Posted by
michael
on from the look-both-ways-before-crossing-the-street dept.
Irishman writes "It looks like the Spirit rover has finally left the womb and is rolling free on the Martian surface. Space.com has the full story and some great pictures." NASA also has photos, straight from their fake set in Hollywood where they produce all the "space" footage.
509 comments
Revisit Sojourner!
by
grub
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I've been really hoping that one day they'll go back to
the original Sojourner site and return that unit to Earth for
analysis by NASA. They could gain valuable information as to what
finally gave on that rover and use it to harden future
rovers.
Sojourner was a great success as it lasted
much longer than expected. Of course the cost of getting that unit
back to Earth would be so high I'm guessing these are just nice
dreams. C'est la vie.
-- Trolling is a art,
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
mOoZik
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The batteries can only recharge a certain number of times. Furthermore, there is no way of cleaning the solar panels, so they lose their efficiency over time. That's probably what contributed to its death and you're making a big deal out of a piece of crap rover.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Maarek_1
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
I think the problem with this is that it would require something that isn't just on a one-way trip ending in a crash landing on the planet's surface. That would require development of a new type of lander and something capable of carrying the full weight of the old lander.
I doubt that NASA has the funds or enough desire to go through all this to recover the craft.
Kinda sad though
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
marksven
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
It's not like Sojourner is going anywhere. I'm sure when we've mastered interplanetary flight to the point that it's just routine, we'll probably go back to all the left-behind probe carcasses to do some kind of forensic study and make monuments out of them for the tourists to see.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
onyxruby
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Dumb question, why no wiper blades? I've heard it said that wiper blades would damage the solar panels. However if the solar panels are too dust covered to work anyways, what's the loss? It's not like they're going back for warranty repair.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
mikis
·
· Score: 3, Funny
Nah, just wait long enough and it will return itself to Earth to look for it's Creator;)
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Dumb question, why no wiper blades?
Wild-ass guess, but the wiper mechanism would probably get jammed by dust just about the time if could be useful in cleaning off the solar cells.
Seriously, even the scientists on the project wanted an RTG in the thing. They could have driven it around for *years* if they had. Instead, they got solar panels which (due to dust) have an expected lifetime of about 1/2 a year. Stupid environmentalism...
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Tablizer
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
If they'd used an SRG or RTG they wouldn't have those problems. Solar cells? Bah. Waste of weight.
True, but dust and grit would eventually gum up most of the instruments and make wheels stick. The Viking landers didn't do much "moving" science after their first few months (after scooping soil, etc.) They mostly just tracked weather and looked around every now and then.
Making moving parts and instruments dust-resistant and/or cleanable would probably greatly add to the cost I would expect. In other words, power is only half the problem.
Further it costs something like 3 million USD a day to operate rovers (personell, communications, etc.) Thus, extended durations eat money in other ways.
And, it might be better science to have multiple short-distant rovers exploring a variety of marsographically[1] separated areas rather than one to two long-distance rovers. In other words, spend the money on quantity instead of duration.
And, "nuke" power cells are not politically popular due to possible launch crash risks.
By the time NASA or any other country starts to really care about what happened to Sojourner, we'll most likely be there, and can just swing by and pick it up or will have had more missions that were able to collect enough data to outweigh the importance of the others.
Comparing Sojourner to Spirit, however, is about as relevant as comparing a quadrapalegic weiner dog to a pure bred great dane -- it's larger and can do a lot more. Why waste time with Stumpy the Wonder Rover?
And likewise, once we establish ourselves on the moon, and then on Mars, the rovers will be nothing but tourist traps or landmarks. ("Hang a right at the Gustav Crater, go three miles until you see Spirit, then make a left. Look for a red brick house.")
Getting back the old rovers/etc. would have no real scientific value, other than to see how well an $x million rover/satellite ages on Mars/in space.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Also if they'd used Gentoo it'd have lasted 2-5% longer, because it would have been assembled with the -mmars -fomit-atmosphere flags, and the entire thing would have been optimal for the martian environment.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
dvd_tude
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Sheesh - the JPL guys ought to talk to some desert racers sometime. They deal with more dust in the course of a Baja 500 than most of us do in an entire lifetime.
Anyway, some simple low-risk ideas:
* A small air blower jet to blow the dust off. After all, there is an atmosphere (albeit a thin Martian one) to work with.
* Tilt the panels and give them a gentle shake to get most of the dust off.
* Use an electrostatic coating to keep the fine dust from sticking.
As far as the batteries, couldn't they be deep-cycled to reduce their memory?
- dvd_tude
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 3, Informative
And, "nuke" power cells are not politically popular due to possible launch crash risks.
While I generally agree with the rest of what you say, please don't call RTGs "nukes". They're simply heavy metals that emit some radiation and really don't post a threat to anyone. Heck, you've probably got similar materials in your backyard. But we're *never* going to convince people otherwise if we don't stop calling them "nukes".
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
there is no way of cleaning the solar panels
Bullshit. An arm with a brush attached would do nicely.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Sloppy
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Getting back the old rovers/etc. would have no real scientific value
I think the point is that it would have engineering value. See exactly what worked better/worse than expected, then use that knowledge when building next vehicle.
-- As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
But we're *never* going to convince people otherwise if we don't stop calling them "nukes".
Well, they *are* radio-active, and there is a small chance that one could burst from launch errors and end up polluting a populated area. I agree that the risk is tiny, but it does exist. Noboby sane claims they explode into mushroom clouds.
Getting back the old rovers/etc. would have no real scientific value I think the point is that it would have engineering value. See exactly what worked better/worse than expected, then use that knowledge when building next vehicle.
Yeah, but if we can go to Mars routinely enough so that we can say "Yeah, what ever happened to Pathfinder, Spirit and (god willing) Opportunity." My guess is our engineering will have been revolutionized and any clues to the demise of each vehicle will be considered irrelevant.
--Joey
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Well, they *are* radio-active
But safe enough to hold with gloves...
and there is a small chance that one could burst from launch errors...
The odds that one would burst are about as close to zero as they get. The RTG itself is sealed inside a "black box" type of shielding. The stuff is strong enough to survive reentry from orbit! An explosion of the rocket wouldn't even phase it (as past launch failures have shown).
...end up polluting a populated area.
Actually, that's why NASA launches over the ocean. If something does fail, it falls into an unpopulated area (i.e. miles of water).
I agree that the risk is tiny, but it does exist.
You have a greater chance of getting cancer from your cell phone battery.
Noboby sane claims they explode into mushroom clouds.
You'll love this guy. He still hasn't taken me up on my "nuclear challenge". I wonder why?;-)
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
BTWR
·
· Score: 3, Informative
actually, they experimented with a windshield-wiper type devise, a sort of "roll-around" shield system and fans. Nothing seemed to be feasible enough to either work or survive the hundred-million-mile+ trip.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
CrazyTalk
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Actually, one of the mission objectives on Apollo 12 was bringing back pieces of the old Surveyor 3 lander, in order to see how materials reacted to years of exposure to cosmic rays/vacuum/temperature extremes, and also as a source of data on cosmic rays outside the earth's magnetosphere. That's real science.
-aiabx
-- Just this guy, you know?
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
that rover uses the same batteries of the iPods?
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Tablizer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, that's why NASA launches over the ocean
You mean they *aim* it toward the ocean. That does not mean it is guarenteed to head over the ocean.
An explosion of the rocket wouldn't even phase it (as past launch failures have shown).
That is pretty impressive if it turns out to be true. But I suppose skeptics will say that just because past explosions have not exposed it does not mean that future explosions won't either.
I agree that the risk is overplayed, though. Nasa understandably just does not want to deal with the politics of radiation if there are "close enough" alternatives. Their budget depends on public perception. Sometimes the public is a bit ignorant.
I believe one of the manned lunar missions recovered a piece of the one of the lunar Surveyors. By the time we get it back we'll likely have figured out how to harden remote vehicles without having to do forensics. OTOH, it'll would be a really cool museum piece.
That is pretty impressive if it turns out to be true.
It is. In fact, the US has only burned up one RTG and it was intentional. Russia is responsible for most of the contamination brought about by RTGs. Still, not a single death has yet been linked with Russia's carelessness.
But I suppose skeptics will say that just because past explosions have not exposed it does not mean that future explosions won't either.
What can you do? Skeptics won't accept anything but zero risk. And zero risk is simply impossible. There's risk I could trip and break my neck. Therefore we should have safer dirt! *sigh*
Nasa understandably just does not want to deal with the politics of radiation if there are "close enough" alternatives.
Unfortunately, there is no "close enough" substitute for nuclear power solutions. Solar panels are only effective as far out as Mars. Beyond that, they are useless. They also don't produce a steady stream of power like RTGs do and are sensitive to the weather.
And if we want to bring launch solutions into this discussion, there's no current launch solution that can get anywhere close to a 6 million pound rocket with 2 million pounds of cargo. Even the Space Shuttle, with its massive lifting power, has to operate within barely acceptable safety limits to meet the weight requirements of liftoff.
What's REALLY interesting is if you look at the ISP of various rockets:
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Creepy
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Actually, that's why NASA launches over the ocean. If something does fail, it falls into an unpopulated area (i.e. miles of water).
...and raises Godzilla!
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
evanbd
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
My understanding is that this exact option was considered. The decision was that they could include an effective dust removal system, at the cost of any one of the instruments. They chose to keep the instruments.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"Actually, that's why NASA launches over the ocean. If something does fail, it falls into an unpopulated area (i.e. miles of water)."
Um, since when is the ocean void of life? (i.e. "unpopulated") Oh, I get it. You value human life more than any other.
Um, since when is the ocean void of life? (i.e. "unpopulated") Oh, I get it. You value human life more than any other.
Now that you mention it, yes I do. If I have to choose between saving a human's life and saving an animal, it will be the human. That's not to say that I won't save an animal if possible.
As for RTGs, they won't hurt anything in the water. The RTGs we've retrieved from failed launches were intact and did not contaminate the area. One that was retrieved was in such good shape that it was actually reused on a future mission.
BTW, even if the RTG were released, it wouldn't affect the surrounding life to any significant degree. i.e. The underwater volcanos spew more radioactive material than the few solid pound of plutonium in an RTG.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Cover the panels with sheets of plastic with rollers on each end like a conveyer.. When the efficiency gets to 50%, cycle the rollers, as the plastic passes over the underside brushes could dust the plastic, and it could stop with the unexposed sheet on top which is clean, efficiency is now back up to what it was..
When that gets dirty, do it again.. and again, and again.. cycle it multiple times to get the brushes to clean the plastic off..
You could even dump some of the soil from the brushes into a collection box or something for analysis of the windblown dust.
Loss of control or failure of an engine to ignite is much more likely cause of launch vehicle failure than a sudden explosion. When they lose control, they are blown up by a range safety officer on the ground. Missions carrying RTGs have to fly with Flight Termination Systems designed to destruct the payload and upper stage(s) so as to protect the RTG from fragments. It gets a nice clean fall into the ocean, which it designed to survive.
I was thinking something like an auto-oxider. You know, get a little of the fuel to mix and it will self ignite and blow the whole thing to kingdom come. Much more effective way of proving my point than giving him a more inert fuel.:-)
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
GlassHeart
·
· Score: 0, Redundant
Stupid environmentalism...
What if the launch did fail, and scattered radioactive material all over your house? Then it wouldn't really be so stupid now, would it?
Point is, environmentalism, as with any other human endeavor, should be a matter of risk versus benefit, not a matter of fundamentalism. In this particular case, equipping a small rover with a long life is certainly far less important than equipping a large capable rover with a long life.
NASA's failure rates are well known and undeniable. Using dangerous fuel in only the most necessary projects decreases the risk to humans on earth without adversely affecting scientific study.
Now, I'm not denying that environmentalists can be stupid. I'm saying that they're not always wrong, either. The little rover had very little capabilities, so keeping it alive for years is probably not worth the risks.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Because it's too cold and the atmosphere is too thin for windshield wiper fluid to last in a liquid state. (at least at the height at which the solar panels are mounted)
That would be "areology" for "ares" meaning mars. However, geo is an acceptable prefix for foreign bodies as well, as its meaning has grown from earth specific to meaning solid bodies in general.
Interesting. You didn't list the first thing that came to my mind, though... thin plastic film (like food wrap, but tougher; possibly as heavy as the polyester base used for photographic film or something like mylar minus the reflective aluminum coating), supply and take-up rollers and a mechanism to advance the film when it became dirty.
Little risk of damage to the solar panels
lightweight (well, lighter than the compressors or tanks required to blow the dust off the panels)
no jerky/rapid motion as in "shaking them off"
if the "cleaning" mechanism fails, you're no worse off than if you didn't have it at all (assuming you don't choose a material that actually attracts dust...)
I wonder about the feasibility of embedding some kind of piezo elements and just shaking the dust off, at least if the panels were at an angle. I don't know how they're oriented.
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 2, Informative
And while we're at it, let's discuss the consequences as well. A one-in-a-million chance is small, but if it destroys the entire earth, it's probably too risky to offset almost any benefit.
*cough* *choke* *gag*
I can't believe I've got another one of you people. We're not even talking about a nuclear pile/reactor! We're talking about stuff similar to what's in your BACKYARD!
Did you know that plutonium gives off Alpha radiation?
Did you know that Alpha radiation is not in any way shape or form dangerous unless lodged inside your body?
Did you know that Alpha radiation can be shielded by a sheet of paper?
Did you know that dead skin cells are thicker than a sheet of paper?
Did you know that plutonium can burn?
Did you know that when plutonium burns, it forms Plutonium Oxide?
Did you know that Plutonium burning is no more dangerous than magnesium burning? In fact the results are very similar.
Did you know that you have been brainwashed into thinking that nuclear power can destroy the world?
Did you know that if every Hydrogen, Neutron, and Atomic bomb were detonated, it wouldn't even penetrate the earth's crust?
Did you know that nuclear reactors exist that put out only about 6 MegaWatts? In comparison, the smallest coal plants puts out about 30 megawatts.
Did you know that the laws of physics say that 6 megawatts of destructive force is the same whether it's 6 megawatts of coal, nuclear, oil, or dynamite power?
Did you know that more radiation is put out by a single coal burning plant than all the nuclear plants in the US? (Coal contains uranium)
Did you know that the average home consumes about 13 megawatts hours of power per year?
Did you know that Chernobyl has 4 nuclear reactors, three of which continued to operate after the disaster?
Did you know that Russia TRIED to get Chernobyl to blow in order to perform safety tests?
Did you know that only 40 people on site died in Chernobyl?
Did you know that Chernobyl was a stolen US design that was decommissioned in favor of safer designs?
Did you know that Russia did very little to clean up the waste that was expelled and as a result killed about 200 more people through inaction?
Don't take the environmentalists at face value. Do some research for yourself. Oh, and the odds of the RTG not surviving are about the same as the black box in an airplane not surviving.
Environmentalism is not stupid. Wanting to protect the environment is selfish though, in that it helps to preserve our lives. That isn't a bad thing, it's a great thing.
What is bad are knee-jerk, ignorant, Luddite environmentalists. Worse, they are capable of generating enough ill-founded concern in the ignorant general populace to kill off projects that would make our lives better (nuclear energy) or expand our horizons of knowledge (nuclear power in space).
Larry
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The problem is that this adds complexity and weight. You can't just slap this stuff on and hope it works. If it doesn't work, why waste the weight? So you better make sure it works and then you need to take weight and space away from some other intrument.
You mean they *aim* it toward the ocean. That does not mean it is guarenteed to head over the ocean.
The trajectory of launchers are designed so that if they should detonate at any point, the debris will land on uninhabited land. The launcher is equiped with a self-destruct system, and there is a range-safety officer whose sole just is to watch the course of the craft and make sure it stays within pre-determined boundaries. If the craft begins to lose countrol they only have a very short time to regain control (probably only a second or two) before the launcher is self-destructed for wandering out of the safety zone. Once the launcher is destroyed the debris follow a ballistic path (ie check your high school physics book) until they hit the ground.
The only way that the debris could fall on an inhabited area would be if the rocket changed course and failed to self-destruct. If it blows up on its own the explosion will tend to be omnidirectional and just scatter the debris. It is unlikely that enough energy will be imparted to any single piece of debris to send it flying tens or hundreds of miles out of the planned flyover area.
I'd be concerned if they were just slapping together toy rockets and making them extra-large. Space launchers are very well-engineered and have redundant safety systems to prevent catastrophe and when this fails to at least mitigate their effects. Nobody wants a solid rocket booster landing on somebody's house. Chances are the chemical explosives would do more damage than the RTG anyway...
What the hell? Destroy the entire earth? Are you just trolling, or do you actually believe this?
If the RTG completely exploded, the absolute worst that would happen is a few pieces of slightly radioactive material would fall back to earth. And if a human or another animal came along and picked up this material, the worst that would happen is... nothing. Absol-fucking-lutely nothing. They could take the material home and put it on their mantle as a souvenir and it wouldn't hurt anyone.
Isn't that when you take photos of tits? (ariola) If not, it may be mistaken for it.
Nah.. that's called pornography.
Or a mammogram. Take your pick.
-- --
This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Why can't you just flap the solar panels to try and shake off the excess dust? I mean, maybe you could drive it around in circles in a shallow crater and make everything go wiggly.
As for scientists wanting more stuff, they always want more stuff.:) But they usually aren't the ones that have to pay for it, beyond finding someone to give them a bigger grant (which is non-trivial, granted).
What the hell? Destroy the entire earth? Are you just trolling, or do you actually believe this?
"Destroy the earth" is a hyperbole used to illustrate the concept of Risk = Odds * Consequence (which, in particular, is still big if the consequences are "destroys the earth" even if the odds are small), and that our actions should be determined by Benefit - Risk. I'm merely observing that many in the discussion only touch elements of the equation, not the whole equation.
No, even a catastropic leak from a nuclear fuel source will not destroy the earth. Obviously.
What risk?
RTGs are as safe as any other rocket system.
You prove my point again. What benefit? The Sojourner is a test rover with very minimal capabilities. Why keep it running for years?
I don't actually have an opinion on many of the things discussed here. It's just irritating to read advocates on either side stress only the elements of the full equation and lose the big picture.
As I said, our action should be determined by Benefit - (Odds * Consequence). For the Sojourner, why risk it?
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
It isn't a matter of "memory". First off, I detest that term, as it is used (these days) completely and utterly out of context.
the "Memory" effect was found when NI-CAD batteries were run on a VERY tight and repetitive cycle. After a while, they were unable to operate outside of those limits.
This effect was never achieved under consumer conditions (it was NASA and orbiting satellites that discovered the effect).
No other battery chemistry suffers from this effect. What is commonly called "memory" is more accurately termed "worn out battery".
Each time the chemistry in the power cells making up the battery is reversed, part of the chemistry or cell structure is damaged. In Lead-Acid, water evaporation, sulfide production, or anode/cathode damage removes some capacity. In Nickel-Cadnium, physical changes in cell state happen.
"Deep Cycle" is a term used to denote a charge/discharge cycle that is wider than the norm. A battery of cells designed to be trickle charged over an extended period, then subjected to "run until you die" use is a deep cycle cell. The physical structure and chemistry allows this, where a normal battery would likely experience cell reversal and permanent damage.
So, the real reason the batteries will die due to use, and the fact they've been installed and running since launch.
Did you know that "destroys the entire earth" is a hyperbole to show that even minimal odds of great consequence can equal great risk?
Let me rephrase for you. There is a zero point zero zero zero chance that an RTG will destroy the earth, or even cause more damage than your gas tank exploding. Actually, zero point zero zero is rounding a bit. If you were willing to add a few billion more zeros, the uncertainty principle would say that the possibility exists of your plutonium (or gas tank for that matter) could start a super-massive blackhole that would suck in the earth, moon, and sun.
Hmmm... Okay, you can run and scream about the dangers of a super-massive blackhole now. While you're at it, warn people that the food they eat might be putting out minor amounts of radiation. Or that their backyard is full of the same materials used in nuclear weapons. Even better, warn the world about the dangers of Dihydrogen Monoxide. That shit is dangerous.:-P
Why can't you just flap the solar panels to try and shake off the excess dust? I mean, maybe you could drive it around in circles in a shallow crater and make everything go wiggly.
Because Sprit doesn't move that fast. The rover is programmed to move 20 cm at a time before stopping to recheck its bearings. Even if they could override it, the scientists wouldn't want to take the chance of flipping or damaging the rover. If the rover gets in a tight spot, there's nobody there to flip it back over.
As for scientists wanting more stuff, they always want more stuff.:) But they usually aren't the ones that have to pay for it, beyond finding someone to give them a bigger grant (which is non-trivial, granted).
True, but this is a rather sensical addition. You're spending $400 million on a probe. Doesn't it make sense to try and get the longest life out of it possible? And the weight of the RTG wouldn't be much different from all the solar panels and batteries the thing is carrying now.
The plain and simple truth is that NASA avoids anything even remotely nuclear whenever possible. While one can't blame them since they need public support, it does tend to stop any technological progress.
You prove my point again. What benefit? The Sojourner is a test rover with very minimal capabilities. Why keep it running for years?
You're having a really tough time her, aren't you? The benefit is having a functional and transmitting device on Mars for the years between Mars missions. The risks are that a black box could fall into the ocean and a diver would have to pick it up later. Now, let's do your equation.
We'll set the odds of a failed launch at about 1 in 4 or 0.25. The consequences are some inconvenience, so we'll set it to 5. The benefits are a robot that will keep running for as long as we want to pay attention to it. We'll assign that as 100.
100 - (0.25 * 5) = 98.75
That looks like a good equation to me. Let's say that the RTG is completely unshielded. We'll be launching over the ocean, so no one will get killed if it drops. But it does add a minor amount of contamination. So we'll bump the risks to a 30.
100 - (0.25 * 30) = 92.5
Things are still looking good for RTGs.
Hate to break it to you, but your arguments are pathetic. There's little to no risk. Unless you can show a situation where HUMAN BEINGS die (even one), you're going to have a hard time proving your case.
Do they launch it over a section of the ocean that's devoid of tide and current?
Hardly. NASA wants those RTGs back so they can reuse them on the next mission!
Actually, the black box would be too heavy to be carried by tides. It sinks to the bottom instead. Pretty normal for materials with atomic numbers above 90.
>>What if the launch did fail, and scattered radioactive material all over your house?
NASA launches stuff over the Atlantic Ocean. So while it's bad that a failed launch would do environmental damage to part of the ocean, it's not as horrific as a rocket exploding over a populated area.
Good points here, until you got to the possible launch risks of SRG or RTG power plants. NASA has been launching SRGs for some time now. In a couple of cases, they actually did crash on launch. In one case, the nuclear material was retrieved intact and reused on a future vehicle. In another case, the material was lost at the bottom of the ocean, but no trace of the radioactive material was ever detected.
Probably the main reason NASA went solar instead of nuclear on this mission was weight. They were concerned about getting the lander to actually land successfully and more weight would have caused the parachute to slow it down less and put more stress on the balloons, etc, etc...
PSSST... I think you meant to say "NASA has been launching RTGs for some time now". SRGs are a newer and more efficient design that have shown promise, but could cause errors in instrumentation due to slight vibrations. SRGs have not yet flown.
Probably the main reason NASA went solar instead of nuclear on this mission was weight.
RTGs get ~75W per 2.5 pounds of plutonium. Considering how heavy the batteries are that the rover is carrying, I seriously doubt that weight was the deciding factor.
I didn't list that option because it seemed a roller+film mechanism would be mechanically fragile and heavy given the size it'd need to be for the entire panel set. It'd also cut the panel efficiency somewhat, partially defeating its purpose. Finally, you'd eventually run out of film.
FWIW, there's a set of Smith Roll-Offs in my gear bag somewhere... so I am familiar with the concept.
Which if you consider the number of black boxes recovered from airplanes, is a pretty safe assumption. Even if it isn't, Plutonium is too heavy to float. Remember, it has an atomic number of 94. There's no question that it will sink.
Even if we assume that it somehow floats to shore, plutonium isn't dangerous unless inhaled. And that would assume air-born dust particles anyway. Which, given the atomic number of plutonium, won't be air-born for long.
I'd be more worried about the Uranium raining down from meteorites than any risk from plutonium RTGs.
And while we're at it, let's discuss the consequences as well. A one-in-a-million chance is small, but if it destroys the entire earth, it's probably too risky to offset almost any benefit.
Oh come on!
You can't really be that much of a fool.
One small generator, encased in a very strong shelded box that was designed to withstand accidental re-entry from orbit, with its small amount of radio active material chemically bonded into a ceramic that is specificly designed to not become a fine power if it is blown up destoying the entire earth?!?!?!?!
Ya right!
--
Every wrong attempt discarded is a step forward - T. Edison
We lost communication with Pathfinder - the lander - not Sojourner. No one knows the fate of the rover. In the event of loss of communications, it was programmed to circle around the lander until comm was restored. It could have done that for a very long time. It would be very interesting to revisit that site, but it would me mostly for historic curiousity.
The next major Mars rover mission, Mars Science Laboratory scheduled for launch in '09, may have RTGs as a power source. There is also a solar power option under study.
-- There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann
I'll grant you that the odds that the plutonium will become aerosolized are low. If it happens there will be widespread death, undoubtedly. Given the risks and that other solutions are workable, I can't see what the need is to take that risk. The tradeoff between the gains to the mission versus the consequences from a (admittedly unlikely) catastrophe doesn't make sense to me.
Let me rephrase for you. There is a zero point zero zero zero chance that an RTG will destroy the earth
Calm down, drop your preconceptions on what you think I might be, and consider for a moment that I wasn't talking about RTGs when I wrote "destroy the earth". I was exhibiting a principle that even very minimal odds (which is what you had stated) can be a high risk if the consequences are very large (which is what you did not really address initially).
I didn't say RTGs can destroy the earth. It was a hyperbole to get you or another responder to address the consequence portion of the risk equation. And then hopefully, move on to address the benefit portion of the risk-benefit analysis.
If it happens there will be widespread death, undoubtedly.
Actually, it's quite doubtful. Russia burned up an RTG over Canada and all that happened was that Russia had to pay for the cleanup. Nobody died from the incident.
Hate to break it to you, but your arguments are pathetic. There's little to no risk. [...] you're going to have a hard time proving your case.
My case, just because you've completely missed it, isn't about the Sojourner or nuclear power. It's about the way advocates argue using only partial elements of an entire equation. The point I claim you proved is not that the Sojourner is risky, but that you again emphasized the minimal risk without addressing the benefits.
Now, I appreciate you finally accepting my equation in argument. I'll leave it to somebody else to challenge why you assign 100 to the utility of a working transmitter, etc. At least now we're arguing a more complete picture, no?
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
-- /. zen: Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Beowulf clusters...
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A watch that can tell time in Sol: $1500
One trip to MARS: $400M
towing an old decrepid machine back home to tell us the obvious answers (dust and radiation): $800M
The look on Chris Voorhees face after seeing the rover's video feed swapped with "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie" just seconds before something important was about to happen: $Priceless$
I don't think Baja dust is really comparable, because the soil on mars is composed of "fines," which are extremely small (micron sized, I think). The gap on a log scale between fines and Baja dust is probably comparabel to the gap between Baja dust and gravel. Tough to keep out!
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Could you kindly define RTG? Is that some sort of reactor?
Radioisotope Thermal Generator
If you punch it into google, you'll find that it takes the heat from plutonium or strontium-90 and turns it into usable electricity. There are no moving parts and no fission or fusion reaction. It's just a lump of rock (actually metal) that gets very hot.
SRG stands for Stirling Radioisotope Generator
These are more efficient power sources that use the heat from radioisotopes to power a stirling engine (the precursor to the combustion engine). They produce several times the power of an RTG with the same amount of hot rock.
About Chernobyl - did you know that the operators wanted to do illegal experiment (see details bellow) and they had to bypass 7 security mechanisms to perform the experiment? (they even had to CUT (!!!) some wires!)
The operators wanted to get some bonus money by trying to get a little more power when reactor was going to be shut-down and was running on the "neutral gear" - I can't explain it too much but my father was in Russia to learn how to do reactor simulators so he knows all the details...
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
sfjoe
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Did you know that if every Hydrogen, Neutron, and Atomic bomb were detonated, it wouldn't even penetrate the earth's crust?
Do you mean if they were detonated above the earth's crust... where we are? I'm glad to hear their won't be any damage to the earth's precious mantle.
Did you know that the laws of physics say that 6 megawatts of destructive force is the same whether it's 6 megawatts of coal, nuclear, oil, or dynamite power?
My physics book didn't have any formulas for destructive or constructive force. Is there a physical constant I'm not aware of there, Mr Limbaugh?
Did you know that only 40 people on site died in Chernobyl?
Whew - I was worried about the billions of people off the site.
Did you know that you have been brainwashed into thinking that nuclear power can destroy the world?
I'm so thankful for you clear-headed people who can clear it up for the rest of us retards. I do so enjoy being patronized.
Don't take the environmentalists at face value.
And don't take babbling right-wingers at face-value either.
I'm actually well aware of what they did to the thing. The problem was that the communist system paid everyone the same amount of money for the same job. Thus there was really no such thing as "advancement".
You can find all kinds of "hacks" in the Russian culture where they tried to extract more money from the government. The black market was one, but a more common one was shows like Ghostia es Budishva (sp? Hard to translate Cyrillics.), i.e. Girl from the Future. If you've ever watched that very popular show (and I've sat through all six hours of it) you'll note how much time the actors spend walking through hallways or exploring nature preserves. This is because the government was paying based on the length of the final product. Longer show == more money.
Do you mean if they were detonated above the earth's crust... where we are? I'm glad to hear their won't be any damage to the earth's precious mantle.
Yes, where we are. The original poster suggested (even if it was a hyperbole) that a tiny RTG could destroy the entire world. I included that point for the purpose of pointing out otherwise. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We've gotten quite good at finding ways to kill ourselves, but we still have very little effect on nature as a whole.
My physics book didn't have any formulas for destructive or constructive force. Is there a physical constant I'm not aware of there, Mr Limbaugh?
Now you're just being ridiculous. "destructive" refers to how force is applied. Using it to create electricity is "constructive" use while using it to blow shit up is "destructive" use. Would you like a dictionary?
Whew - I was worried about the billions of people off the site.
Allow me to rephrase: The only people killed as a direct result of the Chernobyl disaster were 40 people who were onsite at the time. No one was killed offsite, but Russia's failure to cleanup from the disaster produced 200 more indirect deaths.
I'm so thankful for you clear-headed people who can clear it up for the rest of us retards. I do so enjoy being patronized.
I do believe I was talking to the original poster. Are you him? Or do you agree with the assertion that a few pounds of plutonium could destroy the world? If either of those are true, then that line was meant for you. If neither is true, then you're being a jackass for the sake of being a jackass.
And don't take babbling right-wingers at face-value either.
Fair enough. Research what I've said. You'll find it to be quite accurate. Or was the whole point to stop people from thinking? Maybe it's a left-wing plot to keep people uninformed so they'll keep getting snared by welfare! Or MAYBE you're just spouting off for no good reason.
If it hit the eastern seaboard, it *could* be a problem. It's still doubtful though. Plutonium is such heavy stuff that it's pretty hard to inhale. There were a lot more dangerous chemicals in Columbia, and as far as I know, no one died.
But then again, this is all about mitigated risk. A rocket on an escape velocity is very different than a rocket on a retrograde orbit velocity. An escape velocity rocket wouldn't have the proper trajectory to fail over an area other than the Atlantic. A rocket on retrograde orbital trajectory could come down at an unpredictable location. However, that location would still have to be on the longitude that the rocket was launched along, so risks can be minimized by the choice of longitude.
I am of course assuming that NASA is doing their job and destroys the rocket if it veers from its planned course.
Why was this AC marked a troll? He's quite correct that Plutonium can be dangerous when inhaled. Several other threads have discussed the difficulties in this, but that doesn't make him a troll.
Alright, since you seem so fixated on unlikely events, let's look at the consequences that have *already been discussed*. Suppose that an RTG broke open for some spectacularly hypothetical reason, spewing its contents into the atmosphere over, say, a populated region. IIRC, you'd have a fairly safe form of plutonium dispersed over a wide area. You might have traffic jams of hysterical people fleeing from an imagined threat, but the radiation increase in any spot would be negligible. The plutonium would be in a fairly safe form, and eventually people would get over the shock.
They could take the material home and put it on their mantle as a souvenir and it wouldn't hurt anyone.
Actually, that would be cool. I wonder if NASA would consider putting bits of old RTGs (test models that never left earth), encasing them in glass or plastic or something, and selling them as desk toys. I'd buy one.
You'll love this guy. He still hasn't taken me up on my "nuclear challenge". I wonder why?;-)
Reminds me of
this nuclear challenge. During the debate over RTGs in the Cassini probe, Dr. Bernard Cohen challenged Ralph Nader to eat as much caffeine as he would plutonium. Eating a gram of caffeine would kill you fairly quickly.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I've been really hoping that one day they'll go back to the original Sojourner site and return that unit to Earth for analysis
You do know that Mars is like, planet size, don't you?
You guys are funny, giving suggestions to the guys at the JPL. I'm sure they haven't considered any of your ideas. It's a wonder they even made it to Mars without your help.
Sorry...mod away.
Its argueably one of the most toxic substances around, but its radioactivity probably wouldn't kill you.
So unless you got hit with scrapnel from the lander or say, your sandwich did, you're probably pretty safe.
If the plutonium (which is in the form of plutonium oxide i think), were to get released into the atmosphere due to rocket failure, it'd be a non-event basically. Radioactive fallout from 50s test is probably still far higher than any trace amounts that'd be found after such an event.
How would they fit an SRG onto a rover? Sure, there might be enough room on large rovers like Spirit and Opportunity, but on Sojouner? No. Maybe on the Pathfinder lander itself, but not on the Sojouner rover.
Forget the RTG - a hacked rocket with tens of thousands of pounds of fuel and oxidizer on board is a VERY scary terrorist weapon. Chances are the RTG will survive the blast anyway. (Even those who oppose RTGs generally admit that they are designed to survive disasters - they object to the small chance that they will not.)
Terrorists would either have to be very lucky or would have to hijack quite a few launces to finally break open an RTG. And if it routinely rains Saturn 5's over New York city, I think somebody would look into the hacking problem.
Funny how these guys are worried shitless by the thought of a few oz of plutonium, yet aren't bothered by the pounds of lead that whizz around the streets each year from firearms. Isn't it?
-- ...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
Did you know that if every Hydrogen, Neutron, and Atomic bomb were detonated, it wouldn't even penetrate the earth's crust?
Not so. A sequence of hydrogen bombs dropped into a weak spot in the mid-atlantic ridge would definitely penetrate the oceanic crust.
Did you know that nuclear reactors exist that put out only about 6 MegaWatts? In comparison, the smallest coal plants puts out about 30 megawatts.
What is the point of bringing up power output? This seems like a red herring. There are research reactors which produce less than 1 kw, and there are coal furnaces which operate on a similar scale. These facts have nothing to do with the relative safety of nuclear power.
Did you know that the laws of physics say that 6 megawatts of destructive force is the same whether it's 6 megawatts of coal, nuclear, oil, or dynamite power?
This is meaningless. Any measurement of destructive force requires some kind of context. Besides, destructive force is often measured in units of energy rather than power (joules versus watts): moment magnitude for earthquakes, TNT equivalents for nuclear weapons, etc.
Did you know that Russia TRIED to get Chernobyl to blow in order to perform safety tests?
This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The explosion was due to stupid negligence, not malice.
You arguments would be strengthened if you didn't exaggerate so much, and people would be more willing to listen if you adopted a more personable manner when debating.
-- "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
Wouldn't the dust clog the air jet as well? Electrostatic coating would be more interesting. But there is another problem - the first major dust storm would grind down the surfaces of the solar cells, reducing their transmission and efficiency. One could probably devise a way to prevent that too, but I fear you would quite soon run into weight limitations.
My points were an attempt to point out that nuclear power is not the Earth killer people think it is. Sure, you can say "in this situation", but it doesn't change the fact that nuclear is not the most dangerous form of energy in existence.
And I didn't bother converting to joules (where 1 joule = 1 watt second) because it would have simply clouded the issue. The issue being that energy is energy, and the resulting force is the same no matter what it's powered by. Another way of putting it was that the Atomic Bomb researchers would give the figures of destructive force in the equivalent number of pounds or tons of TNT. You don't hear anyone complaining about TNT being powerful enough to destroy the planet.
This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. The explosion was due to stupid negligence, not malice.
The reactor design wasn't great, but the technicians on site weren't following operating procedure either. They removed control rods, cut wires, etc, etc, etc. Since these guys weren't Nuclear Physicists, they really didn't understand what the consequences of their actions would be. Combine that with the fact that it wasn't even a Russian design (stolen from the US) and you have a recipe for disaster.
Saying that they did everything they could to blow it up may be stretching it a little, but it's not off the mark.
Its argueably one of the most toxic substances around, but its radioactivity probably wouldn't kill you.
When it comes to dangerous chemicals, Plutonium is one of the safest. You can even ingest some without permanent harm. The only time a danger is posed is when it's ground up and inhaled.
So unless you got hit with scrapnel from the lander or say, your sandwich did, you're probably pretty safe.
Correct.
(which is in the form of plutonium oxide i think)
Usually Plutonium Oxide is used, but not always. Plutonium Oxide is the "burned" form of Plutonium much in the same way that water is the "burned" form of hydrogen.
Radioactive fallout from 50s test is probably still far higher than any trace amounts that'd be found after such an event.
Do an EPA search on SR-90 and you'll find some wonderful figures about how much we eat and drink each year. It might be fun to point it out to an environmentalist wacko and watch them go chicken little on you.:-)
It's not hard. RTGs are simply plutonium encased in a thermo-coupler. You get about 75W per 2.5 pounds. And with an atomic number of 94, 2.5 pounds is very small bar.
SRGs are more efficient, and get about 55 watts per 600 grams of fuel. Given that an SRG is simply a small Stirling engine, there should be no difficulty in fitting one inside a rover.
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
Physics+Dude
·
· Score: 1
A one-in-a-million chance is small, but if it destroys the entire earth, it's probably too risky to offset almost any benefit.
"destroys the entire earth"? What are you smoking?
The chance if an RTG bursting is extremely small but the risk if one did is imaginary. Certainly nothing from an RTG could be fatal unless the thing hit you on the head. If it burst, it still wouldn't pose a threat.
You said "Well, they *are* radio-active, and there is a small chance that one could burst from launch errors and end up polluting a populated area. I agree that the risk is tiny, but it does exist. Noboby sane claims they explode into mushroom clouds."
Prefer using the words 'there is a small probability' or 'there exists a potential'. When you use the word 'chance' you play a trick on people's minds because 'chances' are always associated with a positive outcome, as in saying that the statment is hoped to be true. People tend to say, "I have a chance to win the lottery" vice "I have a chance to lose the lottery" because they want to win the lottery. If you use the word 'chance' in your above context it fuels paranoia vice the logical reasoning of calculated risks.
-- Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
Did you know that only 40 people on site died in Chernobyl?
But what about many thousands who participated in cleaning up the mess and later got very sick and/or died in the result? Did you also know that there is a special disability status "Chernobil veteran" in Latvia and probably other surrounding post-USSR countries and they get free health care? They even didn't work at the very site. Health problems started to appear many years later. Thousands and thousands of children in many areas of Ukraine and Byelorussia are still dying for leukemia because they were exposed to winds flowing from the site.
Did you know that Russia did very little to clean up the waste that was expelled and as a result killed about 200 more people through inaction?
Soviets were never efficient but this is too much BS. You can imagine the difficulties. First they were throwing graphite from chopters above. There were men with lead armor sent just to throw one shovel of graphite and afterwards they were sent away from the site never to work again here because their amount of radiation received exceeded all levels. Their work was for 7 seconds and we don't know if they survived some years later.
--
Re:Revisit Sojourner!
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
Someone just came up with the most recent report on Chernobyl. In short? You're full of shit. Every person on site at Chernobyl is being tracked even to this day. Most illnesses were in small children who developed Thyroid cancer. This is due to radioactive Iodine isotopes taking the place of regular Iodine in the diet. Most of those children were treated, and very few died. (BTW, radioactive fallout was one of the reasons for adding Iodine to salt. If you get enough regular Iodine, your body will ignore the isotopes.)
At this point, people in Norway are getting higher radiation doses than those in the Chernobyl area. As one final check, I asked my wife (who's from Russia) what she knew about "Chernobyl disabilities". She did know a few people from the Chernobyl area, and her opinion was that you're full of crap.
Here's a photo of the landing platform it just rolled off of.
From the cited article: 'Data from the Spirit rover shows it completed this morning's drive off the lander at 3:41 a.m. EST. Confirmation was received on Earth just before 5 a.m. EST, verifying that Spirit had performed the 10-foot voyage on its own.
The move took approximately 78 seconds, ending with the back of the rover about 2.6 feet away from the lander egress ramp, officials report.
"It's as if we get to drive a nice sports car, but in the end we're just the valets who bring it around to the front and give the keys to the science team," says flight director Chris Lewicki.'
Who let the jugs out?
by
sielwolf
·
· Score: 4, Funny
JPL engineers played Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the control room as they watched new images confirming that the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit successfully rolled off its lander platform early Thursday morning.
Oh for the love of... Really, we didn't need to hear this. I hope that didn't get caught on film because that's the sort of thing that resurfaces at retirement parties.;p
Yeah, it did get caught on tape, actually- I saw the JPL celebration on NASA TV earlier (really early) this morning, and sure enough, the Baha Men's lasting musical legacy was played as the image taken looking back at the landing platform was displayed on the main screen. There were some chuckles from the room, but even though JPL engineers aren't exactly renowned for being hip or avant-garde, the consensus, insofar as I could tell watching on television, was, "Lame."
-- "FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
Re:Who let the jugs out?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
"Who Let the Dogs Out" == We're better than Beagle!
Awww, c'mon. Don't trash the Baha Men. You must never have sat at the pool bar at Club Land'or, swilling a Kalik, while Island Boy played in the background.
One of the best vacations I ever had...
Re:Who let the jugs out?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Yup, two things seriously wrong here. PR people, and the management which listens to them.
Re:Who let the jugs out?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're telling me... Who's job is it to think up what song to play when, and why is it that important to them that everybody knows. When Accounting balances the budget, you don't see the paper-pushers "cuttin' loose" on their desks singing "Another One Bites The Dust" do you?
Couldn't them at least make it more interesting than just a lot of rocks on a desert? some little green men and one or two flying saucers would make the news so much less boring.
I laughed even harder the second time you posted this image. Want to try for three?
Re:Way to go
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow, that was equally mean-spirited and ignorant.
I posted references to two distinct images: one (Poochie.jpg) in response to a comment on it being a hoax in hollywood, the other (NoteToSelf.jpg) in response to a comment on needing aliens to make the photos more interesting.
Thus both replies were germane to their respective parent posts.
The regime's plainclothes men and security agents have arrested in several citie s, such as in Tehran and Esfahan, Iranians who angered by the situation had shou ted publicly unprecedented slogans considered almost as a blasphemy by the rulin g theocracy.
These unprecedented slogans were nothing else than "Long Live Israel!" and "Long
Live America!" shouted during tens of popular Blood collect gatherings by Irani ans welcoming the Israeli and American support of the quake's victims.
The popular anger has been boosted as the Islamic regime has banned any Israeli support of the quake's victims by rejecting this country's offer of aid. Many Ir anians consider such rejection as another prove that the regime's leaders are mo re willing to let Iranians die by sacrifying them in order to keep their backwar ded anti-Semite ideology.
Many also are cheering the US President for his constant support of Iranians and
are qualifying the landing of US Aid planes as another "slap in the face of the
regime".
About what might happen should the Martian government get their hands on the rover. They will most likely have to destroy it to cover up the fact that their planet has been visited by machines from another planet. Let's just hope we can get a picture of their leaders before they disconnect the cameras!
Re:I'm a little worried...
by
aelfric35
·
· Score: 1
One can only wonder why it took them so long to get to Sojourner... This also explains why the government isn't bothering to haul it back to Earth, because Karl Rove and his cronies are obviously conspiring to hide the truth about the Martian government (and the treaty we broke that caused them to bust up Sojourner in the first place) from the American people.
--
"Den som vover mister Fodfaeste et Oieblik;
den som ikke vover mister Livet." -Soren Kierkegaard
Re:I'm a little worried...
by
bigkahunafish
·
· Score: 1
Actually, what NASA doesnt want us to know is that the Martian government has moved the rover to their own studio where they cover up their expansive and luxurious cites and large bodies of water.
NASA couldnt get the rover driving around for a few days because the Martians tied it down when they put it in the studio.
Martians: NASA fools. They only think there's red rocks and maybe some ice on Mars. MWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!
(Score:-1, Stupid)
-- Eat a Chicken, You know you want to.
Re:I'm a little worried...
by
Janek+Kozicki
·
· Score: 1
Let's just hope we can get a picture of their leaders before they disconnect the cameras!
what leaders? We will just see some poor homeless martians toying with the machine until they accidentally destroy the cameras. Then a one who is smarter will try to sell it for food.
Re:I'm a little worried...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Martian government, for one, welcomes their new robot overlord.
Re:I'm a little worried...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
(Score:-1, Stupid)
Agreed.
Re:I'm a little worried...
by
bradwww
·
· Score: 1
The martians will actually have to destroy the Rover because electric cars will never work, nobody wants them, and they must destroy the evidence that they ever
existed...
I think you're on to something. The Mars Rover is a perfect opportunity for Toyota to market their Prius.
Imagine this for the ad:
A Toyota Prius lands on Mars...similar to the way the Rover did.
Then a bunch of Martians come out of caves and look at the Prius in "awe".
Then they get inside and drive around, cranking the radio ("Twilight Time" by The Platters).
It would be great!
Re:Nice Article Summary...
by
Thrymm
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Exactly, witty is one thing, but let it come to the comments for that, not the news posting itself. Hell a lot of people think the moon landings were a farce. Maybe some people still think the world is flat too or that the sun circles us every 365 days because of idiocy like this.
Re:What do the conspiracy dumbasses say now?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
"If you magnify the rear 33rd quadrant of the picture enough, you can see a marker that says 'Property of Lucasarts'!"
Yeah, I think it's the one straight back in the photo of the lander. (The rover turned about 120 degrees clockwise to get off the lander) There's another bag on the left.
They were afraid one of the solar panels would brush it, and they weren't sure of the consequences, so they took the conservative route.
MER's wheels stood a pretty good chance of getting "hung up" in the bags. If you remember Sojourner's wheels, which were studded with little metal cone-shaped spikes, you'll understand why operators were concerned.
MER doesn't have those spikes, but its wheels have sharp edges - besides, MER's several times more massive than little Sojourner...a whole different driving experience, to bastardize a BMW ad-line.
It's be like sending a sportscar 37 million miles only to get it stuck in the mud. That's exactly what NASA didn't need this year. Now, if only the next rover can enter Mars's atmosphere without a hitch, we'll be alright.
I was wondering if larger diameter wheels with softer edges would have been easier to use. Farm tractors have large flotation type wheels for similar reasons. Sort of like giant RC car wheels. Dunno, I'm not an engineer; could a real engineer comment on this?
-- C|N>K
Re:Air Bag in Photo
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Spirit had to be folded up pretty small to fit into the lander. They crammed as much as they could into that tiny space. Larger wheels would have required a trade-off of some sort - smaller scientific payloads, smaller batteries, etc.
NASA compromised on the smallest, least-complicated wheels that could do the job.
Why was moving dangerous?
by
sphealey
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I understand that the mission controllers wanted to take their time and not make any foolish mistakes, a policy I agree with.
However, I don't understand why they kept saying that moving the rover off the lander was "dangerous". I thought the rover was designed to be able to deploy even if the lander came to rest upside down. Instead it was right-side-up on level ground. The rover had to drive over the deflated balloon, but why was that more dangerous than just driving over the surface?
sPh
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
Cyclopedian
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The rover had to drive over the deflated balloon, but why was that more dangerous than just driving over the surface?
Because mission engineers had tested the same setup (airbag position, rover position) and found that the orignal exit ramp had a chance that the rover's solar panel would get caught on the airbag. They decided to opt for the safest route, and turned the rover around and out through the second exit ramp.
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
Odonian
·
· Score: 1
I suspect it is more politically dangerous than technically dangerous. If the rover gets stuck 3 months from now in some crater a couple of km out, JPL/NASA can declare success, say the mission exceeded expectations, etc.
If the rover gets stuck rolling off the ramp, that's another matter. However small the chance is, it looks reeely, reeely bad.. almost better to do the beagle-fiery-crunchy landing with no embarrasing pics than that.
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
thedillybar
·
· Score: 1
However, I don't understand why they kept saying that moving the rover off the lander was "dangerous"...
but why was that more dangerous than just driving over the surface?
I don't recall them saying it was more dangerous. I think they just said that it was dangerous.
I, for one, would consider almost any maneuver by the rover to be dangerous. After all, this is the first time those components have experienced leaving the Earth's atmosphere, existing in Mars' atmosphere, and everything in between.
Many things could go wrong, let's hope they take their time and do it right. To consider any of this to be routine would be a blunder.
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
cupofjoe
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Just to clarify: landing upside-down wasn't a failure mode because the lander could right itself by "flipping over" during deployment. This only gets the assembly into the right position for letting the rover roll off. This, as we've seen, is a whole different proposition.
Spirit actually had to roll off a 4-5" drop at the bottom of the ramp, possibly because of rocks, uneven ground, etc. That drop would've flipped Sojourner, for example, on its back. Being the size of a golf cart, Spirit has some advantages in this area. But as it's more massive, it has its own set of problems, as I've also commented on.
I also agree with the poster who states that the real danger is as much political as it is technical. But MER's operators probably aren't thinking that. Managers, yes. Engineers and scientists, probably not.
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
bigkahunafish
·
· Score: 1
It would be like...
Bush: Hows the Mars rover doing?
NASA:UHH, well, we kinda flipped it over getting off the landing pad.
Bush:And you call me an idiot?
(Score:-1, Childish)
-- Eat a Chicken, You know you want to.
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
adrianbaugh
·
· Score: 1
Just to clarify: landing upside-down wasn't a failure mode because the lander could right itself by "flipping over" during deployment.
That's what I like to see: a practical use for Robot Wars technology:-) Does it also have a big spinning disk and a wedge design for upending other robo^H^H^H^H Martia... oh, never mind!
--
"'I pass the test,' she said. 'I will diminish, and go into the West, and remain Galadriel.'" - JRR Tolkien.
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
kidgenius
·
· Score: 1
The reason it is more "dangerous" to get off the lander than being on the surface, is that once you are on the surface, if you stop moving, at least you could possibly collect soil samples, data, do analysis, etc. From the ramp, all you can do is take pretty pictures.
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
Iron+Sun
·
· Score: 1
The airbags were designed to deflate in sequence so if the lander came to rest wrong way up after its bouncedown it could right itself before opening up to reveal the rover. If the lander got stuck upside down, like in a crevasse, then there would be no way of deploying.
The sequence of activities to ready the rover for movement off the lander were the most complex series of steps ever undertaken by a space probe. Dozens of small pyrotechnic devices had to be fired to release clamps, sever cables and so on. If any of them had failed to fire, the mission would have been severely crippled at best.
because if they got stuck, they'd have to endure ANOTHER 5 years of stupid NASA-bashing comments. The "duh! you can't tell the difference between metric and English units!" comments would be replaced with the equally stupid/immature (but yet always somehow labeled "+5, funny") "Duh! NASA is so dumb they can get into a car accident 300 million miles away! Ha!") comments...
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
hesiod
·
· Score: 1
> Dozens of small pyrotechnic devices had to be fired to release clamps
Wouldn't it be interesting if at some point we put a rover on some planet or moon that had a flammable atmosphere? It lands and the planet promptly turns into a ball of fire.
Re:Why was moving dangerous?
by
DerekLyons
·
· Score: 1
I also agree with the poster who states that the real danger is as much political as it is technical. But MER's operators probably aren't thinking that. Managers, yes. Engineers and scientists, probably not.
The way the mission team is playing the PR game, it's quite obvious that politics are at least part of the considerations. Your assesment of roles reflects a Platonic ideal, the real world is a little more blurred.
dr4m4 0n m4r5...
by
Deraj+DeZine
·
· Score: 2, Funny
So if these space photos are made on a set (or out in a desert), where would all that money that Bush just announced he's giving NASA go? In my opinion, NASA should forget cameras and go for full-on fraudulent Mars cinematography. Complete with a full cast of Martian characters, leading up to a climax where the main character has to make a decision about whether his best friend lives... or DIES. *cue the tear*
where would all that money that Bush just announced he's giving NASA go?
All that money? Seems to me that the Bush space strategy is going to cost NASA more than he's giving them.
U.S. President George W. Bushs new space exploration strategy will be paid for over the next several years with $1 billion in new funding for NASA and $11 billion that will be shifted from other agency programs, according to congressional sources.
And they could call it Plan 9 from Outer Space! It's guaranteed to be successful with a name like that! Quick, somebody call Ed Wood!
-- True story.
Re:You'd think the fake would be obvious ....
by
stoolpigeon
·
· Score: 1
That's funny - a radio guy this morning was going on about how they might find the real killer on Mars since they are never going to find him here on earth.
-- It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Re:Nice Article Summary...
by
PhxBlue
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
it's jackass commentary like this that does nothing but perpeptuate bullshit to the masses and misinforms that average (read stupid) american. then the average (read stupid again) american's think these things are a waste of money.
Right, and how many "average Americans" do you know who (A) read Slashdot and (B) won't pick up the sarcasm in the original statement?
It's humor (though I'll agree, it's not really funny). Don't sweat it.
-- !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
Jennifer Trosper is a
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
hottie!
My only question is - when will Playboy come out with a "Women of NASA" issue ?
Re:Jennifer Trosper is a
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
it's jackass commentary like this that does nothing but perpeptuate bullshit to the masses and misinforms that average (read stupid) american. then the average (read stupid again) american's think these things are a waste of money.
On the contrary it is there to make the Europeans feel better about themselves.
OK, so who DID let the dogs out?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I know this is off topic, but the damn beagles have been running around my back yard since the end of December and I really do want to know who let the dogs out?
the waiting is over ---but
by
Anonym1ty
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Well I am glad to see that the thing did not get stuck on a balloon.
The chance of spirit getting stuck made me think. (For the next ones we make) Why not get some very small solid rocket engines and put them facing in all directions on this thing. If the rover gets stuck, then as a last resort they could try igniting one or more of these small rockets engines to try and dislodge the rover. These rocket engines would probably be the smallest model rocket engines (or smaller) since I would hope you wouldn't need much of a bang to move in the Martian gravity. They are also pretty cheap.
granted you'd only get one shot, but if it's a last resort it's better to have one shot then none.
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I'm pretty sure model rocket engines rely on having sufficient oxygen in the atmosphere.
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
kjdames
·
· Score: 2, Funny
I've got a better idea. What if we build a large wooden rabbit...
--
Typos... that's just how I role.
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
Brento
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Why not get some very small solid rocket engines and put them facing in all directions on this thing.....They are also pretty cheap.
Great idea! Duct tape $5 bottle rockets all over the rover! That'll definitely decrease its chances of failure. Brilliant!
You wouldn't happen to work in the European Space Agency, would you?
-- What's your damage, Heather?
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I lost respect for the scientific aspect of your post when you said "balloons". They're called "air bags". When someone crashes their SUV, it's not a helium filled birthday balloon that stops them.
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
taniwha
·
· Score: 1
no - they are either blackpowder or AP/rubber. Both of which have their own oxidiser
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
a few problems... it is the size of a golf-cart. problem 2: mars is bigger then earth, gravity is based on mass of all surronding objects. Mars has more mass then earth, therefore Mars has more gravity then earth.
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
1984
·
· Score: 1
"...since I would hope you wouldn't need much of a bang to move in the Martian gravity."
That only counts if you're going up, i.e. pulling against the gravity of the planet. The mass of everything involved is still the same, and that governs the amount of force you need to move against inertia.
So if you need to push the rover around, you'll need similar-sized forces (i.e. engines) that you'd need on Earth*.
(*) For the pedants: OK, the atmosphere is thinner, and the lack of gravity would reduce friction yadda yadda...
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
lynx_user_abroad
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Why not get some very small solid rocket engines and put them facing in all directions on this thing.
A common reaction to the realization of a vulnerability is to add complexity to address the vulnerability. This is often a bankrupt strategy.
Wouldn't you feel silly if the "next ones" incorporated exactly this suggestion, and were unusable upon landing because "a small rocket engine, included to address the possibility of a rover getting stuck, ignited on re-entry and destroyed several critical components..."
On projects like this, every gram of hardware costs pounds of fuel, every contingincy plan requires man-weeks of meetings, and every non-essential task added to the process list amounts to a lost opportunity for a once-in-a-lifetime experiment. The last thing you want is find youself facing actual mission failure because of some contingency you put in place to address a possible mission failure.
--
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
Sc00ter
·
· Score: 1
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
holy shit sc00ter is right for once. fucking hell is freezing over or some shit.
oh wait, hell is freezing over. oh well.
Re:the waiting is over ---but
by
omega_cubed
·
· Score: 1
since I would hope you wouldn't need much of a bang to move in the Martian gravity
Martian gravity is 0.38g, so the 180kg rover would weigh in at 72kg equivalent force, or around 150lbs for the metric challenged.
If by smallest model rocket engines you are referring to these babies, then you are definitely out of luck... they only produce force on the hundred-gram scale. Furthermore, considering that model rocket engines typically do not come with its own oxygen source, I expect that light atmosphere conditions on Mars would decrease the burn rate, and only make the output less.
So it prolly ain't gonna work unless you attach a custom-built rocket, then you might as well spend the money on making the Rover less prone to getting stuck....
-- Engineers also speak PDE, only in a different dialect.
Old News
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Mod me off topic for certain!
Some mechanism needs to be installed at slashdot that gets these stories out faster.
Did you look at those pictures? You can see the curve of it's surface from the surface. I dunno, I don't think life could have existed on a planet that small.
I don't know if your trying to be funny or not, but FYI they are using fish-eye lenses on the navigation cameras that allow them to have a 120 degree field of view.
Did you look at those pictures? You can see the curve of it's surface from the surface. I dunno, I don't think life could have existed on a planet that small.
You can compensate for the curvature by bending your skull in the opposite way. I am sure it is quite pliable:-)
Ha Ha, I know you are being sarcastic but I'll bite anyway. The fish-eye effect is caused by the wide angle lense of the camera they are using. It allows for more area to be photographed but things that are further away from the center of view are warped.
Re:Mars is tiny
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Wow, some mod has something up his ass today...this is the second funny post I've seen that's been moderated as flamebait. It's SARCASM people, come on!
Re:Mars is tiny
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This post needs to be moded insightful. It's been extremely insightful reading the responses.
I would also propose that moderations be moderated. The person who moderated this post flamebait HAD to be joking.
Come on!!!! What are you smoking. Mars is not "tiny," rather, the Martian rover is freaking huge. Anybody with half-a-brain knows the damn thing was built on Bush 1 (i.e. the secret moon base on the dark side) and sent to Mars from there.
FYI - The whole reason Bush 2 is proposing building a moon base (which we already have) is to cover up the billions of dollars spent on Bush 1.
Anonymous (for a reason)
Re:Mars is tiny
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Look at the sky. Can you imagine the material that little hunk must be made of to hold down an atmosphere? It's no wonder most landers crash.
I found this to be one of the more interesting links from the NASA site. It is about a watchmaker in California who modified mechanical watches to keep Mars time.
Re:Mars Watch
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
you mean the article that was posted here days ago???
"Controllers called it the most significant 10 feet (3 meter) drive in history." ________________________________ Why is this so significant when the Mars Pathfinder Sojourner Rover did this during the 1997 Mars Exploration? Is it because this is actually being controlled by scientists remotely? Is the main difference simply because Pathfinder drove itself, using terrain analysis and obstacle avoidance, instead of having scientists drive it themselves? I don't quite understand how this is significant over what was previously achieved. Please help me to understand.
-- >>>>>> Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
JPL engineers played Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the control room as they watched new images confirming that the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit successfully rolled off its lander platform early Thursday morning.
A bunch of sweaty scientists dancing around the lab to "who let the dogs out"? Was Steve Ballmer there?
Don't give Microsoft any more ideas! That's liable to be an intro video for the next version of Windows.
Re:Nice Article Summary...
by
Smilodon
·
· Score: 1
It's posts like that that perpetuate the myth that SlashDot is read by the "average" American!;)
Seriously, if the controllers at JPL can play the Baha Men to celebrate rolling on to another planet, certainly a few geeks at SlashDot can have a sense of humor about the whole thing.
Would it help if I got out and pushed?
by
shuz
·
· Score: 1
The rover exited the lander going.0007386 miles per hour! thats really friggen slow!!!
I probably screwed up on the math but it went 3 feet in 78 seconds. I assumed that this was at a constant speed.
-- There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
Re:Would it help if I got out and pushed?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Actually, that's
3 ft / 5280ft ------------- 78 sec / 60 sec per min / 60 min per hr
Which gives us 0.03 miles per hour. Taking into account the 10-minute communications lag, that's not really that bad.
Let's face it. This thing isn't made to go zipping across mars. Those solar panels can only generate so much power, and with all of those instruments sucking power and adding mass to the thing, I bet those motors are low-speed high-torque and don't eat up much power.
Re:Would it help if I got out and pushed?
by
SWPadnos
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Actually, you got the math wrong. Also, one of your premises was wrong: it moved 10 feet, not 3. (even though the back of the rover is ~3 feet from the lander, it had to drive the front wheels off the lander, then move far enough so the back rolls across the lander, off the ramp, and another 3 feet beyond)
There are 3600 seconds in an hour, so Spirit would travel (3600/78) * 10 = 461.538 feet, or a little under 1/11 mile per hour. (0.08741, to be more exact)
-- - The Sigless Wonder
Re:Would it help if I got out and pushed?
by
shuz
·
· Score: 1
I knew there was a reason I never passed algebra... course neither did einstien.
Thanks
-- There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
flimsy looking
by
Lehk228
·
· Score: 1, Interesting
Why are the robots we send to mars always so flimsy looking, the look like they are designed to easily get stuck or break,If i was designing a mars rover i would make sure that
A) It was capable of clearing debris off it's solar panels
B) it could right itself if overturned
C) it's propulsion system was designed to resist getting tangled up by parachutes and any other stuff around the landing spot
D) it Carrys a redundant solar array in case the solar array is damaged
E) it has to be able to "lift" itslef in any direction in case it gets stuck at an odd angle, 6 to 8 extendable rods facing different directions should be fine
Unfortunately there isn't a launcher in the world big enough to get your design to Mars. Extraterrestrial robots are a nice balance of what people would like and what is actually feasible. This is extremely difficult to do, which is why it takes genius engineers to design them.
-- Panurge has posted for the last time. Thanks for the positive moderations.
Are you assuming that the NASA engineers haven't thought of any of that? It sounds like you're ready to design a battlebot, let us know when you've got that done then we'll talk about Mars landers.
-- We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Weight is the enemy. All that stuff sounds like it would be a good idea, but it would weigh a lot more, and therefore cost a lot more.
-- My patience is infinite, my time is not.
Re:flimsy looking
by
enjo13
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Wow, a monday morning robot designer..
If you could do all of that, and deliver a package with the neccesary weight, size, and other various launch/flight/deployment constraints.. then you would be (by far) the best robot designer on the planet. Ohh ya, and be able to do all of those things reliably on an alien world millions of miles away.
These are smart people (I've had the privilige of working with two of them), that are well aware of all of those possibilities. The realities of design have to come into play at some point, and that's how these things really come about.
-- Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Well, the Energiacould probably do the job lifting it into orbit around earth. However it would still be difficult to get that thing to Mars, and then safely drop it onto the surface.
F) It has a GIANT SPRING, to pogo itself away from any Little Green Men if they come near it.
G) In the event of Giant Spring failure, the last resort is the Plasma Cannon.
H) In the event the Plasma Cannon initiates full scale interplantary war, it activates the Omega 13 device, reverses time, and destroys itself before it deploys the Plasma Cannon.
I) In the event of the Time Reversal Self Destruction Manuevor still incurring the Martian overlord's wrath, it sends a signal to me, so that I can get the f*ck off the planet with my immediate family, to settle in Alpha Centurai.
J)..and so on.
Re:flimsy looking
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't forget that its weight on Mars is about 1/3 its weight on earth, so something that looks like it would be flimsy on earth might well not be flimsy at all on Mars.
actually my battlebot designs are very different from my ideas for a rover, but seriously being able to clear the solar panels of debris could be taken care of using ultrasonic vibrations after tilting the panels 90 degrees (hard part is making solar panels that would not be damaged by the vibration) or perhapse having transparent layers on the panels that could be individually shedded when power output got too low due to dirt collecting on it, the self-righting mechanism could be a set of thin rods that would be attached to each edge to flip outward if stuck (this idea actually DID come from battlebots)
Looks can be decieving, much R&D in the aerospace industry is just on developing new materials that are lighter, stronger, more resistant to extremes. Although completely structurally related, take the shell of an egg. Appear fragile? Absolutely. But I'd be willing to bet less than 20% of slashdot readers could crush an unboiled egg inside of their hand.
Take a look at the videos NASA provide of Spirit opening itself up from the lander, whilst on Earth. Now, consider trying to fit all the crap that you suggest into the package it's in. It ain't gonna happen, and I for one am damned impressed at what they _have_ managed to squeeze into such a tight space.
There was hardware for at least 4 Energia in the site 112 building, as well as Buran which was atop a fully assembled Energia.
No effort has been made to clear the rubble after the roof collapse and see what, if anything, survived under there.
But whatever the case, Energia did work, it was big, and certainly the designs still exist so there is no reason an Energia (or VKK/Buran for that matter) could not be built again.
It would be better than the American shuttles, although only marginally so (more payload, remote control possible, but apart from that...).
Enterprise and the Falcon are fictional, Energia & Buran actually flew.
Enterprise and the Falcon are fictional, Energia & Buran actually flew.
The operative word is flew. (I.E. past tense.) No reasonable individual believes that any 'real' Energia boosters or a functional Buran was destroyed in the 112 collapse. Despite glowing Russian statements, folks who had actually seen the equipment described it 'left to sit', not 'mothballed'. As I said, it's an ex-parrot.
But whatever the case, Energia did work, it was big, and certainly the designs still exist so there is no reason an Energia (or VKK/Buran for that matter) could not be built again.
True, but first you have to overcome the chicken-and-egg problem. With no large boosters available, no one is designing large payloads. With no large payloads in the offing, no one is seriously looking at large boosters.
Re:What do the conspiracy dumbasses say now?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Informative
Mars must be really small...
by
SpaceRook
·
· Score: 2, Funny
You can actually see the curvature of the planet! Does The Little Prince live there?
Re:Mars must be really small...
by
BrodyVess
·
· Score: 1
Then again, they could just be using wide angle "fisheye" lenses so that it takes fewer pictures to cover the same amount of span. You know like this. Anything under a 35mm lens produces this kind of effect. Just ask the pimply faced teenage at the closest Ritz camera to show you.
-- No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re:Mars must be really small...
by
mcdade
·
· Score: 1
I was wondering the same thing.. why they put such a fisheye lens on the thing??
maybe that's what the JPL nerds need to see, and they they actually get to see a proper image out the coke bottle glasses they wear! ahha.
Should have one normal lens, so everyone else can see something properly.
Re:Mars must be really small...
by
fraudrogic
·
· Score: 1
Isn't that the HAL9000 viewpoint?
"I'm sorry NASA. I can't let you do that."
-- I only mod up parents of "mod parent up" posts...
Re:Mars must be really small...
by
fingusernames
·
· Score: 1
Those are hazard avoidance cameras. They are not meant to produce "science" images. They are there to provide a wide viewing angle of what is around the rover's front and rear, to provide, well, hazard avoidance.
Larry
Who let your MOM out
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Chris Cuevas nad ME!!!
News for nerds. Stuff that matters!
by
shuz
·
· Score: 1
Slash dot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters. What could matter more to nerds then scientific and engineering accoumplishments on another planet? The only reason why SCO is getting so much press is because they are trying to hinder engineering accoumplishments.
-- There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
programming does not equal engineering
Re:News for nerds. Stuff that matters!
by
Orion442
·
· Score: 1
The only reason why SCO is getting so much press is because they are trying to hinder engineering accoumplishments.
I thought it was because they're assholes?
Why Moving the Rover Was Dangerous
by
zapp
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
* Driving over the balloons is more dangerous than martian terrain. They could get caught in the wheels.
* Suppose some part of the rover had been broken on landing, but had not surfaced yet because it had not moved. Think of a broken neck - it doesn't cause paralysis until you move and sever your nerves.
* Take advantage of a controlled situation. They wanted to take advantage of a controlled situation for as long as they could. From the lander they could take panoramic pictures from a sligh elevation. They could atmospheric measurements, etc. All this could be done without the adding the possible failure points introduced by moving the rover.
* The lander has more solar panels and perhapse some better communication hardware. Might as well take advantage of them while you're there.
I just pulled those off the top of my head. I'm sure there are better reasons and it's been discussed here before. Will you people stop bickering about them taking too long to move it?
How's this: Give me 3 equally good reasons why they should have hurried to get it off the lander.
-- no comment
Re:Why Moving the Rover Was Dangerous
by
shuz
·
· Score: 1
1. The anticipation for soil and rock measurements are killing geologists all over the world.
2. New scientific information allows me a chance to be the first to post a story about it on Slashdot.
3. Between caffeine, sugar, and general lack of ritalin... do I need to go on?
-- There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
Re:Why Moving the Rover Was Dangerous
by
sphealey
·
· Score: 1
I just pulled those off the top of my head. I'm sure there are better reasons and it's been discussed here before. Will you people stop bickering about them taking too long to move it?
Thanks to the contributors to this thread - great answers.
Just to clarify my OP, I wasn't suggesting that it should have been done faster - I would have gone slowly in the same situation. I was wondering why it was taking so much longer than the original schedule though. You have given me a lot of suggestions to dig into.
sPh
Re:Why Moving the Rover Was Dangerous
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
i thought the lander was just that, a lander. a protective capsule to allow the rover to get there safelly and all the power to open it was from batteries, not like sojourner which was a small rover deployed from a larger, fixed scientific station.
creators' 'spirit' roils on earth?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
wrong guise to peace off, that's for sure.
no one has the right to take the life of another for ANY reason. there are NO exceptions.
MOST INSIGHTFUL POST EVER ON /.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You sir, are the lone voice of reason here.
Re:MOST INSIGHTFUL POST EVER ON /.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I try. Can I be on teh spoke now?
Re:MOST INSIGHTFUL POST EVER ON /.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I keep waiting for a picture that looks like mom in a spinning class.
Sniff a rock!
by
Tablizer
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
I think they should hurry up and do a close-up analysis of a rock rather than worry about long-distance jaunts. If it croaks in a few days, not having analyzed a single rock up close would be a shame.
I remember someone back a couple of years was caught in JPL's computers. Maybe there are some backdoors still?::)
Shotgun first drive! Of course I realize it's not like an RC car, but I can imagine right?
-- --
taking over the world, we are.
Re:Oh man what a hack
by
MyHair
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Heck, you can download the software yourself and drive a virtual version of the rover. For Windows, Linux, Solaris, and even Mac I think. And you can download actual photos/data from Spirit and have external 3d views.
You can even download via Bittorrent...those JPL guys are so nerdy it's great.
I downloaded and skimmed the manual but haven't tried it myself yet, but from the manual it's apparent you can view your rover in 3rd-person 3D.
OH shit...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
that is hardcore!
Interesting soil
by
Fr33z0r
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The dirt sticking to the wheels of Sojourner (Pathfinder) was discussed at great lengths on a board I read (bit of a crazy board full of the insane for the most part, but there are decent threads from time to time), a bunch of people yelling "it's mud, Mars is wet!" when in reality Soujourner had spun it's wheels in the dirt and essentially "dug" in the dirt... Well, that and the "dirt" is largely magnetite which is inherently magnetic.
Flash forward to today and we've got the "magic carpet", and dirt sticking to Spirit's wheels, sans digging - very interesting, and by the sounds of it also very unexpected. It will be great to find out what's making it stick, and just "how Mars works" in general.
Did I ever mention how glad I am humanity has another rover on an alien world?:)
Maybe it isn't anything sticking to the wheel but rather a rock on the ground behind the wheel.
Re:Interesting soil
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This stuff is different, though. It is sticking in a clump, and looked very like mud where the airbags bounced. This was not the case at the Pathfinder site.
The epithermal neutron results show this area as mildly wet, and the Pathfinder site as bone dry.
They say it can't be mud, and they might be right, but if you've got artesian pressure from the cryosphere, and dust covering the wetter mud so that it doesn't sublimate more rapidly than it rises, and enough salts and sulfer compounds, it really could be mud. It does look drier 12 days later.
Time will tell. We did get water signatures on Mini-TES.
Re:Interesting soil
by
toby360
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The sticking is likely because gravity is about 1/2 that of earths. Fine particles will cling much sooner in lower gravity when electrostatically charged. The martian world is probably covered in very very fine dust as the grains on the surface are blown around constantly grinding into ever finer particles. The lack of water would also mean the particles keep on the surface, when on earth they get washed into the ground much more easily.
Extremly fine dusts will act similar to this depending on the type of minerals the dust is composed of.
Hey! I'll drag you outside to my car, and we'll take it to a perfectly dry area...and you'll see how the dirt _sticks_ to my wheels. It's called sticky tread.
This rover is supposed to operate for 90 days at the max, right? They can make really sticky tires for that length of time...and I see no reason why they wouldn't.
Dan
-- ls:.sig: File not found.
(A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore?
Actually, the more I look at the pictures and other camera views. the object that looks like a clump of dirt is really the top part of the rear arm that goes down into the wheel. The front arms kind of go in at an angle while the back arms go out, then straight down. You can see that arm in other rear haz cam pictures.
Look at those tracks!!
by
enjo13
·
· Score: 4, Funny
They've really stumbled onto something interesting. The martian soil in this area appears to have a really strange consistency... they've talked about it before, it looks like mud...
I hope it doesn't get stuck, it'd suck to have to call a tow truck (or a martian redneck with a winch) to get it out:)
-- Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
Re:Look at those tracks!!
by
Jim_Maryland
·
· Score: 1
Would AAA cover this?
Re:Look at those tracks!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Sure, AAA would cover this, but only the first 25 miles are free. After that it's $5 per mile!
(and on a multi-day tow, they'll probably charge you for gas and meals!)
Re:Look at those tracks!!
by
Tablizer
·
· Score: 1
I hope it doesn't get stuck, it'd suck to have to call a tow truck (or a martian redneck with a winch) to get it out
Given the ambient temperatures (usually very very cold), and humitidy (presumably zero), and the fine-grained nature of the dust, it would not at all suprise me if there was a good deal of static charge going on - likely the cause of the apparent cohesive properties.
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Look at those tracks!!
by
drinkypoo
·
· Score: 1
Maybe Mars is the red planet because the bubbas got their way and deforested their way across the planet? At least, to the point of environmental collapse?
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Look at those tracks!!
by
Drakonian
·
· Score: 1
Aren't all Martians rednecks, literally speaking? Or maybe it's just me who images Martians as red.
-- Random is the New Order.
Spirit Rolls on Mars, Where...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The search for WMD continues.
Check out the mountains on the horizon
by
subjectstorm
·
· Score: 1
I would be very interested to see some of the geological formations on mars and the types of erosion that take place there.
I wonder if there is any volcanic activity on mars to speak of . . . anyone know? if so, what better place to find new minerals or learn about what's under the surface of mars than a field of volcanic rock and ash?
i'm also trying to wrap my mind around what sorts of erosion might occur there (in the absence of windbreaks, rainfall?, and flowing water). considering the make-up of the dust there and the wind patterns (which should be positively bizarre without large bodies of water to affect heat differences and the like), might we see glassy smooth surfaces, oddly balanced boulders and other things of that nature? I certainly don't see any dunes.
someone who knows more than me about the weather (or lack thereof) on mars could form more intelligent conclusions on this subject than i could i'm sure, so i will decline to do so out of admitted ignorance.
-- ** Chigusaaa!!! You're the coolest girl in the WORLD!!! **
Re:Check out the mountains on the horizon
by
ObiWanKenblowme
·
· Score: 1
It's had lots of volcanic activity in the past - Olympus Mons is the largest volcano in the solar system - but from what I remember from waaay back when I was in school, there isn't much, if any, current tectonic activity.
-- Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
Re:Nice Article Summary...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Maybe some people still think the world is flat too or that the sun circles us every 365 days because of idiocy like this.
The idea of the sun circling us every 365 days is really funny.
Everyone knows the sun circles us every 365.25 days. That's why we have leap year.
Better than the song they played as it rolled off.
by
camusflage
·
· Score: 1
Oh for the love of... Really, we didn't need to hear this.
According to an NPR report this morning, they played the theme from Rawhide (Rollin' rollin' rollin'...) as they sent instructions for the rover to leave the platform.
I tell you what, those rocket scientists have one seriously inverted sense of humor sometimes.
I promise, that picture was just emailed to me from an extremely high ranking member of a secret NASA team that is in charge of sending people to Mars. Don't tell anyone or we're all in BIG trouble. I guess they forgot to tell the picture taking team that The Tourist Guy would be out walking around this morning.
ooooh ! caking dirt !!! wonder of wonders !!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
When Spirit began to roll across Mars, images revealed that the rover's wheels were being caked with surface material.
"It looks like it's sticking to the wheels and lifting up. There are some very, very interesting soil mechanics going on here. We're going to have a very interesting time studying it," Steve Squyres, Principal Investigator from Cornell University for the Mars Exploration Rover project. "It doesn't look like anything I've seen before," he told SPACE.com.
oh, for crying out loud.
caking dirt? making a big deal out of caking dirt? i don't get this. this is supposed to be a monumental mission, and yet one of their chief scientists are making a big deal out of dirt caking on the wheels...
"it doesn't look like anything I've seen before" ?!??!???
sounds like someone was born in a lab and has never been outside.
dirt cakes on wheels on earth in some regions. it's not like it's anything that doesn't happen back here on earth.
it's comments like these that make me lose faith in scientists...
the other thing that really bothers me about this whole mission is why they are hiding stuff in the photos that they are allowing the public to see. most of the photos from the 'panoramic camera' have lots of really bad 'blacking out', something that a sophomoric fark photoshopper would do. what are they hiding ?!??!?
not to mention the colour of the atmosphere and the proof (that was posted on slashdot a week or so ago) they're doctoring the images to show that mars has a red atmosphere as opposed to a blue one.
screwy. i'm rather disappointed in nasa for all of this.
Re:ooooh ! caking dirt !!! wonder of wonders !!!
by
hesiod
·
· Score: 1
> what are they hiding
Ummm, that panorama was made with a bunch of camera images. Could it be that there were incomplete spots? Amazing.
> the proof (that was posted on slashdot a week or so ago) they're doctoring the image
I must have missed that article. Can you be more specific?
Re:ooooh ! caking dirt !!! wonder of wonders !!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
>> the proof (that was posted on slashdot a week or so ago) they're doctoring the image
> I must have missed that article. Can you be more specific?
yeup.
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/01/0 9/1724246&mode=thread&tid=134&tid=152&tid=160&tid= 185
i haven't hunted much, but i have yet to see nasa address this issue.
as far as the poor 'panoramic' pics...
those things are bollocky looking. you'd think that a camera attached to a zillion dollar rover would send back images that weren't all completely mismatched...
and the blackout bits -- feh. it doesn't appear that the pancam is a fisheye like the 'hazard cams' are, so why are there fisheye-stylee blackouts there?
anyway...
yeah, check out that previous story up there... rather interesting.
cheers.
Official pics
by
Fr33z0r
·
· Score: 4, Informative
The best site for Spirit pictures (and Opportunity when it lands too, I'm sure) is JPL's MER site, it's the official site, so first with the pictures (and if you click one of the dated releases and change the date in the URL manually you can sometimes get a sneak peek at the days release half an hour earlier than the rest of the world - about 4:30pm GMT or thereabouts:)
found unofficial picture!
by
pixelbeat
·
· Score: 1
Good point: Nationalism is a bad joke on all of us
by
ianscot
·
· Score: 0
You did notice that the Mars Express is doing just fine, right? You remember, the orbiter that's going to give us unprecedented looks from above the planet? And you remember that Beagle 2 was built on a shoestring, for less than half the cost of the lost NASA Polar Lander, right?
NASA's had the Mars Odyssey looking for Beagle 2. Mars Express comes from the European Space Agency. Beagle 2 was British-built. I doubt anyone at NASA's crowing about this. They wouldn't have that little class.
-- "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Need a new one ....
by
taniwha
·
· Score: 2, Funny
if they are going to do mars and the moon they will need a moon set and a mars one - mind you they could use the same one if they expanded it a bit and different filters on the camera so long as they just never filmed the 2 things at the same time. Better yet use identical rovers/landing equipment in both places - 'to save money' then they could just timeshare.
Mind you area 5 is surrounded by lots of nice desert - rip out the sagebrush and only film at night (everyone knows it's always night on the moon, we've seen the pictures...) and you could have a really big new set.... I bet Haliburton could do that for what 2-3Trillion?
Re:Meanwhile on VENUS ...
by
Reducer2001
·
· Score: 1
This was a story yesterday....
-- When you get to hell -- tell 'em Itchy sent ya!
Lego on Mars
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Interesting considering so much traffic on/. on Mars and Lego:
http://www.redrovergoestomars.org/dvd_image.html
All the more proof
by
ChiefScientist
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
of what can be achieved with robots.
Honestly, what would we gain by sending humans?
Re:All the more proof
by
dubious9
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Uh... to gain insight on how we can live on other planets. Life on earth is doomed, but it just won't happen (sun expanding) for a long long time. Take into account the chance of life extinguishing asteriods hitting earth, and I'd think that people would want to ensure the survivability of the species.
Face it, the earth is fragile and life on it only temporary until we figure out how to live without it.
Not to mention that humans doing experiments on mars GREATLY reduces the latency. How long does a round trip signal take? I could go on and on about why we want humans on mars.
-- Why, o why must the sky fall when I've learned to fly?
Over the past week, they managed to get it off the lander. For the entire duration of the mission, it will probably accomplish less than a single well-trained geologist could in a hard day's work if he were there in person. Robots are great, but with the current state of the art, people can still do a lot more.
-- Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
Re:All the more proof
by
confused+one
·
· Score: 1
a dynamic response to unexpected (or unpredicted) circumstances.
The capacity to analyse something unusual (read unexpected) and interesting in more detail.
Not to mention that humans doing experiments on mars GREATLY reduces the latency. How long does a round trip signal take? I could go on and on about why we want humans on mars.
We all know people with a longer latency than Spirit, please don't send them.
> NASA also has photos, straight from their fake set in Hollywood where they produce all the "space" footage
Ah, that one next room to Moon Landing Fake Set?:)
--
--
grmbl woz heer
Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
Inflatable+Hippo
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Shame it'll be over so quickly, 90 days is predicted I think.
I've read that this mission is limited by the build up of dust on the rovers solar cells, reducing the power attained to the point where the rover can no longer function.
An obvious solution (to me, here in my comfy chair) would seem to be the ability of the rover to gently tilt and/or shake its panels to remove at least some of the dust.
Since the rover arrived with it's panels folded could it just fold and unfold them again to shake some of it off?
It seems such a pity for the mission to end for such a mundane reason since I presume it would otherwise continue until the batteries failed or physical wear/damage destroyed some key component.
Solutions for other missions spring to mind, perhaps: - blowing the dust away with a small directed jet of compressed air. - A small fan or brush on a simple arm. - Speciali(s|z)ed tilt/shake schemes (as above). - Raise the panels up on a windy day (without blowing over). - Layers of protective film that can be peeled away.
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
BTWR
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Wow! Good for you! You think like a NASA guy... I'm not sure of the specifics, but the missions principal scientist was my professor in college and he specifically said that they tried some of your exact ideas for the next rover (which was actually a cancelled 2003 mission). They tried a windshield-wiper type deal, layers of plastic film that would roll off every few days (think like a doctor's office, how they tear off that butcher paper and roll a new cover over for each new patient).
He didn't delve too much into specifics, but he definately said that they simply didn't get any of these ideas to work. Actually, there was a brief period of time when they were actually close to getting RTGs to power the rovers (plutonium, like the ones used in the Viking landers that allowed them to operate for 5 years), but the Greens stopped that:(
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
hesiod
·
· Score: 1
> Since the rover arrived with it's panels folded could it just fold and unfold them again to shake some of it off?
Good idea, but unfortunately (for this mission, not necessarily future ones) for the panels to fold out, a small explosive had to release a line & let gravity take it down. There is no mechanism for bringing them back up. Why would you, if there was no hope of relaunching it?
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
locutus_borg
·
· Score: 0
"...The vehicle was designed to travel about 600 meters in three months, a little more than one-third of the mile...."
Atleast that is what is says
here about the rovers expected lifespan. They think it could go much further than that... still $400million... 600meters... ouch.
-- -
It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. - Alfred Adler -
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
Cujo
·
· Score: 1
I think RTGs are the likely power source for future rovers, including future lunar robots. This will give them much extended range and lifetime, but it will add quite a bit of cost - getting those things approved for launch is a complex and involved process, and then you have to pay people to put them together and fuel them.
Note: RTGs are NOT nuclear reactors. They just get hot as their fuel decays and generate electricity thermoelectrically.
--
Helium balloons want to be free.
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
jafac
·
· Score: 1
Or how about periodically charging them to repel statically-charged dust particles.
Really, for $400 Million, you'd think someone would have thought of this stuff.
-- These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
k12linux
·
· Score: 1
I would think that if dust was the real problem they could have had some type of film roll (think of a roll of plastic wrap) that unrolled on one side and was taken up on the other.
I'm thinking along the lines of what is used in NASCAR races over the in-car camera lens. When it gets too dirty, you can see it slide off to the side, replaced by a length of fresh, clean film.
Just how much dust "sticks" to an anti-static surface anyhow?
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
captaineo
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Right now Martian summer is slowly becoming Martian winter, and Mars is moving away from the sun (its orbital eccentricity is higher than earth's and has a major effect on Mars' climate).
So the solar cells will provide less power due to the lower sun angle and brightness, even without any dust accumulation.
Assuming no major mishaps, what will eventually kill the rover is lack of power to heat the electronics at night. Electrical components don't last very long unprotected from the wild temperature swings on Mars.
That said, NASA always builds tons of redundancy into its hardware, so I wouldn't be surprised if the rovers outlasted their design lifetimes...
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
incom
·
· Score: 1
I'm guessing they already have a plan to remove the dust, and just aren't talking so that they seem like geniuses and heroes when they get the rover to last longer than expected. Or maybe the plan isn't gaurenteed so they want to prevent expectations in the chance that it fails. But trust me, they already have a plan, and it will be tried, it just may not work.
-- True genius is grasping a situation like a peice of fruit, and peircing it just right so that it drains dry.
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost)
by
cazzazullu
·
· Score: 1
I wonder how hard you would have to blow to get any dust moving when the atmospheric pressure is about 5-10% of what we have here. You don't want to create a miniature sandstorm in your direct environment I would think. It is probably ok for very fine dust, but what with larger and coagulated grains of dust?
Thank you for the toy RC car. To think, it only took you 4.55 billion of your years to get it to us! However, now that you have proven yourselves almost capable of inter-planetary traveling, we must send our Biker Mice to crush you like the bugs you are. Starting with Tim Burton.
Signed,
Supreme Commander of Mars
About what might happen should the Martian government get their hands on the rover. They will most likely have to destroy it to cover up the fact that their planet has been visited by machines from another planet. Let's just hope we can get a picture of their leaders before they disconnect the cameras!
While they may:
Be highly advanced in technology
Have weapons capable of destroying every city on earth in a matter of seconds
Be ruthless and waiting for their chance to invade and colonize earth and enslave humanity
The also:
Have massive credit card debt
Small members
Interest in Nigerian Money-making schemes
So, there is a chance we can be saved, if only all spammers would unite.
--
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
They should have named the rover "Egg", then we could have headlines such as, "Egg Rolls On Mars!" People would glance that and say, "It *is* true: you can buy Chinese food ANYWHERE."
Oh My *Deity*, im watching this guy give a talk on NasaTV (Nasa Update) He has been talking nonsense for at least half an hour and his audience look bored to tears !
nick..
-- Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
Re:Nice Article Summary...
by
m0rph3us0
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
i dont think the average american reads/.
Re:Nice Article Summary...
by
Quixote
·
· Score: 1
Oh lighten up! Anybody who doesn't get the joke in that statement probably doesn't know what this "Mars" thing is, anyways.
Who Let The Dawgs Out?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
JPL engineers played Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the control room as they watched new images confirming that the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit successfully rolled off its lander platform early Thursday morning.
I thought these guys were scientists, not frat-boys!
Re:Nice Article Summary...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Please mod this up.
Although in RockClimbingFool's defense, the zillionth "It's a fake shot on a set in the desert! Haw haw haw!" bit is probably unnecessary.
Easy! Re:All the more proof
by
StefanJ
·
· Score: 1
In the short run: Footage of that first step onto the Martian surface for the current president to use in a campaign commercial.
In the medium run: Footage of that first step onto the Martian surface for crazed conspiracy theorists to pour over, looking for proof it was filmed in the Gobi Desert.
In the long run: Footage of that first step onto the Martian surface for MTV to repurpose.
(This is a funny post, but I could write a serious one too, but I'm also sure someone else will. Whether the someone else will avoid the usual brave pioneer spirit flag-waving manifest destiny let's leave this rock bullshit and point out the practical advantages you have to balance against the tremendous cost, I'm not so sure.)
Stefan
panther?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The Eagles are going to destroy the pussy-cat Panthers Sunday. Then, they're on to Houston and SuperBowl victory! E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!!
Re:panther?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Bought that paint for your flabby white chest yet?
Include a S.A.S.E.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
Well, if they had just thought to include a self-addressed stamped envelope, I'm sure the Martians would have been kind enough to return it!
Geez. These NASA guys are so focused on their so-called "rocket science" that they don't have any common sense.
Re:Include a S.A.S.E.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Or at least a little, "If found, please return to:" tag.:)
Re:Last holdout of the frontier days of the interw
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
This really calls for a Slashdot article of its own.
Or, rather, mass. To get to Mars you first have to get into Earth orbit. At a cost of roughly $10,000/pound. That, mind you, is just low Earth orbit. Where the shuttle orbits. To get to Mars you then have to get to escape velocity (which is higher than orbital velocity), 11100 m/s. Add more cost.
Re:Good point: Nationalism is a bad joke on all of
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I couldn't agree more. But look at Nozumi, the Japanese Mars mission. It failed completely. HA HA
Re:Jennifer Trosper is a VOLLEYBALL PLAYER!
by
BrodyVess
·
· Score: 3, Informative
She was the captain of the 1989 MIT Volleyball team, and the first MIT grad to be inducted into the Verizon Academic All-American hall of fame.
She was a hottie back then too- read all about it at this webpage.
-- No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Beagle to final communication mode
by
Inflatable+Hippo
·
· Score: 4, Funny
After approximately 25 sols Beagle 2 will go into it's final communication mode SHM1 (Spell Help Mode 1). In this mode it will shred it's own parachute and lay the pieces out across the martian surface to spell the world "HELP".
Calculations suggest that each letter will be approximately 4-6 pixels across, easily discernable from the Mars Express orbiter.
High winds may hamper this last ditch attempt for Beagle 2 to communicate.
(I'm allowed to laugh, some of my tax money is spread all over the red planet)
Re:Nice Article Summary...
by
0rbit4l
·
· Score: 1
then the average (read stupid again)
american's think these things are a waste of money.
Look, genius, you can't even figure out how to properly use an apostrophe - you must be one of these stupid people I should be ignoring, right? Because you're misinformed, right?
This is probably a troll, but honestly, there seems to be an increase in "average people are idiots; I took a class or three in physics, so I know what's best for everyone!" attitude around here lately - witness the disussion about the nuclear propelled rocket where claiming "this is all wonderfully safe - people are just ignorant and afraid; they should all listen to me, and forget any concerns you may hear, because they're just idiots" was moderated +5 over and over and over. You are not 3l33t, and not everyone who thinks NASA spending is wasteful is "misinformed" or otherwise stupid. Stop looking down your nose at everyone else, and try listening to the other side once and a while - you could learn something.
I wonder if there might be some way to build up a charge to clean them off? Shaking or tilting probably wouldn't work -- look at the crap that gets stuck on your car over time and it doesn't come off at over 100km/h.
I've read that some sort of solar panel wipers or brushes wouldn't work as they'd scratch the surface, allowing less light to reach it.
The plastic film idea reminds me of the removable visor strips racecar drivers have on their helmets. Sounds like a good one. Patent? Boo, hiss;-)
-- $#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
look at the crap that gets stuck on your car over time and it doesn't come off at over 100km/h.
Yeah, but that's because it gets stuck on there at 100km/h. Take today's snow (in the northeast US). It was powdery and light. If I had taken the car out without cleaning it, it all would have blown off.
It's not because it gets stuck on there at 100km/h. In addition, martian winds have been known to exceed that, because there's so little atmosphere to get in its own way. It's because it gets stuck on with tree sap and burned oil, not to mention water. As far as we know there is no tree sap or burned oil floating around in the martian air, just dust and fines - the atmosphere is probably not thick enough to carry anything heavier than dust very far, though in a dust storm, I'm guessing there's more than just dust flying around. However I admit that's all it is, a guess. What is NOT a guess is why the stuff sticks to a car. I've been studying auto body and paint over the last year.
-- "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Awww, crap...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Have you seen this picture? I think we've invoked the wrath of them thar Martians...
You think?!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Maybe? While you're at Ritz, see if they can sell you a sense of humor.
And maybe they'll sell you the courage to post logged in you troll. I posted that, because unlike the other posts of "its a fisheye lens- duh" I included an example. Ya know, some people actually haven't had the chance to mess around with them. But I forget, your a coward, and thus superior.
-- No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
Re:You think?!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Of course. And thanks for explaining a post that got a +3, Funny. I'm sure a lot of people like you thought he was really serious, what with that Little Prince comment and all.
The Beagle Would be Lost
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
The ship's aground on the shore of this charted desert planet. ..
Damn it, that's somewhere outside of Phoenix!
by
Danathar
·
· Score: 1
Somebody prove to me that they are not somewhere in West Texas or Arizona and they just put red filter on the lense. I bet there's some dude JUST outside of view...laughing is ass off!
Nobody is ever supposed to post anything on/. that has already been posted. Especially not the editors. Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
As Mr. Burns would say:
by
boy_afraid
·
· Score: 1
Eeeeck-sell-lent!
RIAA
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Funny
I sure hope they own the CDs for all these songs they play. Would hate the RIAA to get wind of this and come shut the whole thing down.
Re:Mars is so gay
by
Gerdia
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
For all we know, Saturn could have a vast ocean at it's center crammed full of sea monkeys.
NASA to use more music
by
saladpuncher
·
· Score: 1
JPL engineers played Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the control room as they watched new images confirming that the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit successfully rolled off its lander platform early Thursday morning.
NASA then announced that all new scientific advances would be accompanied by craptastic music. The building of a new permanent base on the moon will be announced by Jefferson Starship's "We Built This City". The launching of a new long range probe will be complemented by Europe's "The Final Countdown".
Where are the conspiracy articles?
by
Teahouse
·
· Score: 0, Flamebait
Since/. has seemed to adopt allowing crackpots to post their conspiracy theories as articles about NASA lately, I was shocked to actually see a NASA post that wasn't full of wishful hyperbole. Where are the idiots? Cmon guys, lets see some more articles about how the rover is actually sitting in a hanger in New Mexico in a simulated Mars setting. Let's hear about how the Columbia astronauts were actually executed with a handgun and the accident was just staged to keep us all thinking we are reaching space. Jackasses, jackasses all.
-- "Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Hollywood!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hollywood!, Everyone knows it is 100% CGI now. They just fired up Maya, they did not even have to write their own program. In fact you can still see the Learning Edition watermark if you look close.
I wonder if the rover made beep-beep noises when it backed up off the ramp?
--
Thanks,
Steve
Re:Good point: Nationalism is a bad joke on all of
by
BTWR
·
· Score: 1
As an American who hears more than enough anti-US abuse on Slashdot (and yes, the HUGE MAJORITY of it is unfounded), I think it's a stupid comment that the parent said.
I have never allowed myself to take such cheap shots at Europeans, and now that someone has done it to you, I hope you will not do the same back to Americans next time (not that I'm accusing you of having done that, but just something to think about). And also note I'm not saying "Well, it's not nice that they did that... BUT-" - that's a piss poor excuse for bad behavior (one which a certain group of people who will remain nameless as it is irrelevent to this topic use nearly 100% of the time, but that's a different story)
Applaud Mars Express - it's going to provide great science. Learn from Beagle's failure - it's going to teach you what you did wrong so you can correct it next time. That's what NASA does and that's what all good scientists should do.
Now, to find the machinery just a few feet away!
by
boy_afraid
·
· Score: 1
If you look on Enterprise Mission web site, you can see what those rocks really are. Hopefully, someone will get the guts to take a closer look and prove that there was INTELLIGENT life on Mars before some sort of catastrophe.
How about... some money well spent.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
How about... we put money into figuring out a way to power our automobiles, tivos and plasma TV's so we don't have to kill people and take their natural resources... instead of spending bzillions of dollars making space-junk.
How about... we spend money and make laws to increase liberty, security and freedom... instead of blasting radio controlled cars into space.
I agree. Supposedly NASA has gotten tens of thousands of calls since Fox aired that stupid "Did we really land on the moon?" tv special 2 years ago. If people (not just americans) see things in print it has a way of legitimizing itself. (like how both radical left and right-winged people quote exactly opposide "facts" from their own biased websites)
So if the average american is stupid, and the average nobel prize winner is american (I'll say average in this case meaning most likely), then NON-americans would certainly be in a lot worse shape! +5, funny!
Spirit's first words upon rolling onto Mars ...
by
peter303
·
· Score: 1
(Its ascii-English, but you wouldn't
expect a robot to speak English, would you?:-)
Mars Express
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Has an awesome instrument package. I'm particularly chuffed (is that the right Brit-speak?) about the soil-penetrating radar. That should be -very- useful in all sorts of ways, but especially in plumbing the cryosphere, might even tell us if the hydrogen signatures in equatorial regions (like Gusev) are due to aquifer pressure where there is no cryosphere.
NASA and American Mars-nuts are bummed about Beagle. And the mole was a very cool device.
Are you trying to imply that planets don't have sex? I really can't stand for such a terrible form of planetary discrimination.
btw- we could dive into saturn and just float around with a balloon. We'd just have to make the ballon lighter than argon. And strong enough not to get shreaded to pieces by crosswinds and gravity.
-- “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
why so angry?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You piss on the Mars story being 12 hours old, but this story is 21 years old.
Why so angry?
Is the "mud" going to be a problem for the rover?
by
BaronAaron
·
· Score: 1
Take a longer look at the rear view picture of the rover. Kinda suprising how the soil is clumping in the tracks and on the left rear wheel of the rover.
Even JPL seems suprised on how "mud" like the soil in this landing spot seems to be.
I wonder if that's going to cause any problems for the rover?
Best part of the article
by
DaneelGiskard
·
· Score: 1
Peter Theisinger, JPL's Mars Exploration Rover project manager, proudly wore a gift T-shirt, adorned with a picture of Spirit with the words: "My other car is on Mars!" :-))
Re:Fake Footage???!!!
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
What does a radio station in Washnington, D.C. have to do with it?;-)
Re:Jennifer Trosper is a VOLLEYBALL PLAYER!
by
wervr
·
· Score: 1
She was the captain of the 1989 MIT Volleyball team, and the first MIT grad to be inducted into the Verizon Academic All-American hall of fame. She was a hottie back then too- read all about it at this webpage.
Uh, no she wasn't.
Re:How about... some money well spent.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
You're one of those sorts who gets annoyed when programmers decide to work on two different open source projects that have similiar goals, aren't you?
They've Avoided The Biggest Risk...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
...which was that they'd accidentally steer into the Corner Patrol Zone, and be attacked by the house robots.
New Jiggy-Vision 3D?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Does anybody know of any new "jiggy-vision" 3D view links? Those are really cool, better than the red-blue glasses IMO.
Re:New Jiggy-Vision 3D?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Pathfinder has the interesting distinction that a separate lander could take images of the rover, showing both rover and landscape. We won't get that with the newer batch of rovers because the camera is always attached. That is what makes these 97' images unique.
Re:New Jiggy-Vision 3D?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Here is some cool Jiggy-vision from the Pathfinder mission....
You know, with that movement it looks like it is humping the damned rock:-P
Re:What do the conspiracy dumbasses say now?
by
dgatwood
·
· Score: 1
Isn't that about the same thing as "meteor found in impact crater" or "automobile found at crash scene"? I mean... after all, if there's no machinery, then nothing landed, right?:-D
my usual RTG post
by
rebelcool
·
· Score: 2, Informative
RTG's have been coming up alot on here lately, I should really save this and copy it...
RTG's are very, very, very safe. The poisonous gasses released by a rocket explosion are far worse than what an RTG can do. Here's why.
RTG's contain Plutonium 238, (an isotope which cannot be used in fissile weapons, its too unstable) that generate lots of heat which is how they work. Now a note about the safety of Pu238.
Plutonium is among the safest to handle radioactive elements. It only generates alpha particles which are stopped by a sheet of paper, your skin, etc. You could eat a piece of Pu and suffer few effects because it would pass through you before the damage would have time to accumulate to something serious. Compare this to other, much more common elements used in medicine that generate gamma rays and other nastiness.
It is only dangerous in dust particles that are small enough to get embedded in the lungs and stay there. Now to address this issue, Pu238 readily binds into an oxide and is turned into a ceramic for RTG's which makes it very resistant to forming particles that small in the event of an explosion.
Now this small amount of material is then encased in a very strong canister designed to survive accidental reentry and explosion. So in the unlikely event of the explosion and then even unlikelyer event the canister is broken open, its even more unlikely that small dangerous dust particles will be generated in sufficient volume to cause serious harm to humans. This depends on your area of disaster, but as I said, rockets contain very noxious chemicals that pose a far greater risk to the public than the Pu238.
That's probably because I keep bringing them up.;-)
More seriously, it's because of the renewed interest in space. Serious space exploration requires energy. The only way to get that much energy is nuclear. All other solutions consist of stopgap solutions such as firing rockets like ballistic missiles and hoping they *eventually* hit the target and pointing solar cells at the sun to get power. The problems with both of these solutions are numerous and well known. The problems with nuclear solutions are simply irrational fears.
Sorry, but how does a heavy chunck of plutonium
remove the need for a rocket? I am not sure how
an RTG could get you off the earth.
Also I think there are problems with nuclear solutions other then just fear. Don't under play the risks, plutoniun can be highly toxic. Wastes have to be dealt with even in space.
Sorry, but how does a heavy chunck of plutonium remove the need for a rocket? I am not sure how an RTG could get you off the earth.
It doesn't. A reactor does (see Tuesday's story on a Nuclear drive). I was just pointing out that nuclear is the only good solution for space exploration.
Also I think there are problems with nuclear solutions other then just fear. Don't under play the risks, plutoniun can be highly toxic. Wastes have to be dealt with even in space.
Plutonium *can* be dangerous, but so can most of the materials used in making batteries. Anything high energy has dangers associated with it. Even rocket fuel has all kinds of nasty chemicals mixed in that you don't want to breath. I've had people tell me that plutonium is the most toxic chemical known to man. Not only is that not true, but plutonium is only toxic when ground up and inhaled. Otherwise it poses no danger whatsoever. You can even safely hold it in your hand.
Backwards hazard camera?
by
Woutepout
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Why does this thing have a "backwards looking hazard identification camera"? Are they that confident about finding life on Mars that they expect to be fleeing from it?
-- "Some people have got a mental horizon of radius zero and call it their point of view." - David Hilbert
For $400 Million...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
I expected color photos
Re: Safe enough to hold with gloves
by
A55M0NKEY
·
· Score: 1
You can hold a piece of plutonium or americium in your hand and the radiation won't penetrate past your dead skin cells, so it could be called 'safe' purely from an emitted radiation standpoint, but inhale a microscopic dust particle of the stuff, and you will die. So these substances are not safe in that respect.
--
Eat at Joe's.
Re: Safe enough to hold with gloves
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 1
Did you know that tons of uranium burn up in the atmosphere each year? A large portion of meteorites have uranium content. As for plutonium's toxicity, it's no more toxic than the stuff in your LiON or NiCad battery. You deal with chemicals every day that could kill you if inhaled or ingested (the later of which is not a danger with plutonium).
Still, rockets contain all kinds of poisons. That's why NASA launches them over the ocean. In the case of a rocket failure, just about every component in the craft is doing more ecological damage than the RTG which is safely stored in a black box.
Ok, all systems check. Turning right Keep turning How about now? FWD 10 How do things look now? Too far? What next?
Scenario 2, human lands, day 1: : Arms and legs still here, check. Just took a brief walk outside while I was waiting for the communications to clear up and I found this cool fossil of a leaf on a funny-looking rock I overturned - care to see the images and spectro-data?
Obviosuly that's a little exaggerated, but a human could go way further than any robot and also be a lot more discerning about what kinds of things to look at, instead of being directed by a comittee of squablling scientists about which rock to examine over the next serveral days.
I'd estimaet literally 1000x more productive than any rover can be.
If you'd prefer to spend a few gajillion dollars for almost no compartive return, that's fine - I'd prefer the money were spent efficiently. And if you went into it accepting a 50% survivial rate for travellers it costs even less - there are plenty of people who would take the journey with those odds, and as long as that was communicated ahead of time to the public deaths do not have to be seen as such a tragedy as the shuttle deaths have been.
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Does NASA really direct the Rover using LOGO? (Was that what it was called? Oldskool vector-graphics / robot-turtle-control language?)<br> Man, I learned that when I was like ten, on a BBC Microcomputer. Can I have a job at NASA?
Fake set? You telling me even the set's a hoax? Man, that's some serious stuff...
-- Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
The Earth (and life) is NOT fragile!
by
HarveyBirdman
·
· Score: 1
Sorry, but this is a pet peeve with me. The Earth changes, and evolves, and it's not the exact some Earth from one epoch to the next, but it is most assuredly not "fragile". I'm not making any general argument against the existence of environmental dangers and risks here, and it is always Good Science to make things more efficient and cleaner and less wasteful, but this idea that we're living in some sort of metastable, hair trigger condition really needs to go away.
If this place were as fragile as some make it out to be, the KT event or the Manson impact would have put an end to all multicelled life.
-- ---
Ban humanity.
Re: Safe enough to hold with gloves
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 1
BTW, your name isn't Alex is it? Same ICQ handle?
Never mind. Your journal states you're married. The guy I knew wasn't married and has very little chances of doing so until he grows up.
Yeah, I think so. I have actually used this term when making telescopic observations of Mars, and describing directions.
"Areographic" or geographic directions are mirror-reversed from celestial directions used to describe directional relationships in the sky, which is why the distinction needs to be made.
I just noticed this: Google is celebrating the rover's landing with a new logo
Re:Google celebrates landing
by
kyoko21
·
· Score: 1
Heheh that's pretty neat:-) What will those guys think up next...:-) I wonder what logo they will have for Martin Luther King's birthday...
Beware of MBA's bearing gifts
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Just at the height of NASA's interesting triumph, some pointy haired MBA says "let's cancel the (actually working) Shuttle, cancel the (actually succeeding) robotic exploration of the planets, cancel the (actually built and partially functioning) space station, cancel actual research into human biology done in weightlessness where it counts, drop all the the efforts that NASA engineers have been working on for years, all for a one percent increase in the budget.
If you were an engineer (named, say, Dilbert) would you find this familiar? Half the engineering projects on the planet fail because part way through some incompetent MBA cancels the funding because he's incapable of understanding the project, assessing the progress it's making, or comprehending its value. But oh boy do those MBA's know how to grab the limelight and the credit.
Beware of self centered MBA's trying to grab credit while destroying years of work by dedicated professionals. We all know the MBA-in-chief never went to Johnson Space Center when he was Governor of Texas because he couldn't care less about the space program. But credit? Give a politician that anytime.
Be a good engineer and ignore the hype, look at the numbers. Funding increase of one percent, cancel a decade of expensive professional work and all the intermediate goals set by the engineers, and stamp your name on goals that the professionals were diligently pursuing in the first place.
One small point. If we are going to put astronauts on a journey to Mars of over a year in duration, don't we have to learn how to build an extremely robust space habitat to keep them alive in? Can we rely on "theory" for this, or do we need actual experimental data (i.e. science). MBA man say: We don't need no stinking science, we need goals!
Isn't that what the space station is? Come on, you can figure this one out, you passed physics, didn't you? Cancel the budget for the actual experimental data, then build "somthing" to send humans to Mars in. Right. The MBA says NASA doesn't know what they're doing, and THAT must be why they built a space station, yeah, that's it. It couldn't have been that to actually go to Mars, the professional space scientists deduced that they needed an experimental platform in orbit on which to develop the knowledge and technology for building the long term, repairable habitat that a Mars mission would require. It couldn't be a step along the way to Mars, no, that's just not plausable that professional scientists would think of that. We need action by grandiose and uninformed MBA's, that's the ticket.
NASA doesn't want to go to Mars, they never did. All those experiments aboard the space station they were planning, what foolishness, what they need is a real goal that any uneducated child can get excited about.
But you are all going to get googoo eyed and fall for it, aren't you. Wake the fu*k up. The boys of Enron are at it again, canceling measurable work and shifting the budget to one controlled by a small group of political appointees, with lofty goals decades away, and lots of research money given to selected corporations with results not required for decades. That's the new political program for NASA. This needs strong vigilance from those of us who really care about science, and don't want the NASA budget to end up in swiss accounts.
The rover's about 3 feet (1 meter) in front of the lander and facing northwest.
Does anyone know how they found the orientation of the cardinal points on Mars?
Heard that one on the radio
by
ianscot
·
· Score: 1
NPR had a call-in session with someone who was involved with Sojourner (I think), and one of the callers actually asked this question.
The visiting expert laughed and said he hadn't heard that one before, basically. If I remember right, he responded that that'd add weight and complexity with little return. (He also said that Mars's axis is tilted [it's around 25 degree, much like earth], making for seasonal changes in the effectiveness of solar panels at any given location.)
-- "Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
If a spacecraft fails and falls on your house, you're dead whether it had radioactive components or not.
If it falls somewhere else, the material is either easily recoverable, or spread in the atmosphere in an utterly insignificant concentration.
When it works as intended, in 99.9% of the cases, it will remove radioactive material from the planet, so in the interest of decreasing radiation, on balance it will be a gain.
Is it just me, or does every time you see "Spirit Rolls" on/. make your heart skip a beat. I keep thinking that it rolled - such as flipped. Perhaps "moves" might be a better choice of words, especially after the catastrophe with Beagle 2!
More: Mars Exploration Rover Highlights (AXCH)
by
dekashizl
·
· Score: 1
When will we be sending Mars some mostly autonomous rovers? I would imagine it would be more efficient if the rover were trying to figure out for itself how to get from place to place, through and around obstacles, and coming up with some experiments.
It's the remaining fears from the anti-nuke baby boomer generation that had difficulty telling the difference between "atomic bomb" and "atomic reactor"
Incidents like chernobyl and TMI didn't help, but in those cases stemmed from remarkably foolish human operator error and antiquated reactor design. Neither of which are likely to happen again with a modern plant design and especially in a nuclear rocket which would be fully automated and designed for only a few minutes of full power usage.
--
-
Re:indeed
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
wow, you guys know your stuff, that's for sure. But I think part of the anti-nuclear stance also stems from the fact that the pro-nuclear crowd tends to be viewed as "big business" while the anti-nuclear crowd are termed "environmentalists". Which would you rather associate yourself with, if you were uneducated on the matter?
What's with the stitch in the images?
by
Julz
·
· Score: 1
Noticed a vertical stitch in the images. I thought the images were single shots. Are they partial panorama shots instead?
-- When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Re:What's with the stitch in the images?
by
Julz
·
· Score: 1
More noticeable in the larger image.
Also there's a mountain in the background. Does anyone know where that is relative to the landing spot?
-- When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Re:What's with the stitch in the images?
by
Julz
·
· Score: 1
Just noticed that there's also stiching going horizontally, but not straight, just below the large rock. And if you try line up the left portion with the right portion by shifting it up a little then the bottom stitch of the left portion ends up completely wrong? So now we are looking at four separate images that won't line up correctly?
-- When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Check out google.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Don't forget to check out the main page of google which celebrates the rover rolling out on the surface.
Re:How about... some money well spent.
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
A more accurate analogy would be... Two programmers, whose salaries I pay, working on two different open source projects when they should be working on the project I hired them to do.
He doesn't have to be a right winger ...
by
j_w_d
·
· Score: 1
to argue correctly that the percieved risks of nuclear power are far greater than any known actual risk from them. Hyperbole looks good in a paper for a course in English or Journalism, but it doesn't communicate risk, it communicates fear. When the fear is largely unfounded or based or other hyperbole, it is of little use to reiterate it. The typical automobile is more dangerous than a normal nuclear reactor.
If you want to worry about something with a significant risk, start thinking about some of the cleaning agents that typically lurk under a household sink and bathroom medicine cabinet. THEY typically contain all the necessaries to produce some really lethal, and viciously explosive stuff that makes the toxicity of plutonium look tame. What you might find is really bothersome is hos the small the number of our fellow citizens is that know enough about this not to accidentally kill themselves, their families and their neighbors. Or perhaps you could dig into whether BGH or BSE is more dangerous to you and your family - which is scarier, mad cow disease or milk from growth-hormone-dosed cows?
-- ------
The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
Re:He doesn't have to be a right winger ...
by
sfjoe
·
· Score: 1
... to argue correctly that the percieved risks of nuclear power are far greater than any known actual risk from them.
That would be the case if he were arguing "correctly" instead of clouding the issue with irrelevancies like blasting through the earth's crust. That is very much a tactic of the Limbaugh Right and similar to your efforts to go further off-topic by bringing up drain cleaners and BGH.
-- It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
Re:He doesn't have to be a right winger ...
by
j_w_d
·
· Score: 1
That would be the case if he were arguing "correctly" instead of clouding the issue with irrelevancies like blasting through the earth's crust. That is very much a tactic of the Limbaugh Right and similar to your efforts to go further off-topic by bringing up drain cleaners and BGH.
I have been present when a cleaning agent was accidentally reacted yielding chlorine gas. Since we were just kids doing assigned household chores, and no one warned us not to use this cleaner on that surface the supposition that this is not a unique event is easy to make and easier to verify. It was luck that no one was seriously hurt. Since similar accidents are fairly common place for firefighters, I conclude household chemicals are far more of a risk than nukes. On the other hand, I suspect based upon other peoples evidence that BSE is way, way less scary than it is made out to be. BGH was hurried into use without properly completing even FDA mandated tests. Risks, perceived, real, and poorly defined and understood, are what I addressed, which seemed to be relevant to the topic. Rush never did under stand relevancy.
-- ------
The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
I keep hearing that shit (on slashdot) about environmentalists having something to do with the Nasa robots - but i've never seen any proof. Do you have any or is it just your prejudice?
-- If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Re:Where is the proof?
by
AKAImBatman
·
· Score: 1
Besides, where were you when the wackos were complaining that Cassini was going to kill us all and eat our children? It was only a few years ago, and it was BIG news.
-- "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Re:Revisit Sojourner! - Nuclear Power
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 0
Hummm.
The nuclear mass is just a rock with very little radioactiveness to it. It is fairly safe to hold and mine.
It becomes really dangerous when you start the nuclear reactions. That makes the mass hot in more ways than one.
So as long as the nuclear reacator does not start the reaction until it is safely on the planet it would be perfectly safe.
Even launching a rocket with a nuclear reactor has no danger. The nuclear matterial is not very radioactive - the reactor would have to be running to start to make it radioactive.
Slashdot Mirror
%20in%20front%20of%20the%20lander%20and%20facing%20northwest.){kind=link}
I've been really hoping that one day they'll go back to the original Sojourner site and return that unit to Earth for analysis by NASA. They could gain valuable information as to what finally gave on that rover and use it to harden future rovers.
Sojourner was a great success as it lasted much longer than expected. Of course the cost of getting that unit back to Earth would be so high I'm guessing these are just nice dreams. C'est la vie.
Trolling is a art,
...It better roll one way or another.
- It is easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them. - Alfred Adler -
There is also information from SpaceFlightNow here and here.
Here's a photo of the landing platform it just rolled off of.
From the cited article: 'Data from the Spirit rover shows it completed this morning's drive off the lander at 3:41 a.m. EST. Confirmation was received on Earth just before 5 a.m. EST, verifying that Spirit had performed the 10-foot voyage on its own.
The move took approximately 78 seconds, ending with the back of the rover about 2.6 feet away from the lander egress ramp, officials report.
"It's as if we get to drive a nice sports car, but in the end we're just the valets who bring it around to the front and give the keys to the science team," says flight director Chris Lewicki.'
HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
JPL engineers played Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the control room as they watched new images confirming that the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit successfully rolled off its lander platform early Thursday morning.
;p
Oh for the love of... Really, we didn't need to hear this. I hope that didn't get caught on film because that's the sort of thing that resurfaces at retirement parties.
What is music when you despise all sound?
JPL engineers played Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the control room
Way to go and really enforce those nerd stereotypes. Come on guys.
NASA also has photos, straight from their fake set in Hollywood where they produce all the "space" footage.
That is such a big lie!
Those sets have been moved to India.
Casual Games/Downloads
...operation DesertBeagle.
Dear Great Britain,
;)
This is a picture of Mars, hope you like it!
Wishing you were here,
The US of A
Oh come on, laugh, it's not meant to be an insult!
About what might happen should the Martian government get their hands on the rover. They will most likely have to destroy it to cover up the fact that their planet has been visited by machines from another planet. Let's just hope we can get a picture of their leaders before they disconnect the cameras!
The set was moved to Area 51 a number of decades ago.
[ObRant]Sheesh! If you're not going to pay attention to the facts, then why bother posting???[/ObRant]
alias uptime="echo '5:33pm up 22342352324 days, 6:28, 2124315623 users, load average: 2432.40, 12312.31, 123123.19'"
That third rock to the left is mine! I want to name it after me... Anonymous Coward.
Wow, this is getting more play-by-play reporting than the SCO story is!
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Mars is the god of war, does it get any more manly than that?
Whereas Saturn... pfft. Saturnalia -> dancing around naked in the woods. Gay, QED.
Bander
What we need more of is science!
Exactly, witty is one thing, but let it come to the comments for that, not the news posting itself. Hell a lot of people think the moon landings were a farce. Maybe some people still think the world is flat too or that the sun circles us every 365 days because of idiocy like this.
"If you magnify the rear 33rd quadrant of the picture enough, you can see a marker that says 'Property of Lucasarts'!"
Did anyone else notice the problem airbag in the photo? Too bad the rover couldn't simply have rolled over it.
JA
http://www.johnalex.org/
Hey, wasn't that O.J. Simpson running behind Spirit?!?!?!?!
see imdb for the uninitiated....
Dump the IRS - http://www.fairtax.org
However, I don't understand why they kept saying that moving the rover off the lander was "dangerous". I thought the rover was designed to be able to deploy even if the lander came to rest upside down. Instead it was right-side-up on level ground. The rover had to drive over the deflated balloon, but why was that more dangerous than just driving over the surface?
sPh
So if these space photos are made on a set (or out in a desert), where would all that money that Bush just announced he's giving NASA go? In my opinion, NASA should forget cameras and go for full-on fraudulent Mars cinematography. Complete with a full cast of Martian characters, leading up to a climax where the main character has to make a decision about whether his best friend lives... or DIES. *cue the tear*
His friend is a talking pie.
True story.
That's funny - a radio guy this morning was going on about how they might find the real killer on Mars since they are never going to find him here on earth.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
it's jackass commentary like this that does nothing but perpeptuate bullshit to the masses and misinforms that average (read stupid) american. then the average (read stupid again) american's think these things are a waste of money.
Right, and how many "average Americans" do you know who (A) read Slashdot and (B) won't pick up the sarcasm in the original statement?
It's humor (though I'll agree, it's not really funny). Don't sweat it.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
hottie! My only question is - when will Playboy come out with a "Women of NASA" issue ?
that mars is truly round!
it's jackass commentary like this that does nothing but perpeptuate bullshit to the masses and misinforms that average (read stupid) american. then the average (read stupid again) american's think these things are a waste of money.
On the contrary it is there to make the Europeans feel better about themselves.
I know this is off topic, but the damn beagles have been running around my back yard since the end of December and I really do want to know who let the dogs out?
Well I am glad to see that the thing did not get stuck on a balloon.
The chance of spirit getting stuck made me think. (For the next ones we make) Why not get some very small solid rocket engines and put them facing in all directions on this thing. If the rover gets stuck, then as a last resort they could try igniting one or more of these small rockets engines to try and dislodge the rover. These rocket engines would probably be the smallest model rocket engines (or smaller) since I would hope you wouldn't need much of a bang to move in the Martian gravity. They are also pretty cheap.
granted you'd only get one shot, but if it's a last resort it's better to have one shot then none.
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
Mod me off topic for certain!
Some mechanism needs to be installed at slashdot that gets these stories out faster.
Did you look at those pictures? You can see the curve of it's surface from the surface. I dunno, I don't think life could have existed on a planet that small.
And that theme song in which the words could be changed to "Muppet Babies, we show our weens to you"...
Simply sad..I pine for a simpler day.
Your Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH and DENNIS.
>_
Now the MER can start analysing all the pieces of machinery (http://enterprisemission.com/spirit.htm) scattered in the Gusev crater
^_^
I found this to be one of the more interesting links from the NASA site. It is about a watchmaker in California who modified mechanical watches to keep Mars time.
From the article:
"Controllers called it the most significant 10 feet (3 meter) drive in history."
________________________________
Why is this so significant when the Mars Pathfinder Sojourner Rover did this during the 1997 Mars Exploration? Is it because this is actually being controlled by scientists remotely? Is the main difference simply because Pathfinder drove itself, using terrain analysis and obstacle avoidance, instead of having scientists drive it themselves? I don't quite understand how this is significant over what was previously achieved. Please help me to understand.
>>>>>> Chewie, take the professor in the back and plug him into the hyperdrive.
JPL engineers played Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the control room as they watched new images confirming that the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit successfully rolled off its lander platform early Thursday morning.
A bunch of sweaty scientists dancing around the lab to "who let the dogs out"? Was Steve Ballmer there?
Where's my lobbyist? Right here.
It's posts like that that perpetuate the myth that SlashDot is read by the "average" American! ;)
Seriously, if the controllers at JPL can play the Baha Men to celebrate rolling on to another planet, certainly a few geeks at SlashDot can have a sense of humor about the whole thing.
The rover exited the lander going .0007386 miles per hour! thats really friggen slow!!!
I probably screwed up on the math but it went 3 feet in 78 seconds. I assumed that this was at a constant speed.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
Why are the robots we send to mars always so flimsy looking, the look like they are designed to easily get stuck or break,If i was designing a mars rover i would make sure that
A) It was capable of clearing debris off it's solar panels
B) it could right itself if overturned
C) it's propulsion system was designed to resist getting tangled up by parachutes and any other stuff around the landing spot
D) it Carrys a redundant solar array in case the solar array is damaged
E) it has to be able to "lift" itslef in any direction in case it gets stuck at an odd angle, 6 to 8 extendable rods facing different directions should be fine
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
-- the Monitors.
You can actually see the curvature of the planet! Does The Little Prince live there?
Chris Cuevas nad ME!!!
Slash dot is news for nerds. Stuff that matters. What could matter more to nerds then scientific and engineering accoumplishments on another planet? The only reason why SCO is getting so much press is because they are trying to hinder engineering accoumplishments.
There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
* Driving over the balloons is more dangerous than martian terrain. They could get caught in the wheels.
* Suppose some part of the rover had been broken on landing, but had not surfaced yet because it had not moved. Think of a broken neck - it doesn't cause paralysis until you move and sever your nerves.
* Take advantage of a controlled situation. They wanted to take advantage of a controlled situation for as long as they could. From the lander they could take panoramic pictures from a sligh elevation. They could atmospheric measurements, etc. All this could be done without the adding the possible failure points introduced by moving the rover.
* The lander has more solar panels and perhapse some better communication hardware. Might as well take advantage of them while you're there.
I just pulled those off the top of my head. I'm sure there are better reasons and it's been discussed here before. Will you people stop bickering about them taking too long to move it?
How's this: Give me 3 equally good reasons why they should have hurried to get it off the lander.
no comment
wrong guise to peace off, that's for sure.
no one has the right to take the life of another for ANY reason. there are NO exceptions.
You sir, are the lone voice of reason here.
I keep waiting for a picture that looks like mom in a spinning class.
I think they should hurry up and do a close-up analysis of a rock rather than worry about long-distance jaunts. If it croaks in a few days, not having analyzed a single rock up close would be a shame.
Table-ized A.I.
Ah, another Capricorn 1 fan. Wow, that makes two of us.
I remember someone back a couple of years was caught in JPL's computers. Maybe there are some backdoors still? ::)
Shotgun first drive! Of course I realize it's not like an RC car, but I can imagine right?
-- taking over the world, we are.
that is hardcore!
The dirt sticking to the wheels of Sojourner (Pathfinder) was discussed at great lengths on a board I read (bit of a crazy board full of the insane for the most part, but there are decent threads from time to time), a bunch of people yelling "it's mud, Mars is wet!" when in reality Soujourner had spun it's wheels in the dirt and essentially "dug" in the dirt... Well, that and the "dirt" is largely magnetite which is inherently magnetic.
:)
Flash forward to today and we've got the "magic carpet", and dirt sticking to Spirit's wheels, sans digging - very interesting, and by the sounds of it also very unexpected. It will be great to find out what's making it stick, and just "how Mars works" in general.
Did I ever mention how glad I am humanity has another rover on an alien world?
They've really stumbled onto something interesting. The martian soil in this area appears to have a really strange consistency... they've talked about it before, it looks like mud...
I hope it doesn't get stuck, it'd suck to have to call a tow truck (or a martian redneck with a winch) to get it out:)
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
The search for WMD continues.
I would be very interested to see some of the geological formations on mars and the types of erosion that take place there.
I wonder if there is any volcanic activity on mars to speak of . . . anyone know? if so, what better place to find new minerals or learn about what's under the surface of mars than a field of volcanic rock and ash?
i'm also trying to wrap my mind around what sorts of erosion might occur there (in the absence of windbreaks, rainfall?, and flowing water). considering the make-up of the dust there and the wind patterns (which should be positively bizarre without large bodies of water to affect heat differences and the like), might we see glassy smooth surfaces, oddly balanced boulders and other things of that nature? I certainly don't see any dunes.
someone who knows more than me about the weather (or lack thereof) on mars could form more intelligent conclusions on this subject than i could i'm sure, so i will decline to do so out of admitted ignorance.
** Chigusaaa!!! You're the coolest girl in the WORLD!!! **
Maybe some people still think the world is flat too or that the sun circles us every 365 days because of idiocy like this.
The idea of the sun circling us every 365 days is really funny.
Everyone knows the sun circles us every 365.25 days. That's why we have leap year.
Oh for the love of... Really, we didn't need to hear this.
According to an NPR report this morning, they played the theme from Rawhide (Rollin' rollin' rollin'...) as they sent instructions for the rover to leave the platform.
I tell you what, those rocket scientists have one seriously inverted sense of humor sometimes.
The truth about Scientology, Xenu, and you: Operation Clambake
I don't know... You seem to be pretty stupid, but you still understood it was a joke. I'm not worried.
The enemies of Democracy are
For 400M you think they could have paid someone to clean the place up a little. Geez.
It's like unleashing a panther.
Damn touchy pagans. sigh
Bander
What we need more of is science!
Goatse's down for real?!!!
No link, too busy to troll this one...
Look who showed up just in time for the latest shot!
It's The Tourist Guy!
I promise, that picture was just emailed to me from an extremely high ranking member of a secret NASA team that is in charge of sending people to Mars. Don't tell anyone or we're all in BIG trouble. I guess they forgot to tell the picture taking team that The Tourist Guy would be out walking around this morning.
Twin or more? ITA
Apache/Spring/La
When Spirit began to roll across Mars, images revealed that the rover's wheels were being caked with surface material.
.
...
"It looks like it's sticking to the wheels and lifting up. There are some very, very interesting soil mechanics going on here. We're going to have a very interesting time studying it," Steve Squyres, Principal Investigator from Cornell University for the Mars Exploration Rover project. "It doesn't look like anything I've seen before," he told SPACE.com
oh, for crying out loud.
caking dirt? making a big deal out of caking dirt? i don't get this. this is supposed to be a monumental mission, and yet one of their chief scientists are making a big deal out of dirt caking on the wheels...
"it doesn't look like anything I've seen before" ?!??!???
sounds like someone was born in a lab and has never been outside.
dirt cakes on wheels on earth in some regions. it's not like it's anything that doesn't happen back here on earth.
it's comments like these that make me lose faith in scientists
the other thing that really bothers me about this whole mission is why they are hiding stuff in the photos that they are allowing the public to see. most of the photos from the 'panoramic camera' have lots of really bad 'blacking out', something that a sophomoric fark photoshopper would do. what are they hiding ?!??!?
not to mention the colour of the atmosphere and the proof (that was posted on slashdot a week or so ago) they're doctoring the images to show that mars has a red atmosphere as opposed to a blue one.
screwy. i'm rather disappointed in nasa for all of this.
The best site for Spirit pictures (and Opportunity when it lands too, I'm sure) is JPL's MER site, it's the official site, so first with the pictures (and if you click one of the dated releases and change the date in the URL manually you can sometimes get a sneak peek at the days release half an hour earlier than the rest of the world - about 4:30pm GMT or thereabouts :)
mars.png
NASA's had the Mars Odyssey looking for Beagle 2. Mars Express comes from the European Space Agency. Beagle 2 was British-built. I doubt anyone at NASA's crowing about this. They wouldn't have that little class.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Mind you area 5 is surrounded by lots of nice desert - rip out the sagebrush and only film at night (everyone knows it's always night on the moon, we've seen the pictures ...) and you could have a really big new set .... I bet Haliburton could do that for what 2-3Trillion?
Anyway, as reported by the BBC, American scientist Don Mitchell found the original Soviet Venera probe data from the surface of Venus and he applied modern image processing techniques to it to produce some stunning new pictures.
He also has a really fantastic site about the Soviet Venera probes.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
Interesting considering so much traffic on /. on Mars and Lego:
l
http://www.redrovergoestomars.org/dvd_image.htm
Honestly, what would we gain by sending humans?
Really guys common, we know the fake space set is in Roswell @ Area 51...
The special effect guys are flown in from Hollywood.
-tiz
Find yourself some other disgusting site, to troll with.
> NASA also has photos, straight from their fake set in Hollywood where they produce all the "space" footage
:)
Ah, that one next room to Moon Landing Fake Set?
-- grmbl woz heer
Shame it'll be over so quickly, 90 days is predicted I think.
I've read that this mission is limited by the build up of dust on the rovers solar cells, reducing the power attained to the point where the rover can no longer function.
An obvious solution (to me, here in my comfy chair) would seem to be the ability of the rover to gently tilt and/or shake its panels to remove at least some of the dust.
Since the rover arrived with it's panels folded could it just fold and unfold them again to shake some of it off?
It seems such a pity for the mission to end for such a mundane reason since I presume it would otherwise continue until the batteries failed or physical wear/damage destroyed some key component.
Solutions for other missions spring to mind, perhaps:
- blowing the dust away with a small directed jet of compressed air.
- A small fan or brush on a simple arm.
- Speciali(s|z)ed tilt/shake schemes (as above).
- Raise the panels up on a windy day (without blowing over).
- Layers of protective film that can be peeled away.
Thank you for the toy RC car. To think, it only took you 4.55 billion of your years to get it to us! However, now that you have proven yourselves almost capable of inter-planetary traveling, we must send our Biker Mice to crush you like the bugs you are. Starting with Tim Burton. Signed, Supreme Commander of Mars
Typos... that's just how I role.
Like this?
"Prepare for the worst - hope for the best."
While they may:
Be highly advanced in technology
Have weapons capable of destroying every city on earth in a matter of seconds
Be ruthless and waiting for their chance to invade and colonize earth and enslave humanity
The also:
Have massive credit card debt
Small members
Interest in Nigerian Money-making schemes
So, there is a chance we can be saved, if only all spammers would unite.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Let's hope NASA never name a rover "Egg".
They should have named the rover "Egg", then we could have headlines such as, "Egg Rolls On Mars!" People would glance that and say, "It *is* true: you can buy Chinese food ANYWHERE."
Table-ized A.I.
A set is by defintion fake, so a fake set must be real! He's being truthful, but in a really stupid way.
me too, so 3 now.
Oh My *Deity*, im watching this guy give a talk on NasaTV (Nasa Update) He has been talking nonsense for at least half an hour and his audience look bored to tears !
..
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
i dont think the average american reads /.
Please mod this up.
Although in RockClimbingFool's defense, the zillionth "It's a fake shot on a set in the desert! Haw haw haw!" bit is probably unnecessary.
In the short run: Footage of that first step onto the Martian surface for the current president to use in a campaign commercial.
In the medium run: Footage of that first step onto the Martian surface for crazed conspiracy theorists to pour over, looking for proof it was filmed in the Gobi Desert.
In the long run: Footage of that first step onto the Martian surface for MTV to repurpose.
(This is a funny post, but I could write a serious one too, but I'm also sure someone else will. Whether the someone else will avoid the usual brave pioneer spirit flag-waving manifest destiny let's leave this rock bullshit and point out the practical advantages you have to balance against the tremendous cost, I'm not so sure.)
Stefan
The Eagles are going to destroy the pussy-cat Panthers Sunday. Then, they're on to Houston and SuperBowl victory!
E-A-G-L-E-S EAGLES!!!!
Well, if they had just thought to include a self-addressed stamped envelope, I'm sure the Martians would have been kind enough to return it!
Geez. These NASA guys are so focused on their so-called "rocket science" that they don't have any common sense.
Goddammit. Let's set up mirrors.
Internet is not internet without the goatse-guy.
Or, rather, mass. To get to Mars you first have to get into Earth orbit. At a cost of roughly $10,000/pound. That, mind you, is just low Earth orbit. Where the shuttle orbits. To get to Mars you then have to get to escape velocity (which is higher than orbital velocity), 11100 m/s. Add more cost.
Best Slashdot Co
You insensitive clod!
Didn't you ever wonder what Area 51 was really for?
oh shut the fuck up already.
the little prince...
Would not the sun have to circle us every 24 hours to make this myth work?
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
... I bet they have a better sense of humor than you!
Infuriate left and right
I couldn't agree more. But look at Nozumi, the Japanese Mars mission. It failed completely. HA HA
She was the captain of the 1989 MIT Volleyball team, and the first MIT grad to be inducted into the Verizon Academic All-American hall of fame. She was a hottie back then too- read all about it at this webpage.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
After approximately 25 sols Beagle 2 will go into it's final communication mode SHM1 (Spell Help Mode 1). In this mode it
will shred it's own parachute and lay the pieces out across the martian surface to spell the world "HELP".
Calculations suggest that each letter will be approximately 4-6 pixels across, easily discernable from the Mars Express orbiter.
High winds may hamper this last ditch attempt for Beagle 2 to communicate.
(I'm allowed to laugh, some of my tax money is spread all over the red planet)
Look, genius, you can't even figure out how to properly use an apostrophe - you must be one of these stupid people I should be ignoring, right? Because you're misinformed, right?
This is probably a troll, but honestly, there seems to be an increase in "average people are idiots; I took a class or three in physics, so I know what's best for everyone!" attitude around here lately - witness the disussion about the nuclear propelled rocket where claiming "this is all wonderfully safe - people are just ignorant and afraid; they should all listen to me, and forget any concerns you may hear, because they're just idiots" was moderated +5 over and over and over. You are not 3l33t, and not everyone who thinks NASA spending is wasteful is "misinformed" or otherwise stupid. Stop looking down your nose at everyone else, and try listening to the other side once and a while - you could learn something.
Yeah... I saw that Futurama too.
--Rob
straight from their fake set in Hollywood where they produce all the "space" footage
/. stories?
When did Michael Moore start submiting
I wonder if there might be some way to build up a charge to clean them off? Shaking or tilting probably wouldn't work -- look at the crap that gets stuck on your car over time and it doesn't come off at over 100km/h.
I've read that some sort of solar panel wipers or brushes wouldn't work as they'd scratch the surface, allowing less light to reach it.
The plastic film idea reminds me of the removable visor strips racecar drivers have on their helmets. Sounds like a good one. Patent? Boo, hiss ;-)
$#!^ happens, but why does it always have to happen to me???
Have you seen this picture? I think we've invoked the wrath of them thar Martians...
Maybe? While you're at Ritz, see if they can sell you a sense of humor.
The ship's aground on the shore of this .
charted desert planet. .
Somebody prove to me that they are not somewhere in West Texas or Arizona and they just put red filter on the lense. I bet there's some dude JUST outside of view...laughing is ass off!
Oh, you mean the Spirit rover. For a second there I thought that we Americans had ditched "freedom" for "spirit" in our anti-French food terminology.
Is this one of a little Martian girl.
Nobody is ever supposed to post anything on /. that has already been posted. Especially not the editors. Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
Eeeeck-sell-lent!
I sure hope they own the CDs for all these songs they play. Would hate the RIAA to get wind of this and come shut the whole thing down.
For all we know, Saturn could have a vast ocean at it's center crammed full of sea monkeys.
JPL engineers played Baha Men's "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the control room as they watched new images confirming that the Mars Exploration Rover Spirit successfully rolled off its lander platform early Thursday morning.
NASA then announced that all new scientific advances would be accompanied by craptastic music. The building of a new permanent base on the moon will be announced by Jefferson Starship's "We Built This City". The launching of a new long range probe will be complemented by Europe's "The Final Countdown".
Since /. has seemed to adopt allowing crackpots to post their conspiracy theories as articles about NASA lately, I was shocked to actually see a NASA post that wasn't full of wishful hyperbole. Where are the idiots? Cmon guys, lets see some more articles about how the rover is actually sitting in a hanger in New Mexico in a simulated Mars setting. Let's hear about how the Columbia astronauts were actually executed with a handgun and the accident was just staged to keep us all thinking we are reaching space. Jackasses, jackasses all.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Hollywood!, Everyone knows it is 100% CGI now. They just fired up Maya, they did not even have to write their own program. In fact you can still see the Learning Edition watermark if you look close.
I wonder if the rover made beep-beep noises when
it backed up off the ramp?
Thanks, Steve
As an American who hears more than enough anti-US abuse on Slashdot (and yes, the HUGE MAJORITY of it is unfounded), I think it's a stupid comment that the parent said.
I have never allowed myself to take such cheap shots at Europeans, and now that someone has done it to you, I hope you will not do the same back to Americans next time (not that I'm accusing you of having done that, but just something to think about). And also note I'm not saying "Well, it's not nice that they did that... BUT-" - that's a piss poor excuse for bad behavior (one which a certain group of people who will remain nameless as it is irrelevent to this topic use nearly 100% of the time, but that's a different story)
Applaud Mars Express - it's going to provide great science. Learn from Beagle's failure - it's going to teach you what you did wrong so you can correct it next time. That's what NASA does and that's what all good scientists should do.
If you look on Enterprise Mission web site, you can see what those rocks really are. Hopefully, someone will get the guts to take a closer look and prove that there was INTELLIGENT life on Mars before some sort of catastrophe.
How about... we put money into figuring out a way to power our automobiles, tivos and plasma TV's so we don't have to kill people and take their natural resources... instead of spending bzillions of dollars making space-junk.
How about... we spend money and make laws to increase liberty, security and freedom... instead of blasting radio controlled cars into space.
Just a suggestion.
"NASA also has photos, straight from their fake set in Hollywood where they produce all the "space" footage."
I thought they did all that sort of filming stuff in New Zealand these days...?
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
I agree. Supposedly NASA has gotten tens of thousands of calls since Fox aired that stupid "Did we really land on the moon?" tv special 2 years ago. If people (not just americans) see things in print it has a way of legitimizing itself. (like how both radical left and right-winged people quote exactly opposide "facts" from their own biased websites)
average (read stupid) american
So if the average american is stupid, and the average nobel prize winner is american (I'll say average in this case meaning most likely), then NON-americans would certainly be in a lot worse shape! +5, funny!
4f6e 6520 6269 6720 7374 6570 2066 6f72
:-)
2061 2072 6f76 6572 2c0a 6f6e 6520 6769
616e 7420 6c65 6170 2066 6f72 2072 6f62
6f74 2d6b 696e 6421 0a
(Its ascii-English, but you wouldn't
expect a robot to speak English, would you?
Has an awesome instrument package. I'm particularly chuffed (is that the right Brit-speak?) about the soil-penetrating radar. That should be -very- useful in all sorts of ways, but especially in plumbing the cryosphere, might even tell us if the hydrogen signatures in equatorial regions (like Gusev) are due to aquifer pressure where there is no cryosphere.
NASA and American Mars-nuts are bummed about Beagle. And the mole was a very cool device.
Are you trying to imply that planets don't have sex?
I really can't stand for such a terrible form of planetary discrimination.
btw- we could dive into saturn and just float around with a balloon. We'd just have to make the ballon lighter than argon. And strong enough not to get shreaded to pieces by crosswinds and gravity.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
You piss on the Mars story being 12 hours old, but this story is 21 years old.
Why so angry?
Take a longer look at the rear view picture of the rover. Kinda suprising how the soil is clumping in the tracks and on the left rear wheel of the rover.
Even JPL seems suprised on how "mud" like the soil in this landing spot seems to be.
I wonder if that's going to cause any problems for the rover?
Peter Theisinger, JPL's Mars Exploration Rover project manager, proudly wore a gift T-shirt, adorned with a picture of Spirit with the words: "My other car is on Mars!" :-))
She was the captain of the 1989 MIT Volleyball team, and the first MIT grad to be inducted into the Verizon Academic All-American hall of fame. She was a hottie back then too- read all about it at this webpage.
Uh, no she wasn't.
You're one of those sorts who gets annoyed when programmers decide to work on two different open source projects that have similiar goals, aren't you?
...which was that they'd accidentally steer into the Corner Patrol Zone, and be attacked by the house robots.
Does anybody know of any new "jiggy-vision" 3D view links? Those are really cool, better than the red-blue glasses IMO.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
RTG's have been coming up alot on here lately, I should really save this and copy it...
RTG's are very, very, very safe. The poisonous gasses released by a rocket explosion are far worse than what an RTG can do. Here's why.
RTG's contain Plutonium 238, (an isotope which cannot be used in fissile weapons, its too unstable) that generate lots of heat which is how they work. Now a note about the safety of Pu238.
Plutonium is among the safest to handle radioactive elements. It only generates alpha particles which are stopped by a sheet of paper, your skin, etc. You could eat a piece of Pu and suffer few effects because it would pass through you before the damage would have time to accumulate to something serious. Compare this to other, much more common elements used in medicine that generate gamma rays and other nastiness.
It is only dangerous in dust particles that are small enough to get embedded in the lungs and stay there. Now to address this issue, Pu238 readily binds into an oxide and is turned into a ceramic for RTG's which makes it very resistant to forming particles that small in the event of an explosion.
Now this small amount of material is then encased in a very strong canister designed to survive accidental reentry and explosion. So in the unlikely event of the explosion and then even unlikelyer event the canister is broken open, its even more unlikely that small dangerous dust particles will be generated in sufficient volume to cause serious harm to humans. This depends on your area of disaster, but as I said, rockets contain very noxious chemicals that pose a far greater risk to the public than the Pu238.
-
Why does this thing have a "backwards looking hazard identification camera"? Are they that confident about finding life on Mars that they expect to be fleeing from it?
"Some people have got a mental horizon of radius zero and call it their point of view." - David Hilbert
Red Rover, Red Rover, send the Spirit on over.
$7.95/mo, 200 GB disk, 2TBxfer, MySQL, PHP, RoR.
I expected color photos
You can hold a piece of plutonium or americium in your hand and the radiation won't penetrate past your dead skin cells, so it could be called 'safe' purely from an emitted radiation standpoint, but inhale a microscopic dust particle of the stuff, and you will die. So these substances are not safe in that respect.
Eat at Joe's.
Did you know that tons of uranium burn up in the atmosphere each year? A large portion of meteorites have uranium content. As for plutonium's toxicity, it's no more toxic than the stuff in your LiON or NiCad battery. You deal with chemicals every day that could kill you if inhaled or ingested (the later of which is not a danger with plutonium).
Still, rockets contain all kinds of poisons. That's why NASA launches them over the ocean. In the case of a rocket failure, just about every component in the craft is doing more ecological damage than the RTG which is safely stored in a black box.
BTW, your name isn't Alex is it? Same ICQ handle?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Robot lander:
Lander to NASA: BOUNCE BOUNCE BOUNCE landed!
Nasa to Lander: Orientation?
Lander To NASA: Unfolding
Ok, all systems check. Turning right
Keep turning
How about now?
FWD 10
How do things look now? Too far? What next?
Scenario 2, human lands, day 1:
: Arms and legs still here, check. Just took a brief walk outside while I was waiting for the communications to clear up and I found this cool fossil of a leaf on a funny-looking rock I overturned - care to see the images and spectro-data?
Obviosuly that's a little exaggerated, but a human could go way further than any robot and also be a lot more discerning about what kinds of things to look at, instead of being directed by a comittee of squablling scientists about which rock to examine over the next serveral days.
I'd estimaet literally 1000x more productive than any rover can be.
If you'd prefer to spend a few gajillion dollars for almost no compartive return, that's fine - I'd prefer the money were spent efficiently. And if you went into it accepting a 50% survivial rate for travellers it costs even less - there are plenty of people who would take the journey with those odds, and as long as that was communicated ahead of time to the public deaths do not have to be seen as such a tragedy as the shuttle deaths have been.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Fake set? You telling me even the set's a hoax? Man, that's some serious stuff...
Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
If this place were as fragile as some make it out to be, the KT event or the Manson impact would have put an end to all multicelled life.
--- Ban humanity.
BTW, your name isn't Alex is it? Same ICQ handle?
Never mind. Your journal states you're married. The guy I knew wasn't married and has very little chances of doing so until he grows up.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
L'hall ilmak puuto terrikka algokrintak!
(Martian, trans: We welcome our wheeled robot masters from Earth!)
-Styopa
Wouldn't that be "areographically"? The rule for forming this sort of word seems to be to use the Greek form for the prefix.
Sean
I just noticed this: Google is celebrating the rover's landing with a new logo
Just at the height of NASA's interesting triumph, some pointy haired MBA says "let's cancel the (actually working) Shuttle, cancel the (actually succeeding) robotic exploration of the planets, cancel the (actually built and partially functioning) space station, cancel actual research into human biology done in weightlessness where it counts, drop all the the efforts that NASA engineers have been working on for years, all for a one percent increase in the budget.
If you were an engineer (named, say, Dilbert) would you find this familiar? Half the engineering projects on the planet fail because part way through some incompetent MBA cancels the funding because he's incapable of understanding the project, assessing the progress it's making, or comprehending its value. But oh boy do those MBA's know how to grab the limelight and the credit.
Beware of self centered MBA's trying to grab credit while destroying years of work by dedicated professionals. We all know the MBA-in-chief never went to Johnson Space Center when he was Governor of Texas because he couldn't care less about the space program. But credit? Give a politician that anytime.
Be a good engineer and ignore the hype, look at the numbers. Funding increase of one percent, cancel a decade of expensive professional work and all the intermediate goals set by the engineers, and stamp your name on goals that the professionals were diligently pursuing in the first place.
One small point. If we are going to put astronauts on a journey to Mars of over a year in duration, don't we have to learn how to build an extremely robust space habitat to keep them alive in? Can we rely on "theory" for this, or do we need actual experimental data (i.e. science). MBA man say: We don't need no stinking science, we need goals!
Isn't that what the space station is? Come on, you can figure this one out, you passed physics, didn't you? Cancel the budget for the actual experimental data, then build "somthing" to send humans to Mars in. Right. The MBA says NASA doesn't know what they're doing, and THAT must be why they built a space station, yeah, that's it. It couldn't have been that to actually go to Mars, the professional space scientists deduced that they needed an experimental platform in orbit on which to develop the knowledge and technology for building the long term, repairable habitat that a Mars mission would require. It couldn't be a step along the way to Mars, no, that's just not plausable that professional scientists would think of that. We need action by grandiose and uninformed MBA's, that's the ticket.
NASA doesn't want to go to Mars, they never did. All those experiments aboard the space station they were planning, what foolishness, what they need is a real goal that any uneducated child can get excited about.
But you are all going to get googoo eyed and fall for it, aren't you. Wake the fu*k up. The boys of Enron are at it again, canceling measurable work and shifting the budget to one controlled by a small group of political appointees, with lofty goals decades away, and lots of research money given to selected corporations with results not required for decades. That's the new political program for NASA. This needs strong vigilance from those of us who really care about science, and don't want the NASA budget to end up in swiss accounts.
The rover's about 3 feet (1 meter) in front of the lander and facing northwest.
Does anyone know how they found the orientation of the cardinal points on Mars?
The visiting expert laughed and said he hadn't heard that one before, basically. If I remember right, he responded that that'd add weight and complexity with little return. (He also said that Mars's axis is tilted [it's around 25 degree, much like earth], making for seasonal changes in the effectiveness of solar panels at any given location.)
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
It rolled again, but it didn't turn this time?
--
"Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
If a spacecraft fails and falls on your house, you're dead whether it had radioactive components or not.
If it falls somewhere else, the material is either easily recoverable, or spread in the atmosphere in an utterly insignificant concentration.
When it works as intended, in 99.9% of the cases, it will remove radioactive material from the planet, so in the interest of decreasing radiation, on balance it will be a gain.
Is it just me, or does every time you see "Spirit Rolls" on /. make your heart skip a beat. I keep thinking that it rolled - such as flipped. Perhaps "moves" might be a better choice of words, especially after the catastrophe with Beagle 2!
For news, status, updates, scientific info, images, video, and more, check out:
Mars Exploration Rover Highlights (AXCH).
When will we be sending Mars some mostly autonomous rovers? I would imagine it would be more efficient if the rover were trying to figure out for itself how to get from place to place, through and around obstacles, and coming up with some experiments.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
It's the remaining fears from the anti-nuke baby boomer generation that had difficulty telling the difference between "atomic bomb" and "atomic reactor"
Incidents like chernobyl and TMI didn't help, but in those cases stemmed from remarkably foolish human operator error and antiquated reactor design. Neither of which are likely to happen again with a modern plant design and especially in a nuclear rocket which would be fully automated and designed for only a few minutes of full power usage.
-
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/spirit/a5 _20040110.html
Noticed a vertical stitch in the images. I thought the images were single shots. Are they partial panorama shots instead?
When shit hits the fan get some of these https://youtu.be/pY-GncsZ-UE
Don't forget to check out the main page of google which celebrates the rover rolling out on the surface.
A more accurate analogy would be... Two programmers, whose salaries I pay, working on two different open source projects when they should be working on the project I hired them to do.
is areographically. FYI.
Maybe NASA should plant some oxygen generating bacteria on Mars that eat CO2 - heck, in a few millions years we can actually live on Mars with oxygen.
Conspiracy theorists are DUMBASSES!
Twin or more? ITA
Apache/Spring/La
Well, if it didn't have to work, I could have delivered them one for, oh, say less than a third of the cost.
...said one NASA scientist "Mars is our bitch"
Spirit found a small child hanging out on the Martian surface.
n -1 5-2004/captions/image-1.html
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/rover-images/ja
to argue correctly that the percieved risks of nuclear power are far greater than any known actual risk from them. Hyperbole looks good in a paper for a course in English or Journalism, but it doesn't communicate risk, it communicates fear. When the fear is largely unfounded or based or other hyperbole, it is of little use to reiterate it. The typical automobile is more dangerous than a normal nuclear reactor.
If you want to worry about something with a significant risk, start thinking about some of the cleaning agents that typically lurk under a household sink and bathroom medicine cabinet. THEY typically contain all the necessaries to produce some really lethal, and viciously explosive stuff that makes the toxicity of plutonium look tame. What you might find is really bothersome is hos the small the number of our fellow citizens is that know enough about this not to accidentally kill themselves, their families and their neighbors. Or perhaps you could dig into whether BGH or BSE is more dangerous to you and your family - which is scarier, mad cow disease or milk from growth-hormone-dosed cows?
------ The only greater hazard to your liberty than n politicians is n+1 politicians.
I keep hearing that shit (on slashdot) about environmentalists having something to do with the Nasa robots - but i've never seen any proof. Do you have any or is it just your prejudice?
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
anyhow, what's that black spot that appears on many of the photos ? Example
Old school? Stick with what you know, I say...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Hummm.
The nuclear mass is just a rock with very little radioactiveness to it. It is fairly safe to hold and mine.
It becomes really dangerous when you start the nuclear reactions. That makes the mass hot in more ways than one.
So as long as the nuclear reacator does not start the reaction until it is safely on the planet it would be perfectly safe.
Even launching a rocket with a nuclear reactor has no danger. The nuclear matterial is not very radioactive - the reactor would have to be running to start to make it radioactive.