even with a flawless touchdown.
3 comments

If you can't land reliably, then a lot of the science is wasted. On the other hand, once you reliably solve the landing issue (which was one of the main objectives here, and where they made significant progress in that they successfully deployed the two mini rovers anyway), you can add on as much science as you want.

Also I've said before and will say it again, the moon is not far away. Unlike Mars and other celestial bodies where we have to time launches around orbital positions, gravitational slingshots and such, the moon is really close by, and we should be lofting stuff onto it on a monthly basis.

Good point, but I wonder if some of the attitudinal jets could be employed to push it upright, assuming there's any fuel left (and power).
Neat idea, I'm not sure how much force those jets produce, maybe it could be enough? It might be risky to fire up jets after a botched landing though. If the nozzle has any material in it I'd be worried about blowing a hole in the lander!
And it's all a moot point if you're too heavy or complicated to fly in the first place.