Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover's Epic Trek For the Crater Endeavor

Smivs writes "The BBC reports that NASA is to send its Mars rover Opportunity on a two-year trek to try to reach a crater called Endeavour. The robot will have to move about 11km to get to its new target — a distance that would double what it has already achieved on the planet. Endeavour is much bigger than anything investigated to date, and will allow a broader range of rocks to be studied. Detailed satellite imagery from the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will help pick out the best route ahead; and new software recently uploaded to Opportunity will enable the rover to make its own decisions about how best to negotiate large rocks in its path. Opportunity has just emerged from the 800m-wide Victoria Crater. Endeavour, by comparison, is 22km across."

145 comments

  1. 11 km by adpsimpson · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's about 11,000 inches, right? Shouldn't take that long.

    --
    Is crushing a suspect's child's testicles illegal?
    John Yoo: "No, [if] the President thinks he needs to do that."
    1. Re:11 km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Nope. 11,000 meters.

    2. Re:11 km by FreeUser · · Score: 2, Funny

      or 32 microts

      --
      The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
    3. Re:11 km by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's 11 km om Mars, so we should use astronomical units: almost 360 femtoparsecs.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    4. Re:11 km by mbone · · Score: 2, Funny

      Parsecs are old hat. It's 36.8 microseconds (of light travel time).

    5. Re:11 km by pzs · · Score: 4, Funny

      There should seriously be a moderation tag for "sarcasm impaired".

    6. Re:11 km by oldspewey · · Score: 1

      Not quite. It's actually around 55 furlongs, or 2200 rods (give or take a fathom or two).

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    7. Re:11 km by Gewalt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There really should be a moderation tag for "most people aren't nearly as funny, or as obvious as they think they are".

      No, it really was funny and obvious. You're just not nearly as sharp, or as bright as you think you are.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    8. Re:11 km by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      And a meter is a bit longer than a yard, so estimating, that would 1.10 yards per meter * 11,000 = 12,100 yards or about 435,600 ft. So for the GPs benefit, there are 12 inches in a yard that would be ~ 435,600 inches or so, a little less due to rounding errors. But that's about 40x GPs estimate. :-P

    9. Re:11 km by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      s/inches in a yard/inches in a foot

      doh!

    10. Re:11 km by arielCo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's 100.248 football fields in PopSci units :)

      --
      This post contains no rudeness or derision of any kind. All arguments are friendly. Terms and exclusions may apply.
    11. Re:11 km by bjoeg · · Score: 1

      Narh more likely around 11,000 meters. So in 2 years they say. Hmm, with some minor calculations that would be some 63 centimeters (rounded) a day.

      "Engage" as Capt. Picard would say

    12. Re:11 km by Whiteox · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nope. 11,000 metres

      --
      Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    13. Re:11 km by nocaster · · Score: 1

      How many Empire State buildings?

    14. Re:11 km by mbone · · Score: 1

      An inch is exactly 2.54 cm (by law, in the US). With that and a calculator, you can do any English to Metric (or Metric to English) length conversion exactly.

    15. Re:11 km by xstonedogx · · Score: 1

      Those of us with a sense of humor.

    16. Re:11 km by Comboman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There really should be a moderation tag for "most people aren't nearly as funny, or as obvious as they think they are".

      Funny is admittedly somewhat subjective, but any Slashdot reader interested enough in Mars exploration to read this article would no doubt be familiar with the Mars Climate Orbiter and the error involving conversion of metric units that caused its failure; so I would call the joke fairly obvious.

      --
      Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    17. Re:11 km by mbone · · Score: 1

      63 cm / day ?

      11000 / 730 = 15 meters / day. As they say, that includes some sightseeing time, and a winter vacation or two.

      By the way, so far this year, Spirit has gone 1/2 a meter (48 centimeters).

    18. Re:11 km by paniq · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those of us with an username.

      --
      Do not trust this signature.
    19. Re:11 km by somersault · · Score: 1

      I'd forgotten about that, but there is another article on the front page about 'nano' football, where people are complaining about units - so I still found it funny :)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    20. Re:11 km by timbck2 · · Score: 1

      **whoosh**

      --
      Absurdity: A statement or belief manifestly inconsistent with one's own opinion. -- Ambrose Bierce
    21. Re:11 km by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I did smile at the joke, but I still have a lot of admiration for NASA. I am a brit, and yes I was disappointed when the Beagle 2 probe was lost.

      However, I still remember as a kid, I used to be awed with NASA, and its space shuttle launches, etc. As a child it was what I associated America with: space, advancing to new frontiers, etc, and NASA usually was the center of my aspirations. I used to dream of being on a Shuttle, and often felt jealous (in a positive way) for what our friends across the pond was up to.

      In recent years, and recent news, which unfortunately put the USA in a poor light amongst some, NASA with their exploits brought back some memories about why I aspired towards America; that "can do attitude".

      Sure they have messed up, at times. but space exploration is like that. Their successes usually are just as great.

      These rovers were built to run for 3 months. They are running for on their fifth year now. Absolutely amazing!

      The official reason of how they underestimated the abilities for the wind to clean the sensors, may be correct, but in this day and age, where items are engineered to last their intended lifespan, whoever designed these things still didnt "cheap out" on the rest of the vehicle.

      These are not cheap little radio controlled dune buggy models for use on earth, but self maintaining vehicles that for nearly 5 years have operated in a hostile, largely unknown environment with no physical attention!

      So hats off to NASA and JPL. And god speed on the new mission. And thanks for giving this older man a thing something to smile about in these times of drab news.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    22. Re:11 km by ArsonSmith · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's an estimate right now. They're not sure where the Endeavor crater will actually be. Once Atlantis does the rescue mission Endeavor will be redirected to mars in order to create it's crater.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    23. Re:11 km by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I know. The point was to do a quick estimation all in my head, not to have to pull out a calculator. ;)

      But, pulling up my handy-dandy Python interpreter (What's a calculator app?), you can do this:

      >>> (100/2.54)*11000
      433070.86614173232
      >>>

      So, as you can see, my off-the-cuff estimation was pretty accurate, anyway.

      Alternatively, you can always ask Google, but where's the fun in that?

    24. Re:11 km by Sporkinum · · Score: 4, Funny

      Maybe you've heard of it. It's the rover that made the Endeavor run in less than 360 femtoparsecs.

      --
      "He's lost in a 'floyd hole"
    25. Re:11 km by g-san · · Score: 1

      That bucket of bolts is never gonna get past that crater rim.

    26. Re:11 km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who says you have a sense of humor?

    27. Re:11 km by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

      Once you start arguing with people you need a user name, otherwise how will they know it's you? How do you expect them to condescendingly use your user name when insulting you?

    28. Re:11 km by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      People with modpoints.

    29. Re:11 km by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wasn't arguing, I was just questioning their proposition of 'obviousness'. But I suppose if one does not have any justification for his proposition, a mere question can feel like an insult...

    30. Re:11 km by bjoeg · · Score: 1

      Doh!!!!! I hate when I loose the train of thought. It was 63cm/hour I was going at.

  2. Amazing by Amiralul · · Score: 5, Informative

    Godspeed, Opportunity!
    Remember that Opportunity and Spirit are on their 5th year on the Martian surface. Their mission were initially planned to last no more than 3 months. Bravo!

    1. Re:Amazing by Amiralul · · Score: 2, Informative

      Godspeed, Opportunity! Remember that Opportunity and Spirit are on their 5th year on the Martian surface. Their mission were initially planned to last no more than 3 months. Bravo!

      Oops, read that "4th year", my apologies.

    2. Re:Amazing by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Funny

      Godspeed, Opportunity!

      Remember that Opportunity and Spirit are on their 5th year on the Martian surface. Their mission were initially planned to last no more than 3 months. Bravo!

      So either the rovers are overachievers or we just set their goals WAY too low!

      I guess they are taking a page from Scotty's manual.

      KIRK: Mr. Scott. Have you always multiplied your repair estimates by a factor of four?

      SCOTTY: Certainly, sir. How else can I keep my reputation as a miracle worker?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    3. Re:Amazing by mcgrew · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Their mission were initially planned to last no more than 3 months. Bravo!

      Martian hoopties!

    4. Re:Amazing by mlush · · Score: 2, Informative

      So either the rovers are overachievers or we just set their goals WAY too low!

      I guess they are taking a page from Scotty's manual.

      Its both as I understand it the big win was the martian wind kept the solar panels cleaner than expected, it was dust build up (and thus power loss) that was expected to kill the mssion

    5. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you on it is an amazing feat for them to have lasted this long my issue is with how old these robots are getting up there why risk a risky two year voyage over a distance of about 6.8 miles to get to a creator that is 13 Miles wide and will take another couple of years to explore and probably end up causing a catastrophic failure of Opportunity to me this is a complete miss use of the opportunity they have with a functioning robot up there yet the functionality they have built into these robots donâ(TM)t give them too many more things to-do but explore

    6. Re:Amazing by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      What? Scotty was such a good engineer because he was kept free of dust by the wind?

    7. Re:Amazing by ITJC68 · · Score: 1

      This was the best investment NASA made. They should build more of these to put on the moon and Mars to do more exploring.

    8. Re:Amazing by erroneus · · Score: 1

      I have to wonder why they didn't consider building some sort of windshield wiper for the solar panels onto the machine? If they expected dust to kill the power efficiency, wouldn't an arm with a brush sweeping over the surface of the panels work to resolve that?

    9. Re:Amazing by cytg.net · · Score: 1

      omg .. i cannot believe they did not think of that. seriously. :-)

    10. Re:Amazing by GeordieMac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      actually a better mechanism would be to use compressed atmosphere to blast the dust away. Wipers have more points of failure and would likely abrade the surface of the solar panels, permanently reducing the efficiency fo the cells.

    11. Re:Amazing by mlush · · Score: 1

      actually a better mechanism would be to use compressed atmosphere to blast the dust away. Wipers have more points of failure and would likely abrade the surface of the solar panels, permanently reducing the efficiency fo the cells.

      Compressor + storage = weight + power drain

      How about designing the panels to further exploit the natural wind? Either a wind powered brush (say a little flag on a wire that drags over the panel) or optimize the shape and surface finish to maximize the effect of the wind.

    12. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I agree with you on it is an amazing feat for them to have lasted this long my issue is with how old these robots are getting up there why risk a risky two year voyage over a distance of about 6.8 miles to get to a creator that is 13 Miles wide and will take another couple of years to explore and probably end up causing a catastrophic failure of Opportunity to me this is a complete miss use of the opportunity they have with a functioning robot up there yet the functionality they have built into these robots donâ(TM)t give them too many more things to-do but explore
      I also agree with you on this amazing feat for you to be able to have such an enourmous run on sentence with no punctuation whatsoever even though it seems like a risky voyage over all of those keystrokes just to get to the submit button to wait and see if your content got posted or if you got the slow down cowboy screen and then you have to wait for a while and just stare at the ceiling until you can submit again but back to the rovers I too hope they don't have a catastrophic failure when it goes to the new crater but hey what else can you do since it has explored everything else in the area that it is in and it might as well go someplace new to see something else because it isn't the destination but rather the journey

    13. Re:Amazing by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      "So either the rovers are overachievers or we just set their goals WAY too low!
      I guess they are taking a page from Scotty's manual."

      No. What's happend is that they asked the engineers to design something that has a 99.99% chance of working for 90 days. They did that. But as a side effect the device has a 85% chance of lasting 180 days and a 70% chance of one year and 50% on two years and so on. My numbers are not right but you get the idea.

    14. Re:Amazing by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      No you are correct, they have been up for over 4 and a half years, so they ARE in their fifth year :)

      --
      Have a nice day!
    15. Re:Amazing by Eternauta3k · · Score: 1

      They must expect to find something interesting there. Besides, the road to the crater will also have interesting things to study.

      --
      Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
    16. Re:Amazing by ari_j · · Score: 1

      Is that in Martian years or people years?

    17. Re:Amazing by ctetc007 · · Score: 2

      Compressor + storage = weight + power drain

      Same goes for the wiper idea too. Adding any kind of cleaning mechanism adds more weight, and I'm guessing a trade study done on this deemed the estimated extended life to not be worth the added weight (fewer scientific tools).
      It's also not a good idea to count on the Martian wind being there either, because what happens if you get unlucky and are in an area of doldrums? The best course of action is to plan for the worst (3 month mission), but have the capability to continue on if you get a good windfall like that.

    18. Re:Amazing by ctetc007 · · Score: 2, Informative

      don't give them too many more things to-do but explore

      That's what Opportunity is doing. It's will be exploring the crater. Along the way Opportunity will also be studying the soil and terrain it encounters while it's making it's trek to the crater.

      I the JPL scientists were planning for Opportunity to explore whatever's available, but they didn't want it to just randomly wander whichever way it wanted to. Instead, they decided to give it an exploration trek. They will be exploring the environment, and at the end of the endeavor, it will end up at Endeavor Crater. The crater was the next thing over, the closest thing of great scientific interest that made a good destination for its continuing mission...
      To explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life, and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before.

    19. Re:Amazing by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      And remember Opportunity: If Houston sends commands on metric units, ignore then for crist' sake! :)

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    20. Re:Amazing by Kjella · · Score: 1

      So either the rovers are overachievers or we just set their goals WAY too low!

      Long story short, we thought their power supply would deteriorate but in practise it's stable. It's sorta like thinking you will have to run your laptop on batteries, then realizing you have a AC connection and wonder of wonders, it stays working for years instead of hours. Would the laptop be "overachieving" by many orders of magnitude? Were the goals set "WAY too low" for the laptop? Or are the assumptions are so fundamentally altered that it's meaningless to talk about it's battery performance? That we are able to build robots that can function for years in a very hostile climate without repairs given enough power is a huge bonus achievement though, so I still think they're overachievers.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:Amazing by jafac · · Score: 1

      Scotty's repair estimates included:
      Requirements elicitation and valiation,
      Design,
      Documentation,
      Review,
      Test development,
      Development/Engineering,
      Test validation and review,
      User documentation,
      Deployment,
      Testing.

      Kirk was always happy to cut corners.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    22. Re:Amazing by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Just blow the dust off the bottle of scotch and you'll soon have a good repair.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    23. Re:Amazing by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1

      It's all part of Bush's No Rover Left Behind program.

  3. Let's hope the motors hold out. by mbone · · Score: 5, Informative

    Opportunity saw its first electrical spike in one of its motors recently - the same problem that has basically crippled Spirit.

    This was described (8 paragraphs down) in this press release. That's why they got out of Victoria Crater post haste.

    Of course, the terrain in Meridiani Planum is much more navigable than Gustav Crater, so even if they do lose a motor, they may still be able to make progress.

    1. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by mapsjanhere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This is a suicide mission, NASA wanted to shut down the rovers years ago, and the public outcry repeatedly stopped it. Now, if the rover goes on a 2 year drive and dies, what a poor little heroic guy, finally succumbed to the elements.
      And NASA gets to free all the funds to build newer and bigger and better and ...
      Don't forget, these are the guys that canceled the last Apollo missions for the fuel bill; they already had the rockets, trained astronauts and everything else in place.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    2. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by mbone · · Score: 1

      I distinctly remember Congress canceling the last Apollo mission (Apollo 18), by not giving NASA the money. This was indeed deep in the planning stages, intended for some volcanic domes near the Marius crater IIRC.

    3. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by mbone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh, and given that there was never any plans to get the rovers back, this was always a "suicide" mission.

      But you are right, JPL will keep running these until they physically fail.

    4. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by khallow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't forget, these are the guys that canceled the last Apollo missions for the fuel bill; they already had the rockets, trained astronauts and everything else in place.

      And the money to pay the army that would be needed to build and run the missions. Ending Saturn was a good move. The rocket was too expensive. Replacing it with the Space Shuttle though was one of the worst mistakes NASA ever did.

    5. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by ctetc007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It may be true that this specific mission seems a bit suicidal, but what else are you going to do with it? Nothing? The rover was meant to run until it died, and this seems like as good a cause to die for as any.

      The rover isn't just going on a boring 2 year long road trip, it's also exploring the rocks and terrain along the way. Even if it doesn't reach its destination, the trek will still be of scientific value.

    6. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I question whether that would be of greater value than further study inside Victoria crater.

      When they went in, they said they were aware they might never get out, either due to slippage, a breakdown, or dust accumulation (is the wind as reliable inside the crater?). It was also the most interesting target for...well...11 km I guess. Therefore, they were going to study as much as they could inside, and only try to leave if they hit every point of interest. That goal included getting right up against some of the layered rocks in one of the large outcroppings.

      They were having a lot of trouble getting closer due to slippage in the sand, but it seems like the moment they had a sign of trouble (current spike in a wheel motor), they bailed out and headed out of the crater.

      There's plenty to see out on the plains, but it seems like there was also still plenty to see inside the crater.

    7. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      This is a suicide mission, NASA wanted to shut down the rovers years ago, and the public outcry repeatedly stopped it.

      Huh? [[Citation Needed]]
       
       

      Now, if the rover goes on a 2 year drive and dies, what a poor little heroic guy, finally succumbed to the elements.
      And NASA gets to free all the funds to build newer and bigger and better and ...

      As above, huh? NASA is already building a bigger, better rover, one that's just under a year from launch
       
       

      Don't forget, these are the guys that canceled the last Apollo missions for the fuel bill; they already had the rockets, trained astronauts and everything else in place.

      Again, the facts are at variance with your claims - Congress capped Saturn V production in 1967, after have having already steeply cut NASA's budget in 1966. Few people realize that by the time Apollo 11 lifted off, Congress had already cut four missions from the schedule NASA proposed and the program in general was running mostly on inertia and fumes.
       
      If anything NASA ("these guys") is at fault for wanting to exceed the task set before them.

    8. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      Huh? [[Citation Needed]]

      http://www.universetoday.com/2008/03/25/nasa-u-turn-over-mars-rover-funding/

      already building a bigger, better rover, one that's just under a year from launch

      I know, I worked on it for 4 years

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
    9. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      The problem is, your cite doesn't support your claim. Not only is there no evidence that NASA wanted to shut it down (the act in question being an unsupported act by a mid grade administrator), there is no evidence that public outcry had any effect on the outcome. Nor does it support the claim that this happened repeatedly. Nor does it support the claim that it was to done so NASA could build a better rover - as that process was already in progress regardless of what happened to the MER program.

      In short, your claims remain unsupported tinfoil hat mutterings.

    10. Re:Let's hope the motors hold out. by mapsjanhere · · Score: 1

      Google "NASA shuts down mars rover", it gives you 23,000 hits. Sorry I didn't link them all for you.
      Secondly, it wasn't MY claim that the shut down was for a better rover, the MSL program is already winding down, as usual when a project is shortly before launch.
      Thirdly, leave my tin foil hats alone, they have no influence whatsoever on my pronunciation.

      --
      I'm aging rapidly, I bought a new game and had no idea if my machine was good for it.
  4. Opportunity proves it: by paniq · · Score: 2, Funny

    studying ... rocks!

    ok, maybe only studying ... rocks ... rocks.

    If you get an ... opportunity.

    Allright I stop, I'm killing myself.

    --
    Do not trust this signature.
    1. Re:Opportunity proves it: by ArcherB · · Score: 5, Funny

      studying ... rocks!

      ok, maybe only studying ... rocks ... rocks.

      If you get an ... opportunity.

      Allright I stop, I'm killing myself.

      That's the Spirit

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    2. Re:Opportunity proves it: by strabes · · Score: 3, Funny

      I think this humor Endeavour has been unsuccessful.

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
    3. Re:Opportunity proves it: by paniq · · Score: 4, Funny

      We're just cratering to our audience. :/

      --
      Do not trust this signature.
    4. Re:Opportunity proves it: by NightRain · · Score: 3, Funny

      Make the pain stop!

    5. Re:Opportunity proves it: by strabes · · Score: 2, Funny

      I have to admit, the Opportunity was fairly large.

      --
      Its = possessive. It's = "it is"
  5. Sweet.... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 1

    Wasn't Opporunity half-designed by kids as well? Props to NASA for getting our money's worth out of this thing. Talk about the little engine that could.

    1. Re:Sweet.... by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 1

      Wasn't Opporunity half-designed by kids as well?

      I think it's a bit discourteous to the scientists and engineers who actually designed this rover to say that, no matter what sort of programs NASA folks may have created for educational purposes.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
  6. A case for manned exploration by blind+biker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A human would take no more than a few hours to get there, on foot, much less with some vehicle. And would be able to do much more and diverse probings and experiments. And let's not forget that in those 2 years, the rover has a very high likelihood to break down.

    So while human exploration of Mars may be expensive, it is probably much cheaper when comparing results.

    I know the /. crowd has a strong, somewhat irrational animosity towards manned exploration. So I'll burn some karma, big deal :o)

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:A case for manned exploration by oldspewey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      irrational animosity towards manned exploration

      Leaving aside - for now - the part where a human mission to Mars is almost certainly a suicide mission, if you want to make the case that other people are irrational your best bet is probably to present your own rational ideas for a fully-costed human mission, including all the associated life-support requirements both in transit and once on the surface.

      Then we can compare your ideas against the cost of the Spirit and Opportunity missions

      --
      If libertarians are so opposed to effective government, why don't they all move to Somalia?
    2. Re:A case for manned exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up The Case for Mars, (Zubrin, 1996)

      There's a rational, plausible, justified, budgeted non-suicidal mars mission design. And it was written 12 years ago.

      It'll cost more than a rover (duh?) - but as mentioned before - humans are capable of so much more, along with the countless benefits of an expanded space program.

    3. Re:A case for manned exploration by Alioth · · Score: 1

      It does? I've observed quite the opposite: most of Slashdot is very gung-ho about meaningful manned exploration. The only animosity I've seen regularly expressed is towards the Shuttle and ISS.

    4. Re:A case for manned exploration by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A human would take no more than a few hours to get there, on foot, much less with some vehicle. And would be able to do much more and diverse probings and experiments. And let's not forget that in those 2 years, the rover has a very high likelihood to break down.

      Well, we'd never have been able to put people there nearly as cheaply, or for nearly as long. We haven't solved the problems of getting people in space for long enough for the journey, keeping them alive, feeding them, and having them inhabit the surface of a strange planet without any real support.

      The rovers have been absolute bargain in terms of the cost for the science achieved. And, they give us a lot of the basic information we need to know if we're ever going to put humans there. The value vs cost of the these rovers is not something you can characterize as expensive for what we get -- the initial mission was, what $300 million or so?

      I think until we can overcome an incredible amount of technical hurdles, the rovers are still a good idea. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to develop some of the stuff we'll need for manned missions. Likely we'll need to work on some closer missions and return to the moon before we try to get to Mars in my opinion -- that'll at least let us try to sort out the really big challenges.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:A case for manned exploration by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Try breathing the martin atmosphere and weighing only a few dozen kgs and eat nothing but sunsine below zero. We haven't even started with how you got there.

      Soft humans are not as well adapted to space and mars as you seem to think.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    6. Re:A case for manned exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of manned missions to outer space could be classified as a âoeSuicide Missionâ the likely hood of survival is always fairly low given all the unknowns. In saying that the people that would be selected to go to mars would go knowing that they have less than a 1 percent chance of survival just like the moon mission yet in the name a science and fame and patriotism. I bet if there was a sign up list tomorrow people would still sign up including me.

    7. Re:A case for manned exploration by Cormacus · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I'm rooting for China's space program at the moment. Perhaps if they get far enough along to contemplate a base on the moon / a manned mission to Mars, then the politicians will stop contemplating their @pet_peeves_vs_politicians long enough to fund our side of the "race."

      Along the same lines (but completely off topic), why does everything have to be a "war" or a "race?" Why can't it be the "Effort to stop people from smoking so much pot that they sleep all day like my college roomate?" Or how about the "The unhurried trip to Mars because it would be darn cool to get there?"

      --
      Mon chien, il n'a pas du nez. Comment scent-il? TrÃs mauvais!
    8. Re:A case for manned exploration by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't care to read the book, but I will give you rational, plausible, budgeted and non-suicidal. "Justified"...now that is where our parlay will break down. Justified, like art, is in the eye of the beholder and often requires some selling to get the justificatee to agree (yes, I just made up that word). One way of thinking of it is that justification isn't a property of an object, but is something that is done to it.

      The only justification I've seen is an effort for Mars missions is to prove that life once existed there. When I was young, the hope was that we'd find some weird alien creepy-crawlies scurrying about. Now the hope is that there is some water that a microscopic lifeform might have once inhabited. The basis for the need of effort is to prove that life can autogenerate anywhere. You may not believe it, but the vast majority of the people who pay taxes respond to this sales job with a great big "Who the f&&k cares?!"

      You and I may believe the expense of a manned mission is justified, but we are woefully/painfully outnumbered. That leaves us with one of two options. Sell the manned missions as an escape route from a dying Earth. That puts us in the "OH, NOZ!! We're all gonna' die!" alarmist category. Unless we can point out a REAL viable threat to the Earth, we will soon be marginalized. "There is a 1 in 8 billion chance of a catastrophic asteroid impacting the Earth within the next 1000 years" does not cross the 'valid' hurdle in mind of most people.

      The second option is to send cheap probes. People like them because of the gee-whiz features, and they're not expensive enough to cause economic pain. They can also see useful applications for much of the technology involved. The science is slow, but it is progressing. The things we learn from the probes will make a manned mission safer and cheaper, since some possible eventualities will be eliminated and not need to be planned/prepared for.

      In short, a manned mission has not been justified, evidenced by the complete lack of support for it. Just look at the tepid response Bush's Mars plan garnered. And I believe half of the positive response was little more than nostalgia for the Space Race heyday. Bush didn't justify the need to expend the resources necessary, and neither has anyone else.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    9. Re:A case for manned exploration by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      even if he managed earth walking speeds of 4kmph it would take him 2.7 hours to get there, so he would have under 4 hours to do his stuff before he had to turn around and go home before his oxygen ran out. If he had a vehicle to ride there in, why not just turn that into a big rover instead?

    10. Re:A case for manned exploration by khallow · · Score: 1

      The only justification I've seen is an effort for Mars missions is to prove that life once existed there. When I was young, the hope was that we'd find some weird alien creepy-crawlies scurrying about. Now the hope is that there is some water that a microscopic lifeform might have once inhabited. The basis for the need of effort is to prove that life can autogenerate anywhere. You may not believe it, but the vast majority of the people who pay taxes respond to this sales job with a great big "Who the f&&k cares?!" You and I may believe the expense of a manned mission is justified, but we are woefully/painfully outnumbered. That leaves us with one of two options. Sell the manned missions as an escape route from a dying Earth. That puts us in the "OH, NOZ!! We're all gonna' die!" alarmist category. Unless we can point out a REAL viable threat to the Earth, we will soon be marginalized. "There is a 1 in 8 billion chance of a catastrophic asteroid impacting the Earth within the next 1000 years" does not cross the 'valid' hurdle in mind of most people.

      How about a 1 in 20 chance of a nuclear war in the next ten years? Not that I care or anything.

      If you've paid any attention to politics, you would know that it doesn't require anything like a majority to spend public funds. My take is that enough people care that it will eventually happen once the price tag gets low enough. At the very worst, it'll happen because somebody is making money on Mars, and you can't tax that, if you're not there.

    11. Re:A case for manned exploration by khallow · · Score: 1

      Because a driver in the cab can control a rover better than a driver on Earth. A several minute round trip is a long time when you're driving.

    12. Re:A case for manned exploration by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      If a bunch of random nerds in the DARPA challenge can make a car drive itself so can NASA.

    13. Re:A case for manned exploration by grumbel · · Score: 1

      And would be able to do much more and diverse probings and experiments.

      Yeah, except that you could send around 2500 rowers to mars for the price of a human mars misson. Have some doubt that a small human team can perform better then those.

    14. Re:A case for manned exploration by Dannkape · · Score: 1

      ...which is why the rovers already there can do quite a bit of steering themselves, and I guess they would stop and wait for instructions if they encountered anything too complicated.

    15. Re:A case for manned exploration by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1

      You can argue that people could have done the job better but that is like saying I could get to work fater in a flying car or a jet pack. The problemm is that we simply don't have the means to send people to mars. Given the current state of the art they'd likey never survive the trip.

      AN then you have the little problem of getting off of Mars. What you need is a rocket on Mars that can lift off and travel to Earth. Here on Earth we have huge infrastucture in place to launch rockets, we'd have to fly a launch system to mars.

      There is much work to be done before we can even think about sending people. Just a simple thing like radiation shielding. How would you do that? Shielding requires mass

    16. Re:A case for manned exploration by KeensMustard · · Score: 2, Insightful

      A human would take no more than a few hours to get there, on foot, much less with some vehicle.

      You've inadvertently demonstrated the stupidity of your own argument there. If the point is to "travel faster" and vehicles travel faster then humans, why not send a vehicle? And if we have the vehicle, what's the human for? After all, it's not the 1960s. Vehicles don't need humans to steer them.

      And would be able to do much more and diverse probings and experiments.

      Rubbish. The fact of the matter is, we would get better quality results form observing mars from orbit then from a human on the ground. Any human observation/probing/experiments on Mars will be entirely reliant on instruments to do the measuring, cameras to record, etc. If we are sending the instruments anyway, what do we need the human there for? After all, it's not the 1960s. Instruments no longer require us to be physically present to read them.

      And let's not forget that in those 2 years, the rover has a very high likelihood to break down.

      So - what? S+O demonstrates clearly that we can engineer well enough to reliably meet the mission objectives - Huygens demonstrates that with a backup system, we can gather results of enormous value even in the event of partial failure.

      So while human exploration of Mars may be expensive, it is probably much cheaper when comparing results.

      Experience says otherwise. Human activities in space have been expensive boondoggles of little or no scientific value. Robotic missions in space - Galileo, Hubble, Spirit+Opportunity, Voyagers, Cassini/Huygens, beautiful and exciting discoveries that push the boundaries of our experience. Hardly a days passes where one of these missions doesn't give us pause. It's irrational to think we need to physically go ourselves. It's not the 1960s anymore.

    17. Re:A case for manned exploration by jackchance · · Score: 1

      are you joking?
      either you are joking or a moron.

      --
      1 1 2 3 5 8 13 21 34 55 89 144 233 377 610 987 1597 2584 4181 6765
    18. Re:A case for manned exploration by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      You can argue that people could have done the job better

      But, I didn't argue that.

      I don't think we have the technology to even try that, and I think we're better off trying to put people on the surface of the Moon again and try to stay there longer.

      Other than the sheer coolness factor, I'm not sure what sending people to Mars does for us, other than saying we did it and risking killing whoever we send.

      For Mars, I say we stick with rovers and orbiters for now. I don't think we should stop trying to have manned space missions, but I don't think Mars is the first destination.

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    19. Re:A case for manned exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just some numbers for reference:

      The MER program cost $820 million for both rovers at the time of launch, including funds for the first three months of surface operations and science. Two extensions were also budgeted (assuming, and this was a big assumption at the time, the rovers were still alive), but I don't think those were included in that $820 million figure. Operations cost a few $million per month, if I remember right from NASA's budget allocations. I know that the 3rd or 4th years operations budget was about $80 million, and that represented a significant cut in the operations and science teams as they streamlined operations, so figure $100 million per year average.

      Based on that, I'd put the total cost of the MER's so far at around $1.3 billion. It's still a good bargain for robotic exploration, but also a little more than most people realize.

      Anyway, I'm confident our level of technology is sufficient to send a manned mission to Mars, but our economic willpower is the real limitation. I'm sure even after manned missions to Mars, we will continue to send at least orbiters (after all, there's dozens of useful science orbiters around the earth), if not the occassional lander to remote locations of interest.

    20. Re:A case for manned exploration by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I think until we can overcome an incredible amount of technical hurdles, the rovers are still a good idea. Of course, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be trying to develop some of the stuff we'll need for manned missions. Likely we'll need to work on some closer missions and return to the moon before we try to get to Mars in my opinion -- that'll at least let us try to sort out the really big challenges.

      One of the "problems" of going to the moon is that unless we add extra hurdles for itself, it's so short the dominant solution would be to just pack up enough consumables for the trip and avoid solving any of the really hard issues. We might be just as well off taking a Mars mission prototype, send it up in earth orbit and pretend they're on their way to Mars and see how months and months of self-containment works out. Another dry run we could make is sending a craft down on Mars to be launched back up into orbit/to earth. Somehow I think the "semi-crash huge amounts of volatile fuel on Mars" could be more than a little problematic. Using Mars gravity/athmosphere is probably more realistic than the moon, but I guess that works as well.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    21. Re:A case for manned exploration by 2short · · Score: 1

      "A human would take no more than a few hours to get there, on foot, much less with some vehicle. And would be able to do much more and diverse probings and experiments"

      Tell them to get on with it then. They've got massively more funding than robotic exploration, and they are trying to keep their toilet working in LEO.

      "So while human exploration of Mars may be expensive, it is probably much cheaper when comparing results."

      Direct human exploration of Mars doesn't have any results. Human exploration of mars by sending robots does. Makes it hard to compare the cost when only one side has anything at all to show for it.

      "I know the /. crowd has a strong, somewhat irrational animosity towards manned exploration."

      Is it rational to compare your fantasy of what a human "would have" done to what robots are actually doing? "Would have" done if what? If sending humans weren't horrendously less efficient a way to get things done?

      Humans are quite clever, I entirely agree. Some are so clever that they are exploring Mars right now! I'm less clear why using the best tools available, and actually getting the job done, somehow makes them less clever.

    22. Re:A case for manned exploration by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      You've inadvertently demonstrated the stupidity of your own argument there. If the point is to "travel faster" and vehicles travel faster then humans, why not send a vehicle? And if we have the vehicle, what's the human for? After all, it's not the 1960s. Vehicles don't need humans to steer them.

      Talk about stupidity! Do you have any idea why does it take years for the rovers to negotiate just a few kilometers? It has nothing to do with the speed of the vehicle - and everything to do with the problems of remote-controlling them from earth, with a delay of 8 to 40 min for roundtrip. A strict (almost fastidious) control of the rover is essential, least it ends up stuck in some way or the other, and then it's curtains.

      YOU have clearly demonstrated the irrationality of some /.ers regarding manned mission: you just let your brain shut down, that's how rabidly you oppose it. Or maybe you didn't have a brain to begin with?

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    23. Re:A case for manned exploration by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      One of the "problems" of going to the moon is that unless we add extra hurdles for itself, it's so short the dominant solution would be to just pack up enough consumables for the trip and avoid solving any of the really hard issues.

      I agree with that. And, as you say, maybe the solution is to work more on extended self-containment initially.

      However, if we actually tried to set harder goals than simply put some guy on the moon to hit a golf ball (no offense to Mr Shepard), then surely we can start to work on some of these problems. I realize it's not quite an analog to Mars in terms of gravity and the like, but actually giving a stab at any form of construction project, and maybe working towards doing something up there. Building any kind of structure would be huge I think.

      Another dry run we could make is sending a craft down on Mars to be launched back up into orbit/to earth.

      But, again, can't we do that a little more locally and actually work towards this using the moon? Assuming it's in some way cheaper (and with a shorter turn-around time) to use the moon for this stuff, why go straight to Mars?

      Somehow I think the "semi-crash huge amounts of volatile fuel on Mars" could be more than a little problematic.

      Oh, come on ... not even a little "semi-crash"? Please? Just a light bump of the volatile chemicals? The barest of nudges? It'll look really cool if we have an orbital camera in place to capture the event should it go wrong. ;-)

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    24. Re:A case for manned exploration by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

      >Then we can compare your ideas against the cost of the Spirit and Opportunity missions Which leads into my question to the ether: If now that all the zillions of dollars spent on Spirit and Opportunity have proved their worth why - instead of constantly reinventing the wheel with every mission - don't they just build more of the same? Wouldn't it be cost effective to build say, six more of these rovers (with better wheel motors) using the design, expertise and experience they've already gained and bung 'em on up there?

      --
      If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  7. On Barsoom, please... by afc_wimbledon · · Score: 4, Informative
  8. Cleaning the solar cells? by h4x354x0r · · Score: 1

    Don't they have a problem with dust collecting on the solar cells? Don't they wish they would have thought of a way to keep them really clean?

    --
    They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
    1. Re:Cleaning the solar cells? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      They were only supposed to last six months, so dust shouldn't have been a problem. They're in the 5th year. My guess is that future robots may have blowers or wipers or something to keep cells clean.

    2. Re:Cleaning the solar cells? by mbone · · Score: 1

      It turns out that the frequent dust devils have been keeping the solar cells (for Opportunity, not so much for Spirit) pretty clean and have been the single most important factor enabling these very long missions.

    3. Re:Cleaning the solar cells? by bishop32x · · Score: 2, Informative

      NASA has been spending quite a bit of money recently on dust issues. Apparently in low-g situations dust stays suspended in the air for quite some time and consequently develops an static charge. NASA currently has a design for an electromagnetic dust wiper which is basically a array of wires under a surface (like a solar panel) which are electrified in sequence to push the dust around.

      There are some issues with power draw and scalability, but my guess is that they will be using some sort of electro-magnetic device to remove dust in upcoming missions.

  9. Hey, that's METRIC! by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

    Since the standard conversion formula is to (X * 2) +30 all you have to do is (X / 2) -30 for US measurements.

    That equals -24.5 so they've already been there and passed it!

    Must've been a guy controlling the rover...we never ask directions.

    --
    Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
    1. Re:Hey, that's METRIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the hell are you talking about? (x*2)+30?

    2. Re:Hey, that's METRIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (x*2)+30 is an approximate conversion for degrees C to degrees F.
      Now if the parents would just show us how to convert meters to degrees C, and we'll know exactly how many degress F we have to travel!

    3. Re:Hey, that's METRIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah... then the reverse approximation is wrong.

      Try these instead:
      F ~= (C*2)+30
      C ~= (F-30)/2

      I think the answer is 451 F

    4. Re:Hey, that's METRIC! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's actually easy to do it the correct way. It's (C*1.8)+32=F. 1.8 is the same as 9/5. So multiply the C by 9 (relatively easy in your head) then divide by five. Now add 32, tada. :) 40 deg C = 40*9 = 360 360/5 = 72 + 32 = 104. All in my head! Now let's go back. 100* F = 100-32 = 68 * 5 = 340 / 9 = 37 7/9.

      Another way:

      C*1.8 = (C*2)-(C*.2)

      So 78* C = 156 - 15.6 = 140.4 + 32 = 172.4* F

      Going back with this way is harder, so you can just do it the other way, or figure out some simple way to conceptualize 5/9...

    5. Re:Hey, that's METRIC! by mandark1967 · · Score: 1

      whoosh...

      So much for the ocscure reference to Bob & Doug MacKenzie and the Great White North...

      --
      Sig Follows: "Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." -- Mark Twain
  10. Mars Trek by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    Mars: the newest frontier.
    These are the voyages of the rover Opportunity.
    Its two-year mission: to explore strange new craters; to seek out new life and new land formations;
    to boldly go where no robot has gone before!

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  11. More than a suggestion by Whiteox · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I know that NASA are a bunch of good people, and I know that there are very good reasons for why they do things the way they do.
    But PLEASE!!! 2 years to go 11 km? I know that the Rover will stop every now and then to check out soil samples etc, but 2 years???
    I'm thinking of a radio controlled 4wd you can get from a serious hobby shop that'll do at least 1km between charges!
    I suppose what I'm saying is that future rovers should be designed for as many possible contingencies (like long distant travel for example). Maybe they could even take pics of Martian landscapes set for human vision too.
    That would be nice.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
    1. Re:More than a suggestion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have to drive slowly to not whip up dust that could damage the motor and to avoid driving into holes.

    2. Re:More than a suggestion by Kandenshi · · Score: 1

      I suppose what I'm saying is that future rovers should be designed for as many possible contingencies

      If you want a general purpose tool that can adapt to many scenario, send a human. (Also, go to the bank, you're going to need to make a biiiiiig withdrawl)

      If you want to do science on a budget(which NASA has to do since it gets diddly squat for funding compared to certain other institutions) then you simply plan out what you think are probable tasks that'll be done, and design your robot to be able to do them cheaply and effectively. Trying to make a robot for "as many possible contingencies" will mean it will likely take a whole lot longer to design, to build, will cost more and all other things being equal, be more likely to break. The odds of something Going Wrong increases with the complexity of the device. Unless you plan on sending the rover with a bunch of spare parts and some arms to automatically perform repairs?

    3. Re:More than a suggestion by mbone · · Score: 1

      Just remember that the next time someone says that robots are just as capable as humans. A human crew could ride that far in a day, given an appropriate Mars buggy. Now, the cost to get those people and that buggy there is another question...

    4. Re:More than a suggestion by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      And remember, these robots are performing far beyond their original expected lifespan!

      (So much for our beagle 2 project :( - I am a brit)

      But, seriously, well done NASA.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    5. Re:More than a suggestion by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I know that NASA are a bunch of good people, and I know that there are very good reasons for why they do things the way they do.
      But PLEASE!!! 2 years to go 11 km? I know that the Rover will stop every now and then to check out soil samples etc, but 2 years???

      Dude, it's around 2 feet long and being remotely controlled on a very long time delay and it's, what, several million km's away??

      It can only go so far each day before it has to shut down, recharge, and wait for new driving instructions. That usually involves people looking at obstacles and coming up with a series of instructions for it to follow to move forward so it doesn't go crashing into a rock or into an unplanned crater.

      It's not like they have detailed maps and a GPS tracking system you can just plug in the coordinates and have the auto-pilot start navigating there. This actually is some pretty challenging stuff.

      Remember, they started designing these suckers some time in the 90's, and they've lasted several years longer than expected. Cut them some slack, it's not like your RC 4wd is going to fare very well on Mars or magically solve the control problem of piloting something that far away.

      Man, you'd think plopping something onto a whole 'nother planet and navigating it around over fairly big (for the rover) distances was something that wasn't difficult. This falls well into the realm of completely bonus science for a mission which has been completely successful in terms of the engineering goals it did accomplish (and exceed).

      Cheers

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    6. Re:More than a suggestion by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      I'm thinking of a radio controlled 4wd you can get from a serious hobby shop that'll do at least 1km between charges!

      I invite you to run it for 5 years in abrasive grit with zero intervention.

    7. Re:More than a suggestion by SleptThroughClass · · Score: 1

      If you pay NASA enough, they'll send a faster rover with nuclear power. I don't know if NASA accepts donations, but the U.S. Treasury does. Start donating.

    8. Re:More than a suggestion by argent · · Score: 1

      After years on Mars, with no resupply? You'd need advanced zombie technology for that, regular frozen mummies just don't have the staying power.

    9. Re:More than a suggestion by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Just remember that the next time someone says that robots are just as capable as humans."

      Humans teams who send robots are more capable than human teams who send humans.

      For example, one of those types of teams has carried out all exploration of the martian surface to date. The other type of team managed to fix their toilet in LEO, but it cost them a lot more money than all martian exploration to date.

      "A human crew could ride that far in a day, given an appropriate Mars buggy."

      Well, a robot could go that far in 30 seconds, given an appropriate robot; better acceleration tolerance. Sure, imaginary humans are more capable than real robots. I do in fact advocate sending humans any time you want to imagine exploring Mars; it makes much better fiction. If you want to do it for real though, sending humans is stupid.

    10. Re:More than a suggestion by g-san · · Score: 3, Funny

      This actually is some pretty challenging stuff.

      You make it sound like it's rocket science or something on that level. Sheesh.

    11. Re:More than a suggestion by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      A human crew could ride that far in a day, given an appropriate Mars buggy.

      And the buggy that could drive the human could go twice as far if it left the human behind. Plus your question about cost is easy. For the cost of one human mission you could have ten buggy missions; each one learning from the last. Each individual mission would be less capable than one human mission, but the sum would be much much better. Human missions to Mars are like the late circuses in Rome. They put on a good show to distract the proletariat from the collapse of the empire.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    12. Re:More than a suggestion by RichiH · · Score: 1

      The Mars buggy could do it all by itself. If long-distance exploration had been one of the main goals of S & O, they would be able to do it in a reasonable time. But it _was not_. Now, they are either running out of ideas for the immediate surroundings and/or want it to die in a scientific and relatively cheap way to free up resources.

  12. Negotiate? Huh? by kanweg · · Score: 2, Funny

    "new software recently uploaded to Opportunity will enable the rover to make its own decisions about how best to negotiate large rocks in its path"

    What is the origin of that? I can speculate:
    1) English origin: Very polite. You just don't go around the corner, you politely ask under what conditions it is allowed. "I beg your pardon, dear corner. Would it be inconvenient to you if we continue our way as indicated by you?
    2) American origin: Don't take anything for granted. You may be sued by a corner before you know it. Call your lawyer. He'll do the negotiations. Oh boy, I hope he is tough, as this corner hasn't moved his position since I started talking to and yelling at it.

    Bert

    1. Re:Negotiate? Huh? by mbone · · Score: 1

      What is the origin of that?

      Pretty common usage in context (e.g., navigation). See the 4th entry in Dictionary.com :

      to move through, around, or over in a satisfactory manner:

  13. Rovers by iamkion132 · · Score: 1

    It's hard to believe these rovers have lasted as long as they have. Before, they had to plan in days in case anything went wrong, but now they're planning in years. These rovers have far exceeded all expectations and I wish the teams and rovers best of luck getting there.

  14. Endeavor... by conureman · · Score: 1

    to endeavor unto endeavor.

    --
    The cost of that cleanup, of course, will be borne by taxpayers, not industry.
  15. will be turned off by next president by peter303 · · Score: 1

    Both candidates say they are going to slash budget. When NASA's is cut, they'll dump their older projects.

  16. Oblig. Simpsons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!

  17. I hear you're looking for a passage... by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    ...to the Endeavour crater.

    - Yes indeed, if it's a fast rover.

    - Fast rover? You've never heard of the Opportunity?

    - No, should I have?

  18. Lots of pretty picture = good VR by arthurp · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I think they should make a point of taking a full panoramic image every 10m or so. That way we can add that to the current data on mars and create a *really* nice VR version of that area. Being able to "walk" the same path as Opportunity in VR seems like it is a worthy PR and artistic goal and certainly wouldn't hurt the science of the mission either.

  19. emerge by TheDarkener · · Score: 1

    Wow, Mars rovers use Gentoo! :p

    *tomato*

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
  20. And? by khallow · · Score: 1

    So what? Even ignoring the fact that it's not as good, you still need humans to control what the rover does. And that control is more effective when the human is nearby rather than several minutes away on another planet.

    1. Re:And? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      Is it really worth all those hundreds of billions to send a human to Mars just so a rover can avoid stopping to wait for instructions for a few minutes?

    2. Re:And? by khallow · · Score: 1

      If it's hundreds of billions, then no it isn't worth it. If it's a few billion, then it probably is worth it. And if it's a few hundred million, it definitely is worth it.

    3. Re:And? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 Billion in 1969 Dollars (or approximately $135 Billion in 2005 Dollars).

      Mars is a lot further. it cost over 800 million dollars to send the 2 current runty little rovers to mars.

    4. Re:And? by khallow · · Score: 1

      This depends on costs that can be greatly reduced. In particular, the cost of doing anything is dependent on the cost of putting stuff in orbit. With the Space Shuttle, that (marginal) cost is around $10,000 per kilogram (probably a bit more now). If launch costs are stable and don't change dramatically by the time of launch, then virtually all space projects have launch costs around 10-20% of the total mission cost. If the vehicle is too cheap, you can optimize mass and add capability. If launch costs drop by a factor of ten (IMHO quite possible even with expendable launch vehicles), then projects will drop by a factor of ten as well. That's my take.

      Further NASA is not operating economically. The key problem is economies of scale, particularly launch frequency. These are roundly ignored in current space efforts. The cost of the Mars rovers doesn't tell you what the cost of a manned space program. Let's give an example. Suppose I wished to launch 100 rovers instead of 2. 100 rovers would be more on the scale of a manned program. How much would it cost? The naive guess is 50 times as much. That is, $40 billion. Let's look at a better guess. End result? $10 billion in construction costs plus a bit under $4 billion in R&D, launch (about a factor of three reduction in cost per probe), and operations for the first year or so. Just by making a lot more probes, we can signficantly reduce the cost per probe for everything. Each vehicle weighs about half a metric ton. That means around $14 billion to land 50 tons of rover (and lander) on Mars.

    5. Re:And? by Oktober+Sunset · · Score: 1

      but that only works if you send 100 men to Mars.

  21. Two years! by skelly33 · · Score: 1

    They should give the next one wings or a para-sail or something.

  22. Bum Wheel? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought Opportunity was due to have a bum wheel, like that of Spirit. They've discovered voltage spike patterns that match that of Spirit's wheel before it croaked. This would suggest that Oppy can only go about another mile before the wheel gives. While flat territory may not be a signif problem, Oppy has had problems getting stuck in sand dunes in its area even with good wheels. Getting out of sand traps with a stuck wheel is going to be an interesting challenge.

  23. Speed is NOT the bottleneck by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    "Speed" is not really the bottleneck. The 4 bottlenecks are generally:

    1. Bandwidth: If you move and study fast, then it creates more images and data to send back home. At the distance to Mars, bandwidth is slow and expensive.

    2. Spectrometer speed: The spectrometers take at least a day to do their readings on rocks and soils most of the time. A more powerful spectrometer that's faster would require more power.

    3. Human analysis. Operators and scientists like to study the images and data before deciding on new targets.

    4. Safety. If you move too fast or hastily, you may encounter jams that you cannot get out of. Nobody cares if you wreck your Jeep in Arizona deserts, but to wreck a 700 million dollar probe is another thing.