Slashdot Mirror
NASA Launching Two Mars Rovers in June
shaniber writes "NASA is planning the launch of the Mars Exploration Rovers this month. The rovers are scheduled for two two separate launches, between June 5th and July 15th. These rovers will both work as robotic geologists, including a human-eye height panoramic camera and a miniature thermal emmision spectrometer amongst their scientific equipment. NASA plans on webcasting the launches, as well. A press kit, with many more details, is also available as a pdf."
The science payload's page is on Cornell's site here.
Spacecraft
Cruise vehicle dimensions: 2.65 meters (8.7 feet) diameter, 1.6 meters (5.2 feet) tall
Rover dimensions: 1.5 meter (4.9 feet) high by 2.3 meters (7.5 feet) wide by 1.6 meter (5.2 feet) long
Weight: 1,062 kilograms (2,341 pounds) total at launch, consisting of 174-kilogram (384-pound) rover, 365-kilogram (805-pound) lander, 198-kilogram (436-pound) backshell and parachute, 90-kilogram (198-pound) heat shield and 183-kilogram (403-pound) cruise stage, plus 52 kilograms (115 pounds) of propellant
Power: Solar panel and lithium-ion battery system providing 140 watts on Mars surface
Science instruments: Panoramic cameras, miniature thermal emission spectrometer, MÃssbauer spectrometer, alpha particle X-ray spectrometer, microscopic imager, rock abrasion tool, magnet arrays
Rover A Mission
Launch vehicle: Delta II 7925
Launch period: June 8-24, 2003
Earth-Mars distance at launch: 105 million kilometers (65 million miles)
Mars landing: Jan. 4, 2004, at about 2 p.m. local Mars time (8:11 p.m. Jan. 3 PST)
Landing site: Gusev Crater, possible former lake in giant impact crater
Earth-Mars distance on landing day: 170.2 million kilometers (105.7 million miles)
One-way speed-of-light time Mars-to-Earth on landing day: 9.46 minutes
Total distance traveled Earth to Mars (approximate): 500 million kilometers (311 million miles)
Near-surface atmospheric temperature at landing site: -100 C (-148 F) to 0 C (32 F)
Primary mission: 90 Mars days, or "sols" (equivalent to 92 Earth days)
Rover B Mission
Launch vehicle: Delta II 7925H (larger solid-fuel boosters than 7925)
Launch period: June 25-July 15, 2003
Earth-Mars distance at launch: 89 million kilometers (55 million miles)
Mars landing: Jan. 25, 2004, at about 1:15 p.m. local Mars time (8:56 p.m. Jan. 24 PST)
Landing site: Meridiani Planum, where mineral deposits suggest wet past
Landing time: Approximately 1:15 p.m. local Mars time (8:56 p.m. PST)
Earth-Mars distance on landing day: 198.7 million kilometers (123.5 million miles)
One-way speed-of-light time Mars-to-Earth on landing day: 11 minutes
Total distance traveled Earth to Mars (approximate): 491 million kilometers (305 million miles)
Near-surface atmospheric temperature at landing site: -100 C (-148 F) to 0 C (32 F)
Primary mission: 90 Mars days, or "sols" (equivalent to 92 Earth days)
Program
Cost: Approximately $800 million total, consisting approximately of $625 million spacecraft development and science instruments; $100 million launch; $75 million mission operations and science processing
ESA launched their Mars probe on June 2nd. So, in about half a year there will be three different probes landing on Mars if everything goes as planned.
"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal lobotomy"
Part of the intention of having 2 rovers is that they can assist each other. This should make it more difficult to get a rover irreversibly stuck by a rock (as happened last time). If this happens the other rover can now be manoeuvred to nudge the stuck one free of any obstcle.
NASA is under a lot of pressure for a successful Mars mission after the recent failures on the red planet and having 2 rovers minimises the risks.
An extreme example maybe but The Sun is the mostly widely read paper in the UK (highest circulation figures). Most Europeans have distinct reservations about the UK press and its opinion forming effect on the UK populace.
Well it's a fine idea except that it doesn't work consistently in practice outside of a thought experiment or an impossible lab environment. Why? For a couple of reasons.
1. Because things move: wind, dust, heat distortion, light changing, etc. Even more when there is organic matter around (pollen, insects, animals, shadows, etc.). Your brain is good at tricking you into seeing stereoscopically. But all these subtle distortions would break that pipeline. It's like your internal 3D driver is optimized for a specific test case, and then the situation changes. You'd see flickering and geometry popping when it shouldn't, and it won't feel right. Just ask nVidia. All of this could be manually filtered out, but then it's not a real image any more, and it's subject to somebody's interpretation of what things were "supposed to" look like.
2. Because it's actually easier to take two simultaneous pictures with fixed-position mounted lenses than it is to move a single camera a specific distance in a short amount of time and then take another picture. Why add a risk-prone mechanical engineering task to the problem? Just to save on the cost of a second lens/CCD? Come on, the fuel to get out there costs a bit more, and the weight of the mechanics to move and sense position is heavier than a second lens/CCD anyway.
There is a stereo camera on Beagle 2. There were also two cameras on Mars Pathfinder which were used to produce stereo panoramas.
There is not (too much) competition. For instance: The american rover can use the Mars Express for comunication with Earth and the Beegle can use the american probes in case of problems.
The programs are complementary (well, the japanese one is a little less complementary, but only because is arriving four years later..).
The European Space Agency successfully launched theirs last Monday on a Russian rocket. Theirs cost $80 million compared to the US $400 million per craft. The Euros just have a robotic arm, while the Yanks use artificially intelligent rovers.
There is a low fuel (cheap) path to Mars in a two month window every 2.5 years. So this is why you see a flurry of launches. With a 40% success rate over the decades- 41 of 66 Mars craft didnt make it- hopefully at least one of these three will succeed. Lots of interesting craft planned for 2005 and 2008 launches.
I don't begrudge expensive manned space expeditions... but I would preffer if they actually spent that money to explaore rather than bore holes in the sky up in Earth orbit. Read Zurbin or go to www.marsdirect.com and read about how we could easily head to the red planet with those rovers easily withen the current space budget for manned exploration.
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
If you have a decent 3D graphics card and an interest in unmanned space exploration, you should download Celestia:
a ges/mer.htm
http://www.shatters.net/celestia/
It runs on Windows, Linux, and OS X . . . Then, install one of the many spacecraft add-ons here:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~jackcelestia/
Images are here:
http://homepage.eircom.net/~jackcelestia/browseim
One add-on features a detailed model of the Mars rovers in interplanetary cruise configuration, together with two proposed trajectories for each rover. Add a high-resolution (8k x 4k) texture and bump map for Mars, and you'll have a very detailed and accurate simulation of the Mars missions. We're still trying to get trajectory data from the ESA so that we can make an add-on for the Mars Express mission.
--Chris