Slashdot Mirror


NASA Mars Rovers Hit 5-Year Anniversary

An anonymous reader writes "NASA's Mars rovers have been on the red planet for five years now. The rovers were originally planned to stay operational on the planet for only 90 days, but it has turned into a much longer mission than anticipated. NASA has put together a video to celebrate the anniversary. The rovers have made important discoveries about wet and violent environments on ancient Mars. They also have returned a quarter-million images, driven more than 21 kilometers (13 miles), climbed a mountain, descended into craters, struggled with sand traps and aging hardware, survived dust storms, and relayed more than 36 gigabytes of data via NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter. To date, the rovers remain operational for new campaigns the team has planned for them."

147 comments

  1. Five years for 36 gigabytes? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

    and relayed more than 36 gigabytes of data via

    Seems a little slow. Maybe Obama can extend some broadband lines to Mars and bring them into the 21st century? ;)

    --
    I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
    We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    1. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by Cally · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most of that's relayed via MRO and Mars Odyssey. As others have remarked elsewhere, the drips and drops of data from MER is lost in the firehose from MRO. (Ever pulled a JP2 of HiRISE data? Those things are VAST. Here's a random example.) Incidentally the IAS quick-viewer is the third useful client-side Java application ever written, according to this book I just made up.

      --
      "None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free." -- Goethe
    2. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by orangesquid · · Score: 1

      8*2^40/(5*365.24*86400) ~= 55747.8 bits/sec avg

      Hey man, 56k modems were never that bad! (pedantic: note the limitation to something like 52kb in the US)

      --
      --TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
    3. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 1

      that's still pretty impressive considering the latency.

    4. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by ZigiSamblak · · Score: 1

      You think that's slow?

      It took 5 years to travel 13 miles, a garden slug would have been able to travel over 100 times that distance in the same time (although it may not last that long in the same environment).

    5. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8*2^40/(5*365.24*86400) ~= 55747.8 bits/sec avg

      Hey man, 56k modems were never that bad! (pedantic: note the limitation to something like 52kb in the US)

      actually the limit was 56k due to the overhead of the ip and etc from the actual 64k bandwidth of a phone line...

    6. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It took 5 years to travel 13 miles, a garden slug would have been able to travel over 100 times that distance in the same time (although it may not last that long in the same environment).

      What if the slug acquired special powers due to the radiation it absorbed during transit? This seems the logical reason that the rovers have lasted so long. So why not the same for the garden slug?

    7. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but where would it carry the 150 kgs of cameras and communications equipment?

    8. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by 644bd346996 · · Score: 2

      Wrong on several counts. Even treating a modem line as a serial line (which it was), before adding on TCP/IP, the maximum bandwidth supported by the phone system was 56k, due to the bit-robbing scheme used for in-band signaling. In the US, the maximum attainable connection speed was further limited to about 53.3k by FCC limits on the power output of modems. The overhead of PPP, IP, and TCP further subtract from the usable bandwidth.

    9. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by m.dillon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Actually, that isn't quite true either. If the ISP end of the connection is taking a T1 then one entire channel is reserved for out-of-band signaling, leaving (I think) 23 64 Kbit channels available for modem connections. I remember there were two options available and to make 56Kbit modems work well we had to use the out-of-band signaling option, which reduced the number of phone lines we had on each T1 by one.

      Direct T1s quickly became the standard for ISPs starting around 1994 ish, until T3's became cheap in '95 and '96. By 1998 most medium and large ISPs were splitting channels out of fiber directly, or had farmed their physical dialup to third parties which then backhauled them back to the ISP.

      Phone companies also played their own games involving far more then an 8Kbit loss, but by the late 90's they could only use those tricks in places where they had insufficient physical copper to meet demand and they couldn't hide the fact that modems simply didn't work well with the line doubler technology they were forced to use in those places.

      -Matt

    10. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by bev_tech_rob · · Score: 1

      You can't control the rover in real time. The control signals take several minutes to reach Mars from Earth. The mission people have to plan and map the course of the rover a small piece at a time carefully. You don't just throw it into reverse instantly when you run into a large rock or get stuck in the sand....

      --
      You're messin' with my Zen Thing, man.....
    11. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by Shakrai · · Score: 1

      If the ISP end of the connection is taking a T1 then one entire channel is reserved for out-of-band signaling, leaving (I think) 23 64 Kbit channels available for modem connections. I remember there were two options available and to make 56Kbit modems work well we had to use the out-of-band signaling option, which reduced the number of phone lines we had on each T1 by one.

      Hmm. When I was working in the ISP business we had a full 24 lines per T-1 when we went to T-1 trunks for 56k, so I don't think you have to lose one for signaling. More fun than the T-1s though was the original setup -- once upon a time we had almost 600 POTS lines coming into our building and going to banks of USR Courier's. That room needed to be air conditioned even in the middle of an Upstate New York winter.

      Sad thing was that I always saw better performance from my house with those modems running v.34+ (33,600) than I ever did with the digital trunks running at 56k. Never seemed to gain that much throughput with the 56k lines and the connections were (in my experience anyway) a lot less stable.

      Those were the days.....

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    12. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Wrong on several counts. Even treating a modem line as a serial line (which it was), before adding on TCP/IP, the maximum bandwidth supported by the phone system was 56k, due to the bit-robbing scheme used for in-band signaling. In the US, the maximum attainable connection speed was further limited to about 53.3k by FCC limits on the power output of modems. The overhead of PPP, IP, and TCP further subtract from the usable bandwidth.

      Sorry, are you trying to tell us that dial up 56k modem was slow? Let me tell you mister, in my day 56k modems were FAST! Zippy! I tell you! Maybe not as fandangle as all you noisy kids these days with your wireless and all that, but it was FAST. Yes, I could easily view a web page in three to four minutes!

      Now, stop spouting your nonsense about FFC limits and stop using so many acronyms that include the letter P, and for the last time GET OFF MY PORCH!

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    13. Re:Five years for 36 gigabytes? by persicom · · Score: 1

      They're five years old. Mission planning has to be at least five years. That means the technology on board has to be at LEAST 10 years old. Do you remember how most people connected to the internet in 1999? What do you expect?

  2. typical government project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Supposed to be finished in 90 days, ends up taking 5 years.

    1. Re:typical government project by zappepcs · · Score: 1, Redundant

      Actually, they did complete in 90 days, but since the hardware didn't die, they kept going with the project. Today is a day that the design team can sit back, kick their feet up and know they did a damned good job. This is an awesome achievement. Anyone who has built a robot will tell you that keeping those rovers alive for such a long time in a harsh environment is a huge achievement. The team that worked this project, dealing with the rovers 24/7 should be proud. Imagine, 5 years of knowing that if you make a mistake the entire world will know. For 5 years, in the face of all adversity, they did not fail. That's awesome.

    2. Re:typical government project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Did you hear that bang ?
      That was the joke breaking the sound barrier when it passed over your head.

    3. Re:typical government project by Don_dumb · · Score: 1

      Nice. Reminds me why I don't block ACs altogether.

      --
      If this were really happening, what would you think?
    4. Re:typical government project by dotgain · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just stick to the standard 'Whoosh!', please.

    5. Re:typical government project by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Informative

      Minor point if you're not all that into it, but I believe the projected mission was 90 Martian days, or sols as they call them. Not Earth days. With a Martian day being about 24 hours, 37 minutes (sidereal) that makes the mission projected length a little over 92 Earth days. So, as I said, it's a minor point. :-)

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    6. Re:typical government project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but ultrasonic booms go bang and not whoosh.
      If we don't stick to scientific facts here, what will be next ? Evolution, big bang or transmission of STDs via intercourse ?

    7. Re:typical government project by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, but ultrasonic booms go bang and not whoosh

      That may be, but ultrasonic whooshes still do whoosh. Anyway, that's beside the point, because in space no one can hear you whoosh.

      If we don't stick to scientific facts here, what will be next?

      digg

    8. Re:typical government project by CZakalwe · · Score: 1

      I got the feeling he saw the joke but succumbed to the awesome power of his compulsion to don his Captain Pedantic outfit and hit us hard and fast with some solid facts by golly!

  3. Fascinating by JackassJedi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's still so unbelievable to me that we actually have a satellite and stationary vehicles on another planet and are using them to do stuff there. If you really think about this for a moment in terms of what has to be accomplished for this to work it's just mind-blowing.

    --
    Power corrupts the few, while weakness corrupts the many.
    1. Re:Fascinating by BZWingZero · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Not only do we have landers, rovers, and satellites around another planet, but we can coordinate them so one of the orbiting satellites can take a picture of a lander as it is landing!

      A photo from Mars Odyssey (satellite) taking a picture of Mars Phoenix Lander with enough detail to see the parachute shroud lines can be found here

    2. Re:Fascinating by couchslug · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Imagine how much more we could have accomplished by using robot probes instead of wasting money on primitive systems like the Space Shuttle. We could send robot after robot after robot and leave the tourists at home for a few decades.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    3. Re:Fascinating by pha3r0 · · Score: 1

      You know first time i saw that picture was when the article was published. Some AC here actually griped about how much money was spent on the project and how "low quality" the picture was.

      This is an awesome feat and we should be very proud of the fine engineers and scientists that allow us all to experience such amazing finds.

    4. Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for that, I'd never seen that image before, simply incredible!!

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

      As amazing as it is, I still bitch that I was born a couple of centuries too early. As long as I can remember, space travel - and specifically travel to other planets, maybe even inhabited ones - has been one of my dreams. Where's my warp drive, dammit?! Given the chance, I would probably volunteer to be one of the early Mars colonists, since that's probably about as close as I'm likely to get in my lifetime, but I'd probably fail the fitness requirements. And even if I went, I'd probably go made with cabin fever and butcher all the other colonists... Yeah... Probably best that I don't go...

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

      Pssh, I could throw together something like that in my garage over the weekend. And I don't even live in Arizona!!

    7. Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, if we had focused on sending a human being to Mars instead of all these metal gremlins there would be no question: there would be (have been) life on Mars.

    8. Re:Fascinating by dave420 · · Score: 1

      Not to mention taking the first picture of the Earth from another planet. Fuck.

    9. Re:Fascinating by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a way you're right, but it's also a bit like "Well, I haven't actually been to Africa but I saw a documentary on National Geographic. Gee, how much money I saved." I really doubt JFK would have gotten the same effect if he promised to send a lump of electronics to the Moon and back either. Part of the reason Mars is so interesting is exactly because it's fairly Earth-like, and why would we care about that if only robots would ever go there? I can't speak for anyone else but I want humans in space.

      I think establishment of a permanent colony outside Earth would be pretty much the greatest achivement in human history ever. For that we need three things:
      1) The ability to bring fragile little meatbags from Earth to Mars
      2) The ability for fragile little meatbags to survive on Mars
      3) The ability to mostly support itself without supplies from Earth

      Obviously, we're well short on 3) but certainly we could get some experience on 1) and 2) with a manned Mars mission. A lot fo people seem to think "Well, we did that on the Moon so what's the big deal sending guys to sit in a bunker and eat canned food?" Well we've never done it. Not going to for a while either, it seems. But if we stopped with manned flight, how much would it take to revive it? Like if we wanted to return to the moon we wouldn't break out a few Apollo rockets from storage, we'd have to start over.

      NASA didn't pick a "primitive system" on purpose, they picked what looked like the best choice at the time. Like pretty much everything else you do of early experimentation it probably wasn't the best one. That's how you learn, how you build better crafts, after all if you can't reasonably keep people healthy and alive in near orbit you sure aren't going to make it out to Mars. How about some experience in orbital construction like the ISS? After all, a Mars launcher might be built in space from modules. In short, what you call "space tourist" is what I call "Our home base on the outskirts of Earth's gravity well." We're going to want people up there if we ever want to get anywhere further.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:Fascinating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Remember, Alan Stern wanted to kill this. He has no political or PR sense, and should not be tapped for any administrative duties.

    11. Re:Fascinating by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      It's still so unbelievable to me that we actually have a satellite and stationary vehicles on another planet and are using them to do stuff there. If you really think about this for a moment in terms of what has to be accomplished for this to work it's just mind-blowing.

      In other news grandpa, the war ended, the kids really DID put crackers in your letterbox, people DO walk on your lawn when you aren't looking, oh, and yes, I did pinch your false teeth out of the glass next to your bed one day to scare my dentist. Also, happy eighty-seventh birthday!

      /disengage_smartass_mode

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    12. Re:Fascinating by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      "Well, I haven't actually been to Africa but I saw a documentary on National Geographic. Gee, how much money I saved."

      Correct me if I am wrong, but lets say I know nothing about any other culture or country and I just want to learn. Might it not be a better idea to spend a few thousand dollars buying hundreds of documentaries, listening to David Attenborough talk and discuss and getting an overall picture of what is around rather than spending that same money and seeing the african tourist trail from the back of a banged up jeep?

      Now, if we were to dispense with the imagery for a moment, don't you think that the money spent on sending a few folks down to Mars for example might not be better spent by sending out say mars rover equivalents to ten planets and moons and asteroids? Sure, we might miss out on having a few meatbags growing crappy potatoes and telling us how much they miss bacon, but we would probably learn a mighty bunch more about the system we live in.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    13. Re:Fascinating by HybridJeff · · Score: 1

      I guess it really depends on what you seeing the end goal as being. I see people as mostly fitting into one of three viewpoints when it comes to space exploration.

      1. Space exploration is a waste of money and effort, we should focus on what happens on earth.
      2. The roll of space exploration should be to learn more about our universe, we can probably learn more faster and cheaper if we focus on robotic exploration.
      3. The earth is getting crowded fast and our ability to harm our environment is continually increasing. Couple that with the fact that extinction level events have been known to occur in the past and will undoubtedly happen again sometime in the (hopefully) far distant future and anyone who cares about the long term survival of our species should come to the conclusion that we will be much better off spreading out to other planets than staying home and waiting.

      You can probably tell I fall into viewpoint 3, but I think that there is so much knowledge that will be gained in the process that space exploration would be worthwhile regardless of any motivation from 3.

    14. Re:Fascinating by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      I actually fall between two and one in your points. I am all for learning all we can about the place and progressing our knowledge, so a strong supporter of point two. Now, I did say that I sort of fall into point one, not so much in terms of that I think space exploration is a waste, I am utterly the opposite of that, but I think we should be looking at what happens on earth. I just do not see that there has to be a relationship between us learning to manage our world and learning to reach for the stars.

      Now, the third point, here is why I strongly disagree with it (and surprisingly I won't even be a troll about it - I am sort of in a troll mood at the moment).

      The earth is indeed getting crowded fast. We are currently at over six billion people, which has increased from under a billion in the last two hundred years. Extinction levels are currently being fueled by our amazing growth and spread over the surface of the planet - not to mention our hunger. I am actually TOTALLY FOR some massive extinctions to take place SOONER rather than later, but more on that later. I don't think we are ready to go to other planets at all yet. If we can't manage to occupy our home planet and manage the resources and planet properly, we have no greater chance if we move to multiple planets. It's not that this planet is too small for the human race at all. It's that we are not able to control ourselves as a whole to manage what we have.

      The thing about getting too big as a race for a planet isn't solved by moving to other planets. Here is why. Unless you plan to move hundreds of MILLIONS of people to other worlds, you won't make so much as a dent in the current world population. Over the next forty years our population is expected to rise to around nine billion. Therefore, to ease the current over-population by moving to other planets, you would need to move 3 billion people off this place in the next forty years. That's just so that we can MAINTAIN the population. That's one in every two people currently on the earth moved off-world in the next forty years.

      Now, about mass extinctions. Don't get me wrong here, I am meek and timid for the most part, but I don't really see how as a species we can currently control ourselves enough to sustain ourselves into the future. Yes, technology is moving ahead in leaps and bounds, but I fear that we are moving towards a planetary meltdown in even bigger leaps and bounds. For every good thing that we seem to do, there seem to be around ten bad things we invent. For every person that cares about the environment, there are ten that couldn't care less. Now, I think that we do possibly have a chance, but I think our odds would increase much better if there weren't so many of us. Less people make for less impact, no matter what they do. If a virus came along and culled our numbers down to a tenth or even a hundredth of what they currently are, I feel that technology would have much more of a fighting chance to alleviate the issues that we keep making.

      I am well aware that this will likely blow my karma away or have a bunch of OMGOMG! replies, but that's the retrospective mood I am in, so no AC posting :)

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    15. Re:Fascinating by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      We could send robot after robot after robot...

      ... until the planet hits it's preset robot kill limit and shuts down?

      Sorry, it had been too long in this space related article without a Futurama joke.

    16. Re:Fascinating by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      Imagine how much more we could have accomplished by using robot probes instead of wasting money on primitive systems like the Space Shuttle. We could send robot after robot after robot and leave the tourists at home for a few decades.

      Imagine how much more we could have accomplished by sending a trained geologist. The data collection done by both rovers over the course of five years is about as much as a single grad student could do in a week.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  4. Example Of American Can Do Spirit by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This is a perfect example of the best that America has to offer. The people who built these rovers obviously knew they only needed to last 90 days yet obviously they built them to last as long as possible. This makes me proud to be a member of the most advanced country on earth, even setting aside the misguided leadership we've endured for 8 years and are about to be liberated from.

    1. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by Forty+Two+Tenfold · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is a perfect example of the best that America has to offer.

      The people who built these rovers were not all "American."

      --
      Upward mobility is a slippery slope - the higher you climb the more you show your ass.
    2. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      ...This one seems to have been programmed well.

      BTW - a lot of the designers would resent to be called 'American'

    3. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by nickdc · · Score: 1

      Well with the price tag of this rover, I expect it to outlast the human race! Although I still think it's pretty cool that it's running, Kudos!

    4. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      BTW - a lot of the designers would resent to be called 'American'

      Obviously you have never been to a NASA facility.

    5. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by dotancohen · · Score: 0, Troll

      BTW - a lot of the designers would resent to be called 'American'

      Obviously you have never been to a NASA facility.

      Obviously you have never been to Florida (Cape Canaveral is in Florida). At least in the Miami area, being only an "American" and not a [Cuban|African|*]-American is both a shame and dangerous.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    6. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by repka · · Score: 1

      Let's see how the new leadership will look at further spending for space programs after the current one has led everyone to reconsider the role of the US as a world's savings bank.

    7. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an American I am proud of what we've done but I'm also proud of the work the non-Americans have done to help us achieve what we wanted.

      And in fact I think it goes to show we'd achieve a load more if we could unite and combine our strengths, like Voltron, rather than fight each other. Unfortunately that goes against our instinct and a global economy scares to religious freaks who believe that will bring on the end of the world.

    8. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      This is a perfect example of the best that America has to offer.

      The people who built these rovers were not all "American."

      This is a perfect example of the best that America has to offer.

    9. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by Raenex · · Score: 4, Funny

      I can't believe you made that Voltron reference.

    10. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by lucifuge31337 · · Score: 1

      The people who built these rovers were not all "American."

      Did we coordinate the mission and enable a group of bright people to make something like this happen? Yes, of course we did. That's MORE American (in the real spirit of the Country) than some xenophobic team of wasps who have never stepped foot out of the US doing the work.

      --
      Do not fold, spindle or mutilate.
    11. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1

      BTW - a lot of the designers would resent to be called 'American'

      Obviously you have never been to a NASA facility.

      Obviously you have never been to Florida (Cape Canaveral is in Florida). At least in the Miami area, being only an "American" and not a [Cuban|African|*]-American is both a shame and dangerous.

      The parent post isn't completely a troll. Politically incorrect, sure, but this is Slashdot.

      I'm from Miami and I'll be damned to hell if s/he isn't dead on correct.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    12. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by YttriumOxide · · Score: 1

      Offtopic, but I'd just like to point out that your sig shouldn't have a comma in it to be grammatically correct. It's true you generally pause at that point in speech, so a comma "feels right" but grammatically it'd be similar to writing, "I, went to the shop", which is quite clearly wrong.

      --
      My book about LSD and Self-Discovery
      Also on facebook as: DroppingAcidDaleBewan
    13. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a perfect example of the best that America has to offer. The people who built these rovers obviously knew they only needed to last 90 days yet obviously they built them to last as long as possible

      Wonderful. Now, if only that other American company could build software that would last over 20 times the advertised lifetime, without hands-on fiddling...

    14. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer something more poetic? Vogon perhaps?

      --
      Be relentless!
    15. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      Giant robots are sweet and who doesn't know Voltron?

    16. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by Thalagyrt · · Score: 1

      Haha, thanks for pointing that out. I'll fix it now.

      --
      Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo!
    17. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      makes me proud to be a member of the most advanced country on earth

      Not to rain on your parade here mate, but have you actually gone abroad? Take a visit through a few countries, maybe parts of Japan, Belgium, Norway, Denmark or Germany and have a good look around. I think you would be quite amazed at what you see there.

      That aside I do hope that the next president lives up to expectations. America needs some true leadership again. Besides, the world needs America to have some true leadership again.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    18. Re:Example Of American Can Do Spirit by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      ...if we could unite and combine our strengths, like Voltron, rather than fight each other

      like the Decepticons. All that internal conflict never helped them achieve their goals.

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

    I thought they were using a variant of VXWorks, not Linux?

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

    I kid, I kid...

  7. Best damn dime NASA ever spent. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And where their future dimes should go. We should have rovers, or rover like things, on every planetoid in the solar system.

    Gathering data, testing propulsion systems and gathering the hard data that we need to know about the universe outside our blue marble.

    I know maned exploration is popular on Slashdot, but I'd scrap it all to focus on things like this.

    That rover is just as a great spokesman as an astronaut - it's cheaper, and it does more science.

    Meanwhile the manned proponents should remember that space ship Earth is hurtling thru space faster than we could ever go, it's comfortable, sustainable, and lightyears beyond anything we could build to emulate her.

    We already have the most fantastic ship -- let's focus on taking care of her -- before deciding to ditch it for some pie in the sky space opera.

    1. Re:Best damn dime NASA ever spent. by jcaplan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Greatly agreed. Our unmanned program has been such an astounding success.

      What I don't get is the benefit of adding a human to these missions. They are ill suited to the environment and require all sorts of extra equipment to keep alive during the voyage and on the planet. Worse, they have to be shipped back to earth intact. Their value is so high that heavy expensive multiply redundant systems have to be built to ensure their safety.

      I do get the benefit of having a device that can make decisions without up to two hours lag time, but the investment might be better spent on a bit of navigation software rather than transporting wetware.

      -Jon

    2. Re:Best damn dime NASA ever spent. by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not to mention they leak all over the place and constantly want to make more of themselves

    3. Re:Best damn dime NASA ever spent. by tibman · · Score: 3, Funny

      That's puppeteer talk right there

      --
      http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
    4. Re:Best damn dime NASA ever spent. by Robotbeat · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a human and not a machine. Survival of a species tends to be proportional to the size of its territory and its population. You can't really compare a human mission to Mars with a robotic one, since there has never been a human mission to Mars.

      Ultimately, you could send millions of robots to Mars and it wouldn't compare with the amount of knowledge we'd gain from a permanent colony on the planet. That's speaking in terms of hundreds of years, of course. The shuttle system is a poor comparison point. The Russians could probably put together a manned mission to Mars with all the money (billions of dollars) we've spent on just sending robots there. In the near future, companies like SpaceX (which will eventually emerge, even if SpaceX doesn't succeed) will be able to do the same thing for even cheaper.

      As far as safety, well, people die every year trying to climb Everest just for the heck of it.

    5. Re:Best damn dime NASA ever spent. by turing_m · · Score: 1

      I'd agree with you, if it wasn't for the fact that I'm a human and not a machine. Survival of a species tends to be proportional to the size of its territory and its population. You can't really compare a human mission to Mars with a robotic one, since there has never been a human mission to Mars.

      I agree with you to the extent that the ultimate goal of exploration should be a self-sufficient and perpetually growing (rate doesn't matter, provided that it is exponential and positive) human colony on Mars (and other areas of space). How we get to that point should be a question of schedule and cost - what will get us to that point fastest and cheapest. Humans are always going to require lots of heavy and therefore expensive systems to keep them alive, whereas robotic capabilities keep growing. Until we get to the point where there are bottlenecks involved in colonizing that can only be solved with a manned mission, why not keep using machines?

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
  8. Take that flaky humans! by Murphy(c) · · Score: 3, Insightful

    5 Years on an other planet, think about it.
    Imagine the amount of food, water, O2 and energy that would have been required if they had sent humans instead of machines.

    Never mind the fact that they extended the original mission by more than 2000% and the fact that they never needed resupply missions.

    When you read the mission reports for the ISS and see that they need a two man crew just to keep stuff from breaking too badly, it's hard to imagine the size of the crew that would be needed for a 5 year mission to Mars.

    Yet one of the two (ISS vs Mars rovers), has a budget at least one order of magnitude larger than the other and has yet to produce any real science (unless teeing off a gold plated golf ball from the ISS is ones idea of science)

    Murphy(c)

    1. Re:Take that flaky humans! by Kindaian · · Score: 1

      Nope but i guess that someone would like to use parts of ISS as an industrial base for making things that are impossible on earth... ;)

    2. Re:Take that flaky humans! by Rinikusu · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, when compared to humans, it's not that great. A human could've crossed that 12 miles in a day. Humans can scale that "mountain" and the "crater" in a matter of minutes. Basically, a Human team could've done the entire 5 year mission (so far) in less than a couple days. In fact, with a geologist on board, they probably could've done even more science as other opportunites presented themselves.

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    3. Re:Take that flaky humans! by Biff+Stu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      People have been talking about manufacturing in orbit for decades. Instead, manufacturing moved to China. The motivation for the move to East Asia mirrors the reason why space manufacturing remains just talk. If you consider the overhead and transportation costs of manufacturing in orbit, it makes unionized factories in the US and Europe look dirt cheap.

    4. Re:Take that flaky humans! by daigu · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Perhaps part of the ISS science is figuring out the engineering and logistical problems of how human's can live for extended periods in space, which is a much harder problem. I'd say getting something so big into orbit, operational and supporting an onboard crew for more than 8 years is a significant accomplishment.

    5. Re:Take that flaky humans! by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Imagine the amount of food, water, O2 and energy that would have been required if they had sent humans instead of machines.

      Since humans could have accomplished what took the rovers five years in a few days, imagine how much more science could have been done with humans on site for five years.

      What truly boggles my mind is that people are impressed that a robot has done in five years what a man could do in a day or two.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    6. Re:Take that flaky humans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Actually, when compared to humans, it's not that great. A human could've crossed that 12 miles in a day. Humans can scale that "mountain" and the "crater" in a matter of minutes. Basically, a Human team could've done the entire 5 year mission (so far) in less than a couple days. In fact, with a geologist on board, they probably could've done even more science as other opportunites presented themselves.

      Assuming they weren't on the same orbital trajectory as the Climate Orbiter:

      The Mars Climate Orbiter was intended to enter orbit at an altitude of 140â"150 km above Mars. However, a navigation error caused the spacecraft to reach as low as 57 km. The spacecraft was destroyed by atmospheric stresses and friction at this low altitude

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

      Kind of hard to do geological research when you're extra crispy.

      I think that's the ultimate (and good) long-term goal, but the first stepping stones is to give up on the ISS and funnel things into human habitation on Luna. Make mistakes three days away instead of six months away.

    7. Re:Take that flaky humans! by grumbel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many rovers could you have send to Mars for the price of a human mission? Around a thousand or so I think, puts things into perspective.

    8. Re:Take that flaky humans! by benevixit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Point taken, but if science is our goal then our performance metric should be discoveries achieved per dollar spent.

      The Mars Exploration Rover mission cost less than $1 billion total. In contemporary dollars the Apollo program cost $150-200 billion (and going to Mars would be WAY tougher than the Moon). Imagine - the price of a human mission we could fill the solar system with squadrons of rovers. The numbers are rough, but they suggest that we can get more science for our buck with robots.

    9. Re:Take that flaky humans! by GravityStar · · Score: 1

      Space manufacturing only makes sense when you want to use the manufactured goods in space.

    10. Re:Take that flaky humans! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      If we're comparing things straight across, humans would have been out of action in several minutes, still leaving the rovers the advantage. Most of that several minutes probably wouldn't have been doing science either.

    11. Re:Take that flaky humans! by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      How many launch pads do you have to use for those thousand rovers to be launched within a reasonable time span? Note that Mars is not always the same distance from the Earth, so you don't want to space out the launches.

      There's no real rush to learning about Mars, but let's not take forever either. That doesn't mean a manned mission, mind you, just that let's not do a thousand rovers either. Money is valuable, but so is time.

    12. Re:Take that flaky humans! by flyingsquid · · Score: 1

      Imagine - the price of a human mission we could fill the solar system with squadrons of rovers. The numbers are rough, but they suggest that we can get more science for our buck with robots.

      Another important factor to keep in mind is time. Offhand, I'd guess that a manned Mars mission would take about 10-20 years from initiating the mission to the first footfall on Mars. If you look at complex aerospace programs they take a very long time to put together. The shuttle took around 13 years (studies began in 1968, shuttle flew in 1981). The F-22 Raptor, which took 17 years (request for proposals in 1986, first aircraft delivered in 2003). In contrast, the first Mars rover (Sojourner) was initiated and launched within a span of around 3 years.

      So the idea that human geologists can do more is just ignoring some basic logistics. Yes, a human geologist could cover a fair amount of ground in a day... once you get them there. But it would take 10-20 years to get him (or her) there; in the meantime you could develop and launch several generations of increasingly sophisticated robotic robots which would be able to map increasingly large swaths of the planet. By the time the human geologist gets there, the robots will have done most of the work and made most of the major discoveries.

    13. Re:Take that flaky humans! by rk · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, the rovers took 90 sols to do what a competent geologist with similar equipment on the scene could do in an afternoon. Assuming a 90-to-1 capability ratio, the rovers have done about three weeks of equivalent work. I think there is a place for manned exploration of space. On the gripping hand, it probably will cost at least 90 times as much to get that geologist to Mars when the time comes.

      Not bagging on the rovers, especially since I work in the lab that operates Mini-TES, so yay unmanned missions!

    14. Re:Take that flaky humans! by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      For the foreseeable future, it's robots or nothing. Your "man" is a paper tiger. It's just not going to happen. There is no political will for a manned mission, and the price of one is too high. If we're lucky, the NASA budget will stay roughly level for the next few years. The only way to get any science out of that is to do it on the cheap - robotically.

    15. Re:Take that flaky humans! by PaganRitual · · Score: 1

      Humans would have also known to pack a sand wedge to deal with those sand traps more effectively.

      In fact, with a geologist on board, they probably could've done even more science as other opportunites presented themselves.

      You mean like "Hey! This planet is made of rock, lucky we packed that geologist!". I think they would have seen that coming.

  9. Martian moon photos? by SoundGuyNoise · · Score: 1

    Does anyone know if the rover cameras can look upward? Could they see Phobos or Deimos clearly from the surface? Or is the atmosphere too dusty? That would be a pretty cool photo. According to "Shawn Of The Dead," dogs can't look up. 'Rover' might have a problem then.

    --
    You never expect irony, do you?
    Want to be a professional wrestler? Visit www.iyfwrestling.com
    @iyfwrestling
    1. Re:Martian moon photos? by RetroGeek · · Score: 1

      Google is your friend...

      Try: mars moon photo rover

      --

      - - - - - - - - - - -
      I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
    2. Re:Martian moon photos? by ceejayoz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, the rovers have photographed both moons.

    3. Re:Martian moon photos? by ScottMaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, the rovers have photographed both moons.

      Excellent link to some of the astronomy Spirit and Opportunity have done. Considering they were designed to be mainly geologists, the rovers have done a decent amount of astronomy (some of it not covered by that page), including observing a Phobos transit and a Deimos transit.

      We've even imaged the Earth! On sol 63, Spirit took the first picture ever taken of the Earth from the surface of another planet.

      --

      ``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
    4. Re:Martian moon photos? by thestudio_bob · · Score: 1

      Spirit took the first picture ever taken of the Earth from the surface of another planet.

      Holy Crap! How the hell did it know where I was?

      --
      The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains /.
  10. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so thats to scale?

  11. Yes but by Subm · · Score: 2, Funny

    The rovers have made important discoveries about wet and violent environments on ancient Mars. They also have returned a quarter-million images, driven more than 21 kilometers (13 miles), climbed a mountain, descended into craters, struggled with sand traps and aging hardware, survived dust storms, and relayed more than 36 gigabytes of data via NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter. To date, the rovers remain operational for new campaigns the team has planned for them

    Yes, but do they run linux?

    1. Re:Yes but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      VxWorks - anything worth doing is worth paying a professional.

    2. Re:Yes but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I am SO sick of every Windriver presentation having pictures of the rovers and a 20 minute spiel about how cool VxWorks is for it. After the 20th presentation, you tend to zone out a bit (yeh, I deal with VxWorks in my day job)

  12. 2nd greatest NASA accomplishment? by bubbaprog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I would argue, or at least allow for the argument, that the Mars Rovers have been the second-most successful accomplishment of NASA after Apollo 11.

    1. Re:2nd greatest NASA accomplishment? by Josejx · · Score: 1

      I'd probably argue that the Pioneer craft edge out the rovers, but the rovers are an easy third. :)

    2. Re:2nd greatest NASA accomplishment? by dkf · · Score: 1

      I'd probably argue that the Pioneer craft edge out the rovers, but the rovers are an easy third. :)

      There's also the two Voyagers; I remember being spellbound by what they found out about the outer planets.

      In fact, when I think about it NASA have done some amazing scientific missions. We've learned so much about so many worlds, and in particular we're starting to see just how special Earth is. A real golden age for space science, and I don't think we're out of it yet...

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  13. 90 days? by mosb1000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I'd like to point out that the engineers designing the rovers probably expected them to last longer than that (though certainly not 5 years). They probably budgeted for 90 days to keep the projected costs down so that NASA would chose the project. They knew that the budget would be extended once the rovers were there.

    1. Re:90 days? by ScottMaxwell · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'd like to point out that the engineers designing the rovers probably expected them to last longer than that (though certainly not 5 years). They probably budgeted for 90 days to keep the projected costs down so that NASA would chose the project. They knew that the budget would be extended once the rovers were there.

      A lot of people seem to believe this, but it's really not true. I'm not saying we expected the rovers to drop dead at the stroke of midnight on sol 91, but even the wildest optimists on the project did not openly dare to hope that we'd even double that 90-sol lifetime. (We've just hit twenty times that number, as it happens. Incredible!)

      Also note that underestimating surface survival time doesn't significantly reduce costs. Getting through the first 90 sols on Mars cost a little over $800 million. But most of that cost goes into design, development, testing, launch (about $100 million per rover goes to launch costs alone, IIRC), and so on. Operations, by comparison, is cheap: now that they're there, we run the rovers for ~ $20 million per year. If we'd known, for example, that we'd survive a year on the surface, we could have promised NASA four times the science for a ~ 10% cost increase; that would have made the project a better sell, and we'd have been fools not to do it.

      --

      ``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
    2. Re:90 days? by dradler · · Score: 1
      Scott wrote:

      I'm not saying we expected the rovers to drop dead at the stroke of midnight on sol 91, but even the wildest optimists on the project did not openly dare to hope that we'd even double that 90-sol lifetime.

      Actually I was one of the wild optimists on the project, and before landing I predicted that (if they successfully landed and deployed, which was not a given), that they would survive up to solar conjunction in September 2004, or about eight months. More than double the warranty lifetime. I said "Opportunity might make it through conjunction a go a little longer, but I doubt it."

      I recall that Jake Matijevic agreed with my calculation -- it was based on his "minimum watt-hours per sol" survival numbers at the time, which he has since improved on by a factor of two or more. But no one on the project predicted survival beyond conunction.

      If someone told us five years, we would have laughed. "Impossible", we would have confidently replied ...

  14. Cost per MB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    How much more data does the lander need to send before the total mission cost is cheaper on a per MB basis than sending txt messages to your BFF?

    1. Re:Cost per MB? by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How much more data does the lander need to send before the total mission cost is cheaper on a per MB basis than sending txt messages to your BFF?

      It already is.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    2. Re:Cost per MB? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is a BFF? Big Fat Fuck?

  15. So next time... by Kindaian · · Score: 1

    They should aim at making them even more resistant to the current and know issues ;)

  16. Worth the money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The value of this should be pressed to the bean counters. They will ultimately expound at length on how it could have been cheaper and better to only get the 3 months worth of value expected. But at the same time, spending what they did and getting 20 times as much value for the money makes the mission far more worth while, and shows the true value of those who designed the hardware. Kudos to those who did. Getting a car to go 2 million miles instead of 100,000 (without service) is not a feat many can accomplish. Basically what it means is that everyone got everything right. Very very right. Engineering was outstanding, execution perfect. Kudos.

  17. Wet and Violent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like NASA sent them to New Orleans, not Mars.

    1. Re:Wet and Violent? by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

      Actually, I have at least one ex-girlfriend who meets that description as well.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  18. Yay!!! by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Now, if NASA could just get their shit together regarding putting actual PEOPLE in space again...

  19. dinosaurs' space program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Imagine the amount of food, water, O2 and energy that would have been required if they had sent humans instead of machines.

    The dinosaurs became extinct because they didn't have a space program. And if we become extinct because we don't have a space program, it'll serve us right! -- Larry Niven

    Personally I think the ISS is a waste of resource. If we're going to spend resources on human exploration lets at least spend it on the moon (and perhaps something at L1).

    Anything beyond that should be robotic while we gain experience with people's safety.

  20. Hear hear! by extrasolar · · Score: 1

    Just wanted to speak up in agreement with your post. Our robots are taking over the solar system :)

    1. Re:Hear hear! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, welcome us and our robot minions.

  21. High Philbogg or something by Xaositecte · · Score: 2, Funny

    There used to be a guy who wrote stories about how the Martians were interacting with the rover in comments every time a Rover story came up on Slashdot.

    Whatever happened to that guy? Where's he at?

    1. Re:High Philbogg or something by davidphogan74 · · Score: 2, Funny

      He was probably abducted by aliens.

    2. Re:High Philbogg or something by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1
  22. Now if we could just get NASA to run Detroit?? by harlequinade · · Score: 1

    ...we'd have an industry creating products of such jaw-dropping reliability it would almost beggar logic. ...If only.

    --
    Help feed homeless animals - Free! www.theanimalrescuesite.com
  23. NASA needs to send Humans now! by Charbax · · Score: 2, Interesting

    NASA can send Humans to Mars right now, or start working on it now with full NASA manned budget on that instead of ISS and the Space Shuttle, and we could have the first Humans on Mars within 4 years from now. It will cost less than $30 billion to send 24 astronauts on 4 spaceships to Mars, with 4 earth-return spaceships sent there at the same time for the trip home. 6 months travel to go, 1 and a half years spent on Mars and 6 months for the return trip. It'd be a 2.5 year at least live Mars reality show, in HDTV cause more bandwidth will be available using a bunch of faster satellite links, just that is worth many billions in advertising revenues.

    Anyone who doesn't agree with me is a moron.

    1. Re:NASA needs to send Humans now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [Citation needed]

    2. Re:NASA needs to send Humans now! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      and we could have the first Humans on Mars within 4 years from now. It will cost less than $30 billion to send 24 astronauts on 4 spaceships to Mars...

      I believe we had this debate before. Your numbers were difficult to swallow, primarily because your "shortcuts" are untested. They may work, but it wouldn't be cheap to space-test them first.
           

    3. Re:NASA needs to send Humans now! by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      NASA can send Humans to Mars right now, or start working on it now with full NASA manned budget on that instead of ISS and the Space Shuttle, and we could have the first Humans on Mars within 4 years from now.

      No, we wouldn't have humans on the Martian surface - we'd have dead humans somewhere in solar orbit because we wouldn't have had time to test all the equipment even minimally. One of the things we've discovered via Mir and the ISS is just how damn hard it is to make equipment that will last that long with minimal maintenance.
       
      For just one example - consider the problems with O2 generation that ISS has had.
       
       

      It'd be a 2.5 year at least live Mars reality show, in HDTV cause more bandwidth will be available using a bunch of faster satellite links, just that is worth many billions in advertising revenues.

      Hardly - considering that 90% of the show would consist of the astronauts floating around in the craft on the way to and from Mars, or wandering around on the surface picking up rocks.
       
      Consider how many science shows on TV show the crew of an ocean research vessel day after repetitive day... Consider how many of them show an archeologist spending two weeks excavating a single cubic meter... Consider how many of them a geologist spending weeks collecting rocks in or around a few square miles...
       
      Hardly the stuff of exciting TV.

    4. Re:NASA needs to send Humans now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No need to space test anything. We'll test affect on Humans of solar radiation and stuff like that only by going there. You can be sure it's a lot more worth it for 24 volunteer astronauts to risk it going to Mars then for 24 soldiers to risk patrolling the streets of Baghdad. Arguably going to Mars and coming back is less dangerous.

    5. Re:NASA needs to send Humans now! by Charbax · · Score: 1

      We've had ISS parts in Space for more than decades and they work fine. We know exactly how to build the spaceships right now. Read up on marssociaety.org for detailed plans of how to do it.

      And the Human to Mars project is going to be the most interesting thing to watch on TV. You must be insane if you really think such a show of the worlds first attempt at sending Humans on another planet isn't going to be the most interesting thing for everyone worldwide to tune into at any time of the day. Even if it takes then 6 months to go there, 1.5 years on Mars and 6 months back. Big Brother and Singing competitions and other reality shows on TV takes months at the time and are billions of times less interesting to watch.

  24. What's the IP addresses for these critters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "relayed more than 36 gigabytes of data via NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter."

    Sounds like a good start as a bittorrent node. :-)

  25. Human mission = 60 rovers by Charbax · · Score: 1

    But the rovers were super cheap. $500 million only. A Human Mission to Mars is about $30 billion. That's 50 times cheaper then the Financial bail-out. It's about the same price as supposedly "saving" the big auto-makers. It's 50 times cheaper then the War in Iraq.

    We cannot afford not to send Humans on Mars.

  26. Human mission is $30 billion by Charbax · · Score: 1

    Exactly, if you want to discover fossils or signs of previous life on Mars, if you want to find water and other minerals, ONLY Humans on Mars can find it and prove it.

    Try finding anything on earth with a bunch of automated robots, it's impossible. A robot can't even drive a car down a road without crashing it much less even taking out the rubbish. How do you expect to discover anything close to what Humans can using robots and artificial intelligence (since there is a 10+ minute light distance delay).

    Also the Humans to Mars program is going to cost 5 times cheaper then the Apollo mission at least. Cause we already have most of the technology right now. Only thing needed is to prepare a heavy lift booster in collaboration with the Russians, who already have one that is nearly available which they used not too long ago.

    1. Re:Human mission is $30 billion by lordsid · · Score: 1

      They have plenty of test platforms out there that can drive a car down the road. That isn't the issue. The issue is being able to predict what a bunch of stupid humans are going to do to cause you an accident. The robotic car will always do the right thing because that is all it can do. The right thing is what is programmed. Now humans on the other hand will hardly ever do the right thing which is dangerous both for the robot and the humans around it.

      --
      IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
  27. The unofficial diary of a Mars rover driver by ScottMaxwell · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm one of MER's rover drivers; I've been on the project from the start. Which has been considerably longer than five years, as development started about 3.5 years before landing, so MER has been the focus of my life for nearly a decade now. I co-wrote the software (RSVP) we use to drive the rovers, and I've been using that software to drive Spirit and Opportunity ever since.

    As a contribution to MER's five-year anniversary celebration, I'm blogging my personal mission notes from the early days of the mission. They'll be posted in "real time" -- roughly one update per day, five years after the fact -- at http://marsandme.blogspot.com/. First update will be tonight around 18:30 (Pacific time).

    Be prepared to stick with it; it's a little slow for the first few days. And be aware that it's a personal activity, not a JPL-sponsored activity, so I occasionally swear and stuff. But if you're a fan of the rovers, it will, I hope, give you a new insight into what it's been like to be a small part of an historic adventure.

    Ah, and for twitterati: you can follow the official MER feed at http://twitter.com/MarsRovers; you can follow me at http://twitter.com/marsroverdriver.

    --

    ``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins
    1. Re:The unofficial diary of a Mars rover driver by wardred · · Score: 1

      Scott, I'll be sure to check that out. Thank you for the links.

    2. Re:The unofficial diary of a Mars rover driver by TooMuchToDo · · Score: 1

      I assume the lessons and software used for these two rovers will be incorporated into future Mars missions?

    3. Re:The unofficial diary of a Mars rover driver by ShannaraFan · · Score: 1

      Added to Google Reader - I look forward to reading every word!

    4. Re:The unofficial diary of a Mars rover driver by balbord · · Score: 1

      Saw you yesterday on National Geographic! :)

      --
      "If I have been able to see so far, It is because I went out and bought a damn binoculars" - Ze da Esquina
  28. Wonderful by Colourspace · · Score: 2, Insightful

    And absolutely beautiful. In the current times we are all living in, Spirit and Opportunity remind us of what mankind can acheive, when we put our mind to it, and also how lucky we can be, unexpectedly.

  29. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On his IPhone it is.

  30. Re:mod doH3wn by solafide · · Score: 1

    This message is a potential instance of steganography on Slashdot. Why is there an H3 in the word 'down'? Why the ill grammar and meaningless (to us) message? Such messages must be considered potential secret communications and analyzed.

  31. Great show on the subject by bacon+volcano · · Score: 3, Interesting

    There is a great show on this subject that aired on the National Geographic channel. I highly recommend it to anyone that hasn't been paying much attention to the rovers for the last five years.

  32. A consise article about 5 years of Spirit by marcel-jan.nl · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Planetary Society has a very interesting article about the five years the rover Spirit has been on Mars. And I wrote this one about the Mars rovers in Dutch.

  33. As an American taxpayer, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    I've gotten my money's worth.

    (Note to the typical Slashdot reader, a "taxpayer" is someone who has a "job." Go upstairs and ask your parents what those mean.)

  34. Re:It may not that great by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As I understood it, the 90-day figure was because dust was expected to accumulate on the solar panels. The rovers should have died from lack of power a long time ago. But, as it turned out, the Martian winds are a little stronger than had been thought, and the dust rather lighter; OK, so the rovers are hardly clean, but enough dust blows away that they're able to keep going.

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  35. Spirit in Sorry Shape by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been reading about Spirit of late, and it seems like its last days are near. It's so dusty that it can probably only do decent roving in the summer, and will also not have enough power to survive the winter.

    It's busted wheel makes it difficult to find and move to a solar-panel-friendly high-tilt area that is near exploration areas. Thus, if it wonders off too far, it cannot get back to a safe spot fast enough to survive the cold or surprise dust storms, which block light. It almost hit the limit during a recent dust storm about 2 months ago.

    They may just send it off to explore and say, "screw the winter and dust storms; if it ends it ends." This probably depends on whether they can find good targets without going far.

    It could get lucky and get another whirlwind cleaning, though. These things have 9 lives, I swear.
           

  36. Re:It may not that great by PPH · · Score: 1

    So, the NASA management played it safe and shot for a very low goal. And it looks like the /. community fell for an old trick of the communist countries.

    More likely NASA figured that, given the hundreds of millions being spent on the mission, the 90 day life figure had better be certain out to a six sigma probability. So its an old trick of the capitalists instead.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  37. To Sheila Jackson Lee by ctetc007 · · Score: 1

    The rovers have not yet found the flag left behind by Neil Armstrong on Apollo 11

  38. I Did Not Say They Were American--I Said Spirit by curmudgeon99 · · Score: 1

    Please read carefully. No where did I say Americans, as in people. Rather, I referred to the "attitude" the American Spirit, which are attitudes that can and are adopted by people from international countries who move the the United States AND ASSIMILATE HERE. So, a Russian software developer from the small Russian town of Kolpino could come here and exhibit the "American Can Do Spirit". In fact, living as I do in Brighton Beach, I daily see examples of ethnic Russians doing exactly that, having their own business empires in Brooklyn.