Mars rover Curiosity

Shryke

ScumLord wrote: »

Shryke wrote: »

It well be some Weeks before it starts rolling around but I can't wait. It's a laboratory, on mars. Water, bacteria, evidence of the planet once being potentially habitable before losing its atmosphere.

It wasn't just that it lost it's atmosphere. It has a number of things going against it when comparing it to a life supporting planet like earth. First of all it's tiny, how much of a factor would gravity be in developing life? Second of all it has no magnetic field, it had at one time but I would assume it would be much weaker than earth's given it's size. Life needs a shield from the suns rays. Maybe mars magnetic field never provided enough of a shield. An other important factor is the lack of a moon. The moon has been very helpful to the development of life on this planet.

If there was ever life on Mars it probably never got past a very primitive state.

Ya mars lost its atmosphere when it lost its magnetic field. But before that happened, and we're talking quite a while back, mars had an atmosphere and is thought to have had water on its surface. It's smaller than earth but could have still been hospitable to life in some form.
I'm not talking advanced life necessarily but bacterial at least. No one really knows. Mars is scorched now but if life ever existed there then it might still under the surface, or there may at least be trace evidence of life having once existed there.

Colmustard

When will man get to mars, 50 years, a trip like that needs a tech leap.

Surely rockets are so last century, I wonder are they researching different drive systems. An Ion drive, an anti gravity device, a hyperspace drive, a warp drive.

baalthor

Colmustard wrote: »

When will man get to mars, 50 years, a trip like that needs a tech leap.

Surely rockets are so last century, I wonder are they researching different drive systems. An Ion drive, an anti gravity device, a hyperspace drive, a warp drive.

We could go in the next decade with current technology given a plentiful supply of money

ScumLord

Colmustard wrote: »

Surely rockets are so last century, I wonder are they researching different drive systems. An Ion drive, an anti gravity device, a hyperspace drive, a warp drive.

No rockets are still where it's at, cheap and disposable. They're talking about building a giant version of the Apollo rocket for getting bigger payloads into space.

Colmustard

baalthor wrote: »

We could go in the next decade with current technology given a plentiful supply of money

I don't think so, the problem would be the size of the lander, it would have to carry a lot of fuel to be able to get back off Mars. That would be far to dangerous,

You could see the technical houdini they had to pull to get this craft to land safely.

Also the time spent by the astronauts outside Earths magnetic shield would expose them to to much radiation. So the craft would need shielding which is heavy.

I would say right now it is not technically possible and a trip like that would need major tech leaps. But who knows when they will happen, it could be tomorrow.

AlmightyCushion

Colmustard wrote: »

When will man get to mars, 50 years, a trip like that needs a tech leap.

Surely rockets are so last century, I wonder are they researching different drive systems. An Ion drive, an anti gravity device, a hyperspace drive, a warp drive.

VASIMR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket) is currently being developed. They should have a working version of it on the ISS in a few years.

Colmustard

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

VASIMR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket) is currently being developed. They should have a working version of it on the ISS in a few years.

Now that is what I am talking about and this will get better.

Wibbs

jester77 wrote: »

Nice shot of it descending with its parachute deployed

That's bloody brilliant! :eek::):)

Colmustard wrote: »

I don't think so, the problem would be the size of the lander, it would have to carry a lot of fuel to be able to get back off Mars. That would be far to dangerous,

Not really. Gravity is lower there so half the escape velocity of Earth. Secondly the atmosphere is crazily thin so less air resistance to overcome and it's also chockablock with the ingredients to harvest for fuel, so we may note need to bring as much as we think.

You could see the technical houdini they had to pull to get this craft to land safely

Yea but they did it and with the Mark 1 human eyeball in the driving seat it's a lot easier. Though they'd probably try to automate it as much as possible as they tried to do even back in the days of Apollo. Luckily more than once they needed the oul human, the spam in a can to take over. Might mean more old stylee test pilots with buzzcuts and balls bigger than their heads, rather than the more recent technogeek chaps and chappesses. Or better yet a mixture of both like Buzz Aldrin. Serious test pilot and serious geek. If you gave the chap a tee shirt with "Im an enormous nerd" on it, he'd wear it with pride.

Also the time spent by the astronauts outside Earths magnetic shield would expose them to to much radiation. So the craft would need shielding which is heavy.

Welllll I dunno. I personally suspect the radiation won't be as big an issue as we think. Look at geostationary satellites. Hell look at this probe. Really sophisticated tech easily damaged by radiation, ye such devices can sit in the depths of space bathed by thei radiation and keep on ticking and I can't recall one going up encased in a couple of feet of lead.. Add in good planning of course. Couple of ways you can reduce exposure anyway. Lots of radiation types are quite easily stopped. EG Alpha particles get stopped by your skin. You could do what they did with Apollo and point the engines and fuel and water supply(water is really good at absorbing some bad stuff) "into the wind" as it were. That would stop a lot of it. Plus there are newer materials that are very thin, can even be used as a fabric and stop various forms of radiation.

I would say right now it is not technically possible and a trip like that would need major tech leaps. But who knows when they will happen, it could be tomorrow.

Oh I reckon we could do it today C. "All" we need is the will. Von Braun had originally envisaged humans on Mars by the 1980's if his plans had stayed on track.

Going to the moon again should be first though. That way we could make a sustainable trip service to Mars. Otherwse we could fall into the one shot wonder that got us to the moon. An incredible achievement to be sure, but would have been better if we'd built near earth orbit stations to make the leap to the moon and beyond far easier. The biggest problem(well one of them) is heavy lifting slipping the bonds of this oul Earth in the first place.

Mr.Crinklewood

Bloody thing killed my cat.

Cú Giobach

Colmustard wrote: »

When will man get to mars, 50 years, a trip like that needs a tech leap.

Surely rockets are so last century, I wonder are they researching different drive systems. An Ion drive, an anti gravity device, a hyperspace drive, a warp drive.

Ion thrusters are already out there.
Warp drives might be a few years away yet.

http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ion_prop.asp

Capt'n Midnight

Colmustard wrote: »

Also the time spent by the astronauts outside Earths magnetic shield would expose them to to much radiation. So the craft would need shielding which is heavy.

or use the fuel and food they have to carry anyway. On the outward journey they can also use the lander.

solar flares are short duration so use a small panic room

I would say right now it is not technically possible and a trip like that would need major tech leaps. But who knows when they will happen, it could be tomorrow.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/vonn1952.htm This what was proposed in 1952. Main problem with doing that today is that you couldn't glide down.

Grimreaper666

I'll give it 4 or 5 days before some Martian picks it up and adds it to his toy collection just like Beagle 2........

Capt'n Midnight

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

VASIMR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variable_Specific_Impulse_Magnetoplasma_Rocket) is currently being developed. They should have a working version of it on the ISS in a few years.

VASIMR has been in development since the 1970's

Or

Hall Effect Thrusters that the Russians have been using for the last 40 years. Hundreds of which have been used in space with no failures.

Tough choice,


( and not a little 'not invented here' in the mix )

Shryke

So. sick. of. martian. jokes. already.

opinion guy

Shryke wrote: »

So. sick. of. martian. jokes. already.

Why did the Martian cross the road ? :P

Chuck Stone

Jupiter's moons should be the next priority imo.

Shryke

opinion guy wrote: »

Why did the Martian cross the road ? :P

To molest a farmers arse?

fryup

jayus, Mars looks like a hole of a place, absolute dismal kip

opinion guy

Shryke wrote: »

To molest a farmers arse?

Don't be ridiculous. There are no roads on Mars. And no Martians for that matter. :rolleyes:


:P

Captain Chaos

Colmustard wrote: »

When will man get to mars, 50 years, a trip like that needs a tech leap.

Surely rockets are so last century, I wonder are they researching different drive systems. An Ion drive, an anti gravity device, a hyperspace drive, a warp drive.

We can do it now with the rockets we have today, the problem is that it will be a one way trip. We don't have to technology or money to develop a system that can get people to Mars, and that is able to return to Earth. It's getting enough propellant off Earth and to Mars, to get off of Mars that is the problem. It's just to big and heavy in it's current form.

Rhys Essien

Well if the ultimate aim is to colonise Mars,people will have to go and not come back.Its going to be a lonely place for the first settlers.

dr.bollocko

From a scientific point of view what is the benefit of landing a human on mars over that of landing a one tonne mobile laboratory?

You have to plan to bring the human back. It would be incredible to live to see a human landing on Mars but would it really be necessary?

Rhys Essien

sink

dr.bollocko wrote: »

From a scientific point of view what is the benefit of landing a human on mars over that of landing a one tonne mobile laboratory?

You have to plan to bring the human back. It would be incredible to live to see a human landing on Mars but would it really be necessary?

It's not necessary to land humans on Mars to study the planet. The real reason to go is 'because it's there'. Great things are born out of bold endeavours.

Shryke

dr.bollocko wrote: »

From a scientific point of view what is the benefit of landing a human on mars over that of landing a one tonne mobile laboratory?

You have to plan to bring the human back. It would be incredible to live to see a human landing on Mars but would it really be necessary?

Resources that could be harvested would be of more interest. That wouldn't necessarily need a human on site if a reliable automated system could be transported there and set up straight out of the box as it were. Drone technology could really shine, although human life has been shown to be disposable enough in the big picture. If technicians wanted to take a big enough paycheck for a substantial amount of time and hazard pay then maybe that will be the case but it would in my mind be harvesting rather than colonization that will take president in future. Or colonization for harvesting.

ScumLord

dr.bollocko wrote: »

From a scientific point of view what is the benefit of landing a human on mars over that of landing a one tonne mobile laboratory?

The more complicated the machinery we send up the more likely it is to need some form of maintenance and administration.

Living on Mars would be a good step towards interstellar ships. As you'd have a certain amount of usable resources on the planet it's not as big a step as setting of into space on a spaceship.

If you could set up a permanent colony it would present it's own reasons for being there.

Omackeral

sink wrote: »

It's not necessary to land humans on Mars to study the planet. The real reason to go is 'because it's there'. Great things are born out of bold endeavours.

Amazing quote IMO. Whose is it?

Cú Giobach

Omackeral wrote: »

Amazing quote IMO. Whose is it?

That was the great climber George Mallory when asked why he wanted to climb Everest. Not the bold endeavours bit, just the "because it's there".;)

Wibbs

dr.bollocko wrote: »

From a scientific point of view what is the benefit of landing a human on mars over that of landing a one tonne mobile laboratory?

Because so far the mark 1 human eyeball on the ground can do much more than a rover/probe. Humans are faster, cover more ground and are much more adaptable as data gathering "devices". We learned a huge amount more about the moon when we put people on it. We can do the "Jaysus Ted what's that funny coloured rock over there? Fcuk knows Bill, better have a look" in minutes. The same thing for a rover could take weeks of meetings and planning and then it could get stuck on a rock. Now if we can get to the stage of virtual humans as probes or intelligent and fully mobile probes then cool, better bet than sending a human in a suit, but until then...

Plus if we could kick off a colony on Mars(and it's about the only place livable) we help to protect the human species by not leaving it in one place.

Solair

Wibbs wrote:

We can do the "Jaysus Ted what's that funny coloured rock over there? Fcuk knows Bill, better have a look" ...

The above script is why I hope CIE's Aeronautical Research and Space Executive never gets the green light

Capt'n Midnight

Captain Chaos wrote: »

We can do it now with the rockets we have today, the problem is that it will be a one way trip. We don't have to technology or money to develop a system that can get people to Mars, and that is able to return to Earth. It's getting enough propellant off Earth and to Mars, to get off of Mars that is the problem. It's just to big and heavy in it's current form.

dr.bollocko wrote: »

From a scientific point of view what is the benefit of landing a human on mars over that of landing a one tonne mobile laboratory?

You have to plan to bring the human back. It would be incredible to live to see a human landing on Mars but would it really be necessary?

The moon has no atmosphere and so you have to use rockets all the way down. Aero-braking on Mars means for a one way trip you need less Delta-V than to get to the moon. And we've been there.

Of course you will need more food if you go to Mars, and a bit of living space wouldn't hurt.

Two or three Saturn 5's could probably do the job. One to launch Skylab type living quarters. Another to launch the lander and fuel. The third would be to send the ascent stage ahead. ( In the right area it could easily make fuel from Nuclear power + water + carbon dioxide )

You'd have no shortage of people willing to take a one way trip to Mars, if you could sort out a greenhouse.

Here's how the Aussies would do it
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/marsoz.htm

Cú Giobach

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The moon has no atmosphere and so you have to use rockets all the way down. Aero-braking on Mars means for a one way trip you need less Delta-V than to get to the moon. And we've been there.

It's actually easier to land on the Moon than Mars, the biggest problem with Mars is the actual density of its atmosphere, its thick enough to burn up, but too thin to slow down by any decent amount, hence the need for some serious parachutes and a powered decent.
For the Moon you just fly straight down from orbit no atmospheric entry to worry about, that's actually quite easy to do.

Capt'n Midnight

Cú Giobach wrote: »

It's actually easier to land on the Moon than Mars, the biggest problem with Mars is the actual density of its atmosphere, its thick enough to burn up, but too thin to slow down by any decent amount, hence the need for some serious parachutes and a powered decent.
For the Moon you just fly straight down from orbit no atmospheric entry to worry about, that's actually quite easy to do.

For the moon you burn off half your total mass on the way down, which is a lot of overhead.

If you choose to land in a deeper crater you can use smaller parachutes.



And yes NASA choose about the most complex landing method possible
a pair of 75Kg Tungsten weighs discarded and had 140Kg of fuel left over (and 76 pyrotechnic devices ) and another six 25Kg weights when deploying parachute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

The spacecraft flight system had a mass at launch of 3,893 kg (8,580 lb), consisting of an Earth-Mars fueled cruise stage (539 kg (1,190 lb)), the entry-descent-landing (EDL) system (2,401 kg (5,290 lb) + 390 kg (860 lb) of propellant), and a 899 kg (1,980 lb) mobile rover with an integrated instrument package

Atmosphere got them from 4,500 m/s to 470m/s ( Use the rocket equation to work out how much fuel that would need, hint : you have to use a storable fuel )

parachute got them from 470m/s to 100 m/s before the sky crane took over.

I can't help thinking that between all the tungsten weights and the skycrane and its fuel that they couldn't have got a second parachute or hang glider.

BTW the Atlas that launched it weighed about 1/10th of a Saturn V

Cú Giobach

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

For the moon you burn off half your total mass on the way down, which is a lot of overhead.

If you choose to land in a deeper crater you can use smaller parachutes.



And yes NASA choose about the most complex landing method possible
a pair of 75Kg Tungsten weighs discarded and had 140Kg of fuel left over (and 76 pyrotechnic devices ) and another six 25Kg weights when deploying parachute

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory

Atmosphere got them from 4,500 m/s to 470m/s ( Use the rocket equation to work out how much fuel that would need, hint : you have to use a storable fuel )

parachute got them from 470m/s to 100 m/s before the sky crane took over.

I can't help thinking that between all the tungsten weights and the skycrane and its fuel that they couldn't have got a second parachute or hang glider.

I said it was easier.

BTW the Atlas that launched it weighed about 1/10th of a Saturn V

Hardly surprising, considering the Saturn V could lift 130 tonnes into orbit, or bring 50 tonnes to the Moon.

Chuck Stone

Could they get the other rover to meet curiosity so they could go at each other hammer and tongs like they used to on robot wars?

07734

Im delighted the mission is going well so far. I mean, you never know when you might need another photo of a rock or a crater.

Turtwig

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Could they get the other rover to meet curiosity so they could go at each other hammer and tongs like they used to on robot wars?

Curiosity uses his phwoar Lazer gun! ! !
Curiosity wins.

Jarren

A group of natives started a protest now.....

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/08/08/article-2184966-146D5F6B000005DC-361_636x404.jpg

opinion guy

Jernal wrote: »

Curiosity uses his phwoar Lazer gun! ! !
Curiosity wins.

Ah neither of them could match the Crushinator

Duggy747

I'm looking forward to the HD video of the surface, that'll be spectacular.