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.

(NASA)   The first color image from Curiosity is in and if you ask subby it looks like it took a wrong turn at Albuquerque and ended up on Titan   (mars.jpl.nasa.gov) divider line 62
    More: Cool, color image, Titans, Albuquerque  
•       •       •

7429 clicks; posted to Geek » on 07 Aug 2012 at 12:50 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-08-07 12:54:22 PM
Where are all the moisture vaporators?
 
2012-08-07 12:54:44 PM
TITAN??? OOOOOOOOOOOHHH, I'M DYYYYYYYYYYIN'!!!
 
2012-08-07 12:55:10 PM
WTF? The billionaires of America can't get a tax cut for that? I can go have my maid take a photo of LA Smog for free right now.
 
2012-08-07 12:55:39 PM
It was a victim of a series of accidents, as are we all.
 
2012-08-07 01:00:24 PM
johneaves.files.wordpress.com
 
2012-08-07 01:01:17 PM
What happens when it removes the dust cover and a dust storm or something happens... is it farked or did it bring windex?
 
2012-08-07 01:04:02 PM

KellyX: What happens when it removes the dust cover and a dust storm or something happens... is it farked or did it bring windex?


lemon pledge
 
2012-08-07 01:04:25 PM
So they finally found room for a color camera... and they use a camera out of a 10 year old cellphone.
 
2012-08-07 01:07:54 PM
Can't even keep the camera straight. What a piece of junk.
 
2012-08-07 01:08:26 PM

jbtilley: So they finally found room for a color camera... and they use a camera out of a 10 year old cellphone.


Read the article before posting. That might help next time.
 
2012-08-07 01:08:38 PM

thecpt: KellyX: What happens when it removes the dust cover and a dust storm or something happens... is it farked or did it bring windex?

lemon pledge


elzonkeyshow.files.wordpress.com

Lemon pledge? Noooooooo.
 
2012-08-07 01:15:47 PM
Dust! What other wonders await us?
 
2012-08-07 01:19:10 PM
fanboydestroy.files.wordpress.com

Albuquerque, you say. Just keep on going, nothing for you here.
 
2012-08-07 01:19:45 PM

KellyX: What happens when it removes the dust cover and a dust storm or something happens... is it farked or did it bring windex?


This is what I'm wondering. Why the removable dust covers in the first place? They had to have included countermeasures for the dust storms that occur on Mars. Why not just use those for landing? If it was out of some concern that they wouldn't open, then the first time they need to use them for a storm (which could be mere days after landing) they're farked anyway. And if it was just because they couldn't wait for the first images. . . was that worth the additional points of failure?

I can't think of a justifiable reason for adding removable dust covers to the payload unless they completely neglected to add reusable dust countermeasures, which would make this rover the most incompetently designed machine to ever land intact on that planet. You can see the dust storms from space FFS and they damn near killed the last generation of rovers.
 
2012-08-07 01:20:47 PM
Look, sir! Droids!
 
2012-08-07 01:25:58 PM

dragonchild: KellyX: What happens when it removes the dust cover and a dust storm or something happens... is it farked or did it bring windex?

This is what I'm wondering. Why the removable dust covers in the first place? They had to have included countermeasures for the dust storms that occur on Mars. Why not just use those for landing? If it was out of some concern that they wouldn't open, then the first time they need to use them for a storm (which could be mere days after landing) they're farked anyway. And if it was just because they couldn't wait for the first images. . . was that worth the additional points of failure?

I can't think of a justifiable reason for adding removable dust covers to the payload unless they completely neglected to add reusable dust countermeasures, which would make this rover the most incompetently designed machine to ever land intact on that planet. You can see the dust storms from space FFS and they damn near killed the last generation of rovers.


I think they can put the dust covers back in place if necessary. I doubt they only go one direction.
 
2012-08-07 01:30:43 PM

YixilTesiphon: I think they can put the dust covers back in place if necessary. I doubt they only go one direction.


Prepare to fire explosive bolts!!!
 
2012-08-07 01:33:38 PM
I thought "red planet" Mars would have been redder, possibly a deep maroon. But if that were shown in the pic we saw, maybe that would mean the rover would have landed on Titian.
 
2012-08-07 01:35:21 PM

dragonchild: KellyX: What happens when it removes the dust cover and a dust storm or something happens... is it farked or did it bring windex?

This is what I'm wondering. Why the removable dust covers in the first place? They had to have included countermeasures for the dust storms that occur on Mars. Why not just use those for landing? If it was out of some concern that they wouldn't open, then the first time they need to use them for a storm (which could be mere days after landing) they're farked anyway. And if it was just because they couldn't wait for the first images. . . was that worth the additional points of failure?

I can't think of a justifiable reason for adding removable dust covers to the payload unless they completely neglected to add reusable dust countermeasures, which would make this rover the most incompetently designed machine to ever land intact on that planet. You can see the dust storms from space FFS and they damn near killed the last generation of rovers.



I don't get why people do this. They take one small detail from the article, make a wildly wrong assumption (the dust cover cannot close again once opened) then assume that it is some hugely obvious and massive engineering failure. The arrogance is astounding.
 
2012-08-07 01:37:39 PM

dragonchild: KellyX: What happens when it removes the dust cover and a dust storm or something happens... is it farked or did it bring windex?

This is what I'm wondering. Why the removable dust covers in the first place? They had to have included countermeasures for the dust storms that occur on Mars. Why not just use those for landing? If it was out of some concern that they wouldn't open, then the first time they need to use them for a storm (which could be mere days after landing) they're farked anyway. And if it was just because they couldn't wait for the first images. . . was that worth the additional points of failure?

I can't think of a justifiable reason for adding removable dust covers to the payload unless they completely neglected to add reusable dust countermeasures, which would make this rover the most incompetently designed machine to ever land intact on that planet. You can see the dust storms from space FFS and they damn near killed the last generation of rovers.


This particular camera has a dust cover that can open and close during storms. When closed, it has a window to take pictures through. The covers on the hazard avoidance cameras were detached after landing. As far as I know, the main navigational cameras on the mast will be protected from storms (and during the landing) by recalling (my brain isn't conjuring the correct word) the mast. So the only removable covers were on the haz cams.
 
2012-08-07 01:48:20 PM

FARK in FL: Albuquerque, you say. Just keep on going, nothing for you here.


25.media.tumblr.com

RIP
 
2012-08-07 01:59:39 PM

Robert Farker: dragonchild: KellyX: What happens when it removes the dust cover and a dust storm or something happens... is it farked or did it bring windex?

This is what I'm wondering. Why the removable dust covers in the first place? They had to have included countermeasures for the dust storms that occur on Mars. Why not just use those for landing? If it was out of some concern that they wouldn't open, then the first time they need to use them for a storm (which could be mere days after landing) they're farked anyway. And if it was just because they couldn't wait for the first images. . . was that worth the additional points of failure?

I can't think of a justifiable reason for adding removable dust covers to the payload unless they completely neglected to add reusable dust countermeasures, which would make this rover the most incompetently designed machine to ever land intact on that planet. You can see the dust storms from space FFS and they damn near killed the last generation of rovers.


I don't get why people do this. They take one small detail from the article, make a wildly wrong assumption (the dust cover cannot close again once opened) then assume that it is some hugely obvious and massive engineering failure. The arrogance is astounding.


It's because of stupidity. No actually, you're right. It's arrogance. Maybe both. Truthers, climate change deniers, etc. For some reason in the last 10 years or so, everyone with a keyboard has become an expert who knows more than the actual experts. The world seems so big and scary to them that they get a "You can't fool me, smart guy!" kind of attitude. "Men didn't land on the moon! Just look at that reflection in those 3 pixels. That's what I thought!"
 
2012-08-07 01:59:50 PM

coinspinner: So the only removable covers were on the haz cams.


Right. Why have them in the first place, then, is my question. If the expectation is that they'll eventually be covered in dust, then why bother? If the dust covers were needed, why make them single-use? Their role is distinctly different from the navigation cameras.

Robert Farker: I don't get why people do this. They take one small detail from the article, make a wildly wrong assumption (the dust cover cannot close again once opened) then assume that it is some hugely obvious and massive engineering failure. The arrogance is astounding.


Maybe it's the wrong thread, but I was referring to the hazard avoidance cameras, not MAHLI in TFA. I'm sure your presumptuous judgement of others is far more important to everyone here, though I'm not sure in what way.
 
2012-08-07 02:16:18 PM
I feel silly saying this, but, seeing pics like that just... Well, it just gives me chills.

Wow. Just... Wow.
 
2012-08-07 02:16:59 PM

dragonchild: coinspinner: So the only removable covers were on the haz cams.

Right. Why have them in the first place, then, is my question. If the expectation is that they'll eventually be covered in dust, then why bother? If the dust covers were needed, why make them single-use? Their role is distinctly different from the navigation cameras.

Robert Farker: I don't get why people do this. They take one small detail from the article, make a wildly wrong assumption (the dust cover cannot close again once opened) then assume that it is some hugely obvious and massive engineering failure. The arrogance is astounding.

Maybe it's the wrong thread, but I was referring to the hazard avoidance cameras, not MAHLI in TFA. I'm sure your presumptuous judgement of others is far more important to everyone here, though I'm not sure in what way.


They protect the lens ... to see more of this answer, please visit Google.
 
2012-08-07 02:18:01 PM
America's Curiosity: Live From Red Rocks!
 
2012-08-07 02:27:43 PM

dragonchild: coinspinner: So the only removable covers were on the haz cams.

Right. Why have them in the first place, then, is my question. If the expectation is that they'll eventually be covered in dust, then why bother? If the dust covers were needed, why make them single-use? Their role is distinctly different from the navigation cameras.


I thought you were talking about the MAHLI cover, my mistake. My engineering experience is pretty much limited to LEGO, but given that they were in place to protect just during the skycrane portion of the landing and the orientation of the hazcams, could it be that the cameras are much more susceptible to dust being kicked back UP during landing than they would be from dust being thrown around in a storm? Again, I know nothing.
 
2012-08-07 02:31:44 PM
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-08-07 02:39:47 PM
This IS Ceti Alpha V!
 
2012-08-07 02:41:05 PM

coinspinner: My engineering experience is pretty much limited to LEGO, but given that they were in place to protect just during the skycrane portion of the landing and the orientation of the hazcams, could it be that the cameras are much more susceptible to dust being kicked back UP during landing than they would be from dust being thrown around in a storm?


I don't think the direction of the dust matters. My guess is that the dust covers had some dual purpose, such as protecting the cameras during the actual descent phase when the heat shield is blown off. If they were there only for dust, at best they'd be trading one failure point for another. So, they probably protected the cameras from several factors such as heat from the sky crane rockets or impact on landing (e.g., what if one of the wheels scraped a rock during touchdown and broke the lens). This would make more sense because the cameras are under the rover where there's really nowhere to stow them. Once the rover was safely on the ground, the presumably damaged covers were a liability (though they were made transparent just in case), so they're jettisoned in favor of shutters. The other cameras were stowed and wouldn't function well with lens covers anyway, so that would explain the difference. "Dust cover" would be sort of a misnomer, but it could've been coined by or for the media to explain why the first pictures were taken through them.
 
2012-08-07 02:43:25 PM

FARK in FL: [fanboydestroy.files.wordpress.com image 614x440]

Albuquerque, you say. Just keep on going, nothing for you here.


I live in ABQ, so I'm getting a kick out of these replies...

csb - I work around the corner from ABQ Studios (where BB is filmed). They scouted my office a couple of months ago as a filming location. Unfortunately they did not use us..../csb
 
2012-08-07 02:48:39 PM

dragonchild: coinspinner: My engineering experience is pretty much limited to LEGO, but given that they were in place to protect just during the skycrane portion of the landing and the orientation of the hazcams, could it be that the cameras are much more susceptible to dust being kicked back UP during landing than they would be from dust being thrown around in a storm?

I don't think the direction of the dust matters. My guess is that the dust covers had some dual purpose, such as protecting the cameras during the actual descent phase when the heat shield is blown off. If they were there only for dust, at best they'd be trading one failure point for another. So, they probably protected the cameras from several factors such as heat from the sky crane rockets or impact on landing (e.g., what if one of the wheels scraped a rock during touchdown and broke the lens). This would make more sense because the cameras are under the rover where there's really nowhere to stow them. Once the rover was safely on the ground, the presumably damaged covers were a liability (though they were made transparent just in case), so they're jettisoned in favor of shutters. The other cameras were stowed and wouldn't function well with lens covers anyway, so that would explain the difference. "Dust cover" would be sort of a misnomer, but it could've been coined by or for the media to explain why the first pictures were taken through them.



Dude, seriously just do some research if you want to know more. No reason to come up with poor theories when you can just read about it. I'm sure the engineers considered that there may be dust on the surface of Mars and accounted for it accordingly. I'm not sure what a "dust cover" is in your mind but I wouldn't fixate on it so intensely because it can be a fairly broad term.
 
2012-08-07 02:51:29 PM
Gizmodo explains: Why lens caps, why?

In part... "All the cameras onboard Curiosity are covered with transparent dust caps. These were installed to protect the lenses during landing. Engineers knew that the landing operation, with the skycrane firing its rockets over the rover, would produce a lot of dust: particles that could fly around and damage the delicate camera glass."

Link has more info.
 
2012-08-07 03:27:02 PM

Nem Wan: [johneaves.files.wordpress.com image 655x274]


I haven't laughed harder in weeks. Well done. You win the internet.
 
2012-08-07 04:09:01 PM
dragonchild:

WAAHH INCOMPETENT LENS CAPS!!

/farkied as "PEBKAC"
 
2012-08-07 04:23:41 PM

Robert Farker: Dude, seriously just do some research if you want to know more. No reason to come up with poor theories when you can just read about it.


You have it backwards. I'm an engineer and I find the explanations lacking. I think "to protect the cameras during landing" is plausible, but against dust? That's just what happened to be on the hazcam lens covers before they were jettisoned. They used the sky crane maneuver specifically to minimize the effects of the rockets.

Kittypie070: WAAHH INCOMPETENT LENS CAPS!!


My comment about the design being "incompetent" was misunderstood. Which is nothing new for Fark, but FWIW, that was intended to mean that the lack of some additional dust protection was the least likely possibility (which begs the question of what else those covers were for). That the disposable covers on the hazcams are the only countermeasure would lead to the preposterous conclusion that the most successful team of Mars missions in the world didn't know what they were doing -- ergo, there's something else. Now, with the disrespect to NASA revealed to be a complete fabrication due to a lack of reading comprehension, the question is whether people in this thread will continue to cling to their butthurt.
 
2012-08-07 04:36:15 PM
The really cool thing in the first images are the fact that many of the rocks in the pics seem to be rounded.

Rounded rocks mean running water.

Rounded rocks on the surface of a plain like that equals "recent" running water.

/Or so i'd think
//Not a geologist
 
2012-08-07 06:05:02 PM

dragonchild: Robert Farker: Dude, seriously just do some research if you want to know more. No reason to come up with poor theories when you can just read about it.

You have it backwards. I'm an engineer and I find the explanations lacking. I think "to protect the cameras during landing" is plausible, but against dust? That's just what happened to be on the hazcam lens covers before they were jettisoned. They used the sky crane maneuver specifically to minimize the effects of the rockets.

Kittypie070: WAAHH INCOMPETENT LENS CAPS!!

My comment about the design being "incompetent" was misunderstood. Which is nothing new for Fark, but FWIW, that was intended to mean that the lack of some additional dust protection was the least likely possibility (which begs the question of what else those covers were for). That the disposable covers on the hazcams are the only countermeasure would lead to the preposterous conclusion that the most successful team of Mars missions in the world didn't know what they were doing -- ergo, there's something else. Now, with the disrespect to NASA revealed to be a complete fabrication due to a lack of reading comprehension, the question is whether people in this thread will continue to cling to their butthurt.


My question wasn't that it can be put on and off at will, just what would they do then if dust got on the lens at all... Does the dust cap also wipe off dust as it goes back on?
 
2012-08-07 06:14:04 PM

dragonchild: Robert Farker: Dude, seriously just do some research if you want to know more. No reason to come up with poor theories when you can just read about it.

You have it backwards. I'm an engineer and I find the explanations lacking. I think "to protect the cameras during landing" is plausible, but against dust? That's just what happened to be on the hazcam lens covers before they were jettisoned. They used the sky crane maneuver specifically to minimize the effects of the rockets.

Kittypie070: WAAHH INCOMPETENT LENS CAPS!!

My comment about the design being "incompetent" was misunderstood. Which is nothing new for Fark, but FWIW, that was intended to mean that the lack of some additional dust protection was the least likely possibility (which begs the question of what else those covers were for). That the disposable covers on the hazcams are the only countermeasure would lead to the preposterous conclusion that the most successful team of Mars missions in the world didn't know what they were doing -- ergo, there's something else. Now, with the disrespect to NASA revealed to be a complete fabrication due to a lack of reading comprehension, the question is whether people in this thread will continue to cling to their butthurt.


dragonchild: Robert Farker: Dude, seriously just do some research if you want to know more. No reason to come up with poor theories when you can just read about it.

You have it backwards. I'm an engineer and I find the explanations lacking. I think "to protect the cameras during landing" is plausible, but against dust? That's just what happened to be on the hazcam lens covers before they were jettisoned. They used the sky crane maneuver specifically to minimize the effects of the rockets.

Kittypie070: WAAHH INCOMPETENT LENS CAPS!!

My comment about the design being "incompetent" was misunderstood. Which is nothing new for Fark, but FWIW, that was intended to mean that the lack of some additional dust protection was the least likely possibility (which begs the question of what else those covers were for). That the disposable covers on the hazcams are the only countermeasure would lead to the preposterous conclusion that the most successful team of Mars missions in the world didn't know what they were doing -- ergo, there's something else. Now, with the disrespect to NASA revealed to be a complete fabrication due to a lack of reading comprehension, the question is whether people in this thread will continue to cling to their butthurt.



Why do you think the lens covers are disposable or that they were jettisoned?
 
2012-08-07 06:40:28 PM

Robert Farker: Why do you think the lens covers are disposable or that they were jettisoned?


Per NASA:

These include firing all of Curiosity's pyrotechnic devices for releasing post-landing deployments. Spring-loaded deployments, such as removal of dust covers from the Hazard-Avoidance cameras (Hazcams) occur immediately when pyros are fired.

That's a bit vague, so there's an outside chance I've got it wrong, but in my experience, pyrotechnic devices are explicitly single-use. Meaning, the spring action is irreversible by design, meaning all associated devices, including the lens covers, are single-use. On second look they may not be jettisoned in that they may still be attached to the rover, but they aren't going back on. They're dead weight from here on out.

Why use a spring? To force motion yet retain control of the part. The charge destroys some locking mechanism and the spring finishes the job. A pyrotechnic device sans spring might just have the part hanging there or stick in place, defeating the purpose of the charge. A strong charge that blows off the part completely is an unnecessary risk of damage as it sends debris flying at the rover from point-blank range. If the parts were meant to go back on via motor, the presence of a spring would unnecessarily waste charge.
 
2012-08-07 06:42:52 PM

KellyX: what would they do then if dust got on the lens at all... Does the dust cap also wipe off dust as it goes back on?


Huh. Dunno. They fold up the assemblies during dust storms, but yeah, they have to account for "ambient dust" somehow or Opportunity would be blind by now.
 
2012-08-07 07:16:42 PM

dragonchild: Robert Farker: Why do you think the lens covers are disposable or that they were jettisoned?

Per NASA:

These include firing all of Curiosity's pyrotechnic devices for releasing post-landing deployments. Spring-loaded deployments, such as removal of dust covers from the Hazard-Avoidance cameras (Hazcams) occur immediately when pyros are fired.

That's a bit vague, so there's an outside chance I've got it wrong, but in my experience, pyrotechnic devices are explicitly single-use. Meaning, the spring action is irreversible by design, meaning all associated devices, including the lens covers, are single-use. On second look they may not be jettisoned in that they may still be attached to the rover, but they aren't going back on. They're dead weight from here on out.

Why use a spring? To force motion yet retain control of the part. The charge destroys some locking mechanism and the spring finishes the job. A pyrotechnic device sans spring might just have the part hanging there or stick in place, defeating the purpose of the charge. A strong charge that blows off the part completely is an unnecessary risk of damage as it sends debris flying at the rover from point-blank range. If the parts were meant to go back on via motor, the presence of a spring would unnecessarily waste charge.



This is what I mean by commenting before you understand what you are talking about. The pyrotechnic devices have nothing to do with the cameras or their covers.
 
2012-08-07 07:37:00 PM
You know what would be cool?
Videos. Videos with sound.

Why can't that rover had a video camera with actual sound so that we can hear what it's like on Mars? I don't care if it's just the wind blowing; it would be awesome!
 
2012-08-07 08:29:08 PM

Robert Farker: I don't get why people do this. They take one small detail from the article, make a wildly wrong assumption (the dust cover cannot close again once opened) then assume that it is some hugely obvious and massive engineering failure. The arrogance is astounding.


Oh, I know, right? I mean, if this were REALLY the case, then I guess we should expect lenses to be ground to the wrong spec because someone turned an handle the wrong way. Or that a 400 million satellite launch would be aborted into the sea because one line of code had a extraneous semicolon. Or that the sample retriever would form an impact crater on return. Or...wait, what were we talking about again?
 
2012-08-07 08:31:31 PM

Robert Farker: This is what I mean by commenting before you understand what you are talking about. The pyrotechnic devices have nothing to do with the cameras or their covers.


Could you be less of an ass about it though? I now see what you see, but that still doesn't rule out very high likelihood the hazcam covers were single use. IF the spring remained in place and the covers are meant to go back on, all the spring's doing after initial deployment is burning up the motor.

So while I appreciate pointing out a few misreads, my original question is still valid and unanswered and you've spent the rest of your time being an asshole. At least I'm showing some genuine enthusiasm here.
 
2012-08-07 08:38:08 PM

SevenizGud: Oh, I know, right? I mean, if this were REALLY the case, then I guess we should expect lenses to be ground to the wrong spec because someone turned an handle the wrong way.


Curiosity just pulled off the most complicated descent & landing maneuver yet without an apparent hitch. NASA makes mistakes but for what they do they kick some serious ass.

Robert Farker could just be an overzealous fan, though evidence is mounting the guy's just a troll.
 
2012-08-07 08:55:49 PM

KellyX: dragonchild: Robert Farker: Dude, seriously just do some research if you want to know more. No reason to come up with poor theories when you can just read about it.

You have it backwards. I'm an engineer and I find the explanations lacking. I think "to protect the cameras during landing" is plausible, but against dust? That's just what happened to be on the hazcam lens covers before they were jettisoned. They used the sky crane maneuver specifically to minimize the effects of the rockets.

Kittypie070: WAAHH INCOMPETENT LENS CAPS!!

My comment about the design being "incompetent" was misunderstood. Which is nothing new for Fark, but FWIW, that was intended to mean that the lack of some additional dust protection was the least likely possibility (which begs the question of what else those covers were for). That the disposable covers on the hazcams are the only countermeasure would lead to the preposterous conclusion that the most successful team of Mars missions in the world didn't know what they were doing -- ergo, there's something else. Now, with the disrespect to NASA revealed to be a complete fabrication due to a lack of reading comprehension, the question is whether people in this thread will continue to cling to their butthurt.

My question wasn't that it can be put on and off at will, just what would they do then if dust got on the lens at all... Does the dust cap also wipe off dust as it goes back on?



The dust cover WILL be on any time the camera is not in use. No wiping of the lens will ever take place. Wiping the dust will scratch the optics. Scratched optics aren't fixable. At best, if dust gets on the lens you pray it gets blown off during use. Not much else you can do short of a blast with compressed air. I doubt they've cared enough to waste the space on a compressor for the camera lens...
 
2012-08-07 09:44:45 PM
I guess, according to dragonchild, doing my homework so I know what the fark I'm talking about makes me some asshole troll.
 
2012-08-07 10:37:48 PM
Sorry subby, but today's best "Curiosity" image was not this fuzzy dust cover shot.


it was..........


www.nasa.gov
 
2012-08-08 12:12:06 AM
^^^This
 
Displayed 50 of 62 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report