6
$\begingroup$

In the Choosing Mars-Time: Analysis of the Mars Exploration Rover Experience paper (2004), the NASA Ames Human Factors group recommends that those working on the Mars Exploration Rover mission should not work too many Sols in a row considering a Sol (Mars Time) is 40 minutes longer than a 24 hour day. After a number of days in a row Mars Time no longer is synchronized with people's circadian rhythm and degrades their work efficiency and well being.

The group recommended "members work no more than 4 shifts on Mars Time in a row, followed by several days off to allow enough time to recover from Mars Time operational shifts."

Is that the current schedule of the operators working on the Curiosity rover, or is there a different combination Mars Time shifts with days off?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Well, on Earth they can't work for too many Sols anyway because that wouldn't be healthy as you say. They're still on Earth where a day is of different length. Therefore it must have remained like that. It would be better to test astronauts to Martian day lengths on the ISS. $\endgroup$ – user35272 Mar 27 at 8:49
1
$\begingroup$

The second hit in a search produced this quote from a team member

So members of the team have worked out a compromise. "When the planets align and we're able to work during our daytime and Martian nighttime, then we work every day, and then when they don't, we work every other day. And there's plenty of science analysis to be done on the ground in between those days anyway, so it kind of works out."

| improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What's the hinted-at initialism? $\endgroup$ – Wayne Conrad Mar 27 at 13:02
  • $\begingroup$ The linked article is good, but the quote is for the Insight team. The article says that the Curiosity team works in shifts, since it is large enough to do so. $\endgroup$ – Wayne Conrad Mar 27 at 13:06
  • $\begingroup$ @wayneconrad the author appears to be hinting at 'let me google that for you'; in other words, the question shows no evidence of prior research in their opinion. $\endgroup$ – Organic Marble Mar 27 at 13:10
  • $\begingroup$ @OrganicMarble That's what I suspect. If so, it's too much snark to be appropriate here. $\endgroup$ – Wayne Conrad Mar 27 at 13:12
  • $\begingroup$ I agree completely. Downvote or vtc the question if it;s bad. $\endgroup$ – Organic Marble Mar 27 at 13:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.