Curiosity Lands on Mars, Sends First Picture in Minutes

[2phatcows]

http://www.space.com/16679-mars-rover-curiosity-nuclear-power-lifespan.html Basically the RTG power source can last a long time, but the drive train and various other equipment are really only warrantied for 2 years, although the craft is tested to last 6 years. JPL doesn't feel that 5 to 6 years is out of the question, but they would be pleasantly surprised if it did last that long.

 

[memadmax]

[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]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).[/citation]

One has too much dust on it AND became immobile... NASA officially lists that rover as dead.

 

[beetlejuicegr]

oh i can only wish it discovers something alien, to Mars and Earth, as object..or subject 😛

 

[Guest]

Unfortunately curiosity is on the other side of the planet so it won't be fixing or even seeing the other rovers any time soon. Opportunity has travel something like 20 km in it's 8 years. Anyone else quite surprised to learn that this rover is pretty much the size of a mini cooper?

 

[zeratul600]

[citation][nom]killerclick[/nom]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.[/citation]
now we know why they spend so much, why the cut their funds, to make them use pc, and without crapple sueing them for going into space or breathing, then maybe we can get humans to mars

 

[ashinms]

Spirit and Opportunity were meant to last a couple months, and one of them is still going. This was designed to last years... I give it 3 weeks...

 

[ashinms]

Spirit and Opportunity were meant to last a couple months, and one of them is still going. This was designed to last years... I give it 3 weeks...

 

[confish21]

cant wait for the high rez photos and video

get the mast up!

 

[cjl]

To clear things up here...

- The primary mission length is 2 years. This is how long they believe it will take to do the main task that they sent it to Mars to do

- Similarly, Spirit and Opportunity had a primary mission length of 90 sols (martian days), or around 92.5 earth days. Spirit lasted around 20 times this long before getting stuck, and Opportunity is still going, albeit in reduced capacity more than 30 times longer than the primary mission length. If MSL lasts as far beyond the expected mission as Spirit did, it will still be functioning 40 years from now. Granted, this almost definitely won't be the case, but there's absolutely no reason why it can't still be functional in 5 or 10 years

- In two years, the power source will still be fine. There will barely be any deterioration. Radioisotope thermal generators last an incredibly long time - for example, the Voyager probes, launched in 1977, still have around 66% of their original power available, using similar RTGs to the one powering Curiosity. I would be willing to bet that the power source will not be the limiting factor in Curiosity's life, as that would involve a mission duration of several decades or more.

- If this rover gets dusty, it won't matter (aside from making the pictures a bit less clear). The reason Spirit and Opportunity have problems with dust is that it covers their solar panels. Since this one is nuclear-powered, it has full power even when dusty

- As Afrospinach said, there's pretty much no possible way that this could reach either Spirit or Opportunity. It would need to drive over 1300 miles to reach Spirit (which would take a while, given its speed of a hundred feet per hour), and it would need to drive almost 5200 miles to reach Opportunity, which is very nearly on the complete opposite side of the planet.

I have to say, on the whole, this was an incredible achievement for NASA, and I was a bit skeptical about whether the whole skycrane system would work. The pictures so far are incredible too - I love the picture that MRO caught of Curiosity while it was descending under parachute. I can't wait to see what kind of results this rover gives once they're done making sure everything is working.

 

[Guest]

It can pass obstacles up to 30 inches in height ?????? Do you know how high 30 inches is?? shouldn't it be 30 cm?

 

[headscratcher]

[citation][nom]Dangi[/nom]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]
NASA has successfully landed machines on Mars 7 times. The rest of the world: 0.

It is NOT a nuclear reactor. Read.

 

[thegh0st]

ugh! wtf is up with tom's eating comments!

anyways, as I tried to comment before...congrats NASA!

I also had a question if anyone has any insight. I own a DVD of a hypothetical show I saw on discovery or one of those stations. It is called Alien Planet I believe (not at home atm) if anyone has seen it and remembers. In this show they had levitating rovers. I understand not having these actual rovers but why wouldn't NASA use a hovercraft type movement system to eliminate most terrain obstacles and traction issues in soft sand? has anyone read any articles on such a thing?

 

[pedro_mann]

[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 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]
I'll give it to ya. Wasn't really ment to be a flame. Anyhow, as other people have pointed out. It costs so much to get a rover up there, they consider it a success to reach the mission length. But, if it is still functioning, they aren't going to hit the kill switch. They get an extended budget passed and keep exploring. This is how they did it with spirit and opportunity.

 

[Wisecracker]

One hundred-plus unmanned rover missions to planets and asteroids (even outside our solar system) over the next 20 years, or a single manned mission to Mars.

I know which I choose ....

 

[cjl]

[citation][nom]thegh0st[/nom]ugh! wtf is up with tom's eating comments!anyways, as I tried to comment before...congrats NASA!I also had a question if anyone has any insight. I own a DVD of a hypothetical show I saw on discovery or one of those stations. It is called Alien Planet I believe (not at home atm) if anyone has seen it and remembers. In this show they had levitating rovers. I understand not having these actual rovers but why wouldn't NASA use a hovercraft type movement system to eliminate most terrain obstacles and traction issues in soft sand? has anyone read any articles on such a thing?[/citation]


There are a couple of good reasons not to use a hovercraft. First, and most obvious, is the fact that there just really isn't enough power. These rovers operate on an incredibly small amount of power compared to anything we're used to here on earth. Curiosity is around 2000 pounds, and it is the size of a car, and yet it has a power budget of 125 watts or so. Can you imagine a car powered by only a hundred watts? It would barely go anywhere. They can't just send up rovers with tons more power either - every bit of mass used to provide power means that they can't send up scientific instruments or cameras, making the rover that much less useful.

Second, they need a nice stable platform for scientific research. A hovercraft isn't very stable. I don't even think it would be better than the current platform at traversing obstacles - a 6-wheel drive rocker-bogie suspension is extremely good for off-road use on highly variable terrain.

Third, the atmosphere is extremely thin, which makes hovercraft much more difficult. The atmospheric pressure on Mars is less than 1% of the atmospheric pressure here on earth.

Finally (at least among the reasons I can think of right now), a hovercraft would kick up an enormous amount of dust, which is exactly what they're trying to avoid.

 

[eddieroolz]

NASA space programs at its best. Let's fund more of this instead of waging a pointless war halfway across the world, eh?