Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rovers Update

BoldAC writes "CNN is reporting that engineers will upload a software hack to decrease the recent power drain plaguing the rover Opportunity. The hack works by reducing the power supply to a poorly functioning switch." p3tersen writes "Opportunity has photographed a blue martian sunset (it's blue because of the optical scattering properties of dust in the martian atmosphere). In other news, the rovers are beginning to experience power supply problems due to the accumulation of dust on their solar panels."

124 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Solar problems by LotsaCaffeine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    NASA should have installed wiper blades on the solar panels.

    1. Re:Solar problems by MikeCapone · · Score: 2, Interesting

      NASA should have installed wiper blades on the solar panels.

      I know you are joking, but I'm actually surprised that they haven't thought of a way to keep the solar panels clean.

      I mean, they can get the thing to mars, they should be able to do that, no?

    2. Re:Solar problems by r00zky · · Score: 3, Informative

      For an easy solution see: helmets of Formula One drivers.

      --
      I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
    3. Re:Solar problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every easy solution has a problem. The problem with this one is that the Mars rovers don't have any arms to rip the layers off.

    4. Re:Solar problems by r00zky · · Score: 3, Interesting

      A thread attached to a corner of every plastic sheet running diagonally to the opposite corner and an electric motor that activates when the sheet is dirty.
      Stack 10 sheets of this and voila, lifetime of the rover multiplied x10.

      --
      I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
    5. Re:Solar problems by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 3, Interesting
      You are kidding for sure.

      Say, a step motor and some mechanical jiggery-pokery ending with a stiff wire, a hook on its end, the layers would have tabs with holes in them to pull at.

      Or.. a glue between layers that deteriorates on contact with Martian athmosphere and so the layers will peel off after a fixed (based on chemistry) time.

      I mean, give me a break, those took less then 10 seconds to come up with and I am sure NASA engineers could have thought up much more effective methods.

    6. Re:Solar problems by hottoh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I understood Nasa to say 'wiper blades' would not be effective due to the nature of the fine dust chemically sticking to the surface of the solar cells. Mechanical sweeping does not solve the real problem of the dust sticking to the solar panel.

      Just a guess based on Nasa commentary is the batteries will fail before the solar panels fail to charge them.

    7. Re:Solar problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If only life were so simple, you'd be working for NASA...

      How is the motor supposed to pull the correct wire (you wouldn't use thread)? Ten different motors?

      What do you do with the tear-off once you pull it? Leave it clumped at the bottom or just have hang around trailing behind the rover or right on top of the panels? Cut the wire you say? Kind of difficult to do that if you rolled the wire up on a spool with a motor. Going to need ten pyros for that.

      Don't forget that you have to pack all of this onto the rover and fold up the panels. Better hope your wires don't tangle up and prevent the panels from unfolding.

      All of this stuff takes up weight and adds complexity. Do you really want to do all of that?

    8. Re:Solar problems by ModernViking · · Score: 5, Interesting

      First, my credentials. I have worked on the field trials of the FIDO rover. It is the science test bed for the MER rovers that has been tested in various parts of the western United States over the past 6 years.

      There have been many ideas tested for the solar panels, including removable plastic coverings, wiper blades, etc. None of them have proven practical. The dust on Mars is extremely fine and electrostatically charged. It sticks to the panels , and every other surface, amazingly well. Figuring out a way to remove Martian dust from surfaces is a field that a lot of thought and experiment has gone into, without discovering any feasible solutions, so far.

      During the Pathfinder Mission in 1997, it was found that, by driving the rover over 'large' rocks (large for the rover), some of the larger dust can be shaken off. This is, as I've heard from members of the engineering team, something they intend to try with the MER rovers when needed. It doesn't make a huge improvement, on the order of a couple percent, but every little bit helps.

    9. Re:Solar problems by Bull999999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Another problem with rovers lasting forever is that they may gain AI, build themselves up with other technology, and go on a killing spree until a witty captain of a spaceship stops it.

      --
      1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
    10. Re:Solar problems by Flakeloaf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the dust is electrostatically charged, what would be involved in covering the solar panels with a thin, transparent film or network of wires that is itself charged to repel this dust?

      --

      Am I the only one who heard Roxette to sing "I'm gonna get blitzed for some sex"?

    11. Re:Solar problems by torpor · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Put the solar array on a vibrator, tilt the rover slightly, and give the solar panel array 15 minutes of shaking at some appropriate Hertz... oila, dust is shaken off.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    12. Re:Solar problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      How is the motor supposed to pull the correct wire (you wouldn't use thread)? Ten different motors?
      A simple set of 10 mechanical gears made of plastic and stacked in a row would do this. The driving gear jumps from first to last as needed. My printer does something similar to this everyday to a precission of 720 dpi so...

      What do you do with the tear-off once you pull it?
      Cut the wire between the plastic sheet and the gears that rolled the wire. No need to have 10 cutting devices, since only one wire will get rolled at a time.

      Don't forget that you have to pack all of this onto the rover and fold up the panels.
      Implement one of these in each fixed panel, not in the panels as a whole.

      All of this stuff takes up weight and adds complexity
      Sending 2 probes to Mars and getting scientific data back is waaaaay more complex than this. And the weight... it adds a little more $$ for fuel, but the result is a _much_ longer lifetime.

    13. Re:Solar problems by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Interesting
      A vibrator? Might work although probably could be destructive...

      Hmm, after another 15 minutes of mental effort: a thin brush on an arm mounted to the side of the camera mast. You lower the (very thin and light single file brush) with a small step motor to the horizontal position and then you rotate the camera mast to create a sweeping motion on the panels. You could brush the 2 side panels that way, since if you planned for it, there would be no portruding gear to get in the way of the brush (all such gear would be back of the mast).

      And so on...

      I am really flabbergasted why there is absolutely no provision for any sort of cleaning (even a partial one) on the rovers. Its not like this wasnt expected. I smell some sort of hidden agenda in shortening the life of the rovers.

    14. Re:Solar problems by deglr6328 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Can you say more about why specifically the peel off transparent plastic idea was rejected(it seems to be the simplest, most effective, non-single point failure prone, most elegant solution I've seen so far)? I know all these speculative posts seem tedious and redundant, it's just that it seems like such a shame to allow the mission life of the rovers to be so severly shortened by such an apparently trivial problem.(it's just a little dust!! :o)

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    15. Re:Solar problems by jeff+munkyfaces · · Score: 2, Funny

      would it be possible to set them into "violent shaking mode" to solve this?

    16. Re:Solar problems by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would love to see notes from these kind of 'thought' groups. It is a big problem, and I think it should be put out into the public. Maybe a contest.

      If you think the people t NASA can't figure it out, then nobody can, you are just kidding yourself.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    17. Re:Solar problems by Daniel_Staal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, you are assuming all the dust has the same charge...

      Not a likely situation.

      --
      'Sensible' is a curse word.
    18. Re:Solar problems by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 4, Insightful
      None of them have proven practical

      I dont buy this for a second. Removal of fine, electro-statically dust, has been practiced on this planet for centuries if not millenia. There are entire industries based on this practice. I am convinced that it was one of those famous NASA managerial pissing contests that ensured no "feasible" or "practical" solution. Read: the companies which proposed the solutions were not part of the "in" crowd.

    19. Re:Solar problems by Schemat1c · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Every easy solution has a problem. The problem with this one is that the Mars rovers don't have any arms to rip the layers off.

      [sarcasm]
      You're right. I guess we will have to wait until someone invents robotic arms. And anything spring loaded wouldn't work because everyone knows springs don't work on Mars.
      [/sarcasm]

      There is nothing that can convince me that there is no way around this problem. It amazes me as much as the fact that NASA had prepared absolutely no way around losing a few tiles on the shuttle. These are major problems with simple solutions.
      I think we have the wrong people running our space program.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    20. Re:Solar problems by Senjutsu · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Which would repel all the dust of the same charge, but attract the rest. Plus you've added the possibility that something could short across this wire grid and drain the battery real quick.

    21. Re:Solar problems by CdBee · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why not just use a high frequency transducer to clean the surface of the panels?

      Tilting and vibrating them might, possibly, shake some of the dust off?. Obviously this has to be balanced against the wear caused by the vibration so it may not be possible...

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    22. Re:Solar problems by jeff+munkyfaces · · Score: 2, Interesting

      this still has the problem of dust sticking with static, how you clean the brush, and scratching the plastic with grit..

    23. Re:Solar problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does your windex take off rust that's chemically bonded? Have you seen the before and after brushing pictures from Adirondack? No? Well maybe the problem is a little more complicated than you are assuming. Large grains of dust can fall off the panels. Smaller grains are now fused to and have become part of the panels.

      The questions shouldn't be on how to extend these pissant solar panels, but on why they didn't put an RTG in in the first place.

    24. Re:Solar problems by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      I dont buy this for a second. Removal of fine, electro-statically dust, has been practiced on this planet for centuries if not millenia. There are entire industries[windex.com] based on this practice. I am convinced that it was one of those famous NASA managerial pissing contests that ensured no "feasible" or "practical" solution. Read: the companies which proposed the solutions were not part of the "in" crowd.

      The key difference you're missing is, in your own words, "on this planet". The fact that the rovers are on mars has two important effects. First, the atmospheric composition, weather conditions, and the nature of the martian dust itself render common dust abatement methods here on earth ineffective. The most common, spraying liquid and wiping, is totally out of the question when the temperature is -20 to -80 degrees C. Second, the inaccessability of a rover on mars means that complex mechanical "wiping" solutions are out of the question-- there's no one there to smack the side of the unit when a cam arm gets stuck, or replace a solar panel when a wiper blade gouges it with a sharp pebble.
      If you're so sure there's an easy solution, let's hear it. Your bizarre conspiracy theory makes no sense.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    25. Re:Solar problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What if it worked like 35mm film cassettes? You'd have a limited length of film, but the unused film would be tightly wound and not exposed to the dust. The "take up" reel would never be reused, so brushing wouldn't be necessary.

    26. Re:Solar problems by SmackCrackandPot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would high frequency vibrations work? When I worked in Canada, there used to be these beetles which be attract by the light from my halogen lamp and try and bury themselves into my pot plants (if they didn't fry themselves first).

      Being particularly curious, I dug a couple out of the soil. Being covered in dust, the first thing they would do is make a loud buzzing noise to warm up (and which would shake off the dust) and then open their wing case and take off.

      Would this method work with solar panels?

    27. Re:Solar problems by Lawrence_Bird · · Score: 2, Funny

      Damn it! Rudy Giuliani made it to Mars first and
      got rid of all their squeegee guys!

    28. Re:Solar problems by GileadGreene · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's not a case of a few more $$ for fuel. It's a case of being able to launch at all. The rovers BARELY made it under the max launch mass. They were even over the max at some points in the program, and were stripping off mass whereever they could. Besides, in the space business additional mechanisms are frowned upon due to both the difficulty of designing a mechanism to work in the space (or martian) environment, and the inherent decrease in relaibility of the overall system. MER already has far more than mechanisms than is usual for a space mission.

    29. Re:Solar problems by bani · · Score: 2, Interesting

      use a polonium source same as is used in anti-static brushes. works _perfectly_ to neutralize any dust charge. if it's good enough for professional photographers to remove statically charged dust from negatives, it's good enough for this.

      look at the tape cleaning systems that have been around for oh, about 100 years... those problems have long been solved.

    30. Re:Solar problems by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Does your windex take off rust that's chemically bonded?

      Why oh why would someone coat the panels with something that can even remotely be prone to chemically binding with soil?! And I am going to repeat the million times mentioned simple solution of a peel-off film! And guess what? ONE coat of peeloff film means twice the lifetime of the rover. Ponder that!

      BTW, the RTGs are so politically loaded that noone is going to send any anywhere anytime soon. Besides they are apparently much heavier then they wanted the rovers to be for the types of boosters they could afford.

    31. Re:Solar problems by mnmn · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Here are some ideas I'm sure have been considered:

      (1) Vibration.... the panels are lifted sideways and a motor at the top vibrates them for a few minutes. This will cost(1) the vibration motor (2) the lifting motor (3) lifting arm and hinges.

      (2) Clapping two solar panels together.

      (3) Compressed air. This is my fav. A small cylinder onboard could blow air across the panels about 10 times... increasing the life of the rovers 10 times. If theres enough gas in the atmosphere, replace the cylinder with a compressor. Its mechanically easy, less risk, and with a tiny compressor will add just a tiny bit of weight.

      (4) Wiper blades. The blades will have feathers on them like a feather duster.

      (5) Rotating panels. The panels would be disc-shaped and are rotated real fast like a CD to shake off the dust.

      (6) Flippin panels. Turn the panels upside down for a little while. Optionally, jerk them.

      (7) Roller film. Unlike camera film, one loop of film covers the panel and two axels at the panel ends loops the film around. Small brushes at one end will keep cleaning the film.

      (8) Driving into rocks. The rover can tilt its panel forward facing and drive into a large rock with a bumper. That way the martians wouldnt think much of our intelligence and cancel the invasion.

      (9) Tiny micro-rovers built by MIT undergrads to wander over the panels cleaning it. The micro-rovers will themselves have connectors to recharge. I'm thinking 2mm^2. Tricycle-shaped with a trailing brush.

      (10) Drive over a high dune just before losing power. That way when theres a wind storm, enough dust will be blown away to allow the rover to communicate with the satellite. Hopefully, most of the dust will be blown away.

      Some of the above ideas were taken from other posters. I believe they could have been used to build a rover that could in theory work forever.

      --
      "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
    32. Re:Solar problems by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Don't forget that you have to pack all of this onto the rover and fold up the panels.

      Implement one of these in each fixed panel, not in the panels as a whole.

      Another minor problem: this mechanism must be located the width of the panel away from the edge of the panel, i.e. any closer and it wouldn't be able to peel the layer off completely. Imagine, if you will, such a panel sitting before you with the film on it. Grab a corner of the film and attempt to remove it by pulling in a straight line, without letting go, and without moving your hand beyond the edge of the panel. See the problem? The panels, being the largest objects on the rover, would then require some sort of extended outrigger device beyond the panels to hold the reel that pulls the wire. Not an effective solution.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  2. ACPI by compbrain · · Score: 4, Funny

    "The hack works by reducing the power supply to a poorly functioning switch."
    You know, they could just tell the rover to use its ACPI functionality and go into standby and spin down its hard disks....

    --
    print 'Hello world!';
    http://compbrain.net
    1. Re:ACPI by dzym · · Score: 2, Funny
      Except ACPI doesn't work properly on anything but Windows.

      Nice try.

  3. Fan by RetroGeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is there some reason why these rovers do not have a fan to blow away the accumutating dust on the solar panels?

    The weight penalty should be offset by being able to work longer.

    Or is the dust sticky? Maybe something akin to a wiper?

    --

    - - - - - - - - - - -
    I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    1. Re:Fan by goon+america · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Doesn't one of their robot arms have a brush device for brushing off rocks? Couldn't they use that?

    2. Re:Fan by RetroGeek · · Score: 5, Informative

      Doesn't one of their robot arms have a brush device for brushing off rocks?

      The ONE robot arm cannot articulate to a position to reach the panels (it is mounted underneath). Also, the brush is made of wire. Not something you would want rubbing against a solar panel.

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    3. Re:Fan by DynaSoar · · Score: 2, Informative

      RetroGeek (206522) sez: "Is there some reason why these rovers do not have a fan to blow away the accumutating dust on the solar panels?"

      Lack of air mass. A fan on Mars would be only 1% the efficiency of the same fan on Earth, because there's that much less air. Plus then you're using more power and using up the batteries, to not much effect.

      I would have suggested an electrostatic charger, like the old Diskwasher Zerostat, for removing the charge from vinyl LPs, making them easier to clean.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    4. Re:Fan by heptapod · · Score: 2, Funny

      E.G. Any at all

      There's plenty of atmosphere on Mars. Just because it averages about 6mbar compared to 1bar on Earth doesn't mean there isn't enough. What do you think perpetuates those enormous dust storms way over there? Kittens?

    5. Re:Fan by frdmfghtr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My guess is that the thin atmosphere would prevent any sort of blowing as such...the atmosphere is about a tenth of what it is on earth, so you would need a pretty big fam to get anywhere near the pressure needed to blow the dust clinging to the panels away.

      Besides, as has been pointed out, any solution adds power requirements, weight, and complexity/points of failure. Does the extra power provided by clean solar panels outweight the added risk of equipment failure?

      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
  4. Re:Java problems? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    The problem was probably caused by some incompatibility in the Java system

    Repeat after me.

    There is NO Java on the rovers. Java is used on the ground to process the results.

    Idiot. Enough has been posted on this site about where Java is being used.

  5. Difficulties in planning space missions by nicnak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The dust problem is just indicitave of how difficult it is to plan such a complex mission like going to Mars. Until we do this a few more times and figure out a few more things, a manned mission will have to wait.

    1. Re:Difficulties in planning space missions by Gossy · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, I seem to recall they knew about dust problems well before they launched. This isn't something that has surprised the engineers. I remember that was the main reason they said they were planning for a 90 day mission, since beyond that point the cells wouldn't charge enough due to the dust.

      I've also seen on SpaceFlight Now reports that projections show they will be probably be able to run both rovers well beyond the initially planned 90 days, so they're looking into plans for extended missions now.

      However, like others on the thread have wondered, why not devise something to remove the dust? I'm sure there must be a good reason why they didn't do something - I can't imagine the NASA engineers simply didn't think about this.

    2. Re:Difficulties in planning space missions by stonebeat.org · · Score: 2, Funny

      if we send men to Mars, hopefully they are wise enuff to get out of the rover (in space suits) and clean the solar panels. ;)

    3. Re:Difficulties in planning space missions by BeerCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Until we do this a few more times and figure out a few more things, a manned mission will have to wait.

      Excpet that with a manned misison, a quick way to wipe the solar panels would have been worked out at least as fast as the recent /. posts.
      The more remote missions there are, the more the "just one more remote mission" feeling will accrue. If Apollo 11 had been a remote mission, the Eagle would have crashed, because of a rock in the (automated) landing zone. As it was, Armstrong did a quick manual burn to hop over the bad area, and landed safely (with fuel reserves probably below what an automated system would have worked well with)
      Therefore, while the experience gained from a remote mission is valualble, it is no replcament for "hands on"

      --
      "She's furniture with a pulse"
    4. Re:Difficulties in planning space missions by tealover · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually, this is justification for having women accompany the men to mars. ;>)

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
  6. Re:Java problems? by KewlPC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Java is only used on the ground. They'd be stupid to use it in the flight software.

    That isn't a slight against Java. It's just that they need real-time software, which can't be had with an interpreted language (even if it is only interpreted from bytecode).

    How fast do you think a 20mhz processor could run a Java app?

  7. This just in from Saturn by blamanj · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A nice photo from the Cassini mission.

    1. Re:This just in from Saturn by deglr6328 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Don't mod the above off-topic, it's still about space! I submitted this story yesterday and it was rejected :( so here is probably the only place you're going to see it and it's really interesting imho! Cassini is entering the final phase of its 7 year journey to saturn and starting now will be sending back images and other measurements at a "rapid and steady pace". In a few months Cassini will enter orbit around Saturn after performing what should be a spectacular ring plane crossing.

      --
      - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
    2. Re:This just in from Saturn by MicroBerto · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm having trouble believing this picture... look how perfect it is! It's awe-inspiring that something like that truly exists

      --
      Berto
    3. Re:This just in from Saturn by tealover · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What's even more awe-inspiring is the fact that the rings have such a thinness about them, only a couple of meters at best.

      To me, Saturn is the most beautiful cosmic creation that I know of. I wonder if there have been any other planets found with rings on them.

      --
      -- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
    4. Re:This just in from Saturn by PurpleFloyd · · Score: 3, Informative
      Any other planet with rings?

      Sure, try Jupiter, or mabye Uranus. Of course, they aren't nearly as prominent; Saturn's rings are the only ones that can be easily seen by an amateur observer. However, I'd think that any solar system with gas giants has a decent chance of having ringed planets, as it's really just dust and rocks that have fallen into a stable orbit and haven't globbed together into a moon. We couldn't really directly detect ringed planets around other stars from Earth; the distances are just too great. It would be great, though, to send some sort of interstellar probe to a distant solar system and have our heirs recieve images of a Saturn-like ringed planet.

      --

      That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
  8. Seasonal changes by Dan+East · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The blurb fails to mention that seasonal changes on mars are resulting in less sunlight per sol. That is one of the main power issues.

    Dan East

    --
    Better known as 318230.
    1. Re:Seasonal changes by Dan+East · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wasn't referring to the articles referenced in the story. I was referring to the Slashdot story itself:

      "CNN is reporting that engineers will upload a software hack to decrease the recent power drain plaguing the rover Opportunity. The hack works by reducing the power supply to a poorly functioning switch." p3tersen writes "Opportunity has photographed a blue martian sunset (it's blue because of the optical scattering properties of dust in the martian atmosphere). In other news, the rovers are beginning to experience power supply problems due to the accumulation of dust on their solar panels."

      Dan East

      --
      Better known as 318230.
  9. As nice as it would be... by r.jimenezz · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...to have the dust wiped off the rover's solar panels, it has many disadvantages. It has been discussed widely here, even by rocket scientists. In short, it is extremely difficult to come up with a "cost-effective" (from several viewpoints) mechanism. An interesting fact is that the cost of operating the entire mission is around US$ 3m a day, and that must also be considered when determining how long these wonderful bots rover through Mars unveiling its mysteries.

    --
    The revolution will not be televised.
    1. Re:As nice as it would be... by Schemat1c · · Score: 3, Insightful

      An interesting fact is that the cost of operating the entire mission is around US$ 3m a day, and that must also be considered when determining how long these wonderful bots rover through Mars unveiling its mysteries.

      That is a good fact. But from my viewpoint the major cost has been the mission failures. All that money spent when a probe goes up in smoke is just completely gone with absolutely no return. It seems to me that 90% of the problem is getting the probe simply to have a successful landing. Since it is obviously so difficult and expensive, once that goal is accomplished the next priority should be robustness and longevity. Divide 3 million by the total cost of all rover failures and I think it would start to make more sense.

      --

      "Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
    2. Re:As nice as it would be... by grozzie2 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      An interesting fact is that the cost of operating the entire mission is around US$ 3m a day,

      There are 2 types of cost involved in this daily figure, those that are 'out of pocket' and those that are 'just accounting'. Take for example, the DSN time used to retrieve data from the rovers. Yes, it's very expensive I'm sure, those deep space monitoring stations cannot be cheap to build and operate. Every hour they spend pointed at mars collecting data from the MER vehicles is surely tracked, and cost accounted to the MER program, and rightfully so. BUT, it's not like they wouldn't cost anything if they were not pointed at the mars probes, the actual cost of operating the DSN system is for all practical purposes a known and fixed cost, and it's gonna be paid, no matter where they are pointed. This is why I'd call that portion of the daily cost 'just accounting', because the taxpayer is going to foot the bill for the deep space network, regardless of where it's pointed. But, when it's pointed at mars, the mars programs are being accounted as the 'cost', and rightfully so.

      While the rovers are on active surface mission, there are a lot of extra people hanging around jpl, and i'm sure most of them are 'rather expensive' to keep on hand. this type of expense is 'out of pocket', it's an expense that wouldn't be happening if the rovers were not on surface mission. My own guess offhand is that the 3 million a day is probably half and half, one half true 'out of pocket' expenses, and the other half just accounting for equipment/personnel that would be on hand anyways, but are currently involved in the MER program. For the sake of easy math tho, I'm gonna suggest 1 mill is 'accounting' and 2 mill is 'real cost'.

      Now take a look at the overall value proposition. the entire program is running in the 850 million range, and it's targetted for 2 rovers on surface, for 90 days each. That's 180 science days for a total cost of 850 million, or 4.72 million per active rover science day, as per mission parameters. this was the value proposition of the original mission, and the mission(s) were launched on this basis.

      Now that surface operations are in progress, the daily burn rate is 3 million, for 2 rovers on surface. If a million of that is stuff like accounting for dsn time, then 2 million is the actual 'out of pocket' expense, or approximately 1 million per rover science day. this is 21% of the projected overall cost per day of science returned on the original budget.

      The up front cost of placing the equipment on the surface of mars has been absorbed, and is planned to amortize over the first 90 days on surface. After 90 days, it becomes a simple value proposition. The 'real cost' of maintaining full operations earthside is 21% of the original budget. In terms of the 'accounting costs' for things like the dsn time, it's the same type of value proposition. The dsn network WILL be kept busy, it's simply a case of determining where there is more value. The 70 meter dish can point out at voyageur and get engineering data from the deep space probe (which will still be there in another 2 months), or it can point at mars, and take advantage of the 'limited time offer' of recieving martian data at 79% discount off the 'full retail' price that was paid for the first 90 days of surface time.

      This is a large project, with lots of accounting involved, and surely there's more than its fair share of 'pork' buried in the 850 million price tag. BUT, it's real right now, and the real cost of retrieving a day of data from a single rover is in the range of $1 million. Considering the 'full retail' price for that runs 4.72 million after you amortize in all the launch costs etc, this is one time when a significant budget overrun due to 'extended surface time' is an absolute bargain.

      This is kind of a double edged sword though. A design life of 90 days means there is budget for 90 days of operation. An overrun of 90 days on operational time represents a huge value proposition for

  10. Dust on solar panels issue by thedillybar · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Every "feature" you add to this thing has its tradeoffs.

    1. It's going to weight more.
    2. It's another potential failure.
    3. IF it fails, it can cause other things to fail (say, for example, a switch sticks ON and it drains the battery)

    Not installing a wiper or other device to clear the solar panel wasn't an oversight. They made a (probably) well-informed decision not to install such a device. I think the progress so far is remarkable and should be commended. Hopefully they've learned a lot and can make improvements for the next mission.

    Hindsight is always 20/20...

  11. The Martian Dust by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The big problem is that the dust is so fine, it'd be very difficult to wipe it off with anything akin to a windshield wiper. You might remove the dust, but the grit would scratch the glass, eventually causing enough opacity that the panels would eventually be rendered useless.

    One thought I had was to gradually apply a charge to the solar panels and then suddenly apply an opposite charge, causing the dust to be repelled from the surface, to be carried away by the Martian winds.

    I've no idea if it would actually work or not, but it seemed an elegant solution that didn't require any moving parts.

    --
    Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    1. Re:The Martian Dust by Scorillo47 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      >>> The big problem is that the dust is so fine, it'd be very difficult to wipe it off with anything akin to a windshield wiper. You might remove the dust, but the grit would scratch the glass, eventually causing enough opacity that the panels would eventually be rendered useless.

      Probably using a vaccum would not damage the glass. Although this approach also adds more complexity...

      >>> One thought I had was to gradually apply a charge to the solar panels and then suddenly apply an opposite charge, causing the dust to be repelled from the surface, to be carried away by the Martian winds.

      Unfortunately this will not work since the electrical charge is not uniformy applied in only one direction on the surface glass. The small irregularities of the surface will cause a variation in the electrical distribution over time - for example a small peak in the glass might be more positively charged compared with inner of a nearly-located scratch. The same thing happens on some dust particles - due to their free movement in the air, their electrical distribution will end up non-uniform as well. So they will end up attracting as magnets - the small peak will attract particles on their negative-charged part, and the scratch will do the same on positively-charged surfaces. Now, since all these materials are good electrical insulators, the non-uniform distribution will stick on for a long time.

      Probably what would help is to use a blower that would wipe off the dust with martian air. The blown air needs to be ionized to prevent more electrostatic charge to add up by just blowing. The ionized air will have a weak electrical conductivity which will tend to "shortcut" the charged areas. Now, since the martian air is mostly CO2 this pre-ionization process shouldn't require too high voltages - the energy consumption would be pretty low...

      --
      Don't try to use the force. Do or do not, there is no try.
    2. Re:The Martian Dust by Undefined+Parameter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thought I had was to gradually apply a charge to the solar panels and then suddenly apply an opposite charge, causing the dust to be repelled from the surface, to be carried away by the Martian winds.

      Degauss the solar panels? Brilliant!

      ~UP

      --
      Eat the Path.
    3. Re:The Martian Dust by Mixel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This might be a totally clueless suggestion, but what if the top layer of the solar panel was made from transparent, conducting material? The dust that lands on it would lose charge over time and can then be blown/vibrated off with little effort.

    4. Re:The Martian Dust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The sad problem is that solar panels aren't necessary at all. A little nuclear reactor and you're off and running for as long as you want. Not very PC tho.

  12. Blue Sunset is NO Surprise by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 4, Funny
    Opportunity has photographed a blue martian sunset

    It just plain makes sense, when you think about it.
    • Earth
      • Blue Sky
      • Red Sunset
    • Mars
      • Red Sky
      • Blue Sunset
    --
    Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
  13. Re:Java problems? by mrtom852 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Some important (I presume) Sun person made the Java on Mars claim at a recent Sun Tech Day. She was quickly corrected by another (more important) Sun guy but it's easy to see how people are getting confused if some Sun sales people are spreading this rubbish.

  14. The whole solar thing... by Paddyish · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I have a bunch of questions about this stuff.

    Why did NASA stray from 'nuclear' batteries, like they've used with the Pioneer, Galileo, Voyager and Cassini missions? Those could power a rover for years.

    And what's stopping them from making a way to keep the panels clear? This is what contributed to the end of the Pathfinder mission...What is it about solutions to this problem that make them so difficult to implement?

    Wipers add an extra mechanical system to worry about, but what about static fields? Maybe there could be a way to attract the dust to a specific area while keep the the panels clear?

    1. Re:The whole solar thing... by vbdrummer0 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      One suspects that NASA decided to go solar because of the potential disaster to be had if there was a 'mishap' during launch and radioactive material went everywhere in the upper atmosphere. Public protest against putting nuclear fuel on top of a controlled bomb grew steadily over the years, to the point that, if I recall correctly, Cassini hardly got off the ground due to some people protesting it. Probably, there wouldn't be much of a problem, but better safe than sorry (especially when you're funded by taxpayers).

      And I'll give the NASA geeks the benefit of the doubt that if there were a reliable and cost-effective wy of cleaning the solar panels, they would have implemented it long ago.

    2. Re:The whole solar thing... by FrostedWheat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why did NASA stray from 'nuclear' batteries, like they've used with the Pioneer, Galileo, Voyager and Cassini missions? Those could power a rover for years.

      Most likely because the batteries would out-last the rover itself. It's a complex machine in a hostile environment- something will fairly soon. The solar panels will probably still be operating well after the rovers themselves have failed.

    3. Re:The whole solar thing... by hcg50a · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Why did NASA stray from 'nuclear' batteries, like they've used with the Pioneer, Galileo, Voyager and Cassini missions?
      First of all, those are all non-landing missions to the outer solar system (and beyond).

      This mission is a landing mission in the inner solar system, where the sun is bright enough to power the landers.

      Second, the use of radioelectric power generators is risky, dangerous and expensive. If there's a less risky, less dangerous and less expensive option, NASA will gladly take it.

      --
      HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
      11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
  15. Clean Solar cells, Do what porn stars do! by t0qer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Use a Vibrator! No Really!

    I've been reading all the other posts, Every idea from peelable plastic sheets to fans..

    Just attatch a vibrating motor to the underside of the solar panels. When it's time for them to get clean, just raise them to a 90 degree angle, turn on the "orgasmotron vibrating motors" and shake the dust off?

    Maybe I watch too much pr0n, but I'm sure that would work for the heavier dust. Especially since there was an earlier comment on how the engineers purposefully drive these things over rocks to shake off the larger dust particles.

    One more thing, movable solar panels can track the sun, and give better light collecting efficiency than ones that just sit there stationary.

    --toq

    1. Re:Clean Solar cells, Do what porn stars do! by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Remember, the energy gained from the cleaning has to be more then the cost of vibrating them.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Clean Solar cells, Do what porn stars do! by jaxdahl · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem with that is that the dust on Mars is electrostatically charged -- ever open a box with cling wrap and have it stick to your hand? Tried shaking your hand to get it off? Didn't work? That's the problem. The dust won't simply come off if you vibrate the panels.

  16. Re:Planning Ahead by toast0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How does testing the software determine the heater is going to malfunction?

    Given CNN's lack of technical depth, for all we know it could be a command to the rover to tell it not to turn on the heater anymore. Either way, they designed the rovers so they can fix them while they're in space, which is pretty good.

    Given the limited amount of storage on the rover, it's a higher priority to make sure the upgrade process works, and that it is possible to fix stuff with software, than to make the rover fix stuff automagically.

  17. agreed by SweetAndSourJesus · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm sure a bunch of half-baked ideas from random yahoos would get them much further than anything their silly engineers could come up with.

    --

    --
    the strongest word is still the word "free"
    1. Re:agreed by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is not the point. If a bunch of random yahoos can come up with, on the face of it, at least partially feasible ideas and the engineers in charge dont do anything about it including providing explanation as to why they ignored the issue, you got an impression of incompetence or some hidden agendas.

    2. Re:agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting
      you got an impression of incompetence or some hidden agendas.

      At least you have an appropriate nickname. There are many cool features that NASA engineers would like to have included on the rovers. But at some point, decisions have to be taken on what things will not fly. These decisions are based on many criteria including weight, complexity, cost, etc. There is no hidden agenda here and the missions have been a great testament to the competence of NASA engineers.

    3. Re:agreed by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The difficult part is thinking of it beforehand.

      Not if the problem was well known beforehand as it was in this case. The dust was even experimentally observed on the Sojourner rover.

  18. Look harder! by Serious+Simon · · Score: 4, Funny

    Once the robots find water, they could spray it on the solar panels to clean the dust off...

  19. Layers on Panels are a Bad Idea by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A thread attached to a corner of every plastic sheet running diagonally to the opposite corner and an electric motor that activates when the sheet is dirty.
    Stack 10 sheets of this and voila, lifetime of the rover multiplied x10.

    Conceptually, this is a great idea, except for one problem:

    Every layer of $whatever you put on the panels attenuates some of the light striking the panels. The sunlight is also that much dimmer there (at the very least by the inverse square law of distance from the sun, if not also because of atmospheric conditions), so every single watt-hour those things can capture is critical.

    Of course, to compensate for the thin film layers, they could have made the solar panels bigger - but that adds launch weight... not to mention the bigger solar panels would make the whole thing more top heavy and likely to tip over due to wind or ground obstructions, meaning you'd want to add size and wheelbase to this thing, meaning you'd need more solar panels... Do we see a vicious circle yet? [grin]

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    1. Re:Layers on Panels are a Bad Idea by r00zky · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yea, well, but i suppose accumulated dust attenuates way more light than a few thin plastic sheets, no?

      And i know what i'm talkin' bout coz i park my car outside and never clean it ;)

      --
      I'm a chainsmokin' alcoholic sociopath, so-ci-o-path
    2. Re:Layers on Panels are a Bad Idea by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yea, well, but i suppose accumulated dust attenuates way more light than a few thin plastic sheets, no?

      Probably after a time, yeah. But the folks at NASA aren't stupid; I'm sure they would have come up with something like that - at least *after* Pathfinder if not before - and decided that cost/benefit analysis didn't make it worthwhile.

      (ie. launch weight of the sheets and pulling mechanism, chances of binding and either obscuring a panel or getting caught in the wheels or instruments, chances of it catching the wind like a sail during sheet removal, reduced efficiency of cells over the long run rather than reduced efficiency of cells simply due to dust accumulation toward the end of the mission, etc.)

      --
      Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    3. Re:Layers on Panels are a Bad Idea by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 2, Funny

      I like the way how you try to appear intelligent and how you capitalize "bad idea" to show what an eleet hax0r you are.

      Ah, yes. My AC Fan Club at work again. I've been suspecting for a while that I have a stalker.

      The subject line is the title of a diatribe, and in general, as a title, it should be capitalized.

      If I wanted to be an "eleet hax0r", I probably would have capitalized the "A", for the full effect of "A Bad Idea". But I didn't.

      Furthermore, I'm not gonna be much of a hax0r anyway; I'm an electronics guy, not a programmer. While I can make "Hello, World" in everything from TI BASIC to 680x0 assembly language, my programming style is so much brute force and ignorance that Microsoft keeps on trying to hire me to write Outlook security patches.

      So there ya go.

      --
      Fire and Meat. Yummy.
    4. Re:Layers on Panels are a Bad Idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      yea, i know what u mean, thats exactly what pedestrians say just before i smash 'em to pieces

    5. Re:Layers on Panels are a Bad Idea by Yorrike · · Score: 3, Funny
      But the folks at NASA aren't stupid;

      They're so incredibly smart, in fact, that they don't even need to convert metric measurements to the archaic system they insist on using.

      Go NASA!

      --

      Looks can be deceiving. Or CAN they?

    6. Re:Layers on Panels are a Bad Idea by ozbird · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So use roll of plastic like they use for the in-car cameras in Formula 1 etc. When the exposed section gets dirty, you just wind it off to the waste spool and clean plastic takes its place. Unlike tear-offs, there's only one layer of plastic which minimises light loss. If you had a method to clean the plastic, you could use a continous loop rather than a fixed-length spool.

  20. Re:Planning Ahead by jeff+munkyfaces · · Score: 2, Insightful
    i'm sure they thought they had ironed out all bugs.

    More useful, and what appears to have been implimented, would be a system where they can easily upload fixes/patches when un-expected errors appear.

  21. Because I want one in space by Papa+Legba · · Score: 4, Funny

    I suggest a solar panel Zamboni! If for no other reason that Zambonis are cool and a space Zamboni would be a magnitude cooler. Imagine the great PR if NASA could send back shots of there Zamboni working on another planet.

    --
    Papa Legba come and open the gate
  22. Sunset by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So I'm curious. Lets say we colonized Mars. Because of all the coloring issues surrounding the Martian photographs, could someone please clarify whether we would actually see a blue sky when the sun set? Or is that just some optical properties of the camera?

    I have to say though, despite being an extremely short video clip, it is one of the most awe inspiring things I've seen in a while. Think about it. We just viewed a sunset ON ANOTHER PLANET. I can just imagine an art gallery featuring nothing but pictures of sunsets on other planets. As much as I love our planet Earth, I hope the day comes when I'll be able to stand on Mars and watch this for myself. The beauty of the universe is infinite, but every now and then a little piece of that beauty finds its way back to Earth, and we experience this beauty, and smile a little, not quite realizing the magnitude of what has just occured.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Sunset by FrostedWheat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because of all the coloring issues surrounding the Martian photographs, could someone please clarify whether we would actually see a blue sky when the sun set?

      The sky would be red as normal, but sometimes there would be a halo of blue sky surrounding the sun. Only sometimes because it depends on the amount of dust in the air. The Pathfinder mission saw sunsets with and without the halo. The halo may also happen during the daytime. There have been no colour pictures of the sun when it's high in the Mars sky.

      I remember seeing a program on BBC once that tried to show what sunrise would look like on the different planets. Pritty cool stuff!

  23. mainly because people are ignorant by xtal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why did NASA stray from 'nuclear' batteries

    Because the feel-good environmentalists have heart attacks when you mention the word nuclear. The risk is very low and the potential benefits to science are very high. The amount of nuclear material required is not large.

    There are some problems with output from nuclear batteries, and I don't claim to be a rocket scientist - but surely it could be made to work.

    I'll be laughing my ass off when oil triples in price and people are rioting - we'll see how long the nuclear boogeyman scares people then.

    --
    ..don't panic
    1. Re:mainly because people are ignorant by flossie · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Because the feel-good environmentalists have heart attacks when you mention the word nuclear.

      Challenger. Columbia. Nuclear?

    2. Re:mainly because people are ignorant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTGs are designed to survive rocket explosions, and even re-entry. They're basically armored warm bricks; the plutonium is present in the form of dioxide ceramic.

      In 1968, a SNAP 19-B2 RTG landed in the Pacific after its launch vehicle failed to reach orbit and was destroyed. They fished it out and re-used it on a later mission. Apollo 13's lunar module also had an RTG which re-entered and landed, intact, in the Pacific. No nuclear material was released.

      The Challenger explosion generated pressures well under 2000 psi. The theoretical worst case for a hydrogen-oxygen explosion is 2075 psi, with a reflected peak pressure of 5300 psi. RTGs are designed and tested at 19,600 psi.

      Shuttle explosions won't cause a release of nuclear material from an RTG. They're not only designed for such failures, they've been tested to survive them, both in the lab and in real life failures.

    3. Re:mainly because people are ignorant by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Plutonium ISNT the most toxic substance on earth. Its the most toxic base element, but e.g. butolinotoxin has more than 50000times stronger toxic effect.
      In fact, the TD50 of Pu236 is compareable to nicotin.

      Its not healthy, yes, but it isnt that bad.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    4. Re:mainly because people are ignorant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hey I can do a web search too. I can even provide attribution:

      http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/9406/msg00038. ht ml

      regarding Don Jordan's posting:

      That LD-50 for botulinus toxin is wrong. It's usually considered to be
      around 0.00001 mg/kg in rodents, i.e., 0.01 ug/kg , not e-9 ug/kg. That's
      still super-toxic. By comparison, the LD-50 for dioxin, often called the
      "most toxic small molecule," is 100-fold greater at around 0.001 mg/kg in
      rodents. But as pointed out, we're comparing apples and oranges since acute
      lethality isn't really the issue with plutonium (or dioxin).

      Joshua Hamilton Ph.D.
      Dept. Pharmacology & Toxicology
      Dartmouth Medical School

    5. Re:mainly because people are ignorant by Dun+Malg · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Yes, very nice theoretical data, but it doesn't take into account of sharpnel hitting the RTG.

      Shrapnel propelled by an overpressure of 5300psi isn't going to hurt a a hardened unit than can take 19,600psi. The physics just aren't there.

      Remember using similar statistical data the US military calculated that the M1 tank was invincible against RPG attacks, yet the Iraqis managed to destroy one in last the war.

      I seriously doubt you are privy to the statistical data for either case you mention, and besides, what possible similarity could they have anyway? Nobody in the military ever declared the M-1 Abrams "invincible" to RPG hits. The one incident in Iraq to which you refer was a hit to the engine compartment that resulted in immobilization, not destruction. The only other incident involved a one-in-a-million lucky shot to the relatively thin armor of its armpit joint, the area above the tracks and beneath the deck. This area is covered by skirt armor and is so small that it can't be effectively aimed for, only hit by blind luck. Furthermore, it wasn't an conventional RPG-7 hit in that case-- it was some as-yet-undetermined warhead. Furthermore, in neither cas was the crew of either vehicle injured in any serious way. This is the entire point of the armor in the first place-- crew protection.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  24. Re:Java problems? by r.jimenezz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think the main issue with Java is not the processor, but several other qualities that, while highly desirable for a general purpose language, are unacceptable for real-time systems (garbage collection is one of them).

    This is why there's been work for a real-time version of Java for a number of years now (see here). Incidentally this is what kicked of the JCP (it's JSR-001 :)), and according to my Concurrent and Realtime Programming in Java lecturer (Andy Wellings, who sits in the Technical Interpretation Committee for this JSR), NASA is quite interested in this as an option for its future missions to Mars.

    --
    The revolution will not be televised.
  25. Re:Java problems? by nehril · · Score: 5, Informative

    this is slightly OT, but "real-time" in engineering circles does not mean "really fast." it means that there is a guaranteed response from the system within an specified actual time frame.

    i.e. I need a real-time OS & software stack if my rocket control algorithm needs the data from, say, a serial port altimiter within the next 20 milliseconds or else. if you cant get the data within the specified timeframe then the results are useless. the system will not accept requests that it cannot "guarantee" to fulfil from a system resource standpoint. (you have to watch your multitasking, swapping and other kernel-level tasks to achieve this)

    so you could have a 20 mhz "real-time" system, as long as it's response was guaranteed by the OS within parameters for what you are doing (and you would program with those guaranteed response times in mind.) Conversely, a 20 Ghz system may not qualify for real time, if the OS pre-empts your rocket control task and decides to swap for a few milliseconds too long, or context switches to another thread just when you needed to adjust a control surface...

    when you hear about people hacking linux for real-time work, they are not making it go faster (though that's always nice), they're making it work predictable.

  26. No power supply problem, just less power by hcg50a · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "In other news, the rovers are beginning to experience power supply problems due to the accumulation of dust on their solar panels"

    This makes things sound worse than they actually are. They are not beginning to experience power supply problems -- they are simply getting less power than they were when it first landed, and they are taking some steps to operate more efficiently.

    From SpaceFlightNow, in the report for THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 26, 2004 2215 GMT (5:15 p.m. EST):

    "The amount of power Opportunity is able to generate continues to dwindle due to the decreasing amount of sunlight (energy) reaching the solar panels during the Martian seasonal transition to winter."

    From the Reuters report:

    "NASA's two robotic rovers on Mars have begun scaling back their working hours as the approach of autumn on the Red Planet and dust on their solar panels slowly chokes off their power supplies, a NASA official said on Friday."

    What the NASA official (Richard Cook) actually said was: "The vehicle is continuing to perform fine but we are starting to modify our daily process to respond to the decreasing power."

    Both the dust accumulation and the decrease of sunlight were anticipated. The lifetime (designed to be 90 days) of each Rover is determined when the batteries can no longer be charged enough to survive the cold nights. Spirit is already 54 days into its 90-day "death sentence".

    --
    HCG 50a = 2MASX J11170638+5455016
    11h17m06.4s +54d55m02s
  27. Re:Planning Ahead by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

    Maybe it would be better if we tested the software more on earth and had all the bugs worked out before we sent it up.

    They had a small time-window to get a lot of stuff ready. Because of the politics of funding, often they only have about a 4-year lead to put it all together. Plus, Mars is only in the right position about once every 2 years.

  28. Concerning charged particles... by dirt_puppy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can't blow them off with opposite charge easily. These particles stick to the (non-conducting) surface probably because of Influence. If the surface would be conducting they wouldn't stick because they would get discharged. This is similar to the dust particles that adhere to CRT screens, just here its the screen thats charged (by constant electron bombardement) and the dust particles get influenced. The fact that the surface is non-conducting will also hinder you bringing any kind of charge to it. Another problem is that the charge might be randomly generated and so half positive and half negative, so you could only blow off half of the dust. There is a possibility of making transparent surfaces conducting (coating them with metal films), but this reduces transparency quite a bit, and I suppose the mechanical properties of a metal film are far inferior to whatever they used (you want this surface to be hard).

    1. Re:Concerning charged particles... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Informative
      but this reduces transparency quite a bit,

      I am not sure you realize that all of the LCD displays feature transparent conductive surfaces for the electrodes. Hell, most of them have entire circuits that are transparent (TFT = Thin Film Transistor). There are chemicals that are for all practical purposes transparent and are conductive.

  29. Re:Planning Ahead by dellis78741 · · Score: 5, Informative

    The updates include improved driving software, something that only evolves after some hands-on time on Mars itself. The patch to strangle the errant heater is pretty drastic - it shuts down some primary circuits including the internal clock, which has the -side- effect of cutting off power to the heater overnight. The rover will wake up the next day only when it starts to get some sunlight on its' solar cells - not by an alarm clock as it does now. The heater will still run once the rover wakes up the next day.

    --
    ======= ~\_/~\_O Burmese
  30. Also from space: "Humble" telescope by AndroidCat · · Score: 4, Informative
    Might as well toss some more space news in. No pictures yet alas. Tiny telescope exceeds high hopes May detect clouds on distant worlds.

    It's a neat little $10 million 50 kilo unit. The best part is that a software upgrade improved the stability 10x. Hopefully there'll be some pictures soon.

    --
    One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  31. drive the damn thing through the ghetto by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'm sure some guy with a squeegee will jump on it in no time.

  32. Astronomy Picture of the Day by rodney+dill · · Score: 2, Informative

    The APOD site had this picture of a "named" rock a couple of days ago.

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  33. electrostatic dust by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story reminiscent of this, set on the moon. Two explorers in a dusty area, and some of the dust sticks to their faceplates. Wiping the dust off builds electrostatic charge, attracting more dust, so they're soon blind.

    ***SPOILER ALERT*** (and suggestion)

    Since rubbing causes static electicity, they rub their faceplates together. One charges one polarity, the other the opposite. So one faceplate comes out even dustier, the other clean. The explorer with the clean faceplate can lead the other back to the vehicle.

    Actually I always though static electricity came from rubbing dissimilar materials, so I wouldn't expect rubbing two identical-material faceplates to do squat. But there may be a lesson here. If the primary problem is really electrostatic, might there be some sort of electrostatic solution? (on future rovers) The most extreme would be an ion-wind generator with the 'benign' (dustwise) polarity attached to the panel. Another might be a charged wiper blade. I'm sure there could be other simpler electrostatic-based solutions.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
  34. Re:Planning Ahead by dellis78741 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think its' safe to say that the approach to programming that the rover programmers use has little in common with that of some large software companies. "Getting it out the door" (ie, launch it within the possible window) involves a firmer deadline than any MS programmer -ever- faced. They actually uploaded a new version of the driving software while the rovers were enroute to Mars.

    --
    ======= ~\_/~\_O Burmese
  35. The RAT is not exactly a brush.. by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    RAT is short for "Rock Abrasion Tool", meant to remove the upper layer of a very hard rock.

    In the same way you'd not be keen to use a RAT to brush your teeth, you probably would not wish to use the RAT to clean a transparent surface of a solar panel. In fact I think you may have just given some poor engineer at NASA a heart attack just by suggesting the RAT come near the solar panels!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  36. They don't want long life for rovers by Katz_is_a_moron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Ok, hear me out.

    Cost aside, there most likely is a way to greatly extend the life of a rover.

    From the noises NASA has been making, there will be a series of unmanned missions to Mars before an attempt to send humans will be made (I don't necessarily agree with the premise of sending humans to Mars).

    NASA has said the limiting factor is power, because of the dust accumulation on the solar panels.

    Let's say that the cost of implementing a way to eliminate the dust doubled the cost of the mission (probably would be less). If dust were eliminated, then the rovers could operate until the batteries could not longer hold a sufficient charge to do science.

    What I'm getting at here is politics. A solution could be engineered to greatly extend the life of the rovers. But that would result in a reduced number of missions and *less funding*.

    Ok, I've removed my tinfoil hat. Comments?

  37. Blue skys on Mars ... by madpierre · · Score: 3, Funny

    it's blue because of the optical scattering properties of dust in
    the martian atmosphere


    That's Scullys Xplanation.
    Mulder says different.

    Or it's because NASA's mission faking division forgot to photoshop the
    images before releasing em. ;)

    --
    siggy played guitar
  38. It's called fines, not dust! by RevAaron · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's called fines not dust, you insensitive clod!

    That's like calling dust gravel, jeeze.

    (with apologies to KSR's Red Mars)

    --

    Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  39. The obvious joke by confused+philosopher · · Score: 2, Funny

    On Soviet Mars, the Pink sunsets are BLUE!

    --
    Why slashdot? Why not?
  40. Re:Compressed Gas to blow the dust off? by evanbd · · Score: 4, Informative

    My understanding is that a variety of dust removal techniques were considered. The final decision was that an effective dust removal aparatus could be added, at the cost of any one of the instruments. The scientists decided limited life with more instruments was more useful, and so the dust removal system was left off.

  41. No_Nukes = Cost * PR^^2 by cmholm · · Score: 4, Informative
    Some of you may recall that the Viking landers used radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTG's), the "warm brick" another poster referred to. The landers remained active for up to six years, Viking 1 having been disabled by a boo-boo from mission control. They didn't have to worry much about dust accumulation, and Viking 2 landed at 48deg North, 'way north of the tropical band the MER planners were limited to by solar panels.

    So why nukes for Viking, and none for MER A & B?

    1) Viking had money. Sure, NASA was getting into a budget hurt locker by the time the missions made it to Mars in '76, but the money was there when it was needed during the planning and construction. The landers got the kitchen sink, and the biggest Titan II launchers then avaiable to get 'em going. By contrast, the MER team had to make sure their package was not much heavier and absolutely no bigger than Pathfinder. The planetary missions are bastard stepchildren to a NASA which is mandated to keep the Space Shuttle and ISS going on an inadequate budget, even if it all went to the manned space program.

    2) Three Mile Island, Chernobyl. Hadn't happened yet, so the no nukes crowd was still the wacko fringe during Viking. Compare to the fuss made over Cassini before launch and while making a gravity-assist Earth flyby. "200,000 deaths!" "Dump it in the Sun!" In general, people have mellowed out a bit, but the PR angle makes a good excuse when one doesn't have the money to gold-plate a mission, anyway.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  42. Solar panel in a dust storm? by im+a+fucking+coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Who okay's these stupid ideas at NASA? What dumbass is running the show there now, and how many astronauts did he have to barbecue to float to the top of that bowl?

    It's called nuclear power folks, and you can use it to create extremely reliable electric generators with a shelf life on the order of decades, and extend the life of sattelites and roving projectiles for years, not days. Day or night 'til the wheels fall off.

    In fact, if you use said nuclear/electric power generators to power ion drives, you can use less than half the propellant to get to [insert planet here].

    I don't get it. When did NASA become a jobs program for morons? I mean, morons have to make a living too, but shit, can't we let them execute water fountain projects instead?

  43. Don't Knock US/Imperial/SAE Measurements! by BigBlockMopar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're so incredibly smart, in fact, that they don't even need to convert metric measurements to the archaic system they insist on using.

    Don't knock US/SAE measurements, there's a good reason they've stayed around.

    For scientific analysis, without question, Metric rules.

    But when you're actually building and working on things, most of the time a 10% tolerance is good enough. As a result, usually you can stick your thumb across something and say, "Yup, that's an inch - close enough". The base units are more intuitive, although admittedly the interconversion between units is a bitch - but conversions are more common in analysis than construction/maintenance.

    My perspective here? Canada went Metric in 1976. I grew up in Metric. I went to school in Metric, fuelled up my cars in Metric, got a set of Metric wrenches when I was a kid, etc. Heck, you wanna know Metric inside and out? Try taking an engineering degree in Canada!

    And yet, I know I'm 6'4" tall, 185lbs. I don't know in Metric.

    Every time I work on a car, I want to know first, Metric or SAE? (And I don't mean the speedometer, they've all been Metric in Canada since 1976.) Not because I care which wrenches, sockets and feeler gauges I bring, but because I like working on SAE much more.

    Why?

    I've had more cars with Metric fasteners and specs than I have SAE, and yet, somehow, I can still just put my thumb across a bolt and know, "Hey, that's not 1/2", that's 7/16"!" Why can't I do that with Metric? I sure which I could, especially since I've got more experience with Metric.

    --
    Fire and Meat. Yummy.
  44. Why no solution to remove dust by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A lot of people are discussing ideas to remove dust from solar panels. Something people are forgetting is that there's a downside to having the mission last longer than originally expected: it costs more. JPL designed the rovers to last about 90 days, and NASA gave them enough money to pay the hundreds of engineers and scientists it takes to operate the rovers for 90 days each. They of course have the option of extending the mission for longer than 90 days, but the money to pay for that extension will come right out of NASA's Mars program, which means less money for future Mars missions (including Mars Reconaissance Orbiter 2005, which is already well under way and needs every penny it can get).

  45. What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    I attended a seminar last week with David Des Marais of NASA Ames reserch center. He noted that, while the panels were covered with dust, the rovers were still maintaining greater than peak power. He specifically stated that the rovers were shunting power because they couldn't store anymore. They suspect that the rovers will far outlive their contracted period.

  46. Re:Java problems? by nehril · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are many aspects of Java that mean you can't guarantee a response within a certain timeframe. Garbage collection, for example ... there isn't necessarily a 1:1 instruction translation of the JVM's bytecode, and therefor you can't know beyond a shadow of a doubt that a certain operation will get done in a certain amount of time.

    you can get real-time behavior out of an interpreted system, if both the interpreter and underlying operating system are designed for it. For Java, GC and instruction translation just have to have that as a design goal. As a matter of fact: here's some information on real time Java:

    "With the recently released Real-Time Specification for Java (RTSJ), developed through the Java Community Process by the Real-Time Expert Group, the real-time embedded software developer will be able to use the Java programming language in applications where predictable/hard real-time behavior is a must."

    that being said, java probably would run too slowly for most applications on a 20 mhz cpu. But being interpreted or having GC are orthogonal issues to real-timeness.

  47. Rover Science Reports by forgetful · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Does anybody have a link to Mars Rover science-in-progress? We are getting all sorts of operations/engineering reports and neat photos, but almost no science reports. What have the spectrometers found? Does the rock chemistry correspond to known minerals on earth or is it new? What ever happened with the briny mud speculations a few days back? I suppose there is a methodical plan to analyze and release papers, but it sure would be fun to at least know the basic composition of those sphericles for coffee break discussion.

    --
    "...while history is usually explicable it is often irrational" --Roger Spiller
  48. I attended a talk on this today at Texas A&M by billatq · · Score: 4, Informative

    So I just happened to be lucky enough to get front row seats (I work as a sysadmin in the physics department here) to a talk by one of the people on the JPL team that works on the lander, and he mentioned this earlier. It's a bit more than a little hack to the software because it involves changing out the operating system and turning the rover completely off during the night to avoid power drain. What the fellow talking about it mentioned was that there is the possibility that the rover wont actually turn back on after the update, leaving a $400 million piece of junk on the surface of mars.

    The reason for the update is needed because there is a heater on the rover that defrosts the probe that allows them to take samples from the rocks and such--which wont turn off anymore. This might not be a problem except that it puts an excess power strain on the rover, meaning that its useful life is greatly diminished. So essentially this hack means turning everything off at night because they can't switch off just the heater.

  49. Latest Image by FrostedWheat · · Score: 3, Funny

    My goodness, not even Mars is beyond the reach of Disney!!

  50. Re:Planning Ahead by Ancient_Hacker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IIRC the 3M company makes some polonium-powered dust-neutralizing brushes-- something about the beta rays charging the dust particles so they repel each other. Any idea why this couldnt be done to the solar panels?