Author Topic: Curiosity has landed  (Read 29218 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

HLA-27b

  • Guest
Re: Curiosity has landed - videoconference - no vido this time
« Reply #75 on: August 18, 2012, 08:48:28 pm »
http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/24773693

NASA hosts a media teleconference at 10:30 a.m. PDT (1:30 p.m. EDT, 1730 UTC), Friday, Aug. 17, to provide a status update on the Curiosity rover's mission to Mars' Gale Crater.


Apparently they decided to be economic with the video conferences. Much cheaper and quicker this way, also no need to wear pants  :D
 

Offline AntiProtonBoy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 770
  • Country: au
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #76 on: August 23, 2012, 06:42:36 am »
Complete MSL Curiosity Descent - Full Quality Enhanced 1080p + Heat Shield impact



 8) 8) 8) 8)
 

Offline saturation

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4788
  • Country: us
  • Doveryai, no proveryai
    • NIST
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #77 on: August 23, 2012, 02:05:16 pm »
Very nice, FWIW the actual close ups of the terrain, that looks like the deeper bottom of oceans: very fine silt, smooth and powder like, about 100m or more deep, and fairly uniform.
Best Wishes,

 Saturation
 

Offline SoftwareSamurai

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Country: us
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #78 on: August 24, 2012, 07:21:41 pm »
Apparently the fancy landing system wasn't exactly perfect. NASA thinks the landing rockets kicked up some small rocks, and they apparently broke the wind sensor.

Now, I know these people did an amazing job getting Curiosity safely to Mars, but didn't it dawn on at least one person that maybe the high velocity of the landing rockets would whip up a lot of dirt/debris/small rocks which could potentially damage any delicate onboard instruments, like, oh I don't know...the wind sensor perhaps? :o
 

Offline bullet308

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 341
  • Country: us
  • Jack of All Trades, Master of None Related to EE
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #79 on: August 25, 2012, 01:10:57 am »
I think they would argue that a protective cover is just one more possible point of failure that would disable the instrument just as surely as a rock. You roll the dice, sometimes you roll snake eyes...
>>>BULLET>>>
 

Offline Psi

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7587
  • Country: nz
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #80 on: August 25, 2012, 01:31:33 am »
I'm reposting this because it got clobbered by subsequent pages/pictures an i think many people missed seeing it.
And it's pretty awesome :)

http://www.360pano.eu/show/?id=731

Works best on a fast PC that can keep up with the rendering as you rotate.
Greek letter 'Psi' (not Pounds per Square Inch)
 

Offline MikeK

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 577
  • Country: us
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #81 on: August 25, 2012, 06:32:58 pm »
Apparently the fancy landing system wasn't exactly perfect. NASA thinks the landing rockets kicked up some small rocks, and they apparently broke the wind sensor.

Now, I know these people did an amazing job getting Curiosity safely to Mars, but didn't it dawn on at least one person that maybe the high velocity of the landing rockets would whip up a lot of dirt/debris/small rocks which could potentially damage any delicate onboard instruments, like, oh I don't know...the wind sensor perhaps? :o

It only broke one of the wind sensors.  The other one is still perfect.  Maybe what they simulated didn't kick up any debris?  I dunno.   They said they could have gone with previous designs, but this one is more accurate.  They probably needed the greater accuracy because of the much more sophisticated equipment on this rover.  It's likely the sensor wouldn't have worked properly with a shield.  I dunno.  Hindsight is 20/20 and it's quite easy to play armchair quarterback and second-guess hundreds of qualified engineers.  I think they've done a helluva job.
 

Offline firewalker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2367
  • Country: gr
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #82 on: September 13, 2012, 09:34:04 pm »
Become a realist, stay a dreamer.

 

Offline firewalker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2367
  • Country: gr
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #83 on: September 25, 2012, 07:06:05 am »
Become a realist, stay a dreamer.

 

Offline Thor-Arne

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 503
  • Country: no
  • tinker - tinker, little noob.....
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #84 on: September 25, 2012, 07:16:22 am »


LOL.
I'll look out for some interesting hardware to scavenge then.  :P
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 31345
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #85 on: September 25, 2012, 10:23:53 am »
So I take it the dark area around the lander was caused by the landing stage rockets? If so it's a pretty darn big pattern by the looks of it!

Dave.
 

Offline firewalker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2367
  • Country: gr
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #86 on: September 25, 2012, 11:53:26 am »
I believe that NASA pointed that the black color around the rocket is the color of the soil under the upper layer. Not from rockets temperature.
Become a realist, stay a dreamer.

 

Offline firewalker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2367
  • Country: gr
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #87 on: September 28, 2012, 08:40:50 pm »
Almost sure there were rivers on mars.







Alexander.
Become a realist, stay a dreamer.

 

HLA-27b

  • Guest
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #88 on: September 28, 2012, 10:23:42 pm »
Apparently it is not impossible to construct a habitation space on Mars without shipping everything from Earth.

http://www.4frontierscorp.com/dev/assets/MarsSettlementPolymers.ppt

To save you from the grief of opening ppt's here are the key points:

It is possible to produce habitation modules using Filament Winding.
The result is a very high performance shell.

The two raw materials necessary for production are glass filaments and binding resin. Both can be produced on mars using raw materials known to exist there. The filaments are produced from silica sand and the resin from Methane found in the atmosphere.

According to the ppt above a 40 liter (1.135 U.S. Bushels ;D) reaction vessel  is sufficient to produce enough habitable space for 12 people in two years.

My rough estimate is that all the equipment necessary for production including reaction vessel, winding machine, power source etc. could be made as small as a school bus.
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9706
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #89 on: September 29, 2012, 02:41:17 am »
Quote
Almost sure there were rivers on mars.
Quote
Apparently it is not impossible to construct a habitation space on Mars without shipping everything from Earth
and what will be the plan to grow population there?
It's extremely difficult to start life.. one features of nature.. physical laws are mathematical theory of great beauty... You may wonder Why? our knowledge shows that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could describe the situation by saying that... (Paul Dirac)
 

HLA-27b

  • Guest
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #90 on: September 29, 2012, 11:06:22 am »
Quote
Apparently it is not impossible to construct a habitation space on Mars without shipping everything from Earth
and what will be the plan to grow population there?

The plan is the same as it is on Earth - You got to breed  ::)

But if you are asking about WHY we should populate Mars the answer is not as simple. A small temporary settlement is useful for science and exploration of course. But a large scale population is impossible without terraforming the planet, which will be murderous if there is already some form of life there. Not to forget that it may not be possible to create a habitable atmosphere on Mars. No magnetic field to protect from solar wind.

Me thinks that if breathable atmosphere cannot be created on Mars the population will have to be confined to bunker like closed spaces without freedom to roam freely. This in turn will lead inevitably to oppressive military like regime, a dictatorship. And after that it is only only a matter of time for this regime to turn hostile towards Earth.
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9706
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #91 on: September 29, 2012, 01:34:02 pm »
Quote
Apparently it is not impossible to construct a habitation space on Mars without shipping everything from Earth
and what will be the plan to grow population there?
The plan is the same as it is on Earth - You got to breed  ::)
and how many couple that is "optimum" for this? (just assume we are so marveluosly technological we can make the mars habitable)
It's extremely difficult to start life.. one features of nature.. physical laws are mathematical theory of great beauty... You may wonder Why? our knowledge shows that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could describe the situation by saying that... (Paul Dirac)
 

Offline bullet308

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 341
  • Country: us
  • Jack of All Trades, Master of None Related to EE
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #92 on: September 29, 2012, 01:44:34 pm »
I have heard it said that you need a little over 500 people total to start a genetically stable population.

Though, no law of nature says you have to ship whole people. You ship up a few dozen couples or so and a whole bunch of frozen sperm and eggs, they all have four or five kids, most by artificial methods, and you get there pretty quick.
>>>BULLET>>>
 

Offline AntiProtonBoy

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 770
  • Country: au
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #93 on: September 29, 2012, 01:49:00 pm »
So I take it the dark area around the lander was caused by the landing stage rockets? If so it's a pretty darn big pattern by the looks of it!

Dave.
Atmospheric pressure of Mars is extremely low and has a weaker gravity, so debris can spread further out.
 

Offline MikeK

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 577
  • Country: us
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #94 on: September 29, 2012, 02:19:13 pm »
Atmospheric pressure of Mars is extremely low and has a weaker gravity, so debris can spread further out.

And no (or a very weak) magnetic field.  This is the key.  The magnetic field is what protects life from being destroyed by radiation.
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9706
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #95 on: September 29, 2012, 07:49:37 pm »
I have heard it said that you need a little over 500 people total to start a genetically stable population.
Though, no law of nature says you have to ship whole people. You ship up a few dozen couples or so and a whole bunch of frozen sperm and eggs, they all have four or five kids, most by artificial methods, and you get there pretty quick.
once were told only one couple to conquer earth (when incest were excusable) but for the sake of human adventure, i would say 1 couple engineer, 1 couple doctor and 1 couple psychologist or sociologist and the rest of worker's couple depending on how much payload a ship can tolerate including the said hi-tech shelter and basic equipments. and they all need to be tested to be fertile healthy so in-vitro equipments will not be necessary except for making 12 twins in one delivery. i dont see the need for frozen sperms as frozen or not frozen (built-in), its 9 months waiting, i'm not aware any other quicker method. and not to forget one PC or laptop containing anything we know on earth.
It's extremely difficult to start life.. one features of nature.. physical laws are mathematical theory of great beauty... You may wonder Why? our knowledge shows that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could describe the situation by saying that... (Paul Dirac)
 

HLA-27b

  • Guest
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #96 on: September 29, 2012, 08:53:51 pm »
once were told only one couple to conquer earth (when incest were excusable) but for the sake of human adventure, i would say 1 couple engineer, 1 couple doctor and 1 couple psychologist or sociologist and the rest of worker's couple depending on how much payload a ship can tolerate including the said hi-tech shelter and basic equipments. and they all need to be tested to be fertile healthy so in-vitro equipments will not be necessary except for making 12 twins in one delivery. i dont see the need for frozen sperms as frozen or not frozen (built-in), its 9 months waiting, i'm not aware any other quicker method. and not to forget one PC or laptop containing anything we know on earth.

I am pretty confident that any attempt to impose breeding policy on anyone would fail miserably. You simply send a bunch of people there and if they choose to pair and breed that's their own affair, if they don't - well...

But let's not jump ahead of ourselves. First we need to decide on our Ethics of Terraforming

- If there is no life on Mars bulldoze and terraform to your heart's content. I'm all in for that
- If there is life on Mars we leave it well alone.
- If there is life on Mars it is likely microscopic so we invade anyway (US style).

Take your pick.
 

Online Mechatrommer

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 9706
  • Country: my
  • reassessing directives...
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #97 on: September 30, 2012, 04:20:40 am »
I am pretty confident that any attempt to impose breeding policy on anyone would fail miserably. You simply send a bunch of people there and if they choose to pair and breed that's their own
affair, if they don't - well...
i dont believe NASA will let such freedom considering the cost of sending 1g of mass to space. at least NASA provides education to candidates, if they object, they dont belong in the "ark".
Take your pick.
if there is "intelligent life" we negotiate, if no, we invade and preserving anykind of existing lifeform there. Mr Obama must be happy with this decision ;) (but i'm not sure about the later)
It's extremely difficult to start life.. one features of nature.. physical laws are mathematical theory of great beauty... You may wonder Why? our knowledge shows that nature is so constructed. We simply have to accept it. One could describe the situation by saying that... (Paul Dirac)
 

HLA-27b

  • Guest
Re: Curiosity has landed
« Reply #98 on: October 01, 2012, 12:12:26 am »
In the last two days I've been reading about what might be done about the humanity going to space I started to believe that it is actually quite pointless for humanity to go to Mars, bear with me...

There are two valid reasons for the humanity to go to Mars.

One is science - to search for life and study the geology of the planet. There is no intelligent life on Mars. If there was we would have found evidence by now. At best, life there consists of microscopic bacteria like things.
No mistake about it, discovery of life outside Earth, primitive or not, will be the most profound discovery we are likely to make. However if we send humans to study it there is always the chance that we will bring our own germs there and contaminate the planet forever, possibly causing the extinction of the only extraterrestrial life form we know of. This will surely qualify us for speedy extermination in the eyes of any third party should there ever be one.

Second reason is to exploit natural resources. No fishing or forestry on Mars so we are talking mining. Also maybe lebensraum  ???

There is one snag however which makes mining of planets impractical - the gravity. 80 to 90% of the mass of any spacecraft launching from Earth is fuel.  Likewise  you need 70 to 80% mass ratio for launch from Mars.
Check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocket_equation

This completely excludes the bulk ore ships like Red Dwarf and Nostromo from planet surfaces.

There is something else however. Asteroids have negligible gravity wells so getting close is easy. Besides, it is speculated that asteroids have a larger proportion of heavy metals compared to Earth's crust. Wikipedia says
Quote
In fact, all the gold, cobalt, iron, manganese, molybdenum, nickel, osmium, palladium, platinum, rhenium, rhodium, ruthenium, and tungsten mined from the Earth's crust, and that are essential for economic and technological progress, came originally from the rain of asteroids that hit the Earth after the crust cooled.[8][9][10] This is because, while asteroids and the Earth congealed from the same starting materials, Earth's massive gravity pulled all such heavy siderophilic (iron-loving) elements into the planet's core during its molten youth more than four billion years ago.[11] This left the crust depleted of such valuable elements[12] until asteroid impacts re-infused the depleted crust with metals.

So the richest place we could hope to mine are the asteroids and the hardest part of any mining operation i.e. the earth moving is much easier because gravity is conveniently lacking there. So if the aforementioned filament winding system was sent to the asteroid belt instead of the surface of Mars not only it would be easier to do so but it can also construct something akin to this



This thing can be continuously inhabited right in the asteroid belt as it has 1G on board. It could then capture small asteroids around 1km in diameter and mine them for raw for metals fuel etc. As I said, it is not profitable to send produce back to Earth. Much better to use it for construction of even more space habitats.

There are three types of asteroids in the Asteroid Belt:
C-type   -  Carbon rich
S-type   -  Silicate Rich
M-type  -  Metal Rich

Total mass in the asteroid belt is estimated to be around 4% of that of the Moon.

Here is a lengthy study on how the production might be bootstrapped (on the Moon in the example but it might be actually easier in the asteroid belt. Also never mind that it branches off to self replicating machines. They are not compulsory at the stage we are at.)

1.2MB - 88pages, illustrations
http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/880Chirikjian.pdf


In conclusion I think we will start mining asteroids long before we set foot on Mars. In fact, trying to send humans to Mars first might actually impede our progress. With the same money we could easy peasy send machinery to the asteroid belt and have them produce a habitat, all the fuel and consumables and the larger part of a descend vehicle should we still deem it important to go to the surface.



« Last Edit: October 01, 2012, 12:41:33 am by HAL-42b »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf