If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Discover)   What was it like for Curiosity to descend to Mars? See for yourself in this rover's-eye-view video of the landing   (blogs.discovermagazine.com) divider line 158
    More: Cool, heat shield, other worlds, Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, mantle plume  
•       •       •

19199 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 Aug 2012 at 10:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



158 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-06 11:13:41 PM
huge file
http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/videos/movies/msl20120806_malinde s centvideo/msl20120806_malindescentvideo-1280.mov
 
2012-08-06 11:14:30 PM
It's... pretty much the way super nintendo graphics always depicted it.
 
2012-08-06 11:15:01 PM
 
2012-08-06 11:17:38 PM
Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?
 
2012-08-06 11:17:58 PM

trappedspirit: Cheesehead_Dave: [sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 499x354]

Just a 7 minute delay in seeing the automated results. It's a 14 minute round trip delay between triggering and action and getting the results. But the landing was all scripted and happened 7 minutes before the NASA JPL control room got their rocks off.


No, it's not a 14 minute round trip. It's currently 14 minutes for the signal to get from Mars, as noted in 7 Minutes of Terror. By the time they got the indication that the equipment had entered the atmosphere, the lander was either successfully landed or destroyed for at least seven minutes.

Also, they had stopped communicating with the equipment about a half hour before it entered the atmosphere. It was on its own because there was nothing Mission Control could do.

See this page for the current distance from Mars and how long it takes a signal to reach Earth from that point.
 
2012-08-06 11:18:14 PM
I'm fairly certain I spotted a Starbucks in that sequence.
 
2012-08-06 11:20:03 PM

PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?


The other rovers were much smaller and lighter than this guy. Air bags and parachutes alone wouldn't cut it.
 
2012-08-06 11:22:26 PM

PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?


Weight. This project was too big for air bags. They wanted to put down this rover as gently as possible.

Watch 7 Minutes of Terror. They agree that it looked like a crazy way to do things, but they were confident of the engineering and rightfully so considering how things have turned out.
 
2012-08-06 11:24:12 PM

space_cowgirl: PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?

The other rovers were much smaller and lighter than this guy. Air bags and parachutes alone wouldn't cut it.


"We needed retro-jets, mini-rocket backpacks, as it were..." she adjusted her glasses..."...how else would we achieve such a retroactive bounce, gravitationally?"

;)
 
2012-08-06 11:24:22 PM

space_cowgirl: PunGent: Afa feeding the poor, was the number of Americans that starved to death last year higher than zero? Frankly, most of us could eat LESS...

Anyway, serious question: why did we go all Rube Goldberg on this? I'm delighted it worked, but didn't we get the last rover down a little more simply?

The other rovers were much smaller and lighter than this guy. Air bags and parachutes alone wouldn't cut it.


plus they were trying to disturb the landing site as little as possible, due to the ability to kick up dust all over this critter (and all over the landing site...)
 
2012-08-06 11:29:42 PM

Lordserb: but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


Higgs conference had these people, too. Here's their answer:
Link
 
2012-08-06 11:30:05 PM
Now, try to parallel park that sucker.
 
2012-08-06 11:30:14 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


We could take the money they're spending on the Osprey that can't fly and the Abrams upgrade the Army doesn't want, give door-to-door meal service to all those hungry people...and STILL have enough leftover to go to Mars.
 
2012-08-06 11:31:15 PM
I just saw this on the NASA website. Is that real?

www.agoracosmopolitan.com
 
2012-08-06 11:32:09 PM
I can't wait til we can start a war on Mars. Spare no expense, I will say.
 
2012-08-06 11:32:33 PM
I hope they brought a decent offering to appease the martians, like some four loko, bath salts and spice.
 
2012-08-06 11:35:40 PM
I saw it and was about to complain about the quality and stuff, and then I reminded myself:
That's on Mars. For real.

/putting away the snark and admitting that this is pretty freakin' cool
 
2012-08-06 11:36:10 PM
apod.nasa.gov

Opportunity Rover says:

This was a triumph!
I'm making a note here:
"huge success!!"

It's hard to overstate
My satisfaction.

Aperture science:
We do what me must
Because we can.

For the good of all of us.
Except the ones who are dead.

But there's no sense crying
Over every mistake.
You just keep on trying
Till you run out of cake.
And the science gets done.
And you make a neat gun
For the people who are
Still alive.

I'm not even angry...
I'm being so sincere right now-
Even though you broke my heart,
And killed me.

And tore me to pieces.
And threw every piece into a fire.
As they burned it hurt because
I was so happy for you!

Now, these points of data
Make a beautiful line.
And we're out of beta.
We're releasing on time!
So i'm glad i got burned-
Think of all the things we learned-
For the people who are
Still alive.

Go ahead and leave me...
I think i'd prefer to stay inside...
Maybe you'll find someone else
To help you?
Maybe black mesa?
That was a joke! haha!! fat chance!!

Anyway this cake is great!
It's so delicious and moist!

Look at me: still talking
When there's science to do!
When i look out there,
It makes me glad I'm not you.

I've experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are
Still alive.
And believe me i am
Still alive.
I'm doing science and i'm
Still alive.
I feel fantastic and i'm
Still alive.
While you're dying i'll be
Still alive.
And when you're dead i will be
Still alive.

Still alive.

Still alive.
 
2012-08-06 11:39:04 PM

Harry_Seldon: the_chief: Why the low resolution? Doesn't NASA have HD cameras now? I've seen better photos from a GD iPhone.

Those pictures are taken with the 1 megapixel hazard avoidance cameras (you know, for navigation).


Actually, the landing approach video was taken with the MARDI (MARs Descent Imager) camera. The camera took five color pictures per second at 1600x1200 resolution from the time that the heat shield ejected all the way until touchdown. This period took roughly 134 seconds, which means that the rover should have took roughly 670 still images.

The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution). This compressed version will let scientists determine if they need to get the whole video right away, or if it can wait and be a low-priority task. It looks as though the landing went very smoothly, but if something unexpected had happened during landing these images would be very high priority, just to figure out what happened and why.

Assuming they were using48-bit RGB colors (and I really have no idea what format they're using) then each pixel would be 6 bytes of information, so the full length HD movie would be 1600x1200x670x6 = 7718400000 bytes, or about 7.7 gigabytes. The compressed version is only 192*144*297*6 = 32 meg, note they only sent back 297 thumbnails.

The exact bandwidth available to the Curiosity rover is a complicated answer depending on where the rover is with respect to Mars, the Earth, and any orbiting satellites, but the peak transmission rate of the direct Rover-Earth link is 32,000 Kbps, or roughly half as fast as your 56K modem back in the day. To transmit the full HD movie would take 536 hours, while the thumbnail version would have only taken about 3.4 hours, and both of those numbers assume perfect conditions.
 
2012-08-06 11:40:26 PM

GungFu: I just saw this on the NASA website. Is that real?

[www.agoracosmopolitan.com image 500x412]


No, can't be, because it didn't come down anywhere near the Sydonia region.
 
2012-08-06 11:43:09 PM

Dadoody: Aperture science:
We do what me must
Because we can.


I'm not even AZN
 
2012-08-06 11:43:16 PM

stirfrybry: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/videos/movies/msl20120806_malinde s centvideo/msl20120806_malindescentvideo-1280.mov


Better link. For some reason a copy/pasta link ends up with spaces in it.
 
2012-08-06 11:43:34 PM
Just to put it in perspective, there's a substantial portion of Congress that would like to cut projects like Curiosity AND feeding the poor

/both equal wastes of money as far as they're concerned
 
2012-08-06 11:44:32 PM
Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars
 
2012-08-06 11:44:47 PM

Fubini: The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution). This compressed version will let scientists determine if they need to get the whole video right away, or if it can wait and be a low-priority task. It looks as though the landing went very smoothly, but if something unexpected had happened during landing these images would be very high priority, just to figure out what happened and why.


Thanks for ruining a good telling-off of those nerds who landed a tiny scrap of metal on a tiny scrap of moving rock 139,809,000 miles away.
 
2012-08-06 11:51:45 PM

mjjt: Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars


Were you an Omni reader? Seems there weren't a lot of us

/got a whole box full of them
 
2012-08-06 11:51:51 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


No, it is simply being realistic. The problem most years is food distribution, not a lack of food. Distribution problems are largely political and throwing money at political problems only makes them worse. If one wanted to back that up with a Bible quote (unlike most people who fake the references), "The poor will be with you always." J.C. If god can't fix it, what chance do we have? Science we can do.
 
2012-08-06 11:52:12 PM
I heard somewhere that the engineers endured 7 minutes of terror while the craft entered the atmosphere at 13000 miles, before it slowed down and deployed a sky crane to lower the rover, which is actually the size of a car.

Whoa! 7 minutes of terror!
 
2012-08-06 11:53:14 PM

Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.


Well, Americans could spend less than 50 billion dollars on pets, which includes 3.79 BILLION for various pet services. I'm willing to bet we could squeeze out 2.5 billion from there and give that to the poor instead.

Or, Americans could maybe not spend 60+ BILLION on weight-loss products. We could probably almost erase this entirely by eating healthier - go look up how much we spent on fast food in 2011. Never mind, we're talking around 160 BILLION DOLLARS!

Did you want more "perspective" from the 270 billion dollars above? Think we could squeeze out a 2.5 billion dollar Mars mission and give 2.5 billion dollars for your idea from that 270 billion?
 
2012-08-06 11:56:09 PM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: mjjt: Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars

Were you an Omni reader? Seems there weren't a lot of us

/got a whole box full of them


I miss Omni. That was an awesome magazine.

I remember that Cydonia spread. I was more interested in the "city" and the "pyramids" than that stupid face.
 
2012-08-06 11:57:24 PM

Fubini: The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution).


You would think if they were going to fly all that way, they would spool out a couple of strands of fiber optic cable.
 
2012-08-06 11:59:07 PM
Didn't have to use the soundstage of the moon just a bowl of custard.
 
2012-08-07 12:03:59 AM

Harry_Seldon: You would think if they were going to fly all that way, they would spool out a couple of strands of fiber optic cable.


What about a really long stick?

www.internetmemepics.com
 
2012-08-07 12:05:41 AM
Hey, if this technology leads to inventing machines that could zap ass cancer through a pinhole in your belly button instead of cutting you open and laying your intestines on your stomach, then I am all for the costs!
 
2012-08-07 12:05:42 AM
"highly compressed version (192x144 resolution)"
When in the 70's did we launch this thing? I have a keychain video camera that does 720 x something and it was $25 ... so small a sparrow could take it to mars. Estes rocket and a ziplock bag and ..... spacefood sticks gall dangit ....
 
2012-08-07 12:09:33 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: mjjt: Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars

Were you an Omni reader? Seems there weren't a lot of us

/got a whole box full of them


more than you might think

Link

Link
 
2012-08-07 12:09:51 AM

roughridersfan: Lordserb: Token Anarchist: ple bemoan the costs?!? farking savages.

I think it's more about spending the money on things that will have a greater effect on solving national problems. Don't get me wrong, this mars mission is beyond cool, but you can't tell someone he or she is wrong for wanting to have spent the money feeding the poor. Just a matter of perspective for some people I guess.

Well, Americans could spend less than 50 billion dollars on pets, which includes 3.79 BILLION for various pet services. I'm willing to bet we could squeeze out 2.5 billion from there and give that to the poor instead.

Or, Americans could maybe not spend 60+ BILLION on weight-loss products. We could probably almost erase this entirely by eating healthier - go look up how much we spent on fast food in 2011. Never mind, we're talking around 160 BILLION DOLLARS!

Did you want more "perspective" from the 270 billion dollars above? Think we could squeeze out a 2.5 billion dollar Mars mission and give 2.5 billion dollars for your idea from that 270 billion?




Making the argument that americans waste money all the time is not relevant, I'm simply pointing out that it is your opinion that going to mars benefits us more than helping our poor, just as it is someone else's opinion that helping the poor is better than going to mars. All the stats in the world aren't going to make you right in this instance.
 
2012-08-07 12:12:53 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: mjjt: Here's a story from Omni mag back in 1985 that suggested you shouldn't trust what cameras show of Mars

Gods of Mars

Were you an Omni reader? Seems there weren't a lot of us

/got a whole box full of them


Stopped my subscription near the end of its run when the editorial bent went too far on the UFO end of the spectrum.

I miss the early years when it was a good mix of science and fiction.
 
2012-08-07 12:13:00 AM

Fubini: Harry_Seldon: the_chief: Why the low resolution? Doesn't NASA have HD cameras now? I've seen better photos from a GD iPhone.

Those pictures are taken with the 1 megapixel hazard avoidance cameras (you know, for navigation).

Actually, the landing approach video was taken with the MARDI (MARs Descent Imager) camera. The camera took five color pictures per second at 1600x1200 resolution from the time that the heat shield ejected all the way until touchdown. This period took roughly 134 seconds, which means that the rover should have took roughly 670 still images.

The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution). This compressed version will let scientists determine if they need to get the whole video right away, or if it can wait and be a low-priority task. It looks as though the landing went very smoothly, but if something unexpected had happened during landing these images would be very high priority, just to figure out what happened and why.

Assuming they were using48-bit RGB colors (and I really have no idea what format they're using) then each pixel would be 6 bytes of information, so the full length HD movie would be 1600x1200x670x6 = 7718400000 bytes, or about 7.7 gigabytes. The compressed version is only 192*144*297*6 = 32 meg, note they only sent back 297 thumbnails.

The exact bandwidth available to the Curiosity rover is a complicated answer depending on where the rover is with respect to Mars, the Earth, and any orbiting satellites, but the peak transmission rate of the direct Rover-Earth link is 32,000 Kbps, or roughly half as fast as your 56K modem back in the day. To transmit the full HD movie would take 536 hours, while the thumbnail version would have only taken about 3.4 hours, and both of those numbers assume perfect conditions.


Are the numbers that you give for peak transmission rate showing sums for the current UHF antenna or the High-Gain ant. that should be deployed and activated tomorrow? I just sort of thought they would relay data with a faster connection than the previous two rovers.

/could be wrong
//usually am
 
2012-08-07 12:21:57 AM

Fubini: The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution).


250x150 for the thumbnail image.


Yeah, give it a day or two. right now they have a paltry 5 megabit connection. Once they hit 40 megabits we'll see the full res video, and I think everything else you said is correct.

Here's a calibration image that has been fixed to take out the pincushion distortion.
 
2012-08-07 12:23:05 AM
I'm amazed at just how farking retarded most people are.
 
2012-08-07 12:29:21 AM
(192x144 resolution).

250x150 for the thumbnail image

well that's better

I bet you listen to 45's
 
2012-08-07 12:30:59 AM

anfrind: Harry_Seldon: You would think if they were going to fly all that way, they would spool out a couple of strands of fiber optic cable.

What about a really long stick?

[www.internetmemepics.com image 461x600]


Troll guy with the stick already knows that stick-transmission is actually much slower, limited to the speed of sound in the stick. He just wants me to respond, so I'll oblige.
 
2012-08-07 12:31:48 AM

innsaei: Fubini: Harry_Seldon: the_chief: Why the low resolution? Doesn't NASA have HD cameras now? I've seen better photos from a GD iPhone.

Those pictures are taken with the 1 megapixel hazard avoidance cameras (you know, for navigation).

Actually, the landing approach video was taken with the MARDI (MARs Descent Imager) camera. The camera took five color pictures per second at 1600x1200 resolution from the time that the heat shield ejected all the way until touchdown. This period took roughly 134 seconds, which means that the rover should have took roughly 670 still images.

The rover only has so much bandwidth available to transmit data back to Earth, so rather than transmitting the full, high-resolution version it has instead transmitted a highly compressed version (192x144 resolution). This compressed version will let scientists determine if they need to get the whole video right away, or if it can wait and be a low-priority task. It looks as though the landing went very smoothly, but if something unexpected had happened during landing these images would be very high priority, just to figure out what happened and why.

Assuming they were using48-bit RGB colors (and I really have no idea what format they're using) then each pixel would be 6 bytes of information, so the full length HD movie would be 1600x1200x670x6 = 7718400000 bytes, or about 7.7 gigabytes. The compressed version is only 192*144*297*6 = 32 meg, note they only sent back 297 thumbnails.

The exact bandwidth available to the Curiosity rover is a complicated answer depending on where the rover is with respect to Mars, the Earth, and any orbiting satellites, but the peak transmission rate of the direct Rover-Earth link is 32,000 Kbps, or roughly half as fast as your 56K modem back in the day. To transmit the full HD movie would take 536 hours, while the thumbnail version would have only taken about 3.4 hours, and both of those numbers assume perfect conditions.

Are the numbers that you give for peak trans ...


It can transmit to the orbiter also in UHF if I recall, but I don't know what kind of data rates that gets. Hopefully AT&T doesn't service it
 
2012-08-07 12:33:51 AM

nmrsnr: doyner: Fark anyone who bemoans the cost. We need to do this for humanity because we can.

Seriously, it cost roughly $2.5bn, or about $8 a person. Meanwhile, we're about to spend $3bn refurbishing a fleet of Abrams tanks that the Pentagon doesn't even want. I don't even have good snark for that, it just makes me sad.


Roughly $15.00 a person if you factor in those that don't pay federal income tax. Money well spent if you consider the jobs it created NASA said something like 700 direct but supported 7000, many of the private jobs are in defense contractors (Lockheed and General Dynamics) as well. On top of jobs it also supports science and engineering and had an actual result to the project unlike some spending where it seems like nothing ever happens.

When I read about the silver circle the first thing I though was that the comment was added to make sure people didn't think it was a UFO.
 
2012-08-07 12:34:54 AM
You can really see it lock on to that flat area right at the end.

How much flight time did it have, and how much was used?
 
2012-08-07 12:38:29 AM
Alright...i get it, we sent another rover to Mars
i admit i haven't been interested in watching any of the coverage, and yes i am a career geek...
i just don't get the hype...
isn't this like the 4th rover we've sent there?
Can one of you Farkers please explain to me why this one is so friggin special, and why do i KNEED to watch the landing of another rover?


/am i missing something?
 
2012-08-07 12:44:54 AM

cretinbob: I'm amazed at just how farking retarded most people are.


As long as you've been a Farker?

/I'm amazed you're still amazed
//at least your spirit hasn't been crushed into unquestioning acceptance of it yet
 
2012-08-07 12:45:47 AM

EffervescingElephant: isn't this like the 4th rover we've sent there?


Seven rovers have been sent to Mars:

Mars 2, Prop-M rover, 1971, landing failed.

Mars 3, Prop-M rover, 1971, communication failure after landing. The Mars 2 and 3 spacecraft from the USSR, had identical 4.5 kg Prop-M rovers. They were to move on skis while connected to the landers with cables. The Mars 2 rover crashed into the Martian surface.[2] The Mars 3 lander stopped communicating about 20 seconds after landing.[2] Mars 2 and Mars 3 both had companion orbiters which were successful.

Sojourner rover, Mars Pathfinder, landed successfully on July 4, 1997. Communications were lost on September 27, 1997.

Beagle 2, Planetary Undersurface Tool, lost with Beagle 2 on deployment from Mars Express.[3] A compressed spring mechanism was designed to enable to movement across the surface at a rate of 1 cm per 5 seconds[3] and to burrow into the ground and collect a subsurface sample in a cavity in its tip.

Spirit (MER-A), Mars Exploration Rover, landed successfully on January 4, 2004. Nearly 6 years after the original mission limit, Spirit had covered a total distance of 7.73 km (4.80 mi) but its wheels became trapped in sand.[4] Around January 26, 2010, NASA conceded defeat in its efforts to free the rover and stated that it would now function as a stationary science platform.[5] The last communication received from the rover was on March 22, 2010 and NASA ceased attempts to re-establish communication on May 25, 2011.[6]

Opportunity (MER-B), Mars Exploration Rover, landed successfully on January 25, 2004. Opportunity was still operating as of 2012, having surpassed the previous record for longevity of a surface mission to Mars on May 20, 2010.[7][8]

Curiosity, Mars Science Laboratory, by NASA. It was launched November 26, 2011 at 10:02 EST[9][10] and landed in the Aeolis Palus plain near Aeolis Mons (formerly "Mount Sharp")[11][12][13][14] in Gale Crater on August 6, 2012, 05:31 UTC.[15][16][17]
 
2012-08-07 12:52:10 AM
You'd think that Curiousity would have been listening to some music on the way down in order to heighten the experience. What a dull individual it must be. I bet it's a real blast at parties.
 
Displayed 50 of 158 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report