Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rovers Threatened By Dust Storms

mrcgran writes "Space.com is reporting a new potentially deadly weather condition threatening the Mars rovers: 'The first and largest dusty squall has reduced direct sunlight to Mars' surface by nearly 99 percent, an unprecedented threat for the solar-powered rovers. If the storm keeps up and thickens with even more dust, officials fear the rovers' batteries may empty and silence the robotic explorers forever. "This thing has been breaking records the past few days. The sun is 100 times fainter than normal. We're hoping for a big break in the storm soon, but that's just a hope." '"

145 comments

  1. Really? by JustNiz · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I can't beleive they designed them that way....
    that if the batteries completely drain they're lost forever, even if they later recharge again (when the storm has moved on).
    Have NASA never heard of boot loaders and non-volatile memory?

    1. Re:Really? by Zarhan · · Score: 5, Informative

      They have. The problem is that the batteries also are providing power for heaters to keep the rover warm during the night. They probably won't (especially the batteries) survive a deep-freeze to -40C, so when sun starts shining again there may be too many things broken to start the rover up again.

    2. Re:Really? by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Weren't the Mars rovers designed to last, like, 90 days or something?

    3. Re:Really? by SoapBox17 · · Score: 4, Informative
      From TFA:

      John Callas, project manager for the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., explained that a dead rover battery could allow cold temperature to maim Opportunity's electronics. "It's like leaving your laptop out in an Antarctic winter," Callas said. "Soldered joints in the electronics can contract due to thermal contraction. If a rover gets too cold, something essential will fail." Callas explained the situation is unprecedented, so the team isn't certain how much more light-blocking dust the rovers-especially Opportunity-can take.

      So, its not that the battery won't come alive again later. Its that the cold will do serious damage to the electronics on board. Without power, there's no way to keep them warm. Nights on mars go well below -25C (in the winter, the southern hemisphere can get as cold as -120C).
    4. Re:Really? by CanadaIsCold · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm sure they could have guaranteed that kind of functionality inside of there original 90 day design lifetime. Here we are 3 years later and they're not sure.

      I think the designers deserve some credit. If you feel you can do it better I'm sure NASA would appreciate your resume.

      --
      This signature would be better if I was creative.
    5. Re:Really? by Myrano · · Score: 2, Funny

      OK then, *you* go turn them back on...

    6. Re:Really? by Rakshasa+Taisab · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Why don't you apply for a job there then, I'm sure they could use your excellent intellect in the future.

      I'm greatly looking forward to seeing your solution for keeping vital components at acceptable temperatures without any power.

      --
      - These characters were randomly selected.
    7. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Problem is they used an embedded windows product, and an evaluation one at that (Embedded Windows XP rover edition) it requires you to press any key upon boot up to agree to the Beta license.

      The rovers will boot but wait for someone to hook up a usb keyboard and press enter.

    8. Re:Really? by ucblockhead · · Score: 2, Interesting

      These machines were designed to last three months. They've lasted over three years. They never expected them to last long enough for it to matter.

      It's probably wise not to second-guess engineers who built something that lasted more than ten times longer than anyone expected.

      --
      The cake is a pie
    9. Re:Really? by moranar · · Score: 4, Funny

      "KEYBOARD NOT FOUND. PRESS F1 TO CONTINUE"

      The lameness filter lacks humor.

      --
      "I think it would be a good idea!"
      Gandhi, about Internet Security
    10. Re:Really? by Bigby · · Score: 1

      (1) it is pretty cold on Mars, which requires battery power for heat to prevent electronics from breaking
      (2) if there is sand on the solar panels, you can't get power to wipe the sand off
      (3) the rovers were designed to last 90 days. they have lasted several years.

    11. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Couldn't they just slice open a martian then crawl inside and use it's internal organs for warmth?

    12. Re:Really? by skoaldipper · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Opportunity on it's final journey to a burial cave or something? Maybe NASA isn't so heartless afterall with it's aging robots. It saw this storm coming and was trying to get the elderly to shelter.

      Maybe like Huey or Dewie from Silent Running, Spirit will seek out poor old Louie in the retirement cave and look after him.

      --
      I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
    13. Re:Really? by nospam007 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      They have. The problem is that the batteries also are providing power for heaters to keep the rover warm during the night. They probably won't (especially the batteries) survive a deep-freeze to -40C, so when sun starts shining again there may be too many things broken to start the rover up again.
      --
      They survived several mars winters without moving, what's different here?

    14. Re:Really? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      The difference being that almost no light for too long of a period of time, not allowing the rovers to keep warm. They've always used batteries & solar power to keep the circuitry just warm enough to keep them from being damaged. Without that warmth, circuits can crack.

    15. Re:Really? by nospam007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      (2) if there is sand on the solar panels, you can't get power to wipe the sand off
      --
      For some reason there ain't no method to wipe the sand off, apparently that's one reason why they thought they would last only 3 months.
      Why no wiper is beyond me though.

    16. Re:Really? by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      It's called derating. I'm sure the Mars rovers were designed to last far, far longer than 90 days. They just set the "success" threshold very low given all the unknowns of the trip.

      --Joe
    17. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Reminds me of my Rover. That was obviously designed to last 3 months.

    18. Re:Really? by bdjacobson · · Score: 1

      From TFA:

      John Callas, project manager for the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., explained that a dead rover battery could allow cold temperature to maim Opportunity's electronics.

      "It's like leaving your laptop out in an Antarctic winter," Callas said. "Soldered joints in the electronics can contract due to thermal contraction. If a rover gets too cold, something essential will fail." Callas explained the situation is unprecedented, so the team isn't certain how much more light-blocking dust the rovers-especially Opportunity-can take.


      So, its not that the battery won't come alive again later. Its that the cold will do serious damage to the electronics on board. Without power, there's no way to keep them warm. Nights on mars go well below -25C (in the winter, the southern hemisphere can get as cold as -120C). They could have consulted some overclockers. Those guys push -75C left and right and their components don't break.
    19. Re:Really? by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why no wiper is beyond me though.

      The problem is that the dust on Mars has an electrostatic charge. Wipers would just swish the dust around and scratch the solar cells, but wouldn't be able to remove the dust.

    20. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it's easy. So how about you learn something about what you're talking about before you accuse those who know everything about it of never having heard of something that's obvious to your untrained mind. Comments like yours really piss me off.

    21. Re:Really? by VENONA · · Score: 4, Informative

      Age is compounding the problem. JPL has a good article up at http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/spotlight/20070612. html.

      --
      What you do with a computer does not constitute the whole of computing.
    22. Re:Really? by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, no. It was designed for three months. They, of course, made any changes that might make it last longer that didn't effect the budget, but they very definitely avoided any design improvements intended to lengthen it beyond 90 days, unless those improvements cost no money. The budget was very tight and many potential design improvements to make the rovers last longer were specifically rejected. (See the book by the project lead.)

      --
      The cake is a pie
    23. Re:Really? by codename.matrix · · Score: 1

      They cool the processor itself not all the electronics. If they would push these -75C on the mainboard they would break it. Also the computer is usually running and creating heat. If the computer would be off these -75C you speak of would probably do some damage to the processor too.

    24. Re:Really? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      To add to what the other poster said. There is an example of someone doing full immersion cooling on a system and killing it when they added dry ice (or liquid nitrogen, can't remember which) to the mix.

    25. Re:Really? by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 1

      So you just reverse the polarity on the deflect^M solar panels and the dust will just bounce off.

      --
      liqbase :: faster than paper
    26. Re:Really? by igny · · Score: 1

      our solution for keeping vital components at acceptable temperatures without any power.

      I heard decomposing bull... err... cow manure can keep you warm without much power.

      --
      In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
    27. Re:Really? by Mr+Z · · Score: 2, Informative

      Might I suggest that the engineers may have insisted very thoroughly to others that they were designing for 90 days, but really they were designing for much longer. Might I suggest this essay: Exaggerate with Extreme Prejudice.

      --Joe
    28. Re:Really? by kilodelta · · Score: 1

      Put it this way, the rovers are now several times older than what they were designed for. Originally they were designed for 90 sols, they've now been in action for 1248 sols for Spirit, and 1228 sols for Opportunity.

      It'd be sad to see them go offline but they've served their purpose more than once over. In reality it's almost 14 times the intended lifespan.

      I'd call that a true engineering success story.

    29. Re:Really? by Geeky+Don · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Opportunity has survived -54 degrees when in Deep Sleep mode.

    30. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They could have used a piezo tuned to res the dust off the panels. How expensive could this possibly be?

    31. Re:Really? by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Set it on fire.

    32. Re:Really? by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      Extremely doubtful on a project with as tight constraints as a space probe, especially one where management is scientifically skilled enough to understand the engineering specs completely. Remember, the designers were more concerned with cramming as many scientific devices on the problem as they could then they were with going beyond 90 days. (Which, in fact, required something that they didn't expect, that is, the Martian winds cleaning off the panels.)

      --
      The cake is a pie
    33. Re:Really? by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      Mil standards generally call for equipment to survive "non-operational" temperatures of -40C to 85C and most space standards are just as rigorous, if not moreso. Why would anyone think these things are going to fail so easily? Were these not designed to the standards that are routinely used for spacecraft?

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
    34. Re:Really? by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      -55 to 125 C in most extended temp specifications, but remember the age of the units and the fact they've seen no preventive maintenance and the reliability at the extremes rapidly degrades.
      -nB

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


      I'm greatly looking forward to seeing your solution for keeping vital components at acceptable temperatures without any power.


      polonium-210?

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod_1

    36. Re:Really? by billanderson71 · · Score: 1

      I'm greatly looking forward to seeing your solution for keeping vital components at acceptable temperatures without any power.

      polonium-210?

      Actually, Plutonium 239. The Mars Science Lab uses a General Purpose Heat Source (a radioisotope brick) to both generate power using thermoelectrics, and as a source of heat during the martian night. A pumped fluid loop is used to cool the electronics during the day, and heat them at night.

      When heating is needed, some of the fluid is diverted to two hot plates around the general purpose heat source.

      A nice overview is "Mars Science Laboratory Thermal Control Architecture" which can be found at:
      http://marstech.jpl.nasa.gov/publications/Bhandari -final-paper-2005-01-28.pdf

  2. I'm a geek and lack empathy by Flying+pig · · Score: 5, Funny
    First the storm came for New Orleans, but I did not live in the United States and it did not affect me

    Then the storm came for Kingston upon Hull, but I live on a hill on the other side of England and it did not worry me.

    Then the storm came for the Mars Rovers, and I was really quite worried about them. What a relief to know that I'm not sociopathic.

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:I'm a geek and lack empathy by niceone · · Score: 1

      Then the storm came for the Mars Rovers, and I was really quite worried about them. What a relief to know that I'm not sociopathic.

      I'm guessing feeling empathy for robots does not help in proving you're not a sociopath. In fact, thinking that having feelings for robots helps may even count against you. Nurse!

  3. Great, now we need a lve mars concert by WatcherXP · · Score: 4, Funny

    Damm trans-global warming, ever since Al Gore invented it there has been nothing but problems, look even Mars is having problems now with record storms.

    --
    09-f9-11-02-9* (G^GCA_++{>. RV>>>>+++ NO CARRIER
    1. Re:Great, now we need a lve mars concert by Foochee · · Score: 1

      Do not speak of Emperor Gore like that... He has ridden the mighty Moon worm!

    2. Re:Great, now we need a lve mars concert by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Rev. Gore, if you don't mind.

  4. RTFA by LordEd · · Score: 3, Informative
    The way I read the article, it has nothing to do with programming, but with the electronics in the environment.

    From TFA:

    John Callas, project manager for the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) mission at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., explained that a dead rover battery could allow cold temperature to maim Opportunity's electronics.

    "It's like leaving your laptop out in an Antarctic winter," Callas said. "Soldered joints in the electronics can contract due to thermal contraction. If a rover gets too cold, something essential will fail." Callas explained the situation is unprecedented, so the team isn't certain how much more light-blocking dust the rovers-especially Opportunity-can take.
  5. Mars Rovers Threatened by Dust Storms by suv4x4 · · Score: 1

    Mr. Dust Storm, marsian: "Hey, rovers, nice research you got running there. It'll be a shame if something terrible, HORRIBLE is to happen with it. Maybe you wanna go home and avoid that, uh?" (waves a knife in front of the rovers)

  6. Proud of the rovers and the people behind them by TheReckoning · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even if it is the end the people who designed, built, tested and watched over those rovers over the past years should be very proud of their accomplishment. To succeed so well at something that is so incredibly difficult is high praise in itself.

    To these talented and hard-working engineers, technicians and researchers (and even the JPL PHBs), I salute you.

    1. Re:Proud of the rovers and the people behind them by Provocateur · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would like to know if they had something on a board that said:

      Projected lifespan/duration (estimated): 90 days

      Actual: 3 years AND COUNTING!!

      That is quite the feat, and you guys deserve to frame THAT and hang it on a wall. Well done!

      (Also, a poster of a sandstorm hanging nearby, with a couple of darts thrown at it =)

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    2. Re:Proud of the rovers and the people behind them by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I'm not dead yet!

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:Proud of the rovers and the people behind them by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Even if it is the end the people who designed, built, tested and watched over those rovers over the past years should be very proud of their accomplishment.

      Agreed, but the shame of it is that Oppotunity was just about to enter into Victoria Crater, five times larger than any previous (deep) crater its invesitigated. Victoria is possibly one of the most important geological features yet encountered on Mars. Bigger craters generally mean layers from further in the past. The Opportunity team had just been handed the green-light to go in, when the dust storm started picking up. It's like your mom making you go to bed when you are just about to bite into a chocholate pie.

  7. Your irony bypass - did it hurt? by Flying+pig · · Score: 1

    Why am I guessing you must be an American? Stereotyping, huh?

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Your irony bypass - did it hurt? by niceone · · Score: 1

      It was just an attempt at humour, and no, not from an American.

    2. Re:Your irony bypass - did it hurt? by OakDragon · · Score: 1

      It was just an attempt at humour...
      ...in a long line of attempts.

      I'M JOKING!

    3. Re:Your irony bypass - did it hurt? by niceone · · Score: 1

      Heh, true, true. Yesterday I managed 7 mod points on a single funny (I thought) post and only 2 of those were "Funny" points, the others were all "Interesting" and "Troll".

  8. Why Solar Power Only? by perlhacker14 · · Score: 0

    Bad design is an issue here; relying on Solar Power only is foolish, especially when not on Earth. Martian conditions could change at any time, and as we know little about Mars and the climate and cover on the surface, there should be another power source. All space craft and rovers should keep a backup supply of power, in some kind of extra battery. As it is charging, the extra battery should be charged first, used last. When power is low, a sort of survival mode should be entered, and escaped at sun hit. At the moment, that is what the rover lacks.

    1. Re:Why Solar Power Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      How is a adding an extra battery different from using a larger one and a change of protocol when its charge goes below some limit? How do you know the one they're using isn't already the large one you have in mind if you don't discuss specifics (watt-hours)?

      Batteries aren't a source of power, they just store it. Looks like they need x watts else the rovers will die. If the batteries can hold y watt-hours, then the rover will die after y/x hours. Increase y and you increase y/x, but you don't make it go away.

    2. Re:Why Solar Power Only? by Liquidrage · · Score: 1

      These semi-autonomous explorers have been up there working on the surface of *another planet* for several years now.

      Whatever you may think now I'm pretty sure the problem isn't "bad design". At this point "good design" is rather apparent.

    3. Re:Why Solar Power Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, if you plan on backing up your hard drive, do you buy a bigger hard drive or do you do you add a second, separate storage device? If you are concerned about power to your data center do you just use a bigger power station or do you use a redundant/backup power source in addition to your main power source?

      There are other reasons than a simple lack of stored power for a battery to fail. Having all your eggs in one basket is just asking for trouble. Obviously this does not solve for the fact that they are dependent upon a single source of power (solar).

    4. Re:Why Solar Power Only? by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A few points:

      1. How much is your "other power source" going to weigh?
      2. How much is your "other power source" going to cost?
      3. Does your "other" power source comply with international environmental/space regulations?
      4. How many failure modes does your "other" power source have?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Why Solar Power Only? by Nutria · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Bad design is an issue here; relying on Solar Power only is foolish, especially when not on Earth. Martian conditions could change at any time, and as we know little about Mars and the climate and cover on the surface, there should be another power source. All space craft and rovers should keep a backup supply of power, in some kind of extra battery. As it is charging, the extra battery should be charged first, used last. When power is low, a sort of survival mode should be entered, and escaped at sun hit. At the moment, that is what the rover lacks.

      The design compromises of the rovers were governed by
      1. the largest amount mass that the Delta 2 rocket could accelerate to the proper velocity, and
      2. the volume of the capsule atop said rocket.
      So, next time you want to attack something about which you know squat, lock yourself in your parents' basement, stop reading Slashdot and actually learn something for a change.

      --
      "I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
    6. Re:Why Solar Power Only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop talking out of your ass.

    7. Re:Why Solar Power Only? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Some reading material for you, then, by the guy who wrote the book on space mission design: Space Mission Analysis and Design

      It seems that they already had designed for several days of reserve power (a.k.a survival mode). The dust event threatens to exceed that amount, which could spell doom for the rovers. It is in no way forgone that it WILL exceed that amount, or even that the rovers will fail to restart after the event, however the latter is likely to follow if the former occurs.

      If your plan makes the mission too expensive to fly for the sake of extending post EOL endurance, I'd say it's a bad plan. Consider the much ridiculed Ford Pinto. There were many improvements that could've been made to improve its safety, and by much better margins than moving the fuel tank around. But if each of the $5 here, $10 there improvements had been made, it would have ceased to be an affordable car.

      You have to build the machine you can, with the budget you have. Not the budget you'd like to have. to paraphrase a famous statesman.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:Why Solar Power Only? by mdsolar · · Score: 1

      The rovers were designed for a short mission. The chance of this happening in a short time is low so it would be over design to include more storage. Solar power works well in the inner solar system, and it may be getting going for the outer solar system: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juno_(spacecraft). It beats sending fuel when it works.
      --
      Solar power on the go: Get a free move: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

  9. Circadas by DeeVeeAnt · · Score: 1

    Every three or four years, the martian dust devils swarm together to mate, colouring the air a beautiful rusty red for the duration of the breeding season.

    --
    Home fucking is killing prostitution.
  10. TODO list for the next mars rover: by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    1. Install wipers for the solar cells.

    1. Re:TODO list for the next mars rover: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      And here's a checklist for your next post.

      1. Check logic
      2. Check you're not logged in

  11. Theo Jansen's Wind-bots by jparp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They should put stuff like this on Mars:
    http://www.ecogeek.org/content/view/350/

    ( Saw them on digg:
        http://digg.com/gadgets/Amazing_wind_powered_robot s
    )

    1. Re:Theo Jansen's Wind-bots by ucblockhead · · Score: 1

      The much lower atmospheric pressure on Mars means that wind on that planet is at least a magnitude weaker, thus it's harder to imagine getting power from it.

      --
      The cake is a pie
  12. Soldering is Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Anyone who knows anything about extreme hardware knows that you wire-wrap your shit; that and you specify it to or above mil-spec.

    How do you think monitoring equipment at the poles works for months on end at -40C to -60C?
    I'll tell you one thing; it doesn't work by heating the damn enclosure :p

    This and the dumb "90 days expected lifetime" of the original mission is caused by the continual dumbing-down of NASA and other vital research institutions by civilian academics who don't have the hardcore aerospace/military experience of the deep-space engineers of the 60/70's.

    1. Re:Soldering is Bullshit by cunina · · Score: 1

      How big and heavy would the rover's motherboard be if you did the whole thing with wire-wrap? And has it occurred to you that for applications that require a lot of movement and some substantial G-shocks during reentry, wire-wrap might not be the best choice?

    2. Re:Soldering is Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're conflating discrete logic boards with wirewrapping.

      There's nothing to prevent connecting the rover CPU with its memory, IO hw and sensor chips using wirewrap instead of rigid solder.
      Basically, the wirewrap creates a tiny bit of "give" in the traces which is impossible to create using a soldered pcb, which is basically one giant solid piece of brittle metal glued to a giant piece of brittle epoxy.

      Hell, if we're going to go all out and stop being so PC and "cannot-do"-ish, let's buy a cheap RTG from the russians to use for a backup powersupply (and you get to have a nice hot enclosure for all the chinese grad students to put their crappy pcbs in, lol)..

    3. Re:Soldering is Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As someone who actually builds things for extreme environments (including Mars), I call BS. Soldering is potentially MUCH more reliable than wirewrap, it's all in the design. Not to mention there are some size and mass restrictions on something that has to be sent to Mars by rocket. You were, perhaps, thinking of wirewrapping the thousands of pins on a multihundred pin FPGA? Oh yes, that wirewrap socket for the part doesn't exist.

      But there are a host of other issues. What about glassification temperatures? What about various polymers needed?

      There are Radioactive Heating Units (RHUs) to keep the Warm Electronics Box, er, Warm, but there are things on the rovers that aren't in the WEB (wheels, pan cam mast, Xband antenna gimbal) that aren't RHU compatible.

      Ultimately, it comes down to cost. How much is Congress willing to spend? Are they willing to 10 billion instead of 1 billion to send a couple rovers to mars? At some point, someone has to say, here's our design life, here's our mission environmental requirements (typical flight hardware would be -55 to +65C), and design accordingly. It's a judgement call, and the folks making that call DO have experience from the 60s and 70s (sometimes to their detriment.. it's hard to get new technology inserted)

    4. Re:Soldering is Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "thousands of pins on a multihundred pin FPGA".. Good argument buddy.

    5. Re:Soldering is Bullshit by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      This and the dumb "90 days expected lifetime" of the original mission is caused by the continual dumbing-down of NASA and other vital research institutions by civilian academics who don't have the hardcore aerospace/military experience of the deep-space engineers of the 60/70's. In other words you have no idea how much work something like this takes do you?

      90 days was the minimum they needed it to survive to provide enough science to justify the cost. Look at the failures of NASA missions throughout the decades due to the simple harshness of space to see why they didn't want to commit to anything more than necessary.

      This thing is first of all orders of magnitude more complex in both design, goals and components than what was done in the 70s and has a smaller budget. Let's see what it has to survive:
      -Launch, high G forces.
      -Years in space
      -Landing, high G forces once again and harder to predict than launch
      -Function on another planet with an enviroment like nothing else on Earth without any direct supervision.
      -Survive among other things massive temperature swings that don't exist on earth period.

      If something goes wrong you can't just shrug your shoulders and replace the part later on. You can't check parts every x miles. You can't build it like a tank so it survives (if nothing else because its a rover and needs to actually move).
    6. Re:Soldering is Bullshit by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      How do you think monitoring equipment at the poles works for months on end at -40C to -60C?

      One thing to keep in mind is that on Mars where the rovers are, the tempurature swings from say 25c to -120c. It is the *swings* back and forth that are the biggest risk to electronics, not the cold itself. Thus, Earth pole solutions may not apply. Tempurate cycling (swings) is what cracks rocks.

  13. Skillfully MANAGED EXPECTATIONS by mi · · Score: 1

    To succeed so well at something that is so incredibly difficult is high praise in itself.

    NASA has managed the nation's (and the world's) expectations spectacularly. Have they said, we expect these machines to be function for a year, we would've been complaining, after one of the wheels died on one of them.

    But by starting with the lowest bearable duration (90 days), and by continuing to remind us of it, they collect nothing but praise. Nobody is asking, why was the "designed for period" so low? — because it is grossly exceeded by now, so what's to complain about? Right? And if anything happened earlier, the excuse is obvious: "Well, we only designed them to last 90 days".

    Very nice hedge, NASA...

    All of us should keep that in mind, when asked to do anything.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Skillfully MANAGED EXPECTATIONS by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't think so. There are no extra-terrestrial rovers that have lasted 90 days that I remember. One Soviet lander lasted 20 seconds on the surface. Sojourner lasted 83 days. If you know of any counterexamples, please let me know. Otherwise, your explanation is implausible because one year or three years is far, far longer than anyone has managed and is unrealistic.

      The problem is that they expected the solar panels to fail due to excessive dust collection, blocking the light, and they had found no economical means to clean the panels. They got lucky when an occasional wind storm cleaned off the current rovers.

  14. good run by SolusSD · · Score: 2, Insightful

    while this is unfortunate, nasa expected a failure such as this a long time ago. They have been invaluable source of knowledge-- and i'm sure they won't be the last rovers on mars.

  15. "Deadly" by popo · · Score: 1

    Isn't the whole place "Deadly"?

    --
    ------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
    1. Re:"Deadly" by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Not for a Mars rover!

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
  16. Predicting the future? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is the first dust storm, how do we know it's also the largest?

    1. Re:Predicting the future? by goarilla · · Score: 1

      it's the largest recorded sand storm known to man, i suppose

  17. Quite right too by Flying+pig · · Score: 1
    The rovers really are an amazing achievement. And it is not in any way to belittle it to add that the various space programs not only of the US, but also Russia, the EU, and an increasing number of other countries are also evidence of what really bright people can achieve when allowed to.

    The really depressing thing is the bar experts already posting on this topic as to how, if only they were in charge of the program, they would have had backup systems for this and harder environmental standards for that, as if the collective efforts of NASA and its subcontractors wouldn't have thought of that already and dismissed it because of some obvious constraint like payload mass, or because merely specifying semiconductors to JANTXV standards won't ensure your system can recover from temperatures below -40 (note deliberate omission of unit there.)

    --
    Pining for the fjords
    1. Re:Quite right too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No units? You must mean Kelvins then. Oh, wait...

    2. Re:Quite right too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the bar experts already posting on this topic as to how, if only they were in charge of the program, they would have had backup systems for this and harder environmental standards for that, as if the collective efforts of NASA and its subcontractors wouldn't have thought of that already and dismissed it because of some obvious constraint like payload mass, or because merely specifying semiconductors to JANTXV standards won't ensure your system can recover from temperatures below -40 (note deliberate omission of unit there.)
      C'mon, it is normal review process by human swarm-intelligence ... After all, NOW some Martian environmental features are obvious which probably were under much discussion before the mission started, why are you depressed with people recognizing them? I am sure next generation rovers will be built with more heat insulation, or some system which actively controls heat exchange with surroundings (i.e. "sunbathing" to accumulate heat, when possible), or, as someone mentioned, small radioactive heat-source. All this bitching around is actually brainstorming in general geek population on the next step in rover design. There is enough material (experience) for months or years of problem solving.
  18. Must be the native Martians at work by Dachannien · · Score: 1

    Zapp: Behold: The Great Stone Face of Mars...
    Fry: Hm.
    Zapp: ...the only known entrance to the Martian reservation.
    Leela: What about the Great Stone Ass of Mars?
    Zapp: Well, yeah, but it's way over on the other side of the planet.

    1. Re:Must be the native Martians at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you've posted that before. Sjit man.

    2. Re:Must be the native Martians at work by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Sorry, 'tweren't me.

  19. I always wondered.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rovers were supposed to last only three months because of dust building up on the solar panels---how come they never considered wipers? You know, like the windshield kind? Also, if the storm gets very bad, are the batteries in bad enough shape they can't just go into standby for a few weeks?

    1. Re:I always wondered.... by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The rovers were supposed to last only three months because of dust building up on the solar panels---how come they never considered wipers?

            Considering the fact that the rovers have far outlived their design life - wipers don't seem to be essential, do they?

            Wipers (and the motor to run them) add mass, the motor requires energy, circuitry, etc. Just another component that can fail. And a non essential one at that, apparently.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:I always wondered.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if your read the previous posts, you'd learn that the dust gets atached electrostatically. wipers would not remove it.

  20. Only option by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nuke it from orbit, and change the weather.

  21. You posted in the wrong thread! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    The Roswell thread is down one from here...http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid= 07/07/08/1324256

    Tinfoil hats and all.

  22. $5 says... by teh+loon · · Score: 1, Funny

    $5 says the decepticons are behind the sandstorm. :/

    1. Re:$5 says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      $5 says the decepticons are behind the sandstorm. :/

      You have talking money? That's pretty cool.

    2. Re:$5 says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Nothing special about it" - My 2 cents.

    3. Re:$5 says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      am i the only one picturing infant aliens with beach shorts and shovels, dusting up the rovers?

    4. Re:$5 says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you heard? Money talks...

  23. "Deathly" by Wooky_linuxer · · Score: 1

    And I thought that "Mars Rover and the Deathly Storms" was only coming out in July 21st.

    --
    Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
  24. Re:How convenient by wellingj · · Score: 1

    ...it this case there is more than meets the eye....

  25. Really?-Potatoe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I'm greatly looking forward to seeing your solution for keeping vital components at acceptable temperatures without any power."

    Nuclear cell. And I wasn't thinking of running the entire rover on them. Just enough to keep them warm, and trickle charge the batteries in a worse case scenario.

  26. it owes you nothing by v1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    wire wrap is nice if weight is not a problem. In a launch, every gram matters, and wire wrap adds a lot of weight for several reasons. You have to have posts to wrap around, you have to use fat solid wire instead of thin traces, and the runs of wire are longer than the traces.

    Size is also important. Wire wrap boxes are usually very large by comparison with a soldered PCB, especially where there are dense electronics. These rovers probably have several surface mount ICs on them, and you can't wire wrap that.

    Also, correct me if I'm wrong here, but the longer the connecting traces/wires are, the more likely they are to be hit by EMI etc? So longer runs of wire, in addition to adding weight and bulk, could also invite unwanted and potentially damaging inducted power.

    It appears they made all the right choices with the amount of information they had to go on and the design goals they had to meet. I can't think of any other possible way to explain the level of their success as discussed by numerous previous posts.

    iirc, the rovers were scheduled for three months, and that's before ANY winters. The thing was designed to work for less than 1/2 yr, in the summer, but they engineered it with the "possibility" of surviving a winter or two. How may winters have they made it through so far? If it finally breaks, think of it like your car lasting you 40 years before you have to replace it. It owes you nothing, be happy for what you got, it's more than you deserved.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  27. Rovers still functioning normal !? by Frans+Faase · · Score: 3, Informative

    At Mars Exploration Rover Mission there is still no official statement that the Rovers are no longer operating normal. It seems that this site is not always up to date, but if I count correctly, images from the Rovers are still arriving. The last status report of Spirit is from June 2, for sols 1234-1239. The last Spirit images are from Sol 1247. The last Opportunity images are from Sol 1226. If I counted correctly, that must have been yesterday or today.

    1. Re:Rovers still functioning normal !? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      At Mars Exploration Rover Mission there is still no official statement that the Rovers are no longer operating normal.

      My understanding is that they are just sitting in place, monitoring the weather. If they move around too much, then they may not have enough power to heat the internals during the cold desert nights, risking electronics cracking due to thermal cycling (extreme tempurates). Thus, the less they do at day, the more power they have left at night for heating.

  28. Wind turbines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not wind turbines, a whole bunch of small itsy bitsy ones mounted on a panel or something??

    1. Re:Wind turbines? by OriginalArlen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      MERs and other Mars surface landers and rovers don't use wind turbines because the atmosphere is incredibly thin - far to thin to turn turbine blades. Think about it... they've only received puffs of wind strong enough to blow the thin coating of (incredibly small) dust particles off the solar cells half a dozen times in three years. You'd barely feel the touch of the wind on your skin even when it's blowing at it's strongest.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    2. Re:Wind turbines? by smoker2 · · Score: 1

      You'd barely feel the touch of the wind on your skin even when it's blowing at it's strongest.
      And that's why the Rovers are currently in danger from a huge dust storm is it ?
      Does the dust fly by itself ?
    3. Re:Wind turbines? by kryptkpr · · Score: 2, Informative

      I believe you are confusing surface winds, which are very light, with atmospheric winds which are much faster and more then capable of blacking out the sun.. just because energy is up there, doesn't mean you can effectively harness it.

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    4. Re:Wind turbines? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And that's why the Rovers are currently in danger from a huge dust storm is it ?
      Does the dust fly by itself ?


      It is wise to remember that there is almost no weathering on Mars. The dust is extremely fine compared to what you would see on Earth. It has been years since I studied geology but I clearly remember that particle suspension time is nonlinearly related to its mass. Very fine dust particles require very little effort to make them airborne and stay airborne for extended periods. You might not even be able to feel the wind that would push up a dust cloud around you on Mars. It also helps that the gravitational field is smaller.

    5. Re:Wind turbines? by dsanfte · · Score: 1

      It helps to think of the dust not as grains of sand, but as particles of finely ground flour. Go open a bag of baking flour, and I guarantee you no matter how gently you open the bag, there will be a fair-sized cloud of it ejected airborne from the bag as you do.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    6. Re:Wind turbines? by OriginalArlen · · Score: 1
      Yes, that's right. The dust is a threat because a dusty atmosphere reduces the light levels (tau), which means less electricity for the rovers.

      Smart-arse.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
  29. Suspicious timing. by Ecuador · · Score: 3, Funny

    Am I the only one to find the timing of the freak "dust storms" suspicious? It is obvious that Martians living in the neigbourhoods currently explored by the rovers would have a hard time launching to attend the Roswell UFO festival without being noticed. And you know some of these Martians value their privacy. I am sure these "dust storms" will clear out after the weekend, when everyone's back from the Festival.

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  30. Why not nuclear and/or wind power? by spiritgreywolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not having searched, I wonder what power source the Rovers use? Were it a small backup nuclear battery it would surprise me if it couldn't keep things (like the main batts) warm enough, and last long enough to power the most basic of rover "keepalive" functions.

    Also not knowing how much wind is actually whipping up the frothy dust, how big would a set of cups or blades on the ends of a stick need to be to generate power for the same purpose (if not nuclear). Granted one couldn't always count on there being wind, and the cost to weight ratio against the advantage of having a wind power backup might not add up - but it begs the question...

    --
    Never have a philosophy which supports a lack of courage
    1. Re:Why not nuclear and/or wind power? by thetinguy · · Score: 4, Informative

      The next rover mission will no longer rely on solar panels. It will have nuclear reactors as the main source of power. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Science_Laborato ry#Power_source/

    2. Re:Why not nuclear and/or wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The existing Mars rovers already use some radioactive heat sources, but it's not enough to protect against every possible circumstance. The next generation NASA Mars rover will be entirely nuclear powered.

    3. Re:Why not nuclear and/or wind power? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The existing Mars rovers already use some radioactive heat sources, but it's not enough to protect against every possible circumstance. The next generation NASA Mars rover will be entirely nuclear powered.

      I've heard they've been rethinking that. Due to the success of the current rovers, the next rover may be hybrid solar and nuclear. Protesters tend to complain a lot about nuclear cells being launched because a launch failure could contaminate residential areas. Thus, there is some pressure to switch to some solar.

    4. Re:Why not nuclear and/or wind power? by david.given · · Score: 1

      The next rover mission will no longer rely on solar panels. It will have nuclear reactors as the main source of power.

      That's not a reactor --- that's an RTG, which is an entirely different kind of beast. RTGs are purely passive devices, just small lumps of plutonium that get warm and generate electricity via thermocouples. They're physically small, cheap, low-powered, simple, reliable, incredibly tough, and are ideal for this kind of mission. Fission reactors are none of the above.

      RTGs are the devices that have kept the Voyager probes running and producing good science for nearly thirty years now, quite a lot of it in what amounts to interstellar space.

    5. Re:Why not nuclear and/or wind power? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually RTGs (radioisotope thermoelectric generators) are designed to withstand launch failures. Indeed, an older generation RTG did just that, the launch vehicle for the Nimbus B-1 RTG powered weather satellite was exploded by range safety shortly after liftoff, the RTG (a SNAP-19) was recovered off the sea floor and refurbished for use in a later satellite. The tiny contingent of people who protest launches of RTG powered spacecraft typically do so out of an unthinking fear and hatred of any nuclear related technology, not out of sound assessments of risk potential.

      Also, no RTG powered spacecraft launch has yet been halted or delayed by anti-nuclear protests, so it would be rather odd to give in to a pressure that really isn't very significant.

  31. Luck by SockPuppet_9_5 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Dust storms on Mars are a known risk. If the dust storms were this bad on the planet when the rovers first landed, the rovers may not have been able to last past the original 90 day mission. Everyone at NASA/JPL will tell you that luck has played a significant role in the current longevity of the rovers due to the lack of dust storms to date and the various cleaning events.

    The current rover design can't be used when investigating Mars outside equatorial regions, either.

    It's been a great run for both rovers, and it's great to see them provide atmospheric data on opacity of the atmosphere (tau) -- measuring that which may ultimately kill them.

  32. The Matrix had another power source... by katchins · · Score: 1

    Maybe NASA should watch "The Matrix"...

    As Morpheus explains to Neo, there was a catastrophic war between the humans and the machines, after the humans had produced AI, a sentient robot that spawned a race of its own. It isn't known now who started the war, but it did follow a long period of machine exploitation by humans. What is known is that it was the humans who "scorched the sky", blocking out the sun's rays, in an attempt at machine genocide--since the machines needed solar power to survive. In response and retaliation the machines subdued the humans and made them into sources of energy--batteries, in effect. http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/rl_cmp/new_p hil_fr_mcginn.html

    And run the rovers off of people power ;-)

    --
    if (!sig) { printf("Signature Unavailable\n"); }
    1. Re:The Matrix had another power source... by yourmomisfasterthana · · Score: 1, Funny

      not to mention that doing this will simultaneously grant us the achievement of putting humans on mars! ;-)

      --
      -Yourmomisfasterthanabeowulfcluster
  33. Idiocy in action by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Informative

    1. Install wipers for the solar cells.

    1) The wind from the storm has (once again) actually CLEARED the panels of dust.
    2) The problem is that the storm is cutting out the sunlight used to charge the rovers. what would your "wipers" do, reach into the upper atmosphere and clear it out? Or perhaps they should have added an arm to hold a flashlight pointed at the solar panels. Genius!

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  34. Lunokhods roved on the moon for more than 90 days by Derling+Whirvish · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are no extra-terrestrial rovers that have lasted 90 days that I remember. ... If you know of any counterexamples, please let me know. Lunokhod-1 lasted 322 days roving for 10.5 km on the moon in 1970-71.

    Lunokhod-2 lasted for four months and explored 37 km in 1973.

  35. RTG's? by rillopy · · Score: 1

    Why didn't they use radioisotope thermoelectric generators (like those on Voyager 1,2) on these rovers to at least keep them warm instead of relying on external power?

    1. Re:RTG's? by Traf-O-Data-Hater · · Score: 1

      There are RTG's in the MERs: "To survive the frigid Martian night, MER computers are housed in warm electronics boxed heated by a combination of electric heaters, eight radioisotope heater units as well as the natural warmth from the electronics themselves." (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technolog y/mer_computer_040128.html)

  36. Re:How convenient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it this case there is more than meets the eye.... So Mars is actually Cybertron?
  37. Correct me if I'm wrong... by sxeraverx · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't they want the rovers to die so that they can get more funding for cool newer shit?

    A couple weeks ago, there was an article about how they were trying to drive the rover into a crater that they thought it wouldn't be able to get out of. If they haven't changed their minds, this seems to be along the lines of what NASA wants.

  38. Re:Soldering is Bullshit (correction) by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    to -120c

    Oops, that might be a little low. I'll let the experts provide the actual figures...

  39. NASA lies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They survived 50 times their expected lifetime so NASA had to keep up the project 50 times more time. Loads of money. They are tired and want to stop. So am I, baba.

  40. The shadows are dangerous for Mars Rover!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The scientists of the NASA are stupid, very stupid!!!

    SHADOW! SHADOW! SHADOW!

    They planned to Mars Rover to entry the Victoria Crater.

    But they don't known the dangers of the shadows of the Victoria Crater.

    Mars Rover is inside of a mobile shadow of the Victoria Crater.

    Now, for the next mission of Craft Rover is to use plutoniom P-U239 to decay radioctivity and produce energy without the need of solar panels.

    Is it that you want?

  41. Not such a worry by mdsolar · · Score: 3, Informative

    National Geographic reported a day later that the storms are not a threat: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/07/07 0706-rovers-dust.html.
    --
    Rent solar power: http://mdsolar.blogspot.com/2007/01/slashdot-users -selling-solar.html

  42. Re:Where is Al Gore when Mars needs him? by adsl · · Score: 1

    A pity moderators have no sense of humor!

  43. Re:Where is Al Gore when Mars needs him? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nerds don't worry about solar warming, being all tucked up in their parents basement and all. The sunlight is entirely blacked out. Now the mars rover will know what its creators live like.

  44. bah by abonstu · · Score: 1
    everytime there is a rover story on /. there is some karma whore who struts out the 12 gun salute and minute of silence to the engineers who worked on this job... dont get me wrong, im sure we all recognise the acheivement but is it really worth slutting up a 'i love you guys' speech each and every time?

    reminds me of all the wankers who do the 'oh i love you scott adams' comments beneath each and every blog post...

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

      dont get me wrong, im sure we all recognise the acheivement but is it really worth slutting up a 'i love you guys' speech each and every time?

      Yes. Thank you for asking. In fact, I think we oughta do that in comments to stories unrelated to the rovers. NASA Engineers should have an helping of love every day, not just when the rovers get to the news. So, there. Deal with it.

      reminds me of all the wankers who do the 'oh i love you scott adams' comments beneath each and every blog post...

      Hey! Those comments were meant for Scott, not for you! Anyway, what's it to you? Jealous or what?

  45. McKay is optimistic the rovers will survive by Frans+Faase · · Score: 1
    In Phoenix Mars Lander Prepared to Weather Dust Storms it says:
    • If Spirit and Opportunity do incur damage from the current dust storm, it will be because they are already on the margin of their ability to function anyway in terms of power, McKay said. Originally designed for only a three-month mission, the plucky rovers have continued operating for an astonishing three years. Aged as they are and despite concern from rover mission officials, McKay is optimistic the rovers will survive this latest ordeal.

      The rovers are "way past their warranty date," McKay said. "It could be that under the low power condition of the dust storm, they may have some breakdowns that can't be repaired but I actually would be surprised, especially since they both just survived the winter. This should be a piece of cake for them."

  46. alternative attack by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    The Martians have been successful in destroying two thirds of the visiting spacecraft. They've had trouble, however, locating the relatively small rovers on the surface without observation satellites of their own, which Earthlings might easily spot. They're becoming increasingly concerned that one will happen upon something they've made in the recent past or some anomaly that might indicate their locations. Under the assumption that the rovers might be solar powered, they began spooling up a massive dust storm to deprive them of power and possibly freeze them permanently. They know we're coming, but wish to delay the inevitable by keeping us from finding anything that would trigger a massive investment in Mars expoloration.

  47. Re:No, wirewrap is Bullshit by scharkalvin · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Once upon a time all prototype electronics were wirewrapped. Today, it's a dying art.
    When dip IC's ruled the roost wirewrap was king. Today, surface mount ic's are king
    and pc boards rule.

    Also as circuit speeds went up, wirewrap stopped working. With clock speeds under 5 mhz, the long leads of wire wrapped construction with signals running parallel worked well enough. With today's 100mhz+ clocks wirewrap would have fatal crosstalk. Back in the 80's a company I worked for tried to wirewrap a cpu prototype using 10mhz processors. We NEVER got it to work, too many problems with crosstalk. A 4 layer circuit board was MUCH quieter, and worked fine.

    Then there is the issue of labor. With computer layout software and automated fabs it's much cheaper and faster to have a pc prototype made than to pay some tech's to wirewrap a proto. In fact you can go through two or three pc prototypes in the time/money required to do just
    ONE wirewrap one.

    Wirewrap is DEAD. Bury it!

  48. Karma Boosting 101 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Step 1: Wait around on /. all day for a story about the Mars rovers.
    Step 2: Post a comment congratulating NASA engineers for a job well done.
    Step 3: Wait for karma points to roll in, all the while knowing that you've added absolutely nothing to the conversation.

    Instant karma . . . priceless.

    And we all shine on!!