Slashdot Mirror
Mars Rovers Get Extra 18 Months
iamlucky13 writes "NASA has stated in the latest mission press release that funding for an additional 18 months of exploration has been approved. The rovers have breezed through 14 months of operation so far, and the money will cover expenses through September of 2006. The rovers are still operating well, and recently both experienced dramatic power boosts from their solar cells. They are no longer like new, however. Opportunity has recently experienced data loss from one of its spectrometers, while Spirit has a smudged camera lens, a heavily used rock abrasion tool, and has previously struggled with intermittent steering issues."
At least SOMETHING is getting enough funding in NASA.
No boom today. Boom tomorrow. There's always a boom tomorrow. - Cmdr. Susan Ivanova
Shame that our British version was ever so slightly less successful. *Sobs*
NASA gets it right.
These things have dramaticly outlived their projected lifetimes, while their british counterpart didn't even survive to the first day.
Nurmerous other probes and exploration devices have been lost over the years...
Glad they done it. And they deserve all the credit for successfully pulling off such a difficult task.
This and successfull space flights by private industry has rekindled my hope in being able to visit space and the moon... and possibly mars, within my lifetime.
Perhaps we are getting back to the good old days of NASA. You just cannot go cheap on space/planet exploration. Look at the original Pioneer probes, these things might just run forever, they were overengineered for the task from the get go. After all of the recent shuttle and probe failures, I'm glad NASA is getting more than they paid for on this one. Space exploration shoud ensure the future of the human race.........
K
Frankly, Voyager is useless now, and money used to fund that project could be going to more worthwhile projects like the JPL rovers. The Voyager project was never meant to measure data outside of the solar system, but rather to gather data on the gas giants and outer planets. They accomplished that a long time ago.
Yes, but tell me, when is the next time we'll have a probe that far out in say, oh, the next 20-30 years?? While we're out there and it's sending data we might as well gather it. All data is new data that can be used. And as for "the original mission", don't forget the rovers were only supposed to be for about 90 days and look how much they've done.
------
"And may your days be long upon the earth."
Regardless, I think its much MUCH more valuable. Voyager is exploring what is generally a very empty portion of space right now with unsofisticated (by today's standards) tools.
If you're looking for a choice between the two, I believe its no contest - Mars is closer and more scientifically interesting and important than the empty space outside our solar system.
Incremental costs of running them must be a bargain. Great to see how well these things were made.
One can basically say the same about the Voyager probes. But that doesn't seem to have saved them from being eyed for downsizing.
--LordPixie
They can't send nice pictures to spice up press releases anymore...
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
It's nice to know that some NASA projects perform beyond expectations, even with a reduced budget. The first rover mission was a prime example of pride in workmanship, despite the lack of proper funding.
Here's hoping they can get an additional 18 months of service out of those things!
GET FREE APPLE STUFF!
Which "previous mars rover's failures" are you referring too? No other "rovers" have failed. All the failures were either orbiters or landers, not rovers.
The previous rover was Sojourner in '97... and it lasted much longer than it's planned mission as well.
Bill
It's my Sig and you can't have it. Mine! All Mine!
I'll bet the general public isn't even aware of the previous Mars rovers.
I don't like the idea of scraping Voyager too, but if we really get to the Mars the amount of technology developed and overall advancement of space exploration would make another long distance probes more likely than not.
In other words, if we go to the Mars we may some day go beyond our system but if we don't then surely not.
One can disagree with that. As Voyager gets further and further away, the radio receivers required to hear it and transmit to it must get more powerful/ more sensitive (read that as more expensive.) The Mars probes, sitting on Mars, are at a relatively fixed distance from Earth (note to planetary orbital geeks: I know that the distance isn't really fixed, it just varies within the limits of E + M to M - E and I don't care to describe the pattern of this distribution, just permit "relatively fixed" to be adequate.) and hence have fixed reception/ transmission requirements. Thus an important component of their costs don't acclerate upward and outward as Voyager's do.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Because when somebody says "go forwards 30 feet" they want to be sure it doesn't back into a 100ft deep chasm?
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
[...]
"If you want to use it as an excuse to Bush-bash (not saying YOU are doing that specifically), or, startlingly, make irrelevant and nonsensical references to the US apparently devolving into the former USSR, because we won't continue to fund a useless project, go for it. Everyone else is, comrade."
Dropping the partisan issues here, let me ask: what expertise in the fields of space science, astronomy, and physics, do you posess which give scientific validity to your claims of the low relative worth of future Voyager data? Why should I believe you when specialists in the field are quoted as saying that the data is highly valuable, especially given the low collection cost? How about some facts instead of hot air? --M
[political fingerpointing snipped as irrelevant]
... But we haven't gotten any scientifically worthwhile, manifestly surprising, or unexpected data from it for years. The only thing surprising about the Voyager mission is how long it's lasted."
"Degrees in engineering and physics aside, you still shouldn't trust me."
I don't.
"Voyager has had a *30 year mission*.
Well, that's a very interesting assertion. You claim that the Voyager probes haven't sent, nor have we haven't received any scientifically worthwhile data from the probes in years. I simply don't believe this. Not just because you say so, but because scientists related quoted in the previous article say just the opposite. As referenced in that Newscientist article on 13 anomalies that don't make sense, there are real questions about shifts in the velocity and travelled distance in the Pioneer probes that the Voyager probes could shed additional light upon with further data collection. There's at least one specific question worth answering with that additional data. And probably many more. I've yet to see any factual basis for your claims to the contrary. Not even a cite; bias regardless.
"But if you think it's George W Bush personally making decisions to pull the plug on Voyager, you kind of need to get a fucking grip. Budgets get reprioritized[...]"
No. I think it's members of his cabinet furthering Bush's stated policy objectives, flowing down the ranks through to undersecretaries and Republican members of congress who make these specific and individual budgetary decisions. So what? The issue is relative merit of that decision, not party affiliation and political association. I argue that it's a bad decision. Period. Do I still need to "[...] get a fucking grip" for disagreeing? Should party affiliation trump agreement or disagreement on specific policy and budgetary goals, or must we all walk in lock step with the party faithful regardless of outcome?
"Lose your emotional and symbolic ties to Voyager and seriously think about what information that would be really valid that they could return simply because they've crossed an artificial boundary?"
Who's the one being emotional here? I and others have already cited arguments to continue collecting data. You have ignored these arguments, repeating the same tautological assertion that the data is worthless because it is worthless without a factual response. IMO, this only damages the credibility of your position. --M
Voyager, being 3 axis stabilized, cannot be used to measure the pioneer anomaly. The many minor trust corrections, used to keep the HGA pointed in the right direction, cannot be correct for and the collective variance from their effect is much greater then the force of the pioneer anomaly.
Only spin stabilized space craft can do so.