Wikipedia

Talk:Mars Science Laboratory: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Removed deprecated parameters in {{Talk header}} that are now handled automatically (Task 30)
 
(621 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown)
Line 1:
{{talk header|search=yes}}
{{WPSpace|class=Start|mars=yes|mars-importance=top|space_exploration=yes|space_exploration-importance=high}}
{{US English}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
{{WikiProject Robotics|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Spaceflight |importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Astronomy|solar_system=yes|importance=High|ss-importance=High|mars=yes|mars-importance=Top}}
}}
{{ITN talk|27 November|2011}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 2
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(60d)
|archive = Talk:Mars Science Laboratory/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
{{OnThisDay|date1=2015-11-26|oldid1=692487444|date2=2019-11-26|oldid2=927913097}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>[[Radiation assessment detector#Radiation assessment detector (RAD)|RAD]]</nowiki>
}}
 
== "Seven minutes of terror" redirect ==
== RTG ==
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."
 
"{{-r|Seven minutes of terror}}" currently redirects to a section of this article. However, it is now ambiguous, since the term has been used again for the [[InSight]] mission. It should probably be a disambiguation page or perhaps [[WP:RFD|not exist at all]]. Suggestions? --[[User:SoledadKabocha|SoledadKabocha]] ([[User talk:SoledadKabocha|talk]]) 06:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
WHAT are RTG's?
:I notice that the ''InSight'' article doesn't yet mention the term; we shouldn't take any action until it does. --[[User:SoledadKabocha|SoledadKabocha]] ([[User talk:SoledadKabocha|talk]]) 02:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Rocket Towed Grenades?
::Nor do the [[Mars atmospheric entry]] or [[Mars landing]] articles specifically mention justification for a seven-minute interval.
Rwandan Tree Gorillas?
::I was not seriously recommending either a disambiguation or an RFD. A hatnote would be more appropriate, ''after'' relevant content is added to one of said other articles. --[[User:SoledadKabocha|SoledadKabocha]] ([[User talk:SoledadKabocha|talk]]) 02:42, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Recycled Tarantula Gases?
Really Thick Glasses?
 
== AutoNav not mentioned ==
:Was wondering the same thing myself. Have discovered it means [[radioisotope thermoelectric generator]]s and have edited the page to reflect this. --[[User:Lancevortex|Lancevortex]] 23:01, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 
Neither the Computer section or the Mobility systems section mention the AutoNav software on-board Curiosity. Sadly it has been less used since the wheel damage required avoidance of sharp rocks.[https://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Perseverance_Mars_rover_to_use_AutoNav_in_new_self_driving_mode_999.html ] Mars 2020/Perseverance has upgraded AutoNav software. - [[User:Rod57|Rod57]] ([[User talk:Rod57|talk]]) 12:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
::A little bitty nuclear plant, huh? Boy, I hope that thing doesn't crash and break apart or we'll never hear the end of it! [[User:Doovinator|Doovinator]] 18:16, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 
:::Just to be clear: RTGs are not nuclear plants in the sense you (seem to) mean: they are not reactors, but merely produce electricity from the heat generated by a decaying radioactive material. There was a lot of alarmist press about this type of gernerator back in the late 1990s. For example, see this page at Bad Astronomy: [http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/jupiter_galileo_wrong.html] —[[User:ZorkFox|ZorkFox]] 01:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
 
::::RTGs do not produce an active chain reaction. The heat from the natural decay of plutonium pellets is converted into electrical energy by thermocouples. RTGs have been used safely since the early 1960s. They are designed to survive re-entry without dispersing their radioactive material in case of a launch accident; in once case an Air Force satellite suffered a launch failure, the RTGs were recovered intact, refurbished, and flown on the backup vehicle two months later.
 
:::Ignorance is bliss, I see. RTG is NOT a "nuclear plant", [ad hominem autocensored]. --[[User:80.51.70.116|80.51.70.116]] 11:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 
Can RTGs even power a rover like that, with all the wheels and motors[[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 15:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 
== Linux... ==
 
Removed the following:
 
:There has been talk about NASA using [[Linux]] to power the rover's onboard computer.
 
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. --[[User:Robert Merkel|Robert Merkel]] 06:17, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 
== New configuration picture ==
I'm just wondering: where is the RTG gone on the new rover configuration picture? --[[User:Bricktop|Bricktop]] 15:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
:Because some people goes mad-wacko-insanity when hearing anything about "nukulear" energy?
 
::No, because NASA 's been keeping quiet about the power source, hopefully to avoid another incident like with [[Cassini-Huygens]].--[[User:Planetary|Planetary]] 07:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
 
:::The RTGs cannot be depicted because they are export-controlled, sensitive information. As the design has progressed and renderings become more technically accurate, they had to be ommitted.
 
::::But once it nears launch it will be depicted, I'm assuming? --[[User:Planetary|Planetary]] 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)--[[User:Planetary|Planetary]] 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 
:::::No. They will be essentially a black box in the design: a shell with radiator fins sticking out. I've seen the internal designs of some of the RTGs on older missions, and have access to the neutron spectrum from the design, but that is about it. [[User:Michaelbusch|Michaelbusch]] 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 
::::::Well, they know best, I suppose.--[[User:Planetary|Planetary]] 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 
== Units of mass and weight ==
 
The article currently states "<I>MSL is expected to weigh over 800 kg (1,760 lb) including 65 kg (143 lb) of scientific instruments</I>". 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.
 
--[[User:Pomakis|Pomakis]] 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 
That is Earth weight, its Martian weight is not as important as is lift off mass.--[[User:BerserkerBen|BerserkerBen]] 21:37, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== Old pictures ==
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. --[[User:80.51.70.116|80.51.70.116]] 11:22, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 
== waste of time. ==
 
Why does NASA insist on sending
another rover to mars? Wht you really want
is a blimp. There is less pressure on mars, which mean less lifting gas
is needed, because it doesnt burn in CO2 hydrogen can be the lifting gas,
CO2 is heavier than air so hydrogen would be relativly lighter, which means less lifting gas
and there is less gravity on mars so less lifting gas is needed. So, you dont need a big gas bag to keep the probe aloft. On top of the gas bag solar cells would be situated, If there is a dust storm the probes can just sit at a higher altitude above it. Altitude can be controlled by using ballonets. Propulsion would be provided by two ducted fans, driven electrically. The advantages: the probes are more mobile whic means they can vist sites like: vallis marianris,
volcanic calderas and the polar caps. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 15:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
:If you can find a [[WP:RS | source]] to cite for this concept, you might be able to work it into the [[Exploration of Mars]] article. ([[User:Sdsds|sdsds]] - ''[[User talk:Sdsds|talk]]'') 17:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 
Hmmmmmm..... its a pity that a lot of this is "original reserch". I'll try to
find sources I can credit for things such as how hydrogen is more effiecent and all that other
stuff but I dont know about any space agency that had this idea of is plannig such a mission, that is why I find it so frustating because I think it would be a very clever way to explore mars. I can try to send a drawing of this to you but I do not know how to get images on to wikipedia. Can you help me? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 19:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 
A blimp would be cool but NASA is now evolutionary nor revolutionary and a space blimp has to many untested perimeters. NASA conservatism in design is so intense now that they have given up on the SRG for a RTG instead even though the SRG will save them money and double the power available MSL, simply because the SRG has no space flight history, news flash: if you never fly it you won't know if it can fly, ever!--[[User:BerserkerBen|BerserkerBen]] 05:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 
My problem about the rovers is that they cannot reach certain areas, such as the bottom of deep
canyons. One of the problems would be to have a flexible solar array that is furled up in the cruise stage. Its like the CEV: it'll work and it'll work safely and cost-effectivly but it isnt new and NASA wont learn anything remarkable from it. But it is basically a space taxi, desgined to ferry astronaut toand from earth orbit. The MSL on the other hand is designed to do science, not to be a transportation device. NASA will miss out on a lot of very interesting stuff,like what sits at the bottom of those canyons. Some space agency is already thinking about a balloon descent probe, and NASA has been going on about a "mars plane" for some time but these projets lack something that the rovers do: go up to the rock and do a whole lot of geologic stuff, they can only take pictures. [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 08:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 
:I think, if the geology people could decide, they would leave the balloon at home and would go for a drilling ridge to go down several 100m or even km. The blimp will have limited capabilities in instrumentation, although the possibility to finde a geological interesting site is better. The MSL package is conservative, but the Raman-LIBS and some of the other instruments will give new insights. The ExoMars Rover will than be a mission more on the biology and organic chemistry side, and with both missions the sample return mission or the balloon will not come next, but other bodies will gain interest, like Europa or Titan. The future missions of ESA aim more for these than for Mars.--[[User:Stone|Stone]] 08:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 
I would love to see a rover on [[Titan]] (due to the low solar output it would have to be powered by RTGs). Only one problem: the radioactive stuff will remain dangerous for a very long time and
if the rover burns up or crashes it would be a biiiig disaster. Is their any other substance that could be used that has a shorter half life, perhaps? And the [[Mars exploration rovers]] had [[RHUs]] (radioisotope heating units)- why didnt the enviroMENTAL groups have a fit about that like they freaked out about cassini? and the [[Huygens probe]], which is sitting on titan right now, it also has RHUs. Aren't they irradiating the area? [[User:T.Neo|T.Neo]] 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mars_Science_Laboratory"