I was wondering if curiosity was capable of leaving the crater (or is it too steep/too far to travel?Anyone know the total distance traveled by the other probes on Mars?Thanks!
So it has enough to do in its limited lifetime (due to the RTG's Pu decay rate - no infinite solar recharge this time), that it likely won't even be able to climb out in time, let alone survive such a high climb.
Will MSL last longer than the MERs ? if not, what are the factors limiting the new rover life (when compared with the MERs) ?
no infinite solar recharge this time
Decay of the RTG's plutonium will not be what limits Curiosity's lifetime. The Pu in the RTG will be producing plenty of heat long after other critical systems are likely to have failed.
But the RTG is finite from the day its activated. And dust or not, solar arrays will degrade more slowly.
Quote from: Archibald on 08/10/2012 06:52 amWill MSL last longer than the MERs ? if not, what are the factors limiting the new rover life (when compared with the MERs) ? MSL was designed for 2 years and MERs were designed for 90 days.
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 08/10/2012 07:45 amBut the RTG is finite from the day its activated. And dust or not, solar arrays will degrade more slowly.Of what use is that metric in the real world when you're at the whims of the environment?This dust storm nearly killed the rovers, 3.5 years into their mission. Pointing out how solar panels typically degrade slower is useless when you have dead hardware sitting on Mars.
And what makes you think what I said is any less true?
MSL is designed for 2 years. I'm assuming that's a conservative number. If it is, how long do we think we can really squeeze of that rover?
Besides, isn't the much bigger factor in RTG power decline the degradation of thermocouples by radiation from the source?
Quote from: MATTBLAK on 08/10/2012 08:27 amAnd what makes you think what I said is any less true?I never said it's not true. What's with the defensive stance? I'm wondering about the whole point of your remark, from an engineering and practical standpoint, other than stating the obvious? The "But the RTG is finite" part, in particular. Mechanical wear and tear will likely disable/kill the rover long before the faster RTG decay rate becomes a factor.
Quote from: ugordan on 08/10/2012 07:45 amBesides, isn't the much bigger factor in RTG power decline the degradation of thermocouples by radiation from the source? The thermocouples have been redesigned and are suppose to be more robust now. That RTG could still be going at 80% power 30 years from now.
That makes me wonder. Spirit and Opportunity both lasted far longer than 90 days. Spirit lasted a good 6 years. Opportunity is still truckin' after an amazing 8 years. That's about 32 times longer than the advertised duration time.MSL is designed for 2 years. I'm assuming that's a conservative number. If it is, how long do we think we can really squeeze of that rover?
QuoteThat makes me wonder. Spirit and Opportunity both lasted far longer than 90 days. Spirit lasted a good 6 years. Opportunity is still truckin' after an amazing 8 years. That's about 32 times longer than the advertised duration time.MSL is designed for 2 years. I'm assuming that's a conservative number. If it is, how long do we think we can really squeeze of that rover? Dare I say... 64 years ?