Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mars Lander Faces Slow Death

Posted by Soulskill on from the this-lander-will-self-destruct-in-five-months dept.

Riding with Robots writes "It's the beginning of the end for the Phoenix Mars Lander. As winter approaches in the Martian arctic, NASA says it's in a 'race against time and the elements' in its efforts to prolong the robotic spacecraft's life. Starting today, mission managers will begin to gradually shut the lander's systems down, hoping to conserve dwindling solar power and thereby extend the remaining systems' useful life. 'Originally scheduled to last 90 days, Phoenix has completed a fifth month of exploration in the Martian arctic. As expected, with the Martian northern hemisphere shifting from summer to fall, the lander is generating less power due to shorter days and fewer hours of sunlight reaching its solar panels. At the same time, the spacecraft requires more power to run several survival heaters that allow it to operate even as temperatures decline.'"

212 comments

  1. NASA by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Funny

    Honestly, as an Australian, it's great to see NASA in the news for something which can't be summarised as: "It blew up".

    Needs more funding IMHO.

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    1. Re:NASA by Pikiwedia.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      NASA have been far more successful with the mars rovers and Phoenix than ESA's Beagle, which probably made it to the martian surface (in burning pieces).

    2. Re:NASA by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

      NASA may have a better record with robots, but ESA has never lost a single astronaut. Admittedly that is through lack of trying...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:NASA by MrNaz · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      As another Australian, I would like to point out that the season name "Fall" is stupid here on Earth, as we shouldn't have to name a season after what happens in it to remember its name.

      I would also like to point out that it is even sillier on Mars, as on Mars, there are no leaves to fall.

      If we're going to name the seasons after their properties, I would like to suggest season names for Mars: "Red", "Redder", "Reddish" and "Reddest".

      --
      I hate printers.
    4. Re:NASA by that+IT+girl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to go all crazy-patriot on you, but at least the US is trying. It's not easy, you know. ;)

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    5. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because Australia is a colony of the UK right? So that would fall under ESA.

    6. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      err no, since Australia doesn't fund the EU.

    7. Re:NASA by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      And we stopped being a "colony" as of Federation... 1901

    8. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow.... i dont see your country doing too many space explorations them selfs first make sure your country can do something before dissing something that gets more funding than your country makes in a month
      honestly grow up

    9. Re:NASA by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pfft. Anyone with security clearance over Top Secret knows that Beagle made it successfully and recorded 13 seconds of video before being destroyed. Has NASA's probes ever found aliens? I think not.

    10. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Autumn.

    11. Re:NASA by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      If you believe that the Beagle 2 found aliens, then you must perforce also believe that the Beagle 2 *was* a NASA probe.

    12. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Nah, it doesn't need more funding, it needs more plutonium. With a RTG (radio isotope battery) they could have kept Phoenix nice and warm for an entire decade.

    13. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is this Australia of which you speak? Maybe NASA should send some robots there to see if there are any signs of life.

    14. Re:NASA by SimonGhent · · Score: 1, Troll

      And we stopped being a "prison colony" as of Federation... 1901

      Fixed that for you Cobber.

      HTH

      --
      simon
    15. Re:NASA by SimonGhent · · Score: 3, Funny

      If we're going to name the seasons after their properties

      We're taking this approach as of 2009 in the UK.

      The new seasons will be "Cold and Wet", "Wet and Windy", "Wet" and "Wet and Dark".

      Doesn't really matter how they map to the current seasons.

      --
      simon
    16. Re:NASA by Sobrique · · Score: 1

      Could call it autumn, instead, which more or less literally means 'the time between the autnumnal equinox and the winter solstice'. Which, because they're astronomical measurements, are as applicable on Mar as they are on Earth.

    17. Re:NASA by LingNoi · · Score: 1

      Remember that the landers were designed to only last a short time. Hence they probably didn't think about putting in components that would have lasted the landers for 10 years.

    18. Re:NASA by wcrowe · · Score: 1

      ...as we shouldn't have to name a season after what happens in it to remember its name.

      Yeah, like "Spring" or even "Winter" (from the Proto Indo-European *wind meaning "white").

      --
      Proverbs 21:19
    19. Re:NASA by Fourier404 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I was wondering about that. Maybe they thought the radiation could mess with some of their instruments?

    20. Re:NASA by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a Brit, obviously i "was" disappointed at the time with the loss of Beagle 2. But the success of NASA's wonderful landers have more than made up for it. The huge contribution to science and learning, in this time when all other news is about the Credit Crunch and global meltdown.

      As a kid at school, I always admired America, specifically NASA, watching the space shuttles, Rockets, Apollo, etc. When Challenger exploded, it was at the time a horrific and sad sight for a young child to watch. IT was sad to see the loss of lives, and the loss of a beautiful craft.

      Later on, when Columbia disintegrated on re-entry, it hit me personally for ever since I started my love of space I have seen "The old faithful" launch, do its mission, and land safety bringing back the astronauts. I always expect it would be around for ever, and when retired housed, in a museum somewhere. The loss of the craft was as sad as the huge loss of the human life.

      I hated the idiots who actually celebrated.

      But the fact is, NASA is usually more successful than not in their missions, and this particular mission far exceed most peoples expectations. 5 years, for a 90 day lander is impressive, and has achieved a lot of scientific goals.

      Well Done NASA!

      MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! (+5, Inspirational)

      --
      Have a nice day!
    21. Re:NASA by Speare · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...at least the US is trying.

      As another USian, I have to say that in many ways, the US is very trying.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    22. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha. As an American I can tell you there are quite a few that don't blow up :) But even over here a lot of what is going on doesn't make main stream unless something goes wrong.

    23. Re:NASA by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course they haven't. Unless they run into another lander, they can only encounter natives.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    24. Re:NASA by b0ttle · · Score: 1

      If you take a look on all NASA successful missions, you'll see they still have the right to "blew up" many times before being dismissed as a failure.
      By the way, I'm not american, neither blind.

    25. Re:NASA by navyjeff · · Score: 1

      5 years, for a 90 day lander is impressive, and has achieved a lot of scientific goals.

      I share your exuberance, but it's only been five months.

    26. Re:NASA by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      United Statesian, if you please ;-)

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    27. Re:NASA by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      I believe he may have been referring to the Spirit and Opportunity rovers.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    28. Re:NASA by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

      As an Australian you should be amazed that any news gets through your censors at all.

      --
      It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    29. Re:NASA by ATMD · · Score: 1

      stopped being a "prison colony"

      I imagine this happened around the time people started to realise they had better beaches than us, and it became apparent that a free trip to a sunny paradise away from those nasty interfering coppers wasn't really the horrible punishment originally envisioned...

      --
      Nobody else has this sig.
    30. Re:NASA by chibiace · · Score: 0

      Amen

      --
      he who controls the spice controls the universe
    31. Re:NASA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans can't spell or pronounce it. Hence "fall".

    32. Re:NASA by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 1

      stopped being

      go bondi!
      In continuing the Diminishing Quote Pattern, or as we in the business like to call "DQ Pattern", I hereby invoke my rights to DQ the parent comment. All eventual and inevitable negative mod shall be accepted by yours truly without further complaint.

    33. Re:NASA by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      If you believe that the Beagle 2 found aliens, then you must perforce also believe that the Beagle 2 *was* a NASA probe.

      Beagle 2 found aliens, but Beagle 0.3.8 finds everything else.

    34. Re:NASA by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

      First of all, that system isn't in place yet (thank FSM).

      Second of all, I'm glad you're expressing an implied affection for America, because... you know. Gitmo and all. Land of the free my arse.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    35. Re:NASA by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      NASA has been in business a hell of a lot longer than ESA, and has a far better track record than the Russians.

      NASA has actually had only three fatal accidents in its over four decades: Apollo 1, which burned three men to death during a preflight test; Challenger, which exploded on takeoff, killing its crew of seven, and Columbia which disintegrated while attempting to land, also killing its seven person crew.

      Notanly, Apollo 1 was the first Apollo spacecraft, Columbia was the first shuttle built and Challenger was the second. The moral: Never buy a car in its fisrt three years of production!

      Apollo 1 was a Ford Pinto, and Challenger was a Ford Crown Victoria. Hmm, probably not a good idea to buy a Ford, either.

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    36. Re:NASA by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      NASA has been in business a hell of a lot longer than ESA

      Time isn't really relevant. Zero fatal accidents in 33 years is still techically a better record than 3 in 50 (NASA was founded in '58). Besides, NASA's two worse accidents were in the last 22 years, so even if we only look at the period both agencies have been in operation and eliminate Apollo 1, NASA still has 14 fatalities to ESA's none.

      That might be meaningful if ESA actually launched manned missions, but they don't. The comparison is fundamentally flawed; not to be taken seriously or argued against logically.

      and has a far better track record than the Russians.

      Oh, really? Soyuz has been flying a "hell of a lot longer" than the shuttle, had four fatalities between 1967 and 1971 (when the shuttle was still on the drawing board) and none since. Even allowing for the fact that fewer people have flown on Soyuz it still has a marginally lower fatality rate, and there are no reported flight crew fatalities from other manned Russian space missions.

      NASA certainly has a better record of safety for it's ground crews than the Russians (even omitting Nedelin disaster, which was an ICBM test, not a space mission proper), but in this category ESA wins again: 2 fatalities versus NASA's 8 (or 2 versus 3 since 1975). Statistically speaking it's more dangerous to work for Scaled Composites than ESA.

      Apollo 1 was a Ford Pinto, and Challenger was a Ford Crown Victoria. Hmm, probably not a good idea to buy a Ford, either.

      Ah, now we get into the reason ESA doesn't do manned missions. Imagine a rocket designed by the Spanish, made with British parts (Lucas, of course) by unionised French workers under kindly German supervision, with mission planning by the Italians and a budget controlled by the Belgians. Would you want a seat on top of that stack? I'll take the Ford, thanks. Or better yet, the Lada.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    37. Re:NASA by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Here in the US the four seasons are
      "Oh hell Bush is STILL president?"
      "Oh hell Bush is STILL president?"
      "Oh hell Bush is STILL president?"
      and
      "Oh my God it's almost election season!"

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    38. Re:NASA by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      At least it wouldn't be a Saab! (Sob)

      --
      Free Martian Whores!
    39. Re:NASA by f1vlad · · Score: 1

      Neither Australian nor American but living in US and A I kinda agree with Australian here.

      --
      o_O
    40. Re:NASA by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 1

      I've always wanted to drive a Saab. Lousy fuel economy, but it'd be nice to have local air superiority with something reverse park.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
  2. Well, it's been a great track record lately... by BTWR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ever since the two loses in 2000, NASA has had amazing success with Mars. We now have a fleet of spacecraft orbiting and on the surface of Mars. But the biggest kudos have to go to an all-around amazing guy, and my favorite professor during my undergrad education, Steve Squyres, who's "90 day" rovers are now toddlers on Mars.

    1. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by BTWR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmmm, I wrote "who's" instead of "whose." Well, there's a reason I wasn't an English major as an undergrad I guess...

      I still remember the day he came into class and told us about the rovers. He had literally just gotten off the plane from JPL, and asked if there were any reporters in the room (for the school paper or otherwise). He then told us that since there wouldn't be a public announcement of the MERs for another month or so, that everything he told us was "off the record." it was so cool to learn that and all the other insider-info.

    2. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by savuporo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, Mars they are doing. But do you remember when the last lunar soft landing happened ?
      1976, Luna-24, a successful sample return probe sent by USSR.

      There is a likelyhood that the next one to land will be a Google Lunar X-Prize participant ..

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    3. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by lpontiac · · Score: 1

      I read his book. Recommended.

    4. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by ACDChook · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hahaha, yeah, I'm Australian, so those numbers mean nothing to me. Just like I'm sure getting 380 on my TEE means nothing to you. :P

    5. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, Mars they are doing. But do you remember when the last lunar soft landing happened ? 1976, Luna-24, a successful sample return probe sent by USSR.

      To be fair here, Luna 24 returned 170.1g of regolith. NASA on the other hand landed six 14.7 tonne probes on the Moon in the late sixties to early seventies. They deployed a total of twelve autonomous intelligent versatile exploration units, traversing a total of 97km of lunar surface, and gathered some 381.7kg of samples and returned them to Earth.

      To follow that spectacular accomplishment with a few petty robot landers seems... pointless.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    6. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But much cheaper.

    7. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by savuporo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So you are saying that sending robots to Shackleton crater to search for water ice, or sending prototype plants to test out ISRU technologies like cooking oxygen out of lunar regolith would be rather pointless, just because a bunch of astronauts already made some footprints there ?

      I am not disputing the accomplishments of Apollo, but to say that lunar robots are pointless is naive.

      By the way, looking at the launch calendars, it looks like Indo-Russian joint mission Chandrayaan II might beat GLXP to the lunar surface.

      Its been sad that our closest neighbour has been basically forgotten for so long, and now with Chinese, Indians and Japanese entering the lunar exploration, things are looking up.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    8. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by ACDChook · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Haha, she won't know about it - TEE is only in Western Australia. It's the HSC over the other side of the country.

    9. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, I wrote "who's" instead of "whose." Well, there's a reason I wasn't an English major as an undergrad I guess...

      Don't feel so bad about it. It's rather easy to get a degree as an English major. Hell, they have a whole roll of them in the men's lavatory.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    10. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, the Russians were unable to allocate gyros and other mechanisms for the golf-swinging arm of the robot in their design, so their funding was heavily slashed.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    11. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by kungfugleek · · Score: 2, Funny

      We now have a fleet of spacecraft orbiting and on the surface of Mars...

      Makes me wonder if anyone on Mars has welcomed their new robotic earthling overlords...

    12. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Those little rovers are the closest thing to life that sterile rock has ever known.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Could be worse. They give Ph.D.'s in education away with the sunrise breakfast at Denny's now.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by wren337 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The secret to exceeding expectations is to set them very low. In this case, they built rovers that might last several years, then slapped a "90 day warranty" sticker on them.

    15. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Australia, do they teach how to figure out that 800 is 58.75% greater than 470?

    16. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by mallumax · · Score: 1

      For the record, Chandrayaan I has already been launched and it is on its way to the Moon. Also it is not Indo-Russian mission. It is purely an Indian Mission.

      --
      TechSutra
    17. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by savuporo · · Score: 1

      Yes, everyone paying the slightest attention to space developments knows about Chandrayaan I, and it being an Indian effort.

      I specifically said that Chandrayaan II will be an indo-russian mission, with lander and rover being provided by Roskosmos.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    18. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by rukcus · · Score: 1

      We know it's a great success for NASA because the rest of the country doesn't even realize something is going right. The only news being sent to Main St is bad news these days.

    19. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The Wisdom of Scotty:

      Kirk: "How long to re-fit?"
      Scotty: "Eight weeks. But you don't have eight weeks, so I'll do it for you in two."
      Kirk: "Do you always multiply your repair estimates by a factor of four?"
      Scotty: "How else to maintain my reputation as a miracle worker?"
      Kirk: "Your reputation is safe with me."

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    20. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      They've changed the scoring now, but the SAT used to have two sections, maths and verbal. Each had a maximum score of 800, making 1600 a perfect score. I think there's a third section now, also worth 800...

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    21. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      They got some help from the Russians in the 90's from they guy that helped design the luna probes wheels. Nasa's look the same

    22. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by BTWR · · Score: 1

      Complete BS. Absolute BS. The solar panels were NOT designed to last more than the season. Steve Squyres told our class how they tried to implement windshield wipers, "saran wrap" like films that would roll a fresh cover on the panels, and a host of other ideas, none of which were possible for various reasons. They got lucky in a lot of ways (dust devils, etc), and luck+great engineering has made this mission such a success.

      Nice try being cynical, but these were designed to work for a few months. Yes, "90 days" is arbitrary. If anything, they went for a 2-3x underestimation. But a combined >5 years on Mars? There's NO FREAKING WAY Steve Squyres anticipated that. Even in his wildest dreams. This is all borrowed time, and very unexpected.

    23. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by wren337 · · Score: 1

      they went for a 2-3x underestimation.

      ...

      This is all borrowed time, and very unexpected.

      How do you reconcile these two statements? What bothers me about the old "90 days" saw is that you don't see an acknowledgment that 90 days was pretty much the guaranteed operational window. People act like day 91 was a precious miracle wrought by god-like engineers. 5 years - that's pretty kick ass and speaks to really well built and designed hardware.

      Saying they were "designed to work for 3 months" confuses the idea of an engineering design lifetime and what most people would understand to be a statistically probable lifetime. I think you risk cheapening what they accomplished, when every single rover starts lasting two to twenty times longer than 90 days.

  3. And no comments - so... by Mr0bvious · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So no one cares?

    --
    Never happened. True story.
  4. Don't forget your masks! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be reactivated to observe the carnival season.

  5. Why heaters? by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So honest question for all you rocket scientists out there: Why are heaters needed? Which parts of the spacecraft (electronics?) need to be above a certain temperature to operate? Is it possible to let the lander "freeze" and then revive it, or if not what components are sensitive to this?

    Rich.

    --
    libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
    1. Re:Why heaters? by guacamole · · Score: 0

      Just a wild guess, probably the mechanical parts. (oiling, etc)

    2. Re:Why heaters? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      So honest question for all you rocket scientists out there: Why are heaters needed? Which parts of the spacecraft (electronics?) need to be above a certain temperature to operate? Is it possible to let the lander "freeze" and then revive it, or if not what components are sensitive to this?

      Rich.

      One issue is that solder joints between components can break if they are cooled down too much. Batteries and capacitors can fail if liquids inside them freeze and crystalise. While I think there is a chance that the lander will come back up next summer but the likelyhood of this is pretty slim IMHO.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    3. Re:Why heaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Batteries, you freeze 'em they burst

    4. Re:Why heaters? by jm1234567890 · · Score: 5, Informative
      From the article

      The heaters serve the purpose of keeping the electronics within tested survivable limits.

    5. Re:Why heaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think batteries and capacitors with liquids inside need to be heated. Maybe some instruments with special electronics need heating, too ...

    6. Re:Why heaters? by danhuby · · Score: 4, Funny

      The heaters serve the purpose of keeping the electronics within tested survivable limits.

      IANARS, I just RTFA

    7. Re:Why heaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the heaters are needed to calm down hostile Martians, along with some hookers and a pin up.

    8. Re:Why heaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think they use oil... in the past they used WS2 (tungstendissulfide), It is a powder that sticks to metal. but hey... IANARS

    9. Re:Why heaters? by oPless · · Score: 1

      But surely they 'froze' during transit?

      It's pretty cold in space....

    10. Re:Why heaters? by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the electronics are kept warm during transit.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Why heaters? by sa1lnr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can't speak for this exactly but a friend of mine has a vapo-chill unit on one of his PC's and he managed to get the temps so low on the cpu that it stopped working.

    12. Re:Why heaters? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's the mechanical moving parts as well as the batteries and other delicate systems. Problem is these parts are larger than the rovers that simply use hot radiation pellets of plutonium dioxide to do the heating for them.

      They CAN shut it all down, park the moving parts and let it sit dormant for all winter, but when you shut a system down there is a good chance that when you fire it up in the spring that it will not fire up. Blown dust cakes into an armature hinge point and now it can no longer move.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Why heaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except perhaps the heaters might have been powered up by the spacecraft's solar arrays, just perhaps...

    14. Re:Why heaters? by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      I'm not surprised - it's why they have operating temperatures specified as a LOW and high.

    15. Re:Why heaters? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's pretty cold in space....

      Well that really depends on how near you are to a source of heat... in fact overheating is a problem in the solar system as it's difficult to get rid of the heat from the sun.

    16. Re:Why heaters? by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      I don't know about Mars rovers, but here on Earth, there radio systems that need to be kept warm, or they drift off frequency. Next spring, it would be hard to wake up the rover if it can't hear the alarm clock ringing.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    17. Re:Why heaters? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Batteries are number one.
      Capacitors would be number two.
      Solder joints from uneven contraction.
      We are talking about cold here. I mean a cold that makes Antarctica look warm.
      Too bad they didn't use an RTG. The colder they get the more power they make.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:Why heaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Batteries for one thing. But, few things can get that cold without have some problems.

    19. Re:Why heaters? by Radio_active_cgb · · Score: 3, Informative
      The temperature extremes experienced in spacecraft (the Antarctic and Artic here on Earth) are such that considerable thermal expansion and contraction occurs. Because materials have different thermal expansion coefficients, everything is expanding and contracting at different rates, leading to mechanical stress. Such stresses cause hardening of materials - rather than flexing with the stress as when they were new, they break, and there-in lies the problem. (Remember bending wire coat hangers until they break? Even after a few bends, you would have problems straightening the now hardened wire.)

      The break can take many forms - a solder joint fails, a bearing seizes or breaks, a screw snaps, or a structural weld breaks. Each of these can result in a failure that renders the device inoperative.

      The heaters (often common power resisters) limit the cold extremes, and allows some predictability as to when failures can begin. In electrical systems, such heaters are used when the electronics can not keep themselves warm through continuous operation, or the electronics are shut down (you do want them to come back up, don't you?)

      In any case, power consumption tends to be fairly constant whatever the operating mode is.

    20. Re:Why heaters? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      In addition to the factors mentioned by others, at the extreme [freezing] temps involved - differential contraction is a big issue. It can crack camera lenses as the metal body shrinks, crack circuit traces inside of PCBs as the metal shrinks more than the plastic, tear pins from ICs as the IC and PCB shrink at different rates...

    21. Re:Why heaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The conformal coating on all the PCBs is made of a kind of glass that goes through a phase transition at extremely low temperature. The transition causes spider cracking, which can and will break connections.

    22. Re:Why heaters? by TerranFury · · Score: 1

      It's pretty cold in space....

      With the only way to lose heat being blackbody radiation, it's also, however, a good insulator.

  6. When the lander dies on Mars... by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...can we then assume that since something _died_ on Mars that there was once something _living_ on Mars?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  7. It's official. Netcraft now confirms: by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    The Mars lander is dying.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  8. Procreation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If the send 2 let they procreate freely and populate Mars. I hope they were of diffent genders.

  9. what I do not understand. by apodyopsis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    here's what I do not understand.

    so no sunlight = no power. the lander dies.

    but in the next season, assuming it has not been buried in dust it will then get power again from the solar array, so what then? surely some basic SW should be functional as the power rises over a certain point. and it does not need a huge amount of power to transmit basic telemetry like temperature, light, perhaps the odd photo in low res broadcast at low power.

    with all the research and development that went into the thing, I do not see why one season should kill it.

    however, I recognize I am not an expert and the people who write the articles presumably are, so what have I missed?

    corrosion in the environment?
    batteries that cannot survive being fully discharged?
    lander cannot run on solar alone?

    anyhow, kudos to NASA for lasting well beyond the tables life span in the first place.

    1. Re:what I do not understand. by u38cg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Metal parts can potentially crack, any components with liquids in them (batteries, capacitors, etc) can freeze and split. Certainly they will be keeping their fingers crossed that it might come back to life next year, but the odds are low.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:what I do not understand. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      The lander was designed to last 90 days. It was not designed to survive Martian winter. This is completely uncharted territory.

      Did you read the article?

    3. Re:what I do not understand. by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Funny
      see this is why NASA is putting robots on mars and you aren't. try freezing your dick to minus -225 and see if it's still functional next season.

      ok sorry i'm being a little harsh there it's been a long day. solder will crack and oils will freeze and expand busting caps etc. that's why the lander might not make it through the winter.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    4. Re:what I do not understand. by OriginalArlen · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've got it. Firstly the batteries will be destroyed by the prolonged cold. The other thing is that the entire site will be cloaked in a couple of meters of CO2 ice over winter; as it accumulates on the solar panels, the weight is expected to physically snap them off.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    5. Re:what I do not understand. by Dr.M0rph3us · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I'd like to see is the development of cold-resistant electronics. Can we use solid capacitors and batteries for that purpose?

      Then the power-draining heaters won't be needed anymore and the power can be routed to more useful instruments (or the probes can be lighter, with lower launch costs).

    6. Re:what I do not understand. by phillous · · Score: 2, Funny

      you must be new here?

    7. Re:what I do not understand. by vbraga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Metal parts, solder joints must also be taken in account.

      I think it's actually possible to build a spacecraft resistant to this temperature. But testing over a wider temperature range and getting it build to this spec would be expensive as hell.

      (I'm not a native English speaker, so, be kind pointing mistakes =))

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    8. Re:what I do not understand. by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've got it. Firstly the batteries will be destroyed by the prolonged cold. The other thing is that the entire site will be cloaked in a couple of meters of CO2 ice over winter; as it accumulates on the solar panels, the weight is expected to physically snap them off.

      It would be neat if they could watch the entire process of this happening. I really wish they could build a probe that could monitor this on the ground.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    9. Re:what I do not understand. by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

      Uncharted territory is what it was designed to explore! Nay-sayers go home!

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    10. Re:what I do not understand. by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      try freezing your dick to minus -225 and see if it's still functional next season.

      Or even better, do the "rose in the liquid nitrogen" trick and slap it on the table - THAT will impress the coeds.

      Once.

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    11. Re:what I do not understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We probably could, but this goes back to the entire part where it was only designed to last about 90 days or so, and to minimize costs.

    12. Re:what I do not understand. by Peeteriz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But testing over a wider temperature range and getting it build to this spec would be expensive as hell.

      On the other hand, 'expensive as hell' is not that much when compared to the cost of getting a pound of stuff from Earth to Mars - so if it allows us to use the rover twice as long, then it may be cheap enough to do, as sending a ten times more expensive rover would be much cheaper than sending two current rovers, just due to the high cost of transport.

    13. Re:what I do not understand. by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      But testing over a wider temperature range and getting it build to this spec would be expensive as hell.

      As opposed to launching it, which is cheap as chips?

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    14. Re:what I do not understand. by Sobrique · · Score: 1
      http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/q2681.html

      The daytime SURFACE temperature is about 80 F during rare summer days, to -200 F at the poles in winter. The AIR temperature, however, rarely gets much above 32 F.
      The temperatures on the two Viking landers, measured at 1.5 meters above the surface, range from + 1 F, ( -17.2 C) to -178 F (-107 C). However, the temperature of the surface at the winter polar caps drop to -225 F, (-143 C) while the warmest soil occasionally reaches +81 F (27 C) as estimated from Viking Orbiter Infrared Thermal Mapper.
      In 2004, the Spirit rover recorded the warmest temperature around +5 C and the coldest is -15 Celsius in the Guisev Crater."

      All sorts of stuff goes badly wrong when you're looking at that kind of temperature, not least anything with a hint of moisture in it. Rubber will crack, and metals will become brittle. But yes, I guess there's a chance that they can 'park' and wait for it to thaw in the summer, gather enough juice to power it's stuff, and boot up. It's more likely though that it'll just never start up again, as a system critical component is degraded by the extreme cold to the point where it doesn't work any more.

      That's before you start looking at other environmentals, such as dust - get a joint clogged due to dust, and you may find you're only burning out motors when it's thawing time.

    15. Re:what I do not understand. by Sobrique · · Score: 3, Informative
      Actually, that's practically impossible on a living person - you're effectively putting something 250+ degrees hotter into the liquid nitrogen, and you're circulating nice hot blood around it continuously - you'll thus be flash-boiling the nitrogen, which has quite a low specific heat capacity, and the bubbles as the nitrogen boils off forms quite an effective insulator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect

      It's therefore possible to immerse parts of the anatomy in liquid nitrogen for a fairly substantial amount of time before it will freeze to 'shatter on a table' temperature. Of course, getting frostbite is somewhat faster, and not recommended, so don't try this at home :)

    16. Re:what I do not understand. by Retric · · Score: 1

      I did this for a good 30 seconds and my finger never even felt that cold. Granted over time it might cause frost bite, but as long as you don't put that much of your body in there or touch the sides you should be OK for a reasonable length of time.

    17. Re:what I do not understand. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or even better, do the "rose in the liquid nitrogen" trick and slap it on the table - THAT will impress the coeds.

      Idiot Geek. You GIVE the rose TO the coed (intact, NOT frozen). You go somewhere else and play with the liquid nitrogen.

      No wonder you folks never get laid.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    18. Re:what I do not understand. by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, 'expensive as hell' is not that much when compared to the cost of getting a pound of stuff from Earth to Mars - so if it allows us to use the rover twice as long

      These rovers were only made to last 90 days. AS far as anyone is concerned, they have ALREADY lasted nearly 20 times longer than they were supposed to last (1760 days versus 90).

      So it would not be unreasonable to assume that maybe just maybe, if there was a choice of paying X for a part that lasts 1 year, or 100X for a part that lasts ten years, they would choose to get the 1 year part.

      To be fair, these things were only supposed to last for 90 days. I do not think, looking back at the original remit of the project, that anyone truly expected them to last THIS long, nor travel so far.

      So great credit to the engineers for making the rovers last so long already.

      --
      Have a nice day!
    19. Re:what I do not understand. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      In addition to the factors mentioned by others, at the extremely low [freezing] temps involved - differential contraction of various parts is a big issue. It can crack camera lenses as the metal body shrinks, crack circuit traces inside of PCBs as the metal shrinks more than the plastic, tear pins from ICs as the IC and PCB shrink at different rates...

    20. Re:what I do not understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to psychicly snap them off. Oh I'm sorry, I could not resist.

    21. Re:what I do not understand. by tjstork · · Score: 1

      The other thing is that the entire site will be cloaked in a couple of meters of CO2 ice over winter; as it accumulates on the solar panels, the weight is expected to physically snap them off.

      That would be some pictures to get, for sure, watching a martian "snow" overcome the lander..

      --
      This is my sig.
    22. Re:what I do not understand. by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      There is also the problem of weight, time and limited launch windows. If you take 25 years to build a probe it's really not as useful even if it can survive a whole ten times longer. The costs may also be a lot more than 10 times higher. Worst problem is that any components that can survive would increase the mass of the probe quite a bit which increases costs a lot. another post also mentioned that CO2 will condense around the probe which is likely going to cause all sorts of odd problems (which against would increase build time, cost and mass to compensate for).

    23. Re:what I do not understand. by SchrodingersRoot · · Score: 1

      Actually, it touched down on May 25, 2008, making it ~157 days between landing and the beginning of shutting down pieces of it. Still, that's a good 75% longer than it was designed for, and it'll still limp along for a while longer. And in this case, they did indeed choose to go with a cheaper option--a lander rather than a rover (though cost was not the only consideration). Anyway, I think the notion that the ROI for extending the life of a probe reaches a point of diminishing returns is a valid one--especially a fixed location lander like Phoenix. But you gotta hand it to the ol' bird...

    24. Re:what I do not understand. by mbstone · · Score: 1

      And his finger was the more difficult appendage.

    25. Re:what I do not understand. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see this is why NASA is putting robots on mars and you aren't. try freezing your dick to minus -225 and see if it's still functional next season.

      ok sorry i'm being a little harsh there it's been a long day. solder will crack and oils will freeze and expand busting caps etc. that's why the lander might not make it through the winter.

      Oil does not expand when it freezes.

    26. Re:what I do not understand. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      pfffft you know what I meant :)

  10. Pyrotechnic unit? by omuls+are+tasty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It has a "pyrotechnic initiation unit"? What is that used for? Were they planning some fireworks to celebrate? Do Martians like fireworks? :)

    1. Re:Pyrotechnic unit? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lots of space hardware uses a small pyro charge to deploy antennas and things. On a lot of microsats, the antennas are rolled up like steel tape measures, and when the pyro blows they unroll and stick out.

    2. Re:Pyrotechnic unit? by StuckInSyrup · · Score: 1

      Pyrotechnic initiation, otherwise known as baptism by fire.

      --
      Ni.
    3. Re:Pyrotechnic unit? by Isao · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some amateur satellites actually USE steel tape-measure as antennas. Here's a shot of PC-SAT. (Full site article)

  11. Oblig. by cosmocain · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, mourn our dead robotic overloads.

    1. Re:Oblig. by kungfugleek · · Score: 1

      It will rise again.

    2. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And V-ger will come looking for its creator.

    3. Re:Oblig. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, mourn our dying robotic overloads.

      Fixed that for you, you insensitive clod. What if the poor dying robotic overlord were to hear you talk about it like that... as if it were already dead? :'(

  12. To adorn oneself with borrowed plumes... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who is this "we" you're talking about? You're working for NASA/JPL, I figure?

  13. obligatory matrix by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    If only they sent a few baby capsules up there to supply it with the 25,000 btu's of body heat and 120 volts of power per unit.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  14. and finally after the cameras fail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    the native martians will appear and take it into their homes for the winter and nurse it back to health...

    1. Re:and finally after the cameras fail... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      No doubt the first manned mission will be in for a surprise. One survivor from Phoenix.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:and finally after the cameras fail... by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      Can just see it crawling into the first mars base years from now, dragging itself along with one functional arm unit. :D

    3. Re:and finally after the cameras fail... by aproposofwhat · · Score: 1

      Nah - Beagle 2 is hiding, and will pop out from behind a rock and try to shag the astronaut's leg...

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
  15. Happy to help a fellow geek by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...with Melbourne conversation starters.
    • Don't you just hate rugby?
    • Funny October we are having. Almost as hot as February.
    • Washed your car lately? Of course not (water restrictions)
    • Sorry you are missing the Melbourne Cup? Do you like boozing up in the Flemington car park?
    • What did you think of the Grand Final? Sorry that bunch of wankers from Hawthorn won it. Thought we had seen the last of them.

    Should be enough to get going. No boobytraps there. I promise.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by BTWR · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      thanks a lot guys! she also talked a lot about "netball." seems like a very cool girl. (and that accent, I love it).

    2. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by Godji · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      What the hell? A dating success srory on Slashdot? And there I was, thinking I'd seen it all.

    3. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by Miseph · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes, I too hate to hear about dating success srories. I don't mind a good story, but if I read one more srory with a happy ending, I swear to the Gods that I will end all life on Earth.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    4. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Funny

      You sure she's not a Kiwi who lives in Melbourne? There's a lot of them here. :D

    5. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Netball's like basketball, but tougher - most netball players I've known had thighs that could crack walnuts.

      Good luck - and wear wrist / ear protectors if you get past first base :o)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    6. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      He's gotten way past first base if he needs ear protectors....

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      she also talked a lot about "netball."

      Thats basketball for girls. Always played in skimpy outfits. Better defined rules and absolutely no body contact. I spent many a saturday afternoon when I was single glued to the TV watching netball games.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  16. From another Australian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't take this guy too seriously. He may not understand that bad news is what sells. I am at times impressed with what NASA can do.

    Needs more funding IMHO.

    Sasayaki, please explain. In general, throwing money at something doesn't solve the problem. You are going to need a marked reason for that money as well as a budget so that the agency doesn't become bloated and self-serving.

    1. Re:From another Australian by Fourier404 · · Score: 1

      Actually, throwing money at an organization that is being forced to make loads of budget cuts would solve their main problem.

    2. Re:From another Australian by Sasayaki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Very well.

      The war in Iraq has cost America, at the time of writing, approximately 566 billion dollars.

      The entire Apollo project, $25.4 Billion in 1969 dollars (or approximately $135 Billion in 2005 dollars.) Sources = (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program, http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home)

      So what I'm saying is, for the cost of the War in Iraq, America could have over four complete moon programs. Not moon missions, mind, four complete *programs*- built entirely from scratch.

      Let's say NASA take one moon mission to *actually* return to the moon properly- with return trips, flybys, dozens of manned and unmanned missions, reuse of the hardware for other projects, etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions for what this one single "mission" is buying, and remember that still leaves three whole other missions and change to do other things.

      Let's spend two missions on doing all of the above, but for Mars. That means multiple manned missions, return journeys, the works. Give Mars the full lunar "One small step for man" treatment and assume it costs twice as much (and takes a lot longer).

      We still have one mission left. Let's do something crazy with it- and I'm open to suggestions here. Permanent lunar settlement? Completely and utterly explore our planet's oceans (which we know less about than space, BTW...)? Solar-system wide Internet? (Aliens need lolcats too..) ... the possibilities here are truly staggering. And don't forget your change.

      This is what I meant by more funding. I mean to say that NASA, which has endured endless budget cuts since the 60's (which, I'll concede, have forged a more efficient government agency), deserves far, far, far more of America's money. America's money which is being horrifically misspent.

      Essentially, what I'm trying to say is... yes, it's inefficient. Horribly so. So? Throw money at it. I'll say it again- THROW MONEY AT IT. The capslock shows I'm serious. NASA is one of the few (read- the only) organisation I'll say this about, but... throw money at it. Seriously. For the cost of the Iraq war, we could have had so much.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
  17. Nuclear batteries by joshv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why the hell aren't we putting nuclear batteries on these things?

    1. Re:Nuclear batteries by Carbon016 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They might on the successor.

    2. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You said the n word.

    3. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The word nuclear scares the public. More specifically I live by the cape, when they launch nuclear powered missions like New Horizons Pluto mission local schools are required to keep children indoor and close their windows. This is a precaution. If the launch vehicle blows up nuclear fallout could be spread around by winds. So generally only missions where it is required because there isn't any sun light like a mission to Pluto do they use nuclear reactors.

    4. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't you heard? NUCLEAR! Radiation is EVIL!
      More seriously, just look at the brouhaha surrounding the Galileo RTG and you see why we're not using nuclear batteries - or huge satellites sent into space by Project Orion.

    5. Re:Nuclear batteries by Ummite · · Score: 1

      Nuclear can scrap electronic inside the robot. One easy plan (with budget) would be to put an nuclear "heater" / electrical generator at the base (where the robot lands) and let the robot hybernate / regenerate at the base, for winter. Next step would be a repair shop that could be remotly controlled, to do some job robots cannot do alone. This would give a lot more lifespan to those robots. But even with that, if the batteries inside the robot have a lifespan, you cannot repair / recharge them indefinitely.

    6. Re:Nuclear batteries by Tweenk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Those are not nuclear reactors, but radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). Rather than harnessing the energy from steam heated by the fission of heavy nuclei, they get the power directly from the heat of natural decay of radioactive isotopes using thermocouples. Link.

      Current nuclear reactor designs, even the compact ones used on ships and submarines, are too large and too heavy to be sent into space.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    7. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are for the next mission.

    8. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No "might" about it. That's the plan.

    9. Re:Nuclear batteries by hysonmb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that nuclear batteries would be a great idea in theory. I'm not a NASA employee, or scientist, but I would venture a guess that the risk is not worth the reward just yet. Imagine the first time one of those suckers breaks apart on liftoff.... "We're sorry ladies and gentlemen, Florida is now closed. We hope you enjoyed your stay and we look forward to seeing you when we reopen in 30 years. Thank you and goodbye."

    10. Re:Nuclear batteries by Catmeat · · Score: 5, Informative
      In this case, they aren't necessary as the lander has done all the science it was planned. What's the point of keeping it alive over the winter of all it's going to do in the spring is repeat the measurements it's already taken?

      RTG's and RHU's are a massive, expensive, pain in the ass and are best avoided unless absolutely necessary.

      Basically -

      • They're heavy. They are must be designed to wishstand re-entry intact and not disperse Pu238 fuel everywhere if the rocket explodes during launch. Extra weight on the lander means there will be science instruments that have to be taken off.
      • They're on 24/7 and they're only about 5% efficient so they produce about 20W of heat for every W of electricity. This is a huge problem when the spacecraft is buttoned up in it's Mars-entry aeroshell during the 9 month trip to Mars. Hundreds of W of waste heat must be dumped somehow or your lander will cook.

        This may well use some kind of fluid cooling loop that circulates through radiators on the crusie stage. This now gives you added problems of a pump (which must not fail or you'll lose the mission, so add a back-up pump) and how to disconnect the coolant pipes with absolute reliability when the time comes to ditch the cruise stage and enter the Martian atmosphere. More problems, cost and weight.

      • Pu238 is on every terrorist's Christmas wish-list. You have the added problems and of turning the spacecraft assembly facilities into highly secure spacecraft assembly facilities. Assembling a Mars lander is already hard and expensive. You really don't want to add to this the cost and disruption of post-9/11 anti-terrorist, security paranoia. Donna Shirley discusses this in her book on the Mars Sojurner rover, and that was put together back in 96.
    11. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pu238 is on every terrorist's Christmas wish-list.

      Even the Islamic ones? Or don't they count?

    12. Re:Nuclear batteries by Reapman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty confidentent that even a catostrophic failure wouldn't create a nuclear meltdown even remotely like that. I could see the nuclear material falling to the ground and needing a cleanup crew to take care of it as a worst case, but I can't see something like this creating a new Cherynobyl (spelling probably off missing my coffee this morning) unless someone REALLY screws up.. but if your worried about that you should probably be more worried about them wanting to install new nuclear powerplants then some "nuclear battery"

    13. Re:Nuclear batteries by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      You also have the problem of rabid freaks on usenet droning on and on about Cassinni and how all life on earth will cease to exist if something goes wrong during the launch.

      Personally, I think we should be mining plutonium on the moon and doing final assembly on-site. With robots that look like ants.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    14. Re:Nuclear batteries by misterjava66 · · Score: 1

      Actually that has happenned before. These things come in two classes, simple heat makers, and much more complex electricity generators. A space mission with one of the more complex electricity generators had trouble in the early stages of flight, the rocket was blown up, and later nasa went to the ocean floor, retrieved device, fixed its fittings, and flew it on another mission. The crash and bad things happen secnario is not a reality.

    15. Re:Nuclear batteries by confused+one · · Score: 1

      What bothers me is that the politicians push a requirement like that on the schools. It's FUD and it does nothing but enhance the public fears. The RTG's are designed to survive a launch vehicle failure as well as the subsequent impact when it falls to the ground. There won't be "nuclear fallout".

    16. Re:Nuclear batteries by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      The weight of the shielding casket that would survive reentry on launch failure may be prohibitive. But I'd guess mostly environmentalists who don't want nukes going into outer space.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    17. Re:Nuclear batteries by Spotticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not entirely true, there have been several missions (not recently) where full blown nuclear reactors have flown. Between 1971 and 1988 the Soviets flew 31 RORSAT missions using the BES-5 nuclear reactor. The US launched one mission in 1965 carrying the SNAP-10A reactor. Both types used liquid sodium cooling and were extremely compact and lightweight. The advantage of not requiring shielding

    18. Re:Nuclear batteries by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "But I'd guess mostly environmentalists who don't want nukes going into outer space."

      Absolutely - we MUST keep nuclear reactors out of space!

      And we must convert to 100% solar energy here on Earth!

      What? Stop laughing, I'm serious, dammit! I wear pleather shoes - don't you see how much I care!

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    19. Re:Nuclear batteries by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We're sorry ladies and gentlemen, Florida is now closed.

      That would be a feature, not a bug.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:Nuclear batteries by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Pu238 is on every terrorist's Christmas wish-list.

      And yet they keep getting coal. Santa enjoys the irony.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    21. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you just need to keep the craft warm, you don't need steam and turbines and generators, just a warm lump giving off heat. In this situation, a "reactor" just needs to be a block containing fuel and a moderator. The chain reaction only needs to be strong enough to provide an improvement over natural decay. It would easily be weak enough that there's no chance of it going critical, so you don't need control rods or any kind of control mechanism. You don't need significant shielding either.

    22. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you mean "nukular"

    23. Re:Nuclear batteries by rpj1288 · · Score: 1

      No space vehicle will carry a full nuclear reactor now, or anytime in the near future. They're just too heavy. When people say that a space vehicle is nuclear powered, it means it's powered by an RTG, a radioisotope thermoelectric generators. It's basically a bunch of pellets of plutonium that radiate and release heat, which is turned into voltage by thermocouples. The point of all this is that there is nowhere near enough material in an RTG to cause a criticality event, let alone a nuclear bomb sort of event.

      --
      Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
    24. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple nitpicks. The extra heat issue is solveable. In some cases it's even desirable, if you can spread it around evenly to keep things at their proper operating temperatures. Mars Science Laboratory will use a plutonium RTG. It's being built right now.

      Also, Pu-238 really isn't that high on terrorists wishlists. It's thermally quite hot for the amount of neutrons it produces, so it's difficult to handle and basically (or perhaps completely, I'm not sure) non-fissile...meaning you can't make it blow up. Realistically, a Pu-238 accident during launch wouldn't be that bad. Certainly not as bad as the fission-powered Russian satellite that broke apart over Canada during the cold war. However, they always make worst case estimates for such accidents when determining if the risks are acceptable, so the analysis always ends up looking slightly unsettling, but not actually frightening. You basically have to ingest Pu-238 to sustain major harm from it.

      Pu-238 is also quite expensive, because it is seldom produced for anything other than RTG's, and then only in small batches. In fact, I believe the current batch of Pu-238 the US has in it's inventory was purchased from Russia, rather than go through the expense of setting up for our own batch.

    25. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Um, except the designs for all the nuclear reactors that HAVE been sent into space.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RORSAT
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNAP-10A

  18. Re:so they want to send a human to Mars by MrNaz · · Score: 1

    Presumably they'd send the human with more than a 2kg box of supplies.

    --
    I hate printers.
  19. any breakthrough finally ? by ti-coune · · Score: 2

    Maybe it's not the right place to post this:

    But I remember i was pretty excited in the days after the probe landed, checking the website everyday to see the news. I still check it once in a while.

    But what was the major finding finally ?

    I know they were not expectig to find life. But any indirect evidence of it would have been cool. They did find water ice, (and found it many times apparently ;-)

    just a bit disappointed I guess

  20. The Fall on Mars must be uniquely uneventful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Said it already

  21. Hibernation ? by redelm · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Would it be feasible to put the lander into a hibernation mode and restart it next [martian] summer?

    1. Re:Hibernation ? by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it has Ubuntu inside.

  22. Amazing discovery?? by Blice · · Score: 1

    Remember the story a little while back about them making some sort of discovery that they had to go to the President for before releasing to the public? Did we ever find out what that was..?

    1. Re:Amazing discovery?? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Remember the story a little while back about them making some sort of discovery that they had to go to the President for before releasing to the public? Did we ever find out what that was..?

      Well for some of us, this wasn't all that surprising. I'm not at all sure why they had to brief GWB on this specially. Maybe the 'special' part. As in going very slowly over the words. Twice. But that's just speculation on my part

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  23. Re:Oooh aaahhh by that+IT+girl · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Who licked the red off your candy this morning? Geez...

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
  24. Re:Oooh aaahhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Uranus

  25. Re:Oooh aaahhh by that+IT+girl · · Score: 1

    Look at *your* handle. "Anonymous Coward"... sounds about right.

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
  26. Re:Oooh aaahhh by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

    Look at your handle...

    My time machine worked! It's the 1990's again!

    --
    The game.
  27. Much bang for NASA's buck by Drakkenmensch · · Score: 1
    You have to hand it over to the NASA engineer crew - they can built their landers tough. Considering the distance and sheer hostility of the mars surface, going above the estimated 90 days of operation is a jaw-dropping exploit. Think about it for a moment - if they can double the operating time of the mars lander, this means that they will have managed to squeeze TWO complete mars missions using the budget of a SINGLE ONE. This will also have saved them several YEARS of labor and time investment that would have gone into sending a second lander to get another three months' worth of surface data.

    All in all, a phenomenal success!

  28. To Boldly Go by rossdee · · Score: 2, Funny

    "And we stopped being a "colony" as of Federation... 1901"

    Australia is part of the Federation?
    Cool
    Do they have Warp Drive?

    1. Re:To Boldly Go by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, but they do have Holden.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    2. Re:To Boldly Go by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 1

      No, but they do have Holden.

      but does it blend?

  29. Strange use of phrase "exploration" by sleeponthemic · · Score: 1

    Given that it isn't atall mobile.

    --
    I record my sleeptalking
    1. Re:Strange use of phrase "exploration" by pohl · · Score: 1

      ...sweeping under the rug, of course, the fact that it went to another planet. :

      --

      The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...

  30. Re:Oooh aaahhh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thatskinnyguy? that IT girl? When's the wedding?

  31. Re:Oooh aaahhh by Kvasio · · Score: 1

    Uranus

    thread drifting from space probles to anal probles, huh?

  32. Deep freeze by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My understanding is that the lander will be buried for much of the winter in up to 3 feet of ice. What with expansion/contraction and the forces exerted by shifting ice, I'd be amazed if something critical didn't break.

  33. In the Martian Arctic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Could the rover not drive to the summer-y regions of Mars? Assuming craters were not in the way and such. Although I suppose the distance to get to a different hemisphere might be insurmountable.

  34. Re:Oooh aaahhh by Theoboley · · Score: 1

    That would be me. I loves me some sweets.

    --
    Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
  35. Is there any way... by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    I wonder, if this is a temporary thing, where once the season passes, and comes back to summer on mars, that they will be able to restart the drone and continue....I would venture to say , for the amount we paid for that dang thing, the least the could have done is put a system hibernation mode...

    1. Re:Is there any way... by compro01 · · Score: 1

      That's the general idea, but the likelihood of the rover surviving the extreme cold is low. Cold causes stuff to contract, and that can result in things like lenses cracking, circuit traces breaking, solder joints cracking, ICs becoming separated from the PCBs, etc.

      This little thing is in the Martian arctic, and it gets far colder there than it does anywhere on earth. The other pair of rovers that have been going for several years are much further south, near the equator, and they can get enough power to last the shorter and less cold winter easily.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  36. How to make it last another year by heroine · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obama could make it run for another year.

    1. Re:How to make it last another year by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      And Bob Dole could get its antenna to deploy -- and function -- even if it was on the brink of death

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  37. Re:Oooh aaahhh by that+IT+girl · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I think it's scheduled for right after you pull your head out of your ass.

    Oh... I might be single for a while then...

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
  38. Migration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So instead of freezing to death, why doesn't it make like the Martian birds and migrate to the equator, or the other pole? Or go find a nice cave, dig itself in and hibernate until next spring? Has NASA been concentrating so much on life on Mars that they've forgotten life on Earth?

  39. Why is it less likely to survive than the rovers? by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't those same concerns apply to the venerable rovers, Spirit and Opportunity, which were able to "come back up" after multiple Martian winters, even though their design life was only 90 days? They make it look easy. Unless you have specific reasons to be more pessimistic about Phoenix, don't count it out.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  40. Re:Why is it less likely to survive than the rover by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    Spirit and Opportunity are both close enough to the equator to get solar power every day. Phoenix is north of the arctic circle and will go without any power at all for most of an Earth year.

    Phoenix will freeze stone cold dead, but the rovers always have power for their heaters.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  41. It was a dumb journalist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was nothing. They were excited about discovering a few various compounds in the soil that they didn't know whether to expect or not, and they made a press release about it, but my understanding is when they read the paper that day, the very people who were supposed to be the ones flying to DC to brief the president had a rather confused moment at their desks in Arizona wondering if they'd missed out on something.

  42. Slow Death by MahGu · · Score: 1

    Must...find....water!

  43. emergency heaters? by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

    Why does it have 'emergency heaters'? This is a device expected to last 90 days during the warm season (as far as I can tell, it landed late spring/early summer). It was made, supposedly, on a 'shoestring' budget. Heaters would substantially increase the cost while likely decreasing the longevity of the lander due to increased battery drain; for a 90 day mission, this doesn't seem acceptable to me.

    With this news, I have to wonder if the Mars landers weren't initially intended to last much, much longer than the advertised 90 days. And I do mean "advertised": the "longer than planned for" lifespan of these probes has been nothing but a windfall for NASA in terms of public goodwill for their endeavors. (It's not really 'wasting' money if they can push the budget of a project so far beyond what was planned for, is it?)

    The presence of heaters tells me that a design goal was to have these probes run into the cold season. The fact that they didn't both last that long tells me that they potentially screwed up but due to their Scotty Guestimates, it looks good.

    --
    ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers