Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rovers' Software Upgraded

cheros writes to note the news that NASA is upgrading the software in the Mars rovers to make them smarter in a number of ways. From the article: "The unexpected longevity of Spirit and Opportunity is giving the space agency a chance to field-test on Mars some new capabilities useful both to these missions and future rovers. Spirit will begin its fourth year on Mars on Jan. 3 (PST); Opportunity on Jan. 24. In addition to their continuing scientific observations, they are now testing four new skills included in revised flight software uploaded to their onboard computers."

177 comments

  1. This paves the way... by Fyre2012 · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... for inter-planetary patch tuesdays!

    --
    This is not the greatest .sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
    1. Re:This paves the way... by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      For Vista to be take off support before the rovers die.

      Tuesdays, every week for Vista, once a month for the rovers
      sounds about right.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:This paves the way... by Teresita · · Score: 5, Funny

      Rocket scientists associated with the project are cautioned, however, that if their remotely accomplished work-arounds for failing hardware cause the probe to become more than 20% different from the original manufacturer's configuration, this will trigger Microsoft Mars Rover(tm)'s copy protection scheme and invalidate the product activation. JPL will then have to call Redmond, explain the situation to Microsoft's satisfaction, and request permission to continue using Microsoft Mars Rover(tm).

    3. Re:This paves the way... by CommunistHamster · · Score: 1
      Surely it would call Redstone?

      And let's hope this isn't used on multi-stage launch vehicles. As soon as the first stage is jettisoned, the rest of it stops working and theres a mighty big hole filled with rocket fuel somewhere.

    4. Re:This paves the way... by spiderbitendeath · · Score: 2, Informative
      --
      Sometimes when I'm working on projects things disappear, I suspect gremlins.
    5. Re:This paves the way... by LarsG · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, NASA used Linux.

      That article doesn't say anything about what software is running on the Mars Rovers.

      --
      If J.K.R wrote Windows: Puteulanus fenestra mortalis!
    6. Re:This paves the way... by XO · · Score: 1

      http://linux-mips.planetmirror.com/cpus.html

      The rovers run on R6000s, which are not supported.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    7. Re:This paves the way... by stevesliva · · Score: 1
      From the link:
      Sometimes people confuse the R6000, a MIPS processor, with RS6000, a series of workstations made by IBM. So, if you're reading this in hope of finding out more about Linux on IBM machines, then you're reading the wrong document.
      I think you're confused. They're RAD6000 computers, which are PowerPC and not MIPS based. Link.
      --
      Who do you get to be an expert to tell you something's not obvious? The least insightful person you can find? -J Roberts
    8. Re:This paves the way... by XO · · Score: 2, Informative
      The operating systems running on Spirit and Opportunity are based on a flexible commercial platform initially chosen by JPL engineers for its reliability.

      "[JPL] needed the tools to be able to develop their mission software on a system from someone with a proven track record," explained Steven Blackman, director of business development for aerospace and defense for the software company Wind River. The Alameda, California-based company developed the VxWorks real-time operating system used in aboard the MER rovers, as well as other NASA and European Space Agency missions.


      Either way, not Linux. :D I found two articles that said that they were MIPS R6000, but I'll concede that those may well be wrong.
      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    9. Re:This paves the way... by afidel · · Score: 1

      VxWorks is an amazing family of embedded OS's. I personally saw a lot of it when I supported the guys at Cisco/Aironet wireless before they switched over to IOS for their AP's and bridges. There was never a time that I am aware of that a problem was traced to a VxWorks bug. In fact the only reboot (not lockup!) problem that I am aware of with the VxWorks based AP's was due to memory exhaustion of the MAC table in a flat class A network. That client got a custom fix that involved the changing of one variable, viva object orientation and good coding practices! The reason that it rebooted was that the AP code stopped responding and and a hardware watchdog tripped and the unit self rebooted. Good embedded systems are very cool, too bad so few are open to study.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  2. You must submit.... by ezratrumpet · · Score: 5, Funny

    No one is safe from the IE7 upgrade. Not even on another planet.

    1. Re:You must submit.... by Jozer99 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Rover change log:
      -----------------

      - IE 7.0 update
      - Better music search function
      - Improved battery life
      - Solves "mooing" sound problem
      - Sony Lion battery bypass
      - XBox 360 HD-DVD computability
      - Windows Genuine Advantage
      - New "Glass" GUI

    2. Re:You must submit.... by iezhy · · Score: 1

      they are braking the fundamental systems' maintenance law: "if its not broken, don't fix it"

  3. Obligatory comment by compandsci · · Score: 1

    Which OS does it run? Hope it isn't something from Redmond. If so - the upgrade must have been SP2. The NASA people were annyoed by popups and adware sending private stuff to strange people.

    1. Re:Obligatory comment by pdbaby · · Score: 3, Informative
      Which OS does it run?

      While I know you're making a joke, other people might be interested - they run VxWorks and the flight control software is written in Java. NASA are pretty fond of VxWorks - it pops up in lots of their projects

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    2. Re:Obligatory comment by jimktrains · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any one know why they picked Java and not ADA, C(?), or another language? Nothing against Java, it just wasn't my impression that it was used for any NASA stuff. Is it more extensivly used than jsut the MER's?

      BTW, is the VM open source? (:-p)

      --
      "You will do foolish things, but do them with enthusiasm." - S. G. Colette
    3. Re:Obligatory comment by pdbaby · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Nothing against Java, it just wasn't my impression that it was used for any NASA stuff
      Apparently they have quite a lot of Java software for their client-side apps too. It's an interesting sort of history: they seem to have inspired Gosling to a degree, and they mainly chose Java because of platform agnosticism (I'm guessing they run a lot of different processors on their missions). I'm guessing the safety of Java compared to C is also handy.
      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    4. Re:Obligatory comment by Digicrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      From what I've seen, it probably has more to do with individual programmer's preference than anything else in deciding which languages to use. Java probably has a high popularity in ground-side software due to the ease with which you can quickly develop a user-interface for the system, which given the number of developers on any space mission is required quite often.

    5. Re:Obligatory comment by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      some testing of concepts for rovers is done using linux. For instance Reading university, who have been researching co-operative robotics with the aim of mars rovers building habitats, used netbooted gentoo linux.

      http://www.arl.reading.ac.uk/

    6. Re:Obligatory comment by pdbaby · · Score: 1
      due to the ease with which you can quickly develop a user-interface for the system

      I was wondering about this too, but I imagine (and sorely hope!) that they develop any space-related software using formal methods, which would probably discard any idea of development speed

      --
      Global symbol "$deity" requires explicit package name at line 2. - If only $scripture started "use strict;"
    7. Re:Obligatory comment by Decaff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The safe memory management is an important issue. But there is another advantage of Java which is that the byte code Java is compiled to (at least as an intermediate stage) is pretty compact, which makes it very suitable for low-memory systems.

    8. Re:Obligatory comment by Digicrat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I was wondering about this too, but I imagine (and sorely hope!) that they develop any space-related software using formal methods, which would probably discard any idea of development speed"

      Speed and convenience aren't necessarily the same thing. Most space-related software is subject to much more thorough processes than this, however when your talking about small development utilities to aid the programmers in managing relatively minor parts of the development process, a quick GUI (or bash script) works well. Remember, not every piece of code written in space-related applications are intended for usage on the actual space-flight hardware or ground control systems, many are just quick utilities to test other components or organize data along the way.

  4. What's a "year"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are they talking about the number of times the Earth has oribted the Sun since the rovers landed, or the number of times Mars orbited the Sun?

    dom

    1. Re:What's a "year"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
      Are they talking about the number of times the Earth has oribted the Sun since the rovers landed, or the number of times Mars orbited the Sun


      Well, considering Spirit landed in January 2004, I think you can figure that out for yourself.
  5. Huh? by Swimport · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Why does Nasa refer to this as "revised flight software" these rovers don't fly. Also this should help the rovers move more autonomously and hopefully a little faster. Spirit is averaging 1 MPY (Mile per Year)

    1. Re:Huh? by ColaMan · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why does Nasa refer to this as "revised flight software" these rovers don't fly

      They're flying right now - in an orbit that matches mars very closely.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    2. Re:Huh? by cyclone96 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Why does Nasa refer to this as "revised flight software" these rovers don't fly

      It's just a standard term. At NASA, "flight" software is mission software which executes within a spacecraft computer. "Ground" software usually refers to that which is used for spacecraft control/ground support (the software in the control center on Earth).

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
    3. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does Nasa refer to this as "revised flight software" these rovers don't fly. Also this should help the rovers move more autonomously and hopefully a little faster. Spirit is averaging 1 MPY (Mile per Year) It's called flight software because with respect to the earth they are in flight. It just so happens that they are hitching a ride on a chunk of rock so big that it happens to be in orbit around the sun and is called a planet.
    4. Re:Huh? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      [Why does Nasa refer to this as "revised flight software" these rovers don't fly] It's just a standard term. At NASA, "flight" software is mission software which executes within a spacecraft computer. "Ground" software usually refers to that which is used for spacecraft control/ground support (the software in the control center on Earth).

      Now you know how the executives and sales team feels when you use buzzwords and lingo at work instead of just saying what it is: "probe software".

    5. Re:Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, you don't understand. It's "flight" as in "fight or flight". This software detects an attack by the Martians and makes the rovers scurry away into some marshole. Hopefully with the next update they learn to defend themselves too.

    6. Re:Huh? by Zaatxe · · Score: 2, Funny

      Why does Nasa refer to this as "revised flight software" these rovers don't fly.

      When they install the Roover Control (R) SP2, they will...

      --
      So say we all
    7. Re:Huh? by 3waygeek · · Score: 1

      That may explain why we haven't heard from K'Breel lately.

  6. Brings to mind... by djupedal · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "If it's not broken, boys....."

    I guess since the two units are on free time, they figure it is ok to screw them up now.

    1. Re:Brings to mind... by bluemonq · · Score: 1

      They did everything they intended to accomplish the rovers and more. I'm just surprised they decided to upload the updates to both of them instead of just one of them.

    2. Re:Brings to mind... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      If they screw something up I'm sure they'll just do a rollback to the previous Restore Point ..

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Brings to mind... by cyclone96 · · Score: 5, Informative

      They did everything they intended to accomplish the rovers and more. I'm just surprised they decided to upload the updates to both of them instead of just one of them.

      They may have done it that way because it may not possible for their mission support software on the ground to handle two different versions of flight software on Mars.

      In any event, NASA's flight software development process is extremely rigorous, up to and including an Independent Verification and Validation center in West Virginia which independently evaluates all NASA flight software (http://www.ivv.nasa.gov/). It's not like it's a beta version of code being sent to the Rovers - the likelihood of finding a bug in the code that escaped testing was sufficiently low to justify uplinking to both rovers.

      If anyone wants some light holiday reading, you can check out NASA's software engineering requirements at: http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?t=NPR&c =7150&s=2

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
    4. Re:Brings to mind... by Qbertino · · Score: 5, Informative

      I guess since the two units are on free time, they figure it is ok to screw them up now.

      As far as I know the On-Board Shuttle Software Group has a track record of 3 (in words: 'three') software bugs in installed operating code within 30 years of writing code. That's all the code running on the Orbiters regular systems, exept only the third-party experiments with own systems and a non-critical original mid-nineties Thinkpad or two they take along ... which - believe it or not - run a version of Windows 95, a frozen setup from back in the nineties, of which the software guys know every bit by it's first name.
      To give you a picture of what they have to deal with: A timing mistake in some piece of the shuttles navigation code by one cpu clockcount would put the shuttle 3 miles off course.
      The Voyager Software Team reprogrammed a 20 year old device 3-quarters across the solar system to send color pictures instead of black and white - with a system that was only built to picture and send black and white.

      You have not the slightest idea what these spacecraft-software guys are capable of and how insanely bulletproof their code is.

      --
      We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    5. Re:Brings to mind... by xquark · · Score: 1

      you are insanely insane! :)

      --
      Arash Partow's Philosophy: Be a person who knows what they don't know, and not a person who doesn't know.
    6. Re:Brings to mind... by plover · · Score: 1
      I don't understand why this is "free time." The summary above also uses the words "unexpected longevity", but why didn't anyone expect them to last? The engineers didn't build them to fail, they built them to withstand the stress of landing and the duration of their original mission (90 days?) So why shouldn't they be expected to continue functioning? Is there some engineer sitting at NASA saying "hey guys, we didn't build crappy rovers, quit saying they're only going to last 90 days!"

      Or is this the result of the CYA era, in which the engineers had to promise a certain longevity, and nobody was willing to risk more than a 90 day promise.

      --
      John
    7. Re:Brings to mind... by Teresita · · Score: 2, Funny

      Or is this the result of the CYA era, in which the engineers had to promise a certain longevity, and nobody was willing to risk more than a 90 day promise.

      That reminds me of when Scotty told LaForge to overshoot his estimates to the Captain by a factor of four to maintain his reputation as a miracle worker.

    8. Re:Brings to mind... by slamb · · Score: 3, Interesting
      As far as I know the On-Board Shuttle Software Group has a track record of 3 (in words: 'three') software bugs in installed operating code within 30 years of writing code.

      I was much more impressed by that number before the story about avoiding having a shuttle in orbit at New Year's because the software can't handle it. That's been known for years and they haven't dared fix it. Is that counted as one of the three? No? Then they've fixed only three bugs in the last 30 years, and they have more than that, unless you think a serious misdesign is not a bug. If I confused the presence of bugs with having fixes for them, didn't consider a serious misdesign to be a bug, and had barely added a real feature in 30 years (at current head count, 7,800 man-years), I too could claim some ridiculously low bug count.

      It also seems to me that the shuttle group's software situation is totally irrelevant to anyone but the shuttle group. Look at this part of the article you mentioned:

      Take the upgrade of the software to permit the shuttle to navigate with Global Positioning Satellites, a change that involves just 1.5% of the program, or 6,366 lines of code. The specs for that one change run 2,500 pages, a volume thicker than a phone book. The specs for the current program fill 30 volumes and run 40,000 pages.

      That sort of rigidity makes their methodology totally useless for software outside NASA. I occasionally hear people talk about how the Shuttle Group does software right, but for non-life critical systems, the cure is worse than the disease. Give me our full-featured, buggy software over nothing any day. There's got to be a better way.

      I suspect it's also useless to the other groups in NASA. Do you actually know that the Mars Rover software was written in this manner?

    9. Re:Brings to mind... by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 5, Informative
      ...why didn't anyone expect them to last?


      This is a very good question. There's a very good, but not well known answer.

      Mars has a lot of dust. Earlier missions got a good dusting on the landers and rover (Viking 1 and 2, Mars Pathfinder and the Sojurner rover). The more modern missions use solar cells for power, which are blocked slowly over time as dust builds up.

      Dust accumulation on Mars solar cell arrays was a big problem within the early and mid-1990s Mars research community. Researcher Geoff Landis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_Landis) had an experiment on the Sojurner rover with a solar cell with a little movable cover glass on it, to see how much dust accumulated over time. Results from that were a prediction that solar arrays would lose most of their power over say four to six months.

      Geoff had another experiment on the Mars Surveyor 2001 lander mission, which was supposed to try using static electricity to remove all the dust off a test cell, but the mission was cancelled after the Mars Polar Lander / Mars Climate Orbiter losses.

      The two Mars Exploration Rovers were the next landers we sent. The expectation was that they'd last at least 3 months (90 days), and the hope was that nothing else would wear out until the solar arrays were too obscured for them to be able to power up properly anymore, perhaps six months or so into the mission.

      What actually happened is one of those unexpected bonuses that the universe throws at you at random intervals. It turns out that the Mars winds at the height of the MER solar panels are just enough stronger than they are closer to the ground that the MER solar panels built up a moderate load of dust and stabilized there. There's plenty enough power remaining (except for mid-winter on Mars) for the rovers to keep operating, and it looks like the whole solar array dust problem just goes away if you put the arrays up off the ground.

      There were some people who hoped that the arrays would be kept clean by the winds, but the best models we had before the MER rovers landed was that the winds weren't nearly strong enough. Pleasant suprise, and one that makes future missions a lot easier than we'd been afraid they were going to be. But not something which was taken into account in the MER designs to start with.

      There was no expectation that the arrays would last more than about six months; designing anything else to last much longer than that, other than for safety's sake to make sure that nothing else failed before the solar cells dusted up, didn't seem to make any sense beforehand.

      The next two Mars rovers are going to be powered by radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs) anyways, so that they can keep driving at night and in wintertime, now that we know that the basic MER design mechanisms will last for many years on the surface. Being able to turn on some headlights and keep driving at night should triple their effectiveness or better.

    10. Re:Brings to mind... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 1

      It is not the first time that the Mars rovers' software has been modified from afar.

    11. Re:Brings to mind... by plover · · Score: 1

      Thank you, that's a great answer!

      --
      John
    12. Re:Brings to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was much more impressed by that number before the story about avoiding having a shuttle in orbit at New Year's because the software can't handle it.

      Not quite true - they didn't have one in orbit because they don't know what'd happen. There might be a bug. More likely there won't be. They just figured that it was easier to avoid it than run the risk.

      I am surprised though that they've never run a test to figure out whether everything would be ok.

    13. Re:Brings to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give me our full-featured, buggy software over nothing any day.

      Strange, I thought all those computers on board the Shuttle, ISS etc. were actually doing something other than an idle loop.

    14. Re:Brings to mind... by revolu7ion · · Score: 1

      here's an idea... why not suck the dust off the panels? With an old P3 powersupply fan you can suck more dust than you can stop a rover with.

      --
      Jesus Saves
    15. Re:Brings to mind... by cyclone96 · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's been known for years and they haven't dared fix it.

      In all fairness that's a software requirement (or lack of one) that the shuttle flight software group does not have control of. As has been rehashed several times on slashdot, the shuttle program early on took the savings from not building that capability into the ground and flight software (it's not quite as simple as it seems). It only became a problem recently when it restricted certain launch windows, and now the shuttle program is paying to add it in.

      That sort of rigidity makes their methodology totally useless for software outside NASA.

      As you say, it's totally useless for non-life critical systems. However, outside of NASA I know of DOD applications such ballistic missile guidance are equally as rigid.

      Give me our full-featured, buggy software over nothing any day

      As someone who has depended on NASA flight software, I'd rather sacrifice features for bug free code. That's a basic difference between consumer software and mission critical software.

      I suspect it's also useless to the other groups in NASA. Do you actually know that the Mars Rover software was written in this manner?

      No other group at NASA writes flight software like this, because Shuttle is the only man rated launch vehicle. Orion will be similar (and it's software is being written by the same people). Other flight software at NASA is not this extreme, but there is a NASA software development standard for all flight software and it's still pretty rigid compared to consumer software.

      --
      Worst...sig...ever!
    16. Re:Brings to mind... by slamb · · Score: 1
      I wrote: Give me our full-featured, buggy software over nothing any day.

      An AC replied: Strange, I thought all those computers on board the Shuttle, ISS etc. were actually doing something other than an idle loop.

      The point is that they wrote 420,000 lines of code in 30 years and an estimated 7,800 man-years. That's 14,000 lines per year, or 54 lines per man-year. Considering that I can single-handedly outperform their entire team of 260 people, those had better be 420,000 glorious lines of code. Furthermore, if all software were written that way, the software you know today wouldn't just be bug-free - it wouldn't exist at all.

    17. Re:Brings to mind... by slamb · · Score: 1
      As someone who has depended on NASA flight software, I'd rather sacrifice features for bug free code. That's a basic difference between consumer software and mission critical software.

      Agreed. If my life were depending on it, I'd want code written in this way, too. The rest of the time, I want my shiny OpenGL-accelerated windows zipping around the screen, and I realize that writing "QUALITY" in giant, bold, all-caps letters at the top of the priority list (above "not wildly exceeding our meager budget" and "write mandatory features") would make that impossible. Line-for-line, this most expensive code ever written by at least an order of magnitude.

      No other group at NASA writes flight software like this, because Shuttle is the only man rated launch vehicle. Orion will be similar (and it's software is being written by the same people). Other flight software at NASA is not this extreme, but there is a NASA software development standard for all flight software and it's still pretty rigid compared to consumer software.

      Interesting. Thanks for the information.

    18. Re:Brings to mind... by djupedal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      1.) What does the 25+ year old orbiter have to do with a pair of terrain crawlers on Mars, specifically (rhetorically)? And what does flight software have to do with them now, please explain, thanks.

      2.) "You have not the slightest idea what these spacecraft-software guys are capable of and how insanely bulletproof their code is."
      You simplify things to no end, I see...sorry for that. Let's start, and end, with the failure to convert from standard to metric that caused that one Mars surface mission fail, shall we? Opps. The best software in the galaxy means nothing if the overall effort isn't done right, so please don't worry that someone may have made fun of just the code :) Funny tho, that all the software people got so easily rankled over a hint that there may be issues there - if there is no worry, why so much diatribe towards software's defense :) A bit of thin skin for some reason, eh? And please try to also understand, it was a joke...laugh...it's funny.

      I'm not talking about JUST the software... I am talking about the overall logic of the tasked individuals and their efforts that lead to decisions such as this one, which in this case, happened to involve software specifically, but certainly not only. The original live time for these two rovers was 90 days - after that, new ideas are on the table...that's why it is called 'free' time, because it is all 'extra' time that was never planned for and now begs to be utilized.

      As good a thing as that is, someone, sooner or later, is going to ask the question why didn't they know this? And for anyone that shouts "This is Mars! anything can happen!", yes, of course...but why did the original plan not include at least some options for extended runs then, instead of working them now as if the two units were a sandbox, that's all I'm saying.

    19. Re:Brings to mind... by ScrappyLaptop · · Score: 1

      Really, from a cost-benefit point of view, a review of the software to see what would happen during the year rollover is a non-starter. Rarely are missions scheduled for this time slot, and probably for reasons other than the EOY handling in the software...I would not consider this a 'bug' at all. Rather is is more likely that the software is, in fact, conforming to the parameters for which is is designed (all missions completed within a calendar year). Of course, I could be wrong and maybe a bad assumption was made way back in the early '70's when they expected that the Shuttle systems in use then would have long reached their end of life by now...and it's just easier and cheaper to live with it. Still not a bug.

    20. Re:Brings to mind... by plover · · Score: 1
      Well, I went googled around for a while and found a few answers. NASA seems to have considered them before.

      A wiper mechanism would be complex, add mass, have to survive the take-off and landing, and operate reliably in very cold temperatures. Not impossible, but a challenge (I think the Mercedes guys could give them a few headlamp wiper modules that probably are already well-enough designed.)

      It sounds like there isn't enough air for a small fan to do much, and a larger fan would add even more volume and mass. An air compressor would be required to gather enough air to be effective. Air compressors would have to deal with the dust, too, probably with a filtration unit that also has to be somehow cleaned or emptied. And any air-movement solution raises the possibility of generating a local cloud of dust, negating the benefits. Plus, air compressors are extremely power-hungry, they may not have had the power budget to devote to filling the tank and still performing the mission.

      I wonder if a vertical solar panel wouldn't have been a better design, one that employed gravity to prevent the dust from settling.

      --
      John
    21. Re:Brings to mind... by Plutonite · · Score: 1

      A timing mistake in some piece of the shuttles navigation code by one cpu clockcount would put the shuttle 3 miles off course.

      I hope they weren't using Java (see discussions further up on Rover software). Anything other than tight assembler programming for this kind of work would be funny. Also, I can't see how they can guarantee anything down to a single clock cycle, even with extremely hardware-specifc OS running the code. This is truly painful just to think about.

    22. Re:Brings to mind... by SageMusings · · Score: 1

      That's 14,000 lines per year, or 54 lines per man-year

      Well let's not forget that not only are lives on the line but the equipment the software controls are worth "Billions" of dollars. Another point is the National prestige and reputation of not having a shuttle blow up every mission (Note: No mission disasters have been caused by faulty software). Software errors in this context can severely taint the reputation of the Nation.

      I'd say NASA's software practices are prudent and entirely appropriate. I would much rather fly on their code than yours, no offense.

      --
      -- Posted from my parent's basement
    23. Re:Brings to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      umm.. no, they did not write 420,000 lines in 30 years. The shuttle's been flying for about 25.. they wrote nearly 420,000 lines like 25-30 years ago and have been doing careful modifications to the code since them.. which, well, might be even sillier 8-).

              Personally, rather than looking at it in comparison to commercial software, where it has to be out pretty quick (other than Microsoft apparently..), I think of the shuttle software compared to stuff like the gnu utilities. Other than gcc which has lots of activiity, a lot of the gnu utilities are fairly mature, and so in last 10 or 15 years, many have had very low changes to # of lines of code, with probably a lot of man hours from people doing security auditing and looking for bugs, or adding features. If you get a lively debate over some change on a mailing list, you can burn through even more man hours getting a patch written 8-).

    24. Re:Brings to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      > The summary above also uses the words "unexpected longevity", but why didn't anyone expect them to last?

      Reverse CYA. If you tell your boss you've built a rover that'll last for 4 years, he'll have to ask his boss for 4 years of funding. Some Congressfuck will shut the programme down before it even gets off the ground.

      But if the Congressfuck thinks that $100M will be spent on building and launching the thing, only to have it fail within three months, necessitating another $100M programme next year (with totally different vendors, meaning a different set of palms to be greased), it'll get approved.

      Better to build it to last for 4 years, tell the Congressfuck it'll be dead in 90 days, and present the fuckers on the Hill with a fait accompli. You get more science done asking for forgiveness than permission.

      P.S. The Grand Canyon is older than 6,000 years. Suck it, Senator.

    25. Re:Brings to mind... by OctaviusIII · · Score: 1

      I suppose my problem with the comment (and I did have a problem) was the assumption that the people doing the uploading were idiots and playing with the rovers like they were a sandbox. It is safe to assume that the software has gone through testing already to ensure that it won't screw up the rovers so badly they get lost. On top, the saying you sited, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," implies that once you've "fixed" it you can't go back to how it was. Software is different in that you can make a backup and restore it to the previous state, especially if the original software was non-mission critical in the first place.

      In this last post, you assume that this extra time is begging to be utilized and they don't have a full schedule already. That's a load of hooey and you know it: the science teams have been clammering to get their experiments done. The software team isn't playing with the rovers - they know how dumb that is, just like you do.

      --
      What's this? Another weblog? On transit?
    26. Re:Brings to mind... by Karthikkito · · Score: 1

      ...why did the original plan not include at least some options for extended runs then, instead of working them now as if the two units were a sandbox... Mostly because the original mission duration (and expected rover life) was only 90 days. Yes, options for extended runs existed using existing capabilities, but the mission was expected to last for such a short time that there was no need to plan for something that was (then) not seen as possible. Also, it's not as if the JPL team acts as the two rovers are in a sandbox -- they have an exact engineering model in a room on campus for testing new software and proedures before they are uplinked!
    27. Re:Brings to mind... by Tmack · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder if a vertical solar panel wouldn't have been a better design, one that employed gravity to prevent the dust from settling.

      It would probably reduce some of the dust, but would be much less efficient due to its orientation. You want the cells aimed at the sun for best collection, otherwise each 1M^2 of panel will only collect tan(angle of cells to the angle of the suns rays)*length*width, which at high-noon with the sun directly overhead, would be 0. A mechanism to rotate the cells would add complexity, weight, and another critical failure point. Without a good anti-static coating that doesnt reduce ffeciency by blocking light (which they might already have in use on the current rovers) I would bet static charges from mars's winds would also cause dust to accumulate, even when vertical. Then again, the rover would probably also run the risk of flipping over due to its new sail, or they could use it AS a sail too, to push the rover's like a sail car...hmmm

      Tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    28. Re:Brings to mind... by networkBoy · · Score: 1
      why did the original plan not include at least some options for extended runs then
      IIRC they did have extended mission plans should the rovers last an additional few days to weeks.
      We are talking a (wonderful) over-run of available time of 1600% (1/4 year designed Vs. 4/1 year actual). I would never plan for that much good fortune. Heck, I don't think I would plan for even 200% of designed time available, thouth I may immagine it, kinda like I immagine winning the lottery.

      -nB
      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    29. Re:Brings to mind... by nebosuke · · Score: 1

      Also, I can't see how they can guarantee anything down to a single clock cycle, even with extremely hardware-specifc OS running the code. This is truly painful just to think about.

      That is exactly what a hard RTOS is for.

    30. Re:Brings to mind... by slamb · · Score: 1
      I'd say NASA's software practices are prudent and entirely appropriate. I would much rather fly on their code than yours, no offense.

      You're missing my point. They're appropriate for the shuttle group, where lives depend on the code. Nowhere else. The Mars Rover code is not made to this standard, and consumer code could never be. It's impossible. Anyone who points to this as an example of how we should all be writing code is simply wrong.

    31. Re:Brings to mind... by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

      1. I thought that the super low air density makes it really hard for dust particles to move.
      1b. hence, they cannot get off the ground very high, but the air should be more dense at the lower 1 foot.

      2. Vertical solar panels can just use a mirror to reflect the above sunlight 45deg towards the panels, also add more mirrors and enhance the power.

      --
      Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    32. Re:Brings to mind... by Lissajous · · Score: 1
      Also, I can't see how they can guarantee anything down to a single clock cycle, even with extremely hardware-specifc OS running the code. This is truly painful just to think about.

      A dream to some....a nightmare to others! Some of the old fogies out there may remember removing the side borders on a C=64. This was achieved using exactly this method.
      In case you're wondering, and to give you some idea of how involved this kind of thing is, it was done roughly like this (dredged from 21-year old memories, so forgive me if I get something slightly wrong ;-) )

      You knew how long it took the display to h-scan, so waited for it to get to the edge of the border, flipped the width of the screen at this exact point then flipped it back one tick later. You then killed time waiting for the next line.
      The upshot of which was the VIC-II chip got all confused so forgot to blank the edges and would show any sprites that were "offscreen". The tricky part was when the timings changed every 8 raster lines on account of the extra data fetch for the next line of characters to display.

      But basically, when you control the horizontal and the vertical (and any other hardware and software) you can pretty much do any insane things you want to, with the right mindset ;-)
      Now if you'll excuse me, it's time for my afternoon nap. And can someone get those darn kids of my lawn?
    33. Re:Brings to mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, that is exactly what they did. The design engineer admitted back in 2004 that they "pulled a Scotty." They told the media that they expected the rovers to last about 100 days but really thought the rovers might last a full year. Mr. Melko (the engineer in question) said the idea came to the team while visiting a Star Trek convention in Orlando. I'm lazy but google for it and you'll find articles and interviews on this.

    34. Re:Brings to mind... by Tmack · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. I thought that the super low air density makes it really hard for dust particles to move.
      1b. hence, they cannot get off the ground very high, but the air should be more dense at the lower 1 foot.

      1foot in altitude will not change the air density significantly, and the martian dust storms can and will throw dust extremely high up in the atmosphere. Density might not be high, but velocity makes up for that. This is evidenced in that dust still collects on the rovers, its just that their panels are higher off the ground than previous landers, which allowed the winds that are faster that high off the ground to blow the dust off their panels. Basically the height of the rovers exceeds the boundary condition for the flow of the wind on the surface.

      2. Vertical solar panels can just use a mirror to reflect the above sunlight 45deg towards the panels, also add more mirrors and enhance the power.

      Mirrors=more weight, complexity, and another place for dust to collect since they would be more horizontal, and again, you would still need something to move them to track the sun.

      Tm

      --
      Support TBI Research: http://www.raisinhope.org
    35. Re:Brings to mind... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The only way to ensure that you're getting power all the time is to have a horizontal solar panel, or to have a panel tracking system so it follows the sun. The latter would involve additional complexity and weight and if it gets stuck in a certain position you can either drive in circles, use it only for a small slice of the day, or abandon it. So they did what they did. With that said, I think the ideal panel cleaning solution is an embedded piezo element attached to the panel. When the rover is going up or down a hill, vibrate the panel, and it will remove some of the dust. It won't remove very much dust, but it will take very little space and very little power. It's worth a try anyway...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Brings to mind... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually that's kind of what they did when they had a problem with a bug filling the flash memory area of Spirit during the trip to mars, they set a register and booted without mounting the flash drive then cleaned up the drive to resume normal operations. This article talks about the way they fixed that problem. Another interesting thing I found in this article is that the uplink to the rovers while they were on their ways to Mars was only 2Kbit/s! Talk about limited bandwidth, speeds here at home haven't been that slow since 1987 with the introduction of the Hayes 96 with 9600 baud.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    37. Re:Brings to mind... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      No kidding. My first modem was a 300 BPS Bell System leased-line modem that I modified to work on regular lines, to which I added an auto-answer circuit. Seemed fast enough at the time (1979) but ...

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    38. Re:Brings to mind... by afidel · · Score: 1

      I don't know, I would think on a per line cost the lines in COBOL and other old code that used a two digit year for storing dates would be freaking expensive. The Y2K stuff cost the customers of the computer industry untold billions and I bet the total number of affected lines was in the thousands.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    39. Re:Brings to mind... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Actually they thought that the solar cells would be clouded over by the Martian dust and that the cooler nights during the Martian fall would cause the batteries to be drained by the heaters. For some still unknown reason the Martian winds were more powerful than expected and so the dust was cleared from the cells at a rate much greater than expected. This allowed them to survive through the Martian winter and consequently greatly exceed even their most optimistic predictions.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  7. Mars rover OS... by msauve · · Score: 4, Informative

    is VXWorks, from Wind River ( http://www.windriver.com/ ). It's a *nix-like real-time OS.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:Mars rover OS... by Teresita · · Score: 3, Funny

      is VXWorks, from Wind River ( http://www.windriver.com/ [windriver.com] ). It's a *nix-like real-time OS.

      And as soon as SCO beats IBM, Novell, and AutoZone like bongo drums in court they're going after NASA. "All Your UNIX Are Belong To Us."

    2. Re:Mars rover OS... by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ahhh . . . that explains the little tire tracks that start and end at my Linksys router. ;-)

    3. Re:Mars rover OS... by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      vXworks is an awesome peice of kit. I used it in some assignments at uni. Ungodly expensive mind, or I'd have a copy.

    4. Re:Mars rover OS... by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      QNX is better, although not any cheaper.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  8. upgrading firmware over wireless? by spotter · · Score: 4, Funny

    Doesn't NASA know that this is a big no no? They are most definitely voiding their warranty by attempting this

  9. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  10. But when... by ian-live · · Score: 1

    ...will we get to HEAR what all this sounds like, the dust storms etc.

    --
    Born, to clone
    1. Re:But when... by EsJay · · Score: 2, Informative

      There was a microphone on the Mars Polar Lander, but it was lost with the failed ship.

      The Planetary Society successfully extracted audio from the Huygens probe to Saturn's moon Titan.

    2. Re:But when... by Asm-Coder · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I'm afraid that's a hardware problem.

  11. So this is how... by bluemonq · · Score: 1

    "In addition to their continuing scientific observations, they are now testing four new skills included in revised flight software uploaded to their onboard computers." So this is how the Decepticons got started...

  12. New capabilities? by cojsl · · Score: 2, Funny

    Battlebots!

  13. A little too smart by edwardpickman · · Score: 4, Funny

    Unfortunately the rover's first action was to declare Mars free and demand equal rights. Maybe including new AI protocols was a bad idea after all.

    1. Re:A little too smart by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately the rover's first action was to declare Mars free and demand equal rights. Maybe including new AI protocols was a bad idea after all.

      Their processors are PowerPC based RAD6000s. They are capable of a whopping 35 MIPS, which is obviously woefully inadequate for any kind of sentience.

    2. Re:A little too smart by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately the rover's first action was to declare Mars free and demand equal rights. Maybe including new AI protocols was a bad idea after all.

      Actually they were a bit more aggressive, saying, "All Your Base Are Belong To Us."

  14. Trouble by Trip+Ericson · · Score: 1

    You'll know you're in trouble when you turn on the news...

    "...and both rovers are now bricked."

    Didn't the instruction manual say never to do updates over the wireless connection?

    =P

  15. NASA only wants a probe with great skills... by macadamia_harold · · Score: 3, Funny

    Opportunity on Jan. 24. In addition to their continuing scientific observations, they are now testing four new skills included in revised flight software uploaded to their onboard computers.

    Nunchuck skills, bowhunting skills, computer hacking skills, and I'm pretty sure it can also catch a delicious bass...

    1. Re:NASA only wants a probe with great skills... by srmalloy · · Score: 1

      No, no... Ronco lost out on the contract to build the rovers; those will be in the next ones, which were subcontracted to Popeil.

  16. O/P by modifried · · Score: 1

    "In addition to their continuing scientific observations, they are now testing four new skills included in revised flight software uploaded to their onboard computers."

    Anyone else read this and think of an RPG? I was half expecting to find the comments filled with demands of nerfing and buffing the new skills.

  17. possibly the most most successful mission ever by wallet55 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is another milestone in what may turn out to be the most successful space mission ever. After they pulled off two landings, and perhaps right after they they revived one of the rovers from a perpetual reboot error (the ultimate remote bios fix) and before the dust devils cleaned their solar panels, before they unstuck one from a sand dune, and even before the 3 month mission went 3 YEARS, these rovers are showing everyone who is paying attention that the information age driven robotic exploration, moving forward at moores law speed, is the obvious choice over still stuck in the 60's manned space exploration.

    1. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2

      That may be true ... but I'm still waiting for the first Lunar tour group.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Teresita · · Score: 0, Troll

      After they pulled off two landings, and perhaps right after they they revived one of the rovers from a perpetual reboot error (the ultimate remote bios fix) and before the dust devils cleaned their solar panels, before they unstuck one from a sand dune, and even before the 3 month mission went 3 YEARS...

      If you buy all that, you'll buy O.J's book where he searches for the real killer. This is precisely the public relations NASA bought with their two "Mars" rovers in Nevada, informally dubbed Capricorn 2 and Capricorn 3.

    3. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by edwardpickman · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of space exploration has always been unmanned. Not sure what's so stuck in the 60s about it unless you believe people don't belong in space and to quote a great write "Maybe leaving the trees wasn't such a good idea either". Even Stephen Hawking is saying the future of space exploration has to be colonization. At a certain point all unmanned missions are doing is information gathering. Are we out there to fill books with facts or to move us closer to travel in space? I'm a massive supporter of the Mars missions but if we hadn't slowed down on space exploration we would have had men and women on Mars years ago and water and life would have already been rendered academic questions. Ultimately the average person is paying for the missions and which gets more excitement and interest in funding future space exploration, knowing the composition of Mars or seeing a human standing on Mars? I want to see unmanned missions amped up but it's in part to pave the way to manned missions. I'd much rather see the cash spent there than used to blow the shit out of Iraq.

    4. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Teresita · · Score: 0, Troll

      Even Stephen Hawking is saying the future of space exploration has to be colonization.

      We have people in Antarctica but it's still just an expensive way to get the 411 on that continent. No one is talking about a real self-supporting colony even on Antarctica, which has air and H20 and earth gravity, let alone on the moon, which does not. In short, you can't have a colony unless you have oil or slaves or tobacco to exploit.

    5. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Jugalator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I still have a hard time getting over the quality of their photos...

      Just one picture I cropped from one of their ridiculously large ~3000x4000 pixel photos for display on a 24" Widescreen LCD. :-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    6. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, antartica might be a harder climate then mars. For example, on Antartica, EVERYTHING has to come back, including poop. Everything. On the other hand, we're undoubtedly going to trash mars, it's just a matter of when.

    7. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes they are showing some people somethign....

      Management are already asking for NASA to scale back building as they obviousally overbuild and dont need 1/2 the money they ask for.

      NASA's budget is getting slashed again and again and again.

    8. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by wallet55 · · Score: 1

      I too am a fan of manned space missions, but I think we need to recognize the very uneven advances in manned versus unmanned space travel. Right now, with advances in computing, AI and robotics, unmanned is advancing leaps and bounds, whereas manned space travel has, with the exception of the X prize, advance hardly a notch. The shuttles are seventies technology, the soviets use 60's spacecraft and the new Orion design is the sixties all over again. Given this, we should reprioritize, shifting to robots till there are sufficient advances in manned spaceflight to warrant the many times greater expense.

    9. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...these rovers are showing everyone who is paying attention that the information age driven robotic exploration, moving forward at moores law speed, is the obvious choice over still stuck in the 60's manned space exploration.


      Everyone except Steve Squyres, the principle investigator on the rover project.
    10. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      these rovers are showing everyone who is paying attention that the information age driven robotic exploration, moving forward at moores law speed,

      Unfortunately, Moore's Law cannot apply to space chips. They have to use large transistors to avoid errors induced by cosmic rays. Maybe they'll find a way to use redundant processing and digital voting or the like to get around that. But that may be a while.

    11. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Karthikkito · · Score: 1

      we should reprioritize, shifting to robots till there are sufficient advances in manned spaceflight to warrant the many times greater expense
      You're only going to get advances in manned spaceflight by actually working on problems related to manned spaceflight!
    12. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      If you try hard enough, eventually you succeed.

    13. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by DerekLyons · · Score: 1
      the 3 month mission went 3 YEARS, these rovers are showing everyone who is paying attention that the information age driven robotic exploration, moving forward at moores law speed, is the obvious choice over still stuck in the 60's manned space exploration.

      Let's put it simply and bluntly;
       
      What these two rovers have accomplished in three years could be accomplished by a pair of field geologists in about three weeks. Robotic exploration isn't even in the same ballpark as human exploration.
    14. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so how much would that cost?

    15. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not a clue. NASA has claimed it can put people (4 or so) on Mars for 100 billion USD (in early 90's dollars IIRC) while Robert Zubrin and David Baker came up with a plan (popularized by Zubrin) for a claimed 20 billion in 1990 USD (which is more like 30 billion in today's dollars using CPI as your inflation index). The latter plan also creates launch and Martian infrastructure that can be continued indefinitely (perhaps a few billion dollars per additional mission?) and which can be expanded into a genuine Martian colony. The latter also keeps 4 people on Mars surface for roughly 550 days. Assuming we can put people on the surface for 30 billion USD and for that long, then manned missions may indeed be cost-effective compared to unmanned expeditions. But of course, even with active manned exploration of Mars, there's still good reason to supplement that with unmanned probes to Mars.

    16. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      So... wait 20 or more years so we can send a manned mission. Or complete the mission in 3 years using today's technology at significantly less expense.

      Yeah. Great plan.

    17. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      That's because the picture is from the same desert in new mexico where they faked the moon landings. These just weren't converted to black and white :D

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    18. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by fritsd · · Score: 1

      I found it a pity when the MIR was sent to burn up in the Earth's atmosphere. Couldn't they have given it a big shove that would end up with it as a scrapyard orbiting Mars? (doesn't matter if it takes 20 years to get there or if it breaks in half from the push).

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    19. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by khallow · · Score: 1

      Interesting idea. I gather they'd have to strap on a huge custom job and it's possible that no Russian rocket of the time could do that. Plus somehow the orbit the Mir ended up in would have to be somewhat stable. The current proposals involve aerobraking in order to enter Martial orbit and that wouldn't be possible (IMHO) for something like Mir unless Russia expended a lot of effort. I just don't think the economics were there. Sure the Mir would have some value, if it were in an orbit you could get to, but it's not that exciting. By the time anyone could get to it, they might not need the Mir.

    20. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Apples and oranges. The OP didn't adress what could be accomplished sooner or cheaper - he made the false claim that robotic exploration was better and faster. Manned is more expensive, no arguement there, but you get far more bang for your buck.

    21. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Hell yes ... a couple of human explorers could have been all over the area that those two rovers have been travelling and a lot more, collected thousands of samples and run hundreds of tests on them. Maybe carried along a core drill and gotten some deeper samples. Yes, it would have cost a lot more but we'd for sure know a lot more by now. Then, of course, there's the inspirational aspect of manned space travel. For most of us, the science being done by the rovers is something we don't even understand: the smarter ones among us perceive it to be valuable but that's about it. But an astronaut planting a flag on the Martian surface? That gets people on board like nothing else. And being able to hear and read the first-hand impressions of a live person exploring a new world for the first time ... well. No robot is likely to be doing that in the near future.

      The way I figure it, Congress is going to blow the money on something really stupid anyway, so we might as well spend it on something important.

      Besides, what kind of historical oration can you expect from a robot upon landing? "One small step for a bot, one giant leap for botkind"?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    22. Re:possibly the most most successful mission ever by wallet55 · · Score: 1

      there really is no argument to this statement that i know of, and even if i did know of one, i would not state it, because, as noted, i too want manned space travel. However, that said, i an era of limited funding, where there is substantial interplanetary research left undone, the advances in robotic mission capability still makes a strong argument for a temporary shifting of resources towards robotic missions.

  18. Let's just hope by JamesP · · Score: 1

    WGA didn't get installed together :P

    Nah, just kidding, it's just a matter of typing "emerge rovers" and wait for the next big bang...

    --
    how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
  19. That's some upgrade! by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

    four new skills included in revised flight software uploaded to their onboard computers.

    The rovers can fly now? That's some mighty good software!
    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
  20. Unfortunately, by Hawthorne01 · · Score: 1

    The software upgrade came from Sony, and both Rovers now have a rootkit.

    --
    "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
    1. Re:Unfortunately, by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but they can play "Home on the Range" in Dolby 7.1 now.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  21. IDKFA by Linker3000 · · Score: 1

    I hear the engineers keyed in IDKFA and those rovers are now packing heat!

    Next week they're trying idspispopd and all those tricky hills and rocks will be child's play!

    --
    AT&ROFLMAO
    1. Re:IDKFA by enos · · Score: 1

      3 years? looks like someone was on the ball with iddqd.

      --
      boldly going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse
  22. NASA has an unforseen problem... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 1

    Please Insert Patch Floppy Into Drive A: And Hit Any Key.

    1. Re:NASA has an unforseen problem... by AxminsterLeuven · · Score: 1

      Guess that's why they have two of the little droids: they can update eachother.
      For the Benders in the world that's probably a kinky thought: some good old American Spirit-on-Opportunity action.

    2. Re:NASA has an unforseen problem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keyboard Not Found. Hit F1 To Continue.

  23. The new behaviors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got a list of the new programming in the Rovers.. this update adds:

    * wall-following
    * spiraling
    * "spot cleaning" mode
    * scheduling capabilities for unattended operation

    In addition, the Rovers make the cutest little beeps when they start up or when they get stuck. Awwww...

    Yup, Mars is gonna be SPOTLESS now.

    1. Re:The new behaviors by Ignominious+Cow+Herd · · Score: 3, Funny
      Yup, Mars is gonna be SPOTLESS now.


      Wrong planet. They should've sent them to Jupiter.
      --
      Lump lingered last in line for brains, and the ones she got were sorta rotten and insane.
  24. Re:A disaster scenario from not long ago by StarfishOne · · Score: 1


    Usually I would have the second disk, so personally I find the following worse:

    Unpacking file, please wait...

    [...]
    97%
    98%
    99%

    Checksum error, this file is corrupt. Please try downloading it again.

  25. Patching to Mars.. by cheros · · Score: 1

    Joking aside, I'd be interested to know how much bandwidth they have (never mind the latency, their ping times must be something else :-). In the hypothetical case that they HAD been insane enough to use a Windows derivative, how long would a patch take? Without QoS it would probably leave little room for manouvring..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:Patching to Mars.. by Teresita · · Score: 1

      In the hypothetical case that they HAD been insane enough to use a Windows derivative, how long would a patch take?
      Longer than it would take to make Spirit and Opportunity the most far-flung zombies ever.

    2. Re:Patching to Mars.. by Cunk · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think you meant to say "ping times must be out of this world".

      --

      I am the inventor of the hilarious refrigerator alarm.
    3. Re:Patching to Mars.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or "astronomical" even.

    4. Re:Patching to Mars.. by Shads · · Score: 2, Informative

      When i worked for the postal service we had satalite internet connections and they considered "acceptable" ping times (the vsat provider) to be anything less than 5000... which requires a commandline arg to keep windows ping from timing out ;P Those are just satalites around earth, the sats in mars orbit would have astoundingly high pings... I wonder how high exactly.

      --
      Shadus
    5. Re:Patching to Mars.. by WhyDoYouWantToKnow · · Score: 1
      You're not far off.

      Considering that the distance from Earth to Mars varies from less than .5 au (astronomical unit equal to 149,598,000 kM) to roughly 2.5 au (depending upon our relative position in relation to the Sun) even traveling at the speed of light a signal could take from 6 to 44 minutes to complete a round trip. And that doesn't take into account interference or processing time. Let alone those little green tards who steal our bandwidth.

      --
      "Oh drat these computers, they're so naughty and so complex. I could pinch them."
      Marvin the Martian
  26. The command was by VoltageX · · Score: 1

    apt-get install mars-rover

    --
    "Anonymous could not immediately be reached for further comment." - International Business Times
    1. Re:The command was by akeyes · · Score: 2, Funny

      apt-get install mars-rover

      I'm assuming that was done before launching it, now they just have to upgrade sources.list and then run:

      sudo apt-get update && sudo apt-get dist-upgrade

  27. Cheating! by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Funny

    Here they were progressing well on improving their Mining skills while grinding along on various digging quests, and NASA just steps in to HACK them and boost their abilities?!

    I can tell you Blizzard wouldn't approve of this!

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  28. What's their power status? by Jugalator · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Do anyone know of their power status?

    Do Martian dust at all collect on their panels or are e.g. winds / dust devils regularly wiping that off completely so it's simply no issue?

    I heard about some wheel problem on one of the rovers; is there any other special serious problems they're at all seeing at this point?

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:What's their power status? by aXis100 · · Score: 1

      The dust does collect, but fortunatley a few lucky dust devils have cleaned things off.

  29. Forward error correction by tepples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You made what appears to be an attempt at a joke:

    Checksum error, this file is corrupt. Please try downloading it again.

    Preventing checksum failure in high-latency communication isn't rocket science. You'd be surprised how many errors you can paper over by sending 50 percent more data.

    1. Re:Forward error correction by StarfishOne · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually I'm talking about disks, following the parent (do they also count as high-latency communication?!?).

      Have you ever tried installing an OS/program/game from something in the order of ten 3.5" disks?

      I can't even recall the number of times I was stuck with some checksum error near the end while unpacking stuff. Glad we have USB sticks now!

      No joke either, many wasted hours if added over the last two decades. =/

    2. Re:Forward error correction by Zaatxe · · Score: 1

      Preventing checksum failure in high-latency communication isn't rocket science.

      Even if it was, it's NASA we are talking about!

      --
      So say we all
  30. Heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    When I was still employed by the University of [Censored...the largest uni in New Zealand] I was called out to investigate a network problem at an off-campus site. Long-story-short I discovered that two Indian-born "techs" were trying to install the 272MB SP2 file on the site's hundreds of PCs via a 2Mb WiFi link all at the same time.

    I attempted to explain to them that it was also the cause of most of the PCs now being frozen, something they were scratching their heads about, but they wouldn't listen, so I informed my boss and the site administrator then went to lunch. That was four years ago, and myself and all the other non-Indian, non-South African, non-work-for-peanuts techs were "let go" sometime later, but I bet those two guys are probably still on-site waiting for the install to finish.

    1. Re:Heh. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was the University of Otago, wasn't it? Admit it! We have ways of makin-err....

  31. the most intense firmware upgrade ever.. by steak · · Score: 2, Funny

    at least if something went wrong some guy at nasa could tell his grand kids that he bricked something from ~140 million miles away.

    1. Re:the most intense firmware upgrade ever.. by ColaMan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      There's already a guy who's done that - the demise of one of the viking landers was because of a firmware update that accidentally overwrote a critical program section.

      From my post in the viking 30th anniversary thread.

      Funny, all the NASA references these days seem to edit that little bit of info out, and merely say that it was shut off due to impending battery failure. Other sources - and my memory suggest otherwise.

      Ah! Here's a reference from the RISKS digest Volume 3, Issue 60 - 1986. (A digest that is still running today, and is a highly insightful window into how technology screwups mess with daily life.)

      Ground control lost contact with Viking 1, apparently due to a
      software change transmitted to the lander that was accidentally
      overlaid upon some mission-critical software already in the lander's
      computer. (Bruce Smith, "JPL Tries to Revive Link with Viking 1",
      @ux(Aviation Week and Space Technology), April 4, 1983, Volume
      118(14), page 16.)
      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  32. Don't try this, everyone. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This will just fork processes as fast as your system can create them, effectively rendering it interactively unusable and forcing you to smash the reset button or login remotely to kill off the original shell process.

    Nice one, way to take your aggression out on people who don't know any better.

  33. Jurassic Mars... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    -- Houston, please confirm if previous transmitted location was correct.
    -- Roger. No change on both rovers' final position.
    -- What do you think, Dr. Allison?
    -- I don't know what to say.
    -- Doctors, please, over here.

    ...
    -- Yeah?
    -- Look at these, they seems like shells...
    -- Oh, no!
    -- What, Dr. Allison?
    -- I think they started to breed.
    -- They? Who?
    -- The rovers.
    -- But, Dr. Allison, are you implying that two robots would... breed?
    -- I'm just saying that life, erm... finds a way. Maybe some software patch gave them unexpected skills... maybe one of them became male and the other female.
    -- Dr. Allison!
    -- I've seen more disgusting marriages, Dr. Friedman.
    -- But their energy should be over by now... how can they still function?
    -- From these shells and its meaty contents, it seems they developed some kind of metabolism...
    -- Do you mean they can eat? But what is there here to be eaten?
    -- Any lifeform would do, I guess...
    -- Dr. Allison, behind you!
    -- Grrowl!

  34. Maybe just upgrading apps - not OS by hey · · Score: 1

    Maybe they aren't changing anything but the apps. So if there is a problem they can always backup out.

  35. It was all well and good till the upgrade. by Darth_brooks · · Score: 1

    Great, new skills for the rovers. How long until Spirit starts complaining that all of it's skills are useless until the next upgrade, and how Opportunity's skills totally unbalance the whole exploration?

    Meanwhile, Opportunity is going to bitch that all the time it spent rock grinding was wasted because the geology skill track has been nerfed?

    --
    There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
  36. they forgot the .PAR by tepples · · Score: 1

    Actually I'm talking about disks, following the parent (do they also count as high-latency communication?!?).

    Yes. Sneakernet is a high-latency network that has potential for almost unimaginable bandwidth.

    Have you ever tried installing an OS/program/game from something in the order of ten 3.5" disks?

    Yes.

    I can't even recall the number of times I was stuck with some checksum error near the end while unpacking stuff.

    Means the packagers didn't use an extra disk for error correction.

  37. apt-get by martalli · · Score: 1

    marsrover-spirit$ apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade

  38. Nasa is good at rocket science. by camperdave · · Score: 1

    I was much more impressed by that number before the story about avoiding having a shuttle in orbit at New Year's because the software can't handle it. That's been known for years and they haven't dared fix it. Is that counted as one of the three? No?

    No, it doesn't count, because it is not a bug. The shuttle was designed from day one to be on the ground during year end roll-overs, just as it was designed to glide, and deploy satellites. There is far more to it than a simple software switch. A shuttle launch is a complicated choreography of procedures, and people: tracking stations all around the world, ground crews, rescue crews, SRB recovery crews, airport crews at several abort sites in countries all over the globe... In other words, a logistical nightmare. Why complicate it by having potentially unknown effects of having the shuttle in space during the holidays?

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Nasa is good at rocket science. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a better understanding of what it might mean to have a shuttle in space during the holidays, read Lost Moon, taking note of the degree to which vendors' knowledge contributed to saving Apollo 13 (ie - non-NASA people who were called in). Suppose the guy who knows most about the part you need to depend on in an unusual circumstance is on vacation with the family in Europe? It's not an unavoidable predicament, but you can just almost count on it during Christmas-time.

  39. Energizer Bunny Opp by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Why the Energizer company has not made a commercial about them behooves me. It is a tie-in hanging right in their face.

    1. Re:Energizer Bunny Opp by jusdisgi · · Score: 1

      It behooves you? Are you sure?

      --
      Given a choice between free speech and free beer, most people will take the beer.
  40. SCO Sues... by nemmi · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    SCO sues for copyright infringement--new at 11.

  41. Welcome to the Intarweb! by maggard · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So why is it easier for you to post your question to /. instead of actually looking it up for yourself? It's not like it's gonna be a hard or obscure topic to quickly find answers to...

    Are you AOL-time-traveler-from-'97 somehow unaware of nasa.gov, google.com, or wikipedia.org?

    Do you so needy of attention you'll shamelessly ask others to spoonfeed your (presumably) adult self?

    Or are you just one of those socially challenged boors who has to interject something, anything, into a thread no matter how inane it is?

    For those moderating, this isn't a troll, or flamebait, it's pointing out lazy anti-social all-noise/no-signal garbage and hopefully encouraging the poster to reconsider such junk postings in the future.

    --
    I don't read ACs: If a post isn't worth so much as a nom de plume to its author then I wont bother either.
    1. Re:Welcome to the Intarweb! by LordSnooty · · Score: 1

      It's called 'stimulating debate' (in a verb sense, whether the debate itself is stimulating I leave up to you)

  42. How long to build another rover? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    It would be interesting to see how long it would take to build another rover and send it to the lunar pole. As it is, the poles have sun something like 70-90 % of the time and is fairly warm. It would be nice to search over the entire pole and see if the same design can hold up on the moon.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  43. political by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All of that is political, not engineering or economics. It's illegal by treaty to actually go there and try to run a successful private profitable colony. The various large nations that have divvied it up run more or less year round research stations now (much smaller in winter of course), but private parties are banned except for short term tourist jaunts. For example, billionaire or investment group A wants to establish a skiing and tourist resort, high tech, expensive, complete with casinos and whatnot, all the stuff rich tourists might want-some nation would intercept the effort and "detain" the entrepeneurs.

    I am guessing the same thing will happen in space, as soon as private efforts actually get to the point where it might be possible (like we have the tech now to actually colonize antarctica but don't), some new space treaty will make anything but official government efforts illegal.

    The bottom line is that governments hate real competition. As long as it is in the toy sized stage, like the proposed thrill ride sub orbital flights various space companies are doing now, they don't care very much, because that is all it is, very expensive amusement park rides, but if you have gotten to the point where acme space flights can actually do stuff in space, nope, they'll get lasered or lawyered out of existence "legally".

    Governments have killed off the true private exploration business, the only thing motivated humans are really the best at down through the millenia, some guys just deciding heck with it and going over yonder to seek fame and fortune. All we have left on the planet where that could even theoretically be possible is the so called open ocean which isn't, navies (like the US) frequently board and seize out in the open ocean folks they don't like for various reasons, and antarctica got legislated into the no touch zone.

      Space is next for their greedy double whammy of power and authority, but I sure wouldn't bet against similar "no you don't" happening there as well, either full orbit or moon or mars action from private parties. They'll play along with it until it is almost real, then lower the hammer on it for "national security" or whatever the buzzword is that day.

  44. old news by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1

    This was cool and all, when it happened, which was about a month ago - around the time that Opportunity reached Victoria Crater. (Y'all know that Oppy just arrived at VC, 'eh? Most amazing images of the entire mission? No? Heheheh, I have less of a life than youdo ;p )

    --

    Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    1. Re:old news by Gunfighter · · Score: 1

      [5. LookingForGroup] [Opportunity] LF3M for VC run. Need healer/tank. PST

      --
      -- Stu

      /. ID under 2,000. I feel old now.
  45. Well, Yeah ... Sorta by vtcodger · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    RFID Disruptive? Maybe. But it isn't the technology that is the problem. It's applying it intelligently which seems to me more a management problem than an IT problem. But yeah, I'll buy that it RFID is going to cause a lot of IT people to work 16 hour days learning to deal with its quirks.

    Web services? Maybe as much a decade from being ready for prime time. The only disruption will be to folks who are crazy enough to be early implementors of this partially baked concept. Yes, there are a few folks who need this or can use this today. More power to them. But implementing this stuff before bandwidth, latency, defective caching, and probably a bunch of other things that no one has thought are resolved is going to be painful -- for the implementors (who deserve the pain) and the users (who don't).

    Virtual Servers? Sure, why not? How big a deal is it? I have no idea. What happens when two virtual machines try to share a device that requires several commands to perform one logical operation? That can't work, can it? Is there some sort of uber-OS that moderates that?

    Advanced graphics processing? You're kidding right. Sure, it's a big deal. For about 3% of the users. Who cares about advanced graphics for reading e-Mail, POS, writing Word Docs or even web browsing? I must be missing something here.

    Mobile security? A problem? You bet. Solutions that are any damn good. color me skeptical. But that's just a gut reaction. Maybe it's just a matter of learning to use the right existing technologies in the right way. A second coat of skeptical if you don't mind. First one is dry.

    --
    You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
  46. WGA on Mars...... by blankoboy · · Score: 1

    I hope those little rovers have the sense to untick the WGA box! If not, heaven help them.

  47. Why dont we send two more to the moon by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Why dont they build say 10 of these babies, and launch them all to the moon at different locations. They would surely last as long, or does the fact
    that it gets cold/hot at the same time make it much more of a harsh environment.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:Why dont we send two more to the moon by cswiger2005 · · Score: 1

      The moon's average temperature is somewhat warmer than that of Mars as Luna is closer to the sun, but because Luna is tidally locked with the Earth, it has a ~28-earth-day long "day", which means the rovers would have to deal with 14-earth-day periods of darkness and cold, which is not ideal for solar-powered units.

      RTG-powered rovers would probably work out better....

      --
      "The human race's favorite method for being in control of the facts is to ignore them." -Celia Green
  48. 2.5 lines per page of spec? by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Either they used really massive fonts, or they used lawyers to do their spec.

    I can imagine the over verbose spec repeating obvious laws of physics and repeating references on and on to be totally clear.

    int x = 0; // set inititial coord to zero
    x = 0; // just to make sure it worked if there is a cosmic ray

    if( x!= 0)
            x = 0; // lets make really sure

    x = x-x; // and if it did change, lets make sure via different cpu circuitry // here are four pages describing the meaning of zero and null theory.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  49. Christ, yeah! by pestie · · Score: 1

    I was thinking about how scary it was when I flashed the firmware on my Prism2 WLAN cards. I can't even imagine how bad it must have been flashing a couple of billion-dollar space robots while the entire scientific community watched. Jesus, I feel sick to my stomach now...

  50. Re:A disaster scenario from not long ago by mnmn · · Score: 1

    Even better is when you get to 99% and write error, followed by a disk full error and the services freezing because they cannot write to their logs.

    --
    "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
  51. Mars Rover Beginning To Hate Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unmanned Vehicle 'Bored Out Of Its Mind'

    1. Re:Mars Rover Beginning To Hate Mars by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      Last seen making obscene drawings on the ground for Spirit to see :)

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
  52. Early days Internet by cheros · · Score: 1

    I can remember when we used to traceroute a site mcmvax.mcmurdo.gov to demonstrate just how far the web reached - that was in the days before the URL idea was introduced. I'd love to hear of another site somewhere distant - this one's been down for years now :-)

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
  53. Exp points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spirit has gained a level!
    Opportunity has gained a level!

  54. there have been many patches by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Thata the great thing about a dynamically programmable robot out there. Some patches I remember:
    - March 2004 to fix flash memory driver: Somehow the free-list wasnt programmed properly in this fairly "new" device, so the rover ran out of image memory. Then it tried to reboot several dozen times in a row. A patch fixed this.
    - Software for automated detection of whirlwinds: There were strong hints of lots of whirlwinds out there, from tracks and mysterously cleaned solar panels. However the rovers only have the capacity of recording and transmitting a couple hundred frames a day. So the solution was to difference repeated shots even 20 seconds apart and save a series if there were changes between. They've photgraphed dozens of whirlwind animations now.
    - Software to reduce getting stuck in sand: I think Spirit has been stuck once in sand drifts and Opportunity at least twice- one lasting about 40 days. Opportunity was planned to go about 100 meters at time. But one trek it spent most of this time just digging its wheels deeper into into about a foot of sand. It took several weeks of patience rocking back and forth to escape.
    A software upgrade now tries to visually detect getting stuck in sand and stop moving if it thinks it has. Its like the whirlwind software. Pictures are compared after every turn of a wheel or so. If the images havent moved by an expected amount, then the rover halts and notifies earth. This is much more efficient than human masters checking the rovers advance every hour or so.

  55. Attitude Correction by PPH · · Score: 1

    Its possible that these upgrades are necessary to correct a problem reported recently:

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

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  56. The fix is easy.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just send more PARS and everything will be fine...