Mars Landers - Opportunity, Bedrock, Aerosmith?

Iphtashu Fitz writes "As was reported last week, the first Mars rover Spirit had some communications problems that the folks at the JPL have finally managed to trace to problems with its flash memory. Reuters is reporting that Opportunity seems to be having some power-related problems, too. It appears a faulty thermostat is turning a heater on overnight without being told to do so. While NASA isn't concerned about the rover overheating, they're exploring the long-term effects of continued power drain on the second rover." The article also notes: "The first three-dimensional, panoramic images beamed back from Opportunity showed an intriguing outcrop of exposed bedrock" - there's now a color version of the same image. Finally, lightwaveman points to the Spaceflight Now status page regarding new priorities for the Mars mission: "The airing of today's Mars rover news conference is being delayed on NASA TV to show the band Aerosmith touring International Space Station Mission Control at Houston's Johnson Space Center."

Comments

heaters..

[fjordboy]

After the last couple weeks of living in constant cold and snow here in the northeast I think I have a little insight on the Opportunity issue - I'd randomly turn on the heat if I was on mars too! It's cold!

Re:heaters..

[Rallion]

I sympathize with a fellow resident of the area which I now refer to as Freezing Hell.

On the 14th, Spirit was warmer than the people in my hometown.

Re:heaters..

[dragin33]

We have two rovers on mars sending back pictures and data. That's more than the other, what, 30 atempts did. Lay off.

Re:heaters..

[Rallion]

I was dealing with comparable temps that day, yes. Of course, the fact that the narrow walkways between buildings did a damn fine job up upping the windspeed to hurricane-levels (Yeah, I'm pretty sure I mean that literally, watching the smaller people get tossed around like ragdolls is hilarious) made it much worse, and something like -60 with the windchill. And you've managed to make me remember what that was like, in all it's horror. Damn you.

Opportunity got really lucky

[Unregistered]

if we could have picked any landing site on mars, it would be Opportunity's. An examination of bedrock will tell us much more about mars than analyzing rocks that may have come from space. Also, is Opportunity set up to look for life?

btw, Firebird on OSX says the color image contains errors. Anyone else having that happen?

Re:Opportunity got really lucky

[iminplaya]

"An examination of bedrock will tell us..."
that Fred and Wilma are grand parents now. Turns out Gazoo is the father.

Re:Opportunity got really lucky

[snake_dad]

Opportunity and Spirit are mainly set up to find out about the mineralogy, and their task is to try to establish once and for all that liquid water was once abundant on Mars.

Re:Opportunity got really lucky

[Hits_B]

An examination of bedrock will tell us much more about mars than analyzing rocks that may have come from space.
Having played geologist for a number of years now, I can say that the bedrock looks like wind deposits to me. The crossbeds that are present look similar to crossbeds you can observe in the Navajo Sandstone in Utah or a number of other formations in the Colorado Plateau. Unless there are some scientific instruments I am unaware of they will not be able to conclusively determine whether the bedrock is water- or wind-deposited based simply on mineralogy.

Re:Opportunity got really lucky

[dellis78741]

And today they explained that Opportunity actually rolled around in the crater like a dice tossed into a bowl. Made a figure eight before settling down. That explains a few of those 'imprints' that were off at odd angles. So while the odds of landing in a crater are supposedly incredibly low, once a bouncing rover intersects one its' odds of staying in the crater go up dramatically.

Re:Opportunity got really lucky

[linoleo]

if we could have picked any landing site on mars, it would be Opportunity's.

Actually, if we could pick *any* landing site, there are *a lot* more interesting ones on Mars to choose from. You have to decode Nasa-speak - what they're really saying is: "to be on the safe side, we always land in very flat regions, which tend to be (geologically speaking) rather boring. We are thrilled to have stumbled upon a flat region that looks *different* from all the other flat regions we've landed in before."

In other words, we've graduated from Kansas to Oklahoma. The Rockies, Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, Rift Valley, Himalaya, etc. of Mars are still waiting for us to develop more robust landers and capable all-terrain robots. Check out ESA's first Mars Express images for a taste of some more dramatic scenery. Can't wait till we get a rover into *that*!

- nic

Re:Opportunity got really lucky

[uberdave]

One of the Mars orbiters (Mars Global Surveyor) did extensive spectrographic mapping of the minerals on the surface of Mars. Opportunity has landed in an area that is apparently rich in hematite. Seven of the eight ways this hematite can be formed involve the presence of water. Opportunity will be used to determine if the hematite was water based or volcanically based. Some details here

Rock This Way

[Skyshadow]

I wonder if any of the NASA dweebs tried to get Liv's number from her dad...

Seriously though, it's been a pretty good week for NASA so far, with Opportunity landing safely and Spirit slowly coming back to health.

My question is: When they locate a fix for Spirit, will they apply it to Opportunity as well? Are the two really identical, and if so wouldn't Opportunity run the risk of the same sort of major nervous breakdown that Spirit had? Or do they plan on leaving well enough alone?

Re:Rock This Way

[kcornia]

My understanding is they've already made some changes in the way Opportunity uses its flash memory, in an attempt to NOT recreate the problem they're seeing with Spirit. Something about dumping data instead of writing it there unless its crucial.

I'll try to dig up a link.

Re:Rock This Way

[Iphtashu Fitz]

My question is: When they locate a fix for Spirit, will they apply it to Opportunity as well?

According to the Reuters article one of the theories that NASA is investigating is the possibility that a solar flare could have damaged Spirit during "a vulnerable point during its communications with Earth." If that's the case then there's probably not much they can do to prevent it from happening again. If, however, another theory like the machine overloading itself with datafiles, turns out to be the true culprit then they probably could patch both rovers.

Re:Rock This Way

[zcat_NZ]

From the last article I read, the problem with Spirit involves having too many files in flash. So the fix involves deleting old files when they no longer need them.

They're also deleting files off Opportunity as soon as they've been transmitted and/or are no longer required, so it hopefully won't develop the same problem.

Re:Rock This Way

[kcornia]

Here's what I found with a quick google news search.

Changes to memory usage

The latest theory on Spirit's difficulties involves an overloading of engineering and science data files in the flash memory. The memory had not been purged of files accumulated during Spirit's near seven-month journey from Earth.

The recovery plan includes a culling of the files and a change in the operating strategy for Spirit as well as Opportunity that will more closely monitor the file content.

Bold is mine

Let's hope the new rover doesn't meet this fate...

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

I've discouvered what happened to the Spirit lander... This picture explains everything.

um... yeah

[bersl2]

The airing of today's Mars rover news conference is being delayed on NASA TV to show the band Aerosmith touring International Space Station Mission Control at Houston's Johnson Space Center.

What, Bruce Willis wasn't there?

Said it before, I'll say it again

[AKAImBatman]

Let's use nuclear power so we can go there. If the thermostat incorrectly activates, someone will turn it off. No more of this multi-million dollar robot BS. I love the robots to death, but we don't need to send them in our stead.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[glinden]

• If the thermostat incorrectly activates, someone will turn it off.

Not so sure about that. Send people up there and, if the thermostat incorrectly activates (Opportunity) or a software error causes the entire system to shut down (Spirit), people die. Manned space exploration is expensive and dangerous.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[karnal]

Yea, but the opportunity doesn't have scissors to cut the lines to the heater.

Granted, might get a little tingle splicing them back together to turn the heat back on, but I'm sure there would be other accomodations in case of a heater / thermostat failure (i.e. have 2 of them?) if humans were on the surface....

If the entire system shut down, since humans are on the spot (most likely engineers and scientists) they'd probably be able to hack something together. A little more difficult (not impossible) from this distance to a robot.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[iabervon]

Sure, someone could turn it off if they were there. Then they'd freeze to death when it actually did get cold. For that matter, NASA could probably do that now, from Earth.

Having somebody there would be useful if they had a spare part to install. It only makes sense for a manned mission to go to Mars after there's a reasonable amount of supplies already there. A long-lasting power source is one piece of that, but there are plenty of others. Also, before we can just "use nuclear power", someone will have to design a power plant that will reliably survive EDL and produce a significant amount of power afterwards. Playing around with rovers is giving NASA (and humanity) the experience necessary to supply a crew and get the crew there safely.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[ThomasFlip]

There is more to going to Mars then just using nuclear power. ie producing rocket fuel on mars, finding out how to send people on a 6 month trip in 0 G, finding a rocket ship with enough lift capacity, bringing enough food/supplies for multilple weeks/months, creating a suitable living environment etc... Robots are suitable for now because they don't require any of the things I have just mentioned, and they can still pull off most of the science a Human can. You think we have problems with robots, wait till humans go there.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[blockhouse]

I would like it if someone could give a real scientific or at least monetary reason to send people to mars.

As if science and money are the ultimate ends of the human experience. They're not.

You could just as easily have asked what the scientific or monetary reasons were for Marco Polo to go to Asia, da Gama to go around the Cape of Good Hope, Columbus to go to America, or Magellan to sail around the world. Or what the scientific or monetary reasons for NASA to put men on the moon 40 years ago. While each voyage had scientific and/or monetary justifications, they only became clear in retrospect and were in any event secondary to the experience and the human achievement.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[cranos]

Um with regards to Marco Polo and Columbus, money was THE driving force behind their explorations. Marco Polo wanted to tap into the exotic goods that he could bring back to Europe from Asia and Columbus was trying to find a quicker route to the East Indies so the spice trade could move faster.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[ryanw]

All of NASA's deaths so far have been on Earth, not in space.
With nukes it wouldn't be so expensive.

Wouldn't be so expensive to what? Blow people up on earth?

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[AKAImBatman]

Having somebody there would be useful if they had a spare part to install. It only makes sense for a manned mission to go to Mars after there's a reasonable amount of supplies already there. A long-lasting power source is one piece of that, but there are plenty of others.

They're called RTGs, and they weren't used on Spirit or Opportuniry because of backlash from environmentalists. After all, how dare NASA send up a few pounds of plutonium on space craft. Why, that Cassini thing nearly killed everyone!

Right.

Also, before we can just "use nuclear power", someone will have to design a power plant that will reliably survive EDL and produce a significant amount of power afterwards.]

It's called a Gas Core Nuclear Rocket (GCNR), which is a advanced NERVA style engine. NERVA was completed in the '60s, but cold war fears of nuclear power killed the project. Over the past decade, NASA has had the GCNR under quiet development for use in space propulsion. What most people don't realize (an intentional oversight by NASA) is that GCNRs can produce more thrust than a chemical rocket, but at a much higher Isp. Even the completed NERVA technology had 4 times the lifting power of today's Space Shuttle.

The really beautiful part about GCNR, is that it could potentially breath gases like O2 and CO2 as fuel. That means that we could easily create space planes that work on Earth *and* Mars. Wouldn't it be nice to fly into Mars' atmosphere instead of falling? (Do a search for "Project Pluto". It wasn't the cleanest plane ever, but it did work.)

Playing around with rovers is giving NASA (and humanity) the experience necessary to supply a crew and get the crew there safely.

Bull. These rovers don't even have a tenth the amount of power, resources, propulsion, and ability that can be accomplished with today's technology.

We have the technology already. We just need to stop putzing around and *use* nuclear power.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[AKAImBatman]

Are we? I could have sworn that we figured out nuclear engines back in the 60s. In fact, I do believe we even fired a 75,000 pounds of thrust engine with 1000 Isp.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[beefneck9]

I think that the problems with Spirit and Opportunity might show we need to take it at a cautios pace before sending folks out there. Its been pointed out that these rovers took 10's of G's just to get there and land, and thats gotta be rough. Most pilots and astronauts to this point have seen about 10G's worst case, and for very short periods of time.

One of the largest concerns about space travel is radiation exposure. Once you enter the Van Allen Belts, which lie outside the protection of Earth's magnetic fields, you risk becoming a slow-cooked turkey. The only way to prevent this is to shield, and the best gamma shielding is lead, whereas the best for the particles seems to be lots of free hydrogen, as found in water and polyethylene. All of this is a lot of weight, and well, that all costs money. Lots. NASA has all of this in mind, no doubt.

Now, the most ominous problem with sending us isn't all of the things we can think of, but more those we cannot. God forbid we end up on Mars and find something cannot be fixed. Lets get the tech up to acceptable risks, and if we can get a robot to work for more than a couple weeks without going down, we're on the right track. Finding out your computer is unstable and is incapable of running/monitoring your REACTOR is not cool.

Keep up the good work, NASA! You guys are fighting the good fight, and most of us realize its not if, but when.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[AKAImBatman]

Don't be daft! Even if we HAD enough fuel it's not possible yet.

It'd take three YEARS for a MANNED probe to reach Mars, the longest a human has even been in space is 400 odd days!

Dude, say it with me: N U C L E A R

Isp of 1000-5000 (NERVA is 1000, GCNR is 3000-5000) so fuel is very well conserved. (Craft like Orion have an even higher Isp.) Since we can get more thrust on less fuel, we can get there in months instead of years.

There are severe issues in space, the 0g causes muscles to break down, and calcium to be reabsorbed, weaking strength and bones. When they arrived on Mars, they would not be able to stand up without help, and there is no one there to rehabilitate them.

N U C L E A R

You can propel a craft large enough to spin, or alternatively build a ship that uses acceleration to produce light gravity.


Not to mention the raised radiation in space. If there is a solar flare on the way to Mars (three years, VERY likely) then the radiation strike will destroy the immune system of all crew and provide a lethal dose! Though contained T-cell supplements can help them recover from this, the strain it would cause would cause many of the crew to die anyway.

N U C L E A R

6-8 months. Not 3 years.


If we sent 20 people, 10 might make it, and when they got there, they would have no way back, and be unable to sustain themselves. It's stupid.

N U C L E A R

GCNR and NERVA can "breath" a variety of gases. That includes hyrdrogen and oxygen. Both can be cracked from water. The later from CO2. All you need is a power source. Something like (say it with me now):

N U C L E A R


Before criticising others because they explore before risking lives, actually read about it. All of this information is FREELY available and easy to find.

And so is everything I'm saying. This is far from the first time I've said this. Yet I've still only managed to reach a small percentage of people. I'm working on it tho. :-)

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[Joey7F]

Why, that Cassini thing nearly killed everyone!

This is another EXCITING program in the pipeline for NASA. Cassini-Huygens (Huygens being the probe) will reach Saturn July 1st of this year. Then next winter Huygens will separate and land on Titan. I didn't see on NASA's site if there will be a camera attached to Titan or not... That would be cool to see Saturn in the night sky! (See, being relative, if my astronomy serves me correctly, it is a very murky planet.

--Joey

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[AKAImBatman]

Finally! I've been waiting for my first victim... err... student, I mean.

Yes, just what we need: two out of three Mars landers crashing, only this time with lots of highly radioactive materials on board.

Okay, time for a thought experiment. Let's assume worst case scenario of two chemical rockets crashing versus two nuclear rockets crashing.

When the two chemical rockets crash, passengers will most likely die, and the (already uninhabitable area) will be polluted with the materials and fuel that make up the lander.

When the two nuclear rockets crash, passengers will most likely die, and the (already uninhabitable area) will be polluted with the materials and fuel that make up the lander. Except in this case, the fuel is radioactive. Which means...

err...

What? Hmm... Seems to mean, nothing. It's not going to produce a nuclear blast (which no one would care about), it's not going to kill a bunch of inhabitants, it's not even going to increase the background radiation by much. (Mars already gets quite a dose.)

Spare us your sarcasm. By your reasoning, smoking isn't dangerous either; I mean, we see people smoke every day and you don't see them fall over dead, do you? And people drive in cars all the time without problems, so obviously--by your reasoning--driving cars must be risk free. Give me a break.

Nothing is without risk. However, plutonium is a relatively safe substance. It gives off alpha rays which can be shielded with a piece of paper. You can hold it in your hand and find it warm to the touch. You can even digest it (yes, this has happened) and it will usually pass through your system without harm. The only time it's dangerous is when it's inhaled. And the only time that's a serious danger is when you're machining the stuff. It's so heavy, that it won't stay in the air very long. In fact, NASA burnt up an RTG in the atmosphere without any ill effects to anyone.

When they realized that the public was a little upset at the idea, they later started packing the RTGs in cases that could survive orbital reentry. To date, NASA has dropped two of them out of the sky. Both were intact, and one was even reused! So in reality, that little RTG is safer than driving a car, smoking, or probably even throwing a battery into a fire.

Thankfully, people like you don't run our space program.

You're so sure about that. Then why was NERVA created? Why is GCNR being developed? Why is JIMO going to Jupiter with a fully loaded Nuclear Reactor? NASA's only problem is the FUD surrounding nuclear power. I'm just doing my part to clear that out of the way.

Re:Said it before, I'll say it again

[AKAImBatman]

The Rovers do use RTGs; for heat:

But not for power. They're able to slip in a few grams of plutonium because no one's going to notice (or really care). But when you're talking 2.5 pounds of plutonium per 75 Watts, people start envisioning rockets raining death. It's a sad state of affairs really. Had the rovers used RTGs for power, their power sources would have outlived the other components by a half-century or better.

BTW, the heating units are not RTGs. They don't generate any electricity. Instead, they're just radioisotopes with shielding. Those few grams wouldn't do much to warm you here on earth, but out on Mars they can spell the difference between a working rover and a frozen rover.

Thanks for the link. I'll try to keep that handy. :-)

Spaceflightnow charges for nasa footage?

[ayeco]

I'm assuming that the Quicktimes that you can download at spaceflightnow is coming from nasa feeds. What's up with charging for nasa footage? Don't they get that free? (they might be capturing it and hosting it, but still).

Re:Spaceflightnow charges for nasa footage?

[Anonymous Coward]

dude, they knew they would be on the front page of slashdot every other day. Maybe thats why!

Oh, Sure, Like I Believe That...

[ackthpt]

Opportunity showed an intriguing outcrop of exposed bedrock" - there's now a color version of the same image

Yeah, right, that's really Tatooine, if you look closely you can see Luke's uncle's 'farm'. in the distance. I'm pretty sure there some sand people messing with these rovers. At least when the rovers burn out the Jawas will be able to clean things up.

Obviously they didn't launch rockets to put those there, they used the same hyperspace portal that George Lucas uses.

Re:Oh, Sure, Like I Believe That...

[NeuroManson]

"Obviously they didn't launch rockets to put those there, they used the same hyperspace portal that George Lucas uses."

You mean the same place where Lucas gets his scripts?

No, wait, that was his ass. He'd need a tube of KY the size of a super star destroyer to pass something like a Mars probe.

Re:Aerosmith?

[ackthpt]

Is this a reference to the album "Rocks" or something?

They probably only got in because Steve told them he's "Arwen's" dad. Otherwise those geeks probably wouldn't have a clue who these fossils are.

There's always Mars

[spun]

Bad economy, war in Iraq, dodgy dossiers, terrorists on the loose, no WMDs, Gov. Schwarzenegger (I live in California...), rising national debt, companies fleeing offshore in droves, corporate scandals, high unemployement. I'm depressed.

Then there's Mars. Drama, excitement, scientific adventure: I feel proud of our messed up little species. Stuck somewhere between monkeys and angels, we manage to pull off some cool stunts once in a while. Go Team!

Re:There's always Mars

[ehiris]

Then there's Mars. Drama, excitement, scientific adventure

Or as Arthur C. Clarke wrote in 2001 a Space Odyssey: "After ten thousand years, man at last found something as exciting as war."

Bedding plane

[Party_Pack]

Interestingly there seems to be some sort of horizontal feature that in a terrestrial rock could very well be stratification, which would make it a sedimentary rock. I would guess that it's more likely some sort of weathering effect. Although you do quite often see this sort of effect in dykes. Very interesting :)

Game over man!

[NanoGator]

Am I the only one that can see a face in every one of those rocks?

Re:Shame

[ttldkns]

After being launched into space, experiencing many Gs, travelling hundereds of thousands of miles to fall onto a big rock, bounce around and then to be controlled from earth... I think its a wonder they both work at all.
Kudos to NASA for doing so well

They just got a little confused...

[el-spectre]

They heard that Liv's dad knew about digging space rocks or somesuch thing...

Go Nuke -

[jzarling]

Weren't the Viking probes powered by some sort of plutonium or uranium / ceramic batteries - they lasted for years.
If NASA is concerned about dust build up on the panels don't use them.
If they are concerned about dust on the camera lenses perhaps they could lease the "on car" camera technology from CART or NASCAR.
As for Aerosmith - they even less to do with science (unless your a chemist) than they do with football. - They and all the popstars f'up my Monday Night Football Intros, and now they delay delay NASA TV, Im gonna pirate thier latest album just to delete it.

Color Photo?

[ShawnDoc]

Is there a color photo somewhere? The link in the story only points to a B&W photo with a red filter put on it.

Re:Color Photo?

[elendel]

Insightful? I say Funny.

As has been discussed on /. previous, the cameras on the lander are strictly black and white - colors are gained by (wait for it) using filters!

if beagle

[relrelrel]

Had landed in Opportunity's position, it would have been far more fascinating.

Beagle2 is the most technically advanced out of the 3, and can analyse materials and send the results back to earth, so you could effectively get proof of life (or be it, 'beyond most doubt') on mars within a couple days of it landing.

Very sad it didn't work out.

I'm offended!

[aiken_d]

As a representative of the League of the Perpetually Offended, I would like to express outrage over all of this heat speech.

Harumph
-b

Message from Opportunity...just in (1 of 5040)

[djupedal]

The original message was received at Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:50:53 -0500
from neomail03.traderonline.com [10.222.132.7]

----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----

(reason: 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown)

----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to neomail01.traderonline.com.:
RCPT To: ... User unknown
550 5.1.1 ... User unknown
Reporting-MTA: dns; neomail02.traderonline.com
Received-From-MTA: DNS; neomail03.traderonline.com
Arrival-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:50:53 -0500

Final-Recipient: RFC822; Opportunity@nasa.com
Action: failed
Status: 5.1.1
Remote-MTA: DNS; neomail01.traderonline.com
Diagnostic-Code: SMTP; 550 5.1.1 ... User unknown
Last-Attempt-Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 17:50:54 -0500

From: Opportunity@nasa.com
Date: January 28, 2004 2:52:34 PM PST
To: earth@nasa.com
Subject: Hello

The message contains Unicode characters and has been sent as a binary attachment.

Re:Message from Opportunity...just in (1 of 5040)

[rogerdr]

I think the body of the message has been translated as "Rocks, dust, and no chicks? This place is boring as hell. Who fed me that last drink? Somebody get me the f%@& out of here!

Two out of two isn't bad

[infolib]

- so how about reusing the Spirit/Opportunity platform for further robotic missions to Mars? They seem to work (somewhat) and the remaining problems will probably be ironed out. Has the time come for commodity Mars probes?

What's all you space geeks saying? Is there something we would really miss by using slightly modified versions of these landers that would justify development costs? Or is the question moot since Bush wants manned missions anyway?

Is it me?

[BTWR]

Or is the press just dying for some bad news? I mean, everyone knows the news saying "You report the one house on fire, no one reports the 10,000 that didn't burn today" (or something like that).

For the media, bad news is good news (storywise). Here we have unprecidented sucesses of the MERs (and Mars Express - within DAYS of working it has found evidence of it's top mission objective), and now there's all this press about the "failures."

Or has NASA been "asking for it," as they keep saying how "amazingly perfect" things are going, setting themselves up for scrutiny when they fail? My opinion: no, but what about you?

Re:Is it me?

[timeOday]

Well, one rover is incapacitated completely. The other has problems that may (but hopefully not) be a major problem. "Perfect" would be if both rovers had been successfully deployed and functioned as planned. That's not what happened.

I certainly hope Spirit can be rehabilitated; that in itself would be a triumph. On the other hand, ith the Rover's lifespan of 90 days or so, each day on Mars costs several million dollars. Each nonfunctional day makes the mission a day shorter and that much less successful.

I'm sure you're not suggesting that these things shouldn't be reported, so what's the problem?

I can hear the envirowackos now!

[leftie_hater]

"Opportunity is contributing to global warming on Mars!"

Re:I can hear the envirowackos now!

[RetroGeek]

You are correct.

Re:Shame

[BTWR]

NASA seems to be having so much trouble with them

I can't think of a single mission in which everything was sucessful:

-Hubble had it's famous initial "disaster."
-Galileo had it's near-catastrophic antenae failure (which made the mission produce like 10% of the intended science/pictures).
-The Voyager Probes had various instruments which conked out before Neptune (granted the mission was only engineered to work for Jupiter and Saturn)
-Mars Express's Lander has presumably failed (but it's primary mission appears to have already found some evidence of it's main goal - finding water)
-The Soviet Venera Probes each had problems (one mission in particular returned no pictures due to an unremoved lens cap!)
-Pathfinder, like Spirit, had periods of breached-communications (including a much-longer delay in communcating with Earth after touching down on the surface).

Yet each of the above missions were HUGE sucesses in their own regard. NASA (and ESA and USSR) all has problems with them, but they were all very much redeemed themselves. It's like having a kid who turns out to be a hero firefigher/scientist or something. Just cuz he/she had a few temper tantrums doesn't mean that they're a failure. Look at the big picture...

Already being re-used

[shadowj]

so how about reusing the Spirit/Opportunity platform for further robotic missions to Mars?

The Spirit/Opportunity landing system is heavily based on the Pathfinder/Sojourner design. The parachute and airbags had to be beefed up to deal with the additional weight, and some other modifications were made based on what was learned the first time around, but it's basically the same. I understand that squeezing the much larger Spirit and Opportunity into the lander was not easy, which is why the probes arrive folded up like elaborate origami.

NASA isn't concerned with being slashdotted then?

[CrackedButter]

I just downloaded a 4 meg image, they never heard of us or something?

Re:Shame

[blockhouse]

No kidding. Hope NASA will have some better way planned of landing *people* on Mars, unless those brave pioneers don't mind being converted to thick 'n' chunky salsa by the voyage.

I've Said it before, and I'll say it again

[geekoid]

If we can't get probeds and rovers there reliable, we have no business sending people.

We need to set up an infrastructure before we send people.

I would like to see 8-12 sattalites whose goals are, in order:
1)relay communication
2)track objects on the planet
3)Pictures.

we should also send a few big units full of supplies.

Then we should send people who Also have enough supplies to get there and back.
They should rotate supplies as new missions land

We should do experiments on building shelters from native materials.

That could mean caves, mines and/or adobe huts made from local materials.

Mars is really far away(yes you can quote me ;) and we need to think really big and long term.

I would also like to send 4 or five teams of 6, each about a month apart.

Re:I've Said it before, and I'll say it again

[AKAImBatman]

If we can't get probeds and rovers there reliable, we have no business sending people.

And how many nuclear craft are currently flying? The correct answer is ZERO. Not because it isn't a good idea, but because of FUD surrounding nuclear technology. NASA can't even send up a few pounds of plutonium as a passive power source without everyone claiming we're all going to die.


I would like to see 8-12 sattalites whose goals are, in order:
1)relay communication
2)track objects on the planet
3)Pictures.

Agreed. RTGs can keep satellites running for a long time (50 plus years). Ion engines can give them longer station keeping abilities. Nuclear engines can boost them there in a short time. We just need to develop these technologies instead of shelving them.

Good scientific reason...

[Goonie]

While others can point to the romantic reasons for crewed missions (points I agree with, by the way), there are IMO good scientific reasons to send crewed missions.

Basically, a human crew, even with the disadvantage of space suits, could work a lot faster, cover a lot more territory, and try a far greater variety of scientific techniques than any robot probe, or large set of robot probes, could do.

Open Source the Rover Code ?

[ntsucks]

Why doesn't NASA Open Source this rover code? Not for the outside world to contribute to the development, but for review. The collective intelligence of the open source community could certainly provide productive and insightful reviews. Perhaps problems such as file management could be avoided. At the very least the open souce community would be able to document weak points in the design that could be improved or avoided in production use.

Its not like this is proprietary, for-profit code. I helped paid for it. Its for the good of all mankind.

If nothing else, I would love the chance to learn something from NASA. The rover code might be as beautiful as the images coming back (or not!).

Re:Open Source the Rover Code ?

[DerekLyons]

Why doesn't NASA Open Source this rover code? Not for the outside world to contribute to the development, but for review. The collective intelligence of the open source community could certainly provide productive and insightful reviews.

Why? Because it's unlikely that the open source community will provide much in the way of useful commentary. They don't have simulators to run the code on. And I find it unlikely that they will spend the months needed to understand a complex, tightly integrated, and utterly specialized set of code.

Perhaps problems such as file management could be avoided.

Probably not. The problems are caused because the real rovers have done something the test rovers haven't... They've run for months on end, whereas the test rovers and computers are frequently rebooted to reset for a new test sequence.

At the very least the open souce community would be able to document weak points in the design that could be improved or avoided in production use.

Maybe, maybe not. For the reasons I list above, I doubt the open source community will educate themselves deeply enough on the design to actually be useful. (O.K., one or two uber-geeks might, but that would be it. And, like often happens on open source fora like Slashdot, the few useful comments would be buried among the noise.)

Re:NASA isn't concerned with being slashdotted the

[the frizz]

No they're not.

I work at Speedera who is delivering their content and NASA TV. At 6pm EST when slashdot posted this story the traffic increased only about 100Mbps. Articles posted on AOL, MSN and Yahoo home pages increase the traffic much more. The NASA TV live stream when Opportunity landed was 4 Gbps. There are lots of other sources that are bigger than the slashdot effect.

See the press release for more details on the traffic and our SpeedRank index for historical performance and availabilty of NASA's site.