• Nasa's Curiosity Rover Mission Animation
    49 replies, posted
I wanna know what happens to that piece whichy drops the actual rover. It just flys the fuck away.
I want one
On a slightly different note: Why do so many people dislike the Mako? I personally found it brilliant. Really easy to handle and it spat in the face of the incredibly mountainous terrain found on most planets. 60 degrees slopes? Pah. Also it had brilliant weaponry.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;29240334]I wanna know what happens to that piece whichy drops the actual rover. It just flys the fuck away.[/QUOTE] It does exactly that, then crashes.
The dropship thing was very nice, but I think there should be a way to re-use some parts of it all. The only thing that does research is a large rover, but the entire rocket and landing gear goes to waste. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] Probably would be impossible to it different in short term. Maybe in 100 years?
[QUOTE=scratch (nl);29243098]The dropship thing was very nice, but I think there should be a way to re-use some parts of it all. The only thing that does research is a large rover, but the entire rocket and landing gear goes to waste. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] Probably would be impossible to it different in short term. Maybe in 100 years?[/QUOTE] Unless you use something like a space elevator or something to get it into earth orbit, multi-stage rockets are currently the most efficient launch method. Before multi-stage rockets were considered, space flight was thought to be impossible because as you increase the amount of fuel a rocket carries, you increase it's size and weight and to get into orbit with a single stage rocket, the weight dominates over the thrust of the fuel and it just can't get into space, so you have to dump the weight you no longer need on the journey. As for the dropship thing, it might seem more efficient to build the rockets into the rover so it lands itself without the dropship, but then once it's landed it's got these rockets, fuel tanks, gryo's and guidance systems that it's never going to use again adding extra weight to the rover. All the dropship has to do is fire those rockets and keep the craft steady as it slows the rover to a halt so relative to the rover it's extremely simple and cheap. Making it do something else or re-using it for the sake of not letting it go to waste once its job is done would be making things more complicated, expensive and less efficient. The shuttle program has shown us that re-using instead of rebuilding isn't efficient or even safe when it comes to space flight. Hell, even with food packaging it's much cheaper for a company to manufacture new wrappers for everything rather than collect and recycle them.
I still liked the pathfinder airbags. Using thin wires and a hovering platform to lower such a rover seems too risky. I rather have it encased in a bunch of airbags and roll it down.
I think the problem with that idea is the size difference between Curiosity (right) and pathfinder (middle) :v: [img]http://i52.tinypic.com/2dayc80.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=mokkan;29235678]It's fucked. Like that one that got stuck[/QUOTE] DIdn't it last like 5 more years than intended though?
I laughed when the piece that lowered the rover suddenly took off to crash.
It is all kinda cool except there is no sound in space? Thruster whooshes busted.
[QUOTE=Chernzobog;29236023]That's what happened to half the shit we've sent into space. We just can't take a hint.[/QUOTE] Yeah, fuck space exploration. We should just give up since we aren't successful 100% of the time. :rolleyes:
[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;29255745]Yeah, fuck space exploration. We should just give up since we aren't successful 100% of the time. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE] Was I saying that? I'm all in for space exploration. We're fucked if by 2100 we don't have a self-sustainable space base (be it lunar, martian, or orbital).
[QUOTE=Nutnoze;29091031]I'm not one to question NASA or anything, but that seems [b]really[/b] overengineered.[/QUOTE] It's a fucking heat shield with parachutes and rockets. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=TehDoctorz;29254059]It is all kinda cool except there is no sound in space? Thruster whooshes busted.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3fqE01YYWs[/media] :science:
I was waiting patiently for the part where the dropship has a thruster failure and plummets to the surface in a fiery explosion just seconds before landin, like 75% of our Mars landers. I was disappointed.
[QUOTE=Billiam;29256556]It's a fucking heat shield with parachutes and rockets. [editline]17th April 2011[/editline] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3fqE01YYWs[/media] :science:[/QUOTE] oh god papayrus oh, and those are non-audible without special equipment. We're talking about sound via pressure waves, not radio signals.
[QUOTE=Jenkem;29256680]I was waiting patiently for the part where the dropship has a thruster failure and plummets to the surface in a fiery explosion just seconds before landin, like 75% of our Mars landers. I was disappointed.[/QUOTE] It's actually a success rate of 86%, you poo brain.
This just in! Mars is as boring and dry as ever! More at 11:00! :foxnews:
[QUOTE=Chernzobog;29236023]That's what happened to half the shit we've sent into space. We just can't take a hint.[/QUOTE] But we did take the hint, that's why Curiosity has bigger wheels and longer legs(less chances of it getting stuck) and is nuclear powered(Dust storms? What dust storms?)
[QUOTE=EXoDUSFLT;29236552]this made me think of how boring and eerie it would be to be on Mars alone, with no outside contact.[/QUOTE] Also made me think this as well. Just standing on the surface, all alone, absolutely nobody else on the planet with you.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.