curiosity rover - why only one?

Well...I love exploration but I have my doubts about this one.My laptop hangs up 1 in 50 reboots so I can see even one small issue cause this thing to splat. I hope not. On the other hand it could help in proving some of the future tech needed to put a man lander down and back up. Wiill see.

reply to post by buddha


I can't find anything about what you describe, but it's still apples and oranges.

reply to post by cloudyday


Mission planning and cost projections always run into funding delays and adds to the total mission costs, years in advance. Launching space probes is different than launching satellites, because of the launch window, the planet has to be in an assessable location, Mars takes two years to orbit the sun.

The cost of the Curiosity Mars Science Laboratory is significantly over 3/4 of the mission cost, aided by inflation of missing the 2009 launch window and the 26-month delay for a favorable Mars orbital position. Cost over runs and continuous petitioning for additional funds escalated the production costs, and the final figure is also the life mission support cost also, which will also grow as missions exceed the slated life.

Curiosity will require one less solid rocket booster on the Atlas V, so it has I believe the Atlas V (400 something series designation), an Atlas V 500-something series launched JUNO to Jupiter. Payload prep escalated launch cost to near 190 mil, while the Mars mission launch should be around or under 150 mil. Curiosity is much more than a simple satellite, and the largest spacecraft ever to land on Mars, you don't build spares.

reply to post by Illustronic


Thanks, I guess I was imagining that it wouldn't have cost too much more to make 2 or 3 of every part while the manufacturing equipment and people were together to make one. For example, a Honda Civic might cost as much as Curiosity if you only built one of them. Anyway, that was my thinking.

Just out of curiosity what is in the pipeline after MSL?

www.spacex.com...


Seriously, we always try and make it the most complicated method. Space X, they even know how to do it right. NASA, by now, should have simple thruster technology to help guide the craft slowly and correctly through the atmosphere and proper landing location. RCS pods are meant for these small tweaks but we don't like using them for some reason.

reply to post by cloudyday


Making scientific equipment for mission specific specifications is not an assembly line operation. It is a 'one-off' discovery 'lessons learned' deal, that changes as you go. The plans at first aren't the apparatuses at the finish of the job, and it usually takes a decade to plan and build that thing for launch, and the launch vehicle and shroud that houses the equipment may get better and have different specs. Then you have to think on your feet and change the plans, and modify the original proposal for funds and throw out stuff half way built that is obsolete or doesn't apply to advances made during the process. This is what escalates costs, and inflation, because it isn't the 60's anymore building Apollo spacecrafts, technology advancements moves faster these days, in seemingly little ways that cost exorbitantly more than it used to.

How long to you plan on functionally using the computer you have today for instance? 5 years max? Point in case.

Myself I have never had a home computer to functionally use more than 5 years in the last 15 years. I sucks really.

If you want to vent on being held by your balls it is the computer industry that is sucking you dryer than any other electronic device you use, and you can't even use old memory chips in your new model YOU HAVE TO BUY all over again.

reply to post by AaronWilson


Every single launch of a Space X spacecraft has been launched at one of 3 different USA space port launch facilities, in Florida, California, and the Pacific Kwajalein Atoll, Marshall Islands. Never launched anywhere else.

I think NASA knows their stuff by now, their limitations, their technology, and their launch success ratio. When you put up a 2 billion dollar device to the pad, you gosh darn want a launch vehicle with a zero error history to get it out there. Just my opinion.

Atlas V's have no failures to date.