Slashdot Mirror
Rovers May Survive Martian Winter
yokem_55 writes "According to this article on Yahoo News, Mars rover engineers are beginning to consider the possibility that the rovers may be able to survive the oncoming Martian winter in a hibernation mode, and then return to activity when spring returns to the red planet. The article ends with a quote from Steve Squires speculating that, 'we're looking at the final demise of these vehicles perhaps as late as the onset of our second winter on Mars.'"
they have lots of solar cells but they don't work as well as they might when covered in a layer of sticky redish sand.
They were never designed to last past April. Both rovers are already well past their life expectancies.
1) during winter sun is weaker, would get less power 2) I'm sure some things, like the batteries, are affected by the temperature. In general lower temperatures increase activation energy barriers, so there's a chance the batteries will be weaker as well 4) Temperature gradient between relatively hot parts of operating rover (such as computer equipment, etc) and outside air will stress the rovers; also temperature cycling from turning off at night and turning back on in daytime will take the rover's equipment along a fairly large range of temperatures which is a good way to break delicate equipment. 3) I sure don't want to be chipping at rocks when it's -100C.... But then again the rovers probably don't care about frostbite as much
As one who actually works on the mars program (orbiters, though, not the rovers), I can tell you that MANY different options were considered. Most weighed enough that you'd have to sacrifice instrumentation to implement them, however, and as the nominal mission was only nintey days, it was decided that more guaranteed science results during that period were preferable to uncertian return during the extended mission.
The best idea I've heard so far for dust removal was to use electrostatic forces to make it all jump off, but for similar reasons this was not flown either.
should have wings so they can fly
Should be pretty big wings, with an average 7 millibars pressure at ground level.
blah
I believe this is the quote you are looking for.
KIRK: Your timing is excellent, Mr.Scott. You've fixed the barn door after the horse has come home. How much refit time till we can take her out again?
SCOTTY: Eight weeks, sir.(as Kirk opens his mouth) But you don't have eight weeks so I'll do it for ya in two.
KIRK: (considers) Mr. Scott. Have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of four?
SCOTTY: Certainly, sir. How else can I keep my reputation as a miracle worker?
KIRK: Your reputation is secure, Scotty.
Hey, I've used this as a rule of thumb for computer work time estimates, and while a factor of four is usually excessive (unless dealing with a real asshole), two is always a good idea, and three is good if you're a bit unsure of the situation. If you've worked in computers you know how unpredictable a troubleshooting situation can be. I can only imagine how much more complex it is in the engineering world.
Hell is being intelligent in a world full of idiots.
Sorry to nitpick, but you hit one of my rant buttons..
NASA does astronomy. To be very blunt and honest, astronomy provides very few concrete short-term benefits.
Really? Astronomy? Well, they do some of that, but every look at NASA Langley. They do aerospace research, have aided Boeing in desinging almost every aircraft they built. Langley has produced some of the finest Structures and Materials research. And has many unique test facilities and wind tunnels that nobody else has.
Or what about NASA Glenn? They do space research, but their studies into new and unique propulsion systems dont look like astronomy to me.
NASA is a low-frills research organization. They get poor public support, and even more limited congresional support, yet they produce some amazing stuff. The problem that I see is, the public thinks exactly like your first sentance, they dont view NASA as an incubator for new expensive tech that can mature and develop well only in a gov funded (ie no worries about profit) situations. If you dont belive me on that point, go look at the papers on Optics, Radar, Ultrasonics, look at aircraft structures, etc, somewhere in there is a NASA engineer who developed, or help develop core features that are curtial today.
Ok.. off my soap box...
Spring 171 days
Summer 199 days
Fall 171 days
Winter 146 days
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
I think that is very insulting. Do you really believe that it is more of a feat to adjust some color scales than it is to send a spacecraft to another planet at distances of 300 million miles or more, have it operate without any repairs for years at a atime, survive the heat & cold of space, the forces of re-entry, launch etc etc.? The images are generally false-color composites, true. But they are not "retouched". The difference is between one of choosing how to remap wavelengths your eye can't see into colors it can see, and flat-out changing images. JPL does the former, and not the latter.
So all NASA has to do is make significant public underestimates of their mission potentials. That way, after completing, say, 10% of their expected work, they can announce that the mission "is a success".
That's not how things are done. I don't think you even begin to grasp how challenging some of this stuff is - the rover team was ecstatic when both rovers worked (the bets in my group were for at least one loss). Then there is the issue with dust accumulation on the solar panels, and thermal cycling. Nobody I know thought that the rovers would last this long, and it remains to be seen if they will make it to winter.
You have to rememeber that many of these missions are selected after competitions among various university and industry groups. This means that you have to sell a mission to the review boards; you can't do that if you under-promise. If you only claimed you could do 10% of what you think you could actually do, then some other group is going to propose a mission to do 20% of what is possible - and they will look much better on paper and so get chosen. And these proposals are not secret, so NASA can't turn around and tell the public that mission will do less than it proposed for.
The result is NASA tends to define success criteria close to what is reasonably expected based on some pretty detailed mission analysis work.
Another point to remember is that the mission probability of success is like a chain - no stronger than the weakest link. Which means that there are almost always a few events that have all the risk (launch, landing); once past those there isn't much that can kill a spacecraft, at least not until old age starts to set in. And one thing about JPL - their stuff is built to last. That's why the mission achievements are bimodal - either failure, or way longer life (and greater success) than expected.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?