this post was submitted on
290 points (84% like it)
357 up votes 67 down votes

space

unsubscribe130,779 readers

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -Carl Sagan

You might also enjoy:

r/starparty

r/astronomy

r/cosmology

r/spaceporn

r/astrophys

r/aerospace

r/nasa

r/spaceflight

/r/spacemusic

a community for

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own! learn more ›

all 60 comments

[–]Kotecher 15 points16 points ago

I had no idea how big Curiosity is until now.

[–]Generic_Name_Here[S] 9 points10 points ago

The most startling thing for me was how small Sojourner (the smallest) was. I built a LEGO model in grade school, and I would have sworn to you it was at least 4-5 feet long.

I remember reports of the care they were taking not to get it stuck on a rock or in a sand dune. It definitely makes more sense now; seeing it to scale.

[–]alle0441 17 points18 points ago

Now with MSL, we should be able to plow through those motherfucking dunes like a southern hillbilly with serious penile insecurities.

[–]marysville 4 points5 points ago

300ft per hour though

[–]Zoolotak 1 point2 points ago

First donuts on Mars.

[–]PenguinScientist 1 point2 points ago

They still need to be careful. Even with it's size, Curiosity could still get stuck in the shifting sands.

[–]mk5p 11 points12 points ago

For the ones, that as I didn't know what was what!

These are apparently mockups of, from left:

1.(Spirit and Opportunity) 2004

2.(Sojourner) 1997

3.(Curiosity) 2012

[–]JaggedOne 0 points1 point ago

Thank you for posting this. I couldn't remember the name of the third middle sized lander, and having the years of each landing as well is a great bonus.

[–]berk_engr 8 points9 points ago

I delivered the "Sojourner" rover just for this photo shoot at the "Mars Yard" at JPL!

The ("Sojourner") rover pictured here is actually called the Marie Curie Rover, it was actually going to be launched to mars until that plan was cancelled. The other 2 rovers pictured were built as test rovers for use on earth, but the are accurate replicas.

[–]doctorheredoctor 1 point2 points ago

Sojourner opened up space for me, I'll never be able to forget that thrill of seeing it roll off the ramp to go exploring.

Is there anything more you can tell us about "Marie Curie"? All I've heard was that it was going to be part of a lander for Mars Surveyor. Would the lander have been a pathfinder replica as well? Where would it have landed? Any different science objectives from pathfinder? What differences (if any) did the new rover have from the old? Sorry but this is the first I've heard of it!

[–]Generic_Name_Here[S] 0 points1 point ago

That is awesome. This is why I love Reddit.

Perhaps you would be able to answer this... in the photo, each of the scientists wrists is attached to the rover via a cable. Is this a security thing? Static electricity thing? Something else?

[–]rhombomere 2 points3 points ago

It is an antistatic wrist strap. When working on local equipment sometimes it is important to use a ionizer too.

[–]NapalmRDT 5 points6 points ago

Currently planning a party for during the MSL landing. We're gonna get so hammered for science.

[–]eleitl 0 points1 point ago

I'm thinking August 5 will be a dud. Hopefully not, but this is too Rube Goldbergesque for my tastes.

[–]marysville 2 points3 points ago

Explain yourself.

[–]Generic_Name_Here[S] 7 points8 points ago

While I certainly have faith we can do it, I think eleitl is referring to the complex landing sequence: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s and the fact that so far, humanity's success rate for landing on Mars without crashing has been a paltry 38%: http://www.space.com/16496-mars-landing-missions-timeline.html

[–]manintheyellerhat 0 points1 point ago

Yeah, I'm pretty concerned about the landing sequence, too. It seems unnecessarily complex at first glance. Hope they can pull it off.

I'd be interested in the reasoning behind its design.

[–]rhombomere 1 point2 points ago

There was a very reasoned method behind the seeming madness. Here's a quick blog post for some more details about why the landing system was chosen.

If you want to know more details, check out this hour long lecture from one of the key mechanical systems engineer behind the concept.

[–]marysville -1 points0 points ago

On the other hand, the US has a very good success rate for landing Mars Rovers. I think it's somewhere between 60 and 80 percent.

[–]rhombomere 6 points7 points ago

For rovers we are currently at 100%, 3 for 3.

[–]boogiemantm 5 points6 points ago

Amazing what less than 20 years can bring. I am super excited to see what Curiosity will send home

[–]marysville 8 points9 points ago

I can't wait to finally see video from the surface. 720p ain't bad!

[–]HitchMedberg 3 points4 points ago

Doesn't the Curiosity Rover have solar panels? I see both of the other two have a relatively lage surface area covered with solar panels. If not, how does it recharge its power?

[–]etunkO 17 points18 points ago

It is actually powered by a nuclear power source. The cylinder on the pole contains the power source.

[–]doctorheredoctor 3 points4 points ago

The cylinder on the pole is not the power source. An MMRTG is not installed in this photo and you can see the empty "slot" for it on the very back of the rover.

That black cylinder is actually the RUHF Antenna.

[–]synthaxx 5 points6 points ago

You're right, the cylinder on the end of the rover is a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG).

So instead of solar panels, it's powered by 4.8kg of plutonium 238.

[–]berk_engr 1 point2 points ago

No that is not the power source, the RTG plugs into the rear of the rover (There is no mockup on the rover in this shot). That cylinder is an antenna.

[–]HitchMedberg 3 points4 points ago

Righto! So this will mean that when it runs out after two years it will be "dead", unlike the other rovers which have outlasted their lifetime expectancy due to their solar panels power supply?

[–]TotallyNotAnAlien 12 points13 points ago

Guess again. Minimum lifetime of 14 years Source: 1, 2

Lifetime of current solar powered rovers isn't unlimited but dependant on the dust build up over time of martin sands blocking the solar panels. Also worth noting solar powered rovers can't operate during the martin winters as there is no enough light.

[–]martiiin 7 points8 points ago

dependant on the dust build up over time of martin sands blocking the solar panels

Here you go NASA, now give me $1.000.000

[–]joe-z 0 points1 point ago

those would be lucky to last more than a couple of years with how abrasive sand is. I replace mine every couple years and they only see water.

[–]martiiin 0 points1 point ago

Build it in NASA quality, no problem ;)

[–]skpkzk2 0 points1 point ago

but they'll make it in feet instead of meters!

[–]HitchMedberg 3 points4 points ago

Thanks correcting me! I got the two years from Norwegian Wikipedia. Goes to show you cant always trust the almighty wiki.

[–]TotallyNotAnAlien 7 points8 points ago

14 year is the lifetime of the fuel supply, not the expected life time. But if there is a mistake on Norwegian wiki I implore you to fix it, anyone can edit Wikipedia, you don't even need an account.

[–]YikeYak 1 point2 points ago

Wikipedia is editable..... ;)

[–]elbarto84 3 points4 points ago

Although the machines look fascinatingly beautiful and intricate, could someone explain why upon closer examination they look slightly messy. There are so many wires and connections on the exterior. Why? Would they not be better protected on the interior? I think that engineers at NASA have functionality as a priority over aesthetics of course.

But what about robots etc that stay on earth that usually have a clean exterior and most cables and connections are inside. Whereas rovers and other equipment that is launched into space mostly have these things on the outside. Which seems slightly odd as out in space they are exposed to more and stronger kinds of radiation and what not.

[–]timeshifter_ 5 points6 points ago

I would imagine the cabling is far less susceptible to radiation damage than the actual circuit boards are, and that shielding is heavy. It's just weight optimization... protect what needs to be protected, then wire it to minimize the volume that requires protection. Every pound matters.

[–]hotsizzlepancakes 2 points3 points ago

It's definitely a functionality over aesthetics case, the cables are shielded where need be, but honestly the life expectancy of the vehicle is rather short compared to say... a car on earth. Also the atmospheric and environmental conditions are far different than what we experience on earth. Lastly weight is probably the #1 thing engineers look to cut down on, so the shortest path is almost always used.

[–]cmiz87 1 point2 points ago

Was this image spliced together from multiple images?

This is the only reason I ask

[–]Timberbeast 1 point2 points ago

A question I've always had. Surely we don't want to risk contaminating Mars with microbes from Earth. I mean, a huge part of doing all this is to try and find Martian life. So do they take any precautions or make any attempts to sterilize the rovers? I can't imagine how you would.

[–]rhombomere 1 point2 points ago

The topic you're wondering about is called planetary protection and it is taken very seriously. All spacefairing nations are signatories to the Outer Space Treaty where this first got formalized.

The required planetary protection mitigations depend on where you are going and what you are doing. For instance, there is no evidence that Mercury has/had life and it isn't interesting with respect to biological proceses so you don't have to do anything. But for a life detection to an interesting place, like the Mars Viking landers, there is a lot you need to do. For those missions, the entire spacecraft was put into a bag and baked. At the end of the process it was estimated that there were just 30 viable bacterial endospores left on it. Endospores are the most hardy of the bacteria so that means everything else was killed and you have a nearly sterile spacecraft. You'd have to do the same type of thing for a mission to Europa because it could harbor life.

MSL didn't have to do as much because it isn't a life detection mission, nor is it going to a place on Mars that is likely to have present life (because there's no water source nearby).

[–]thecoffee 3 points4 points ago

Ouch. Are those scars on the guy's face or a bad angle?

[–]one_dalmatian 3 points4 points ago

It's a legit question, why the downvotes?

[–]thecoffee 1 point2 points ago

Western culture, don't talk about a person's perceived deformity or disability, or you'll be belittling them for some reason.

[–]skpkzk2 1 point2 points ago

because it's not like someone could ever have a badass story to go along with a scar or anything

[–]peterabelard 0 points1 point ago

absolutely amazing. I recommend reading on how the landing procedure actually looks - this "sky crane" phase is really amazing IMO!

[–]raresaturn 0 points1 point ago

Notice no solar panels on Curiosity...that sucker's nuclear

[–]ioncloud9 0 points1 point ago

yup. using some of the last bits of plutonium 238 we have left.

[–]pabloneruda 0 points1 point ago

HOW ARE THEY BREATHING?

[–]hotsizzlepancakes -1 points0 points ago

So i notice no solar panels on Curiosity, nor on Mars Rover (probably because it's expensive in a mock up, but how does Curiosity generate power? Is it one of those leaky radiation mini power plants?

[–]doctorheredoctor 3 points4 points ago

Nuclear battery. Not leaky, not a plant either. Heat is generated by the decay of plutonium which is turned into electricity by thermocouples.

[–]JaggedOne 1 point2 points ago

Thermocouple for those like me who had never heard of that before.

[–]hotsizzlepancakes 0 points1 point ago

thanks, that's what i was referring to by leaky. plutonium decay.