Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Opportunity rover snaps Martian dust devil


UM-Bot

Recommended Posts

NASA's aging rover has captured an impressive image of a vortex swirling around on the surface of Mars.

Dust devils, which are essentially columns of rotating hot air, have been seen on the Red Planet before - especially by the now deceased Spirit rover which encountered quite a few of them.

Read More: http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/news/293311/opportunity-rover-snaps-martian-dust-devil

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I guess temperature is relative because you don't think of Mars as having "warm air." I think I read somewhere that the maximum temperature at the equator during the Martian summer was about 65 degrees F, usually everything is below freezing pretty much everywhere. Plus the air is so thin on Mars all I can say is that it must be very fine dust the vortex is picking up. I wonder if they have been able to calculate the air speed inside a Martian dust devil? That would be interesting to know.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe Mars has more of an atmosphere than we thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess temperature is relative because you don't think of Mars as having "warm air." I think I read somewhere that the maximum temperature at the equator during the Martian summer was about 65 degrees F, usually everything is below freezing pretty much everywhere. Plus the air is so thin on Mars all I can say is that it must be very fine dust the vortex is picking up. I wonder if they have been able to calculate the air speed inside a Martian dust devil? That would be interesting to know.

That would be cool to know!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

great pic, I love the cable series NASA's Unexplained files. they had a story on these dust devils. They can get miles high.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How much longer should the opportunity rover last?

Should it last? It should only have lasted 90 days. Given that it has been operating for more than 12 years I think it is safe to say that no one knows how much longer it will last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh that NASA.... They always have something interesting to show people. here... let me help them out... here's one from yesterday's image archive...

1N513296731EFFCQB8P0682L0M1.jpg

I'm quite sure they'll get around to posting this on their site soon.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should it last? It should only have lasted 90 days. Given that it has been operating for more than 12 years I think it is safe to say that no one knows how much longer it will last.

Given the success of the robot, it's a shame we don't deploy several more of these around interesting areas of Mars. Perhaps you could send two or more at a time cutting the cost of getting there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Given the success of the robot, it's a shame we don't deploy several more of these around interesting areas of Mars.

The problem is that the interesting areas are usually the most dangerous to land at.

Perhaps you could send two or more at a time cutting the cost of getting there.

Opportunity was one of two. Spirit lost communication with Earth in 2010.

The general problem with sending multiple rovers/probes is that there is virtually no economy of scale involved. Because each rover is more or less hand built, building twice as many would cost twice as much. Using two launchers instead of one (or using a bigger more powerful and vastly more expensive lancher) would also vAstley in crease the price.

NASA has a finite budget. Twice the number of rovers means another mission to somewhere else cancelled.

In the early days of planetary exploration NASA (and the Soviet Union) would nearly always launch probes in pairs. This was because of the high rate of failures in both launch vehicles and the probes themselves that was experienced. It is the very fact that modern probes are so reliable that negates the need to launch in pairs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The general problem with sending multiple rovers/probes is that there is virtually no economy of scale involved. Because each rover is more or less hand built, building twice as many would cost twice as much.

Wow, that is so wrong, the money is mostly spent on research and development. More rovers could be created at a fraction of the cost because the R & D has already been done. We know they work. Now it is just parts and man hours.

Edited by Razer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, that is so wrong, the money is mostly spent on research and development.

Yes, you have a point.

More rovers could be created at a fraction of the cost because the R & D has already been done. We know they work. Now it is just parts and man hours.

Except that the parts are still vastly expensive.This is not a mass production, we are still only talking of a few rovers being built. That means they will still be extremely expensive and NASA still only has a finite budget for planetary exploration.

You are also overlooking the fact that launch is a major cost in any planetary mission.

I may have been wrong in saying that two rovers would cost twice as much but you are really wrong if you think that building additional rovers would cost little extra.

You also over look the fact that these are effectively prototype machines. Each rover is an improvement on the last. Each new mission is designed to expand on what was discovered with the last. Hence each new mission NEEDS to be different fro the last. Building 10 identical rovers would not provide the same amount of new science as a series of rovers all improving on the last.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, you have a point.

Except that the parts are still vastly expensive.This is not a mass production, we are still only talking of a few rovers being built. That means they will still be extremely expensive and NASA still only has a finite budget for planetary exploration.

You are also overlooking the fact that launch is a major cost in any planetary mission.

I may have been wrong in saying that two rovers would cost twice as much but you are really wrong if you think that building additional rovers would cost little extra.

You also over look the fact that these are effectively prototype machines. Each rover is an improvement on the last. Each new mission is designed to expand on what was discovered with the last. Hence each new mission NEEDS to be different fro the last. Building 10 identical rovers would not provide the same amount of new science as a series of rovers all improving on the last.

You have said several times I am over looking something, when I am not. I was making a point to which you have conceded.

Back on topic, a dust devil on Mars. Cool pic!

Edited by Razer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh that NASA.... They always have something interesting to show people. here... let me help them out... here's one from yesterday's image archive...

1N513296731EFFCQB8P0682L0M1.jpg

I'm quite sure they'll get around to posting this on their site soon.

what is really hilarious is the explanations they are coming up with ... usually hight school type of guessing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

what is really hilarious is the explanations they are coming up with ... usually hight school type of guessing...

What are the explanations they're coming up with?
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.