Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover Stuck in a Dune

Bamfarooni writes "The NASA Mars rover Opportunity has gotten stuck in a dune, buried up to the hubs of the wheels. While they haven't given up yet, it doesn't look good for the little guy who's now 359 days into the extended mission." From the article: "The Mars machinery had been cruising southward across the open parking lot-like landscape of Meridiani Planum, full of larger and larger ripples of soil. Opportunity has been en route to its next stopover, Erebus crater, nestled inside an even larger crater known as Terra Nova."

497 comments

  1. Figures. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was probably attacked by a giant sandworm.

    1. Re:Figures. by CodeBuster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      bless the maker and his water, bless the coming and going of him, may his passing cleanse the world...

    2. Re:Figures. by rapidweather · · Score: 1
      My next door neighbors just got their '64 chevy truck out of the mud. I asked how they did it, and they said they jacked it up, and it was hell. That thing stayed stuck for months.

      Moral: Don't keep spinning the wheels, it'll only go deeper into the mud. Quit while you are ahead, and call a tow truck.

      I'll go tell them about the stuck Mars Rover, and since they are now good at it, they'll be right over.

  2. Humor? by Kaamoss · · Score: 0, Troll

    You have to see the humor in our incredibly exspensive, technical revolutionary machinery being put out of commision by some sand. Help, Rover's fallen and he can't get up.

    1. Re:Humor? by NextGaurd · · Score: 1

      Humor, yeah... I guess so. But I can't help the feeling that we (humanity) are consumed with short term problems and the problems with NASA and lack of interestfrom the general public may keep us from seeing the big picture... and in the long run - it's big picture stuff that makes for great advances.

    2. Re:Humor? by Kaamoss · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more. Even if they can't get Rover up and running again, which I'm sure they will, it's had a good run and garnered a wealth of new information for us. It's essential purpose has been served so regardless of the outcome it's still a good thing.

    3. Re:Humor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont be ridiculous us geeks dont find humour in this, we must all be serious and say job well done etc.

    4. Re:Humor? by tompaulco · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Come on. Give NASA a break. Who would have figured there would be SAND on MARS?

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  3. Damn potholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Clearly the Martian Highways Dept. need to get a crew up there right away and fix these potholes before someone gets hurt.

    1. Re:Damn potholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Clearly the Martian Highways Dept. need to get a crew up there right away and fix these potholes before someone gets hurt.

      I'd like them to fix the old road, too, but no doubt they've decided not to worry about it since it's only about 12 hours until the Earth is destroyed to make way for the new bypass...

    2. Re:Damn potholes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tax revenue is at an all time low. Mars can't pay for road crews mon.

    3. Re:Damn potholes by Ikester8 · · Score: 1

      I thought the Earth was going to be destroyed because it obstructed Marvin the Martian's view of Venus...

      --
      That's the last time I run code posted in somebody's sig...
  4. muu by ondjultomte · · Score: 5, Funny

    They need bigger wheels! Knew they shoulda opt for those shiny 18" !

    1. Re:muu by MrAnnoyanceToYou · · Score: 0

      It's Duhlux-tronaut, sahn, Duhlux-tronaut. It ain't that hahd!

    2. Re:muu by CPUFreak91 · · Score: 1

      He he he. Never expected that to happen. That stuff never happens in Star Trek!

      --
      All Your Base Are Belong To Us!!! chown -r us ./base
    3. Re:muu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Italian News Service reporting giant hand in front of the rover lens and repeated use of the phrase "love him and him and call him George."

  5. Darn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We should have sent a jeep :)

  6. If only they had a caddie by chadamir · · Score: 2, Funny

    If they had a caddie they would know that they could use a sand wedge to get it out. But nasa is far too cheap and doesn't like to tip.

    1. Re:If only they had a caddie by StratoChief66 · · Score: 1

      i don't think the caddie would have been much use after the first day, you know, after he does of oxygen deprivation...

      --
      Frylock: "We should have cloned twenties, Jackson wouldn't have given a fuck."
  7. Hold on! by rlthomps-1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    This is going to take a whole lot of floorin'! /obligatory simpsons quote

    1. Re:Hold on! by PaxTech · · Score: 4, Funny
      They should have sent a Canyonero..

      Can you name the truck with four wheel drive, smells like a steak and seats thirty-five.. CANYONERO!!!

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    2. Re:Hold on! by U1timateZer0 · · Score: 0

      12 yards long and 2 lanes wide;
      it's 65 tons of American Pride.

      --
      Unplug all controller for great reset!!
    3. Re:Hold on! by PaxTech · · Score: 1
      12 yards long and 2 lanes wide;
      it's 65 tons of American Pride.

      I guess that's why, the launch costs for 65 tons of American Pride would be exorbitant. But talk about roomy!

      --
      All movements for social change begin as missions, evolve into businesses, and end up as rackets.
    4. Re:Hold on! by WidescreenFreak · · Score: 1, Funny

      I'm surprised that I haven't seen any spice worm comments, or whatever those desert creatures were. Hey, the rover is stuck on a Dune!

      Yes, yes. Bad joke. Blame end-of-the-week fatigue. :)

      --
      The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
    5. Re:Hold on! by WD_40 · · Score: 1

      "My car gets fourty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it!"

      --

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    6. Re:Hold on! by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      You for the "dagnabbit!".

    7. Re:Hold on! by er_head66 · · Score: 1

      The country in which this rover was made does not exist anymore.

      --
      There has been an error!
    8. Re:Hold on! by alexhohio · · Score: 1

      I guess it wasn't "trail rated" Seriously though, I have seen pictures of this thing, and you would think that they would put either tracks or baloon tires on it for sand use. Those who have been stuck in the sand in a wheeled armored personel carrier know what I mean... You want tracks.... It is possible to bog a tracked vehicle down in mud or very rarely very soft sand, but that is what I would go with. Tracks= superior traction and weight distribution....

      --
      Almost every Harvard student was High School Valedictorian- After a year of college, half are in the bottom of the class
    9. Re:Hold on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how did you miss the post all the way at the beginning of this story?

    10. Re:Hold on! by EnronHaliburton2004 · · Score: 1

      Bah, the Canyonero has a really small penis when you compare it to the Ford Exemption.

    11. Re:Hold on! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You for the "dagnabbit!".

      You for the "got".

  8. Solution by AKAImBatman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Poor little rover. We should send someone up to push it out. I volunteer!

    1. Re:Solution by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Yeah nothing like a 4 month voyage to get there... only to nudge it and fly 4 months home...

      The inflight movies better be good otherwise you'll be hella bored!

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    2. Re:Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What? We have to bring him back too? Just leave him there in case it gets stuck again.

    3. Re:Solution by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      good call, he can skateboard with them like in RvB.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    4. Re:Solution by Striikerr · · Score: 3, Funny

      No need to worry! The DID install OnStar didn't they?? Just have the robotic arm press the button... What do you mean they didn't design the arm so it could press the OnStar button?!? Well, there goes THAT idea!

    5. Re:Solution by Jorkapp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Onstar: Onstar, how may I help you?
      Rover: Yea, I seem to be stuck in a sand dune on another planet.
      Onstar: Alright, I'll send a rescue crew to meet you. They should be there in about 4 months.
      Rover: About that, could you hurry it up? I think this sand dune is collaps...

      +++NO_CARRIER

      --
      Frink: Nice try floyd, but you were designed for scrubbing, and scrubbing is what you shall do.
    6. Re:Solution by fishbowl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm guessing the first man on Mars will be someone from a culture that has no taboo against making a one-way trip.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    7. Re:Solution by Corpsesarecute · · Score: 1

      Yea, but think of the overtime...

    8. Re:Solution by Patrick+Mannion · · Score: 1
      It'd be more like:

      Rover:01001011100010001001000100111100100001

      Well, there's also AAA. Maybe next time they should include copies of the Hitchhiker's Guide

      --
      In America, you spam computers In Soviet Russia, computers spam you!
    9. Re:Solution by XzeroR3 · · Score: 1

      OnStar shouldn't be providing service on Mars... or even Earth if you take the name literally.

    10. Re:Solution by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      Whatever you do, DON'T PANIC 8^P

      Just press the big red button and help will arrive.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
  9. Dear NASA by Letter · · Score: 5, Funny
    Dear NASA,

    If you had let Xzibit and West Coast Customs pimp out the Rover with 20 inch rims you would have avoided this problem.

    Letter

    1. Re:Dear NASA by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you had let Xzibit and West Coast Customs pimp out the Rover with 20 inch rims you would have avoided this problem.

      Yeah, but the only thing they would have done to the drive train was put another quart of motor oil in a 25 year old Ford engine with 320,000 miles...

      We'z gonna fix yo bucket!

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Dear NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And then the "winners" of the show have to sell the car in order to pay the insane taxes they are hit with for getting something like that.

    3. Re:Dear NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>We'z gonna fix yo bucket!

      Sheeeeeeeeeya and the PS2 in da back!

    4. Re:Dear NASA by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Spinners...you gotta add in the Spinners pedro!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    5. Re:Dear NASA by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

      no, they should have used tank treads instead.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    6. Re:Dear NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yo homie don't be them dissin' them X to them Z to them Ibit. H

    7. Re:Dear NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no man.. Whistle Tips

    8. Re:Dear NASA by Moby+Cock · · Score: 4, Funny

      NASA Engineer: Sir, we need bigger tires to get out of the dune.
      Project Learder: Holla at'cha boyyee
      NASA Engineer: Uh, sir, what do you want us to do?
      Project Leader: Awww, Snap! Dat rover be da bomb!
      NASA Engineer: I'm going home.
      Project Leader: H to the O to the M to the E.

    9. Re:Dear NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      25 year old Ford engine What fantasy world do you live in? I'd believe you if you said Honda.

    10. Re:Dear NASA by Talking+Goat · · Score: 5, Funny

      Whitest. Post. Ever.

      --

      + G to tha Izzo, A to tha Tizee, Talking Giz-oat, Ya'll Bettah Feel Me... +
    11. Re:Dear NASA by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      >And then the "winners" of the show have to sell the
      >car in order to pay the insane taxes they are
      >hit with for getting something like that.

      Do you know the specific rules on this?

      They're getting a service performed on their old car, not getting a new car. I don't know how California works it, but there's no tax on mechanic services in most states. If your restoration has the same VIN, it's the same car.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    12. Re:Dear NASA by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      Another example. I know several VW Beetle restorers who have gone from San Diego to Tijuana, bought complete VW interiors and powertrains from Beetle dealers in Mexico, restored their cars, and driven back. As long as you don't change the VIN on the pan, it's the same car. Even to California. Fortunately or unfortunately. (Unfortunately, you can't do certain beneficial things in CA, such as upgrading carb to FI. Fortunately, because you can do this and the results are pretty nice.)

      So, if you keep the pan and build a car on it with all new parts, that's OK, but you can't buy the same car and bring it into the States.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    13. Re:Dear NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FORD: Fix Or Repair Daily

    14. Re:Dear NASA by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      If you had let Xzibit and West Coast Customs pimp out the Rover with 20 inch rims you would have avoided this problem.

      You know, you're one of several people who have made this quip.

      But you do realize that when you go to larger diameter rims, you go to lower profile tires, and the diameter of the overall wheel is unchanged, right?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    15. Re:Dear NASA by balthan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They're getting a service performed on their old car, not getting a new car. I don't know how California works it, but there's no tax on mechanic services in most states. If your restoration has the same VIN, it's the same car.

      But they get more than just car parts. They sometimes get TVs, game systems, etc. added to the car. It's more than just service.

    16. Re:Dear NASA by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      No they don't. Service is not income. Besides, even though they put $40,000 worth of equipment on the car, they probably only raised the value by a few thousand.
      In fact, when most people upgrade their car, they actually LOWER the resale value. But some people might be willing to pay for the novelty of having a car done over by these professionals. I wouldn't myself, but some people might.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    17. Re:Dear NASA by east+coast · · Score: 1

      But some people might be willing to pay for the novelty of having a car done over by these professionals. I wouldn't myself, but some people might.

      What? Upgrades are alwayz da b0mb! I just got the cigarette lighter and cup holder to mod an old 486/16! It's all pimped out now.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    18. Re:Dear NASA by Chattah · · Score: 1

      But you do realize that when you go to larger diameter rims, you go to lower profile tires, and the diameter of the overall wheel is unchanged, right?

      Not if you live in Nashville, TN the rage here is to get a crap ride, throw on some 24 inch rims and tires that actually raise the car. I saw this one guy had more ground clearance in his buick then I had in my Explorer.

    19. Re:Dear NASA by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Not if you live in Nashville, TN the rage here is to get a crap ride, throw on some 24 inch rims and tires that actually raise the car. I saw this one guy had more ground clearance in his buick then I had in my Explorer.

      ROFLMAO -- by now you'd think I would be used to the fact that you shouldn't ever underestimate the stupidity of people and the strange stuff they'll do.

      I retract my previous obvservation. :-P

      Cheers (and thanks for the laugh)
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    20. Re:Dear NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and two days later, it would be up on blocks without any wheels/rims!

    21. Re:Dear NASA by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      Besides the fact that 90% of the mods they do on those cars make them the tackiest things on the road (like putting a a BMW hood on an early-90s Ford Escort ... wtf were they thinking?), that is my biggest problem with that show. They don't do anything mechanical to the cars (they might have put some air suspensions on 1 or 2 of them). Otherwise, they don't touch the drive train, they don't do __REAL__ body work (sorry, bondo over rusted-out holes in the car does not count), they don't do much to the suspension, steering, axles/differentials, etc. The only time I ever saw them touch the drive train was when a car broke down while Xzibit drove it to the shop. Even then, all they did was pull out the old, crappy engine that was in there before ... clean it up ... then stick it back in.

      Then again, with only 4 or 5 guys and 1 or 2 days to do the work, what do you expect?

      If you want to see a real car show, watch Overhaulin on TLC. They take a car, have about 40 or 50 experts work on it over the course of a full week, and even then they are often running very close to the deadline. They strip the cars down to the bare chasis, clean everything up, pull off the body and all trim pieces, make proper repairs to everything, seal the chasis, put in great suspensions, braking, steering systems, custom interiors (that actually look good), custom paint jobs (that actually look good), unique rims (each designed by Chip Foose for each individual car), stick in a kick ass crate motor, tranny, exhaust, etc, etc, etc. The only thing bad about the show is that the owner doesn't know about the work being done, and they usually do some cheesy prank where they fake the car being stolen. Otherwise, it's a good show.

  10. Job well done by witchman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Too bad if it's permanently stuck, but what an amazing success for this mission, which has gone on far longer that it was planned for. I hope the NASA engineers get the recognition they deserver for this job well done.

    1. Re:Job well done by poserFish · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Now the shuttle engineers.... thats a whole different story!

      --
      Think your right? Prove it.
    2. Re:Job well done by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 2

      Now the shuttle engineers.... thats a whole different story!

      The shuttle engineers did an outstanding job, keep in mind that much of it is 70s design. Some of it 60s? Now factor in all the politicians and outside organizations that meddled with the design. The funding cuts and other problems that undermined day to day operations. Engineers have to use what is available now and what is within budget, and the shuttle guys did an outstanding job at the time. Today's situation is largely the result of politics and the short sightendness of the voter, not engineering.

    3. Re:Job well done by poserFish · · Score: 0

      I agree that it has a lot to do with the "NASA climate" and influences, but look the rover engineers were able to accomplish... Same climate, MUCH smaller budget, MUCH better results. Remember, it is an engineers job to make 'it' work with what they have, then convince the powers that be that they have succeeded. They have forgot that and have resorted to making excuses.

      --
      Think your right? Prove it.
    4. Re:Job well done by JJ · · Score: 1

      Here, here!!!

      I worked with a few of these people on a variety of things and in general and in specific, they did one heck of a job. I think they all wish they could go to a next generation vehicle.

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    5. Re:Job well done by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the Mars Rovers start launching 25K kg to LEO, you can start making that comparison. We're not even talking about remotely comparable classes of vehicles.

      You know how new, large jet engines can cost millions of dollars, even though they're mass-produced? Picture an engine that dwarfs your typical jet engine in terms of complexity (in order to get such extreme performance - a single SSME no larger than a 747's engine could propel a 747 at 4 Gs, and still manages to be one of the most efficient rocket engines), and is not mass-manufactured, and you start to get an idea of what is involved here. Real rocket engines (we're just talking about the engines here - the rest of the craft is incredibly difficult, too!), as opposed to little joyride engines that use a heavy tank of nitrous and tube full of rubber, deal with some of the hottest (hotter than the boiling point of lead), most corrosive (high temperature hydrogen-rich thermodynamically imbalanced mixtures corrode things very easily), high vibration, very high thrust, and yet very maneuverable (for gimballing) environments that humans have ever produced. And to make it reusable? A truly incredible feat.

      And to think that the fuel is LH (just barely above absolute zero - the temperature alone makes metals brittle - and hydrogen itself severely embrittles metals and leaks through almost anything), while the oxidizer is LOX (one of the most corrosive oxidizers you can get apart from LF). You need to not only contain them (and prevent ice from forming on these frigid structures without adding much weight at all), but to build your tanks with such a bare-minimum-thickness that if you were to turn many rockets upside down when full, they'd rupture due to the taper. These tanks need to be somewhat pressurized (although most pressure needs to be added in the turbopumps - amazing devices on their own). Every last pipe (and there are *many* of them), every last joint, must be as weak as possible, but still welded/attached security, uncorrodable, not allow ice buildup, not melt, and not be vibrated loose. And then, the structure overall is collossal - the whole thing needs to be built this way.

      We haven't even gotten into reentry and the problems of being in space for a long time. It's really incredible that we can get off this rock at all; the term "rocket science" being used to mean "highly difficult problems" is quite apt.

      --
      Dear Lord: One of your creatures may be hurt tonight. Please let it be the other creature.
    6. Re:Job well done by stevesliva · · Score: 1

      You make it sound like it's a pretty uneconomical decision to make most of the propulsion system reusable.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    7. Re:Job well done by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It significantly increases the complexity of the task, for certain. It's a lot easier just to let your engine corrode and crack from the exhaust stream, be embrittled by your fuel or oxidizer, have its joints weakened by the vibration, etc. Stopping this is difficult and costly.

      On the other hand, if it's reusable, you only have to build it once, with is a huge advantage when you're dealing with something as expensive as a high performance rocket engine.

      --
      Dear Lord: One of your creatures may be hurt tonight. Please let it be the other creature.
    8. Re:Job well done by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      But that's precisely what's wrong with the shuttle. It requires such a massive retrofit between missions that it's a bit of a lie to call it "reusable".

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    9. Re:Job well done by amightywind · · Score: 1

      Very true. Consider also that the business end of an SSME, the combustion chamber, is the size of a garbage can and operates at 6000 degrees F! These are truely amazing devices. Lets hope that in the frenzy to scrap the shuttle the next generation of boosters benefits from this technology.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    10. Re:Job well done by Rei · · Score: 1

      It's been changing, though. Because of the shuttle program, there have been some very serious improvements in the cost to restore a reusable engine between flights. In fact, it seems likely that before too long (if the program weren't getting cancelled - not that the shuttle shouldn't be replaced, mind you), only a few parts of the engine would need to be taken apart for inspection, and the engine might not even need a newly resurfaced lining each time. They developed this rather neat way of laying down linings through chemical vapor deposition that blends surface layers without a physical barrier, which leaves no easily-eroded boundary region.

      --
      Dear Lord: One of your creatures may be hurt tonight. Please let it be the other creature.
    11. Re:Job well done by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      Your excellent comparison of the mars rover against the shuttle just makes me want to ask you to do the same comparison between the shuttle and soyuz.

      Please.

      Perhaps it could shed some light on why, despite the non-reusability of the soyuz launchers components, it seems to be more efficient and reliable?

      Thanks!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    12. Re:Job well done by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Soyuz is non-reusable. Therefore, you don't need to go to the expense of making components that can survive the stress of launch.
      2) Soyuz is non-reusable. That means you don't have parts wearing out -- everything is brand new.

    13. Re:Job well done by Rei · · Score: 2, Informative

      Soyuz isn't more reliable - they have similar safety records, although the Shuttle's is slightly better (both craft have had two fatal launches, but the shuttle has launched more manned flights; more people have died on the shuttle, but that's because it carries more people).

      Soyuz is cheaper - about half the price per kilogram as the shuttle. There are a lot of factors involved here, but as the previous poster mentioned, most of them have to do with it not being reusable. The downside to this is that they have to produce a new rocket each time, unlike the shuttle, and rockets have very large amounts of labor and raw materials (some materials, like those used in the engines are very expensive) involved in all of the part production and assembly. Even with the semi-mass-production style used on Soyuz, costs still add up fast, and there's not too much they can do to bring them down further.

      Another thing that helps make Soyuz cheaper is that their labor costs are a small fraction the cost of ours. That makes the Delta-IV heavy all the more impressive as a launch vehicle, as its launch prices are similar to Soyuz and Long March prices, but we have to pay US labor costs.

      --
      Dear Lord: One of your creatures may be hurt tonight. Please let it be the other creature.
    14. Re:Job well done by rew · · Score: 1

      The shuttle engineers did an outstanding job, ...

      The engineers, maybe, management: no.

      In '86 engineers shouted: Don't know. Not sure. Let's abort. Managers decided: all systems go. ... Boom!

      In 2002, engineers said: let's have look. we're not sure what happened. Managers decided: Nah, we'll chance it. Boom!

      Exactly the same mistakes, just a slightly different field.

    15. Re:Job well done by Valacosa · · Score: 1

      "...the term 'rocket science' being used to mean 'highly difficult problems' is quite apt."

      Personally, I think Quantum Mechanics is harder. We can't even build a quantum computer yet!

      --
      "Live as if you'll die tomorrow." Ridiculous. You could die later today.
    16. Re:Job well done by edbarbar · · Score: 1

      I read somewhere that NASA intentionally understates the mission life for marketing purposes.

      Hopefully there is some tangible value in this whole effort.

      --
      Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
  11. Dear NASA & JPL by computerme · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If any NASA or JPL people are reading this thread I have one thing to say:

    Mission _very_ accomplished.

    The human race knows infinitely more of our red neighbor thanks to your hard work.

    THANK YOU!

    1. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by roror · · Score: 2, Funny

      The One thing I hope NASA people not doing now is reading slashdot.

    2. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      I second that comment... Well done folks!

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    3. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by jd · · Score: 1

      Oh, I dunno. It seems to me that it would give them more useful information than reading memos from their upper management.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    4. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that we know it's a wasteland let's get back to worrying about exploring new areas of our own planet and ending issues we have right here at home

      Such as the need to kill all the stupid people.

    5. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We can start with the stupid person that wants to send people to Mars.

    6. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If only one Slashdotter was satisfied by our scientific discoveries, then it was all worth it!"

      Shit man, on behalf of all humanity, I'm chokin' up here. Aw geez.

    7. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our neighbor is communist?! NOOOO

    8. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by Mondoz · · Score: 1

      Not all the people ever involved in the rover project are going to be occupied with this problem right now.
      Some engineer who calculated the orbital insertion trajectory isn't going to have a thing to do with the wheel problem, and might be at his desk right now, eating his lunch, and reading /.

      You never know.

      And you don't expect that they all work 24X7?
      They have lives too...

      --
      /sig
    9. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we send you to Mars? That sounds downright smart to me.

    10. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Sounds like somebody at JPL speaking...

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    11. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 1

      Good Show indeed. I am very, very pleased to see them succeed in a very big way. Above and beyond all expectations.

      --
      I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
    12. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 1

      I just love it when flamebait comments are made by Anonymous Cowards. Grow a set pal.

      --
      I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
    13. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by ajnsue · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just linked to the pictures on the marsrover website. Gives you chills. /.'ers get into raving discussions about technology thats obsoleted in a few months. And somewhere, somebody is DRIVING A FREAKIN VEHICLE AROUND ON ANOTHER PLANET, TAKING PICTURES! ...geez i feel so insignificant, I need a hug.

    14. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      The human race knows infinitely more of our red neighbor thanks to your hard work.

      I think we can thank Walmart and Mike Chinoy(CNN) for that.

    15. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by DustMagnet · · Score: 1
      And you don't expect that they all work 24X7? They have lives too...

      If they had lives they wouldn't be here on a Friday.

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    16. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by garcia · · Score: 1

      Why because the person knew that he would just be needlessly burning karma for a post that would not see the light of day on Slashdot?

      People here are too likeminded to put up with a post like that even though it is 100% true.

    17. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by er_head66 · · Score: 4, Funny

      What the hell is this shit? Did /. just become livejournal?

      --
      There has been an error!
    18. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      People here are too likeminded to put up with a post like that even though it is 100% true.

      Likemindedness is a problem on Slashdot that makes people mod down true statemtns - this is true.
      Your claim, however, that this is an example of that, is 100% false.
      The post in question contains the false premise that the mars project budget is being diverted from solving problems here on earth, and that space exploration doesn't help here on earth - both of which are 100% false.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    19. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The money has to be coming from somewhere you fucking retard. If the nation is in debt, which it is, then no money should be spent sending humans to a planet devoid of any useful material.

    20. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Anyone who thinks the Mars rovers are manned missions is in no position to call someone else a retard.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    21. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      Are there days of the week on the calendar for Mars? If so, what are the names of the days?

      If you live on Mars in the future, and you want to obey the Ten Commandments, do you rest on the 7th day on Mars or on Earth?

      Things to ponder.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    22. Re:Dear NASA & JPL by Mondoz · · Score: 1

      What about horroscopes?
      What does it mean when Earth is rising in Jupiter while you're on Mars?

      --
      /sig
  12. Demolition derby by mrseigen · · Score: 5, Funny

    They have two rovers. The solution is obvious.

    1. Re:Demolition derby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      two rovers.... on opposite sides of the planet

    2. Re:Demolition derby by milimetric · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're right... the rovers could have sex and in time hope to breed a mighty race of rovers which could then pull out the one that's stuck.

      I'm imagining that the other rover is pretty far away and wouldn't get there for a year or so.

      But hey, what's everyone all pesimistic about... as you point out, you do have two rovers, why not use the other one? The MISSION CONTINUES!

    3. Re:Demolition derby by CdBee · · Score: 2, Funny

      I bet it was a trap laid by Beagle 2... only now can it come out of hiding....

      PS NASA - nobody expected them to last this long and you still have one on-the-go. Good work whatever happens

      --
      I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
    4. Re:Demolition derby by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2, Funny

      "the rovers could have sex and in time hope to breed a mighty race of rovers"

      And in time they will come back to earth with all the knowledge they have gained..

      I for one welcome our Mars Rover Overlords.

      I couldn't resist.

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    5. Re:Demolition derby by KiloByte · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, we now know that we need to drive carefully.

      The rovers are sun-powered, so the other rover can simply drive all the way after its done with examining its vicinity. We have the time, and the Little Green Men are already helping with dusting the solar panels :p

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    6. Re:Demolition derby by TeamSPAM · · Score: 1

      Honestly, how fun is a demolition derby between two rover if one of them is stuck?

      --
      Brought to you by Team SPAM! where we believe: "Information in the noise!"
    7. Re:Demolition derby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Beagle faked his own death.

      "Two rovers land on Mars to discover if life ever existed there, but little do they know... they're not alone."

      DUN DUN DUN.

    8. Re:Demolition derby by saskboy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now Disney can get in on the NASA act, and make a children's movie about the Two Rovers that Left Home.

      One got stuck, and the other one thousands of kilometers away, goes on a desperate mission to cross the planet to rescue Opportunity before his battery runs out. All this with help from his sidekick Marvin the Martian, NASA JPL Jake, and Duney the Dune.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    9. Re:Demolition derby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, beat me to it.

    10. Re:Demolition derby by Ingolfke · · Score: 1

      You're right... the rovers could have sex and in time hope to breed a mighty race of rovers which could then pull out the one that's stuck.

      Yo yo... and mabye their progeny could evolve some kick ass spinnahs. It's one thing to drive around mars, but fo' real... yuh need to be drivin' in style kid.

    11. Re:Demolition derby by Idarubicin · · Score: 4, Informative
      I know the parent poster is kidding, but for those who are wondering...

      Under near-ideal conditions, the rovers could crawl a hundred meters (three hundred or so feet) per day.

      The two rovers are on roughly opposite sides of the planet, which has a diameter of nearly seven thousand kilometers. To bring the other rover around--assuming you could drive in a straight line and there were no obstacles or technical problems--would take two or three hundred years.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    12. Re:Demolition derby by Flower · · Score: 1

      yeah but which one is the spin bot? Dueling wedges is like watching baseball or golf.

      --
      I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
    13. Re:Demolition derby by uniqueUser · · Score: 0

      The other one is on the other side of the planet. It would take years to travel that distance!

      --
      GENERATION 25: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social exper
    14. Re:Demolition derby by Morris+Schneiderman · · Score: 1

      A good story-teller never lets the true get in the way of a good story.

    15. Re:Demolition derby by wolf31o2 · · Score: 1

      They better get a move on, then... It's going to be one boring trip.

    16. Re:Demolition derby by tehcrazybob · · Score: 1

      I'm imagining that the other rover is pretty far away and wouldn't get there for a year or so.

      I'm pretty sure it would take even longer than that. The original plan stated that the rovers would travel 40 meters per day. This goal has been exceeded, but I don't know by how much. Even so, considering the varied terrain they would take, we could use that as a base figure. As I understand it, the rovers are over 10,000 km apart. This means that it would take one rover almost 700 earth years to reach the other. And this is assuming the rescue rover doesn't get stuck.

      On top of that, these rovers have driven over very carefully chosen terrain. Small rocks, soft sand, and even a tiny incline would stop the rover in its tracks. Assuming there is a way to cross the whole planet while remaining on good terrain, it would take even longer. I'm pretty sure we would have colonies on Mars before we got the rovers in the same place.

      And then, over this many years, you have to consider the expected lifetime of the rovers. They were only intended to operate for 90 days before the dust buildup on the solar panels rendered them helpless. We got lucky, and something is keeping them clean and operational, but I doubt we can depend on the same for the next thousand years.

      Nevertheless, we have done very well. The rovers have given far more information than ever expected, and even losing one, we still have the other. I think the mission is a huge success. It also continues to be successful, and NASA seems to think the stuck rover is only temporarily inconvenienced. We will see in the coming weeks.

      --
      Computers need to explode more often.
    17. Re:Demolition derby by myowntrueself · · Score: 1

      "You're right... the rovers could have sex and in time hope to breed a mighty race of rovers which could then pull out the one that's stuck."

      Once you start having sex with a counterpart thats stuck in a sand dune you arn't going to *free* them.

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    18. Re:Demolition derby by LesPaul75 · · Score: 1

      Really, 100m/day? That's less than 5 meters per hour, or about 70 millimeters per minute. Snails (literally) move faster than that.

    19. Re:Demolition derby by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      would take two or three hundred years"

      That's no way to sell a project. Try again- top speed 2 inch/Sec, Pi*R, the back of my envelope says less than one year.

      -Anonymous Phil

  13. Call Triple A by east+coast · · Score: 3, Funny

    They'll get there in less than 30 minutes or the next tow is free!

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    1. Re:Call Triple A by jd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually, they need AAAA (American Astronautical Automobile Association). However, the AAAA is currently on-route to Pioneer 11 to replace the battery.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Call Triple A by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      East Coast writes:
      Call Triple A. They'll get there in less than 30 minutes or the next tow is free!
      OK. Called 'em. The agent said (without hesitation) "uh, yeah, sorry for the delay. We'll mail you a next-one-free coupon. Just gimme a US mailing address for the coupon, and have that coupon with you on your next call, for when the tow-truck driver arrives."

      Rats! Any other ideas?...

    3. Re:Call Triple A by doormat · · Score: 1

      I thought it was septuple A, the Austro-Afro-Antarctico-AmerAsian Auto Association? (oblig futurama ref.)

      --
      The Doormat

      If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
    4. Re:Call Triple A by beerman2k · · Score: 1

      [obligitory Futurama reference]

      I think you meant Septuple-A (Austro-Afro-Antarctico-AmerAsian Auto Association). :)

    5. Re:Call Triple A by jd · · Score: 1

      Octuple-A. You forgot the "Amazing" at the front.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  14. Well... by GillBates0 · · Score: 1
    ...looks like it's time to call 1-800-AAA-HELP.

    Hope NASA has AAA emergency roadside assistance membership.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  15. They found a fix by i41Overlord · · Score: 0, Redundant

    One of the NASA engineers is going to use his AAA card and tell the tow truck driver that it's his rover.

    AAA is going to get shafted on this one, but problem solved.

  16. Let me say this out loud! by zr-rifle · · Score: 4, Funny

    BEAGLE to the RESCUE!!!

    ...or maybe not...

    --
    Hack your mind out of its sandbox.
  17. Don't give up, NASA! by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Funny

    "We are very optimistic that we'll be able to get out of here, but we're really going to take our time doing it."

    It sounds like NASA is going to use a technique I discovered playing video games as a child. If you're stuck somewhere, just wiggle the joystick back and forth for a few hours to see if you can work your way out of it. Too bad they can't reload a saved game. I found that technique helpful too.

    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
    1. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by nharmon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually you may be more right than you realize. Those with four-wheel-drive vehicles (that actually leave the pavement) know that sometimes after getting stuck, you can move the steering wheel from side to side as a way of trying to gain traction from the sides of the rut you're in.

      Perhaps NASA could learn a thing or two from rednecks in 4x4 pickup trucks? *smile*

    2. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by Eyeball97 · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As somebody who's been stuck in sand a few times, it's actually not such a bad idea.

      If you get the momentum right, rocking back and forth will often "jump" you out of it as long as you haven't been a complete dummy and run full throttle digging yourself as deep as you an go...

      Dunno why they don't just pull it out with the tractor beam from the other Rover, though.

      Oh, wait... wrong reality...

    3. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by mrand · · Score: 1

      Those with four-wheel-drive vehicles (that actually leave the pavement) know that sometimes after getting stuck, you can move the steering wheel from side to side as a way of trying to gain traction from the sides of the rut you're in.

      And sometimes moving the wheels from side to side digs a deeper hole. Seems like it would all depend on how much traction there is to be had - and if it is surrounded by fine grain sand, I don't hold high hopes.

      It's been a great missions, regardless.

      --
      -- PGP keyID: 0x4C95994D
    4. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by nharmon · · Score: 1

      Well, if you're stuck because your body/ground clearance isn't enough, rather than a lack of wheel traction,...then yes you will dig the hole deeper.

    5. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Can't they move the wheel shafts up and down? If so, that may be an added advantage in gettting out. If nothing else, at least she'll learn a LOT about Martian sand dunes.

      --
      http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
    6. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by Phat_Tony · · Score: 1
      "If you're stuck somewhere, just wiggle the joystick back and forth for a few hours to see if you can work your way out of it"

      Yeah, I played E.T. on Atari too.
      FYI, that doesn't help.

      --
      Can anyone tell me how to set my sig on Slashdot?
    7. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you're stuck somewhere, just wiggle the joystick back and forth for a few hours to see if you can work your way out of it.
      Oh, is THAT what you were doing? I thought....

      - Mom

    8. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Perhaps NASA could learn a thing or two from rednecks in 4x4 pickup trucks? *smile*

      No, that's the problem right there. NASA's down in Florida, all the rednecks they hired build mud boggers, don't know anything about desert racing. Shoulda got somebody from out west (Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, California) with experience in the sand to build their rig.

    9. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps NASA could learn a thing or two from rednecks in 4x4 pickup trucks?

      Yeah. Too bad they don't have any trains to race to the crossing with up there...

    10. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually the controllers at JPL ARE in California...

    11. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by bcmm · · Score: 0, Troll
      "We are very optimistic that we'll be able to get out of here, but we're really going to take our time doing it."
      It sounds like NASA is going to use a technique I discovered playing video games as a child.
      Actually, sounds even more like Bush *ducks*.
      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
      Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    12. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by Analogy+Man · · Score: 1
      There are the other devices on the rover besides the wheels that in a pinch might come in handy. Maybe it could push itself with its rock sampling equipment.

      The NASA and JPL gang is quite clever, my bet is that they work this out.

      --
      When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.
    13. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by JJ · · Score: 1

      The other problem with this solution is the drive time delay. It takes something like a minimum of eight minutes for radio signals to get to the rover and eight minutes for signals to get back. Imagine driving (even very slowly) knowing that the image you are receiving is 8 minutes old and that your instructions won't take effect for 8 more minutes.

      Try jiggling the joystick for about 16 minutes and then assume you are out so full power ahead. Great if it works, you're stuck even deeper if it doesn't.

      --
      So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
    14. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by ehiris · · Score: 1

      That's a little hard when you have 30 minutes lag on your commands and feedback.

    15. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by LanMan04 · · Score: 1

      A redneck with a Slashdot ID 100K? Impossible! =)

      --
      With the first link, the chain is forged.
    16. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 1
      Perhaps NASA could learn a thing or two from rednecks in 4x4 pickup trucks?

      What, putting gun racks on their rovers?

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    17. Re:Don't give up, NASA! by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Actually the controllers at JPL ARE in California...

      Yeah, but they're probably hippies.

  18. Dune, my ass by gowen · · Score: 2, Funny

    My bet is that its grounded on the wreckage of Beagle II. :)

    --
    Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    1. Re:Dune, my ass by TCQuad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      My bet is that its grounded on the wreckage of Beagle II. :)

      I was going to dismiss this out of hand, but FTA, Opportunity did find two small craters right before running aground. The cause?
      They could have been created by an object from space that was large enough to make it through the martian atmosphere without burning up.

      And, let's not forget:
      "Given that these two craters haven't been covered by sand even though they are surrounded by sand ripples on a flat plain lends support to the idea that they're fairly recent."

    2. Re:Dune, my ass by maotx · · Score: 1

      "Given that these two craters haven't been covered by sand even though they are surrounded by sand ripples on a flat plain lends support to the idea that they're fairly recent."

      You forgot to mention FTA:
      "Of course, recent might mean any time from yesterday to 100 million years ago."

      --
      I'm a virgo and on Slashdot. Coincidence? Yes.
    3. Re:Dune, my ass by Lattitude · · Score: 1

      They're not craters - they're nostril holes. And the Rover isn't "stuck in the sand" inasmuch as it is being eaten.

    4. Re:Dune, my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A creature that consumes martian bound probes from the planet earth.

      That thing must be pretty hungry!

    5. Re:Dune, my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe not -- it did eat a beagle rather recently!

    6. Re:Dune, my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it was recently force-fed a Mars Climate Orbiter thanks to some missed conversion between metric and US...

  19. Summary is a little too sensational by calibanDNS · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA: Rover operators are optimistic they can extricate the robot from its jam, having gotten dug in before. and said Steve Squyres, lead scientist on the Mars Exploration Rover effort at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York. "We are very optimistic that we'll be able to get out of here, but we're really going to take our time doing it."

    I'd hardly interpret that as "it doesn't look good for the little guy".

    1. Re:Summary is a little too sensational by pintpusher · · Score: 3, Funny

      Translation:

      Rover operators are optimistic they can extricate the robot from its jam

      sure thing boss, no problem, get it right out of there (oh crap, we're screwed)

      having gotten dug in before

      Yes boss, we've done it before, no problem(I can't believe we got stuck dune hopping again, this never happens with my r/c cars at home...)

      but we're really going to take our time doing it

      It'll only take a little while... (OH @#$& I just dug it in deeper, whats on Monster.com?)

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    2. Re:Summary is a little too sensational by pHatidic · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, but even still I'd hate to be the guy who got it stuck right now. Talk about awkward.

    3. Re:Summary is a little too sensational by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Tell me why you RTFA, please. It doesn't make sense. The submitter didn't read it, the editors didn't read it, and nobody else here is going to read it. Why did you? At least post a comment or two before reading it, and then come back.

    4. Re:Summary is a little too sensational by scpotter · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What Bamfarooni meant by "it doesn't look good for the little guy" is "I know the /. editors will pick the most sensationalized submission, hopefully no one submitted 'rover stuck in martian quicksand' yet"

    5. Re:Summary is a little too sensational by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but even still I'd hate to be the guy who got it stuck right now. Talk about awkward

      Not really an issue, I don't think. There's no one "driving" the rovers per se. There's probably a planning committee that decides where the rover should go next, and they choose a destination. Instructions on how to get there are compiled and sent to the rover. The rover then follows the directions, hopefully not running into anything unexpected. In this case, it ran into some deep sand. Hazard of the process. It's not like there's a couple guys sitting in repurposed Pole Position sit-down games hot rodding the rovers in real-time. You think 500ms lag is bad, try 10 minutes...

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    6. Re:Summary is a little too sensational by ediron2 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I saw this gaffe before the article left 'the mysterious future', and sent an email to the editor, just like they request:
      to: daddypants@slashdot.org
      subject: Mars/Opportunity Story innacurate

      Bamfarooni wrote: it doesn't look good for the little guy who's now 359 days into the extended

      Compare this to the linked article: Rover operators are optimistic they can extricate the robot from its jam, having gotten dug in before.

      No reply to me, yet. But the story shifted from:
      ... It doesn't look good...

      to:
      ... While they haven't given up yet, it doesn't look good...

      Draw your own conclusions.

    7. Re:Summary is a little too sensational by brer_rabbit · · Score: 1
      Yeah, but even still I'd hate to be the guy who got it stuck right now.

      The guy who got it stuck? It's not like it's driven by a single person. You can blame this on Asian Driver Syndrome.

    8. Re:Summary is a little too sensational by stevesliva · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think it was mentioned elsewhere that not only was the deep sand of the dune crest an issue here, but also the fact that Opportunity hit this crest laterally, not perpendicular to the crest, causing all wheels to get mired. The rover computers know to avoid big rocks and such, but obviously weren't configured to look out for this.

      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
  20. Erebus station has been compromised! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    They shouldn't have sent it to the Erebus station - it's been overrun with a demonic invasion.

    /Doom 3 Expansion

  21. I warned them! by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    I told them not to cut the winch out of the design! But do they listen? Nooooooooooo, they don't!

    1. Re:I warned them! by PhraudulentOne · · Score: 2, Funny

      Was it a winch that magically worked in sand? A Sand winch? Sandwinch... sandwich... mmm lunchtime.

      --
      You create your own reality - Leave mine to me.
  22. The ultimate backseat drive... by Pengunea · · Score: 1

    "Back up! Are you backing up? Okay that's not working, try going forward. Cut it out, you'll flood the engine! Have you tried backing up yet? Oh no, you flooded the engine!"

    On the lighter side of things they might want to call up someone from Winnepeg, Toronto, or Montreal. Anyone who's used to nudging their way out of being stuck in a snow drift.

    We're pulling for you little Rover, we just wish we could get out and push too!

    --
    Starkle, starkle, little twink.
    1. Re:The ultimate backseat drive... by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      "NO!!! WE'RE NOT THERE YET!!! And if you guys don't shut up this minute, I'm gonna turn this thing around and head home!!!"

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
  23. Dune? by InsaneCreator · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Watch out for those sand worms!

    1. Re:Dune? by Husgaard · · Score: 1
      Yes, soon one of those giant sand worms will come and swallow the poor rover...

      When the signal from the rover disappears, we finally have proof of life on Mars ;-)

  24. ask for a push by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    maybe a dust devil will give a push

  25. Buggalo by bsd4me · · Score: 1

    I'm sure someone riding a buggalo will fly by soon and rescue it.

    --

    (S(SKK)(SKK))(S(SKK)(SKK))

  26. Bigger Wheels by eander315 · · Score: 1

    With all of the rediculous trucks on the road in the US, you'd think NASA would have been inspired to build a montster truck version of the rover. Couldn't we just send a Hummer next time?

    1. Re:Bigger Wheels by nharmon · · Score: 1

      Couldn't we just send a Hummer next time?

      Just make sure that it isn't a Hummer H2...those things can break a tierod on anything. *duck*

    2. Re:Bigger Wheels by Dirk+Pitt · · Score: 1
      Naw, those humvees are only useful if you're carting grunts over poorly paved roads and getting shot at.

      If you're leaving the pavement, send a real rover.

    3. Re:Bigger Wheels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't we just send a Hummer next time?

      You mean one of these?

      http://host1.cj-8.com/

    4. Re:Bigger Wheels by Yenin · · Score: 1

      Are you crazy? The gas prices on Mars are astronomical.

    5. Re:Bigger Wheels by mikael · · Score: 1

      Wow! A stretch 4x4! Great for making an appearance at those outback movie premiers - just remember to bring your own beer and BBQ ribs.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    6. Re:Bigger Wheels by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe with a nice nuclear motor they could send a MaxiMog.

    7. Re:Bigger Wheels by Terminal+Saint · · Score: 1

      A Hummer? It would take so much thrust to get one of those behemouths to Mars it would be easier just to bring Mars here...

      --
      It's sad when choosing an installation directory on your own qualifies you as an "advanced user."
  27. BattleBots by RealityMogul · · Score: 5, Funny

    If only NASA engineers watched more BattleBots they'd have realized that they needed a flipper arm underneath.

    1. Re:BattleBots by merlin_jim · · Score: 1

      I was thinking the exact same thing. Seems like such an obvious tool to have. I was thinking more of a jack than a flipper arm. I imagine the rover would not do well in a non-standard attitude (aka "upside down")

      --
      I am disrespectful to dirt! Can you see that I am serious?!
    2. Re:BattleBots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAE, but wouldn't something like this work. Imagine the wheels looked something like this:

      |
      |
      |
      |- (<-- small outgrowth here)

      Only problem is that it makes general navigation a little harder, and you probably want to have one on each side such that they are synced so that the bot doesn't flip to the side when it "activates" (push into the ground)... best of both worlds would be to have it fold/extend on the push of a button, but that'd have all the negative sides of the added complexity...

      Hmm.. better post anon..

  28. Some advice? by Fahrvergnuugen · · Score: 1

    Be real patient, go real slow and use lots of ... oh wait.

    --
    Kiteboarding Gear Mention slashdot and get 10% off!
    1. Re:Some advice? by MalaclypseTheYounger · · Score: 1

      Be real patient, go real slow and use lots of ...

      ...lube?

      What are we talking about again? :)

      --
      Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
  29. More info by Cyclotron_Boy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There's discussion on the Mars Rover Discussion Board and again. It seems careful Rover Watchers noticed that it hadn't moved in a few days, and started to wonder why. Apparently NASA had to say something, because people were asking questions.

    1. Re:More info by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      > careful Rover Watchers noticed that it hadn't moved in a few days, and started to wonder why. Apparently NASA had to say something, because people were asking questions.

      My wife hasn't moved in a few days either. Being a careful watcher, I am starting to wonder why.

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    2. Re:More info by Cyclotron_Boy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, this shot from the Mars Rover site shows the front wheels pretty well buried and covered with caked-on soil.

    3. Re:More info by ahecht · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the first link is to a thread that is over a year old, right?

    4. Re:More info by DrLex · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Errr... if those are the front wheels, then what made those tracks the rover is following?

    5. Re:More info by The+Angry+Mick · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I wonder why the soil is caking on the wheels? I would think that even ultra fine sand wouldn't do that unless there was some form of moisture.

      --

      I'm not tense. I'm just terribly, terribly, alert.

    6. Re:More info by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps the rover is going backwards?

    7. Re:More info by Chokai · · Score: 3, Informative

      In order to even the wear on the drive motors on the rovers SteveS and crew have been alternating between driving forward and backwards.

    8. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is some moisture in the mars atmosphere. I dont know if that is the cause of the caking soil but mars definately has some water.

    9. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, those are the rear wheels... notice the tracks?

    10. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Hey, Bob, get off my wife!"

    11. Re:More info by Dun+Malg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I wonder why the soil is caking on the wheels? I would think that even ultra fine sand wouldn't do that unless there was some form of moisture. Try playing with some ultra-fine powder, like flour, powdered clay, or wood ash. It tends to "cake up" when compressed also when dry. Same thing.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    12. Re:More info by ebrandsberg · · Score: 1

      Considering that you see the trail, this implies the picture is from the BACK, not the front. It does show how much the rover is sinking into the dirt though, and with that shows the level of the problem they are facing right now.

    13. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's no caking, what you are seeing is the disturbed sand in the shadow of the rover -- it's a heap of sand on the ground (disturbed no doubt by the rover spinning it's (back) wheels) and the presense of the shadow and the wheel in the 2 dimensional picture makes it look like (at first glance) that the sand is stuck to the wheel.

      The right wheel (from the perspective of the picture) is perfectly clear. The left wheel looks to be in motion to me.

    14. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe from some Martian pet? I mean they are tires....

    15. Re:More info by ElAurian · · Score: 1

      It's awe-inspiring to think that those are one of only two sets of tyre tracks on the entire planet. Even more amazing, those dunes are absolutely pristine. No insects, no animals, maybe bacteria if we're lucky.

      Nothing but two little dune buggies, and no little brown spider to take the wheel.

    16. Re:More info by TurboTas · · Score: 1

      Has she started to smell yet?
      Sorry: has she started to smell more yet?
      If not, probably nothing to worry about. Did she still cook your meals?

    17. Re:More info by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      My wife hasn't moved in a few days either. Being a careful watcher, I am starting to wonder why.

      Could it be that your wife is really one of these?

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    18. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      In other news, NASA can't figure out why after 48 hours of going backwards and forwards, that the rover is still in the same place.

    19. Re:More info by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      And the other's a couple of weeks.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    20. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not so sure about that. The clean tire treads in this picture don't look anything like the treads in the GP post, in which you can definitely see packed material similar to the caked mud that piles up on off road vehicle tires. It looks as if the material on the tires has been there long enough to crack the same way mud cracks in the sun. Weird...

    21. Re:More info by srvivn21 · · Score: 1

      The wheels are not moving. compare and contrast.

      Aside from the position of the shadow those two pictures are identical.

    22. Re:More info by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe, they shot the whole thing in Australia, and this is just another NASA conspiracy. We never reached Mars; this is all just a hoax.

  30. HEY!....... HEY YOU! by MarkGriz · · Score: 1

    Yes you, solar panel washer martian dude.

    How about a little help over here.

    --
    Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
  31. Dust devil? by avalys · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder if a passing dust devil, of the same sort that periodically clear the dust off the rover's solar panels, might be able to blow some of the sand away from the wheels?

    It might take a while, but hey...

    --
    This space intentionally left blank.
    1. Re:Dust devil? by AviLazar · · Score: 1

      Well you run into two problems (that i can see).

      1) Having to get a dust devil to pass by the rover

      2) The dust devil actually passing by in a way that helps shift the sand away, as opposed to putting more sand in.

      Sorta like hitting the engine of a car with a hammer and hoping it will increase the performance. Yes there is a chance it will do that, but most likely it will make things worse. Now where is a chaos mathemitician (Jeff Goldbloom) when you need one?

      --

      I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  32. Learn to drive in snow by classicvw · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Now they need somebody from upper midwest, or upper New York to show them how to get out. I have been in worse than that, and they are 6 wheel drive.

  33. That sucks, but they got their money's worth by stlhawkeye · · Score: 4, Informative
    NASA has definitely gotten their money's worth out of these two golf carts. These missions have exceded their design specifications by like 500% or something. Weren't they meant for a 90-day mission? We're going on over a year. That's nuts.

    As much as my Nerd Gene wants a manned mission to Mars, it's hard to argue with the scientific value of (relatively) cheap missions like this. NASA shifted in the late 90's to a series of relatively inexpensive probes with a narrow purpose (as opposed to the Voyager-class missions). These probes make sense. For one, there's less financial damage if one fails or is destroyed. And two, they can be put together, tested, and launched more cheaply and more quickly.

    And we're getting some excellent science from them. The Mars rovers were an hour-by-hour news story, then a day-by-day news story, there was a lot of public interest in them during those first few days. These kinds of missions are, I think, more crucial to human space exploration than launching a dude to Mars.

    There's some things you must have people in space to accomplish, but we've got a lot to learn yet through frugal unmanned space exploration and I hate to see so much of NASA's focus being shifted towards manned operations. Honestly, I hate to see NASA continuing to be involved in the production and operational side of space exploration. I think NASA should be reformulated as a primarily science and research-oriented organization and launch operations should be almost entirely privatized. NASA does too many things and most of it not that well, and none of it efficiently.

    --
    "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    1. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by Swanktastic · · Score: 1

      NASA has definitely gotten their money's worth out of these two golf carts. These missions have exceded their design specifications by like 500% or something.

      So doesn't that mean the rover was massively over-engineered?

      Or did they really expect the rover to last this long and simply said it was a 90 day mission in order to cover their tails?

    2. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

      NASA shifted in the late 90's to a series of relatively inexpensive probes with a narrow purpose (as opposed to the Voyager-class missions).

      As opposed to Voyager?

      Voyager was a relatively inexpensive probe with a narrow purpose.

      The entire Voyager mission cost less than 1 space shuttle launch does. So you could fund a Voyager-type mission with the price you're paying for a single Shuttle mission to re-stock the Space Station.

      The problem is that you can't really get too much cheaper. Even if you just launch a slab of concrete into space, it's still going to cost you hundreds of millions of dollars. You might as well make a more capable probe since that's only a small part of the total cost.

    3. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by barawn · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Or did they really expect the rover to last this long and simply said it was a 90 day mission in order to cover their tails?

      Ding ding ding, we have a winner. All NASA probes are typically given a very short lifetime and very modest expectations, engineering them for much larger goals. Easier to request money from Congress that way, and also less of a PR disaster if something goes wrong.

    4. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by Ackmo · · Score: 0

      Certainly, sir. How else can they keep their reputations as miracle workers?

    5. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by vidnet · · Score: 1

      It won't have been there for a year until around May 6th :P

    6. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      The entire Voyager mission cost less than 1 space shuttle launch does. So you could fund a Voyager-type mission with the price you're paying for a single Shuttle mission to re-stock the Space Station.

      Voygar's total price tag was approaching a billion dollars (granted, over a 30 year period), and that's including some dollars spent in 1972 which would translate into many MORE dollars today.

      I'm besmirching Voyagar or its science. But launching small single-purpose missions like this gets us a LOT of feedback and a lot of information, with much less risk. What if Voyagar had been destroyed at Jupiter? We'd never have done any flyby of Saturn until this year, and still have nothing on the other two gas giants.

      Compare that to designing a narrow-mission probe for each planet and launching. The TOTAL cost may be more, but the total science is going to be insane, and if one fails, we've got others. That's why Spirit and Opportunity were paired up, mission redundancy.

      I agree with you also on your implication that the space station is a resource hog.

      Disagree with your assessment of Voyager as a probe with a narrow purpose. Exploring three planets with one probe is pretty ambitious, and at serveral points they thought the probe would be lost, on approaches to both Uranus and Neptune. I really think some good luck has played into the success of the Voyager program.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    7. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close, but May 24th. A martian year is 669 martian days, but 687 earth days.

    8. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      Very true, and the parent as well.

      So do you guys not think that we've gotten our money's worth out of the rovers?

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    9. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      The entire Voyager mission cost less than 1 space shuttle launch does. So you could fund a Voyager-type mission with the price you're paying for a single Shuttle mission to re-stock the Space Station.

      Also, one space shuttle launch costs is on the order of $600 million.

      The New Horizons mission to Pluto is $650 just for the probe. I don't think you could launch a Voyager-style mission for under a billion dollars these day, and certainly not keep it under the price tag of a shuttle launch over a 30-year duration.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    10. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by mehtajr · · Score: 2, Funny
      All NASA probes are typically given a very short lifetime and very modest expectations, engineering them for much larger goals.

      I think it's called the "Scotty method."

    11. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by eaolson · · Score: 1
      So doesn't that mean the rover was massively over-engineered?
      Or, maybe, it was designed to meet it's 90-day lifetime with 99.9% reliability. That will tail off as it gets older. It's not like they would design it to survive a 90-day mission, with it exploding into fiery chunks on day 91.
    12. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by khallow · · Score: 1
      The problem is that you can't really get too much cheaper. Even if you just launch a slab of concrete into space, it's still going to cost you hundreds of millions of dollars. You might as well make a more capable probe since that's only a small part of the total cost.

      There's no law of physics that requires launch costs to be the current several thousand dollars per kg. Even if launches weren't declining, you would still be able to launch concrete into space for around $5-10 million per metric ton (depending on who you use).

      Shuttle launches are also cheaper than you are implying. The following figures are my hazy recall of the economics of the Shuttle. The marginal cost of a Shuttle launch is on the order of $250 million. Counting the huge overhead and 3-4 launches a year, you get a higher price tag of around $500-1000 million. It's still too expensive.

    13. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by _KiTA_ · · Score: 1

      They stole that trick from Scotty on Star Trek. :(

      "And how long will it really take?"

      "3 hours."

      "What, you told him the actual time?"

      "Well, yes?"

      "Well how will everyone think you're a miracle worker?"

    14. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by jackbird · · Score: 1
      It's not like they would design it to survive a 90-day mission, with it exploding into fiery chunks on day 91.

      ...although that would be awesome.

    15. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by nsayer · · Score: 1

      But nobody would be there to see it.

    16. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by jackbird · · Score: 1
      That's why you send 2.

      Or have it drop off a remote camera like they did for the Apollo LEM takeoff footage.

    17. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by jafac · · Score: 1

      ....These kinds of missions are, I think, more crucial to human space exploration than launching a dude to Mars.....

      When you launch a dude to Mars, you need to do the R&D to solve problems like, negative health effects of long-term exposure to zero gravity, and solar radiation, generating (or bringing with you) enough propellant on the martian surface for a return trip. That kind of R&D is pretty crucial to human space exploration, and doesn't happen when you're not doing manned spaceflight research.

      On the other hand, I'm not sure we're at the stage, technology-wise, WRT launch vehicles, space propulsion, and extraterrestrial environments, where it's even a good idea to pursue manned flight. I think that some of the science of the last decade, gathered during unmanned flights, has helped a lot with these kinds of foundational technology. In short- I think NASA's generally been taking the right approach. Getting to Mars is several orders of magnatude more complicated than landing a man on the Moon. And so is Maintaining a Presence on the Moon. I don't think we're realisticly near enough to either of those two goals right now, to make it worthwhile to begin programs for them. There's much we can learn from a long phase of unmanned spaceflight. And a lot of that may be important prerequisites (space propulsion, in particular).

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    18. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
      As much as my Nerd Gene wants a manned mission to Mars, it's hard to argue with the scientific value of (relatively) cheap missions like this.

      Of course, one must remember that if we'd sent men there, they'd have gone as far as Opportunity has gone by lunchtime of the second day on the ground. Or the first day, if they were in a hurry. It's not like Opportunity is as far from its landing site as work is from home for me.

      And a crew of men, seeing some of the unusual things the Rovers have seen, wouldn't be in the position of "we need to design a new mission and send it off to investigate this neat feature in five years or so" - they'd have just gotten their tools out and gone to work.

      A manned mission will be expensive as sin. And possibly risky. And we'll learn more in the year they're sitting on the ground on Mars than we'll learn in the next two centuries of sending " inexpensive probes with a narrow purpose"

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    19. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by KeensMustard · · Score: 0


      When you launch a dude to Mars, you need to do the R&D to solve problems like, negative health effects of long-term exposure to zero gravity, and solar radiation, generating (or bringing with you) enough propellant on the martian surface for a return trip. That kind of R&D is pretty crucial to human space exploration, and doesn't happen when you're not doing manned spaceflight research.


      Provided of course, we accept that human space exploration is a viable enterprise at all. My understanding is that there are no stars that can be reached within a 30 earth year period: ie. it will take 15 years for a small group of humans to travel to the environs of the nearest star at light speed and then another 15 years for a signal, or the humans themselves, to travel back. Will a human presence there tell us something that our earth/orbit based exploratory platforms will not be able to tell us in 30 years hence? Given that a fusion engine will not be sufficiently efficient and powerful to accelerate itself, it's fuel, the humans and their life support systems to anything like the velocity previously described (or even 0.5 c) what energetic reaction will we use?

      On the other hand, I'm not sure we're at the stage, technology-wise, WRT launch vehicles, space propulsion, and extraterrestrial environments, where it's even a good idea to pursue manned flight. I think that some of the science of the last decade, gathered during unmanned flights, has helped a lot with these kinds of foundational technology.

      What these useful enterprises have really taught taught us is the capability of our machinery to take us to other places without requiring our physical presence. I remember a flush faced operator when the Huygens probe landed successfully on Titan: she exclaimed: "humanity has landed on Titan!"

      And so we have.

      Our physical presence is immaterial - probes are our agents in every sense of the word, just like the sound waves we use for greeting, or phones, or clothing. Probes and non-lifeform based machinery can go much further and faster and more efficiently than primates can, and can do much more useful things upon arrival. Let's keep pushing the agent tech, and see how far out we can go.

    20. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by KeensMustard · · Score: 0

      Of course, one must remember that if we'd sent men there, they'd have gone as far as Opportunity has gone by lunchtime of the second day on the ground. Or the first day, if they were in a hurry. It's not like Opportunity is as far from its landing site as work is from home for me.

      Except that of course, moving quickly from place to place was not a mission requirement - if it were, we could have kitted out a probe to move much faster and with more agility than a bipedal human. Rather, we were there to look, and to look closely - which needs a stable platform on which to mount cameras, the ability to look in all directions, as well as efficiently and reliably perform chemical and spectographical analysis of the environs. Primates aren't a stable platform - their particular skills (such as looking for food, sensing dangerous predators, and staying awake during meetings) generally aren't useful in exploration of a planet that's the wrong temperature and has no breathable air. Which means homo sapiens would need to take the machines that have the appropriate skills to do the work for them, as well as other machines to mollycoddle them and protect their fragile flesh in that hostile place - making their presence a liability to getting the job done.

      A manned mission will be expensive as sin. And possibly risky. And we'll learn more in the year they're sitting on the ground on Mars than we'll learn in the next two centuries of sending " inexpensive probes with a narrow purpose"


      Mostly, what we would learn, if that ever came to pass, is the stupidity of using 19th century means of exploration in the 21st century.

    21. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The "warranty" period determines whether parts vendors get paid the full amount IIRC. NASA sets such targets as a guideline and incentive to the vendors.

    22. Re:That sucks, but they got their money's worth by Shadowlore · · Score: 1

      As much as my Nerd Gene wants a manned mission to Mars, it's hard to argue with the scientific value of (relatively) cheap missions like this. NASA shifted in the late 90's to a series of relatively inexpensive probes with a narrow purpose (as opposed to the Voyager-class missions). These probes make sense. For one, there's less financial damage if one fails or is destroyed. And two, they can be put together, tested, and launched more cheaply and more quickly.

      Again it depends on what you mean by "science". Correctly speaking, the rovers, cool as they are, do not do science. They merely gather data. They are (very) remote instruments, nothing more. Indeed, we have even more remote instruments. Not fundamentally different than a thermostat or my digital camera. They all gather data, humans are doing any science. Therefore, the *science* return from these guys is nil. That's a high price to pay for zero return. Perhaps not so bad for data, though that is questionable too.

      Now, put a crew of 4-6 people on board and send them to Mars - now that is big-time publicity. You get something interesting to talk about leading up to the launch (interviews with the crew, stories about them, the mission, etc.). You get something interesting to watch during the launch and for the next six months as they travel there, their experiences little space tricks, etc.. You get something interesting to watch as they arrive and land. You get at least a few good months of coverage after planetfall. You get at least a month or so at the one year mark. You get something enticing as they launch from mars to come home. Perhaps you get stuff on the way back; maybe some return trip exclusive interviews or something. And of course arrival in orbit and return to "home" is exciting stuff to watch, too. Then for a few months after touchdown you've got interviews, talk shows, book deals, conventions, etc..

      Robots will not acheive such a potential for acpturing the eye, spirit, and attention like a manned mission can; at least for for a few human generations at least. If you want people excited and interested, sending people is the name of the game.

      And no, "science of robotics" doesn't count as all that work was done here before they ever left (duh ;)).

      They dropped from the public's radar so quickly in part due to them being machines. Their limited travel and feature set meant that after a while the day to day activities were mostly unchanging. This is bad, or at least not good, for maintaining public interest.

      As far as human exploration, the costs are not as you believe, nor is the timeframe.

      Robotic missions are not so effective in the temporal scale as you might think. The time frames invovled in designing testing, retesting, etc are not small. Nor are the timeframes involved in getting it from drawing board to planetary landing site. IIRC, MSL is scheduled for a 2009/2010 launch. It'll take a year to get there. It's been in the works since at least 2002, as I recall.

      That gives us a total time of somewhere between eight and ten years from concept to Martian landing. Follow up missions are not looking to take any less time. But they should.

      Follow on missions don't take less time because robotics engineers always want to try something else. That means years of research and testing, most of which is NOT reported in the cost of the final rover. After the research come the tests and applications to get on a launch schedule, etc.. Then comes the wait for a launch window opportunity.

      Adding to this is the natural size increase in the forthcoming proposed and planned rovers. MSL is looking to weigh in at 6600 pounds, over 3 tons. It is going to weigh in at about twice the weight of my car. The days of small rovers are over. We liek to rave about their "unexpected life" and the allegedly high "science" they are doing. Reality of it is they are primarily producing lots of pictures.

      The biggest discoveries, and most significant, regarding Mars over t

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
  34. Rover stuck on Arrakis by chemstar · · Score: 1



    All that research on folding space, and look what happens.

  35. Images by Maddog+Batty · · Score: 4, Informative

    The rover is driving backwards so there is more to see in the front view than there is in the back view

    I hope they get it out...

    --
    wot no sig
    1. Re:Images by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's also interesting to compare the above image with this one, taken Jan. 31, 2004 when the wheels were relatively clean an un-caked.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  36. Opportunity has wheel trouble already by karvind · · Score: 1
    Mars Rover Opportunity has wheel trouble already earlier in april. It lost the ability to steer one of its wheels. They said: While the vehicle can still move, the failure may make it harder to study rocks up close. The rover has six wheels aligned in two rows and each of the four corner wheels has its own steering mechanism. The problem is with the front right wheel, which can still roll but is now stuck at a 7 inward angle.

    Also Opportunity and Spirit were given a further 18-month mission extension on 5 April 2005.

  37. Short Circuit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Number five stay alive!

  38. Tow Job by kpwoodr · · Score: 1

    With the other rover on the other side of the planet, it looks like it will be a while before the tow truck gets there.

    I bet if you called Marvin, he could help you out of a jam.

    Don't they have a tiny shovel that could dig the wheel out of the dirt?

    --
    This sig has been removed pending an investigation.
    1. Re:Tow Job by stlhawkeye · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Wouldn't it be amazing if they both lasted long enough to eventually meet up somewhere? It'd probably take years but talk about publicity! Two robots designed for 90-day missions circumnavigating another planet! I wonder if it's even possible, given their design and Mars' terrain.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    2. Re:Tow Job by speleo · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't it be amazing if they both lasted long enough to eventually meet up somewhere?

      Let's do some math:

      The top speed of the rover is roughly 0.036 km per hour.

      The equatorial radius of Mars is 3397 km which means the circumfrence is 21344 km. Let's assume for simplicity each rover is exactly opposite the other, so they're 10672 km apart.

      Travel time to go 10672 km at 0.036 km per hour is 33.84 years earth time.

      Of course, this assumes travel around the clock, which they can't do since they need to recharge batteries.

      In other words, it'd take a long damn time -- it ain't gonna happen.

    3. Re:Tow Job by DoubleD · · Score: 1

      divide by 2 assuming you have each rover moving towards the other in an optimal manner.

      Then multiply by 2 for battery recharging

      Then multiply by at least 10 for terrain navigation and other interference.

      Still ain't gonna happen, at least until we have a mars base and somebody carries them both to the same museum ;).

      --
      "He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep in order to gain what he cannot lose."
    4. Re:Tow Job by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      " divide by 2 assuming you have each rover moving towards the other in an optimal manner."

      If the Opportunity rover could move, it wouldn't need a tow truck.

      Even if the other rover were only 50 feet away, sending it to rescue the rover would just result in two stuck rovers.

      And /. people would like to think they are smarter than JPL scientists...

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    5. Re:Tow Job by stlhawkeye · · Score: 1
      Let's do some math:

      Before you even start, note that I said it'd be "amazing" if it ever happened, implying that I'm aware of the unlikelihood.

      Let's assume for simplicity each rover is exactly opposite the other, so they're 10672 km apart.

      Travel time to go 10672 km at 0.036 km per hour is 33.84 years earth time.

      But each one need only travel half that distance to meet up, so it's only like 17 years! Huzzah!

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
  39. Roads? by mikvo · · Score: 1
    FTA: Time will also be spent figuring out what's different about the soil that has bogged down Opportunity, hoping to keep this problem from occurring down the road.

    Road? Where we're going, we don't need roads!

  40. Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In other news, a spokesperson for the Council of Elders announced yet another success in the struggle against the Earthling invaders. "Our sandmines have incapacitated the autonomous monster from Earth. Though the Earthlings detected our new Illudim PU-36 Zypher weapon, it is now only a matter of time until the vicious winds of war reduces the impotent machine to nothing."

  41. Three letters: by operagost · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Triple-A.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:Three letters: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap, I am super-redundant. Bye-bye karma.

  42. Terra Nova? by Blacken00100 · · Score: 0

    Dammit, I wasted those pilots! Lost so many suits in that fight...but my drones won in the end!

  43. Change type of vehicle? by Armagguedes · · Score: 1

    Considering the Martian soil is practially all sand (at least where they like to land) wouldn't it be better to use hovercrafts there? there's plenty of atmospheric gasses (CO2 mostly) and i think this doesn't get all that affected by dust.

    Either that or either a miniature tracked vehicle, tank style or a roibotic spider like thingie.

    Anti-grav's still a long ways off.

    1. Re:Change type of vehicle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have about 1% Earth atmosphere so it'd need one hell of a lift fan. And hovercrafts aren't exactly efficient. With the power constraints they're under it's a complete non-starter.

    2. Re:Change type of vehicle? by stlhawkeye · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Considering the Martian soil is practially all sand (at least where they like to land) wouldn't it be better to use hovercrafts there? there's plenty of atmospheric gasses (CO2 mostly) and i think this doesn't get all that affected by dust.

      Somebody else mentioned treads as well. I'm guessing these things were considered and discarded due to the extra complexity, weight, and power requirements of those modes of locomotion.

      --
      "I have never won a debate with an ignorant person." -Ali ibn Abi Talib
    3. Re:Change type of vehicle? by enosys · · Score: 1

      I'm sure hovercrafts would use a lot more power than wheeled vehicles. I don't think solar panels would provide enough power for that. Plus hovercrafts would create large clouds of dust, some of which would settle on the solar panels and make things worse.

    4. Re:Change type of vehicle? by Transcendent · · Score: 1

      Considering the Martian soil is practially all sand (at least where they like to land) wouldn't it be better to use hovercrafts there?

      Nothing like shitting on your scientific project by blasting sand at it at 50mph.

      Seriously, the point is to make observations, not speed around the planet.

    5. Re:Change type of vehicle? by TheHawke · · Score: 1

      Have you seen the flyer that they are wanting to use on mars? The wingspan alone would rival a 747s. Oh and the propeller that it's going be using. It's as big as the GE90's turbofan intake compressor.

      The lift fan on a hovercraft on mars would be probably about 75 feet in diameter.

      And the dust! my gawd the poor thing would choke on it and visibility would be ZERO the instant the blades start moving any kind of volume.

      --
      First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
    6. Re:Change type of vehicle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 90s there was a plan to send a UAV to Mars. Apparently even with its thin atmosphere, the lower gravity on Mars made it theoretically possible to fly.

      IIRC it had inflatable wings that deployed after the heat shield dropped away, then flew around making observations.

    7. Re:Change type of vehicle? by mr.mighty · · Score: 1

      "lots of atmospheric gasses" is relative. The air is thicker than in space, but it's very, very thin. You'd need an awful lot of power to move enough air to make it hover, I'd guess.

    8. Re:Change type of vehicle? by gnuman99 · · Score: 1

      No. You just need pressure for which you would need a compressor. Those things are quite heavy. Also, Mars is dusty. To have anything hover, well, BAD idea.

    9. Re:Change type of vehicle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hovercraft are only useful for flat surfaces (like water). There's no way to climb up a crater wall or sand dune with one, making them useless for exploring.

      dom

  44. Winch by crunk · · Score: 1

    As any redneck will tell you... you should never go muddin without a winch.

    --
    It's the battle of the minds, and everyone's unarmed.
  45. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    In other news, AAA membership fees are being raised to $70,000,000 per year.

  46. I envision by mattmentecky · · Score: 1

    While they haven't given up yet...

    I envision a NASA tech and a NASA manager lurking infront of a big control panel

    Tech: Sir it appears to be...uh...stuck in some sand

    Manager: Sand? Well, try all our options to get it unstuck!

    Tech: I uh....can...tell it to move forward...again...

    Manager: Great idea!

    *Tech presses obvious large red button*

    Tech: Uh...still won't move...

    Manager: Well dammit, what else can we do?

    Tech: We could....push the button again...

  47. That's what we get for sending low-grade droids by terrab0t · · Score: 1

    Why did this never happen to R2-D2?

    1. Re:That's what we get for sending low-grade droids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hate to break the bad news to you.... But, Star Wars isn't real.

  48. A la Lancelot by Joe+the+Lesser · · Score: 1

    Rover: Could uh... could someone give me a push?...

    --
    "I only speak the truth"
    Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
  49. If it's stuck in the Dune... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... it can start looking for... THE SPICE !!!

  50. This is what *REALLY* happened by netglen · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're too embarrased to admit it, but they actually found the rover on red cement blocks and some Mars fiend has stolen the wheels.

  51. Re:It's okay, it was powered by Windows XP... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No way - the article said it has already worked more than a year.

  52. They've probably tried this already... by devphaeton · · Score: 1

    ....and that's probably how it got stuck, but they could possibly rock it out like a car.

    I've always wondered why they built it with wheels and not tracks though. Guess some of them are wondering the same thing now.

    This sucks. Really.

    --


    do() || do_not(); // try();
    1. Re:They've probably tried this already... by Martin+Blank · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tracks are mechanically much more complex. Each track is mechanically linked with its neighbors, increasing the number of possible failures.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    2. Re:They've probably tried this already... by the_2nd_coming · · Score: 2, Informative

      6 wheels that are independent and can be moved up and down at will are better than a track system.

      --



      I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
    3. Re:They've probably tried this already... by korbin_dallas · · Score: 1

      Not really, especially for this size device.

      Caterpillar (and others) now use a Rubber Endless Loop Track (i.e. BIG rubber band). No pins, no shoes, no clanking.

      RE:
      http://www.cat.com/cda/layout?m=37840&x=7

      --
      They Live, We Sleep
  53. Re:It's okay, it was powered by Windows XP... by ookabooka · · Score: 1

    Actually, this incident was a demonstration of a new feature; that's how the rover was supposed to operate.

    P.S. Its now also an industry standard

    --
    If you are about to mod me down, keep in mind that this post was most likely sarcastic.
  54. Terrestrial Simulations by QuantumFTL · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wouldn't worry too much about this one - the engineers are already using the engineering test rovers to test possible means of escape here on earth. The test rovers have proven invaluable in the past for modelling such complex situations (where computer models would be unlikely to be of much help).

    The rover had made it many kilometers, I don't a little sand dune is going to stop it. All the scientists I've spoken to about this seemed optimistic (which was not how they felt about the spirit anomoly back in January 2004) so... I'm not worried just yet.

    Does make for some very cool pictures though!
    -- Justin

  55. Time for help from the dustdevils again by johnjay · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now if only one of those dustdevils that's been cleaning the solar panels would be kind enough to wedge a 2"x12" behind the drive wheel...

  56. Use the other one by sheepoo · · Score: 1

    Why don't they use the other rover to push this one out of the sand dune?

    1. Re:Use the other one by crunk · · Score: 1

      ...and have two stuck rovers?

      --
      It's the battle of the minds, and everyone's unarmed.
    2. Re:Use the other one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Why don't they use the other rover to push this one out of the sand dune?"

      Because they don't want to take a 1 year detour, then get stuck in the same dune?

      -Anonymous Phil

  57. those m's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did anybody else read ... Montreal!
    montreal?
    muahahahahahahahahaha

  58. Should have sent a H2 instead of a "Rover" by FerretFrottage · · Score: 4, Funny

    Sure it would have only gotten a few km down away from the lander before needing to gas up, but no little dune would stop it unless the engineers were afraid of getting it dirty since they only want to use the H2 to drive to the local Mars mini-mart and back.

    --
    "Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
    1. Re:Should have sent a H2 instead of a "Rover" by nilptr46 · · Score: 1
      All the more reason to send humans to Mars - to lay down some asphalt to the mini-mart for the H2.

      You wouldn't think of taking that beauty *gasp* off-road, would you?

    2. Re:Should have sent a H2 instead of a "Rover" by rbochan · · Score: 1

      That would be a great idea... especially when a Hummer can get stuck in a parking lot :oP

      --
      ...Rob
      The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
    3. Re:Should have sent a H2 instead of a "Rover" by iamlucky13 · · Score: 1

      Taking that piece of crap off-road would be a really bad idea. Seriously. The chassis is basically a slightly modified Tahoe. I've seen a video of some moron trying to crawl some small rocks with an H2. He's guns it as he going over one and had tie-rod snap in somewhat spectacular fashion. The original Hummer, or bet yet, a Humvee would be far better. Besides, just think how much CO2 you'd be adding to the martian atmosphere.

  59. that aint no crater... by bobsalt · · Score: 3, Funny

    looks like worm sign to me...

  60. Southern Drivers by ackthpt · · Score: 0
    It was probably attacked by a giant sandworm.

    More like Opportunity is being piloted by people who never lived in the Great White North and haven't had the pleasure of learning to drive in deep snow without 4WD and chains.

    I used to do about 10,000 miles a year of winter driving, often on ice, through slush or snow. Even cruising home a few nights in blizzards. I'm fascinated, living in California, how few people seem able to drive in rain. (We're having a rainy year, BTW)

    "ok, it's not going to budge, call MAA"

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    1. Re:Southern Drivers by WD_40 · · Score: 1

      Here in so-cal, the average daily accident rate doubles from about 200 per day to 400 per day when it rains. People just don't slow down.

      --

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    2. Re:Southern Drivers by robertjw · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...haven't had the pleasure of learning to drive in deep snow without 4WD and chains.

      Actually, they probably should have hired Californians with experience driving 4WD vehicles across SAND since they got stuck in a dune. Maybe somebody who has experience in the Imperial Sand Dunes. Driving in snow is very different than driving in sand, I've done both. Plus, the rover appears to be a six wheel drive.

    3. Re:Southern Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      When rain is relatively infrequent, as it is even in a "rainy" time in Southern Cal., the accumulated oils and guck on the road get churned into an emulsion by the passing wheels and create an extra-slippery mess that threatens control until a sufficient volume of water falls to float the crap off the road altogether.

      Where rain is more frequent, the layer of guck is less and the danger less.

      At least that's what my late buddy from southern cal. used to tell me, explaining why in a Virginia cloudburst he would pull over to the side of the road and refuse to budge until the initial fury was spent.

    4. Re:Southern Drivers by glsen_az · · Score: 1

      Why don't they just have the other rover do a AAA Roadside Assistance? It carries chains, right? Just an attached hook to the rear of the stuck rover, a few good tugs, good as new - back on the road. -*-Bill

    5. Re:Southern Drivers by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Here in so-cal, the average daily accident rate doubles from about 200 per day to 400 per day when it rains. People just don't slow down.

      Not so much a matter of not slowing down, they don't allow more space between themselves and the next vehicle, even the knackerheads who cut in between cars with only a whisker to spare. Small wonder there's more accidents, there's less room for error and compensation.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    6. Re:Southern Drivers by Woody77 · · Score: 1

      I grew up in the midwest, and comfortably drive on icey roads. A first-rain-of-the-season (october or so) on fresh blacktop here in Silicone Valley? worse than black ice.

      I tend to drive a lot in 4wd in my truck on those occaisions. So slick that 4wd is actually "safe" for the drivetrain.

      But it usually clears up after one or two good hard rains.

    7. Re:Southern Drivers by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      I couldn't believe it! I went down to the NAPA valley for 2 days to do work for a company. When I landed at the airport everyone was talking about how miserable it was, how everyone was late because of traffic accidents, etc...

      I stepped outside to find a nice light drizzle.

      It was a little bit of a shock since I live about 30 miles from Vancouver, WA and we get buckets of rain all the time.

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    8. Re:Southern Drivers by panchondo · · Score: 0

      At least I can have a REAL year round tan. Pale white Yanks! Gulf Coast 4evar!

    9. Re:Southern Drivers by fshalor · · Score: 1

      This would have been funnier if you'd signed it "W".

      --
      -=fshalor ::this post not spellchecked. move along::
    10. Re:Southern Drivers by Afrosheen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, there are 2 problems with places where it rarely rains, when it rains.

      1. The US has chosen the worse possible grade of asphalt (blacktop) for the majority of streets and parts of highways. Europe uses a much safer grade which uses larger rocks in the mix, therefore giving your tires more to grab onto in the wet. Ask Germany how well this works.

      2. In densely populated areas, you get alot of junk cars on the roads leaking oils and fluids. This, combined with heaps of rubber, bakes into the road surface. First rain, all that stuff liquifies and rides on the surface of the water. It really is slicker than ice and any insurance company will tell you, the first hour after it begins to rain is the most dangerous time to drive.

      I live in Dallas, and people are equally stupid here when it rains. Nobody turns their headlights on when it's misting in the daytime, and everyone thinks they're driving magical cars that brake even better in rain than in dry conditions. You can count on all the major highways and interconnects getting fucked up every single time it rains.

    11. Re:Southern Drivers by La+Fortezza · · Score: 1

      I live in Dallas too!

      Thank ${DEITY} it doesn't snow/ice down here much in the winter, it is truly terrifying to be on the road with morons doing pirouettes down I35 because they don't know how to slow down.

    12. Re:Southern Drivers by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      I live in Dallas... and everyone thinks they're driving magical cars that brake even better in rain than in dry conditions.

      As a fellow Texan, I must inform you that most people do believe they are buying "magical cars"- pickum-up trucks. I mean, why else would you spend more money on a vehicle that will cost you more in gas in the long run? Because it makes them feel safer.

    13. Re:Southern Drivers by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      When the freeways are not filled to capacity, then leaving more following room does not slow you down at all, this is true. However "not filled to capacity" does not describe LA freeways in the slightest. If the freeway system has all the cars it can fit, then leaving more following room effectively reduces the carrying capacity of the road, leading to all sorts of other traffic jam problems.

      (Consider this example: A 1000 meter section of road, with 6 lanes and each car occupies 15 meters of space, can carry (1000/15)*6 = 296 cars.. but now stretch that out and leave twice as much following distance (so each car occupies 30 meters of road), and now the same chunk of freeway only holds half as many cars (1000/30)*6 = 198 cars.)

      Leaving more following distance equals reducing the carrying capacity of the freeway. This is not a problem in cities where traffic isn't congested and the freeway isn't already at its maximum capacity. LA is not in that situtaion, though.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    14. Re:Southern Drivers by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Hey, they are safer..for only them. Most of the fatal accident reports in the newspaper go like this:

      Family of 10 illegal aliens died around 2am when a driver of an SUV apparently fell asleep, crossed the median into oncoming traffic and hit the family's car head on. The car was reduced to a hubcap while the SUV driver awoke with a broken fingernail.

      The worst part about this scenario is that it happens way too often and whatever that 4000lb truck hits get obliterated. TXDOT is starting to put up median barriers in some places because of this nonsense, particularly on i30 and george bush tollway.

    15. Re:Southern Drivers by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1
      Hey, they are safer..for only them.

      Good point. That explains why everytime I'm on a highway in this state I'm getting passed by a truck whose driver must be morally opposed to speed limits. I always thought it was because of the influence of NASCAR, but it is alot more possible that a person who needs to waste twice as much resources to get from point A to point B as a person in a car for no good reason also wouldn't care about how dangerous their habbits are..

    16. Re:Southern Drivers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Years ago a person could get away with saying Southern drivers don't know how to drive on snow and ice, whereas yankees do. Since the advent of cable television, we Southerners can SEE yankee drivers sliding all over the place and crashing into one another. The average driver from either north or south can't drive on snow or ice.

      So there, put that in your pipe and smoke it!

    17. Re:Southern Drivers by Tteddo · · Score: 1

      Oh my god!! That was hilarious!!!

    18. Re:Southern Drivers by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Hmm, you make a good point. I guess the primary target market for SUV's is people that don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Which seems to be the emerging attitude among privileged americans. The rest of us drive cars.

  61. Now you see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was suggesting adding a heavy duty winch on rovers, but no... too much weight they said. Ha! Now what are you going to do, call road service? :-P

    1. Re:Now you see! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, you got use one of the many trees around.

  62. Naw. They should've used Dubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    The Mars Rover would look completely dope with some chrome-plated, 20-inch spinnaz, yo.

  63. Wrong guys are driving the thing... by kenneytechnologies · · Score: 5, Funny

    We need to get those volvo driving NASA geeks out of the drivers seat and call in Cousin Clyde. Sure, he's used to driving a F350 with 10" lift and 32" mudboggers, but hell, just tell him it's eight wheel drive and there's a case of PBR in it for him. He'll have it unstuck in no time.

  64. muu? by game+kid · · Score: 2, Funny

    I told NASA to call MTV so they could Pimp Their Rover. These bureaus just don't listen. It's gonna be tough to drive the beater to West Coast Customs now.

    Though I do wonder how fine it would have went with spinning rims...

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  65. Yeah, and the Shuttle is going to fly again. by tjstork · · Score: 0, Troll

    :-)

    --
    This is my sig.
  66. MOD PARENT UP! INSIGHTFUL by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Actually it's not a bad idea at all. I mean, kids play with their remote-controlled toys and sometimes they have to flip them over. If this happens with a toy, what tell us it won't happen to the Mars Rover?

    After all, didn't DaVinci used his creativity to design the precursors of today's modern inventions, like the helicopter, or the glider?

    So yes, why not play with more toys and watch more robot battles to get ideas?

    1. Re:MOD PARENT UP! INSIGHTFUL by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Actually it's not a bad idea at all. I mean, kids play with their remote-controlled toys and sometimes they have to flip them over. If this happens with a toy, what tell us it won't happen to the Mars Rover? After all, didn't DaVinci used his creativity to design the precursors of today's modern inventions, like the helicopter, or the glider? So yes, why not play with more toys and watch more robot battles to get ideas?

      Bah! Don't be daft. Every ounce of weght is another [x] amount of milliamps those drive motors will draw. And not only would it require the arm and its driving mechanism, but it would require significant structural reinforcement to keep parts from bending, cracking, and/or breaking off when the whole vehicle's weight is put on them. In a year of driving these things around they haven't yet required a "flipper arm". Keep in mind that the "planned" length of the missions was 92 days and we're now approaching four times that. Besides, do you really think the NASA/JPL guys are so dense as not have thought of such a thing? We saw a similar stream of posts saying "those dumb NASA scientists should have used [some hair-brained scheme]" when the issue of dust on the solar panels came up! Honestly, it almost seems as if people look at the Mars Climate Orbiter crash and conclude that, on the basis of a dumb mathematical error, everyone in NASA is a fool and doesn't think creatively. News flash! This just in: They're not stupid, your idea isn't as great as you think it is!

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
    2. Re:MOD PARENT UP! INSIGHTFUL by Ced_Ex · · Score: 1

      Besides, do you really think the NASA/JPL guys are so dense as not have thought of such a thing?

      Well... maybe current day NASA/JPL guys with all their fancy doodads and computers. Plug in the variables and the machine spits out the answer.

      Back in the old days they used an abacus to figure the math needed to solve a problem. Probably had a better understanding of math.

      I would be willing to bet that current day NASA engineers could not send up a spacecraft using the same technology the old engineers had.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    3. Re:MOD PARENT UP! INSIGHTFUL by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

      Besides, do you really think the NASA/JPL guys are so dense as not have thought of such a thing?

      Newsflash: NASA scientists aren't gods. Remember when they forgot to turn on the huygens switch? Huh? And what about the flipped-over gravity sensor? Oh, and don't forget about Apolo XIII, the Challenger...

      Scientists make mistakes, too. They're not perfect. And my point was that no matter how much science or math they know, they might need a creative mind's help.

    4. Re:MOD PARENT UP! INSIGHTFUL by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      I would be willing to bet that current day NASA engineers could not send up a spacecraft using the same technology the old engineers had.

      And I would be willing to bet that those old engineers couldn't do it using current technology. It's not a question of advancement or loss, it's what you are used to using.

    5. Re:MOD PARENT UP! INSIGHTFUL by bluGill · · Score: 1

      No, the ancients had a better ability at arithmetic. However all the boring calculation prevented them from seeing the forest for the trees too.

    6. Re:MOD PARENT UP! INSIGHTFUL by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      no matter how much science or math they know, they might need a creative mind's help.


      You don't become a scientist in the first place without one.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    7. Re:MOD PARENT UP! INSIGHTFUL by Dun+Malg · · Score: 1
      Scientists make mistakes, too. They're not perfect. And my point was that no matter how much science or math they know, they might need a creative mind's help.

      Scientists ARE creative-- that was my point. None of those things you listed would have been prevented by more creativity. They were errors, plain and simple. Even creative people make mistakes.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  67. Tell NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the sleeper must awaken!

  68. Wow... by Seoulstriker · · Score: 5, Funny

    That really is a small planet!

    --
    I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
    1. Re:Wow... by quisph · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nah, it's a really big rover!

  69. Re:It's okay, it was powered by Windows XP... by Virtual+Karma · · Score: 1

    WTF??

    Dont you think this joke is kinda old and redundant? Enough of windows bashing. There is more to life than posting on /. with some windows bashing and hoping to please some OSS-fanatic-moderator.

    My advice: GET A LIFE!

  70. Why can't they by RealProgrammer · · Score: 4, Funny
    Why can't they just
    • Back up? ("What do you mean, 'there's no reverse'? Budget cuts my ass!")
    • Activate the built-in turbo jacks?
    • Ask Google? When I get in a jam, that's what I do.
    • Reverse the polarity?

    I guess that's why I'm not in charge of NASA.

    --
    sigs, as if you care.
    1. Re:Why can't they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jettison the Jeffries Tube!

    2. Re:Why can't they by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back-ups? I was supposed to make those?

  71. Sticky sand? by cplusplus · · Score: 1

    The wheels on the rovers have visible ridges on them (like tread on a car tire). Looking at the picture, it appears that the sand has stuck pretty tightly to the wheels, because the ridges aren't visible. That rover is in a sticky mess :(

    --
    "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    1. Re:Sticky sand? by dcigary · · Score: 1

      That's what I saw too, leading me to believe there's some type of moisture in the soil? Dunno.

      Maybe they can wait until nighttime and hopefully whatever is permeated into that soil will freeze, giving the rover a little more traction...

      --
      ...my Karma ran over your Dogma...
  72. IRTA by Orlando · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Mars machinery had been cruising southward across the open parking lot-like landscape of Meridiani Planum full of lager

    Just let him sleep it off, apart from a headache he'll be alright in the morning.

    --
    -= This is a self-referential sig =-
  73. Opportunity's last transmission before sinking: by mblase · · Score: 1

    ALL THESE WORLDS
    ARE YOURS EXCEPT
    PHOBOS
    ATTEMPT NO
    LANDING THERE

    1. Re:Opportunity's last transmission before sinking: by The+Breeze · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's last transmission was REALLY:

      My God! It's full of mud!

  74. nod to SW... by technix4beos · · Score: 1

    Overheard just before it got stuck.

    Junior Engineer: "Sir, it looks like the rover is headed for a small dune of sand."

    Operations Manager: "I've got a bad feeling about this."

    Senior Engineer: "That's no small dune", *eyes wide*

    --
    user@host$ diff /dev/urandom /dev/uspto
  75. If only NASA had sprung $50 for a AAA membership by hqm · · Score: 4, Funny

    If they would just have coughed up the $50 for their AAA membership, this wouldn't be a problem.
    As it stands, the towing charges are going to be astronomical.

  76. Command Stream by jac1962 · · Score: 1

    trans reverse
    power full
    trans forward
    power full
    trans reverse
    power full
    trans forward
    power full
    trans. . .

    --
    "I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
  77. fake by biffyboy · · Score: 1

    everyone knows we cant get into space, the world is flat, and that this landing like the moon landing, was/is staged in hollywood. pthff they will do anything to create drama these days.

  78. Re:It's okay, it was powered by Windows XP... by DeathFlame · · Score: 4, Funny

    He had a life, but he got it from Microsoft so it crashed! hahah. I'm so clever.

  79. OK, Who Forgot the Shovel? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Send a probe to a sandy planet - and noone brings a shovel?

    Oh, wait, it's NASA. Never mind ...

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  80. but mad mike by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    hooked them up with a 40" plasma screen and 3 xbox playstations instead !

  81. Hey I Can See My House From Here! by DumbSwede · · Score: 1
    Great picture though it doesn't inspire confidence they will extricate Opportunity.

    I can't help notice the one and only visible point of light in the upper right sky. Could that possibly be Earth?

    1. Re:Hey I Can See My House From Here! by kencurry · · Score: 1
      visible point of light in the upper right sky. Could that possibly be Earth?

      ... sadly, it's just a stuck pixel on your cinema display.

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  82. 18th hole by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    "Mars rovers get stuck in sand trap on way to 18th hole." Mars would make a nice golf course! (But the moon would be even better!

  83. Warning! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sand worm signs spotted. Head for rocky areas.

  84. Little rover that could't. by iv81 · · Score: 1

    They should wait till summer. Full charge it using the solar pannels and such and accelerate it at full power.

  85. Re:Naw. They should've used Dubs by Rei · · Score: 4, Funny

    And they could have launched it on a Rice Rocket. I'm picturing an old Delta-2 with an oversized "Type R" decal, a dozen gigantic fog lights, oversized chrome-plated bell nozzles on the engines, racing stripes, and extraneous fins. ;)

    --
    Dear Lord: One of your creatures may be hurt tonight. Please let it be the other creature.
  86. I've been there... by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 1

    On a closed beach (due to incoming storm), late at night, doing doughnuts in the sand...
    and the car gets stuck.

    We tried getting traction by putting the (many) empty beer cans under the wheels. Still no luck.

    Then a park ranger stops by, shines a flashlight on the wheels (illuminating the cans) and gives us the 'you are too stupid to live' look.

    Ahhh.... spring break!

  87. careful on Dune by brer_rabbit · · Score: 4, Funny

    if the rover stays in one place too long, it may be eaten by a sandworm. I hate it when sandworms eat my harvesters.

    1. Re:careful on Dune by TheWickedKingJeremy · · Score: 1

      Unless the sandworms are from Tremors and not Dune, in which case staying in one place is the best survival strategy.

      All future NASA rover missions should be equipped with a Kevin Bacon.

      --

      my religion lies somewhere between buddhism and super monkey ball - pamphlet?
  88. No problem by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Just call MacGyver! Get him some straws, a soda can and some duct tape and he'll be there next week!

    --
    http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
  89. Better sensationalized version... by theendlessnow · · Score: 5, Funny

    The rover is dead. Somebody has already stripped the hub caps and key'd the side of the vehicle. Left rear axle is up on blocks. Birds have covered the front and rear windows with poop. It doesn't look good for the little guy who's now 359 days into the extended mission. It is unlikely that a tow truck will reach it anytime soon.

  90. My Favorite Martian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does this remind me of the opening shot from the movie My Favorite Martian?

  91. Baja Claws by robertjw · · Score: 1

    They need bigger wheels! Knew they shoulda opt for those shiny 18" !

    Not bigger wheels, bigger tires. Shoulda went with some 44" Baja Claws.

    1. Re:Baja Claws by mikael · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not bigger wheels, bigger tires. Shoulda went with some 44" Baja Claws

      No, you need sand tyres - mud tyres are designed to dig deep into the dirt.
      That's the last thing you want to do if you are travelling across sand.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:Baja Claws by robertjw · · Score: 1, Flamebait
      Oh, tell me you did NOT reply to my post with a link to a Landrover site. You are just wrong on SO many levels.
      • First, the Baja Claw is generally a accepted to be a good sand tire. If I was mudding and needed traction I'd use a Super Swamper.
      • Second, the amount of traction that's good for a sand tire depends on several factors. What I've found over the years is that a vehicle with low horsepower generally does better with a smoother tire will spin, keeping wheel speed up and not digging in to the sand. If you have enough power, a tire with more traction will actually work better, as long as the air pressure is low. If you look at the trucks that race in SCORE you will see that most of those have aggressive tires with transverse ribs, unlike the Landrover article you cited.
      • Third, Landrover is the most overrated, underpowered, ridiculous excuse for a 4x4 on the PLANET. If you doubt I know what I'm talking about, show me a Landrover that can do this.
      • Finally, the word is TIRES, spell it with me T-I-R-E-S
    3. Re:Baja Claws by pmc · · Score: 1

      Land Rover over-rated? I don't think so. A Land Rover is almost indestructable. That is why you find them all over the planet. First car to go from Alaska to Cape Horn. Look at any film you may see with relief effort in Africa and examine what they are driving - why, they're Land Rovers.

      They are relative cheap (especially considering their lifespan), simple (less to go wrong), easy to repair, and easy to jury rig to limp home.

      Sort of reminds me of the (apocryphal) story about the NASA $1Million pen and the Russian 5c pencil.

      And it is tyres.

    4. Re:Baja Claws by robertjw · · Score: 1

      First car to go from Alaska to Cape Horn.

      Yeah, and because only a Land Rover idiot was dumb enough to try. The truck hasn't changed in the 30+ years since. Look at any film you may see with relief effort in Africa and examine what they are driving - why, they're Land Rovers.

      Or maybe just because they are left over from the colonial days, or because it's one of the few reasonably priced 4x4s built in Europe - which is a HELL of a lot closer to ship from than the US. If you notice, most of the other stuff used in African relief efforts isn't usually state of the art either.

      They are relative cheap

      Maybe in your part of the world, here in the US they are a pricey status symbol of the SUV crowd.

      For the most part they remind me of the old 50's Willys CJ3A. They too were small, cheap, easy to repair and simple. They would go absolutely anywhere as long as you didn't want to go more than 25MPH. Jeep as moved on Landrover should too.

    5. Re:Baja Claws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, you're an idiot.

      First, all those events you're describing take palce a long time ago for a reason. Any Land Rover made in the last twenty years would snap its drivetrain if you ever tried to take it OFf Road, because they're so cheaply made. They're crap. They're underbuilt, and they're MADE BY FORD, sold for >$70,000 per. Yeah, 50 years ago Land Rover made a tough machine, but that hasn't been true for a long time.

      Second, the story isn't Apocryphal, it's debunked. Either learn the difference between the two, or stop using big words. Pencils are lousy writing instruments for space, mainly because you're in a pressurized container of oxygen, adding flamable wood shards and graphite dust is not a good idea. The Space Pen, on the other hand, was developed by Fisher, at no cost to NASA, and works far better than a pencil for the environment which it's used in.

      Third, it's tires. Look it up. It will list 'tires' as, among other things, a covering for a wheel. It will list 'tyres' as, only, a variant of tires.

    6. Re:Baja Claws by msim · · Score: 1

      theres a whole selection on this site, my favourite one is the bike tyre.

      --

      Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  92. Re:Call MAA by saskboy · · Score: 1

    I created this handy package the other year, but no one from JPL bought it, although one NASA person did write to enquire about the plan:

    Thanks for looking at my sale.
    This item comes from Canada, but is listed on es.eBay.com on purpose for their more reasonable listing fee, and their money is about as close to alien gold-pressed latinum as any currency on Earth.

    Martian Automobile Association Membership card with booklet.
    Motto: Don't be caught on Mars without us!


    If you are planning on travelling to the Red Planet before 2030, be sure to take your MAA card with you. This makes the perfect gift to your future astronaut child, or favourite NASA engineer.

    The card will come with a water resistant covering, and features the MAA logo and motto. The expiry date on the card says December 31, 2029.

    If you know a kid with Spirit, and is a real Rover, then this is the gift for them. Help them Find their Path, give them the gift that keeps giving every time they need help on their interplanetry Sojourn. This is an Opportunity of a lifetime, membership cards are extremely limited.

    Member Benefits listed in the included booklet:
    Rover towing to nearest Mars base, or Platform
    Oxygen/Nitrogen/Hydrogen fuel supply delivered in emergencies.
    MS BSOD insurance.
    Planetary impact insurance up to $100,000,000US.
    Access to toll free MAA help line 1-555-GOT-MARS?
    The Terms Of Service [If you bid without reading these, heaven help you]:

    I take the following forms of payment only [in the equivalent value of the winning bid price + shipping]:

    Canadian Tire money [at face value]
    Monopoly money [exchanged at 0.0005% face value]
    Traveler's cheques
    Shiny beads, trinkets, or gold coins
    Chocolate bars
    Cod, the fish, at current market value.
    Mexican Pesos, Japanese ¥, and even European Euros.
    Australian $, UK £, Canadian $, coins or Money Orders.
    American $ cash preferred. Lots of it please.
    Hershey's Kisses(tm) - please note that I will not consider melty sticky kisses a valid payment.
    PayPal balance transfers in US$ are accepted if you don't have any of the above payments to offer, and are a boring fuddy duddy or poopy pants buyer.
    All legal currency must be dated from after the year 2000, since I don't want it to have the Y2K bug. I prefer foreign cash, but you are welcome to pay with any option here.
    I will put your separate eBay items in one package, to save you money. Weight and thickness restrictions of the package may limit how many auctions you can combine.
    Shipping to the USA is Air, and $2.00US.
    Shipping to Canada is $1.50Can.
    Shipping Internationally is 2,00EUR.
    Shipping Interplanetary to Mars is $80 Million USD. Expect 7 to 22 months for delivery.
    Consult my eBay About ME page for handy links regarding Canada Post shipping. I'll ship the same day, or next business day payment arrives. Insurance is available on request if you do not want me to ship by the regular Lettermail or standard XpressPost. I will ship almost anywhere in the world.

    Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns, before buying. I'm happy to help...
    Contact me if you want to see detailed pictures of the item.
    Please see my other auctions which feature a variety of items. I'm a very diverse seller.

    Copyright computer_saskboy 2004
    Please note this is for the card and booklet only; membership benefits are only available on Mars.

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  93. Re:More info - front by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nope, it's the front - the rover was driving 'backwards' at the time. See the corner of the stowed arm at the lower left of the image?

    They were driving in reverse because the right front wheel has developed a steering problem.

  94. More like by Craig_P92669 · · Score: 0

    "Oh shit."

    --
    http://xs4.xs.to/pics/04481/p556222.gif
  95. Re:If only NASA had sprung $50 for a AAA membershi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that would be the Astronomical Automobile Association?

  96. It's easy! by flyingsquid · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just take the floormats out and put them under the wheels for traction. Or you can let some air out of the tires which will give them a bigger footprint and better traction.

    1. Re:It's easy! by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Just take the floormats out and put them under the wheels for traction. Or you can let some air out of the tires which will give them a bigger footprint and better traction.

      Hilarious. You should do stand up.

      Seriously, floormats are usually much more slippery because they're plastic. You'd be better off carrying a 5 pound bag of sand around in your car during the winter. I've seen people try the floormats and they make interesting projectiles. This is what a flying carpet would look like!

      Letting air out of the tires doesn't work, period. It's like urban legend stuff. If you let too much air out of a tire then the snow bunches up under the middle of the tread which becomes convex.

      Moderation is the trick, go easy instead of trying to spin out of deep ice or snow. Once you've broken the coefficient of friction you'll never get anywhere and just end up packing snow into ice and polishing it.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    2. Re:It's easy! by Ced_Ex · · Score: 4, Informative

      Letting the air out isn't urban legend. The purpose of letting *some* air out is to give the tire greater surface area to get grip. You're not deflating the tire completely, just taking out about 10-15lbs psi. Read it here.

      Also, the floor mats do work, those people you see obviously don't know what they are doing with the floormats if they are ejecting them into the air. Don't floor it when you shove the mats under! You're suppose to just crawl it out using the floormats for grip instead of loose sand, or ice.

      --
      Live forever, or die trying.
    3. Re:It's easy! by xENoLocO · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter? The mars rovers don't have air in their tires.

      --
      "The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
    4. Re:It's easy! by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      There are different types of floormats. Some have a 'carpety' top surface and some have a 'slick' top surface. I suspect the carpety ones work well and the slick ones not so well.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    5. Re:It's easy! by WormholeFiend · · Score: 2, Funny

      maybe we can ask the same Martian who's been cleaning the solar panels if he would please put some floormats under the rover's wheels so it can move along?

    6. Re:It's easy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who mountain bikes knows that.

    7. Re:It's easy! by NemoX · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they don't have floormats, either. Heh :p

    8. Re:It's easy! by makohund · · Score: 1

      Sand dunes are not snow, and they behave differently.

      You're right about the friction bit, and that going easy is a good idea. But sand does not melt and polish into ice, which gives you another option (and set of rules) to fall back on. In particular if we are talking about deep, loose sand on a slope... it may be your only option. Not all vehicles are equipped or capable, which is why you don't see them putting around on sand dunes.

      With properly designed tread (paddles and similar designs) and sufficient wheelspeed, you CAN spin right out of sand. A change in weight distribution is also helpful, if possible. Of course, it is a risky proposition... lack of sufficient wheelspeed (or too slow of a transition from rest to full speed) will do exactly what you describe... dig you in deeper.

      Basically you have to grip sand and throw it backward fast enough to push yourself forward. Sort of like a propeller, but not quite. You have to do it hard and fast enough so that you don't run out of propellent (sand) before you've gained enough momentum to keep from sinking into the sand. (If you've dug down to the floor of the vehicle, your wheels are left spinning in empty space, intead of throwing sand.)

      Of course this is totally irrelevant in the case of the rover. Even with the right tread and motor capability they could not afford the power drain it'd take to do it.

      And the other poster talking about air pressure is absolutely correct. You let just enough air out to increase the surface area, decreasing the pressure on the sand, enabling you to "float" on it a little better. It doesn't matter if you go slightly convex, either. (In fact it helps... the sand in the concave compresses and holds you up just a tad better.) There is no danger of this compression turning the sand into a slick solid with a wet surface, like there is with snow.

      It sounds like you deal with snow a lot. I don't. But I grew up next to one of the best patches of dunes in the US, and used to play out there (in many different types of vehicles as well as on foot) on a regular basis. Not just weekends or special occasions, either. (Heading out for an hour or two after school was common.)

      http://gorp.away.com/gorp/resource/us_nra/or_dunes .htm

    9. Re:It's easy! by Alastor187 · · Score: 1

      Letting air out of the tires doesn't work, period. It's like urban legend stuff. If you let too much air out of a tire then the snow bunches up under the middle of the tread which becomes convex.

      If you let out too much air the center of the contact patch will become distorted and the foot-print will begin to look more toroidal than rectangular. This is less than ideal as the total foot-print area will be decreased.

      However, if you just let out enough air to increase the contact patch area without distorting the shape, it will improve the grip. This is because tires are sensitive to load, and as the load is decreased on the tire the coefficient of friction increases.

      As the internal tire pressure is reduced the contact patch area is increased, although the relationship is not linear since part of the tire load is taken up by the sidewall. The increase in contact patch area decrease the overall contact patch pressure, effectively decreasing the load per unit area.

      A good book on this topic is "The Racing & High-Performance Tire" by Paul Haney. An overview of the chapter regarding rubber friction can be found here:

      http://www.insideracingtechnology.com/tirebkexerpt 1.htm

      Please note that this link does not represent all the details covered in the book.

    10. Re:It's easy! by vrt3 · · Score: 1

      Letting the air out isn't urban legend. The purpose of letting *some* air out is to give the tire greater surface area to get grip. You're not deflating the tire completely, just taking out about 10-15lbs psi.

      Hummers (and perhaps other all-terrain vehicles?) even have a system that allows the driver to increase or decrease the pressure of the tires with a push on a button.

      --
      This sig under construction. Please check back later.
  97. Fascinating by saskboy · · Score: 1

    I'd have thought the dust devils the rover's been seeing to be hazardous to the mission [and they potentially could be] but at this point they've given the rover a boost, as the dust that's been settling on the solar pannels, has been partially cleaned off, which increases the rover's power generation.

    "Accompanied by Wind

    NASA's Spirit rover spotted the first dust devil of the Mars Exploration Rover mission on martian sol, or day, 421 (March 10, 2005). The dust devil was observed the day after martian winds cleared the rover's deck and increased the amount of power the rover harvested from sunlight shining on its solar panels." http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/20050325. html

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  98. arm? by mikeee · · Score: 1

    Er, doesn't the rover have an arm? With a little rock-grinder on it, even?

    I don't think it's *designed* to dig, or push off, but you might be able to do it...

  99. A little Jedi levitation should do the trick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are you looking for a snappy comment down here?

    Because /. forces me to type some stupid shit in this box...la la la la la

  100. Mars rover not trail rated, I presume? by IronChefMorimoto · · Score: 1

    Man -- hope Jeep didn't provide the drivetrain for this little piece of hardware, 'cause finding out THIS product isn't "trail rated" could pretty much put them out of business.

    IronChefMorimoto

  101. Red Rover.... by Mr.+BS · · Score: 1

    ....Red Rover.... send the tow truck on over!

  102. Those guys are so stupid by osgeek · · Score: 1

    Why don't they send Spirit over to give it a little push?

    Jeez!

  103. Tru Dat! by Flower · · Score: 1
    Oh wait...

    Damn.

    --
    I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
  104. Success by TimeTraveler1884 · · Score: 1

    I'm not saying they don't deserve recognition, but using this mentality, if I always over estimate project timelines I could be VP in a year.

  105. Gender by cardhead · · Score: 1
    "it doesn't look good for the little guy who's now 359 days into the extended mission."

    I thought everyone knew that Opportunity is a girl.

  106. POWDER! by SCHecklerX · · Score: 1

    Wow, that looks cool. /me grabs his snowboard and thumbs a ride to mars.

  107. freeze the terrain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they can get it out later in the season if the terrain blows off or freezes?

  108. AAA card handy? by Uncle_Destroy · · Score: 0

    The towing fee after the free miles might be rather large... -B

  109. It's not my fault! by drkich · · Score: 1

    Would it help if I got out and pushed?

  110. Damn you Baron Harkonnen! by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    First you stole all of my spice and then you told the sandworms not to rescue me!
    Oh well, I guess I will just have to do an extensive study of the mechanics of wind speed, sand grain size and moisture in creating sand formations.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  111. so many interesting comments to read by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't get enough.

  112. Arms underneath rover by Kerbz · · Score: 1

    You mean to tell me that the design didn't include arms underneath the rover that would account for this type of situation? That strikes me as preposterous!

    1. Re:Arms underneath rover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where were you during the design of the vehicle?

  113. I don't mean to be that guy... by padukes · · Score: 1

    but everyone is going on about all we learned from this mission - what did we learn? It's certainly a huge challenge and an amazing feat - but what do we know that we didn't know before (other than some tips on how to explore a planet)?

    --

    -P
    Why have ONE conviction when you can have TWO?
  114. Re:Why can't they - ski by saskboy · · Score: 1

    I wonder why they didn't provide the rover with two skis, just in case they ran into a problem like this? Lower the skis, and use the rear wheels to drive it, like a ski-doo.

    I mean, they could have envisioned encountering a snow bank maybe? [Yeah I'm kidding about the snow, but the ski idea is a good one I think, on a sandy planet.]

    --
    Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
  115. And the moral of the story is... by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

    Always get the towing rider on your insurance policy.

  116. Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by qualico · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Being an avid 4x4'er and no stranger to getting stuck, the best suggestions are this:

    1. Do *not* make things worse by spinning the wheels and digging yourself *in* further.
    (You're not rushing so you know this already, but certainly don't spin the wheels)
    2. Try to wiggle/dig *out* some clearance between your undercarriage and the sand. The more contact points you have the more friction you need to overcome. (After exhausting all options you may want to use the arms to remove as much sand from around the wheels and undercarriage as is possible. This may ruin the scientific instruments on those arms, but at least you'll better your chances of getting out.)
    3. Straighten your wheels as much as possible, but also try to match the entrance route.
    (noticed in the picture that one of the wheels is perpendicular to the track line, not a great way to get out.)
    4. Use your highest gear and slowly without tire spin, REVERSE!
    (It's usually best to go the route you came from, *not* visa versa because you've compacted the sand and you don't want to "plow" anymore)
    5. If that is difficult, ROCK the house! Rocking back and forth to create a space to give momentum on the way out is a great way of "punching" through the hard spot. Again, the reverse route is usually the best choice to rock out of. Give one last good pendulum type run at it when you're ready to try to bust out. Rocking forward then at the pinnacle, rock with all you have backwards.
    5. Use time to your advantage; keep working at it with the above. You don't want the sand to settle like cement though, so don't just sit there. Further those pesky dust devils may fill your tracks.
    6. Perhaps you can use gravity to your advantage on a slope.

    I'd wish you good luck, but there is no such thing as luck.
    There's only statistically calculated coincidence.

    So good "statistical calculating"!

    1. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by MisterBates · · Score: 1

      Thanks, Captain obvious!! I don't think they would have figured all this out. I mean, it's not like the engineers at NASA has any common sense.

    2. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Qualico's famous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, 6 method.

      Why didn't I think of that!

    3. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by Eric604 · · Score: 1
      Thanks, Captain obvious!! I don't think they would have figured all this out. I mean, it's not like the engineers at NASA has any common sense.

      Since NASA engineers don't read /. and slashdotter don't have common sense, I think that post was perfectly fit.

    4. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by jafac · · Score: 1

      1. Do *not* make things worse by spinning the wheels and digging yourself *in* further.
      (You're not rushing so you know this already, but certainly don't spin the wheels)


      Depending on the composition and such of the soil, and the light-weight of the vehicle (lighter in martian gravity) it could be to their advantage to spin the wheels. It's possible that newton's third law could even come into play. . .

      2. Try to wiggle/dig *out* some clearance between your undercarriage and the sand. . . .

      Probably a good idea. Maybe not possible, given the response lag between command-transmit on Earth, and execution on Mars.

      4. Use your highest gear and slowly without tire spin, REVERSE!

      Electric-motor propulsion. Gears?

      5. If that is difficult, ROCK the house!....

      Again, great, here on Earth, with 1G, and a 1-ton vehicle, and near-instant response-times between fwd/rvs shifting so that the drive wheel direction can be coupled with the momentum from the oscillation induced in the chassis. Most likely not possible in this case.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    5. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, "ballistic" means of getting the vehicle unstuck will be difficult to implement, given that there is a half-hour (something like that) delay in communication to Mars. That means that, after sending your command to "rock back and forth" to the unit, you'll have to wait an entire hour to know whether you were successful or not! Dislodging a 4X4 from a "dry" creek bed involves a lot of real-time response to surface conditions.

      Now, if you loaded the rover with a program designed to respond to adverse conditions such as these in realtime -- say, a program designed to cycle the parent post's 6-step method UNTIL success criteria were met OR a desist signal was recieved -- the vehicle might stand a better chance. Or, do they do this already? *scurries off to RTFA*

    6. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      6. Profit!!!!

    7. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by qualico · · Score: 1

      Good points.

      It certainly will be something you need to test here on Earth and submit as an entire program to be executed on Mars.

    8. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by qualico · · Score: 1

      Good points also.

      Can you program the electric-motor to act in a way that uses more torque instead of speed?

    9. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by qualico · · Score: 1

      Well Captain Asshole, thanks for the fart, but it certainly takes more than common sense and some skinny armed geeks to understand the dynamics of 4x4'ing.

      If they had been using that common sense, they would'nt be stuck now would they?

    10. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1


      Rocking back and forth to create a space to give momentum on the way out is a great way of "punching" through the hard spot.

      Remember that all these moves have to be preprogrammed, and executed without immediate human feedback. The thing you're talking about requires knowing when to reverse direction by feel and doing it immediately at the right time - not with a 10 minute radio signal delay. To make the rocking idea work would require that the rover 'driving' software be programmed to sense when the right time is to reverse direction based on how the wheels' traction "feels" in their divot.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    11. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by qualico · · Score: 1

      Yes, that certainly makes it an interesting problem to solve.
      No doubt with the Earth bound unit, they will come up with something.

      Be interesting to see this application for retail vehicles.
      If they can do anti-lock, why not posi-rock?

    12. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's only statistically calculated coincidence.

      May the statistical coincidences be with you.

    13. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by qualico · · Score: 1

      and with you. :P

    14. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by ArtStone · · Score: 1

      "(noticed in the picture that one of the wheels is perpendicular to the track line, not a great way to get out.)"

      As is pointed out elsewhere, the front wheel is stuck at a 7 degree angle. That's why the rover is running in reverse, and dragging the crooked wheel behind it.

      Anyone experienced in snow driving knows that the first thing you do if your drive wheels are spinning while stuck in a snow drift is to make sure the steering wheels are straight, to get rid of the lateral forces that block whatever movement the limited friction from the spinning wheel(s) is generating. [this applies much more to rear wheel drive than to front drive]

      Since the most obvious course of action is to "back out" the way you came, and the lead wheel in that direction is stuck at an angle, I would put pretty long odds on this thing ever moving again. But NASA has been known to pull off miracles in the past.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    15. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by qualico · · Score: 1

      I'd mod that up if I could.

      Where was that information posted?

    16. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by ArtStone · · Score: 2, Informative

      New Scientist has the story from about 2 weeks ago:
      http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7284

      "The rover has six wheels aligned in two rows and each of the four corner wheels has its own steering mechanism. The problem is with the front right wheel, which can still roll but is now stuck at a 7 inward angle. NASA rover project manager Jim Erickson says it is like a car losing its power steering."

      It continues with a quote from the "Quote I wish I could take back" department:

      "At this point, with this one actuator failed, it's an inconvenience, nothing more," says rover chief scientist Steven Squyres.

      The JPL statement on the issue at that time is here: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status_oppo rtunityAll.html#sol430
      [...]
      "Opportunity's right-front steering motor stalled out on sol 433 during an end-of-drive turn. While performing tests to help the team diagnose the condition of that motor, the rover also continued to make remote-sensing observations. Testing in sol 435 did show motion in the steering motor, but analysis is still underway. The rover resumed normal science and driving operations on sol 436, but with restrictions on use of the right-front steering motor. It drove 30 meters on sol 437. Opportunity and Spirit are capable of driving with one or more steering motors disabled, though turns would be less precise. The latest revision in flight software on both rovers, uploaded in February, gives them improved capabilities for dealing with exactly this type of condition. It gives them upgraded ability to repeatedly evaluate how well they are following the intended course during a drive, and to adjust the steering autonomously if appropriate."

      So the JPL story seems to say on sol 435 that the steering motor was still working, but testing was still underway and its use was restricted.

      --
      Final 2006 "Proof of Global Warming" US Hurricane Count -> 0
    17. Re:Some suggestions to get UNstuck... by qualico · · Score: 1

      Thanks for that.

      It's going to be near impossible to get out of that dune if it's anchored at an angle where it acts like a digging bucket.

      I'm thinking they will have to match an exact reverse of the moves the rover made when it anchored the wheel into that position.
      If that is even possible.

  117. Don't they just need a thumper? by geekwithsoul · · Score: 1

    They just need a thumper to call the worm and hitch a ride out of there, don't they? Oh wait . . . "in a Dune" not "on Dune." Never mind.

  118. Re:It's okay, it was powered by Windows XP... by MisterBates · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Don't you get it? This is /., the more you complain about the redundancy of a joke, the more the joke is used. Therefore, I, for one, welcome our new redundant-joke-telling overlords!!

  119. Sorry, sir. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sorry, sir. My wife asked to drive."

  120. Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The scientists were optimistic about that Spirit glitch, at least the ones with considerable past mission experience. It looked very strongly like a software problem from the start.

  121. This is what happens when you let those by Senor_Programmer · · Score: 1

    Alabama rednecks from Huntsville drive.

    "Hey Vern, watch me jump this dune!"

  122. Pffft... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Some of you people need to get out more. You attach the winch's hook and cable around the nearest tree, and then- oh, wait a minute...

  123. Some Rover achievements... by digitaldc · · Score: 2, Informative
    • Photos and panoramic data with Pancam and Mini-TES that can be used by scientists to select targets for further study
    • Practice travel from point A to point B and have enough intelligence to maneuver through a Martian landscape littered with boulders and rocks
    • Take measurements with the science tools the rover carries on its arm (called the Instrument Deployment Device or IDD) and study them
    • Drive the rovers as great a distance as possible, or to approach a rock target that has been identified.
    • Deploy the Microscopic Imager to collect close-up views of a selected Martian rock. The arm then rotates to bring the Rock Abrasion Tool (RAT) into position to grind into the targets surface. The Microscopic Imager is repositioned to collect images of these freshly exposed layers. The Alpha-Particle-X-ray-Spectrometer (APXS) then may be used to gather information on the elemental make-up of the rock, or the Mössbauer Spectrometer may be brought into position so that scientists can learn the composition of the iron-bearing minerals in the selected target.
    • Collect airborne dust for analysis by the science instruments

    [Source:" http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/tl_surface_ sci.html"]
    What will be learned from this information will help in future Mars missions, you gotta start somewhere!
    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  124. Yo yo yo..Sup... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can have it your way,
    how do you want it
    You gon' back that thing up,
    or should i push up on it
    Temperature rising,
    okay, lets go to the next level
    Dance floor jam packed, hot as a teakettle
    I break it down for you now, baby its simple
    If you be a nympho, I'll be a nympho
    In the hotel, or in the back of the rental
    On the beach or in the park,
    just whatever you into
    Got the magic stick, I'm the love doctor

  125. Wow, just get out and push.

  126. Dear NASA by Swaffs · · Score: 1

    Just straighten the wheels and try rocking it a bit. Usually works for me.

    --

    --
    "Karma can only be portioned out by the cosmos." - Homer Simpson [1F10]

  127. Uh uh, sandworm! by antdude · · Score: 1

    Maybe it is above a sandworm that is going to be eaten up soon? Hmm, I played too much Dune games. [grin]

    --
    Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
  128. Damn the spice! we can always get more...... by ballsmccoy · · Score: 0

    He who controls the spice, controls the universe...

    We just need to get Mau'dib to whip us up some rain to wash away the sand....

  129. Swarms needed by Eminence · · Score: 1
    Yet another example why we need not one, not two, not a dozen but literarily swarms of cheap robots if we are to get much research fast.

    If that would be one of, say, 50 little rovers sniffing around Mars plains this wouldn't even be news.

    And it's another argument in favor of manned mission. Why? Because people on site can do something creative in difficult situations while an automatic rover clearly can't.

    So either massive robotic exploration or manned missions. Of course both would be best. But neither is just crawling, not research and not expansion.

  130. Arrakis?? by whitehatlurker · · Score: 2, Funny
    Sorry - I misread the storyline.

    I thought that the Rover was stuck on Dune.

    --
    .. paranoid crackpot leftover from the days of Amiga.
  131. Desktop Wallpaper by jimcooncat · · Score: 1

    Finally a shot worth justifying the RAM.

  132. FORD by glrotate · · Score: 1

    First On Race Day

    1. Re:FORD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucked Over Rebuilt Dodge

    2. Re:FORD by Darby · · Score: 1

      Fucked Over Rebuilt Dodge

    3. Re:FORD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Found On Road Dead

    4. Re:FORD by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 1

      First On Race Day

      to make a pit stop.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
  133. No by xRelisH · · Score: 1

    It just needs some NAWWS and a cold air intake

  134. 359 days over? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah I know, it was never anticipated blah blah. Don't you get the feeling you were played there a little bit? The old promise low and deliver high? Even if thats not the case (because NASA don't need a PR victory...ahem), that stat that keeps being quotes is a product of someone making a mistake but nobody calls this. It might look like a win but for all we know it might be a massive mistake because we'll never know what planning and funding could have been put in place if the true lifetime of the Spirit Rover had been more accurately estimated. I know it sounds miserable but theres gee-whiz standards and there are engineering standards.

  135. How is this redundant? by i41Overlord · · Score: 1

    If you take a look at the time my post was posted, it was at the same time as the other AAA posts. They all were posted within seconds of each other at 11:40AM.

  136. I think I know the problem by nihilistcanada · · Score: 1

    I bet it is a metric sand dune.

  137. Push it out by Photar · · Score: 1

    Just have spirit drive over and push it out :)

    --
    He who knows not and knows he knows not is a wise man. He who knows not and knows not he knows not is a fool.
  138. Sitting in my backyard... by march · · Score: 1

    Sitting in my backyard reading this /. article, I watch as the neighbor's kids throw baseballs up into a tree to get a stuck soccer ball out of its wedge in position on a high branch.

    I think... Gee, if we took that railgun, maybe we could tag the rover just enough to get it out of the sand.

    Then again, maybe not. Alas...

    One bonus to not having water on your planet is that eventually, the other rover could get there and push him out. :-)

  139. they are looking for life. by leuk_he · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Maybe they have already found it :

    project hello (work safe link, agecheck is because there is an advertisement for heineken alcohol in there)

    and click "play movie"

  140. Re:Naw. They should've used Dubs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget a ton of fucking stupid pseudo-kanji letters because you know if you stick fake Asian characters all over your vehicle it will go much faster.

  141. New Sci-Fi Network Miniseries? by fishpick · · Score: 1

    Dune: The Stuck Rover
    Soon on Sci-Fi Netowrk...
    Sponsored in part by Sun, the makers of Java...

    Frank Herbert would be so proud...

  142. What they aren't telling us.... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 1

    It is really stuck in gridlock!

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
  143. AAA by DaveS002 · · Score: 1

    Gotta call AAA right away for some road service. First tow is free. Subsequent ones might incur a destination fee. Also, mount the 'dust tires' with the half inch studs. That should help, too.

  144. Actually, I believe it runs Linux. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It used to run Windows 95, but when they had technical difficulties at the outset they reformatted the hard drive and installed Linux. Then it worked fine until now. Got any other bright comments, you Cheeto-powder-covered loser?

  145. Pimp My Ride by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should send Xzibit and the crew of West Coast Customs up there to pimp Opportunity's ride. Some 22" Giovanni spinners should get NASA out of their jam!

  146. Question about craters by ehiris · · Score: 1

    What is so interesting about craters? I don't remember what craters on earth hold that is interesting when trying to explore this planet. Why isn't NASA looking in canyons, or on mountains which contain caves, or even in those spots which seem to have once held rivers or other bodies of water?

  147. Project H.E.L.L.O. by $uit · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Time for nasa to join project H.E.L.L.O
    http://www.h-e-l-l-o.org/
    Be sure to watch the movie!

    1. Re:Project H.E.L.L.O. by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      Why don't you retarded fucks stop spamming this? Thanks in advance.

  148. its the devil himself! by demmer · · Score: 0

    ... that s stopping the rover. everybody knows there is an ancient structure in Erebus... (hint: doom3 addon) :D

  149. Being stuck... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's gonna get pissed and come back as Op'nity, I swear it.

    --
    Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
  150. Beach houses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At first I thought the back view was trying to be funny. It looked a lot like Beach Houses at the top of a dune on the horizon.

  151. How come by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How come there are tracks in front of the front
    wheels ? If this thing drives in reverse most of
    the time, wouldn't it be more convenient to name
    front wheels .. err .. 'rear wheels' ?

    1. Re:How come by lanternfish610 · · Score: 1

      Si

  152. Better yet by apankrat · · Score: 1

    > If this thing drives in reverse most of the time, wouldn't it be
    > more convenient to name front wheels .. err .. 'rear wheels' ?


    Or "the wheels formerly known as front"

    --
    3.243F6A8885A308D313
  153. Hello by rodney+dill · · Score: 2, Funny

    Onstar?

    --

    Use your head, can't you, use your head,
    You're on earth, there's no cure for that
    - S. Beckett
  154. OnStar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should have gone with the "OnStar" option!

    1. Re:OnStar by antispam_ben · · Score: 1

      Should have gone with the "OnStar" option!

      Not to be confused with StarJack.

      --
      Tag lost or not installed.
  155. Solution for next Rover by cryptocom · · Score: 1

    The next Rover should have wheels made of an alloy that can heat up enough to melt the soil and retain it's shape, or maybe a high power laser to heat up the soil, or something like that. Just like lightning can turn soil into glass, it may be possible to use this somehow to get the Rover out of jams like this. :)

    --
    It takes just a moment and an action to destroy. It takes some time and thought to create.
  156. to paraphrase a famous commerical by beforewisdom · · Score: 1

    "I've fallen into a sand dune and can't get up!"

  157. Wrong F word. (nt) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)

  158. You hosed the forum!! Re:More info by J05H · · Score: 1

    I was gonna post to the Mars Forum when I got home, and you slashdott3d it!! You hosed the forum!! Thanks a lot, now I have to go do something productive.

    Josh

    --
    gigantino.tv - Heavy but weighs nothing.
  159. They should fire a tachyon burst... by Picass0 · · Score: 1

    ...or try modulating the primary deflector.

  160. w..t..f.. by LilGuy · · Score: 1

    Honestly.. for however many millions of dollars this damn thing cost, you think someone would've had some insight about that possibility. I've seen tyco r/cs that are impossible to get stuck, and they only cost $50.

    --

    You're nothing; like me.
  161. Asinine to compare manned and unmanned missions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

    I do not wish to diminish the spectactular achievements of the rover missions but it is asinine to compare manned and unmanned missions.

    1. Re:Asinine to compare manned and unmanned missions by poserFish · · Score: 1
      Nor do I mean to diminish the [past] achievements of the shuttle team, however one of the responsibilities of good engineers is to scrap the "un-doable" (unrealistic failure rates) instead of waisting money on "going through the motions" towards something that in all likelihood will never happen.

      While I agree that you cannot compare man/unmanned missions, one fact still stands: They are not getting it done, where the rover team did.

      --
      Think your right? Prove it.
    2. Re:Asinine to compare manned and unmanned missions by AHumbleOpinion · · Score: 1

      You point is meaningless, when the shuttle was on it's second mission it was also 2 for 2. Your comments are degrading from asinine to just plain dumb. The shuttle and the mars rover, and unmanned and manned flight, are so different they can not be compared.

  162. The real solution. by Tatarize · · Score: 1

    Have the other rover come by and give this guy a tow.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  163. Tires by gzunk · · Score: 1

    My dictionary disagrees with you, but since I suspect that you're a citizen of the USA I won't castigate you - since I believe that everybody should be allowed to spell things the way they want.

    tire (1) [tr]
    (3rd person present singular tires, present participle tiring, past tired, past participle tired)
    transitive and intransitive verb

    1. grow or make somebody tired: to make somebody feel in need of rest or sleep, or to grow weaker and less energetic and feel a need for rest or sleep
    2. exhaust somebody's interest: to lose interest in and become bored and impatient with somebody or something, or to cause somebody to do this

    tire (2) [tr]
    transitive verb (3rd person present singular tires, present participle tiring, past tired, past participle tired)
    clothe somebody: to attire or adorn somebody or something (archaic or literary)

    noun (plural tires) (archaic)
    1. attire: clothing or attire
    2. head covering: a woman's head covering or ornament

    tyre

    tyre [tr]
    (plural tyres)
    noun
    1. hollow rubber edging: a circular hollow band of rubber fitted around the edge of a vehicle's wheel to ease movement and help absorb bumps in road surfaces.
    It is filled with compressed air.
    2. solid rubber edging: a circular solid band of rubber fitted to a wheel's edge, for example on prams and children's bicycles
    3. metal edging: a band of metal fitted for reinforcement to the rims of wheels on various vehicles, for example handcarts and railway carriages

  164. Re:SoCal drivers by Minstrel+Boy · · Score: 1
    You don't need to slow down when it rains. You need to increase following distance when it rains. The fact that California drivers have absolutely no concept of following distance in the first place explains the problem.

    KeS

  165. Of cause it's stuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The wheels are pointing in different directions!! Who the hell is driving this thing?

  166. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just sent the other rover over to push this one out.

  167. Consult the source of all knowledge! by cgenman · · Score: 1

    "spell things the way you want" - 12
    "spell things correctly - 3,600

    Result - people should not be allowed to spell things the way they want.

    "Land Rovers Rule" - 1,620 hits
    "Land Rovers Suck" - 23 hits

    Result - Land Rovers clearly rule

    tires - 22,300,000 hits
    tyres - 3,800,000 hits

    Result - the word is spelled "Tires," except for the 10% of trucks that are gyrls.

  168. AAA by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    Time to call the Martian Automobile Association? I recall one of the rovers being mysteriously fixed before (possible dirt devil I think)...

  169. Mars Rover Opportunity Rubicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Time for a name upgrade. Give that little sandbuggy a "name upgrade", a shot of new 1s and 0s, and drive that sucker right out of there.

    Seriously...can the rock tool lift the chassis? If so maybe they can lift up one end and wait for the sand to fill the holes in. When I was a kid thats the method they used to get our big-ass camper unstuck at the beach. Mom and dad used shovels though. Maybe the basic method could work given enough erosion time.

  170. Spinners? by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

    Don't you mean the ones with the spinning rims?

  171. More self-righteous moral preening by ccmay · · Score: 2, Funny
    I guess the primary target market for SUV's is people that don't give a shit about anyone but themselves. Which seems to be the emerging attitude among privileged americans. The rest of us drive cars.

    How comical. Your smug distinction would be completely lost on the 90% of the world's population who have no car at all.

    But don't let that stop you from patting yourself on the back. Knock yourself out.

    -ccm

    --
    Too much Law; not enough Order.
    1. Re:More self-righteous moral preening by Afrosheen · · Score: 1

      Where'd you get your numbers? I don't believe 90% of the world doesn't drive.

      Anyway my UID is lower than your UID. Take that. ;)

  172. Overhaulin by ArcSecond · · Score: 1

    I agree. Overhaulin is a much better show than Pimp My Ride. Even better, though is American Chopper, where they fabricate lots of the stuff by hand.

    The problem I have with Overhaulin is that is on the far extreme from Pimp: whereas PMR does nothing but superficial cahnges, Overhaulin leaves almost nothing of the original car... it is often only the chassis that makes it through the process into the new vehicle.

    Why can't they have a show where they combine the Monster Garage budget concept with the Chip Foose design awesomeness?

    Hell, it would actually be nice to have a show where they take badly "overhauled" cars and bring them back to stock condition. They could do a lot of background about the original design choices, the history of the model, even bring in some of the original people who worked on or designed it in the first place.

    --

    I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.

    1. Re:Overhaulin by bleckywelcky · · Score: 1

      American Chopper and American Hotrod are alright, I watched a bunch of them when they first came out, but not anymore. They concentrate on the drama too much (which is funny sometimes, but not what I am looking for in shows like those) and not enough on the technical details.

  173. Modern LandRovers will do "this" exactly once... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...after that, you need a tilt-tray or a crane to remove them.

    The older ones were too heavy to fly, but damn near indestructible.

    The funny ones are Range Rovers. Here in Oz, the spinifex grass gets wedged in between the cover plates and the exhaust in various places, and then catches fire. To know what a spinifex fire is like, fluff up a bale of hay nice and loose, douse it well in turps and throw in a burning match. Hints: stand well back; don't do it near anything (else) flammable; kiss your eyebrows and lashes goodbye. Imagine this happening under your vehicle on a plain packed with the stuff from horizon to horizon and at least 200km from civilisation. Run upwind.

    My favourite offroad toy (if I had the money for offroad toys) would be an Oka. A bit too heavy but carries lots and eats Unimogs and the like before breakfast as far as actually getting places is concerned.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  174. Ugh by Seiruu · · Score: 1
    Nothing good will come out of the destruction of Martian's golf courses.

    Good thing I'm not into golf, cause something tells me Earth's golf courses are going to "disappear" right after new waves of UFO's sightings soon.

  175. Re:Modern LandRovers will do "this" exactly once.. by robertjw · · Score: 1

    My favourite offroad toy (if I had the money for offroad toys) would be an Oka. A bit too heavy but carries lots and eats Unimogs and the like before breakfast as far as actually getting places is concerne

    Got a good link for one of those? I'm always interested in anything that will eat Unimogs.

  176. Oka links by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    Well... www.oka.com.au seems a bit, kinda... obvious? (-:

    This guy seems to like them, and ironically enough also links to Land Rover. Go figure. The Dual Cab seems to be most popular here in Oz, the Multi Cab (into which you can crush 12 people with some configurations!) is not much less popular, and fitted to carry 12 would be nice.

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  177. 2 to 3 Hundred Years? by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    So, what else do they have to do in the mean time? I just can't help but wonder if NASA isn't going to buy AAA's priemium service next year?