Air Bag Blocks Spirit's Path

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Posted by michael on Thursday January 8, 2004 @05:13PM from the jaws-of-life dept.

cosog writes "bad news everyone: 'Two sections of the air bags used to cushion Spirit during the landing phase are obstructing the vehicle's path.'. Fortunately scientists have a solution for it: 'We'll lift up the left petal of the lander, retract the airbag, then let the petal back down[...]'. This means that: 'The earliest the six-wheeled Spirit rover will get rolling is Jan. 14, about three days later than originally planned, NASA said'."

95 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

have they tried using gay niggers? FP by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-08 17:15 · Score: -1, Offtopic

GNAA / Google confirms: Linux is dying. GNAA / Google confirms: Linux is dying.
By GNAA Staff

Here you have it: it's official; Google confirms: Desktop Linux is dying.

Now, you might be thinking this is just another cut & paste troll based on the typical *BSD is dying bullshit.
It isn't.
As you might have know, your favorite search engine, Google, has been running a little statistics service, called "Zeitgeist".
Since about a year ago, they started providing statistics of the operating systems used to access their search engine worldwide.
I will let the numbers speak for themselves:

Operating Systems Accessing Google in January 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in March 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in April 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in May 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in June 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in July 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in August 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in September 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in November 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in December 2002
Operating Systems Accessing Google in January 2003
Operating Systems Accessing Google in February 2003
Operating Systems Accessing Google in April 2003
Operating Systems Accessing Google in May 2003
Operating Systems Accessing Google in June 2003
Operating Systems Accessing Google in July 2003
Operating Systems Accessing Google in August 2003
Operating Systems Accessing Google in September 2003
Operating Systems Accessing Google in November 2003

If you've looked at even a few of these links, you don't need to be a Kreskin to predict Desktop Linux's future. The hand writing is on the wall: Desktop Linux faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for Linux on Desktop because Linux is dying. Things are looking very bad for Linux on Desktop. As many of us are already aware, Linux on Desktop continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

According to Google Zeitgeist, there are about 80% of Internet Explorer 6 users. The only platform supporting Internet Explorer 6 is, of course, Microsoft Windows. These statistics are consistent with the earlier presented graphs of the operating systems used to access Google, with the Windows family consistently taking the top 3 ranks. Out of remaining 20%, the split is even between MSIE 5.5, MSIE 5.0,
Air bags are safety hazards by ObviousGuy · 2004-01-08 17:16 · Score: -1, Troll

So are seatbelts. It's sometimes necessary to be completely unharnessed so that you can be 'thrown free' from the wreck.

Is this what happens when costs become the driving factor?

--
I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
1. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Skyfire · 2004-01-08 17:25 · Score: -1, Flamebait
  
  Uhhh, what are you talking about? A lot of the injuries and deaths that happen in car crashes are caused by people being "thrown free" from the crash when they don't have their seatbelt on. And you do know that we are talking about a spacecraft here, right?
  
  --
  Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
2. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-08 17:36 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Woooosh!
3. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Suppafly · 2004-01-08 17:37 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  If your car was to be broadsided by a train, would you rather be strapped in with an air bag in your face while being plowed along, or would you rather be thrown free to safety?
  
  Seatbelts aren't the best solution all of the time, just most of the time.
4. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-08 17:41 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  Because obviously, any sort of impact where you fly through the air at high velocity and come crashing to the ground in a crumbled heap always results in a safe landing.
  
  Either way, you still have a chance of dying, but I'd rather take my chances with a seat belt and an air bag.
5. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by ottawanker · 2004-01-08 18:01 · Score: -1, Offtopic
  
  I know a guy who died because he was wearing a seat-belt in a car crash. Everyone else was thrown free of the car when it flipped, but because this guy was wearing a seat belt (this was an older car though) he ended up hanging half-in and half-out of the car, and the car landed on him.
  
  So, while seatbelts may save lives, they can kill as well.
6. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by mrfunky405 · 2004-01-08 18:19 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Your comment history doesn't seem too trollish, so here goes. I'll be getting modded offtopic with the rest of the thread, but what's new.
  
  This "thrown free" bullshit cracks me up every time.
  
  A previous poster has already addressed the reality of landing. Now, before we even get there: what about the construction of your car makes you think that you'll be "thrown free" if broadsided by a train? Let's look at a passenger-side impact, since you'd be dead in either case if hit from the driver's side. In fact, even if hit from the passenger side, your chances are slim.
  
  At impact, the train will continue towards you, through your car. Your car will gain velocity in the direction of the train. If you're "thrown" anywhere, you'll be thrown towards the front of the train as it plows through and accelerates your car, and that's only because you remained at rest since you weren't attached to the car.
  
  Your new relative velocity to the car/train system means that your unrestrained torso will be thrown over the center console (assuming you're not in a truck), allowing your head to meet the passenger side of your car as it's crushed inwards by the impact. Game over.
  
  With the seatbelt on, you remain (relatively) planted in your seat. You might injure your neck, as your head doesn't have lateral restraints, but the entire right side of the car is available to absorb the energy of the collision without your body being present. If you're in a car with side curtain airbags, so much the better. You will then slowly come to a halt as the train stops.
  
  The "being plowed along" part is not really the variable affected by seat belt use. You will be plowed along whether you're wearing a seat belt or not; there is no way the impact of the train would "throw you free" in a side collision. If your car disintegrates and is mowed over by the train during the ensuing slowdown, you'll die either way. Seat belt use will, however, affect what happens to your body during impact.
  
  I would challenge any advocate of the "thrown free" argument to explain a single situation in which a body could be "thrown free" from a car in a way that would result in less injury than remaining restrained in the vehicle, even ignoring the hazard from landings.
  
  Rear-end collision? You gain relative velocity towards your seat, no problem.
  
  Side collision? Detailed as above - you gain relative velocity towards whatever hits you, not some magical boost away from it and out the (open? do you ride everywhere with your windows open for safety?) window to "safety."
  
  Front collision? Hey, you might indeed be "thrown free", but there's going to be unpleasant encounters first: steering wheel vs. torso, and head vs. windshield. Airbags and or seatbelts prevent or lesson the impact of both of these encounters. People smarter than you designed and throughly tested these systems.
  
  Those rare collisions in which the car flips are the only kind that might result in you being thrown free, and even in these cases the odds of you being better off outside the vehicle are slim (as in the case below of the half-in/half-out person).
  
  If you're riding without your airbag and seatbelt because you know the risks and accept them because your prefer to be comfortable, fine. But don't go around telling people that they're better off. If you're riding w/o a seatbelt or airbag you're much more likely to get in a garden-variety head-on collision and shatter your skull on the windshield than you are to be flipped and safely thrown free.
7. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Mr.+Slippery · 2004-01-08 19:19 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  would you rather be strapped in with an air bag in your face while being plowed along, or would you rather be thrown free to safety?
  
  You wouldn't be thrown "free to safety". You'd much more likely be thrown to your death. Being thrown from a vehicle by a collision is usually fatal.
  
  --
  Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
  You cannot wash away blood with blood
8. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-08 19:35 · Score: 0
  
  It's sometimes necessary to be completely unharnessed so that you can be 'thrown free' from the wreck.
  
  Thanks! I always wondered if I'd be safer outside my 3-point safety harness, airbag, passenger protection frame and crumple zones.
  
  There I was thinking that decelerating with the car was a good idea. Rather than not decelerating. Like in the bad old days when people were often literally decapitated when their skull went through the windshield and their neck presented a soft target for the razor-sharp glass.
  
  Is this what happens when costs become the driving factor?
  
  It's retards like you who keep insurance premiums high because you think you're invincible.
9. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Mr.+Darl+McBride · 2004-01-08 19:58 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I know a guy who died because he was wearing a seat-belt in a car crash.
  Either you're using the wrong tense of "to know," or you're really gullible.
10. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-08 21:07 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, thanks for the little reminder. My mistake, I'm sure you understand.
11. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by krymsin01 · 2004-01-09 00:05 · Score: 1
  
  I would challenge any advocate of the "thrown free" argument to explain a single situation in which a body could be "thrown free" from a car in a way that would result in less injury than remaining restrained in the vehicle, even ignoring the hazard from landings.
  Mind you, I'm not really a proponent of this theory, but my wife is (which annoys me to no end...). The only situation that she has ever given to me in which it would be better to be thrown out of a car is one in which the person is thrown out of the car (presumably out of the front) and then the car catches on fire and explodes.
  
  Obviously, that is pretty much the only way being thrown out of the car would ever help you in my opinion, and the chances of it happening do not outweigh the chances of wearing a seatbelt saving your life.
  
  --
  stuff
12. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Johnny+Mnemonic · 2004-01-09 01:45 · Score: 0, Offtopic
  
  My grandfather drove off a bridge, and was able to escape because he wasn't belted.
  
  However, I'm not a proponent of the "thrown free" method either. The fact remains that, although belts and airbags can cause a worse issue in some conditions, in many many more conditions they diminish your injury. Your wife should visit an ER sometime, or talk to an insurance adjuster.
  
  --
  
  --
  $tar -xvf .sig.tar
13. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by laertes · 2004-01-09 03:56 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  Okay, here goes:
  CARS DON'T EXPLODE!
  If you've ever seen a car on fire (which happens all the time), it is obviously a very dangerous situation, but it ain't no bomb. People get this idea from movies, to the point where they never reflect upon the plausibility of the whole thing.
  The only way I can think of for a car to explode is for the fuel tank to be completely demolished during a crash in such a way that none of the fuel ignites. Then, the fuel Whoooshes out into the air and achieves a good fuel/air mixture, and at just the right moment, something ignites the whole deal. The correct fuel/air mixture is the (very) hard thing to come by.
  Fact is, the scenario I just presented doesn't happen much. Even those exploding trucks from about 15 years ago pretty much turned into flamethrowers, not bombs. If anyone has any references (e.g. news stories) about a single car exploding, I'll happily eat my words.
  
  --
  
  Yes, I'm still a junky. Are you still a bitch?
14. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by DamnRogue · 2004-01-09 05:25 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the fact that "thrown free" only equals "safety" in a very small fraction of cases. I've got decades of experience in tripping and falling, and it can hurt when I land from standing hieght. I've got no desire to become a 60 mph projectile and then encounter immoble objects (asphalt, trees, other vehicles, etc.) Airbag and seatbelt, please...
15. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Deflagro · 2004-01-09 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  Not to mention the windows you have to go through to get out and possibly the dashboard and other things your limbs can hit on the way out. I didn't think people actually believed in things like this. It's idiotic. I'm shocked.
  
  --
  Der Tod ist der einzige Weg hier raus!
16. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by LearnToSpell · 2004-01-09 11:27 · Score: 1
  
  http://heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5 478,8244347%255E1702,00.html
  
  --
  Haida Manga
17. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by *SpOoNdRiFt* · 2004-01-09 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  were you involved in the planning stages of the Beagle mission? :p
18. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by *SpOoNdRiFt* · 2004-01-09 16:15 · Score: 1
  
  That guy had a propane tank in his car, and it's safe to say his propane tank wasn't wearing a seat belt!
19. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by krymsin01 · 2004-01-09 19:29 · Score: 1
  
  The real irony is that she's a nurse. Makes you feel confident in our medical system, doesn't it?
  
  --
  stuff
20. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-10 18:02 · Score: 0
  
  That there are still people that think seat belts are unsafe is about as stupid as folks that think there is a theory of "Creation".
  
  Seat belts became widespread in cars after they were installed into test planes and caused less Chuck Yeager types to die.
  
  It's simple science. "My brother's neighbor's friends cat died because..." - annectodal evidence. Survey 1000 crashes with and without and compare the results.
21. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-12 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  The next time you are out for a walk, grab your wife and hurl her face down on the road as hard and fast as you can, then ask her if "thrown clear" is still a philosophy she wants to indulge in.
22. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by dryeo · 2004-01-12 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  I would challenge any advocate of the "thrown free" argument to explain a single situation in which a body could be "thrown free" from a car in a way that would result in less injury than remaining restrained in the vehicle, even ignoring the hazard from landings.
  
  While I agree that in most cases a seatbelt will save your life.I did know some people who hit a rock and ended up upside down in a creek. They died due to their seatbelts holding them upside down with their heads in the water.
  Whether they would of survived being thrown out is hard to say.
  
  --
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
23. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by dgatwood · 2004-01-12 12:38 · Score: 1
  
  The abnormally high rate of smoking in nurses gives me pause as well. Fortunately, the Spirit doesn't appear to be doing that at the moment....
  Give it time.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
24. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Sly+Mongoose · 2004-01-12 14:26 · Score: 1
  I would challenge any advocate of the "thrown free" argument to explain a single situation in which a body could be "thrown free" from a car in a way that would result in less injury than remaining restrained in the vehicle, even ignoring the hazard from landings.
  I've studies aspects of automobile safetey, and in particular those related to motor racing. This doesn't make me an expert, but:
  
  The chances of being thrown out of the window of a vehicle during an accident without injury are so slim they are effectively non-existent. Being thrown out through the front or rear windscreen almost always leads to significant injury, often facial. To be popped out of an open side window like a pea from a peashooter, without touching the sides (so to speak) is very unlikely.
  
  The only way you have any noticable chance of being thrown clear uninjured during an accident is if you are in an open-cockpit vehicle like a beach buggy or regular convertible. Even in this case, you are still more likely to be injured than if you remained belted into your seat. Being ejected to land face-first on the pavement at 50 miles per hour is usually not advisable.
  
  The only two instances I can think of in which it might be more dangerous to be belted in, is if
  
  you are driving an open-cockpit vehicle without a roll-bar and the vehicle rolls onto it's back
  
  the vehicle catches on fire and the seatbelt buckle fails, trapping you
  
  In the first case, driving an open-cockpit vehicle with no roll bar is an act of stupidity and illegal in most places. In the second case, we live in the real world (not hollywood). Despite witnessing a number of vehicular accidents, I've never seen one erupt in flames either on the road or on the track.
  
  Racing drivers "have accidents for a living", or almost so. I can't think of too many of them who refust to wear belts.
25. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by buals · 2004-01-12 14:53 · Score: 1
  
  If thrown free was so much better, then I wouldn't need to wear a helmet when riding my motorcycle.
26. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by wolja · 2004-01-12 17:58 · Score: 1
  
  Two birds with one stone response ;
  1.
  CARS DON'T EXPLODE!
  
  If you've ever seen a car on fire (which happens all the time), it is obviously a very dangerous situation, but it ain't no bomb. People get this idea from movies, to the point where they never reflect upon the plausibility of the whole thing.
  
  The only way I can think of for a car to explode is for the fuel tank to be completely demolished during a crash in such a way that none of the fuel ignites
  
  Not entirely true. Can't do the physics but from personal observation a car with low levels of fuel, which means the petrol tank is vapor filled after a puncture, can, very occasionally explode. I've seen it twice in non LPG accidents personally. 18 years as an Ambulance Paramedic in NSW, Australia to set up the credentials.
  
  Perhaps it would be better stated as CARS DON'T USUALLY EXPLODE.
  
  2.
  Rear-end collision? You gain relative velocity towards your seat, no problem.
  
  Again from 18 years as a Paramedic the initial movement is backwards but as the car decelerates your initial velocity returns which , untethered, ends you with your chest on the wheel and your head on something hard. View crash dummie footage and you'll see just this. Likewise for the other scenarios.
  
  Again with train wrecks people in Australia have survived a train wreck both buckled up and unbuckled, buckled more prevalent as it is a legal requirement to wear seatbelts. However I have seen people thrown out of a relatively intact car as gravity and open windows tend to make things work unexpectedly.
  
  This evidence is eyewitness reports only. I personally have seen all this and more.
  
  Wolj
  
  --
  Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
27. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by DeadChobi · 2004-01-12 18:00 · Score: 0
  
  I just want to know where the hell he gets this from the airbags on the lander. I know there's a superficial link there, but... what the hell?
  
  --
  SRSLY.
28. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by wolja · 2004-01-12 18:48 · Score: 1
  
  I know a guy who died because he was wearing a seat-belt in a car crash.
  
  From experience attending crash scenes I have never seen this. The crash, assuming it happened, must have been in an open car without rollbars but then generally if it was that old it wouldn't have seat belts.
  
  From extensive studies in Australia the facts are clear. Seatbelts save many more lives than being unrestrained.
  
  Just a few google responces to "seatbelts safety australia"
  Death-defying designs for car safety
  Seatbelts & Restraints the facts
  
  --
  Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
29. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by mrfunky405 · 2004-01-13 07:47 · Score: 1
  
  I believe ObviousGuy is to blame for the tangent. Also, your sig has some insight on your question.
I told them... by Black+Parrot · 2004-01-08 17:21 · Score: 5, Funny

...the robots with the flamethrowers always make it though the maze faster.

But 'no', they said. 'Flamethrowers weigh too much', they said. That's what happens when you replace all the visionaries with bean counters.

--
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
1. Re:I told them... by doconnor · 2004-01-09 04:16 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  I believe they said, "Mars doesn't have any oxygen in its atmosphere."
2. Re:I told them... by ClippyHater · 2004-01-09 05:13 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Which is why you'd have to bring along extra oxygen.
  
  You bean counter! :)
3. Re:I told them... by bluGill · 2004-01-09 12:21 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I prefer to think outside the box. Mars has CO2. Plants use CO2 to make O2. So I'd just include a few plant seeds (selected for ability to grow in mars like conditions) and plant them. That way if I need a flame thrower I nkow there is O2 around to use it, and I didn't have to bring it.
4. Re:I told them... by Tablizer · 2004-01-10 07:29 · Score: 1
  
  I think what such a probe needs is a long, narrow arm that can be used to poke and prod. For example, if the rover gets stuck in sand, it could have a small shovel attatched to the arm to help dig the rover out. And, it could try to push the airbag out of the way. You never know what is going to need poking and prodding. Maybe a wheel will fail to deploy, or the pyrotechnic cable releases will fail to work. Such a small shovle arm with a sharp edge could be used to cut the cables, push deployment-challenged parts, etc.
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
5. Re:I told them... by Tablizer · 2004-01-10 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Such an arm could have:
  
  1. Small shovel
  2. Sharp edge (on shovel)
  3. Brush to clean dust off solar panels
  4. Small camera to help point "hand"
  5. Flashlight for night work
  
  --
  Table-ized A.I.
6. Re:I told them... by RabidStoat · 2004-01-12 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds a bit suspicious to me, wouldn't fancy explaining that set up to the local Martian police when they stop you in the middle of the night -
  "Now then now then, what do we have 'ere ?"
  "suuuuure you're gathering rock samples .. thats what they all say"
7. Re:I told them... by shogun · 2004-01-12 14:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm you need to grow plants to produce the O2 to power the flamethrower to burn your way through the plants. Thats slightly circular.
  (ignoring the airbag of course and just thinking of the usual usage of a flamethrower)
8. Re:I told them... by mnewton32 · 2004-01-16 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  just thinking of the usual usage of a flamethrower
  
  Call me old fashioned, but isn't that to light marching bands and ostrich farms on fire? Going back to my 1997 video game playing days...
Are we sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-08 17:22 · Score: 4, Funny

That it isn't really just some Martians up there messing with it to give us grief?
1. Re:Are we sure... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-09 06:39 · Score: 0
  
  It probably is. They are probably really pissed. I mean they can't even go out to the bar for a tronya without being pelted by earth probes.
Rover can use another ramp by Aglassis · 2004-01-08 17:34 · Score: 5, Interesting

The article says that if all the lift and tuck maneuvers fail, the rover could just turn and roll of in another direction. I know we have some JPL dudes hanging out here, so the question is, why waste 3 days? Why not just roll off the alternate ramp and start exploring? I guess I just don't understand why the front ramp is so special.

--
Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
1. Re:Rover can use another ramp by hool5400 · 2004-01-08 17:39 · Score: 1
  
  At a guess, i'd say that it's more of a risk to drive off another side. It would require manouvering and may get tangled or stuck on something.
  
  I reckon they're just playing it safe.
  
  --
  
  Remember, it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to pull the trigger of a sniper rifle.
2. Re:Rover can use another ramp by saramakos · 2004-01-08 17:56 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Maybe nobody at NASA has fine enough stick control? I recommend a strong course of GTA: VC, GT and any other game they can find.
3. Re:Rover can use another ramp by RzUpAnmsCwrds · 2004-01-08 18:45 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  With the ~30 minutes lag, your finger-twitching reflexes "ain't gonna mean shit".
4. Re:Rover can use another ramp by S_Dub · 2004-01-08 20:16 · Score: 1
  
  Why does NASA always play it so safe with these kind of operations? I understand the need to be cautious since we can't exactly send out a repair crew if something goes wrong, but does it really take 12 days to get off the damn lander?
  
  They've checked all their systems and everything's green, right? Send the command to fire the explosive straps keeping the thing and place and stand it up already! They only have a guaranteed 30 days to go out and take pictures, so let's start as soon as possible!
5. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Eivind · 2004-01-08 21:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  They are being extremely cautious because there *are* no small problems when you're dealing with a robotic probe 170 million kilometers away from home.
  Being stuck in an airbag. Getting anything entangled around the wheels. Sitting betweent rocks that are too large, all problems that would be trivial to solve -- if someone could go there and untangle the thing.
  As it is, a single wrong command can make the probe immobile for life. The mission cost 820$ million.
  I think you'd also be a little bit more careful about pushing buttons if you knew that pushing the wrong one *once* could waste $820 million and strand a major part of the science people have worked hard for a decade to land on Mars.
  There's no real down-side to being *too* careful. 3 days more or less on the lander is unimportant. They can always extend the mission in the other end if there's still more interesting stuff to do. (planned is 90 days of exploration)
6. Re:Rover can use another ramp by glassesmonkey · 2004-01-08 22:44 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I disagree.. you have a fixed # of days for exploration. If this thing can't drive off the ramp it *came* to Mars with, it probably won't fare well out in the open terrain. They sent it into a desert on a hostile planet and they are worried about it brushing against the airbags. Please, maybe they need to do *something* with the rover in case a wind storm comes along and blows it off the lander first.
7. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Eivind · 2004-01-08 23:50 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Pray tell, what limit exactly imposes this "fixed #" of days for exploration ? What exactly prevents Nasa from extending the mission to make up for a day or two lost ?
  You can disagree all you want. Fact is the people at NASA spent thousands of man-hours studying this, odds are their judgement is better than yours.
  You also seem to be unaware of how much testing this thing went trough. It's been driven for thousands of tests in terrain as much like the ones they expect on mars as possible.
  Storms are extremely unlikely to do anything to the thing, *especially* aslong as it's physically connected to the lander.
  Sure, odds are probably 99% that just turning and driving off one of the other two ramps would work fine. But if odds are 99.5% that i'll go well after first doing this lift-retract-settle maneuvre, then that's still definately worth a day or two delay.
8. Re:Rover can use another ramp by jabberjaw · 2004-01-09 00:08 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  They most likely want to follow procedure. It would be rather unfourtunate to spend approx. $800 million, travel the approx. 78 milliom kilometers to Mars, land successfully and then do something stupid like flip the rover or get an airbag tangled in it's wheels because we did not want to spend a few days to get things sorted. While I do think that NASA needs to be a bit more "ballsy" to be blunt, I believe that this is a case in which procedure should attempt to be followed.
9. Re:Rover can use another ramp by GodsMadClown · 2004-01-09 00:18 · Score: 1
  
  The limit is exactly the same as that imposed on the Pathfinder rover. Dust settles on the solar arrays and reduces thier generation capacity. A few wipes with a damp sponge would do the trick, but the nearest kitchen sink is quite some distance.
10. Re:Rover can use another ramp by zeux · 2004-01-09 01:53 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Why not just roll off the alternate ramp and start exploring?
  
  The mission has plenty of time and the way behind the rover is a little less large than the way in the front.
  
  It's better to take 3 days checking everything and trying to clear the best way than rushing and losing the rover.
  
  And also remember that during these 3 days they can still continue scientific experiments thanks to the cameras.
  
  --
  Iraq: war to save the U
11. Re:Rover can use another ramp by pipingguy · 2004-01-09 03:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Why not just roll off the alternate ramp and start exploring?
  
  TV ratings. Better to build up suspense first.
12. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Uma+Thurman · 2004-01-09 03:54 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Not true. the Pathfinder rover had an onboard battery that eventually died. During the day, the solar cells powered the rover. At night, non-rechargable lithium batteries kept it going. When the batteries were dead, that was the end of the mission.
  
  --
  This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
13. Re:Rover can use another ramp by S_Dub · 2004-01-09 06:01 · Score: 1
  
  Sooner or later, the dust is gong to accumulate on the solar panels and the battery will no longer be able to charge. At that point, the mission is over.
  
  If the main ramp is blocked, have the thing turn around and go down another ramp. I understand that it's a more complicated procedure, but they've done it before, right? Why take days to try and remove the air bag, more days to try and decide what to do, and then more days to actually do it? I don't understand why they didn't just say, ok the main path is blocked, send the command to turn it around and go down another ramp...
14. Re:Rover can use another ramp by legoleg · 2004-01-09 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Why not rechargable? What in the environment prevents it? Inquiring mind wants to know.... and for the dust, maybe they could use a few peeling skins like racecar drivers' visors.
15. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Uma+Thurman · 2004-01-09 09:23 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Two reasons: First, rechargable batteries would have required charging circuits, adding weight and complexity. Second, the mission was not to do an extended exploration. It was "Pathfinder", a demonstration of the new technologies that would be used to better effect on later missions. Pathfinder was one of NASA's Discovery missions, which all had this goal to some extent. The little rover worked for about 30 days, and performed some experiments. At the end of those 30 days, there was really little more that it could have added to what it already did.
  
  --
  This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
16. Re:Rover can use another ramp by BlueEyes_Austin · 2004-01-09 10:23 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  They're saying 90 days...but on astrobiology they are working on a 104 day schedule (difference between Sols and Earth daays, perhaps?) In any event, these puppies ought to last quite a bit longer than 90 days. They are just keeping expectations down. (Like they are not talking AT ALL about finding fossils, although the science package can do this.)
17. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-10 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  Ample time for masturbation.
18. Re:Rover can use another ramp by *SpOoNdRiFt* · 2004-01-11 17:10 · Score: 1
  
  More like 12 minutes.
19. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Suidae · 2004-01-12 06:38 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  What? No self-righting mechanism? Somebody get those engineers rereuns of Battlebots!
20. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-12 07:35 · Score: 0
  
  If this thing can't drive off the ramp it *came* to Mars with, it probably won't fare well out in the open
  
  Cars get snowed in all the time and need, in some cases, to be literally dug out before they can drive. Does that mean that cars don't fare well on the highway? Of course not. Think of this airbag as a snow drift that Spirit needs to clear out of the way before it can go.
  
  As for the fixed # of days for exploration ... why? They had a fixed window of opportunity (their launch window) to launch the missions towards Mars because of the proximity (relatively speaking) of the two planets, but that doesn't affect how long they have to explore, and it'll be quite some time before anything (i.e. the Sun) interferes with the radio signals from the rover to Earth. Even then, if the rover's independent enough, it could still explore and wait for contact to be reestablished before exploring further.
21. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-12 09:58 · Score: 0
  
  When that marshen robot comes along spirt is going to be toast, it hasn't even got a blade or a flipper. Perhaps they will try to push things into a pit!
22. Re:Rover can use another ramp by flatland_skier · 2004-01-12 10:20 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry to say this but "ballsy" has gotten two Space Shuttle's blown up. I know it's hard to be patient, but they have plenty of time to get the rover off it's platform. No-one will be happy with two weeks of pictures of the rover stuck on it's own balloons.
23. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-12 10:36 · Score: 0
  
  You think they would have come up with some windshield wipers for the arrays!
24. Re:Rover can use another ramp by stmfreak · 2004-01-12 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  Why not just roll off the alternate ramp and start exploring? I guess I just don't understand why the front ramp is so special.
  
  Because that's what they tested it with. This is not robot wars where if the rover trips on an antenna and tips over some guy can walk into the ring and set it upright again. The alternate ramp has to be conceived, modeled, tested and proved, then re-proved, before the management should sign off on the plan.
  
  Otherwise we can kiss $400M and several years goodbye.
  
  Oh yea, the JPL dudes are for figuring out what I listed above, not for making it quicker.
  
  --
  These opinions guaranteed or your money back.
25. Re:Rover can use another ramp by dgatwood · 2004-01-12 12:46 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if they are really starting to see some signs of water... problem solved. Uh wait... is this thing waterproof? Sploink. Bzzt... bzzt.. bzz bzz bzzt. Whoops.
  
  --
  Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
previous air bag difficulty by dagar17 · 2004-01-08 17:44 · Score: 4, Informative

Didn't they have a similar problem with the airbags on the pathfinder mission? I believe that the air bags were not fully retracted and it was preventing the ramp from deploying. However they were successful in raising the panels and retracting the air bags on pathfinder so hopefully this will not be a problem.
Info here fourth paragraph
1. Re:previous air bag difficulty by Surazal · 2004-01-08 17:56 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  You know, I thought of this when I followed this Mars landing from Day One: "They're complaining about an airbag being in the way!? Whatever happened to worrying about the darned thing landing in one piece?"
  
  Ah well, this is honestly the type of technical problem I like to see when watching this. It sure beats the alternatives.
  
  --
  --- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
2. Re:previous air bag difficulty by confused+one · 2004-01-09 01:28 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  They don't retract them "all the way" on purpose: It's better to have an airbag lying deflated and partially retracted, but flat, than to risk having it all bunched up, in a knot, under one of the petals. If it's not retracted far enough or flat enough for the rover to drive over, they can always try retracting it more or try the "lift and tuck" maneuver.
3. Re:previous air bag difficulty by Guppy06 · 2004-01-12 14:15 · Score: 1
  
  "Whatever happened to worrying about the darned thing landing in one piece?"
  
  It seems that the UK has co-opted all the crochity "When I was your age...!" space exploration jokes.
  
  "When I was your age, we didn't have any of that fancy-shmancy technology on our probes. Wheels... hah! Back in my day we stayed where we landed and we liked it!"
Any landing you can drive away from... by mhw25 · 2004-01-08 18:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

is an excellent landing.
Every system is working as designed, so there won't be much to worry about. I believe they could likely solve that problem. And they still have days to test the rover before they could roll it off anyway, so even if lifting the panel doesn't work, maybe by the time they tested the system and agreed on where to go, the airbag would have deflated enough on its own in the low pressure of the Martian atmosphere. Drive off another ramp, if it comes to that. The rover has six wheels and was designed to worked even if the landing site didn't turn out to be as flat as it is.
It seems that despite those gorgeous panaromic pictures they have got, the boffins haven't decided on where to go. Perhaps this little inconvenince will give them a few extra days to come to a hopefully good decision.
Rename Spirit! by Red+Pointy+Tail · 2004-01-08 22:48 · Score: 2, Funny

Air Bag Blocks Spirit's Path. Hah.

We should rename Spirit to Dolly. Or maybe Pamela. ;)
1. Re:Rename Spirit! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-10 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  This isn't funny. Maybe if they used silicone bags it might be funny.
2. Re:Rename Spirit! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-11 17:07 · Score: 0
  
  I know right? That's not funny AT ALL. It doesn't even make sense. Poor slobs.
I'm disapponted by Triv · 2004-01-09 01:12 · Score: 4, Funny

I thought the article was going to be about some wacked out church claiming to have scientific proof that you don't get to go to heaven if you die in an airbag-equipped car.

Crummy mars robot spoiling my fun.

Triv
because de spite... by jefu · 2004-01-09 04:14 · Score: 2, Interesting

It seems that despite those gorgeous panaromic pictures they have got, the boffins haven't decided on where to go.
I think it may be "because" of those images. I've seen a bit or two of the press conferences and it always looks like the scientists are frothing at the mouth with eagerness to explore one feature or another. Or perhaps one feature and another and another and another .....
Deciding where to go first can't be easy.
Solomon's Wisdom by jefu · 2004-01-09 04:47 · Score: 3, Funny

To misquote Dick Solomon, Alien Physics Teacher :
Trains don't kill people, physics kills people.
Re:Rover ain't gettin' off tha pad by A55M0NKEY · 2004-01-09 04:54 · Score: 1

It's tied to the landing pad. Supposedly 'explosive knives' are gonna cut the cables. But you and I know that it usually takes 3 or 4 'Estes solar ignitors' to get anything to light. It's gonna be a dud.

--
Eat at Joe's.
Re:Rover ain't gettin' off tha pad by confused+one · 2004-01-09 06:16 · Score: 1

It only takes 3 or 4 ignitors if you don't set them up correctly...
Re:Rover ain't gettin' off tha pad by falcon5768 · 2004-01-09 07:10 · Score: 1

oh bull you can set those suckers up correctly and not have them light :-P, I have had easily 4 or 5 in a pack misfire. The new ones with the plug and not having to use wadding to hold it seem to be better made though.
I for one am betting all money on either
a) knive cuts cable that somehow found it's way into the area.
b)knives cut last remaining microbe that somehow found its way up onto the platform.... oooops.

--
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
Darwin's Law by Gothmolly · 2004-01-09 08:30 · Score: 1

Yes, but let all the mouth-breathers out there continue to ride sans seatbelt, and think how nicer it will be for the rest of us! Clear out the gene pool I say.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
1. Re:Darwin's Law by RabidStoat · 2004-01-12 12:10 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, some of the idiots even object to fastening their belts when sitting behind someone - like I fancy a human sized projectile trying to get between me and the roof in a head on.
  I mean how selfish can you get, fine, if you don't care about your own life go and jump of a cliff, but don't come up with lame excuses about it being better to be thrown clear when you can end up killing someone else on the way past.
Update on Situation by angryLNX · 2004-01-09 10:16 · Score: 4, Informative

I just watched the live JPL NASA webcast and they said that the wheel technique did not work, today they will lower the wheel back down and try to retract the bag by revolving the retraction motor 6 more times. If it does not work, they still have plenty of other possible routes; they are just trying to make sure nothing is compromised so early in the mission.
flowering rovers by MonkeysKickAss · 2004-01-09 11:08 · Score: 1

hopefully our little rover will bloom soon and not wilt

--
MonkeysKickAss
No mention of Mars weather risk.... by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-09 11:57 · Score: 0

Doesn't Mars experience dust storms?

What about those giant tornado-like "dust devils" which travel hundreds of miles, leaving wide trails visible from orbit?

Everyone assumes it's safer to proceed slowly. But if NASA contemplates the airbag issue long enough, perhaps some incoming dust dunes may bury the rover before it ever gets down from the pad.
Whew! by zhobson · 2004-01-09 21:36 · Score: 1

I thought the article was going to be about some wacked out church claiming to have scientific proof that you don't get to go to heaven if you die in an airbag-equipped car.

Thank goodness I'm not the only one!

Mod parent up! I can now stop reading this thread.

-zack
Call me a revolutionary... by leonbrooks · 2004-01-10 02:22 · Score: 1

...but if this is panels on the rover we're talking about, why not mount a sponge on the side of the lander that it can rub the panels against? And if it's the lander, why not equip the rover with a sponge? You could go and bash it against a rock every so often to clean it out. And since there's atmosphere, why not use some advanced technology like (ghasp) fans to blow the dang dust off every so often?

--
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
1. Re:Call me a revolutionary... by Moofie · 2004-01-12 13:38 · Score: 1
  
  Uh huh. and you're going to put water on the sponge and keep it from a) freezing and b) contaminating the science mission, how exactly?
  
  Fans, huh? You know how good fans are at blowing dust out of your computer case? they're even worse when you're dealing with an atmosphere 1/100 as dense as Earth's.
  
  Believe me. These engineers have spent WAY more time and brain power thinking about how to make this mission fail-safe than you have. If there were easy solutions, they'd have used them.
  
  --
  Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
2. Re:Call me a revolutionary... by leonbrooks · 2004-01-13 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Uh huh. and you're going to put water on the sponge
  
  No.
  
  You know how good fans are at blowing dust out of your computer case
  
  Actually, they're quite good at sucking dust in... through the CD drive, mostly.
  
  If there were easy solutions, they'd have used them.
  
  Maybe.
  
  Yes, they are good. No, they are not infallible.
  
  --
  Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Hmmm by Badboy+Recovered · 2004-01-10 11:31 · Score: 2, Funny

Maybe we got a Beagle under the bag? Which would explain why we have not removed the bag, as to not piss of the english :)
Funny? Sort of. Stupidly innacurate? Oh yes! by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-12 06:46 · Score: 0

The only bearing 30 minute lag time would have
is your finger twitching movements would take 30
minutes to be executed.

No..... Humor from blatent retardedness does
NOT appear funny to me.
teat by Anonymous Coward · 2004-01-12 10:10 · Score: 0

You can see here that natural processes most likely have occured in a similar manner Mars as they do on Earth. The rover is going to check out these rocks tomorrow or the next day if all goes well. It is exciting to see discovery and the scientific process in action. Who knows maybe water is very common there and thats what eroded this hole into this rock. In any case, sooner or later we are going to turn up water on mars, find life, and reaffirm how precious life on earth in its abundance indeed is.
about the whole airbag safety discussion going on by DFurno2003 · 2004-01-12 10:41 · Score: 1

what makes anyone think that being thrown from a vehicle they would in any way be thrown to safety?, most likely you would be thrown into oncoming traffic, or into the path of the train that just hit your car, etc, etc.... and furthermore, after being thrown from a vehicle, you most likely would becmoe airborne in a head forward fashion, which if my 7th grade science teacher was right, would send you flying head first into some obstacle, ... or are you all related to freaking bat man>?