Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover Rolls And Turns

hcg50a writes "MSNBC reports that overnight, 'the golfcart-sized rover cut the final cord tying it to the landing platform that it came in on 10 days ago, then backed up about 10 inches (25 centimeters) and turned 45 degrees. These were the first maneuvers planned in preparation for having Spirit roll 10 feet (3 meters) down a ramp onto the Martian surface on Wednesday night or early Thursday morning.' The NASA Mars rover website has complete animations from numerous cameras of the 45-degree turn. Driver training was never this cool!"

339 comments

  1. Fer fook's sake! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Drivers ed was never this slow!

    1. Re:Fer fook's sake! by BladeMelbourne · · Score: 1

      "Driver training was never this cool!"

      That confirms it - hcg50a has had too much coffee. Lucky I dont have such an expensive r/c vehicle. ;-)

  2. Teach it to fetch and sit by ObviousGuy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    You'd have yourself a Rover trained as well as an CEO?

    --
    I have been pwned because my /. password was too easy to guess.
  3. Wow! Metrics! by Snaller · · Score: 4, Funny

    How unslashdotian :o)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Wow! Metrics! by Xpilot · · Score: 2, Funny

      How unslashdotian :o)

      I bet Nasa uses metric. You can't say "within hollerin' distance" in space, because in space no can hear you scream (or holler).

      --
      "Backups are for wimps. Real men upload their data to an FTP site and have everyone else mirror it." -- Linus Torvalds
    2. Re:Wow! Metrics! by tommy_teardrop · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeh - because NASA would never fail to use metric units would they?

      --
      -- IANAL, BIPOOTV
    3. Re:Wow! Metrics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nasa switched to metric years ago, however some subcontractors use imperial units - which shouldn't be a problem, if you at least specify the units next to the data.

      As we all know, this was not always the case ...

    4. Re:Wow! Metrics! by jridley · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anybody doing anything nontrival should be using metric. My least favorite part of physics class was when the prof would make us do stuff in imperial units. God, what a pain in the ass.

      More steps, arcane conversion factors to remember, lots more chances to screw up.

      How many cubic inches in a gallon? Shit, I don't know. How many cubic centimeters in a litre? 1000. Everything's a power of 10. Doesn't get any easier than that.

      It gets worse when you're outside of familiar measurement units. When you start talking about slugs, even a farm-raised midwest american boy like me thinks "OK, that's a unit of mass, not weight, so it's converted to grams."

      I am immersed in imperial measurements, and don't have an intuitive feel for metric, but I know that if the US switched and it was full immersion, within a year I'd be thinking in metric. The problem is, you can't do full immersion, because people will always speak in the language that they know. The problem is, even future generations will not switch, because the US is big enough that they never have to deal with metric except as a curiosity in school.

    5. Re:Wow! Metrics! by sketerpot · · Score: 1
      They wouldn't, but their subcontractors certainly would, and (as you pointed out) did.

      Down with Imperial units! Metric now!

    6. Re:Wow! Metrics! by mwood · · Score: 1

      Am I totally uncool for thinking it strange that all the English linear measurements are translated to metric, but the angular measurements are given only in degrees and not translated to radians? :-)

    7. Re:Wow! Metrics! by Timmmm · · Score: 1

      Yes you are very uncool.
      General use of radians would be stupid.

    8. Re:Wow! Metrics! by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Am I totally uncool for thinking it strange that [...] measurements are given only in degrees

      Yes. And since you thought up that question at all, you were probably uncool beforehand as well. (j/k, I dunno)

    9. Re:Wow! Metrics! by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The problem is, you can't do full immersion, because people will always speak in the language that they know.

      I'm Canadian and have never known anything but metric. We were taught it in grade school. But I still tell people my height in feet and inches and my weight in pounds. I order meat from the supermarket in pounds too and the clerks don't ask me to repeat my order in kilograms. We still measure first downs in yards and photo sizes in inches. In fact, I just returned to school to study graphic arts and the first math course we took focussed on learning...Imperial! Why? Because paper sizes are expressed in inches and you buy ink in pounds in the United States and since the US is the number one economy in the world we had to learn it. My point is that Imperial sneaks in even in a country that has full immersion.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    10. Re:Wow! Metrics! by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Geek fun:

      "Hey look! It's a deer!"

      "Where?"

      "A quarter pi radians to your left!"

      "Huh?"

      On the other hand, what about grads? I don't remember exactly what they are, but my calculator can convert degrees to them.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    11. Re:Wow! Metrics! by mwood · · Score: 1

      90 degrees = 100 grads. Sorta like the percentage of a quadrant. Don't ask me where they are used, it ain't anywhere around here!

    12. Re:Wow! Metrics! by jridley · · Score: 1

      Doesn't sound like you were doing full immersion, does it?

    13. Re:Wow! Metrics! by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Some of them do, or so i have read ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    14. Re:Wow! Metrics! by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Baby steps ;)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    15. Re:Wow! Metrics! by daminotaur · · Score: 1

      >They wouldn't Bullshit! The manned program has long used English units. There are gauges in the Shuttle read acceleration in slugs/sec^2!--very little metric instrumentation, for the benefit of the pilots who learned it the old way. Or should I say current way, as most Americans still use English exclusively, and will for the foreseeable future. The Mars Orbiter snafu was between a military subcontractor using English vs, *JPL* which uses metric in its unmanned world.

    16. Re:Wow! Metrics! by sketerpot · · Score: 1

      Oops. Thanks for clearing that up. Darn newspapers not adequately differentiating between NASA and JPL....

    17. Re:Wow! Metrics! by trobrannus · · Score: 1

      Grads originate with the military, I think.

    18. Re:Wow! Metrics! by mwood · · Score: 1

      Duuh, a little thinking suggests that grads have something to do with the notion of e.g. a "40% grade". That would be at an angle of 40 grads to horizontal (about 36 degrees) I guess.

    19. Re:Wow! Metrics! by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "Anybody doing anything nontrival should be using metric. My least favorite part of physics class was when the prof would make us do stuff in imperial units. God, what a pain in the ass.

      More steps, arcane conversion factors to remember, lots more chances to screw up."


      Anybody doing anything nontrivial should be using a calculator. My least favorite part of math class was when the prof would make us do long division by hand. God, what a pain in the ass.

      More time, arcane multiplication tables to remember, lots more chances to screw up.

      "Easier" doesn't mean "better," especially when you're in a class learning as opposed to doing these things in the Real World. If nothing else it taught you to check your work as well as drive the point home that SI has been molded to the Real World instead of the other way around. F=ma * 1 in SI because the SI unit of force is younger than Sir Isaac by over a century (pushing 2, IIRC) and had the luxury of making the data fit the theory instead of the other way around.

      SI is still pretty damned screwy for discoveries that are quite a bit younger. Sure, it makes Newton's Law of Gravitation look prettier, but basing your units on the form of said law does absolutely nothing to make Coulomb's Law any easier to cope with. That's probably why SI is based off of current instead of charge.

      "How many cubic inches in a gallon?"

      In the US, 231. To quote a Deku Scrub, "23 is number 1!"

      In the UK, the number is ugly. Their legal definition of their gallon is based on SI units directly (defined as x number of liters) instead of indirectly as we do in the US (defined as x number of cuibic inches, where the inch is defined as 2.54 cm).

      "When you start talking about slugs, even a farm-raised midwest american boy like me"

      I sure hope you don't deal with acres and bushells, then.

      "OK, that's a unit of mass, not weight, so it's converted to grams."

      Actually, despite what all too many first-semester physics teachers talk about, the pound, too, is a unit of mass. The slug is another of those units far younger than Newton for the same reason from before. It's defined as 454-and-change grams, while the slug depends on both the pound and local gravitational acceleration. It's kinda hard to weigh steam, after all...

      Which brings up another guy who lived well after Newton that kinematics-based SI doesn't do so well with: Joule. The thermal engergy required to heat one cubic centimeter of water one Kelvin simply isn't an integer number of kg*m^2/s^2, let alone a power of ten.

      "The problem is, you can't do full immersion, because people will always speak in the language that they know."

      So here's a question, if we should all learn metric and nothing but metric, should we also all learn the English language and nothing but English? Even if books in another language don't translate easily to English?

      When the US purchased the Louisiana Territory, the land was still parcelled out using the royal French units like "toise" and "arpent." Because the US didn't use such units, the USGS had to go through and resurvey the whole thing, or at least the important parts. But even today those terms still persist in land deeds in the southeast US and Quebec has a similar problem. Keep in mind that surveying is a job where they care about the difference between 2.54 and (10 000/3937).

      If land measurement is too arcane for you, what about engines and power generation? The countries that have gone straight metric in the commercial sector as well as government have had to perform ignominious tasks like starting their steam tables over from scratch. When you must sell your products based on Joules and Watts, you can be forced to ignore two centuries of research simply because it was done in pounds, feet and Rankine.

    20. Re:Wow! Metrics! by jridley · · Score: 1

      Anybody doing anything nontrivial should be using a calculator. My least favorite part of math class was when the prof would make us do long division by hand. God, what a pain in the ass.

      You do the calculations with a calculator. But you need to set up the calculations on paper. I'm not talking about a few additions and multiplications, I'm talking about real physics problems, with dozens of steps, taking several sheets of paper.

      Yes, you do the MATH with a calculator, but you still have to set up the actual problem. Having to remember to include a bunch of conversions using strange numbers makes things needlessly complex.

      You have a few decent points in the rest of your message, BTW. But of course the one about not learning anything but English is nonsense. There is a cultural understanding and heritage to be had from other languages. There's pretty much nothing but confusion to be had from multiple systems of measurement.

      I'd have no problem with imperial measurements being presented in the same way that pre-standard measurements are presented now. "Check it out, a pound used to mean different things in different areas, as did all other units of measurements. Chaos! Really caused havoc for merchants!"

    21. Re:Wow! Metrics! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>how many cubic inches in a Gallon?

      From Google "convert cubic inches to gallons"

      convert cubic inches to gallons . Results 1 - 10 of about 16,400. Search took 0.07 seconds.

      1 cubic inches = 0.00432900431 US gallons

  4. Parallel parking is worth ten points by Tirinal · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can just imagine the conversations at NASA:

    "Hey, this gizmo thingy is pretty nifty."

    "You shouldn't fiddle with that, its highly delica-"

    "Dude, this thing has fourwheel drive! Can I go offroad? Please?"

    "Damnit, you can't just wa-"

    "Watch me do a barrel roll! Weeeee!!!"

    --
    ~Tirinal
    1. Re:Parallel parking is worth ten points by tonyr60 · · Score: 5, Funny

      And then...

      "Oh shit, I just ran over a Beagle"...

    2. Re:Parallel parking is worth ten points by woohoodonuts · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, this thing has fourwheel drive! Can I go offroad? Please?"

      I'd say this is about as far "off road" as you're gonna get.

    3. Re:Parallel parking is worth ten points by woohoodonuts · · Score: 2, Funny

      Dude, this thing has fourwheel drive! Can I go offroad? Please?

      speaking of off-roading... here's hoping they didn't use firestone tires.
      "Ummm... well, Boss... it appears we lost a little tread and blasted back into orbit."

    4. Re:Parallel parking is worth ten points by Soko · · Score: 5, Funny

      Beagle...Rover...

      Great. We're not on Mars yet and it's already gone to the dogs.

      Soko

      --
      "Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm." - Anonymous
    5. Re:Parallel parking is worth ten points by 216pi · · Score: 1

      "Dude, this thing has fourwheel drive! Can I go offroad? Please?"

      Shouldn't that be sixwheel drive?

    6. Re:Parallel parking is worth ten points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
      Are we there yet?

      No.

      Are we there yet?

      No!

    7. Re:Parallel parking is worth ten points by paradesign · · Score: 1
      "Now I'm going to sing the doom song! Doom do da do doo do do...!"

      sounds like a Zim plot to me.

      --
      I want 2D games back.
    8. Re:Parallel parking is worth ten points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're never going to stop being hounded by you jokesters.

    9. Re:Parallel parking is worth ten points by science_gone_bad · · Score: 1
      --
      "I never get lost because everybody tells me where to go"
  5. Shit... by boomgopher · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought at first the subject said: "Mars Rover Rolls And Burns"

    --
    Your hybrid is not saving the environment. Its purpose is to make you feel good about buying something.
    1. Re:Shit... by Basehart · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the headline is kind of confusing to those of us who know that we're still several hours away from rolling of any kind. When I saw the Rolls bit I suffered a brief pang of anxiety.

      But a headline consisting of Mars Rover Turns wouldn't really be a headline, would it!

    2. Re:Shit... by daeley · · Score: 4, Funny

      I saw "Turns" okay, but my flight sim experience translated "Rolls" into something assuredly awful. :)

      --
      I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
    3. Re:Shit... by Afrosheen · · Score: 0

      No, if that was the case, this story would be a dupe referring to the Beagle2.

    4. Re:Shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Considering the Martian atmosphere has 10^-7 oxygen molecules per square meter, I'd say the chances of anything burning there are pretty low.

      Myself, I read it as the rover rolled onto its back. Like an SUV or something.

      Mars rover, mars rover.. send water right over.

    5. Re:Shit... by jigyasubalak · · Score: 1

      Seriously! The subject made me jump off my seat. For a moment it had me thinking that something was really wrong with the machine. Had to read this post before I regained my breath back. Relief!

      Take it easy on our nerves... posters!

      --
      The best planning can be done after the project completes.
    6. Re:Shit... by AndroidCat · · Score: 2, Funny

      No and good thing too. I wouldn't want to put a tow-charge from the AAA on my credit card!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    7. Re:Shit... by sxpert · · Score: 1

      10^-7 oxygen molecules per square meter,
      that would be cubic meters

    8. Re:Shit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All this talk about mars gives me a crave for chocolate.

  6. So humans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... go to Mars for the untimate rock & roll experience? ;)

    1. Re:So humans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was the lamest thing I've ever heard.

  7. linux at nasa by xk · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Looks like they're using linux. Anyone know which GUI?

    here is the image.

    -bk.

    1. Re:linux at nasa by dmiller · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You mean "looks like they are using X" - it could easuly be BSD, Solaris or any other Unix-like OS.

    2. Re:linux at nasa by b17bmbr · · Score: 1

      it looks like an older 1.2 version of gtk/gnome. something like off of rh6.x, or thereabouts. wonder if they whipped together the UI using glade. which would make pretty decent sense. writing the rendering part would be hard, but then they are just extending the GtkCanvas really. it's really not difficult programatically, it is tough mathematically. you have to kow fractals, etc. not 1st semester calculus, that's for sure.

      --
      My problem? I was perfectly gruntled, until some numbnuts came by and dissed me.
    3. Re:linux at nasa by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Viz runs on Unix, Linux, or Windows according to the site, so it could be any number of GUIs.

    4. Re:linux at nasa by JPriest · · Score: 3, Informative

      True, and here it states that it uses QT from trolltech and open inventor from SGI. Many government organizations use IRIX so there is probably a strong possibility they are running IRIX. Government contracts currently make up most of SGI's revenue. I have seen many military computer systems running IRIX for things like large scale battle simulation.

      --
      Saying Java is nice because it works on all OS's is like saying that anal sex is nice because it works on all genders.
    5. Re:linux at nasa by noselasd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      According to some JPL people in #maestro , they use Sun boxes with Solaris, though seldom with CDE.

    6. Re:linux at nasa by mahdi13 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Linux? It looks like Windows 3.1 to me...

      Or Gnome in Red Hat 5.2!

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    7. Re:linux at nasa by operagost · · Score: 1

      I guess you haven't seen Windows 3.1 in a while. Definitely not Windows. NASA's shot has Windows 95-clone window controls. Could even be fvm95 for all I know.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:linux at nasa by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      The video from the control room clearly shows a number of Sun Workstations (or at least Sun-branded monitors.) The personnel were also using quite a number of Titanium PowerBooks, incidentally. Gee, what's missing from this picture? Moral: when it really counts, use a Unix based OS.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    9. Re:linux at nasa by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

      Wow, it HAS been a long time since I've seen Win3.1
      Then it does look early Gnomish to me

      And cool! 100% Troll! =)

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    10. Re:linux at nasa by shawnce · · Score: 1

      They also reported that a lot of the scientists use Mac OS X on PowerBooks for their day to day work.

      -Shawn

    11. Re:linux at nasa by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Pathfinder was done with a mix of Sun and SGI. Virtual controls were done on SGI.

    12. Re:linux at nasa by bhtooefr · · Score: 1

      No, it definitely looks like a Gnome or KDE theme (from what I've seen). FVWM95 looks like stock Windows 95, except the fonts are off a bit.

    13. Re:linux at nasa by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "You mean "looks like they are using X" - it could easuly be BSD"

      Would they jynx the mission by using a dying OS?

    14. Re:linux at nasa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if you look at some of the screen shots available from that site you'll notice they are all from windows 2000, with the exception of one from RH 7.3

  8. ignorant but curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sorry if this is a stupid question.. But why does it take so long for things to retract, the rover to move, etc etc. Obviously they want to be careful since they can't very well say "oops. pick it up and let's try again", but it's taking days for it to just move off the pad..

    1. Re:ignorant but curious... by Basehart · · Score: 0

      "it's taking days for it to just move off the pad"

      Because it's like really good sex...why rush it!

    2. Re:ignorant but curious... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, they have to do several other things at the same time.

      Firstly, going through engineering logs sent from the lander/rover. Every move, every action has to be verified and checked to make sure all went to plan. You can't just rely on a camera for that. You need sensor feedback, etc.

      Secondly, they have to survey the area to pick out possible travel routes and areas of interest.

      Remember, before they landed they had a -general- idea of where the lander was going to end up, but could only verify and pinpoint it after it landed, with extensive imagery and surveying.

    3. Re:ignorant but curious... by Gogo+Dodo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I think what the mission manager said summed it up pretty good: "brave, not stupid". Spaceflight.now

    4. Re:ignorant but curious... by Basehart · · Score: 1

      Actually scratch the sex bit - even though there is an analogy in there somewhere - but the why rush bit sticks.

    5. Re:ignorant but curious... by djupedal · · Score: 1

      They said that the pad it is on is the most difficult thing it will need to navigate while on Mars.....

    6. Re:ignorant but curious... by ScottMaxwell · · Score: 1
      But why does it take so long for things to retract, the rover to move, etc etc.

      If you had a four-hundred-million-dollar car, you'd drive carefully, too. Especially if the nearest mechanic were a hundred million miles away.

      I guarantee you we're every bit as eager to get driving as you are. Have patience, friend. We're doing science already, and we're only about one more day away from egress.

      --

      ``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
    7. Re:ignorant but curious... by MrEd · · Score: 1
      "brave, not stupid"


      I wish we could add that quote to this list. It's better than "resolve and committment", that's for sure.

      --

      Wah!

    8. Re:ignorant but curious... by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      Remember to that we can only talk to the lander while the Earth is above the horizon or Mars. I just found that a Mars day is 24.66 or so hours so they probably have about 12 each day when the Earth is visible and they communicate with it. The rest of the time is "wait for my masters back at the JPL to be visible again" time.

      There may be some sort of relaying going on with satellites here to get the signal out, no matter which way the Earth is facing but on the Mars side there is only one satellite flying in mars-stationary orbit so that won't effect the time too much.

      -Comedian

    9. Re:ignorant but curious... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Sorry if this is a stupid question.. But why does it take so long for things to retract, the rover to move, etc....

      It's being driven by a little old lady in Pasadena (location of JPL).

  9. Drivers ed. by OgreFade · · Score: 5, Funny

    At least at NASA the backseat drivers are qualified enough to give criticism.

    If NASA failed this driving test it would be huge waste of resources. How could they ever live it down? Imagine the headline:

    "Rover drives off the side of ramp, breaks off two wheels, and a solar panel."

    And the story afterward!

    "Felix Milton man in charge of rover navigation watched in horror as the picture feed reached earth. "The rover wheel slipped off the side of the ramp due to some... er.. martian dust," Milton reported. All in all the rover took a five meter trip, and then reported fell 25 cm to the unforgiving martian ground. NASA spokesmen report the trip took 8 agonizing minutes to reach its conclusion. "

    Ahh well I hope its fun for them, expensive remote control toy if you ask me. I hope we get solid answers for the questions this project was sent to investigate.

    1. Re:Drivers ed. by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      I wonder how smart the Rover is about handling the unexpected? i.e. The Mars Rover rolls down ramp and runs over waiting Martain. Eight minutes later on Earth, "D'OH!"

      I wonder if the Rover has the legally mandated beeper for reverse? Sure, I'm kidding but eventually someone is going to have to fill out paperwork as to why the Rover doesn't have to meet standards for earthly gadgets of whatever class it would fall into. NASA had to fill out paperwork for the shuttles for international aviation regs in case one had to make an emergency landing somewhere not covered by treaty.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Drivers ed. by Radius9 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I saw a special on the news on this, where they were using an identical mars rover here on earth, and trying to get it to drive off a cliff. They were doing this somewhere near CalTech/JPL I believe. Anyway, the rover has a bunch of sensors that detect dangerous situations, and it will not respond to the commands if they would put the rover in jeopardy. So basically, they were not able to drive the rover off a cliff, no matter how hard they tried.

    3. Re:Drivers ed. by confused+one · · Score: 1

      While that's true in autonomous mode, currently their totally in manual mode.

  10. Raise Your Goblet of Rock by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For those about to rock, we salute you.

  11. Grandma by ericdano · · Score: 4, Funny

    Geeze, and I thought my Grandma's driving was slow. Perhaps if the Rover was using a hands-free cell phone attachment it could concentrate on driving more....

    --
    It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
    I moderate therefore I rule!
    --
    1. Re:Grandma by jigyasubalak · · Score: 1

      If it had been my kick-ass rover there, it'd have honked the sh*t outta that super-grampa rover called Spirit. Now, what kinda name is that for something so slow, for chris' sake.

      --
      The best planning can be done after the project completes.
    2. Re:Grandma by tradero · · Score: 1

      Rover? This is Mission Control. Your left blinker has been on for the last 300,000,000 miles. Over.

    3. Re:Grandma by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HA!

  12. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by OpenBoot+Troll · · Score: 0
    ping: unknown host aptsource.spirit.downloads.nasa.gov

    Dumass mods can't even spot a troll a mile off, puh.

    --
    OpenBoot is a trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
  13. Rolls over sounds like some kind of disaster by j_dot_bomb · · Score: 0

    I didnt think the thing was acrobatic too.

  14. Am I the only one? by eclectro · · Score: 0, Troll

    Seriously, call me when the rover is "on the ground" , trying to find signs of water.

    Nothing that they are doing now, i.e. preparation for egress, really isn't news.

    I'm tired of hearing that the rover has "moved 10 inches" on its pad or "turned" on its pad. What makes that "special".

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Am I the only one? by dekashizl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These rover updates are BY FAR more newsworthy than the latest Scott Peterson updates that seem to come in every couple of days on nearly all major news outlets.

      Updates on the progress of the rover are NEW, and they are NEWS. I completely understand if you don't find it interesting, but in that case why do you click on the headlines, read the stories, and post about them? Just ignore them.

      --
      For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
      Mars Exploration Rover Highlights (AXCH).

    2. Re:Am I the only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes that "special"

      Oh, I don't know. Maybe it's that the rover is over 40 million miles away?

    3. Re:Am I the only one? by eclectro · · Score: 0, Troll


      Anyway you look at it, it's still a glorified RC car.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    4. Re:Am I the only one? by Gherald · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you had a glorified RC car that worked 40 million miles away, I'd be jealous.

    5. Re:Am I the only one? by thelexx · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As someone who has a few rc airplanes, I do find it newsworthy that it was actually able to move and complete a basic turn. Simply, it's the first time some its drive components are being tested. After its rolling and everything is _actually_ working ok, instead of just not being obviously broken and lighting up someones panel, then I'd agree and say it won't really be news until something breaks, gets discovered or the mission goes eol.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
    6. Re:Am I the only one? by Chorian · · Score: 1

      If you had a glorified RC car that worked 40 million miles away it would be on slashdot. Many lesser gizmos are.

  15. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by spacecowboy420 · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Ok, I use apt, but I am using fedora. Now I can imagine a couple of ways to do this, but is there an elegant solution already available for working with packages/repositories from different distributions?

    --
    ymmv
  16. Am I... by Vrallis · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Am I the only person who started to mis-read that as 'The mars rover rolls over,' and suddenly felt their stomach hit the floor?

    1. Re:Am I... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      No, I too mis-read it that way, and felt my stomach drop.

      What sort of sad geeks are we?

    2. Re:Am I... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, maybe that's what happened to the Beagle. It rolled over ...

      - I post anonymously so you don't have to.

    3. Re:Am I... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The redundant mod probably answered that question.

    4. Re:Am I... by Plocmstart · · Score: 1

      Yeah I thought it rolled over too, but then I think my stomach fell when I realized all it did was barely move. Will slashdot be covering play-by-play moves? NASA should look to battle bots for inspiration. Some of those bots can roll over and still keep going. Hurray for garage hobbies!

  17. nice big ass picture by tankdilla · · Score: 1

    that 7 meg picture is pretty sweet, and bland, but cool bland.

    --

    -Look lively. LOOK LIVELY!!! --Mr. Shmallow

    1. Re:nice big ass picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when I read "big ass picture" I think on goatse, is that worng?

  18. Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad their conversions are off:
    10 in = 25.4 cm
    10 ft = 3.05 m

  19. Question.. by RALE007 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The ground looks like it's been disturbed in the panoramic image from the website. A few locations, most notibly a little left of the "Northwest Hill 335.9 Azimuth 11.2 Kilometers" marking looks like it could've been caused by the rovers bouncing airbag landing. Anyone know for certain or can identify any terrain disturbed by the landing?

    --
    Beware blue cats moving at .99c
    1. Re:Question.. by Afrosheen · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's possible the martian terrain has been disturbed by images of the goatse man. Nasa has it plastered on the surface of the rover to deter thiefs and martian ghosts.

      So disgusting, even dirt crawls away.

    2. Re:Question.. by HoneyBunchesOfGoats · · Score: 1

      There is an area at the bottom of that image that looks like it's been blacked out, stretching across the whole thing, anybody know why? Classified? Or is it a technical reason perhaps?

    3. Re:Question.. by SnowZero · · Score: 1

      Here's another good picture of some disturbed ground. I'm not sure if NASA has named it yet.

    4. Re:Question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strangely enough, when they looked closer at that face on Mars, well, it wasn't.

    5. Re:Question.. by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 2, Informative

      The blacked out bits are because the panoramic camera can't "see" that part of the rover.

      To use an analogy, if you're standing up and looking straight ahead, you can't see your shoes.

      Unless you're Ronald McDonald, of course.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    6. Re:Question.. by elrond1999 · · Score: 1

      Yepp.. Those dark patches has been confirmed by nasa as places where the airbags have rolled. They are reconstructing exactly how the over came to rest after descent and will be releasing an animation next week. (At least thats what they promised yesterday)

      BTW the rover bounced 28 times before coming to rest. That must have looked pretty stupid from a martian point of view. Suddenly someone just drops a huge bouncing ball on your planet..

    7. Re:Question.. by Orion442 · · Score: 1

      Its to hide the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator.

    8. Re:Question.. by mahdi13 · · Score: 1

      That's awesome! A little like the 'face' but I don't think they can blame this one on 'tricks from shadows'

      --
      "Some things have to be believed to be seen." - Ralph Hodgson
    9. Re:Question.. by Radius9 · · Score: 1

      This question was asked before. Its because the images get sent in packets, with each packet making up a square/rectangular area on the screen. Sometimes the packets don't get transmitted correctly, due to interference, etc., and those parts of the picture are then dropped out. If a part of a picture gets dropped out that NASA thinks is important and they feel they have to see it, they will just have the rover send a picture a second time.

    10. Re:Question.. by ScottMaxwell · · Score: 1
      Anyone know for certain or can identify any terrain disturbed by the landing?
      There are a couple of likely bounce marks in Sleepy Hollow. Look approximately in the current egress direction, straight up from the rover's right "wing" in the panorama. The dark circular features are where the airbags disturbed the soil (or this is the current belief, at any rate).

      There's another one just above the tip of the right "wing."

      You can see a few more in the panorama, but the locations are harder to describe.

      --

      ``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
    11. Re:Question.. by cyberfringe · · Score: 1

      If you look at some of the high res images you can see circular marks. There is one fairly close to the lander that is clear in one image. I was told today that these marks are from the bags.

      --
      There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
  20. Looks like Windows to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Maybe if the Lunix community came up with an original GUI, it'd be more easily recognized.

    1. Re:Looks like Windows to me by Enoch+Root · · Score: 1

      Damn... Too bad I can't mod THAT up!

    2. Re:Looks like Windows to me by AllUsernamesAreGone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, and then we'd have people whiging about how it's too difficult for Windows users to convert to, how it violates "industry standards" for GUIs, how the fact that it can predict what you're doing and do half your work for you is just annoying....

      No matter what linux GUI designers try, they'll be criticised.

    3. Re:Looks like Windows to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      No matter what linux GUI designers try, they'll be criticised.
      Scratch the word "linux" and you get a more general, but still true statement. GUI design necessarily involves compromise, so someone's always unhappy.
  21. What happened to Beagle? by edxwelch · · Score: 4, Informative

    In this story http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/040113reconstr uction.html
    It says that the atmosphere was much thinner than expected, because of a dust storm. NASA changed the chute to deploy earlier because of this, but even with this adjustment the chute opened a mile lower than expected. As far as I know Beagle's chute deployment was never adjusted for the thinner atmosphere, so maybe that explains why they haven't heard from it

    1. Re:What happened to Beagle? by Llywelyn · · Score: 3, Funny

      That WOULD mean it really is "in a crater." So they were at least partly right.

      --
      Integrate Keynote and LaTeX
    2. Re:What happened to Beagle? by elrond1999 · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, thats flat out wrong. The atmosphere was not much thinner that expected. There was however weather when they landed. The end of the recent dust storm seems to have caused an updraft as they landed, this caused the computers to deploy the chute lower than expected, but well within parameters. There was nothing wrong with the atmosphere models that Nasa used, and the weather was expected. In fact if you have watched the Nasa press conferences you would have seen that the temperature models of the atmosphere was exactly as predicted.

      Spirit did however use rockets to slow the descent horizontaly and verticaly just before the rover was released from the chutes. (See the Spirit animation for a cool view of that) If they hadn't used the rockets the airbag might have popped and Spirit would certainly have bounced and rolled much farther. I don't know if Beagle used any retrorockets, and if they didn't Beagle might have skipped and bounced into a crater.

    3. Re:What happened to Beagle? by edxwelch · · Score: 3, Informative

      Sorry, but your wrong, according to an earlier artical
      (http://spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/stat us2.html) :

      "Meanwhile, two changes have been made. Spirit will unfurl its parachute two seconds sooner than originally planned to compensate for current Martian weather conditions.

      "A dust storm seen on the other side of the planet has caused global heating and thinning of the atmosphere at high altitudes," said Mark Adler, the rover mission manager for cruise and entry, descent and landing (EDL)."

      The question is: Did Beagle also make this adjustment?

    4. Re:What happened to Beagle? by elrond1999 · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll eat some humble pie. But did the Beagle people actually have an opportunity to adjust the parachute? If I remember they deployed it from Mars Express long before it landed. Did they have contact with Beagle after it was deployed?

      With the MER they were in direct contact with the lander as it was entering the atmosphere and almost all the time thruout the landing. With Beagle I don't think they did..

    5. Re:What happened to Beagle? by sgt101 · · Score: 1

      - Beagle was much lighter than Spirit and so did not include retro rockets in the design. The Spirit system required retros because the weight would cause the impact stress to exceed the maximum stress that airbags can endure.

      - Beagle did not have decent communication, again due to weight. This time though they didn't put this feature in in order to save weight and cost. The parachute was deployed after re-entry (if it was deployed at all) and so there was no contact with the craft at this time.

      I saw an interesting documentary about Spirit over christmas. On it they showed that the Nasa team had problems with both the airbags tearing and the chute failing to open in wind tunnel tests. I think that the Nasa budget enabled extensive testing and fixing of these problems, while the shoestring Beagle effort was able to do only limited testing. Event then I believe that the airbags were a major issue for Beagle.

      Of course Beagle is a success in relative terms, the probe was built, launched, taken to Mars orbit, and released. I wish I had ever been involved in a project that did such a string of hard things so well. Sadly, there was at least one thing that doesn't seem to have worked. I hope that the little bugger wakes up in the next few months and proves us all wrong though. Roll on Beagle 3!!!!

      --
      --------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
    6. Re:What happened to Beagle? by Richy_T · · Score: 1
      The parachute was deployed after re-entry


      Can it really be called re-entry?


      Rich

    7. Re:What happened to Beagle? by confused+one · · Score: 1
      Opportunity was much more sophisticated than Beagle.

      During the decent, there was no communications with Beagle. They simply expected it to send back a "We're there" signal once it was all over. Opportunity was sending back telemetry to JPL for most of the decent phase.

      Beagle was not able to dynamically adjust it's decent -- it was pre-programmed. Opportunity was dynamically adjusting it's decent as it went. That's why they didn't get the parachute deployment or tether cut when the expected on Opportunity: The computer(s) on Opportunity were fine-tuning the decent based on feedback from it's sensors. It decided to wait on the parachute. Then once it was close to the ground, there was a sudden wind gust and it corrected for that before cutting the tether.

    8. Re:What happened to Beagle? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Can it really be called re-entry?

      Only if it bounces really really high :-)

    9. Re:What happened to Beagle? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Spirit! Spirit! Spirit! Damn it I did it again. It's the rover Spirit not Opportunity. That one doesn't get there until the 24th...

    10. Re:What happened to Beagle? by sgt101 · · Score: 1

      ok, ok; what do you call it though?

      Mars insertion just sounds too bad!!

      --
      --------------------------------------------- "In the end, we're all just water and old stars."
  22. The perils of creationism by flopsy+mopsalon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I read this in a column on the internet:

    "Kathy Sarvak of Burlington, Vt., points out that European Space Agency's "Beagle 2," named in honor of Charles Darwin's vessel, failed at Mars while NASA's "Spirit," with its quasi-religious name, succeeded. "God's sense of humor is a wonderful thing," she declares."

    Personally, I am shocked and appalled that our NASA technicians are giving quasi-religious names to scientific equipment. This shows no faith in reason and deduction. It would not surprise me if the data from Spirit is cooked up by creationists in the Bush administration to shore up their own wacky beliefs.

    I hope NASA's scientists use more common sense next time.

    1. Re:The perils of creationism by CHaN_316 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Before you're shocked and appalled for NASA technicians giving quasi-religious names to scientific equipment, maybe you should read how NASA came up with these names.

      And I quote from the winning child's essay that named the rovers:

      I used to live in an Orphanage.
      It was dark and cold and lonely.
      At night, I looked up at the sparkly sky and felt better.
      I dreamed I could fly there.
      In America, I can make all my dreams come true.....
      Thank-you for the "Spirit" and the "Opportunity"

      -Sofi Collis, age 9


      Heaven forbid that NASA names the rovers after the things that make America great. Oops...probably shouldn't have mentioned Heaven :P

      --
      "There is no spoon." - The Matrix
    2. Re:The perils of creationism by bonzomcgrue · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here are the definitions of spirit. I've never thought of it as necessarily quasi-religious.

    3. Re:The perils of creationism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been campaigning* to have the Rovers renamed - to Fear and Panic. Utterly appropriate for Mars, and in keeping with George Dubya's policy of Shock and Awe...

    4. Re:The perils of creationism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Little kids and spirits?

      Didn you know that, "You can't give booze to a baby, give it a cigarette instead!"

    5. Re:The perils of creationism by SnowZero · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually spirit is named as in "wines and spirits", for highly alcoholic beverages such as moonshine that helped make America great. Opportunity is named for what NASA scientists never had with girls while they were in school. But by naming the rover that it helps to make up for it.

      The next two rovers we're planning on sending are "player" and "bacardi 151".

    6. Re:The perils of creationism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "This shows no faith..."

      Faith, huh?

    7. Re:The perils of creationism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "the things that make America great"?

      You haven't been paying attention lately, have you?

    8. Re:The perils of creationism by odeee · · Score: 0

      Why would you be shocked and appalled that they are giving quasi-religious names to the equipment that is exploring space. Pretty much every object that we know by name in space is named after a religious figure. Mercury, Mars, Venus, etc. And the days of the week/month have similar derivatives... do you want to change them too?

    9. Re:The perils of creationism by Gothmolly · · Score: 1

      Please justify this crap. Sources???

      --
      I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    10. Re:The perils of creationism by The+Fun+Guy · · Score: 1

      This is a VERY TOUCHING STORY that shows GODS plan for EVERYONE!!!!!!! It was sent to me by a US Senator who is not afraid to Speak OUT for JESUS!! Forward this story to EVERYONE you know!!!!! (Bill Gates will donate $1000 for every 100 e.mails!) JESUS DIED FOR YOUR SINS!!!!!!!!!

      GOD Bless America!!!!! We Remember 9/11!!!!!!!
      ETC!!!!! ETC!!!!!!!

      --
      The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who cannot read them. - Mark Twain
    11. Re:The perils of creationism by pclminion · · Score: 1
      Oh come off it. "Faith" indicates a hope or belief in something without concrete evidence to support it. Being religious requires faith, but the converse isn't true.

      If we always required ourselves to have concrete evidence to support whatever we're about to do, we'd never do anything. Ambition always requires some degree of faith.

      And even if the term "Spirit" really was religious in nature, what would it matter? Did religion and science suddenly become opposites while I was sleeping? Sagan wrote a story where a key plot point was the friction between science and religion, but some people seem to take that story far too seriously.

    12. Re:The perils of creationism by daminotaur · · Score: 1
      Many of the JPL scientists are Bible-thumpers in their spare time--e.g., Jennifer Harris, Peter Smith. The latter was praising the lord in a press conference after the Pathfinder landing.

      Seems like an odd mix to me, but Mars has always evoked a quasi-religious fervor in the search for life there. No matter how much evidence rolls in that it's a cold, dry, dead planet, true believers won't let it go, despite lack of evidence. Life always just has to be hiding in the next layer down, currently beneath the surface. Likewise there's room for God in the first femtosecond of the Big Bang maybe? So that's the faith connection I guess.

    13. Re:The perils of creationism by comedian23 · · Score: 1

      The post you are replying to is saying that the OP claims "spirit" is bad but uses "faith" in their own post. In other words they are on your side. As am I.

      -Comedian

    14. Re:The perils of creationism by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      "Kathy Sarvak of Burlington, Vt., points out that European Space Agency's "Beagle 2," named in honor of Charles Darwin's vessel, failed at Mars while NASA's "Spirit," with its quasi-religious name, succeeded. "God's sense of humor is a wonderful thing," she declares."
      Apparently God also thinks that the names "Apollo," "SOHO," "Voyager," "Galileo," and "Viking" are hilarious, but frowns upon the names "Mars Polar Surveyor," "Challenger," and "Columbia."

      In the future I suggest that NASA name their probes along the lines of "Adaptive Radiation," "Punctuated Equilibrium," and "Darwin Owns Your Ass" just to shut up creationist dipshits like Kathy Sarvak of Burlington, VT.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    15. Re:The perils of creationism by sambira · · Score: 1

      Or is that Charles Schulz' Beagle (i.e. Snoopy)?

  23. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Ping is not the best way to check if a host works. Some servers reject ICMP echo request: Slashdot for instance. It would be better to use netcat to connect to the http port.
    C:\>nc -vv aptsource.spirit.downloads.nasa.gov http
    aptsource.spirit.downloads.nasa.gov: forward host lookup failed: h_errno 11004: NO_DATA
  24. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Hai,

    This is Dr. Darkus Shin from mission control at JPL. It's true we been Debian fans and used that Operating system on every martian probe mission.

    But recently due to an informative article from SCO ceo Mr. Darl McBride, we are influenced to try other operating systems.

    Thus, there are two camps here on JPL, one the boy scouts camp running Apple's Operating System X and the other the Mars team running Gentoo GNU Linux.

    Now, me I don't really know what the boys are doing up in their camp, we rarely hear much from them, but during late night we do hear a lot of celebrations and feasting. I do hope they would stop slaughtering the wild life.

    And now since we are running Gentoo GNU Linux, the Debian way has been appricated (I'm sorry I'm dyslixc). The only sanatised way to do is is as follows (provided the enviornment varible JPL is not strange, in a quantum sense).

    1. Make sure JPL is not strange.
    2. Edit the kernel to make sure it knows what we are doing (thx to McBride for this).
    3. Build the images from source by using

    emerge mars-crap

    Ok this would build it from source, it's optimized for the 8086 enviornment and should automatically launce Internet Explorer and show the pictures.

    I hope you all build from source without downloading huge images. The source files are relatively small and use sophisticated imaging algorythems to guess the formations found on mars.

    Dr. Darkus "Amaafui" Shin
    Mission Control

    --
    "HI, my name is Darkus, if u r a lady who wants me, come click on the link to match.com, i'm waiting 4 u, i kiss u"

  25. Darnit! by graveyardduckx · · Score: 0

    I read the topic and thought it rolled off the edge of the ramp. Wouldn't that suck for NASA? Seriously though, this reminds me of the parents of a newborn, video taping every waking moment of it's life and making a big deal about it's first steps... next thing you know it's going to be getting speeding tickets and brought home by the intergalatic space patrol.

  26. Reasons why it takes so long by dekashizl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    But why does it take so long for things to retract, the rover to move, etc etc.

    OK, this is a fair question. Here are four big reasons.

    1. As soon as it disembarks, there are hundreds of new risk factors that come up. So they want to make sure that if anything fails (e.g. airbag catches a wheel and knocks it over, breaking off the high gain antenna), at least they've gotten something for their incredible effort.

    2. They ARE conducting scientific experiments while it is safely on the lander. It is furthermore slightly elevated and able to take panoramic photos from a position it will not again regain when on ground level.

    3. Getting off the lander is DELICATE. There is a ~10 minute communications lag, which means ~20 minutes to give a command and see the results. This means everything must be done very carefully and very cautiously to make sure each minor step went off perfectly.

    4. If they did it quickly and something broke, every "genius" on the internet would be saying how stupid NASA was for rushing ahead and how they never get anything right and were just trying to get publicity and blah blah blah blah blah. So let them do it the right way so the mission is a success.

    --
    For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
    Mars Exploration Rover Highlights (AXCH).

    1. Re:Reasons why it takes so long by cmacb · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yeah I agree with parent. I'm glad they took lots of nice high resolution photos now, and even gathered some other data on temperatures, spectroscopy etc. rather than doing the risky business sooner. They in fact explained this at one of the press conferences. Having gotten past the riskiest part of the mission (the landing) they want to take advantage of that achievement while they can rather than proceeding with other risky maneuvers first. From here on out, every move, every pyro firing, and so on will potentially lead to dead air on their communications link.

      If I were them I wouldn't want to take any more risks than necessary until after the second lander is safely down, and of course there is a significant chance that it will vanish and never be heard from just like the Beagle2. With all the work that went into this thing they have every right to be cautious.

    2. Re:Reasons why it takes so long by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      With the longer range probes like the Voyagers, etc, didn't they use a two-stage command cycle? i.e. send the command, have the probe return the command to verify, send a commit order...

      The would get old real .. slow .. on Mars, but I doubt they use that.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:Reasons why it takes so long by Cujo · · Score: 1

      There's no need for that anymore. Today's command protocols are pretty much bulletproof, and you can also send up a whole bunch of commands ahead of time as command macros .

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

    4. Re:Reasons why it takes so long by aiabx · · Score: 1

      You need more responsiveness on Mars. If you send a bad command to Voyager, you have weeks before a crash will occur to correct the error. On Mars, the Rover can roll and fall sideways off the ramp before you can say "oops".
      -aiabx

      --
      Just this guy, you know?
    5. Re:Reasons why it takes so long by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      Oh sure. On a space probe, you've got months to set up the exact aim for a bullseye--and only one chance to make it. So why not make sure it's right?

      With Mars, unless the human life-span is vastly increased, we need a lot more local smarts on the probe so that we can give it higher level commands like "go over to that rock and take a sample" rather than "move forward 10 cm, stop, 10 degrees left, stop..."

      I expect that they are taking it very slowly right now, and will let the Rover do more of the driving later on.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    6. Re:Reasons why it takes so long by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      I'd say the communications lag is a biggie. I'm pretty sure much of the basic movements are automated (turn 15 degrees clockwise, move 10 cm foreward...). But I'd liken it to driving a car when you have to drive with your eyes shut and can only open them for 1 second out of every 5. How fast do you think you can drive without crashing?

    7. Re:Reasons why it takes so long by sambira · · Score: 1

      Reading this response prompted me to ask the following question:

      I was watching a show on Discover about the creation of this Rover and it's twin. Everyone was handling things carefully and in a "clean room" environment. My question is, why do they do this when the environment on Mars is full of dust, dirt, temperature variations, etc. that are not tested for on Earth? It seems that if a part is going to break or have problems with dust and dirt, shouldn't it be found out on Earth rather than on Mars?

    8. Re:Reasons why it takes so long by odd-but-not-out · · Score: 1

      I too don't know...

    9. Re:Reasons why it takes so long by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out: What about sports????

  27. Mod the parent up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL, that was funny. I guess no one figured the grandfather post was by Debian troll.

  28. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 5, Informative

    The URL to add to your apt.sources file is aptsource.spirit.downloads.nasa.gov. To grab the latest image updates, just issue this at the command line: apt-get update nasa-spirit-images

    This is a complete fake. Neither host nor domain exist, nor is the information sufficient to populate a sources.list (the file isn't even called apt.sources), and the apt-get update command doesn't accept a package name, either.

    sigh

  29. More: Mars Exploration Rover Highlights (AXCH) by dekashizl · · Score: 4, Informative

    For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
    Mars Exploration Rover Highlights (AXCH).

  30. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    hahaha slashdot mods are quite stupid.

  31. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Woah there moderators, that post was certainly not flamebait. Did you read the parent post of it (which was a troll post). I think Dr. Darkus is trying to point this out. I thought it was funny since it's so obvious.

  32. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by OpenBoot+Troll · · Score: 0

    I wasn't checking a host, I was cheking a DNS entry. It didn't resolve.

    --
    OpenBoot is a trademark of Sun Microsystems, Inc.
  33. Re:Remember! Don't drink and drive. by Oriumpor · · Score: 1


    Uncle Jimbo: Now boys, boys, I, I need to get serious for a minute. I want you to understand a few basic rules of interplanetary rover RC, since this is your first time. First, don't ever walk with your gun unless the safety's on. Second, don't shoot anything that looks martian and third, never spill your beer on the mission control computer.
    Peter Theisinger: Uh, Uncle Jimbo, we don't drink beer.
    Uncle Jimbo: You what?!?
    Ned: Moh yeh, that's right, I don't think geeks drink beer, mmm.
    Jan Chodas: I like chocolate milk.
    Uncle Jimbo: Well, we'll be doing plenty of drinking on this trip; After all, scientific research sober is like ... fishing ... sober.

  34. Spammers Using Mars Rover as Relay by odeee · · Score: 5, Funny

    Spammers Using Mars Rover as Relay


    "NASA engineers first became aware the issue when the images of the Martian landscape from the pancam started to resemble hot young girls"br>
    ...

    "NASA promised to track down the people responsible. "Please send to us any spam you receive originating from the '@spirit.mars' address, so we can track down the offending spammers. Don't forget to include the pictures too,"

    1. Re:Spammers Using Mars Rover as Relay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They just want our pr0n. Mars (engineers) needs women!

  35. YHBT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA uses metric... the imperial values are wrong.
    ROR!

    1. Re:YHBT by Mr+Guy · · Score: 1

      Hence the word, "about"

  36. Oh wow the world is going on a big road trip. by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

    Isn't it neat. The whole world is going on a roadtrip around mars. It's like the whole planet is getting towed along behind the rover :).

    1. Re:Oh wow the world is going on a big road trip. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude...

      Road Trip!!!!

    2. Re:Oh wow the world is going on a big road trip. by Snosty · · Score: 1

      Road trip?

      Are we there yet? Are we there yet?

    3. Re:Oh wow the world is going on a big road trip. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No wonder it's going so slow. All those washroom stops. You should have gone before we left!

  37. Re:Ground disturbance by dekashizl · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There is the "Magic Carpet" which is the odd deformation of soil left after the airbag was retracted back under the lander to clear the way for the rover. This is right next to the lander.

    Further out, there are numerous marks where the lander bounced during its landing stage and the airbags deformed the soil from impacts.

    So basically, as far as I can tell, all the markings are from the airbag, either bouncing or scraping on the surface.

    --
    For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
    Mars Exploration Rover Highlights (AXCH).

  38. kilometers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why NASA writes "kilometers" instead of "km" is beyond me. After all these years they still speak metric like a second language. Hint: "kilo" replaces 3 zeros with 4 characters, it doesn't make things shorter.

    1. Re:kilometers? by Gherald · · Score: 1

      wrong, "kilometers" is shorter than "1000 meters".

      NASA writes "kilometers" instead of "km" because they are trying to target as wide of an audience as possible, and there still are many people in the US who have NO IDEA that "km" means "kilometer."

    2. Re:kilometers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " NASA writes 'kilometers' instead of 'km' because they are trying to target as wide of an audience as possible, and there still are many people in the US who have NO IDEA that 'km' means 'kilometer.'"

      And, you know, this is no time to start learning. There's, like, terrorists and stuff! Get the kids in the SUV, Marge, we're goin' to the mall!

      Seriously; you're suggesting that pandering to ignorance - worse yet, by an ostensibly scientific organization - is OK? "Dumbing down" for Americans is acceptable? Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that it's attitudes like that that are responsible for this ignorance in the first place...

      (posted AC because I've already moderated in this thread.)

    3. Re:kilometers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >"Dumbing down" for Americans is acceptable?

      When its their tax dollars funding this thing then sure. Why don't you euros go ahead and send up your own mars probe if you don't like the way our organization does it. Oh shi

    4. Re:kilometers? by CommandNotFound · · Score: 1

      wrong, "kilometers" is shorter than "1000 meters".

      You had me worried until I realized you were talking about a string compare... For a second I thought I misunderstood the whole metric system.

    5. Re:kilometers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that it's attitudes like that that are responsible for this ignorance in the first place...

      It's more likely to be your crumbling education system and a "culture" that values wealth above learning and wisdom.

    6. Re:kilometers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > wrong, "kilometers" is shorter than "1000 meters".

      2 kilometers
      2000 meters
      3.4 kilometers
      3400 meters

      Whoops?

    7. Re:kilometers? by bhtooefr · · Score: 1
      kilometers
      1000 meters
      Which one ends first?
      Kilometers is 10 characters long, 1000 meters is 11.
  39. BigTrak! by frankthechicken · · Score: 2, Funny

    Pfft, I was doing this sort of stuff years ago on my BigTrak

  40. I scanned that as "Mars Rover Rolls Over on Turn" by Excarnate · · Score: 1


    Good adrenaline rush, though!

    --
    .signature: No such file or directory
  41. You're irrelevant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because I do consider them news. Therefore they get posted.

  42. Roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And was the message "roll over Red Rover"?

    1. Re:Roll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Red rocket! Red rocket!"

  43. Watch out the count by Swai · · Score: 1

    If the count reaches 10 is a technical K.O. (knock out).

  44. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by eclectro · · Score: 1


    At least you didn't find a gaping red hole.

    I would call it a good day.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  45. Render wrong in Mozilla by hey · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That MSNBC page rendering wrong in Mozilla 1.5 on NT for me. There a big chunk of white on the right where I assume the article is supposed to be. The article is found down at the bottom. Its been a long time since a page didn't render correctly in Moz. Is MS being bad?

    1. Re:Render wrong in Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mozilla 1.5 on linux works fine. You could try mozilla firebird instead.

    2. Re:Render wrong in Mozilla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm getting the same problem with Mozilla 1.5 on 2000.

    3. Re:Render wrong in Mozilla by rinus34 · · Score: 1

      i think you have to scroll down first.

  46. Mars Advertising Opportunities by pipingguy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    There is the "Magic Carpet" which is...

    Oooh yeah, buzzwords! Sleepy Hollow!

    When is the scheduled bump into the Radio Shack or Coke logo-ed Mars rock?

    PS/OT: Does the off-centered "R" in Radio Shack's logo (circle containing the letter "R") have anything to do with legal matters? I've always wondered about that.

  47. Whoop Whoop. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rover: Wirrrrrrr (crawls forawrd)
    Martian Highway Patrol (MHP): Whoop Whoop! Pull over!
    Rover: Wirrrr Click
    MHP: You got a license for that thing?
    Rover: Wirrrrrrrr Click Click Zoommm
    MHP: Funny guy eh? (pulls ray-gun(tm))
    Rover: !
    ZAP!

    1. Re:Whoop Whoop. by planetsphinx · · Score: 1

      you forgot 2 steps..

      .....?
      Profit!

      --
      -Mikey
  48. paint drying by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    Although I admit, this is some cool ass shit, it's slower than watching paint dry. Of course with millions invested, they have to make sure they don't f*ck up, like some of the other doomed mars missions in the past (including the one where software "glitches" caused it to become like a bug on the grill of a speeding big rig; must've been an ex-M$ programmer who made the boo-boo). Or it could be the ol' adage of the $300 hammer and the $600 toilet seat comes to play.

    Now, wait until the guys who brought us Robot Wars and Battle Bots do Mars Exploration....rovers that seek other rovers all while exploring. Of course, not until cheaper reusable rockets or an alternate method, it would be a bit hard for normal folk (aka the non-million/billionaires).

    1. Re:paint drying by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 0

      "must've been an ex-M$ programmer who made the boo-boo"

      Or maybe after this error he was qualified enough to start programming security for M$

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    2. Re:paint drying by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      or maybe he was an ex-M$ gui programmer...and after the NASA boo-boo, he was hired back as the security programmer.

    3. Re:paint drying by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the space elevator can't work!

      it's quit simple:
      imagine an apple and a nail.
      what they're tryin to do is make the nail stick
      up vertically from the apple.
      but for an object in "orbit" around another more
      massive object (say earth) this is not a stable
      orbit. sooner or later the nail will tilt around
      it's mass center point. the nail will rotate
      as most of it's mass into a orbit possition
      correlating to the orbit of the center of mass of
      the nail.

      as much of it's masse will try to be in the same
      orbit as center of masse of object. meaning
      integrate distance from earth surface
      of all points of the orbiting object (nail) will
      be minimum ...

      O- wrong // O| correct

    4. Re:paint drying by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      so u'r saying, tether ball shouldn't work either.... man...if only that were true....back when I was in 2nd grade, I wouldn't have suffered a blow to my head.

    5. Re:paint drying by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 2, Informative

      So MoFoQ sez:

      "...and the $600 toilet seat..."

      It wasn't a "toilet seat" like you have in your bathroom. It was a fiberglass enclosure for a chemical toilet unit installed in an ORION C-3 aircraft. The seat was an integral part of the enclosure.

      It cost ~US$600 due to the fact that there were less than 50 needed and as such, were essntially handmade by skilled craftsmenn/women.

      It was more cost effective to have them handmade, rather than set up a factory assembly line or some other automated set up.

      There are many valid examples of govt waste in spending. This is NOT one of them.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    6. Re:paint drying by sxpert · · Score: 1

      including the one where software "glitches" caused it to become like a bug on the grill of a speeding big rig
      no, that was caused by some moron at lockheed that decided to use imperial units instead of metrics, and f***ing up conversions

    7. Re:paint drying by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      You go try taking a shit, in microgravity, on a toilet you buy from Home Depot.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:paint drying by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      no...I'm sure there is, even in this project, sad to say....all thx to a method called paperclipping. I'm sure in the bill that gave NASA it's needed funds also included some provisions that had nothing to do with NASA.

      Maybe it might not be a bad idea to also have the private sector explore space....u know...have a lil' competition.

    9. Re:paint drying by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      what about a wet&dry vac from Home Depot?

    10. Re:paint drying by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      do u happen to be one of the following: Boeing employee, M$ employee, Govt employee.

      'cuz it was suppose to be a funny....the thing about the ex-M$ employee.

    11. Re:paint drying by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Well, by that logic, why use a word processor, when a pen and paper are cheaper?

      Because for some things, cheaper isn't always better. And I know that I don't want our boys and girls in space worrying about chasing down an errant log with a handy vac.

      Besides, is that handy vac going to fuck up the electronics? How do you dispose of the waste after you've vaccumed it? And so on.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    12. Re:paint drying by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

      open office? (note: this is also meant to be a "funny")

      and who said anything about a handy vac?
      A wet&dry vac is a big vacuum, u know...the one with cast and looks like a oil drum cut in half. Plus u can clean up the crumbs with it (Simpsons ep where Homer goes to space).

      And again...it was meant to be a funny. GEEZ.

  49. Preparing to roll 3 metres by HarryCallahan · · Score: 0

    I was picturing a dune buggy type thing spinning dirt up and doing donuts and stuff all over mars, oh well, lets all sit on the edges of our seats and bite our nails in anticipation of the "big roll"

  50. Please wake me up by maroberts · · Score: 1

    When they get confident with this thing and have it barrelling across the surface at full speed in the same manner as the Lunar buggies!

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  51. Wow.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calm down you bible thumping jackass. It was a *joke*.

  52. Jenkins' Supplement to Godwin`s Law by davejenkins · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    ooked up by creationists in the Bush administration

    I hereby propose (and invoke) Jenkins' Supplement to Godwin`s Law: any thread, given long enough or a wide participation base, will eventually include posts that blame/glorify the current administration, no matter the topic. While not damaging to the overall thread, it immediately disqualifies the poster from any rational conclusion.

    (originally proposed and accepted on www.fark.com discussion boards)

    1. Re:Jenkins' Supplement to Godwin`s Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You seem to be have a common misunderstanding of Godwin's Law, it is not a law in the legal sense, but in the descriptive sense - a physical law. Godwin's law states that when a poster in a thread makes an analogy involving the Nazi party that the thread is over. This means, that although people may continue to post, that meaningful and on-topic discussion in that thread is over. People try to invoke Godwin's Law to end threads and complain about people continuing to post - but unless the discussion has naturally lead to bad analogies about Nazism then this tactic will always fail.

      So you cannot disqualify the poster of political flamebait from having a rational conclusion. It is true that such comments never do contain a rational conclusion, but that is a cause - not an effect, of making such a post.

    2. Re:Jenkins' Supplement to Godwin`s Law by davejenkins · · Score: 1

      It is true that such comments never do contain a rational conclusion,

      I _do_ understand that Godwins Law is a descriptive one. My proposed supplement is also descriptive. I don`t mean to "disqualify" any poster who mentions the current administration, I am only trying to describe what you also say is "true": anyone who posts such a message weakens their post so much, that any rational conclusion, present or not, is rendered impotent.

    3. Re:Jenkins' Supplement to Godwin`s Law by jdigriz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Dude, does this mean you are comparing the Bush administration to Nazis? [ObPoliticalHysteria Off]

      That aside, people can occasionally come to rational conclusions about politics. It just doesn't happen very often.

    4. Re:Jenkins' Supplement to Godwin`s Law by Orion442 · · Score: 1

      No, he's comparing the Nazis to the Bush Administration.

    5. Re:Jenkins' Supplement to Godwin`s Law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then there are the idiots who "invoke" Godwin's Law even when mentioning Nazis is perfectly valid and on-topic.

  53. Actually, that can be a good thing.... by splerdu · · Score: 1

    If it rolls and *burns* it would almost certainly mean there's plenty oxygen in the atmosphere...

    1. Re:Actually, that can be a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not necessarily. Bruning is the process of fast oxidation. Some things "burn" in chlorine, or fluorine or a whole lot of other compunds

    2. Re:Actually, that can be a good thing.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > Bruning is the process of fast oxidation. Some things "burn" in chlorine,

      Doesn't the name "oxidation" imply that oxygen is necessary? I'll agree that some things may corrode without it, but oxidize?

    3. Re:Actually, that can be a good thing.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe you're right..I am not sure..I've heard the word used in contexts not including oxygen. Here is the entry from dictionary.com

      1. The combination of a substance with oxygen.
      2. A reaction in which the atoms in an element lose electrons and the valence of the element is correspondingly increased.

    4. Re:Actually, that can be a good thing.... by shotfeel · · Score: 1

      In general, doesn't corrode==oxidize?

      I'm missing the distinction you're trying to make. And also, oxydation/reduction generally refers to the tranfer of an electron and doesn't necessarily require oxygen.

      But at this point I'm thinking that only on /. would someone misreading "turns" as "burns" lead to a discussion of basic chemical reactions. To top it off, it probably won't be modereated -1 OffTopic either.

    5. Re:Actually, that can be a good thing.... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > In general, doesn't corrode==oxidize

      Couldn't something be corroded by sand whipping across it? Of course, it more commonly means oxidizing, but it doesn't have to.

  54. STUPID! again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OH MY GOD!

    "After that, if all goes well, the rover will head toward a range of hills about 3 kilometers (2 miles) away for a look at rocks that sit higher than the landing neighborhood's surface. That distance is about five times as far as NASA's mission-success criteria for how far either rover would drive."

    are they going senil at JPL?

    i was thinking, now that finally a probe
    acctually landed safely on mars, they
    would sit back and celebrate abit
    but no, they'll just strain the poor
    rover .. err.. buggy.

    "good things come to those that wait."

    they should really train up on their
    buddhist mentallity abit those JPL
    scienticts ...

    i mean i would be interested in how the
    MER_A landed. taking into account that
    so many probes have been lost at
    descent. just figuring out if
    there's a a way to make landing on mars
    even safer/more reliable should be
    first main priority of MER_A!!!

    also after this data has been gathered,
    just researching close proximity to the
    lander part should be of importance.

    once these two missons have been full-
    filled the nerds can take over and
    remote-control freak their BUGGY around
    mars ...

    anyway spiriling out from the lander
    would give you more insight/mapping data
    then just driving in a straight line ...

    [bout the airbag and "magic carpet"]:
    seems to have two layers on mars. kinda a hard
    (frozen?) core about two inches below surface and
    a two inch thick dust mixed with ice cover.
    so maybe the inflating and bouncing around
    "heated" the airbags and this heat melted the ice
    particles in the dust to give you the "magic
    carpet"?

    just my two cents to 478 million US$!

  55. 90 days by WhatsAProGingrass · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Can anyone explain why the rover is only supposed to last 90 days? Why would it only last that long? Satelites last longer than 90 days? You would think that something built for mars would last much longer. It was only designed for a half mile drive. What is wrong with this picture?

    --
    Mark
    1. Re:90 days by angusr · · Score: 5, Informative
      It's not designed for 90 days, it's expected to last at least 90 days. Basically, that's about the point where dust build up on the solar panels and the charge/discharge cycle of the batteries are expected to cut into performance. It may last longer, or there may be a dust storm before then that drops enough dust on the panels to cause power problems early. No one is sure.

      And before anyone says; it's unlikely that just tilting the panels will shift it as it'll be held in place electrostatically. Also, there aren't any "wipers" - more possible failures and the dust is likely to scratch the panels if wiped.

      And finally; the data gathered in those 90 days will take years to process and study anyway.

    2. Re:90 days by angusr · · Score: 1

      Oh, and specifically satellites - they may last years, but they're in an environment without dust, moisture or weather. There might not be much moisture on Mars, but there's lots of dust and weather, and eventually dust and weather will break things good.

    3. Re:90 days by Slashamatic · · Score: 2, Informative
      Battery chemistry is a major problem. They are operating the rover in cold conditions and there is a real danger that it cools down too much overnight. I guess there are heaters, but they are limited by the power drain. Satellites don't generally spend so long in the dark. The ones that do, in geosynch orbits, are much larger.

      Unless it could fly with an RTG (Radio-isotope Thermal Generator), which adds to the weight and danger at launch, there isn't really much that NASA can do.

    4. Re:90 days by tau-lepton · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about the dust problem. Would be possible to have a simple compressor blow off the dust occasionally. Yes--- one more thing to break, but it would not have to run all of the time, just when the dust builds up. Could they have deposited a transparent "semi-conductive" coating on the panels to alleviate the electrostatic issues?

    5. Re:90 days by Orion442 · · Score: 1

      They should have installed a compressed air system to blow the dust off the panels. Seems like they'd just need a few cans of compressed air to extend the life by a few months.

    6. Re:90 days by edxwelch · · Score: 1

      ..or maybe NASA could send one of those idiots that hang around traffic lights offering to clean your windshield wippers.
      "Hey, dusy solar panels, mister. Let me just give them a quick wipe"

    7. Re:90 days by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Satellites float in space and relay data. They don't fight against gravity or have motors driving wheels across uneven terrain. They also have solar panels with largely unimpeded access to sunlight.

      The rover is planetside, with a dusty atmosphere on a planet that has seasons.

      Duh.

    8. Re:90 days by Johnny+Mnemonic · · Score: 1


      I believe that another limiting factor is that Mars seasonal changes will increasingly decrease the amount of time the sun will be able to charge the solar panels. So, it will be getting colder, and draw more power to keep it's components heated, just as it begins to create less and less power.

      Naturally, that's not as much of an issue with orbiters.

      --

      --
      $tar -xvf .sig.tar
    9. Re:90 days by mikeee · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, it has some RTGs, but they're little bitty ones with an aggregate heat output of maybe 6 watts; they're used to help keep the heavily-insulated electronics box warm, although there is an electric heater to suppliment them.

      (Not to mention the heat from that mighty 20 Mhz radiation-hardened PPC running the thing. :)

    10. Re:90 days by euxneks · · Score: 1

      why couldn't they make a retractible sheild for the panels then? Like a very simple umbrella or something?

      I find it hard to believe that "dust on the solar panels" would be the only reason for the rover to fail. Can anyone answer this speculation?

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    11. Re:90 days by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They should have installed a compressed air system to blow the dust off the panels.

      Or drive back and pop the airbags.

    12. Re:90 days by Slashamatic · · Score: 1
      You are right, I should have added the seasonal factor as well.

      It is a real pity about this because with an RTG, it could have carried on for ages. Of course, the flip side is that it means a lot more project time at JPL to support the rover.

    13. Re:90 days by Slashamatic · · Score: 1

      Of coourse, the main thing that keeps the Geosynchronous satellites warm is all those on-board electronics which work 24hrs. Spirit sort of sleeps overnight, I don't even know how much of it is left powered up. The rover is also a lot smaller, hence the RHU (that is why I missed it, I had searched for RTG).

  56. Re:Latest Mars images available thru apt-get by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    YHBT. YHL. HAND.

  57. Why can't the lander survive longer? by Danathar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The article says that more than likely the lander will run out of power because there will not be enough sun to power the solar panels in the Martian winter. My question is, is there no possibility of the lander "comming back to life" after the Martian winter?

    It would be really great for slashdot to have a Q&A with the Mars rover designers and engineers. I'd love to ask questions about the type of CPU/OS used. How the optics differ from your standard digital camera (other than being expensive and high quality) and so forth. Anybody want to second that? There is some information on the engineering specs, but it's very spotty it seems and hard to find!

    1. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      My question is, is there no possibility of the lander "comming back to life" after the Martian winter?
      Very near to no possibility. The high temperature variations pretty much destroy the battery. It only stays operational for now because it's being used (and generates some heat).

      You have idiot environmentalists to thank for this insane limitation of science. Viking landers stayed alive for four (4) and six (6) years because they had RTGs (Radioactive Thermal Generators) instead of relying on solar panel + batteries. But boohoo, they grasp at the words "radioactive" and "nuclear" and it's instantly bad. Trust me, the RTGs they would send to space would be better protected than if a human being was to sent to space! The public really needs to be educated on this matter, perhaps we can get back to REAL science then.

    2. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by MouseR · · Score: 1

      According to the rover spec sheet, the lander uses a radiation-hardened version of the PowerPC processor.

      See page 45, last paragraph, of the linked PDF. For those PDF weinies out there, here's what it reads:

      The computer in each Mars Exploration Rover runs with a 32-bit Rad 6000 microprocessor, a radiation-hardened version of the PowerPC chip used in some models of Macintosh computers, operating at a speed of 20 million instructions per second. Onboard memory includes 128 megabytes of random access memory, augmented by 256 megabytes of flash memory and smaller amounts of other non-volatile memory, which allows the system to retain data even without power.

    3. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a shame that rampant paranoia over anything powered by radioactive isotopes (and scientific ignorance in general) determines how taxpayer money is spent.

    4. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by Danathar · · Score: 1

      I'm NOT saying I disagree with you or that polticial reasons were the reasons why RTG's were not used but do you have any authoritative information that this was the reason why RTG's were not used? I'd like to actually confirm that was the reason rather than just assume it.

      I'd prefer not to get all angry about something until I'm sure that was what actually happened.

    5. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by rmayes100 · · Score: 1

      That's a great paper. The one thing that I didn't see mentioned in it though was the software...I believe the rovers run vmware for the OS. The rest of the software I assume is all custom stuff. Still would be great to get some NASA engineers on ask /. sometime though...what's their programming language of choice? How do they test all their software?

    6. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by sxpert · · Score: 1

      I believe the rovers run vmware for the OS
      try again. they are running VxWorks

    7. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by ruprechtjones · · Score: 1

      I third the motion. Let's get an "Ask JPL" article going.

      --
      Kip Hawley is an idiot.
    8. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by rmayes100 · · Score: 1

      you're right that's what I meant...that's what you get for not reading your post through before you submit.

    9. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      No, basically it'll freeze solid (batteries included). The cold will damage pretty much everything. Although, it wouldn't hurt to try and bounce a radio signal off of it next "Spring" to see if anything survived.

    10. Re:Why can't the lander survive longer? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I'd love to ask questions about the type of CPU/OS used.
      It does not have an OS, at least not in the way that you are used to on a PC-type box. In embedded and specialty computers like the ones the rovers have, the hardware/firmware/OS/applications/utilities/etc... Are far more intertwined than the 'standalone/independent' model used in PC's.
  58. i was thinking... by emilng · · Score: 1

    more like watching grass grow...
    now if we were watching grass grow on mars...
    everybody would be hitting their refresh button every five minutes

  59. Because by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 2, Informative

    An "oops" is really big when you are talking a project costing in the realm of $400 million and taking years to prep. As other posters mentioned, they want to expend all options on the platform, before moving. If you screw something up there is not only no second chances, but you are talking serious money and serious time to get to try it again. There is just no such thing as being too careful when you've got that much on the line.

  60. In other news... by Zog+The+Undeniable · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Marlon Brando rolled and turned in bed last night. The orbit of the Moon was slightly affected by the resulting shift in Earth's gravitational field, but NASA have emphasised that the risk of asteroid strikes is still low.

    --
    When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
  61. But OS X users can download Maestro by Selecter · · Score: 1
    http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/home_learnin g/maestro.html

    About Maestro A publicly available version of the tool used by scientists to plan daily activities for the Mars Exploration Rover mission. With Maestro, you can view pictures taken by the rover. You can also select driving destinations and points of interest where you want to take you own pictures. Make your own virtual experiments and set your Spirit soaring.

    Is this available on other platforms? ( not a troll, I dont know )

    1. Re:But OS X users can download Maestro by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's available for both Windows, Linux and Solaris.

  62. You can see the engineers now! by sharkey · · Score: 2, Funny
    roll 10 feet (3 meters)

    "Hey, Phil! How long's the dorsal solar panel s'posed ta be?"
    "10 feet, Bob."
    "We ain't as'posed ta use feet nomore. What's that in meters?"
    "Well, let's see. Darth Vader is 2 meters tall, and this is definitely bigger than him, but shorter than an Olympic swimming pool, which is fifty. 3 meters, Bob."

    --

    --
    "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    1. Re:You can see the engineers now! by *SpOoNdRiFt* · · Score: 1

      10 Feet = 3.048 Meters! :p Damn, I should apply to NASA ;) lol

  63. NASA drinking game by corvi42 · · Score: 1

    Every time the spirit rover moves and doesn't get stuck on something, take a drink.

    --

    There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
    1. Re:NASA drinking game by Inflatable+Hippo · · Score: 1

      > Every time the spirit rover moves and doesn't
      > get stuck on something, take a drink.

      Maybe the guys sending commands to the rover should play this game, that would liven things up a little!

      I want to see the rover doing a few handbrake turns and Dukes Of Hazzard style jumps off crater edges.

      If only there were a few gratuitous stacks of empty cardboard boxes and fruit stalls to aim at...

    2. Re:NASA drinking game by corvi42 · · Score: 1

      They'll have to pack those into the next lander.

      --

      There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
  64. fast site by ToadMan8 · · Score: 1

    Wow, this site is screaming fast for just being slashdotted. I get half a MB/s downloading the movies!

    --
    I haven't posted in so long, my sig is out of date.
  65. Either survival, or limited continued operation by ControlFreal · · Score: 4, Informative

    As some of the other posters have remarked, the major problems are:

    • Battery chemistry: the upcoming Martian winter features both short days (less light for the panels) and low temperatures (affecting the battery's performance. In addition, the batteries start to give out after many charge cycles.
    • Dust on the panels: over time, dust builds op on the panels, making them less efficient. And there aren't any wiper to take to dust off.
    • Weather: dust and wind will gradually damage the rover.
    Note that the above has already been mentioned. However, an idea that I haven't heard yet is continued limited operation: The Voyager probes lost most of their nifty features along the way (see here for some details):

    First the science boom wouldn't deploy properly, then the primary radio receiver failed, leaving NASA with a backup receiver that also was a bit flakey, and along the way more things started to go awry (like to camera-platform movement started to become really limited at a certain point).

    Nonetheless, the Voyagers are still used as science intruments: currently, they are taking measurements of the interplanetary magnetic field, plasma, and charged particle environment while searching for the heliopause. They function as mankind's most distant sensors in this respect.

    In fact, this kind of limited operation isn't strange to NASA: many probes first serve an extended mission after the primary mission has ended, and then limited operation may continue until the probe fails altogether (e.g. ca. 2015 for the Voyagers).

    So in fact, when Spirit isn't able to drive anymore, we may still use its camera and other instruments to gather as much data on the surrounding soil as possible. Still later, when available power has dwindled to such an extent that even the advanced camera's can't be used anymore, we could still use the temperature sensors. Finally, when the high gain antenna fails, the mission might be over altogether, or they might still use the low gain antenna, until, finally, Spirit reaches the end of its agony and dies a slow electronic death.

    I do agree fully with the parent on that we should organize a Q&A on this. How do we set this in motion?

    --
    Support a Europe-related section on Slashdot!
    1. Re:Either survival, or limited continued operation by br0ck · · Score: 1
    2. Re:Either survival, or limited continued operation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which brings up the question: Why not use wipers on the solar planels?

  66. Scared me there by jsahol · · Score: 1

    "Rolls" has a different meaning to anyone who does much offroading. I was picturing this

  67. Large QTVR of the Spirit Panorama Images by k3nc · · Score: 3, Informative

    1150x895 and 2.7 MB with a 0.18 correction for the tilt of the rover. http://test.muc.edu/spirit_pano.mov

  68. Good boy, Rover! by el_gregorio · · Score: 1

    Rover, roll!

    Good boy.

    Rover, turn!

    Good boy.

    Here's a nice bone.

    --
    "You want a toe? I can get you a toe by three o'clock... with nail polish."
  69. Solar panel question? by Cragen · · Score: 1

    I read, in one of the related articles, that the reason for the Rover will only be able to operate for ~90-days is that the Martian winter will reduce the available sunlight to the solar panels, etc. Is there any plan or possibility for the Rover being able to "re-animate" when the Martian sunlight becomes more available in its next spring/summer? Thanks, *cragen?

    1. Re:Solar panel question? by Cragen · · Score: 1

      Ah, never mind. More than a few posts have discussed this already. Teach me to post before reading all the other posts. (Yeah, right...) Thanks, anyways. *cragen

  70. Turn... now roll over. by montypics · · Score: 0

    Good boy, Rover!

  71. Has the rover been /.'d? by Orion442 · · Score: 1

    just a thought

  72. Cool animation by keith6689 · · Score: 1

    I don't know if this has been linked to before, but it's a pretty overview of the mission.

    1. Re:Cool animation by keith6689 · · Score: 1

      Damn. Meant to say pretty good, though some might consider it pretty!

      Note to self: Use preview button!

  73. Turns and Rolls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I can't wait until it can burp and sit up!

    Sorry.

  74. Things that make America great by lildogie · · Score: 1

    > Heaven forbid that NASA names the rovers after the things that make America great.

    Like "Shock" and "Awe?"

    (Things that make America "Great" as in "the Great Tzar of Russia" or "the Great San Francisco Earthquake.")

    1. Re:Things that make America great by 110010001000 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I love spoilt children like you. How about I pay for a one way ticket for you to any country you choose?

  75. Lots of Reasons by EXTomar · · Score: 1

    Satelites around Earth are some 75k km closer to the Sun than the rover is. The Sun kilowatt power available at Mars is less than at Earth. Space althought frought with its own environmental hazards (vacuum, radition, etc. ) is not the same as even a weak weather system like Mars. Hardening something to be placed in LEO is one thing. Hardening something to be placed on Mars is something else.

    It should also be pointed out that this thing is a hellva lot more complex than any run of the mill satelite around Earth. The fact they are getting 3 months and about half a mile is a miracle in my view.

    This thing could have been made to last 30 months instead of 3 if it had a RTG onboard assuming the weight trade off is good compared to solar panels. But for one reason or another NASA is squimish about putting RTGs on anything "so close" to the Sun.

    This rover is much beefier than the previous rover. They'll get good science out of it assume nothing weird happens. I'm sure they will also squeeze out as much as they can with the operational time they got.

    1. Re:Lots of Reasons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it has some REALLY small RTGs to keep the electronics warm.

  76. could be any *nix by green+pizza · · Score: 1

    Hard to tell, it could be any flavor of un*x. SGI has a short blub on their website about the terrain simulation hardware. Might even be IRIX running a different window manager.

  77. Breif Heart Attack by ralphh · · Score: 1
    Ack! Yeah, for me "rolls and turns" meant it toppled off the platform!

    Sheesh!

    --
    "A worthy cause has never been harmed by the truth" - Gandhi
  78. Infrastructure? by mwood · · Score: 1

    With all the communication and positioning problems Mars probes have had, maybe we should first send a set of permanent navigational and communication satellites.

  79. stupid question? by kaoshin · · Score: 1

    I see all these posts talking about the lander, but then actually talking about the rover. The CNN story discusses that the rover is rolling off the lander. This would imply that the rover and the lander are 2 different things right? Anyway what I was wondering is if it would be a plausible idea to use the "lander" and airbags as a garage for the rover to take refuge against the weather to preserve it for a longer stay on the red planet. I think that it would be more interesting to see how long we could keep it up there and actually put it to some kind of use instead of driving it towards some hills until it dies. To me, that just seems kind of boring and a waste.

    1. Re:stupid question? by kaoshin · · Score: 1

      Prior to posting I did not realize that this plan would increase the resolution of infrared cameras that can detect minerals from a distance. I still wonder though if they can do that to an extent, but then return to the lander to take refuge?

    2. Re:stupid question? by ToSeek · · Score: 1

      "A ship in the harbor is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."

      All right, a pragmatic answer:

      - The lander is not built like a garage - it's a platform, not an enclosure.
      - If it were an enclosure, then the solar panels wouldn't get any power.
      - An enclosure wouldn't protect (much) against the Martian temperature extremes.
      - Finally, it's a ROVER. Rovers are supposed to ROVE. If they thought they could get more science by keeping the science instruments in place, they would have just had a lander.

      The real issue is that the rovers should have had a nuclear power supply rather than solar, like the Viking landers (which lasted for years) and the Voyager deep space probes (which have lasted for decades and are still going). But of course nuclear power is nasty awful stuff that we have to avoid at all costs because people get upset about it.

    3. Re:stupid question? by kaoshin · · Score: 1

      I understand, but without seeing pictures I just assumed the lander for a rover would be more equipped to house, protect or even maintain and repair the rover for an extended duration of study. I mean, when you watch alien movies, they always send out scouts and then return to the saucer to do their thing :) Owell... I wish it luck in the roving anyway.

  80. Dust removal? by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    My physics is forgotten.
    Dust on the panels: over time, dust builds op on the panels, making them less efficient. And there aren't any wiper to take to dust off. Weather: dust and wind will gradually damage the rover.
    Could the rover use or change a charge on its case to throw off some of the dust?
    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
  81. The clock is ticking by jmichaelg · · Score: 1
    Your answers are fine however there is the slight problem that the machine is going to die in the next 3 to 6 months. The original Mars landers went for 6-7 years instead of 6 months.

    I would really like a clear explanation as to why they chose solar over nuclear for their power feed. With nuclear they could have taken their time AND gone looking for the Beagle. With solar, they'll be lucky to see much more than they can see right now. Plus, they wouldn't be wasting time with power budget meetings allocating the few watts they have. I get the feeling some committee was a little too Politically Correct.

    1. Re:The clock is ticking by gantzm · · Score: 1

      If they went nuclear the tree huggers never would have let the launch happen. Remember, in the liberal world nuclear is bad.

      Plus it would have added considerably to the mass of the vehicle.

      --


      Excessive forking causes un-wanted children.
    2. Re:The clock is ticking by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Probably cost. Nuclear would have made the rovers heavier and the hardware cost more. These guys (Opportunity and Spirit) were designed under the smaller, faster, cheaper plan...

  82. Here is source of "crap" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Here you go

    Hopefully you will be at least a little bit taken aback at calling an orphan a "piece of crap".

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  83. Holy Crap! by LilMikey · · Score: 1

    I spat and slobbered all over myself from reading this! Mods don't know funny methinks.

    --
    LilMikey.com... I'll stop doing it when you sto
  84. Why not go nuclear? by nazgul000 · · Score: 1

    It seems like a shame to send an $800mil semi-autonomous rover mission to Mars whose power source limits it to a 3 month primary mission.

    Aside from the political difficulty entailed in getting a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (an nuclear decay electrical power source like that which powered the Gallileo mission) off the launchpad in this day and age, do we know of any good reasons why a more lasting power source like this would not have been feasible for the MER mission? Such a power source could probably keep a rover operating indefinitely on the surface of Mars, used in concert with solar.

    1. Re:Why not go nuclear? by confused+one · · Score: 1

      Next time... There are 10kW space rated reactors in the queue.

  85. Sideways move by ehiris · · Score: 1

    How exactly was this move accomplished? If you look at the first frame and second frame, the rover moved sideways about the length of one wheel.

    1. Re:Sideways move by confused+one · · Score: 1

      the front and rear wheels toe inward 45 degrees and it spins about it's axis. It's not just 4-wheel drive, it's 4-wheel steering!

  86. Silicon heaven by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "until, finally, Spirit reaches the end of its agony and dies a slow electronic death. "

    Yet it's place in Silicon Heaven will be assured.

  87. I'm sorry Dave by KenSeymour · · Score: 1

    The rover was heard to say "I can't allow you to jeapordize the mission."

    --
    "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." -- Albert Einstein
  88. Re:90 days / wind turbine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why didnt NASA include a power generator using wind turbine? Seems like it is windy on Mars and power from the wind is cheap and free

  89. Another question about Martian nights by ruzel · · Score: 1

    I have a really obvious question for the rover operators but I can't think of an answer. Why are there no pictures of the Martian night? Is there too much cloud cover? Are the optics on the rover not capable of capturing low light? It's a little trivial I realize, but it would be neat to see stars from the surface of Mars. And it would seem like if there was no moon and scity lights to get in the way that the stars would be brighter.
    _______________________________

  90. All Mars all the time by fionnghal · · Score: 1

    We so need them to set up a Mars Spirit Web Cam for this stuff.

  91. Wind power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why didnt NASA include a wind turbine to generate power? I bet it is windy on Mars, might as well use the wind turbine to get wind speed and electricity. Why limit to expensive solar cell?

  92. Re:90 days / wind turbine by mikeee · · Score: 1

    OTOH, the air on Mars is very thin.... interesting idea, though. :)

  93. Too abstract by CrazyClimber · · Score: 1
    Most people don't think in the abstract. Ask somebody which weighs more, a pound (or kilo, if you wish :) of feathers or a pound of bricks, and most people will say bricks. People can recognize a two-liter bottle because the measurement *is* the object.

    Engineers use metric because it's logical. The public will use metric when the engineers leave them no choice. My car has a 3.9L engine. My camera has an 80mm lens. Medicine is dispensed in milligrams.

    The problem is that there will always be a place for natural measurements: an Astronomical Unit, a light year. I just hope nobody tries to push decimal time during my lifetime.

    1. Re:Too abstract by Joey7F · · Score: 1

      Really? Most engineers use metric? I am going to disagree with you there buddy! Pressure is always lbs/sq in in this country. BTU's in lieu of Joules...the list goes on.

      My dad is a ChemE and he never uses metric unless engineers from outside the US send him data.

      The measurements will coexist in America :)

      --Joey

  94. Not the ultimate off-road... by McLae · · Score: 1

    The Titan Rover will beat this. Watch for the anouncement before the re-election of Chenney in 2012. (NOT!)

  95. Re: Metric Immersion by shubert1966 · · Score: 1

    I'm from the midwest too. In 6th grade (1978?) they tried to get us to do things in metrci. They said thewhole world was going that way. It was easy to learn and I still carry a few of the conversion ratios in my memory.

    Full immersion Would Work - children are born to learn.

    --
    Stuff that matters.
  96. Re:Easy - Rover is overpriced, overengineered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can build a better rover with 2 old TI calculators,
    a Tickle Me Elmo doll, a Lego set (moon edition) and a 1991 Ford Escort.

  97. Re:90 days / wind turbine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As long as the wind can turn some turbine - why not? I bet even a gentle wind can turn a small propeler making enough electricity for communications to earth or trickle charge the battery.

  98. Next on breaking news... by Uplore · · Score: 0

    Mars Rover moves forward a bit.

    --
    I couldn't think of a sig.
  99. JPL insider - maybe 200 days by cyberfringe · · Score: 1

    The post by angusr is essentially correct. The longevity is dominated by a combination of environmental and engineering factors.

    The basic mission is planned for 90 days. The atmosphere at Gusev is considerably less dusty than we expected, and the vehicle is performing very well. This leads to the conclusion the Spirit's longevity could be substantially longer. But anything could happen. It is also good to remember that we have not started to drive around yet, and that introduces more uncertainty. Nevertheless, we're considering plans for the possibility that an extended mission could go as long as 200 days. But let's keep expectations in check. If we go 90 days, it will be a huge scientific and engineering achievement.

    --
    There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
  100. re: interaction with JPL engineers by cyberfringe · · Score: 1

    I will suggest this to our office of public engagement, which is handling the content on the web site. Because everyone is so busy right now, I think it will be hard to get that going. There is also the issue of what information has been cleared for general release, but questions like those above are probably fair. Another factoid. We're into billions of hits on the http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html website, and use is increasing rapidly.

    --
    There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
  101. When waiting try this by joskay · · Score: 1

    Looks like there is a secret message put on the rover by the Planetary Society and Lego. Something to try while waiting.
    https://planetary.org/redrover-dvd/dvd_s pirit.html