UPDATE: Touchdown confirmed! Congratulations NASA JPL! First image received. See below.
========================================
I thought I”d take a minute to advise you that some real science and engineering that will be see from NASA tonight rather than the politically motivated science from scientist turned arrested activist Dr. James Hansen in the latest NASA GISS claim distributed via AP’s compliant repeater, Seth Borenstein. On the plus side, Seth at least gave a voice to the other side.
Readers may recall I photographed and wrote about the Curiosity exhibit at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum last year:
Experts at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory ( JPL ) share the challenges of Curiosity’s rover final 7 minutes to landing on the surface of Mars on the 5th of August,2012 ( 10:31 US Pacific time) . Watch the video below, well worth your time.
Curiosity is a Mars rover launched by NASA on November 26, 2011. Currently en route to the planet, it is scheduled to land in Gale Crater on August 5, 2012 ( US Pacific time) . The rover’s objectives include searching for past or present life, studying the Martian climate, studying Martian geology, and collecting data for a future manned mission to Mars. It will explore Mars for 2 years.
Curiosity’s landing Times in regarding time travel zones:
Aug 5, 2012 10:31 p.m. US Pacific
Aug 6, 2012 1:31 a.m. US Eastern
Aug 6, 2012 3:31 p.m. Hobart – Australia
Aug 6, 2012 5:31 a.m Universal (UTC)
Curiosity cost: A cool US$2.5 billion
Cool stuff Bonus (Mars Science Laboratory) such as interactive experiences can be found in:
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/participate/
NASA official site:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/msl/index.html
NASA-TV coverage starts two hours before landing. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html (h/t to Ric Werme)
UPDATE: Touchdown confirmed! Congratulations NASA! First image received. Will post as soon as I have something to show you.
UPDATE2 self explanatory
Paul Westhaver says: August 5, 2012 at 11:04 pm: Mars is just a bore.
Not if your a geologist, amongst many other interests and luckily for you and I, our ancestors did not suggest that rest of our planet was a bore while they lived in that small corner of Africa.
Thanks guys. What was I thinking! 🙂
David Ball says:
August 6, 2012 at 9:41 am
Looks like Willis touched a nerve, …..
Or stepped in something……
MtK
Steven Mosher says:
August 6, 2012 at 9:09 am
Mosh, all that stuff you mentioned in your long discussion about testing and simulation sounds good … and yet despite all of your big words and your solemn assurances, and despite your unpleasant ad hominems directed at me, NASA has managed to have a whole bunch of Mars missions be complete and utter failures. Not one failure. Not two. A whole bunch.
So if you are making the claim that somehow you and NASA know everything there is to know about testing, and I’m just an idiot, what was your accusation, oh, yeah, I “dont know what [I’m] talking about”, go ahead, I was born yesterday … but then how do you explain NASA’s failure after failure after failure in their Mars expeditions? Was that due to too much testing? Their simulations were just too good?
And I can hardly wait to hear you give your ‘Mosh and NASA know everything about testing’ spiel to the survivors of NASA’s Colombia and Challenger disasters … oh, wait, there weren’t any …
Finally, this is far, far and away the most detailed answer I’ve ever gotten from you … did I make you uneasy? Did I put salt in your Wheaties? Why all the energy expended on a trivial point when it is your habit to ignore my serious questions about serious issues?
w.
It’s not too surprising. We sold JPL a Z80 microcomputer system in about 1982. They kept complaining that we sold them a defective microcomputer, because they said it kept malfunctioning from time to time. They said it would be just fine, and then it would go haywire and/or crash and reboot. Once we managed to elicit the right answers from them, we finally identified the problem. The JPL people when asked where they were using the computer in their facility replied the microcomputer was in the room adjacent to the radio transmitter room. You know, the room where all of those big and strong INTERPLANETARY radio transmitters were located. When asked why they thought they could use an unshielded microcomputer next to the INTERPLANETARY radio transmitters, the response was something like, “Oh, we hadn’t thought of that [meaning the RFI].”
There are a couple of points concerning NASA testing that I think should be put on the table.
Remember Hubble, the near-sighted telescope? Precision ground to the micron, but to the wrong shape. I’ve always had a suspicion about that… Perkin-Elmer who ground the mirror also was the crew that built the KeyHole spy satellites. I have a pet theory that Hubble was ground to focus at something 200 miles away, not at infinity. In any case, NASA cut corners on the ground testing of the mirror by not setting up an elaborate expensive interferometry test of the mirror. But would a test have caught it? Certainly the RIGHT test, but might the test have been near-sighted too in a confirmation bias?
Columbia – Was an unfortunate shedding of foam and ice at max aerodynamic stress. There were lots of test and studies for what to do. But even after all the testing, the story of How we nearly lost Discovery explains that they still didn’t understand everything that could go wrong. Frankly, this story explains why the Shuttles were retired — a problem that just couldn’t be fixed with a guarantee.
Once upon a time, Centaur was going to be configured for launching in a Shuttle cargo bay. A Liquid Hydrogen – Liquid Oxygen upper stage carried within the orbiter from launch to a quick launch once in orbit. More testing won’t save you from an idea bad to the core.
Because of Challenger, Galileo was delayed about 2 years. When it was finally launched, it’s main antenna didn’t fully unfurl because it spent so long in a packed state. What would you do? Leave it ready for launch or take it apart and rebuild it?
No doubt NASA learned some lessons about testing, particularly after the Hubble embarrassment. Does more testing prevent problems? No.
The Apollo 1 fire was a “plugs-out-test.” Borman: “A failure of imagination.”
The Apollo 13 mishap was caused by an oxygen tank heater damaged in a test two years before.
My father told me that back in the late 50s and early 60s it was the practice to test fire each Titan. Someone realized that the failure at launch exceeded the test failures. The engines couldn’t reliably stand two firings, but were reliable on the first. So they skipped the test stand firing. That doesn’t mean the engine parts were quality controlled, but the engines were not tested before launch and failure rates dropped.
And when someone skips a step, a testing program won’t save you. NOAA-19 falls over.
“500,000 l1nes of cod3” (video)
Hope the actual code has fewer than 2 errors per line of code.
I can understand looking for things that indicate that life could have developed on Mars, or that life may have existed in the past on Mars, but am I understanding correctly that there is no plan at all for testing for current microscopic life? Even though they may consider it highly unlikely, it would seem to be worth checking, and it doesn’t seem like it would be that difficult: simply put soil samples in water, incubate it a bit, put the slides under a microscope and beam back the visual to see if anything’s swimming around. Or mix some Martian soil into a sterile but nutrient-rich soil type compound and see if anything grows.
Or did I just miss seeing where they ARE doing such things?
😕
MJM
@Michaeljmcfadden
One of the principal scientists yesterday at the press conference emphasized that Curiosity is designed to be a two year mission. As such it has “no consumables”. All parts were tested to 3 times design life and were not tested to failure, so a potential 6 year mission is possible. With Opportunity still limping along after 8 years, 6 years for Curiosity is in the cards.
So carrying substantial growth medium is out of the cards for such a long mission. Viking tried that back in 1976 and the results were confusing.
Curiosity contains an electron microscope. If there are critters in the rock, they will be seen.
There is also a lasar to zap rock faces up to seven feet away and measure the cromatograph of the flash to determine compounds ionized by the zap. They will be looking particularly for hydrogen; water most certainly, but if they happen upon some amino acids I don’t think it will escape their attention.
On the subject of test-firing engines:
I just happen to be reading a book about the Apollo program. Because of the possibility of accumulated damage, it stated that the lunar module ascent engine was never test-fired. So, when the astronauts pushed the go button to go home, they were giving the engine its first test-firing. Now that’s what I call scary….
.
About computer models: it seems to me that if a computer model is used to make predictions it’s essential that the thing being modelled is fully understood. For example, a model that predicts the position of Mars in a years’ time is almost guaranteed to be accurate and dependable, because the basics of orbital mechanics are very well understood.
.
But in climate science there are enormous uncertainties, for example the link between clouds, temperatures and water vapour. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who uses computer models that are full of uncertainties to make concrete forecasts many decades into the future is committing a scientific crime. It’s also a moral crime, as the world may be forced to squander trillions of dollars on the basis of computer models that are completely uncertain, and almost guaranteed to be wrong.
.
Once again, congratulations to NASA for a fantastic achievement.
Chris
Wonderful, NASA!
(I kept having flashes of the movie, “The Dish” and hoping the people at the Parkes dish had remembered to keep the back-up power generator topped up…)
Missing in all I have read about the Curiosity mission is who at NASA and who in the White House conceived this grand adventure and commissioned it?
Roger Carr
I am certain that no one in he White House conceived anything. This project was simply what was left over after the NASA and military funds were gutted. And note that most of our advances in technology have been based upon military research, hot or cold war.
I watched the live NASA briefing. First Obama’s two political henchmen spoke claiming the entire credit for Obama. Not a mention about the budget cuts to NASA, or that US astronauts have to hitch a ride on Russian rockets. Then they left because they were “very busy” and left the field to the scientists who informed us the project was 11 years in the making.
Yup, computer models never go wrong.
Beagle2
One speculation is that they got the atmospheric models wrong:
The Telegraph
Others speculate it was really successful:
Conspiracy Theory
(Just another point of view 🙂 )
It’s Interesting that there were attempts to detect life on Mars in the 70s and 40 years later they are still looking. But I think I know what the problem is. NASA are on the horns of a dilemma: They need to keep looking for life there to keep the funding coming in (otherwise they are forever just breaking open rocks to see what’s inside and you can only do that for so long before it gets boring and the funding stops), yet if they succeed and do indeed find life there, they fear that Greenpeace/UN would have Mars declared a heritage planet and ban future missions.
Oh and no one mentions the Beagle anymore. Maybe NASA crashed it to make sure it didn’t find life and invoke a travel ban. /sarc
Touched a nerve, ….
“Because of the possibility of accumulated damage, it stated that the lunar module ascent engine was never test-fired. So, when the astronauts pushed the go button to go home, they were giving the engine its first test-firing.”
To be fair, the engine was extremely simple; if I remember correctly it was pressure-fed and the fuel and oxidiser auto-ignited when mixed. About the only thing that could go wrong was a valve refusing to open, and that would have been tested on Earth. I believe there was access to the engine from inside the LEM if they had to fix such a problem… if not, the walls were thin enough that they could probably don suits and cut their way in.
I only had time for a brief scan of the comments, so I’m not sure if this has been mentioned, but here’s an interesting image
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/multimedia/images/?ImageID=4242
“08.06.2012
Curiosity Spotted on Parachute by Orbiter
NASA’s Curiosity rover and its parachute were spotted by NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter as Curiosity descended to the surface on Aug. 5 PDT (Aug. 6 EDT). The High-Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera captured this image of Curiosity while the orbiter was listening to transmissions from the rover. Curiosity and its parachute are in the center of the white box; the inset image is a cutout of the rover stretched to avoid saturation. The rover is descending toward the etched plains just north of the sand dunes that fringe “Mt. Sharp.” From the perspective of the orbiter, the parachute and Curiosity are flying at an angle relative to the surface, so the landing site does not appear directly below the rover.”
Willis Eschenbach says:
August 5, 2012 at 10:30 pm>>>>>
And your scientific or engineering qualifications are what exactly?
That’s a pretty good photo, I hope it wasn’t just dumb luck.
I would think they would have had a camera on the top of Curiosity shooting a burst of upward and downward facing snapshots during the descent. Such photos (transmitted during the parachute phase) would be invaluable if the thing crashed, to answer questions about the cause. It might document things like tangled or broken suspension lines, torn canopy, wind shear, misfiring rockets, etc.
So many things could have gone wrong on this one! If she had crashed, would that photo have been the only evidence? I would hate to think they would be magnifying and enhancing that single photo hoping to find a chute defect
RKS says:
August 7, 2012 at 11:25 pm
Thanks, RKS. See, that’s the beauty part, I’m a reformed cowboy who was born yesterday. I have no qualifications at all, I am entirely self-taught … and despite that, I’ve designed and built boats, designed and built houses, designed and built large water tank towers, fished commercially in the Bering Sea, run a shipyard, worked as a consultant in international development for USAID, been first mate on a trans-Pacific voyage in a 50 foot gaff-rigged staysail schooner, trained Peace Corps Volunteers, built resorts, drilled water wells, and done a host more jobs. Most recently, I have been researching climate and writing articles both for scientific journals and for WattsUpWithThat… if you truly are interested in my qualifications, you should read my post “It’s Not About Me“. It discusses my lack of qualifications in detail, and points out that at the end of the day it’s not about me, it’s about my ideas and whether they are right or wrong. There’s a link in that post to my CV, if you want all the gory details.
And your own qualifications are what exactly? …
All the best,
w.
Well, as it turns out they did have a camera snapping during the descent, 297 of them to be exact. The are all downward facing so the chute is not visible. From Cnet …
NASA video reveals Mars rover landing
You get to see the ground approaching and the dust kicked up. Had she crashed, this view would not have aided the forensics. They should have had a camera pointing up as well.
The video is mirrored at YouTube …
Here’s a pic of the various parts shed by Curiosity:
http://www.universetoday.com/96666/rover-sky-crane-heat-shield-and-parachute-located-from-orbit-by-hirise/
Like Blade says, there was a whole lot of potential problems that fortunately didn’t happen. What if even a single line didn’t disconnect from Curiosity when the thruster-crane flew away? There’d be a pile of Curiosity junk…
This just in from Donald Sensing’s blog
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2012/08/first-picture-from-mars.html
And now you know why we have
contemptso little regard for your inane postings.