What are The Best Mars Landers & Rovers?

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

christine16

Guest
What are The Best Mars Landers & Rovers? and Why?<br /><br />You can also vote whick is the best in your opinion here you'll find the Poll <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Best regards,<br />Christine B
 
C

chidave

Guest
I voted Spirit and Opportunity, they so far surpassed the expectations for their mission, and after the loss of the Polar Lander, NASA needed a sucess, and Spirit and Opportunity definatley provided that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
C

christine16

Guest
yes Spirit and Opportunity made nice sprint and they still on line and drive forward <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
A

Aetius

Guest
I'll vote for any vehicle that actually manages to get there without becoming a snack for the Great Galactic Ghoul! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Seriously, Spirit and Opportunity, just because they've just done so much.<br /><br />Ask me that question when (and if!) MSL has completed its nominal science mission, and my answer will be different. Assuming, of course, that Mars Science Laboratory gets built, launched, and arrives safely.<br /><br />Favorite quote about Mars exploration: <b>"Mars is hard."</b> So true.
 
A

Aetius

Guest
I'm a little puzzled that MPL /DS2 was one of the choices, though.<br /> <br />I felt very badly for the scientists and engineers who spent years of their lives designing, building, and testing those machines. They didn't even get the closure of knowing <i>exactly</i> what killed the vehicles.<br /><br />That must be tough. When I read Steven Squires' book, "Roving Mars", I finally got a clue just how difficult this stuff truly is.
 
Y

yoda9999

Guest
Just curious, which lander was heavier, Viking or Spirit/Opportunity?
 
S

silylene old

Guest
<font color="yellow">What are The Best Mars Landers & Rovers? and Why? </font><br /><br />Unfortunately you restricted the question to Mars.<br /><br />Otherwise, I would have said Lunokhod 2 and Opportunity.<br /><br />We tend to be American-centric, and forget the Soviets launched two very cool rovers to the moon in 1969/1970.<br /><br />The Lunokhods had quite a lot of capabilites, similar to Pathfinder except they also included a drill, and Lunokhod had a much longer travel range. (of course the moon is much closer than Mars! - but this was 1969 too.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
kane007 already listed them and there are only a few so far. All were good but the current ones have been operating for so long and gathering such a wealth of data that I'd have to say they are the best we have now. Vikings were operating on Mars several years after landing thanks to nuclear power but they couldn't leave ther landing sites.<br /><br />Pathfinder was at least as good as Viking and was, as its name implies...a Pathfinder for the current MERs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
C

christine16

Guest
Yes it is restricted to Mars, but it isn't so US centric - there are couple from europe, and one of them geting votes <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> and has great posibilities to win this poll !
 
Q

qso1

Guest
What European probes/rovers have landed successfully? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
R

robotical

Guest
How is it that a European rover that hasn't even launched yet is tied with the MERs? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
The thread asks what are the best landers/rovers. Someone mentioned being American centric, as though there had been other landers/rovers placed on Mars. Then I saw the comment "there are couple from europe, and one of them geting votes" and wondered what I missed. I recall the Beagle lander from Europe unsuccessfully landing (Otherwise known as crashing) on Mars. But no successful ones as yet.<br /><br />So I decided since I'm not the sharpest tack in the box...I'd ask what successful European probe has landed or roved on Mars just to cover my bases. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
There has been none from Europe to date. The only successful landers to date are all American NASA craft <br /><br />They are: <br />Viking 1 (Chryse Planitia). First ever successful lander on Mars.<br />Viking 2 (Utopia Planitia).<br />Mars Pathfinder (Ares Vallis).<br />MER A Spirit (Gusev Crater). First ever successful southern hemisphere landing on Mars.<br />MER B Opportunity (Meridiani Planum).<br /><br />The British / ESA Beagle 2 crashed in Isidis Planitia.<br />Mars Polar Lander crashed near the crater Jeans in the Martian antarctic.<br /><br />Mars 3 from the former Soviet Union, appeared to land successfully & managed to at least transmit a few lines of an image, before going silent. It was likely that the lander was unlucky in landing in a duststorm.<br /><br />It is difficult to say which where the best. Overall it has got to be the MERs, but they do not belittle Viking or Pathfinder. All were great craft & sent back spectacular images from the surface of Mars. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Thanks and thats what I had figured but you verified it.<br /><br />I'd say the MERs are far and away the best but Viking and Pathfinder certainly were great missions as well. Probably the main reason I'd say the MERs have the advantage is sheer site coverage. Many different vistas of the surface.<br /><br />But I'll always remember Viking as the lander that showed that Mars has a pinkish sky as opposed to the dark blue skies portrayed in Viking artist concepts prior to the landing.<br /><br />The rockiness of the Viking site was quite impressive as well.<br /><br />Pathfinder was the first mission back to Mars since Viking and the landing bag technology was one of the coolest features of that mission. The little rover provided some pretty spectacular images along with the lander. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
3

3488

Guest
Given the fact that the sunlight on Mars averages about 48%, & that the Martian atmosphere at the Datum line is the same average density as the Earth's atmosphere is at some 30 kilometres / 19 miles above sea level, I was surprised that the sky on Mars was not thought to be completely black.<br /><br />However, the bright salmon pink colour is now known to be the microscopic dust particles being suspended.<br /><br />All of the successful landers has shown this very well. Viking 1 initially got it wrong, because the operators at JPL had configured the settings to reveal a blue sky. However, the surface of Mars looked too Mauve (Mars is not the Purple Planet after all) & the colour calibration chart was wrong. With the simple adjustment & correction being made, the Red Planet, was indeed red, under a reddish pink sky.<br /><br />Viking 1 has certainly landed in the rockiest & most difficult terrain to date, with Mars Pathfinder not far behind. MER B Opportunity by far the smoothest, MER A Spirit & Viking 2 intermediate terrain. <br /><br />Viking 2 has seen the most varied weather & coldest surface temperatures on Mars (minus 117 Celsius), as so far Viking 2 holds the record for the furthest successful landing away from the equator of Mars (about 48 degrees North). <br /><br />MER B Opportunity has had the easiest landing & time on the surface of Mars (smoothest terrain & almost on the equator, about 2 degrees south). <br /><br />The MERs have as you said been able to move, hence many different scenes, which has been most exciting (hopefully there will be many more) as well as night observations.<br /><br />S owith all of the above, it is difficult to say, which is the best. Each were / are unique.<br /><br />http://uplink.space.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=524462&pa <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>
 
J

j05h

Guest
Mars Phoenix lander site is still being determined, last I checked. I think there was/will be a planetary science meeting to determine the exact site. <br /><br />As for the "best" Mars missions, I think any that survives the trip and functions is the best. Even Russia's Phobos1 would count: it sent a couple of pictures before the Great Galactic Ghoul ate it.<br /><br />NASA's best moments in recent decades have been with robots in deep space. Galileo, Cassini, the MER rovers and Pathfinder, last summer's Deep Imapct. NASA does deep space very, very well. They do LEO like crap, even if it's beautiful watching ISS spacewalks. NASA should focus on what it does best, extending it to human deep space flights. They even announced de-funding ISS's SCIENCE budget for FY2007! That means no more American science on ISS through roughly 2010. I'm totally OT, will stop.<br /><br />The orbital Mars missions provide the most important information, IMHO, mostly because of their global coverage. The rovers & landers are important, but extremely local. We already knew water existed on Mars before the MER rovers, other instruments had long ago determined that the ice caps were part H20 and part CO2 ices.<br /><br />Two missions I would like to see for Mars: the Pinback Apaloosa and some kind of lander network. MIT's recent bouncing-balls concept is interesting for the landers. Pathfinder was originally an engineering demo for 8 or 10 landers that would be seismic and weather stations.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
 
C

christine16

Guest
The Poll will be closed on monday, and it seems that europeans are more active <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Or maybe they have better Landers and participation spirit?
 
Q

qso1

Guest
What landers have they landed on Mars?<br /><br />I would agree Europe seems to be more enthused about space exploration these days then the U.S. is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
S

silylene old

Guest
<font color="yellow">The thread asks what are the best landers/rovers. Someone mentioned being American centric, as though there had been other landers/rovers placed on Mars. </font><br /><br />Actually the poll asked "What are the best <font color="yellow">Mars Landers</font>& rovers?" It did not specify the rovers had to be on Mars! (perhaps it was implied...but then the question should have asked "Of the Landers and Rovers which landed on Mars, which are best?")<br /><br />Since I parsed the question with respect to rovers to not be restricted to Mars I believe my response that Lunakhod was one of the best rovers is acceptable. And I do really think that Lunakhod was clearly one of the best rovers ! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Thats true. But even there, would the best ones not be among the ones that landed? The poll question was worded poorly in any case.<br /><br />Lunakhod was one of the best rovers and for me, its actually very difficult to single out any as being the best. They all made great contributions.<br /><br />Lunokhod returned samples from the moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
M

mental_avenger

Guest
None of the above. I am disappointed in the toys they have been sending to Mars. We have the capability to send a REAL rover to Mars, but have yet to do so. Enter Big Al. Big Al is my vision of an SUV sized exploration rover. It would be capable of taking core samples down to at least 30 feet, be able to analyze the contents of the cores in detail, and be able to set seismic transducers and record seismic waves. Big Al would also be able to traverse open ground at about 40mph, using AI and multiple sensors to move safely and autonomously across the surface of Mars. Using nuclear power and having sufficient capacity for extensive testing, Big Al could do well in a few days what current rovers do poorly in a year. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p style="margin-top:0in;margin-left:0in;margin-right:0in" class="MsoNormal"><font face="Times New Roman" size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Our Solar System must be passing through a Non Sequitur area of space.</strong></font></p> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts