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
why is that? Did it try to escape or something?
Incremental costs of running them must be a bargain. Great to see how well these things were made.
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Shame that our British version was ever so slightly less successful. *Sobs*
"This image is from the rover's rear hazard-avoidance camera"
What, are they worried about something sneaking up on it from behind?
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
I like both rovers. :)
But I think they get more funding because of "to moon, _mars_ and beyond" thing. If NASA want to fulfill this goal, then must gather as much information as possible about Mars.
I like idea of human presence on Moon and Mars, but not for price of cutting other succesful projects like Voyager.
What modern Obelix would say today? Of course, "Those crazy Americans!".
To improve lubrication the rovers have been driving backwards a lot of times lately. I remember they started doing this when one of the front wheels of the Spirit rover started to show more friction. After driving in reverse the friction became less.
There are many shared costs involved: salaries of researchers, replacement equipment, dish-time. However, operating the rovers (both of them) is much more expensive because there is more science being done (cutting open rocks, spectroscopy, moving across the landscape) with the rovers than with the Voyager (sending back occasional data). The Voyager project is obviously less expensive to maintain than the rover projects.
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.
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
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
I wonder if this is related to Bush's goal of getting a man to Mars. The more we know about Mars, the better we might achieve that goal. Then again, if we kept Voyager going... the more we know about interstellar space, yeah, I know, we can't plant a nice big American flag in interspace.
Well done NASA and the MER team, you've really exceeded all expectations with this one! I'm really intrigued to see how long they'll continue to function. Aside from some minor issues, they're still in perfect working order.
Here's hoping they'll be getting another extension in September 2006!
... the robots are frigging DRUNK!
.
.
Im sure you were trying to be funny (and when it comes to the used car market, Id be 100% with you), but what 'breakdown' are you referring to? The whole point of the story is that even though the rovers were designed to last only three months, so far they have lasted almost 4 times that long, and are still going strong.
'03 Spirit Rover
odometer: 0000003 miles
abrasion tool slightly dulled
slight steering problem
needs a good buff
runs great!
Asking $15,000,000 OBO
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??
A lot sooner than you think. The Pluto probe will be launched by a souped up Atlas V (Model 551). That with a Jupiter flyby will have the probe screaming into the outer Solar system in a few years. It will be wandering the Kuiper belt like the Voyagers in 2020.
an ill wind that blows no good
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!
Delivery option: not available, buyer collection is required.
liqbase
they should have gotten commercial funding from Energizer and put the bunny logo on the rover, strategically placed where they can get a periodic shot of it with the pancam.
[...]
"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
This is from last month, but Space Daily's Bruce Moomaw has an extensive overview of NASA's future plans for Mars exploration, based on the results of the first meeting of the Mars Strategic Roadmap Committee. It's a highly recommended read.
Some highlights:
* The 2007 Phoenix will "land on the near-surface layer of ice-saturated ground discovered by the Mars Odyssey orbiter in Mars' north polar regions to study the ice itself and its potential for preserving biochemicals."
* Mars Telecommunications Orbiter in 2009, which could boost the data rate coming back from Mars 10x to 100x.
* The Mars Science Laboratory will likely be pushed back to 2011 (instead of 2009), but is likely to have two or more versions constructed and sent to different areas. The base cost for a single rover is estimated at $1 billion, but another rover is expected to add $400 million. The MSL (or MSLs) will be looking for traces of organic chemicals and be further investigating the geological/climate history of Mars. The MSL is expected to weigh 600 kg including 65 kg of scientific instruments, compared to the MERs which weigh 185 kg including 5 kg of scientific instruments.
* There still seems to be considerable debate over when and how to launch a Mars Sample Return mission. One proposal I like is to send one (or more) to land near a MSL, have the MSL load a pre-drilled soil sample into the MSR, and then have the loaded MSR's return vehicle launch back.