[refsherne]

http://gizmodo.com/5920588/

This may have been posted here before but it was sent to me today. Amazing stuff.

[BoattyGonm]

> it will be the craziest landing in the history of space exploration. The landing sequence alone requires six vehicle configurations, 76 pyrotechnic devices, the largest supersonic parachute ever built

Shudder. This is a return to the old US landing method of "flying bedstead" style - fragile and unstable. The old Russian landing system of strong spheres, airbags and unfolding petals (as used for Spirit and Opportunity) strikes me as much more reliable.

[panholio]

How many Mars Rovers will this make?

And how does this Rover's mission vary from the previous two - three?

What are they hoping to discover?

[aliceingoogs]

How many Mars Rovers will this make?

And how does this Rover's mission vary from the previous two - three?

What are they hoping to discover?

----

Discovery.

[AbeldeldepBug]

Discovery.
they must have something more specific in mind

[UltraSearchs]

> Shudder. This is a return to the old US landing method of "flying bedstead" style - fragile and unstable. The old Russian landing system of strong spheres, airbags and unfolding petals (as used for Spirit and Opportunity) strikes me as much more reliable.

A rather large understatement I feel. There'd have to be easier ways of doing it, ones that involve fewer steps.

[Jackson]

Shudder. This is a return to the old US landing method of "flying bedstead" style - fragile and unstable.

In what way is this spacecraft fragile or unstable?

The old Russian landing system of strong spheres, airbags and unfolding petals (as used for Spirit and Opportunity) strikes me as much more reliable. So why do you think the engineers went with the system they chose? A whim? Or because the evidence indicated "strong spheres, airbags and unfolding petals" wouldn't work? As the engineer says at 0:20 into the video, "It's the result of reasoned engineering and thought."

[TorryJens]

How many Mars Rovers will this make?

This is the fourth, after little Sojourner, and the larger Spirit and Opportunity.

And how does this Rover's mission vary from the previous two - three? According to the mission's Wikipedia page, "Curiosity is about five times larger than the Spirit or Opportunity Mars exploration rovers, and carries over ten times the mass of scientific instruments. It will attempt a more precise landing than previous rovers, within a landing ellipse of 7 km by 20 km, in the Aeolis Palus region of Gale Crater...It is designed to explore for at least 687 Earth days (1 Martian year) over a range of 5–20 km (3–12 miles)."

So it appears to be a much more ambitious mission, targeted much more tightly than previous missions.

What are they hoping to discover? According to Wikipedia:

The mission has four scientific goals:

1. Determine whether Mars could ever have supported life
2. Study the climate of Mars
3. Study the geology of Mars
4. Plan for a human mission to Mars

To contribute to these goals, MSL has six main scientific objectives:

1. Determine the mineralogical composition of the Martian surface and near-surface geological materials.
2. Attempt to detect chemical building blocks of life (biosignatures).
3. Interpret the processes that have formed and modified rocks and soils.
4. Assess long-timescale (i.e., 4-billion-year) Martian atmospheric evolution processes.
5. Determine present state, distribution, and cycling of water and carbon dioxide.
6. Characterize the broad spectrum of surface radiation, including galactic radiation, cosmic radiation, solar proton events and secondary neutrons.

[joeyCanada]

There'd have to be easier ways of doing it, ones that involve fewer steps.

As the engineers point out in the video, Mars has just enough atmosphere that you have to deal with it, but not enough for it to be completely helpful.

As for using fewer steps, keep in mind that Curiosity's landing process contains no more steps than that used by Spirit and Opportunity.

Both sets of missions use: heat-shield, parachute and rockets. Spirit and Opportunity then rappelled down a line, inflated airbags and dropped to the ground while the rockets held the back-shell at the hover. By contrast Curiosity will ditch its parachute earlier and complete the descent with rockets only, just like the Viking spacecraft.

[Enjoymmsq]

Well I just wish them & rover all the best..

[BreeveKambmak]

Bump*

Six days to go.

[Ruilnasr]

I'd imagine the technology to design, transport & land a mar's rover would be far more challenging,
relatively speaking, than sending a man to the moon ever was

[juidizHusw]

I'd imagine the technology to design, transport & land a mar's rover would be far more challenging,
relatively speaking, than sending a man to the moon ever was

Indeed. With the moon, we had humans to land the craft, while Mars needs to be completely automated. As they say in the video, Mars has just enough atmosphere to have to be factored for, but not enough to "finish the job".

[Jasonstawnosaa]

even though mars has a thin atmosphere it gives landers a couple more options than an airless moon. aerobraking and a parachute slowdown.

[Ayyfjicg]

How many Mars Rovers will this make?

And how does this Rover's mission vary from the previous two - three?

What are they hoping to discover?

Generally they've tried to put the landers down on large areas of relatively flat ground to minimise landing risk, but plains aren't the most exciting places to look at. So they're trying to land this one inside a crater, which should have more exposed rock and therefore be a bit more interesting geologically. But they needed much more accuracy to do that right, hence the change in landing technology. It's a trade off between risk and potential return. Hopefully it pays off.

[valentinesdayyy]

even though mars has a thin atmosphere it gives landers a couple more options than an airless moon. aerobraking and a parachute slowdown.

The thin atmosphere is a bug, not a feature.

Landing in a vacuum means simply that you use rockets all the way down. With a thick atmosphere like the Earth, you can use aerobraking and parachutes to do the whole job. But with Mars, as Carmen pointed out from the video, "Mars has just enough atmosphere to have to be factored for, but not enough to "finish the job"".

[newwebstar]

The thin atmosphere is a bug, not a feature. well, there is a different school of thought. zubrin thinks it is a plus for landers.

[Imalaycle]

Landing in a vacuum means simply that you use rockets all the way down.

Why can't you do that in an atmosphere?

[favwebbb]

http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/7126/7622.aspx

Upon arrival at Mars, a spacecraft is traveling at velocities of 4 to 7 kilometers per second (km/s). For a lander to deliver its payload to the surface, 100 percent of this kinetic energy must be safely removed. Fortunately, Mars has an atmosphere substantial enough for the combination of a high-drag heat shield and a parachute to remove 99 percent and 0.98 percent respectively of the kinetic energy. Unfortunately, the Martian atmosphere is not substantial enough to bring a lander to a safe touchdown. This means that an additional landing system is necessary to remove the remaining kinetic energy.

[Zaebal]

Why can't you do that in an atmosphere? you use extra fuel which you have to get to the target planet. so to use the atmosphere to shed a good proportion of you arrival velocity seems a good idea.