Spirit also has an X-Ray detector as well. The only thing Spirit doesn't have (besides simple weather instruments that NASA had on past probes) is the "mole" and ovens. But if you want to talk science density, look at how much stuff Viking 1&2 had in them. The Viking had way more "test for life" experiments on it than either Spirit or Beagle.PC-Engine said:
This is primarily probably a conservative estimate of MTBF, and one of budgeting. What was the predicated "mission length" of Voyager and Pioneer vs actual? If Spirit makes it past 90 days with no data showing degradation, they may fund it for a few more months.
The point of Spirit isn't to test for life (Viking/Beagle). I don't even think the point of Spirit is to search for the conditions of life. I think Spirit's primary purpose is a technology demonstration program to refine rover technology for an eventual sample search and return mission from Mars before the first manned mission. Just like Deep Space 1 was an ion-engine test platform, and PathFinder was the test mission for air-bag landings and mini-rovers, I think Spirit is just an alpha test of things to come, not a one off mission.
Deep Space 2, had it worked, would have proven NASA could send $27 million 3.7kg probes into the martial soil (ala "mole" on Beagle) on a shoe string budget. It failed, so we may not see anymore of those missions (shame, since the whole thing cost like $30m) . Had it succeeded, there probably would have been a follow on mission with more numerous and fancier probes.
I've had my fill of stationary/immobile landers. I must admit, I find Spirit alot more "sexy" than the stationary probes. The rover technology could also be used on the Moon, and perhaps other moons too. Here's hoping NASA can finally relaunch their space nuclear power program (over and above, yes pax, the protests from nutty anti-newkulor peace groups)
