Curiosity 2,000th Martian day of operation; science team eyes rover’s future

[Chris Bergin]

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2018/03/curiosity-2000th-martian-day-eyes-rovers-future/

Epic 4,000 word feature by Chris Gebhardt interviewing MSL Project Scientist Ashwin R. Vasavada at NASA JPL.

[Hick2]

Another fantastic article ChrisG!

It'll certainly be interesting to see how Curiosity changes as those RTGs begin to decline.

[Peter NASA]

Amazing read. Well done Chris G.

[Kansan52]

Once again proving when something unexpected happens a scientist says "Wow" when others would say "Oops".

[AegeanBlue]

Very nice article. I was not aware that Curiosity could directly date rocks. This begets a question, how do Curiosity directly measured dates compare with orbitally derived cratering dates? I hope some planetary scientist finds time off LPSC to answer

[Nomadd]

Opportunity says "Welcome to the club".

[Dalhousie]

Very nice article. I was not aware that Curiosity could directly date rocks. This begets a question, how do Curiosity directly measured dates compare with orbitally derived cratering dates? I hope some planetary scientist finds time off LPSC to answer

Hard to compare for many reasons. 

Crater count ages are done on large areas whereas radiometric dating dates individual rock units.

Crater count ages are based on many assumptions including impact and denudation rates that are very hard to test at present.  Radiometric dating also depends on assumptions but these are for the most part testable

Crater count ages are hard to calibrate with radiometric methods unless there is a widespread single dateable impact that can be used as a base line.  For example on the Moon this would be the imbrium event.  For Mars we might use various volcanic flows.

It will be easier to radiometrically calibrate date the alternative stratigraphic nomenclature based on mineralogy (Phyllocian, Theiikian, Siderikian etc.).