sounds pretty typical … money people hate creativity…unless its making more money.

Was the company by any chance ast?

Exactly! The narrator was present in the previous part and in the next one but here it is missing. I wonder why?

@@mateuszbugaj799 In the earlier videos about the beginnings of NASA, a narrator was needed to fill in the blanks. With later missions, there are enough living witnesses to tell their stories as they experienced them. That's my guess. 🤔

Haha more stalling on salary we could have been on mars decades ago according to dr zubrin

My guess: budgetary constraints - and lack of time to develop your (seemingly) simple solution. 🤔

@@TheStockwell no need of high tech nasa level research. Just a simple paint brush with uv degredation would suffice. Though simple, benefits would have been massive

@@administratorshan I'm not sure you have a real appreciation of the complexity, weight and cost of your proposed solution. Your "simple paint brush" is a significant robotic device. Just have a really deep think about what you're proposing it does, how that can be achieved in reality and the complexity it would add to what's already an incredibly complex spacecraft design. It would indeed take "high tech nasa [sic] research" to implement on a Mars rover. Simpler solutions could be found in air blowing devices and wipers more like those on an automobile, and I'm fairly sure those were proposed, but even those are still too complicated, heavy and costly for what is quite a trivial purpose - well, at least a purpose not worth the cost and addition of so many more points of potential failure that come with the addition of a robotic cleaning system, or the like. I agree it sounds like an obvious and very simple solution. Just in reality, it's not the least bit "simple".

@@PBeringer yes I agree, though it would not be so simple to us, for a professional team who nailed a skycrane landing sequence, a brush attached to the robotic arm is a walk in the park. with the added cost and weight, given the benefits of adding 5 or more years of life to the rover, that would have been the best deal ever in my opinion. It could have been a separate light robotic arm added to the side, leaving zero points of failure to other functionalities arising from this system

Sure. Whatever you say. Most of us judge NASA by their accomplishments, not perceived political flaws in the process leading TO those achievements. 😐

@@TheStockwell why shouldn’t we examine the politics along the way? Maybe its inhibiting even more/larger achievements.

For one thing, these were supersonic..

@@pseudononymouse and we have never done that before is what you are implying?

You're quite a misguided little troll. Respect! 🤡

@@TheStockwell Truth hurts.

How often does NASA find itself needing to punch holes through a Mars rover or through concrete because a sprinkler system failed? Let's try to stay on topic and avoid Nikola Tesla territory. No offense intended.

@@TheStockwell Well, they're dumb enough to not use all_magnet motors instead of solar panels so not thinking they're as smart as plumbers. A 1300hp motor fits cars powers a 1-Mw genset/container 50yr no_inputs warranty, way beyond your brain power, Belgian. 🤡

True - because Manifest Destiny dates back less than 200 years. 😐

@@TheStockwell trivial reply

@@superblondeDotOrg Accurate reply is trivial why?

That Papal Bull, but American First People differ; "You may not take over Lands Already Inhabited!"