Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 05:07:31 From: Space Digest maintainer Reply-To: Space-request@isu.isunet.edu Subject: Space Digest V15 #200 To: Space Digest Readers Precedence: bulk Space Digest Mon, 14 Sep 92 Volume 15 : Issue 200 Today's Topics: Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars) Welcome to the Space Digest!! Please send your messages to "space@isu.isunet.edu", and (un)subscription requests of the form "Subscribe Space " to one of these addresses: listserv@uga (BITNET), rice::boyle (SPAN/NSInet), utadnx::utspan::rice::boyle (THENET), or space-REQUEST@isu.isunet.edu (Internet). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: 14 Sep 92 09:18:00 GMT From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey Subject: Nitpicking over Phobos Hopper (was Re: Soviet Rovers on Mars) Newsgroups: sci.space,sci.astro In article , JDAVIS@GRIFFIN.UGA.EDU (Jerry Davis) responds to me: >>Date: 24 Aug 92 23:37:54 GMT >>From: Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey > >>(I'm not familiar with their instrument load). Phobos 2 and one of the >>Soviet Mars landers carried tiny rovers, too. Or do we only count >>spacecraft that succeeded? ^^^^ > ? >Tiny? I'm not sure about Phobos 2, but 2 weeks ago I saw a Soviet Mars >rover at the Air Force Museum, Wright Patterson AFB and it was pretty >big. Probably at least as large as a 12 - 16 hp riding lawnmower with >6 wheels and lots more mass. Nice to hear that there's some serious Soviet stuff in Dayton. I'll have to return to the AFM to look at it. No, this is not what I meant; Larry Klaes described it in a subsequent message. In article <1992Sep1.165202.4401@nntpd.lkg.dec.com>, klaes@verga.enet.dec.com (Larry Klaes) writes: > The MARS 2 and 3 [...] landers > also carried several small rovers attached to the craft by fifteen > meter tethers. [...] The landers were never used due to the apparent > crash landing of MARS 2 and the communications failure of MARS 3 > after ninety seconds of transmission from the surface. Okay, this clears up one of my examples. But Phobos 2? > The PHOBOS 1-2 mission landers were not rovers, though one > lander was designed to hop across the moon's surface using metal > bars. The other lander type was to be anchored into the ground > with a harpoon. Come on, Larry, this hopper gadget was intended to land on Phobos, make some measurements, then move to another place on Phobos, make some more, repeat as necessary. I have asserted that this is a "rover." You assert that it is not. You may believe in some more restrictive definition of the word, but by what authority? When we get tired of nitpicking over Phobos 2, we can argue about whether the Mars 94 balloon is a "rover." You go first. (-: O~~* /_) ' / / /_/ ' , , ' ,_ _ \|/ - ~ -~~~~~~~~~~~/_) / / / / / / (_) (_) / / / _\~~~~~~~~~~~zap! / \ (_) (_) / | \ | | Bill Higgins Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory \ / Bitnet: HIGGINS@FNAL.BITNET - - Internet: HIGGINS@FNAL.FNAL.GOV ~ SPAN/Hepnet: 43011::HIGGINS ------------------------------ End of Space Digest Volume 15 : Issue 200 ------------------------------