Mars Curiosity Flight away

[Robert9]

The near one-tonne rover, tucked inside a capsule, left Florida on an Atlas 5 rocket at 10:02 local time (15:02 GMT).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15904408

Robert

[Kevnool]

Over 2 billion bucks----Lets hope it finds what it is looking for.

Cheers kev.

[OneOfOne]

Probably about as much money as the military spends on sandwiches in Afganistan in a year. Here's hoping they didn't get the Russians to design too much :(

[supernova1965]

I for one would much rather spend money on the future of humanity than in killing people

[Hans Tucker]

Shame and kind of sad that you view the work of the military in a very narrow way. There is a lot of humanitarian work being done by our three services (Airforce, Navy and Army) and the military of other nations. I have a few friends serving in Afghanistan and they have my full support...think I will depart now and go over to Astromart to re-read an article paying tribute to their serving members.

Sorry Robert for hijacking your post.

[supernova1965]

I agree with humanitarian work but not with war for supposed economic reasons.

I am not saying that there isn't a place for a military and I don't blame the troops for what the leaders of nations decide to do.

I believe military should be for defence and humanitarian work not offence.

I am sorry that you automatically assumed from my post that I was against our troops because I think that I said no such thing. I apologise if you took it the wrong way but that is really not something I can be held responsible for.

[Robert9]

Not a problem Hans. It is always interesting to see where a chat topic can lead.

Robert

[Hans Tucker]

True..but we do not want to detract from this latest NASA endeavor. This rover is the most advanced robotic technology to date but people keep focusing on the $2B price tag. As we know there will be spin offs from this technology..anything from medical to aerospace to every day consumer technology. Mind you the landing method for this rover seems a bit ambitious.

[astroron]

Except for the sky crane bit it is very similer to the Viking mission way back in the 1970's and we have come along way since then.
I reckon the landing will be fine, after all it is not a Russian mission to Mars.
Cheers

[Robert9]

Do I detect a level of cinicism Ron?

I do agree Hans, the world has benefitted to a large degree from spin-offs from many human activities including, dare I say it, war.

Robert

[astroron]

Yes!!!!!!, but then you only have to look at the Russian record around 20 missions to Mars over the last forty years and little or no sucess.
The USA and ESA have ten times the sucess of the Russians, so if I was a betting man I know who I would be putting my money on;)
Go the Mars Curiosity Lander :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
Cheers:thumbsup:

[Stardrifter_WA]

I think that we need to remember that the price tags for these types of missions have resulted in our hobby having the best equipment ever and at an affordable price. Just take CCD cameras as an example, the need for NASA to have the best views has seen the development of some pretty neat optics and CCD chips, which has been passed down to us. :thumbsup:

But I am a bit skeptical about the success of the sky crane :question: But, all new ways of doing things carries a high degree of risk. I just hope it is successful. :)

[Baddad]

Hi Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is an unfortunate fact that we have to spend money on the military. Without the protection that our military and allied military offers, we would be highly vulnerable to be over run by less scrupulous nations.
It is a necessary evil.
However technology in times of war advances at a much accelerated rate.
This can be a good thing.
I do partly agree with war being a bad thing but there have been spin-offs. Necessity is the mother of invention. We need that military spending because we are forced into it.

Space exploration is another matter where man is driven to research solutions. Technological advances have been made that few people seem to know anything about.
Example: The non-stick coating on cookware is just one. It was like a side catch when scientists needed to develope a solid type of lubricant.

This Mars vehicle has much of my interest. Considering that earlier vehicles collected dust on the solar panels and eventually stopped.

When a new item is released, be it a lipstick or a new rocket to Mars, It displays its shortcomings. Modifications are made and the next one is better. That is progress.

I still remember a post I submitted a year ago. Newspaper article "Man to walk on Mars in the 2030 decade.
I can not see it coming to fruition but I have hope. This Mars mission is one of many steps to that goal.


BTW when is this payload expected to arrive on Mars?

May this Mars Mission teach us more.

Cheers

[ZeroID]

Go Curiosity !!! just watched lift off vid and it got away to a good start. Now just got to keep the fingers crossed for 9 months or so ( sounds like a pregnancy !! )

Re the pro\con military thing. It's a shame it's necessary for sure, the resources of both hardware and people could be far more usefully deployed for humanitarian purposes if it wasn't for all the global bickering. But have to confess there has been some benefits from past conflicts. Plastic surgery owes much to practises develeoped in the first and second world wars and Korea in particular. And obviously wars tend to speed up technology developments which often have spinoffs to the rest of us.
But I'd still rather have more resources spent on peaceful research. Imagine having an 'army' of researchers using the $$$ spent on current military needs. Even 10% ...... <sigh>

[OneOfOne]

I can only imagine where we would be in this case. Curiosity would have been launched decades ago, we could have a permanent outpost on the Moon, we would know what lies beneath the ice of Io, we would have walked on Mars, let alone what we could achieve in other endeavours.

I am really hoping this time we "find" something! Wouldn't that be a buzz, the biggest leap forward since the last Buzz (Aldrin).

[Robert9]

Perhaps little green men with antennae on their heads. :rofl:

Whatever it finds, it is sure to be of scientific worth. However, value to the society at large, beyond increaing our knowledge of a planet many millions of kilometers from us which has little or no effect on our mediocre day to day lives, probably nought. (Astrologers excepted)

Go Curiosity! :thumbsup:

Robert

[CraigS]

Well Trevor .. as it turns out, the radioisotope thermoelectric generator aboard MSL/Curiosity contains Plutonium sourced entirely from Russia !

Have you considered that MSL/Curiosity's main focus is the exploration of current and past Habitability Zones?

The ramifications of this enquiry can be put towards directly extending our knowledge of (i) the sensitivity of extant life to environmental factors which may have never occurred here on Earth or alternatively, (ii) the sensitivity of the emergence of life, upon initial environmental conditions, which may or may not have occurred here on Earth.

What use is having this knowledge in our daily lives ?

Someday, our survival will be critically dependent on our understanding of these sensitivities .. we know this as a factual certainty. If we accept that this knowledge is not presently economically justifiable, then can you state under what conditions it will ever be justifiable? If we view that it is never economically justifiable and we, accordingly, never spend to acquire such knowledge, then we are ensuring that we will ultimately witness the extinction of all known life on Earth.
With this perspective, is it now justified ?

Also, for consideration by the other folk questioning research expenditures:
Without military defence investment in the US, the economic and social freedoms we enjoy in this country, (and others), along with democratic political processes would be compromised. Without military funding, scientific research (such as MSL/Curiosity) is unlikely to be able to proceed unhindered. One is dependent on the other .. the two go hand-in-hand.

'Either/or prioritisation', is a constraint which in my view, is unsupportable and also unjustifiable.

Cheers

[DavidU]

With this rover using a radioisotope thermoelectric generator I would hope it runs for years.No sleep mode during the Mars winter.

[CraigS]

The Viking Landers also each had radioisotope thermoelectric generators, (back in 1976) and operated on Mars for four and six years respectively. The solar-powered 1997 Mars Pathfinder mission's 'Sojourner' rover used radioisotope heaters to keep its electronics box warm. The solar-powered Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity also use radioisotope heaters.

The MMRTG on MSL/Curiosity will give it an operating lifespan on Mars' surface of a full Martian year (687 Earth days, a little less than two Earth years) and will allow it to operate over a wide range of latitudes, (just in case they change the landing site for some reason). The MMRTG delivers about 2 KW thermal power (to keep things warm), and 120 Watts electrical power (for the electronics). It weighs about 43Kg.

Cheers

[Robert9]

Are you saying that you feel its worth while polluting an unknown environment with plutonium? If there are life forms on Mars, this, undoubtedly, will tell us what we can expect back here on Earth.

But can we measure anything without changing it - Heisenberg ? Surely precautions must be taken to limit the changes. We do try not to carry bacteria. Perhaps we should be limiting other forms of pollution, eg radioactivity, even if it means restricting our exploratory capabilities.

Robert

[CraigS]

No.
I might say that I feel the minimal risk of radioactive contamination on Mars, is far outweighed by the potential gains in returned knowledge.
The MMRTG has been engineered to minimise this risk.


Really ?
How do you know this for certain ?


Sure. It has already been considered ... the MMRTG engineering has minimised the risk to the extent that the option of restricting exploratory projects, is unnecessary.

I look forward to your response to my original question:


Cheers

[Robert9]

Craig,

We can never know anything for certain. However, we are aware that radiation has an effect on life as we know it. IMO, if we artificially radiate any existing life-form on Mars, or anywhere else for that matter, chances are that it will be effected.

Yes, we can minimize risk, but the possibility of poluting with somethin that will last a long, long time, to me, is a very great risk to the threatened environment.

Notwithstanding all my arguments, I am certainly not averse to the exploration. I am just concerned that we might do irreversible damage to the place we want to study that will effect our eventual findings, rendering them, possibly, meaningless. This particulalrly, as I said before, in regard to possible extant life forms.

Robert

[CraigS]

No problems, Robert. I understand you perspective.

I think we live with accepting risks every day of our lives. The quest for knowledge is not without risk.

There are probably more Plutonium-238 bearing RTGs lying around garbage dumps in Russia that probably represent a greater risk to life overall, than Curiosity's. (I mean … we at least already know life exists here. :) )

In the earlier times, several spacecraft RTGs have crashed back onto Earth and some people were exposed to the alpha radiation emitted by the damaged units. Shielding and distributed isotope design specs have improved a lot since those days.

If a unit were to somehow partially leak radiation in situ on Mars during the operational life-time of the probe, the radiation detections on board Curiosity would probably detect it (and measure the levels, thereby allowing this to be subtracted from the assessment of the 'habitability').

One of the quests of Curiosity is to measure the amount of incident radiation on the surface. This is likely to represent far more risk to extant life, (if it exists), than the MMRTG also, because incident radiation contains a broader spectral mix of different types of 'nastier-to-life' radiation than MMRTG's alpha type. If life exists on Mars, then it has had to survive in a radiation-bathed environment for a long time.

Overall, I think our pathological, instinctive fears of 'radiation' may play on our emotional side when it comes this issue, whereas the rational side has got it all well-scouted (IMO).

Cheers

[CraigS]

I've just gotta add this link (http://www.inl.gov/research/mars-science-laboratory/) to this thread ... it contains a short video on how the MMRTG was assembled by the very people who did it ! (Scroll down to the bottom of the page).

Once constructed, they are confident enough about its safety that you can see them manoeveuring the unit around whilst wearing nothing more than t-shirts ! Now, that's a pretty relaxed outlook while one is standing a couple of feet away from a nuclear power source !

This is what I mean about how our instinctive fears about the nuclear power supplies are very likely to be quite irrationally based. It would seem the INL folk might see it all this way, eh ?

Cheers

[Robert9]

I can only add that the Japanese were very confident about the safety of their nuclear reactors until the unexpected happened.
One must always expect the unexpected even if it is totally irrational and motivated solely by our emotions.

Robert