Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover Spirit Reaches Winter Tilt

An anonymous reader writes "The Mars rover Spirit has been inching carefully down the north slope of the feature 'Home Plate' to tilt its solar panels into the sun to survive the long Martian winter. On Friday, it reached a tilt of 29.9 degrees, probably the final tilt it will reach for the winter. Although it's used the tilt strategy to increase power over the Martian winter twice before, this year it's especially critical, since a global dust storm last summer has left the solar-powered rover covered with dust and starved for power. Geoffrey Landis, one of the MER scientists, commemorated Spirit's trek to the winter haven with a sonnet on his blog. (The second of the two rovers, Opportunity, is at a landing site that's not as far into the southern hemisphere, and hence has less need to find a tilted surface.) OSU has a website explaining some of the software used to visualize the terrain to optimize the tilt, and for the latest news, the ongoing log of the rover status is updated weekly."

30 of 88 comments (clear)

  1. Stupid but obvious by Goalie_Ca · · Score: 3, Funny

    If dust is a problem why don't they attach a brush to it or something.

    --

    ----
    Go canucks, habs, and sens!
    1. Re:Stupid but obvious by Eddi3 · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yeah, because they can do that from 36-250 million miles away.

    2. Re:Stupid but obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      They could carry it with a swallow.

    3. Re:Stupid but obvious by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 3, Funny

      I've always wondered why they didn't build them with a brush or something to clean the panels off with. Seems like a pretty obvious thing that someone should have brought up in the design stages.

    4. Re:Stupid but obvious by RuBLed · · Score: 2, Funny

      Wait a minute! Supposing two swallows carried it together?

    5. Re:Stupid but obvious by jasonwea · · Score: 5, Insightful

      A quick Google isn't turning up anything authoritative, but from memory:

      For the original 90 day mission length, running out of juice due to dusty panels would not have been a concern. It would have just been another thing to break and would have added to the mass of the rover, quite possibly costing valuable capacity for other scientific tools.

      [insert rant about how some of that war budget could do wonders for NASA]

    6. Re:Stupid but obvious by Dance_Dance_Karnov · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I suppose. but I bet the next rover gets a dust clearing device of some kind.

    7. Re:Stupid but obvious by splutty · · Score: 5, Insightful

      - More Moving Parts
      - Weight
      - Dust too fine to be brushed off easilly
      - Chance to actually reduce power generation on failure by blocking the solar panels
      - Needs power itself

      And all this aside from the fact that asking someone to make a solar panel wiper for Mars is going to be an enormously expensive and involved operation. Windspeeds, airpressure, particle count, gravity, temperature all play a part in this. And anyone using windshield wipers on their car knows how unreliable they are to begin with.

      --
      Coz eternity my friend, is a long *ing time.
    8. Re:Stupid but obvious by warrigal · · Score: 2, Informative

      Part of the reason is probably that the rovers weren't supposed to last long enough to need cleaning.

      Obviously, they were over-engineered because the environment on Mars was not known very well at design time.

      If it had been known very well there would have been no point in sending them.

      What I want to know is why the dust can't be shaken loose by rocking either the solar panel or the whole rover.

    9. Re:Stupid but obvious by jasonwea · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think that would be a safe bet considering how long these 2 have lasted.

      They have already been working on a few ideas in the labs.

    10. Re:Stupid but obvious by Aglassis · · Score: 4, Informative

      I doubt it. RTGs don't normally need devices to clean the dust off of them.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
    11. Re:Stupid but obvious by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

      According to OSHA guidelines, an astronaut is not to remain in space for more than 18 months per 4 year period. [...] Because a round trip to mars takes 21 months, the next rover will not be deployed with any dust cleaning device.

      No, it means no rovers will have an American dust cleaning device.

      And as happens more and more, the rest of the world will laugh at us as we legislate ourselves into a third-world mediocrity.


      As an aside - OSHA actually has guidelines for one of the rarest of human professions in all history, but they can't keep coal miners safe? Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?

    12. Re:Stupid but obvious by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

      I agree with about everything you said but the part about OSHA and coal miners. OSHA does cover coal miners. That would be MSHA, a separate ordeal all together specifically designated for the mining industry.

    13. Re:Stupid but obvious by Celeritas · · Score: 2, Funny

      Are those African or European Swallows?

    14. Re:Stupid but obvious by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful
      You could weigh the costs versus the benefits. I agree with other posters, that we just did not know how long they would last and that dust would be a problem at all. So taking resources to design around a problem that did not even factor in to the mission was unlikely, and wasteful at the time.

      That being said, I think you are overstating the complexity and cost a little bit. Now that we do know it would be valuable and extend the lifetime of the mission, it would be trivial to add a kind of "dustbuster" if you will.

      - More Moving Parts

      This will be true no matter what we are talking about doing with the rover, with the exception of its electronics and sensors. It is essentially a robot, and must have moving parts to achieve locomotion and carry out missions with its arms. So what you are saying is obvious. The question is if the value it adds to the mission justifies it costs.

      - Weight

      Once again, this is a consideration with every aspect of the mission, from getting it there, to the energy expended while on the surface. The question should once again be if the value it adds to the mission justifies the costs.

      - Dust to fine to be brushed off easily

      Does it need to be brushed in the first place? I know the poster asked specifically about a brush, but they also asked about "something". It need not be a windshield wiper, but could simply blow whatever atmosphere there is against the panels like an air canister. Since the canister and pumping apparatus could provide variable amounts of pressure, it could be configured to blow the air just enough to start getting rid of the dust without doing significant damage to the solar panels, or at least no more significantly than the dust already did when landing on the solar panel itself.

      - Chance to actually reduce power generation on failure by blocking the solar panels

      Now this applies only if it was really designed like a brush (a large tool), and even less if it was a windshield wiper (very small tool). If it was a robotic arm with a "wand" it could be designed to only block a very small portion of the panels during use. Even windshield wipers block a very small percentage of any windshield if they are stopped in the middle of a sweep.

      Heck, you could ditch the wand entirely, and just implant into the surface a bunch of raised nozzles like the ones we have on cars now that spray the windshield wiper fluid. A simple omni-directional nozzle could spray out the air onto the solar panel, and would not block the solar panel under any conditions.

      - Needs power itself

      Well thats kind of redundant and unnecessary as a comment, no offense. EVERY device on these Rovers is going to require power, either what it brings from Earth, or what it can generate on Mars. Not a reason to dismiss anything out of hand. Once again, if it is justified by the value it adds to mission, its energy costs are then factored in and must be worth it.

      As for the power requirements, is it feasible to just reserve a small percentage of the incoming power to keep the air canisters pressurized at all times? I realize that it must use some of the same power it is attempting to protect, but air canisters can remain pressurized for extended periods of time. The amount of power that would be necessary to run pumps to "top off" the air canister should be minimal when spread over such a large duration of time.

      There was also a recent post about a type of nanotech windshield that was wiper less and only required a power source. If the power required was low enough, it could be powered directly from the solar panels themselves. There would only be reduction in the amount of power delivered to the main systems. Another possibility, and one that is certainly solid state and required no

    15. Re:Stupid but obvious by Lifyre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One thing that EVERY person in this conversation about dirt clearing devices is forgetting are the recent developments in windshield wipers. Namely the wiperless kind...

      It seems to me that something like http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/22/2342233 would be right up NASA's alley.

      Of course I read WAY too much /. and don't forget about it the next day...

      --
      I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
    16. Re:Stupid but obvious by Kinthelt · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know. AAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaaaa.........

      --

      "Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Dark Helmet (Spaceballs)

    17. Re:Stupid but obvious by sveard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Have you ever tried shaking dust off of something on earth? I think static electricity keeps it on there or something.

    18. Re:Stupid but obvious by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yea, that's why I was thinking of felt or some stationary wiper. And yea, the panels would have slide out beside each other instead of unfolding.

      I think the original rovers folded the panels on top of each other. I think if this were changed to stack and slide together like a sliding winder, at the points they meat, it could use the deployment motors to periodically retract the panels which would cause them to be brushed by the felt or velcro strip along the seems of the pannels. Then deploy the panel wings on the opposite side of the craft and you would essentially have swiped both sides the entire panel array.

      The only draw back is that you would need to manipulate which panel was on top in order to ensure they could all three (or five or whatever) be cleaned by this maneuver. It appears that it only needs to happen a couple times a year. I'm sure even the simplest design could outlast the crafts.

      It might not be as easy as this. Or whats that saying, sound easy until you try to do it. But I think that out of a few simple approaches, something might be able to be worked through relatively easily without costing too much weight or bulk.

    19. Re:Stupid but obvious by Convector · · Score: 2, Informative

      As I understand it the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) is going to have a Radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG), so there won't be any solar panels to get dusty. It will need the extra power to move around as the bloody thing is the size of a mini-cooper, and could RUN OVER the MERs. It also has a high-powered laser to vaporize bits rock in order to do spectroscopy on it. Sounds scary to me; I'm glad I'm not a native Martian.

  2. A Job well done. by Umuri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I have some karma to burn, and I feel there is not a better piece to do it on.

    Great job rover team.
    The two rovers are a constant motivator for all engineers on how a project can still be done right in this world, and how much affect that can have. Nowadays it's depressing when you hear about all the flaws in products people actually sell, and how returning broken shit out of the box is the norm. In business we get delayed projects and stupid alterations at whims sometimes.

    But the rovers were done right, and were done for science. And they're still chugging well past their expiration date. I regret I wasn't alive for the moon landings, but in my humble opinion, i sometimes feel as if this was the greater achievement of the two. Especially that they're still going.

    Good job. And keep it up.

    --
    You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
  3. Rover III by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Funny

    Bag-less rover with duel cyclone technology.
    Sponsored by Dyson.

  4. Wonderful by PrayingWolf · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I hope the martian winds blow some of that dust off of the panels.
    Great to see these amazing robots still at work!
    I read "Roving Mars" a couple of years ago and even back then the mission had superseded all of its goals.

    Indeed a very inspiring episode in space exploration

  5. 29.9 by Thanshin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You know they're talking about the apex of human technology when they control tenths of a degree of inclination of a robotic car running over another planet.

    I can't even know the angle of the keyboard I'm writing this, with such precision.

  6. "I disagree" != "Troll" by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear mods - Please learn the difference between "I do not agree, you have offended my delicate sensitivities", from "Troll" and "Flamebait".

    Though confusingly similar to the untrained eye, people can legitimately disagree with your personal worldview without trolling.


    Although metamoderation almost always vindicates me, and I couldn't care less about my karma ("excellent", BTW) I do find it somewhat discouraging that zealots (whether religious, political, or Apple) manage to silence any discussion on topics they don't like by modding to below the default visible threshold.

    If you disagree with me, say so. You might even convince me of the error of my ways. Modding me down just reinforces the view that those who silently disagree with me really have no rational arguments worth hearing.

  7. Dust removal, hard but possible by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 5, Informative
    We actually had built a dust experiment to test out some methods of removing dust. It had been scheduled to fly on the Mars-2001 Surveyor Lander, but the 2001 lander mission was cancelled after the failure of the 1999 Polar Lander (which used the same basic spacecraft design). In fact, we talked about dust removal technology for the MER, but it simply turned out that the most reliable solution was to increase the size of the panels so that they would still be at nominal power after 90 days worth of calculated dust accumulation. (My Pathfinder data showed about a quarter of a percent loss of power due to dust per (Martian) day, for what it's worth, but the longer term data looked hint that it was leveling out with time). There's just a lot of reliability in the no-moving-parts solution, and as a bonus, it gave the rover quite a bit of power margin at landing (and, in fact, after landing too-- the dust-related power loss in fact does tail off.)

    With that said, let me note that dust removal is probably a bit harder than you realize. The optical data showed that suspended dust is extremely fine-- the cross-section weighted average particle radius is about 2.5 microns, so these particles are about the size of the particles in tobacco smoke. Particles this fine are predicted to adhere extremely well, by van der Waals and electrostatic forces. Picture trying to use your windshield wipers to clean the dust off your windshield, without using the wiper fluid. (and wiper fluid is tricky on Mars, too; you need it to stay liquid for long enough to run the wiper, and neither evaporate or freeze before it hits the panel). And blowing dust off is very tricky-- the atmospheric pressure is less than 1% that of Earth's. We could carry fluid, or compressed gas, but those would be consumables-- and if we had designed the mission and budgeted consumables for a 90 sol lifetime, we'd have run out of them years ago anyway, so we'd be in the same position we're in now anyway.

    A feather duster might work, but feathers almost certainly violate the planetary protection policy :)

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
    1. Re:Dust removal, hard but possible by jbeaupre · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Out of curiosity, did anyone look at piezo electric or electrostatic methods? How did they fare?

      For piezos, I'm thinking of the "dog shake" method. A little buzz from time to time to loosen the dust. If the panels are tilted, some of the dust might flow off. Clean the panels? Unlikely. But maybe keep the dust from exceeding some limit.

      For electrostatic, someone might be clever enough to figure out how to do it with no moving parts. But all I can think of is to charge a small ribbon or wire and pass it over the panels without touching them. Hoover up some dust with static electricity. Then move the wire over the side, turn off, and let the dust drop. If the effect is strong enough, maybe the wire could always sit over the side. All assuming the high voltages don't cause more trouble than they are worth.

      I wouldn't be surprised if both were looked and dumped, but just curious how they stacked up.

      --
      The world is made by those who show up for the job.
    2. Re:Dust removal, hard but possible by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

      Out of curiosity, did anyone look at piezo electric or electrostatic methods? How did they fare?

      Yeah, both of these were looked at. We thought about miniature piezo vibrators on the cells, but didn't actually get to the point of doing any tests under Mars conditions. We did a bit of work with electrostatics-- in fact, the mitigation technique I like best right now uses a DC glow discharge ("Paschen discharge") which is pretty easy to start at Mars pressure, very near the Paschen curve minimum.

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  8. not obvious, but possibly stupid by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Informative

    The optimum design would be nothing like a conventional car windshield wiper. Think closer to a free-spinning ostrich-feather duster

    What are the triboelectric properties of ostrich feathers? If rubbing an ostrich feather across a solar panel charges up the panel electrostatically (and think of rubbing something on Mars like petting your cat in the middle of a very cold winter, except Mars is really really dry) you are in deep trouble. (obSF: "Dust Rag," Hal Clement).

    How do you sterilize an ostrich feather to get it past the planetary protection protocol?

    What is your failure-mitigation mechanism for the case the mechanism jams when the feather is halfway across the solar panel? (keep in mind that shadowing just one solar cell in a string will take the entire string off line.)

    driven by a magnetic actuator

    The dust on Mars is preferentially attracted to magnets.

    Mars is very cold, and very dry, and very dusty. What are you proposing to use to lubricate this mechanism? How are you keeping it from jamming? What's your plan to ensure that the acoustic environment inside the launch shroud doesn't vibrate it until the shaft bends? (That long ostrich feather looks like a cantelever that's going to resonate like heck. Tie downs? OK, another few moving parts; more failure modes, more wires connecting to D/A lines connecting to the computer.)

    that is automatically pulled clear of the panels by gravity. That's one moving part, gravity doing half your work for you,

    I don't even know what you mean here. There's no free lunch, even on Mars; if you have weights and pulleys moving it one way, you need exactly that much more energy to move it the other way.

    and since it doesn't rain on Mars there would be a chance of breaking within the first ten years of continuous use of close to zero.

    Failure analysis is a difficult task, and it's the failure modes that you don't think of that kill you. I'm hard-pressed to think of mechanical devices that work reliably for ten years with no servicing in severe environments on Earth, and you're proposing close to zero chance of breaking on Mars. My car's windshield wipers get a little unreliable at merely 0F; I don't think I'd like to claim "no chance of failure" at, say, -50.

    ....although it may seem like it, my point here is not merely to poke holes at superficial solutions (to be fair, you did say "off the top of my head."). The point is that space is not like Earth, and there really are reasons that it is harder to do things in space than it is on Earth. Something like you propose probably could be made to work, but your offhand thought that oh, it would be simple and cheap and reliable is just offbase.

    --
    http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  9. nah, its no problem. by apodyopsis · · Score: 2, Funny

    nah, its no problem - a good martian winter downpour will wash the dust off. and, voila, the problem is eliminated.

    they'll need to get close to one of the canals if they want to wash of some of the sand clogging the treads as well.

    :)