Meet the new Mars rover.

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
shouldn't they make a bunch of them while they have the tooling :confused:
 

Number1

Diamond Member
Feb 24, 2006
7,881
549
126
They named this thing "Curiosity"? :eek:

Anyway, you're right about nuclear power. The current rovers on Mars would have been able to do a lot more work had they been adequately powered all the time and not at the mercy of the wind to clean their solar arrays or the weather.
 

Bignate603

Lifer
Sep 5, 2000
13,897
1
0
shouldn't they make a bunch of them while they have the tooling :confused:

For much of this stuff there won't be nearly as much tooling as you'd think. A part being made on a CNC doesn't have anything that you'd really call tooling. For all the parts that do require tooling they typically store that stuff for quite some time.
 

mizzou

Diamond Member
Jan 2, 2008
9,734
54
91
given NASA's track record with unmanned missions, they should have a blank check in this area
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
given NASA's track record with unmanned missions, they should have a blank check in this area

Exactly, and we should give up any idea of a manned mission there until we have a propulsion system that can get us there and back in a reasonable amount of time..
 

Bateluer

Lifer
Jun 23, 2001
27,730
8
0
Its only a nuclear battery though, not a full reactor. Still very limited. Despite various probes having various types of nuclear power, people would still have a panic.

Need to get these people jobs so they have something to do other than protest.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Exactly, and we should give up any idea of a manned mission there until we have a propulsion system that can get us there and back in a reasonable amount of time..

Precisely.
There was a lot of flack about cutting the funding meant for a new moon mission, but they aren't exactly cutting funding for NASA.
I personally think it was a great decision. I would love for us to go to the moon again, but the way they were drawing up, it was basically like going back to the old days and just repeating what was successful. That isn't exactly progress.

The Orbiters had one purpose - building and fixing things in space. We need to make progress on that idea, but not simply re-doing the orbiter idea. And most certainly not just redoing the old cabin on a rocket idea.

NASA has already come up with some great propulsion ideas, but the issue so far has been coming up with one that can create good propulsion in a short amount of time, for a large vehicle. They have failed on both fronts thus far, but I believe they have had some good progress with some of the tech and equipment. We just won't have any of it for another decade, at the minimum.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Exactly, and we should give up any idea of a manned mission there until we have a propulsion system that can get us there and back in a reasonable amount of time..

:thumbsup: Agreed 100%
More money for real research instead of Public Relations types of missions.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
:thumbsup: Agreed 100%
More money for real research instead of Public Relations types of missions.

Not to mention with a manned flight your going to need all of the systems to function for YEARS without major problems. Imagine the public relations disaster that would happen if several astronauts lost their lives due to a malfunction after spending billions to build a craft capable of Mars transit.
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
If this last as long as the last ones im all for it. that thing looks awesome though.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
Its only a nuclear battery though, not a full reactor. Still very limited. Despite various probes having various types of nuclear power, people would still have a panic.

Need to get these people jobs so they have something to do other than protest.

The Voyager 1 and 2 had such a system and are still providing power to the spacecraft (although at reduced levels as the plutonium-238 decays over time). Yea, all the nutjobs show up at the Cape whenever anything with a nuclear power source is launched..
 

Soccerman06

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2004
5,830
5
81
ok, so whats the mah rating on that nuclear battery, and when can I have one on my evo, Id like it to last a full days use (i kid!).
 

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
If I remember right, he just wants to kill off the Ares rocket program and the second generation manned moon missions. He hasn't gone after the unmanned projects.

In fact, getting rid of the Ares program will free up more $ for actually useful projects, like this one.
 

Freshgeardude

Diamond Member
Jul 31, 2006
4,506
0
76
i like the idea of nuclear, but as long as they can last the same (if not longer) than the solar powered ones.


Im glad they are giving this thing a 2 year operating limit, as opposed to a 30 day operating limiting on the solar powered rovers, which lasted longer, but by saying a 2 year limit on a nuclear powered one with finite amount of battery life, 2 years may actually be its limit.

surprised they dont put some solar panels on this puppy to increase its lifetime, although they probably thought about solar panel's added weight being an issue.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
19
81
i like the idea of nuclear, but as long as they can last the same (if not longer) than the solar powered ones.

Im glad they are giving this thing a 2 year operating limit, as opposed to a 30 day operating limiting on the solar powered rovers, which lasted longer, but by saying a 2 year limit on a nuclear powered one with finite amount of battery life, 2 years may actually be its limit.

surprised they dont put some solar panels on this puppy to increase its lifetime, although they probably thought about solar panel's added weight being an issue.
90 days, actually. ;)

And Cassini's original mission ended a few years ago, but it's still going, and is expected to continue for several more years. I don't know where they get their mission length estimates from, but it doesn't seem that the RTGs are the limiting factor.


MSL EDL. :)
Full-size rover mockup

The inevitable result of sending so many rovers.
 
Last edited: