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.'"

Comments

Tough decisions

[LiquidCoooled]

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.

Re:Tough decisions

[Winlin]

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.

Re:Tough decisions

[Tackhead]

> 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.

Re:Tough decisions

[tktk]

We're right here, you ugly bag of mostly-water.

Slows what yu know.

I'm nostly ful of alochol.

Re:Tough decisions

[jbrader]

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.

Re:Tough decisions

[Kjella]

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.

Re:Tough decisions

[Guysmiley777]

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?

Amazing

[networkBoy]

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

Re:Amazing

[PeelBoy]

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

Re:Amazing

[sdo1]

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

Re:Amazing

[LWATCDR]

"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.

Re:Amazing

[suv4x4]

"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.

Re: Amazing

[shigelojoe]

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

Re:Amazing

[njchick]

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

Re:Amazing

[barawn]

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.

Re:Amazing

[WindBourne]

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.

Re:Amazing

[Frangible]

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.

Re:Amazing

[khallow]

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.

thank goodness

[dotpavan]

..Spirit is safe for the winter..

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

I've seen this one before

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:I've seen this one before

[MikTheUser]

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!)

Re:I've seen this one before

[Bob the Hamster]

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.

Just in time!

[GillBates0]

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

I hope it works better than...

[sdo1]

... 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?"

Never play the odds!

[MudButt]

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

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

Re:Never play the odds!

[ptomblin]

He's already broken one of Spirit's.

Just like the Voyager Probes!

[dakirw]

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.

Martian Golfers?

[ToxikFetus]

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.

This just in

[Timesprout]

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.

Well now,

[LordoftheLemmings]

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.

Re:Well now,

[east coast]

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.

Re:Well now,

[Volante3192]

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.

Re:Well now,

[masklinn]

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.

Re:Well now,

[ScottLindner]

"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

Re:Well now,

[Viking Coder]

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.

1000 Years

[darthservo]

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.

What a beautiful Martian landscape naming

[BadassJesus]

"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.

Tag this one awesome!

[jouvart]

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.

Wouldn't it be nice....

[p51d007]

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

Re:Wouldn't it be nice....

[Ohreally_factor]

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

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

RC Toys

[TubeSteak]

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.

See what the rovers & drivers see

[HoneyBeeSpace]

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.

Just say no to Solar Power

[SockPuppet_9_5]

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.

Re:Shuttle was always a compromise nasa/military

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Energizer Bunny, where for art thou?

[Tablizer]

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.

You need both - look first land later

[dbIII]

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.

Re:Rovers are doing great.

[Max von H.]

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

See what now?

[SuperKendall]

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.