Mars Rovers on New Missions

mycro writes "According to CNN, the Mars rovers are on a brand new mission. Because the Mars Spirit and Opportunity rovers are in such great condition and 'keep going and going', NASA will be using them for a longer period of time to study water, rocks, and formations on Mars." An anonymous reader writes "Today NASA has given its Opportunity rover a green light to enter the steep Endurance crater. Looking at deeper martian bedrock layers is considered now a rich enough science payoff to weigh favorably against the real chance that the rover cannot get back out of the crater."

Comments

GNAA Strikes AOL

[Anonymous Coward]

GNAA Announces Victory over AOL

Monday, May 17 2004, GNAA, Nigeria

"Who is the Greatest Man Alive?" - If you ask Gary Niger, he'll tell you it is most definitely Osama Bin Laden.

The Gay Nigger Association of America (GNAA) announced today further victory in their current program to bring about total breakdown of the AOL customer relation system.

AOL Corporate Policy has been changed after GNAA (Gay Nigger Association of America) special operative Gary Niger's constant abuse of their "secret question" program designed to provide a futile illusion of security for the mongoloids and sodomites that comprise their customer base.

The "custom question" option, allowing users to create their own question, has been removed following the efforts of Niger and other fearsome Gay Niggers from the GNAA's top secret "Black Ops" divison.

With the removal of this option, trolls are now forced to use pre-approved AOL "secret question" options when signing up for fraudlent accounts for the purpose of downloading gay pornography and meeting up with the clandestine "homo thug" underground.

"I don't know why it changed, exactly. Corporate HQ didn't tell us," said Tracy, an AOL representative. "It happened two or three days ago."

Tracy was unavailable for further comment, as she was masturbating furiously under her desk - claiming that "Ten guys were on the phone and (she) had to take them all on."

An AOL executive, speaking under the condition of anonymnity, said the change in policy came after widespread employee unrest, culminating in an incident of mass sodomy taking place in the Ogden, Utah call center.

Gary Niger and other members of the GNAA "Black Ops" division continue to use the "custom question" trolling technique with various punjabis in the Bangalore, India call center - who haven't gotten the memo yet.

Meanwhile, GNAA Command is working on the creation of new methods of trolling to work within the confines of this new standard, still flush with victory.

Nick Berg's head was unavailable for comment at the time of this release.

About America Online, Inc.

America Online, Inc. is a wholly owned subsidiary of subsidiary of Time Warner Inc. Based in Dulles, Virginia, America Online is the world's leader in interactive services, Web brands, Internet technologies and e-commerce services.

About GNAA:
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY ?
Are you a NIGGER ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER ?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. (You can download the movie (~280mb) using BitTorrent, by clicking here.

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gna

Re:GNAA Strikes AOL

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn GNAA, where ya been? Haven't seen a GNAA post in awhile. Good going on the FP, btw.

Re:GNAA Strikes AOL

[Anonymous Coward]

This was part of my membership initiation. You too can join GNAA.

Normal

[madaxe42]

They make it sound like the rover is undergoing a massive risk, and doing something utterly untoward, by entering the crater - this is nothing new in science - the majority of space probes are designed for limited function, and not to survive their missions, witness voyager and the like.

Re:Normal

[Anonymous Coward]

They make it sound like the rover is undergoing a massive risk, and doing something utterly untoward, by entering the crater - this is nothing new in science - the majority of space probes are designed for limited function, and not to survive their missions, witness voyager and the like.

"Rover to undertake last heroic sortie"

vs

"NASA guy moves joystick and types in numbers to investigate rock he can't see himself"

There is a dramatic tension to the joystick, I know, but we just had to go with the sortie.

Re:Normal

[Anonymous Coward]

Meanwhile, at a House in Washington DC, aides once again explain why sending a rescue mission to "bring our probes back home again" wouldn't be a good idea.

Re:Normal

[DoraLives]

They make it sound like the rover is undergoing a massive risk, and doing something utterly untoward, by entering the crater - this is nothing new in science - the majority of space probes are designed for limited function, and not to survive their missions, witness voyager and the like.

"Oh tra la la, I sent a perfectly functioning multi-million dollar spacecraft into an environment that destroyed it. Well golly shoo, what a shame. No more science for the rest of you guys. Yeah, I know you've invested the last ten years of your life in preparing for this, but you're simply going to have to move on now. Oh well, these things happen, don't they?"

Your attitude bespeaks a profound lack of understanding. If I was working on one of the consoles next to you and you pulled a stunt like that, I'd personally come over there and MAIM you. Not kill you, but MAIM you. My intent would be to make sure that you lived a long life of terrible suffering to pay for your foolish approach to matters which you are unable to comprehend fully.

Re:Normal

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like you mean to the pain.

Re:Normal

[shaitand]

You do understand the rovers have already done everything their supposed to do and everything now is just whatever extra we can squeeze in before they die?

Why would they stop working?

[lancomandr]

Because the Mars Spirit and Opportunity rovers are in such great condition and 'keep going and going'

Could someone please explain to me what exactly would cause a rover that cost $400 million to develop and deploy to fail after several months? I'm not trying to start a ruckus. Perhaps I should've kept up more but I honestly wonder what causes these rovers to cease functioning. It seems like the expectations for home robotics kits greatly exceed those of the Mars rovers. Hopefully someone can explain it.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[twoshortplanks]

They run out of power. The units are recharged by solar panels which stop working as well over time as they slowly get covered by dust and dirt that can't be cleaned off.

Also every action the rovers take place them in danger, so there's risk associated with every day of their existance - if they get stuck, it's not like there's anyone there to pull them off a rock or turn them back over.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's down to power mostly, as I understand it. These things are powered by solar panels, and Mars has quite a volitile weather system. I assume that the creators expect this little things to at some point get buried in dust, and no longer be able to get power.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[SB5]

The solar panels get covered with dust, and NASA has investigated solutions to stop that even using windshield washer type things and what not... all the solutions turned out to be worthless, impractical, and a waste of weight... NASA likes to equip multiple backup systems and they simply can't with that. Ultimately the solar panel cannot collect enough power and the battery dies... Mars isn't exactly a very nice enviroment to work in either... dust storms that last for days or longer...

Home robotics kits couldn't do nearly anything these guys do... We would have to send HUNDREDs of home robotics kits to even get close to the results of a couple of our rovers... The failure rate would be higher on those kits too...

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Doppleganger]

Mostly, there's the problem of power. These robots are operating with only solar cells for additional power, much farther away from the sun, and in an extremely dusty/sandy environment.

The wind, sand, and dust puts a lot of stress on the rest of the mechanical workings, too.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[ErichTheWebGuy]

It seems like the expectations for home robotics kits greatly exceed those of the Mars rovers. Hopefully someone can explain it.

Now, I am not an astronomer, but when I apply common sense to this problem, I can readily see the following points:

• home robotics kits operate on Earth, within a stable atmosphere, relatively shielded from radiation, UV, etc.
• home robotics kits do not operate millions of kilometers from their bases.
• home robotics kits did not make a journey through the most hostile and unforgiving environment known -- outer space. Temperatures that would kill a human within seconds, radiation that would destroy conventional electronic components, etc.

Now trying to flame ya, just my $0.02 is all.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

But if we sent hundreds of home robotics kits worth 400 million each....

Oh and you said "our rovers", I'm pretty sure they belong to some guys at NASA, not you.

Unless it was actually you who built it... Well.. did you?

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since we, the US taxpayers, fund NASA, yes, they do belong to SB5, me, and every other US citizen.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Pete Brubaker]

Seems like a prime opportunity for a nuclear powered rover! I mean seriously, couldnt we have a nice little home base nuclear reactor for the thing to plug into? Perhaps it's or even housed within itself?

That might actually make it more worth the $400m pricetag.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[DNS-and-BIND]

Here's an idea - blow the crap off with compressed air.

Just think of all the children that could have been fed with this $400 million. :( Or all the landmines that could be removed. Instead, we get playtoys for stupid white men. Micheal Moore needs to do his next expose on "science".

Re:Why would they stop working?

[SirCrashALot]

The next one will. Not fission but thermal.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Sven-Erik]

And to avoid the risk of launching rockets with nuclear material, this would be perfect for basing this on a lunar base that extracts nuclear materials, process it and launch rockets with nuclear-powered rovers, probes etc.

This lunar base should probably be based somewhere around Mare Imbrium where there most likely are concentrations high enough.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[EpsCylonB]

As others have pointed out the problem is power but no one has mentioned yet that each rover requires a heater to stop the extreme cold at night from damaging the electronics.

Of course if they had used RTG's....

Re:Why would they stop working?

[mrright]

You can thank the fear of everything nuclear for this. Usually you would run a mars rover from a RTG. That way they would have enough power to run the rover continuously for years, and also enough heat to make sure none of the components fails because of excessive thermal cycling.

But since nuclear==BAD, they have to run the rover from a solar cell which gives only a tiny trickle of power during the daytime and none at all during the night. All components are subject to massive thermal cycling. So sooner or later either the solar panel will be too coated with dust to work, or the battery will no longer work, or components will fail because of excessive thermal cycling.

Note that all of these problems would be trivial to avoid if you had 50W electrical power and 1kw thermal power continuously, like you would get from a tiny RTG.
--

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of all the children that could have been fed with this $400 million. :( Or all the landmines that could be removed. Instead, we get playtoys for stupid white men. Micheal Moore needs to do his next expose on "science".

Think how many poor people the king of Spain could have fed with all the money he spend on Christopher Columbus' search for a new route to Asia. Had the king of Spain given the money to the poor, and assuming you are an American, I doubt you would be here on Slashdot trolling about the uselesness of science and exploration.

I'm an AC, a proud AC.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[aurispector]

Sure we could process the nuclear fuel on the moon! It's easy! All we have to do is set up an entire mining and refining and launch complex complete with those P2 centrifuges the Iranians aren't using. Then all we have to do is transfer it to the launch facility and put it in a mars-bound orbit.

Seriously; the cost for producing usable nuclear fuel on the moon would make the cost of the rover look tiny.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

we are launching a nuclear mars rover later this decade.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[AndroidCat]

How's the weight of one of those RTGs compared to removing the solar panels and possibly reducing the amount of batteries? Even the thermal output would be useful. They have to put Spirit into deep sleep mode each night because of a heater that won't switch off otherwise. That thermal cycling can't be good for it.

Of course, with an RTG, they might find that a bunch of Martian gnorffl had curled up around it at night for warmth, but I guess that'd be an interesting discovery...

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Jugalator]

Just think of all the children that could have been fed with this $400 million. :( Or all the landmines that could be removed. Instead, we get playtoys for stupid white men. Micheal Moore needs to do his next expose on "science".

Why do these comments always come up when NASA's budget is neglible compared to others? In the big picture, NASA's funding has given them a hard time to find things already, since the government need the money for military funding. Oops, weren't you just argumenting against these things?

The Federal Pie Chart

NASA gets in total $15.5 billion for fiscal year 2004. Compare that to the billions in the pie chart above.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

hey hey kids, and what happens when;

a) the thing blows up in launch before you get it out into space. = some shit on the bottom of a sea bed somewhere (yes I know there is little risk of it going into the atmosphere.)

b) you get nuclear waste "stuck" somewhere on top of a rock.

c) you use a shortcut with nuclear fuel. Sure it might be better "now" but in principle running things of solar is damned fine engineering. Not only that, but any tech advancements that are made for space (remember the public is paying for all your little space toys, while people starve no less) can filter down to people everywhere.

Is it that desperate to exlore mars NOW as opposed to the steady advance of all science, including solar, which will benefit not only the environment. But all sorts of remote science and communications needs we have here on earth (do you want your wifi repeater to have a half-life?).

No, mars does not take precedence over everything, and solar on the whole is good. In fact it is proving itself right now on those rovers. The real worry is not the power source, but the fact they are likely to flip/slip/getstuck. which could happen to any rover.

The reasons for pushing solar are often more well thought out that you think. Don't just slag green things off because it's trendy to do so at the moment.

Yeah I know there have been a whole heap of "bohemian jamakan" wannabes capitalising on the real scientific side to being green and efficient. Doesn't mean we should aide the rhetoric against all green endevours by "leaving the subculture" because it's too popular now.

That would mean you joined for the wrong reasons in the first place.

Not saying this all applies to you, but I wanted it out there none the less.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think someone else would've asked their government for money for an expedition. The only change would be that Spain and columbus wouldn't be in the history books for discovering america.

The amount of impoverished, hungry, needing people would be the same. The money would've gone to other more important matters to the king.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[SamSpectre]

Seems to me, if dust on the solar panels was an eventual issue, they should have spent $400m + $20 bucks to equip them with wiper blades.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[david.given]

hey hey kids, and what happens when;

a) the thing blows up in launch before you get it out into space. = some shit on the bottom of a sea bed somewhere (yes I know there is little risk of it going into the atmosphere.)

They're in really, really tough boxes. If your booster explodes, you comb through the debris, find the RTG still intact in its box, and recycle it --- they're expensive. (This has actually happened.)

b) you get nuclear waste "stuck" somewhere on top of a rock.

It's in a really, really tough box. It's not going anywhere and it won't leak.

c) you use a shortcut with nuclear fuel. Sure it might be better "now" but in principle running things of solar is damned fine engineering. Not only that, but any tech advancements that are made for space (remember the public is paying for all your little space toys, while people starve no less) can filter down to people everywhere.

I'm sorry, this paragraph makes no sense. RTGs are made of nuclear fuel, that's how they work. Yes, solar panels are good engineering, but RTGs are far more suitable for solving the job at hand. Yes, the public is paying, but space exploration is a pathetically tiny amount of money compared to what's spent on welfare or the armed forces, and the extra knowledge gained by extending the lifespan of the probe probably outweighs the (tiny) extra expense. Yes, technology trickles down, but solar panels are fundamentally only useful for certain specialised tasks on Earth, and they're approaching the theoretical maximum efficiency anyway; there are a lot of tasks for which RTGs --- even on Earth --- would be really handy. And there isn't any research being done into those because people think 'nuclear' rhymes with 'evil'.

I'm afraid everything you've said indicates that you've bought into the anti-nuclear propaganda. Try doing some research and getting an opinion of your own.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[HeghmoH]

This has been discussed to death. The people working on these rovers are very smart, and they surely thought of this idea. Wiper blades imply a hefty wiper-blade subsystem, meaning less weight available to devote to other subsystems. Moreover, the solar cells are merely the first system likely to fail; find a way to keep them alive indefinitely, and you find something else that will die (such as the rechargeable batteries) in short order.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[foidulus]

What is even more interesting is that the interest on the debt is about 4.5 times what we spend on education, and about 18 times what we spend on NASA. Maybe we should reduce that number first, gives more money for everything else.
My offtopic 2 cents.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[applemasker]

Currently in the works for the 2009 launch window is the RTG-powered Mars Science Laboratory which, I hope, will get a snappier name before launch.

Can't wait for the Cassini-like protesters... oh, joy.

Re: Why would they stop working?

[photonic]

Seems like a prime opportunity for a nuclear powered rover!

I believe that's exactly the thing they want to do with the Mars Science Laboratory, to be launched around 2009. Some time ago I saw a presentation on Laser Induced Spectroscopy, which they want to include in that mission. Essentially what they want to do is to put a high power pulsed laser with a small telescope on top of the rover mast. Its light can be focused to a tiny spot some tens of meters away. You pick up the light that is caused by the heated/burnt/evaporated rock and analyse it with an optical spectrum analyser. In this way you can remotely analyse a rock in a few minutes, which costs them a whole day right now with the robotic arm.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, I think someone else would've asked their government for money for an expedition. The only change would be that Spain and columbus wouldn't be in the history books for discovering america.

I didn't mean it that way. I just gave a what-if scenario. What-if the king had given the money to the poor? What-if every king had given the money to the poor? No expeditions, no America as we know it. Although with the current administration in US I'm not sure whether that would be a bad thing :[ Columbus wasn't a nice guy either, but let's not get into that.

My view is: science and exploration brings progress and eventually wealth to the whole human race.

I'm an AC, a proud AC.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[amabbi]

Seriously, do you think that NASA, with its team of experienced scientists and engineers, DIDN'T think of this? Considering how the Viking landers, the Voyager orbiters, and other probes use nuclear power, it's not like you just came up with a brilliant new idea. Spirit and Opportunity both have several pellets of plutonium to generate heat.

I don't know the exact reason why solar power was chosen over nuclear power. Suffice it to say, an informed decision was made that weighed all of the pros and cons of all power generating technologies.

Furthermore, this "$400m each pricetag" is a red heering. The Mars Exploration Rover Project was funded with $800m. This included Spirit, Opportunity, and their identical twin rover which remains on Earth for testing (and certainly will become a museum piece sometime in the future). It pays for design, testing, development, and Q/A. It pays for the launch, cruise, and landing on Mars. The $800m includes the cost of staffing mission control around the clock, and pays for the time used on the Deep Space Network to send and receive commands and data.

Most importantly, the $800m pays for a mission that is done right. Looking at all the cost cutting the led to the loss of the Mars Polar Lander, the inadequate testing/contingency planning leading to the loss of the Beagle 2, the ongoing problems with the shuttle... I think the cost is cheap.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[anshil]

Actually I find paragraph (c) of the orignal AC very insightful. When the government spends money on a project like mars rover, you have should not only the best-way-to-get-job-done route in mind. Like many modern (neolibarlistic) economiest say, public money should be spent on GROWING sectors and sectors with a better health spread. Actually they are also funding research with this.

Now maybe nuclear tech maybe a way to solve this particual problem better, however in general we know today it's a dead end. Nuclear power does not pay of in the long run! I also rather see public money going into solar tech instead of nuclear technology.

Why do I call it a dead end? Because when economically clalculating nuclear powerplants as project novists always calculate the break-even point. Thats a wrong calculation. You always have to take into account ALL payments that a project involves even those after break even point, and those after closure of the plant. And they are enourmous (e.g. to dismantle a nuclear powerplant costs more than 20 times than the costs to build it first place. Also we have nuclear waste FOREVER, with every year into all future we've to carry the costs. (calculated as irredeemable costs).

If take that all into account the total revenue of the project build-a-nuclear-power-plant is very very small, if positive at all. Today we live very well with that, since the costs are to arrive in further future.

Even if you're not convinced and still arguing for nuclear technology, this is okay. But just remember, never argue and think with break-even-points! Think of all payments involved!

(((Okay can't resist to make a funny story of it. If you're "investing" in a girl, we say jokingly one should hold in mind the total revenue of the project is positive, if you pick up a one-night-stand, spending a night forgetting prevention, you have a positive break-even-point very early (same night), but if you consider all "payments" of that project including all posible future ones I would dissociate from that project :o)

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Sepodati]

> the extra knowledge gained by extending the
> lifespan of the probe probably outweighs the
> (tiny) extra expense

If they knew the rovers would last years, there's no way they'd send it into this crater, though. So you'd lose out on that exploration.

I think they can be "risky" with them now because they know they're going to fail soon anyhow.

---John Holmes...

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Sven-Erik]

It would not be cheap! But it could be a part of a greater plan to build a large and permanent presence on the moon. And for that to be a success, it needs to be as independent of supplies from Earth as possible.

And the production of nuclear materials for energy production could be one part of making it economical feasible.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[WhiteBandit]

The dust on Mars is statically charged.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Go fuck yourself, you ignorant bitch.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[barakn]

If you try to wipe off the dust without getting the surface wet, you scratch the surface and end up with a worse problem than dust. So in addition to your $20 blades (actually much more expensive because you'd need material that survives extremely cold temp), you'd need to find a fluid system that doesn't freeze at those temperatures, doesn't boil at that low pressure, doesn't interfere with any of the scientific instruments, and doesn't dissolve the panels or wiper components. To save weight you might try to recycle the fluid, introducing a filtration system, but there will be unavoidable loss to evaporation (it has to or it will remain and attract dust), so you'll need to bring more than enough for one wipe. Then one of your fellow engineers complains because the volume, mass, and energy requirements of your wiper system has bumped their scientific instrument out of the final design. An accountant finds your cost estimate was off by some 5 orders of magnitude. You're fired.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[BTWR]

Just think of all the children that could have been fed with this $400 million. :( Or all the landmines that could be removed. Instead, we get playtoys for stupid white men. Micheal Moore needs to do his next expose on "science".

Everyone always answers this by saying "What if Columbus hadn't been funded?" A good argument, but then these ignorant guys go and say "Well, that funding wasn't for exploration, that was for MONEY" Perhaps that's half (or more than half) true. But here's my argument:

According to you (usually ultra-liberal people), I ask this:

Why do we spend a billion dollars a year on national parks? "We could better spend it to feed the homeless."

Why do we spend hundreds of millions of dollars on our national museums (No, they don't bring in more money then they take in). "We could better spend it to feed the homeless."

Why do we (here in New York City, but I'm sure a huge, adjusted, amount everywhere else as well) spend tens of millions of dollars on cleanup for parades for our veterans, the (insert sports team) victory parade, etc. "While it's sure nice to honor veterans, We could better spend it to feed the homeless."

Why do we have a Poet Laurette? An official national poet? There's also statewide and city-wide poets, and many are paid. Now, that's all nice and good, but "We could better spend it to feed the homeless."

I think I've gotten my point across. Not everything is simply "We could either a) buy a Mars Rover or b) Feed that guy living under the Golden Gate Bridge." Let's first forget that most of the four points above are NOT profitable, and yet NASA has directly caused the advacement of the trillion-dollar cellular, communication, computer, velcro, and aerospace industries.

The simple fact is that, like funding the Smithsonian and paying for a Veteran's Day parade - both good things, we don't always make EVERY financial decision based on helping the most desperate first.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[BTWR]

Looking at all the cost cutting the led to the loss of the Mars Polar Lander, the Beagle 2... I think the cost is cheap.

Exactly. $800 for an AMAZINGLY successful mission is infinately more valuable than a $300 or $200 million dollar mission that gives back zero science (Mars Polar Lander/Beagle2).

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

...so I redesign the system, using a small air-compressor and several nozzles around each panel. Or with a soft roller which rotates as it wipes. I'd also recomend a thin layer of a scratch-resistant surface for the solar panels. I get a raise.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[BTWR]

a) the thing blows up in launch before you get it out into space. = some shit on the bottom of a sea bed somewhere (yes I know there is little risk of it going into the atmosphere.)

They're in very tight cases that would prevent contamination. It is NOT just a theory. It happened to the Russian mission Mars 96, which was aborted on launch, and crashed back into the ocean. The RTGs onboard were sucessfully contained within it's box.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[shaitand]

Considering columbus didn't discover america, nor even north america, nor the giant seperate landmass which includes north america and south america. I'd say nothing much was at risk.

The vikings were here long before columbus.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[david.given]

Now maybe nuclear tech maybe a way to solve this particual problem better, however in general we know today it's a dead end. Nuclear power does not pay of in the long run! [....] Why do I call it a dead end? Because when economically clalculating nuclear powerplants as project novists always calculate the break-even point. Thats a wrong calculation. You always have to take into account ALL payments that a project involves even those after break even point, and those after closure of the plant. And they are enourmous (e.g. to dismantle a nuclear powerplant costs more than 20 times than the costs to build it first place. Also we have nuclear waste FOREVER, with every year into all future we've to carry the costs. (calculated as irredeemable costs).

This is a gross simplification, I'm afraid. Yes, you do have to factor in decomissioning costs. But these days people do. It costs vast amounts of money to decommission a sixties-era reactor, sure, because they weren't designed to be decomissioned (despite being lousy ways to design a nuclear reactor anyway --- Chernobyl was such a disaster because its fail-safes were completely useless). Modern reactors are far safer, more reliable, cheaper (apart from beaurocratic and licensing costs) and more efficient --- take a look at pebble-bed reactors, for example.

The numbers I've seen indicate that the overall cost of electricity produced by a modern fission reactor is about the same as conventional power (it depends who you ask, and as you say, it's quite hard to find out whether decomissioning costs are factored in). The environmental cost, however, is far less, because the total amount of waste produced is very small and, let's face it, nuclear waste is just not that dangerous.

Nuclear waste doesn't glow, it doesn't cause three headed fish, it won't kill you if you just look at it. The wildlife around Chernobyl is doing really well. The really dangerous stuff, like plutonium, is far too valuable to throw away (plutonium's mainly dangerous because it's extremely poisonous chemically --- but it's less poisonous than arsenic, and lots of that is pumped into the sea, and arsenic doesn't decay).

There's basically three grades of nuclear waste produced by a fission reactors: the low-grade stuff, like the plastic gloves mentioned above; medium-grade stuff, like the materials that make up the reactor's plumbing, which is been irradiated; and the very small amounts of high-grade waste, your actual fission byproducts. Most of these are recycled because it's too valuable to throw away.

The safest thing to do with the rest is to seal the whole lot up into vitrified blocks and make a big pile in the middle of some desert somewhere. It won't get into the ecosystem, there are no animals or people to interfere, and you've got easy access in case you need it. It'll just sit there.

Alternative solutions are to put the stuff at the bottom of a very deep hole in a subduction zone: eventually it'll get sucked into the mantle and dissipite. Since the mantle is loaded with radioactive isotopes anyway, then it's pretty much gone. Or you could take it off the planet entirely. This would actually be cheap, safe, and would get rid of it once and for all --- but there's perfectly sensible ways of recycling the bulk of it that would be even cheaper.

As for solar power --- yeah, very neat, but you get an absolute maximum of 1kW/m^2, and only during the day when it's sunny. Solar power is no use to me (I live in Britain). Seeing as a kilowatt is about 1.3 horsepower, try calculating the area of solar panel you'd need to run that SUV...

Re:Why would they stop working?

[rebelcool]

and high level nuclear waste can often be reprocessed and turned back into fuel for other reactors thus further decreasing the few kilos produced per year of actual waste.

The 'problem' is mainly one of politics. Reactors create plutonium, of which Pu-239 can fuel other reactors great. 239 can also be used in bombs though, so the worry is there regarding security and possible theft. Pu-238 is also created, and can power RTG's but not used in bombs (its too unstable, generates too much heat)

And of course the widespread ignorance that equates nuclear reactors with nuclear bombs and radioactivity with death. I wonder how people would react if they realized their smoke detectors contain a highly radioactive alpha particle emitter...

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering columbus didn't discover america, nor even north america, nor the giant seperate landmass which includes north america and south america. I'd say nothing much was at risk. The vikings were here long before columbus.

So you are saying that Columbus had no influence on colonizing America? That's bull. Vikings may be the first Europeans to visit America, but they had absolutely ZERO influence on European colonization plans. Nobody else knew they had been in the New World. After Columbus found/rediscovered the America/Cuba the colonization of America started to catch wind.

I'm an AC, a proud AC.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[shaitand]

If they had nuclear power supplies then alot of the risks woudln't be there in the first place.

1. deep crater likely means less sun and thus less juice to the solar cells. Power will drop while in the crater.

2. right now the biggest question isn't so much will the rover flip or what have you when coming out. But will it have enough power to climb the hill.

With nuclear power you don't have to worry about whether or not the sun can reach the rover.

With nuclear power you have more juice and thus can have more powerful motors as well... and they won't have to worry about reduced juice to the motor after a couple days in the crater.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[rice_burners_suck]

They run out of power. The units are recharged by solar panels which stop working as well over time as they slowly get covered by dust and dirt that can't be cleaned off.

So here we have a half billion dollar rover and they couldn't put a five dollar windshield wiper on the solar panel to wipe the dust off?

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, also bear in mind that government debt is not the same thing as personal debt. People/companies/states who invest in government bonds are funding the government debt. Your tax money used to pay interest on government debt, goes to all the old people living off their bonds. If you reduce government debt, it means bonds are called in and paid off. That is not necessarily a good thing, since it increases the money supply, which could cause inflation. The bottom line is that government money/debt is just numbers in a computer...

Re:Why would they stop working?

[foidulus]

Well, also bear in mind that government debt is not the same thing as personal debt. People/companies/states who invest in government bonds are funding the government debt. Your tax money used to pay interest on government debt, goes to all the old people living off their bonds. If you reduce government debt, it means bonds are called in and paid off. That is not necessarily a good thing, since it increases the money supply, which could cause inflation. The bottom line is that government money/debt is just numbers in a computer...
You ignored one crucial fact, a large part of that debt is actually owned by foriegn governments. From wikipedia
Treasury statistics indicate that foreigners bought 58 percent of the securities that Treasury sold to investors. Some 60 percent of that 58 percent was bought by central banks. A large percentage of that went to the central banks of Japan and China. This exposes the United States to financial or political risk that either bank will stop buying Treasuries - or selling them heavily.
The US economy is now slightly held hostage to places like China. If they decide to sell their bonds, interest rates would rise significantly because the government has to honor the debt and find new investors willing to buy it, and there is a good chance the US economy would slide back into a recession. You are right, we shouldn't sell off all the debt(the debt is almost as old as the country itself, one of Alexander Hamilton's first acts as Secretary of the Treasury was to combine all the state debts into national ones; solidifying the union). It is very dangerous to have these large debts, and programs beneficial to science such as NASA and education get "crowded out" by military spending and interest payments.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of all the children you could feed if you sold your computer and dropped your internet service. How about selling every thing that you own except for your bed and a place to live and a motorscooter to get work with. Just think every movie you watch, shirt you buy, CD you buy, hour of power you use if food out of some starving childes mouth!
When you do all that then I might think you are not some retarded fool. And while you are doing that I will not have to read any more stupid ass posts from you.
BTW how the hell do you expect to get compressed air on Mars? You want to haul it and a tank all the way from earth? Or do you want to try and haul a big ass compressor to mars and then use a bit honking bunch of power to blow off the cells. What a total freaking moron.

The cost of that space craft is less than two dollars per person in the US.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Feanturi]

It seems like the expectations for home robotics kits greatly exceed those of the Mars rovers. Hopefully someone can explain it.

Put your home robotics kit on Mars and see how long it lasts. I give it a day or so, it's pretty harsh there, not like your backyard at all. You can't take it in at night either, and you never get to clean off its solar collectors or perform any maintenance whatsoever. That's where the development money goes.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Zerbey]

To name a few:

A mixture of dust accumlation on the solar panels restricting their ability to provide power, dust getting into the equipment eventually causing a failure, the batteries can only be recharged fully a finite number of times, the extreme temperature changes.

That's just a few of the things that can cause a failure, then we have environmental things like dust storms and the rover getting stuck in the sand to worry about.

It amazes me that they got to Mars at all in one piece, let alone that they've survived as long as they have. Definitely a testament to the people that built these remarkable machines.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[anshil]

""""The safest thing to do with the rest is to seal the whole lot up into vitrified blocks and make a big pile in the middle of some desert somewhere. It won't get into the ecosystem, there are no animals or people to interfere, and you've got easy access in case you need it. It'll just sit there.

Alternative solutions are to put the stuff at the bottom of a very deep hole in a subduction zone: eventually it'll get sucked into the mantle and dissipite. Since the mantle is loaded with radioactive isotopes anyway, then it's pretty much gone. Or you could take it off the planet entirely. This would actually be cheap, safe, and would get rid of it once and for all --- but there's perfectly sensible ways of recycling the bulk of it that would be even cheaper.""""

This is just the weak point, it's all actually just speculation isn't it? Space - Desert - Deep Sea - Throw it in the sun

Its all what COULD be possible done, since fiction in other words, there is no real usable solution to what to do with the long term radioactive waste. It's not solved yet, you just can't put it an abandoned mines, or on sea ground, there are earthquakes you know, there's attrition to any kind of mantle.

Do you know how the situation in europe currently is? We don't have an ultimate disposal place, we're currently shifting it in circules around the continent since nobody wants them, and yes this includes GB, it even "buyed" huge amounts as far I reckon. (It's a good with negative value, meaing they got quite massive money for taking it).

I recently watched a doku about an chemical ultimate disposal place in germany, they picked a rather seldom black chalk area for a mine, since it absorbs earthquakes, they are filling the mine with all kind of hezourdous chemicals. They are crafting a stone wall with an symbolic index of the mine, since future generations hundrets (thousends?) of years away must still handle that. PS. they take no radiactives...

We're currently happily generating longterm radiactive waste, with the opinion, well we will eventually find a real solution to it sometime....

Re:Why would they stop working?

[lancomandr]

Thanks for the informative answers (and not flaming ;)

Re:Why would they stop working?

[VultureMN]

Good point, but I'd just like to point out that they're putting Opportunity to deep sleep each night, not Spirit.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[LWATCDR]

Frankly very few people die of starvation in the US to start with and frankly the people starving in other parts of the world really do not tend to starve because of lack of money or the lack of money to buy food. They starve because it benefits there rulers that they starve. There are lots of contries in the world where "giving" them money will do the starving no good at all. It will just go to line the pockets of the leaders.
I found your examples to be very interesting. National Parks and Museums. You did leave out the National Endowment for the Arts. And your local Operas and Philharmonics.
As one man put it, "We know now to get to the moon. We do not know how to stop world hunger."

Re:Why would they stop working?

[fredmosby]

I think what the parent post was trying to say is that nuclear waste really isn't that dangerous. The only reason people can't just leave it in containers in the desert is paranoia, not the result of actual technological problems.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[RayBender]

Here's an idea - blow the crap off with compressed air.

Gee. I'm sure everyone at JPL is kicking themselves right now wishing they'd thought of that. I mean, clearly it's such a brilliant, amazing idea that only some /. troll could think of that. Maybe it turns out that the tradeoff between the 10 kg spent on a compressed air bottle vs. 10 kg of science instruments is such that it's better to go with the instruments... hmm?

Just think of all the children that could have been fed with this $400 million. :( Or all the landmines that could be removed. Instead, we get playtoys for stupid white men. Micheal Moore needs to do his next expose on "science".

Some children were fed out of that $400 million. Where do you think the money goes? To pay for the roughly 10,000 engineers, scientists & technicians who in one way or another worked on the mission. Even rocket scientists have children.

Micheal Moore needs to do his next expose on "science".

Or maybe he should discuss the appalling state of education in this country. Not to mention a discussion of how spending on basic research help bring health & wealth to the world in general.

Dumbass.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[SharpFang]

Yeah, people keep mentioning dust, solar panels, batteries degrading...
These can work several years if developed properly.
What is the worst nemesis that can change the fate of the rovers in matter of hours are the martian storms. With wind blowing 200-400km/h, object the size of the rover without a solid shelter firmly bolted to the ground will just take off and fly bouncing randomly at speed not much lower than the wind. Then just a random rock on route, *smash* and pick the pieces of the rover over next 5000 kilometers of martian desert.

On the other hand, there was an idea of "tumbleweed" style probes that would travel with the storms, designed with surviving the storm in mind. But Spirit and Opportunity will live only until the first storm and they are extremely lucky it hasn't happened yet.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[SEE]

Sandstorms, 60 K (110 F) daily temperature swings, and no way to do maintenance, cleaning, or repair.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[egomaniac]

home robotics kits did not make a journey through the most hostile and unforgiving environment known -- outer space. Temperatures that would kill a human within seconds, radiation that would destroy conventional electronic components, etc.

While your general point sound, outer space is definitely not the most hostile environment known. Dig twenty or thirty miles straight down, and you will find an environment far more hostile and difficult to survive in than space. A couple thousand miles down, and no imaginable device could survive for long -- even diamond cannot stand up to the pressures and temperatures a few thousand miles under your feet. While it is of course possible that we will one day discover a substance a hundred times stronger than diamond, I don't think I have to tell you how unlikely that is. We will, in all likelihood, never be able to so much as send a probe to the core of our own planet.

And I skipped the really ridiculous environments, like the core of a star, the surface of a pulsar, or just outside the event horizon of a black hole. Hell, even the bottom of the ocean or the surface of Venus are more hostile than deep space.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[egomaniac]

plutonium's mainly dangerous because it's extremely poisonous chemically

That is something I have heard bandied about, but according to everything I have read there is no evidence whatsoever that plutonium has any significant chemical toxicity.

Plutonium can cause cancer, of course, but it is an alpha emitter. Alpha particles can't even penetrate a sheet of paper, so the top layers of your skin easily stop them. The top layers of your skin are dead to begin with, so they cannot become cancerous and plutonium therefore poses very little risk when outside of your body.

The only significant biological danger that I have ever seen cited with regards to plutonium is that it is extremely dangerous when small particles get into your lungs, which would of course happen whenever plutonium dust is present. Having alpha emitters lodged in your lungs means that you are almost certain to eventually develop lung cancer.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

So, the solution is to stop issuing bonds, and burn some money. Geez, do I have to think of everything?

Re:Why would they stop working?

[ErichTheWebGuy]

OK, I concede your points. I did not think through my assertion of the most hostile environment being outer space.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[n-baxley]

Or they could have taken a page from Nascar and used pull away covers over the solar panels that could be pulled off with the dust when they got full. But, like you said, these are pretty smart guys, I'm sure there was a reason.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[anshil]

Denial is also one way of handling this fundumental problem :)

As I said, I don't think these people wouldn't spent actually all their science fiction fantasies on how to possibly ultimately dispose the highly radiactive waste, if there were actually any suitable soluation, and if it weren't a key-problem after all.

Re:Why would they stop working?

[SgtXaos]

Several people have already mentioned the dust accumulation on solar panels. There are certainly other factors -

Mars is a windy, sandy desert. Anybody who has taken a high-tech device (camera, cdplayer, vehicle. etc) to the beach knows that it is nearly impossible to keep sand out of the workings. So the motors and gear trains are susceptible to degrading over time from wind-blown dust/sand entering. Surely there are dust seals on the bearings, but some particles are likely fine enough to get past those. Even if the rotating joints don't totally bind up, the increased friction will cause more power drain when things are operating.

Even if that doesn't stop them, and some way to keep the solar panels clean were employed, there is still the battery issue. Any rechargable battery technology degrades over time. This laptop I am using will not run without the power adpater plugged in, because the li-ion battery won't charge anymore. I have had so many ni-cd, and ni-mH and li-ion batteries die that I can't count 'em.

The third issue is winter. The sun angle is getting lower as winter sets in on mars. That decreased angle of incidence on the solar panels and the increased amount of atmospheric loss associated with it reduces the ability of the panels to generate power.

The engineering trade-offs associated with extrememly low weight, (gotta keep everything light to even get it launched) and minimizing costs prevent making these little guys as robust as dune buggies. That they have outlasted their designed lifetime and continue to do good science in spite of all the obstacles is a testament to the design team for making the most out of what they had to work with.

Bravo to them!

Re:Why would they stop working?

[dellis78741]

Actually, the 2009 rover is planned to be nuclear. Much bigger than the current rovers and able to survive 2 Martian years (about 5 Earth years). Was kinda iffy whether they could proceed with that one but that now seems to be certain now with the presidential directive to go to Mars (and the moon).

Re:Why would they stop working?

[sploxx]

I'm somewhat of a moderate 'green'. I'm very much in favour of nuclear power plants to help stopping the climate change, and even to power space craft (because a non-activated U-235 reactor contains no highly radioactive material - contrary to RTGs, and is much more capable than RTGs).

But some of your statements are playing down the risk in a disproportionate, immoral way.

... take a look at pebble-bed reactors, for example.

Pebble bed reactors, like all HTRs (high temperature reactors) have the risk of burning if they get in contact with air. Yes, they work in 'stable' mode, but they do not play well with air entry as a rather common fault condition.

Nuclear waste doesn't glow, it doesn't cause three headed fish, it won't kill you if you just look at it.

Uhh, depends how you define 'look at it'. If you are behind a *really *thick lead glass shield, fine. If not, a just-decommisioned fuel rod will certainly kill you in seconds if you're, let's say, a few meters away from it. Why are power plants leaving their spent fuel rods under water for years? Because it is harmless?!

And, yes they glow under water for quite a long time (months/years) - because of cherenkov radiation. There exist also glowing isotopes, google for "radio luminescence".

Missing points?

[Sprite Remix]

Honestly, I thought these were the points for the rover to land!

Worth It

[ErichTheWebGuy]

Looking at deeper martian bedrock layers is considered now a rich enough science payoff

In my humble opinion, the geological data that might be extracted fom such a deep crater is more than worth it. Just think, potentially millions of years of Martian history, and who knows, maybe even a fossil or two? Wouldn't that be sweet?

Way to go NASA, for considering the bigger picture in the face of losing such a wonderfully resilient craft. Although, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a manned mission could someday retrieve the rover, and bring it all the way back to the Smithsonian.

Re:Worth It

[Darkon]

I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a manned mission could someday retrieve the rover, and bring it all the way back to the Smithsonian.

I'd like to think that by the time we have people on Mars with the equipment and time to go looking for old rovers and the like, we might have a museum on Mars itself to put them in.

Re:Worth It

[AndroidCat]

People being people, by that time we'd also have protests and demonstrations by the Free Mars Movement over the removing of historic artifacts of Mars' past from their native land.

Re:Worth It

[Captain Nitpick]

I'd like to think that by the time we have people on Mars with the equipment and time to go looking for old rovers and the like, we might have a museum on Mars itself to put them in.

There are two of the things. Keep one on Mars and send the other one to the Smithsonian.

Re:Worth It

[rhuntley12]

I'm betting the first manned trip to mars will visit one of these or other rovers, be a great photo op to have your picture on mars next to a rover. But then again they would have to hide it in the studio for awhile...

well...

[Anonymous Coward]

oh it's so frustrating to watch. Its like on horror movies...

Don't go there. oh oh .. awww see now you are stuck with scary martians

Re:well...

[AndroidCat]

Too late, it'll be another 8-10 minutes before the rover hears you.

Let's send all the niggers to Mars

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it would take some money. We could pack massive nuclear powered space ships with niggers, mules, and watermelons. Zoom they go to Mars. (GNAA, you get a free ticket!).

Of course, we should just exterminate all the spics with a neutron bomb, the resettle the territory with humans. As for the Ay-rabs . . . well just nuke those sub-human sand monkeys. Turn Mecca into glass. Mooselimbs are worse than niggers.

Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[InternationalCow]

It's really exciting science. I am still marveling at the fact that we can see actual pictures of the surface of Mars, from millions of kilometers away, as if we are looking at someone's holiday snapshots... I do wish, however, that NASA (or ESA) would turn all this ingenuity someday to an area that is even less explored than the surface of Mars or the Moon - our deep sea. Every time a mission goes out there, new species are discovered. The pay-off that may be generated by having a good look at our seas may be much greater than that of space exploration. Some of the reagents we use in the lab are derived from sea animals and have enabled us to gain deep insight into molecular biology. And I should think that the technical challenges of deep sea exploration should be worthy of the best NASA engineers' skills. Come on, guys, down is the way to go, not up :)

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[Sycraft-fu]

Well NASA is the National Areonautics and Space Administrations, as in air and space, not deep sea. The jobs are different and the challenges are different. Just as you wouldn't ask a chip engineer from Intel to try and design a transmission for Ford, neither would you ask a space engineer to make a submersible vehicle.

And, if you care to look, we DO a great deal of deep sea exploration both manned (mostly via our nuclear subs) and unmanned. However, like space, it is not without a great deal of difficulties. The pressure is immense and only gets more so as you go deeper. It is not trivial to make ROVs that can go that deep. Communication is also often an interesting challenge.

There is payoff to all kinds of exploration, if nothing else for the science that gets done. Go and do a search for the things that have been a direct result of the space program (like ball-point pens). All other knowledge aside, it produces real advances in technology.

It is silly to suggest that an administration tasked with, staffed, and designed to explore space should drop that and try and do something they are unsuited for when we HAVE people that work on ocean research (like NOAA).

Also something to consider: There are vast resources in space, that outstrip our planet by many orders of magnitude. If we wish to continue to consume resources, we need new sources. The Earth isn't even near tapped out, but the day will come. Space is the most likely answer.

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Did you ever consider that the deep sea is one of the vanishingly few places on the planet that hasn't been destroyed by humans? The sooner we begin "exploring", the sooner the environmental degradation occurs. I don't think we need to work on an aquatic Cortez just to get you some more species to kill and extract chemicals from their dead bodies. Just a thought.

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[Sven-Erik]

Well, you have the "deep sea" equivalent of NASA, called NOAA - National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration that explore the deep seas.

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[InternationalCow]

A is for aqua (water) and S is for Sea :). Just kidding. I'm not sure whether there is such a great difference between sea and space exploration. Both envirnoments are not meant for humans and will kill you if you're stupid. Of course, deep sea vehicles will have to withstand immense pressures, but so will for instance any vehicle that is ever to explore Jupiter. There's a great story about this by Arthur C. Clarke (I forget the title - someone?) where this parallel is drawn and a case is made for deep sea exploration as a kind of prelude to planetary exploration. There's not that much deep sea exploration being done that results in observations that the general public can have a look at. I doubt whether military observations made by subs will be made public. The advances resulting from space exploration are a continuing point of discussion so I won't go into that. Re the vast resources - you're right, but we have no idea whatsoever of the resources hidden in our seas.

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[M1FCJ]

You must be kidding. With all those ships moving around, do you think oceans are nice and clean? The bottom is full of muck, dead animals, plants and lots of junk. Check this Guardian article about what's happening to Titanic because of all the rubbish.

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[pipingguy]

things that have been a direct result of the space program (like ball-point pens)

Huh?

The history of the ball point pen

"By 1950, Paper-mate was making good, cheap ball-point pens, and in 1954, the Parker pen company, which had stood aloof from the fray, brought out a quality ball-point. In 1957, the badly wounded Eversharp sold its pen division to Parker, and Eversharp assets were finally liquidated in the 1960s."

Fascinating facts about the invention of the Ballpoint Pen by Ladislas Biro in 1935.

History of Office Products: Ballpoint Pen

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[tealover]

I believe he was talking about the space pen that was developed to work in zero gravitiy conditions.

I love it when people get facts distorted and toss them around anyway. It's so easy nowaways to just look things up. I guess laziness will never go away.

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[prof_peabody]

Nasa doesn't look at the deep sea. Currenly Oil companies are doing the most deep-sea exploration, with somegovernmental orgs in there too.

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[leon.gandalf]

Yes, but did you know its easier and cheaper to go into space than the deap sea? Its a bitch to make a craft that can take on the tons and tons of crush at oceans depth.

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[shadowbearer]

There's not that much deep sea exploration being done that results in observations that the general public can have a look at.

Jacques Cousteau. (RIP, yeah, I know; but he did *wonderful* sea science PR). There are some others. If generating public programs concerns you, start doing what he did.

I doubt whether military observations made by subs will be made public.

Much of the data is (well, not necessarily public as being published in raw form on the Discovery channel; but scientists get to see it, and the results from their studies end up public.)

Actually we have a fairly good idea what resources are hidden in the depths of the oceans. The problem is exploiting them is just as technically difficult and expensive as space exploration is; with some exceptions (oil drilling, commercial fishing... :)

But the real point as was made above is that both programs are necessary and useful. Arguing against one just because you're involved in the other is kind of like arguing *BSD vs. Linux :) - at some point it becomes counterproductive.

Cheers
SB

Re:Exciting, but perhaps down is the way...

[rgsmith]

ummmm... the Titanic is *part* of the rubbish my friend.

Why do they keep going?

[aussie_a]

Because the Mars Spirit and Opportunity rovers are in such great condition and 'keep going and going'

Must be those energizer batteries they put into the rovers.

NASA should have consulted Q

[Alain Williams]

Looking at the picture of the crater, the rover presumably may not have enough grip to get out.

If only NASA had fitted the tyre grips used by James Bond in 'Die Another Day', it is not as if they cost a lot .

Re:NASA should have consulted Q

[mikael]

Or maybe if the rover could carry it's own rock climbing rope (like spiders going down walls). It's got the drill to make holes, all it would need is a climbing rope wrapped around a spindle and a means to release/cut the rope if it was no longer needed.

Re:NASA should have consulted Q

[AndroidCat]

Don't give Ken Brown any ideas. He's probably already writing a book on how the United States didn't actually build those probes, but stole them from someone else.

Re:NASA should have consulted Q

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, of course! Why do you think the European probe failed?

Re:NASA should have consulted Q

[paulcammish]

NASA should have consulted Q

Yea, he could have just snapped his fingers and changed the local gravity or something.

Apparently he doesnt turn up for a few hundred years yet, though...

Re:NASA should have consulted Q

[roman_mir]

Well, mikael, don't you just enjoy posting on /. ? Don't you admire the level of competence and enlightment of the moderators, which is cultivated to that of the finest quality?

Re:NASA should have consulted Q

[kunudo]

All costs of building stuff are neglible compared to the cost of putting them on mars. For every gram, you pay. A lot.

Re:NASA should have consulted Q

[Anonymous Coward]

Mars Rovers' Sucesses: Clinton's doing!
Shuttle's failure: Bush's Fault!

Re:NASA should have consulted Q

[roman_mir]

Why, they don't even realize the difference between an insightful post and a troll any longer.

Try2Hack

[Bombah]

http://www.try2hack.nl/ try it out.

Oh shit

[aussie_a]

The article made the joke before I did.

Two interplanetary Energizer bunnies

Guess next time I should RTFA

Either that,

[acariquara]

or they are trying to pull a "Thelma & Louise" stunt on us.

Guess it's better to go out in a blaze of glory than to fade away, I guess.

Falling down?

[anshil]

I actually wonder if the only real danger as the story posts constits of never getting out of the crater, but actually also to make a safe journey downward without stumbling, falling and bursting? (Then you've a wreckage without any scientific data to make it payoff)

Re:Falling down?

[Technonotice_Dom]

From the pictures in the link it doesn't look that difficult to get a rover into - I think the main problem is traction when trying to get it out.

According to NASA they're aluminium wheels and their main purpose looks like it was to absorb the shock and go over rocks than get the traction required to climb back out of a crater.

I'd imagine they have quite a bit of weight behind them too...

Re:Falling down?

[ivan1011001]

Just shift the rover into nuetral, fly down the crater, and the momentum will carry you back out the other side. NASA may have a new sport. eXtreme Crater Surfing!

We're in the future

[aussie_a]

NASA hopes both rovers will remain functional until at least September.

As people we often take everything for granted. Unfortunately it's just too difficult to constantly be amazed by everything around us (take a moment to think about how a computer works, it's fucking amazing). But this article really does show this isn't the present but the future. We have rovers on another fucking planet.

I remember thinking that the rovers wouldn't land successfully. But now they have and they're roaming around another planet. I'm sorry, but that's just amazing to me. And the above quote just reminded me.

Re:We're in the future

[AndroidCat]

We have rovers on another fucking planet.

And we've got High Score, Bonus Time! W00t!

Re:We're in the future

[shiftless]

As people we often take everything for granted. Unfortunately it's just too difficult to constantly be amazed by everything around us (take a moment to think about how a computer works, it's fucking amazing). But this article really does show this isn't the present but the future. We have rovers on another fucking planet.

I totally agree. When you get to thinking about this stuff in detail, it really will blow your fucking mind.

puh!

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* it's still working

Re:puh!

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, and i hope NASA/JPL will make a nice
CD-rom or DVD rom for that matter with all the
pictures and animations for 5.99$ (excluding
shipping)

Re:puh!

[Anonymous Coward]

this is a great example of how to involve the
general public into science. CERN and all the
other terra-cost$$$ project should take this
mars mission as a prime example of how to present
there "work" ...

Re:puh!

[anubi]

I am sure they will.

Actually, I would love to see some scenes of some of the more "tense" situations as they happened in the control room.. like how they recovered Spirit, and the discussions of whether to enter Endurance. I am sure there are many memorable discussions taking place there.

When this wraps up, I would love to see NASA do a really good documentary on this stellar success and release it in such a way that insures that the information they have created will never be forgotten. ( meaning open-source release, so that hopefully centuries from now, the information we create today will be just as readable then as it is now. )

If I could have exactly what I wanted, NASA would release this on media designed to last for centuries... maybe pyrex glass disks and gold. The best we have. With this opportunity to spread the costs over a wide audience, in my mind, its worth it. To me, NASA's achievement here is the most significant thing Man has ever done. Personally, I think this effort needs to be documented in the most robust ways possible for future generations to reflect back on.

This is one movie collection I am looking very forward to getting.

Re:puh!

[BTWR]

You can get that now for free. I've been using NASA's Maestro program since Spirit landed. You get EVERY raw feed from the probes (pics before processing, out of focus, ones with the wheels in the way, etc). It's very cool. Try it out.

Re:puh!

[Badboy Recovered]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mars/program.html
-- this is a good bio of the rovers.

and why would nasa make people pay for the pictures when they already offer ALL of the pics the rovers take for free?

http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spiri t. html

Taking the risk?

[SharpFang]

Heh, they risk it won't ever get out of the crater? Now what a pity would that be.
They shouldn't pack it into the rocket and keep it on earth because here it wouldn't be put at risk of getting damaged.

Okay, sarcasm aside: What reason would there be for Opportunity ever (before its technical death) to leave the crater? The surroundings are well examined and there's a strong doubt anything more interesting will be found outside the crater, and after all the probes are there not to PERFORM as much examinations and tests as possible but to FIND interesting things. You can ride around in circles and examine the same rock over and over for years finding nothing new, or you can move on into new, maybe more dangerous terrain, but find what you seek in matter of hours. Are we trying to make a progress or just to beat the time record?

Re:Taking the risk?

[colonslashslash]

Agreed, taking risks are fundemental to pushing the boundaries of science and exploration, they have already said these rovers have exceeded their life expectancy, so anything they do from this point can be considered a bonus. If we never took any risks then the rovers wouldn't even be on Mars in the first place, as the space program would have been considered too "risky" even before Armstrong performed his amazing giant leap for mankind.

Re:Taking the risk?

[Anonymous Coward]

As soon as the rover starts moving into that crater, a bunch of green little guys are going to start taunting it up from the edge. Poor thing.

Hmm...

[acceber]

It's great to hear that the rovers are operating well beyond first expectations and predictions, it's sad to think that their eventual death will quite possibly due to the physical barriers of the Mars terrain, rather than because of the end of their "natural life".

The question is, why didn't NASA incorporate this into the design of the rovers. They have such high tech equipment encompassed such as hazard avoidance cameras, mechanical senses etc, outlined here that it seems obvious that the rover should be able to get out of craters. After all, Mars is full of them, the terrain is very rocky and unstable.

Re:Hmm...

[AC-x]

I think it's a physical limitation of the wheels more then anything else, the reason they think it might not be able to get out is because they'll just slip on the sandy slope.

I mean, sure, they could've tried tracks on it, but they'd probably have their own problems. There's only so many situations they can guard against before the whole thing just becomes unfeasible.

Re:Hmm...

[jeff munkyfaces]

well they did aim for the flattest bits..

how exactly do you design a robot that can get out of very steep sided craters anyway? grappling hooks?

as for the oppertunity situation, as i understand it there is nothing else in the surrounding area anyway - and plenty within the crater to keep it going for a while.

in my opinion it's pretty well designed for it's situation.

Re:Hmm...

[I don't want to spen]

They could try this!

my rover's fallen

[Anonymous Coward]

and it can't get up... wonder if life-alert will go reach from mars...

seriously though - did they not put in software and sensors to make sure it doesn't get in a situation it can't get out of? They are just testing the maximum angles now?

We're where we've always been

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, I agree, in a way.

But don't forget the other perspective: we're totally insignificant next to the size of the universe. Even if we go populate every planet in our solar system tomorrow, or conduct experiments on the sun, it won't amount to a hill of beans in the great scheme of things. This things seem big to us, because we're so small.

Windscreen Wipers

[bushboy]

It's because Nasa forgot to install windscreen wipers and windolene spray. The solar panels get covered in dust because it's really really dusty on mars. There's nobody around with a feather duster either.

Eventually, the solar panels get covered in a layer of dust and that means the rovers can't see where they are going and fall of the edge of craters or bump into big rocks like Yogi.

If a rover falls on it's back, it can't right itself again because NASA forgot to install a robotic arm that could flip the rover back onto it's wheels.

Re:Windscreen Wipers

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh...so they see with there solar panels huh? Try eventually, the solar panels get covered in a layer of dust and that means the rovers can't power themselves any more and they're done.

Re:Windscreen Wipers

[bushboy]

Yes and your a m0ron with no sense of humour...

Shadows?

[bigattichouse]

Going down in the crater will decrease the rover's daily income of sunlight, won't it.. granted maybe only a few seconds. But those seconds will add up to shave that lifespan down quite a bit.

Re:Shadows?

[KD5YPT]

Yes it will. But since the Opportunity rover has techinically outlived its current mission, they just want to squeeze some more data out of it, even if it mean shortening its lifespan.

Re:Shadows?

[mrright]

But there is also a positive side: being inside the crater, the rover is not as exposed to the cold night sky as it would be on a plain. And maybe they can drive the rover to a slope where the panels get pointed to the sun to compensate for the shadows.

The slope will also be a major issue for spirit once it climbs the columbia hills. It will probably avoid the sides that point away from the sun. Maybe it will drive to an especially good spot each day to refuel the batteries.

--

Re:Shadows?

[Anonymous Coward]

The power you get from the sun goes as sin(elevation). The morning and evening light that is blocked by the crater rim isn't too valuable because of this.

I will destroy the GNAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck you, GNAA, you are one fucking odious troll.

You don't intimidate me no matter how hard you try. Racism disgusts me.

I will destroy you, that is a promise.

-StarManta

Has to be asked...

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, is there a tree growing from your ass or what?

The problem may be emotional attachment...

[Anonymous Coward]

The scientists and engineers running the project have formed very strong emotional bonds with the rovers. I think they will, perhaps unconsiously, refrain from doing something that will "hurt" or "upset" or "trap" either of the rovers.

-- ac at home

Re:We're in the future(I troll you in this respons

[Anonymous Coward]

What's this WE bullshit, Aussie? MY taxes paid for it, not yours!

When is NASA....

[Capablanca]

... going to send a bag of clubs and some balls to Mars too?

were the solar panels made from...

[zogger]

self cleaning glass?
I know there's no rain on mars, but perhaps any high winds, plus this type of glass, might extend the usefulness of the PV panels. Of course, I also don't know how much this new type of glass would degrade the electrical conversion rates with the panels either.

Re:were the solar panels made from...

[stefanlasiewski]

"The integrated coating reacts to the suns ultraviolet rays to gradually and continuously break down organic dirt through what is called a photocatalytic effect"

That makes it sound like it can only work on dirt with a high organic content (which is all arond us).

The dirt on mars probably isn't organic, so there is no organic content to break down.

Also, they also rely on water to keep the glass clean. Water is very heavy, and would be very expensive to ship all the way to Mars.

Re:were the solar panels made from...

[WhiteBandit]

Also, they also rely on water to keep the glass clean. Water is very heavy, and would be very expensive to ship all the way to Mars.

There is also the fact that water cannot currently exist on the surface of Mars in liquid form.

Re:were the solar panels made from...

[Junior J. Junior III]

Not to mention the fact that if they had brought water with them, it would have raised the question of any water-detecting experiments getting a false-positive from the reservoir they brought with them contaminating the experiment somehow.

mo3 up

[Anonymous Coward]

ir3 netw5ork. The

mo3 Up

[Anonymous Coward]

goal herE? How can just yet, but I'm is the ultimate

this is the new cheaper idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Not using an RTG was almost certainly not because of nuclear fears. NASA isn't afraid to use an RTG.

It's most likely because of cost.

Honestly, I think a solar cell is a better match anyway. Because the unit is going to stop working anyway due to the conditions. Despite what you said, preventing component failure is not a trivial thing.
Second, the units had to be small and light. These vehicles have to move around. They have to haul that RTG around with them all the time. Making it heaver would make it less agile, less able to climb hills.
But I think the major reason it isn't there is the "flip-over factor". Honestly, it is very likely these things will end up either trapped by rocks or flipped over. These are some of the first self-driving rovers, so I'm sure the suspicion they would screw up is high.

Since the units are likely going to be immobile within a few months anyway, why do we need a power source that last years?

If NASA ever feels they can make a rover that can likely drive around for years, I'm sure they'll consider a more permanent power source.

beagle

[Anonymous Coward]

I cant get the image of beagleII kicking back in a lawn chair, sucking down some tropical drink, and chidding the two working rovers. Cant you just hear beagle asking, "Off on another run through the rocks old chap? They are a bloody long way off. Cut the line and come have a drink."

battery power

[CAIMLAS]

It would seem that the batteries in these rovers have lasted much longer than was originally expected - in a matter of maginitude.

Does anyone know what the science might be behind the battery longetivity? To me, the science of that is equally, if not more, interesting than what might be on the planet itself.

Nuclear power

[amightywind]

It is already being planned. For whatever reason public squeamishness about nuclear powered planetary probes has abated since it reached a peak with the Galileo and Cassini launches. A good thing for exploration.

Look on the bright side.

[ivan1011001]

If it DOES fall down it will break it's old distance record of 88 feet :)

American spending priorities

[drok]

Just think of all the children that could have been fed with this $400 million. :( Or all the landmines that could be removed. Instead, we get playtoys for stupid white men. Micheal Moore needs to do his next expose on "science".

Ok, do you think we get anything useful from the rovers?

Ok, should we stop spending $30+ billion a year on movies? (box office ~10, DVD and video sales and rentals 22+) How about what we spend on sports tickets for multi-millionaire athletes? Nah, a healthy psyche needs its recreation, right? So why isn't a productive scientific pursuit accepted in the same manner? Curiosity... the thirst to see 'what is beyond that hill' is part of a healthy psyche.

How about focusing on how much Americans waste on truly useless trash, such as junk food. And I won't even bring up they then spend weight-loss measures...

-Robert

Come on, man....

[Chmcginn]

everybody knows gnorffls are native to Venus, not Mars.

Slashdot makes me sad sometimes. ;)