Can Curiosity pay InSight a visit?

up vote
14
down vote

favorite

InSight landed “just” 600 kilometers from Curiosity’s landing site. Can Curiosity make its way there for a rendezvous? Are there any plans for this?

edited 2 hours ago

asked 20 hours ago

apollo

17414

New contributor

Related: space.stackexchange.com/questions/8087/…
– Mark
5 hours ago

I once had the same thought too, it's really fascinating, though. However, this action is not beneficial by any means; neither to Curiosity nor InSight. Plus some other reasons (e.g. the travel speed of Curiosity rover and their expected lifetime stated by @Hobbes below), probably InSight would've already shutdown long ago before the rover could even finishes 1/10 of the total distance to reach InSight. Clearly to see the visit is explicitly impossible and that's why it was never planned.
– si_the_nibba
4 hours ago

There is no reason for them to visit, that data costs a lot of money, why take duplicate data by putting them in the same location?
– DonQuiKong
2 hours ago

@DonQuiKong "duplicate" wouldn't be a appropriate adjective over here. Cusiosity and InSight do not share the similar mission on Mars. Curiosity rover aims to explore and investigate the Martian climate and geology while the other side; InSight lander is designed as a stationary machine that studies interior core of Mars.
– si_the_nibba
2 hours ago

@si_the_nibba but they share (aka both have it) at least some sensors, right?
– DonQuiKong
1 hour ago

add a comment |

up vote
14
down vote

favorite

InSight landed “just” 600 kilometers from Curiosity’s landing site. Can Curiosity make its way there for a rendezvous? Are there any plans for this?

edited 2 hours ago

asked 20 hours ago

apollo

17414

New contributor

Related: space.stackexchange.com/questions/8087/…
– Mark
5 hours ago

I once had the same thought too, it's really fascinating, though. However, this action is not beneficial by any means; neither to Curiosity nor InSight. Plus some other reasons (e.g. the travel speed of Curiosity rover and their expected lifetime stated by @Hobbes below), probably InSight would've already shutdown long ago before the rover could even finishes 1/10 of the total distance to reach InSight. Clearly to see the visit is explicitly impossible and that's why it was never planned.
– si_the_nibba
4 hours ago

There is no reason for them to visit, that data costs a lot of money, why take duplicate data by putting them in the same location?
– DonQuiKong
2 hours ago

@DonQuiKong "duplicate" wouldn't be a appropriate adjective over here. Cusiosity and InSight do not share the similar mission on Mars. Curiosity rover aims to explore and investigate the Martian climate and geology while the other side; InSight lander is designed as a stationary machine that studies interior core of Mars.
– si_the_nibba
2 hours ago

@si_the_nibba but they share (aka both have it) at least some sensors, right?
– DonQuiKong
1 hour ago

add a comment |

up vote
14
down vote

favorite

InSight landed “just” 600 kilometers from Curiosity’s landing site. Can Curiosity make its way there for a rendezvous? Are there any plans for this?

edited 2 hours ago

asked 20 hours ago

apollo

17414

New contributor

InSight landed “just” 600 kilometers from Curiosity’s landing site. Can Curiosity make its way there for a rendezvous? Are there any plans for this?

mars curiosity insight

edited 2 hours ago

asked 20 hours ago

apollo

17414

New contributor

edited 2 hours ago

asked 20 hours ago

apollo

17414

New contributor

edited 2 hours ago

asked 20 hours ago

apollo

17414

New contributor

asked 20 hours ago

apollo

17414

asked 20 hours ago

apollo

17414

New contributor

apollo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

Related: space.stackexchange.com/questions/8087/…
– Mark
5 hours ago

I once had the same thought too, it's really fascinating, though. However, this action is not beneficial by any means; neither to Curiosity nor InSight. Plus some other reasons (e.g. the travel speed of Curiosity rover and their expected lifetime stated by @Hobbes below), probably InSight would've already shutdown long ago before the rover could even finishes 1/10 of the total distance to reach InSight. Clearly to see the visit is explicitly impossible and that's why it was never planned.
– si_the_nibba
4 hours ago

There is no reason for them to visit, that data costs a lot of money, why take duplicate data by putting them in the same location?
– DonQuiKong
2 hours ago

@DonQuiKong "duplicate" wouldn't be a appropriate adjective over here. Cusiosity and InSight do not share the similar mission on Mars. Curiosity rover aims to explore and investigate the Martian climate and geology while the other side; InSight lander is designed as a stationary machine that studies interior core of Mars.
– si_the_nibba
2 hours ago

@si_the_nibba but they share (aka both have it) at least some sensors, right?
– DonQuiKong
1 hour ago

add a comment |

Related: space.stackexchange.com/questions/8087/…
– Mark
5 hours ago

I once had the same thought too, it's really fascinating, though. However, this action is not beneficial by any means; neither to Curiosity nor InSight. Plus some other reasons (e.g. the travel speed of Curiosity rover and their expected lifetime stated by @Hobbes below), probably InSight would've already shutdown long ago before the rover could even finishes 1/10 of the total distance to reach InSight. Clearly to see the visit is explicitly impossible and that's why it was never planned.
– si_the_nibba
4 hours ago

There is no reason for them to visit, that data costs a lot of money, why take duplicate data by putting them in the same location?
– DonQuiKong
2 hours ago

@DonQuiKong "duplicate" wouldn't be a appropriate adjective over here. Cusiosity and InSight do not share the similar mission on Mars. Curiosity rover aims to explore and investigate the Martian climate and geology while the other side; InSight lander is designed as a stationary machine that studies interior core of Mars.
– si_the_nibba
2 hours ago

@si_the_nibba but they share (aka both have it) at least some sensors, right?
– DonQuiKong
1 hour ago

Related: space.stackexchange.com/questions/8087/…
– Mark
5 hours ago

I once had the same thought too, it's really fascinating, though. However, this action is not beneficial by any means; neither to Curiosity nor InSight. Plus some other reasons (e.g. the travel speed of Curiosity rover and their expected lifetime stated by @Hobbes below), probably InSight would've already shutdown long ago before the rover could even finishes 1/10 of the total distance to reach InSight. Clearly to see the visit is explicitly impossible and that's why it was never planned.
– si_the_nibba
4 hours ago

There is no reason for them to visit, that data costs a lot of money, why take duplicate data by putting them in the same location?
– DonQuiKong
2 hours ago

@DonQuiKong "duplicate" wouldn't be a appropriate adjective over here. Cusiosity and InSight do not share the similar mission on Mars. Curiosity rover aims to explore and investigate the Martian climate and geology while the other side; InSight lander is designed as a stationary machine that studies interior core of Mars.
– si_the_nibba
2 hours ago

@si_the_nibba but they share (aka both have it) at least some sensors, right?
– DonQuiKong
1 hour ago

add a comment |

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
30
down vote

No.

Curiosity took 3 years to travel 10 km. There are no plans to visit InSight, Curiosity's mission is to survey Gale Crater and climb Mount Sharp.

Curiosity can travel on the order of 100 m/day. At that rate it would take 20 years to get to InSight. The RTG can provide enough power for about 14 years. The wheels are rated for ~40 km depending on the terrain.

edited 2 hours ago

answered 20 hours ago

Hobbes

82.9k2226371

7

Additionally, curiosity driving around inSight would be picked up by the seismograph and create bad data.
– Dragongeek
20 hours ago

3

This is a pointless discussion as Curiosity will NOT visit InSight.
– Hobbes
15 hours ago

3

Sadly the Mars Probe edition of BattleBots isn't coming around anytime soon...
– TemporalWolf
14 hours ago

3

I think the question deserves a better answer than a two sentence shut-down. Is 100m/day really close to some limit of the rover itself, or a function of super-cautious route planning and obstacle avoidance? Also considering Spirit and Opportunity's ten year runs, what does "design lifetime" really mean here? Wouldn't decay of the RTG over time be more of an absolute limiting factor.
– uhoh
9 hours ago

3

Made a 2-paragraph shutdown instead.
– Hobbes
2 hours ago

|
show 6 more comments

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\$","\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "508"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

apollo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fspace.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f32350%2fcan-curiosity-pay-insight-a-visit%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

1 Answer
1

active

oldest

votes

up vote
30
down vote

No.

Curiosity took 3 years to travel 10 km. There are no plans to visit InSight, Curiosity's mission is to survey Gale Crater and climb Mount Sharp.

edited 2 hours ago

answered 20 hours ago

Hobbes

82.9k2226371

7

Additionally, curiosity driving around inSight would be picked up by the seismograph and create bad data.
– Dragongeek
20 hours ago

3

This is a pointless discussion as Curiosity will NOT visit InSight.
– Hobbes
15 hours ago

3

Sadly the Mars Probe edition of BattleBots isn't coming around anytime soon...
– TemporalWolf
14 hours ago

3

I think the question deserves a better answer than a two sentence shut-down. Is 100m/day really close to some limit of the rover itself, or a function of super-cautious route planning and obstacle avoidance? Also considering Spirit and Opportunity's ten year runs, what does "design lifetime" really mean here? Wouldn't decay of the RTG over time be more of an absolute limiting factor.
– uhoh
9 hours ago

3

Made a 2-paragraph shutdown instead.
– Hobbes
2 hours ago

|
show 6 more comments

up vote
30
down vote

No.

Curiosity took 3 years to travel 10 km. There are no plans to visit InSight, Curiosity's mission is to survey Gale Crater and climb Mount Sharp.

edited 2 hours ago

answered 20 hours ago

Hobbes

82.9k2226371

7

Additionally, curiosity driving around inSight would be picked up by the seismograph and create bad data.
– Dragongeek
20 hours ago

3

This is a pointless discussion as Curiosity will NOT visit InSight.
– Hobbes
15 hours ago

3

Sadly the Mars Probe edition of BattleBots isn't coming around anytime soon...
– TemporalWolf
14 hours ago

3

I think the question deserves a better answer than a two sentence shut-down. Is 100m/day really close to some limit of the rover itself, or a function of super-cautious route planning and obstacle avoidance? Also considering Spirit and Opportunity's ten year runs, what does "design lifetime" really mean here? Wouldn't decay of the RTG over time be more of an absolute limiting factor.
– uhoh
9 hours ago

3

Made a 2-paragraph shutdown instead.
– Hobbes
2 hours ago

|
show 6 more comments

up vote
30
down vote

No.

Curiosity took 3 years to travel 10 km. There are no plans to visit InSight, Curiosity's mission is to survey Gale Crater and climb Mount Sharp.

edited 2 hours ago

answered 20 hours ago

Hobbes

82.9k2226371

No.

Curiosity took 3 years to travel 10 km. There are no plans to visit InSight, Curiosity's mission is to survey Gale Crater and climb Mount Sharp.

edited 2 hours ago

answered 20 hours ago

Hobbes

82.9k2226371

edited 2 hours ago

answered 20 hours ago

Hobbes

82.9k2226371

answered 20 hours ago

Hobbes

82.9k2226371

answered 20 hours ago

Hobbes

82.9k2226371

7

Additionally, curiosity driving around inSight would be picked up by the seismograph and create bad data.
– Dragongeek
20 hours ago

3

This is a pointless discussion as Curiosity will NOT visit InSight.
– Hobbes
15 hours ago

3

Sadly the Mars Probe edition of BattleBots isn't coming around anytime soon...
– TemporalWolf
14 hours ago

3

I think the question deserves a better answer than a two sentence shut-down. Is 100m/day really close to some limit of the rover itself, or a function of super-cautious route planning and obstacle avoidance? Also considering Spirit and Opportunity's ten year runs, what does "design lifetime" really mean here? Wouldn't decay of the RTG over time be more of an absolute limiting factor.
– uhoh
9 hours ago

3

Made a 2-paragraph shutdown instead.
– Hobbes
2 hours ago

|
show 6 more comments

7

Additionally, curiosity driving around inSight would be picked up by the seismograph and create bad data.
– Dragongeek
20 hours ago

3

This is a pointless discussion as Curiosity will NOT visit InSight.
– Hobbes
15 hours ago

3

Sadly the Mars Probe edition of BattleBots isn't coming around anytime soon...
– TemporalWolf
14 hours ago

3

I think the question deserves a better answer than a two sentence shut-down. Is 100m/day really close to some limit of the rover itself, or a function of super-cautious route planning and obstacle avoidance? Also considering Spirit and Opportunity's ten year runs, what does "design lifetime" really mean here? Wouldn't decay of the RTG over time be more of an absolute limiting factor.
– uhoh
9 hours ago

3

Made a 2-paragraph shutdown instead.
– Hobbes
2 hours ago

Additionally, curiosity driving around inSight would be picked up by the seismograph and create bad data.
– Dragongeek
20 hours ago

This is a pointless discussion as Curiosity will NOT visit InSight.
– Hobbes
15 hours ago

Sadly the Mars Probe edition of BattleBots isn't coming around anytime soon...
– TemporalWolf
14 hours ago

I think the question deserves a better answer than a two sentence shut-down. Is 100m/day really close to some limit of the rover itself, or a function of super-cautious route planning and obstacle avoidance? Also considering Spirit and Opportunity's ten year runs, what does "design lifetime" really mean here? Wouldn't decay of the RTG over time be more of an absolute limiting factor.
– uhoh
9 hours ago

Made a 2-paragraph shutdown instead.
– Hobbes
2 hours ago

|
show 6 more comments

apollo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

apollo is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Cdtrjyty