LIVE: MSL Curiosity Post Landing SOL 1 onwards Update Thread

[lcs]

There is an arrowish shaped pebble to the bottom left of this image that looks as though it has been dislodged from a spot below. I wonder if that is due to the rockets or whether the rover bounced a little or just my misinterpretation?

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl-raw-images/msss/00003/mcam/0003ML0000125000E1_DXXX.jpg

What I take away from this image is the wheel.  I recall the pre-launch photos show the wheel is black.  Aside from the granules on top of the rover, this is the first indication I've seen of a much finer dust coating. 

[clongton]

Common expression. How about "based on past experience with American rovers, in all likelihood"?

That is hardly a big enough statistical sample to draw confident claims from. Of course it's everyone's expectation that MSL will live more than 1 Mars year, but engineering should IMHO be done by setting requirements, not expectations. Otherwise what's stopping you from escalating costs for example when you realize one component could significantly outlive another and you wish to "improve" that other component as well?

Ok, I cede the point. But I would think that given the cost of designing a rover and actually sending to the Martian surface, that we would want to maximize the capability and longevity as much as we can for the express purpose of extending the DRM as much as possible, within financial constraints. After all we don't do this every other week. Let's get the most bang for the buck we possibly can. That means seriously planning, within funding constraints, for a potential long-term extended mission. To plan only for the DRM when we are reasonably confident that an extended mission is likely possible is short sighted imo. Don't get me wrong I am not criticizing this rover or its design team. To the contrary I continue to be proud and amazed by it and them. But I am hoping future design teams will think longer term than the DRM. For example, did this team plan for an extended mission? If so, what are the defining parameters? If not, why not? That's not a criticism - just a question.

[robertross]

Maybe we need a thread to discuss the MSL rover itself, to keep the updates thread cleaner

Great discussion points though, we need to keep them

[Norm38]

I'm having trouble telling the true color of the sky. When I look at the far rim images I posted on my phone, the sky and rim are a butterscotch. But on my laptop, it's a bluish white, not yellow at all.

What do your screens show?

[Jim]

But I am hoping future design teams will think longer term than the DRM. For example, did this team plan for an extended mission? If so, what are the defining parameters? If not, why not? That's not a criticism - just a question.

They can't.  They don't have the budget or the authority to do it.
It is not a reference mission.  The Design mission is a hard constraint.  That sets all resource planning and utilization.

Extended missions are not really planned until the basic mission is complete.

[JebbPA]

I have been following this forum since Sol 1, what a great forum!

I just wanted to share my humble approach on a more earth-like panorama.

“Curiosity is the very basis of education and if you tell me that curiosity killed the cat, I say only the cat died nobly.”

[saturnapollo]

I'm having trouble telling the true color of the sky. When I look at the far rim images I posted on my phone, the sky and rim are a butterscotch. But on my laptop, it's a bluish white, not yellow at all.

What do your screens show?

I see them as butterscotch on my monitor but these are unprocessed colours

See here for explanation:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/images/?ImageID=4421

But even the colour corrected one doesn't look blue on my monitor just less butterscotch and a bit more neutral.

I must admit I do like the unprocessed colours better - looks more like Mars should !

Keirg

[hop]

But I would think that given the cost of designing a rover and actually sending to the Martian surface, that we would want to maximize the capability and longevity as much as we can for the express purpose of extending the DRM as much as possible, within financial constraints.

They had to cut significant capabilities from the primary mission because of "financial constraints" (AKA being more than a billion over budget). They were also so far behind schedule they missed their launch window. It should be obvious that "nice to have" stuff that only applied to an extended mission would be totally out of the question.

That said, without any extra cost/effort, odds for a significant extended mission appear good. There are no consumables which give a hard cutoff at 1 Mars year. The actuators are designed as much as possible to guarantee the nominal mission, so they aren't likely to drop dead at +1 day. Same goes for dust accumulation, if they can survive a full mission in the worst case, the typical case should be a lot longer. From the press briefings, I got the impression an extra Mars year should be well within reach, and substantially longer isn't out of the question.

[spectre9]

Extended missions are not really planned until the basic mission is complete.

I think budget and resource allocation stops extended missions being taken for granted.

JPL can't be asking to run this mission in 5 years because operating this rover isn't free.

It has to be reviewed at each step a mission extension is called for. What power levels are still available?, what instruments should be used? (or are still operational), what science objectives should change?. Then if the returns are there decisions to continue the mission can be made.

So any word about when the rover might be driving?

I don't even know what Sol we're on now. Seems like she's just been sitting there forever.

[robertross]

I don't even know what Sol we're on now. Seems like she's just been sitting there forever.

6 sols: 23 hours: 00 minutes: 18 seconds

as of right now

[Blackstar]

Extended missions are not really planned until the basic mission is complete.

That's not quite correct. The people involved start thinking about extended missions when the basic mission's end is in sight. After all, they cannot simply shut down the spacecraft and wait for their extension proposal to be approved. I forget when MSL's primary mission is supposed to end, but I can guarantee you that NASA will set a deadline for extension proposals perhaps three-six months before that date.

JCM might be a good person to chime in on this, since he has direct experience with extended missions for astronomy.

However, I'd add several points to this discussion:

1-For a long time planetary missions did not really need to worry too much about extended missions, because there was always an assumption that you operate the spacecraft until it dies. It was primarily astronomy missions that had to take continued operating costs into account. Astronomy has undergone things called "senior reviews" whereby the science return for active missions is considered and they make a decision which spacecraft to continue operating and which ones to shut off. (WISE is one example where NASA chose to shut it down even though it was still working. I think Spitzer is in the same situation.)

Planetary generally did not need to do this, because more often than not they had hard or semi-hard lifetimes, such as Phoenix (death by cold) or Deep Impact (fuel running out). However, this is changing because there are so many active planetary missions, and many of them are lasting long beyond their primary lifetimes. So you can expect to see more scrutiny of mission extensions. Senior reviews for planetary missions are increasingly likely. A good example is what to do with Opportunity. Is it worthwhile to keep it operating now that Curiosity is active?

2-Mars surface missions are in some ways different than other missions because, as a senior non-Mars scientist once explained to me, "it's so damned hard getting down to the surface that as long as the spacecraft is operating, you keep it running."

It could be a decade or more before we get another spacecraft to the surface of Mars, and so you can expect NASA to try and keep MSL running for as long as possible.

[robertross]

Sorry this is a little late...but I feel it needs to be posted 

The Maple Leaf Returns to Mars

Canadian science instrument part of NASA's Mars Science Laboratory mission
Longueuil, Quebec, August 6, 2012 — NASA's Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) touched down on the Red Planet today at 1:32 a.m. EDT, marking the second time a Canadian science instrument lands on Mars. The mission's rover, dubbed Curiosity, carries an instrument roughly the size and shape of a Rubik's cube provided by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA). Known as the Alpha Particle X-Ray Spectrometer (APXS), the device will probe the chemistry of rocks and soils on Mars to help determine if the planet ever was, or could still be today, an environment able to support microbial life.

"In 2008, Canadians celebrated as NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander mission marked the first time we, as a country, landed Canadian technology on the surface of another planet," said Steve MacLean, President of the CSA. "Mars Science Lab is another first for Canada: the first time wereach out and "touch" Mars, since APXS will investigate the planet's surface."
The Canadian two-in-one instrument is the second of Webb's four instruments to be delivered. It consists of the Webb's Fine Guidance Sensor (FGS), which will direct the telescope precisely, and the Near-Infrared Imager and Slitless Spectrograph (or NIRISS) science instrument. Both were designed, built and tested by COM DEV International in Ottawa and Cambridge, Ontario, with technical contributions from the Université de Montréal and the National Research Council of Canada, and under the leadership of the FGS science team. The CSA's contribution guarantees Canadian astronomers a share of observing time once the telescope launches.

The size of a small car, Curiosity is a mobile science lab equipped with the largest, most advanced suite of science instruments ever to land on Mars. Curiosity will analyze samples on site to determine whether Mars was ever a habitable planet, characterize the climate and geology of Mars, and pave the way for human exploration. APXS is one of 10 science instruments on Curiosity. It will determine the chemical composition of Martian rocks and soil samples to establish their geological history, identify possible alterations by water and perform sample triage for the on-board laboratory instruments. It will be used regularly throughout the mission, which is planned to last one full Martian year (687 Earth days).

An improved version of the instruments on Pathfinder, Spirit, and Opportunity, this latest version of APXS was developed specifically for MSL under the scientific leadership of Dr. Ralf Gellert of the University of Guelph, Principal Investigator for APXS. Dr. Gellert also heads the APXS science team, which is composed of members from the University of Guelph, the University of New Brunswick, NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab (a division of Caltech), the University of California, San Diego, Cornell University, the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the Australian National University. With funding from the CSA, scientists from Brock University, the University of Western Ontario and the CSA are also participating in the mission as NASA-selected Participating Scientists.

The CSA is investing $17.8 million in the design, construction, primary operations and scientific support of APXS. The CSA managed the development and construction of the instrument with MacDonald, Dettwiler and Associates Ltd. (MDA) as the prime contractor for APXS. The University of Guelph provided the scientific direction for the design and engineering support during the development, calibrated the APXS instrument and will lead the science operations for the instrument. Components of APXS were tested in Brampton, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Toronto and Guelph.

http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/media/news_releases/2012/0806.asp

[Blackstar]

They had to cut significant capabilities from the primary mission because of "financial constraints" (AKA being more than a billion over budget).

There was another aspect to this. I forget the exact details, but when they went over budget, NASA cut back on the lifetime testing. I believe that originally they planned to test the rover to enable it to achieve something like three times its planned lifetime. When the budget went high, they cut the testing to assure confidence that it could only achieve its primary mission.

This produced some savings, without risking the primary mission.

[Bogeyman]

Is there a specific date where it is planned for the rover to start driving?

[clongton]

2-Mars surface missions are in some ways different than other missions because, as a senior non-Mars scientist once explained to me, "it's so damned hard getting down to the surface that as long as the spacecraft is operating, you keep it running."

It could be a decade or more before we get another spacecraft to the surface of Mars, and so you can expect NASA to try and keep MSL running for as long as possible.

That was exactly my point for bringing up extended missions. I understand about the funding constraints, I really do, but Blackstar's statement is why I believe that lander and rover designers need to think beyond the DRM for their spacecraft and very deliberately do whatever they can when designing for the DRM to be able to make their spacecraft last as long as humanly possible. From what I know about Curiosity's design, it would not surprise me to see her continue to function well 5 or 6 years from now. She is well designed and built. Given that, I wanted to know what thought the scientists had given to extended missions because I believe she will last long enough to execute at least 1 if not 2.

[Jim]

That was exactly my point for bringing up extended missions. I understand about the funding constraints, I really do, but Blackstar's statement is why I believe that lander and rover designers need to think beyond the DRM for their spacecraft and very deliberately do whatever they can when designing for the DRM to be able to make their spacecraft last as long as humanly possible.

No, you don't.  The funding constraints and thinking beyond the design requirements are mutually exclusive and actually the opposite happens.  Most of the time when they find excessive margin, it is redesigned to save money.


P.S.  there are no DRM for one of a kind spacecraft

[Nathan]

Is there any update on how the software upgrade is progressing?

[Chris Bergin]

Oh here we go! Some pimping for MSL in the mainstream media hopefully!!

Congratulations to @MarsCuriosity team from President Obama at 11am ET today. Watch live on NASA TV: http://www.nasa.gov/ntv

[Chris Bergin]

MEDIA ADVISORY: M12-149

PRESIDENT OBAMA TO CALL NASA CURIOSITY MARS ROVER TEAM TODAY



WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama will congratulate members of
NASA's Curiosity Mars rover team at the agency's Jet Propulsion
Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, Calif., at 11 a.m. EDT (8 a.m. PDT)
this morning.

Audio of the call and video of the JPL team's portion of the call will
be carried live on NASA Television and the agency's website.

President Obama's call comes a week after Curiosity landed on the Red
Planet. Curiosity carries the most advanced science payload ever used
on Mars' surface. During the next 2 years, it will use its 10
instruments to investigate whether conditions have been favorable for
microbial life and for preserving clues in the rocks about possible
past life.

Curiosity was designed, developed and assembled at JPL, which also is
where the rover's mission control is located.

For NASA TV downlink information, schedules and links to streaming
video, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/ntv

For more information about NASA's Curiosity mission, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/mars

and

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl

[Chris Bergin]

Someone needs to turn off the open mic! Whoops!