Slashdot Mirror
Cutting Edge Tech Slated For Next Mars Rover
oxide7 writes "NASA is pushing the boundaries of technology as it readies its next mission to Mars, loading up its 4th Mars Rover with nearly a dozen instruments and deploying an innovative but risky landing procedure. Scientists and engineers were piecing together some of the final components to the new rover, dubbed Curiosity, on Saturday as it ramps up for a high-stakes launch in November."
For about 1% of what the Iraq War costs us each year, it doesn't seem all that bad.
Yes. There is a nice explanation at the Curiosity site (I think) that goes through the various thought processes but basically, IIRC
- The payload AND landing zone requirements made the rubber ball bouncing technique not viable
- The unload off a ramp technique that the current rovers use doesn't scale well and has the major problem of failure if it lands on anything other than reasonably flat terrain. This limited the science and the landing site too much.
- The retrorocket system has been used by Viking and the current rovers
- The skycrane approach has a number of major advantages in terms of terrain avoidance, design of the rover, and size of payload at the expense of complexity.
The teams apparently felt that the risks were worth the benefits. Basically, they felt that unless the technology was pushed forward, the science packages would be too limited.
It is rocket science after all.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
The money is all spent here on earth. It goes for salaries, parts, labor, design, engineering, fuel. Those who get the money spend their earnings for groceries, gas, house payments, cars, shoes and junk food. Those suppliers do the same with there earnings. They hire lawn care "engineers" , painters, babysitters, oh, and they buy all of the above as well.
Somewhere along the line money gets to the burger flippers who could never understand economics 101, who post on Slashdot that everything they are not interested in is a waste of money.
They want to explore a crater, not make a new one.
NASA engineers and 'rocket scientists' have already determined that the 5 ton rover is too heavy for that method.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
No they could not. The MER (Mars Exploration Rover - Opportunity and Spirit) system can't land heavy payloads in a narrowly defined landing zone. Using that system, you get a landing ellipse of about 100 km2 area restricted to a band about 40 degrees above and below the equator (IIRC). For many, many interesting targets, that isn't good enough. You are also constrained to payloads about the same size as the baby rovers.
Yes, you can argue that the next step should be dozens of MER craft landed in many different zones. That is certainly a valid argument and one that has been made. However, according to the nice rocket scientists that have studied this for years (as opposed to us armchair astronauts who study things for 10 minutes max), it was felt that more significant research needed heavier payloads delivered with better accuracy.
I think there should be enough money in NASA's budget to fund both concepts (and Venus landers and Titan blimps and on and on) but I'm just a taxpayer.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
But that's not the argument, Osgeld.
With a mission to mars and these "cutting edge" technologies, there's at least a chance at something good, something really good coming out of it. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not so much.
Plus, there's the possibility that frontiers give a people a useful goal besides getting rich and famous. Once Americans realized that there wasn't going to be any more "going West", there seemed to set in a sad narcissism that has manifested itself in some very self-destructive behavior, privately and publicly. Having a frontier again might not be such a bad thing. And since it only costs a fraction of what the Iraq and Afghanistan wars are costing, not to mention the thousands upon thousands of human lives that are wasted - flushed down the crapper - for no reason beyond putting cash into the pockets of military contractors, having a Martian frontier, no matter how far off the benefits might be (but there will certainly be benefits) doesn't seem like such a bad idea.
When I think about buying some new tech that might be useful to me, sometimes it helps to put its expense into perspective. And that perspective is often obtained through comparison with other things I spend money on. Like a new iPad is about the same cost as 20 bottles of Bombay gin. Or a Kurzweil PC3LE7 76 Key Semi weighted action Performance Controller & Workstation Keyboard is about the same cost as a trip to Vegas (rehab and course of penicillin not included).
And in the future, I'd prefer if you didn't start a comment with "I love the argument..." when you clearly don't love the argument at all. It's not even good sarcasm, it just makes you sound small. Of course, you can do what you like, but I'm just putting you on notice that this is your first strike.
You are welcome on my lawn.