Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mars Rovers Celebrate Their 1000th Sol On Mars

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the go-little-buddies-go dept.

Cherita Chen writes, "Yesterday NASA, Cornell University, and the USGS celebrated the Mars Exploration Rovers' 1000th Sol on the Red Planet. The first rover to land, Spirit, reached the 1000 Sol mark a few weeks ago while the planet was in Solar conjunction. 'Opportunity,' Spirit's twin, and the second lander to make the bounce to Mars, celebrated the milestone yesterday while sitting atop Victoria Crater on the other side of Mars. Both Rovers are still operational (though Spirit is limping) and are sending back valuable data. Not bad for what was slated to be a '90 Sol' mission."

102 comments

  1. Come On. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Admit it, you're getting misty.

  2. Spirit has stayed busy at Winter Haven during... by Harmonious+Botch · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It's a new technique to take the load off of slashdot servers: now TFA comes pre-duped.

  3. How 'bout the Beagle? by Eberlin · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Nobody has posted about how long the beagle has been SOL!

  4. Maybe there is karmic justice after all, by GroeFaZ · · Score: 2, Informative

    considering the track record of failed missions.

    --
    The grass is always greener on the other side of the light cone.
  5. Great achievement! by the_humeister · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Not bad for a mission that cost less than $500 million. Fast, cheap, and still lasts a long time. Too bad they don't have nuclear power plants, as they'd be getting more work done faster.

    1. Re:Great achievement! by nbritton · · Score: 1

      We need to build a fleet of rovers based on the proven design of these two. Give them some new tools and obviously fix the problems with the current ones. I think the big two would be software and wheel motors, we could also give them more efficient solar cells.

    2. Re:Great achievement! by jaywee · · Score: 1

      Actually, the cost was around $800M when they landed, now add few tens of $M for mission extensions.

    3. Re:Great achievement! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the poster meant "per vehicle".

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    4. Re:Great achievement! by jamesh · · Score: 1

      Which is the greater... the cost of designing them, building them, getting them to mars, or controlling them once there?

      For a manufacturing run of two, I'm guessing that the design and build phase go hand in hand, but I suppose that if they used the same design then they could build quite a few for what it cost originally to build and design the two.

      But then they have to get them to mars, which may well dwarfs the cost of everything else, and then they have to control them throughout their lifetime once they are there, which also probably isn't cheap.

      I wonder how much more we'd learn if we sent another 10 or 20? If nothing else, we'd certainly learn a lot about sending rovers to mars :)

      I wonder if the private sector would ever be interested? Maybe they could build one with some weaponry to defend territory, a hostile mars land rush! If a few rovers could do some prospecting and find some valuable ores then the race would be on!!!

  6. Congrads NASA! by edwardpickman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Biggest success since the Moon landing. It proves NASA can still excell they just need to dump some baggage like the shuttle and get back to what they do best, space exploration. I'd love to see them release a disk of all the Mars images. I'd pay good money for a full set of images especially if they included a set of the aerial shots. It could help open up the research to people that don't have direct access. A lot of things have been found just from Google earth. I'd really love to see a similar thing done with all the mars images. I know it's been started but there's a massive number of images availible. Better to have a few million eyes searching them than a few hundred.

    1. Re:Congrads NASA! by jkerman · · Score: 5, Informative

      the nasa HiRSE team is releasing full resolution images from the new orbiter as they are processed. its fantastic! their site seems to be down at the moment but it has the pictures, and a sofar interesting blog from some of the image processing team http://hiroc.lpl.arizona.edu/

    2. Re:Congrads NASA! by Erpo · · Score: 2, Informative

      A lot of things have been found just from Google earth. I'd really love to see a similar thing done with all the mars images.

      http://www.google.com/mars/

    3. Re:Congrads NASA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think this is the first thumbnail that doesn't fit on my screen:
      "Thumbnail JPG, 512 x 2488, 800 KBytes"

    4. Re:Congrads NASA! by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      All imagery from both MER rovers (Spirit and Opportunity) is available on the web; due to the distributed nature of the Cornell team it's not unusual for members of the thriving amateur data jockeys and pixel pushers to be working on stiching panoramas or integrating multiple wavelength versions of the same shot into colour versions before the actual team members see it. BTW:you'll need a lot, lot more than a single disk to get all the MER data, and when HiRISE gets going... heh,heh,heh ;))

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    5. Re:Congrads NASA! by mianne · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the link! Maybe they'll add a scale to the images soon?

      --
      Javascript, cookies, flash, and ActiveX must be enabled in order to view this sig.
  7. Usual x10 engineering factor by RichMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Can we say it is due to the usual x10 engineering safety margin?

    90 sol * 10 -> 900. Sort of close to 1000%.

    The engineers would have looked at MTBF (mean time between failures) of the components and probably designed for at least a 99% survivability to 90 sol. This might factor down to a 90% survivability to 900 sol depending on the failure curves for the parts. So the the probability of two surviving that long would be 0.9 * 0.9 = 0.81 or 81% chance.

    1. Re:Usual x10 engineering factor by imsabbel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Spacecraft dont use x10 engineering safty margins.
      They dont even use 50% margines.

      If they did, they would never be able to lift of the ground.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    2. Re:Usual x10 engineering factor by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      Can we say it is due to the usual x10 engineering safety margin?

      I don't know. How many other rovers have been deployed in the Martian environment that we can get data back from to determine component lifetimes? I only know of one, and it was a much smaller rover.

      I find it pretty amazing that these machines have worked as long as they have. I can't imagine it's an easy job to design a rover to last as long as it has without really being able to test the thing in the environment it's going to be in. Sure you can simulate parts of the environment, but I doubt you can simulate them all at the same time with all the parts working together.

      Many people seem to pooh-pooh the survivability of these things because they just assume they were over-engineered. I'm sure they were over-engineered, but the amazing thing is that they were over-engineered in the right way, and pretty cheaply too (820 million to get them to Mars and the first 90 days of operation).

      --
      AccountKiller
    3. Re:Usual x10 engineering factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, the rovers were cargo, not spacecraft.

    4. Re:Usual x10 engineering factor by ajpr · · Score: 1

      Actually from what I remember, they designed the rovers to last only until a sand storm came along and covered the solar cells. They assumed that after the power down during the martian winter, too much sand would be covering the cells to allow the rovers to power up. However, the sand kept getting blown off the solar cells from the weak winds there, and this is really what has kept the rovers going for so long.

      (I learnt this info from a tv documentary with one of the engineers)

    5. Re:Usual x10 engineering factor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Last time I checked, the rovers were cargo, not spacecraft

      Exactly. Does a motor that has MTBF of 100,000hrs weigh 10 times more than a motor rated at 10,000hrs? No. It just has higher precision, lower tolerance parts and therefore costs more. Maybe the more reliable parts weigh a little more, maybe if you pay a bit extra they weigh less.

      The rovers are not a bridge, where a safety margin increase equates to adding thicker steel and therefore more weight. A 10x safety margin for the rovers would increase the cost of the components, but would not necessarily increase the weight.

  8. sols? by ILuvRamen · · Score: 0

    Sols is a kinda strange unit cuz it's as different on different planets as the term day. Why don't they just say "Mars Day." Well that sounds like a holiday but Solmars kinda sounds like a sciency unit. They're just racist against martians, that's the real problem. Soon they'll be counting martian votes at 3/5ths of a vote or whatever.

    --
    Google's Super Secret Search Algorithm: SELECT @search_results FROM internet WHERE @search_results = 'good'
    1. Re:sols? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      i presume they use the term sol because its easier to have a distinct one word term for the "mars day" as apposed to the earth day.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  9. WTF is a Sol? by Palshife · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA, "A sol is a Martian day, which lasts 24 hours, 39 minutes, 35 seconds."

    --
    Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
    1. Re:WTF is a Sol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think rather 1 sol is the amount of time for a given orbiting body to make 1 trip around the sun. It's not specific to Mars.

    2. Re:WTF is a Sol? by Palshife · · Score: 0

      I believe the usage of the term here to describe a mission that involves the context of both Earth and Mars is clearly ambiguous. They should have just said "martian days" or "days."

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
  10. Silly Jargon by adavies42 · · Score: 0

    "Sol?" What's wrong with "day"? A footnote to mention that they're counting in local days could be added if they think it's really necessary.

    --
    Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
    -kfg
    1. Re:Silly Jargon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Mission planners have to be concerned with issues regarding solar days on the planet being explored and solar days on Earth.

      Using the same term for both would only lead to confusion, hence the use of different terms is very important. This is especially true on Mars, where the "sol" is very close to one Earth day long and it wouldn't necessarily be clear from context which was meant.

      There are many examples of NASA/JPL using unnecessary jargon, but this isn't one of them.

    2. Re:Silly Jargon by DJ.Flecktarn · · Score: 3, Funny

      Because martians don't speak english.

      --
      I see nothing wrong with five meals a day
    3. Re:Silly Jargon by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 1

      Why not day^M verses day^E for us.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    4. Re:Silly Jargon by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I just hope they never have probes on Mars and Venus at the same time because calling both types of day 'sol' will be confusing (though admittedly Venus is a little different). The length of the Martian day is a property of Mars, not of the Sun. It should have a name that reflects it's Martianness.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    5. Re:Silly Jargon by Isaac-1 · · Score: 1

      They did not use the Sol naming system for us (the public) they use it for their own internal scheduling. Probably for both personel and onboard events. It is a simple one sylible word that is hard to confuse with anything else.

    6. Re:Silly Jargon by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      I think it's to differentiate from Earth days easily in case there'd be any ambiguity or reason for confusion without having to type "Martian day" until their fingers bleed.

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    7. Re:Silly Jargon by DarkProphet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about talking in the context of Earth Days, Martian Days, Venusian Days, etc? I think its pretty understandable, moreso if the wikipedia pages ever turn up ;-)

      --
      What could possibly hurt the security of the American people more than giving our own government the ability to hide its
    8. Re:Silly Jargon by tverbeek · · Score: 1

      This is why English has the option of including adjectives. The phrase "martian day" is a perfectly understandable alternative to the what-the-hell-does-it-mean "sol". Furthermore, given the fact that the unit "sol" is different lengths on different planets, and we'll have to specify "Venusian sol" when a long-term lander makes it to the surface of Venus, it's completely redundant.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    9. Re:Silly Jargon by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Funny

      You mean like:

      using namespace Mars {
              "On the fifth day of their missions the Shock and Awe probes on Mars are doing fine. Shock is current exploring the northern polar cap and Awe is..."
      }

      using namespace Venus {
              "As we approach half way through Harsh Questioning's first day on Venus it has just circled successfully around a pool of molten lead..."
      }

      Yeah, that might work.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    10. Re:Silly Jargon by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Harsh Questioning sounds like a name Alastair Reynolds might give to a Conjoiner warship.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    11. Re:Silly Jargon by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      I was thinking more of Iain Banks. Must be a Scottish thing.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    12. Re:Silly Jargon by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 1

      Before people start correcting me: I just checked, Reynolds isn't actually Scottish though he studied in Scotland.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    13. Re:Silly Jargon by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      I just hope they never have probes on Mars and Venus at the same time because calling both types of day 'sol' will be confusing
      not really, the teams controlling the probes will likely be pretty independent of each other.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  11. Wait a minute... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2, Funny

    So when did the Rovers pick up a Soul Cube?

  12. The predictions by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not bad for what was slated to be a "90 Sol" mission."

    The predictions was probably made as some sort of "average", but the odds it'd last exactly 90 days was slim. I'd say the odds of not landing properly at all, or immobilized shortly sfter landing was fairly significant. It's like a computer surviving burn-in or a person surviving infant mortality (though they are much lower in recent year), then they're likely to live significantly well past average. Plus some luck with whirlwinds clearing the solar panels, I guess.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    1. Re:The predictions by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Informative

      The predictions was probably made as some sort of "average", but the odds it'd last exactly 90 days was slim. I'd say the odds of not landing properly at all, or immobilized shortly sfter landing was fairly significant. It's like a computer surviving burn-in or a person surviving infant mortality (though they are much lower in recent year), then they're likely to live significantly well past average. Plus some luck with whirlwinds clearing the solar panels, I guess.

      Indeed. I've read somewhere that statistically once a probe survives the initial part of the mission, its survivability tends to be long. Stuff tends to fail on first use if its gonna fail, but once after that it seems have pretty good chances.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:The predictions by chgros · · Score: 1

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve

  13. NICE! by protomala · · Score: 2, Informative
    I'm doing a paperwork about fault tolerancy on robotic systems.
    First the sensible robot, now mars rovers surviving, even without one wheel!


    What a happy day for me, eheheh.

  14. Sol by pablodiazgutierrez · · Score: 0, Redundant
    In case you also thought that Sol was the poster's way to say: "see, I can speak Spanish", Wikipedia comes at your rescue:
    The term sol is used by planetary astronomers to refer to the duration of a solar day on planets other than Earth (e.g. Mars). A mean Earth solar day is approximately 24 hours. A mean Martian solar day, or "sol", is 24 hours, 39 minutes, and 35.244 seconds.

    You're welcome.

    --

    To do list for Windows
    1. Re:Sol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Wikipedia entry has been written *because* NASA started to use that silly word for the Mars rover mission, and should in no way give the impression that you should learn or use that word.

  15. Rovers win! Rovers win! by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

    Since Vista has been RTM, I declare the Rovers winners!

    It was always a tossup between a Rover death or Vista release,
    but Microsoft went into hurry-up mode.

    The really tough feat will be if the Rovers survive until
    Vista is no longer supported.

    --
    You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    1. Re:Rovers win! Rovers win! by ahayes_m · · Score: 1

      You mean until tomorrow?

  16. Sol2k "bug" by QuantumFTL · · Score: 5, Informative

    I've mentioned this on /. before. I used to work on MER (one of the devs of Science Activity Planner/Maestro, as featured on /.), and while lasting longer than 90 sols was not considered completely ridiculous, lasting over 1000 sols (with both rovers!!!) definitely was. Our directory structure contained a 3-digit sol number, and a lot of calculations were carried out using only the first 999 sols, including some code I wrote (knowing this to be the case).

    Luckily the Operational Softare System team had plenty of time to work this issue, and it even fascilitated the introduction of newer, more capable software into the mission, as if we were already changing everything, why not ad some great stuff. I wish everyone on MER great success with the next 1000 sols!

    1. Re:Sol2k "bug" by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2, Funny

      Our directory structure contained a 3-digit sol number, and a lot of calculations were carried out using only the first 999 sols, including some code I wrote (knowing this to be the case).

      John, I told you not to use COBOL in the rovers. You're so fired...
      ---
      Your boss

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    2. Re:Sol2k "bug" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slightly offtopic, but where can I get the kind of batteries that the rovers use? 3 years in Marsian climate and the things still work. That's what I want in my laptop.

    3. Re:Sol2k "bug" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SOLAR POWER!

    4. Re:Sol2k "bug" by imemyself · · Score: 1

      Congratulations to all you guys and gals that have worked on the MER's. It is just absolutely *amazing* how well these rovers have done. All of you guys deserve a lot of praise, great job!

      --
      Every time you post an article on Slashdot, I kill a server. Think of the servers!
    5. Re:Sol2k "bug" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is wrong with COBOL in the rovers???

      As a computer weenie, you should look at such an implementation as a challenge to be overcome.

      I recall many years ago I found myself working on a system that had a COBOL component. And I wanted recursion.

      Why should the limitations of a language stop me?

      Of course, back in those days we had CPU chargeback. $0.43 per CPU -second-. Wow, that wasn't pretty. But it worked, damn it. And I didn't have to rewrite a crazy old program written in 1968.

    6. Re:Sol2k "bug" by QuantumFTL · · Score: 1

      Yeah many of my collegues were astoundingly talented, and it was pretty ridiculous that the mission even happened at all (read Dr. Squyre's book "Roving Mars" to see how many times it almost never was).

      The sad truth is that considering how inexpensive this mission was, if we had significantly more public support, we could easily have done ten of these without putting even a nick in the federal budget. Alas, it is not to be...

  17. under estimation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Not bad for what was slated to be a "90 Sol" mission."

    First NASA under-estimates and now celebrate after it does what it is
    built for.

  18. Shameless plug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Take a look around: Interactive version of the McMurdo Panorama

  19. Re:Spirit has stayed busy at Winter Haven during.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    The moderator who called parent off-topic obviously didn't RTFA. C'mon, guys, pay attention before you mod...

  20. Mars-Ride! by thewiz · · Score: 2, Funny

    Rollin', rollin', rollin' ?Rollin', rollin', rollin' ?Rollin', rollin', rollin' ?Rollin', rollin', rollin' ?Mars-Ride! ??Rollin', rollin', rollin' ?Though the water's frozen ?Keep them rovers rollin' ?Mars-Ride! ?Dust and wind and weather ?Hell-bent for leather ?Wishin' my pal was by my side. ?All the things I'm missin', ?History is waitin', ?Waiting at the end of our ride ??CHORUS ?Move 'em on, head 'em up ?Head 'em up, move 'em on ?Move 'em on, head 'em up ?Mars-Ride ?RAT 'em out, RAT 'em in, ?RAT 'em in, RAT 'em out, ?Count 'em up, Sort 'em out ?Mars-Ride! ??Keep movin', movin', movin' ?Though they're agin' ?Keep them rovers movin' ?Mars-Ride! ?Don't try to understand 'em ?Just RAT, photo, and sand 'em ?Soon we'll be living high and wide. ?My CPUs calculatin' ?History will be waitin', ?Be waitin' at the end of our ride. ??Mars-Ride! ?Mars-Ride! ?

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
    1. Re:Mars-Ride! by Gertlex · · Score: 1

      You're quite the unfortunate soul to think of that. :D

  21. Ah but... by Salsaman · · Score: 3, Funny

    are those metric Sols or Imperial Sols ;-)

    Anyway, congratulations NASA !

  22. Plural of Sol is Sol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The plural of Sol is Sol? or should be sols or soles.?

    1. Re:Plural of Sol is Sol? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it's a unit and abbreviation for "Solar Day". So I would imagine that the plural is Sol as well. Think about it in comparison to the SI units. Or even most Imperial units. m, ft., in., kg, etc. are all their own plurals, in the sense you describe.

  23. Re:Spirit has stayed busy at Winter Haven during.. by Headcase88 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe this /. story could do with 4 or 5 less FAs. Everyone knows that us /.ers have the sterotype of having too busy a social life to read through this many articles :)

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  24. Meanwhile, back at NASA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...back at NASA, someone is pissed off that they got talked into buying the extended warranty.

  25. Re:What a great mission... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    dumb ass

  26. Profound Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have a profound question. What microprocessor is used in these vehicles?

    1. Re:Profound Question by Scoth · · Score: 1

      I'm going off some several-years-old memories, but I seem to recall it being a rad-hardened, somewhat modified version of a 601 PPC chip similar to the ones used in the early PPC Macs running at 25ish mhz. Doesn't take much processor power to navigate Mars :)

    2. Re:Profound Question by 5of0 · · Score: 1

      A Lockheed-Martin R6000, evidently. 120MB ram, 256MB flash. Perhaps this? According to that page, it was about 60mhz, if I'm reading correctly.

      --
      You all have Oo.o and Firefox, so get World Wind.
  27. dude ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our rovers rock!!!!

  28. Mars Rover Time on your Palm by HoneyBeeSpace · · Score: 2, Informative

    If you'd like to track the (global) location and the time of the Mars rovers, or the time for any location on Mars, you can do so on your Palm Pilot with MarsClock, written 100% (coded, compiled, debuged) on my Palm with OnBoardC.

    --
    Space and Computers.
  29. NASA Propaganda by edbarbar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    > Not bad for what was slated to be a '90 Sol'

    They intentionally underestimate the operational duration of the equipment to continually "WOW" the public. "Undercommit, overdeliver."

    Something Engineers need to do to when scheduling their projects.

    --
    Ed Barbar, President and General Manager, Furnit USA
    1. Re:NASA Propaganda by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

      Something Engineers need to do to when scheduling their projects.

      From the ST:TNG episode Relics, an engineer should always heed the wisdon of Scotty's words.... (shamelessly plagarized from a past /. posting)

      Scotty: "Starfleet captains are like children. They want everything right now and they want it their way. But the secret is to give them only what they need, not what they want."
      LaForge: "Yeah, well, I told the captain I'd have this analysis done in an hour."
      Scotty: "How long will it really take?"
      LaForge: "An hour."
      Scotty: "You didn't tell him now long it would really take, did you?"
      LaForge: "Of course I did."
      Scotty: "Laddie, you got a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker!"

    2. Re:NASA Propaganda by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      They intentionally underestimate the operational duration of the equipment to continually "WOW" the public. "Undercommit, overdeliver."

      IIRC, some contractor payments are based on duration. Thus, they are not arbitrary.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
  30. So ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Out of Luck ? :-p

    /ducks

  31. It's a sol bot... by Assassin+bug · · Score: 1

    Johnny 5 is alive!

  32. Well...it would be better if... by scuba_steve_1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...Spirit's attitude improved:

    http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54360

    Seriously, the last message that it sent ('OVERPRICED SPACE-ROOMBA AWAITING MORE BULLSHIT ORDERS') was really uncalled for.

  33. A bit of probe History here by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Part of the reason for their durability is a response to the "metric conversion" orbiter failure and the Mars Polar Lander crash. NASA was embarassed up the wazoo and made extra sure it wouldn't happen with the next batch. A 3rd failure in less than a decade and many heads would be rolling. Thus, much of the rover success is due to (healthy?) paranoia.

    On a side note, I think they are being too cautious with Opportunity right now. They should send it into the crater *now* rather than search for the best entrance. It is living on borrowed time and could croak any minute. There are multiple non-reduntant systems in the probe that could potentially take it out in one fell swoop.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
    1. Re:A bit of probe History here by Vellmont · · Score: 1


      Part of the reason for their durability is a response to the "metric conversion" orbiter failure and the Mars Polar Lander crash.

      How would increasing durability of the rovers protect from a conversion error where the probe crashed into the surface? I guess I find it hard to believe that if NASA has the ability to make something extremely durable for a low cost they wouldn't do it ever time.

      On a side note, I think they are being too cautious with Opportunity right now. They should send it into the crater *now* rather than search for the best entrance.

      From what I understand it's still winter where the rover is on Mars, so power resources are rather limited. It seems a bit foolish to risk anything now when there's few power resources to spend trying to get out of getting "stuck" somewhere. I'd bet most of the wear-and-tear comes from movement, not just sitting around.

      --
      AccountKiller
    2. Re:A bit of probe History here by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      How would increasing durability of the rovers protect from a conversion error where the probe crashed into the surface?

      Although one error was a conversion error, the other was bad mechanical design coupled with insufficient testing. Thus, QA across-the-board was increased.

      so power resources are rather limited. It seems a bit foolish to risk anything now when there's few power resources to spend trying to get out of getting "stuck" somewhere.

      They could go down a sun-facing slope.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:A bit of probe History here by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1
      On a side note, I think they are being too cautious with Opportunity right now. They should send it into the crater *now* rather than search for the best entrance. It is living on borrowed time and could croak any minute.

      ...but that statement's been true since Sol 1. One of the reasons the rovers have lasted so long is that the JPL teams have made intelligent trade-offs between not doing anything too hasty and wasting time. Oppy got stuck at Erebus for six months or more when it looked like the IDD joint had busted. Whilst it's sitting still, the only wear on the vehicle is thermal cycling (and the slow decay of the batteries' charge capacity). Oh and the mass spectrometer takes a bit longer to do an integration... but these are slow processes. OTOH driving hard has been associated with all the close escapes - the Purgatory dune when oppy buried herself up to the hubcaps in a dune because the software didn't realise it was stuck, and carried on turning the wheels, digging further and further into the dune. It took two weeks of churning to get the first few inches out of that trap, but the team knew it'd work eventually because they'd tested it in the sandpit back on earth.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    4. Re:A bit of probe History here by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Whilst it's sitting still, the only wear on the vehicle is thermal cycling...

      Which can crack critical components and render the rover inopperable. Just because it hasn't happened yet does not mean it is not going to.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    5. Re:A bit of probe History here by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

      No indeed, in fact one thing that IS certain is that something critical will break on the rovers sooner or later. However the Steve Squyres has said that the team plan each day as if it's the rover's last. Charging over the edge of the closet alcove (and losing mobility at the bottom, say) would lose us lots of great data from the remaining 90-120 degrees of the rim Steve's said they'll traverse before entering VC.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    6. Re:A bit of probe History here by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Read Roving Mars, by Steve Squyres, the Rover. You'll see how these were NOT "overengineered" and were NOT "easy" to do. A thousand things had to go right (after another thousand went wrong) to build and send those things the way they did it. It was passion, and a bit of luck that they succeeded. But a "conspiracy" (which is essentially what you're alluding to) it was not. As someone above said, it may very-well be their greatest success since Apollo 11.

  34. Re: Bounce by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    'Opportunity,' Spirit's twin, and the second lander to make the bounce to Mars,

    Actually it was the 3rd. The 1997 Sojourner rover also used air bags (but bundled with lander station).

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  35. Over Engineered? by EvlG · · Score: 1

    A guy I know is fond of asking, if the rovers have lasted this long, aren't they over engineered?

    That is, the engineers obviously went way beyond the spec if the things are still working 10x longer than they should have.

    1. Re:Over Engineered? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it was a mass produced consumer product that needed to watch it's profit margins, your friend might have a point. When the expense of just getting the rovers there is exceedingly huge, they had better damn work when they arrive, and not fail because some washer only had a tolerance for 1.5x the projected stress.

  36. Wisdom. by Nick+Driver · · Score: 1

    the wisdon of Scotty's words

        ^^^^^^^^^

    And in the wisdom of Krusty the Clown's words.... Awwwwww Crap!!!

  37. wow! by zxscooby · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I for one welcome our new roving robotic overlords.

  38. At least they're not... by surfdaddy · · Score: 1

    running Windows. No way they'd be at 1000 sols without a BSOD.

  39. twisted thought by plopez · · Score: 1

    I read the synopsis and all I could think of was 'Victoria's Secret Crater'.

    Not even having an S.O. seems to help....

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  40. failure in one sense. by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

    This mission could be considered a failure as well. NASA completely and utterly failed in their estimation of how long these things would be operational. Now, it appears that this is a good thing, but it could very well have resulted in much waste. Suppose that some mission critical element such as communication channels had been designed with 90 sols in mind, and no more than 90 sols. Everything else would still work, but if you can't talk to the bot, it don't work. Or suppose that NASA had not been prepared to continue accumulating data after 90 sols. In that case, we'd still be able to send the bots around and have them do and examine things, but the data would be lost. Ok, disk space is cheap, so that scenario is a little far fetched. However, my point still stands. NASA should be doing a better job of evaluating the duration of its missions. Random variation, yes. This much random variation, I'm sufficiently skeptical that I will point the finger and call it failure.

    --
    SIGSEGV caught, terminating

    wait... not that kind of sig.
    1. Re:failure in one sense. by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      there is always something that limits your devices lifetime, what it will be is hard to predict especially when sending a brand new design that was strictly weight limited into a hostile environment with no chance of repair.

      i belive with this mission it was predicted to be dust on the solar panels (cleaning mechanisms would have added both a lot of weight and another major point of failure) that didn't happen to anywhere near the expected level due to the unexpected actions of the martian wind.

      there is also the political side, if you estimate too high it increases the chance of a mission being seen as a failure, not to mention that its probablly a lot easier to get money to keep a sucessfull project going than it is to get more money allocated when the project is in development.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  41. Too much time in Mars... by cowboy76Spain · · Score: 1

    with so few things to do... the probe is beginning to do weird things.

    --
    Why can't /. have a rich-text editor? Editing your own HTML is so XXth century.