Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mars NASA Science Technology

New Curiosity Rover Landing Target May Save Months Travel to Prime Destination 64

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the behold-the-power-of-technology dept.
coondoggie writes with an update on the Mars Science Laboratory. From the article: "Even as it hurtles towards an August 5 rendezvous with the red planet, NASA's Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is being fine-tuned for a more precise landing and better operations once it reaches its destination. NASA today gave a status report for the MSL which was launched November 2011, and is still over 17.5 million kilometers away from Mars. Of major interest today was the fact NASA said it has narrowed landing target for the Mars rover, Curiosity letting it touch down closer to its ultimate destination for science operations, but also closer to the foot of a mountain slope that poses a landing hazard, the agency said." From NASA: "The larger ellipse, 12.4 miles (20 kilometers) by 15.5 miles (25 kilometers) was already smaller than the landing target area for any previous Mars mission, due to this mission's techniques for improved landing precision. Continuing analysis after the Nov. 26, 2011, launch resulted in confidence in landing within an even smaller area [handy diagram], about 12 miles by 4 miles (20 by 7 kilometers). Using the smaller ellipse, the Mars Science Laboratory Project also moved the center of the target closer to the mountain, which holds geological layers that are the prime destination for the rover. ... 'We're trimming the distance we'll have to drive after landing by almost half,' said Pete Theisinger, Mars Science Laboratory project manager ... 'That could get us to the mountain months earlier.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Curiosity Rover Landing Target May Save Months Travel to Prime Destination

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Disappointed... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 11, 2012 @08:25PM (#40290637)

    ...if it exists. Otherwise they all have the same chance: zero.

  • Re:Why?? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Chuck Chunder (21021) on Monday June 11, 2012 @09:09PM (#40290941) Homepage Journal
    Presumably there is risk associated with distance travelled and time spent travelling too.
  • by icebike (68054) * on Tuesday June 12, 2012 @12:01AM (#40292069)

    Is a 6-wheeled rover really the most efficient shape for a land vehicle on rough terrain? I've seen videos of robots that look like snakes or caterpillars that can land in whatever direction, landing first as a ball before unwinding in the proper orientation.

    Snakes have a problem with the amount of payload they can carry, and positioning that payload efficiently in the body.
    Its not enough to get an instrument to the surface, it has to be deployed in an orientation where it can actually function, transmit data, gain access to rocks and surfaces, and be protected from sand and other foreign material.

    You've seen videos of experimental toys, none of which survived the riggers of testing, or carried any significant payload, let alone a power plant, and a computer system capable of autonomous operation.

    I think the six wheel lander offers the best mix of travel capability with payload capacity. I think I trust the guys who actually build and test these things over those who watch watch videos.

Q: How many IBM CPU's does it take to execute a job? A: Four; three to hold it down, and one to rip its head off.

Working...