Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover Spirit Down a Wheel

riflemann writes "NASA is reporting that two years into its 90-day mission, Spirit has lost one wheel and is now running on five wheels, dragging the broken wheel. With this reduced mobiity, the rover still needs to make its way to a slope where it can catch enough sun over the Martian winter to keep it operating. 'Even though the rovers are well past their original design life, they still have plenty of capability to conduct outstanding science on Mars.', says project leader Dr. John Callas."

33 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Tis but a scratch by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've had worse.

    1. Re:Tis but a scratch by metricmusic · · Score: 5, Funny

      A scratch? Your wheel's off!

      We thank thee Lord, that in thy merc-

      --
      http://www.livejournal.com/users/metricmusic
  2. Still a tossup - Rovers dead before Vista released by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 4, Funny

    I still believe both rovers will be alive
    when and if Vista is ever released.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  3. Re:Still a tossup - Rovers dead before Vista relea by GKThursday · · Score: 5, Funny

    I don't think their hardware meet Vista's specs.

  4. At first read, I get dissapointed by R2.0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then I remember a story Spider Robinson told about a cheap digital watch that died on him. He was pretty pissed off, but then he remembered that:

    a) it was originall a Crackerjack prize or some other freebie.

    b) it was 5 years into it's projected one year battery life.

    At this point he gave it a solemn memorial service and kept it in a revered place (I think he may have buried it).

    Whenever they finally die, I hope that they find an honored place in whatever museum the future Mars colonists decide to set up.

    R2.0

    --
    "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    1. Re:At first read, I get dissapointed by livewire98801 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Scotty: 8 weeks, sir

      Kirk: Mr Scott I-

      Scotty: But you don't have 8 weeks, so I'll do it for you in 2

      Kirk: Mr Scott, have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of four?

      Scotty: Of course, Admiral, how else can I keep my reputation as a Miracle Worker?

      Kirk: Your reputation is secure, Mr Scott.


      If I recall, this dialoge was in ST:3, but I'm not sure of that.

      --
      "He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
  5. Only lost 1 wheel? pfft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If a dog can walk on two legs you better hope this thing keeps going, otherwise it's pretty embarassing.

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=OZqVvYkCe68

    1. Re:Only lost 1 wheel? pfft by archen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually I used to have a dog with two legs. I named him cigarette. Ever day I'd take him out for a drag.

      heh, sorry.. had to make the joke...

  6. C'mon ya pansy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    The NASA engineers always triumph!

  7. exploration will continue by MoFoYa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think its great that the mars rovers lasted as long as they have. when you consider the failed mars mission attempts, spirit and opportunity are huge successes that have long outlasted their expected lifespan. The new mars orbiter "MRO" is sure to provide more information about the surface of mars, and possible landing sites for even more capable landers in the future. my question to /.ers is this: should we be focusing so much on mars or should we be looking toward other possible outposts/life harboring worlds like europa. and the new horizons mission to pluto - a waste of time, or an exciting new learning opportunity? personally, i doubt life will be found on mars. and i'm doubtfull any significant life will be found anywhere in our solar system. but, we are natural explorers who will continue to explore, even with a bum wheel.

  8. Conversation I never Overheard by Black+Copter+Control · · Score: 5, Funny

    Martian1: It broke it's leg. I say we shoot it and put it out of it's misery.
    Martian2: nah. It seems to have such a drive for life.

    --
    OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
    1. Re:Conversation I never Overheard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
      Martian3: How come neither of you knows how to use apostrophes correctly?

      /shoots martians 1 and 2

  9. Re:It's not "dragging" the sixth wheel by cmacb · · Score: 5, Informative
  10. 2 years into a 90 day mission... by HermanAB · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hmmm, typical NASA project, 21 months late and far over budget. :)

    --
    Oh well, what the hell...
  11. Late Breaking News: by iced_773 · · Score: 4, Funny

    A sense of triumph swept our fair red world today when reports came in that the Grand Army of the Council had damaged one of the robotic invaders from the evil blue planet. K'Breel, speaker for the Council of Elders, made the following comment:

    This was a great victory in our war with the evil blue planet. While we have only impaired the horrid machine's movement, we will continue to strike until it and its dreadful twin are pools of molten metal.

    When a journalist suggested that the terrible monstrosity had merely worn out one of its locomotive rotators, K'Breel had the traitor's gelsac mutilated immediately.

    Apologies to TripMaster Monkey.
  12. Re:Not so surprising by slightlyspacey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What do you expect? The rover has lasted *8* times longer than design. That's the equivalent of driving 400,00 miles on tires rated for 50,000 miles. It's a heck of an accomplishment and I can only applaud the terrific job the design engineers and builders did.

  13. Shoulda got the AAA Extended Service Plan by slickwillie · · Score: 4, Funny

    100 mile free towing too!

  14. Failed brushes? by dougmc · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "It is not drawing any current at all," said JPL's Jacob Matijevic, rover engineering team chief. One possibility engineers are considering is that the motor's brushes, contacts that deliver power to the rotating part of the motor, have lost contact.
    Brushless motors are generally 1) more efficient and 2) longer lasting (with no brushes to wear out) and 3) more expensive (especially when you include the ESC, electronic speed control) than otherwise similar brushed motors. (But when you send something into space, who cares about an extra $1000 on motors?) I'm rather surprised that they didn't go brushless in something like this. Brushless motors are also cleaner, as there's no brushes to wear down over time. This is critical in zero gravity environments like orbit (nobody wants brush-dust floating around) and wouldn't be so important on Mars, but even so ... I wonder why they used brushed motors. Even if they things weren't supposed to last very long, you'd think brushless motors would be more efficient, giving them some extra power to work with, for not much extra money.

    (My experience with brushed and brushless motors comes from R/C planes, where a brushless motor is sometimes twice as powerful and 50% more efficient than a similarly sized brushed motor. Of course, a large part of this is that the brushed motor is dirt cheap, made cheaply in every way, and the brushless motors are of higher quality, but even so, even when comparing high quality stuff (and not cheap speed 400 can motors) the brushless are signifigantly better.)

    1. Re:Failed brushes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, having recently heard a talk with people from JPL I can tell you why. They went with brushed motors because it was what had been previously used and was, therefore, seen as a safe option. For future robotic missions they plan on using brushless motors.

    2. Re:Failed brushes? by v1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Brushless motors are more complex, and require an array of active electronics inside them to produce the AC and modulating magnetic field they need to operate. Most brushless motors are lower torque than their brushed counterparts. (majority, I know there will be exceptions) Brushed motors are more mechanical in nature and suffer from the usual mechanical issues, but they are less prone to failure than brushless. Also, traveling through space and landing on a planet that may not have a protective magnetic field, active (transistor based) electronics must be carefully protected against emi that can disable or damage them.

      I'm sure they went brushed for a variety of very good reasons. The technology of brushless was available when the rovers were designed, and I can't imagine NASA not seriously considering them.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    3. Re:Failed brushes? by dougmc · · Score: 4, Informative
      Brushless motors are more complex
      Actually, they're simpler, since there's no brushes. Generally the permanent magnets are on the shaft that rotates, and the electromagnets are on the part that doesn't, with three wires coming out (and possibly five more for a sensored model, but the sensorless models are more popular now.) Ignoring the older sensored models, the brushless motors are signifigantly simpler than brushed motors.
      and require an array of active electronics inside them to produce the AC and modulating magnetic field they need to operate.
      Actually, the electronics are generally outside the motor, in an ESC (electronic speed control), but I'll admit that it doesn't matter where they are. Brushed motors use an ESC as well to control the speed, so you've got some electronic parts either way. You're right that a brushless ESC is more complex than a brushed ESC, but the difference isn't really that signifigant.
      Most brushless motors are lower torque than their brushed counterparts. (majority, I know there will be exceptions)
      Torque is a function of motor design. It really has little to do with brushed or brushless, and you can certainly make high torque brushless motors if desired. If you need a motor with more torque but the same power (and less speed, since power = torque * speed) you either design an appropriate motor, or adjust your gear ratio so the amount of torque your motor does provide is appropriate for your use.
      Brushed motors are more mechanical in nature and suffer from the usual mechanical issues, but they are less prone to failure than brushless.
      And I disagree completely. Brushes wear out. (So do bearings and bushings, so it's a race to see which one wears out first, but in my experience, it's usually the brushes.) And for anything where you control the speed of the motor, you'll have an ESC (electronic bits) that can fail, but as a general rule of thumb, electronic bits are more reliable than mechanical bits.
      Also, traveling through space and landing on a planet that may not have a protective magnetic field, active (transistor based) electronics must be carefully protected against emi that can disable or damage them.
      Even the brushed motors will have ESCs on devices like the Mars Rovers (since the alternatives suck for a robot) and so either way you'll have active electronics to deal with. Also, the Mars rovers aren't operating in space -- the atmosphere (thin as it is) and magnetic field of Mars do provide considerable protection (compared to a satellite or something that is in space) against things like ionizing radiation.

      This stuff isn't rocket science. Even things like scooters, Segways and electric cars use similar technology.

      The technology of brushless was available when the rovers were designed, and I can't imagine NASA not seriously considering them.
      I'm guessing that the AC who posted in this thread was right on -- that NASA used brushed motors because they've used them in the past and they worked fine then, so they'll work fine now -- when you're spending billions of dollars on things that can't be repaired in the field, you tend to stick with what's tried and true rather than what's 15% more efficient but not quite so well tested. I suspect that future rovers will have brushless motors, however.
  15. Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    My tricycle had training wheels.

  16. The Truth... by Tatarize · · Score: 4, Funny

    They made Spirit and Opportunity do some battlebot stuff. And well, Spirit is a puss.

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  17. Re:Even if it can't make it up the slope... by deong · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's not that simple. The rovers are full of fairly sophisticated sensor packages, most of which can't handle the extremely low temperatures on the Martian surface. They need the batteries to basically, well, run the heater.

    The principle investigator for the missions has written a book, "Roving Mars", that really is worth the read.

  18. Pfft, try just ONE leg... by ChePibe · · Score: 4, Funny

    This little guy seems to make it on his own just fine on one leg. Although, admittedly, he'll prob'bly never take him a wife.

  19. Re:It's not "dragging" the sixth wheel by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Informative

    They stopped using the wheel about a year ago for a while because it was having problems as if the lubricant was wearing off, and it indeed did *not* free-spin when power was not sent to it. They simply dragged it around by running the rover backward. They found it easier to control the rover by dragging the bum wheel rather than by pushing it. They only used the wheel for close-up control when rocks were being targeted. Eventually it started working properly for a while, and now won't turn at all. It does not appear they have a "free spin" mode. Dragging is it.

    I beleive they have a video about the last time the wheel was left dragging. They did some test-bed simulations of an Earthly rover copy. Page down to the "Driving Uphill Backwards" portion, about half-way down the page:

    http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/video/spiri t01.html

  20. Pit Stop by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hopefully at the next Pit Stop the guys that are wiping down the solar panels will also jack it up and change out the wheel.

    Ten seconds! Go!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. I am saddened... by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 4, Funny
    ...to hear that the rover has lost a wheel,
    though pain it does not feel.

    Now it limps along the Martian soil,
    alone in a great vastness of red sand and rocks.
    I hope it reaches the top of the slope,
    else alas for naught will it toil.
    For in that vast desert there's no telephone box.
    Nor much chance for hope.

    Like the injured lone explorer,
    Oh! What a horror!

    it will suffer its demise,
    Alone on that alien world,
    Its nearest neighbor far away,
    as no one hears its cries.
    The wrath of Mars is unfurled,
    And there alone will it lay.

  22. Tire tracks, not water by tilde_e · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It is so interesting that we leave tire tracks on other planets. They may be that the first signs of life we find, or that other beings find.

    Imagine the tension if we found ourselves face-to-face with a foreign martian rover!

    1. Re:Tire tracks, not water by Dr.+Eggman · · Score: 4, Informative

      Not quite. Martian weather is quite likly to blow away the tracks before anything found them.

      You can get your Martian weather forecast here: http://astro.sci.uop.edu/~harlow/weather/mars.html

      --
      Demented But Determined.
  23. Re:Even if it can't make it up the slope... by ScottMaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative
    It's not that simple. The rovers are full of fairly sophisticated sensor packages, most of which can't handle the extremely low temperatures on the Martian surface. They need the batteries to basically, well, run the heater.

    Bingo. Indeed, it's even worse than that: if you can't run the heaters, all of the electronics undergo more extreme thermal cycling. This causes components to contract, flex, break, etc. Several critical components -- e.g., the CPU -- have no redundancy; if one of those goes, the whole rover goes.

    This failure is the most dangerous thing to happen to Spirit since the flash anomaly on sol 18, when we effectively lost contact entirely for several days. Frustratingly, we're within sight of a safe haven -- only about a football field away -- but we might not be able to get there. Some people on the team think that if we have to drag a wheel, we can't climb the slopes we need to climb to make it to safety. I would just hate for Spirit to go this way; it would be like dying of thirst within sight of water, and she deserves better. (On the other hand, one thing I've learned is this: never bet against the rovers.)

    The principal investigator for the missions has written a book, "Roving Mars", that really is worth the read.

    Agreed! And since Steve's such a great guy, I'll linkify that. :-)

    Also looks like it's coming out in paperback soon.

    --

    ``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
  24. Re:I'm still amazed.... by zappepcs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Those are very good points, but I think that most of the reason for the unexpected longevity of the mars rovers is that they expected dust from dust storms to critically hamper the solar panel operation. What was a surprise is that the wind quite effectively kept the solar panels clear of dust, giving a much longer lifetime. I don't think that the engineers expected to have to worry about the motors lasting 36 months or more since it was not expected. Mars has quite extreme temperature swings, so the engineering is probably worth what it cost to build the rovers. Mother nature is something that just can't always be anticipated, unless, of course, you anticipate problems due to mother nature. In that case, any positive turn of fate leaves you in the position of underestimating vehicle longevity.

    The temperatures, radiation, dust, vibration... these are very harsh environmental variables. It is just amazing that they are still running. I'm sure that NASA is still as amazed as we are, and pleased to be continuing the scientific research at what amounts to a budget bonanza.

    You are most probably right in thinking that what was learned this time around will be incorporated in the next planetary exploration vehicles, and a longer lifetime expectation will be part of that. In line with that, recent NASA un-manned missions have been incredibly successful. I look forward to more solar system exploration, and also to commercial exploration based on NASA work.

    Now that we know how to build robots to explore Mars, we can build them to explore other planets, and that ion engine thing is a Trekie's dream. The expectation bar is rising, and that is a good thing. The X-prize and similar efforts are creating huge scientific 'wealth' for all to use. Its all very cool.

  25. Re:Still a tossup - Rovers dead before Vista relea by Moridineas · · Score: 4, Informative

    Uhm, this gets informative? The Rad6000 chip runs at 20mhz according to wikipedia and 25mhz according to other sources. The chip is based on EARLY power cpu designs (think early/mid 1990s), and most definitely does NOT include any sort of altivec technology.

    No radiation hardened space suitable chips are "cheap." Expect to spend tens, if not hundreds of thousands of dollars per CPU.

    That's not to say it's not a great chip for what it does, but come on...