Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover Spirit Still Alive

Toren Altair writes with this excerpt from a story at The Space Fellowship: "NASA's Mars Exploration Rover Spirit communicated via the Mars Odyssey orbiter today right at the time when ground controllers had told it to, prompting shouts of 'She's talking!' among the rover team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 'This means Spirit has not gone into a fault condition and is still being controlled by sequences we send from the ground,' said John Callas of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., project manager for Spirit and its twin, Opportunity."

185 comments

  1. This was a triumph! by White+Flame · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm making a note here:
    HUGE SUCCESS.

    1. Re:This was a triumph! by Sasayaki · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's hard to overstate my satisfaction.

      --
      Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    2. Re:This was a triumph! by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      "the baby is crying"

      (from someone at JPL)

      At least you're not completely emotionally invested in this thing. Seriously, when it 'dies', somebody is going to need some serious counseling.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    3. Re:This was a triumph! by MadnessASAP · · Score: 2

      Damn right, when the news came that it was over for Phoenix I got all depressed. The poor lander all alone out there, a million miles away from home. And I don't even work at NASA.

      --
      I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
    4. Re:This was a triumph! by Cassius+Corodes · · Score: 3, Funny

      The poor lander all alone out there, a million miles away from home

      Now you made me all depressed. A rescue mission I say!

      --
      Control is an illusion, order our comforting lie. From chaos, through chaos, into chaos we fly
    5. Re:This was a triumph! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wonder if there's cake on mars..

    6. Re:This was a triumph! by Profane+MuthaFucka · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No, it's so delicious and moist. But, look at me - still talking when there's science to do.

      --
      Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
    7. Re:This was a triumph! by philspear · · Score: 1

      NASA Science Military Android contingency plan activated. Please observe mandatory test protocol safety procedure as you proceed. Remember the NASA Science Military Androids are unable to distinguish between friend, foe and even common household items such as cake flour, office chairs and ... bzzzzt ... other nuclear devices.

    8. Re:This was a triumph! by Tavor · · Score: 4, Funny

      And I don't even work at NASA.

      You're not smart. You're not a scientist. You're not a doctor. You're not even a full-time employee. Where did your life go so wrong?

      --
      Windows has detected an undetectable error.
    9. Re:This was a triumph! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It didnt eat the cake.

    10. Re:This was a triumph! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      We're doing science and I'm
      STILL ALIVE

    11. Re:This was a triumph! by Ralith · · Score: 2, Funny

      Aperture Science
      We do what we must, because: we can.

    12. Re:This was a triumph! by JosKarith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      We're all going to need some counselling. Seriously - this little "lander that can" has outperformed expectations to such a massive degree. Spirit/Opportunity models might well end up taking a place next to the Darth Spuds on geek desks across the world...

      --
      'Don't worry' said the trees when they saw the axe coming, 'The handle is one of us.'
    13. Re:This was a triumph! by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Seriously, when it 'dies', somebody is going to need some serious counseling.

      Cake and grief counselling will be available at the conclusion of the test. Thank you for helping us help you help us all.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    14. Re:This was a triumph! by confused+one · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Of course people are emotionally invested. Think about it for a minute...

      *waits*

      It is not unusual for someone to put in 10 years of their life planning and building one of these things. They you have to wait for the launch, wait for it to reach Mars, and hope you get some good science out of it.

      This rover was supposed to last at least 90 days. It's still going 5 years later. They're still getting good science out of it.

      Now, with some of the people on the project having 15+ years of their lives invested in this, you expect them to NOT be emotionally invested?

    15. Re:This was a triumph! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      It's like having and raising a child. Except this one, at 15, doesn't live in your house and does what he's told.

    16. Re:This was a triumph! by n1ckml007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      look at me still talking when there's science to do!

    17. Re:This was a triumph! by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      When he decided between a half decaf latte and that glazed doughnut those many years ago.

      he took the doughnut.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:This was a triumph! by Theoboley · · Score: 1

      But i bet they did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night

      --
      Stupidity only gets you so far, then you've gotta try
    19. Re:This was a triumph! by bckrispi · · Score: 1

      *Whoooosh!*

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    20. Re:This was a triumph! by OldSoldier · · Score: 1

      "the baby is crying"

      (from someone at JPL)

      At least you're not completely emotionally invested in this thing. Seriously, when it 'dies', somebody is going to need some serious counseling.

      True, perhaps more true than you expect. These babies do not have an "off switch", and while I'm not 100% sure what it will do in a "fault-condition" I imagine it could still try to communicate at random times. To those emotionally invested and who can't help being anthropomorphic about it, I imagine these random "fault-condition" communications would be worse than "death".

    21. Re:This was a triumph! by danieltdp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What actually amuses me is how emotionally invested *we* got. Not the NASA scientists, but the audience, the geeks out there (including me).

      --
      -- dnl
    22. Re:This was a triumph! by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      At least you're not completely emotionally invested in this thing. Seriously, when it 'dies', somebody is going to need some serious counseling.

      Cake and grief counseling will be available at the conclusion of the test.

    23. Re:This was a triumph! by vivin · · Score: 1

      K'Breel, speaker for the Most Illustrious Council of Elders calmed down an indignant population:

      My fellow citizens, my gelsacs quiver with rage at the knowledge that the metal invader from the evil blue planet still stirs! It was not too long ago that we thought we had rid ourselves of this metal wretch sent by the ugly waterbags from the evil blue planet! It was only today that I was interrupted during my morning blorting to be told that we had intercepted a communication from the metal monster to its masters on the evil blue planet. But fear not! The monster is still near death and as the bitter cold approaches, I have no doubt that we will triumph against these invaders!

      When a member of the Press Corps reminded the Speaker that he had placed a "Mission Accomplished" banner above the podium during the last conference regarding the supposed death of the invader, and proceeded to ask whether in retrospect, the placement of the banner was premature, the Speaker withdrew his ceremonial spear and repeatedly pierced the gelsac of the member before the question was fully heard.

      --
      Vivin Suresh Paliath
      http://vivin.net

      I like
    24. Re:This was a triumph! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The cake is a lie!

    25. Re:This was a triumph! by jafac · · Score: 1

      Correction (or rather, elaboration):
      It's still going 5 years later, in a harsh alien climate that makes Antarctica look like Tahiti.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    26. Re:This was a triumph! by plover · · Score: 1


      I've experiments to run,
      there is research to be done
      on the people who are still alive.

      --
      John
  2. Everyone Dance! by compro01 · · Score: 5, Funny

    And we're stayin' alive, stayin' alive.
    Ah, ha, ha, ha,
    Stayin' alive.
    Stayin' alive.
    Ah, ha, ha, ha,
    Stayin' alive.

    --
    upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    1. Re:Everyone Dance! by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      STAY THE COURSE!

    2. Re:Everyone Dance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm picturing a youtube video with rover edits, if only I was so inclined...

    3. Re:Everyone Dance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you should'a put the cake is a lie!

    4. Re:Everyone Dance! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gold Five: Stay on target

    5. Re:Everyone Dance! by Kvasio · · Score: 1

      I wonder it the proble will be still stayin' alive after "saturday night ground frost"

  3. They don't make 'em like that anymore by fortapocalypse · · Score: 4, Funny

    But I wish they did!

    1. Re:They don't make 'em like that anymore by DigitAl56K · · Score: 1

      According to the headline they do ;)

  4. Setup a status page by Bananatree3 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Abe Vigoda has one,why not the mars rovers?

    1. Re:Setup a status page by cheetham · · Score: 5, Funny
    2. Re:Setup a status page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your information is marginally correct, but flawed. The earth was not destroyed by the LHC; actually, it was destroyed before the LHC was tested, as a precautionary measure. This was over two months ago. Reference: http://qntm.org/?board

    3. Re:Setup a status page by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 1

      There is even one for if the LHC has destroyed the world or not!

      Hee hee. The jokes on them. If the Earth is destroyed there'd be no Internet left by which to access that site!

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    4. Re:Setup a status page by David+Gould · · Score: 1

      There is even one for if the LHC has destroyed the world or not!

      For tracking it, I suggest the RSS feed.

      Hey, it hasn't updated since... Oct. 16! OH, CRAP!!!

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
    5. Re:Setup a status page by David+Gould · · Score: 1

      Well, she has a LiveJournal. But she hasn't posted in almost two and a half years. What's up with that?

      --
      David Gould
      main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
  5. NASA Automotives by supun · · Score: 5, Funny

    It rains and my stupid car won't start. Their little rover can travel to a different planet, survive the cold, survive dust storms, etc and keep going. Maybe instead of bailing out the "big three", we should dump all that money into NASA to make cars.

    I'm willing to risk my safety on a metric to standard conversion problem for a car that will run.

    --
    :w!
    1. Re:NASA Automotives by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree, I think your car would run pretty darn well if you had a dozen scientists and engineers continually operating and maintaining it.

    2. Re:NASA Automotives by Dzimas · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure! But be aware that your car will cost $243 million and travel at a maximum speed of 3 mph, while taking up three lanes with its enormous solar wings. Oh, and its only under warranty for three months because of concerns about the unpredictable Terran atmosphere.

    3. Re:NASA Automotives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      By maintaining it do you mean traveling to mars every 20 miles for an oil change?

    4. Re:NASA Automotives by lysergic.acid · · Score: 4, Funny

      clearly he means that auto mechanics will be able to fix your car remotely from 35~250 million miles away regardless of where it breaks down. they can even get your car unstuck remotely if you ever get stuck in a ditch.

      suck on that OnStar! all they can do is unlock your car.

    5. Re:NASA Automotives by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Informative

      Spirit has gone 4.8 miles so far, and Opportunity has gone 7.68 miles.

    6. Re:NASA Automotives by rampant+mac · · Score: 5, Funny

      "...and travel at a maximum speed of 3 mph, while taking up three lanes..."

      So, sort of like selling a Cadillac to a senior citizen?

      --
      I like big butts and I cannot lie.
    7. Re:NASA Automotives by siddesu · · Score: 1

      On the plus side, that'd be cheaper and less bothersome than that other one in the house that I call a "she".

    8. Re:NASA Automotives by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's not fair. OnStar can also route all audio from your car to any law enforcement group that wants to keep an eye on you!

    9. Re:NASA Automotives by lostmongoose · · Score: 3, Funny

      nah, old people only drive slow when they're in a hurry.

    10. Re:NASA Automotives by Walpurgiss · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I could have sworn they got in trouble for doing that because while they are tapping, the onstar system is unable to alert authorities to an emergency by its regular, intended, means.

      Meaning it can't dial out 911 or whatever if you have a normal emergency, not that the cops listening in couldn't respond.

    11. Re:NASA Automotives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Spirit has gone 4.8 miles so far, and Opportunity has gone 7.68 miles.

      +36 Million miles each if you count the commute to work.

    12. Re:NASA Automotives by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm willing to risk my safety on a metric to standard conversion problem for a car that will run.

      um...metric is the standard.

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    13. Re:NASA Automotives by smussman · · Score: 5, Funny

      nah, old people only drive slow when you're in a hurry.

      I think this is more accurate.

    14. Re:NASA Automotives by silarulz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      During the Lunokhod Programme in the late 60's and early 70's, the two rovers traveled a combined distance of 47kms on the moon! Actually I think one of the rovers still holds the record for the longest traveled distance on any extra-terrestrial planet. And that's in the 70s!

      --
      silarulz!
    15. Re:NASA Automotives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You still live with your mother?

    16. Re:NASA Automotives by jschen · · Score: 3, Informative

      Never knew about Lunokhod. That's pretty amazing. Of course, the orders of magnitude shorter communications time probably helped a lot.

    17. Re:NASA Automotives by zbharucha · · Score: 2, Funny

      If you're satisfied with travelling a few meters everyday, go get your NASA car!

    18. Re:NASA Automotives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not fair. OnStar can also route all audio from your car to any law enforcement group that wants to keep an eye on you!

      ... and can NASA do THAT?

    19. Re:NASA Automotives by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      The solution to that problem used to be replace your distributor cap and plug wires. Nowadays, there are coils per plug and all sorts of other nonsense.

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    20. Re:NASA Automotives by pklinken · · Score: 1

      An extra service known as OnCNN

    21. Re:NASA Automotives by necro81 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Compared to roving on Mars, the Lunokhod program had lots of things going for it.

      * The much shorter communications time, which someone else mentioned, allows near real-time operator control, so a rover can move faster and not so gingerly creep your way around. Being so much closer allows you to also use a less-powerful transmitter, or transmit more data at the same power level.

      * Being so much closer to the Earth means that it is feasible to send a much larger and heavier rover using the same rocket.

      * Being so much closer to the Sun means that there is vastly more energy available, even considering the state of photovoltaics in the 1970s. The Moon has no dust storms to obscure the panels, either. Because of its slow rotation, one has about two weeks of continuous sunlight to work with. (On the other hand, it also means that you need to build a rover that can survive for two weeks with no sunlight).

      On the whole, I'd say that the success of Lunokhod 30-40 years ago shouldn't make the Mars rovers' accomplishments seem puny today. The environments and challenges of the two locations are distinct, so the comparison isn't appropriate. Perhaps it would be better to compare the progress that has been made for each location over that time.

      How good were Mars rovers of that time compared to now? Answer: terrible. There weren't any Mars rovers until Sojourner in 1996.

      How good are the lunar rovers of today? Answer: who knows!? There haven't been any since Lunokhod. There are a few in development, from governments and private groups, but none have launched or landed yet, and won't for years still.

    22. Re:NASA Automotives by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >Maybe instead of bailing out the "big three", we should dump all that money into NASA to make cars.

      Or you could just replace your spark plug wires.

    23. Re:NASA Automotives by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      I think you might have discovered how to fund Project Constellation!

    24. Re:NASA Automotives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "the two rovers traveled a combined distance of 47kms on the moon!"
      "still holds the record for the longest traveled distance on any extra-terrestrial planet"

      When the moon became a planet?

    25. Re:NASA Automotives by blind+biker · · Score: 1

      It's a bit like apples and oranges, though. Both are fruits, but one is so far away that it may take 40 minutes between a command issued from earth, and a feedback, while the other works with a 2 second delay at most.

      --
      "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    26. Re:NASA Automotives by tkjtkj · · Score: 0, Redundant

      tell *that* to the guys who screwed up the programming on one of those intended-mars-lander missions! Remember?? it collided with martian surface because of an error in units ! Wish i could rememember the exact mission ... Anyone?? tkjtkj

      --
      "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
    27. Re:NASA Automotives by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      I believe the wheel designs of the Mars rovers are similar, when we got help from the Russians that designed Lunokhod back in the 90's.

    28. Re:NASA Automotives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Never knew about Lunokhod. That's pretty amazing.

      I grew up hearing about the evils of Soviet propaganda and media control. As an adult I've learned that the US is a lot like the Soviet Union in many ways. It's no accident that most Americans have no idea how much they did in space.

    29. Re:NASA Automotives by danieltdp · · Score: 1

      His car would be a little more expensive too

      --
      -- dnl
    30. Re:NASA Automotives by mopower70 · · Score: 1

      It's a bit like apples and oranges, though. Both are fruits, but one is so far away that it may take 40 minutes between a command issued from earth, and a feedback, while the other works with a 2 second delay at most.

      I've yet to be bothered by my apples OR oranges not responding to remote commands.

    31. Re:NASA Automotives by Technopolymath · · Score: 0

      Not in this country .... ya'll globalists need to get out of your geocentric mindset!

    32. Re:NASA Automotives by Truder · · Score: 1

      nah, old people only drive slow when you're in a hurry.

      There, fixed it for you.

    33. Re:NASA Automotives by jafac · · Score: 1

      Well, to be fair, OnStar costs me what, like $50 a month? And only functions where there's cell phone coverage? How much would these JPL guys cost me? And they can fix my car from 7 million miles away?

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    34. Re:NASA Automotives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offtopic, in relation to your car problems. Only when it's raining? May be cracks in your spark plug wires. Simple fix is to spray them (with a cold engine) with WD-40, wait a minute or so, then wipe them clean with a towel. The idea is that water gets in the cracks and shorts out the spark, the oil forces the water out again. If it gets your car to start, then its time to buy new wires.

    35. Re:NASA Automotives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      clearly he means that auto mechanics will be able to fix your car remotely from 35~250 million miles away regardless of where it breaks down. they can even get your car unstuck remotely if you ever get stuck in a ditch.

      Sadly you would be screwed if you needed your tyre changing. How happy would you be driving to work and back in reverse gear?

  6. I'm not dead! by SuperBanana · · Score: 4, Funny

    "I'm getting more charged...I think I'll go for a drive..."

    1. Re:I'm not dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nerd: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do.

      NASA: What's that?

      Nerd: Go on slashdot and look for overused cliches

    2. Re:I'm not dead! by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 3, Funny

      Where do you want to go today?

      There is no Vista over there.

      Rovers - expected to die before Vista came out.
      Vista - not only late but dead before the rovers die.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    3. Re:I'm not dead! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This post is to remove my accidental overrated mod point from the above post.

  7. bellows and a nozzle? by TWX · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Wouldn't sixteenth century technology like a simple bellows with a directable nozzle fix this problem? It doesn't have to be a very powerful or strong bellows, just something good enough to help displace the worst of the dust and fines buildup...

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by compro01 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It would have to be quite powerful, as as far as I understand, that dust (or the rover, I forget which at the moment) has a fantastic static charge to it, so it requires a potent wind to remove it, which they've been getting on a fortunately regular basis for the past few years.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
    2. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      like a simple bellows

      My understanding is that the atmosphere is so thin, it would have to be enormous to build up enough pressure to actually move the dust. Better to wait for another one of those wind storms to scrub the thing clean.

      Or ship the next one with feather dusters ;)

    3. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 5, Informative

      My understanding: The thing that the designers had decided was that the weight of a dust removal system was not worth removing a scientific instrument to do so, because they had a weight and size budget to deal with. They didn't think there was an effective means to clean the dust to extend the lifetime of the rover vs. less data recovered.

    4. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Okay, a windshield wiper? Sure, it might start scratching, and it might eventually wear out or get brittle, but if it parked where the wiper blade wasn't under pressure it might last long enough for emergency use like this...

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    5. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by paganizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I came up with two, and submitted them. several layers of very fine film on the panels, when the panels get to 20% efficiency it would automatically fire up the tiny electric motor that would s-l-o-w-l-y peel off the top layer, halting the peeling process whenever efficiency reached whatever is considered adequate.
      The other was a little weirder, and I'm not sure i could explain it without several diagrams.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
    6. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by windsurfer619 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why can't they just flip the panels over?

    7. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter it has survived 20times longer then it was meant to have...

    8. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why can't they just flip the panels over?

      If it's staticly charged, flipping won't have the expected result. Plus flipping requires quite some energy (it has to flip back as well), plus we wouldn't want it to get stuck while it's upside-down, would we?

      --
      All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
    9. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by dgatwood · · Score: 2, Interesting

      How about the overhead projector roll system. On one edge of the panel, you put a a roll of clear plastic cellophane (or thicker plastic in all likelihood, but you get the idea). On the opposite edge, you attach the cellophane to a take-up roll. You place a track along the other two edges to hold the film against the panel's surface. When things get too dusty, you run the motors and expose a new section of the film.

      Better yet, just include a couple of capacitors and a fine wire mesh on the surface of the panel. When it gets too dusty, bring the mesh up to a high voltage and hold it there for a while. Next, charge up the capacitors with a high voltage of the opposite polarity. Suddenly cut power to the mesh and dump the opposite charge into the mesh. The dust should jump off faster than a mortgage broker on the roof of an investment bank the day after Lehman Brothers went belly up.

      Too soon?

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    10. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* Not only did the NASA/JPL team think of that, but "what about a windshield wiper?" comes up in every single Slashdot thread about a Mars Rover, ever.

    11. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by ledow · · Score: 1

      So you're adding a motor, including cabling and control, plus rolls of film which would have to be designed properly to not block out too much light to the solar panel in the first place (UV-translucent etc.), you would have gears, etc. possibly in an exposed martian dusty atmosphere but they only get used, say, once a month. And you expect this motor/gearing to start up and work first time every time when it's caked in dust, or provide some sort of shielding that is "dust-proof" but also allows the film to move smoothly through it and, presumbly, "out" of something like a spindle the other end, when it's caked in dust that you've just shoved towards the spindle.

      You've added so many moving parts and complications it would actually have been easier to just fit a mechanism to spray some Windowlene on it...

    12. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by ledow · · Score: 1

      I just gave this whole thing ten minutes thought because of this thread - damn you and your ridiculous suggestions.

      My suggestion would have been to have a non-flat solar panel in the first place - one made up of 3D "pyramids" of mini triangular solar panels joined together, a bit like the shape of that reflector that they put on the moon, so that you catch light coming in from virtually any angle but have a non-flat sheet-like panel. I don't know if you'd get "more" power because of the greater surface area, at the expense of a greater "height" but it seems likely.

      Then in the bottom, where each "pyramid" of panels meets another, a small hole for loose dust to drain through. That probably wouldn't do much on it's own, because the dust isn't all loose, but I'd have a "shaker" mechanism, probably just an extension of the motor systems or even just using the bumpy surface of Mars itself.

      Then, whenever the rover moved, the dust would have somewhere to "fall" off the panels, there are no horizontal surfaces for it to cling too (the sloped sides of all the pyramids would help the dust slide off, I assume, a bit like flat roofs vs peaked roofs). Moving parts are kept to a minimum above what's *already* moving (which also means no extra power is required), you might end up with a greater power capacity because of surface area, the panels would be modular and thus less prone to total failure, angle of light coming into the panel wouldn't be as much as factor, so it might be able to collect more light at sunrise/sunset, and (hopefully) dust would be less of a problem.

      If you did it right, you could still have quite a thin sheet of "bumpy pyramid" panels doing the job, although I imagine the wiring between them may be more complex. There's probably a million and one problems with this idea, too, because it took me ten minutes to think up and wasn't going to cost me millions of dollars if it had problems.

    13. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just to give some sense of the scale of the problem:

      http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA03272 http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/catalog/PIA10128 - dirty solar panels.

    14. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by PetriBORG · · Score: 1

      Thats brilliant - truly. Now we just need someone at NASA to put that feature on the next rover :-)

      --
      Pete/Petri "damn, my chainsaw is clogged with 1's and 0's again." --clyde
    15. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Would you care to explain those footprints?

    16. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Your post advocates a

      (X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

      approach to Rover problems. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

      ( ) It requires too much power
      ( ) It may make situation worse
      (X) It doesn't solve the problem
      (X) It works here on Earth but not on Mars
      (X) It will work for two weeks and then it might get stuck
      (X) It does not account for the climate of Mars
      ( ) Marvin the Martian will not put up with it

      Specifically, your plan fails to account for

      (X) Weight limitations on mission payload
      ( ) Space limitations on mission payload
      (X) Extreme cold of Mars
      (X) Atmosphere of Mars
      ( ) Difference between Mars gravity and Earth gravity
      ( ) Materials don't exist yet
      (X) Survivability of materials on Mars
      ( ) Distance between Mars and Earth
      ( ) NASA bureaucacy
      ( ) Technically illiterate politicians
      ( ) Marvin the Martian
      ( ) Democrats
      ( ) Republicans
      (X) Ralph Nader

      and the following objections may also apply:

      (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
      (X) Solution is beyond mission scope
      ( ) Solution solves the wrong problem
      (X) Only delays the inevitable
      ( ) Cost limitations
      (X) Requires redesign
      (X) Scientific instruments may have to be excluded
      ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem

      Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

      (X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
      ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
      ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    17. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

      Well, first you need some actual air to blow around. The atmosphere on Mars is quite thin.

      --
      this is my sig
    18. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Spraying most liquids would be a problem because it would freeze instantly on contact with the rarified martian atmosphere. Even pure ethanol would freeze at the coldest point in Martian winter. The liquid would need to survive a minimum temperature of -140C without freezing and must remain liquid without evaporating up to at least -5C or so even at 6 millibars of atmospheric pressure. That's really hard to achieve. Compressed air might be practical if the particles are not sufficiently charged that they stick to the panel too well, but liquid... just doesn't seem very practical to me.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    19. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by HappyDrgn · · Score: 1

      "Too soon?"

      Right on time! Good show!

    20. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by dogmatixpsych · · Score: 1

      I'll do it. They come from these things on the Rover called wheels. When the Rover moves, the tread on the wheels leaves a pattern, an imprint (or a "footprint" if you will, although since it didn't come from a foot it shouldn't be called a footprint), in the dirt. :)

      Well, it's either that or Martians.

    21. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm, the clearly visible footsteps in that picture must be from the marsian janitor with the dust buster, I guess.

      -Peder

    22. Re:bellows and a nozzle? by paganizer · · Score: 1

      it has a couple of advantages over my idea; I could see the rolled up plastic, for instance, losing it's static charge so that when you reached the end of the roll, you could just reverse directions; as the previously rolled up plastic came up, the dust should pretty much fall off.
      But I can't imagine a way you could get it to mars and have a reasonable expectation of it working; more moving parts, the scaffolding for the rolls, etc.
      One BIG advantage it would have, if you could get it there, would be that it could probably be easily jettisoned if it didn't work or was damaged; with the design I sent in the only real option if the primary motor fails is to have a backup motor, and if THAT fails the panels would degrade quickly with nothing to be done.

      The electrical one... I dunno. I think you would need more power than would be available if the solar panel was obstructed, but I haven't enough of a clue about the fine details to make a educated guess.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  8. Bring out your rovers! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I'm not dead yet.....

  9. Obligatory by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1
    --
    A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
  10. And God Says... by davidphogan74 · · Score: 1

    You damned mammals, you've done it!

    1. Re:And God Says... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Planet of the Mammals?

      You damned dirty endoskeletonites!

  11. 3 Mars Rovers by Dogun · · Score: 1

    These little guys really cheer me up some days.

    1. Re:3 Mars Rovers by Dogun · · Score: 2, Funny

      that was supposed to be a <3.

    2. Re:3 Mars Rovers by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      that was supposed to be a <3.

      Sojourner might still be operating.

    3. Re:3 Mars Rovers by Dogun · · Score: 1

      Right, I get that. I just meant, you know. <3, as in an ascii heart.

      Maybe it wasn't such a bad slip-up.

    4. Re:3 Mars Rovers by naz404 · · Score: 1

      Eh? I thought 3 was ASCII for asshat...

    5. Re:3 Mars Rovers by FireFury03 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Right, I get that. I just meant, you know. <3, as in an ascii heart.

      Looks like a pair of testicles to me...

    6. Re:3 Mars Rovers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... with a birthday hat

  12. Ummm by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I hate to ask, but is it doing any useful science anymore?

    We already know the "three month" mission has stretched to 5 years, so I assume the budget has stretched too.

    If it is still doing something useful, fine, but if money is being spent just to see how much longer it will "live", it doesn't sound cost effective.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:Ummm by Kell+Bengal · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's doing science and it's still alive.

      --
      Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
      altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.
    2. Re:Ummm by Knara · · Score: 1

      Bravo.

      Just... bravo.

    3. Re:Ummm by MichaelSmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate to ask, but is it doing any useful science anymore?

      Even if it is still doing the same science year after year it can deliver information on longer term changes in the environment on Mars. A five year perspective is much more than 20 times more valuable than a three month perspective.

    4. Re:Ummm by DogDude · · Score: 1

      Your signature is pretty ironic considering what you posted. Some things are more important than money. The sheer scientific coolness of this achievement is reason enough to keep the project going.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    5. Re:Ummm by east+coast · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Isn't seeing how much longer it will live and the problems it will have just as much science as anything it's doing related to Mars?

      Consider that the powers that be decided that the price tag associated with these two gizmos was worth it for the three months worth of science they were going to get out of them. Now that they've lasted roughly 20 times as long that means something went really right, the return on investment is definitely there. But it's just as important to know what they could do better. What are the weaknesses of the system? What systems upheld the best? These systems aren't mass produced like your auto, knowing what is effective and what isn't is just as much science as their original mission. And with the data that we're collecting we're going to make better probes in the future. That's worth the money too.

      And yes, I'm sure that they're still doing science based on their original mission too. They have an ability to see things from a point of view we may not see for many more years to come. May as well get what we can while we can.

      --
      Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
    6. Re:Ummm by wvmarle · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm quite sure that about 95% of the cost of the two rovers has been the building and actually launching them all the way to Mars. Now the rovers themselves do not cost extra money, only the salaries of the scientists operating them. Extending the life of these rovers is for sure more cost-effective than sending a new one. Even if the new one comes with upgraded or different instruments.

    7. Re:Ummm by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Funny

      Which means it is neither pining for the chasmata nor is it pushing up the regolith...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    8. Re:Ummm by Icarium · · Score: 1

      It's not like they're flying engineers and spare parts out to Mars, is it? So yes, while extending the mission has probably increased the spending on the project, most of that spending will be going into crunching additional data - the actual cost of keeping the rover up and running is minimal at this point.

    9. Re:Ummm by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 1

      I really agree. Is a much valuable info know what design worked or not, the good and the bad ideas with a long endurance test on hostile environtment.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    10. Re:Ummm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heck, yes. The last few weeks, well, there's been minimal data collection (or transmission of it) by Spirit, because there hasn't been enough power. But up until that point it was still collecting away, and trying to climb up onto an outcrop of sedimentary rock that has been only partially investigated. Opportunity is still collecting good data, and only towards the end of the mission did it finally reach Victoria crater, which had spectacular cliff outcrops which revealed deeper structures than had been observed at any prior site.

    11. Re:Ummm by SQLGuru · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Ummm by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      NO DISASSEMBLE!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    13. Re:Ummm by Tomfrh · · Score: 1

      Oh I agree. Radio control droids driving around on another planet has no scientific merit whatsoever.

    14. Re:Ummm by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The thing is though, the rovers are on *MARS*, not Earth. They've only been on Mars for about two and a half Mars years. When you say they have a five year perspective on environmental conditions, it sounds like you're saying they have collected data on five cycles of seasons. This is not true.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    15. Re:Ummm by tkjtkj · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, i've yet to hear anyone say that the extraordinarily longer-than-planned endurance of these machines really represents that they were 'over-designed' and that money therefore was wasted! If a 3 month mission is what they were after, then building the thing so it lasted 20 times as long is good for science, perhaps, except for the fact that the unnecessary quality and design features might represent expenses that could have been used for other scientific purposes that could provide us with much more-valuable data concerning problems much more in need of solution than merely to see how long the thing can last!

      --
      "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
    16. Re:Ummm by Hillgiant · · Score: 1

      Huge success!

      --
      -
    17. Re:Ummm by FrameRotBlues · · Score: 1

      It's because of the unknowns.

      Have you ever been in an American commercial building that was constructed during the Cold War? It appears to be way overbuilt, until you think about what that building might have to endure in the event of a nuclear war. In structural engineering, you try to anticipate any loads that might come into play, and build in a safety factor to account for those unforeseen loads (extremely heavy snowfall in Virginia, for example. Very rare, but not impossible).

      NASA built a "safety factor" into the rovers to account for unforeseen circumstances that, if encountered, may have been the breaking point of the entire rover.

    18. Re:Ummm by tyrione · · Score: 1

      Fortunately and unfortunately, 99.9% of the world population has no grasp of the fields of Engineering and their given purposes. As long as they can transmit flesh over RF frequencies along with short-hand scribble their days are fulfilled.

    19. Re:Ummm by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Us biologists feel your pain...

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
    20. Re:Ummm by tkjtkj · · Score: 1

      Isnt a safety-factor of over 20 a bit much??

      --
      "There are 11 kinds of people: those who know binary, those who don't, and those who could not care less!"
  13. Not dead yet by kingramon0 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I guess it was just a flesh wound.

    1. Re:Not dead yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come back and I bite your knee cups away!

      Alas, nobody thought about "solar panel wipers"?

    2. Re:Not dead yet by Quasimodem · · Score: 1

      Mars Exploration Rover Spirit: "The reports of my death were greatly exaggerated."

    3. Re:Not dead yet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Alas, nobody actually reads "the article" or "the comments".

  14. It is not Mars Rovers by pirot · · Score: 1, Funny

    Martians are sending the signals!

    1. Re:It is not Mars Rovers by coxymla · · Score: 5, Funny

      Can't be, the chances of anything like that coming from Mars are a million to one!

    2. Re:It is not Mars Rovers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But still... they come.

    3. Re:It is not Mars Rovers by guru+zim · · Score: 1

      No, Nathaniel - No. There must be more than this!

  15. MOD parent up. by TapeCutter · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...and chop a couple of digits of his uid for that reference.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  16. Tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    piningforthefjords

  17. Fail by dreamchaser · · Score: 3, Informative

    Except standard units is another term for US or 'English' units. Your attempt at pedantry fails.

    Yes, metric is the accepted international standard. No, what GP referred to was not 'the standard' but what is known as 'standard units'.

    1. Re:Fail by heson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I realy like the word Imperial better. Including the hillarious "Imperial Metric" where the nuts and bolts are the usual old fractions of inch but are marked in mm.

    2. Re:Fail by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Informative
      I realy like the word Imperial better.

      Imperial units, which are used in England, aren't the same as English units, which are used in America. All pints in America are 95ml short, although given what's in them that's probably a mercy.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      unfortunately you're right. but you guy should all be using metrics now >.>

    4. Re:Fail by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      and in a lot of bars in the states, if you order a "pint" you are actually getting a 12oz glass that is shaped like a pint glass.

    5. Re:Fail by multipartmixed · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's pretty sad. 12oz pints?!

      The defacto-standard in Canada is that beer comes in Imperial pints (20oz) while fuel economy is discussed in US gallons.

      Which really makes "how many pints in a gallon" especially confusing to the metric-raised.

      --

      Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
    6. Re:Fail by PeelBoy · · Score: 1

      hence the metric to standard conversion problem

    7. Re:Fail by ajdowntown · · Score: 1

      All pints in America are 95ml short

      I have no idea how much that is... Can someone convert that to standard units, err, I mean English Units... or was it imperial units? Dangit! Before I read this thread I knew my measurement units, now I got no idea.

      I am gonna go with Grandpa Simpson on this one:

      "My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it!"

  18. Ugh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this Palin prototype can last this long on Mars, imagine how long the new model might be around :(

  19. She's talking! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'She's talking!'

    The hard part is getting her to shut up!

  20. Dragonforce fans... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the engineers of the project must really love dragonforce, perhaps even adopt a new theme-song!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEeoCGzENso

  21. I love these guys! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, if I ever have twins, I am naming them after these rovers!

  22. Still alive... by Blitz22 · · Score: 1

    ah, ah, ah, ah,
    stayin alive, stayin alive,
    ah, ah, ah ah,
    cake is a lie, cake is a lie,
    cake is a laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaye,
    whaaa aaaaaaaa aaaa aaaa....

    --
    If I went around claiming I was an emperor...they'd put me away!
  23. Obviously by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

    The problem is those silly NASA Windows users trying to manage all with their Terminal Server Client. If the Rover had sshd everything would be allright.

  24. Not only that by RulerOf · · Score: 1

    Not only is it doing science, it feels fantastic and it's still alive.

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
  25. Damn, he found us out. Send in the MiB by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    Please, remain calm and seated behind a computer. An expect team will be along shortly to remove these dangerous notions that NASA has long since perfected stellar and interstellar travel and has been keeping the united states public in the dark because the seats are to small for the average american behind.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  26. Just seeing how long it can remain alive is useful by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The goal of the mars rovers is of course first most to collect data from marse but just as important is learning from this mission how to plan future missions.

    It seems that some people at NASA greatly over-estimated the harshness of the mars landscape. Some basic equipment that could have been installed to prolong the live of the rovers wasn't, because they wouldn't last long enough to make use of for instance solar cell cleaners. But the rovers did last, their wheels did not break off (or at when it happened wasn't the mission killer it was feared to be).

    Future mars missions can learn from this, not just in the design phase (build in more redundancy and self-repair facilities) but in the operation as it shows that if you can actually land a vehicle it can be kept going for far longer. Perhaps make use of this in advance by giving options for joint missions with other rovers that might land later?

    Now that everyone knows two small rovers designed for just 3 months can survive for this long, perhaps it is worthwhile for the next mission to go for an even longer duration and perhaps end up with a vehicle going for a decade, and because it has a long live expectancy build in, perhaps be build to travel further (the rovers only covered a few miles because they were never expected to life long enough to travel further but now that they can life long enough to travel further they could have been designed to travel further)

    Space exploration is not just about finding data from space, it is about finding out what works and what doesn't. The rovers worked, that is important data. See the next rover being send, bigger, and with its own power supply that is hopefully going to last for longer without the rover constantly being depended on the sun allowing it to travel continounsly. The new rover is a combo of the old and the new. From that mission data the next rover will be developed. Maybe bigger, maybe smaller, all depends on what is learned next. To builders, the soil data is just so much gobbligook. The mission data, now that gives engineers/designers whatever a major hardon.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  27. Still Alive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't anyone tell them?

    The cake is a lie.

  28. more than 20 times... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A five year perspective is much more than 20 times more valuable than a three month perspective.

    42 times more, to be precise.

  29. Next step? by LoudMusic · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems like the next step might be a charging / cleaning / maintenance station and a group of rovers. Maybe the station itself is a rolling rover. It would just creep along in a straight(ish) line and a series of rovers would scout the surrounding area, returning to the station for a dusting off and quick recharge periodically. Kind of like the Roomba vacuum that returns to a charging station automatically.

    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
    1. Re:Next step? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you on about? They have been working for 5 years without that.

  30. Forward Thinking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What happens when these rovers finally due kick the Martian bucket (in another couple of years)?

    Are they designed well enough that when we finally start colonizing Mars that we will be able to dust them off and boot them up again?

  31. Here we go... by SteveHencye · · Score: 1

    Amazing! Victory! Now we just need to try to keep her alive. Think we can do it?

    --
    -Steve "The Geek" Hencye
  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Two of the brightest stars... by obenchainr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Am I the only one who gets a little misty-eyed when I think about these little guys?

    I grew up with the space program; we watched the Challenger explode live on television in the 3rd grade. Space, and space exploration, have always been (to me) man's greatest hope and frontier.

    I realize they're mechanical objects, just as I realize that Voyager is just a satellite and the ISS is basically a double-wide in space. These things still represent the future of our species and life as we know it. Every time I hear that the rovers are still going, almost 5 years on now, I can't but think of what we can do *right* when we put our minds - and money - to it.

    Some day, in the hopefully not-too-distant future, we'll be able to retrieve these guys. My earnest hope is that they're split up - one returned to Earth to the Smithsonian, and one enshrined forever in a monument on Mars itself. Sort of a new version of the Resolute desks, only this time bridging dreams instead of cultures.

  34. It's like raising a child... IN CARS... by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    It's like having and raising a child. Except this one, at 15, doesn't live in your house and does what he's told.

    It's like having and raising a child on Mars... Which is a real problem. Mars ain't the kind of place to raise your kids - in fact, it's cold as hell, and there's no-one there to raise 'em, if you did!

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  35. Re:It's like raising a child... IN CARS... by Nqdiddles · · Score: 1

    And all this science, I don't understand... Aghhh! You tricked me!

    --
    And that kids is how I met your mother.
  36. Tag summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.

  37. Windshield wipers by gravis777 · · Score: 1

    Sorry if someone has already posted this.

    Okay, so we have these multi-million dollar probes up here on Mars, with these solar panels that tend to get coated with the dust from duststorms.

    How hard would it be to add a $3 windshield wiper to the solar panels? It may not be perfect, and if you are rubbing something as abrassive as sand against the solar pannels, you run the risk of damaging them, but seriously, you are going to loose the probes eventually anyways. Why not see if you could get a bit more time out of them? Or better yet, enclose the solar pannels in plexiglass or something, then put some whipers on them?

    I am shocked that noone at NASA or JPL has thought of this, and I wonder if there is some reason as to why its not done.

    1. Re:Windshield wipers by Digital+End · · Score: 1

      Been discussed on every thread we have about the rovers :)

      They planned for them to last 3 months, the last 5 years have been amazing, but they didn't expect them to still be kicking at this point. I'm sure the next ones will have some method of removing dust.

      --
      Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master.
  38. No need to be beating a drum... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...but it keeps going, and going, and ...

  39. Ah, Standards, so many to chose from by hicksw · · Score: 1

    I'll see your IMPERIAL and raise you a WHITWORTH. 2BA forever.

    My wife uses a second hand stairlift (10-15 years old). The factory trained expert engineer borrowed my 2BA nutdriver to remove/refit the seat last week.