Curiosity: 4844th day of the mission

[woe2you@beige.party]

@SCALETHEORY @pomarede It was designed for 2 years, it's lasted 13. That's not bad.

[gooba42@mastodon.social]

@pomarede Send up a can of fix-a-flat?

[doubletreble@cupoftea.social]

@acsawdey @pomarede
I haven't seen any of these images no,
We should hang our collective heads in shame, not satisfied with wrecking our home planet, as a species we want to 'boldly go....'

[grb090423@mastodon.social]

@pomarede

Poor Curiosity!

It's done really well!

[michael_w_busch@mastodon.online]

@GalbinusCaeli @nyrath @pomarede

Curiosity was designed to be able to drive even if the wheels are reduced to bare spokes, although not well: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Wares-Chancharoen/publication/381094274_A_REVIEW_OF_STRUCTURAL_AND_SYSTEM_DESIGN_OF_MARS_ROVER_CURIOSITY_AND_PERSEVERANCE/links/665bf2aa0b0d2845747c008c/A-REVIEW-OF-STRUCTURAL-AND-SYSTEM-DESIGN-OF-MARS-ROVER-CURIOSITY-AND-PERSEVERANCE.pdf .

And the damage to Curiosity's wheels is why Perseverance's have significantly thicker tires.

[robo105@mastodon.social]

@pomarede Where is Canadian Automobile Association when you need it?

[nanobookreview@zirk.us]

@SCALETHEORY @pomarede The mission was designed to last about 700 days, but is now on day ~5000. Undoubtedly the wheels were made as light as they thought they could get away with, because every ounce matters in a rocket launch. If you make something lighter to save weight, it will necessarily be less durable. According to other comments, NASA decided the durability of the wheels wasn't as high as they were hoping and future rovers got thicker wheels, necessarily at the cost of weight.

[raven667@hachyderm.io]

@nazokiyoubinbou @pomarede every gram of weight is hideously expensive to thrust, so the thickness matters, alot. This has already lasted 10x what it needed to for the mission to be successful, so id say they designed it very well for durability, nothing lasts forever.

[nazokiyoubinbou@urusai.social]

@raven667 @pomarede I mean, that's fair enough, but if it had been intended to last longer that would be a problem so easily solved.

If It had torn up more sooner it really would have been bad... The way it could potentially just rip through it seems like it could have failed just with a tiny bit of bad luck even perhaps on day one.

[arensb@mastodon.social]

@pomarede When 4800 sols old you reach, look as good you will not.

[tuftyindigo@meow.social]

@pomarede They should have got Schwalbe Marathons, I'm pretty sure they'd still be going strong

[kintarian@norcal.social]

@pomarede Better call AAA

[nazokiyoubinbou@urusai.social]

@Ann_Effes @pomarede What's the cost if the whole thing failed on day one?

[iamdannyboling@mstdn.social]

@pomarede

Science! 🤩

[burne@waag.social]

@pomarede (credit: https://xkcd.com/695/)

[grim_elsewhere@lgbtqia.space]

@nazokiyoubinbou And if it was supposed to feed martian children they should have made it out of cheese. /s

Change the specifications of the mission, and any expert decision can be made to sound foolish. That's called "whataboutism."

@raven667 @pomarede

[wronglang@bayes.club]

@nyrath @pomarede more like pessimistic about how long the darn things would keep trying to drive around!

[nazokiyoubinbou@urusai.social]

@grim_elsewhere @raven667 @pomarede How is it a "whataboutism" to say "what if the landscape had been even just a little bit rougher?" The landscape was not really fully known at the time it was landed.

Bear in mind that knowing it would hold up longer is only a valid argument for a time traveler.

[lizette603_23@mastodon.social]

@pomarede this is so sad!

[hoco@sfba.social]

@Kintarian @pomarede It's so far away.... It's gonna need AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.