Slashdot Mirror


Mars Winds Clean Spirit's Solar Panels Again

Titoxd writes "In a blast from the past, NASA reports that Spirit's solar panels have received a much-needed cleaning courtesy of the Red Planet. The report states, 'The cleaning boosts Spirit's daily energy supply by about 30 watt-hours, to about 240 watt-hours from 210 watt-hours. The rover uses about 180 watt-hours per day for basic survival and communications, so this increase roughly doubles the amount of discretionary power for activities such as driving and using instruments.'"

269 comments

  1. Next time . . . by OhHellWithIt · · Score: 5, Funny

    . . . don't forget to pack the broom.

    --
    "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." -- George Orwell
    1. Re:Next time . . . by jellomizer · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Or a windshield washer for the solar panels.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    2. Re:Next time . . . by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 5, Informative

      They decided that a windshield wiper didn't have a good benefit/cost (in both money and weight) ratio. Especially for a 90-day mission. I understand that the best they could get the wipers to do was smear the dust around (something about static cling keeping it from coming off), so it wasn't going to do much good, anyways.

    3. Re:Next time . . . by SilverJets · · Score: 4, Interesting

      So what about an air cannon or something? Small pump to take in Martian air, build up pressure, and a small nozzle directed at the panel to blow the dust off.

      I know, every ounce of weight and every bit of energy has to be calculated and accounted for. But they had to know that dust would accumulate on the panels and should have accounted for that with some type of design.

    4. Re:Next time . . . by solafide · · Score: 4, Interesting

      90 days.

    5. Re:Next time . . . by blueg3 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They did know. They also knew that all the possible solutions had significant costs and/or chance of failure. (As far as the air cannon, Mars air is very thin, so you have to have a quite significant wind to move the dust.)

    6. Re:Next time . . . by sremick · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't see how the benefits are minor, considering how much press and excitement is triggered each time the winds clean the dust off. Also considering the massive longevity to the mission that more runtime creates. More life = more science, and since the whole point of these missions is "science", that's more bang for your buck.

      It's not easy to get stuff to Mars, and there are only occasional windows of opportunity. Best to get as much as you can out of the missions you DO send.

      I don't see how there can be much "static cling" if just wind can dust them off.

    7. Re:Next time . . . by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Informative

      Given the thin martian air, it could take a lot of power to build up sufficient pressure to be effective. Also, see this post.

    8. Re:Next time . . . by dpilot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Arthur C Clarke wrote a nifty short story that encapsulated some of this. I can't even remember the title, so spoilers are uselss, and I'll just give the gist.

      Two astronauts were exploring on the moon, and the wandered into a dust bowl. They got a little dust on their faceplates, and made the mistake of wiping them. The generated static transferred all of the dust to the faceplate, and they were still deep enough in the dust that it attracted more. So even though the dust bowl is shallow enough to simply walk out, they can't see, and so far they haven't found anything they could rub the faceplate with where the static electricity would go the other way, taking the dust off.

      Solution:

      They rubbed faceplates together. One faceplate takes the charge that takes the dust, the other cleans. Then the astronaut with the clean faceplate can see the way to the buggy, leading the other.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    9. Re:Next time . . . by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The wind is (somewhat tongue-in-cheek) taking the level of dust from "almost thick enough to grow weeds in" to merely "heavy".

    10. Re:Next time . . . by Gerzel · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They never expected the mission to go this long. Things were calculated at a success level of 90 days.

      Indeed because of the success of these two rovers the next missions will be similar. The next mission may or may not benefit as often it is the failures that teach better than the successes.

      It may be that the rover happened to have landed in a particularly windy part of the planet, or a part with a particularly un-clingy(love my technical wording!) local dust conditions and the next mission may be different and fail even if the exact same equipment is used.

    11. Re:Next time . . . by Taibhsear · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Just reverse the polarity. In start trek it fixes everything.

    12. Re:Next time . . . by Zantoz · · Score: 1

      What I need is a solar powered lawnmower that runs continuously within my marked off lawn grid.

      Power Up
      Mow lawn
      Run low on power
      Write coordinates to a ram chip
      Slowly Power Up
      Repeat

      --
      weasels in a bag
    13. Re:Next time . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They decided that a windshield wiper didn't have a good benefit/cost (in both money and weight) ratio. Especially for a 90-day mission. I understand that the best they could get the wipers to do was smear the dust around (something about static cling keeping it from coming off), so it wasn't going to do much good, anyways.

      Ok... how abut a cleaning fan or a blower mechanism of some sort? If you can prolong a mission for as long as this one has been perhaps such equipment would be worth the effort? Especially since the Mars winds seem to have proven the concept.

    14. Re:Next time . . . by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 1

      Ok... how abut a cleaning fan or a blower mechanism of some sort? If you can prolong a mission for as long as this one has been perhaps such equipment would be worth the effort? Especially since the Mars winds seem to have proven the concept.

      They may have discovered that an effective fan would require more power than was available. Then there's the complexity and all. Not to mention which, it's a fairly reasonable approach to simply evaluate how frequently such winds occur and decide to rely upon them.

    15. Re:Next time . . . by ianare · · Score: 1

      Both rovers have benefited from this, and they were landed on opposite sides of the planet. Also, dust storms on Mars tend to become global.

    16. Re:Next time . . . by sherriw · · Score: 1

      Or here's an idea- mount the solar panels on a slant.

    17. Re:Next time . . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.)

      (X) It requires too much power
      ( ) It may make situation worse
      ( ) 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
      (X) Marvin the Martian will not put up with it

      Specifically, your plan fails to account for

      (X) Weight limitations on mission payload
      (X) 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
      (X) Technically illiterate politicians
      (X) Marvin the Martian
      (X) Democrats
      (X) 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
      ( ) 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.
    18. Re:Next time . . . by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      To blow what? The atmosphere is about 1% as dense as the Earth's, so it'd have to be one heckuva [huge|heavy|powerhog] fan. Additionally, the dust is very fine and clings to the solar panels via electrostatic charge, making it nearly impossible to dislodge.

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

      skip the solar panels and go for an RTG.

    20. Re:Next time . . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 3, Informative

      2 practical problems with that. (1) The horizontal placement of the panels insure maximum solar efficiency so slanting them would be less efficient and the rover wouldn't get as much power. (2) The dust is super clingy due to electrostatic forces. Slanting them probably won't solve anything.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    21. Re:Next time . . . by Chyeld · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As well as hope that you aren't sandblasting your panels with it when the barrel gets clogged.

    22. Re:Next time . . . by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      What about adding panels on both sides, and if it gets dusty, rotate it by 180 degrees.

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    23. Re:Next time . . . by Chris+Burke · · Score: 4, Informative

      90 days.

      Which is how long they estimated it would take for the rovers' solar panels to be covered in too much dust for the rover to function. Dust is why the mission was scoped at 90 days. They didn't know that the Martian wind would be of any use whatsoever in cleaning off the panels.

      Yet even though dust is what was limiting the scope of the mission, NASA still decided not to put on a brush, wiper, or (sorry but lol) air compressor. Given there's enough obvious tradeoffs in mass/space/power use for anything you add, I'll give NASA the benefit of the doubt and assume they actually calculated the tradeoffs and said "not worth it".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    24. Re:Next time . . . by thenickdude · · Score: 5, Funny

      Two astronauts, one faceplate?

    25. Re:Next time . . . by GigaplexNZ · · Score: 1

      Write coordinates to a ram chip

      That's right, store your coordinates to volatile memory when running low on power.

    26. Re:Next time . . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Adding double-sided panels? That's thinking outside of the box but that's way too complicated to be successful. Remember, there are both space and weight limitations to consider. A second set of panels would be heavier. To fit the existing panels, they had to be folded for the trip. For projects like these, the fewer moving parts, the better as they are more likely to function longer. At least 2 wheels on both rovers no longer function. Any mechanism that would flip the panels (even if you could get it to work) would have a chance of not working within a very short time due to the conditions.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    27. Re:Next time . . . by alexborges · · Score: 1

      Yeah, i follow that it might be hard...

      However, its a good idea, the thing is to find a way to rotate the things with least cost and wear and tear.

      Cool engineering.... nothing like space!

      --
      NO SIG
    28. Re:Next time . . . by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 3, Funny

      They decided that a windshield wiper didn't have a good benefit/cost (in both money and weight) ratio. Especially for a 90-day mission. I understand that the best they could get the wipers to do was smear the dust around (something about static cling keeping it from coming off), so it wasn't going to do much good, anyways.

      Okay, so they needed to include a windshield wiper AND a bottle of 409.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    29. Re:Next time . . . by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Am I the only one that read this and said "That is effing awsome?"

    30. Re:Next time . . . by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Funny

      Thank you for responding to the first half of my post with a simplified version of the second half of my post. That was very informative.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    31. Re:Next time . . . by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      (X) Marvin the Martian will not put up with it

      Maybe not, but John Carter, Warlord of Mars would have no reason to object. And, as he clearly outranks Marvin, I'm sure we'd have no trouble at all with it.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    32. Re:Next time . . . by CecilPL · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm almost positive you're thinking of Hal Clement's short story "Dust Rag". That's exactly the plot you described. Clarke did write a similar story called "A Fall of Moondust" which dealt with the perils of moon dust, but not quite in the same way.

    33. Re:Next time . . . by dgatwood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, it's pretty easy. We've discussed this before every time the subject comes up. Put a continuous roll of clear plastic at one end of the panel and a take-up roll on the other end. Make the plastic travel in a track with brush seals so that nothing can easily get in behind the plastic. Periodically roll the plastic to keep the portion atop the panel clear. When you get to the end of the roll, reverse the direction. You'll have less power that pass, and eventually this won't be practical, but it will work for a really long time. For that matter, you could have a series of brushes along the path of the plastic beyond the panels that would significantly reduce the dust level on the plastic even on the second and subsequent passes. And because it is just a simple motor on a spool, it is about as mechanically trivial as you can get, unlike... say a windshield wiper... and best of all, if you scar the plastic, you're not scarring the panel itself and risking causing a panel failure.

      --

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

    34. Re:Next time . . . by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Thank you for responding to the first half of my post with a simplified version of the second half of my post.

      Our posts weren't completely identical. There's a little nuance there that's actually quite important. Oh well.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    35. Re:Next time . . . by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah... no.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    36. Re:Next time . . . by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1

      I was thinking that...

      --

      Yay me!

    37. Re:Next time . . . by Hecatonchires · · Score: 1

      mod parent up

      --

      Yay me!

    38. Re:Next time . . . by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Wrong. But, whatever, it affects you more than me.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    39. Re:Next time . . . by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      No and lol no.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    40. Re:Next time . . . by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Well, I'll put it another way. If you acutally understood what I said like you claim to, you wouldn't have made that original post.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    41. Re:Next time . . . by Chris+Burke · · Score: 0

      You didn't understand my original post then.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    42. Re:Next time . . . by Chris+Burke · · Score: 0

      Exactly.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    43. Re:Next time . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not Arthur C Clarke. "Dust Rag" by Hal Clement. Astounding Science Fiction 1956. Reprinted in Clement collection known as either "Small Changes" or "Space Lash". One of the spacemen tore open a plastic specimen bag and stretched it across his faceplate, excluding dust from beneath it. Then he rubbed his helmet, bag and all, against his companion's faceplate. Since bag and faceplate were of different materials, one of them HAD to acquire the correct charge to repel the dust.

    44. Re:Next time . . . by dwywit · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Dirt bike riders have been using this principle for years - they're called tear-offs, but the idea is the same.

      A package of n clear plastic panels fits over the eye-goggles, each with a tab for easy removal. Dirt and mud build up until you can't see properly, and instead of stopping, taking off the goggles, cleaning them, putting them on and starting again, or just attempting to wipe it off with one hand while still riding, you reach up, grab a tab, tear it off, throw it away, and keep charging on.

      No reasons why a continuous roll wouldn't work the same way.

      And this might sound ignorant, but why not have an earthing strap trailing on the ground, like some cars here on earth? I suppose the entire rover would need to be designed to allow drainage of static, but would that be a problem? I mean, if there's a static buildup, and no way to drain it off, won't it become a problem when the potential difference between rover and the surface gets large enough?

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    45. Re:Next time . . . by SilverJets · · Score: 2, Informative

      NASA still decided not to put on a brush, wiper, or (sorry but lol) air compressor.

      There is a thin atmosphere on Mars. It may be enough for a very small air compressor to build up enough pressure to simply blow the dust particles off the panel. We're not talking about moving anything large. Just a small burst to clear the panel. The problem with a brush or wiper is that the moving parts would be exposed to the dust which would most likely result in them breaking. If all that was exposed was a nozzle which the burst of air would come from it would be less prone to breaking.

    46. Re:Next time . . . by SilverJets · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you think a tiny air nozzle would sandblast the panels compared to the dust storms on Mars?

    47. Re:Next time . . . by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      There is a thin atmosphere on Mars. It may be enough for a very small air compressor to build up enough pressure to simply blow the dust particles off the panel. We're not talking about moving anything large. Just a small burst to clear the panel.

      Yeah of course there's an atmosphere, thus the wind. The problem is that it being so thin means you actually need a larger, stronger blast than you would otherwise since the gust will just dissipate that much faster. So you need a bigger air tank and it needs to be thicker to hold higher pressure. And the compressor motor is going to weigh more and draw more juice -- you can't slowly and gently compress air, the compressor has to exert enough force to overcome the air pressure. Then you need a way to direct the air over the solar panel. And then you have to make sure than you aren't effectively sand-blasting the panel.

      The problem with a brush or wiper is that the moving parts would be exposed to the dust which would most likely result in them breaking. If all that was exposed was a nozzle which the burst of air would come from it would be less prone to breaking.

      I'm not saying the other arm-chair solutions don't have problems. Frankly, the fact that NASA decided it wasn't worth doing any of them tells me what the experts think. I could be wrong, but personally I've always thought that an air compressor was the least cost effective (in a mission tradeoff sense, not necessarily dollars) idea.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    48. Re:Next time . . . by AmigaMMC · · Score: 2, Funny
      I understand that the best they could get the wipers to do was smear the dust around (something about static cling keeping it from coming off)

      They could have coated the panels with a layer of Snuggle :)

    49. Re:Next time . . . by fermion · · Score: 1
      Let us be reminded of this again. Space exploration is hard, very hard. You might think that your job is hard, but it is just a simple high school assembly project compared to space exploration. The reason is that space explorations involve things that not only do we not know, but we have no experience with. No matter how much we read, no matter how much we think, can we really intuitively say how long it will take for a bit of grit to clear out of a micro-g environment, or how to deal with soil like matter that has nearly 0% water, or how to deal with soil like grit where the liquid is primarily liquids we do not see on this planet. A single error in such intuition can change the focus of an entire expedition. Success in such a situation depends not on how many random toys have been added to deal with random contingencies, but whether the proper foresight has been applied so that enough data can be gathered to determine what happened.

      In addition, reliability is the key. Every new component reduces reliability, and increases the complexity of the failure analysis.In the suggestion given here, the complexity of the mechanism, the power it would use, and dependence on unknown air, would likely provide an unacceptable level of complexity. A more acceptable solution would be existing nitrogen technology. This, though, would also be a time limited solution. I am sure the reasoning went like a relatively secure 90 days or much less secure longer time. Of course without reading the mission profile it is hard to say exactly.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    50. Re:Next time . . . by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

      It seems I disabled Clippy too soon. I wasn't aware it also helps you write refutations to dumb Mars lander ideas.

    51. Re:Next time . . . by Requiem18th · · Score: 0, Troll

      No kidding? I guess *fucking NASA* thanks the benefit your doubt.

      --
      But... the future refused to change.
    52. Re:Next time . . . by NightLamp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What about a vibrator?

      This is the mechanism used to clean the CCD in many high-end digital cameras and since the rovers are obviously built to withstand very high magnitude vibrations why not use a similar system on them?

      The rover could be parked on an incline, identical to the technique used to get them maximum solar exposure during "winter", and then vibrate the dust off the panels.

      Even the smallest cell phone has a vibrator, they are small and light-weight I'm not sure how energy-efficient they are but I'd wager the power generating improvement would more than offset the expenditure.

    53. Re:Next time . . . by Shark · · Score: 1

      Bah, I bet a swiffer would have done the trick.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    54. Re:Next time . . . by apostrophesemicolon · · Score: 5, Funny

      enough kids...

      now WHO gave these two too much candy??

    55. Re:Next time . . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 2, Insightful

      First of all the dust is not only super clingy, it may also be abrasive. Physically removing the dust via brush may scratch surfaces.

      Second, if the dust isn't abrasive what materials would the brushes and plastic film be made of. Remember they have to be softer the the panels or they'll scratch them. Typically on earth they are made of a synthetic like nylon and HDPE. Would such materials survive the harsh environment of Mars? The extreme shift of cold and hot of Mars days would make most soft material brittle after a short time period. For the plastic film the transparency would also be affected by the extreme conditions.

      Third you are using a motor. Motors will fail after certain amount of time. For example 2 wheels on each rover have failed. If the motor fails, the rover is no better off than it is now. Such a device would cost weight and space on the rover.

      Fourth are you planning to cover all the solar panels or just a few? The rover was packed with as many panels at it would allow. Such a system would necessitate fewer panels just to implement for weight and space considerations. That would reduce the amount of power the rover can gather in a day.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    56. Re:Next time . . . by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that was tongue-in-cheek you realize... or not. But yes, it was tongue in cheek, in response to all the arm-chair engineers going "der did they think of something to brush the dust off?!" and saying that yeah, I think I'll go out on a limb and guess that *fucking NASA* is capable of thinking of such things, and figuring out whether they would really work.

      But you know, I'm sure NASA appreciates you defending them. ;)

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    57. Re:Next time . . . by luther349 · · Score: 0

      what abought having them coated with some kind of anti static coding. it wouldn't add to the wight or use any power. any buildup would easily come off with the winds. but i guess they only where planing for 90 days im sure someone suggested it.

    58. Re:Next time . . . by ubergeek2009 · · Score: 1

      The Dust in "Dust Rag" was suspended in space over the south magnetic pole of the moon. (Yes the moon does have a magnetic field, although its probably too weak to actually do this) The charged dust particles stuck to the faceplates. In "A Fall of Moondust" a ship that rode on a "lake" of dust sank and needed to be rescued before they all died.

    59. Re:Next time . . . by ubergeek2009 · · Score: 1

      Hey couldn't an idea like this be used to clean the dust off of the martian rovers. I'm no engineer (yet). But it seems like it could work.

    60. Re:Next time . . . by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 1

      Vibration was the first thing I thought of, too!

      The vibrator idea is interesting, but the mass of the panels is a bit big, so a good amount of vibrational energy would be needed (probably more than your GF would enjoy). The solar panel structure might also need to be beefed up to endure vibration while deployed (it was folded and braced during flight/landing). And who knows what other effects the vibration might have - loud noises from the other end of the rover might not be a good thing...

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    61. Re:Next time . . . by Captain+Nitpick · · Score: 1

      Space exploration is hard, very hard. You might think that your job is hard, but it is just a simple high school assembly project compared to space exploration.

      I'm sorry, but after reading that all I could do is wonder when the style would settle down a bit and start telling me things I really need to know.

      --
      But then again, I could be wrong.
    62. Re:Next time . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that plastic blocks 90% of UV. Ever wear sunglasses?

    63. Re:Next time . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>(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!

      What a lot of air. Or is that wind?

    64. Re:Next time . . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Don't make me turn this website around (Actually, I've been trying to figure out how for years.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    65. Re:Next time . . . by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The mission design limit was due to their inability to figure out how to remove dust from the solar panels. This was the only engineering problem necessary to extend the mission lifetime. You're right about the difficulty of using an air compressor though. I would have used a plastic brush mechanism, I think. It's nice and dry there. Alternately just a plastic film that could be shed through some clever mechanism could have doubled the operational life.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    66. Re:Next time . . . by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Funny, enough, to have had a small attachment on each the the rovers, would have meant they could have at least brushed each other off at intervals. This means their main power would have lasted longer, and also, they would have been gridsweeping (together) instead of free roaming (apart)
      maybe discover something as the search is more thorough.

    67. Re:Next time . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vibration was the first thing I thought of, too!

      Dude... that's gay

    68. Re:Next time . . . by friedmud · · Score: 1

      Not solar powered but it does start automatically and return to its base station to charge automatically:

      http://www.friendlyrobotics.com/

    69. Re:Next time . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Surely the World Health Organisation isn't giving out candy?!

    70. Re:Next time . . . by Tdawgless · · Score: 1

      Then... You could put an air cannon on the air cannon to clean the air cannon when it gets clogged with the dust it cleaned off.

    71. Re:Next time . . . by captainClassLoader · · Score: 1

      Obviously a "Post Of The Year" candidate. Two thumbs up!

      --
      "The plural of anecdote is not data" -- Bruce Schneier
    72. Re:Next time . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This works well on motocross face shields (they used to use tear-off sheets) and remote cameras used on race cars.

    73. Re:Next time . . . by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      He started it!

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    74. Re:Next time . . . by Godji · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. All they really needed to do was to send a minimum-wage guy with a fucking brush along with the machine. 90 days @ minimal wage - it wouldn't be that expensive, would it now?

    75. Re:Next time . . . by Strake · · Score: 1

      there are only occasional windows of opportunity.

      Mind, there are windows of Spirit as well.

    76. Re:Next time . . . by AmigaMMC · · Score: 1
      You can't kill Snuggle, but Snuggle sure can kill static cling.

      The evidence is here.

    77. Re:Next time . . . by Jeruvy · · Score: 1

      I'm sure 'air' would work well in the Martian environment.

      --
      Jeruvy
  2. Squeegee kid by macxcool · · Score: 3, Funny

    That's much better than NASA's alternative plan of sending a Squeegee Kid to do the job.

    1. Re:Squeegee kid by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 5, Funny
      It was a martian. You see about a billion years ago, the Martian civilization discovered the secret of consiousness. Eventually the robots they created displaced them, and then when the planet's resources were depleted, they left for the stars leaving behind some curators. These curators are not really consious, their robotic creators ensured this so that they would be reliable in their task of preserving their martian heritage, but sometimes they do act in ways that are, almost uncannily lifelike.

      This was the case here. The Martian curator bots find the rovers interesting, or rather, they find their controllers interesting. They periodically dust the solar panels so that they will be able to keep roving. They are curious as to what they are doing, maybe even appreciative that someone has visited to appreciate what they have devoted the past eon to preserving. For them, watching us look is most gratifying. They really ache to communicate with us and show us all the Martian history in their underground vaults, but because of their programming to remain inconspicuous, they can't. Still, they are helpful when they can be and not give themselves away.

      --
      ...
    2. Re:Squeegee kid by flitty · · Score: 1

      I believe it was actually Dr. Manhattan flying Silk Spectre around. When they passed over, good old Doc blew it off for us.

      --
      Whether or not there is some sort of god, I'm not supposed to say/god is a word and the argument ends there-Smog
    3. Re:Squeegee kid by gustolove · · Score: 1

      It was a martian. You see about a billion years ago, the Martian civilization discovered the secret of consiousness. Eventually the robots they created displaced them, and then when the planet's resources were depleted, they left for the stars leaving behind some curators. These curators are not really consious, their robotic creators ensured this so that they would be reliable in their task of preserving their martian heritage, but sometimes they do act in ways that are, almost uncannily lifelike.

      This was the case here. The Martian curator bots find the rovers interesting, or rather, they find their controllers interesting. They periodically dust the solar panels so that they will be able to keep roving. They are curious as to what they are doing, maybe even appreciative that someone has visited to appreciate what they have devoted the past eon to preserving. For them, watching us look is most gratifying. They really ache to communicate with us and show us all the Martian history in their underground vaults, but because of their programming to remain inconspicuous, they can't. Still, they are helpful when they can be and not give themselves away.

      +1 Awesome

    4. Re:Squeegee kid by JCSoRocks · · Score: 3, Funny

      if only NASA had sent a homeless fellow with some newspaper...

      --
      You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
    5. Re:Squeegee kid by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>The Martian curator bots periodically dust the solar panels

      I figured the bots performed an upgrade, such that the panels are just as dirty as before, but now they have been upgraded to more-efficient Martian red-dust-based panels.

      Another possibility is that the panels have been infected by microbes that scrubbed the surface clean, thereby boosting power levels.

      Or it could just be wind.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    6. Re:Squeegee kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer to think of it like Mo from Wall-E. Obsessively cleaning any bit of contamination before anything else can happen.

    7. Re:Squeegee kid by The+Great+Pretender · · Score: 2, Funny

      Actually it was a Mexican. You didn't realize that we had made it that far did ya! To hell with finding water on Mars, we already have a Taco truck with the best horchata in the solar system there waiting for NASA.

      --
      A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort.
    8. Re:Squeegee kid by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      I want to see this modded insightful, just so I can imagine a few people coughing and spluttering before their brains pop in something close to disbelieving outrage.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    9. Re:Squeegee kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe it was one of the Warhoon clan, or a Thern operative....or perhaps the great John Carter himself!

    10. Re:Squeegee kid by ElmoGonzo · · Score: 1

      More likely a homeless Martian with a squeegee and a rag.

    11. Re:Squeegee kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it was a Mexican. You didn't realize that we had made it that far did ya! To hell with finding water on Mars, we already have a Taco truck with the best horchata in the solar system there waiting for NASA.

      So if we find water on Mars, we shouldn't drink it?

    12. Re:Squeegee kid by Paul+server+guy · · Score: 1

      It's more likely "Reality TV" for them...

      --
      Your Moon, Your Mission, Get involved! http://www.openluna.org
  3. How much longer? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How much longer can this thing go? I mean, it was "designed" to only go a few months, and we are years beyond that. Anyone have a pool on when it will really stop working?

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    1. Re:How much longer? by al0ha · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yep - there are pools at JPL and Caltech. Go Beavers!

      --
      Did you ever wake up in the morning, with a Zombie Woof behind your eyes? -- FZ
    2. Re:How much longer? by Rob+Kaper · · Score: 1, Funny

      NASA probably has a good idea. Published estimates were likely wrong on purpose from the start to give them the opportunity for more media coverage and subsequently budget opportunities.

      Kirk: âoeHow long to re-fit?â
      Scotty: âoeEight weeks. But you donâ(TM)t have eight weeks, so Iâ(TM)ll do it for you in two.â
      Kirk: âoeDo you always multiply your repair estimates by a factor of four?â
      Scotty: âoeHow else to maintain my reputation as a miracle worker?â

    3. Re:How much longer? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Rule 1 of engineering: Underestimate your estimates.
      The thing was designed to run for years. However they gave it a 90 Day limit to save their butts if it breaks in 85 days. as well the mission spec was for 90 days, so they made sure it would last that 90 days as much as possible. It is not like you going to put up a million dollar probe and skimp on parts. You are going to make it as robust as possible as estimating 90 days of operation in the unknown is quite hard.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:How much longer? by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      Anyone have a pool on when it will really stop working?

      The way this things are going, that's something best handled here.

    5. Re:How much longer? by Ethanol-fueled · · Score: 1

      Published estimates were likely wrong on purpose

      I agree with you there.

      to give them the opportunity for more media coverage and subsequently budget opportunities

      If this is what you meant by that then I agree with you there ;)

    6. Re:How much longer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand over-designing systems for 10's of percent, but 100's%?!? That is either wasteful engineering or a bunch of engineers covering their respective gluteus maximus? The project overrun budget estimates and has NASA/JPL have to allocate resources. If the life expectancy was determined more realistically, everybody would have gained.

    7. Re:How much longer? by Chabo · · Score: 5, Funny

      And of course, the scene from the TNG episode "Relics":

      "Starship captains are like children. They want everything right now and they want it their way. The secret is to give them what they need, not what they want."

      "I told the Captain I would have this diagnostic done in an hour."
      "And how long will it really take you?"
      "An hour!"
      "Oh, you didn't tell him how long it would really take, did you?"
      "Of course I did."
      "Oh, laddie, you have a lot to learn if you want people to think of you as a miracle worker."

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    8. Re:How much longer? by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      There's also the difference between 'should last 90 days' and 'will absolutely without fail last 90 days'.

      The former has a fair chance of breaking down earlier, the latter has a fair chance of breaking down later (much later in this case).

    9. Re:How much longer? by dlevitan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      NASA probably has a good idea. Published estimates were likely wrong on purpose from the start to give them the opportunity for more media coverage and subsequently budget opportunities.

      Not exactly. Estimates are based on worst case scenarios. What would have been the public's reaction if NASA had said that the rovers would last 1 year but they only lasted 6 months? NASA guidelines require that when something is supposed to last x months/years, then it's engineered such that it will last that long, no matter what. Specifying mission requirements is actually a tricky problem for the scientists on a mission because you want the most possible science that fits within a budget and that will last for as long as you say it will last. And usually the only way to convince NASA that something will last is if you add in backup systems. With new, expensive technology this becomes even harder.

      So yes, the rovers were conservatively estimated to last 3 months. I'm sure the scientists on the mission expected that they would last longer, but 3 months was a good benchmark that provided a good amount of science for a reasonable cost. Everything else has just been icing on the cake (and in this case, a lot of icing). Personally, I think they did a great job and cannot fault them at all.

      (I am a grad student working on a NASA mission and have seen a bit of how this process works)

    10. Re:How much longer? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      How much longer can this thing go? I mean, it was "designed" to only go a few months, and we are years beyond that. Anyone have a pool on when it will really stop working?

      They thought the dust would clog the solar panels so that it would be mechanically intact but powerless in three months. Using that to figure out how long it'll last now is like trying to figure out how long a laptop will last on AC power based on how long you thought it'd last on battery power. The short answer is until something breaks, it's mechanical and hasn't been to service for five years but trying to say exactly when is like trying to predict when you'll need a tow truck for your car. Even if it's been built to 10x the spec some things must be wearing out by now...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    11. Re:How much longer? by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Published estimates were likely wrong on purpose from the start to give them the opportunity for more media coverage and subsequently budget opportunities.

      Bzzt. Wrong. First of all, what you're quoting (90 days) never was an estimated lifespan. If the estimated lifespan of a craft was 90 days, that would mean there's a substantial chance you'll only get 60 days out of it, or 120 for that matter. 90 days was never the expected lifespan. 90 days was the promised minimum lifespan. They were very certain it would last at least 90 days. If you think about that a minute, that means they estimated it would probably last much longer than that, or else they couldn't be that certain it would last at least 90 days. In fact, they expected it to last about three times that -- they expected the rover would keep going until the Martian winter. They just weren't terribly confident it would survive the winter...

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    12. Re:How much longer? by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 will be dead before the rovers.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    13. Re:How much longer? by merreborn · · Score: 1

      NASA probably has a good idea. Published estimates were likely wrong on purpose from the start to give them the opportunity for more media coverage and subsequently budget opportunities.

      That's fairly likely -- conservative estimates are wise estimates. As they say, "Under-promise and over-deliver". But a multi-year estimate may have been a bit overly ambitious, after Pathfinder only lasted three months (which was better than the 1-4 week estimate they gave at the time).

      Of course, on the other hand, both Viking landers lasted over 3 and a half years. But they weren't solar powered.

    14. Re:How much longer? by buserror · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think there should be a nobel of engineering or something similar, given to whomever designed that rover.

      It /never/ happens in real life that you can get away with designing a piece of equipment that outlasts it's fail-by-date by so much. In most companies nowayday, these guys would be in trouble !

      It sort of ought to be encouraged somehow...

    15. Re:How much longer? by 2short · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Exactly. "Designed to last 90 days" presumably means something like "Designed to have a 95% chance of lasting 90 days". Which probably means it has a 90% chance of lasting 180 days, an 80% chance of lasting 360 days...

      I don't know what confidence threshold NASA uses, maybe more than 95%. So the 5 years these lasted is lucky, but not so completely off the charts as it might seem.

    16. Re:How much longer? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      So yes, the rovers were conservatively estimated to last 3 months. I'm sure the scientists on the mission expected that they would last longer, but 3 months was a good benchmark that provided a good amount of science for a reasonable cost.

      My understanding is that they estimated a 90 day lifespan because that's how long they calculated it would take before too much dust accumulated on the solar panels for the rovers to function.

      They didn't know (might have suspected, but certainly did not know) that the Martian wind would be substantial enough to actually clean off the panels. When it did it was a pleasant surprise, and this surprise is the whole reason the rovers lasted so long past the original estime. The rest of the equipment survived -- more or less -- because it already had to be pretty robust to ensure it lasted for the original 90 day mission.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    17. Re:How much longer? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      But also the environment on Mars is much more stable than on Earth. Mars has dust storms but we have hurricanes, bush fires, falling trees, floods, etc.

      Once you get something working on Mars the chances are it will keep working for a long time.

    18. Re:How much longer? by IdiotBoy · · Score: 1

      Yep - there are pools at JPL and Caltech.

      What does the market suggest that we are looking at for end of life?

    19. Re:How much longer? by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      It wasn't underestimating for the sake of underestimating. The Mars Rover mission had certain objectives. Based on planning, both rovers had 90 day missions to accomplish the stated objectives. Engineering had to design rovers that would be guaranteed to last that long under the worst conditions. From previous missions, it was noted the dust would present problems and would eventually coat the panels enough to cause the rovers to eventually fail. Under the worst conditions, it was estimated that the panels would last 90 days. It was unanticipated was that the Mars winds would clean them off.

      As for resources, the team that designed the rovers are not the same teams that maintain them now. After the 90 day missions, most of the scientists and engineers have moved on to other projects. The current teams are smaller skeleton crews. As for gain, the rovers are still discovering things and there are still more to discover as long as they function.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    20. Re:How much longer? by turing_m · · Score: 1

      Hard to say. Estimating probabilities of a single event in the absence of similar events to learn from is always going to be tough.

      --
      If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
    21. Re:How much longer? by timeOday · · Score: 1

      I think there should be a nobel of engineering or something similar, given to whomever designed that rover. It /never/ happens in real life that you can get away with designing a piece of equipment that outlasts it's fail-by-date by so much.

      I think there should be a nobel of expectation management given to whoever said it was only meant to last 3 months.

    22. Re:How much longer? by JamesP · · Score: 1

      Makes me wonder about Mars Science Lab. That thing has a 2 (terrestrial) years primary mission.

      That is, if it doesn't separate itself in a million pieces by various means while landing.

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    23. Re:How much longer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [citation needed]

    24. Re:How much longer? by Chris+Tucker · · Score: 1

      "Kirk: âoeHow long to re-fit?â
      Scotty: âoeEight weeks. But you donâ(TM)t have eight weeks, so Iâ(TM)ll do it for you in two.â
      Kirk: âoeDo you always multiply your repair estimates by a factor of four?â
      Scotty: âoeHow else to maintain my reputation as a miracle worker?â"

      Anyone else remember plain old ASCII, before Microsoft "embraced and extended" it?

      When an apostrophe was just an apostrophe, and not some gibberish? When quotation marks didn't need to come in "leading" and "trailing" forms?

      Good times. Good times.

      --
      Guaranteed! This comment 100% Anthrax free!
    25. Re:How much longer? by luther349 · · Score: 0

      who know nasa figured the dust would cover the panels and make then quit working. being that's not happening theirs no longer a time table.

    26. Re:How much longer? by Strake · · Score: 1

      Two words: Income Tax.

    27. Re:How much longer? by 2short · · Score: 1

      The confidence estimates were presumably made for mars in the first place, so this is irrelevant.

  4. Include cleaners next time? by againjj · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Maybe next time, NASA should include some type of cleaning devices, so that when the panels get dusty, then a brush or something could wipe the panels. Sure, it's more weight, but it could increase the productivity of the mission.

    1. Re:Include cleaners next time? by CompMD · · Score: 4, Informative

      Weight = money. At $10,000 per pound, it would have been a waste of money for a vehicle designed to last only three months.

      If the vehicle were designed to last five years, it might be a different story.

    2. Re:Include cleaners next time? by smooth+wombat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe next time, NASA should include some type of cleaning devices,

      This comes up every time the rovers are mentioned. Here is a detailed explanation why there are no wipers, or any other cleaning device, on the rovers.

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    3. Re:Include cleaners next time? by ITFromHome · · Score: 1

      I agree. It would be a shame if the mission ended after five years because of dust covering the solar array. TFA says that after the cleaning only 28 percent of the sunlight hitting the array was getting past the dust. Imagine how much more power the rover could have with a cleaner that keeps that number closer to 75 percent.
      Lesson learned. Someone write down to send lens cleaner with the first manned mission to mars.

    4. Re:Include cleaners next time? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Hmmmm...couldn't they use electromagnetic effects to minimize weight? Now just hear me out: sit in front of a CRT that's dusty. Now, ground yourself out with a grounding strap or something. Next, pass your grounded hand just barely over the screen without touching it. What happens? The dust on the monitor will now stick to your hand!

      Anyway, whatchya think?

    5. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Colourspace · · Score: 1

      A manned mission to mars would surely come with a human lens cleaner? Maybe they could offer the robotic vehicles roses from a bucket at the same time? (maybe this is a UK phenomenon).

    6. Re:Include cleaners next time? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      How do you get the dust off your hand afterward (so that it'll be clean for next time)?

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Nikker · · Score: 1

      Well if you want to be like that I would get to point out that if the surface of the rover was able to effect its electrostatic properties the 'dust' would simply fall off wouldn't it?

      --
      A loop, by its nature, continues. If that didn't make sense, start reading this sentence again.
    8. Re:Include cleaners next time? by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I was getting at.

    9. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Rayban · · Score: 1

      Easy... brush it off on your shirt.

      --
      æeee!
    10. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Cheeko · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The next rover uses an RTG for power, so there won't be a need for wipers or any other such thing:

      Mars Science Lab

      I guess the radiator portion of the RTG could get enough dust on it to cut down on its effectiveness, but Mars in general is still pretty cold, so I doubt there is nearly as big of an issue as dust on solar panels.

    11. Re:Include cleaners next time? by NerveGas · · Score: 4, Funny

      How dare you inject a useful, explanatory article into the armchair quarterbacking? I don't know where you think you are, but this is [i]Slashdot[/i], kid. Take that stuff somewhere else.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    12. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Well, it certainly wasn't a cost consideration -- we now know that a $3 can of "canned air" would have worked just fine.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    13. Re:Include cleaners next time? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Maybe next time, NASA should include some type of cleaning devices, so that when the panels get dusty, then a brush or something could wipe the panels. Sure, it's more weight, but it could increase the productivity of the mission.

      But we know now that the wind will clean the dust off, so cleaners are not required.

    14. Re:Include cleaners next time? by sjames · · Score: 1

      We occasionally see the roses in a bucket in the U.S. as well.

      If they had just given the rovers a few dollars, I'm sure a squeegee guy would have appeared to clean the panels. Sure they leave streaks, but it's better than nothing.

    15. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, it was designed to last three months.

      The key is it had to be as functional on day 90 as day 1. At the end of three months there are no terminal wear or fuel issues with this design. The probe is nearly 'as good as new' on day 90, and it will be a long time before it degrades to the point of unlessness.

      Investigation of Mars aside, it's worth running the probe as long as possible just to learn how it does wear out. That engineering feedback is incredibly valuable for future equipment design.

      Ultimately you hit "the wall" of climate where it's too dark and too cold to recharge the unit, but that's a long time after day 90, so there was much to learn.

      How you present that to the general public and your immediate management is a matter of politics, but from a engineering view there has always been a "primary mission" and "secondary mission". Call it a bonus level if you want.

      And it's even not just engineering feedback. This mission is writing new chapters about how to back, and get backing for, mission extensions. The whole package of pushing-on has been an incredible learning experience that could be acquired no other way. We're witnessing foundational work in all aspects of long-distance missions.

    16. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we now know that a $3 can of "canned air" would have worked just fine.

      And the $600000 500-pound mechanical arm to point the can at the solar panel?

    17. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Shikaku · · Score: 1

      I don't know where you are, but do you REALLY think anybody would read that article? Nobody even reads the main article!

    18. Re:Include cleaners next time? by glittalogik · · Score: 1

      That's a South African thing too, although there it's mobile phone chargers and craft stuff.

    19. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would seem unnecessarily heavy. It would probably be more effective to have the tray holding the solar panel array made of a superconducting ceramic. Superconductors create a field that repels ferromagnetic fields.

      Alternatively, use that transparent paint that won the Prince of Wales Award for Invention and Innovation that uses electrostatic properties to repel charged particles.

      I assume there's a motor for angling the solar panel - it could always be used to remove at least some Martian sand as the sun rises.

      A built-in nuke generator is good, and newer missions will likely use those, but having the nuke generator work slower and providing only essential power, with solar panels providing the rest, you could develop something that would last much much longer.

    20. Re:Include cleaners next time? by harry666t · · Score: 1

      Do you realize how much does a CRT weight?

    21. Re:Include cleaners next time? by IICV · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't know where you think you are, but this is [i]Slashdot[/i], kid. Take that stuff somewhere else.

      Exactly! This is Slashdot, so leave the BBCode to the forums and use HTML like a real nerd!

    22. Re:Include cleaners next time? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Don't need to point the can, just the plastic tube attached to the can that acts as a nozzle. They already have the mechanical apparatus to unfold the solar panel and extend it into place; it can't be that much harder to move the panel around in front of a fixed nozzle. I am underestimating, there is also a valve and control circuit involved. But hopefully they know enough now to include a simple dust off device in the next planetary probe with solar panels. They should also include an IR camera to catch the little martian critter that has been sneaking up in the middle of the night and cleaning the panels... bastard probably expects a tip!

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    23. Re:Include cleaners next time? by NerveGas · · Score: 1

      Doh!

      Consider me shamed.

      --
      Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
    24. Re:Include cleaners next time? by FlameWise · · Score: 1

      You've got to love how the very first comment on that page helpfully suggests using an air can, and how the rest of the comments mostkeep going for helpful ideas...

      "Why couldn't you... ?"

      With the answer right in the article above.

  5. Amazing by MyLongNickName · · Score: 0, Troll

    I find it amazing what can be done with so little power. 240 watts? I'm looking around my office and figuring the lights use about twice that. This thing is cruising around mars, keeping itself warm, sending information to Earth. No real point to this post except to express my amazement.

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Amazing by Chabo · · Score: 3, Funny

      My computer uses nearly that much power under full load, and it doesn't even have to move!

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    2. Re:Amazing by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      This thing is cruising around mars...

      Not as much as you think.

      "As of sol 1736 (November 20, 2008), Spirit's total odometry was 7,529 metres (4.68 mi)."

    3. Re:Amazing by evanbd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not 240 watts; 240 watt-hours. With 24.6 hours per Martian day, that's about 9.75 watts average consumption.

    4. Re:Amazing by tripmine · · Score: 1

      I think it's even more amazing when you consider that it is 240 watt-hours of energy PER DAY. It's actual power usage I'm guessing is much less. If your lights are incandescent, then they probably use that much energy in less than two hours. Damn, why can't our terrestrial equipment be this efficient?

    5. Re:Amazing by Kjella · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Cruise is something of an exaggeration... they've gone 13 miles in 5 years, put together. The Lunar Rover missions each went longer than both combined in 3-4 hours, at top speed they'd pass the rovers within the first hour. Semi-stationary crawlers is a more accurate description, but of course they've been loaded up with scientific equipment rather than for showing off.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    6. Re:Amazing by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      240 watt-hours, not 240 watts. (Unless you only want to operate for a single hour!) For comparison, 240WH is roughly the energy in a dozen alkaline "D" cell batteries. If the probe is to operate 24 hours* on that power, that's only ten watts on average.

      =Smidge=
      (*Earth hours, of course)

    7. Re:Amazing by cavtroop · · Score: 2, Funny

      because I don't want to pay $456,784 for a lightbulb :)

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

      why can't our terrestrial equipment be this efficient?

      It can be, it's just too expensive or annoying. My PC has all these high tech power saving features. I've disabled most of them because they're annoying.

    9. Re:Amazing by Repton · · Score: 1

      Ok, he made a mistake. But -1 Troll? WTF? There's nothing remotely trolling about this post.

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    10. Re:Amazing by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      OK, so the OP has confused watts and watt-hours, but is the Troll moderation really fucking necessary?

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  6. Re:Math? by Samalie · · Score: 2, Informative

    Jesus, can you fucking read? Not even the article, but the summary...

    "to about 240 watt-hours from 210 watt-hours. The rover uses about 180 watt-hours per day for basic survival and communications, so this increase roughly doubles the amount of discretionary power for activities such as driving and using instruments."

    180wh for survival. They were generating 210wh. Now they're getting 240wh.

    210wh-180wg=30wh discretionary.
    240wh-180wh=60wh new discretionary.

    No wonder you're not a rocket scientist. Or if you are, you're one of those fucks who confused imperial and metric, aren't you?

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
  7. Re:Math? by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

    (Not to be mean), but this might be a case where RTFS would apply.

    --
    Their they're doing there hair.
  8. Winds of Change... by TheGeniusIsOut · · Score: 1

    Back in action, let's go for another 4 years...

    --
    Ignorance is Bliss -- And the Opposite is True -- Genius is Madness
  9. Re:Math? by Markspark · · Score: 1

    the 180Wh is what it uses regardless. So the increase from 210 Wh in to 240 Wh in makes for a doubling of expendable energy.

    --
    i find your lack of faith in science disturbing!
  10. Re:Math? by csartanis · · Score: 1

    FTFA:

    The cleaning boosts Spirit's daily energy supply by about 30 watt-hours, to about 240 watt-hours from 210 watt-hours. The rover uses about 180 watt-hours per day for basic survival and communications, so this increase roughly doubles the amount of discretionary power for activities such as driving and using instruments. Thirty watt-hours is the amount of energy used to light a 30-watt bulb for one hour.

  11. Re:Math? by v1 · · Score: 1

    They are not counting the overhead to keep the thing alive. They've doubled the amount of power available for science etc.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  12. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dimwit, the discretionary power (the power left over after basic needs) is doubled, not the total.

    (240-180)/(210-180) = 2.

    Clearly the sun on Mars shines brighter than your intellect.

  13. MODS: parent is an abusive troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the parent is a troll. please mod him as such.

    Best,
    wbs

    1. Re:MODS: parent is an abusive troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the parent is a troll. please mod him as such.

      Best,
      swb

    2. Re:MODS: parent is an abusive troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the parent is a troll. please mod him as such.

      Best,
      wsb

    3. Re:MODS: parent is an abusive troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the parent is a troll. please mod him as such.

      Best,
      bho

  14. I love american units by iris-n · · Score: 0, Troll

    Let's see, we have "180 watt-hours per day". A bit long ins't it? As long as there's 24 hours per day (not so sure of that in mars ;), we can convert it to 7.5 watt-hour per hour. Or 7.5 watts. Humm. So we have a new unit of power!

    Lets call it Wh/d, and set the conversion 1 Wh/d = 24 W.

    Or we could, you know, use joules.

    --
    entropy happens
    1. Re:I love american units by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      You do realize that the sun doesn't shine the entire 24 hours and 39 minutes in each day?

      So you don't get a constant power over the day.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    2. Re:I love american units by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Iris-n is being a bit pedantic here. A watt (W) is 1 joule/second. Using terms like watt-hours per day doesn't make much sense to him or her. What iris-n fails to realize is that, at least in the U.S., we tend to measure electricity usage by the kilowatt-hours (kW/h). Since we're dealing with a much smaller scale with Spirit's solar panels, W/h seems a sensible measurement.

    3. Re:I love american units by iris-n · · Score: 1

      Yes, I do realize that. It's you who haven't understood the joke. Allow me to explain.

      The watt-hour (and it does not matter if it is earth hours or mars hours, if you missed this joke as well) is a common unity, used when you want to talk about joules but they're too small, 1 watt-hour = 3600 J.

      But when you say watt-hour per day, you're being a little redundant, and losing the big numbers on the way. Of course in this example they should not use watts to stay consistent with the surrounding text. But you could use joules all the way and make the joules per day point clearly. 648kJ is not such a difficult concept.

      It would have been better if I said 7.5 W on average?

      PS: Rereading my post, I've scrambled things, its 24 Wh/d = 1 W.

      --
      entropy happens
  15. MODS: parent is an abusive troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the parent is a troll. please mod him as such.

    Best,
    sbw

  16. bad data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been going out at night shining a flashlight on it just to throw off their data. Next week I'm going to write my name in the dust on that thing with a green laser pointer.

  17. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Easy, you're counting it wrong. Summary says they have about double discretionary power, aka power that can be chosen to be used. 180 is a minimum and MUST be used for the vehicle to continue functioning.

    210Wh(previous daily energy) - 180Wh(required daily energy) = 30Wh(previous discretionary energy)

    So another 30Wh doubles it.

  18. Okay...why haven't we? by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    We've proved that the budget rover designs have been the most successful designs we've sent to another planet.

    They've been resourceful and far roaming...so why haven't we expanded on the design.

    I think we should package up some new rovers. Slightly larger with additional equipment. With one additional design feature. A means to self-clean it's own solar panel.

    This way the unit could theoretically operate for near perpetuity.

    1. Re:Okay...why haven't we? by Glendale2x · · Score: 1

      Next up is the Mars Science Laboratory. Bigger, better, and nuclear powered with radioisotope thermoelectric generators.

      P.S. cleaning a solar panel is hard. Did you really think the designers overlooked it?

      --
      this is my sig
    2. Re:Okay...why haven't we? by LUH+3418 · · Score: 1

      I believe the rover accumulates energy in batteries. At some point, these batteries will be dead, so even with completely clean solar panels, it couldn't operate forever. Plus, other components on it could break.

      They've shown that martian wind can actually keep the solar panels "clean enough" for long time periods... So if anything, this suggests that not including cleaning equipment is perfectly fine, even for long missions.

      That being said, NASA is working on more advanced rovers, including some that can tackle more uneven terrain, if I'm not mistaken. We most likely will see rovers with more equipment on them, or specialized for different purposes.

    3. Re:Okay...why haven't we? by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      I believe that the designers of the current rovers considered allowing the solar panels to be flipped over to dump the dust off, but decided against it because if the panels ever got stuck in the upside-down position you'd have a dead rover.

    4. Re:Okay...why haven't we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you actually READ the link you'll see they consider a lot of things, you stupid shit.

  19. should've gone with ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nuclear rather than new clear energy.

    1. Re:should've gone with ... by Glendale2x · · Score: 2, Informative

      The next one will be; the Mars Science Laboratory will use radioisotope thermoelectric generators.

      --
      this is my sig
    2. Re:should've gone with ... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure a "Radioisotope thermoelectric generators" provide enough power to run the thing without being too heavy to have a hight likelihood of landing intact. Anyways, it's a 90-day mission. These generators are meant for missions longer than that (Viking and Voyager probes).

    3. Re:should've gone with ... by afidel · · Score: 1

      Sure it would, much of the 180Whrs used to keep the current rovers alive is surely to keep components warm enough which means even the 2.1kg SNAP-3B would be more than sufficient since it puts out almost 1300WHrs of heat per day along with 64.8WHrs of electricity which is the amount they have with the newly cleaned cells. Since just the cells in the 1.2m^2 array have a mass of ~1kg, when the frame and battery are considered I'm sure they have at least as much mass as that RTG.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    4. Re:should've gone with ... by KJSwartz · · Score: 1

      Nerts to your radioisotope thermoelectric generators.

      I, for one, would gladly greet our Mutant Martian Overlords.

  20. Re:Math? by oodaloop · · Score: 0, Troll

    The summary? I don't even read the titles before I start posting.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  21. Boy... by Un+pobre+guey · · Score: 1

    Boy, those things were built!

  22. Only on Slashdot! by blind+biker · · Score: 5, Informative

    Only on Slashdot can a post that confuses power (watt) and energy (watt-hour) be modded +3 Interesting.

    --
    "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
    1. Re:Only on Slashdot! by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 1

      I don't get watt-hours. What's wrong with Joules? Or kJ? Why have two units for energy?

      --
      Not a sentence!
    2. Re:Only on Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and generate dozens of responses dealing with semantics and none dealing with the actual intent of the post!

    3. Re:Only on Slashdot! by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Only on Slashdot can a post that confuses power (watt) and energy (watt-hour) be modded +3 Interesting.

      Actually, "Only on slashdot will some people actually notice that the poster used the wrong units" might be more like it. Whether or not the moderators notice, on slashdot you know *someone* will alert you to your mistakes, whether it's having the wrong units, wrong spelling, or wrong point of view.

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    4. Re:Only on Slashdot! by Zenaku · · Score: 3, Informative

      For redundancy. If the Joules run out, it can still run off the watt-hours, and vice versa.

      --
      If fate makes you a motorcycle, you become a motorcycle.
    5. Re:Only on Slashdot! by dondelelcaro · · Score: 1

      I don't get watt-hours. What's wrong with Joules? Or kJ? Why have two units for energy?

      Because people know about what a watt is, and they know how long an hour is? (It's not like you can't divide by 3600 to get J, or a Watt*Second.)

      --
      http://www.donarmstrong.com
    6. Re:Only on Slashdot! by Chabo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On exactly how many sites can a post be modded "+3 Interesting"?

      --
      Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
    7. Re:Only on Slashdot! by neuromanc3r · · Score: 1

      I don't get watt-hours. What's wrong with Joules? Or kJ? Why have two units for energy?

      Two? I wish. You forgot eV and probably a couple of others I can't think of right now. I think it was Feynmann who said "For those who want proof that physicists are human, it is in the idiocy of all the different units which they use for measuring energy."

    8. Re:Only on Slashdot! by berashith · · Score: 1

      wrong!

    9. Re:Only on Slashdot! by Repton · · Score: 1

      What's more, it doesn't even make sense! The rover was designed in America; that means it will be specced for only 120 watts!

      --
      Repton.
      They say that only an experienced wizard can do the tengu shuffle.
    10. Re:Only on Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Only on Slashdot can a post that confuses power (watt) and energy (watt-hour) be modded +3 Interesting.

      You're right, everywhere else it would be +5 informative.

    11. Re:Only on Slashdot! by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Only on Slashdot can a post asking how many sites a post can be modded "+3 Interesting" on be modded "+3 Interesting".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    12. Re:Only on Slashdot! by jabithew · · Score: 1

      Because watt-hours are very useful when discussing grid electricity, for example. A house will typically draw power of order kilowatts for times of order hours, so it makes sense to sell in kWh. kJ would require more conversion.

      If I tell you that a device draws 1kW for one hour and electricity costs 10p/kWh*, then the cost calculation is easy. If on the other hand I tell you it draws 1kW for an hour and energy costs 10p for 3.6MJ you have to think a bit more.

      *Numbers pulled out of own arse, do not expect to be accurate.

      --
      All intents and purposes. Not intensive purposes.
    13. Re:Only on Slashdot! by EvilBudMan · · Score: 1

      What about digg?

    14. Re:Only on Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the heck modded this informative? It's obviously a joke because while multiple measurement systems are redundant in the "-1 redundant" sense, they don't allow redundancy in "oh the power went out, good thing I have a UPS and back-up generator" sense.

  23. What it really is by slackoon · · Score: 0

    OK, so when is this thing going to replace ine Energizer Bunny in the commercials?

  24. Well at least this mission taught us one thing... by Anita+Coney · · Score: 1, Funny

    ... there are no homeless people on Mars.

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
  25. I wonder if it would make sense to park the . . . by mmell · · Score: 1

    on local ridges or some other local high points where they would get more exposure to wind. At the density of Mars' atmosphere, even a tornado wouldn't hurt the rovers. Don't need to stay there for long; just long enough to get electrical generation up past 28%.

  26. Re:Math? by JCSoRocks · · Score: 1

    What're we talking about?

    --
    You are using English. Please learn the difference between loose and lose; they're, there, and their; your and you're.
  27. More amazing is that it keeps going by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Funny

    What I really want to see is a glider, or a ballon/lander combo survive that long. Something of that nature would be really useful if it could pop all over.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  28. Calm Down by mosb1000 · · Score: 1

    Dude, calm down. It's just the internet.

  29. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    10/10 trolling. Well done.

  30. Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only they'd take the initiative and start banning shitposters who openly gloat about their willful ignorance maybe we could fight the downward spiral /. has been in for some time. Chemotherapy for a cancer patient, if you will.

  31. Re:Math? by meringuoid · · Score: 1
    Thirty watt-hours is the amount of energy used to light a 30-watt bulb for one hour.

    A 30W bulb? Wow. The room I'm in now is lit by a single 18W lamp and that's more than adequate. I realise that American homes tend to be more spacious, but seriously - 30W? How large are your rooms?

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  32. Re:Well at least this mission taught us one thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe they should check for homeless on the planets of Polaris? using Firefox 3.1 beta to view them?

  33. Amazing affects. by Ostracus · · Score: 1

    why can't our terrestrial equipment be this efficient?

    It can be, it's just too expensive or annoying. My PC has all these high tech power saving features. I've disabled most of them because they're annoying.

    Apparently the feature that turned off the user was left on.

    --
    Shai Schticks:"You don't make peace with friends, you make peace with enemies"
  34. If the folk who built these... by harlequinade · · Score: 1

    ...could be hired to work for GM or Chrysler, Toyota
    and Honda would be the ones needing a bail-out.

    --
    Help feed homeless animals - Free! www.theanimalrescuesite.com
    1. Re:If the folk who built these... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      ...could be hired to work for GM or Chrysler, Toyota and Honda would be the ones needing a bail-out.

      How about the people who built the Apollo LRV? It even folds up so you can save on parking space.

    2. Re:If the folk who built these... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      Actually, its sounds like they would be a poor fit for the automotive idustry. The design requirements for spacecraft goes like this: its must last x amount of days, anything more is good. For cars its: it must last no more than x amount of days, anything more is bad.

    3. Re:If the folk who built these... by harlequinade · · Score: 1

      It's a sad but inescapable fact that you're right, Gad_zuki.
      Damn funny...but right. Let's face it, unless they merge
      with NASA tomorrow, GM and Chrysler are screwed :(

      --
      Help feed homeless animals - Free! www.theanimalrescuesite.com
  35. Re:Math? by csartanis · · Score: 1

    Most American incandescent bulbs are 60W. I dont think CFLs have really caught on, though I do use one out of 8 or so lamps in my apartment..

  36. Re:Math? by afidel · · Score: 1

    Are you serious? My kitchen alone has about 15,000 lumens of lighting and it's smaller than most that I saw in Europe outside of apartments, and I often find myself wishing for more lighting. Most small (~9m^2) bedrooms have at least 1600 lumens of lighting, with average CFL efficiency of ~65 lumens/watt that means a small room needs about 25W of lighting as a minimum.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  37. list of broken parts by peter303 · · Score: 1

    One of Spirit's front wheel motors has stopped, so the drive it backwards.
    Opprtunity's arm wont completely contract, so they drive it loose instead of docked.
    Both of the RAT grinders have warn out, so they cannot drill millimeters into rock like they used to.
    The camera lenses are dusty. Sometime the wind cleans them up a bit.

    I am sure there are others.

  38. Re:Math? by meringuoid · · Score: 1

    Quite. If you're using modern lamps, 30W is ludicrously bright. If you're using old-fashioned incandescents, 30W is pathetically dim. Does such a thing as a 30W bulb actually exist in the world?

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  39. Re:I wonder if it would make sense to park the . . by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

    Well, considering the rovers don't move very far very fast, there can't be much practical benefit to find a ridge then move up and down it. When all the wheels worked, the rovers were getting somewhere around 40m a day. Both rovers currently have one or more wheels that no longer work so movement is not something that is easily done by.

    --
    Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  40. Martian Car Wash by slashdotlurker · · Score: 1

    'nuff said.

  41. Re:Squeegee kid.. I wonder who will get more by davidsyes · · Score: 1

    moist (think: Nutty Professor/Merv Griffith makes me moist...)

    Will it be the homeless person, or the rover? In any case Rover got a real shiner. And, i feel so... overcome, so excited for the thing. It's wonderful how Mother Nature can provide pleasure in so many small ways. A VOLTAGE boost. Whoda thought...

    --
    Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  42. The Rover? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The rover uses about 180 watt-hours per day for basic survival and communications

    Spirit has the Rover? Patrick McGooghan is never getting off Mars!

  43. Phoenix lasted as planned by peter303 · · Score: 2, Informative

    The Phoenix polar probe landed in late May 2008 and died early November 2008. It was funded for the first 90 days, then for another 90 days. Because it was so far north, it was expected to die in late November due to too short battery-charging hours. An unexpected dust storm covered the panels causing it to die two weeks early. However, there were other portents of doom: Mars went into solar conjunction in late November, so the device would be on its own for three weeks near its death date. I recall just about now its perpetual night at Phoenix latitude. Its expected to accumulate about a one meter of dry ice frost through the winter, which will crush it. Satellites will photograph it periodically.

    Phoenix mostly worked as planned. I think about three of the dozen chemical stoves wouldnt open their latches wide enough. The stoves heat the soils to various temperatures and chemically measure the expelled gases. An stove grate shaker shorted out. Phoneix's arm had trouble getting ice samples beacuse the ice was harder than expected. If you dont gather ice flakes quick enough they evaporate and disappear. The soil was much more sticky than expected and balked at going into the stoves.

  44. the next lander is nuclear powered by peter303 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Mars Science Lander is two years late and a billion dollars over budget because it has developed lots of new technology. It was supposed to launch during the 2009 optimal planetary configuration, but will have to wait until the 2011 one. The next lander uses a nuclear source and rocket landing instead of airbags. I'm a little fearful all the new stuff may not work as planned. I am also fearful NASA budgetary troubles may still kill it.

    1. Re:the next lander is nuclear powered by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      RTGs and landing rockets aren't new technology to be afraid of... They're tried and trusted 1970s technology that have flown in space many times before.

    2. Re:the next lander is nuclear powered by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The poster didn't say that those things were the new technologies of the new rover.

      The fanciest, and most problematic, is a laser system that cooks rocks several feet away so that a spectrograph can analyze the chemical signature of the plasma from the heated area remotely. Pretty cool if it works. This would allow the rover to inspect several rocks without having to navigate to each and every one. A major increase in productivity if it works.

      But it does look like they are putting a lot of big eggs in one basket. Perhaps they should be sending a smaller rover to test the idea first. A lot of people will be nervous during the landing of this big one.
         

    3. Re:the next lander is nuclear powered by RoboRay · · Score: 1

      "The next lander uses a nuclear source and rocket landing instead of airbags. I'm a little fearful all the new stuff may not work as planned."

      It looks to me like that's what he said. If he's changing the topic of discussion between sentences, a paragraph break would be more appropriate than a period.

    4. Re:the next lander is nuclear powered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IIRC, that "new stuff" is exactly what the Viking landers used 30 years ago. They seemed to work out okay.

    5. Re:the next lander is nuclear powered by MadUndergrad · · Score: 1

      Sure, that's what they want you to think. Really, the laser is there for popping holes in the Chinese Mars base that they don't want you to know about. Wake up sheeple!

    6. Re:the next lander is nuclear powered by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      And still no use found for these things. While it pictured something that must-be-water-we're-pretty-sure-this-time, an orbiter was mapping underground water areas of the *whole goddamn planet* !

      NASA's and ESA's orbiters are the real scientific missions on Mars. The rovers are just shiny toys that gave very few useful input. They gave much needed engineering information, right. But if the next one doesn't build or dig anything, it will be a huge taxpayer's money waste.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    7. Re:the next lander is nuclear powered by MadMidnightBomber · · Score: 1

      "It was supposed to launch during the 2009 optimal planetary configuration,"

      Leo: Today the Sun is in the ascendant, with Venus taking a back seat. Try to take control in your financial and personal relationships this month. Thursday 25th would be a great day for launching an interplanetary spacecraft.

      --
      "It doesn't cost enough, and it makes too much sense."
  45. I am so glad you did the math for me. by DigitalReverend · · Score: 1

    The cleaning boosts Spirit's daily energy supply by about 30 watt-hours, to about 240 watt-hours from 210 watt-hours...

    I would have never figured out that 210 + 30 = 240.

    --
    I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
    1. Re:I am so glad you did the math for me. by iNaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Reading some of the comments here shows, that some people, when all the math is done for them, still don't get it.

      --
      The Unicode standard is over 20 years old. Why does Slashdot not support it?
  46. Russian Rover by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hate to break it to everyone, the Russians did a moon rover that lasted just as long using 60's Russian technology. One rover traveled 23 miles, or at least 2 years.

    Why is this better? This was performed in the 60's way before Mars was a glint in NASA eyes...

    http://itssamsview.blogspot.com/2006/02/successful-russian-moon-rovers-35.html

    1. Re:Russian Rover by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Cus Mars != Moon.

      For your first order comparison, just think of the difference in distance to the source of power...

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  47. Rover Driver Blog by TrekkieTechie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At night, there's a small red light in the sky. On that light lives four hundred pounds of thinking metal sent from Earth. I tell that metal what to do, and it does it.

    Anyone interested in the Mars Exploration Rovers' mission should check out Mars And Me, the unofficial diary of a Mars rover driver. Scott Maxwell is blogging his daily work at JPL exactly five years later. A very interesting and well-written look at the day-to-day operations of a truly amazing scientific expedition.

  48. Replace "Little Engine That Could"... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    Really, it is about time for an update in the Spirit of that classic tale.

    Only this time - we have the Opportunity to make it "based on a true story".

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  49. Screw Next time . . . by Capt.DrumkenBum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How about we all stop thinking that we have better ideas than the guys who built these incredible pieces of machinery?
    I mean the designers built two rovers that had to survive a launch from earth, months in deep space, a bouncy landing on another world, and then operate correctly with a 10 minute (Or longer) radio delay.
    That is an incredible accomplishment! Then for it to continue to operate for YEARS! I am in awe of the designers.
    Now here on /. we have a bunch of armchair engineers believing they could do better?
    Do you honestly believe that the same people who built these incredible machines didn't think of a solar panel wiper? A can of compressed air? A fan? A compressor?

    To the designers: If any of you are reading this. My hat is off to you. Well done!

    --
    If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
    1. Re:Screw Next time . . . by Hucko · · Score: 2, Informative

      18 minutes. Sheesh.

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
    2. Re:Screw Next time . . . by Miseph · · Score: 1

      "How about we all stop thinking that we have better ideas than the guys who built these incredible pieces of machinery?"

      Why? Who were these guys before they had better ideas than the last guys who designed Mars rovers? Unless you mean to say that everything about the design of the rover was absolutely perfect, then better ideas exist to be had, and somebody out there will find them.

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    3. Re:Screw Next time . . . by NotmyNick · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about we all stop thinking that we have better ideas than the guys who built these incredible pieces of machinery?

      Yes, lets stop all this thinking and just worship our JPL overlords as we are meant to do.

      Remember that bit about a week into things, Spirit went dumb because they filled up the flash memory? Remember how surprised(pleasantly so) they were when the solar panels were scrubbed the first time?

      If you've done any bit of reading on these guys' blogs you would know that they are not the omniscient beings that you give them credit for being. There have been many head-slappers and OMG-we-almost-lost-the-rover moments on the way. These rovers didn't just go up to Mars and deterministically last over five years. New ideas got them there.

      Furthermore, I'm not sure if it was you that ridiculed it, but the idea that an air cannon would be ruled out by Mars' low atmospheric pressure.... Laughable. In fact, that would favor the approach. Less stuff in the way of the relief tube of the particle accelerator that way. The adiabatically generated heat might even be useful as a side bene.

      --
      Notmysig
    4. Re:Screw Next time . . . by Jarik+C-Bol · · Score: 1

      all these ideas about air cannons and brushes, and i keep thinking about a design I read about for air conditioning units that somehow made it vibrate at intervals from the temperature variances, to knock loose the particles that scale builds up from. wonder of a similar system would work to shake the dust off the panels. (i swear i read about it after the landers where there) not withstanding my armchair engineering, How long have these been up there?

      --
      I've decided to Diversify my Holdings. I've divided my cash between my left and right pockets, instead of all in one.
    5. Re:Screw Next time . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about we all stop thinking that we have better ideas than the guys who built these incredible pieces of machinery?

      Even if it sometimes looks as if we're deriding the efforts of the guys who designed the rovers in the first place, I think it's a wonderful thing that people on a random internet forum are willing to spend some time thinking about an engineering problem like this. This sort of intellectual play is a great way to develop your mind - and if one of the readers here goes on to help design the next generation of rovers, it's better that they made a few unworkable suggestions in this thread than that they never have considered the problem before.

    6. Re:Screw Next time . . . by OgGreeb · · Score: 1

      It's entirely possible one of the teeming millions could come up with a solution the program scientists didn't think of, or a novel way to use a known technology in a new way.

      It's just not very likely.

      --
      -- Gary Goldberg KA3ZYW 301/249-6501 AIM:OgGreeb Digital Marketing Inc., Bowie, MD //www.digimark.net/
    7. Re:Screw Next time . . . by slashdotwannabe · · Score: 1

      Now here on /. we have a bunch of armchair engineers believing they could do better?

      You must be new here. If even 1% of the Slashdotters here found the will to get up off the couch, we could build our own manned Mars mission and ensure we pack a squeegee or two to clean the Rover solar panels.

      Of course, D.N.F. will be out any day now, so on the couch we will stay.

      You have to admit thought, the mental image of some geek suddenly appearing on the Rover's cameras with a bottle of windex and some paper towels at Houston is worth a smile or two...

      --
      This comment is my opinion and does not represent an official position of Donald Trump or others I do not work for
    8. Re:Screw Next time . . . by Paul+server+guy · · Score: 1

      That is what http://openluna.org/ is all about, getting the teeming thousands who are qualified (and some times the teeming millions who aren't) to get up off their armchairs and actually do something about it. Yes, I know we could build a better rover that the NASA folks. They are over-bloated, and all of that bloat sucks up the little budget they have, have an insane command structure that stifles innovation - they even recently did a video about it, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_424YskAfew .

      I know many people that work for NASA, some as Civil servants (The "Real" NASA employees), some as contractors, some as administration, I even met Michael Griffin once, and almost everyone of them complained about the stifling bureaucracy that they are forced to work under. (Griffin included!) Most of them work hard, and really believe in the mission, but the bureaucracy has grown to unbearable and irreparable points. The culture of innovation is gone. "Failure is not an option" still exists, but in a way that stifles innovation. It is now all about the fulfilling the Party Line.

      So, here is the call to action for all of you Armchair (and professional) Engineers - Stop complaining and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

      Artists, Engineers, Movie makers, Writers, investors, Marketing, EPO, PR, and even Lawyers, Get in and help us. We will put bootprints on the Lunar regolith, and do so at a small fraction of any NASA budget, and it will work.

      All we need is a little help. http://openluna.org/wiki

      --
      Your Moon, Your Mission, Get involved! http://www.openluna.org
  50. Wow... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My wife and I used 896 kWh this past month, which comes out to about 30 kWh per day. That's over 100 times what the Spirit's solar panels take in. :-)

  51. NASCAR and the Army has already solved this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    tear-off windshields

    http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=6915

    1. Re:NASCAR and the Army has already solved this by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      There is no mechanism to tear it off on the rover. It doesn't have fingers because it doesn't have hands. It has only scientific instruments on the arms. Also the arms do not reach very far because they only hold instruments. They would have to be re-designed. So instead of valuable weight and space for instruments, you have to get arms, hands, and fingers that can used only periodically.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
  52. "Failure" is Relative by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    How much longer can this thing go? I mean, it was "designed" to only go a few months, and we are years beyond that. Anyone have a pool on when it will really stop working?

    "Working" is relative. There are a handful of single-points-of-failure on the rovers. If these fail, a rover's suddenly gone. However, they could gradually just wear out. They'll probably be declared "unusable" at the point where they don't return enough science to justify the maintenance costs. Thus, it may come down to an economic weighting.

    For example, if an additional wheel stops working, then Spirit will be even more hampered than it is now with one bum wheel. That would greatly limit where it could rove and get sun-light to charge its night-heater system. Flat places tend to be boring science-wise.

    Thus, they may face a choice of viewing yet more flat-land rocks that all look the same, or end the roving mission and make it a passive weather-station until the point its batteries fail to hold sufficient charge to keep it warm enough at night to not crack a chip.

    I'd give it a 40% chance of a gradual retirement, 30% chance of a sudden failure of a pivotal component, and 30% another dust-storm freezing it too death.
       

  53. so how does that work? by marhar · · Score: 1

    and why doesn't it happen to my car???

  54. Re:Math? by forkazoo · · Score: 1

    Quite. If you're using modern lamps, 30W is ludicrously bright. If you're using old-fashioned incandescents, 30W is pathetically dim. Does such a thing as a 30W bulb actually exist in the world?

    Of course, 30 W lights exists. Incandescents in the 30 W range are used for accent lighting, night lights, multi-lamp fixtures, etc. And as for being ludicrously bright, on a film set it is perfectly normal to have multi *kW* halogens and other high end lamps. So, I know at least a few cinematographers who wouldn't even consider 30 W worth of "modern lamps" to be a starting point.

  55. Re:Math? by aquabat · · Score: 2, Informative

    oven light

    --
    A republic cannot succeed till it contains a certain body of men imbued with the principles of justice and honour.
  56. Re:Math? by oodaloop · · Score: 1

    That's, "About what are we talking?". Your using English.

    --
    Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
  57. Why "1.0 kWh" beats "3.6 MJ" by tepples · · Score: 1

    I don't get watt-hours. What's wrong with Joules? Or kJ? Why have two units for energy?

    Because civil time isn't decimalized. Human beings in mainstream cultures still plan their work time and leisure time in hours, not kiloseconds. For this and other reasons, electric power companies on Earth still sell energy in kilowatt hours, not megajoules (i.e. kilowatt kiloseconds).

  58. Thank you NASA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    For proving there's nothing a good blowjob can't fix! I'll have to e-mail this link to my wife....

  59. Martian Burritos... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    ...like nothing else in the solar system.

  60. Japanese reliability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems like the Japanese (symbol of auto reliability) designed these rovers.

    Glad to see that they exceeded their lifespan by a thousand of times.

  61. static seems like a solvable problem by imhennessy · · Score: 1

    You wire the panels so that the charge can be manipulated. You don't have any moving parts, or risk of scratching the surface. It uses electricity, but not much, and it could be built right into the panels. It just seems like the wind would have an easier time if the dust was electrically unsticky. please destroy my idea now, ivan

    --
    Like to brew? Want to talk about it? Brattlebrew: groups.yahoo.com/group/brattlebrew
  62. AWE by sckeener · · Score: 1

    I am still in awe of the rovers. I can't think of another mission where we have gotten to move around on another planet for so long.

    Imagine the team that gets to work on these...every day they get to experience another planet....

    I hope it doesn't become boring, but I can't help but wonder if they joke with their significant other:

    "Goodbye dear, I'm off to the quarry."
    "Goodbye dear, I'm off for another day of looking at rock #SG2351, you know...the one we call the martian phallus. Professor Gretchen has some more ideas about it...."
    "Goodbye dear, we get to move a foot to the left today."
    "Goodbye dear, we get to move a foot to the right today."
    "Goodbye dear, Dr Simon said we get to spin the Rover around today, but we have to ask him first."

    --
    "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    1. Re:AWE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine the team that gets to work on these

      We are real.

      I am still in awe of the rovers.

      So are we.