Rovers to Mars

[ToSeek]

Landing sites for Mars rovers

One of the sites being considered is right smack in the middle of Valles Marineris!

[Chip]

On 2002-02-06 11:26, ToSeek wrote:
Landing sites for Mars rovers One of the sites being considered is right smack in the middle of Valles Marineris!

Yeah! Let's go!

The article also states with regard to exploring gullies that might have seeping water:
"the rovers will only move 1 kilometer (six-tenths of a mile) in their lifetime, so if they land far away from the gulley, there's a chance they could never see them."

I'm happy that these rovers are going in 2003. It would be cool if they had a special rover for long range dangerous recon missions, but maybe if one of the rovers gets beyond it's design life, and if it's still working...maybe NASA would consider sending it on a one way trip to an interesting dangerous area.

Otherwise, I'm sure they'll get a lot of interesting data where they land.

I'm thinking too far ahead, but I hope they set up a website so that we can look over their shoulders at live images and data.

[aurorae]

On 2002-02-06 11:26, ToSeek wrote:
One of the sites being considered is right smack in the middle of Valles Marineris!

Would the lander or rover cameras even be able to see the walls of Valles if they landed in the middle?

I would love to see images of the walls, could really tell us a lot about Mars.

[Espritch]

So they can send these rovers all the way to Mars but once they get there they can only travel 6 tenths of a mile? Seems kind of aticlimaxtic.

[DJ]

On 2002-02-07 22:31, Espritch wrote:
So they can send these rovers all the way to Mars but once they get there they can only travel 6 tenths of a mile? Seems kind of aticlimaxtic.

It's even worse than that! The last time they sent one it only made it 30 feet before it banged into a rock, the transmission blew out, reverse became inoperable, and then the battery died.

Quite frankly, I'm wondering who actually drives these things... looked more like the Xanax 500 then scientific endeavours.

I think the best chance is still with flying rovers, they can cover the distance, require less fuel (they can glide), etc.

I'll put my money there.

DJ

[ToSeek]

On 2002-02-08 08:01, DJ wrote:
It's even worse than that! The last time they sent one it only made it 30 feet before it banged into a rock, the transmission blew out, reverse became inoperable, and then the battery died.

Um, I hope you're kidding. The fact of the matter is that the Pathfinder lander gave out before the Sojourner rover. (Kind of a sad image, really: the rover circling around the lander, plaintively sending signals and awaiting instructions, but never getting a response....)

[DJ]

I didn't realize that was where the problem was (with Sojourner). I get my science from the movie "Red Planet," so I'm thinking it was something with the interchangeable modem cards that can also be used as satellite transponders.

My Bad!

[DJ]

Ya know, as I'm thinking about Pathfinder et. al., I realized that regardless of the actual problem, the general public (me) probably came away with the same impression: multi-million dollar rover crashes into rock.

I did a poll at the lunch table, and everyone there thought that was the problem... someone drove it into a rock.

I would say that this is what affects the public's willing to fund things. It's all about the spin.

[Mnemonia]

On 2002-02-08 09:54, DJ wrote:
I get my science from the movie "Red Planet"

If there is only one thing you take home from this site it's that you should never substitute movie magic for cold hard facts.