11 Amazing Things NASA's Huge Mars Rover Can Do 147
TheNextCorner writes "NASA is getting set to launch its next Mars rover this week. The car-size Curiosity rover is the centerpiece of NASA's $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission, slated to blast off Saturday (Nov. 26) from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. The rover will employ 10 different science instruments to help it answer questions once it touches down on the Red Planet in August 2012."
Can it convert (Score:5, Funny)
Can it convert imperial measurements to metric measurements?
Re:Can it convert (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
$s, €s. or £s?
Late Breaking News from the Council: CONVERT! (Score:5, Funny)
Dispelling rumors of the threat posed by a nuclear-powered, laser-armed robotic invader, K'Breel, Speaker for the Council of Elders, said:
Having been reminded that the gelsacs of many metrication consultants were punctured to bring them this information [slashdot.org], there were no questions from the press corps.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Let me happily announce that the answer to your question is a definite and resounding YES [lmgtfy.com].
Re:Can it convert (Score:5, Funny)
No, but the crater it will leave in the Martian surface is impressive in any measurement system.
Thats not all! (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:1)
It broke.
Drift (Score:1, Funny)
Can it drift? Otherwise I'm interested.
If there is life, the Dutch will find it... (Score:3, Funny)
No terraforming? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:No terraforming? (Score:5, Interesting)
Sure it can... it will just take a few billion years.
One misplaced micro-organism and it could set off evolution on mars that will slowly terraform the planet over the next few billion years.
Re: (Score:3)
Um, no. Unless that micro-organism is already adapted to conditions under which no micro-organisms can grow.
However, one misplaced primordial soup, and we could be saying hello to Grzpltrx on the return journey in a few billion years.
Re:No terraforming? (Score:5, Interesting)
Bacteria have been found alive on the outside of satellites that have not had contact with earth for months.
If they can survive on the exterior of man made objects in space- it is potentially possible they could survive on Mars.
One of the theories of origin, pan-spermia, is that simplistic organisms (or their precursors) spread to earth via space debris.
Re: (Score:3)
Earth was the best place for them to land.
As for those stories of bacteria living on satellites yada yada, just how did we find those bacteria without bringing the satellite back in contact with Earth?
Re: (Score:1)
I hadn't heard about the satellites before but bacteria have survived on the moon:
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/ast01sep98_1/
Re: (Score:2)
Did they breed? What did they eat? Did they evolve?
Re:No terraforming? (Score:4, Informative)
That has been discounted. It was most likely biological contamination when the Surveyor cameras were brought back to Earth.
http://www.space.com/11536-moon-microbe-mystery-solved-apollo-12.html [space.com]
Re:No terraforming? (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying it is likely- just possible. Get the right extremophile bacteria on mars and the potential is there.
Even if they are not ideally suited- all they need to do is be able to survive and reproduce. Thriving is not required.
There are species that can survive wild temperatures and dry conditions. Species that can survive all sorts of conditions. Bacterial species are not like animal species- genetic information is easily spread.
If one species can survive the temperature- one species can "feed" on mars-etc, etc, - if they're all there in a rare event they could exchange the right genetic information and survive on mars.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
As for those stories of bacteria living on satellites yada yada, just how did we find those bacteria without bringing the satellite back in contact with Earth?
It was an experiment. High-tech petri dishes were bolted to the exterior of a satellite and left alone for months. Then they were analyzed on the ISS or returned to NASA in containment vessels.
Re: (Score:2)
... the OOL theory that attracts least interest from the OOL (Origin Of Life) researchers, because it does damned-all to explain the origin of life (it merely moves the locus of the problem to some other, unknown, location and conditions).
You may not get this impression from watching Discovery Channel. But then again, the producers and writers of Discovery Channel aren't OOL researchers.
Re: (Score:2)
#1 (Score:5, Funny)
It can go to MARS! Well, assuming all the measurements are in metric [wikipedia.org] (although if they aren't, it'll still go to Mars, just a little faster than expected.)
Ok, now that's out of the way
Curiosity's ChemCam instrument can vaporize rocks from up to 30 feet (9 meters) away with a laser. Three spectrographs will analyze the composition of the vaporized bits.
Anyone else find it disturbing that we are putting lasers on robots now? And putting them in space? It's like we're asking for Skynet to develop. Let's hope we just don't see the headline "Curiosity killed the human" next.
Re:#1 (Score:4, Funny)
Psychotic laser-equipped misanthopic robots don't kill people.
People kill people.
Re: (Score:3)
Psychotic laser-equipped misanthopic robots don't kill people.
People kill people.
Why am I getting a bad feeling about this?
First, Grunt-Phobus 'doesn't get out of orbit'. Now, we have rock-vaporizing lasers on another 'Mar's' satellite.
They're both large complicated machines with quite a bit of computer power.
I just don't like the vibe I'm getting from this. Not at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Psychotic laser-equipped misanthopic robots don't kill people.
People kill people.
Why am I getting a bad feeling about this?
First, Grunt-Phobus 'doesn't get out of orbit'. Now, we have rock-vaporizing lasers on another 'Mar's' satellite.
They're both large complicated machines with quite a bit of computer power.
I just don't like the vibe I'm getting from this. Not at all.
The odd thing is, after 10 years of war and 4 billion deaths, all they wanted was to feel loved, a few words of approval from their engineers.
Re: (Score:2)
Just be happy that they didn't put a monkey in charge. Skynet + Planet of the Apes = Planet of the Robot Apes. BoboChimpNet?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I have a tweet the @BBCScienceNews that some degree of contact has been re-established with Phobos-Grunt.
Which doesn't get the mission back under way, but it's a necessary first step.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Psychotic laser-equipped misanthopic robots don't kill people.
People kill people.
nig.. *ooooo don't go there*
Re: (Score:1)
and lawyers.
Re:#1 (Score:5, Funny)
We're only putting them on robots because we ran out of sharks. Once we run out of robots, then I suppose we'll start putting them on lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to be bucking a trend:
Thing || Redeeming aspect(s)
Shark || occasionally does not eat it's own offspring
Robot || can be used to build/construct/manipulate the world to be more suitable for people
Lawyers || N/A
So, shouldn't it be:
Robot -> Shark -> Lawyer
or
Lawyer -> Shark -> Robot
Re:#1 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's actually not all that much more complex or risky than the system used to land the previous two rovers. Seriously, I'm getting tired of people flapping about as if this were some totally new thing - because it isn't. Every landing method has it's flaws and ri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since we aren't controlling remotely - control lag is utterly irrelevant.
Depending on how you count, it's either the first (with winches) or the third (stop-and-drop). You've forgotten about Sojourner.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone else find it disturbing that we are putting lasers on robots now? And putting them in space? It's like we're asking for Skynet to develop. Let's hope we just don't see the headline "Curiosity killed the human" next.
Its proof that NASA knows there's life on Mars *AND ITS HOSTILE!!!!!*
I bet its the Decepticons.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else find it disturbing that we are putting lasers on robots now?
Nope. C'mon, it's cool! Robot probes with frickin' lasers beams attached to their heads!
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone else find it disturbing that we are putting lasers on robots now? And putting them in space? It's like we're asking for Skynet to develop.
I realize that is in jest, but something to think about:
There is a wider difference between the rovers current software and a skynet like murder-bot, than there is between our current UAV drones and a skynet like murder-bot.
The UAV's can do 95% of the hunting down and targeting process all by itself.
The only reason it can not fire on it's own is due to a design choice in software.
With a malicious reflashing of a UAV drone, the entire killing process can be automated and left on its own.
Of course the larger
Re: (Score:2)
That is true, although currently all robotic technology requires significant human input to continue operation. A rogue UAV could do a lot of damage, true, but it only carries a couple of missiles. A rogue RTG powered tank (which this rover basically is, just without armor) with a laser powerful enough to vaporize rock, designed to operate millions of miles away from humans in harsh terrain? Nearly unlimited destruction. Except for the obvious problems with using an RTG in combat, the military would love a
#0 (Score:5, Insightful)
I'll be impressed if it actually manages to land there. Otherwise the things it can do after landing are pointless.
Re:#0 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
It's a shame they couldn't roll one of the other rovers out there to film it :).
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they can point MRO [wikipedia.org] at it instead. It's not as if it hasn't been done before [wikipedia.org].
Re:#0 (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Descent stage wasted (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Lets hope they don't land in Mars spring time [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, one of the listed items is the Mars Descent Imager (MARDI):
It very likely won't be a live HD youtube stream of the entire landing but it should allow us to see part of the landing process.
$2.5 Billion?! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
TheOnion coverage (Score:2)
This will inevitably happen to MSL as well.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is, MSL has a frickin' laser beam attached to it's head as well as nuclear power.
If we ever do go to Mars, we may have to worry about the reception we'll receive...
Marvin says: (Score:2)
A laser armed rover sounds a lot like a high tech tank.
It needs swarmbots. (Score:5, Interesting)
It should have a cargo-hold full of Wall-E type devices that can scatter during the day and return home to charge at night.
Give more than one scientist at a time a chance to drive.
(And reduce the risk of total mission failure in case of a Walowitz incident.)
Breaking news (Score:1)
The real question, of course (Score:1)
If I had say in the matter. . . (Score:5, Interesting)
If I had say in the matter, I would include more redundance.
Instead of one of each type of camera on the mast, I would include redundant cameras on each mast.
Instead of one mast, I would require two masts, with separate motors, computers, etc.
I would include both mechanical (or pneumatic if compressors that work in that environment can be made compactly enough) and electrostatic lens cleaning mechanisms.
I would include redundant "legs" and wheels, with the primary set being ejectable in the event of failure.
The cost would go up, but given that when you come down to it this amounts to a $2.5bil RC car, spending a few million more on extreme redundance to guarantee reliability (after it hopefully lands safely) is very cheap insurance - it's not like you can just send out a minimum-wage Geek Squad "technician" to (hopefully) repair it and upsell it on gold-plated HDMI cables and Norton AntiVirus. ;) It'd suck if the one mast failed, or one "leg" failed without a backup unit or mechanism.
Re:If I had say in the matter. . . (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
After viewing it, I have to agree; I really like that prototype - it is ingenious in its simplicity!
Re: (Score:2)
That thing is awesome... it's like Pimp My Rover over at JPL. It looks like that thing requires a lot more human interaction to operate though.. and so maybe not the best choice for Mars with the lag time.
Re: (Score:2)
> it's not like you can just send out a minimum-wage Geek Squad "technician" to (hopefully) repair it
I bet you'd get lots of volunteers.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem, of course, is that you end up adding weight with all that redundancy. The added weight makes it more difficult to land, making it less likely the mission will succeed.
Personally, I'd just build more than one rover. While I can believe that building one cost $2.5 billion, I tend to doubt building a second one would cost another 2.5 billion. And, if everything works as planned, having two rovers wouldn't be a bad thing.
Re: (Score:2)
The mission is $2.5bil - and while a good chunk of that is R&D and implementation of the probe itself, the major chunk of it is delivery and also mission control. The cost of building redundance into the probe (and someone asked why not just add more different instruments? The added cost vs. weight for redundance to all instruments is negligible compared to the overall budget, etc. and it would suck if the optical camera dies but everything else lives - because the optical photos are what sell these mis
Re: (Score:3)
The added cost vs. weight for redundance to all instruments is negligible compared to the overall budget
It costs about $22,000 per kg to reach LEO. For a one-way to Mars, it will be about $154,000 per kg. At 900 kg, the cost of sending just the rover in rocket costs is $125-136M. The other problem is not so much the cost but the practical limitations of launch. You can't send any size or weight you want. There are size and weight restrictions on payload because of limitations on rocket technology. If you want to increase the size of the payload, you have to R&D bigger rockets. NASA is currently usi
Re:If I had say in the matter. . . (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have mod points, but just wanted to say thanks for posting a serious comment. Every comment above is just a cheap joke.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
In short, they can't without significantly adding to the cost. They are at the limit of what can be shielded using current technology (I'm referring to the heat shield). Any shield larger, needed to protect a larger payload, would cook the payload. There's some ideas on how to make larger heat shields, but they haven't been tested (or even built) yet.
I don't even know if there's a rocket large enough to carry such a large vehicle to Mars as the one you're proposing.
Finally, the cost doesn't proportionally g
Re: (Score:3)
If I had say in the matter, I would include more redundance.
Unfortunately redundancy means more weight. And less space with less functionality. The limitations on the payload are space, weight, and cost. In comparison the original Mars Viking landers cost about half as this rover and they did far, far less.
I would include both mechanical (or pneumatic if compressors that work in that environment can be made compactly enough) and electrostatic lens cleaning mechanisms.
More mechanical moving parts == more points of failure. Eventually moving parts will break down. The Spirit and Opportunity rover lost functionality of their wheels after a few years. As for pneumatic, that is really not feasible. The atmosphere of Mars is
Re: (Score:2)
The cost would go up, but given that when you come down to it this amounts to a $2.5bil RC car, spending a few million more on extreme redundance to guarantee reliability (after it hopefully lands safely) is very cheap insurance
Why do you think it costs $2.5 billion in the first place? A lot of that cost is indeed the "very cheap" redundancy you speak of.
12th thing? (Score:2)
Can it chase astronauts around the martian service when it accidentally slips into "combat" mode? I'd like to see that on youtube.
White trash voters want to know. (Score:2)
Does it have a trailer hitch?
Re: (Score:2)
It is safer, but that's because it isn't a reactor. It's powered by natural radioactive decay. I'm not sure how well encapsulated it is, but it's probable that, if something went wrong, the fuel would be dangerous mainly because it could land on someone.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think if bits from a rocket landed on someone, the radioactive nature of the bits would be the least of their worries. However, it does paint a pretty funny picture.
Re: (Score:2)
But how would you tow a boat? I mean really. They find water then build a truck that can't pull a boat?!? :P
I bet... (Score:2)
It can totally kick Spirit and Opportunity's ass. I mean its bigger and nuclear powered! No contest!
How long will it last? (Score:2)
The half life of Plutonium-238 is 87.7 years, its got two computers and some redundancy in wheels and comm.
Assuming everything is in working order upon landing how long can it last? The NASA material says it has a two year mission. Does anyone know what NASA's guess is? Could it still be doing useful work in 20 years time?
Re: (Score:2)
Replaceable nuclear batteries? (Score:2)
They really should have designed it with replaceable batteries. That way we could sent a second one later with a spare nuclear battery for it. Maybe even design the thing with 4 battery compartments since you can continue to get some juice from the old batteries.
Nuke-booty (Score:2)
You can tell it's an American probe by the nuclear-powered ass sticking up in the air.
Re:Martians? (Score:5, Funny)
First we send a shoebox sized rover. Then we send one the size of a Power Wheels kids car. Now it's a rover the size of a jeep with a nuclear RTG. What's next, a bus sized rover? When does this start to piss off the resident Martians?
When the traffic volume starts having an effect on their morning commute.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
When the most important thing in your life is money you're a sad excuse for a human being.
Re: (Score:3)
When the most important thing in your life is money you're a sad excuse for a human being.
If money isn't important to you I suggest you take all the money you have and send it to the poster you were replying to.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So money is either "the most important thing" or "not important"?
Re: (Score:2)
Money is only a tool of trade, and only fools worship their tools. I agree with the GP, if money is the most important thing in your life (let alone the only thing in your life), you're a sad excuse for a human being and I pity you.
Re:On the red planet .... (Score:2)
Curiosity killed the cat!
Re:On the red planet .... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, curiosity was merely the bait, ignorance killed him.
Re:I like how they can't decide between 10 and 11 (Score:4, Funny)
Well, it's one more amazing thing, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most rovers, you know, will have ten amazing things. You have ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you have ten amazing things on your rover. Where can you go from there? Where?
Re: (Score:2)