Slashdot Mirror


Air Bag Blocks Spirit's Path

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'."

30 of 95 comments (clear)

  1. I told them... by Black+Parrot · · 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 ClippyHater · · Score: 2, Informative

      Which is why you'd have to bring along extra oxygen.

      You bean counter! :)

    2. Re:I told them... by bluGill · · 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.

  2. Are we sure... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    That it isn't really just some Martians up there messing with it to give us grief?

  3. Rover can use another ramp by Aglassis · · 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 saramakos · · 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.

    2. Re:Rover can use another ramp by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 5, Funny

      With the ~30 minutes lag, your finger-twitching reflexes "ain't gonna mean shit".

    3. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Eivind · · 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)

    4. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Eivind · · 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.

    5. Re:Rover can use another ramp by jabberjaw · · 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.

    6. Re:Rover can use another ramp by zeux · · 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.

    7. Re:Rover can use another ramp by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why not just roll off the alternate ramp and start exploring?

      TV ratings. Better to build up suspense first.

    8. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Uma+Thurman · · 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!
    9. Re:Rover can use another ramp by legoleg · · 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.

    10. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Uma+Thurman · · 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!
    11. Re:Rover can use another ramp by BlueEyes_Austin · · 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.)

    12. Re:Rover can use another ramp by Suidae · · Score: 2, Funny

      What? No self-righting mechanism? Somebody get those engineers rereuns of Battlebots!

  4. previous air bag difficulty by dagar17 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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.

  5. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by mrfunky405 · · 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.

  6. Any landing you can drive away from... by mhw25 · · 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.

  7. Re:Air bags are safety hazards by Mr.+Slippery · · 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 Mr.+Darl+McBride · · 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.

  9. Rename Spirit! by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 2, Funny


    Air Bag Blocks Spirit's Path. Hah.

    We should rename Spirit to Dolly. Or maybe Pamela. ;)

  10. I'm disapponted by Triv · · 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

  11. because de spite... by jefu · · 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.

  12. Solomon's Wisdom by jefu · · Score: 3, Funny

    To misquote Dick Solomon, Alien Physics Teacher :
    Trains don't kill people, physics kills people.

  13. Update on Situation by angryLNX · · 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.

  14. Hmmm by Badboy+Recovered · · 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 :)