Slashdot Mirror


Spirit Rover Reaches Safety

dylanduck writes "Good news for rover fans - Spirit is safe for the winter. It had been heading for a north-tilting spot to make sure its solar panels got enough sunlight during the imminent winter to survive, when a sand trap appeared. But, despite its busted wheel, it scooted round and is now sitting pretty. From the article: 'We've got a safe rover,' says principal investigator Steve Squyres. 'That's huge news for us.'"

147 comments

  1. Tough decisions by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The science team has had to make some tough decisions about which observations to make and which to cut short as the rover hustled across the plains towards a northerly tilting slope. Squyres says Spirit had to leave the circular target dubbed Home Plate earlier than the science team would have liked. But he now says the outcrop at Low Ridge Haven "might be made of the same stuff".

    Yes, its made of rock.

    Now wheres the damn aliens we were promised.

    I know, I know - its really a good thing.
    If it lasts the winter and moves on, dragging a broken wheel around may end up being a blessing in disguise, you never know what it might uncover.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Tough decisions by Winlin · · Score: 2, Funny

      If nothing else, driving it around with a broken wheel will probably attract the attention of the Martian Highway Patrol. And you just know how tough they are on those out-of-planet tourist types.

    2. Re:Tough decisions by jeffmeden · · Score: 1

      dragging a broken wheel around may end up being a blessing in disguise, you never know what it might uncover

      Yeah, it will uncover a very mysterious groove in the dirt that seems to always be along the path it just took... ITs THE ALIENZ!!!!1

    3. Re:Tough decisions by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Informative
      > Yes, its made of rock.
      >
      > Now wheres the damn aliens we were promised.

      We're right here, you ugly bag of mostly-water. Your master of psychotropically-voyaging primates is presently unavailable, and the Council has temporarily deigned to occupy waterbag 54550 to answer your pathetic cries.

      Once more, panic swept across the beaches of Low Ridge Haven during the Late Autumn Festivals. K'Breel, Speaker for the Council, stressed that there was no cause for alarm:

      "The evil blue planet continues to attempt to make war against us. They think that by depriving our wonderful, finely-layered bedrock outcrops of warmth and light during the winter, they will secure some measure of thermal victory. Let me assure you, that is far from the truth. I laugh at the pathetic solar siphoning techniques employed by the armored vehicles of the evil blue planet!"
      When asked if rumors were true that blue-planet-inhabitants' armored vehicle was just catching some sweet rays over the winter, K'Breel denounced him as a traitor and wrapped his gelsac duct around each of the five remaining functional drive motors of the invaders' vehicle.
    4. Re:Tough decisions by tktk · · Score: 4, Funny
      We're right here, you ugly bag of mostly-water.

      Slows what yu know.

      I'm nostly ful of alochol.

    5. Re:Tough decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which would explain why you are so "FA-LAMING!!!"

    6. Re:Tough decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      the Council has temporarily deigned to occupy waterbag 54550 to answer your pathetic cries.

      Oh great. Cue posts from aliens occupying four- and three-digit waterbags.

    7. Re:Tough decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > > the Council has temporarily deigned to occupy waterbag 54550 to answer your pathetic cries.
      >
      > Oh great. Cue posts from aliens occupying four- and three-digit waterbags.

      One demented meme deserves another!

    8. Re:Tough decisions by iced_773 · · Score: 1


      will probably attract the attention of the Martian Highway Patrol

      Or the Council of Elders. Someone please post some Late Breaking News - I wanna know how K'Breel is doing!

    9. Re:Tough decisions by iced_773 · · Score: 1


      Oh, it's right here. I guess I should have RTFC before posting.

      Sorry about that.

    10. Re:Tough decisions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *enjoy the sauce*

    11. Re:Tough decisions by arivanov · · Score: 0, Troll

      dragging a broken wheel around

      I know that I will get modded down by some "dixie gung-ho we are the best of the world" fanboy, but the only reason for it to drag the wheel instead of freerolling it is that it is an American design.

      If you compare the Spirit design with the Russian Moon rover series (aka Lunokhod) you will immediately notice one striking difference. The american design has something missing. It is called a CLUTCH. Yeah, I know, an extremely foreign concept for 95%+ of the American population.

      If the wheels were individually clutched the way they were on the old Russian moon exploration vehicles it would have been happily cruising at slightly reduced power instead of dragging its wheel.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    12. Re:Tough decisions by jbrader · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What the hell man? The thing is still working well like 2 years after its original projected mission date. Who cares if the wheel is free rolling or dragging? It still works so it doesnt fucking matter.

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    13. Re:Tough decisions by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

      The american design has something missing. It is called a CLUTCH. Yeah, I know, an extremely foreign concept for 95%+ of the American population.

      Every american car has a clutch - in 95%+ of the cases it's just not operated by the driver, so I hardly doubt they were unaware. I'm sure there are good reasons why they didn't include it, such as reducing complexity and weight. It outlived its design life by far, and even when one fails it's still reasonably operable. Hell, we still got a twin where all wheels are still in perfect condition. The logic was probably that if the probe suffered direct trauma to destroy a wheel, the probe was probably FUBAR anyway, and the chance of a random failure was very slim.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:Tough decisions by Guysmiley777 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Did you ever consider that in the gritty, dusty Martian soil a clutch would be adding something ELSE that can fail as well as adding weight?

      --
      Coding with assembly is like playing with Legos. Coding an application in assembly is like building a car with Legos.
    15. Re:Tough decisions by arivanov · · Score: 1

      First of all I did. The clutch in question is actually different from the clutch on a car. It is a complete mechanical disengage. Freewheel. So that the wheel does not drag. It should be a one-way operation as well. As such implementing it takes replacing several normal bolts with explosive ones. Not that much more weight, but considerably improved survivability.

      Second, I was joking (at least to some extent).

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    16. Re:Tough decisions by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      dragging a broken wheel around

      I know that I will get modded down by some "dixie gung-ho we are the best of the world" fanboy, but the only reason for it to drag the wheel instead of freerolling it is that it is an American design.

      And you should be so modded - because it's not nearly as simple as that. You make it into a black-and-white case of bias rather than the complex engineering decision it really is.
      If you compare the Spirit design with the Russian Moon rover series (aka Lunokhod) you will immediately notice one striking difference. The american design has something missing. It is called a CLUTCH. Yeah, I know, an extremely foreign concept for 95%+ of the American population.

      If the wheels were individually clutched the way they were on the old Russian moon exploration vehicles it would have been happily cruising at slightly reduced power instead of dragging its wheel.

      A clutch adds weight, adds complexity, and adds failure modes, all to protect against a single failure mode. If your prime mover needs to be extremely reliable in the first place, then (from an engineering standpoint) - it's not immediately clear that simply adding a clutch gains you anything. Lunokhod also needed clutches to steer with, with it's close set wheels and simple suspension system it would have been virtually impossible to drive without them. Given the (originally) expected short lifetime of the rovers, the case becomes even murkier.

      So yes, you can make a case for adding clutches, but you can make an equally valid case for not having them. It's not, as you imply, a straightforward '0' or '1' choice with a proveably wrong answer.

    17. Re:Tough decisions by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      "the only reason for it to drag the wheel instead of freerolling it is that it is an American design."

      Yes, yes, Americans only make crap and it never works right. That's why Voyager 1 is no longer func... err wait.. Voyager 2 is no longer func... damn.. the Mars rovers are no longer func... oh, hmm, why Americans never got a man on the moo... nope, that's not it.

      If you can see past your anti-Americanism for three seconds, you may want to notice that we have, by far, the most successful space exploration program in the history of the world. We've gone farther and faster than the Russians or anyone else. If the non-American design is so amazingly superior, why's it rusting in an Earth-bound junkyard instead of rolling across the landscape of a foreign world?

      Think you can do better than NASA? Get your own design onto Mars with your country's space program or apply to work at NASA. Otherwise, you're just the guy on Slashdot blowing smoke while NASA's American designs are kicking up dust on Mars.

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    18. Re:Tough decisions by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Clutches allow full mechanical wheel disengage. That increases survivability.

      You are right for the short predicted lifespan of the rovers.

      For their actual lifespan so far - dunno. If there will be one more wheel failure the rover is dead. If it had a mechanical wheel disengage it could have survived with only one functional motor remaining on either side.

      As far as the designs are concerned it is still a rehash of old and actually bad designs. There are much more interesting all terrain transmission designs out there nowdays. Forgot who did it (it was neither the Russian, nor the yanks) but someone in the mid-80es came up with a 4xQuad (or Hex) Ball transmission. The balls roll at angles of 90 or 60 and the holding cart simultaneously rotates. Looks extremely weird, but gives much better performance on sand or muck than the good old wheels. There were a few other designs as well.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    19. Re:Tough decisions by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Err...

      Do you have an operational manned space vehicle at the moment. Oooooooops not... Let's ship some americans in space on a russian rocket.

      That about says it. But I will continue.

      Been to Venus? Mars is a walk in the woods by comparison. Ooooooooops not...

      Had a working space station for 20+ years? Oooooooops not...

      By the way at that level of foaming you may choke on your own foam at some point.

      And by the way - if NASA designed the rover for their lifetime so far it would have designed them with a CLUTCH. Now, I strongly suspect that they did not do this for a reason. If they planned a mission that long they would have had the project smacked silly at budget time in the Senate. So they sneaked it through the back door. American design forced by American realities. Senate to be more exact (I did not say NASA anywhere in my original post). Imagine yourself in the shoes of the person in NASA trying to explain a budget subcommitee in the Senate that "the rover needs a clutch and this is why it will be heavier by X pounds". What a laugh. Unless you are the person explaining this.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    20. Re:Tough decisions by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Clutches allow full mechanical wheel disengage. That increases survivability.
      Clutches can also fail (either engaged or disengaged). This reduces survivability.
      For their actual lifespan so far - dunno. If there will be one more wheel failure the rover is dead. If it had a mechanical wheel disengage it could have survived with only one functional motor remaining on either side.
      If it had a mechanical wheel disengagement system - that too could fail. (Either by failing to engage, or failing to disengage when required.)

      It's not a simple black-and-white case. Clutches are not immune to failure.

      As far as the designs are concerned it is still a rehash of old and actually bad designs. There are much more interesting all terrain transmission designs out there nowdays.
      Certainly - but when you are sending something millions of miles from the local service center, that encourages the use of tried and true designs. They are only 'bad' if you subscribe to the mistaken belief that 'old'=='bad' without exception.
    21. Re:Tough decisions by arivanov · · Score: 1

      Fair points on all accounts. Still, it is time we look for better transmissions. The current are all rehashes from the old good BT7 transmission. Initially american design, russianized in 1930-es and reimported back by the Americans (yep, history repeats itself again and again and again).

      We have reached the limit of what it can do. If we want to go further we have to look at something cardinally different. The ball grid idea which Poles (IIRC) came up with was great. There were others.

      --
      Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
      http://www.sigsegv.cx/
    22. Re:Tough decisions by aCapitalist · · Score: 1

      Have your countrymen walked on the moon yet? And if you're european, you're such losers that you haven't even got a man into orbit yet.

    23. Re:Tough decisions by Loki_1929 · · Score: 1

      Your posts would have more credibility if you could point the rest of us in the direction of something you've designed, built, and had launched into space which is superior to the American NASA Mars rovers. Thus far, I see no functional equipment; just empty rhetoric.

      We currently have two clutchless working Mars rovers on the surface of Mars sending back useful scientific information. How many do you have on Mars, Venus, the Moon, or in space at all?

      --
      -- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
    24. Re:Tough decisions by luna69 · · Score: 1

      > Imagine yourself in the shoes of the person in NASA trying to explain
      > a budget subcommitee in the Senate that "the rover needs a clutch and this
      > is why it will be heavier by X pounds"

      Imagine a senator or representative who is capable of even understanding the issue. Congressmen ('congresspeople'?) pay attention to pork, funding, and reelection. The best fit in a little actual thinking about issues from time to time, but they typically don't end up on oversight or budget committees.

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
  2. Amazing by networkBoy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I really can not believe that the rovers are still running at all.
    NASA did a bang up job on these. Build more and recover the economies of scale!
    -nB

    --
    whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    1. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF kind of troll was that?
      -nB

    2. Re:Amazing by Daemon69 · · Score: 0

      Considering that the scientists didn't expect them to even last this long, everything else it's accomplished (and hopefully will accomplish) is gravy. Way to go, NASA!

    3. Re:Amazing by PeelBoy · · Score: 5, Funny

      They sure as hell lasted a lot longer than any radio controlled toy I ever owned

    4. Re:Amazing by sdo1 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      I really can not believe that the rovers are still running at all. NASA did a bang up job on these.

      One might also argue that since they so grossly exceeded their life expectancy then they were overdesigned and cost too much.

      But I agree. Great job.

      Build more and recover the economies of scale!

      Yes! Yes! Yes! I can't understand why they insist on going back to the drawing board every time. I've read about the next generation rovers. They're very different in many ways including the way they'll land on Mars.

      I just don't understand why, with the success that Spirt and Opportunity have had, they don't build these as a platform. Surely if the research was put into new instruments that could be attached to the current design, rather than redesigning from scratch, that would be a better use of the money.

      I'm sure (or hope) NASA has thought this through, right?

      -S

      --
      --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    5. Re:Amazing by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Build more and recover the economies of scale!

      Yes! Yes! Yes! I can't understand why they insist on going back to the drawing board every time. I've read about the next generation rovers. They're very different in many ways including the way they'll land on Mars. "

      Because there aren't any economies of scale to be had.
      The big cost of the rovers isn't the rover but the launch vehicle and the time on the DSN to keep them running. Mainly the launch vehicle. The Rover themselves are pretty cheap in comparison.
      Also after each mission NASA learns more about what works and doesn't and finds new questions to ask and that requires new tools.
      Finally because stuff gets better over time. You know that Moore's law thing?

      In reality trying to get "economies of scale" from the space program is EXACTLY the wrong way to do things. That is what lead to trying to use the Shuttle for everything.
      The space program should be more about trying new ideas than mass production.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    6. Re:Amazing by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      "Surely if the research was put into new instruments that could be attached to the current design, rather than redesigning from scratch, that would be a better use of the money."

      That and maybe little tweaks that would improve performance. Kind of like Rover 1.0 (current model), 1.1 (Improved Flash memory). Treat this as a test platform and attach whatever modules you want to it. Send it off to anywhere on mars or the moon (asteroid belt?) where there is enough sunlight and explore the hell out of it.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    7. Re:Amazing by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I really can not believe that the rovers are still running at all.
      NASA did a bang up job on these. Build more and recover the economies of scale!
      - I don't think it's NASA problem to recover economical value from their work, but they could in principle spin-off a firm that would use NASA tech for other purposes. Maybe we could use robots like this here, on Earth?

      I think NASA uses the proven design decisions in their new development work, but how would they really know what works best without trying the thing out? So it makes sense to go in different directions, building a small robot, building a big robot, trying different landing/relaunch platforms. What is most important is not to lose the gathered information.

      How do they keep the design and manufacturing details from getting lost over time?

    8. Re:Amazing by suv4x4 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I really can not believe that the rovers are still running at all.
      NASA did a bang up job on these. Build more and recover the economies of scale!"

      Not long from now people will start speculating that the rovers are CGI animation and start finding hundreds of "deffects" in the Mars shots that demonstrate they've been "Photoshopped".

      It's kinda already happening in the form of humor and parody.

      It happened with the Moon landing.

      People are cruel, people are doubtful. You can respect the latter but pitty the former.

    9. Re: Amazing by shigelojoe · · Score: 5, Funny

      My guess is that NASA mixed up metric days and imperial days when they were making their lifetime estimates.

    10. Re:Amazing by rapidweather · · Score: 1

      Undoubtedly they had to guess at what would be needed in the way of a rover when these were built.
      Now that they know, surely the next ones will greatly benefit from the experience.

    11. Re:Amazing by njchick · · Score: 3, Funny

      I guess the dust accumulation rate in your apartment is higher than on Mars.

    12. Re: Amazing by wbd · · Score: 1

      Nah. Terran days and Arean days.

    13. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "One might also argue that since they so grossly exceeded their life expectancy then they were overdesigned and cost too much."

      One might ALSO argue that since they were so well designed and considerations were made for and based on worst-case scenarios, when the WORST doesn't occur, you get a longer useful lifetime than expected.

    14. Re:Amazing by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      I really can not believe that the rovers are still running at all. NASA did a bang up job on these.

      One might also argue that since they so grossly exceeded their life expectancy then they were overdesigned and cost too much.

      One might argue that. One might, equally as fruitfully, argue that the earth is flat. The simple fact is this; the key pacing item for the life expectancy of the rovers is the amount of dust that collects on the solar panels - and a series of fortuitous events have prevented the dust from collecting at the rate expected.
      Build more and recover the economies of scale!

      Yes! Yes! Yes!

      No! No! No! The big costs are in operations and launching - niether of which is particularly sensitive to scaling. (Even so, assembly of the rovers is mostly manual work, and much of the cost is in testing and verification - again, not very sensitive to scaling.)
      I can't understand why they insist on going back to the drawing board every time. I've read about the next generation rovers. They're very different in many ways including the way they'll land on Mars.
      They don't go back to the drawing board each time - they draw on the experience from the previous missions and go forward. They also seek to answer different questions and perform different missions each time. (Spirit and Opportunity are in particularly easy to get to, easy to navigate locations - not all of Mars is like that.)
      I just don't understand why, with the success that Spirt and Opportunity have had, they don't build these as a platform.
      For the same reason we no longer use 8086's as a platform, or '56 big block engines. Times change, requirements change.
      Surely if the research was put into new instruments that could be attached to the current design, rather than redesigning from scratch, that would be a better use of the money.
      Sure - if all you wanted to do was run unambitious missions in 'safe' areas. The rovers can only operate in flattish areas near the Martian equator. The terrestrial equivalent is roughly the Sahara Desert. There's some interesting rock formations, etc.. etc.. But it's only on very small portion of the planet.
    15. Re:Amazing by barawn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Because there aren't any economies of scale to be had.

      That's not entirely true. The biggest cost savings that a space project (the project, not the launch) can have is preventing systems failure - because a systems failure requires a new launch.

      So while I agree that reusing the rovers is moderately silly, given that certain technologies have proven themselves very very well, I would be extremely upset if those (successful, proven) technologies weren't used in future rover missions.

      In some sense, that is 'economies of scale'. It doesn't save you much money up front, but it reduces the chance that the mission will fail. Of course, this is in a lot of sense what NASA will do - and did do.

      Why? Because Spirit and Opportunity are already beneficiaries of the economies of scale - they both succeeded because their landing gear design had already been tested, and the cruise stage design already has been tested as well. Oh, and the aeroshell design had been tested already, too. Almost thirty years previously. And if you want to talk about rover design? Automated obstacle avoidance, as well.

      So I definitely agree with you that I'm not happy about people criticizing NASA for not massively replicating the Spirit/Opportunity design - that is, for not building off of successes. They are building off of successes. That's why Spirit and Opportunity worked so well in the first place.

      Yes, Mars Science Laboratory will be greatly different than the previous three. But it's still going to build off of proven technologies. That's taking the best of 'economies of scale' - getting a proven design - while not being limited to the original's limitations.

      Heck, MSL still states that solar power is under consideration. And I have little doubt that it's stayed under consideration because of Spirit and Opportunity's success.

    16. Re:Amazing by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 1

      NASA is a huge team of engineers. When you get more than 0 engineers working together in a project, everything can always be improved, made better, changed, and redesigned.

      Most of the time you have to ignore the engineers and just build the blasted thing or nothing will get done. But in this instance, it's a long time before there's going to be another launch to Mars; so why not make it better in the meantime?

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    17. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay how about Licencing the design to some toy maker for extra moola, and allow Hasbro or Mattel or whomever to put out a to scale replica of the damn thing for people to buy for Kids or Enthusiasts or something! Id Buy it!

    18. Re:Amazing by barawn · · Score: 1
      I can't understand why they insist on going back to the drawing board every time.

      They don't.

      Spirit and Opportunity reused:

      • Sojourner's obstacle avoidance system design.
      • Pathfinder's airbag landing system design.
      • Viking's aeroshell design.
      • Pathfinder's cruise stage design.
      • Pathfinder's APXS design (*).


      And probably half a dozen other portions I'm not even suggesting here. Note that they didn't reuse them exactly the same - that'd be silly, they tweaked them, of course. But the Mars rovers missions have been reusing 'things which worked' for a while.

      Keep in mind that a lot of the above designs are fatal if they don't work. Redesigning the rover itself isn't that big a deal in comparison - especially if you design the system redundantly.

      *: Mostly, I think. Max Planck Institute built portions of the Pathfinder APXS, Spirit/Opportunity's, and will build part of the Mars Science Laboratory's as well. Chicago provided portions of Pathfinder's APXS as well.
    19. Re:Amazing by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course, what is really missed here, is that if we stayed with what was suggested, we would still be using the viking which never moved (~1000Kg). Or we would be using pathfinder that carried only 10 Kilos. Finally, the current rovers are about 180 kg (big improvement). But they will all be dwarfed by the capablilities of the MSL which will around 1000 Kgs and will move a great deal further and faster. So each time, these have increase about 10 fold with improved instruments. It would be interesting to see if our follow-on mission will involve sending 10x that weight. That would require the new Cargo Launch Vehicle to be used for that.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    20. Re:Amazing by Frangible · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Just think of what their lifespan would be with atomic batteries instead of solar cells. They would not be degraded by dust that couldn't be cleaned, wouldn't be non-functional for the winter, and could deliver much more energy for faster movement. The Voyager space probes used atomic batteries and last I heard, still worked after 30+ years. Wikipedia shows that their atomic batteries now produce 319 watts, from 470 initially.

      For comparison, the rovers produce only 140 watts during peak solar times (4 hours/day), in the summer.

      It's a shame irrational fear of nuclear material has again gotten in the way of better science.

    21. Re:Amazing by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      I guess the dust accumulation rate in your apartment is higher than on Mars.

      I don't know about his, but it certainly is in mine. They should field-test these things in my apartment before they send them out there, they'd be indestructible! I'll only charge $30,000 per week for a testing area next to the couch. Cheap!

    22. Re: Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Arean days.

      Up with Red Power!

    23. Re:Amazing by From+A+Far+Away+Land · · Score: 1

      The rovers probably don't use a crappy 9.6V NiCad battery either that you have to plug in every 5 minutes.

    24. Re:Amazing by Pogue+Mahone · · Score: 1
      It isn't dust that's the problem - it's hair. At least, in my experience of repairing my children's toys it is. :-(

      Not much hair on Mars, I expect.

      --
      Every bloody emperor has his hand up history's skirt [Peter Hammill/VdGG]
    25. Re:Amazing by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Because there aren't any economies of scale to be had. The big cost of the rovers isn't the rover but the launch vehicle and the time on the DSN to keep them running. Mainly the launch vehicle. The Rover themselves are pretty cheap in comparison. Also after each mission NASA learns more about what works and doesn't and finds new questions to ask and that requires new tools. Finally because stuff gets better over time. You know that Moore's law thing?

      Moore's law doesn't apply to the launch vehicle, but economies of scale do. The Space Shuttle may have been intended to exploit economies of scale, but it didn't. If the Space Shuttle had somehow managed to make the forty launches a year as planned, then yes, it would be a modest example of economies of scale. But its peak rate was somewhere around eight launches a year which is far short. The excuse for using the Space Shuttle might have been "economies of scale", but the reality is that the Shuttle needed barely enough business in order to keep funding.

      If NASA had been intent on creating economies of scale, they would have relied on (semi)commercial launchers (eg, Atlas, Delta, and Proton) that already have a higher launch rate and lower costs to orbit for all NASA needs.

      As far as the Deep Space Network goes, maybe there's a market opportunity here for a private operator. It should be possible for even a pretty small company to specialize in Earth-Mars microwave communications assuming they can cover the infrastructure costs. A key difference would be that a private effort would probably consist of a large array of dishes (economies of scale again) rather than a few large dishes as is the case with the current DSN.

    26. Re:Amazing by VolciMaster · · Score: 1
      NASA did a bang up job on these

      I think you mean they didn't bang these ones up. They did a bang-up job on the Mars Polar Lander.

    27. Re:Amazing by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 1

      > I just don't understand why, with the success that Spirit and Opportunity have had, they don't build these as a platform.

      You'll be pleased to know that they did this once already -- Spirit and Opportunity are themselves descendants of the Sojourner rover, using the same landing system and tetrahedral platform with solar panels.

      According to the "Nova" show I saw about these, though, they're already at about the limit of this technology -- these rovers had a lot of extra complicated features which allowed a much larger instrument package and greater range to be put in the same size of box as the Sojourner mission.

      There are other reasons, as well, of course -- technology marches on, and you want to use the aerobraking performance data from this mission to aerobrake a bigger, more powerful platform next time, for instance. Plus, the cost of the landed hardware is a small fraction of the cost of the mission -- there are launch vehicles and Deep Space Network bandwidth to be paid for, too.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    28. Re:Amazing by luna69 · · Score: 1

      > Not long from now people will start speculating that the rovers
      > are CGI animation and start finding hundreds of "deffects" in the
      > Mars shots that demonstrate they've been "Photoshopped".

      They already are: http://www.enterprisemission.com/spirit2.htm

      This fruit loop, oddly enough, uses photoshop himself to demonstrate that the GOVERNMENT IS LYING! The things that look like rocks all over the surface of Mars ARE ACTUALLY PIECES OF ALIEN MACHINERY! OMG!!!

      Seriously, every time I go look at the site's front page, there's some new insane bit of conspiracy propaganda about "artificial features" and "NASA coverups" and other assorted drivel.

      > People are cruel, people are doubtful. You can respect the latter but pitty the former.

      Well, I pity farmers, but only because it's a hard life. With regard to cruel and doubtful, I mostly find that people are just plain stupid.

      --
      No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
  3. thank goodness by dotpavan · · Score: 4, Funny
    ..Spirit is safe for the winter..

    I was really getting worried about my winter supply! :P

  4. I've seen this one before by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    It seems like it's safe, but then the Sarlacc opens its big ugly mouth and the next thing you know, the rover is being digested for 1,000 years.

    1. Re:I've seen this one before by MikTheUser · · Score: 3, Funny

      There was a young man from the East
      Who unwillingly served as a feast,
      For his ship, it did fall
      To the planet of Trall
      Near a ravenous bug-blatter beast.

      (Oh yes, I wrote this all on my own!)

    2. Re:I've seen this one before by Bob+the+Hamster · · Score: 2, Funny
      It seems like it's safe, but then the Sarlacc opens its big ugly mouth and the next thing you know, the rover is being digested for 1,000 years.

      Which will provide us with lots of fantastic scientific data about the biology of the Martian Sarlacc, and perhaps will help xenobiologists determine where it fits on the evolutionary tree in relation to the better-studied Tatooine Sarlacc.

  5. Just in time! by GillBates0 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now I go get my (well-deserved) Monday evening 6 pack of beer without a twinge of guilt. Way to go Rover.

    --
    An Indian-American Hindu committed to non-violent thought/speech/action alarmed by the global explosion of radical Islam
  6. I hope it works better than... by sdo1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... the windows "hibernate" feature.

    "Ok... wake up"

    "I'm sorry Dave. Everything you were working on is know kaput and I've forgotten about everything that you were doing. By the way, where did that network connection go?"

    --
    --- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
    1. Re:I hope it works better than... by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1
      I wonder why people still make Windows hibernation jokes. Yes, it was incredibly bad at one point. But nothing was as bad as the sound driver for a Linux laptop I had which would occasionally scream at maximum volume when restored from sleep. (And at that time I had to write a bunch of scripts to wake things like networking back up again after sleeping, something that "just worked" under Windows.) Despite my affection for the device, even my MacOS X PowerBook fails to wake properly from sleep on a semi-regular basis (twice this weekend in fact). So please, enough with the Windows hibernation jokes. They're not funny any more.

      And why did I ask, I know the answer to my own question. Joking about Windows hibernation is an example of FUD.

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
    2. Re:I hope it works better than... by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      People make fun of Windows hibernation because it *still* doesn't work. My PowerBook works most of the time, but more often than not with windows it will just sit there and drain your battery in 6 hours and not hibernate at all.

    3. Re:I hope it works better than... by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1
      Actually, plug a device into a PowerBook while the lid is closed and you have non-trivial chance of it waking up, waking up the driver for the device, crashing, remaining on, and doing serious damage because the case can't dissipate the heat while the lid is closed. I'm now careful not to plug in a device while the lid is closed. A few times I tried backups at the end of the day leaving my laptop to finish the process during the night and trusting it to hibernate automatically when finished. But most times I just had an unrecoverable black screen in the morning. I now run the backup app during the day and manually put the machine to sleep at the end. I really don't see that Windows is that much worse than other OSes.

      I also can't help noticing that none of my colleagues at work trust Linux enough to hibernate the PCs they use. They always shut down properly before closing the lid.

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
    4. Re:I hope it works better than... by Knackered · · Score: 1

      People make fun of Windows hibernation because it *still* doesn't work.

      Really? That's news to me...I have to reboot my Windows tablet PC once every 2-3 months, and I travel with it a lot. It goes into hibernation when I'm travelling, it wakes up just fine when I get where I'm going, and carries on exactly where I left off.
      --
      a.
    5. Re:I hope it works better than... by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      My PC and laptop are both pretty good at hibernation. As per other posters, I probably reboot once every few m,onths, but hibernate every night.

      Most likely it's dodgy hardware/drivers that makes Windows Hibernation fail.

    6. Re:I hope it works better than... by i · · Score: 1

      I have a relatively modern stationary PC and it succeeds in about half of the wake-up tries. And it often freezes when (trying) to go into hibernate.
      The latter one seems to be software related. It happens nearly always when it was started by my backup program - which finishes ok - and then after the specified amount of time tries to hibernate.

      And as it is Windows - no one can give any hint of the reason to this. And also as it is Windows, it refuses to give any useful error messages and no one CAN figure out the reason as the source is hidden !

      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
  7. Never play the odds! by MudButt · · Score: 4, Funny

    AHH! Damn rover cost me 20G's! My bookie's gunna break my legs...

    Las Vegas Releases Odds For Mars Probe Trifecta-of-Failure

    1. Re:Never play the odds! by ptomblin · · Score: 4, Funny

      He's already broken one of Spirit's.

      --
      The next Cmdr Taco duplicate will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
    2. Re:Never play the odds! by gstoddart · · Score: 1
      He's already broken one of Spirit's.

      Nah, Spirit is just faking -- the bookie is cutting him in on the proceeds of the bets. Hell lose a few more games, and then they'll bet heavy in the finals.

      Pure genius!
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  8. Hey, cheer up -- Maybe ESA'll pull another Beagle! by The_REAL_DZA · · Score: 1

    All they've gotta do is screw-up big time and miss Venus, then drop this guy on top of the "safe" parking spot... Should at least be good for a "double-or-nothing" bet.

    --


    This space intentionally left (almost) blank.
  9. Just like the Voyager Probes! by dakirw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another good example of NASA's success in the unmanned exploration program, which contrasts nicely with the current issues with the Space Shuttle program and its potential successors. Wonder if any of the administrators in charge of the space probe programs can help implement changes in the manned space program.

    1. Re:Just like the Voyager Probes! by ThreeE · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Please explain your point. The complexities involved with manned spaceflight vastly surpass those faced by the rovers. Don't get me wrong, the rovers are fantastic, but the consequences of failure are on a completely different scale. The payoffs of human presence, both long term and short term, are totally different too. And let's not even mention the string of unmanned failures at Mars either...

      Both are needed. Both are doing their best. Lead, follow, or get out of the way and stop bitching.

    2. Re:Just like the Voyager Probes! by cthulhu11 · · Score: 1

      I guess you didn't notice how their stupidity horqued Galileo.

  10. Martian Golfers? by ToxikFetus · · Score: 4, Funny

    So NASA drove Spirit into a sand trap? The last time I drove a golf cart into a sand trap, I got my ass banned from the local links.

    1. Re:Martian Golfers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hello? hello? is this thing on? take my wife, please, take my wife. hello? hello? asdfj'dasfkldsnmxcvnzlkjklsdj'fpiujiofshjdafkjhdas jkfhjkhdasfjkdasfjkhakjdasfads!!!!!!!!

    2. Re:Martian Golfers? by patio11 · · Score: 1

      If you had a couple of billion dollars to throw around you'd also be forgiven that minor incident with the sand trap.

  11. Didn't make it to McCool Hill by stevesliva · · Score: 1

    It's too bad that they were forced to give up on getting over to McCool hill. If you look at the map referenced in this update, you realize that they just gave up on the farther safe slopes in favor of the slope immediately at hand. But if it survives to survey through another martian summer, I suppose it's worth it.

    --
    Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    1. Re:Didn't make it to McCool Hill by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1
      gave up on the farther safe slopes in favor of the slope immediately at hand.

      Yes but they found a (small) red spot. Its not like spirit has to set up camp or anything. As long as the solar panels face north it should be ok.

      TFA mentions being close to an outcrop. I haven't seen pictures yet. I wonder what the chance is of a thick sheet of dust being blown on to the rover by a winter storm.

  12. This just in by Timesprout · · Score: 4, Funny

    The busted wheel has been confirmed as a design flaw, and the manufacturers sub contracted by NASA, Martian Rovers R' Us have issued an immediate recall of all rovers. DHL are expected to pick Spirit up tomorrow for refurbishment.

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
    1. Re:This just in by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      NASA actually has more than one Rover.

      They sent one to Mars and kept at least one on Earth to use for trouble shooting. When the wheel failed, they 'broke' the same wheel on their test model and played around with it before futzing with the real thing.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    2. Re:This just in by jftitan · · Score: 1

      This just in!!!

      DHL recovery team, dies due to the tremendous neck breaking speeds it takes to get to Mars. When the pickup vehicle arrives, and opens its doors, the team would just be mush, and due to lack of oxygen they would have died anyways. (some intelligent engineer decided they would only need 12 hours of oxygen, because the speed of pickup and delivery.)

      --
      "Don't Forget to Salt the Fries"
  13. Well now, by LordoftheLemmings · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once again we see the advantages of an unmanned space program over our manned one. Now I am really for manned exploration of space, I'm just against nasa doing it. They have way more success on their unmanned programs (not to mention more bang for your buck). Look at voyager look at the mars rovers look at their new mission to pluto. I wish the nasa administration would see that they need to stop taking money from our unmanned programs to waste on our shuttle and shuttle derived programs.

    1. Re:Well now, by east+coast · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Once again we see the advantages of an unmanned space program over our manned one.

      I'm sorry but I don't see it. Care to elaborate on this point?

      While I do think the rovers are a great success I can't help but think that if we would make the proper moves to getting people to the moon we could make space exploration cheaper. Also consider that it's taken the rovers over a year to do what a manned exploration could have completed in a week.

      Aside from the durability of the crafts there is little to be amazed by here.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    2. Re:Well now, by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't see any problem with the Apollo missions. Those were NASA and manned.

      The shuttle came into play when NASA decided to send up experiments with the astronauts. The bay gave them a massive storage space to play with. Problem is the shuttle burned out long ago. It's well past warranty and needs a replacement badly...cept we're stuck with the shuttle until the ISS is finished since parts are built with the shuttle's bay in mind.

      No other rocket in service has the storage space like the shuttle does if I remember right

      As far as success with unmanned missions... NASA gets burned hard when they lose a probe and Mars is up to what, 3 lost now? These rovers are starting to cancel the memory of those out.

    3. Re:Well now, by masklinn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They have way more success on their unmanned programs

      Not really, space is not your local highway and a dozen dead astronauts over twice as many years is not that high of a price. They're aware of the risks involved (as any pilot is), the NASA is aware of them too, only the public ever cries bloody murder, but that's because the public is idiotic.

      Many more lives will be lost during the conquest of space, it's part of the game, and the number of lives taken by the whole space conquest is still lower than the daily death toll of car accidents across the US.

      --
      "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
    4. Re:Well now, by ScottLindner · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "and the number of lives taken by the whole space conquest is still lower than the daily death toll of car accidents across the US."

      No doubt.

      Another point about manned and unmanned. The unmanned is great for simple things like this. It can go on and on doing very simple tasks and won't get tired of doing it. The manned flights are for sophisticated situations, but there's another less obvious point. PUshing to get people out there, will develop new technologies in life support that can be used for many other industries both in space, and here at home. Even if we develop great technologies to live in a colony on the moon, or on Mars, we can use those same technologies to extend our stay here on this planet. Since we're doing a good job of burning this one up that cannot support the numbers of people we have.

      I know you are not protesting the manned space flight. I just wanted to comment that there are many great reasons for manned space flight that are less obvious than the per mission benefits of the manned flight itself. It would be very unwise to try to send a man to another galaxy on the first shot, if we never figured out how to do it locally first.

      Cheers,
      Scott

      --
      Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
    5. Re:Well now, by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 0

      When you compare the cost, time and man-power required to get rovers to Mars versus people to Mars, it would seem that the rovers win out. Sure, the work they did could be completed in a week by people, but the rovers completed the jobs they were sent to do to 100% and then continued to work eight times longer than their planned time with a budget less than would be required to get people to Mars, nevermind keep them alive there and then bring them back. I suspect that getting a human expedition on Mars to last eight times longer than their supplies would normally permit would not be so easy.

      It's about the returns on investment, and the yield from rovers appears to be a lot better than the yield from sending Bob the Geologist.

    6. Re:Well now, by posterlogo · · Score: 1
      I tend to agree. NASA's obsession with the manned space program is political -- stemming back to Kennedy. It was worth the symbolism then. I'm not sure it is now. People are not ready for interplanetary missions, even the moon. We have to build solid, reliable, and affordable technology and that is not there yet. If this means starting from orbital missions and ISS, fine. The whole "Back to the Moon, Mars, and Beyond" BS by the current administration is nothing more than hot air and smoke (which, incidentally, is what happens when a space shuttle explodes).

      NASA's science has been advanced far more by its unmanned missions than by its manned endeavors. They should continue with the manned program, but take it slowly (a good way of doing that would be to reduce its funding and stop cutting science missions instead).

    7. Re:Well now, by Zhiroc · · Score: 1
      They have way more success on their unmanned programs

      I don't want to denigrate NASA, but I don't really think that's the case. There have been a number of high-profile failed unmanned craft:

      The Mars Polar Lander
      The Mars Climate Orbiter
      The Hubble telescope (which was only salvaged due to the ability of manned servicing missions)
      Galileo (failed hi-gain antenna--mission salvaged using heroic means of using the low-gain antenna)
      Genesis sample return crash

      Of course, a failed unmanned mission is just a loss of money and science, and not a loss of life. But let's face it--this is bleeding edge stuff, and it fails a lot. If our manned program failed as much as the unmanned, we'd have given up long ago.

    8. Re:Well now, by east+coast · · Score: 1

      the rovers completed the jobs they were sent to do to 100%

      The difference is that they did 100% of what they were designed to do. Now, go ask this project leader if he could have had humans on the moon for the same period of time (as in the initial programs lifespan) what would he have the human do instead? I have zero doubt that the expectations would be much much higher. Why? Because humans ARE more capable of completing these tasks no matter what the naysayers would have you believe.

      In this way I'm still not convinced that unmanned is better, we had near brushes with failure not to mention that so much had to be put into planning that humans could have easily overcome. So what if it costs 8-10 times more; it's worth it from the standpoint of research and reliability.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    9. Re:Well now, by dbIII · · Score: 1
      Also consider that it's taken the rovers over a year to do what a manned exploration could have completed in a week
      Since the manned exploration is a grand dream for a later administration to start on and pay for it's hardly relevant is it? A lot of unmanned exploration can happen for years before we even have a viable launch vehicle, simply because the rovers don't need food or oxygen and other heavy and expensive to move requirements.
    10. Re:Well now, by patio11 · · Score: 1
      The manned flights are for sophisticated situations, but there's another less obvious point. PUshing to get people out there, will develop new technologies in life support that can be used for many other industries both in space, and here at home. Even if we develop great technologies to live in a colony on the moon, or on Mars, we can use those same technologies to extend our stay here on this planet. Since we're doing a good job of burning this one up that cannot support the numbers of people we have.

      OK, here's how this goes: supposing you believe that Earth is overpopulated, and I don't, then is the space program *ever* going to be an efficient method of alleviating that overpopulation? We pay, what, a couple million dollars to put a single digit number of people into Earth orbit for two weeks. How many multiples of the GDP of the planet would it take to migrate a couple million to Mars (not settle them there, just *get* them there), even if we decreased launch costs by a factor of a thousand?

      And lets talk about technological advancement. Yep, I suppose you could use "space age technology" to make better hermetically sealed structures, Tang, microwaves, really cool pillows, or what have you. But all of these technologies were developed right here, on earth. There is no necessity after you have a space-pillow to blast the pillow into orbit (at a cost of like $10,000 per pillow) to verify "Hmm, yep, this pillow gives you the best sleep you will ever have in zero gravity. You'll wake up refreshed and ready to do your observations of how spiders react to prolonged weightlessness in the morning. Science and humanity salute you. Lets have a Tang to celebrate." You could take NASA's entire budget and just rename it the "Civilian and Military R&D Slush Fund" and it would be much more efficient, as it wouldn't continue wasting money on one of their big line-items: getting stuff out of the atmosphere.

    11. Re:Well now, by solitas · · Score: 1
      If our manned program failed as much as the unmanned, we'd have given up long ago.

      How long did it take to recover from 'frozen O-rings"? How long will it take to recover from shreddable foam (that could have been fixed BEFORE it did some real damage)? How many Russian-rent-a-rides will there have to be to the "space station"? "Yeh, you betcha - we'll git back t' thet ther moon in the nex' hunnert years r'so"? (gwb)

      We're giving up like the anecdotal frog in the slowly-warming water...

      --
      "It's time to take life by the cans." ~ Bender ("Bendin' in the Wind", ep. 3-13)
    12. Re:Well now, by Viking+Coder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't see any problem with the Apollo missions. Those were NASA and manned.

      Apollo 1 - Virgil Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee.

      NASA gets burned hard when they lose a probe...

      NASA gets burned worse when they lose astronauts.

      It's completely impossible for a human to make it to another solar system within my lifetime - but using microwave-based solar sails, it's possible to send a camera through a nearby solar system and get pictures back, in that timeframe.

      I'm not voting against manned missions - I'm just voting much more strongly for the unmanned ones to continue and accelerate.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    13. Re:Well now, by east+coast · · Score: 1

      Since the manned exploration is a grand dream for a later administration to start on and pay for it's hardly relevant is it?

      Since this particular thread deals with manned vs. unmanned spaceflight I think my argument is very relevant.

      A lot of unmanned exploration can happen for years before we even have a viable launch vehicle, simply because the rovers don't need food or oxygen and other heavy and expensive to move requirements.

      I would rather see NASA (or whomever) funnel the lion's share of their funding into making a viable launch vehicle (or better yet, subcontract one out) and creating the needed facilities on the moon to lower the cost of interplanetary travel as opposed to mission after mission of "hey, we're made of star dust" and yet no real appreciable progress that can lead towards new technology or the concept of space mining, colonization, etc etc.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    14. Re:Well now, by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 0
      In this way I'm still not convinced that unmanned is better, we had near brushes with failure not to mention that so much had to be put into planning that humans could have easily overcome. So what if it costs 8-10 times more; it's worth it from the standpoint of research and reliability.
      About 60% of all missions to Mars have failed. That's not near-brushes with failure, that's a very high failure rate. The planning and technology required to safely land humans on Mars is staggering and comes with a high likelihood of failure.

      It would take only one failure for all future missions to be indefinitely scrubbed--can you imagine having every astronaut in the mission die when their six-month journey to Mars finally completes after dumping billions and billions of dollars into the trip and the infrastructure necessary to provide them with food and water? America won't even risk flying the shuttle 150 miles overhead.

      With a manned mission more can be done in less time, but the risks and the cost when compared to unmanned missions is totally skewed--like I said, it's all about the ratios and ROI.
    15. Re:Well now, by east+coast · · Score: 1

      You could take NASA's entire budget and just rename it the "Civilian and Military R&D Slush Fund" and it would be much more efficient, as it wouldn't continue wasting money on one of their big line-items: getting stuff out of the atmosphere.

      yeah, forget shit like satelites... who needs that crap anyway. The billions spent on the R&D to get them there was wasted, nothing but a fad that will die down soon.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    16. Re:Well now, by east+coast · · Score: 1

      About 60% of all missions to Mars have failed.

      Uh, I was speaking of the rovers (just as you were in your GP).

      The planning and technology required to safely land humans on Mars is staggering and comes with a high likelihood of failure.

      I agree, to a point. I know it's a high end task (one of the reasons I suggested the moon in the first place, not to mention costs and logistics). With steps taken from the moon to the next planet we will doubtlessly overcome several of these daunting tasks.

      With a manned mission more can be done in less time, but the risks and the cost when compared to unmanned missions is totally skewed--like I said, it's all about the ratios and ROI.

      Yeah, because there is a lot of ROI in having rovers dig some mars dirt.... uh huh. Now if you can show Joe Sispack that his tax dollars not only helped build a Mars-destined craft but also brough him some new Earth based technology that's going to sell.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    17. Re:Well now, by Dieppe · · Score: 1
      Neah, Apollo 13 was manned and such a success.

      They made a movie on it even!

    18. Re:Well now, by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 0
      I agree, to a point. I know it's a high end task (one of the reasons I suggested the moon in the first place, not to mention costs and logistics). With steps taken from the moon to the next planet we will doubtlessly overcome several of these daunting tasks.
      I agree that with time it can all be overcome, and I hope that there are manned missions eventually. I'm only arguing the point that there are reasons manned missions aren't happening now and that because of those reasons unmanned missions are a very attractive and benefit-rich avenue.
      Yeah, because there is a lot of ROI in having rovers dig some mars dirt.... uh huh. Now if you can show Joe Sispack that his tax dollars not only helped build a Mars-destined craft but also brough him some new Earth based technology that's going to sell.
      Joe Sixpack isn't going to benefit from having humans on Mars either. There are returns beyond making technology for companies to sell to make money (which seems rather unlikely); are we forgetting that this is about science? Not to mention that Joe Sixpack is going to be mighty upset about losing twenty billion dollars' worth of time and research and x great scientists when the ship more likely than not crashes and burns versus the four out of ten successful multiple-rover landings.
    19. Re:Well now, by east+coast · · Score: 1

      are we forgetting that this is about science?

      Perhaps to you it is but let me point out that since the space program is no longer a matter of national pride and has become more about science the funding has decreased as well as the progress of the space program. Introduce some profits and I bet you'll find renewed interest.

      Not to mention that Joe Sixpack is going to be mighty upset about losing twenty billion dollars' worth of time and research and x great scientists when the ship more likely than not crashes and burns versus the four out of ten successful multiple-rover landings.

      I call straight-up bullshit on this one. You ask Joe Sixpack the last great accomplishment in space and he might say the ISS. In most likeliness he'll claim that space has been a waste since Apollo. I'll lay good money on that.

      Not to even mention the fact that you're already predicting failure... why is that? There has been more lost unmanned missions than manned missions to space. That is the fact of the matter.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    20. Re:Well now, by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      Once again we see the advantages of an unmanned space program over our manned one.
      Just as point of reference - what Spirit has accomplished (in terms of ground covered and science performed) in a little over two years, could be accomplished by a trained geologist in a little over two weeks.
    21. Re:Well now, by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Also consider that it's taken the rovers over a year to do what a manned exploration could have completed in a week.

      As somebody already pointed out, rovers are still far cheaper dispite being slow-pokes. Sending geologists to the moon did not seem very fruitful because it took careful earth-based lab analysis to figure out the rocks. It is far cheaper to use remote control to return samples. Maybe people are more glorious, but robots are just plain cheaper for science.

    22. Re:Well now, by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It's completely impossible for a human to make it to another solar system within my lifetime - but using microwave-based solar sails, it's possible to send a camera through a nearby solar system and get pictures back, in that timeframe.

      You plan to live long, I see. The fastest interstellar probe we've made (Voyager I) would take 73,000 years to reach the next star (267,000 AU at 3.64 AU/year) - in fact, sending images back would take 4.23 years just for the signal to get here. What propulsion technique we use is almost irrelevant because most of the speed will come from a slingshot around jupiter or the sun. Even if we take the fastest velocity of the Helios 2 probe (fastest man-made object in existance) on the closest approach to the sun it'd only cut it down to 20,000 years. In reality you'd lose most of that trying to escape the solar system, resulting in Voyager I class speed. So, unless your name is Zefram Cochrane and you plan to do something big around 2063, I wouldn't count on it...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    23. Re:Well now, by birge · · Score: 1

      Nice abstract discussion. Except for one thing: right now you can't have humans do shit on Mars because we can't get them there right. This sounds like a semantic point, but it's really not. By the time we are able to send people there, who knows what rovers will be able to. You can't compare today's technology with tomorrow's alternatives. Unmanned will always be so much cheaper and efficient that it will probably be better. First of all, for all the weight and complexity of a manned mission, we could send an army of rovers. Second, unmanned doesn't mean autonomous. There are still humans controlling, so you could argue that the only real different between manned and unmanned (besides the huge cost difference) is decision latency.

    24. Re:Well now, by leomaster · · Score: 1

      I think that unmanned missions are fine for the initial stages of exploration, but you won't see massive advances until you start trying to get manned missions launched. Why? In part because it IS a lot more expensive to implement a manned mission with a reasonable degree of safety, but also, and more importantly, because the mission parameters will not only balloon, but be adaptable. Right now, Mars exploration is in the same place that really deepsea exploration was in 30-50 years ago. Deep sea remote submersibles brought back a ton of data, but it was nothing compared to the first manned deep sea submersible. And since then, both sets of technology has developed where now deep sea exploration is a useful combination of unmanned and manned. I expect that space exloration will be the same, only with a longer development timeline as there is not an easy short-term profit like deepsea drilling to drive the exporation.

    25. Re:Well now, by Viking+Coder · · Score: 1

      You should read some of Robert L. Forward's work.

      The idea is to make a microwave sail with a camera - that's it. Then you blast microwave energy at the thing to make it go, go, go! You keep blasting microwaves at it for the entire journey - accelerating it the entire time. You get to a pretty significant percentage of the speed of light.

      The propulsion technique is everything - you don't slingshot around jupiter - you push straight to your destination. The whole point is that you're not carrying your fuel with you - which completely changes the mechanics.

      Also, something like the Orion project would work, too.

      --
      Education is the silver bullet.
    26. Re:Well now, by ScottLindner · · Score: 1

      "OK, here's how this goes:"

      You could give yourself a lot more credit if you weren't blatantly arrogant and ignorant like this. You expect a reasonable discussion witha 'tude like that? Consider for just a moment that you are ignorant, we all are. I'm going to assume you are not deliberately ignorant, and just a bit cocky thinking and think you're smarter than everyone else.

      "supposing you believe that Earth is overpopulated, and I don't"

      Why do you believe the Earth is not over populated? Because no one is dying... yet? Let's consider this simple question... do you believe we are on a sustainable path? The answer to this question is fundamental to everything else. Because if you truly believe we are on a sustainable path, we need to address that disparity between our understanding of how we are surviving on this planet.

      --
      Slashdot.. where people join together in deliberate ignorance.
  14. Steve Squyres by bartash · · Score: 1

    Principal investigator Steve Squyres (mentioned in the /. summary) is the author of the fantastic book about building and deploying the rovers: Roving Mars : Spirit, Opportunity, and the Exploration of the Red Planet.

    --
    Read Epic the first RPG novel.
  15. Movies in 30 years.. by Null+Perception · · Score: 0

    Guess they can't make any more movies like apollo 13. Who the hell wants to see a movie about a rover making it to safety. The scene where all people in the control station clap and shake hands just wouldn't be the same...

    --
    Great new book on Evolution: The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins
    1. Re:Movies in 30 years.. by Jecel+Assumpcao+Jr · · Score: 1
  16. 1000 Years by darthservo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    It had been heading for a north-tilting spot to make sure its solar panels got enough sunlight during the imminent winter to survive, when a sand trap appeared.

    Good thing it got around the "sand trap", otherwise it would have found a new definition of pain and suffering as it was slowly digested over a thousand years.

    --

    Prove it.

  17. What a beautiful Martian landscape naming by BadassJesus · · Score: 2, Informative

    "McCool Hill", "Low Ridge Haven"

    What a nice names! One thing I love about English and English naming in general is that English really cares about places and good naming habbits in general.

    Most of the Americans take it as "a normal thing", but don't forget people that there are still nations and languges that do not care, they use latin characters like a whore, take languages of eastern Europe for example, full of phoneticaly written words that use latin characters in inproper/bad way. God bless America for choosing English. I myself speak two other languages in work and home, but more I know about English the more I like it. God safe Mars from Polish, Hungarian, Slovakian, Czech language influences.

    1. Re:What a beautiful Martian landscape naming by Feanturi · · Score: 1

      I dunno about that...

      From Woody's Point to Come by Chance,
      To good ol' Fairyland!
      Come take a look at Gander,
      Blackhead's mighty grand!
      Don't let the names deceive you,
      Newfoundland's mighty fine.
      So spend a night in Dildo,
      If you think you've got the time.

  18. Rovers are doing great. by kahrytan · · Score: 1

    Rovers are doing great. An inoperable motor for the front wheel means nothing. It's kind of in genius of them to simply program it to go in reverse instead of giving up on it. It will fulfill it's purpose after all.

      The rovers could end up helping during a manned flight to the planet. They could end up being the basis for future manned rovers.

    Anyone volunteer for a Manned Rover trip?

    --
    \
    1. Re:Rovers are doing great. by Max+von+H. · · Score: 2, Funny

      Anyone volunteer for a Manned Rover trip?

      Not until they've safely sent at least 50 people ready to serve and worship me.

      Thanks anyways

      --
      -- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
  19. Tag this one awesome! by jouvart · · Score: 3, Insightful

    We've already had plenty of "lame" tags on the stupid articles. It's time we started tagging stuff "awesome". If anything, the rovers most definitely deserve it for their progress.

    1. Re:Tag this one awesome! by capnez · · Score: 1

      Done! Because this really is AWESOME! I never thought a US-American-built-vehicle could get such great gas mileage.

    2. Re:Tag this one awesome! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      Maybe because it doesn't use gas? Aside from the problem of schlepping gasoline 50-60 million miles, it probably wouldn't ignite/burn very well in Mars' low-oxygen atmosphere.

    3. Re:Tag this one awesome! by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      We've already had plenty of "lame" tags on the stupid articles. It's time we started tagging stuff "awesome". If anything, the rovers most definitely deserve it for their progress.

      Dude, read the article.

      The rover has one broken wheel. In just about the most literal way possible...

      ...it is lame.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  20. Wouldn't it be nice.... by p51d007 · · Score: 4, Funny

    if ALL of NASA worked as well as the Mars rovers?

    1. Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 2, Funny

      When you take humans out of the equation, you minimize the chance for failures.

      That's why, in 2008, I'm voting for Skynet.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... by rk · · Score: 1

      Is that who we vote for when we get tired of voting for the lesser of two evils?

    3. Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      SkyNet? Why vote for the lesser of two evils?
      Vote Cthulhu for President in 2008

      http://www.cthulhu.org/

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    4. Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      If Cthulu will promise to eat me first, I'd be happy to vote for him.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    5. Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... by Anarcho-Goth · · Score: 1

      No, at the rate things are going, COBRA Commander is going to be the lesser evil in 2008.

      --
      I hate Liberals and Conservatives.
      If you are a Liberal or a Conservative, then HAVE A NICE DAY!
      Courage.
  21. RC Toys by TubeSteak · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I won't make assumptions about what you did or didn't own, but just about any toy you buy from radio shack, the toy store, or dept. store is utter trash compared to a hobby quality RC vehicle.

    Once you think your kid is old enough to handle the responsibilities of an expensive toy, pick something out from a hobby catalog and introduce them to real RC stuff.

    Compared to a $30~$50 car, yes, it's an expensive investment, but like the rover, you'll get a lot more bang for your buck.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
  22. See what the rovers & drivers see by HoneyBeeSpace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It is a shame that Maestro appears to have stopped updating their data.

    Still, it is excellent software, and fun to use even if you don't get where Spirit is today. With Maestro you can see what the rovers see, and what the rover operators and instruments see... Actual software used in mission control.

  23. Actually the manned missions are more successful by technoextreme · · Score: 1
    hey have way more success on their unmanned programs (not to mention more bang for your buck).

    It depends on what you mean by success. The Mars rover missions have failed more than 2/3 of the time. Those aren't really good odds.
    --
    Ooo man the floppy drive is broken. No wait. The computer is just upside down.
  24. leave 'em up there by muzik4machines · · Score: 0

    why dont they just send the parts in orbit(using all shuttles) and leave them there in orbit,since they can't re-enter?

  25. Shuttle was always a compromise nasa/military by spineboy · · Score: 1
    The shuttle was never intended by NASA scientists/engineers to be like it is. The military needed a space presence as well, and thus ensued some changes/compromises that helped neither NASA or the military. Nasa's original design was for a cheap re-usable 2 stage shuttle, capable of 50+ launches/year - to help build a space station in a low - earth orbit.

    However, the desire to increase it's size, lead to the large external booster tank, the SRB's, all of which reduced the maximal launches to around 20/year, also increasing it's complexity and cost per launch. I still think it's done pretty well despite all the compromises.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
    1. Re:Shuttle was always a compromise nasa/military by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not exactly. The only reason the military requirements got tacked on was because NASA had a hard time selling the original shuttle program to Congress, so they asked the military if they wanted to join the program. While this helped get the program through Congress, it led to the boondoggle we have right now.

  26. Just say no to Solar Power by SockPuppet_9_5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Heck, MSL still states that solar power is under consideration.

    I'm surprised to hear that solar power is being considered for the next generation of Mars Rovers. That alone would rule out examining any feature with significant relief, like canyons and polar regions. Both Spirit and Opportunity got aid in cleaning off their solar panels from Martian wind gusts.

    Would any engineer want to sign off on a design that requires sporadic Martian wind in order to keep power levels high? Without solar panel cleaning, the life expectancy of the mission would be short.

    The radioisotope thermoelectric generators have just too many benefits, including the ability to keep the rover electronics warm.

    The only real reason I can see to continue to use solar power on Martian rovers is politics.

    1. Re:Just say no to Solar Power by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Future rovers could use compressed air to blow dust off the panels. However, it has never been tried. Just because wirl-winds work does not necessarily mean a nozel blowing compressed air would also work. There could be differences in air composition, tempurature, etc.

    2. Re:Just say no to Solar Power by barawn · · Score: 1

      To be fair, Spirit and Opportunity are nowhere near each other - which means that the panel cleaning events have to be pretty ubiquitous. They've also persisted for over two years, which, while it's still a small timespan, tells you that they're not extremely uncommon.

      MSL might be a multi-rover mission (like MER) - which implies that solar panels/batteries might be a reasonable solution for some subset of the rovers.

      To be honest, they're probably just a little surprised at how useful solar power has been for Spirit/Opportunity. There really is no reason other than politics to choose solar power over an RTG, I think. The main benefit RTGs have over solar power isn't keeping the electronics warm. It's the longevity. Viking 2 lasted 50% longer than Spirit and Opportunity have. We have no idea how long Viking 1 would've operated, since it was disabled with a faulty command.

    3. Re:Just say no to Solar Power by SockPuppet_9_5 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      With Solar Power, all it takes is for one good Martian Spring dust storm to ruin your whole mission.

  27. Energizer Bunny, where for art thou? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

    The Energizer battery company should be all over these rovers as sponsors. A better association comes but once in a lifetime. The rovers to batteries are Michael Jordon to shoes.

  28. You need both - look first land later by dbIII · · Score: 2, Insightful
    the concept of space mining, colonization, etc etc
    Well yes, they are well and truly in the exploration stage instead - which robots are very good at. The much cheaper robots can look around and the best they find is what's worth sending people on a three+ year round trip that takes many years to plan to take a closer look at. Efforts are being made towards colonisation technology - like the hydroponics facility at the south pole designed to be similar to what you would use on the moon.

    The disparaging comment above was really about the one or the other attitude in some sections of government. Robot exploration will help the chances of success of manned exploration in the future without taking away much of the budget. Identifying what we don't have to get out of the gravity well to build things elsewhere will mean that other things can be moved instead - which is why water is high on the list.

  29. See what now? by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Once again we see the advantages of an unmanned space program over our manned one.

    Were you referring to a craft with a broken wheel that would take about ten seconds for a human to replace if there were one close at hand?

    Or the fact that the entire life of both rovers has done about as much science as a human could do in a day, if they took a long lunch?

    It's like if you had built a scooter that carried you to the end of your driveway, then proclaimed that no-one would ever need an aeroplane. The two things are not even on the same level.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  30. On behalf of English speakers everywhere by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    On behalf of English speakers everywhere, we apologize for idiotic Slashdot moderators who saw fit to slap you for a heartfelt expression of goodwiill. As the saying goes, see you in metamod, faceless jackals (or perahps I should use something else that begins with jack).

    I do not myself know if it's exactly an English thing though so much as a space science thing, I would wager that space oriented scientists have a lot of imagination to devote to names - or at least a lot of desire to do so.

    Mars science has been exemplary in that regard.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  31. Ofcourse we all know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That the rovers are actually situated on a testground in the middle of the Nevada Desert, and that the whole rover-thing is a scam to prove NASA is still capable of launching a space mission just like they did with the apollo missions.
    Now they slowly want to end the project and have broken off a leg of one rover. Next, people that work on the project start disappearing and the whole thing is cancelled.
     
    Hey, what is this little pill reading 'prozac' doing here ?

  32. Re:Tag this one awesome! - Duh! by capnez · · Score: 1

    It seems I need to use the -tag more often.

  33. Re:Tag this one awesome! - Duh! by capnez · · Score: 1

    This should have said: "-tag". Sorry. Why does it disappear when I use plain text?

  34. Re:Tag this one awesome! - Duh! by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

    Just mod me "literal".

  35. Avoided a sandtrap and ... by Tired+and+Emotional · · Score: 1

    Now its sitting on the green, with a busted wheel no less - that can't be good for the putting surface and I bet the members who hit it with their approaches and bounce back into the bunker are not amused.

    I bet the ground's staff have that thing out of there in no time.

    --
    Squirrel!
  36. ObBatman by Xenophon+Fenderson, · · Score: 1

    YES! This new rover could use atomic batteries for power, and turbines for speed!

    --
    I'm proud of my Northern Tibetian Heritage