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 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.
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...