Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

louis · 2012-08-10 17:18:17

Rxke wrote:

yes it's a bit disheartening... Maybe the time of bb's is passing, everyone on social media...

I don't think so...I go on plenty of other active websites. I think it's more to do with the way the website operates. Having a website without strong imagery (photos/computer graphics/animations) is a bit problematic. I think some of the regulars must be on holiday.

RGClark · 2012-08-11 06:47:36

Was watching "This Week at NASA" after the landing. I was interested in how the voice over describing the Curiosity landing phrased the life on Mars question. It said Curiosity will try to determine if the conditions are right for microbial life *to exist* on Mars:

Curiosity Has Landed! on This Week @NASA.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3smd4INzng

It was notable to me this was phrased in the present tense, not for microbial life *to have existed* on Mars, but *to exist* on Mars. Since Viking with the general consensus that the current life on Mars question was answered in the negative, usually NASA missions were described as only determining if life could have existed in the past on Mars, not the present.
On the "NASA360" episode shown this week, the NASA scientist interviewed Dr. Bruce Jakosky of the Curiosity and upcoming MAVEN Mars missions described them also as determining if conditions are right for life *to exist* on Mars, present tense:

NASA 360 Season 3, Show 19.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wiYVRg7d-PQ

Bob Clark

RobertDyck · 2012-08-11 09:27:27

Ok, I'll comment. Mars Odyssey measured radiation in Mars orbit. It was supposed to be complemented by a radiation sensor on the Mars 2001 lander, this would provide "ground truth". NASA and the nuclear bomb guys in the military have really accurate formulae to calculate radiation absorption, so they can calculate a very accurate estimate of how much radiation gets through Mars atmosphere to the surface. But the lander was supposed to provide "ground truth" to validate those calculations. But the lander used the same chassis as Mars Polar Lander, so they held off launching until after the problem with Polar Lander was identified. Unfortunately then they got bored and forgot about the 2001 Lander. Then some scientists noticed this lander, complete and ready for launch sitting in storage. They converted it into Mars Phoenix, removing several instruments to make room for their new instruments. The radiation sensor was one instrument removed. The In-Situ Propellant Production Precursor was another. Phoenix was nice and all, but the removed instruments were a great loss. But now we have the RAD sensor on Curiosity, so it'll provide the needed data.

The MARIE instrument on Odyssey found radiation in Mars orbit is about twice that of ISS. You see, Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere and anything in Low Earth Orbit (such as ISS) is within and protected by Earth's magentosphere. But calculations show radiation on Mars surface is half that of ISS, which means about 3/4 is blocked by the atmosphere. More important is the "spectrum", or which types of radiation get blocked.

Heavy ion radiation is the nastiest. Light radiation shielding can actually make it worse. Heavy ions are large atoms such as iron. Cosmic radiation (also known as Galactic Cosmic Radiation) gets pulled in by the Sun's gravity, and more dramatically by the Sun's magnetic field. By the time it reaches the inner solar system, cosmic radiation has been accelerated to close to the speed of light. When a heavy ion GCR particle hits shielding, it can split into multiple particles. Each is smaller in mass and slower, but still larger than alpha particles and moving damn fast. So this means light shielding can convert heavy ion radiation from a high calibre bullet to a shotgun blast. When it hits your body, each particle blasts through a path of cells. So splitting heavy ions actually causes MORE of your cells to get affected. The best shielding against heavy ions is liquid hydrogen, because the hydrogen is so light it doesn't split the ions. Impact with hydrogen doesn't slow the ion much, but each impact slows it a bit more and a bit more until it's slow enough not to be dangerous. That takes a fairly thick tank of liquid hydrogen. The second best shielding is water, H2O. Third best is plastic high in hydrogen and composed of just hydrogen and carbon, such as polyethylene or polypropylene. Nylon or polycarbonate contain a small quantity of medium weight atoms, such as chlorine. These heavier atoms can split heavy ions; not good.

The good news is the best shield against heavy ions is the atmosphere of Mars itself. It's low density but miles thick. If you look at the report by the MARIE team, the atmosphere of Mars will block 90% of heavy ion radiation at a high altitude plateau such as Meridiani Planum. At a low altitude location 2km below the datum, such as Mawrth Vallis, the atmosphere blocks 99% of heavy ion radiation. So the safest place in our solar system, next to Earth, is the surface of Mars.

Other forms of radiation: beta is blocked by a single sheet of paper or plastic film. In fact it's blocked by the epidermis of human skin. A spacesuit or spacecraft will block it easily. Alpha is blocked by a single sheet of aluminum foil, so again a spacesuit or spacecraft will block easily. Neutron radiation does not survive long enough to make it from the Sun to the orbit of Mercury, much less Earth or Mars. UV light can be nasty, Earth's ozone layer blocks 100% of UV-C and the vast majority of UV-B. Light we get on the surface is UV-A, the low energy stuff. UV-B causes skin cancer, and UV-C will sterilize or kill your outer layer of skin. Even mild exposure to UV-C can cause cataracts later in life. So NASA developed a spectrally selective coating for windows or spacesuit helmet visors. It consists of very thin layers of gold, nickel, and silver-oxide. It lets 80% of visible light through, but blocks 99% of UV. It also reflects about 40% of IR, and can be adjusted. With the metal layers applied one way it reflects more short wave IR and less long wave. Long wave IR is radiant heat from warm objects like the floor, walls, furniture, etc. Short wave IR comes from very hot objects like the Sun. So reflecting more short wave and less long wave traps heat in. The other way it helps keep heat out. This was developed by NASA, but sold to commercial industry. They sell windows with this under two brand names: Low-e or Heat Mirror. In Canada it's oriented to trap heat in, when sold to southern states it's oriented to keep heat out. All this helps control heat in a spacecraft, as well as protect against radiation. Since it's metal, it also blocks X-rays.

So what gets through? Proton, light ions, and medium ions are somewhat blocked by Mars atmosphere but not as effectively as heavy ions. Gamma rays also get through. The best shielding against these forms of radiation is soil, or sand bags. When Robert Zubrin wrote the Mars Direct plan he called for bringing empty sand bags. Astronauts would fill them with Mars soil, and pile on the habitat roof. That's actually the best. For a permanent settlement, you want 2 metre depth of soil on the roof.

To limit radiation exposure to the same dose per year as a nuclear reactor worker, a permanent base needs 2 things: 2 metre of soil on the roof, and limit time outside in a spacesuit to 40 hours per week. That's a work week, not a problem. A greenhouse would have a glass roof (or plastic film) coated in that same spectrally selective coating. So time in a greenhouse would be the same as time outside in a spacesuit.

For a science mission, radiation on the surface is overall half that of ISS. And sand bags will reduce it further. And the nastiest form of radiation is the one blocked by Mars atmosphere. So again, not a problem.

Oh, one of the linked articles said a mission to Mars would be 6 months there, 6 months back, and 18 months on the surface. But the planets orbits align for a return after just 14 months. Mars orbit is elliptical, if you go the wrong year it could be a bit more, up to a maximum of 16 months, but not 18.

louis · 2012-08-12 06:28:21

RobertDyck wrote:

Ok, I'll comment. Mars Odyssey measured radiation in Mars orbit. It was supposed to be complemented by a radiation sensor on the Mars 2001 lander, this would provide "ground truth". NASA and the nuclear bomb guys in the military have really accurate formulae to calculate radiation absorption, so they can calculate a very accurate estimate of how much radiation gets through Mars atmosphere to the surface. But the lander was supposed to provide "ground truth" to validate those calculations. But the lander used the same chassis as Mars Polar Lander, so they held off launching until after the problem with Polar Lander was identified. Unfortunately then they got bored and forgot about the 2001 Lander. Then some scientists noticed this lander, complete and ready for launch sitting in storage. They converted it into Mars Phoenix, removing several instruments to make room for their new instruments. The radiation sensor was one instrument removed. The In-Situ Propellant Production Precursor was another. Phoenix was nice and all, but the removed instruments were a great loss. But now we have the RAD sensor on Curiosity, so it'll provide the needed data.
The MARIE instrument on Odyssey found radiation in Mars orbit is about twice that of ISS. You see, Mars doesn't have a magnetosphere and anything in Low Earth Orbit (such as ISS) is within and protected by Earth's magentosphere. But calculations show radiation on Mars surface is half that of ISS, which means about 3/4 is blocked by the atmosphere. More important is the "spectrum", or which types of radiation get blocked.
Heavy ion radiation is the nastiest. Light radiation shielding can actually make it worse. Heavy ions are large atoms such as iron. Cosmic radiation (also known as Galactic Cosmic Radiation) gets pulled in by the Sun's gravity, and more dramatically by the Sun's magnetic field. By the time it reaches the inner solar system, cosmic radiation has been accelerated to close to the speed of light. When a heavy ion GCR particle hits shielding, it can split into multiple particles. Each is smaller in mass and slower, but still larger than alpha particles and moving damn fast. So this means light shielding can convert heavy ion radiation from a high calibre bullet to a shotgun blast. When it hits your body, each particle blasts through a path of cells. So splitting heavy ions actually causes MORE of your cells to get affected. The best shielding against heavy ions is liquid hydrogen, because the hydrogen is so light it doesn't split the ions. Impact with hydrogen doesn't slow the ion much, but each impact slows it a bit more and a bit more until it's slow enough not to be dangerous. That takes a fairly thick tank of liquid hydrogen. The second best shielding is water, H2O. Third best is plastic high in hydrogen and composed of just hydrogen and carbon, such as polyethylene or polypropylene. Nylon or polycarbonate contain a small quantity of medium weight atoms, such as chlorine. These heavier atoms can split heavy ions; not good.
The good news is the best shield against heavy ions is the atmosphere of Mars itself. It's low density but miles thick. If you look at the report by the MARIE team, the atmosphere of Mars will block 90% of heavy ion radiation at a high altitude plateau such as Meridiani Planum. At a low altitude location 2km below the datum, such as Mawrth Vallis, the atmosphere blocks 99% of heavy ion radiation. So the safest place in our solar system, next to Earth, is the surface of Mars.
Other forms of radiation: beta is blocked by a single sheet of paper or plastic film. In fact it's blocked by the epidermis of human skin. A spacesuit or spacecraft will block it easily. Alpha is blocked by a single sheet of aluminum foil, so again a spacesuit or spacecraft will block easily. Neutron radiation does not survive long enough to make it from the Sun to the orbit of Mercury, much less Earth or Mars. UV light can be nasty, Earth's ozone layer blocks 100% of UV-C and the vast majority of UV-B. Light we get on the surface is UV-A, the low energy stuff. UV-B causes skin cancer, and UV-C will sterilize or kill your outer layer of skin. Even mild exposure to UV-C can cause cataracts later in life. So NASA developed a spectrally selective coating for windows or spacesuit helmet visors. It consists of very thin layers of gold, nickel, and silver-oxide. It lets 80% of visible light through, but blocks 99% of UV. It also reflects about 40% of IR, and can be adjusted. With the metal layers applied one way it reflects more short wave IR and less long wave. Long wave IR is radiant heat from warm objects like the floor, walls, furniture, etc. Short wave IR comes from very hot objects like the Sun. So reflecting more short wave and less long wave traps heat in. The other way it helps keep heat out. This was developed by NASA, but sold to commercial industry. They sell windows with this under two brand names: Low-e or Heat Mirror. In Canada it's oriented to trap heat in, when sold to southern states it's oriented to keep heat out. All this helps control heat in a spacecraft, as well as protect against radiation. Since it's metal, it also blocks X-rays.
So what gets through? Proton, light ions, and medium ions are somewhat blocked by Mars atmosphere but not as effectively as heavy ions. Gamma rays also get through. The best shielding against these forms of radiation is soil, or sand bags. When Robert Zubrin wrote the Mars Direct plan he called for bringing empty sand bags. Astronauts would fill them with Mars soil, and pile on the habitat roof. That's actually the best. For a permanent settlement, you want 2 metre depth of soil on the roof.
To limit radiation exposure to the same dose per year as a nuclear reactor worker, a permanent base needs 2 things: 2 metre of soil on the roof, and limit time outside in a spacesuit to 40 hours per week. That's a work week, not a problem. A greenhouse would have a glass roof (or plastic film) coated in that same spectrally selective coating. So time in a greenhouse would be the same as time outside in a spacesuit.
For a science mission, radiation on the surface is overall half that of ISS. And sand bags will reduce it further. And the nastiest form of radiation is the one blocked by Mars atmosphere. So again, not a problem.
Oh, one of the linked articles said a mission to Mars would be 6 months there, 6 months back, and 18 months on the surface. But the planets orbits align for a return after just 14 months. Mars orbit is elliptical, if you go the wrong year it could be a bit more, up to a maximum of 16 months, but not 18.

Thanks for that very informative and encouraging post. Presumably with the right location you could just load sheets of ice over the hab to improve protection.

I also read that the MSL's sensitive instruments had been well protected from radiation in the transit craft, which is excellent news since I sure we would be making even greater efforts to protect human crew from harmful radiation in transit.

I think essentially, though much work remains to be done, we can cross off radiation as a serious problem.

That really leaves EDLA (EDL plus ascent for return) and zero/low gravity effects as the major issues to be addressed. I note that one of the NASA engineers was very optimistic about the EDL for humans. He seemed to suggest that they had solutions for that if the money was there.

Would they use the skycrane for a heavier human craft? I would still back Red Dragon over that.

GW Johnson · 2012-08-12 09:39:19

EDLA: Manned vehicles will be larger, with larger ballistic coefficients. From LMO, if you keep angle shallow, entry is around 0.7 peak gee, terminating (Mach 3) around 8 km altitude. Direct entry at higher speeds, or at steeper angles, quickly takes you to hypersonic surface impact. At 8 km M3, I see little opportunity for a chute/ballute to do any good. Looks like rocket braking to touchdown to me. If you do direct entry or steeper entry, you may need retro thrust during the hypersonics to make the ballistic coefficient effectively lower.

Radiation: doesn't appear to be that big a problem on Mars's surface. In space, solar flares are the more immediate threat. That's 20 cm water or equivalent.

Microgravity diseases: In space, spin the slender-baton-shaped ship head-over-heels for artificial gravity. Put the hab on one end. About 3-4 rpm is tolerable. 56 m at 4 rpm is one full gee. If the ship is assembled of docked modules, it is easy to reconfigure after every burn to shed modules but still be a slender baton of the correct length.

On Mars: we simply dunno how much gee is enough. Not yet. May need a conical centrifuge exercise room in any permanent settlement. Or maybe not.

We'll need the bulkier, heavier frozen food to make the trip. That freeze-dried and sealed/irradiated stuff doesn't last but about a year, maybe year-and-a-half.

The next lander ought to be a modified Dragon sample return. After that, men need to go. If no one can afford the sample return, then men need to go. But, I'd bet Musk can pull off a sample return affordably based on Dragon/Falcon-Heavy, in a direct entry scenario. The Dragon may need a lot of extra thruster fuel, or maybe not so much, I dunno. The side-mounted Super Dracos could do retro thrust in entry, if needed.

GW

louis · 2012-08-12 16:34:26

GW Johnson wrote:

EDLA: Manned vehicles will be larger, with larger ballistic coefficients. From LMO, if you keep angle shallow, entry is around 0.7 peak gee, terminating (Mach 3) around 8 km altitude. Direct entry at higher speeds, or at steeper angles, quickly takes you to hypersonic surface impact. At 8 km M3, I see little opportunity for a chute/ballute to do any good. Looks like rocket braking to touchdown to me. If you do direct entry or steeper entry, you may need retro thrust during the hypersonics to make the ballistic coefficient effectively lower.
Radiation: doesn't appear to be that big a problem on Mars's surface. In space, solar flares are the more immediate threat. That's 20 cm water or equivalent.
Microgravity diseases: In space, spin the slender-baton-shaped ship head-over-heels for artificial gravity. Put the hab on one end. About 3-4 rpm is tolerable. 56 m at 4 rpm is one full gee. If the ship is assembled of docked modules, it is easy to reconfigure after every burn to shed modules but still be a slender baton of the correct length.
On Mars: we simply dunno how much gee is enough. Not yet. May need a conical centrifuge exercise room in any permanent settlement. Or maybe not.
We'll need the bulkier, heavier frozen food to make the trip. That freeze-dried and sealed/irradiated stuff doesn't last but about a year, maybe year-and-a-half.
The next lander ought to be a modified Dragon sample return. After that, men need to go. If no one can afford the sample return, then men need to go. But, I'd bet Musk can pull off a sample return affordably based on Dragon/Falcon-Heavy, in a direct entry scenario. The Dragon may need a lot of extra thruster fuel, or maybe not so much, I dunno. The side-mounted Super Dracos could do retro thrust in entry, if needed.
GW

Yes I think the recipe is there, we just need someone with the will to bake the cake - and in Elon Musk I think we have that someone.

On the question of food, I am sure that the equivalent of health bars would provide a lot of nutrition in a compact form and I think they will last a couple of years.

Efficient water recycling is of course another requirement that perhaps needs focussing on. I believe the ISS actually ships a lot of water in, and doesn't have an effective recycling system. For the transit to Mars it will be vital to have effective and failsafe water recycling.

SpaceNut · 2012-08-13 11:23:56

We have been doing the needed design and use of water recycling for some time onboard the ISS. All of which was in the ISS threads but lost in the crash...

The history of water for the ISS was from start of manned presence until 2008 or so was one of recycling 40,000 pounds per year of water from Earth to resupply a minimum of four crewmembers for the life of the station. On the space station, people will wash their hands with less than one-tenth the water that people typically use on Earth. Instead of consuming 50 liters to take a shower, which is typical on Earth, denizens of the ISS will use less than 4 liters to bathe. With the water being reclaimed for the Russian oxygen generator system.

In 1998, NASA announced it had built a human waste reclamation bioreactor designed for use in the International Space Station and a manned Mars mission. Human urine and feces are input into one end of the reactor and pure oxygen, pure water, and compost (humanure) are output from the other end. The soil could be used for growing vegetables, and the bioreactor also produces electricity.

http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/ASE … waller.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioreactor

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 210838.htm
http://space.about.com/od/livinginspace … ycling.htm

Aboard the International Space Station, astronauts have been able to drink recycled urine due to the introduction of the ECLSS system. The system cost $250 million and has been working since May 2009. The system recycles wastewater and urine back into potable water used for drinking, food preparation, and oxygen generation.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/09 … urine.html

But with all that is said and done any system will need backups both mechanical or biological.....

SpaceNut · 2012-08-13 11:45:02

Food after fresh has run out with no greenhouse along the journey out, then once the refridgerated also has expired there is only frozen which will last about the time it get to mars for what we would consider a normal meal here on earth.
http://whatscookingamerica.net/Informat … rChart.htm

Short of bringing the cow, rabbit, chicken and fish to mars what does that leave us....Freeze dried....

http://www.thereadystore.com/saratoga-f … ken-10-can
Estimated Shelf Life: 20-30 Years
Estimated Shelf Life (Opened Container): 6-12 Months

http://store.honeyvillegrain.com/freeze … encan.aspx
http://www.nitro-pak.com/mtn-h-diced-chicken-cooked

http://store.honeyvillegrain.com/freeze … ecase.aspx

http://survive-thrive.us/tag/meat/

louis · 2012-08-13 13:03:43

SpaceNut wrote:

We have been doing the needed design and use of water recycling for some time onboard the ISS. All of which was in the ISS threads but lost in the crash...
The history of water for the ISS was from start of manned presence until 2008 or so was one of recycling 40,000 pounds per year of water from Earth to resupply a minimum of four crewmembers for the life of the station. On the space station, people will wash their hands with less than one-tenth the water that people typically use on Earth. Instead of consuming 50 liters to take a shower, which is typical on Earth, denizens of the ISS will use less than 4 liters to bathe. With the water being reclaimed for the Russian oxygen generator system.
In 1998, NASA announced it had built a human waste reclamation bioreactor designed for use in the International Space Station and a manned Mars mission. Human urine and feces are input into one end of the reactor and pure oxygen, pure water, and compost (humanure) are output from the other end. The soil could be used for growing vegetables, and the bioreactor also produces electricity.
http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/ASE … waller.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioreactor

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 210838.htm
http://space.about.com/od/livinginspace … ycling.htm
Aboard the International Space Station, astronauts have been able to drink recycled urine due to the introduction of the ECLSS system. The system cost $250 million and has been working since May 2009. The system recycles wastewater and urine back into potable water used for drinking, food preparation, and oxygen generation.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/09 … urine.html

But with all that is said and done any system will need backups both mechanical or biological.....

Thanks for that, I am a bit behind the times on that then, sounds like they have been addressing the issue on the ISS.

This device might be useful in the event of an emergency:

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_pritch … ilter.html

From what I have read, most astronauts seem happy enough with wipes for cleansing purposes in most cases.

Josh Cryer · 2012-08-14 20:41:56

Telecon: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/24703937

Slides for the telecon: http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/telecon/

Josh Cryer · 2012-08-14 22:44:05

jmknapp over at UMSF set up a wonderful scraper for MSL images: http://curiositymsl.com/table/view/

louis · 2012-08-15 16:18:53

Whoever's doing the pic choice on NASA's MSL site isn't doing too well I think. People want to see sky plus horizon, mountains and landscape. Too often they are highlighting foreground pics with nothing to scale it. Probably a geologist making the choice...

This is actually the best pic I think (from the raw images section):

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images … 1_DXXX.jpg

It's great when you maximise it!

Midoshi · 2012-08-16 12:12:46

louis

So far, most of the images returned were pre-programmed testing shots to make sure everything is as it should be and there are no obstacles around the rover. That is top priority. So the ones making the "choices" are the engineers...and they did that months ago. Any scenic shots are basically accidental. Once everything checks out they will let the scientists snap pictures that are more interesting. And believe me, they are as eager as anyone to get some better shots of Mt Sharp's peak and the distant landscape.

louis · 2012-08-16 15:54:09

Midoshi wrote:

louis
So far, most of the images returned were pre-programmed testing shots to make sure everything is as it should be and there are no obstacles around the rover. That is top priority. So the ones making the "choices" are the engineers...and they did that months ago. Any scenic shots are basically accidental. Once everything checks out they will let the scientists snap pictures that are more interesting. And believe me, they are as eager as anyone to get some better shots of Mt Sharp's peak and the distant landscape.

I am not arguing about that. But once again, I think this shows NASA skewed priorities. Getting the science right is important, but getting the public on side is a whole lot more important (for future science among other things). If you show a load of gravel on the ground you get the non-scientific mass of people thinking "We paid 2 billion for that?". If you show them a world that looks familiar, they start thinking "Wow! That's amazing...looks just like Earth"...and then a lot of them start daydreaming "Wish I could go there, make a fresh start...wouldn't it be nice to have a whole planet to yourself..." It's completely subjective and non-scientific but it creates and entirely different atmosphere in which public funding decisions are made.

Rxke · 2012-08-16 23:48:13

Oh come on, Louis.
Skewed priorities? Skewed priorities??

What do you expect from NASA?

"Curiozzity- teh hunt for alienzzz! OMGZ"

"Watch its laser zap them boring rocks, play Alien Robot but mind the lag, it's killer!"

Since two days after the landing, I have -daily- changed my dual screen wallpaper at work ( I work in digitization) with 'calibration pics" from curiosity, people come visiting my workplace, just to see them, now there.

All I tell them is: you ain't seen nuttin' yet, these cameras are amazing! (I also show anaglyphs, have red/green glasses handy )

hint: really, eally watch those pics on a BIG screen, not on a 13" laptop, and let it soak in for a minute or two. You'll be amazed, even that 'boring gravel' gives you a special feeling. It's mesmerizing.

I get the point of 'reaching for the masses' but you can not argue their pics are sub par. compare them with spirit/oppies first pics, heck or even pathfinder.

We're in for really, really spectacular stuff.

(silently biding my time to download a composite panorama to print out in hi-res and bigass dimensions I'm sure they'll deliver. )

BTW the team did a Q&A on Reddit, they're the best: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/y … _the_mars/

RGClark · 2012-08-17 02:52:51

louis wrote:

Whoever's doing the pic choice on NASA's MSL site isn't doing too well I think. People want to see sky plus horizon, mountains and landscape. Too often they are highlighting foreground pics with nothing to scale it. Probably a geologist making the choice...
This is actually the best pic I think (from the raw images section):
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images … 1_DXXX.jpg
It's great when you maximise it!

Great pic. Thanks.

Bob Clark

Rxke · 2012-08-17 06:52:49

Louis:

http://www.360cities.net/image/curiosit … 8.19,110.0

The best is -still- yet to come

louis · 2012-08-17 16:37:45

Rxke wrote:

Louis:
http://www.360cities.net/image/curiosit … 8.19,110.0
The best is -still- yet to come

#
Wow! That's truly awe-inspiring. Is that an unofficial production from NASA material?

Whatever, it gives a wonderful sense of the eerie beauty of Mars.

louis · 2012-08-17 16:41:43

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/m … 16068.html

The pics are getting more interesting! A lot of detail on this one - I'm not a geologist but it look like wind erosion on the top of Mount Sharp.

Josh Cryer · 2012-08-19 20:15:28

That was also posted on the telecon Aug 17: http://bit.ly/TKy9Qd

Vincent · 2012-08-21 03:57:40

NASA has hit a new low for obvious censorship. A tip of the hat to them. The dark CHEMCAM images are second only to the 15K blurry postage stamp images.

Don't worry, they will throw us a bone every once in a while...... If they feel like it.....

Vincent · 2012-08-21 05:43:35

This image shows an unusual rock. It appears to have characteristics of biological origin. This doesn't mean anything, it could be and most likely is, "a rock."
The question is this. If you spent billions of dollars to go there would you take a closer look at this feature? You bet. Will we see it in the raw data feed?

Not a chance brother. Let the games begin....

Feature in this image:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11627092@N06/7830447046/

Link to original data here:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images … 1_DXXX.jpg

Last edited by Vincent (2012-08-21 09:10:24)

Vincent · 2012-08-21 09:33:14

Now if you guys believe that NASA can put a two ton rover on Mars with a computer on board with less storage capacity of a cell phone and the transmition capabilities of a common 1995 Microsoft 33K modem I salute you. You are a step above us all indeed.

Most of us would wonder why they needed two weeks to themselves all alone on the surface of Mars, but not you. Yes, you are a step above the rest, a damn genius. My brother-in-law, who is also a genius has a proposition.
In Maryland they will close a bridge on interstate I-95 for repair. This repair could take several years. A bridge on I-295 he owns. This could be turned into a toll bridge with great profit to you.. Please leave your name and number.

Vincent

Image below. Act fast.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/11627092@N06/7831684336/

Last edited by Vincent (2012-08-21 09:35:40)

RGClark · 2012-08-21 11:54:29

In Friday's teleconference lead Curiosity scientist John Grotzinger
initially gave the max temperature at the landing site as 1 degree
above freezing:

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/24773693

However, later in response to a question for clarification on that
temperature at about 22 minutes into the teleconference, he gave the
temperature as 276 degrees Kelvin. This is about 3 degrees C, or 37
degrees F. The temperatures are expected to go higher as we get into
Spring at the landing site.
A low lying water ice haze was visible in Gale crater at the time of
the landing. The Mars Pathfinder mission showed the air temperature
can drop as much as 20C just a few feet above the ground compared
to the ground temperature. So the air temperature where such hazes or
fogs lie, could be at below freezing temperature even when the surface
is a few degrees above freezing.
However, it is important to note that clouds and fogs can have some
proportion of liquid water even at tens of degrees below freezing:

A liquid water component to clouds and fogs on Mars.
http://exoscientist.blogspot.com/2012/0 … s-and.html

Bob Clark

RGClark · 2012-08-21 18:15:28

Just saw this posted to the www.marsroverblog.com forum:

PIA16081: Taking Mars' Temperature.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16081

PIA16080: First Pressure Readings on Mars..

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA16080

Note that the pressure never fell below the 6.1 mbars pressure required for pure water to remain liquid, i.e., not boil off.
Also, eyeballing the temperature graph it looks like surface temperatures remain above 0C for perhaps 3 hours per day.

Bob Clark

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2012-08-10 17:18:17

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#52 2012-08-11 06:47:36

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#53 2012-08-11 09:27:27

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#54 2012-08-12 06:28:21

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#55 2012-08-12 09:39:19

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#56 2012-08-12 16:34:26

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#57 2012-08-13 11:23:56

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#58 2012-08-13 11:45:02

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#59 2012-08-13 13:03:43

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#60 2012-08-14 20:41:56

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#61 2012-08-14 22:44:05

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#62 2012-08-15 16:18:53

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#63 2012-08-16 12:12:46

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#64 2012-08-16 15:54:09

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#65 2012-08-16 23:48:13

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#66 2012-08-17 02:52:51

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#67 2012-08-17 06:52:49

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#68 2012-08-17 16:37:45

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#69 2012-08-17 16:41:43

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#70 2012-08-19 20:15:28

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#71 2012-08-21 03:57:40

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#72 2012-08-21 05:43:35

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#73 2012-08-21 09:33:14

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#74 2012-08-21 11:54:29

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

#75 2012-08-21 18:15:28

Re: Official MSL / Curiosity Rover Thread | Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. PT

Board footer