-
#1200
by
catdlr
on 11 Sep, 2014 18:53
-
Rolling Hills of Mars As Seen in 'Earthlight' | Video
Published on Sep 11, 2014
The Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity is heading to the "Pahrump Hills" outcrop (seen above the scale bar). The rover's Mast Camera (Mastcam) imaged the 'Amargosa Valley' as it would appear to humans if placed on Earth.
-
#1201
by
Dalhousie
on 11 Sep, 2014 21:43
-
They've reached the base of Mt. Sharp:
http://marsmobile.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1705
They'll drill in the Pahrump Hills in 1-2 weeks
The claim that they have reached the base of Mt Sharp is disingenuous nonsense. By any reasonable definition of base, they are several km away.
Even to claim that they have reached the first outcrop of the Mt Sharp succession is questionable.
Despite being taken to task in the recent review for the lack of science and the focus on operations there was no mention of science results (despite having Kimberley samples on board for five months, and a vast amount of new ChemCam, DAN imagery and meteorological data) in the media conference and a focus on operations (reaching the "base", drilling in a few weeks, etc.)
-
#1202
by
catdlr
on 11 Sep, 2014 23:37
-
-
#1203
by
hop
on 12 Sep, 2014 05:12
-
-
#1204
by
Ohsin
on 12 Sep, 2014 14:33
-
According to this clay units are 6 km away. That is where they intend to use SAM's wet experiments I believe?
-
#1205
by
Dalhousie
on 12 Sep, 2014 23:47
-
According to this clay units are 6 km away. That is where they intend to use SAM's wet experiments I believe?
SAM can only two four runs with the solvent exctraction method, I think. So they will probably wait until they have good evience of organics from other means before trying it.
However the solvent has been leaking, so I wonder if it is still operational?
-
#1206
by
meekGee
on 14 Sep, 2014 00:36
-
They've reached the base of Mt. Sharp:
http://marsmobile.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1705
They'll drill in the Pahrump Hills in 1-2 weeks
The claim that they have reached the base of Mt Sharp is disingenuous nonsense. By any reasonable definition of base, they are several km away.
Even to claim that they have reached the first outcrop of the Mt Sharp succession is questionable.
Despite being taken to task in the recent review for the lack of science and the focus on operations there was no mention of science results (despite having Kimberley samples on board for five months, and a vast amount of new ChemCam, DAN imagery and meteorological data) in the media conference and a focus on operations (reaching the "base", drilling in a few weeks, etc.)
Dalhousie - a question for you:
I saw this image as part of the press release.
Could it be that the low number of samples is due to the first leg being more of a "get to the mountain" phase, and once there, they'll start using the instruments more? It seems that they are just now leaving the landing ellipse, and most of the sampling they did was at YellowKnife bay, which I understood was a bit of a "target of opportunity".
EDIT:
As noted below, my bad, this image is not part of the press release.
It is shown on an astronomy web site, with the caption reading: "Credits: NASA/JPL, illustration, T.Reyes"
I don't know if it was issued in conjunction with the press release, or is an older image that was added by that web site.
-
#1207
by
hop
on 14 Sep, 2014 00:58
-
-
#1208
by
meekGee
on 14 Sep, 2014 01:06
-
I saw this image as part of the press release.
That is NOT and image from the press release, it was created by someone outside the mission (for universe today, I think) and doesn't represent the actual planned route at all.
No one on the mission has ever talked about going to the summit. You can find actual maps in the presentation I linked earlier, or at http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1705
Emily Lakdawala also has a nice writeup http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/curiosity-update-sols-727-747.html
edit:
That post may help answer your question about the pace of sampling too.
Thanks. I seemed the green area went too high - they were always emphatic that they will not try to climb to the top and the lower regions were those of interest.
I'll modify my OP to prevent confusion...
And yes, it was UT, and the credit was: "Credits: NASA/JPL, illustration, T.Reyes". A search for "+Reyes JPL mars" yields very little.
Oh, and T.Reyes is the UT guy who wrote the story. uck. So the credits are from JPL, the illustration from Mr. Reyes, and putting the caption under the drawing is Reyes' idea. Brilliant.
-
#1209
by
SaxtonHale
on 14 Sep, 2014 03:26
-
The claim that they have reached the base of Mt Sharp is disingenuous nonsense. By any reasonable definition of base, they are several km away.
Even to claim that they have reached the first outcrop of the Mt Sharp succession is questionable.
It sounds like you didn't listen to the teleconference. You should probably listen to it.
Or don't - just don't make pronouncements about the geology of Gale crater.
The Mars folks spend a lot of time making maps with MRO visible and infrared images and spectroscopic data, and so they can see that yes, they are at the edge of a new rock unit.
edit: This graphic shows the slope of the mountain - they are leaving the floor sediments and are about to reach the Murray formation rocks, which are distinct from the rocks they have seen elsewhere.
-
#1210
by
Dalhousie
on 14 Sep, 2014 05:01
-
Dalhousie - a question for you:
I saw this image as part of the press release.
Could it be that the low number of samples is due to the first leg being more of a "get to the mountain" phase, and once there, they'll start using the instruments more? It seems that they are just now leaving the landing ellipse, and most of the sampling they did was at YellowKnife bay, which I understood was a bit of a "target of opportunity".
That's a good question.It is certainly part of the story.
The first leg of the Curiosity traverse was away from Mt Sharp to a location called Glenelg. Initial checkout took about a month, followed by a drive to the area, which took another month. So that digression altogether cost about four months driving. While at Glenelg one soil sample was collected in October 2012 (Rocknest) and two sites drilled in February 2013 (John Kline) and May (Cumberland). Rocknest and one of the drill sites would have happened anyway early one simply to test the sample collection and analytical suites. So only a couple of months was lost by the additional drill site. In June 2013 the rover head off for Mt Sharp. So this diversion perhaps this cost four months all up.
The limited number of sites (only one!) is certainly due to the pressure to get to Mt Sharp, which is where the most interesting rocks are expected to be. But I don't think this is due to the Glenelg side trip, four months out of two years isn't much out of two years.
But in hindsight expectations were very unrealistic.
In 2010 the prediction was that by the end of the primary mission, two years, Curiosity would have traversed some 30 km and climbed over 730 m from the landing site. See slide 28
nasa.govBy launch in 2011 expectations had been wound back a bit but the launch media kit still said:
“The science targets initially identified for the rover to investigate are in the lower layers of the mountain, requiring the rover to drive outside the landing ellipse to get to the science targets.... Getting to key destinations at lower layers of Mount Sharp may take a large fraction of the 98-week prime mission. The route may involve navigation through some challenging terrains such as sand dunes, hills and canyons.” (p47 of
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/MSLLaunch.pdf)
Sand dunes, hills and canyons suggests an expectation to be well into the slower slopes, roughly where the rover is now predicted to be in two years time.
EDIT/meekGee: fixed URL
-
#1211
by
Dalhousie
on 14 Sep, 2014 05:32
-
The claim that they have reached the base of Mt Sharp is disingenuous nonsense. By any reasonable definition of base, they are several km away.
Even to claim that they have reached the first outcrop of the Mt Sharp succession is questionable.
It sounds like you didn't listen to the teleconference. You should probably listen to it.
Or don't - just don't make pronouncements about the geology of Gale crater.
The Mars folks spend a lot of time making maps with MRO visible and infrared images and spectroscopic data, and so they can see that yes, they are at the edge of a new rock unit.
edit: This graphic shows the slope of the mountain - they are leaving the floor sediments and are about to reach the Murray formation rocks, which are distinct from the rocks they have seen elsewhere.
Since I am quite familar with the geology of Gale crater and have read most of the pre-mission papers and those that are coming out, I will continue to comment on the geology
From where the rover is now to the next target (Paintbrush) is about 2 km, in that distance the rover will climb 100 m. The target after is another 3 km (Hematite), a rise of about 140 m. The third target for the extended mission is a clay unit, another 1 km of drive, and about 10 m higher still. This is the goal for the extended mission. Less than 250 m climb in six km is hardly a mountain. All this is really the pediment of Mt Sharp. Rising, yes, part of the same geological succession, yes, but not really a mountain.
The rover team optimistically identified a target 2 km further still, the start of a sulfate unit. This might be achievable during the extended mission, although the review board thought otherwise and advised against it. To reach the sulfate unit the rover could begin to climb more steeply, with 150 m climbed. About 1 km beyond the sulfate unit (where the rover was supposed to be now, according to 2010 predictions) it would have climbed another 150 m, and would clearly be going up the mountain.
-
#1212
by
meekGee
on 14 Sep, 2014 06:04
-
Thanks for that.
It sounds to me like it's not so much lack of focus, just a longer (timewise) drive than anticipated.
If anything, they're pretty focused on getting to where the interesting geology is, and have not been meandering randomly...
So why was that review so negative? They are pursuing the same mission goals... what would the reviewer have suggested they do instead? They can't bring the mountain any closer...
Maybe next-gen rover will be able to do more maneuvering with the final flight stage. 10 km flying sounds a lot less of an issue than 10 km driving.
-
#1213
by
Dalhousie
on 14 Sep, 2014 11:19
-
Thanks for that.
It sounds to me like it's not so much lack of focus, just a longer (timewise) drive than anticipated.
If anything, they're pretty focused on getting to where the interesting geology is, and have not been meandering randomly...
So why was that review so negative? They are pursuing the same mission goals... what would the reviewer have suggested they do instead? They can't bring the mountain any closer...
Maybe next-gen rover will be able to do more maneuvering with the final flight stage. 10 km flying sounds a lot less of an issue than 10 km driving.
The report was posted earlier, it makes interesting reading
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/pss/sep2014/Senior-Review-2014-Report.pdf . The key comments are on pages 5-6. The highlights include.
Although several strengths were noted during the review, the panel felt that the problems are sufficiently severe that they need addressing at the earliest opportunity.....
The capabilities of Curiosity provide the only current way to make certain measurements on the Martian Surface... However, in the EM1 plan, these are minimized, as only eight (
samples will be taken in two years (two from each of the four units to be visited). This means that during the prime and EM1 missions a total of 13 analyses will be made by a highly capable rover. The panel viewed this as a poor science return for such a large investment in a flagship mission.
Despite identification of two EM1 science objectives, the proposal lacked specific scientific questions to be answered...
Similarly not discussed was the synergistic role such ground-truthing would have in this mission, or for identifying similar deposits in orbital data for different areas on Mars.
The proposal did not provide a convincing argument for reaching the upper-most sulfate unit during EM1.
The panel is deeply concerned that observations in the clays, which may be more relevant to the habitability question, could be cut short because traverse distance will take precedence over scientific analyses.
It was unclear from both the proposal and presentation that the Prime Mission science goals had been met. In fact, it was unclear what exactly these were. Upon detailed questioning, the team noted that the Level 1 requirements were actually engineering capability requirements with which the mission launched and are not reflective of the state of fulfilling mission success criteria, which were not addressed quantitatively.
Unfortunately the lead Project Scientist was not present in person for the Senior Review presentation and was only available via phone. Additionally, he was not present for the second round of Curiosity questions from the panel. This left the panel with the impression that the team felt they were too big to fail and that simply having someone show up would suffice. The panel strongly urges NASA HQ to get the Curiosity team focused on maximizing high-quality science that justifies the capabilities of and capital investment in Curiosity.
As Curiosity is a flagship mission, the panel was surprised by the lack of science in the EM1 proposal ...
In summary, the Curiosity EM1 proposal lacked scientific focus and detail. The recommendation of the Senior Review panel is a descope in the traverse distance as EM1 would better serve science by focusing on the Paintbrush, Hematite, and possibly the Clay units and doing a better job of characterizing these, than focusing on the upper layers in EM2. (emphasis added)
The fact that Curiosity has only collected four samples to date and at best will get another eight to nine over the next two years contrasts with the fact it has the capability to handle 74 samples in each of its' two main instrument packages, CheMin and SAM. This combined with the extraordinarily slow progress (about half what was expected at launch and a third what was expected during site selection means that the mission has really underperformed.
The outrage at the JPL press conference shows they are not prepared to take these criticisms onboard. Of course their anger simply proves the point that they think they are too big to fail and therefore beyond reproach, The absence of any new science results at the press conference (the last science results featuring in a media release were 10 months ago, in December) shows the concerns about under performance are justified.
-
#1214
by
robertross
on 14 Sep, 2014 14:26
-
...
The fact that Curiosity has only collected four samples to date and at best will get another eight to nine over the next two years contrasts with the fact it has the capability to handle 74 samples in each of its' two main instrument packages, CheMin and SAM. This combined with the extraordinarily slow progress (about half what was expected at launch and a third what was expected during site selection means that the mission has really underperformed.
The outrage at the JPL press conference shows they are not prepared to take these criticisms onboard. Of course their anger simply proves the point that they think they are too big to fail and therefore beyond reproach, The absence of any new science results at the press conference (the last science results featuring in a media release were 10 months ago, in December) shows the concerns about under performance are justified.
Sorry to jump in here, but a thought:
Perhaps when one takes into account the number of science missions looking for additional funding past their standard mission, they can always point to the fact that their key science instruments are still usable. As Curiosity is nuclear powered it would still have the opportunity to perform years of science around Mt Sharp, and at every review they can (hopefuly) point to new disoveries made along the way.
But of course I personally reject this POV. I believe they need to up the sampling rate in case there were a premature failure of one of the systems - the wheels for instance as once (though it would have to be rather catastrophic). But anything is possible on such a remote and hostile world. I say: it's there, make the most of it, and move on with the next rover. But politics drives everything: job security and center funding seem to take precedence.
-
#1215
by
meekGee
on 14 Sep, 2014 14:44
-
Thanks Dalhousie.
It still sounds like they are bemoaning the unchangeable.
The rover is headed uphill, and is drilling where there is an interesting spot.
Can't drive any faster...
"Lack of focus" suggests that the reviewer thinks there's something else that can be done. As in "stop getting distracted by taking pictures of Phobos"... But since this is not the case, and the reviewer does not have a better drive plan, I don't see his point.
If anything, they are being disciplined, not taking samples just in order to generate vanity data, and keeping their eye on the goal.
Suppose you sent a probe to a comet, and due to a thruster problem, the trip took 2x as long... Would you bemoan the lack of data while enroute?
-
#1216
by
Dalhousie
on 14 Sep, 2014 22:04
-
Thanks Dalhousie.
It still sounds like they are bemoaning the unchangeable.
The rover is headed uphill, and is drilling where there is an interesting spot.
Can't drive any faster...
"Lack of focus" suggests that the reviewer thinks there's something else that can be done. As in "stop getting distracted by taking pictures of Phobos"... But since this is not the case, and the reviewer does not have a better drive plan, I don't see his point.
If anything, they are being disciplined, not taking samples just in order to generate vanity data, and keeping their eye on the goal.
Suppose you sent a probe to a comet, and due to a thruster problem, the trip took 2x as long... Would you bemoan the lack of data while enroute?
I think the review panel were very careful not to bemoan the unchangeable. They very carefully (IMHO) did not mention the past. The criticisms are all on the future plans. E.g. once they get to the lower part Mt Sharp they are only going to do eight analyses in the next two years? Really? In the most interesting part of the succession? With CheMin and SAM still capable of 60 or more analyses after than?
Keep in mind that the wheel situation is probably much worse than the brave words from JPL. A contradiction in the press conference shows it up. While talking about the eight km drive over the next two years climbing through much rockier terrain than hitherto, they said that they had shortened the next segment by 100 m to save wear on the wheels. If the wheel situation is so bad that a 100 m shortening of the route is significant, planning on another 8 km seems rather optimistic.
-
#1217
by
IslandPlaya
on 14 Sep, 2014 22:14
-
Thanks Dalhousie.
It still sounds like they are bemoaning the unchangeable.
The rover is headed uphill, and is drilling where there is an interesting spot.
Can't drive any faster...
"Lack of focus" suggests that the reviewer thinks there's something else that can be done. As in "stop getting distracted by taking pictures of Phobos"... But since this is not the case, and the reviewer does not have a better drive plan, I don't see his point.
If anything, they are being disciplined, not taking samples just in order to generate vanity data, and keeping their eye on the goal.
Suppose you sent a probe to a comet, and due to a thruster problem, the trip took 2x as long... Would you bemoan the lack of data while enroute?
I think the review panel were very careful not to bemoan the unchangeable. They very carefully (IMHO) did not mention the past. The criticisms are all on the future plans. E.g. once they get to the lower part Mt Sharp they are only going to do eight analyses in the next two years? Really? In the most interesting part of the succession? With CheMin and SAM still capable of 60 or more analyses after than?
Keep in mind that the wheel situation is probably much worse than the brave words from JPL. A contradiction in the press conference shows it up. While talking about the eight km drive over the next two years climbing through much rockier terrain than hitherto, they said that they had shortened the next segment by 100 m to save wear on the wheels. If the wheel situation is so bad that a 100 m shortening of the route is significant, planning on another 8 km seems rather optimistic.
I think the 100m reduction was a typo. It should be 1000m, which is a good optimisation.
See this article by the fab (and gorgeous) Emily Lakdawalla...
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/curiosity-update-sols-727-747.html
-
#1218
by
Dalhousie
on 14 Sep, 2014 22:46
-
Keep in mind that the wheel situation is probably much worse than the brave words from JPL. A contradiction in the press conference shows it up. While talking about the eight km drive over the next two years climbing through much rockier terrain than hitherto, they said that they had shortened the next segment by 100 m to save wear on the wheels. If the wheel situation is so bad that a 100 m shortening of the route is significant, planning on another 8 km seems rather optimistic.
I think the 100m reduction was a typo. It should be 1000m, which is a good optimisation.
See this article by the fab (and gorgeous) Emily Lakdawalla...
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/curiosity-update-sols-727-747.html
That would be more reassuring. I must say that the new route looks more like 1 km shorter than 100 m, from eyeballing it.
Bu the wheel situation is still very dire. Remember they have to go another 8 km compared to the 10 they have done already, over much rockier ground.
-
#1219
by
IslandPlaya
on 14 Sep, 2014 22:51
-
Keep in mind that the wheel situation is probably much worse than the brave words from JPL. A contradiction in the press conference shows it up. While talking about the eight km drive over the next two years climbing through much rockier terrain than hitherto, they said that they had shortened the next segment by 100 m to save wear on the wheels. If the wheel situation is so bad that a 100 m shortening of the route is significant, planning on another 8 km seems rather optimistic.
I think the 100m reduction was a typo. It should be 1000m, which is a good optimisation.
See this article by the fab (and gorgeous) Emily Lakdawalla...
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2014/curiosity-update-sols-727-747.html
That would be more reassuring. I must say that the new route looks more like 1 km shorter than 100 m, from eyeballing it.
Bu the wheel situation is still very dire. Remember they have to go another 8 km compared to the 10 they have done already, over much rockier ground.
Agreed. Lets hope they use some of the 100Kg they can shave off the heatshield for the 2020 mission on more robust wheels.
The wheel situation is bad, but not dire IMHO. The rover has 6 wheel drive. Some wheels are pretty much intact and the massive torque from the drive motors mean it could 'rove' with square wheels...
samples will be taken in two years (two from each of the four units to be visited). This means that during the prime and EM1 missions a total of 13 analyses will be made by a highly capable rover. The panel viewed this as a poor science return for such a large investment in a flagship mission.