NASA's attempt to repeat Viking's search for martian organics

[Tank]

NASA's attempt to repeat Viking's search for martian organics

After 36 years of debate, confusion, and failed attempts by other space agencies to answer a basic question, NASA's Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is on its way to repeat the search for organic matter that eluded the two Viking probes.

With 96 days left until landing, MSL will touch down at the Gale Crater this August. The rover, called Curiosity, will be the largest vehicle delivered to our neighboring planet thus far. Weighing in at 900kg (1,989lb), Curiosity is nearly five times as large as the Spirit and Opportunity rovers that landed eight years ago, and more than 1.5 times as large as each Viking lander that arrived on planet in 1976.

Like the Vikings and Mars Exploration Rovers, Curiosity was conceived and launched, largely to gather information that may tell us whether the Red Planet harbors microbial life. Instrumentation launched for in situ analysis has been advancing steadily since the Viking era, yet each chapter in the story of the search for Martian life builds upon the previous ones...

I can't wait!!!!

[Tank]

NASA Curiosity Home Page It has a countdown timer on it.


This is the 'stunt double' on Earth. Gives a better impression of size. The one on its way to Mars is sterile.

[Tank]

Overview of Curiosity

I looked this up to see how Curiosity is powered as there were no solar panels visible in the pictures. It is, as expected, nuclear powered.

Power source: Curiosity is powered by a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), like the successful Viking 1 and Viking 2 Mars landers in 1976.[37][38]

Radioisotope power systems (RPSs) are generators that produce electricity from the natural decay of plutonium-238, which is a non-fissile isotope of plutonium. Heat given off by the natural decay of this isotope is converted into electricity, providing constant power during all seasons and through the day and night, and waste heat can be used via pipes to warm systems, freeing electrical power for the operation of the vehicle and instruments.[37][38] Curiosity's RTG is fueled by 10.6 pounds (4.8 kilograms) of plutonium-238 dioxide supplied by the U.S. Department of Energy,[39] packed in 32 pellets each about the size of a marshmallow.[18]

    Curiosity's power generator is the latest RTG generation built by Boeing, called the "Multi-Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator" or MMRTG.[40] Based on classical RTG technology, it represents a more flexible and compact development step,[40] and is designed to produce 125 watts of electrical power from about 2000 watts of thermal power at the start of the mission.[37][38] The MMRTG produces less power over time as its plutonium fuel decays: at its minimum lifetime of 14 years, electrical power output is down to 100 watts.[41][42] The MSL will generate 2.5 kilowatt hours per day, much more than the Mars Exploration Rovers, which can generate about 0.6 kilowatt hours per day.

[markmcdaniel]

Its about time. Hopefully the next time we go looking for life it will be manned mission.

[Tank]

Its about time. Hopefully the next time we go looking for life it will be manned mission.

Emotionally I agree, rationally I don't. For any given payload the mass overhead of astronauts IMO does not outweigh the loss in robotic explorers, mission length and  experimental mass lost. Particularly the mass needed to bring the astronauts back.

[markmcdaniel]

Its about time. Hopefully the next time we go looking for life it will be manned mission.

Emotionally I agree, rationally I don't. For any given payload the mass overhead of astronauts IMO does not outweigh the loss in robotic explorers, mission length and  experimental mass lost. Particularly the mass needed to bring the astronauts back.

What you say is true enough, but, the limitations imposed by distance and time lag would give an on site human crew tremendous advantages.

[Tank]

Its about time. Hopefully the next time we go looking for life it will be manned mission.

Emotionally I agree, rationally I don't. For any given payload the mass overhead of astronauts IMO does not outweigh the loss in robotic explorers, mission length and  experimental mass lost. Particularly the mass needed to bring the astronauts back.

What you say is true enough, but, the limitations imposed by distance and time lag would give an on site human crew tremendous advantages.

This and flexibility when encountering an unexpected situation are the two things slimeware currently has over a combination of hardwear/software. The question remaining it how long will slimeware retain that advantage?

[markmcdaniel]

Its about time. Hopefully the next time we go looking for life it will be manned mission.

Emotionally I agree, rationally I don't. For any given payload the mass overhead of astronauts IMO does not outweigh the loss in robotic explorers, mission length and  experimental mass lost. Particularly the mass needed to bring the astronauts back.

What you say is true enough, but, the limitations imposed by distance and time lag would give an on site human crew tremendous advantages.

This and flexibility when encountering an unexpected situation are the two things slimeware currently has over a combination of hardwear/software. The question remaining it how long will slimeware retain that advantage?

I do not expect to see software of a sophistication to replace humans in this regard in the near or even the intermediate future. In order to build automated software to counter the unexpected we will need a far better understanding of the universe then we currently have and using a ground crew to makeup for software limitations runs into time lag problems.  

[Tank]

Its about time. Hopefully the next time we go looking for life it will be manned mission.

Emotionally I agree, rationally I don't. For any given payload the mass overhead of astronauts IMO does not outweigh the loss in robotic explorers, mission length and  experimental mass lost. Particularly the mass needed to bring the astronauts back.

What you say is true enough, but, the limitations imposed by distance and time lag would give an on site human crew tremendous advantages.

This and flexibility when encountering an unexpected situation are the two things slimeware currently has over a combination of hardwear/software. The question remaining it how long will slimeware retain that advantage?

I do not expect to see software of a sophistication to replace humans in this regard in the near or even the intermediate future. In order to build automated software to counter the unexpected we will need a far better understanding of the universe then we currently have and using a ground crew to makeup for software limitations runs into time lag problems.  

I think the only point we may disagree on is when a true AI will be available for a remote mission.