E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA
An artist's conception shows NASA's Curiosity rover, also known as the Mars Science Laboratory, which is about the size of a Mini Cooper automobile.
After years of deliberation, NASA says it will announce the destination for its next Mars rover on Friday at the Smithsonian Institution's National Air and Space Museum.
Earlier this month, the choice was whittled down to two: NASA said the Curiosity rover, also known as the Mars Science Laboratory, would be launched either to Eberswalde Crater or Gale Crater. Today's announcement signals that a decision has been made.
Curiosity is already at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, undergoing final preparations for launch as early as Nov. 25, the day after Thanksgiving. The car-sized rover is scheduled to arrive at Mars in August 2012 to begin a primary scientific mission scheduled to last at least one Martian year, or roughly two Earth years.
Among the questions the $2.5 billion mission could answer: Were there areas on the Red Planet that could have been favorable for supporting microbial life? Could "molecular fossils" preserve the evidence of such life? Past missions have turned up evidence that ancient Mars was warmer and wetter than it is today, but how long did those life-friendly conditions last?
NASA
Eberswalde Crater, at left, features what appears to be a river delta where scientists believe water once flowed. Gale Crater, at right, features a mound of minerals that could chronicle Mars' geological history.
Both Eberswalde and Gale are places where scientists believe water once flowed. Eberswalde contains the remains of an ancient delta with clay-like minerals called phyllosilicates, which tend to form during long-term contact with water.
Gale features a 3-mile-high mound with layers of phyllosilicates toward the bottom and sulfates higher up the slope. The sulfates are thought to have formed in more acidic water — which suggests that Gale might preserve a billion-year stretch of Mars' geological history. Curiosity would have to climb up the slope to document that history fully, which makes Gale a somewhat riskier destination.
Care to hazard a guess as to where Curiosity will go? Cast your vote, or discuss your druthers in the comment section below. Then tune in at 10 a.m. ET Friday to learn more about NASA's next Martian adventure.
NASA
A color-coded elevation map of Mars indicates the location of previously landed probes as well as candidate sites for the Curiosity rover, including Gale and Eberswalde craters.
More about Mars:
- Slideshow: Mars rover preps for duty
- How a long mission to Mars could kill you
- Cosmic Log archive for posts about Mars
- Mars resource page at msnbc.com
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
If the rover can scale these slopes I would presume we can get access to a much longer historical data at the Gale site.
I am looking forward to this mission, I have always said that the two previous missions, Opportunity and Spirit were so successful that it should be the benchmark for future space exploration missions. Well here we are with the real deal, the $2.5 billion dollar prize tag clearly indicates that NASA imposed the full set of specifications on this program. I am sure there will be many nervous people at NASA because this mission and the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) to follow will be a good reality check to NASA managers as to the future of the agency.
I hope and expect nothing but success for the Curiosity mission because this is what we are good at in terms of applying good engineering knowledge to more controlled sequence of events. Unlike manned spaceflight missions there are much fewer "gray" areas where we have so little data and unproven engineering techniques that we are basically going on a hope and a pray, (with people on board as well).
It seams to me that the decision on which direction NASA should take is very straight forward. Everything we want and need to do in space can be accomplished by missions like Curiosity and JWST (benchmarks). Manned spaceflight is nothing but a big expensive feel good show that the flag waving patriots want. So NASA should focus on the unmanned missions and let the patriots, private industry, work on manned spaceflight. Of course private industry should be able to tap into NASA for advise until the can get up to speed with the adventures that manned missions bring. BUT, instead of NASA paying these contractors for services on manned missions, the contractors should pay NASA.
I truly believe that for us to make any more real progress in space exploration and start answering the questions that will enable us to proceed forward we must focus on real science missions. Let private industry answer whether manned spaceflight is viable. NASA should focus on real science only.
I like your points on letting the private industries take over the manned space flight, but I must disagree with your sense of value of humans in space. Look around you. The Earth is getting more and more crowded each day. We already have issues keeping everyone fed, and countries are beginning to jockey for control of future resources as they see the current supplies dwindling. These problems will only get worse as the population rises. Short of massive warfare or a horrible outbreak of disease, the only viable option (morally that is) to control our population is to develop the technology necessary to colonize other planets.
This isn't going to happen overnight, and we've really already started down the road with the ISS. This sapce station has provided invaluable insight into the effects of long term micro-gravity on the human body, among hundreds of other experiments that were performed. A manned trip to Mars will help us develop more of the technology needed to travel between the stars (faster inner system engines such as VASIMR or other possibilities, an active radiation shielding of some kind, orbital construction of space going vessels to provide for stronger, more solid structures, artificial gravity of some kind, long term and efficient food storage, ways to grow food better faster stronger while on the go or at the destination, larger micro-grav research centers, etc)
As happened with the Apollo missions, the tech developed for a trip to Mars or, further down the road, other solar systems will find it's way into common uses in every day life. We wouldn't have a lot of modern things we take for granted without the trip to the moon. These technologies will help to better life here on Earth. There are a lot of hurtles between where we are now and the place we need to be to become a true space faring civilization, but we can't get there unless we try. I, for one, am not willing to see us sit around and kill each other off while the Earth's resources are stripped bare. Even if it's my grandchildren or great grandchildren that end up settling the new planets, I know it will be worth it.
I personally believe there are oceans of water deep underground on Mars, which slowly began to stay underground as Mars became geologically inactive. The soil of Mars constitutes a virtual atmosphere, which should keep water from sublimating and escaping from Mars due to its low gaseous atmospheric pressure and small gravity. I wonder how long it will take us to bring a drilling rig to Mars, so we can start drilling wells on Mars for human colonization. We could soft land a drilling rig as a test for a future manned landing. This would also be a great way to look for life underground on Mars, too. I hope there are giant underground caverns like here on Earth, since that would be the easiest way to colonize Mars. If the Mars Orbiter could map underground caverns then that would make an ideal site for rover investigation sometime in the future. - RC
Yes, an orbiter or two with ground-penetrating radar would be an excellent investment (if that sort of thing can be done via satellites, not sure). Or, if we need to get closer, a flying drone should do the trick.
Robotic rovers are very complex things and it'll be a touch nut to crack to build one that is good at spelunking. Not sayin' it can't be done, just sayin' it'll be tough (expensive). I'd love to see it happen though since isolated pockets of life can exist in caves here on Earth. Something I've always wanted to see on Mars is flying rovers, something that could float around on Mars that could investigate the cliff walls of deep valleys looking at the geology there. Developing all these different types of rovers will inevitably help us in our creation of AI here on Earth.
I don't understand why they never bother to set down in Valles Marineris. There is ample evidence of flowing water as well as a thicker atmosphere because of it's depth.
rough terrain
I have long believed that linear electrostatic accelerator propulsion systems are the easiest and most reliable way to get to Mars and back. These propulsion systems would be solar powered, and they would rely upon the vaporization of trash and other waste for their propulsion throw mass. We should be testing propulsion systems like this on the ISS, as a way of keeping the ISS in orbit. The ISS would make a wonderful test platform for future propulsion systems in space. - RC
Look up VASIMR. There are plans to put a VASIMR engine on the ISS for just such a purpose, and I thought I remembered reading somewhere that it would be possible to use excess hydrogen from the space station to fuel the engine. Would be pretty exciting, not to mention save a ton of money in refueling costs :-)
I am glad they have selected a site, yet here we are with the darned pomp and circumstance again, what a big show at the smitsonian??...they could of just sent out a twitter twit first thing this morning, or just posted it on the website or....oh well, might as well watch em spend money on the pomp and circumstance....I think carter (posting above) is right about deeper water, I think curiosity should of had a drilling rig attachemnt to take some deep soil samples, at 2.5 billion clams, there is little it should not have....but I do hope for the day the newest imperial probe droid (rover) gets started...My guess is that the keen trained eye would spot evidence of past life ALL OVER the planet. Thats my reasoning behind a sample and return mission!! I would expect the gales region but the closer to olympus mons the more interesting the potential finds are. Not mentioned in any of the media is that where it lands must surely be a factor of planned FUTURE rovers and explorations, ie de-dupe. By my estimations we are almost a decade and a half off schedule from a responsible time line of planetary exploration, and falling further behind with each admin.
Yeah, this is part of the reason I am so hopeful for the private space companies. They will be capable of achieving the long term goals that NASA is sadly no longer allowed to complete thanks to the change in direction that occurs every 4 - 8 years. I wish we could pass some laws that would make it so we can only change NASA's direction every 15 - 20 years or something, and even that would take a very strong vote from congress. I'm sure that would probably present it's own problems... just frustrated with the way the political system stifles innovation on NASA's part these days.
Future Congresses can just repeal that law. It's tough to force a long-term vision on NASA. It has happened though -- just once by my count. Regards....
How noble of the NASA "gods" to signal their decision. I shall await their exalted announcement with anticipation.
Why does the rover not have any solar panels? I know it is too big to power only through that mean, but it could help extend the rover's life for a while longer. It could then go into hibernation mode and wait a while for a full recharge to extend it's life massively.
Cost and weight. It would take a larger set of panels to keep a rover of this size powered and running. The nuclear power system it has boasts a minimum life time of 14 years. You can read more about it on Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laboratory#Power_source
Curiosity is traveling "heavy" - it is as heavy as it can be, crammed with all the experiments it can carry.
Loading the rover is a zero-sum game. If you wish to add solar panels, what would you choose to remove?
Designing such a mission is a balancing act, with limits on size, mass, and electrical power. Adding anything would require taking something else off.
(and once again Arrow beats me to the punch!)
:-D But you brought up a good point about the weight trade off.
To quote Marty McFly in Back to the Future, "This sucker's nuclear." ;-)
'decided' was the past tense of the verb to decide, when I was at school (in UK).
In any case I think MSL should land in Nili Fossae, where methane was detected.
Honestly, I'm really looking forward to seeing how the SkyCrane system does. I hope they can take some video during the touchdown, would be really awesome to see that thing in action!
Watch it land right smack in the middle of an old CO2-ice flow or old lava flow. No river delta, no
flowing waters of a young earth-like mars.
What is it with NASA about putting these probes in old craters anyway? Didn't the impact that created them all but sterilize the hole left behind?
And when it isn't some boring, flat crater... it's a desert scene or some other featureless area where there is no danger of some discovery that will upset the balance of current science and belief.
No wonder these guys are being defunded.
NASA is accomplishing some great tasks! Can't wait to see what they have in store.
Check out Swakker Shuttle and tell your friends how you feel about the end of the NASA shuttle program.