Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity Rover) Mission Animation

[M'Sharak]

I just saw this posted elsewhere yesterday:

[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BudlaGh1A0o[/yt]

From what I read, there are still a few tweaks yet to be made to the animation, but I think it looks pretty good already.

 

[sojourner]

Boy, you know we have problems when even NASA forgets that there is no sound in space.

Other than that, the whole "lowering the rover on a winch from a hovering platform" just looks really rubgoldbergian to me and loaded with failure modes.

 

[Jadzia]

Other than that, the whole "lowering the rover on a winch from a hovering platform" just looks really rubgoldbergian to me and loaded with failure modes.

The only real problem I can see with that is if the rover starts swinging due to air drag, causing it to tug obliquely on the hovering platform, which in turn causes the platform to tilt and accelerate to the opposite side, which could amplify the swinging and lead to catastrophe.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Boy, you know we have problems when even NASA forgets that there is no sound in space.

Any microphone on the rover would pick up most of those sounds. Plus the sounds serve as hints to what happens. I like them.

I don't like this platform thing either. What's wrong with the airbags + retrorockets + parachutes landing? Apart from the fact that it only works on bodies with atmosphere, it has always seemed to me to be the best way to land. And videos are more cool with them and some nice hopping at the end. A spacecraft is not cool unless it hops! Or it can vaporise rocks with lasers...

Nice video nonetheless.

 

[B.J.]

From what I've read in the past, the airbag solution will only work with objects up to a certain mass. Beyond that point, you need rockets to land safely.

 

[Wanderlust]

B.J. is correct, the MSL Curiosity is too large for bags.

 

[Squiggy]

Boy, you know we have problems when even NASA forgets that there is no sound in space.

We know. We also know that a few minutes of silence makes for an awfully boring video.

 

[sojourner]

^Worked for Firefly.

 

[Squiggy]

^Worked for Firefly.

And how'd that work out for them?

 

[Lindley]

^Worked for Firefly.

And how'd that work out for them?

Come now, I don't think anyone has ever said the choice of silence in space there was the reason for its short tenure. If anything it was kind of neat.

Of course, in order to be notable, it had to intercut with interior scenes (or in one case, transition into atmosphere during the scene). Pure silence does not a film make. At least, not without Charlie Chaplin.

 

[Squiggy]

^Worked for Firefly.

And how'd that work out for them?

Come now, I don't think anyone has ever said the choice of silence in space there was the reason for its short tenure. If anything it was kind of neat.

Of course, in order to be notable, it had to intercut with interior scenes (or in one case, transition into atmosphere during the scene). Pure silence does not a film make. At least, not without Charlie Chaplin.

Oh, I know. But using Firefly as an example doesn't really work, since they only did a second or two of silence in a quick fx shot.

 

[YellowSubmarine]

Duh, there is sound is space. Every starship is equipped with mics and a space surround audio transmission system. It's a requirement these days, even the Romulans have it. It's the next in importance after the lens flare generators.

On a more serious note, I don't understand why people think that you don't hear explosions in space. If there isn't air to bring the shockwave to you, the matter from the explosion will come to you itself. You will hear it in some way, it will probably sound different, but you will definitely hear something. What bothers me more is that all explosions look as if they happened inside an atmosphere, and that you most often hear them at the same time you see them.

 

[Wanderlust]

A sudden energy release and breakup.

Curiosity ftw!