Slashdot Mirror


NASA Extends Rover Occupation of Mars

iocat writes "Reuters reporting that NASA is extending the Rover missions on Mars by another five months. However, they point out that while the rovers look poised to greatly exceed their planned life cycle, they could basically die at any time. Still, it will be cool to see a little more exploration."

206 comments

  1. well, at least... by paganizer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    no one is shooting at us there.
    I hope.

    --
    Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    1. Re:well, at least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Want to bet? Casualty rates amoung mars bound rovers are many times higher than casualty rates in Iraq or Afganistan.

    2. Re:well, at least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if a Martian upgrades Spirit/Opportunity with a Fleshlight (damn those shipping charges!!!) does that make him a goatfucker ?!!!!

    3. Re:well, at least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That may have been true at 6:30, but it's past 7:00 now and the numbers are starting to look better for the rovers.

  2. Almost first post by Pi_0's+don't+shower · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how much terrain these rovers can explore in 5 months, or if they're basically useless because of range limitations?

    1. Re:Almost first post by Jott42 · · Score: 5, Informative

      If memory serves me, they have a range of 30-75 meters /day, after the recent sofware upgrade. Which would give a maximum distance of over 11km, given that they dont find anything interesting on they way and starts investigating it.

    2. Re:Almost first post by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The difficulty is in their solar panels. Eventually they collect so much dust that they don't generate enough power. Also, the rovers stay very still at night to conserve power.

      Interestingly enough, the engineers nearly had an RTG working for the Rovers. Unfortunately, the outcry about Cassini pretty much killed that. It's too bad, because with an RTG, the power source would outlast the rest of the components by some 50 years!

    3. Re:Almost first post by Mal-2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Even with range limitations they're hardly useless. Both rovers landed in relatively fertile areas for exploration, and Opportunity would have still been a big success even if it proved unable to leave the crater it landed in. The main thing that comes to my mind is to find the edges of the ancient ocean and explore there -- partly because tidepools on Earth are teeming with life, and partly because shallow water means fossils (if present) won't be buried very deep. I noticed very early on that the rocks Opportunity was looking at looked an awful lot like tidepool rocks, at least ones from the eastern Pacific shore (the only ones I've seen firsthand). I knew there was good reason for NASA to be REALLY damn sure before announcing there was a lot of water on Mars at one time, but I pretty well was convinced as soon as I saw those distinctive wormholed rocks.

      However, it looks like their lifespan will be determined by a few factors, some of which are within human control and some which are not:

      1. Dust storms. Seems to me one good one would pretty well take a rover out of service from dust buildup on the panels alone.

      2. Equipment failure, particularly the "always on and draining power" type. One has already made Opportunity a little bit gimpy, but I doubt a single such failure would be fatal. Cumulatively, several would just be too much to bear.

      3. Shorter and/or darker Martian days as the seasons and distance from the sun change. This won't take out a rover outright of course, but they could compound the prior two problems. At least these events are predictable.

      4. The Martian Defense System finally tracks the rovers down and explodes them. Turns out the reason they didn't shoot the first time is they thought it was just another shipment of punching balloons for their nitrous oxide-fueled nightlife. Once they realize we sent ROVERS and not RAVERS, they're going to be mighty pissed off.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    4. Re:Almost first post by snake_dad · · Score: 2, Informative

      Opportunity already drove 100 meters in one day. Ofcourse the terrain on Meridiani is completely different compared to Gusev.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    5. Re:Almost first post by Sgs-Cruz · · Score: 5, Informative

      For those who, like me, aren't astrophysicists and had to look up an RTG, it's a Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator. Basically a nuclear power source for the rover.

      --

      Karma: pi (Mostly due to circular reasoning in posts).

    6. Re:Almost first post by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      The difficulty is in their solar panels.

      No. According to recent briefings it is much more likely that other parts will fail before the solar panels become useless.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    7. Re:Almost first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is RTG could contaiminate the planet.

    8. Re:Almost first post by AKAImBatman · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem is RTG could contaiminate the planet.

      No, it wouldn't. Not any more than the rover itself. There's millions of tons of radioactive material impacting every planet in the solar system each year. A pound of Plutonium-238 won't make a lick of difference. Besides, it's not like the stuff leaks like radiator fluid or something. It's just a hot rock that sits in the center of its container.

    9. Re:Almost first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difficulty is in their solar panels. Eventually they collect so much dust that they don't generate enough power. Also, the rovers stay very still at night to conserve power.

      I wonder if they can "sleep" the rover through a day to top off the batteries? Hopefully, the rover doesn't have to be "on" for the charging circuits to operate.

    10. Re:Almost first post by fcolari · · Score: 1

      What would be the comparison to the radiation due to cosmic rays and such compared to the potential exposure of any "spilled" material? In my Navy days I got much lower doses underway than I did from background on the surface over a year.

      --
      "The first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the pieces." --Aldo Leopold (Paraphrased)
    11. Re:Almost first post by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Keep in mind that RTGs are passive devices, not reactors. As such, the radiation dosage will never exceed that of a pound of Plutonium-238. Plutonium-238 gives off a significant amount of radiation (half life of 87 years), but it's all Alpha particles. Since the Pu-238 is emitting Alpha particles, the radiation tends not to even make it through a piece of paper, much less the indestructible casing they pack these things in. Besides, the heat generated by the Alpha particles is what gives the RTG power. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to let your power escape. :-)

      I'm still waiting for the first mission where they use SRGs (Stirling Radioisotope Generators). Those little stirling engines are far more efficient than the heat differential of RTGs. If the tech works out, it could even be a boon for lower powered devices on Earth. I figure that a tiny SRG with about 5-10 grams of Pu-238 or Sr-90 could power your cell phone for 50 years. A laptop (depending on the design) could be powered by 100-600 grams.

    12. Re:Almost first post by swanchr · · Score: 1

      RTG's last a long time but not 50 years. The half life of Plutonium and the degredation of the thermoelectric components will take their toll over time.

      The current RTG program called MMRTG (Multi-Mission RTG's) delivers ~120W electric at the begining of life and after 14 years it drops to ~100W electric.

      As for MER and the solar panels, the dust build-up is fairly limited.Power problems will probably kill the rovers but it will be the batteries and not the solar cells. Remember that the rovers have Lithium-ion batteries just like your laptop which have high energy density but loose their capacity over time.

      Eventually the rover will not be able to store enough power to run the heaters that keep it warm at night and it will freeze.

    13. Re:Almost first post by gnuman99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      OMG!! Yes, I want a fukcing Sr-90 in cell phones!!!

      Look on the fucking periodic table. Sr-90 is almost chemically the same as calcium. So yeah, put it in my cell phone. Then your kinds will have it in their bones!!! I guess leukemia is a type of flu in your world.

      Sr-90 is one of the *worst* contaminants. google Same thing for iodine-131

      You already have to use steel that was forged before WWII to make high sensitivity radiation detectors. But that's not a problem, lets fuck up the planet (ie. us) so we can talk on the cell phone for 50 years!!!!!!

      Use RTG in a very limited way for science, esp. for space probes where power is scarce. DO NOT USE IT IN A CELL PHONE!!!

    14. Re:Almost first post by BTWR · · Score: 1

      I figure that a tiny SRG with about 5-10 grams of Pu-238 or Sr-90 could power your cell phone for 50 years

      While I'm not one of those "Cell phones cause tumors" people, I don't know if I'd put plutonium so close to my head, especially since i usually beat the hell outta my phones, and they eventually develop cracks and all...

    15. Re:Almost first post by paiute · · Score: 1

      Is it "terrain" on Mars? Terra is Latin for Earth. What do you call land on Mars?

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    16. Re:Almost first post by Ubi_NL · · Score: 0

      This is such bullshit

      Plutonium is so dangerous because it can get into your lungs and cause lung cancer. If a shuttle carrying these rovers would explode during takeoff, the plutonium would fall out over an enormous area causing lung cancer to millions.

      sheesh

      --

      If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
    17. Re:Almost first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A laptop (depending on the design) could be powered by 100-600 grams

      So how many laptops does it take to get a nuclear weapon? 10 - 60? (providing the critical mass is around 6 kilo and this is the right isotope for the job, I dont know either but how is my guess for this combination? Apparently Nagasaki was 6.2 kilo pu-239 but other mixes of isotopes are possible) Civilian plutonium usage, dream on! People are up in arms to keep plutonium out of power reactors (mox fuel), no way are they gonna let people sell laptops with it. Then there is the perceived health/marketing risks that manufacturers have to deal with, along with the real risks! This stuff is guaranteed to end up in the food chain, where it will stay, and stay ....and stay silently couseing cancer to many of the organisms that eat it.

      Also try exporting a tritium based glow in the dark thingy one day, see how goverments react to nuclear materials being houled around the country.... for the kind of money needed for licences and political influence to get "deregultion" (lobying at least) you could eather put shops giving away free batteries at avery squere 100 meter of the globe, or fund research in alternative power sources.

      I dont know about other materials, but I could imagene improving thousendfolds on these ideas would never make them safe/cheap/small/lawfull enough.

    18. Re:Almost first post by garbs · · Score: 1

      Is it just me, or is it a bad idea having that much plutonium in a laptop.

      Just imagine a terrorist getting a hold of 10 or 20 laptops, with about 600 grams of plutonium powering it.

    19. Re:Almost first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Let me introduce to you the amazing newfangled concept of SHIELDING.

      Thankyou.

    20. Re:Almost first post by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Any Pu-238 taken into space is encased in an indestructable outer casing. Several launches carrying RTGs have failed, and in every case the RTG was recovered intact.

    21. Re:Almost first post by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You might want to read your own link there slick:

      all plutonium (except Pu-238 of isotopic purity greater than 80%) is regarded as equally hazardous from the point of view of diversion to nuclear weaponry.

      Pu-238 is great stuff. It's only mildly hazardous, it's hot enough to generate power, and it can't be used as a fissionable material.

    22. Re:Almost first post by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      I answered this question here.

      Not all plutonium is created equally. :-)

    23. Re:Almost first post by mattblanchard · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just attach a windshield wiper on each panel. Just run it every week or so. Am I missing something here?

    24. Re:Almost first post by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Am I missing something here?

      Yes. Just about every response to the original poster. *sigh*

  3. It's NOT "occupation". by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's "liberation" instead, people.

    1. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not Troll, +1 Funny.

      Especially funny when you consider that the Martian Defences were reallllllly good at taking out bogies until NASA pulled an unprecedented 3 for 3, 100% success on their landers.

      Continue the liberation of Mars! Soon it will look just like Earth, scattered bits and pieces of long-range weapo^Wmetal everywhere.

      All we need is some smog and we can call it home!

    2. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by flewp · · Score: 2, Funny

      You mean Roverlords.

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    3. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1

      Wow, never heard that one before. You forgot to mention WMDs and bin Laden, by the way.

      Besides, it's not a liberation mission unless we take out the Martian overlords and then setup a puppet government to take away their natural resources.

      Just remember that in War of the Worlds, Mars occupies YOU. (That last comment is for completeness, not humor)

      --
      True story.
    4. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by Rellik66 · · Score: 1

      I, for one, welcome our new space roverlords

      --

      Too many zeros, not enough ones

    5. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      5 months is too long. I say bring them back now!

      --
      What?
    6. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by snake_dad · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Viking lander 1: success
      Viking lander 2: success
      Pathfinder: success
      Polar Lander: fail
      Spirit: success
      Opportunity: success

      What am I missing here?

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    7. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by dhalgren99 · · Score: 1, Funny

      7. ???
      8. Profit!

    8. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What am I missing here?

      The Russian probe failed.
      The British probe failed.

    9. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course,

      In Soviet Russia, Mars Liberates YOU!

    10. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by KjetilK · · Score: 1
      • Mars Global Surveyor -- success
      • Mars Observer -- failure
      ....but the latter was one of the most expensive toys out there...
      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    11. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of a good book by Bill Peet that I read to my daughter once.

      --
      "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    12. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by Kombat · · Score: 1


      I believe the original poster said "landers." Let me double-check ... yup, he did. Neither of the examples you cite are "landers." They are "orbiters."

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    13. Re:It's NOT "occupation". by KjetilK · · Score: 1

      Uhm, that's right... Sorry.

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  4. Occupation? by pldms · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's an occupation of Mars now? I thought the were just tourists.

    --
    Slashdot looked deep within my soul and assigned
    me a number based on the order in which I joined
    1. Re:Occupation? by TheJavaGuy · · Score: 0

      This is not an occupation. The rovers will be there forever regardless of the mission status. NASA has just extended their life.

      --
      Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
    2. Re:Occupation? by ross.w · · Score: 1

      They will die and be buried in the dust or they will return home in coffins!

      Sorry , which occupation were we talking about?

      The Iraqi Information Minister.

      --
      If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?
    3. Re:Occupation? by bladernr · · Score: 1
      This is not an occupation. The rovers will be there forever regardless of the mission status.

      So it's a crusade to colonize? The martains will never recognize our rovers as legitamite. Maybe the two rovers could drive to the same place and set up a governing council? No, we better bring in the UN, except the French and Russians will veto.

      Bet it turns out the French and Russians are in cahoots with the Martains as well...

      Eric Cartman: French people piss me off!

      --
      Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
    4. Re:Occupation? by cluckshot · · Score: 1

      No they are not occupation forces they are "Illegal Aliens" and shortly will be damanding status and citizenship. Besides they are just there to do work the Martians don't want to do. I hear they just joined Aztlan??

      --
      Never Politically Correct ~ I prefer the facts If you don't like what I say, get a life, or comment yourself.
  5. Hope they didn't skimp on construction. by PIPBoy3000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    "However, while Spirit is past its 'warranty', we look forward to continued discoveries by both rovers in the months ahead."

    Maybe they should have gotten that rust-proof coating after all.

    1. Re:Hope they didn't skimp on construction. by jlp2097 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they should have gotten that rust-proof coating after all.

      Yeah, with all the water on Mars...

    2. Re:Hope they didn't skimp on construction. by microwave_EE · · Score: 1

      Skimp? NASA? Never!!! They just don't check what unit systems their engineers use.

      --
      I'll take you to the ball, Barbara Manitee!!!
  6. unmanned missions by Stargoat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unmanned missions are great. Humans can run out of food and air, and get tired and homesick. Robots can run basically forever, until something breaks or they run out of juice. If these things prove 1/50 as durable as Galileo did, they'll provide science more than we ever could have hoped for.

    --
    Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    1. Re:unmanned missions by Gherald · · Score: 1

      If, as you so eloquently stated, robots can run until basically forever until something breaks or they run out of juice, Why do think they will "provide science more than we could ever have hoped for" ?

    2. Re:unmanned missions by morcheeba · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hate to argue with your logic, but here goes:

      Robots can run basically forever, until something breaks or they run out of juice.
      Somehow running out of this consumable is better than a human running out of their consumables (food and air)? If you want to be accurate, there are mechanisms for both to regenerate these consumables -- solar cells and plants.

      One unique thing about people (besides their intelligence) is their self-healing characteristics ... if a robot gets a little hole in a hydraulic tube, it'll leak until it's empty. A human would clot that blood and carry on. If a human breaks a leg, you can bet they'd figure out a way to complete the mission with just one leg... I wouldn't give a robot those odds, even if they lost only one of six legs.

      But, I agree.. unmanned missions are great, just for totally different reasons: low cost and hence, the ability to many missions to many different areas, each with new instruments designed to test theorys proposed by the results of previous missions. A human mission would blow the whole budget with just one trip.

    3. Re:unmanned missions by anzha · · Score: 5, Informative

      If these things prove 1/50 as durable as Galileo did

      If I may extract something I read from a post on Usenet a few years ago by a real astronomer (Frank Crary) about Galileo:

      JPL and NASA say that Galileo accomplished 80% of its science goals, and they got that number (as I understand it) by going through the list of science goals, giving each a yes/no value, and dividing the number of yes's by the number of items. Usually, it isn't that simple. There is, ``yes, but not as well as we wanted'',``definitely yes, but we could have done better'', ``no but we still got some good data along those lines'', etc. Nor were all the goals of equal value, although you could argue endlessly about which were worth more than others. Then you get into the never-never land of things that were not on that list. I'm fairly sure that magnetometer data on the existence of an ocean on Europa wasn't on the list, and I'm quite sure that similar data on an ocean within Callisto definitely wasn't (just to use one example I'm familiar with.) Often, when you observe something, you discover something you did not expect to find. In several cases, Galileo has done that. Would there have been more unexpected discoveries if the high gain antenna had opened? Yes, definitely. But how many and how important? How can you attach a number to something like that? I would say that Galileo is a success, but not a complete success, and that the sum total of the scientific results is between 50 and 100% of what it might have achieved. I don't know, and I don't even know how to figure out, where between 50 and 100% the ``real'' value is.

      That's from here.

      Two notes.

      First being that Galileo didn't provide more science than we hoped for. In many ways, it provided a lot less than we hoped for. I'm not calling it a failure, BTW.

      Secondly, be careful whatcha say online...it might come back to haunt ya years down the line. ;)

      --
      Do you know why the road less traveled by is littered with the bones of the unwary?
    4. Re:unmanned missions by Stargoat · · Score: 1

      You certainly did extract :) . I was commenting on Galileo's durability, not necessarily its scientific contributions. There were problems with its antenna, and programming as well (iirc). But imagine if the rovers can hang on for another six months or more. Who knows. Maybe they can turn up fossilize life or something equally cool.

      --
      Hoist Number One and Number Six.
    5. Re:unmanned missions by taped2thedesk · · Score: 1
      Humans can run out of food and air, and get tired and homesick. Robots can run basically forever, until something breaks or they run out of juice.

      Not to mention that we don't have to bother bringing them back at the end of the mission.

    6. Re:unmanned missions by rickbrodie · · Score: 1
      I may be wrong, but I think what the grandparent was trying to say was that robots can carry on after their planned mission duration, unlike humans.

      These rover missions were planned to run for something like three months (I don't remember exactly). If it were a manned mission, given the inherent constraints, *very* soon after the three months were up the humans would have to curtail their mission. This would be because their food, water and oxygen would have been very carefully measured before launch. In order to save launch mass, there would be little or no surplus consumables. The mission is three months, so there is no reason to put four or five months worth of oxygen on the ship. It would cost more to get to mars, would not be used, and would have to be transported back to earth (at great cost as well).

      With a robot, on the other hand, it does not have the same requirements. It does not have to take all these consumables with it. It can be built to take advantage of the local resources (sunlight). The same three month mission is now merely a paper deadline, an arbitrary target used to aim for when constructing the robot. Given the nature of such a machine, it will not cease functioning the minute the three months are up (like the humans) so it can be assumed to be capable of carrying on for longer, into extra time. The three month mission (which was what was budgeted for) is complete and they now have an essentially free (of charge) robot on mars to do some experiments or observations, possibly, which (on their own) would not have made a mars rover cost-effective.

    7. Re:unmanned missions by morcheeba · · Score: 1

      I think you got it -- in that context, the post makes much more sense to me. Thanks.

    8. Re:unmanned missions by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      My take on that would be that unmanned missions are great to chart the new territory, to indicate which parts of Mars are most interesting to visit by much more flexible human explorers. Thus making sure that the high cost of a manned mission is not wasted by landing in the (scientifically) wrong spot..

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    9. Re:unmanned missions by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Except that it is wrong. A Mars mission isn't like a shuttle mission. It takes a long time to get there. It something goes wrong and you vent a lot of oxygen on day 29 of 30, you could end up not having enough oxygen to survive the return trip. Even for shuttle missions, NASA doesn't give the bare minimum amount of oxygen to last the trip. They put in at least a week's worth of extra oxygen and rations, generally. There's no way in Hell that they would cut things as close as the previous poster suggested on a trip as long-distance as Mars. If they did and things went sufficiently wrong, the crew could be dead before a supply mission could reach them.

      The real difference between a manned an an unmanned mission, apart from having more room for improvisation when things go wrong in a manned mission, is that if an unmanned mission fails, "whoops". If a manned mission fails... "Oh shit, we just lost seven people".

      Thus, for manned missions, there is generally a much -greater- need for redundancy and safety systems, spare air, spare food (enough for a worst-case "stuck on mars until a supply ship can reach you" scenario), etc. With robot missions, things are trimmed to the bare minimum to cut costs. If it lasts as long as hoped, great. If it lasts even longer... even better. If it dies on landing... well, there's always the other rover.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod parent up!

      The effect of losing an entire crew on the surface of Mars or en route would be catastrophic. The delays caused by Shuttles exploding would be nothing compared to loss of crew off planet, especially a slow death, televised live.

    11. Re:unmanned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sure they're great ... at providing incompetent, overpaid, upper class people with fun jobs that involve playing with big toys with absolutely no personal risk to themselves ... NASA is going nowhere fast. Favortism and nepotism are inevitably fatal.

  7. Wow by Auckerman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Who would have thought they would extend it again this soon after extending it the first time?

    --

    Burn Hollywood Burn
    1. Re:Wow by fataugie · · Score: 0

      My thoughts exactly....freakin dupes...

      --

      WTF? Over?

    2. Re:Wow by dhalgren99 · · Score: 1

      It keeps going and going...

      Hey, maybe they DID use Energizer batteries! :)

  8. Rover occupation of Mars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's a bit of a loaded phrase, isn't it? "Oh, Bush is President, and the rover is on Mars! It's an occupation! Free Mars!!!"

  9. Excellent! by qualico · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Its always good for future missions if the current ones exceed expectations.

    Looking at Mars, now a distant orange glow in the sky, it amazes me that we have intelligence there.

    Good job NASA.

    1. Re:Excellent! by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Looking at Mars, now a distant orange glow in the sky, it amazes me that we have intelligence there

      Uh-hu.

      Too bad we don't have any down here.

    2. Re:Excellent! by ch-chuck · · Score: 1

      Its always good for future missions if the current ones exceed expectations.

      Not necessarily - then it'll be disappointing if next time they merely meet expectations.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    3. Re:Excellent! by qualico · · Score: 1

      lol!

      We do, its just really rare.

    4. Re:Excellent! by Ubi_NL · · Score: 1

      What's good about it?

      It's a bloody rock far away. The money spent on this NASA PR stunt would have been better spent elsewhere.

      --

      If an experiment works, something has gone wrong.
    5. Re:Excellent! by qualico · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Come on now!

      Where else can we relocate Israel and Palestine?

      Its a prime location with lots of rocks just like the ones they chuck in the Gaza strip at gun yielding land grabbing Israelis.

      Don't worry...things won't change one bit, so we might as well spend money on this real-estate now, especially if it has oil interests so we can suck it dry like a virus and then lease it to our problem neighbors to fight over.

      Its all about economics in the end.

  10. More info... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More exciting information here

  11. NASA Press release 4/8 by morcheeba · · Score: 5, Informative

    This was posted on JPL's rover site on Thursday. It's got a lot more info.

  12. Occupation? by The_K4 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The durration of their "Occupation" isn't changing. They are there to die and be buried in dust. Their operation limetime has been extended!

  13. Why? by thedillybar · · Score: 1
    Did they decide to extend the mission because people love following it and want to keep it going? Or are they extending it because they haven't found anything "big" to report on yet?

    Whatever happens, I think they've found a lot of useful data that will take months to analyze. Hopefully they'll have continued success for as long as they keep the mission going. I look forward to seeing the final analyses from these observations.

    1. Re:Why? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 1
      Did they decide to extend the mission because people love following it and want to keep it going? Or are they extending it because they haven't found anything "big" to report on yet?
      Neither. They 'extended' it because they're still working. If they're still working when Mars comes out of the Sun's "shadow", they'll 'extend' the mission again then, too, until they break, or no more useful information can be extracted from them.
      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they are still going stong, producing good science, and it cost $800 million to get them there, so why not use them while you have the ability to. Would you throw away something of such value because you crossed some arbitrary deadline? That would be silly.

    3. Re:Why? by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      Or are they extending it because they haven't found anything "big" to report on yet?

      Are you kidding?

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
  14. Duplicate? by WayneConrad · · Score: 2, Informative

    For more comments, see this article from the 11th.

  15. Free MARS! by xmorg · · Score: 2, Funny

    End the occoupation of mars! We are the ALIENS HERE, violating the privacy of our neighbors by sending back constant images of their sacred homeland. this calus discregard for intergalactice rights is appauling!!!

    1. Re:Free MARS! by qualico · · Score: 1

      You should stop listening to those fish and take a buffered anagestic. :->

    2. Re:Free MARS! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They should also consider spell check before posting.

    3. Re:Free MARS! by kaellinn18 · · Score: 1

      this calus discregard for intergalactice rights is appauling!!!

      As is your spelling :-)

      --

      --------
      This isn't the sig you're looking for. Move along.
  16. Rivers? by Unnngh! · · Score: 2, Funny
    From the article:

    NASA said it would spend $15 million more to keep the rivers exploring the planet's surface through September.

    A bit optimistic about the discovery of water on Mars, aren't we?

  17. Hubble by TheJavaGuy · · Score: 0
    Looks like a clone of the Hubble.

    Hubble's life should have ended a while ago, but nasa keeps on extending it.

    --
    Opera Watch - An Opera browser blog.
    1. Re:Hubble by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      It is in no way a clone of the hubble.

      Or do I mis some sense of imagination?

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
    2. Re:Hubble by Tribbin · · Score: 1

      Yep, they forget relativity.

      It's all physics.

      The faster something goes relatively to you, the slower the object's time will go in your dimension.

      Duhhh...

      --
      If you mod this up, your slashdot background will turn into a beautiful sunset!
  18. Oh? by Ensign+Regis · · Score: 2, Funny

    Were we planning to send them back at some point?

  19. wouldnt it make sense by kaltkalt · · Score: 3, Insightful

    wouldn't it make sense to initially plan the mission for as long as the rovers remain operational, however long that may be?

    --

    Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
    1. Re:wouldnt it make sense by Dominic_Mazzoni · · Score: 1

      wouldn't it make sense to initially plan the mission for as long as the rovers remain operational, however long that may be?

      No, because then the budget would have been too high and the project never would have been funded in the first place. The MER team needed to propose a budget to NASA that was reasonable, so they chose a mission length that was long enough to reach their science goals - 3 months - and then did their best to engineer rovers that could last 2-3 times as long if they're lucky.

    2. Re:wouldnt it make sense by nacturation · · Score: 1

      wouldn't it make sense to initially plan the mission for as long as the rovers remain operational, however long that may be?

      Ideally, yes. However, NASA has limited resources within which to work. In order to get funding approved, NASA missions need to have a dollar figure attached to them such as an N month mission for X billion dollars. Also, every mission which is ongoing requires overhead in the form of personnel, office space, communications channels, etc. Every engineer dedicated to a Mars mission means an engineer unavailable for other projects.

      Depending on whether or not the mission succeeds and is likely to discover more information and assuming that other missions don't take higher priority, the mission lifetime can be extended -- at a cost of Y million dollars, M resources, etc... which, again, require approval.

      --
      Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
    3. Re:wouldnt it make sense by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      All systems have an expected lifespan... how long until something breaks in a critical way. So, you lowball that number to get a minimum # of days that you can reasonably trust the system, and then prioritize/sequence the events to happen in that time.

      If you get bonus days, cool... then the lower prio stuff gets done. But you'd hate to have the "detect life" function scheduled for day 300 and have the batteries run out on 298...

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    4. Re:wouldnt it make sense by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      wouldn't it make sense to initially plan the mission for as long as the rovers remain operational, however long that may be?

      This has to do with funding issues and political issues. Both are exteremely complex, and you'll just have to take my word for it.

      That being said, it was unlikely taht'd we'd be denied funding at the levels we've requested. We took great pains to reduce the cost in many many ways.

      Also it was hihgly uncertain whether or not the rovers would even survive impact, much less 90 sols of interaction with Mars.

      Cheers,
      Justin

      P.S. See my previous post about distributed operations, that explains a lot of the budget cut.

  20. occupation by mikeg22 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder how long until the native get restless, and we get the Martian equivalent of Al'Sadr resisting the occupation?

    1. Re:occupation by susano_otter · · Score: 1

      I guess it all depends on how long until Venus can send over proxy bots of its own, to resist our rovers...

      --

      Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.

  21. Re:dupe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would have e mailed the editor. The USPS is notoriously slow.

  22. Re:Why? Because it is inexpensive. by David+Hume · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why? Did they decide to extend the mission because people love following it and want to keep it going? Or are they extending it because they haven't found anything "big" to report on yet?


    I expect at least part of the reason is because it is inexpensive. According to the Reuters report, "NASA said it would spend $15 million more to keep the rivers exploring the planet's surface through September." Can you think of a more cost-effective way for NASA to spend that money?

  23. You must mean "dust-proof coating" by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    > Maybe they should have gotten that rust-proof coating after all.

    You must mean "dust-proof coating". Given that there is no water on Mars and almost no oxygen, rust would not be much of a problem.

    1. Re:You must mean "dust-proof coating" by isaac · · Score: 2, Informative
      You must mean "dust-proof coating". Given that there is no water on Mars and almost no oxygen, rust would not be much of a problem.

      Actually, Mars is red precisely because of rust - iron oxide. Quite a bit of the dust, particularly the hematite-bearing stuff at the Opportunity site, is composed of iron oxides - the dust is rust!

      Incidentally, it's suspected that the reason there's not significant molecular oxygen in the Martian atmosphere is precisely because it's been locked up in the iron-rich surface.

      -Isaac

      --
      I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
    2. Re:You must mean "dust-proof coating" by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      No water on Mars? What rock have you been living under the last couple of years? No offense, but that remark just seemed off whack considering the recent discoveries.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    3. Re:You must mean "dust-proof coating" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there WAS water a long time ago, but there isn't any water NOW to make the rover rust, you dumb fucknut.

  24. Let's hear it again for JPL by Steve+the+Rocket+Sci · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pasadena's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) has done it again, it would seem. When the Voyager 1 and 2 missions were launched in 1977, they estimated that they would only last until the encounter with Saturn roughly four years later. Now, in 2004, they are still returning useful data, at a distance of over 90 AU from the Sun (in comparison, Pluto is only 40 AU from it). Sure, they had their problems during the mission, but it looks like Spirit and Opportunity may share a similar quality construction. It's definite that they won't last 27 years, but with how well they are functioning, I think the only limit will be the Martian dust collecting on their solar panels. When they Next Generation Rover lands on Mars in the latter part of this decade, it will hopefully use nuclear power, and overcome this obstacle.

    1. Re:Let's hear it again for JPL by m11533 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Rather than going nuclear, maybe there is an ingenious way to clear the dust off their solar panels, thus extending their useful lifespan indefinitely. I can't imagine there isn't a solution to that problem... maybe something as "simple" as the ability to rotate the panels into a 90-degree position and then shake. Sure seems much simpler than engineering a nuclear based solution.

    2. Re:Let's hear it again for JPL by silentbozo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, the nuclear based solution IS the simplest. It's nothing more than a small mass of isotope, a thermocouple, and a pair of wires. It's certainly simpler than a pair of solar panels, or the gyrations you'd need to go through to get rid of the dust coating (electrostatic attraction probably is the factor here.) The Voyager series of probes use these radioisotope-powered thermocouples, and look how long their active life has been.

    3. Re:Let's hear it again for JPL by El_Smack · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think the only limit will be the Martian dust collecting on their solar panels.

      Maybe NASA can cut a deal with the DOJ to go easy on Martha Stewart in return for her help on this. If anyone could find a simple, yet attractive solution it's her. Recycle the impact ballons into attractive doilies for the panels or something.

      Or even better, get the Anal Retentive Carpenter from SNL to make a nice "Solar Panel Cozy" for it.

      --


      There are 01 kinds of cars in the world. The General Lee, and everything else.
    4. Re:Let's hear it again for JPL by jwbing · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I remember reading about NASA contemplating some sort of 'blower' device be installed on the rovers. It was cancelled as it would have added more complexity and weight to the system. NASA determined it would be cheaper just to increase the dimensions of the solar panels, thus providing more juice for when they start to get dusty.

    5. Re:Let's hear it again for JPL by bloosqr · · Score: 1

      Is there any reason they couldn't have put "wind shield wipers" on the solar panels to occasionally clean the panels? Surely the power required to wipe once every X months would be outweighed by the extra power you would get from dust removal?

    6. Re:Let's hear it again for JPL by Kirellii · · Score: 1

      I bought this stuff at Home Depot that prevents dust buildup on ceiling fans by making the surface slick so the wind blows off the particles. Barring unexpected rain - I suppose handy windshield wipers and flipping the panels over every now and then would have to do on version 2.0 if they can't afford the slicker and the hammer to build the probe.

  25. exploration? by queenofthe1ring · · Score: 0

    maybe this time we'll get to see more pictures of rocks that they can crash our bazillion$ enterprises in to...

    --

    ~*~ ~*~ ~*~

    yes, girls read /. too...

  26. No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an occupation of Mars now?

    No, it's a "stabilization."

  27. Sweet by Unregistered · · Score: 1, Funny

    Now they can go look for Beagle

  28. manned missions by kippy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unmanned missions are great.

    So Are manned ones in the right context like Mars.

    Humans can run out of food and air, and get tired and homesick.

    On Mars humans can make their own air water and food provided a power source like a portable nuclear reactor and the air and ground around them. It's called living in-situ. As long as you don't send flakes, the homesickness isn't an issue. They're allowed to sleep and would have more waking time than the rovers so I wouldn't worry about them getting "tired".

    Robots can run basically forever, until something breaks or they run out of juice.

    You just contradicted yourself there.

    If these things prove 1/50 as durable as Galileo did, they'll provide science more than we ever could have hoped for.

    Perhaps but humans on the surface would have been able to work faster and smarter these probes. Galileo was well suited to its mission and a human would not have been. In the case of Mars, humans are much better suited.

    1. Re:manned missions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      • Robots can run basically forever, until something breaks or they run out of juice.
      You just contradicted yourself there.

      I don't see this as a contradiction -- merely a clarification. Essentially, the grandparent post is saying that given proper maintenance, a robot (unlike a human) can run forever. Because a proper maintenance program for a vehicle on Mars is impractical, that same robot which otherwise would run forever will no longer do so due to breakage.
  29. how to spend $15M by kippy · · Score: 1

    Can you think of a more cost-effective way for NASA to spend that money?

    Hire a better administrator.

  30. Yes but... by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 1

    Do they have an exit strategy? I thought it was 'Mission accomplished,' but still there's no sign of those Little Green Men (LGMs).

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
  31. Re:Why? Because it is inexpensive. by kippy · · Score: 1

    Can you think of a more cost-effective way for NASA to spend that money?

    They could publish another report that says "saftey is great. Let's be safe."

  32. Software Issues by QuantumFTL · · Score: 5, Informative

    All the scientists here at JPL are very happy to see that we'll be getting more science, however one of the issues is that we're going to be moving to a less efficient planning cycle, planning for two days per rover at a time. Also it will all be being done on earth time, which is nice for scientists, however it means things have to be planned very far in advance.

    Also one of the problems we are experiencing is that a lot of the mission software was originally designed to only run at JPL on our computing environment, and is very difficult to take back to home institutions because it is so specialized.

    I'm currently working on making the Science Activity Planner (the tool used by all scientists to do high level planning before they start sequencing) work collaboratively over the web. It's exciting because we're dramatically increasing the amount of people who can participate in high level planning. You can grab the public version, called Maestro, here.

    One of the other challenges is the bandwidth and latency associated with transfering autogenerated data products (imagery etc) to all of our satalite institutions. I'm currently working on ways to reduce the necessary bandwidth but without lossy compression there's only so much one can do.

    Anyways, this part of the mission will test out a paradigm known as "Distributed Mission Operations". You can download a paper written by my supervisor about how this was used on Pathfinder here.

    Future mars missions will last far too long to bring scientists away from their home institutions and pay for temporary housing etc (which is a significant cost). Scientists want to be with their collegues and families during the long periods of exploration.

    Hopefully this will prove that it is both feasible and desireable. There are several studies going on about this, but I'm not aware of any relevant links.

    Cheers,
    Justin Wick
    Science Activity Planner Developer
    Mars Exploration Rovers

    1. Re:Software Issues by kitzilla · · Score: 4, Funny
      Justin, who names the rocks? You guys are clearly having too much fun in that department.

      How about letting Slashdotters name one? C'mon -- nobody will notice. It's just us geeks here.

      From a future JPL release:

      The rover Opportunity started sol 365 this morning with a quick brush-off of the rock known as "Linux Rules." Later today, Opportunity will turn its attention to another feature, a dull-looking boulder called "SCO Drools."

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    2. Re:Software Issues by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      One of the other challenges is the bandwidth

      Since MEX does not need to service Beagle II communication requirements, have there been talks with ESA about getting MEX to help getting MER data to Earth? It has already been shown that it can be done, why don't we hear more about MEX being used?

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    3. Re:Software Issues by frankmu · · Score: 1

      it's too bad we couldn't do a distributed computing settup for your data, like SETI. I'd be glad to donate the cpu cycles in my office.

      --
      Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.
    4. Re:Software Issues by QuantumFTL · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Justin, who names the rocks? You guys are clearly having too much fun in that department.

      Actually, my friend Merideth considers herself to be the feature-naming goddess for Spirit, so if /.ers will reply to this post with possible names, I'll put in one of the highest moderated ones for consideration.

      No promises though :)

      Cheers,
      Justin

    5. Re:Software Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name it after Joe Satriani, whose new album Is There Love In Space? came out yesterday. The album title is very relevant -- that's essentially what you're looking for in the grand scheme of things, isn't it? After all, there had to be love in space in order for life on Mars to reproduce. :)

    6. Re:Software Issues by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      FireFox (for a red rock)

      Solaris (for a flat reflective rock)

      HAL2000 (for that rock that looks like an IBM mainframe... wait a moment, that is an IBM mainframe)

    7. Re:Software Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, it looks like there's already a precedent for using rock (heh, get it) music names. Satriani's pretty cool, didn't know he was still putting out music. I might have to check it out!

    8. Re:Software Issues by Dirtside · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, given the forum, here's some ideas:

      - Beowulf
      - Soviet Russia
      - Natalie
      - Dupe (if you find two adjacent rocks that are extremely similar)
      - Profit
      - Overlord

      I think that covers the bulk of common /. humor. :)

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    9. Re:Software Issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The rover Opportunity started sol 365 this morning with a quick brush-off of the rock known as "Linux Rules." Later today, Opportunity will turn its attention to another feature, a dull-looking boulder called "SCO Drools."

      Or simply "CowboyNeal". :)

    10. Re:Software Issues by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Rock name:

      Mae Ling Mak

      (obviously, petrified)

      --
      resigned
    11. Re:Software Issues by Mr2cents · · Score: 1

      If you call one "Baloo", you immediatly have a great song - bare neccesities - to start investigating it:


      Look for the bare necessities
      The simple bare necessities
      Forget about your worries and your strife
      I mean the bare necessities
      Old Mother Nature's recipes
      That brings the bare necessities of life

      Wherever I wander, wherever I roam
      I couldn't be fonder of my big home
      The bees are buzzin' in the tree
      To make some honey just for me
      When you look under the rocks and plants
      And take a glance at the fancy ants
      Then maybe try a few

      The bare necessities of life will come to you
      They'll come to you! ...

      The only problem: there are no bees, plants or ants on Mars.. Maybe you'll have to beep them out :). Seriously though, if you are planning to tip a rock over..

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    12. Re:Software Issues by josh_freeman · · Score: 1

      My Suggestions:

      Linus
      Tux (already posted, but a good one)
      Dust Puppy
      Daemon (or whatever the BSD mascot is called)
      coredump

      Sagan (after Call Sagan)

      All I can think of right now.

    13. Re:Software Issues by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Call one GNU, as in GNU's Not Uranium.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    14. Re:Software Issues by shfted! · · Score: 1

      What about hot grits or troll? I'd love to have a rock named troll, provided it looked like a troll.

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    15. Re:Software Issues by shfted! · · Score: 1

      Why not name a rock after Wikipedia? I'm sure the folks there would love that ;)

      --
      He who laughs last is stuck in a time dilation bubble.
    16. Re:Software Issues by trick-knee · · Score: 1

      > I'll put in one of the highest moderated ones for consideration.

      oof. pretty slim pickins.

  33. When they do fail ... by dnamaners · · Score: 2, Funny

    I wonder what could be done with them when they do fail?

    my top picks in no particular order:
    1.) Auction them off on Ebay (like that channel drill) and make the buyer pick em up. that may help finace the manned mars mission goal ... Russions pickup worlds most expensive a door stop...

    2.) Call AAA for a tow, membership has its rewards.

    3.) File insurance clames on the loss. Perhaps NASA could cite water damage.

    4.) But probably the best use, 3 words, "interstellar p0rn server". Lets "spread" our culture among the stars. That of course would require NASA still be able to upload a "firm ware" upgrade.

    *brain is: [ ] in, [ X ] out to lunch, [ ] gone home for the day

  34. windshield wipers and Fords in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I mean c'mon ... if the solar panels are really dusting over - just put a scratch resistant coating on them, and toss some windshield wipers on those bad boys.

    I mean hell we already use airbags to land 'em, before too long we'll just be strapping a Ford to a rocket and sending it on it's way.

    Though the martians may be really pissed off when we start leaking oil all over the place...

  35. excessive lifetimes by Dr.+Mojura · · Score: 3, Funny

    while the rovers look poised to greatly exceed their planned life cycle, they could basically die at any time.

    Kinda like Dick Clark?

    --
    "Nothing exists except atoms and empty space; everything else is opinion." - Democritus
  36. Is anyone else as amazed by these things as I am? by BRSQUIRRL · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Every day or so, I head over to this site to check out the latest images. Some of the high-res color photos look like something I could have shot with my digital camera out in the desert somewhere, but then I remember: they were taken on ANOTHER FREAKING PLANET. It really is a amazing thing to be alive to see. The folks at NASA and the JPL should be proud of themselves.

  37. So why not have wipers on the panels? by Dr.+Mu · · Score: 1

    If dust buildup on the solar panels is such a potential problem, why didn't NASA design wipers for them? Just make sure you use 'em before there's no power to run the wiper motors. 'Seems like a simple solution to me.

    1. Re:So why not have wipers on the panels? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is an old discussion, so I would recommend you do a search to fully answer your question. Basically though, it came down to several facts:

      1. The dust would most likely be statically charged.
      2. Wipers would tend to damage the panels.
      3. The extreme environment is slowly degrading the panels anyway.

    2. Re:So why not have wipers on the panels? by snake_dad · · Score: 1

      They did. And discovered that every possible option of keeping the solar panels clean was too expensive either money-wise or mass-wise for the mission requirements. It is rocket science, not slashdot science.

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    3. Re:So why not have wipers on the panels? by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      Forgot a few:

      4. The batteries will no longer be able to hold a charge inside of a year.
      5. Wipers are added weight and complexity.
      6. The same dust will jam the motors for the wipers.

    4. Re:So why not have wipers on the panels? by fataugie · · Score: 1

      Why not compressed air instead of wipers? A couple of scuba tanks...some copper tube and it's all good.

      --

      WTF? Over?

    5. Re:So why not have wipers on the panels? by hazem · · Score: 1

      A Nasa guy was on NPR talking about this. He said that lay-people suggested all kinds of ideas like wipers, etc.

      He said they chose to simply make the panels bigger than they really needed to be. That way as their power diminished (from dust and scratching), it was still enough to power the rover. That was the best solution in terms of weight and reliability.

  38. Drones by westies-from-hell · · Score: 2, Funny

    Why do I have these mental images of Huey and Dewey wandering around, planting trees...?

    --
    "Just because you're a genius doesn't make you a smart guy!" -- Narrator, Powerpuff Girls
  39. Good - maybe they will run out of songs then by Pvt_Waldo · · Score: 4, Funny

    Personally I'm sort of tired of all the "cute" stuff. Like the wakup music and the rock names.

    It's like reading a wedding announcement or something. "And the chief scientist wore a stunning black outfit, and his research maids wore matching green shirts with long sleeves rolled up. Custom pencils were used by all. The guests were delighted to see palm pilots made available for everyone, each customized with a charming orange Mars theme!"

  40. Re:Is anyone else as amazed by these things as I a by cujo_1111 · · Score: 1

    Some of the high-res color photos look like something I could have shot with my digital camera out in the desert somewhere, but then I remember: they were taken on ANOTHER FREAKING PLANET.

    Were they really taken on another planet? Pasadena ain't too far from some good desert country...

    --
    If I point out that you are incorrect, making me a foe does not make you any more correct.
  41. Capt. Obvious here by Qetu · · Score: 1

    So what are they going to do? Lift them from the martian ground? pfft

  42. Cause.. by Lugor · · Score: 1

    a) They fould Oil
    b) They fould Bin Laden
    c) They found WMDs
    d) They found a cure for Bush
    e) They saw the rabbit (again..)
    f) The engineers want to draw playing chicken with Spirit and Oppurtunity ...

  43. Or as Ted Kennedy would say... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mars is George Bush's Moon.

    1. Re:Or as Ted Kennedy would say... by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Aaagh! Bad mental picture!

      Now every time I see that tiny red dot in the sky, I'm going to imagine W bending over and showing us what he thinks of the world.... *shivers*.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  44. solar panels? by medelliadegray · · Score: 1

    mmm so the project is basically limited by how much dust collects on these panels?

    sheesh, i doubt it would have been that hard to implement a rail along each solar panel, with a brush that could clean them every now and then.

    it just seems a little wasteful to spend as much money sending the damn thing up there, and then let it die because some dust collected. talk about narrow sighted.

    p.s. i am 100% for space exploration, and feel funding for nasa should be more in line with what the military gets, and the military more in line with what nasa gets.

    but thats is just me.

    --
    Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
  45. Rock Names! by efuseekay · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is my list (they are even slightly descriptive)

    1. First Post
    2. Troll
    3. Hot Grits
    4. The Insensitive Clod
    5. Anonymous Coward

    --
    Mode (3) smart-aleck mode. Press * to return to main menu.
    1. Re:Rock Names! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the sol 110, Spirit used its microscopic imager to probe the hole in Goatse it ground two sols ago. Opportunity is cleaning a large area on Tubgirl to perform thermal spectrometer analysis in the coming sols.

  46. Mozilla! by njchick · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mozilla is red like Mars. Mozilla is strong like a rock. Scientists know Mozilla. Mozilla will go to Mars, and followers of Mammon will cower in horror :-)

  47. Re:No Fair, Mozilla! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey no fair, you logged in AND used Karma bonus to artificially inflate your score. I did the noble thing and posted anonymously!

  48. Re:No Fair, Mozilla! by njchick · · Score: 1
    Hey no fair, you logged in AND used Karma bonus to artificially inflate your score.
    OK, let's only count moderations, without the initial points.
    I did the noble thing and posted anonymously
    Please put your name or nick somewhere. The fact that the name was suggested by e.g. goat_lover at slashdot.org would be more interesting to the general public than the fact that an anonymous reader at slashdot.org suggested it. A little bit of personality would liven up the story.
  49. In related news... by Tokerat · · Score: 1


    MARS - Martian insurgents have taken Europe's Beagle 2 lander hostage, MartianTV reported, in retaliation for the United States' refusal to leave the region unoccupied...

    ...yea, it's time for bed...

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  50. But we promise... by stienman · · Score: 1

    /i>"NASA Extends Rover Occupation of Mars"

    The director of NASA, however, assures us that Mars will revert to it's own sovereignty by September 30th. An unnamed United Worlds representative noted that "it's going to be very hard to hold Martian elections by that date, and NASA seems unprepared to set up an interim government which the average Martian can put his faith in."

    Russian scientists recently announced a humanitarian aid mission could be active on Mars in 10 years, but Russian officials were quick to deny "any plans to interfere in NASA research."

    -Adam

  51. An RPG? Cool! by Limited+Vision · · Score: 1

    An RPG would be much more effective for getting samples inside rocks than that wimpy drill. Bruce Cockburn would be so proud...

  52. Software Issues. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jpl seeks bandwith solution would get a very strong responce on slashdot I can imagine. But I just wanted to suggest that if you use a ATM MLS type protocal I think you wouldn't need worry about the bandwith.

    This assumes I have my technology correct, that was the name assoiciated to what I think it is. A technology that can be used to multicast a single packet over a vpn framework (and ofcourse uses atm). Im not sure what your network looks like or if atm mls crosses traditional networks using software but, im sure what the real question is "Which technology do MultiMedia content provider's use to distribute live broadcast so that they are not sending redundant traffic"

    Anyhow, if I dont know wtf I am speaking of, I will go RTFM (IS RTFMing), im sure that plenty of web op's would offer mirroring of data okay doke. I hav offered my idiotic suggestion to geniuses enough for today ;)

    The Troll Coward,
    Kerpal

  53. Won't kill you next to the skin... by Goonie · · Score: 2, Interesting
    According to the Wikipedia, plutonium emits alpha particles, which can't penetrate the skin. You have to swallow the stuff for it to kill you.

    However, you wouldn't exactly want it lying around and getting thrown in landfills, either, so I can't imagine it being used in consumer products any time soon. At least Pu-238 can't be used in nuclear weapons (a big enough piece of the stuff to make a bomb out of would be too hot to be stable).

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
    1. Re:Won't kill you next to the skin... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You have to swallow the stuff for it to kill you.

      Actually, swallowing the stuff won't kill you. (All of you who believe Ralph Nader's opinion check here.) The lining of your stomach is pretty thick, and the stuff is too dense to digest. As a result, it passes through without harm. The real problem is plutonium dust that gets inhaled. It can embed itself in your soft lung tissue and increase your risk of cancer. Not to worry, pretty much the only source of such dust is machining of the material. Even when an unprotected Russian RTG burned up in the atmosphere, the smallest particles where the size of a grain of sand. Far too large to cause problems.

  54. Name a rock, 'Tux' by Megaport · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Actually, my friend Merideth considers herself to be the feature-naming goddess for Spirit, so if /.ers will reply to this post with possible names, I'll put in one of the highest moderated ones for consideration.

    Hi Justin,
    How about we get the ball rolling by naming a rock 'Tux', after the Linux mascot penguin?

    --
    # grep slashdot access.log | grep html | sort | uniq | wc -l 2604
    1. Re:Name a rock, 'Tux' by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      >Hi Justin,
      >How about we get the ball rolling by naming a rock >'Tux', after the Linux mascot penguin?

      Congradulations. Not only did you get modded up much more than I thought anyone would in this little "contest" but I thought that Tux was suitably neutral. I talked to Merideth and I"m going to try and get something named Tux. Hopefully it will work out.

      Congrats

      Cheers,
      Justin

      P.S. This is what public participation is all about! If anyone has more ideas about public participation in NASA missions, please feel free to respond :)

  55. Correct me if i'm wrong... by nfabl · · Score: 1

    but don't the rovers already use radio isotopes to maintain the temperature for the internal electronics without costing battery power?

  56. Mod parent up! by Walkiry · · Score: 1

    Man, having a Tux rock would be so freaking cool, and funny :)

    --
    ---- Take the Space Quiz!
  57. FUD regarding "harmless" plutonium by edxwelch · · Score: 1

    After Plutonium gives off it's alpha partical it becomes radiactive Uranium which in turn gives off gamma rays. The alpha partical cannot make it through the casing, however it will be absorbed by the casing, in turn making the casing radioactive. So, yes a RTG is completely harmless, if you ignore the rest of the nuclear reactions involved.
    Also, consider that Plutonium is on of the most dirtiest and most expensive substance to make. Tonnes of nuclear waste are produced in the process to purify it from reactor cores.

    1. Re:FUD regarding "harmless" plutonium by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      >After Plutonium gives off it's alpha partical it becomes radiactive
      You do need to check up on the concepts of cause and effect. If it gives off its alpha particle it does so because it is radioactive. Being a nice guy I did not point out your rampaging typos up there.

      Then we have this one:
      >The alpha partical cannot make it through the casing, however it will be absorbed by the casing, in turn making the casing radioactive.
      Interesting. Could you give me a reference to a source that states that all absorptions of alpha particles induce radioactivity in the target material?

      You see an alpha particle is just a helium atom minus two electrons...

  58. You physics are goofy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are to physics what Rosie O'Donnell is to "sexy".

    Honestly, its people like you who give the environmental movement a bad name. Hopefully, you won't be entering any science or science related field any time soon.

  59. Bush thought Mars desert was Iraq by peter303 · · Score: 1

    When Bush saw the the Martian pictures of the desert, he thought NASA was helping him in Iraq. Then he ordered NASA to stay longer there!

  60. is nuclear power the answer? by peter303 · · Score: 1

    The Russians kept their lunar rover moving for almost a year, partly because it used nuclear power rather than the less reliable solar power. NASA's Galileo and Cassini probes also used nuclear due the weak sunlight in the out solar system and decade- long missions. These probes almost were not launched due to environomentalist fears that batteries would leak into earth's atmosphere in the event of an launch accident.

  61. That wasn't the discovery by Chemisor · · Score: 1

    The discoveries said there _was_ water on mars, not that there is any now. It might still be there somewhere, but not in any quantity that can rust a gram of steel.

  62. RTG or SRG as portable battery by ripcrd · · Score: 1

    You'd have to get these idiots that design products to design a standard, interchangeable battery. i.e. a standard cell phone battery, used by all brand of cell phones or the same for laptops. I don't see this happening, because they like to charge a hundred bucks for a replacement laptop battery and 25-30 for a cell phone battery. The laptops actually use batteries that you can replace from Battery Patrol, if you don't mind cutting all the hotglue off and soldering your replacement batteries back in.

    Make it the last battery you ever buy.

    --
    --Somewhere there is a village missing an idiot.
    1. Re:RTG or SRG as portable battery by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      You actually just gave the solution. As you said, Lithium Ion and NiCad batteries are usually just AA or AAA type batteries packed inside a non-standard casing. All you need is a standard battery form, and then a bunch of non-standard plastic casings. Given the size of a 1.5 watt SRG (tiny) It should be simple to make a battery that fits any cell phone.

      I wonder how much Pu-238 costs per gram? Americanium for smoke detectors is about $1500 per gram, IIRC.