Talk:Mars Science Laboratory

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."

WHAT are RTG's? Rocket Towed Grenades? Rwandan Tree Gorillas? Recycled Tarantula Gases? Really Thick Glasses?

Was wondering the same thing myself. Have discovered it means radioisotope thermoelectric generators and have edited the page to reflect this. --Lancevortex 23:01, 11 Apr 2004 (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! 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: [1] —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]. --80.51.70.116 11:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Can RTGs even power a rover like that, with all the wheels and motorsT.Neo 15:37, 9 September 2007 (UTC) Yes, in fact MSL will be getting 2400wh per day while the MERs get at best 900wh. MSL will have batteries that are trickle charged by the RTG.--BerserkerBen 05:12, 15 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. --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? --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.--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? --Planetary 01:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)--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. Michaelbusch 03:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, they know best, I suppose.--Planetary 04:45, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Units of mass and weight

The article currently states "MSL is expected to weigh over 800 kg (1,760 lb) including 65 kg (143 lb) of scientific instruments". 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.

--Pomakis 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

That is Earth weight, its Martian weight is not as important as is lift off mass.--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. --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. T.Neo 15:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find a source to cite for this concept, you might be able to work it into the Exploration of Mars article. (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? 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!--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. 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.--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? T.Neo 17:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You did not mentione the vikings, and several other probes launched in the good old times where the power of the atom was a belessing not a curse. The fuel RHU is some Plutonium isotope with a halfe life of 80 years (shorter life time would be nit good for a 15 year mission) or so and the radiation is not harming the sensitive electronics. So I think the overall radioactivity felt by the outside world would be minimal and a breach is not very likely because they are encapsulated to survive more than most of the other parts of the probes. The russian RHUs are small egg shaped 70-90°C hot devices and they show it without any problem or shielding to persones wich are interested to buy them.--Stone 14:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

hmm... your right about the viking probes. T.Neo 14:56, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Also: "the machine of seven consectutive miracules" will probably fail dismally. The beauty of the MER/pathfinder design is that is self rights itself after landing, something the rocket + footpad landers cant do. T.Neo 13:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Also: with the new design the rover will land directly on mars with no protection beneath it. More likely to get damaged. T.Neo 13:14, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Funding Problem 9-2007

The news anounced that the Chemcam lost its funding and that the camera will go without zoom. Further cuts in costs will be possible. This is tipical for a new NASA boss to halt some missions to show his ability to reduce costs, the last did the same with Dawn. What really happens nobody knows.--Stone 15:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

So the Chemcam lost its funding and the camera wont have zoom, will this mean the mission will get cancelled? Oh, and by the way, what is a chemcam? T.Neo 18:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind about about the Chemcam, read about it in the article. T.Neo 18:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Dam, this is really bad, the Chemcam is not the only thing affected: http://www.planetary.org/about/executive_director/20070918.html I rather them push the mission up to 2011-2013 then cut the science like this! We should retain information on things as they were, that way we will have a live history of the development, so don't go deleting the MARDI information and changing specs without retaining the information of what was originally planned and then state how they changed. --BerserkerBen 14:46, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Updates approaching launch

So, in reading this article I was surprised by how variable or unsure most of the claims were on the article. This makes sense from a 2006 standpoint, when most of this article was created, but it seems like now, in 2008, we should probably have more definitive information, and less future tense speculation, regarding things like the MSL's payload, landing sites, etc. Launch is only 18 months away, and so I imagine most of the science instruments are probably already completed and undergoing assembly on the vehicle. This is entirely speculation on my part, based on what i've seen with past space missions, but maybe somebody knows of an engineer's blog or NASA updates about the mission that might allow us to update this article?--Galactoise (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

As I now ExoMars and get the gosip of MSL09 there is still much todo, talk about the sample preparation and distribution , the Chemcam and the power source is frequent and looks far from setelt.--15:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)