I think the big surprise for me here is how much Curiosity weighs. I had no idea it weighed that much! Almost a ton. Although I never looked up that particular stat, I figured they weighed 200-300 lbs. max.
Now I'm even more impressed with the successful landing on the surface. Any landing on the Martian surface is a near super-human feat due to the really weird atmospheric conditions on descent. There's like no atmosphere at all on the way down initially, so no aerodynamic braking (parachutes don't work). And then you hit this thin atmosphere where you have to brake really hard, and really fast, to slow down enough to not destroy the vehicle you are trying to land. It's one of the most difficult landings in all of space travel so far. (by a pretty big margin too). We had plenty of experience landing things in no atmosphere (the Moon), or a really dense atmosphere (Earth), but Mars with its varied atmosphere presented challenges which were monumentally difficult to overcome. Especially for a vehicle which had to still be able to move around once it reached the surface.
I mean, just look at how many times the Russians tried landing on Mars and failed, before finally giving up. And we had a long string of failed (or semi-failed) landings too. I remember the first time I saw the math and some of the equations they were having to use, and I was like..."WOW! I had no idea it was THAT difficult!" Probably like a lot of other people, I was just thinking..."well, we've landed on the Moon countless times, so landing on Mars should be a slam dunk." Not even close!
Even if you think just a little bit about it, the true difficulty quickly comes into focus. Mars has a very thin atmosphere, but at the same time has very strong gravitational forces because of Mars' size and mass. More fuel for braking burns equals more mass (to slow down), and a bigger craft to carry the additional fuel. More mass requires exponentially larger parachutes to decelerate once inside the atmosphere. Considerably larger chutes, and in multiples, perform poorly and unreliably. Parachutes and rocket engines don't play nice in the sandbox together. Braking burns in no atmosphere are different engines than for braking burns inside the atmosphere (but multiple engine types equals even bigger craft, which is even more mass to slow down). And the list goes on. It's like this long list of changing variables you have to worry about at different altitudes and atmospheric densities. And then you can begin to understand all of the crazy different methods and types of craft they tried to land (i.e. bouncing beach balls, sky cranes, suspended payloads, multiple radically different combined technologies, etc.)
Now I'm even more impressed with the successful landing on the surface. Any landing on the Martian surface is a near super-human feat due to the really weird atmospheric conditions on descent. There's like no atmosphere at all on the way down initially, so no aerodynamic braking (parachutes don't work). And then you hit this thin atmosphere where you have to brake really hard, and really fast, to slow down enough to not destroy the vehicle you are trying to land. It's one of the most difficult landings in all of space travel so far. (by a pretty big margin too). We had plenty of experience landing things in no atmosphere (the Moon), or a really dense atmosphere (Earth), but Mars with its varied atmosphere presented challenges which were monumentally difficult to overcome. Especially for a vehicle which had to still be able to move around once it reached the surface.
I mean, just look at how many times the Russians tried landing on Mars and failed, before finally giving up. And we had a long string of failed (or semi-failed) landings too. I remember the first time I saw the math and some of the equations they were having to use, and I was like..."WOW! I had no idea it was THAT difficult!" Probably like a lot of other people, I was just thinking..."well, we've landed on the Moon countless times, so landing on Mars should be a slam dunk." Not even close!
Even if you think just a little bit about it, the true difficulty quickly comes into focus. Mars has a very thin atmosphere, but at the same time has very strong gravitational forces because of Mars' size and mass. More fuel for braking burns equals more mass (to slow down), and a bigger craft to carry the additional fuel. More mass requires exponentially larger parachutes to decelerate once inside the atmosphere. Considerably larger chutes, and in multiples, perform poorly and unreliably. Parachutes and rocket engines don't play nice in the sandbox together. Braking burns in no atmosphere are different engines than for braking burns inside the atmosphere (but multiple engine types equals even bigger craft, which is even more mass to slow down). And the list goes on. It's like this long list of changing variables you have to worry about at different altitudes and atmospheric densities. And then you can begin to understand all of the crazy different methods and types of craft they tried to land (i.e. bouncing beach balls, sky cranes, suspended payloads, multiple radically different combined technologies, etc.)