Visiting old probes?

[bigdad84]

Do you think NASA/Commercial Space Programs should visit older probes/rovers? The day we step foot on Mars, do you think we should land next to a previously landed spacecraft? The only time we have ever revisited a previously landed spacecraft was during Apollo 12, when they wanted to prove that the LM was capable of a pinpoint touchdown.

Edited May 3, 2013 by bigdad84

[Canopus]

I remember you had the same Thread some time ago. No they shouldn't visit old probes. It doesn't make sense unless your mission planned to land in the same area already.

Edit: btw, awesome surveyor replica!

[bigdad84]

Yea, I was just going through my old dropbox pictures and found them. Figured I would ask the community again But in all reality, it would be more of a publicity stunt than anything. But imagining an Astronaut standing next to a defunct Curiosity would just be amazing

[Canopus]

It would be definitely be cool:)

[Xeldrak]

Yeah, it would be cool, but we should spend the little money we get for space-exploration in exploring things we didn't brought there ourselves

[magnemoe]

Yeah, it would be cool, but we should spend the little money we get for space-exploration in exploring things we didn't brought there ourselves

True, the Apollo mission probably selected the place as the probe showed it was interesting. This might easy happen again. Also if I was to send an manned mission to moon or mars I would send some rovers first as an recon, no not for an month long stay but for an short visit it would be an good idea.

Testing of materials and other systems can easy be done on IIS or on an satellite you can land again.

[Trux]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Lunar_X_Prize

One of the bonus objectives of the Google Lunar X competition is to obtain images of the original Apollo landings, so hopefully we will get to see them again

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-highlands-islands-20041449

Doug McCuistion (Director of Nasa) expressed interest last year of returning Curiosity to Earth after humans have been to Mars, but I admit it is a long shot at best.

Edited May 3, 2013 by Trux

[Kerbface]

Probably only worth it if the probe didn't get enough information about the area already. Otherwise seems like a waste when you could be looking somewhere new that might present new information.

[Nikolai]

No they shouldn't visit old probes. It doesn't make sense unless your mission planned to land in the same area already.

Except that we found out some important and interesting things by seeing what happens to materials left on the lunar surface for a while. The lunar surface is outside the Van Allen belts, and has periods of light and darkness that are fundamentally different from, say, near-Earth orbit. If we expect to erect long-term structures on the Moon one day, the knowledge thus gained and applied to materials science will be quite valuable.

We also discovered some things we didn't expect to -- like single-celled organisms that were living in the insulation foam of the camera the entire time, in spite of the hostile environment. (Not thriving, mind. But living.)

[Nikolai]

Probably only worth it if the probe didn't get enough information about the area already.

Really? You think there's a point where scientific curiosity decides, "No, we know enough about that completely alien location already"?

[karolus10]

Landing probes/people near Apollo site doesn't make any sense only for sake of visiting them.

Only possibility of visiting the site will occur if you will had some other reasons to explore the site in close proximity from landing sites, so we could afford deviate to investigate them, otherwise it would be just waste of resources.

Also landing close to them could damage the site by engine exhaust.

Exception from this rule could be X-prize contenders or similar people sending demonstration rover with limited scientific capabilities and exploring one of Apollo sites could compensate probe small capabilities by their media impact.

[Dr. Muttonstache]

But imagining an Astronaut standing next to a defunct Curiosity would just be amazing

Give it a hug too!

[TooManyErrors]

-Snip-

Doug McCuistion (Director of Nasa) expressed interest last year of returning Curiosity to Earth after humans have been to Mars, but I admit it is a long shot at best.

Hopefully NASA has the budget to do that, Curiosity needs to be saved from isolation.

[Loocas]

Well, if you really have the bucks, I can see the visit of old probes as a really profitable activity in space tourism, I mean, imagine living in 2070 and visiting Curiosity in Mars

[TooManyErrors]

I have the feeling that when Mars is colonized, the rovers and landers will be in a museum.

[karolus10]

Bringing curiosity back, would be terrible waste of mars colonization budget (if it be any in the first place ), also such artifact could be nice to own (for preservation) by some mars colony and captured if in their rovers range.

EDIT_1: Wong family will buy curiosity anyway .

Edited May 3, 2013 by karolus10

[Drunkrobot]

If the older probe seemed to have found something odd, like life on the moon (I know that would be ridiculous, but roll with it), and the probe does't seem to be breaking down, making errors, then it may be worth sending a new probe, with better instruments, to double check.

[PrISM]

I have the feeling that when Mars is colonized, the rovers and landers will be in a museum.

If it gets to that point I think the museums should be built around where the rovers finally stopped.

[bigdad84]

What is NASA's problem with people "disturbing" the Apollo landing sites... I mean they're not going to intentionally ruin anything. If anything the ascent stage engine of the LM did more damage to everything in the surrounding area, than any little rover would do...

[harharluke]

Like the OP said, Apollo 12 landed next to a probe to prove they can do a pin point landing. What more do we need to prove about pin point landings? Landing near defunct probes should only be considered if they are 100% desperate for a repair or if NASA/ESA/JAXA etc. have an expendable budget where they can afford to send out a mission every day.

[3_bit]

Going on a joyride to visit one, sure... In the field of science, I guess you could visit one to see the effects of micrometeorite impact... It could be useful for future missions. Perhaps we could construct future landers out of multiple partitioned alloys, to see which ones take impacts and generally survive in space the best. I wouldn't mind finding a rover that looks like it belongs at MOMA. In fact, we could make an ART museum out of them if we had cool textures and colors of different metallic alloys that were tested on the rovers as part of them.

[Kerbface]

Really? You think there's a point where scientific curiosity decides, "No, we know enough about that completely alien location already"?

I think there's a point where scientific curiosity decides "We know enough about this no longer completely alien location already that is not worth spending a lot of money to go back to it again when with the same money we could go to a truly alien location where we could learn a whole lot more".

[drakesdoom]

It is not a matter of if but when. Those rovers on mars eventually someone is going to want to be building a house or factory or something there and they will be moved into a museum first I would hope. Then again there are many interesting things buried under our current cities that are not even mentioned in history books.

[Temstar]

What is NASA's problem with people "disturbing" the Apollo landing sites... I mean they're not going to intentionally ruin anything. If anything the ascent stage engine of the LM did more damage to everything in the surrounding area, than any little rover would do...

Because in trying to land a rover near an Apollo landing site there is always going to be some chance of things going wrong and the team losing control over the lander and it crashing into Apollo relics. Some of the Apollo relics like the retro reflectors are pretty useful and people still use them today to measure distance between Earth and the moon. If one of them or worse Tranquillity Base is destroyed by a out of control lander people are going to be pissed.

[Jacob01]

I think the only reasons for a landing near a probe or rover would be if the area was very interesting or maybe to repair the probe or rover.

Although very unlikely, they might visit places such as the Apollo landing sites to prove they actually happened. I doubt that would happen though, as there is already proof to say they did happen, such as the mirrors they placed on the moon which they can use to measure the distance between Earth and The Moon.

I don't see landing near out of service probes happening anytime soon.