Slashdot Mirror


The Rovers That Just Won't Quit

smooth wombat writes "Like the Energizer bunny, the two martian rovers just won't quit. Spirit, after climbing to the top of Husband Hill during the past year, spent two months examining rocks at the top of the hill and scientists confirmed that those rocks were similar to rocks found along the side of the hill indicating that Husband Hill is probably the result of an impact crater. It will take about two months for Spirit to make its way down the hill after which the next target will be a feature called Home Plate located about a half mile away. Opportunity is exploring the northern rim of Erebus Crater, the largest crater between already-explored Endurance Crater and its next destination, Victoria Crater. The rovers were only supposed to last three months but have been operating for almost two years. NASA has also released a 360 degree panorama of images taken by Spirit as it explored Gustav Crater."

299 comments

  1. Read this book. by grub · · Score: 5, Informative


    I read Roving Mars a few months ago. It was written by Steven Squyres, the principal investigator for the Mars missions. A very good book with some behind the scenes scoop on the politics and squabbling involved in getting these things build and sent. Highly recommended.

    --
    Trolling is a art,
    1. Re:Read this book. by bartash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The reviews at Amazon USA seem to suggest that the book only covers getting to Mars, not the actual operation of the Rovers. Is this true? Did it spoil the book for you?

      --
      Read Epic the first RPG novel.
    2. Re:Read this book. by grub · · Score: 5, Informative

      There's quite a bit of coverage of roving the planet. Boring into rocks, getting samples, etc. The reviews are incomplete.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    3. Re:Read this book. by bartash · · Score: 1

      Thanks, thait is good to know

      --
      Read Epic the first RPG novel.
    4. Re:Read this book. by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      I'm just in the process of reading it (About 300 pages in) and it's amazing. Despite all the fretting the rovers have performed flawlessly.

      And Squyers was worried that he'd only get 90 Sols out of the things. But they keep going, and going, and going.

      But its an excellent book. I'm very happy I bought it.

    5. Re:Read this book. by BTWR · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Dr. Squyres was a professor of mine at Cornell. He was one of the best professors/teachers i have EVER had. I have rarely, if ever, seen someone infuse so much enthusiasm into a class. He'd tell us all of these "secret stories" from Cold War NASA, and I remember him coming 15 minutes late to class one afternoon after he had literally landing in the local airport from NASA, when he told us about how the Rovers had JUST been funded. It was so awesome hearing his enthusiasm about Spirit and Opportunity's 3-month mission prospects (of course then, the rovers were unnamed). He had told us about this about 3 days before NASA announced a press release.

      In fact, the first day of class, he said that the entire class was "off the record" and I don't think he even wanted the college newspaper students in there. (and i'm only disclosing that above story because it's obviously ok to say now. but... his others stories stay with me!). - All Cornell Ugrads - make sure to take his classes! (and Jim Bell, another AWESOME astro prof - wrote me my recommendation for med school).

  2. I wish my Wife's Friend by hcob$ · · Score: 5, Funny

    had the spirit to climb husband hill!!

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    1. Re:I wish my Wife's Friend by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      If you stopped visiting "home plate" so much, she might.

    2. Re:I wish my Wife's Friend by RipTides9x · · Score: 2, Funny

      It might just be the wife and her friend who are on the "mound".

    3. Re:I wish my Wife's Friend by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I heard you were the shortstop. Also, she's sick of the bunting.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    4. Re:I wish my Wife's Friend by citabjockey · · Score: 1

      I just wish I had the endurance

  3. visit their blogs by C0vardeAn0nim0 · · Score: 4, Funny
    --
    What ? Me, worry ?
  4. Larger version... by JoeLinux · · Score: 4, Informative

    Not to be cruel and kick up their bandwidth, but is a larger version

    1. Re:Larger version... by strider44 · · Score: 4, Funny

      They can put a man on the moon and robots on mars. I mean if anyone can withstand a slashdotting, surely they can.

    2. Re:Larger version... by EXTomar · · Score: 1

      Rocket science is easy. Predicting the behavior of the /. editors (will they triple dupe post the today??) let alone the fickle click behavior of the community is hellva hard. I don't think the greatest minds in the universe could predict slashdotting.

    3. Re:Larger version... by dkh2 · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah? Remember, the Apollo era spacecraft had less computing power than an AMC Gremlin.

      --
      My office has been taken over by iPod people.
    4. Re:Larger version... by adityapk · · Score: 1

      Oh my god! There are some tire tracks on Mars. The martians built another bot that cleans the dust of our bots.

  5. Larger pictures? by fak3r · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Does anyone have a link to LARGER pictures of what the rovers are seeing? The linked to 360 view [http://origin.mars5.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/press/sp irit/20051021a/site_A114_880_navcam_360_cyl-A627R1 _br.jpg%5D is cool, but too small for details. Looking for a nice one to span two monitors for a nice desktop. I remember some of the first shots showing the side of the landing craft, some tire tracks and such were just amazing.

    1. Re:Larger pictures? by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Informative

      - Spirit panoramas
      - Opportunity panoramas

      I'd assume all there are available in anything from small to huge images in typical NASA fashion. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    2. Re:Larger pictures? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Oh, and as a tip... Of those, the Opportunity heat shield impact site they drove to is among the nicest IMO.
      That one is like the others also available as an uber size version.

  6. The Criminals That Just Won't Quit: +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    work at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, Washington, D.C..

    Thanks in advance,
    Kilgore Trout, C.E.O.

  7. The other side of the crater... by pmike_bauer · · Score: 5, Funny

    "...and scientists confirmed that those rocks were similar to rocks found along the side of the hill..."

    The bot went over the crater, the bot went over the crater
    The bot went over the crater, to see what he could see.
    And all that he could see, and all that he could see
    Was the other side of the crater, the other side of the crater
    The other side of the crater, was all that he could see.

    --
    I read /. for the (Score:-1, Conservative) comments.
    1. Re:The other side of the crater... by dkh2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I just had to explain to my co-workers what I was laughing at and none of them are old enough to remember...

      The bear went over the mountain, the bear went over the mountain...

      Yes, I work with a bunch of noobs.

      --
      My office has been taken over by iPod people.
    2. Re:The other side of the crater... by wgaryhas · · Score: 2, Funny

      How young are they? I recognized the song immediately and I'm only 21.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
    3. Re:The other side of the crater... by dirkdidit · · Score: 2, Funny

      Well, if he's working in India...somewhere around 12 or 13 probably.

  8. Could be a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe..

    For two reasons:

    1. It raises the expectations for the duration of unmanned missions. If future missions don't last as long people will obviously compare it to these.

    2. Funding. If the perception is these craft last a long time then maybe people will say you don't need as many.

    1. Re:Could be a problem? by Iriel · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To address your second point, I have to wonder if this could actually help funding. "Well I wasn't going to pay for a moving camera that would die in three months, but two years on the other hand..." Then the problem could go back to your first point: it could cut off funding if the next mission doesn't live up to expectations.

      --
      Perfecting Discordia
      www.stevenvansickle.com
    2. Re:Could be a problem? by jfengel · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It definitely puts pressure on future mission designers to manage expectations as carefully as the rover mission designers. Fortunately, as long as the technology keeps improving, they'll continue to get better.

      But perception of "how much we need" is a much thornier problem for the administrator of NASA. Success is always good; few people have any idea how much this costs, and most are sort of resigned to the few bucks per person this mission costs. In return they get to be The Country That Explores The Planets, and people are willing to pay a lot for that kind of pride.

      What gets people ticked about the price is failure. It maakes people feel like laughingstocks in front of the world. Few people really understand the science, or benefit directly from what we learn about Mars, but they feel good that it's us who discovered it. They feel like the most advanced country in the world.

      So I wouldn't worry about people saying, "Yeah, we know quite enough about Mars." That's a mission people can get behind, as compared to (say) a war costing 1,000 times as much. The war may accomplish more (depending on whom you ask) but Science (with a capital S, the vague and mysterious one, as opposed to the lower-case-s "science" where we actually learn stuff) is always popular. At least when it wins.

    3. Re:Could be a problem? by Ayaress · · Score: 1

      It definitely raises expectations of mission duration, but it shouldn't hurt funding.

      No matter how long these rovers last, they move slow. Most unmanned missions are orbiters (which don't get the detail of a lander) or stationary drop landers, which cover very limited area. Even these rovers haven't covered much area. Even if they last five more years, they probably won't reach significantly different terrain. The bit in the article about spending months traversing a crater just to find that the rocks on the other side are pretty much the same should demonstrate that.

      Planets are big things. A new rover, placed in a much different starting condition from Spirit or Opportunity, will give fresher and more unique data than Spirit or Opportunity will get by going over that next hill. Some of the recent Mars news sounds to me like Spirit and Opportunity are now existing very much just to cross, "that next hill." Good things can (and do) come from that, but NASA need only point out that usually, the other side of that hill looks pretty much like the one you're on now, and that they would learn more by sending a new rover to completely different hills.

    4. Re:Could be a problem? by irablum · · Score: 1

      Not to drift the topic here too much, but I just had this thought. I think it might be time for NASA to be split into two different organization. One could be a simple Space Agency which could handle the more mundane business aspects of space, (Satellite insertions, orbital construction, habitat construction, colonization, etc...) and the other which would focus on the Scientific and Exploratory aspects of space. Maybe the second agency could be placed under the auspices of the NSF or something.

      It seems to me that most of the whining about different types of research could be lessened if it were obvious that the Mars Rovers are there to explore mars, and not look for something in particular.

      Ira

    5. Re:Could be a problem? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the opposite side, "I was going to fund these guys to operate and collect data for 3 months, now I'm paying them for 2 years". :)

      To avoid this "problem" they'll include self-destruct timebombs in the next probes. Once the budget is consumed the probe is blown into pieces.

      Or, once they can't come up with more unplanned experiments for a probe that never dies, they can sell "Virtual Space Tourist" trips so anyone with lots of cash can write their names with rover tracks in Martian soil.

    6. Re:Could be a problem? by JPM+NICK · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There would be more overhead, which is already a problem, byt splitting these into 2 agencies. Each oen will need a head, maagement. to many dual positions going for the same goal. its cheaper to run it the way it is now.

  9. Hmmmm by Moby+Cock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder if there are any realistic estimates on how long it will take to properly digest the data that has been sent back by these robots. The original estimate was for the rovers to survive 90 days and they figured that the data received would occupy planteary scientists for years to come. The data they have now ought to occupy scientists for decades.

    1. Re:Hmmmm by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The original estimate was for the rovers to survive 90 days and they figured that the data received would occupy planteary scientists for years to come. The data they have now ought to occupy scientists for decades."

      Except that a lot of the data will be redundant. Fixed time based on type of data for analysis, variable time based on quantity of data.

      Not to say that the extra data is worthless, or that it can't provide additional insight... but some of the data is just increasing sample size.

      Besides, we don't want people thinking that unmanned missions to other planets will be useless for the next couple decades, since all the planetary scientists will be busy already...

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    2. Re:Hmmmm by bogado · · Score: 2, Informative

      Redundancy is actually good, with more data you can confirm the observations made in another sets of redundant data.

      Also the probability of finding something out of the ordinary get's higher with more data. If on 1 in a 10000 pictures would capture some rare kind of rock in mars, with the extended lifetime of the rovers it will be more probable to find that rock, among the data.

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    3. Re:Hmmmm by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Re: redundancy, I totally agree -- however, it doesn't take as much time as unique data.

      Good point on the likelihood of finding anomalies. And the time spent on those is really dependent on the quantity of them, as well as the type.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Hmmmm by Bronz · · Score: 2, Funny


      No one reads the data. They put it in a box with a swastika on the side and cart it of into some huge government warehouse.

    5. Re:Hmmmm by Dan-DAFC · · Score: 1

      Redundancy is actually good, with more data you can confirm the observations made in another sets of redundant data.

      Also the probability of finding something out of the ordinary get's higher with more data. If on 1 in a 10000 pictures would capture some rare kind of rock in mars, with the extended lifetime of the rovers it will be more probable to find that rock, among the data.

      --
      Suck figs.
    6. Re:Hmmmm by Kelson · · Score: 1

      I was personally assured that they had "top men" working on this!

    7. Re:Hmmmm by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      If on 1 in a 10000 pictures would capture some rare kind of rock in mars, with the extended lifetime of the rovers it will be more probable to find that rock, among the data.

      You must mean this rock.

    8. Re:Hmmmm by bogado · · Score: 1

      Is there an echo in here?

      ECHOOOO... echoooo.... ...........

      --
      []'s Victor Bogado da Silva Lins

      ^[:wq

    9. Re:Hmmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Redundant? Not really. They are doing things now that they never planned to do in a 90 day mission, such as structural geology for an entire region in Gusev. It's a lot more information than you get from drilling into a few rocks at one location.

      They thought that battery failure from thermal and charge cycling would be the limiting factor for these robots. Not so. During the long summer daylight hours, they've actually had a problem with the batteries overcharging! So, they've started switching on all the heaters at night, activating the rovers in the -80C temperatures and taking photos of the martian moons. That's way outside the original mission specs. These things refuse to die.

      Cheers, Phil

  10. WTF? That's NEVADA! by LearnToSpell · · Score: 5, Funny

    They didn't even Photoshop out the tennis courts on the right. I knew these things were faked!

  11. conversion error? by lawrenqj · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder if NASA accidentally used months instead of years when calculating the lifespan of the rovers.

    1. Re:conversion error? by Surt · · Score: 5, Funny

      In case anyone reads this and really doesn't know, NASA had expected that the solar panels would become dust clogged and stop providing power by now. But as it turns out, martians have been dusting them off every so often, so the rovers have lasted much longer than expected.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    2. Re:conversion error? by Hussman32 · · Score: 5, Informative
      That is pretty funny, and not untrue.

      One of the designers gave a presentation to our conference the day after they landed. It's easy to say they sandbagged their estimate, but they have had a host of challenges such as
      • In addition to the dust, they had concerns about the batteries freezing. They have a very small bit of plutonium included to keep them warm, but it was a very real possibility that they would lose too much heat and be dead in the water.
      • The firmware for one of the rovers (Opportunity, I think) had to be completely uploaded and rebooted remotely (that's when it was lost for a while).
      • Leaving the landing foam was a pain, I think one of the Rovers was stuck for a while before it got out.
      • The terrain itself is unpredictable, and even though they have six wheel independent suspension traveling at a slow pace, one wrong crater and they are screwed. One of them did get stuck for a while, they wiggled their way out.

      So yeah, say they sandbagged it, but in reality, it was entirely possible that they could have worked only for a day (or not at all) and they would have been ostracized for being incompetent when they actually did a fine job. Congratulations to them.
      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    3. Re:conversion error? by timeOday · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I wonder if NASA accidentally used months instead of years when calculating the lifespan of the rovers.
      My guess would be "yes." Nobody knows what to expect from a Mars rover (not even NASA, really)... so set expectations for the lower bound, then pat yourself on the back for whatever else you get.
    4. Re:conversion error? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Err, I mean my guess would be "no"... in other words I think NASA was intentionally conservative.

    5. Re:conversion error? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They both had a flaw that when their flash memory got too full a buffer overflow in the memory management software would reboot the machine. Spirit had been operating and collecting data first and thus encountered the problem before Opportunity ran into it too. The fix was to disable the flash memory from a safe mode so they could point the high gain antenna and send a fixed software version (once they figured out what was causing the problem). It really was a close call.

      There was no landing foam. There were inflated bags that cushioned the impact as the lander bounced. The bags had cords attached to them that were retracted after landing to pull the deflated bags under the lander out of the way. The retraction didn't work 100%, and there was concern that the rover's wheels would get tangled up in the bags or the cords (which turned out not to happen).

      The rover actually got stuck on mostly flat terrain. It was crossing some low wind swept dunes which the wheels eventually just dug into (think a car on the beach). By wiggling back and forth they were able to back out, and they added some movement rules for the auto drive that if a lot of slippage occurs the move stops so as not to dig so deep into loose sand.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    6. Re:conversion error? by Zeussy · · Score: 1

      I always thought, if it was just Dust on the Solar panels that was the minimizing factor for their lifespan. Why didnt they have like Windscreen wipers for the panels. Or some kind of brush that swept the dust off. Pretty simple i thought.

    7. Re:conversion error? by Vultan · · Score: 1

      If NASA were doing things "by the book," hours would seem like days.

    8. Re:conversion error? by Surt · · Score: 1

      I thought this too. My best conclusion is that any motorized part like a cleaning brush would be yet another part that could break down, and of course more weight. But I've never heard a really satisfying explanation.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    9. Re:conversion error? by Hussman32 · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the follow up, the presentation was in January '04, and the details were rusty.

      --
      "Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
    10. Re:conversion error? by bullitB · · Score: 3, Funny

      it was a very real possibility that they would lose too much heat and be dead in the water

      THE WATER? See! See! They have been covering up their knowledge of martian water.

    11. Re:conversion error? by Chuckstar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Three nitpicks

      1) It wasn't a buffer overflow. It was a filesystem error caused by trying to add the 32,769th file to a file system which uses 16-bits to track files.

      2) They didn't upload a new software version. The uploaded a script that could operate on the flash system without mounting it, so they could delete enough files to mount the flash system. They then had to re-upload some files that had been corrupted. They didn't have to upload a new OS, since it really didn't do anything wrong. The error was in continuing to upload files to the rover after a script to delete old files had failed to upload. They knew there was a file count limit, but the guy that was responsible for uploading the delete script failed to inform the other guys uploading files that the delete script upload failed and there wasn't as much free space as he had previously told them. I think they did tweak some settings, though, so that a file system error would not reboot the whole machine, but would just shut down the process associated with the error.

      3) The concern that the rover would get tangled did result in a pretty long delay while they tested an alternative route to get off the platform. So the rover was effectively "stuck" in place (didn't move) although it wasn't literally stuck in place (couldn't move).

    12. Re:conversion error? by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      They should have just mounted the panels upside down so the dust wouldn't settle on the active surface.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    13. Re:conversion error? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THE WATER? See! See! They have been covering up their knowledge of martian water.

      It isn't so much a cover-up as an acknowlegement that water on Mars is ice either in ice caps or permafrost layers. So if the rovers lost too much heat they would be dead in ponds made by melted permaforst (since they don't float).

  12. May be.. by mayhemt · · Score: 1, Funny

    Somehow if we ./ them they will quit??

    1. Re:May be.. by Praeluceo · · Score: 1

      Maybe if we "Dot Slash" them? Come on now, what is this, dyslashexia? I mean, for goodness' sake, how lazy do you have to be to not even take the time to proof-read the entire joke (and subject) of your one-sentence post? I propose an idiot filter, which forces every poster to re-read every word they write before posting it, and have it peer-reviewed (pre-metamoding) before it can be posted. Oh it'd be wonderful. Oh right, Slashdot, my mistake.

  13. One thing no one is really talking about... by hcob$ · · Score: 3, Interesting

    While it's outstanding that these things are running so well for so long, it's amuzing that people haven't thought of this from an engineer's perspective.

    These things are horribly over-engineered. Not that it is a bad thing they are proving so resilliant, but we're now at 8x the "designed" life span. In my mind, that means they could have probably built it half as robust and still been outstanding pieces of machinery(and alot less expensive).

    I know that hindsight is 20/20, and I'm not judging the engineers poorly on this feat(quite the opposite in fact). I just thought someone might want to point that little tid-bit out...

    Now, FLAME ON!!

    --
    Cliff Claven
    K.E.G. Party Chairman
    Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    1. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Sockatume · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, look at it this way: the rovers were designed with redundancy and robustness so that if things go somewhat wrong they can still provide their target lifespan. A side effect of this is that when things don't go wrong, they exceed their target lifespan.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    2. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by am+2k · · Score: 4, Insightful
      In my mind, that means they could have probably built it half as robust and still been outstanding pieces of machinery(and alot less expensive).

      The problem is, when you build them less robust, they might not survive the landing, so you would get a zero livespan...

    3. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Viol8 · · Score: 3, Funny

      "probably built it half as robust and still been outstanding pieces of machinery"

      Yeah , why did those engineers bother over engineering. They could
      have made them out of some old beer cans and kit from radio shack.
      Hey they might only have lasted 10 seconds but think of all the
      money saved!

    4. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by greginnj · · Score: 1
      These things are horribly over-engineered. Not that it is a bad thing they are proving so resilliant, but we're now at 8x the "designed" life span. In my mind, that means they could have probably built it half as robust and still been outstanding pieces of machinery(and alot less expensive).

      Wow, you take things very literally. A few points:

      1. 'Robustness' isn't linear...
      2. it isn't even well-defined.
      3. It's an estimate, influenced by past experience, inducting over many designs - not a function of dollars spent in any predictable sense.

      It might be interesting to work out the mean active useful life (estimated and actual) of all the Mars missions -- Opportunity and Spirit may just be bringing the actual mean back to the estimated mean, after all the mishaps with the other probes.

      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
    5. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by eln · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, so next time they build an unmanned probe without so much redundancy and resiliency, and something small breaks on the thing rendering the entire craft useless. You don't think they would get heat for that?

      Space flight is hard. Landing on another planet is hard. Driving around on another planet by remote control is hard. The redundancy and robustness is built in to these systems because we know there are about 10,000 things that could go wrong, and we want to protect against these things. If we don't protect against these things, and one of them happens, we can't just call for a tow from the MAA (Martian Automobile Association).

    6. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really not a case of over-engineering at all. The expected point of failure was dust settling on the solar panels over the course of months, until the Rover had no power left to keep its electronics from freezing. However, when this started to happen, they got lucky and a wind storm came along and cleaned off the panels. Which is great, but relying on that would be foolish.
      E.

    7. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Rasta+Prefect · · Score: 5, Insightful
      These things are horribly over-engineered. Not that it is a bad thing they are proving so resilliant, but we're now at 8x the "designed" life span. In my mind, that means they could have probably built it half as robust and still been outstanding pieces of machinery(and alot less expensive).

      Thats a problem with your mind, not with NASA's strategy. In short, the actual construction costs of the rovers are a very small portion of the cost of a mission of this nature. Skimping on the construction isn't going to save significantly on design costs, nor is it going to reduce the cost of flinging it halfway across the solar system and monitoring it on the way.

      What you call "Over-engineering" likely only increased to cost of the project by a couple of percent at most, and greatly improved the chances of success, avoiding the necessity of paying all of the overhead costs _again_ to lauch another one because this one plowed into the ground.

      Penny wise, pound foolish as my Grandma would say. :)

      --
      Why?
    8. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These things are horribly over-engineered. Not that it is a bad thing they are proving so resilliant, but we're now at 8x the "designed" life span. In my mind, that means they could have probably built it half as robust and still been outstanding pieces of machinery(and alot less expensive).

      If I may interject, WHO says they're overengineered? In fact, to the best of my knowledge they are anything *but* overengineered. When the Spirit rover had technical difficulties shortly after landing, one of the things that came out was the lack of backup systems and the inability of the craft to keep its solar panels clean. Things that many of us wished the rovers had were RTGs, Solar Panel Wipers, Longer Lasting Batteries, Redundant Computers, Larger Storage Capacity, Anything but Vx[Doesn't]Works, etc. NASA hadn't put many of these goodies onboard because the rovers were built in a relative hurry, with all expectations of short lifespans.

      Unexpectedly, it turned out that pretty much all the components on the rovers far exceeded their expected lifetimes. As far as the engineers are concerned, the solar panels should be caked, the batteries shouldn't hold a charge, the wheels should be gunked up, and the computers should have no remaining capacity. Yet the rovers live on. Very puzzling for the engineers, but very nice for the scientists. :-)

    9. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by garver · · Score: 1

      Or the requirements fed to the engineers were wrong or grossly exagerated. Not suprising since we hadn't been there before and didn't really know what it was like on the surface.

      So, they planned for the worst case environment on Mars and found things more hospitable. Lucky us.

    10. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by 21chrisp · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the launch cost is the most expensive part of the mission. These rovers cost a lot less than the hardware they fly on, so it makes sense to overengineer them. Sure you could leave out backup systems A through D, but that will only save $10 to $20,000 on a $.5 million+ project. What's the point? You may as well take all the precautions possible to keep your hardware going once it gets there.

    11. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by zentinal · · Score: 1
      That is an interesting take, which leads me to wonder, perhaps Mars isn't quite as hosile as the engineers originally thought.

      Wait, before you flame me (oh, go ahead), consider this. The engineers made certain assumptions regarding how abrasive / corrosive the Martian dust is, how difficult it would be to move around in, how the materials the rovers are constructed from would react to the atmosphere / uv exposure / etc.

      While it is obviously a hostile environment, perhaps it is not quite as hostile as we've originally thought.

    12. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by bcattwoo · · Score: 1
      Does anyone know what the expected failure mode of the rovers was supposed to be after three months?

      Perhaps they were not so much "over-engineered" as much as conditions just weren't as harsh as were expected. There is a subtle difference. Like say the Martian dust was not quite as plentiful, sticky, or abrasive as engineers were led to believe. That certain items would be built more robust than necessary in this case is due to poor specifications rather than overzealous engineering.

      Or perhaps NASA isn't telling us about the helpful Martians who have been changing the oil every three months.

    13. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by leinhos · · Score: 1

      This is a good point. The total probablity of mission success would be the wieghted sum of all possible events minus thier mutual probablity. To get through the first few events (transit to orbit and landing), the amount of over-engineering required could easily render the probabilty of failure later on negligible.

      P(failure)=P(crash) +P(land){P(!survive landing)+P(all other failure events after landing)-overlap}

    14. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by largentin · · Score: 1

      Usually what determines the life of these robots are the batteries: how many charging cycles they will stand specially in those extreme temperatures. So I don't think they were overengineered.

    15. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your car has also been overengineered for safety...so think about this the next time your crashing 55mph into a tractor trailer (gee...if they hadn't overengineered this car for safety...it might have cost me like a thousand dollars less :))

    16. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Apreche · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is true, and so is the parent post. I can't really speak for this particular project, which is actually cheaper than most NASA stuff, but most other NASA missions are over engineered and too expensive.

      Think about it like this. To make a project that is 90% sure to work it costs X dollars. To make the project 99% sure to work it costs 2*X dollars or more! As the levels of redundancy and robustness of the equipment increases the price increasess exponentially. The 99th percent costs more than the 98th percent and so on.

      The problem is that most NASA missions go to the 99th percent no matter what. The reality is that sometimes they could do the same mission 10 times over at 90% reliability for less money than doing the mission ones for 99% reliability. So one out of 10 missions would blow up, but 9 out of 10 would rock the house. That's a lot better than the few we have now.

      --
      The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    17. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by AndersOSU · · Score: 3, Interesting

      One of my Mech Eng profs liked to tell us that robustness is marketing-speak, it has no real meaning to engineers.

      For example you don't talk about robustness of a strut, you talk about strength and fatigue. You don't talk about robustness of an robot, you talk about manuverability and degrees of freedom. You don't talk about robustness of a Mars Rover, you talk about sensors, speed, solar panel life, etc.

      Now before you poo-poo this, name one parameter that is best described by robustness, rather than an actual engineering term with real units.

      (of course we filled the final presentation for that professors course with all forms of the word, including robustitude)

    18. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      So, you are OK with 1 out of 10 MANNED Missions (Shuttle, ISS, etc.) failing with loss of the crew and the vehicle? Glad you are not running NASA. Shuttle is about 1 in 100 failures (2 losses in just over 200 missions) and BOTH those could have been prevented with better engineering. The extra engineering costs are minute compared to losing the whole mission.

    19. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The expense is getting them there and the teams monitoring them. The cost of the robot is trivial, hence the over-engineering.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    20. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by codegen · · Score: 1

      The major cost is not the cost of the rover, but the vehicle that gets you
      there. They are over engineered because they don't want it to break
      down during the first 30 days and waste the mamoth cost of getting
      them there in the first place.

      --
      Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
    21. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by AndersOSU · · Score: 1

      Martian dust caking on the solar panels.

    22. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by digidave · · Score: 1

      The rovers weren't overengineered, they were underestimated. In business it's called under promising and over delivering. It doesn't make any sense to build a Mars rover to last three months or even a year when most of the cost is getting there, not designing or building the rover.

      --
      The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
    23. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by hador_nyc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think it's good when we engineers overdesign stuff. Take the Brooklyn Bridge for example. It was designed and built before car traffic existed. The steel in the cables is only 1/2 as strong as it was supposed to be, and it's still like 4 times strong than it needs to be with modern car and truck traffic! Quite a feat!

      --
      - Mike
      Once you've lost your temper, you've lost the argument - Me
    24. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by squoozer · · Score: 3, Informative

      They aren't over engineered for the environment they were expected to operate in. Our understanding of the martian environment led the engineers to believe that the solar panels would become dirty quickly. I'm sure cleaning systems were considered but a desision was made to have rovers that lasted 3 months without a cleaning machanism. Turns out we didn't understand the martian environment all that well and wind is keeping the panels clean enough to power the rovers. That's just shear luck.

      As for the other parts of the rovers out lasting their usefulness - well that just goes to show how good some areas of engineering have become. Yes they could probably have fitted wheel bearings that would seize after 3 months but as they would weigh the same as (or damn near) the ones that have lasted 2 years a desision was made to fit the better bearings. There will always be one weakest component in this case our best guess at what is was was wrong. I'd be interested to know what part eventually fails and kills the rovers. If nothing else this is an interesting experiment into long term rover deployment. I am sure the engineers are getting plenty of interesting telemetry back on what is failing on the rovers.

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    25. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by jfengel · · Score: 1

      That's literally true in one extremely important sense. They had expected that the solar panels would be covered with dust and useless by now, but something is cleaning them off, and they still don't know what. They had figured that solar panel wipers wouldn't be effective enough given the weight they'd add, but it turns out they got lucky and didn't need them. So yeah, you can say that the environment is less hostile than they expected.

      It's probably true in other senses as well, but it was the solar panels that they expected to have gone long ago. Now we're going to see what actually does fail permanently first.

    26. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      obviously when you're dealing with human life, over engineering is a good thing, as the cost of losing a human being has to be calculated. When you're dealing with robots, the only thing you lose on a failure is time, money and materials. But I think for NASA, time is a big issue. If it takes 2 years to get to mars, it better succeed the first time, or it may take another 4 years (engineering time plus travel) to get another shot at it. If you send up 10 at the same time, then it is likely that if 1 fails, they may all fail.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    27. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you call "Over-engineering" likely only increased to cost of the project by a couple of percent at most

      The first 90% costs 90% of your budget, and the last 10% cost 90% of your budget.

    28. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by ckaminski · · Score: 1

      Remember these things called Viking 1 and 2?

      They landed on Mars in the 70's. So while we had little idea of the EXACT conditions on the surface where the rovers landed, we had a general idea of what Mars was like.

    29. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      "name one parameter that is best described by robustness, rather than an actual engineering term with real units"

      Stomach girth (the spare tire).
      To use real units would depress me and make me consider offing myself. Calling me roubust makes me feel better :-)
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    30. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      If we are talking unmanned I agree but the first post did not clarify that.

      Some idiots modded me down to -1. Oh well, I got Karma on top of Karma. Thier turn is coming!

    31. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      The article is about unmanned mars rovers, it's kind of implied that we are talking about unmanned missions, otherwise, we'd be a little offtopic.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    32. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Dr.+Spork · · Score: 1

      If they had been more shoddy they might have been a bit cheaper, but by far the most expensive part of the mission was getting them to Mars. If you're gonna bother doing that, you might as well bring devices that are designed well and built well. I have to say that this is in one thing that Nasa did right (the Hubble is the other). Too bad that the stuff they do right is such a minuscule fraction of their budget!

    33. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I assume the boatload of the costs are
      1.) Hiring a team of engineers and scientists to work 2 years to design it
      2.) Putting it in space
      3.) Having a team of engineers and scientists monitor both probes in space and now on mars for years on end.

      The cost of using cheaper parts is mute and far dwarfed by the 3 things above. Even if you could shave off a few months of development by not being so redundant you still have a huge price tag that is similiar to the final one chosen.

      Might as well invest in the quality at this pace.

    34. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Kelson · · Score: 1

      NASA's been following the "faster, better, cheaper" plan for, what, a decade now? (Compare the last dozen probes sent to Mars, Saturn, various comets, etc. with, say, the massive Voyager or Galileo missions.) The whole idea has been to send a bunch of relatively cheap probes instead of a few really expensive ones, and if a couple of the cheap ones disappear or fall apart, well, that's no big deal.

      The problem is that when some of the cheap probes disappeared, crashed, or fell apart, people were still upset over the "waste of resources." The level of engineering, materials, fuel, etc. it takes to make sure that most of the probes get where they're supposed to and collect the data we want is too high for a spacecraft to really be expendable in the eyes of the public -- or the people in charge of the budget.

    35. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Bellum+Aeternus · · Score: 1

      Do you work for Microsoft? O_o

      --
      - I voted for Nintendo and against Bush
    36. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      No one said ANYTHING about cheaper parts... but hey, feel free to continue to critque. And a few months could have put us in a better launch windows that didn't require as much fuel, etc, etc.... Not to mention the salaries of a team of engineers and scientists...

      But I will say they made a marvelous piece of equipment

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    37. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 2, Informative

      There were other failure modes as well. (dust and batteries were to be the methods of failure that would kill them for sure in a fixed length of time)

      1) dust
      2) batteries not maintaining a charge
      3) Cold cracking circuit boards/frezing batteries at night
      4) not enough power in the mars winter to keep from waking in safe mode each morning
      5) accedents (getting stuck)
      6) Some other mechanical failure
      7) landing somewhere trapped or unable to get off the pad.

      This is what I recall from reading articles about the project early on. I hoped they would get to mars. Move around some. get stuck/figure out they were trapped. Continue to send data back like the Lunar probes and eventually earth would stop listening.

      Needless to say this is much better than I had hoped. But I am confident that they will both die/get stuck unexpectedly over time. When things NASA makes do not die when expected, they do tend to last for years. I would not be too shocked if one of these rovers was used to help monitor weather conditions in a limited way for the next 20 years.

    38. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by halivar · · Score: 1

      If I could build a Mars rover from old beer cans and a Radio Shack kit, and have it last 10 seconds on Mars, I'd get a job offer from NASA.

    39. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? There are about half a dozen top-level posts on "over-engineering." Sure, half of them are marked redundant, and you may have gotten in the first one, but I'd hardly say no one is talking about it.

    40. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by GileadGreene · · Score: 3, Informative
      In fact, to the best of my knowledge they are anything *but* overengineered.

      Very true. The entire MER program was mass-constrained from the get-go. They barely fit on the launch vehicle. At some points during the design cycle the mass margin was negative, and the systems engineers had to hunt around for things to take off. There was no room to spare for over-engineering, because there just wasn't any spare mass for anything other than the bare minimum to achieve the mission. I speak from direct knowledge here, because I sat through the debates about whether or not to have two transponders (final decision: one - the SDST was considered reasonably reliable), and similar debates about the solid-state power amplifiers (the final word I heard was two SSPAs, due to their potential for failure, but that may have changed after I left the program). We used to joke that the only redundant things in the entire systems were the heaters and the SSPAs.

    41. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny, I built a mars rover from beer cans and a kit from Radio Shack.

      I hope they find my little Tubthumper. He gets knocked down, but he gets up again.

    42. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by AKAImBatman · · Score: 1

      We used to joke that the only redundant things in the entire systems were the heaters and the SSPAs.

      Ah, but the heaters are highly reliable. You guys should have removed half of them. Just think, you could have saved a massive 2-3 grams on the launch weight! :-P

    43. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      When you're dealing with robots, the only thing you lose on a failure is time, money and materials

      Sometimes, you also lose a literal once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. Consider Voyager 2. Had it completely failed, there would be no opportunity for a retry mission, since the Grand Tour configuration would be gone for several hundred years.

      I am not an Orbital Mechanic. What is the cycle period for the full gravity-assist Grand Tour that Voyager made?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    44. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't know about you, but if it's my butt sitting on top of those rockets, I wouldn't consider 99% reliability to be over engineered. As the Challenger and Discovery crews found out, even engineered for 99% isn't good enough (though technically, considering the number of flights, it's probably a good deal less than that.

    45. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by GileadGreene · · Score: 1
      We used to joke that the only redundant things in the entire systems were the heaters and the SSPAs.

      And before anyone gets too carried away: yes, this was a *joke*. There were also redundant pyros, redundant thermostats, redundant switches and relays for key systems, redundant thruster valves, and the like. But the only major (i.e. large) components that were redundant were the SSPAs, and it seemed like there were about a million redundant heaters (yes, that's hyperbole as well).

    46. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turns out we didn't understand the martian environment all that well and wind is keeping the panels clean enough to power the rovers. That's just shear luck.

      Literally, perhaps... as we are depending on the sheer luck of having enough wind shear to keep the panels clean?

    47. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, that's just what the guy who sold it to me said!

    48. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      This is what NASA tells the Mars astronauts when they're on their way to Mars: "Sorry guys. We really wanted to save some money and so we engineered your spacecraft to make it to Mars but probably not back home. We also took out all redundancy in your flight and navigation systems. It was just too expensive to include them. We did pack you some UNO cards though and extra toilet paper (it's pretty cheap after all).Your spacesuits should work for at least a couple days too. That should be plenty of time for you to take pictures and send them back to us, if you survive the impact. We didn't want to spend too much money so we'll just surround your capsule with lots of foam and hope for the best. We do have some good news for you though; we just saved a bunch of money on car insurance by switching to GEICO."

    49. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by micheas · · Score: 1

      You obviously don't know any real engineers.

      They would have insisted on using duct tape and bailing wire.

      (If you ever vist the Golden Gate Bridge in San Francisco, you can see a cross section of cable that looks way to much like one of the engineers said "just twist together lots of bailing wire and it will hold.""

    50. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 1

      Interesting point, but what if reducing costs in any one area caused a failure?

      The expense is more in getting the thing there and tracking it from here than engineering it. Doubling the cost of materials and engineering is not an issue compared to the other costs and the cost of failure.

      Cutting costs is dangerous too. It's the sort of thing that leads to "We service the aeroplane too often, and we never find any faults. If we cut our servicing by 50%, we can deliver increased profits to shareholders."

      Which is fine.

      Until the first thing goes wrong, at which point any savings are massively outweighed by the costs of failure.

    51. Re:One thing no one is really talking about... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Think about it like this. To make a project that is 90% sure to work it costs X dollars. To make the project 99% sure to work it costs 2*X dollars or more! As the levels of redundancy and robustness of the equipment increases the price increasess exponentially. The 99th percent costs more than the 98th percent and so on.

      The problem is that most NASA missions go to the 99th percent no matter what. The reality is that sometimes they could do the same mission 10 times over at 90% reliability for less money than doing the mission ones for 99% reliability. So one out of 10 missions would blow up, but 9 out of 10 would rock the house.
      The reality is, NASA tried something like that, and faced a massive outcry over their 'incompetence' when they started losing missions.
  14. Why not more? by EriktheGreen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    So, why aren't we applauding these things louder, and mass producing twenty or thirty more? They're a raging success, a proven concept, and surely cheaper than developing a completely new exploration system for other worlds. We should take the plans and use them to build an army of rovers for mars, then put an equal number on the moon... we could explore the moon from laboratories, universities, offices and homes on earth directly.

    Oh, that's right... NASA's main purpose isn't exploration or science, it's to preserve its own existence. New projects mean new money, and old sucesses are only good for arguing for more funding for new toys.

    Erik

    1. Re:Why not more? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I wonder how well they would work out on the moon. On one hand, there should be less airborne dust - there's no air. On the other hand, the dust it kicks up will be more likely to end up on the panel - no air (to speak of) getting in the way and slowing it down, and nothing to blow it off.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Why not more? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      It still costs a huge amount to send rovers into space. It's not like a PS2 where R&D costs a few hundred million and then they can run them off at $100 a pop, you know. Therefore it's probably worth the extra cost of designing a new mission with more, better instruments.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:Why not more? by Moby+Cock · · Score: 1

      You are being very cynical. I honestly think that NASA's future WILL include robotic exploration of the moon and Mars (moreso than now). But it would be foolhardy to send the same rovers in mass quantities. These things are not like consumer electronics. There have been lessons learned in fielding these robots and those lessons need to be rolled-up in a future iteration.

      As for saying that universities/offices/homes could be driving the rovers around. Well that is daft. The moon is not some big RC race track in the sky. (Although it would be be ideal for it). These rovers move slowly and take copious readings at every metre of the journey. They are not toys to be goofed arond with by students and families.

    4. Re:Why not more? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 4, Funny
      and nothing to blow it off

      Slant the panels and build in a small vibrator.

      Man, this all sounds oddly offensive. ;-)

    5. Re:Why not more? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      "NASA's main purpose isn't exploration or science, it's to preserve its own existence."

      Well, duh, it's a government agency.

      That's a primary purpose of all governments -- to preserve their own existence.

      Not to say that government agencies, and governments in general, can't do things that are in the public good. On the individual level, people in government are often motivated by partially (even sometimes mostly!) altruistic reasons. But there are finite resources to be had, so on the institutional level, they work hard at preserving their own existence.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    6. Re:Why not more? by mbrod · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This is the same question I keep asking since the rovers success. I would have thought with the plans they had, you could mass produce them and save a lot on costs. Then send an army of them to mars or the moon. Students at various universities and even amateur scientists could help with planning or requests for various places to search.

      Instead they came up with the idea that we should switch to manned missions again and it will take 10-20 years.

      The robots are already can already do alot of the exploring for us. We should be launching robotic missions to the moons around Jupiter and more robotic missions to Mars, lots of them.

      Not one or two every three years, send 10-100 at minimum.

    7. Re:Why not more? by broggyr · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I'm not sure if they kick up so much dust - I thought the moved slower than a walk. Dust spray ought to be minimal at best... -- "I uh... could be wrong, you know!" - Bugs Bunny

      --
      Irony? Yea, it's like goldy and bronzy, only it's made of iron!
    8. Re:Why not more? by EriktheGreen · · Score: 1
      You can "roll up" lessons learned using any normal engineering change process. New versions with the fixes could be mass produced, but NASA never considers doing that. Rather, they start from scratch every time. Re-inventing the wheel over and over...

      Note that my saying they could be controlled from anywhere means they should be controlled by anyone. Rather, I mean that the bottleneck of communication and control is removed on the moon as opposed to working via an orbiting satellite on mars, and sitting in a big government building 24 hours a day. Why not pass control for each rover among 3 scientists at 3 sites for 11-12 hours each? Follow the Sun.

    9. Re:Why not more? by EriktheGreen · · Score: 1
      They don't cost $100 a pop, but they don't need to cost several hundred million. The economics of mass production work at almost any scale, hence the reason why the industrial revolution happened.

      It's true that operations and launching cost a lot more than development over time. So why not save the development cost and put that money toward operations? Also, can you argue that mass production of identical units wouldn't cut operations costs over time as their quirks are worked out, and problems corrected, and optimization of process and program for cheap launches done?

    10. Re:Why not more? by EriktheGreen · · Score: 1

      Dust won't matter anywhere near as much as on mars. There's no wind to blow it off, but since the moon is very much closer than mars, there's quite a bit more power available anyway... enough to either ignore the dust problem, or enough to run extra systems that clean the solar panels.

    11. Re:Why not more? by EriktheGreen · · Score: 1
      Don't get me wrong, I'm not surprised.

      I used to work at USPS doing IT stuff. They had reached the second stage of government evolution, where not only was preserving their existence their first priority, but the second priority was preventing anyone else from doing their job, third priority was preserving the dignity and pensions of the high school educated managers (Union shop too) and serving the customers was somewhere down around 4th place.

      I consider my experience there to have been considerably more damaging to me professionally and emotionally than being groped by my former kung fu teacher.

    12. Re:Why not more? by iabervon · · Score: 1

      In addition to the other issues, it takes a large team of people at NASA to use each rover. If they had another 20-30, the manpower allocation to driving these things around would be impractical. On the other hand, the DARPA Granc Challenge was actually completed this year, so it's possible that they'll be doing rovers that can drive themselves around before too long, which will be much more efficient in terms of support staff.

      Of course, the success of the rover program doesn't just mean that the rovers are good designs, but also that the equipment in the rovers is good. Making a dozen more identical rovers is probably not worthwhile, but having devices you can debug and fix the software in from a different planet is a big win, and those solar panels are clearly a great part.

    13. Re:Why not more? by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      The "Moonies" would dust it off. Didn't you see them when Wallace and Grommit visited to get some Cheese?

    14. Re:Why not more? by haggar · · Score: 1

      Good point. Plus, the moon dust is very fine and almost "corrosive" in its action.
      Now, disregarding these features, and just concentrating on how to avoid having the solar panels opaqued: maybe an electric field could keep the dust away. An electric field, even a strong one, in the absence of any gas to speak of, could be very energetically cheap to maintain.

      Mechanical wipers are probably out of the question, due to the abrasive nature of the dust.

      --
      Sigged!
    15. Re:Why not more? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Why? For the same reason the Apollo missions stopped getting news coverage. "MAN WALKS ON MOON!" followed by "Oh, we did it again", then "WOAH, START YOUR RUBBERNECKING, SOME DUDES ARE GONNA DIE", then "Oh, well they ALMOST died...", then "We're seriously going to try that again?", "...", ".." and "."

      Once it's happened its no longer news unless its bleeding, burning or exploding (preferably two or more of those).

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    16. Re:Why not more? by amightywind · · Score: 1

      The Mars Science Laboratory will be launched in a few years, but I am beginning to agree with you. MSL could be another NASA 'Battlestar Galactica'. Why screw with success? A little continuity might be in order. A slightly improved Opportunity rover would be quite cheap. They last a long time. Their exploration value is absolutely without precedent. If two rovers are good, six would be better. I have to believe this opinion is circulating at NASA.

      --
      an ill wind that blows no good
    17. Re:Why not more? by Zathrus · · Score: 1

      Rather, they start from scratch every time. Re-inventing the wheel over and over...

      Except that you're completely wrong. The Spirit/Opportunity rover design is a direct descendant from the Pathfinder design. And not only the rover, but the entire landing craft too (which practically didn't change from Pathfinder).

      As for why we don't send a plethora of them? Because it would be pointless. The design is made to operate within a very tight equatorial band. Any more "tropical" and the solar panels won't get enough power on a daily basis. Forget polar exploration entirely. The sensors onboard the rovers, while a significant step up from Pathfinder, have pretty well reached their limits. Why should we spend several million dollars to just collect additional data points? Heck, that's largely what the rovers are doing at this point -- because they simply cannot get more detailed data with what the sensors they have. Sending additional rovers to the (exceptionally few) available landing spots isn't going to gain us very much. Revising the design again, adding newer sensors and more capabilities, however, could easily give us far better results for a similar amount of money.

      And, finally, as for mass production... uh... no. The rovers were never designed to be mass produced. There are parts with such fine tolerances that it's not reasonable to mass produce them. Could you? Sure. But you'll spend more on setting up and fine tuning the process than you would in creating a couple of custom-made rovers. And it's pointless when you can be assured that you're not going to be making more than a few of a particular model. You don't think that race cars are made via mass production, or that the concept cars all the automakers produce are, do you?

      Have you ever worked in a mass production environment? On the pre-implementation end? How long do you think it takes GM, Boeing, Intel, or anyone else in the business to setup an entirely new line? It's not as simple as you seem to think.

    18. Re:Why not more? by kidcharles · · Score: 1

      The moon is closer than Mars to the sun, it also has no atmosphere, so you'd think there would be much more available solar energy.

      Course, it won't be playing golf on the lunar surface in front of a camera, so despite it being millions (billions?) of dollars cheaper than sending people back to the moon, it won't happen.

      --
      Ceci n'est pas une sig.
    19. Re:Why not more? by EriktheGreen · · Score: 1
      Except that you're completely wrong. The Spirit/Opportunity rover design is a direct descendant from the Pathfinder design. And not only the rover, but the entire landing craft too (which practically didn't change from Pathfinder).

      I wouldn't say completely wrong, but I concede that the design is an evolution of Pathfinder. The concept of the lander was the same, but the scale was different, and I have no doubt some changes happened if only to accommodate this.

      Because it would be pointless. The design is made to operate within a very tight equatorial band. Any more "tropical" and the solar panels won't get enough power on a daily basis. Forget polar exploration entirely. The sensors onboard the rovers, while a significant step up from Pathfinder, have pretty well reached their limits. Why should we spend several million dollars to just collect additional data points?

      Mars' circumferance at the equator is about 13,200 miles. So you're arguing that two slow driving rovers have found out everything there is to know? 200+ rovers couldn't cover all that. As for data points, ask any scientist trying to prove something and he'll say he'd like more data points to work with. The only reason scientists stop gathering data is when they run out of money to do so, and have to produce some results. I don't know what you mean by "reached their limits" for the sensors. They are still functioning, generating data, and just need more things to look at. I'm sure sensors manufactured more recently would work better, longer, and be cheaper.

      Also, talking about Mars' equator doesn't take into account the moon, which has enough sunlight on the bright side to run the rovers anywhere. This is the same moon we're talking about establishing a permanent base on soon, FYI.

      And, finally, as for mass production... uh... no. The rovers were never designed to be mass produced. There are parts with such fine tolerances that it's not reasonable to mass produce them.

      Right, just like MEMS parts couldn't be mass produced to start with. You're also assuming that manufacturing technology hasn't advanced any since the rover parts were produced before launch. Mass production just takes time and design.

      Could you? Sure. But you'll spend more on setting up and fine tuning the process than you would in creating a couple of custom-made rovers.

      If you're just going to produce two, sure. That's why you produce several hundred, and a few hundred more to put in storage for later modification and use. Look up "economy of scale" sometime.

      And it's pointless when you can be assured that you're not going to be making more than a few of a particular model. You don't think that race cars are made via mass production, or that the concept cars all the automakers produce are, do you?

      Read my original post. I'm suggesting that we DO make more than a few. That's the whole idea. Besides, are you really saying that "mass production is pointless when you're not going to be making more than a few of a particular model"? Paging captain obvious...

      Have you ever worked in a mass production environment? On the pre-implementation end? How long do you think it takes GM, Boeing, Intel, or anyone else in the business to setup an entirely new line? It's not as simple as you seem to think.

      Since this isn't (hopefully) one of those discussions where we whip out our genitals to see whose are bigger, my personal qualifications don't matter. Since you ask, however, yes I have worked in manufacturing (working there now, in a high tech environment) and I know that retooling costs are only prohibitive when you cannot reuse a large fraction of existing tooling, like in a semiconductor fab when a process change happens. Completely new technology requires new equipment. Given that these rovers are built mostly with off the shelf technology, they don't require completely new tooling. There are probably manufacturers who would produce the needed parts on existing lines for a tidy profit.

      Erik

    20. Re:Why not more? by Somegeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our moon also has the two weeks of chilly night thing, I don't think this rover design would survive that.

      --
      And as you tread the halls of sanity, You feel so glad to be, Unable to go beyond. I have a message, From another time..
    21. Re:Why not more? by NatteringNabob · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When the boss(es) tell you to piss away all your money on a PR, corporate welfare (aka contributions), and jobs (aka votes) project instead of science, that's what you do. NASA doesn't have any choice in the matter. I suspect a lot of people at NASA would rather do science, but it really isn't up to them.

    22. Re:Why not more? by el-spectre · · Score: 1

      Nah, the designs build on each other... MER is based on the Pathfinder probe technology, the followup mission will build on MER. This is a good plan.

      --
      "Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
    23. Re:Why not more? by maxwells_deamon · · Score: 1

      The Parachutes and areo braking landing systems would be a failure though! Also I think the moon is a much rougher surface to drive around on no dust storms to fill cracks...

      That said, we could drive them remotely as the time delay is minor. I would like to see a couple of modified missions like this.

    24. Re:Why not more? by ShibaInu · · Score: 1

      Even if we had a army of rovers produced with the latest gear, they aren't going to fling themselves into orbit. Here's some news - getting stuff into space is expensive. Getting it to Mars is still more expensive. Getting to LEO costs thousands of dollars a pound. Unless we mass produce these things ON MARS, it is going to be expensive regardless of whether 2 or 200 are produced.

    25. Re:Why not more? by mbrod · · Score: 1

      You would build them a bit smaller and lighter and launch about 20 at a time or more. It wouldn't be one to one. Still expensive but not outrageous. We blow 80 billion a year on Iraq. A mission for about 20 rovers should be able to be kept below about 4 billion.

    26. Re:Why not more? by 2short · · Score: 1

      You make some good points, but I think you are operating on an erroneous assumption.
          You are quite right that standard mass-production techniques could reduce the per-rover cost considerably through economies of scale. But it wouldn't reduce the total cost of these missions much, so we couldn't do very many more of them, which would defeat the whole point. Because the rover is not the expensive part. The rocket launch is the expensive part. We already do a lot of those (compared to just rover missions) and get some economies of scale, and it's still pretty expensive. Making the rover itself cheaper won't save a lot of money, because on the scale of the total mission, it doesn't cost a lot anyway.
          If you spent a bunch more on the lander/rover, and made it significantly lighter, that would cut costs. But it's already pretty incredibly light for what it does. So until the cost of thrust comes down significantly (which doesn't look likely), extreterestrial rover missions are going to be infrequent affairs; and the metric rover designers should strive to optomize is not "bang for buck" but "bang per pound". Given these parameters, largely redesigning the rovers per mission makes sense. Going to the moon means less gravity, means every sructural part can be lighter. Going to a different latitude on Mars means less solar energy, means a bigger solar panel, means something else has to go. Standardized rovers would be great for sending a whole lot to the martian equator, but you can only afford so many launches a year, who wants to send all of them to the martian equator?

    27. Re:Why not more? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      It's not so much dust spray as dust squirt. The dust is extremely fine and with no atmosphere to slow it down, and in low gravity, it shouldn't take very much at all to get it really moving.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    28. Re:Why not more? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      I appreciate that mass production would allow for a whole lot of rovers for a significantly reduced outlay, but that has its own drawbacks in terms of the value of the information created, not to mention the shortage of launch slots available. I guess it's a balance that NASA think tips in the direction of more one-off launches; that could very well change in the future. I think that's a more reasonable explaination than saying that NASA chose this model in order to artifically perpetuate themselves (not that I see the logic there). There's already been considerable backing for the "many probes" approach by those in the field.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    29. Re:Why not more? by Cef · · Score: 1

      An idea tumbling around in my head is that they should make a much larger rover, but not really like the other rovers. Sure it may have some special sensing equipment that the other rovers wouldn't have (due to size) but it's not to replace the existing rovers, but to augment them.

      The small rovers are slow at covering large distances. And they do suffer problems (dogged wheel, getting caught long-term in craters, unknown software glitches leaving them stranded, etc). So why not make a large rover that can:
        1. Transport them about over larger distances. This will boost the lifetime of the actual wheels on the existing rovers no end.
        2. Retrieve and possibly even service them. Being able to clean them, charge them, and give them software fixes if they're totally dead, etc. You could even do this regularly during a transport opportunity.
        3. Be used as a data repeater/processor on the surface. Assemble stuff, remove the redundancy, and only transmit the relevant information. There's satellites that do this, like the one over Singapore that actually has a StrongARM based Linux cluster on it. If power ever becomes a concern, you can always throttle back the number of "machines" in the cluster just by turning them off.

      Also, since this thing will be designed for transporting one of the existing rovers, when you send it to Mars, do the obvious thing: Send another rover with it!

    30. Re:Why not more? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I think they opted not to use a vibrator because they didn't want anything to get rattled loose, or break, and they opted against a fan because either the atmosphere is too thin, or the fan would weigh too much, or both.

    31. Re:Why not more? by EriktheGreen · · Score: 1
      I'm not suggesting that building a ton of rovers would be cheaper... rather, they would be more successful cheaper and faster than an extensive program to get humans back on the moon using totally new technology.

      How much of a long term benefit would having 40-60 rovers on the moon in one spot be, to test construction techniques and oxygen extraction? Sure, the design might not be optimal for moon vs. mars, but a working design is worth a lot over a "perfect" one. Send a pile of rovers we control from earth, build a moon base, and land the humans once the walls are up and the beer is cold.

      NASA seems to be getting the right idea as far as launch vehicles... big cluster rockets that haul weight to orbit using off the shelf (off the shuttle) technology. Use one of those to land 10 rovers at a time on the moon (technically, use one to launch a spacecraft capable of carrying 10 rovers to the moon and crashing them there).

      Here's a good idea: It should be possible to make a pile of money by building a single rover that will last a few months on the moon, and building a (privately funded) launch vehicle good enough to crash it there. Publicity aside (which is considerable $$), you'll be able to lease time on the rover to scientists, and eventually fund more missions including the tests above. A 1.2 light second delay earth to moon means telepresence is feasible.

      Actually, forget I said all of the above... I'm gonna start working on this =)

      Erik

    32. Re:Why not more? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If they had another 20-30, the manpower allocation to driving these things around would be impractical.

      Farm much of it off to universities. Plus, if they accept a bit more risk, then they could run them with less people.

    33. Re:Why not more? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      So, why aren't we applauding these things louder, and mass producing twenty or thirty more?
      Because there isn't an assembly line, and never was. The build and design team has been scattered for a couple of years now.
      They're a raging success, a proven concept, and surely cheaper than developing a completely new exploration system for other worlds.
      The two MER rovers are optimized for use on Mars - they are useless to rove other worlds without what amounts to a complete redesign. They are also highly optimized for a specific geologic mission - again, an extensive (and expensive) redesign and requalification would be needed to use them for another mission.
      We should take the plans and use them to build an army of rovers for mars, then put an equal number on the moon...
      We could use another couple for Mars, sure. But they'd fail on the Moon - the thermal and dust enviroments are much, much harsher. There's also large parts of Mars they can't reach because the terrain is too rough. (Where they are on Mars is actually pretty benign.) Another major limit is the capacity of the DSN (Deep Space Network), you'd have to spend billions upgrading it, building new dishes, etc... before you could operate more than a couple of them. (Or cancel every other probe.)
    34. Re:Why not more? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      This is the same question I keep asking since the rovers success. I would have thought with the plans they had, you could mass produce them and save a lot on costs.
      Mostly because they *can't* be mass produced. Mass production depends on simple operations performed by unskilled or semiskilled operators (and as little labor as possible per unit). The rovers each require hundreds of thousands of man hours by highly skilled workers performing complex tasks. You'd need to build a couple of hundred to bring the unit costs down below the current ones - but we don't need a couple of hundred. (Maybe a dozen, maybe two, tops.)

      Mass production isn't a magic wand.

      Then send an army of them to mars or the moon.
      An army of them on Mars would be pretty pointless, at best they could explore about 5% of the planets surface - the rest is either too rough, too cold, or too far from the equator. On the Moon, they'd die within hours of landing - the thermal enviroment is much harsher there than on Mars.
    35. Re:Why not more? by EriktheGreen · · Score: 1
      Because there isn't an assembly line, and never was. The build and design team has been scattered for a couple of years now.

      But the plans still exist. Unless NASA pulled another Apollo and destroyed them for political reasons. This actually shows another weakness of the NASA dinosaur. Any reasonably successful corporation would know that preserving the knowledge of that team is critical to future operations, and would attempt to retain the employees, ensure they had kept good records of their work, and in general done everything possible to "remember" how everything was done. With NASA the SOP seems to be "thanks for the great work, maybe we'll see you again sometime".

      The two MER rovers are optimized for use on Mars - they are useless to rove other worlds without what amounts to a complete redesign. They are also highly optimized for a specific geologic mission - again, an extensive (and expensive) redesign and requalification would be needed to use them for another mission.

      Not true. If I recall correctly, they were tested in earth gravity and earth atmosphere prior to embarkation for Mars. The thermal swing on the moon is wider (colder) but given the extra power available due to sunlight an electric heater could be fitted. Vacuum cementing might be an issue too, that's the only thing that might need a re-work. Of course the tools would need something of a redesign for new science missions, but they would be useful in their current form for studying moon geology in some ways. Ideally, the new rovers would have other tools that could be fitted in the same space, and a modular approach could be taken. An extensive redesign is not needed, and requalification could be abbreviated due to our now extensive operational knowledge.

      ...terrain is too rough. (Where they are on Mars is actually pretty benign.) Another major limit is the capacity of the DSN (Deep Space Network), you'd have to spend billions upgrading it, building new dishes, etc... before you could operate more than a couple of them. (Or cancel every other probe.)

      Regarding the terrain and additional rovers for Mars, see my other post on this subject. Even limited to the equator, we could put a couple thousand probes on Mars and not see everything. We're also not limited to keeping exactly the same design... some improvements could be made, things tweaked, that might allow wider exploration. For the moon we wouldn't need to use the DSN at all. It wouldn't be terribly hard or expensive using current technology to build three to six dish systems capable of keeping the moon in view 24/7 with enough power and sensitivity to communicate with moon rovers. The various scientist sites around the country and world could use the Internet for rover communications and control.

      All of this also doesn't consider the benefits of bulk production of rovers on earth. How much would public opinion of science and space exploration be swayed by seeing multiple moon launches on the TV at night, and pictures coming back from the moon? How much would we benefit from the practice we'd gain by learning to operate small vehicles in moon terrain, and continually refining and launch testing our space vehicles?

      My original statement remains valid, even through the numerous "See here sonny, you don't understand engineering" posts in this thread. The existing rover design is well proven, and with minimal changes it could be re-used again and again.

      I consider it criminal to discard such a useful piece of technology because of institutional stupidity. NASA is probably beyond fixing in this respect, and it should be completely dismantled into smaller organizations that are less politicized.

      Erik

    36. Re:Why not more? by mbrod · · Score: 1

      Mass production depends on simple operations performed by unskilled or semiskilled operators (and as little labor as possible per unit). The rovers each require hundreds of thousands of man hours by highly skilled workers performing complex tasks.

      That is just false. The processor in your computer is more complex than those rovers and what's it cost to make that?

      I am not saying we are going to get rovers for 1000 bux each but we certainly could cut their cost cut by 75% or more. Even if we couldn't and the price was still high I would still advocate sending many more rovers.

    37. Re:Why not more? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Mass production depends on simple operations performed by unskilled or semiskilled operators (and as little labor as possible per unit). The rovers each require hundreds of thousands of man hours by highly skilled workers performing complex tasks.

      That is just false. The processor in your computer is more complex than those rovers and what's it cost to make that?

      Apples and oranges. CPU's are small items almost entirely manufactured by automated machinery. Rovers are large and complex assemblies that do not lend themselves to automation.
      I am not saying we are going to get rovers for 1000 bux each but we certainly could cut their cost cut by 75% or more.
      An ungrounded assumption. I'd welcome any contrary evidence.
    38. Re:Why not more? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Because there isn't an assembly line, and never was. The build and design team has been scattered for a couple of years now.

      But the plans still exist.

      So what? That still doesn't make it possible to mass produce them. Mass production requires an assembly line - and there isn't one for these rovers. (Among other problems.)

      Unless NASA pulled another Apollo and destroyed them for political reasons.

      The problem with this delusional fantasy is that the plans still exist. (They aren't much good as many of the components, materials, and processes are obsolesent or obsolete - but they do still exist.)

      Any reasonably successful corporation would know that preserving the knowledge of that team is critical to future operations, and would attempt to retain the employees, ensure they had kept good records of their work, and in general done everything possible to "remember" how everything was done. With NASA the SOP seems to be "thanks for the great work, maybe we'll see you again sometime".

      More delusion fantasy. The engineers on the MER team came from the Pathfinder team and built on decades of (documented) research work by JPL on planetary rovers. Currently they are scattered on other researh projects or working on engineering the next generation of rovers.

      The two MER rovers are optimized for use on Mars - they are useless to rove other worlds without what amounts to a complete redesign. They are also highly optimized for a specific geologic mission - again, an extensive (and expensive) redesign and requalification would be needed to use them for another mission.

      Not true. If I recall correctly, they were tested in earth gravity and earth atmosphere prior to embarkation for Mars.

      So what? Mars and Earth have atmosphere - the Moon doesn't.

      The thermal swing on the moon is wider (colder) but given the extra power available due to sunlight an electric heater could be fitted.

      MER is already electricity limited - and the higher insolation on the Moon won't make that much difference. (Not to mention the batteries on MER are nowhere near large enough to keep it warm through the lunar night.) Adding radioisotope heaters means completely redoing the thermal design, as the rover will then be far too hot during the lunar day.

      Even limited to the equator, we could put a couple thousand probes on Mars and not see everything. We're also not limited to keeping exactly the same design... some improvements could be made, things tweaked, that might allow wider exploration.

      And each improvement and tweak means an expensive review and requalification process. It's not as simple as you seem to think.

      All of this also doesn't consider the benefits of bulk production of rovers on earth. How much would public opinion of science and space exploration be swayed by seeing multiple moon launches on the TV at night, and pictures coming back from the moon?

      About as much as it's been swayed by the pictures coming back from Mars - Little to none. (Not to mention the fact that all the pictures would be pretty repetitive. Also, the areas of the Moon the rovers can reach has essentially zero geologic interest.)

      How much would we benefit from the practice we'd gain by learning to operate small vehicles in moon terrain, and continually refining and launch testing our space vehicles?

      You'd gain a lot of experience in operating small vehicles - which doesn't transfer to anything but operating more small vehicles. The launchers are already well tested.

      My original statement remains valid, even through the numerous "See here sonny, you don't understand engineering" posts in this thread. The existing rover design is well proven, and with minimal changes it

    39. Re:Why not more? by EriktheGreen · · Score: 1
      So what? That still doesn't make it possible to mass produce them. Mass production requires an assembly line - and there isn't one for these rovers. (Among other problems.)

      Assembly lines can be created. Of course there's not one already... what would they have been doing for the last few years?

      The problem with this delusional fantasy is that the plans still exist. (They aren't much good as many of the components, materials, and processes are obsolesent or obsolete - but they do still exist.)

      Not really, no. The pretty paper plans that show big sketches of rocket parts are there, but the assembly drawings and such are missing or incomplete. NASA essentially buried them when the shuttle program was being debated in order to remove that as a competitor. I don't think it's possible to duplicate a J-5 engine for example without going and pulling measurements off of a still existing "tourist attraction" model.

      Also, "delusional fantasy"? Don't you think that's a little over the top for a discussion of NASA?

      Currently they are scattered on other researh projects or working on engineering the next generation of rovers.

      Hmm... so earlier you stated that NASA could not build more rovers because the team that built them was scattered, and now you've apparently located them. I hope you didn't have to look to hard =)

      So what? Mars and Earth have atmosphere - the Moon doesn't.

      Hence my comment on vacuum cementing. I don't doubt other minor changes will be required, but a full redesign... no. That's just wasteful, and is a thinly veiled attempt for NASA to keep the tax dollars coming in.

      MER is already electricity limited - and the higher insolation on the Moon won't make that much difference.

      It won't? Mars insolation is about 590 watts/sq meter and the moon is about 1370 watts/sq. meter. That's a hell of a difference. Bear in mind that I'm not saying the exact model of solar cell used on mars will magically pick up the slack on the moon, but solar cells don't require a ton of design changes to swap. Remember too that no atmosphere means no conduction of heat away, which will help temperature somewhat.

      And each improvement and tweak means an expensive review and requalification process. It's not as simple as you seem to think.

      I suggested in another post that the "expensive/extensive review and requalification process" is a big part of what's wrong with NASA, and the US Government for that matter. That's another thing that has to change. There's a difference between review for the sake of good engineering process and review for the sake of satisfying bean counters. I deal with that pain every day.

      About as much as it's been swayed by the pictures coming back from Mars - Little to none. (Not to mention the fact that all the pictures would be pretty repetitive. Also, the areas of the Moon the rovers can reach has essentially zero geologic interest.)

      Quote from the web site about the rovers: "Early this week, the hit count passed the world population, which the U.S. census estimated Thursday morning at more than 6.3 billion people.". Yep, lack of interest there. The rovers can reach pretty much ANY area of the moon if they're dropped on it. Ease of communications and lots of available power permit that. I don't think you or anyone else can successfully argue that the areas we can get to on the moon with rovers have "zero geological interest". Have a look at the paperwork required to do tests on a single one of the apollo moon rocks sometime. There's even a ton of "geological interest" in those.

      The launchers are already well tested.

      No, they're not. You can't use a LEO launch vehicle to reach the moon. Probably one of the proposed designs made of shuttle boosters would work though, and that also could be mass produced.

      ROTFLMAO. That translates to "don't confuse me with facts and I hate to th

  15. Spelling? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's Gusev crater, not Gustav. :P

  16. Testament to JPL by Sierpinski · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I think this is a testament to the folks at the JPL. Those rovers have lasted way longer than anyone expected, and probably hoped. In the early stages of the project, I heard a lot of criticism from the standard armchair astronauts saying about how they could get so much more done if they didn't go 'so damn slow' all the time. I've read about times where haste would have probably halted the program in its steps, like when there was concern about traversing the side wall of a crater, worried that the rover would tip. Its a testament to their planning, skill in design and execution of their plan, and of their patience in their procedures.

    Good work JPL!

    1. Re:Testament to JPL by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess the moderator is someone who think we should spend less on space exploration and more on... well... anything else. Good thing you can't post here now.

  17. 2 years and still no postcard! by Viol8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I dunno , some robots , just no consideration for those left on earth.

    1. Re:2 years and still no postcard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you even follow the link to the picture?

    2. Re:2 years and still no postcard! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      :-) But I just checked, and they've passed the 125,000 mark in returned images. That's one expensive Internet Cafe bill.

      Cheers, Phil

  18. Hats off by GroeFaZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

    to the guys responsible for the whole mission, from cleaners to engineers to management. Surpassing a mission duration by at least 700% (*knock on wood*) is a nice change from all the missions Mars has claimed so far.

    --
    The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  19. Gustav Crater? by utexaspunk · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's called Gusev crater.

    1. Re:Gustav Crater? by S3D · · Score: 1

      BTW this Gusev is not related to the hero of the novel Aelita (wiki link to the movie) by Aleksey Tolstoy, who made expedition to Mars. Matvei Gusev was a Russian astronomer of the XIX century [1826-1866].

    2. Re:Gustav Crater? by illtron · · Score: 1

      Damn, you beat me to it.

      --
      Slashdot: 24 hours behind every other site or your money back!
    3. Re:Gustav Crater? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh darn. So when do the Swedes get a crater, then? ;)

  20. All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Funny
    How many millions did we spend on this, again?

    -Eric

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by Tibor+the+Hun · · Score: 1

      I know it's a joke, but it's important to remember that it is a sterile desert on a different planet.

      The kind of place you and I know to exist, but will never see it with our own eyes.

      --
      If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
    2. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by Sparr0 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Never is such a strong word. I am 20 years old. I expect a corporation to put a geological research team on Mars before I am 40. I expect a colony (of a country that doesn't exist today) there before I am 60. And I expect to visit there before I am 80, even if it costs my life savings and 15 months on a slow transfer orbit.

    3. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by perdu · · Score: 1
      How many millions did we spend on this?
      Hey, the US Govt spends millions on flood insurance claims to people who live on barrier islands in the gulf that are made entirely of sand. When a hurricane comes in and wipes out houses and shifts the island, we move the sand back and pay people to rebuild! See (er, hear) Hurricanes Fail to Dampen Coastal Building Boom". So why not spend something to learn about our solar system and our world?
      --
      You only use 2% of your DNA
    4. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I expected the same when I was 12 and we had just landed on the moon.
      Now, at 48, I'm not so sure.

    5. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      Come on, man... even with the mosaic nature, that's one of the most beautfiul images I've ever seen. Everything Nature does is beautiful - humans make places look ugly. Look how the rover's tracks have disturbed the beautifully smooth surface, crafted to perfection over 4 billion years. Now, that bit is ugly. But it was worth it to get those shots.

    6. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who says it's sterile?

    7. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by airnewt · · Score: 2, Informative
      "How many millions did we spend on this, again? "

      About as much as we spend on Iraq every week.

    8. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by rtv · · Score: 2, Insightful
      How many millions did we spend on this, again?

      If you're a US taxpayer, you spent the price of a few cups of milky coffee. I absolutely got value for my money. The pictures and stories are awesome. Perhaps there will be some valuable science coming out of this too; time will tell.

      There are also many intangible benefits. This is the kind of stuff that makes kids want to be engineers, reminds scientists why they do research instead of working for a bank, and makes bright people from around the world want to take their skills to the US where they could maybe make robots that go to Mars!

      Unfortunately that last one has been made a little tricky when NASA is forced by the government to stop hiring foreigners after 9/11. It's tough on JPL managers when they can't hire a brilliant Australian or Japanese engineer because some Saudis declare war on the US.

      In summary: way to go, NASA. Some things you get right, and the robot Mars missions are incredible. But since it's my latte money you're spending, I could use a little less Space Shuttle and I'd prefer you were able to hire the best engineers in the world, no matter where they come from.

    9. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by lorelorn · · Score: 1

      People living in the 1960s expected much the same. Prepare for a similar disappointment.

    10. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I expected all that crap too when I was 20. Of course I'm not even 30 yet (give it a few months), but I'd be surprised to see people on Mars before I'm 50. Congress frankly doesn't give a rat's ass about the space program, and I forsee terrorism being the central focus for at least the next decade, before being overcome by social security, which will get some hair-brained last-minute salvation by diverting billions of tax dollars from every other possible program (except Alaskan bridges). It's not that we can't do more than one thing simultaneously, but the people who write the checks don't see it that way, and I don't see that changing.

      Bush said he wants us back on the moon in 10 years.. conveniently far enough in the future that his comments can be forgotten, and he won't be around to answer for why he didn't make it a higher priority. I believe that's called "pandering."

      But anyway, time will tell.

    11. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by Sparr0 · · Score: 1

      I did not say anything about congress. It is a matter of money. The asteroid belt is a gold mine of rare elements for the first company rich enough to get there, and one of the martian moons is the perfect halfway point. Eventually TimeWarnerSonyLockheedHaliburtonIBMPfizerMegaCorp is going to be willing to spend the N-billion dollars it takes to put people there and reap the N-trillion dollar rewards. Once that happens it will be a matter of expand or die, any company or government with interests on just one planet will quickly (on the order of decades) become insignificant.

    12. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      The asteroid belt is a gold mine of rare elements

      So is the ocean floor. And it's a LOT closer and STILL too expensive to develop.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      even with the mosaic nature, that's one of the most beautfiul images I've ever seen.

      Couldn't we just send a photographer down to the Atacama Desert in Chile and start up an insurance program for the poor with the savings?

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      Who says it's sterile?

      Good point. We don't yet have conclusive proof that it's NOT inhabited by little green men, unicorns, dragons, and trolls--therefore we should spend millions to look for them.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    15. Re:All you fans of sterile deserts say WHOOOP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Odd. Kennedy was visionary and Bush (speaking of going to the moon as a renewed step towards Mars) is pandering...

  21. Ummm by KSobby · · Score: 2

    Can you really tell the difference between all of the photos that are released by the little dudes? I think NASA is photoshoping and then releasing the same photos every so often, saying it is really a new place on Mars. It's a giant conspiracy I tell ya.

    But seriously, Way to go little dudes. You have more energy than me. I get bored by my second bowl of cereal let alone doing the same thing for months on end.

    --
    "It's difficult to meditate on amphetamines." - Joe Walsh
    1. Re:Ummm by Chubby_C · · Score: 1

      it is almost the same place, they don't move very fast, and haven't moved very far in 2 years

      --
      - My question is: Can Slashdot be Slashdotted? -
  22. What would be the real savings? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1
    My guess would be the over-engineering of the rovers was not a significant part of the cost? Maybe some more expensive components and materials, but the labor costs might have been unchanged. Surely the cost of getting the rovers to Mars would not be affected.

    This is nickel and dime stuff. And for those nickels and dimes we get over a year of solid planetary science? Where's the down side again?

    And the expected lifespan might have been a lower limit on their MTBF analysis. Those are always lowball because reliability engineers like to cover their butts. ;-)

    1. Re:What would be the real savings? by mforbes · · Score: 1

      I agree with you on this, but I also wonder what the breakdown of costs for the ongoing missions looks like. Some expenses are well in the past already (hardware and software development, testing, launch, etc), while others are ongoing (human capital, computers to analyze the incoming data, facilities in which the scientists work, office supplies for them, etc).

      How many people are still actively working at least thirty hours per week on the rovers (or rather, on keeping them running on learning from the data sent back)? How does the cost of supporting them compare to the cost of developing and building the rovers? To putting them on Mars?

      Anyone who knows me already knows I'm an unapologetic space-nut, so please don't view this is an attack on NASA's spending on this mission. It's not intended that way at all. I'm just curious to see how the budget pie for the mission breaks out into slices.

      --

      Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
      Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge

  23. Low Resolution Images.... by Mehster · · Score: 0, Troll

    What the heck is it with all the low resolution space images? I wanna see the freaking cracks in the rocks and some color while your at it. Is this too much to ask in this age of digital cameras?

    1. Re:Low Resolution Images.... by billster0808 · · Score: 1

      In this age of cameras, no. Unfotunately, the cameras ont there were designed quite awhile ago. IIRC, they're .5 megapixel cameras.

    2. Re:Low Resolution Images.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First of all, they are solar powered, so that leaves not much juice for communications. Secondly, do you have any idea what the link budget for martian communications is? I think its pretty damn impressive that the pictures are as good as they are. Furthermore, how long ago was it that these things were manufactured?

      Think before you speak.

    3. Re:Low Resolution Images.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, they don't have 'cameras' in the normal visual spectrum at all. I seem to remember something about their cameras being more along the lines of spectrometers and all of the pictures that are posted for us non-scientists are re-imaged for our consumption. Which, of course, costs them time & money - be thankful for what you get.

    4. Re:Low Resolution Images.... by cplusplus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, they are MASSIVE 1 megapixel cameras. The reason I said MASSIVE (in CAPS!) is that the CCD on them is .5 inches square, which is HUGE for a 1 megapixel camera. That means it captures a lot of light and there is very little 'bleed' from one pixel to the next, and it cuts down on the noise in the image. Not only that, each pixel is single color and there are ELEVEN (!!) color filters that can be put in front of the CCD to capture different wavelengths and generate amazing true color images. Their cameras are very very cool.

      --
      "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    5. Re:Low Resolution Images.... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Any links to true-color images? I thought they were all Photoshopped...

    6. Re:Low Resolution Images.... by cplusplus · · Score: 1

      Maybe you'll see this reply.... maybe you won't. Sorry it's late. The filtered images the rovers capture are post processed by the JPL at NASA after they've been received. Basically, each layer is an additive... all done with some fancy image software. It's very much like that Russian who took some great color photos in the early 1900's (yes, early 1900's). Actually, it wasn't until recently that the actual color filter plates were combined to create color photos. Check it out! http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/

      --
      "False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
    7. Re:Low Resolution Images.... by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Interesting pics. Somehow color seems to transform photographs from abstract to concrete. For me anyway. Just as true with photos from millions of miles away as those from a hundred years in the past.

  24. Continuing the lame pun... by Dante+Shamest · · Score: 1

    When we finally colonise Mars, I guess we know the right spot to practice husbandry.

  25. I LOVE this country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love you NASA!! These rovers have been sensational. They have made the wait for the next ones a dream

  26. Even lamer pun by joggle · · Score: 4, Funny

    Did she ever get the opportunity?

    1. Re:Even lamer pun by SuperRob · · Score: 1

      There was probably a lack of political will. Perhaps an outcry of public support would help?

    2. Re:Even lamer pun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it.

    3. Re:Even lamer pun by Woy · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah but it was lost before entry. Turns out she expected inches and he was talking centimeters.

      --
      "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    4. Re:Even lamer pun by boy_afraid · · Score: 0

      OMG! Nerd jokes are just sooooo funny!

    5. Re:Even lamer pun by Fishstick · · Score: 1

      *rimshot*

      awesome, had to think about that for a sec...

      --

      There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
      Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.

    6. Re:Even lamer pun by BlueHands · · Score: 1

      for the reccord, i think you going to hell for that. Just thought i should warn you.

      --
      I mod everyone down who says "I'll get modded down for this." I hate to disappoint.
  27. Any ideas? by darkitecture · · Score: 1


    Does anyone have any information on how exactly these Rovers are powered? When the Rovers exceeded expectations by a couple of months, I was under the impression the end was nigh due to inevitably failing power supplies. But now it's been a couple of years and the things still have juice. What gives?

    1. Re:Any ideas? by stickytar · · Score: 4, Informative

      These babies are solar powered and NASA figured that dust from the atmosphere would render the solar panels useless after two months. The wind kept pushing the dust off the panels so.. there they go again.

      --
      believing the big bang requires a certain amount of supernatural faith
    2. Re:Any ideas? by J.R.+Random · · Score: 1

      They are solar powered.

    3. Re:Any ideas? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the batteries are indeed weaker, but the biggest suspected problem was dust collection on the solar panels. This hasn't been nearly the problem everyone thought, apparently the little green men come out and squeege the panels every so often. (seriously, look it up!)

    4. Re:Any ideas? by darkitecture · · Score: 1


      These babies are solar powered and NASA figured that dust from the atmosphere would render the solar panels useless after two months. The wind kept pushing the dust off the panels so.. there they go again.

      Damn, I thought the solar panels provided partial recovery so as to extend mission life; this is great stuff.

    5. Re:Any ideas? by m50d · · Score: 1

      The power is via solar panels, but there's no way to clean them - once they get coated in enough muck that you can't get useful power out of them then that's it. I think they were surprised by how much the wind acted to blow the dust off, or something like that.

      --
      I am trolling
    6. Re:Any ideas? by task · · Score: 1

      It's a result of clever positioning of the rovers. They've learned to orient them so that the wind cleans away the dust. They also maximize the recharging by spending extra time on the sides of inclines facing the sun.

    7. Re:Any ideas? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      They're fusion powered! Well, indirectly anyway... :)

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    8. Re:Any ideas? by magarity · · Score: 1

      The wind kept pushing the dust off the panels so
       
      I don't get it; these things move about as fast as a turtle and the wind blows them clean as new. But no matter how fast I drive down the highway the dust just won't blow off my car.

    9. Re:Any ideas? by wgaryhas · · Score: 1

      curse that evil moisture keeping the dust on your car.

      --
      "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H.L. Mencken
  28. Around the World in a Day by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Rovers that won't quit"? Is it really Fitzmas already?

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  29. The Rover To-Do List by sizzzzlerz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rover's Daily Schedule

    1. Wake up at 5 in the morning (Standard Mars Time)
    2. Warm up the wheels and top off the batteries
    3. Take a few pictures of some nearby rocks
    4. Move 50 feet in some arbitrary direction
    5. Take a few pictures of some more nearby rocks
    6. Talk to Earth
    7. Shut down at 5 in the afternoon (SMT)
    8. Repeat
    1. Re:The Rover To-Do List by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      You forgot:

      5.5 Start boring hole in rock (pun intended)

      and

      9. ???
      10. Profit !!!

    2. Re:The Rover To-Do List by blendedmetaphor · · Score: 1

      Sounds strikingly similar to a politicians schedule.

      --
      Existence is futile
  30. By Design? by dpeltzm1 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    OK simple theory; the guys that build these things aren't stupid, they know how long they'll last. they also are aware of the political budget process. so tell em 90 days to get the budget, then say geez its still running! youre not gonna make us shut it off? job security! profit! fame! pick one (or all 3!!!)

    1. Re:By Design? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Sounds a bit like Scotty's engineering estimates: LaForge: "Yeah, well, I told the captain I'd have this analysis done in an hour." Scotty: "How long will it really take?" LaForge: "An hour." Scotty: "You didn't tell him now long it would really take, did you?" LaForge: "Of course I did." Scotty: "Laddie, you got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker!"

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
  31. longevity by distantbody · · Score: 1

    While all this longevity is great for science, i just hope the space community doesnt start to actually rely on them just as they are most likely to die.

  32. Overengineering by flashpaul · · Score: 1

    The european rover was a 'cheap' model (10 times less than the yank one) and look what happened to that Sometimes overengineering is worth it

    1. Re:Overengineering by cnettel · · Score: 1

      Beagle 2 wasn't even a rover, it was a lander with a robotic drilling arm (I think) hitchhiking its journey to Mars on Mars Express.

    2. Re:Overengineering by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Beagle was designed under the same flavor of philosophy as NASA's failed "Faster, Better, Cheaper" phase. The NASA engineer's joke was "Pick two."

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  33. of course.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congress will have to launch an indepth investigation into why the rovers didn't function as planned. Billions will be spent to find the cause of this problem and fix it, so that next craft we send only works as long as it was planned too. After all the Amercian consumer should get exactly what it pays for!

  34. Is this really such a feat? by digitalstruct · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    While scientists say this is such a huge feat, with millions to billions of dollars spent on such machinary you would think these things would last for more than 90 days. Also with all of the people working on one project could they miss something to be so dentrimental to the operation?

    While it may be good exploring other planets, I still do not see why we put so much funding into it. With the US debt only rising shouldn't we consider utilizing some of that money to pay off national debt. Thinking about it in a personal expense if we have a ton of debt could we still take most of our incomes and build new toys to play around with?

    I think this is interesting nonetheless but we should really look at our own economy instead of exploring planets with millions apon billions of dollars.

    1. Re:Is this really such a feat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA just cut all of JPL. Wanna pay off debt? Talk to the defense budget.

    2. Re:Is this really such a feat? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is the parent not considered flamebait?

    3. Re:Is this really such a feat? by leinhos · · Score: 2, Insightful
      According to this article (as well as many others via google):
      Assembly, test, launch, and a year of operations of each rover cost about $425 million, or about the same amount of money as it cost to make the movies Titanic (1997) and Pearl Harbor (2001). This amount was also equivalent to what it costs to launch a single space-shuttle mission...

      This sort of space exploration is realively cheap, considering the payoffs involved. I suggest we knock off a couple "bridges to nowhere" from our budget, or ask for some money back from the Big Dig, instead.

    4. Re:Is this really such a feat? by kevin.fowler · · Score: 0

      This sort of space exploration is realively cheap, considering the payoffs involved. I suggest we knock off a couple "bridges to nowhere" from our budget, or ask for some money back from the Big Dig, instead. There's still a pothole big enough to swallow a Vespa on Washington St in Roxbury Crossing. Maybe we can divert some Big Dig funding to send in a rover.

      --
      Bury me in mashed potatoes.
    5. Re:Is this really such a feat? by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      But, but, but... if we get rid of pork barrel projects how will senators in powerful positions be able to keep their bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hcampaign contributions coming in?!? Man, you REALLY don't understand American politics!

      If anyone is curious check out: Two Bridges Too Far

      Basically, Ted Stevens is a putz.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  35. Voyeger by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I know that you are being funny, but this is the same work as Voyeger. Basically, they tell the politicians that the mission will last a short time, so that they appear to be relatively low-cost missions and that all objectives were met. Now, it appears as though these are wildly successful so the pols keep the money coming. smart engineers, dumb pols.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Voyeger by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

      I prefer the "a" in Voyager.

  36. What do you mean? by infernalC · · Score: 1

    Haven't you seen this?

  37. Channukah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's kinda like Channukah and the thing where the one day's worth of oil lasted for eight days...

  38. Engineers by elbenito69 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Good to see NASA engineers get something right for a change.

    1. Re:Engineers by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 1

      Do you think if NASA had a choice they would have stuck with the Shuttle? They were stuck with a 30 year old (flawed) design because it was the only option available.

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
  39. contest by Alphons+Clenin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wonder how much better a job would have been done if something like this were handled "x prize" style.

    Take all of the money in the budget for the project, and offer it as a prize to the first person to accomplish all of the goals.

    1. Re:contest by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Risk to reward ratio.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:contest by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      Actually this is a perfect example of where government funding is BEST used... pure science. If this had been a contest, most likely you'd get exactly what you described, all the goals accomplished, but nothing more. The contest would have been over with, money spent and goals accomplished, then it'd be over.

      The way it is, a 3 month project turned into 2 years of good science.

      Make a contest out of the next Rover design though with some functionality goals, as opposed to mission goals and you'd be right on.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    3. Re:contest by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I wonder how much better a job would have been done if something like this were handled "x prize" style.
      Probably it couldn't have been handled at all. Burt Rutan won the X-prize because he, A) had funding, and B) had experience building medium performance stunt aircraft. Note how far the other teams, who had niether, didn't get.
  40. Great Link for Rover Updates by VaticDart · · Score: 2, Informative
    I don't remember how I stumbled upon this, but this is a great link for updates on the rovers.

    Cornell/Athena Updates (Pops)

    1. Re:Great Link for Rover Updates by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean the Linux OS running this simulation, this whole sharade didn't crash yet. Another win to open source!

    2. Re:Great Link for Rover Updates by jrboatright · · Score: 1

      WHich tells us the exciting news that Opportunity has run out of marsberrys.

      They've been trailing off for a while, and now, seem gone. Which implies, at least, that they're encountering the edge of the water, and will see new geology now.

      Cool!!!

  41. Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Good engineering! Now can their labs get some pats on the back? possible a few other tasks (mabie designing moderatly priced vehicles that while slow would be reliable) book deels, mabie *gasp* made the new poster childs for exploration and design?

  42. Two Important Points by Thunderstruck · · Score: 3, Funny

    1. To keep the funding flowing, or to encourage space exploration by private enterprise, the rovers simply need to find some gold.

    2. Now that we have the technology worked out to make a hardy, long lasting rover, can we do something about the cosmetics? Who are we kidding. These things are Imperial Probe Droids and should look the part.

    --
    Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
    1. Re:Two Important Points by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      But if you make them LOOK like Imperial Probe Droids, then the rebels will recognize and shoot them. And where would that leave us?!

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    2. Re:Two Important Points by Tiny+Elvis · · Score: 2, Funny

      Gold? nah.. Try oil. Imagine 30 supertankers entering the atmosphere daily to delivery Mars oil.

    3. Re:Two Important Points by Creedo · · Score: 1

      Forget oil. Send refineries to Titan.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  43. Off-topic? Yes. Stupid? OH YEAH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now, FLAME ON!!
    With that, the Human Torch flew off--never to \. again.

  44. A friend does Telecom for these things at JPL by sideshow · · Score: 1

    And he tells me that they have funding till end of next September for the rovers.

    --

    Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.

  45. Rovers that won't quit? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 2, Funny

    Number Six is DOOMED?

    --
    "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
  46. maestro by VStrider · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I just found out about maestro(Google cache) It's basically the software NASA uses to control the rovers and process their datasets. Looks quite interesting. I'm getting the datasets as I type this.(200MB)

    If you're on gentoo,
    emerge maestro maestro-data
    If not, check your distro repos or get it from here.

    --
    VStrider.
    1. Re:maestro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maestro is nice, but the problem is that NASA stopped providing Maestro data after Sol 120 or so (I forget exactly when, but it was a while ago).

      Luckily, you can retrieve all the images from all the sols automatically using the Java program Midnight Mars Browser, available at http://midnightmarsbrowser.blogspot.com/. Being Java, it should work on any semi-popular platform, and the program works rather nicely. NASA updates the images almost immediately after receiving them (on a daily basis).

      One thing to note is that JPL's website(s) were down last time I tried to update, so if you get connection timeout errors when updating through MMB, you should try again later..

    2. Re:maestro by VStrider · · Score: 1

      Thanks! I didn't know about this one. Can I transfer the data from maestro to MMB and just update the dataset, or do I have to download the whole lot again?

      --
      VStrider.
    3. Re:maestro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      JPL is currently only releasing the images taken by the cameras on the rovers, so you won't be able to get all the 3D data and whatever else Maestro has in its datasets (I forget what all it has..). The images are much better than nothing, though.

      Oh, and as far as transferring the Maestro images, I'm not sure. You might be able to, but it might require massive renaming and directory creation, and in the end probably wouldn't be worth it. But who knows, maybe MMB follows the same layout as Maestro for the images (though I doubt it - I seem to recall that Maestro had one big file, or something similar).

  47. finding same old rocks by peter303 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The first year was kind of exciting beacuase everything they were finding was new. However Spirit is pretty much just seeing the same slightly altered basalt rocks on Sol 600 as it was on Sol 10, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500.
    Ditto for Opportunity. It found those hematite blueberries and sulfur-rich layered rocks in the first crater, then saw them again in the next five craters its visited.

    Some of the other things were interesting too- the dust devil movies, eclipses of Martian moons and so on.

    1. Re:finding same old rocks by dellis78741 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, since Spirit hit the hills, the rocks are vastly different then those out on the plains. And Opportunity has just recently reached a strata that is newer and has -no- 'blueberries' in it at all (though they are in the wind-blown dunes).

      --
      ======= ~\_/~\_O Burmese
    2. Re:finding same old rocks by ab762 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Finding that the same stuff is seen across a modest locality is important, since it rules out explanations that would produce those things in only very small areas.

    3. Re:finding same old rocks by Chokai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Things have changed quite a bit from landing.

      In Opportunity's case you land in a 5ft deep crater, then you drive to one that is 40ft deep and find out that you have 40ft of rock, instead of the 5 you only new about for sure before. That is huge, it tells you a lot about the time and amount of water and other materials involved. So checking that those rocks were all largely the same for almost a year in Endurance was a big deal. And as Steve Squyres recently noted in his update "blog" on Cornell's website the blueberries have largely disappeared where Opportunity is now. They don't know why but the going theory is that they have encountered yet another new rock strata they had not previously seen, they started to look for a good exposure to investigate a few days ago. Soon you'll be approaching Victoria crater, and you'll get to find out if you have hundreds of feet of sulfates, which would imply possibly millions of years of the presence of water at the location.

      Spirit has seen several VERY interesting rocks that are sulfates as well as layered bedrock. To say that the same slightly basaltic rocks are all it has seen is an innacurate statement, although the vast amount of material in gusev appears to be basaltic in origin.

    4. Re:finding same old rocks by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      The first year was kind of exciting beacuase everything they were finding was new.
      Ah - the Madison avenue mentality, "if it isn't now and new it's boring". This is the stunt/Star Trek mentality that holds us back in space exploration.
      However Spirit is pretty much just seeing the same slightly altered basalt rocks on Sol 600 as it was on Sol 10, 100, 200, 300, 400 and 500.
      It may not be exciting to you - but it's important to understanding the geology of Mars. You can't understand the significance of geologic features unless you know their size.
  48. Happy Martian Birthday Spirit! by peter303 · · Score: 2, Informative

    One Martian year is 669 Martian days (Sols) or 686 Earth days, or a little under two earth years. Sol 669 is around Nov 18. Happy birthday Spirit.

    1. Re:Happy Martian Birthday Spirit! by forkazoo · · Score: 1

      Ar ethere birthday celebrations planned anywhere? I uess I'll have to ocntact the local planetarium to see if they want to throw a little shindig.

  49. No Pops... by VaticDart · · Score: 1

    Maybe my HTML skills are leaving me... not sure, but the link works.

  50. For a change? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA has been sucessfully sending dogs, monkeys, people, satellites, space probes, moon landers, telescopes, and space stations into space for 45 years.

    They put people on the moon without killing them. When Apollo 13 had its problems, one of the things these amazing engineers did to save the astronauts was putting a round peg in a square hole (see the book "Moon Lost" by one of the marooned astronauts). They have travelled millions upon millions of miles in a less hospitable environment than anywhere on earth and have only had two fatal crashes and one fatal fire. How is your driving record? Or any airline's safety record per mile in comparison?

    They put these amazing little guys on mars. The Voyager craft are past the solar system, one is outside the heliosphere.

    For a change?? What is a moron like you doing at slashdot? This is a nerd site. Go back to Britney Spears' homepage, or peoplemagazine.com for God's sake, troll.

    (MRC="contempt", best MRC I've seen)

  51. Another example of :"Made in America"...... by adsl · · Score: 1

    Another example of "Made in America', but the daily operating it OUT-sourced, not only overseas, but to an outside Plant, Mars. Seriously this project's succes has exceeded even Nasa's wildest hopes. Well done guys.....

  52. Call me a troll but... by t_allardyce · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Someone needs to be fired for this badly estimated over-engineering, if something is designed to last a few months and instead lasts a few years then you've made a mistake.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Call me a troll but... by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      No, it's a Good Thing. Do you honestly think the cost would have been
      significantly less had they engineered as you wished? As opposed to
      the assuredly higher costs had they intentionally diesgned something
      to last a long time.

      Besides the general repulsiveness of disposable production, good
      engineering tends to last, period. Consider Building 20,
      which would have lasted even longer had it been maintained a little.

      But hey, enjoy your single view DVDs and planned obsolence consumer
      goods with engineered failures.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
    2. Re:Call me a troll but... by Kelson · · Score: 1

      Yep. Because it's so easy to predict exactly what hazards a probe will encounter on another planet millions of miles away that has swallowed up half a dozen other probes before they could start transmitting. And God forbid that we encourage people to build things solidly. Let's make the next one out of papier mache so that we don't have to worry about it anymore.

      Seriously, I suspect they'd save more money by just decommissioning the working rover than they would have saved by making the probe cheaper, but still solid enough to survive the mission.

    3. Re:Call me a troll but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, you're a troll.

  53. Re:WTF? That's NEVADA! by igny · · Score: 1

    Yeah, especially considering the fact that it took me just a second to download the picture here, several million lightyears away from Mars!

    --
    In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
  54. When I first saw this headline... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...I thought it was about Karl's loyal followers.

  55. Sure, don't tread lightly... by ilselu1 · · Score: 0

    At least the little rovers got to spin a couple doughnuts in the martian landscape

    --
    -my inner racer is pointing at him and laughing.-
  56. And to think... by OakDragon · · Score: 1

    ...I squandered all my mod points on various topics, when I could have used all them them on you: -5, Lame

  57. Re:Happy Martian Birthday Spirit! - Battle Bots? by WolfZombie · · Score: 1

    I think a celebration is in order for their birthday. My vote goes to a NASA driven, Martian version of Battle Bots between the two rovers!

  58. Energizer Is A Bad Analogy by meehawl · · Score: 1

    The Energizer bunny thing is a bad analogy. Duracell and Everready advertise their batteries constantly, and try to ensure they are prominently displayed at counters, kiosks, etc, but everyone knows that they deplete quickly. In the case of modern high-drain electronics like cameras, incredibly quickly. If the rovers used their chemistry, they'd have been dead within days. And would just have been more toxic landfill, like all the useless short-lifespan cells the batery companies sucker people into buying instead of investing in a few dozen NiMH cells and a quick charger that will last them a decade or so....

    The current splendid Rovers use Lithium-ion chemistry.

    --

    Da Blog
  59. Just another in a long line... by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1, Redundant

    Actually, NASA has a tendency to create planetary exploration vehicles that greatly exceed their required life-span. Specific examples are the Pioneer and Voyager space craft.

    When you're sending some gizmo umpty million miles away, it's a good idea to make sure that everything "just works" or has a backup. It's kind of hard to get a repairman out there to fix something.

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
  60. best! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    best mars mission ... yet!
    the feeling that we have a
    !!ROBOT!! on mars still hasn't sunk
    in with me completly yet!
    kudos to all thosi engineeris!

  61. other challenges by CausticPuppy · · Score: 1

    Opportunity was the rover that got stuck in a dune, took a few weeks to finally get it free. Here's a nice time-lapse movie (MPG) of the rover getting out of the dune. The movie actually spans about 3 weeks.

    Opportunity has also been down inside a large crater (endurance crater) and the engineers were worried it might not be able to get back out again.

    One of Spirit's 6 wheels has been acting up and drawing too much current, so they decided to disable that wheel and drive that rover backwards, dragging the disabled wheel-- which it has been doing for at least a year I think!

    Both rovers have had several spontaneous "cleaning" events that cleared off the dust. It was later confirmed that the dust devil whirlwinds we've seen in pictures from Spirit occasionally hit the rover and blow off the dust.

    --
    -CausticPuppy "Of all the people I know, you're certainly one of them." -Somebody I don't know
    1. Re:other challenges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the wheel problem has healed itself. See:

      http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status_spir itAll.html#sol326

      The solar panels have been so well cleaned by the storms, that the power levels reached 900 watts in August.

      http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/status_spir itAll.html#sol572

  62. A mission which they may never finish.. by matt+me · · Score: 4, Funny

    If NASA run out of tasks for the rovers, they could always send them to find Beagle 2.

    1. Re:A mission which they may never finish.. by MetaPhyzx · · Score: 1

      Or the rebel base...

      --
      Blacker than my baby girl's stare. Black like the veil that the muslimina wear. Black like the planet that they fear...
  63. Poor calculations by zbend · · Score: 1

    If NASA calculated that the rovers would only last 3 months, doesn't that bring into question there ability to make calculations? I'm sure they were just covering there ass but still, awful proud of being 17 and counting months off in your calculations aren't you NASA? aren't you?

  64. Tennis courts by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    They didn't even Photoshop out the tennis courts on the right. I knew these things were faked!

    Oh it's Mars. What do you think the rovers are doing during the eight minute delay it takes us to tell them do do something? Naturally they'd develop a hobby.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  65. Roverm Project funding? by seven+of+five · · Score: 1

    Maybe these things will last a long time but the guys here on the ground are still drawing salaries, etc. Surely a mission that was spec'd to last a few months can be a budget item forever?

  66. Hope they don't fall into the 'Voyager trap'... by payndz · · Score: 1
    ...where they keep running for so long beyond their expected design limits that the beancounters want to shut off the funding and close the project down even though they're still providing data. In the case of the Voyagers, the thinking seems to be along the lines of, "Well, they're now outside the solar system and we know there's nothing else there, so let's sell the bandwidth to Verizon! Screw the mysteries of the universe, people want Crazy Frog ringtones!"

    In the case of Spirit and Opportunity, they'll probably close down the project the day before the rovers valiantly climb over a crater rim to see a vast Martian city spread out beneath them. Some nerd with a low-power radio telescope made from a Pringles can will pick up the data, but nobody will believe him...

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  67. I'm seeing a t-shirt: by conJunk · · Score: 1
    Space flight is hard. Landing on another planet is hard. Driving around on another planet by remote control is hard. The redundancy and robustness is built in to these systems because we know there are about 10,000 things that could go wrong, and we want to protect against these things.


    I'm seeing a t-shirt:

    Space Flight: hard. Landing on another planet: hard. Driving around on another planet by remote control: hard. Redundancy and robustness: priceless.
  68. Even lamer lamer pun by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure you want Rover climbing that hill?

  69. Oh, the Mars Rovers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought they meant the Irish Rovers!!!

    Those guys just never go away! Much as we'ld all like them to.

  70. It must be a problem... by museumpeace · · Score: 1

    didn't we just read that nasa is laying off 300 at JPL because priorities are shifting to manned missions? Thats a pretty shabby reward for such a fantastic engineering team.

    --
    SLASHDOT: news for people who can't concentrate on work or have no life at all and got tired of yelling back at the TV.
  71. In related news ... by DrJimbo · · Score: 1
    Next week the story will be The Rove that just won't quit.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin
  72. like the joining of the two american railroads... by lanced · · Score: 0

    [news broadcast sometime in the future...]

    NASA was all smiles today as the Opportunity and Spirit mission was declared a fantastic success. After decades of being left untouched by human hands, this project has finally come to an end. Having scoured every square mile of the Martian terrain, NASA officials decided to give the two bots one last task before being collected by astronauts and taken to the Smithsonian. This is an historic picture of the Spirit rover taken by the Opportunity rover. And here is a glimpse of Opportunity brought to you from Spirit.

    Following these pictures, NASA scientist, without the approval of NASA administrators, finally did what every boy had been dreaming about since the bots were first launched: Interplanetary demolition derby! And amazingly, neither bot was harmed. This just goes to show that with a good Spirit and a little Opportunity, as long as you live to tell about it, anything is possible.

  73. It's the ultimate hack by Alien54 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Here's what is really going on.

    It's a martian university information technology research project. the local martian college geeks have hacked into the systems and are feeding them a virtual reality data stream of what they want us poor earthlings to receive as data. The trick is to see how long they can keep us going.

    the two systems are actually sitting inside a research lab in separate rooms in a cave someplace on the northern slope of Valles Marenaris [sp?]

    Everything is simulated in glorious high precision detail. Everything.

    Quite an exercise in engineering, actually. The kids are getting good grades.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  74. Venus would be better. by SagaLore · · Score: 0

    Sorry to go off topic - but I think it would be much more interesting if we developed Rovers that could withstand the conditions on Venus. Gravity close to ours, heavy and corrosive atmosphere, volcanic activity. Might even get a new perspective on a runaway greenhouse effect, since we're worried about global warming right now.

  75. Re:WTF? That's NEVADA! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    They didn't even Photoshop out the tennis courts on the right. I knew these things were faked!

    Worse yet, I went to play tennis (on earth) and found the court replaced by solar panels. The nerve!

  76. Mars Blog Site by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

    Some nice stuff here.

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  77. Circle Work by JonathanR · · Score: 1

    Look at the middle of the picture, it looks like some of the engineers have been doing some "circle-work" http://www.australianbeers.com/culture/circlework. htm with the rover...

  78. over engineered ...like the best selling cars ? by pensivemusic · · Score: 1

    don't we all wish that the things we
    drive here on earth had half the
    over engineering features that these
    peppy little scooters have?

    GM ought to take a lesson in
    how to build things that work
    and get itself out of the
    low sales crater.

  79. Just goes to show... by foniksonik · · Score: 1

    Always always, Under Promise - Over Deliver.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.