![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Quote: "The rover will probably be powered by RTG's as the weight of a solar cell and power storage system would be prohibitive, and a solar cell system would not work very well at low Martian latitudes or in dusty conditions."
WHAT are RTG's? Rocket Towed Grenades? Rwandan Tree Gorillas? Recycled Tarantula Gases? Really Thick Glasses?
Can RTGs even power a rover like that, with all the wheels and motors T.Neo 15:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Yes, in fact MSL will be getting 2400 wh per day while the MERs get at best 900wh. MSL will have batteries that are trickle charged by the RTG.-- BerserkerBen 05:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following:
I'm a Linux advocate and free software developer (I wrote small bits of GnuCash, much of the documentation for 1.6, and a GIMP plugin for red-eye reduction), so I like to see Linux used and publicised as much as anyone. However, given that this thing appears to still be very much at the conceptual design stage, rumours that the thing might use Linux don't seem particularly notable. -- Robert Merkel 06:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The flight computer runs VxWorks. However, Linux is used heavily in development and testing of major boards connected to the flight computer (and probably many other instruments and components). --Someone who would know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.172.41 ( talk) 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just wondering: where is the RTG gone on the new rover configuration picture? -- Bricktop 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The article currently states "MSL is expected to weigh over 800 kg (1,760 lb) including 65 kg (143 lb) of scientific instruments". However, since this thing is going to operate on Mars, isn't it going to weigh less than this? Perhaps this section of the article should be more clear about distinguishing between mass and weight.
-- Pomakis 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That is Earth weight, its Martian weight is not as important as is lift off mass.-- BerserkerBen 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Who cares? Get rid of them, I tell ya! I done this, rv it if you can't sleep without obsolete picture haunting whole page. -- 80.51.70.116 11:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The news anounced that the Chemcam lost its funding and that the camera will go without zoom. Further cuts in costs will be possible. This is tipical for a new NASA boss to halt some missions to show his ability to reduce costs, the last did the same with Dawn. What really happens nobody knows.-- Stone 15:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So the Chemcam lost its funding and the camera wont have zoom, will this mean the mission will get cancelled? Oh, and by the way, what is a chemcam? T.Neo 18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Never mind about about the Chemcam, read about it in the article. T.Neo 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Dam, this is really bad, the Chemcam is not the only thing affected: http://www.planetary.org/about/executive_director/20070918.html I rather them push the mission up to 2011-2013 then cut the science like this! We should retain information on things as they were, that way we will have a live history of the development, so don't go deleting the MARDI information and changing specs without retaining the information of what was originally planned and then state how they changed. -- BerserkerBen 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
So, in reading this article I was surprised by how variable or unsure most of the claims were on the article. This makes sense from a 2006 standpoint, when most of this article was created, but it seems like now, in 2008, we should probably have more definitive information, and less future tense speculation, regarding things like the MSL's payload, landing sites, etc. Launch is only 18 months away, and so I imagine most of the science instruments are probably already completed and undergoing assembly on the vehicle. This is entirely speculation on my part, based on what i've seen with past space missions, but maybe somebody knows of an engineer's blog or NASA updates about the mission that might allow us to update this article?-- Galactoise ( talk) 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
How friggin huge is this thing? According to the chassis test picture it´s like 4 meters wide, but I can´t find any info about it in the article. -- Threedots dead ( talk) 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A landing site named "Gale" is missing from the list in the article. I don't know why, so I'm adding it boldly. -- AndersFeder ( talk) 21:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I see this out of place and unnesesary because besides of being out of place in the format, there are already 3 tables dealing with potential landing sites. I deleted it but it was replaced, so I am kindly suggesting to reevaluate this minor change. Thank you. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 13:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"The essential issue is to identify a particular geologic environment (or set of environments) that would support microbial life. To mitigate the risk of disappointment and ensure the greatest chance for science success, interest is placed at the greatest number of possible science objectives at a chosen landing site. Thus, a landing site with morphologic and mineralogic evidence for past water is better than a site with just one of these criteria. Furthermore, a site with spectra indicating multiple hydrated minerals is preferred; clay minerals and sulfate salts would constitute a rich site. Hematite, other iron oxides, sulfate minerals, phyllosilicate minerals, silica, and possibly chloride minerals have all been suggested as possible substrates for fossil preservation. Indeed, all are known to facilitate the preservation of fossil morphologies and molecules on Earth." (Referfence: Discussion Points and Science Criteria). Difficult terrain is the best candidate for finding evidence of livable conditions, and engineers must be sure the rover can safely reach the site and drive within it. (ref: Mars - Seven Possible MSL Landing Sites.- BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Is MSL taking the first video camera to Mars? And will it actually transmit back to Earth or is it just for navigational purposes, etc. If it will be, I think we should mention this as this is pretty important for deep space exploration, IMHO. -- Josh Atkins ( talk - contribs) 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Copied from NASA's MSL update: [3] Dated: 17-Sep-2007 "[...] Engineering changes to the mission include some reductions in design complexity, reductions in planned spares, some simplifications of flight software, and some ground test program changes. These changes were selected largely to help reduce mission risks. Changes in mission science content were limited to removal of the Mars Descent Imager (MARDI), the MASTCAM zoom capability from the mission, and a change from a rock grinding tool to a rock brushing tool. [...] most of MARDI's capability can be provided by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's HiRise camera now in orbit and working successfully."- BatteryIncluded ( talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
MARDI was reinstated back in Nov 2007. You edited out the reference on 17:52, 7 October 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.0.2 ( talk) Actually, MARDI has already been delivered to JPL: [4].
i heard a story about small inflatable scouts that would acompany the MSL. it was even on Popular science magazine and online. so anyidea what happend to the scout mission. cause the only thing i heard about it is that it could go with the MSL mission. [5] [6] Nrpf22pr ( talk) 17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
if you remember the student contest over the naming of the rovers that became spirit and oportunity, theyre doing it again with this mission. The contest started yesterday and the Essays must be received by Jan. 25, 2009. In March 2009, the public will have an opportunity to rank nine finalist names via the Internet as additional input for judges to consider during the selection process. NASA will announce the winning rover name in April 2009. its just about the same as the other two rovers. so im suggest to ad this to this article. [7] Nrpf22pr ( talk) 02:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
i was wondering why 2007 and 2008 in spaceflight's were on this article. since they dont have anything to do with this mission, i was wondering if it would be alright with switching them with 2011 and 2012 in spaceflight since they both have something to do with this article since its their launch dates.-- Nrpf22pr ( talk) 19:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The MSL mast camera article on the JPL website states that the mast cameras have a field of view of 1200x1200 pixels. How than can it record 1280x720 video? Does it scale the video or does it leave 40 pixels on each side blank? -- GrandDrake ( talk) 07:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group March 2009 Presentation has nice images of the instruments and the sky crane. -- Stone ( talk) 12:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Weight and landing site is discussed, but launch vehicle is not. How is it going to get to Mars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.70 ( talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The nice thing is that the MSL11 is endangering other missions like the Astrobiology Laboratory and the moon missions LADEE and ILN.-- Stone ( talk) 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The temperatures that may be encountered by the MSL are described as being between +86 F and -197 F. The maximum temperature is clearly in error - the warmest temperature ever recorded on Mars is just above the freezing point of water (32 F). This temperature is only achieved in late afternoon near the Martian equator. 64.134.154.140 ( talk) 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This debate is quickly settled by a trip to the official mission page. The previous link provided referred to the Mars Exploration Rover page. However, the official MSL page uses the term 'The Rover Electronics Module' link. Due to this, I can see no further discussion on this matter unless the official page changes the term. -- Xession ( talk) 22:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the cost increase and the problems with that mentioned properly? I think there should be a section mentioning the original price tag and the numbers wich became reality.-- Stone 13:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Presumably the speed of sound in the Martian atmosphere is not the same as it is on Earth (density, composition). Surey NASA uses a more precise kph figure? I notice that the statement is not supported by a citation. Can this text be improved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 ( talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2) This blurb is awful: "The MSL test parachute. Note the people in the lower-right corner of the image."
Why should it even matter that there are people in the image? If you want to describe the scale of the parachute, maybe you should look up the specifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.226.156 ( talk) 05:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What does it mean, "TBC"? As in "Lands on August 6, 2012 (TBC)" ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.141.21 ( talk) 16:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Going where no Mars rover has gone before; Spacecraft Curiosity to land at Red Planet's Gale Crater by Nadia Drake August 27th, 2011; Vol.180 #5 (p. 15) in Science News. 99.181.138.215 ( talk) 02:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Could we have more details of the driving and steering mechanisms. Image suggests 4 of the 6 wheels are steerable. Do all 6 wheels have their own hub motors ? How much torque can each generate ? - Rod57 ( talk) 23:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Digging Mars; The Mars Phoenix mission revived hopes that the Red Planet may be habitable, preparing the way for a new rover to be launched this month by Peter H. Smith SciAm November 3, 2011 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) mission", I think "is a NASA mission" would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.204.141 ( talk) 19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Good question- when does a set of intials become so familiar that we can omit the full name in an international encyclopedia? The way it is is technically correct, but NASA is one fo the most famous sets of intitials in the world and it did grate on me when I read it. If the NASA is linked to the Page, then perhaps we do not need to define it. IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"It will attempt to perform the first-ever precision landing on Mars" – I may be missing something but how didi Vikings land then? 89.68.115.236 ( talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The history of James Cameron and 3D changes should have a section even if the mission equipment was ultimately lost to budget.-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 07:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what the wikipedia standard protocol is, but shouldn't there be something like a Current Status section that details where the spacecraft is at the current (approximate) moment? something like: Mission day 2 (Nov 27 2011): spacecraft was successfully launched at [time, date], and has entered the cruise phase of the mission; it has successfully left Earth orbit and is now in route to Mars. Current distance (as of [time, date]) of spacecraft from Earth is approximately [xxx km (xxx A.U.)]; current distance from spacecraft to Mars is approximately [xxx km (xxx A.U.)]. That'd be really cool <smile>! thanks Lanephil ( talk) 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes - current status of the cruise mode of the MSL seems like a worthwhile idea to consider adding to the main article - current "Countdown-To-Landing" status seem to be easily available from several NASA JPL sources - ( REF-1, REF-2, REF-3) - however, current statuses of *Speed* and *Distance* do not seem to be easily available - at least at the moment - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This article currently is tagged as being too technical and too long. I just dont see it but wanted to get some other thoughts before just removing these tags. Given how complex this topic is, the article does a remarkable job of presenting the information in an accessible manner. The intro paragraphs are particularly easy to understand.-- RadioFan ( talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Please don't dumb it down just because it is technical. Some of us can read beyond the average 12 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.175.253 ( talk) 09:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but some of us can't. That is the whole point. We can write seperate articles for as many sections as we want, so lets consider doing so. An article doesn't have to be very technical- with lots of statistics and detailed specifications- to be informative. Data will not be lost if it is transferred to seperate articles. Many wikipedia articles are made far too technical just becuase our editors think they have to be very technical just for "credibility". I think the medical ones are much worse, where you have to have a degree to understand the opening paragraphs. Patience, my friends, we will reach a sensible compromise in due course.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Seeing how it's now in flight, I don't see how this is applicable. *** patchiman*** *** talk to me!*** 16:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
As i received no opposition i deleted the future spaceflights catergory *** patchiman*** *** talk to me!*** 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Although in this case, it would seem obvious to remove it- one single day is not much evidence of "no opposition"
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Each [Curiosity] computer's memory includes 256 KB of EEPROM .... This compares to 3 MB of EEPROM [for Spirit and Opportunity].
The latest has one-twelfth of this kind of memory than the earlier ones? 58.136.216.231 ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This section does not read well in terms of its content. Surely the history of a space vehicle begins with the beginning and tells a brief summary of the technical, political and financial decisions to create it- then goes into a summary of what happened during its creation, in all three aspects, then it is finalised up to launch. No way should it begin with an overspend statement.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Mars Science Laboratory → Curiosity rover – Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on being consistent with the pages named
Spirit rover and
Opportunity rover instead of Mars Exploration Rover – A and Mars Exploration Rover – B, respectively.
Thanks,
Marasama (
talk)
16:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Mars Science Laboratory → Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) – While the missions name is indeed "Mars Science Laboratory" it is also commonly known as "Curiosity". Even engineers refer to it as "Curiosity" when they discuss it in interviews. I think adding the name Curiosity to the title in parenthesis would be helpful. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Copied from User_talk:Drbogdan#Date_format_in_refs:
Could I ask why you are modifying these? I am curious because Mediawiki can allow users to change the format they wish to see from their user settings (if in ISO format). You can change how it appears via settings. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank You For Your Comments - No Problem Whatsoever - Seemed Like An OK Effort - And Was Done Mostly To Present A Bit Of Consistency To The Article For Many Readers - The References In The Article Seemed To Look Much Better And Clearer After The Editing Effort - Nonetheless, Reverting's *Entirely* Ok w/ Me - esp If There's Good Reason - And No Objections From Others Of Course - In Any Case - Thanks Again For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 22:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This might be a good source for additional data on the instruments.
-- Stone ( talk) 08:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The disputed entry on James Cameron does not seem to be "false" as there are references. To be fair, the grieving editor should find out if Cameron's camera proposal was incorporated in the rover or not (which is not clear in the reference). Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the gratuitous use of acronyms necessary. Some of the acronyms are used only once while others are crowded into sentences. For example:
Writing out the phrases does not significantly add to the length of each sentence, but the density of acronyms in the current sentences encumbers the descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.80.178 ( talk) 02:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
molecular components with a mass range of 2–235 u This is wrong. A GC has no mass range. -- Stone ( talk) 09:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need to embed three videos on the SAM suite? BatteryIncluded ( talk) 11:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus to split. N2e ( talk) 15: 31:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The MSL (mission) and rover (mission rover) articles will unavoidably have some duplication of information, so I suggest to not agonize too much over "splitting" but allowing the rover article to have a format to expand.
Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment. Is there any way the article (or both of them, I suppose) could be set up to put some of the better pictures nearer to the top? I know the pictures are near the most relevant content right now though, so I'm not sure what changes I would propose. :-) Arc de Ciel ( talk) 04:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Are both images of the landing site (with the yellow circle) needed? One is just a little closer up than the other one. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus was to split. N2e ( talk) 15: 31:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not a proposal, just thinking out loud on my part, and wanting to initiate a discussion for what to do with the article(s) following a hypothetical successful landing.
There have been a couple of previous proposals that the article be renamed to the popular name of the rover; I believe that both did not receive a consensus to go forward, at least during the spaceflight and Mars-transit portion of the mission.
My thinking is that, following a successful landing, when the spaceflight mission of the Earth-departure payload is over, there really ought to be two articles. One that would describe the spaceflight mission from launch to LEO to Mars-injection orbit to Entry/Descent/Landing on Mars; and one that would describe the Exoplanetary science mission of the landed rover on Mars.
So why not just think about creating a new article for the rover and Martian planetary science aspects, roughly at the time of the successful landing. If this were done, the spaceflight article would need to have only high-level summaries of the detailed instruments on the Curiosity rover, with a main-article link to the rover/science mission article, and the rover/science mission article would have only a high-level summary of the of spaceflight (launch through EDL) but would have a main-article link to the spaceflight article.
If this gains any traction, we can sort out the names for the two articles later on. What do others think about this idea? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Splitting May Eventually Be Helpful Of Course But Maybe Let's Wait-and-See For Now? - Currently, The Mars Science Laboratory Article Size Is 74,869 bytes - In Comparison, The History of Eglin Air Force Base Is 293,376 bytes (apparently, Wikipedia articles may be as much as 394,054 bytes - other large articles are also listed) - If Interested, Related Informations On Wikipedia Article Size May Be Found At The Following => WP:LENGTH + WP:SIZERULE + WP:SPLIT - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 10:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
When ought we split the articles? There is a consensus to do so, but when. I would offer that it should not be done before the agency sponsoring the mission (NASA) confirms that the rover has landed, as opposed to "crashed" or "unknown" -- best guess is that the news will be out within minutes or hours of the scheduled time for the landing. And to keep the encyclopedia as useful as possible, and avoid us all stepping on each other's toes, I'm for seeing if there are any of the editors involved in creating the draft (below) who plan to be up and monitoring the mission status one ot three hours after scheduled landing, who wants to offer to do it. Anyone want to volunteer? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 01:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Server jammed. If you can create it now, go ahead. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion closed by N2e ( talk) at 15: 31:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
{{Infobox spacecraft | Name = ''Curiosity'' rover | Image = [[File:Msl20110519 PIA14156-full.jpg|300px]] | Caption = Concept artwork | Organization = [[NASA]] | Major_Contractors = {{Plainlist| * [[Boeing]] * [[Lockheed Martin]] }} | Mission_Type = [[Rover (space exploration)|Rover]] | Launch = {{Start date|2011|11|26}} 15:02:00.211 UTC (10:02 EST) <ref name="NASA-1">[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html NASA – Mars Science Laboratory, the Next Mars Rover<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref name="NASA-2">{{cite web |url=http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1185 |title=NASA's Mars Science Laboratory Launch Rescheduled for Nov. 26 |author=Allard Beutel |date=November 19, 2011 |publisher=[[NASA]] |accessdate=November 21, 2011}}</ref> | Launch_Site = [[Cape Canaveral Air Force Station|Cape Canaveral]] [[LC-41]]<ref name="oig report" /> | Launch_Vehicle = [[Atlas V|Atlas V 541]] (AV-028) | Planet = [[Mars]] | Planet_Landing = [http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/ August 6, 2012, 5:31 AM UTC (planned)]<br>August 6, 2012, 1:31 AM EDT (planned)<br>August 5, 2012, 10:31 PM PDT (planned)<br> MSD 49269 3:19 PM LMST (Mars time at Gale crater)<ref>[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/mars24/ Mars Local Mean Solar Time calculation for Gale Crater based on planned landing datetime]</ref><br> ({{countdown |year=2012 |month=8 |day=6 |hour=5|minute=31 |second=00 |event=Mars Landing |duration= |eventstart= |eventend= }})<ref name="launch date announcement" /><ref name="course-correction">[http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1191 MSL Update] (accessed December 8, 2011)</ref><ref name=countdownjscode>[http://marsstaticcdn.jpl.nasa.gov/js/landing.js JPL web page source code for count down to MSL landing]</ref><ref name="science-corner">MSL Science Corner: [http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/landingsiteselection/ Landing Site Selection]</ref> | Planet_Coords = [[Aeolis Palus]] in [[Gale (crater)|Gale Crater]], {{Coord|4|36|0|S|137|12|0|E|globe:mars}} (planned landing site) | Mission_Duration = 668 Martian [[Timekeeping on Mars#Sols|sols]] (23 Earth months) | NSSDC_ID = 2011-070A | Webpage = [http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/ Mars Science Laboratory] | Mass = {{convert|900|kg|abbr=on}}<ref>[http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/rover/ Rover Fast Facts]</ref> | Power = [[Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator]] (RTG) }} Curiosity rover is a nuclear-powered Mars rover that is part of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission. The spacecraft — designed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory— was launched on 26 November 2011 and it is set to land on Aeolis Palus in Gale Crater on 6 August 2012 using a new precision landing technology. Curiosity carries the most advanced payload of scientific gear ever used on the surface of Mars. [1] ==Goals and objectives == The Mars Science Laboratory mission has four scientific goals:
To contribute to these goals, the Curiosity rover has six main scientific objectives: [2] [3]
==Specifications==
==Payload== Unlike earlier rovers, Curiosity carries equipment to gather samples of rocks and soil, process them and distribute them to onboard test chambers inside analytical instruments. [1]
Landing system== ![]() ![]() Previous NASA Mars rovers only became active after the successful entry, descent and landing on the Martian surface. The Mars Science Laboratory, on the other hand, requires six vehicle configurations, 76 pyrotechnic devices, a parachute, retrorockets and a suspension system for the final set-down of the active rover on the surface of Mars. [57] Curiosity will transform from its stowed flight configuration to a landing configuration while simultaneously being lowered beneath the descent stage with a 65 foot (20 m) tether from the "sky crane" system to a soft landing—wheels down—on the surface of Mars. [58] [59] [60] [61] After the rover touches down it waits 2 seconds to confirm that it is on solid ground and fires several pyros (small explosive devices) activating cable cutters on the bridle to free itself from the descent stage. The descent stage then flies away to a crash landing, and the rover gets ready to begin the science portion of the mission. [62]
==References ==
==Further reading ==
==External links ==
![]() Wikimedia Commons has media related to
Mars Science Laboratory. |
So is anyone going to create it or should I just do it? Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 04:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Done
N2e (
talk)
15:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the time zone on Mars? The JPL people have shirts saying that the landing is Aug 5, but it will be Aug 6 in the eastern time zone and GMT. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As of 6 August 2012, with the successful landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars, the rover article has been split apart from the Mars Science Laboratory article . This topic was discussed on the Talk:Mars Science Laboratory Talk page (above) in the weeks leading up to the landing. The rationale was topic breadth. With the successful landing, it seemed that a new article to focus on the:
Consensus was achieved to split the articles into two, immediately after the SUCCESSFUL landing of the rover. The payload of the spaceflight mission, the Curiosity rover, has now landed successfully on Mars. It was time to split the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 06:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I see in this article that the wattage of Curiosity's MMRTG power supply is expected to fall from 2000 watts down to 100 watts in a matter of just 14 years. That's a loss of 95%. But plutonium-238 has a half-life of roughly 87 years, so I would have expected a 10% loss. What is the explanation for this dramatic difference? ( This might be relevant, though I don't know if it accounts for the entire effect.) Thanks. user:Agradman editing for the moment as 67.182.25.41 ( talk) 07:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
While the concept image of the rover is nice I think the image should contain the stages of the craft, how it was when it left its launching rocket, space config (if different) post landing look. This craft wasn't dead meat in space as it did take radiation measurements and etc. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Done I added an image of the entire spacecraft payload, including the cruise stage, to the Spacecraft description section of the article. Given the split, that section probably needs to be beefed up, and the more rover-centric detail left for the
Curiosity rover article. Cheers.
N2e (
talk)
15:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As per the 16:00 PDT press conference, the location as derived from correlating MARDI images with global maps is -4.5895 137.4417. This is more accurate than the earlier figure derived from inertial guidance. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 23:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering what's new about this mission - we already placed several rovers on Mars, and from what I can read on their wikis, their objectives seem very similar to those of Curiosity: to study geology and look for signs of water.
How come these goals were not fulfilled with the previous missions, which stayed operational far longer than we had hoped they would? If someone can source some info about this it would be helpful to understand the purpose of this science mission. 85.235.246.242 ( talk) 07:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The United Kingdom flag was removed during a particularly busy editing time, and would appear to be vandalism. Unless this was done due to the article being split from the Curiosity rover, it should probably be restored. Any information to the contrary? Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the UK flag was added by a 4chan user on the sports board. It was placed out of alphabetical order and was not there originally. Under Instruments, there appears to be no mention of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.143.77 ( talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you were quite correct. The UK flag should have been removed, and the ensuing edit war was just a taste of what it would have been like for this article during school hours. Thanks for keeping the information accurate, which is much more important than a graphic. ;0) Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
84user has done a great job of cleaning up the Instruments sections of both the MSL and the Curiosity Rover articles following the split done earlier today. S/he has put the details in the Curiosity article, while leaving high-level summaries here.
However, I have a thought on improving the Instruments description here in the MSL article. The article currently says "The following instruments were selected. Most are on the rover, but some are installed on other components." I recommend we move the various instruments around, putting the rover-instruments in the high-level rover description section of this (MSL) article, and putting the various spaceflight- and spacecraft-related instruments with the Spacecraft description section.
Anyone else have other thoughts? Or agree? Or what? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Cool, we are making progress. I was thinking of separating the spacecraft/non-rover instruments in this article. For now, they are all glomed together. Perhaps break them up into Cruise stage and Descent stage instruments (in whatever detail is best) and then also have a high-level summary of the Rover instruments also included in the MSL article, with the detail left for the rover article (as User:84user substantially did earlier today). N2e ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
In addition, I would like to incorporate NASA's 4 categories of the instruments: (Source: [15]): - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The instruments are roughly divided into four categories:
1) Remote Sensing (2): Mastcam: Multi-spectral, stereo imaging, as well as video. ChemCam: (Chemistry and Mineralogy) Remote spectroscopy of rocks and soils from laser ablation; remote microscopic imagery.
2) In-Situ (2): Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI): Color microscopic imager. Alpha-Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS): spectroscopy of soil and rocks using X-ray fluorescence and particle-induced X-ray emission.
3) Analytical (2): CheMin: Mineralogical analysis of acquired samples of rock and soil using X-ray diffraction. Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM): Chemical and isotopic analysis of acquired samples of rock, soil, or atmosphere (including organics) using a mass spectrometer, gas chromatographs, and a tunable laser spectrometer.
4) Environmental (4): Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD): Detect and measure natural high-energy radiation. Mars Descent Imager (MARDI): High-resolution color video of descent. Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons (DAN): Detect and analyze hydrogen in the near-subsurface of Mars. o Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REMS): To monitor the meteorology and ultraviolet (UV) environment near the rover.
I was changing out some images across different languages when I came across the Russian Wikipedia article on MSL: ru:Mars Science Laboratory. They have what I believe to be a fantastic breakdown on the different components of MSL...see section at ru:Mars Science Laboratory#Технический обзор "Mars Science Laboratory". I think our article could greatly benefit from a visual layout like that one, but as it would probably necessitate significant rearrangement or rewriting of other sections, and its not really my forte, I was wondering what others thought about it. — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I recommend that this article be retitled to something that indicates its about the launch, and landing on Mars. And that Mars Science Laboratory redirect to Curiosity Rover. As is the naming is confusing and readers are directed to the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.218.217 ( talk) 14:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s it says at one point that there are "500,000 lines of code".
RenniePet ( talk) 14:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think there is an error with the amount of EEPROM on Curiosity, I cite:
Computers: The two identical on-board rover computers, called "Rover Compute Element" (RCE), contain radiation-hardened memory to tolerate the extreme radiation from space and to safeguard against power-off cycles. Each computer's memory includes 256 KB of EEPROM, 256 MB of DRAM, and 2 GB of flash memory.[36] This compares to 3 MB of EEPROM, 128 MB of DRAM, and 256 MB of flash memory used in the Mars Exploration Rovers.[37]
It is stated that the computer includes 256 KB of EEPROM, while the previous rovers had 3 MB of EEPROM. There obviously is an error in the statement. Yes, there could have been a reduction in the required amount of read only data but I doubt that this should be the explanation. The same thing is written in the wikipedia article about the Curiosity rover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.253.16 ( talk) 18:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/spacecraft/
"The total mass of the spacecraft is 3,893 kilograms (8,463 pounds).
The mass of parts of the spacecraft are as follows:
+_______________________
Total -> 3,839 kg = 8,463 pounds
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.197.220.1 (
talk)
17:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
A breakdown of the EDL mass into backshell (inc fuel, parachute and 300kg ballast), heat shield, and fuelled descent-stage (aka skycrane) would also be useful. - Rod57 ( talk) 12:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention should be made of the microchip on the back of the rover that holds names of people. http://marsparticipate.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/sendyourname/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgianatheist ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a note on edits to the landing section of the infobox. The times listed are based on the latest published times per JPL. The previous time was more precise (13 seconds earlier) but is unreferenced and overly precise. It was removed not just because of the reference issue but also because it could be misleading to readers.
While the fine folks working out the orbital mechanics of Mars and the flightpath of Curiosity and her ride can work things out to the second on when atmospheric interface will actually occur, that can, and has changed over time. Also even those folks dont know, to the second, when MSL will touch down. It all depends on atmospheric conditions at the time.
I went ahead and calculated local time at Gale crater for the landing based on the (Earth) times published so far. These are in local mean solar time (there are no time zones on Mars) and coordinated Martian time is calculated a hemisphere away and is uninteresting as a result. The local time at Gale crater is interesting because it will happen in daylight making imaging possible from the decent stage as well as any orbiters that happen to be over the landing elipse at the time. The landing time also will help tell the store should first light from the gazillon cameras aboard this thing be possible or not based on how long the the initial system tests take. For those interested, the local time at Gale crater was calculated from Dr. Schmunk's work at JPL and can be downloaded here. -- RadioFan ( talk) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the landing time is specified as 05:14:39 UTC however at the time of this comment none of the citations listed actually lead to a web page which shows that very specific landing time. Where is this time coming from? Is it possible for someone to add a citation to a page which lists that landing time of 05:14:39 UTC? Thanks. Alanfeld ( talk) 17:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Alanfeld ( talk) 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an error in the landing time where the page states:
Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is a robotic space probe mission to Mars launched by NASA on November 26, 2011, which successfully landed Curiosity, a Mars rover, in Gale Crater on August 6, 2012 at 05:14:39 UTC. [1]
At the time MSL landed, it was in fact Monday August 7, 2012 in UTC time. It was indeed August 6, 2012 in Pacific Daylight Time [UTC-7], but late at night, so the text above makes it look like MSL landed a day earlier. Please correct this as follows, thank you:
Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is a robotic space probe mission to Mars launched by NASA on November 26, 2011, which successfully landed Curiosity, a Mars rover, in Gale Crater on August 7, 2012 at 05:14:39 UTC. [1] Pyfgcrlx ( talk) 20:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks - there's still a 4-minute error with the "official" (?) landing time that I think needs fixing. Yes, reference 11 ( http://www.spaceflight101.com/msl-mission-updates-3.html ) gives an "official landing time" of "5:14:39 UTC" - August 6, 2012 (presumably SpaceCraft Event Time, SCET), but it doesn't give a source, and characterizes this as "*Initial* Mars Science Laboratory Landing Statistics". Also, yes, reference 6 ( http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psi-vid/2012/08/06/video-nasa-lands-car-sized-rover-near-martian-mountain/ ) gives an identical "10:14:39 PDT official touchdown time" (because of being in PDT, this would be Aug 5; also presumably SCET). However, note that neither are NASA sources. The expected landing time is given in numerous sources as 1032pm PDT ERT (Earth Received Time); with the approximately 14 minute lightspeed delay, the expected landing time on Mars in SCET would therefore be approx. 1018pm PDT Aug 5, or 0518h UTC Aug 6. (Recall that SCET + ONWT (OneWay Lightspeed Time) = ERT.) Since the landing was *so* picture-perfect, a 3.5 minute early-landing error seems highly unlikely. In reviewing currently available NASA website data, I so far have only found the following NASA-published landing time: "1031pm PDT" (probably ERT), as per < http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/ > (accessed Aug 6 2012 1042pm PDT) in the "Key Dates" section where it states "Landing: 10:31 p.m. PDT, Aug. 5, 2012 (1:31 a.m. EDT, Aug. 6, 2012)"; this is probably ERT and not SCET, although neither is specified. However, elsewhere on the same site, a press release describing the landing, entitled "NASA Lands Car-Size Rover Beside Martian Mountain" (at < http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1288 > accessed 1047pm PDT Aug 6 2012; dated by JPL as 8.6.2012 and numbered as press release # 2012-230), states: "Curiosity landed at 10:32 p.m. Aug. 5, PDT, (1:32 a.m. EDT Aug. 6)", also probably ERT although SCET or ERT not specified. OK, my best reading of all this is that Spaceflight 101 and Scientific American both jumped the gun with inaccurate information - I bet one copied the other, who heard it who knows where, maybe from a live press conference with a mis-statement from a very tired MSL person. I further believe, based on the above, that the best current number for the actual landing was approximately 1017-1018 PDT SCET Aug 5 2012 (0517-0518 UTC SCET Aug 6 2012), or 1031-1032pm PDT ERT Aug 5 2012 (0531-0532 UTC ERT Aug 6 2012). However, because the actual lightspeed delay is necessarily something more specific than "approximately 14 minutes", and we don't know that yet (I'm sure JPL does), and we don't even have an accurate ERT for the landing, being more specific than "about 1017-1018pm PDT SCET" is probably unwarranted at the present moment. If we wait awhiles, JPL will probably publish something accurate to the second, but so far it doesn't seem they have, and the current wikipedia text of "5:14:39 UTC" seems overly accurate - and very likely 3-4 minutes early. OY! Could somebody who's routinely working on this article mull this over and make the proper changes? Many thanks. Lanephil ( talk) 06:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
ADDENDUM - here's a reliable source for a slightly more accurate number for the lightspeed delay. The NASA/JPL "Mars Science Laboratory Landing Press Kit / July 2012" (at < http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/MSLLanding.pdf >, accessed 1136pm PDT Aug 6 2012), released prior to the landing, on page 6 states: "One-way radio transit time, Mars to Earth, on landing day: 13.8 minutes", and also states: "[Expected] Time of Mars landing: 10:31 p.m. Aug. 5 PDT (1:31 a.m. Aug. 6 EDT, 05:31 Aug. 6 Universal Time) plus or minus a minute. This is Earth-received time [ERT], which includes one-way light time [OWLT] for radio signal to reach Earth from Mars. The landing will be at about 3 p.m. local time at the Mars landing site." (addendums marked [] are mine). So 13.8 minutes OWLT would be 13 minutes 48 seconds +/- 0.1 min (+/- 6 sec). This is somewhat more accurate than "approximately 14 minutes", but I'm sure somewhere at JPL there is a figure accurate to the second (maybe millisecond? or better?). Note also that the OWLT is constantly changing - when Earth and Mars are close, it's around 3-5 minutes; when they're in opposition, it's nearer to 20 minutes. For future reference. Gotta remember that SCET + OWLT = ERT. Lightspeed delays. So annoying. ;-) Lanephil ( talk) 06:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I presently have yet to be convinced of the notability of Spaceflight101.com. When doing a cursory Google/Yahoo search, I was not able to find any reputable sources quoting them, or referencing them. The only "hits" on Google were for social sites, media sharing sites, etc. If the notability of Spaceflight101.com is demonstrated here, perhaps we might have a new resource to use. Cheers! Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
He Alanfeld, OliverTwisted, Kaldari, others - you guys are great, and I think we got this nailed down finally. Here's the skinny: During this morning's (Aug 8 2012) 10am PDT Press Briefing at JPL for the MSL Sol 3 Update (carried live on NASA Television online), Jennifer Trosper, MSL Mission Manager at JPL, was asked (at time 45:15 of the youtube video, see below for citation) for a specific landing time. She did some fiddlefaddling, and then at 51:10 of that video came back with the answer: Landing was at: year 2012, day 219 (that's August 6), time 05:17:57 UTC, and by her discussion indicates that this is Mars time, i.e. SCET (SpaceCraft Event time). (Note that's the same time that Kildari just got from the Spaceflight101 after querying about the incorrect 05:14:39 time.) She continued on to say that's equivalent to about 10:17pm (lanephil note, actually 10:17:57 pm) PDT (SCET) August 5 in California at JPL (lanephil note, relativistic simultaneity considerations notwithstanding :-> ). She further stated that because of the approximately 14 minute OneWay Lightspeed Time (OWLT), that means the signal was received at JPL in California at about 10:32pm PDT Aug. 5. I think this is good enough? The youtube video is "MSL Sol 3 Update", "Published August 8, 2012 by NASAtelevision", is a total of 59min34sec, and is posted at < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f8HHQ2U2jg >, accessed 9:54pm PDT Aug. 8 2012, and is a recording of a live broadcast originally "aired" online on NASA Television at 10am-11am PDT Aug. 8 2012 on < http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html >. Since there isn't a published reference (yet) to either a well-sourced to-the-second OWLT (best so far is 13 min 48 sec +/- 6 sec, as above), or to a well-sourced to-the-second Earth Received Time (ERT), I think we probably should stay with the approximate time of ~10:32pm PDT ERT, as currently posted on < http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/newsroom/ > and < http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/ > (both accessed 9:59pm PDT Aug. 8 2012) and as stated by Ms. Trosper in the MSL Sol 3 Update news conference. Again I'll ask someone who's been working on the article (Alanfeld, OliverTwisted, Kaldari?) to make the actual formal changes in the article (first paragraph, and also in box with statistics on the right side), since I'm a latecomer to this neighborhood ;-> . WHEW! glad we got THAT figured out. I'll look forward to seeing the article fixed by y'all. Again thanks to all. (I'll also post a brief note in TALK/CURIOSITY ROVER - could one of you go there and do the formal article fix there as well? thx.) Lanephil ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
From what I can gather, after the Descent Stage made jetsam of itself (and flew safely downrange to a crash landing), there was no telemetry or science from it whatsoever. Orbital imagery may yet find it, and Curiosity itself may yet come across it, as Opportunity had its own heat shield. But when it is found, it should be mentioned. kencf0618 ( talk) 03:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It is informative to see the interest in this page peaked:
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Mars_Science_Laboratory Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, predictable; but interest traffic did not drop off as much as you think. Ten minutes after MSL set the rover down on the Martian surface, the MSL article was split, per consensus, into two articles: Mars Science Laboratory (on the spacecraft and spaceflight), and Curiosity rover on the robotic planetary surface mission on Mars). If you look here ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Curiosity_rover, you'll see that, after the rover article was created, it quicly absorbed a large amount of the hits that had been going to the MSL page. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on the reasons why Sky Crane was chosen versus landing and offloading via a ramp, add a paragraph with another major reason. During flight, the wheels were tucked under making for a compact payload.. After Curiosity began being lowered and was clear of Rover, the wheels snapped open. Were Rover to land with Curiosity still in the underbelly, there would be no way for the wheels to snap open. This means Rover would have had to been designed to carry Curiosity with it's wheels fully opened, requiring a much bigger, wider Rover Cove3 ( talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I got a heads up this morning on strange edits I did, It took me a while to figure what happened there because I do not remember doing those edits. (it was my evil twin brother!) (joke) Last night I was reviewing the content 6 simultaneous revisions done by an AP to N2e user, which cought my attention because that editor did 6 sequential "undo" to his edits. I remember I disagreed with pretty much everything he changed, and when i saw the 'spinning keeps the forward momentum' portion I blew a fuse and I don't remember what buttons I pressed. I think it was simply "undo", thing is: I forgot I was looking at intermediate revisions and messed up the corrections that other editors did to that AP user. Later I broused the history again and saw other incongruencies that I did not understand and tried to fix them, and now I know is because of the "undo" I did of an old revision. I apologize too everyone. Yes, we are in the same "page" as to the the difference between MSL and Curiosity content. And yes, I agree with the newtonian physics of our universe. I was tired and I did not pay attention to what I did and what I was reverting. I just had a good night sleep and I hope I will be a useful editor again. Again, my apologies to N2e and everyone else for my mistake which others had to clean up a second time. CHeers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else think it's kind of wrong to use automatic kg→lbs conversion templates to say the rover "masses" 2000 lbs once landed? Kilograms are kilograms anywhere because they measure mass, but pounds – being a measure of weight – depend on your local gravity. It definitely doesn't "mass" or weigh 2000 lbs once landed. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Quote: "The rover will probably be powered by RTG's as the weight of a solar cell and power storage system would be prohibitive, and a solar cell system would not work very well at low Martian latitudes or in dusty conditions."
WHAT are RTG's? Rocket Towed Grenades? Rwandan Tree Gorillas? Recycled Tarantula Gases? Really Thick Glasses?
Can RTGs even power a rover like that, with all the wheels and motors T.Neo 15:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Yes, in fact MSL will be getting 2400 wh per day while the MERs get at best 900wh. MSL will have batteries that are trickle charged by the RTG.-- BerserkerBen 05:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following:
I'm a Linux advocate and free software developer (I wrote small bits of GnuCash, much of the documentation for 1.6, and a GIMP plugin for red-eye reduction), so I like to see Linux used and publicised as much as anyone. However, given that this thing appears to still be very much at the conceptual design stage, rumours that the thing might use Linux don't seem particularly notable. -- Robert Merkel 06:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The flight computer runs VxWorks. However, Linux is used heavily in development and testing of major boards connected to the flight computer (and probably many other instruments and components). --Someone who would know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.141.172.41 ( talk) 12:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm just wondering: where is the RTG gone on the new rover configuration picture? -- Bricktop 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
The article currently states "MSL is expected to weigh over 800 kg (1,760 lb) including 65 kg (143 lb) of scientific instruments". However, since this thing is going to operate on Mars, isn't it going to weigh less than this? Perhaps this section of the article should be more clear about distinguishing between mass and weight.
-- Pomakis 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That is Earth weight, its Martian weight is not as important as is lift off mass.-- BerserkerBen 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Who cares? Get rid of them, I tell ya! I done this, rv it if you can't sleep without obsolete picture haunting whole page. -- 80.51.70.116 11:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
The news anounced that the Chemcam lost its funding and that the camera will go without zoom. Further cuts in costs will be possible. This is tipical for a new NASA boss to halt some missions to show his ability to reduce costs, the last did the same with Dawn. What really happens nobody knows.-- Stone 15:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
So the Chemcam lost its funding and the camera wont have zoom, will this mean the mission will get cancelled? Oh, and by the way, what is a chemcam? T.Neo 18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Never mind about about the Chemcam, read about it in the article. T.Neo 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Dam, this is really bad, the Chemcam is not the only thing affected: http://www.planetary.org/about/executive_director/20070918.html I rather them push the mission up to 2011-2013 then cut the science like this! We should retain information on things as they were, that way we will have a live history of the development, so don't go deleting the MARDI information and changing specs without retaining the information of what was originally planned and then state how they changed. -- BerserkerBen 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
So, in reading this article I was surprised by how variable or unsure most of the claims were on the article. This makes sense from a 2006 standpoint, when most of this article was created, but it seems like now, in 2008, we should probably have more definitive information, and less future tense speculation, regarding things like the MSL's payload, landing sites, etc. Launch is only 18 months away, and so I imagine most of the science instruments are probably already completed and undergoing assembly on the vehicle. This is entirely speculation on my part, based on what i've seen with past space missions, but maybe somebody knows of an engineer's blog or NASA updates about the mission that might allow us to update this article?-- Galactoise ( talk) 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
How friggin huge is this thing? According to the chassis test picture it´s like 4 meters wide, but I can´t find any info about it in the article. -- Threedots dead ( talk) 23:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
A landing site named "Gale" is missing from the list in the article. I don't know why, so I'm adding it boldly. -- AndersFeder ( talk) 21:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I see this out of place and unnesesary because besides of being out of place in the format, there are already 3 tables dealing with potential landing sites. I deleted it but it was replaced, so I am kindly suggesting to reevaluate this minor change. Thank you. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 13:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"The essential issue is to identify a particular geologic environment (or set of environments) that would support microbial life. To mitigate the risk of disappointment and ensure the greatest chance for science success, interest is placed at the greatest number of possible science objectives at a chosen landing site. Thus, a landing site with morphologic and mineralogic evidence for past water is better than a site with just one of these criteria. Furthermore, a site with spectra indicating multiple hydrated minerals is preferred; clay minerals and sulfate salts would constitute a rich site. Hematite, other iron oxides, sulfate minerals, phyllosilicate minerals, silica, and possibly chloride minerals have all been suggested as possible substrates for fossil preservation. Indeed, all are known to facilitate the preservation of fossil morphologies and molecules on Earth." (Referfence: Discussion Points and Science Criteria). Difficult terrain is the best candidate for finding evidence of livable conditions, and engineers must be sure the rover can safely reach the site and drive within it. (ref: Mars - Seven Possible MSL Landing Sites.- BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:14, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
Is MSL taking the first video camera to Mars? And will it actually transmit back to Earth or is it just for navigational purposes, etc. If it will be, I think we should mention this as this is pretty important for deep space exploration, IMHO. -- Josh Atkins ( talk - contribs) 20:38, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Copied from NASA's MSL update: [3] Dated: 17-Sep-2007 "[...] Engineering changes to the mission include some reductions in design complexity, reductions in planned spares, some simplifications of flight software, and some ground test program changes. These changes were selected largely to help reduce mission risks. Changes in mission science content were limited to removal of the Mars Descent Imager (MARDI), the MASTCAM zoom capability from the mission, and a change from a rock grinding tool to a rock brushing tool. [...] most of MARDI's capability can be provided by the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter's HiRise camera now in orbit and working successfully."- BatteryIncluded ( talk) 22:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
MARDI was reinstated back in Nov 2007. You edited out the reference on 17:52, 7 October 2008. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.110.0.2 ( talk) Actually, MARDI has already been delivered to JPL: [4].
i heard a story about small inflatable scouts that would acompany the MSL. it was even on Popular science magazine and online. so anyidea what happend to the scout mission. cause the only thing i heard about it is that it could go with the MSL mission. [5] [6] Nrpf22pr ( talk) 17:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
if you remember the student contest over the naming of the rovers that became spirit and oportunity, theyre doing it again with this mission. The contest started yesterday and the Essays must be received by Jan. 25, 2009. In March 2009, the public will have an opportunity to rank nine finalist names via the Internet as additional input for judges to consider during the selection process. NASA will announce the winning rover name in April 2009. its just about the same as the other two rovers. so im suggest to ad this to this article. [7] Nrpf22pr ( talk) 02:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
i was wondering why 2007 and 2008 in spaceflight's were on this article. since they dont have anything to do with this mission, i was wondering if it would be alright with switching them with 2011 and 2012 in spaceflight since they both have something to do with this article since its their launch dates.-- Nrpf22pr ( talk) 19:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
The MSL mast camera article on the JPL website states that the mast cameras have a field of view of 1200x1200 pixels. How than can it record 1280x720 video? Does it scale the video or does it leave 40 pixels on each side blank? -- GrandDrake ( talk) 07:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group March 2009 Presentation has nice images of the instruments and the sky crane. -- Stone ( talk) 12:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Weight and landing site is discussed, but launch vehicle is not. How is it going to get to Mars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.70 ( talk) 19:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The nice thing is that the MSL11 is endangering other missions like the Astrobiology Laboratory and the moon missions LADEE and ILN.-- Stone ( talk) 14:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
The temperatures that may be encountered by the MSL are described as being between +86 F and -197 F. The maximum temperature is clearly in error - the warmest temperature ever recorded on Mars is just above the freezing point of water (32 F). This temperature is only achieved in late afternoon near the Martian equator. 64.134.154.140 ( talk) 02:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
This debate is quickly settled by a trip to the official mission page. The previous link provided referred to the Mars Exploration Rover page. However, the official MSL page uses the term 'The Rover Electronics Module' link. Due to this, I can see no further discussion on this matter unless the official page changes the term. -- Xession ( talk) 22:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Is the cost increase and the problems with that mentioned properly? I think there should be a section mentioning the original price tag and the numbers wich became reality.-- Stone 13:54, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Presumably the speed of sound in the Martian atmosphere is not the same as it is on Earth (density, composition). Surey NASA uses a more precise kph figure? I notice that the statement is not supported by a citation. Can this text be improved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.97.11.54 ( talk) 22:46, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
2) This blurb is awful: "The MSL test parachute. Note the people in the lower-right corner of the image."
Why should it even matter that there are people in the image? If you want to describe the scale of the parachute, maybe you should look up the specifications. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.176.226.156 ( talk) 05:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
What does it mean, "TBC"? As in "Lands on August 6, 2012 (TBC)" ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.47.141.21 ( talk) 16:05, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
Going where no Mars rover has gone before; Spacecraft Curiosity to land at Red Planet's Gale Crater by Nadia Drake August 27th, 2011; Vol.180 #5 (p. 15) in Science News. 99.181.138.215 ( talk) 02:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Could we have more details of the driving and steering mechanisms. Image suggests 4 of the 6 wheels are steerable. Do all 6 wheels have their own hub motors ? How much torque can each generate ? - Rod57 ( talk) 23:45, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Digging Mars; The Mars Phoenix mission revived hopes that the Red Planet may be habitable, preparing the way for a new rover to be launched this month by Peter H. Smith SciAm November 3, 2011 97.87.29.188 ( talk) 22:27, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
"is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) mission", I think "is a NASA mission" would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.204.141 ( talk) 19:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
Good question- when does a set of intials become so familiar that we can omit the full name in an international encyclopedia? The way it is is technically correct, but NASA is one fo the most famous sets of intitials in the world and it did grate on me when I read it. If the NASA is linked to the Page, then perhaps we do not need to define it. IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
"It will attempt to perform the first-ever precision landing on Mars" – I may be missing something but how didi Vikings land then? 89.68.115.236 ( talk) 21:34, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The history of James Cameron and 3D changes should have a section even if the mission equipment was ultimately lost to budget.-- 70.162.171.210 ( talk) 07:06, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what the wikipedia standard protocol is, but shouldn't there be something like a Current Status section that details where the spacecraft is at the current (approximate) moment? something like: Mission day 2 (Nov 27 2011): spacecraft was successfully launched at [time, date], and has entered the cruise phase of the mission; it has successfully left Earth orbit and is now in route to Mars. Current distance (as of [time, date]) of spacecraft from Earth is approximately [xxx km (xxx A.U.)]; current distance from spacecraft to Mars is approximately [xxx km (xxx A.U.)]. That'd be really cool <smile>! thanks Lanephil ( talk) 23:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes - current status of the cruise mode of the MSL seems like a worthwhile idea to consider adding to the main article - current "Countdown-To-Landing" status seem to be easily available from several NASA JPL sources - ( REF-1, REF-2, REF-3) - however, current statuses of *Speed* and *Distance* do not seem to be easily available - at least at the moment - in any case - enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 16:45, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
This article currently is tagged as being too technical and too long. I just dont see it but wanted to get some other thoughts before just removing these tags. Given how complex this topic is, the article does a remarkable job of presenting the information in an accessible manner. The intro paragraphs are particularly easy to understand.-- RadioFan ( talk) 15:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Please don't dumb it down just because it is technical. Some of us can read beyond the average 12 year old. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.175.253 ( talk) 09:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but some of us can't. That is the whole point. We can write seperate articles for as many sections as we want, so lets consider doing so. An article doesn't have to be very technical- with lots of statistics and detailed specifications- to be informative. Data will not be lost if it is transferred to seperate articles. Many wikipedia articles are made far too technical just becuase our editors think they have to be very technical just for "credibility". I think the medical ones are much worse, where you have to have a degree to understand the opening paragraphs. Patience, my friends, we will reach a sensible compromise in due course.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Seeing how it's now in flight, I don't see how this is applicable. *** patchiman*** *** talk to me!*** 16:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
As i received no opposition i deleted the future spaceflights catergory *** patchiman*** *** talk to me!*** 16:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Although in this case, it would seem obvious to remove it- one single day is not much evidence of "no opposition"
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:07, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Each [Curiosity] computer's memory includes 256 KB of EEPROM .... This compares to 3 MB of EEPROM [for Spirit and Opportunity].
The latest has one-twelfth of this kind of memory than the earlier ones? 58.136.216.231 ( talk) 03:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This section does not read well in terms of its content. Surely the history of a space vehicle begins with the beginning and tells a brief summary of the technical, political and financial decisions to create it- then goes into a summary of what happened during its creation, in all three aspects, then it is finalised up to launch. No way should it begin with an overspend statement.
IceDragon64 ( talk) 00:15, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Mars Science Laboratory → Curiosity rover – Relisted. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:04, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Based on being consistent with the pages named
Spirit rover and
Opportunity rover instead of Mars Exploration Rover – A and Mars Exploration Rover – B, respectively.
Thanks,
Marasama (
talk)
16:19, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: article not moved Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:48, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
Mars Science Laboratory → Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity) – While the missions name is indeed "Mars Science Laboratory" it is also commonly known as "Curiosity". Even engineers refer to it as "Curiosity" when they discuss it in interviews. I think adding the name Curiosity to the title in parenthesis would be helpful. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Copied from User_talk:Drbogdan#Date_format_in_refs:
Could I ask why you are modifying these? I am curious because Mediawiki can allow users to change the format they wish to see from their user settings (if in ISO format). You can change how it appears via settings. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 21:25, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Thank You For Your Comments - No Problem Whatsoever - Seemed Like An OK Effort - And Was Done Mostly To Present A Bit Of Consistency To The Article For Many Readers - The References In The Article Seemed To Look Much Better And Clearer After The Editing Effort - Nonetheless, Reverting's *Entirely* Ok w/ Me - esp If There's Good Reason - And No Objections From Others Of Course - In Any Case - Thanks Again For Your Comments - And - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 22:46, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
This might be a good source for additional data on the instruments.
-- Stone ( talk) 08:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
The disputed entry on James Cameron does not seem to be "false" as there are references. To be fair, the grieving editor should find out if Cameron's camera proposal was incorporated in the rover or not (which is not clear in the reference). Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 23:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Is the gratuitous use of acronyms necessary. Some of the acronyms are used only once while others are crowded into sentences. For example:
Writing out the phrases does not significantly add to the length of each sentence, but the density of acronyms in the current sentences encumbers the descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.80.178 ( talk) 02:03, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
molecular components with a mass range of 2–235 u This is wrong. A GC has no mass range. -- Stone ( talk) 09:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need to embed three videos on the SAM suite? BatteryIncluded ( talk) 11:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus to split. N2e ( talk) 15: 31:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The MSL (mission) and rover (mission rover) articles will unavoidably have some duplication of information, so I suggest to not agonize too much over "splitting" but allowing the rover article to have a format to expand.
Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 14:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Just a comment. Is there any way the article (or both of them, I suppose) could be set up to put some of the better pictures nearer to the top? I know the pictures are near the most relevant content right now though, so I'm not sure what changes I would propose. :-) Arc de Ciel ( talk) 04:28, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
Are both images of the landing site (with the yellow circle) needed? One is just a little closer up than the other one. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 02:41, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Consensus was to split. N2e ( talk) 15: 31:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This is not a proposal, just thinking out loud on my part, and wanting to initiate a discussion for what to do with the article(s) following a hypothetical successful landing.
There have been a couple of previous proposals that the article be renamed to the popular name of the rover; I believe that both did not receive a consensus to go forward, at least during the spaceflight and Mars-transit portion of the mission.
My thinking is that, following a successful landing, when the spaceflight mission of the Earth-departure payload is over, there really ought to be two articles. One that would describe the spaceflight mission from launch to LEO to Mars-injection orbit to Entry/Descent/Landing on Mars; and one that would describe the Exoplanetary science mission of the landed rover on Mars.
So why not just think about creating a new article for the rover and Martian planetary science aspects, roughly at the time of the successful landing. If this were done, the spaceflight article would need to have only high-level summaries of the detailed instruments on the Curiosity rover, with a main-article link to the rover/science mission article, and the rover/science mission article would have only a high-level summary of the of spaceflight (launch through EDL) but would have a main-article link to the spaceflight article.
If this gains any traction, we can sort out the names for the two articles later on. What do others think about this idea? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 13:45, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Splitting May Eventually Be Helpful Of Course But Maybe Let's Wait-and-See For Now? - Currently, The Mars Science Laboratory Article Size Is 74,869 bytes - In Comparison, The History of Eglin Air Force Base Is 293,376 bytes (apparently, Wikipedia articles may be as much as 394,054 bytes - other large articles are also listed) - If Interested, Related Informations On Wikipedia Article Size May Be Found At The Following => WP:LENGTH + WP:SIZERULE + WP:SPLIT - In Any Case - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan ( talk) 10:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
When ought we split the articles? There is a consensus to do so, but when. I would offer that it should not be done before the agency sponsoring the mission (NASA) confirms that the rover has landed, as opposed to "crashed" or "unknown" -- best guess is that the news will be out within minutes or hours of the scheduled time for the landing. And to keep the encyclopedia as useful as possible, and avoid us all stepping on each other's toes, I'm for seeing if there are any of the editors involved in creating the draft (below) who plan to be up and monitoring the mission status one ot three hours after scheduled landing, who wants to offer to do it. Anyone want to volunteer? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 01:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Server jammed. If you can create it now, go ahead. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 05:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Discussion closed by N2e ( talk) at 15: 31:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
{{Infobox spacecraft | Name = ''Curiosity'' rover | Image = [[File:Msl20110519 PIA14156-full.jpg|300px]] | Caption = Concept artwork | Organization = [[NASA]] | Major_Contractors = {{Plainlist| * [[Boeing]] * [[Lockheed Martin]] }} | Mission_Type = [[Rover (space exploration)|Rover]] | Launch = {{Start date|2011|11|26}} 15:02:00.211 UTC (10:02 EST) <ref name="NASA-1">[http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html NASA – Mars Science Laboratory, the Next Mars Rover<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref><ref name="NASA-2">{{cite web |url=http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1185 |title=NASA's Mars Science Laboratory Launch Rescheduled for Nov. 26 |author=Allard Beutel |date=November 19, 2011 |publisher=[[NASA]] |accessdate=November 21, 2011}}</ref> | Launch_Site = [[Cape Canaveral Air Force Station|Cape Canaveral]] [[LC-41]]<ref name="oig report" /> | Launch_Vehicle = [[Atlas V|Atlas V 541]] (AV-028) | Planet = [[Mars]] | Planet_Landing = [http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/ August 6, 2012, 5:31 AM UTC (planned)]<br>August 6, 2012, 1:31 AM EDT (planned)<br>August 5, 2012, 10:31 PM PDT (planned)<br> MSD 49269 3:19 PM LMST (Mars time at Gale crater)<ref>[http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/mars24/ Mars Local Mean Solar Time calculation for Gale Crater based on planned landing datetime]</ref><br> ({{countdown |year=2012 |month=8 |day=6 |hour=5|minute=31 |second=00 |event=Mars Landing |duration= |eventstart= |eventend= }})<ref name="launch date announcement" /><ref name="course-correction">[http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1191 MSL Update] (accessed December 8, 2011)</ref><ref name=countdownjscode>[http://marsstaticcdn.jpl.nasa.gov/js/landing.js JPL web page source code for count down to MSL landing]</ref><ref name="science-corner">MSL Science Corner: [http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/landingsiteselection/ Landing Site Selection]</ref> | Planet_Coords = [[Aeolis Palus]] in [[Gale (crater)|Gale Crater]], {{Coord|4|36|0|S|137|12|0|E|globe:mars}} (planned landing site) | Mission_Duration = 668 Martian [[Timekeeping on Mars#Sols|sols]] (23 Earth months) | NSSDC_ID = 2011-070A | Webpage = [http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/ Mars Science Laboratory] | Mass = {{convert|900|kg|abbr=on}}<ref>[http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/rover/ Rover Fast Facts]</ref> | Power = [[Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator]] (RTG) }} Curiosity rover is a nuclear-powered Mars rover that is part of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission. The spacecraft — designed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory— was launched on 26 November 2011 and it is set to land on Aeolis Palus in Gale Crater on 6 August 2012 using a new precision landing technology. Curiosity carries the most advanced payload of scientific gear ever used on the surface of Mars. [1] ==Goals and objectives == The Mars Science Laboratory mission has four scientific goals:
To contribute to these goals, the Curiosity rover has six main scientific objectives: [2] [3]
==Specifications==
==Payload== Unlike earlier rovers, Curiosity carries equipment to gather samples of rocks and soil, process them and distribute them to onboard test chambers inside analytical instruments. [1]
Landing system== ![]() ![]() Previous NASA Mars rovers only became active after the successful entry, descent and landing on the Martian surface. The Mars Science Laboratory, on the other hand, requires six vehicle configurations, 76 pyrotechnic devices, a parachute, retrorockets and a suspension system for the final set-down of the active rover on the surface of Mars. [57] Curiosity will transform from its stowed flight configuration to a landing configuration while simultaneously being lowered beneath the descent stage with a 65 foot (20 m) tether from the "sky crane" system to a soft landing—wheels down—on the surface of Mars. [58] [59] [60] [61] After the rover touches down it waits 2 seconds to confirm that it is on solid ground and fires several pyros (small explosive devices) activating cable cutters on the bridle to free itself from the descent stage. The descent stage then flies away to a crash landing, and the rover gets ready to begin the science portion of the mission. [62]
==References ==
==Further reading ==
==External links ==
![]() Wikimedia Commons has media related to
Mars Science Laboratory. |
So is anyone going to create it or should I just do it? Marcus Qwertyus ( talk) 04:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Done
N2e (
talk)
15:36, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What is the time zone on Mars? The JPL people have shirts saying that the landing is Aug 5, but it will be Aug 6 in the eastern time zone and GMT. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:49, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As of 6 August 2012, with the successful landing of the Curiosity rover on Mars, the rover article has been split apart from the Mars Science Laboratory article . This topic was discussed on the Talk:Mars Science Laboratory Talk page (above) in the weeks leading up to the landing. The rationale was topic breadth. With the successful landing, it seemed that a new article to focus on the:
Consensus was achieved to split the articles into two, immediately after the SUCCESSFUL landing of the rover. The payload of the spaceflight mission, the Curiosity rover, has now landed successfully on Mars. It was time to split the article. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 06:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I see in this article that the wattage of Curiosity's MMRTG power supply is expected to fall from 2000 watts down to 100 watts in a matter of just 14 years. That's a loss of 95%. But plutonium-238 has a half-life of roughly 87 years, so I would have expected a 10% loss. What is the explanation for this dramatic difference? ( This might be relevant, though I don't know if it accounts for the entire effect.) Thanks. user:Agradman editing for the moment as 67.182.25.41 ( talk) 07:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
While the concept image of the rover is nice I think the image should contain the stages of the craft, how it was when it left its launching rocket, space config (if different) post landing look. This craft wasn't dead meat in space as it did take radiation measurements and etc. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Done I added an image of the entire spacecraft payload, including the cruise stage, to the Spacecraft description section of the article. Given the split, that section probably needs to be beefed up, and the more rover-centric detail left for the
Curiosity rover article. Cheers.
N2e (
talk)
15:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
• Sbmeirow • Talk • 18:56, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As per the 16:00 PDT press conference, the location as derived from correlating MARDI images with global maps is -4.5895 137.4417. This is more accurate than the earlier figure derived from inertial guidance. 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 23:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm wondering what's new about this mission - we already placed several rovers on Mars, and from what I can read on their wikis, their objectives seem very similar to those of Curiosity: to study geology and look for signs of water.
How come these goals were not fulfilled with the previous missions, which stayed operational far longer than we had hoped they would? If someone can source some info about this it would be helpful to understand the purpose of this science mission. 85.235.246.242 ( talk) 07:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The United Kingdom flag was removed during a particularly busy editing time, and would appear to be vandalism. Unless this was done due to the article being split from the Curiosity rover, it should probably be restored. Any information to the contrary? Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:02, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I believe the UK flag was added by a 4chan user on the sports board. It was placed out of alphabetical order and was not there originally. Under Instruments, there appears to be no mention of the United Kingdom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.153.143.77 ( talk) 09:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, you were quite correct. The UK flag should have been removed, and the ensuing edit war was just a taste of what it would have been like for this article during school hours. Thanks for keeping the information accurate, which is much more important than a graphic. ;0) Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 09:50, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
84user has done a great job of cleaning up the Instruments sections of both the MSL and the Curiosity Rover articles following the split done earlier today. S/he has put the details in the Curiosity article, while leaving high-level summaries here.
However, I have a thought on improving the Instruments description here in the MSL article. The article currently says "The following instruments were selected. Most are on the rover, but some are installed on other components." I recommend we move the various instruments around, putting the rover-instruments in the high-level rover description section of this (MSL) article, and putting the various spaceflight- and spacecraft-related instruments with the Spacecraft description section.
Anyone else have other thoughts? Or agree? Or what? Cheers. N2e ( talk) 16:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Cool, we are making progress. I was thinking of separating the spacecraft/non-rover instruments in this article. For now, they are all glomed together. Perhaps break them up into Cruise stage and Descent stage instruments (in whatever detail is best) and then also have a high-level summary of the Rover instruments also included in the MSL article, with the detail left for the rover article (as User:84user substantially did earlier today). N2e ( talk) 17:50, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
In addition, I would like to incorporate NASA's 4 categories of the instruments: (Source: [15]): - BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
The instruments are roughly divided into four categories:
1) Remote Sensing (2): Mastcam: Multi-spectral, stereo imaging, as well as video. ChemCam: (Chemistry and Mineralogy) Remote spectroscopy of rocks and soils from laser ablation; remote microscopic imagery.
2) In-Situ (2): Mars Hand Lens Imager (MAHLI): Color microscopic imager. Alpha-Particle X-ray Spectrometer (APXS): spectroscopy of soil and rocks using X-ray fluorescence and particle-induced X-ray emission.
3) Analytical (2): CheMin: Mineralogical analysis of acquired samples of rock and soil using X-ray diffraction. Sample Analysis at Mars (SAM): Chemical and isotopic analysis of acquired samples of rock, soil, or atmosphere (including organics) using a mass spectrometer, gas chromatographs, and a tunable laser spectrometer.
4) Environmental (4): Radiation Assessment Detector (RAD): Detect and measure natural high-energy radiation. Mars Descent Imager (MARDI): High-resolution color video of descent. Dynamic Albedo of Neutrons (DAN): Detect and analyze hydrogen in the near-subsurface of Mars. o Rover Environmental Monitoring Station (REMS): To monitor the meteorology and ultraviolet (UV) environment near the rover.
I was changing out some images across different languages when I came across the Russian Wikipedia article on MSL: ru:Mars Science Laboratory. They have what I believe to be a fantastic breakdown on the different components of MSL...see section at ru:Mars Science Laboratory#Технический обзор "Mars Science Laboratory". I think our article could greatly benefit from a visual layout like that one, but as it would probably necessitate significant rearrangement or rewriting of other sections, and its not really my forte, I was wondering what others thought about it. — Huntster ( t @ c) 06:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I recommend that this article be retitled to something that indicates its about the launch, and landing on Mars. And that Mars Science Laboratory redirect to Curiosity Rover. As is the naming is confusing and readers are directed to the wrong place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.218.217 ( talk) 14:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
In this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s it says at one point that there are "500,000 lines of code".
RenniePet ( talk) 14:12, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I think there is an error with the amount of EEPROM on Curiosity, I cite:
Computers: The two identical on-board rover computers, called "Rover Compute Element" (RCE), contain radiation-hardened memory to tolerate the extreme radiation from space and to safeguard against power-off cycles. Each computer's memory includes 256 KB of EEPROM, 256 MB of DRAM, and 2 GB of flash memory.[36] This compares to 3 MB of EEPROM, 128 MB of DRAM, and 256 MB of flash memory used in the Mars Exploration Rovers.[37]
It is stated that the computer includes 256 KB of EEPROM, while the previous rovers had 3 MB of EEPROM. There obviously is an error in the statement. Yes, there could have been a reduction in the required amount of read only data but I doubt that this should be the explanation. The same thing is written in the wikipedia article about the Curiosity rover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.176.253.16 ( talk) 18:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/spacecraft/
"The total mass of the spacecraft is 3,893 kilograms (8,463 pounds).
The mass of parts of the spacecraft are as follows:
+_______________________
Total -> 3,839 kg = 8,463 pounds
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
62.197.220.1 (
talk)
17:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
A breakdown of the EDL mass into backshell (inc fuel, parachute and 300kg ballast), heat shield, and fuelled descent-stage (aka skycrane) would also be useful. - Rod57 ( talk) 12:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps a mention should be made of the microchip on the back of the rover that holds names of people. http://marsparticipate.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/sendyourname/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belgianatheist ( talk • contribs) 10:34, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Just a note on edits to the landing section of the infobox. The times listed are based on the latest published times per JPL. The previous time was more precise (13 seconds earlier) but is unreferenced and overly precise. It was removed not just because of the reference issue but also because it could be misleading to readers.
While the fine folks working out the orbital mechanics of Mars and the flightpath of Curiosity and her ride can work things out to the second on when atmospheric interface will actually occur, that can, and has changed over time. Also even those folks dont know, to the second, when MSL will touch down. It all depends on atmospheric conditions at the time.
I went ahead and calculated local time at Gale crater for the landing based on the (Earth) times published so far. These are in local mean solar time (there are no time zones on Mars) and coordinated Martian time is calculated a hemisphere away and is uninteresting as a result. The local time at Gale crater is interesting because it will happen in daylight making imaging possible from the decent stage as well as any orbiters that happen to be over the landing elipse at the time. The landing time also will help tell the store should first light from the gazillon cameras aboard this thing be possible or not based on how long the the initial system tests take. For those interested, the local time at Gale crater was calculated from Dr. Schmunk's work at JPL and can be downloaded here. -- RadioFan ( talk) 17:00, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the landing time is specified as 05:14:39 UTC however at the time of this comment none of the citations listed actually lead to a web page which shows that very specific landing time. Where is this time coming from? Is it possible for someone to add a citation to a page which lists that landing time of 05:14:39 UTC? Thanks. Alanfeld ( talk) 17:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Alanfeld ( talk) 18:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
There is an error in the landing time where the page states:
Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is a robotic space probe mission to Mars launched by NASA on November 26, 2011, which successfully landed Curiosity, a Mars rover, in Gale Crater on August 6, 2012 at 05:14:39 UTC. [1]
At the time MSL landed, it was in fact Monday August 7, 2012 in UTC time. It was indeed August 6, 2012 in Pacific Daylight Time [UTC-7], but late at night, so the text above makes it look like MSL landed a day earlier. Please correct this as follows, thank you:
Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is a robotic space probe mission to Mars launched by NASA on November 26, 2011, which successfully landed Curiosity, a Mars rover, in Gale Crater on August 7, 2012 at 05:14:39 UTC. [1] Pyfgcrlx ( talk) 20:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks - there's still a 4-minute error with the "official" (?) landing time that I think needs fixing. Yes, reference 11 ( http://www.spaceflight101.com/msl-mission-updates-3.html ) gives an "official landing time" of "5:14:39 UTC" - August 6, 2012 (presumably SpaceCraft Event Time, SCET), but it doesn't give a source, and characterizes this as "*Initial* Mars Science Laboratory Landing Statistics". Also, yes, reference 6 ( http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/psi-vid/2012/08/06/video-nasa-lands-car-sized-rover-near-martian-mountain/ ) gives an identical "10:14:39 PDT official touchdown time" (because of being in PDT, this would be Aug 5; also presumably SCET). However, note that neither are NASA sources. The expected landing time is given in numerous sources as 1032pm PDT ERT (Earth Received Time); with the approximately 14 minute lightspeed delay, the expected landing time on Mars in SCET would therefore be approx. 1018pm PDT Aug 5, or 0518h UTC Aug 6. (Recall that SCET + ONWT (OneWay Lightspeed Time) = ERT.) Since the landing was *so* picture-perfect, a 3.5 minute early-landing error seems highly unlikely. In reviewing currently available NASA website data, I so far have only found the following NASA-published landing time: "1031pm PDT" (probably ERT), as per < http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/ > (accessed Aug 6 2012 1042pm PDT) in the "Key Dates" section where it states "Landing: 10:31 p.m. PDT, Aug. 5, 2012 (1:31 a.m. EDT, Aug. 6, 2012)"; this is probably ERT and not SCET, although neither is specified. However, elsewhere on the same site, a press release describing the landing, entitled "NASA Lands Car-Size Rover Beside Martian Mountain" (at < http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1288 > accessed 1047pm PDT Aug 6 2012; dated by JPL as 8.6.2012 and numbered as press release # 2012-230), states: "Curiosity landed at 10:32 p.m. Aug. 5, PDT, (1:32 a.m. EDT Aug. 6)", also probably ERT although SCET or ERT not specified. OK, my best reading of all this is that Spaceflight 101 and Scientific American both jumped the gun with inaccurate information - I bet one copied the other, who heard it who knows where, maybe from a live press conference with a mis-statement from a very tired MSL person. I further believe, based on the above, that the best current number for the actual landing was approximately 1017-1018 PDT SCET Aug 5 2012 (0517-0518 UTC SCET Aug 6 2012), or 1031-1032pm PDT ERT Aug 5 2012 (0531-0532 UTC ERT Aug 6 2012). However, because the actual lightspeed delay is necessarily something more specific than "approximately 14 minutes", and we don't know that yet (I'm sure JPL does), and we don't even have an accurate ERT for the landing, being more specific than "about 1017-1018pm PDT SCET" is probably unwarranted at the present moment. If we wait awhiles, JPL will probably publish something accurate to the second, but so far it doesn't seem they have, and the current wikipedia text of "5:14:39 UTC" seems overly accurate - and very likely 3-4 minutes early. OY! Could somebody who's routinely working on this article mull this over and make the proper changes? Many thanks. Lanephil ( talk) 06:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
ADDENDUM - here's a reliable source for a slightly more accurate number for the lightspeed delay. The NASA/JPL "Mars Science Laboratory Landing Press Kit / July 2012" (at < http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/MSLLanding.pdf >, accessed 1136pm PDT Aug 6 2012), released prior to the landing, on page 6 states: "One-way radio transit time, Mars to Earth, on landing day: 13.8 minutes", and also states: "[Expected] Time of Mars landing: 10:31 p.m. Aug. 5 PDT (1:31 a.m. Aug. 6 EDT, 05:31 Aug. 6 Universal Time) plus or minus a minute. This is Earth-received time [ERT], which includes one-way light time [OWLT] for radio signal to reach Earth from Mars. The landing will be at about 3 p.m. local time at the Mars landing site." (addendums marked [] are mine). So 13.8 minutes OWLT would be 13 minutes 48 seconds +/- 0.1 min (+/- 6 sec). This is somewhat more accurate than "approximately 14 minutes", but I'm sure somewhere at JPL there is a figure accurate to the second (maybe millisecond? or better?). Note also that the OWLT is constantly changing - when Earth and Mars are close, it's around 3-5 minutes; when they're in opposition, it's nearer to 20 minutes. For future reference. Gotta remember that SCET + OWLT = ERT. Lightspeed delays. So annoying. ;-) Lanephil ( talk) 06:53, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I presently have yet to be convinced of the notability of Spaceflight101.com. When doing a cursory Google/Yahoo search, I was not able to find any reputable sources quoting them, or referencing them. The only "hits" on Google were for social sites, media sharing sites, etc. If the notability of Spaceflight101.com is demonstrated here, perhaps we might have a new resource to use. Cheers! Oliver Twisted (Talk) (Stuff) 02:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
He Alanfeld, OliverTwisted, Kaldari, others - you guys are great, and I think we got this nailed down finally. Here's the skinny: During this morning's (Aug 8 2012) 10am PDT Press Briefing at JPL for the MSL Sol 3 Update (carried live on NASA Television online), Jennifer Trosper, MSL Mission Manager at JPL, was asked (at time 45:15 of the youtube video, see below for citation) for a specific landing time. She did some fiddlefaddling, and then at 51:10 of that video came back with the answer: Landing was at: year 2012, day 219 (that's August 6), time 05:17:57 UTC, and by her discussion indicates that this is Mars time, i.e. SCET (SpaceCraft Event time). (Note that's the same time that Kildari just got from the Spaceflight101 after querying about the incorrect 05:14:39 time.) She continued on to say that's equivalent to about 10:17pm (lanephil note, actually 10:17:57 pm) PDT (SCET) August 5 in California at JPL (lanephil note, relativistic simultaneity considerations notwithstanding :-> ). She further stated that because of the approximately 14 minute OneWay Lightspeed Time (OWLT), that means the signal was received at JPL in California at about 10:32pm PDT Aug. 5. I think this is good enough? The youtube video is "MSL Sol 3 Update", "Published August 8, 2012 by NASAtelevision", is a total of 59min34sec, and is posted at < http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6f8HHQ2U2jg >, accessed 9:54pm PDT Aug. 8 2012, and is a recording of a live broadcast originally "aired" online on NASA Television at 10am-11am PDT Aug. 8 2012 on < http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html >. Since there isn't a published reference (yet) to either a well-sourced to-the-second OWLT (best so far is 13 min 48 sec +/- 6 sec, as above), or to a well-sourced to-the-second Earth Received Time (ERT), I think we probably should stay with the approximate time of ~10:32pm PDT ERT, as currently posted on < http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/newsroom/ > and < http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/ > (both accessed 9:59pm PDT Aug. 8 2012) and as stated by Ms. Trosper in the MSL Sol 3 Update news conference. Again I'll ask someone who's been working on the article (Alanfeld, OliverTwisted, Kaldari?) to make the actual formal changes in the article (first paragraph, and also in box with statistics on the right side), since I'm a latecomer to this neighborhood ;-> . WHEW! glad we got THAT figured out. I'll look forward to seeing the article fixed by y'all. Again thanks to all. (I'll also post a brief note in TALK/CURIOSITY ROVER - could one of you go there and do the formal article fix there as well? thx.) Lanephil ( talk) 05:16, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
From what I can gather, after the Descent Stage made jetsam of itself (and flew safely downrange to a crash landing), there was no telemetry or science from it whatsoever. Orbital imagery may yet find it, and Curiosity itself may yet come across it, as Opportunity had its own heat shield. But when it is found, it should be mentioned. kencf0618 ( talk) 03:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
It is informative to see the interest in this page peaked:
http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Mars_Science_Laboratory Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 23:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, yes, predictable; but interest traffic did not drop off as much as you think. Ten minutes after MSL set the rover down on the Martian surface, the MSL article was split, per consensus, into two articles: Mars Science Laboratory (on the spacecraft and spaceflight), and Curiosity rover on the robotic planetary surface mission on Mars). If you look here ( http://stats.grok.se/en/latest/Curiosity_rover, you'll see that, after the rover article was created, it quicly absorbed a large amount of the hits that had been going to the MSL page. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 05:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section on the reasons why Sky Crane was chosen versus landing and offloading via a ramp, add a paragraph with another major reason. During flight, the wheels were tucked under making for a compact payload.. After Curiosity began being lowered and was clear of Rover, the wheels snapped open. Were Rover to land with Curiosity still in the underbelly, there would be no way for the wheels to snap open. This means Rover would have had to been designed to carry Curiosity with it's wheels fully opened, requiring a much bigger, wider Rover Cove3 ( talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I got a heads up this morning on strange edits I did, It took me a while to figure what happened there because I do not remember doing those edits. (it was my evil twin brother!) (joke) Last night I was reviewing the content 6 simultaneous revisions done by an AP to N2e user, which cought my attention because that editor did 6 sequential "undo" to his edits. I remember I disagreed with pretty much everything he changed, and when i saw the 'spinning keeps the forward momentum' portion I blew a fuse and I don't remember what buttons I pressed. I think it was simply "undo", thing is: I forgot I was looking at intermediate revisions and messed up the corrections that other editors did to that AP user. Later I broused the history again and saw other incongruencies that I did not understand and tried to fix them, and now I know is because of the "undo" I did of an old revision. I apologize too everyone. Yes, we are in the same "page" as to the the difference between MSL and Curiosity content. And yes, I agree with the newtonian physics of our universe. I was tired and I did not pay attention to what I did and what I was reverting. I just had a good night sleep and I hope I will be a useful editor again. Again, my apologies to N2e and everyone else for my mistake which others had to clean up a second time. CHeers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Anyone else think it's kind of wrong to use automatic kg→lbs conversion templates to say the rover "masses" 2000 lbs once landed? Kilograms are kilograms anywhere because they measure mass, but pounds – being a measure of weight – depend on your local gravity. It definitely doesn't "mass" or weigh 2000 lbs once landed. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC