Curiosity Lands on Mars, Sends First Picture in Minutes

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
So NASA is not 4 4 4 🙂

4 for 4 rover landings going from a shoebox size to a VW Beatle.
Can't wait to see what they will dig up with this one; and of course what size #5 will be.
Congrats to the team !
 
True professionals! Sad to see funding cut for these guys, but they seem to make the most of the slim pickings with these amazing feats of engineering! The live feed was a nail-biter - I sure hope this generation can find inspiration from this and pick up an interest in the future of space flight.
 
I was watching it live on NASA's website, and was surprised by all the Macbooks they use in mission control.

Still, it was great, even if it's been 43 years after the Moon landing.
 
I'm surprised this article wasn't titled "NASA successfully sends nuclear reactor to mars" considering the flamboyant title of your last article. At least this one has some truth to it.

On Topic . The first picture is every NASA employee celebrating. All 12 of them. :)
 
[citation][nom]igot1forya[/nom] Sad to see funding cut for these guys, but they seem to make the most of the slim pickings with these amazing feats of engineering![/citation]

I wouldn't call $2.5B slim pickings, but I'd love to see a mission like this done every month. If Boeing and Lockheed Martin need to be fed, it's better that they make space stuff than weapons.
 
Sooooooo fake... This is not at all how it looks in Mass Effect.
 
[citation][nom]sp0nger[/nom]Hope this one lasts just as long as oppertunity![/citation]
Unfortunately, it won't. The MSL's radioactive power source will last for 2 years before it expires. While it will provide more operational hours during those first 2 years than the previous solar powered rovers, it'll ultimately be incapable of achieving the same operational lifespan.
 
[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]I wouldn't call $2.5B slim pickings, but I'd love to see a mission like this done every month.[/citation]
There's a relatively narrow window every two years when missions to mars are possible. If you miss it, you have to wait another two years.
 
[citation][nom]Sorel[/nom]Why in Black and White???? :S[/citation]

Those are not the high res cameras, there the ones used for navigating I think they called them HazCams, they also made mention that the bandwidth was limited during initial... something like 500Kb i think and that the images would be given only a small amount of bandwidth. There still checking to see if it landed on a safe place (no craters, cracks etc) to deploy the arm that has the cam, so the high rez shots will still be a couple of days out.

Also I don't think we really had the time to send back big detailed image even if they prioritized it. They didn't have much of a window for communication the contact with the rover was counted in min after landing. There was enough time to send two 240 pixel shots and two 420 pixel shots before they made mention about the signal being cut off because of the horizon.
 
"There are ten instruments on board that have 15 times the mass of the instruments of the payload previously carried by the now immobile Mars rovers Spirit and Opportunity, which landed on January 4 and January 25, 2004."

You should clarify that Opportunity is still active, and that only Spirit is immobile (and, in fact, inactive).

[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]Unfortunately, it won't. The MSL's radioactive power source will last for 2 years before it expires. While it will provide more operational hours during those first 2 years than the previous solar powered rovers, it'll ultimately be incapable of achieving the same operational lifespan.[/citation]

The article says that it should last many years and should still be outputting 100 W of usable power 14 years down the road.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]Unfortunately, it won't. The MSL's radioactive power source will last for 2 years before it expires. While it will provide more operational hours during those first 2 years than the previous solar powered rovers, it'll ultimately be incapable of achieving the same operational lifespan.[/citation]
Funny. Do you have a citation for this? The way I read the article it sound like it will take 14 years to reduce from 125 watts production to 100 watts. I am going to guess that they over provisioned the power generation so the Rover would be available for an extended mission. In fact, I can almost guess that is a guarantee, since they won't be trying to power the one shot ovens on an extended mission. My guess is that the mission can be extended until 14 years or wear and tear sets in, whichever comes first.
 
AT LAST !!! This time they didn't mix the unities of measurement and ended crashing the ship like last time.

I hope this gives us greater understanding of Mars, even though using a nuclear reactor is not of my liking.
 
[citation][nom]Zagen30[/nom]The article says that it should last many years and should still be outputting 100 W of usable power 14 years down the road.[/citation]
hmm, I'm so accustomed to the news articles on Tom's being pointless rehashes of information I heard last week that I didn't even take the time to read through the whole article (important lesson learned).

This is interesting. I wonder why they've said countless times that this power source allows for a mission operating lifespan of nearly two years while at the same time saying the life time of the power source is 14 years? Perhaps they're predicting 2 years of fully operational power, before it or some other component of the vehicle decays to the point where full mission operations are no longer possible?
 
[citation][nom]pedro_mann[/nom]Funny. Do you have a citation for this? The way I read the article it sound like it will take 14 years to reduce from 125 watts production to 100 watts. I am going to guess that they over provisioned the power generation so the Rover would be available for an extended mission. In fact, I can almost guess that is a guarantee, since they won't be trying to power the one shot ovens on an extended mission. My guess is that the mission can be extended until 14 years or wear and tear sets in, whichever comes first.[/citation]
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/technology/technologiesofbroadbenefit/power/

This, and every other article I've read related to this mission has suggested that the rover will last for two years. This is honestly the first time I've heard that the MSL could potentially be powered for over a decade. I guess when I repeatedly saw that two year figure tossed around, I simply assumed it was a power limitation, since it was always mentioned in relation to the power source.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/missi [...] fit/power/This, and every other article I've read related to this mission has has suggested that the rover will last for two years. This is honestly the first time I've heard that the MSL could potentially be powered for over a decade.[/citation]

"The MMRTG optimizes power levels over a minimum lifetime of 14 years."

That is that link you showed.

How the hell you get it has a 2 year lifespan?

Seriously?
 
[citation][nom]Kami3k[/nom]"The MMRTG optimizes power levels over a minimum lifetime of 14 years."That is that link you showed.How the hell you get it has a 2 year lifespan? Seriously?[/citation]
"This type of power supply will give the mission an operating lifespan on Mars' surface of a full Martian year (687 Earth days, a little less than two Earth years)"... ?

Again, this is far from the first article I've read on this mission, and the two year lifespan has always been mentioned in relation to the vehicles power source. This in combination with me never seeing any information about the 14 year lifespan of the power source led me to believe that the two year mission operating lifespan was a limitation of the power source.

It was an honest mistake dude, and I'm just trying to explain myself.
 
[citation][nom]dragonsqrrl[/nom]http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/missi [...] fit/power/This, and every other article I've read related to this mission has has suggested that the rover will last for two years. This is honestly the first time I've heard that the MSL could potentially be powered for over a decade. I guess when I repeatedly saw that two year figure tossed around, I simply assumed it was a power limitation, since it was always mentioned in relation to the power source.[/citation]
As mentioned in your own link, the minimum life span is expected to be 14 years, and it may be quite a bit longer (NASA is nothing if not resourceful). The specific mission that they sent the rover to do is expected to take ~2 years to complete, and (due to orbits and such) it will be ~2 years before the next mission will be deployed.
After it is finished with it's mission I wonder if they will send it to go 'fix' the other 2 rovers. One has too much dust on it's solar panels to operate, and another is still working but is stuck and needs a nudge (I wonder whose head rolled for that miss-step).
 
It's mission is roughly 2 years, somewhere right around there the RTG won't be able to produce enough power for movement. At that point it will become a stationary platform which can go on for several more years with good power conservation. Also, for various tests that it will be conducting will use consumables which, obviously, allows for only so much testing which isn't expected to last past it's mission of 2 years.

So, as it stands, everyone is right in this case. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom