Damn, I was waiting on my Sift Traffic-Jam to clear up so I could sift this one...

Seems like quite a complex landing process. I hope everything goes ok.

I applaud NASA for the first Bi-Curious Rover.

Or they could just ask Dr. Manhattan to take a camera with him.

dang, thats a lot of potential failures right there. what was wrong with the balloon method?

That was fun to watch, but I wonder why the landing process is so complicated? A parachute that deploys a platform with booster rockets which in turn lowers the rover with a winch? Seems like at least one of those should be unnecessary.

Seems like they are awful close to being able to bring samples back. Stop defunding NASA!

Redundant Mars Rover is Redundant.






Mars.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

This was my thought exactly. I hope they pull it off, but from a layman's perspective this seems ripe for failure. I mentioned this a while back in a Wired thread - and asked why they messed with the success of the balloon method. The answer was that the rover is too big and heavy for the balloons.

They should have made it smaller then - or do two balloon ball drops and have them link up after landing.

Great CGI though. *promote

>> ^waynef100:

dang, thats a lot of potential failures right there. what was wrong with the balloon method?

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, April 8th, 2011 11:41am PDT - promote requested by dag.

Mostly from Wikipedia:

The mass of Curiosity is five times that of the rovers Spirit and Opportunity. It will weigh almost 2000 lbs (900 kg for you devil-metric people), and be the size of a Mini Cooper. An airbag drop would have been questionable for even half its weight in two separate pieces. And then what happens if the two pieces land so far apart that they can't reach other, due to difficult terrain or simply a long distance between the two parts (they don't anticipate Curiosity traveling more than 12 miles in its two year mission)? Also, creating two pieces to run separately long enough until they could link perfectly with each other presents its own design challenges.

The Curiosity also has ten times the weight of scientific equipment compared to the previous rovers, hence its large size. They plan on doing way more with Curiosity than previous rovers. It will also travel greater distances, and be able to handle the terrain better than the previous, smaller rovers.

If you really want to get your geek on then here is an 18-page "overview" of the Mars Science Laboratory entry, descent, and landing system.>> ^dag:

This was my thought exactly. I hope they pull it off, but from a layman's perspective this seems ripe for failure. I mentioned this a while back in a Wired thread - and asked why they messed with the success of the balloon method. The answer was that the rover is too big and heavy for the balloons.
They should have made it smaller then - or do two balloon ball drops and have them link up after landing.
Great CGI though. promote
>> ^waynef100:
dang, thats a lot of potential failures right there. what was wrong with the balloon method?

They might switch things up and send it to Venus. It could happen. Who will look stupid then, huh? HUH?>> ^therealblankman:

Redundant Mars Rover is Redundant.



Mars.

Every time they pan the Martian landscape I expect to see Clint Eastwood.

So what happens to the top bit that flies away?

>> ^Deano:

So what happens to the top bit that flies away?

It nails some poor Martian's daughter and start's "Solar System War One".

You'd think NASA would realize there's no sound in space.

>> ^blankfist:

Or they could just ask Dr. Manhattan to take a camera with him.


That's made me wonder why there wasn't a thriving Mars mission in Watchmen. He could just teleport a bunch of stuff and people over there.

I think all NASA video projects should be outsourced to Blizzard.

>> ^alizarin:

You'd think NASA would realize there's no sound in space.


I was giving them the benefit of the doubt. "The microphone is inside the spacecraft" I said.
They they had that flyby shot.

Man I love these animations!

I found myself feeling sorry for the rover. It seems like such a lonely place on Mars.

Glad I wasn't the only one that thought that landing process was overly-complex.

>> ^rosser99:

I found myself feeling sorry for the rover. It seems like such a lonely place on Mars.


http://xkcd.com/695/ ?

Is narrative dead?

I dunno. I thought it was absolutely badass and creative. I especially loved when the jet platform flew off into the middle of nowhere. They should make it scream like a Looney Tunes character as it flies off, though.

The jet pack landing system seems like an ideal place to create a sort of power cage and satellite transfer system. I see no reason the jetpack system itself couldn't land. Seems like a waste to cast such a big piece off.

where are the solar panels on the rover or is this the nuclear powered mini rover? i hope they've resolve the stuck wheel problem too.

^ It's nuclear powered.

Also, I thought the sound effects added some cool action to the video, even though they of course shouldn't be there.

>> ^Almanildo:

^ It's nuclear powered.

Shit, I thought you were kidding. http://www.physorg.com/news203874003.html

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

*promote for the launch: http://videosift.com/video/NASA-Launches-HUGE-Mars-Rover

Promoting this video back to the front page; last published Friday, April 8th, 2011 7:34pm PDT - promote requested by dag.

have we proven that mars is a silent planet?
just wondering since mars isn't space,... it's an planet with an atmosphere.

I'd much rather we spend a mountain of cash visiting the mythical god of war than borrow another dollar in his name.