Spirit Stuck In Soft Soil On Mars

cheros writes "NASA reports that the Spirit Mars lander is presently stuck in soft soil. The lander's wheels are halfway sunk into the soil and they are planning simulation tests to see if they can get it out again. I hope they can get it out of there because it's picking up enough new energy to operate; however, it only has 5 wheels left to get around on — one of the wheels hasn't been working for years. Fingers crossed."

Comments

Call a tow truck

[confused one]

Time to call AAA...

Re:Call a tow truck

[t-maxx cowboy]

My thoughts exactly.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm, wouldn't the MAA be a better choice?

Re:Call a tow truck

[Megane]

Alien Automobile Association?

Re:Call a tow truck

[rackserverdeals]

They should get Opportunity to come by and fire it's grappling hook to tow it out with its winch.

What?!?! We launched a bunch of space robots to an unknown, rocky terrain without a grappling hook and winch?

They probably didn't include the lasers either. Good thing the people that carved the face are long dead.

Re:Call a tow truck

[camperdave]

Opportunity is on the opposite side of the planet. Given how fast the rovers travel, Opportunity could be on the scene in late 2157.

Re:Call a tow truck

[jagilbertvt]

No, they just need to get a New Englander (well, one of the ones that knows how to drive) to get it unstuck. We have lots of experience getting stuck in deep snow.

Disable the traction control and rock it back and forth. :)

Re:Call a tow truck

[Sentax]

With the lack of spirit, there won't be much opportunity.

Re:Call a tow truck

[dreamt]

I don't know that I have ever met a native New Englander that has any idea how to drive (especially in the snow)! At least nowhere near Boston.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Onyma]

So pretty much a normal road side assistance response time then.

Re:Call a tow truck

[omris]

Boston is full of college kids, who are probably not New Englanders. And all of the natives around them have now evolved the most aggressively defensive driving style ever imagined to protect themselves. Not a good sample pool.

Look at Maine.

Or someplace that gets a lot of lake effect snow.

Here in Rhode Island, people are terrified of snow. If they predict snow, all of a sudden there is no milk or bread in any store in the state. This always baffled me. Bread, ok. But WHY would you buy milk when there could be severe weather. If you're trapped in your house, your power will likely go out, and now you have a new gallon of spoiled milk. Genius.

On the plus side, I repeatedly impress my neighbors by getting my car out of the snowbanks they make on top of it by shoveling their car out and dumping the snow on mine. I think they're bitter that I don't have to shovel if I don't want to.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're trapped in your house, your power will likely go out, and now you have a new gallon of spoiled milk. Genius.

It's not so much the power going out as it is people thinking they won't drive in the snow and stores/roads might be closed due to the bad weather.

Re:Call a tow truck

[omris]

I always thought that toilet paper was still a better purchase if you might be stuck at home. I would rather be out of dairy.

Re:Call a tow truck

[firecow77]

I believe Septuple-A (Astro-Afro-Antarctico-Amer-Asian Auto Association) operates out there.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

Time to call AAA...

K'Breel frowns menacingly in your direction.

(Came for the Council of Elders, left disappointed...)

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

Babies can't drink toilet paper.

Re:Call a tow truck

[TheBig1]

Nah, that's Mercury.

Re:Call a tow truck

[fahrbot-bot]

They probably didn't include the lasers either.

Duh. Sharks can't live in space.

Re:Call a tow truck

[SnarfQuest]

They probably didn't include the lasers either.

They tried, but keeping the sharks fed turned out to be a real problem. Turns out that marsians are one of the few things that sharks won't eat.

Re:Call a tow truck

[crashumbc]

This always baffled me. Bread, ok. But WHY would you buy milk when there could be severe weather. If you're trapped in your house, your power will likely go out, and now you have a new gallon of spoiled milk.

yeah it's not like its COLD outside or anything...

Re:Call a tow truck

[omris]

They do this for EVERY storm. Tropical storm, hurricane, half inch of snow. And it's not like people need ten times the normal quantity of milk. Honestly, the shelves will be literally bare.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like a Mars-Rover-Can-Howard-Come-Over-Situation.

Re:Call a tow truck

[rts008]

Here in Rhode Island, people are terrified of snow. If they predict snow, all of a sudden there is no milk or bread in any store in the state. This always baffled me. Bread, ok. But WHY would you buy milk when there could be severe weather. If you're trapped in your house, your power will likely go out, and now you have a new gallon of spoiled milk. Genius.

You do realise that a cooler or other container set outside in the snow will keep your milk cold, don't you? Genius indeed!

Re:Call a tow truck

[rackserverdeals]

I think you're not understanding things. People don't want to drive or are worried about being able to buy during/after a storm as someone mentioned earlier.

The problem isn't that people are buying 10x more milk, it's that 10x more people came into the store. Or whatever the multiple is.

When there's a storm more people will go shopping in the day before the storm than after the storm. The market gets products delivered daily and sells it slowly throughout the week but when there's a rush to get emergency provisions, they get more people into the store than a usual day because people plan on not shopping for the next few days.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

they left space dock without a tractor beam too.

Re:Call a tow truck

[omris]

No no, I understand. But they do not buy ANYTHING else. They don't run low on anything in the store other than milk and bread. It's a strange Rhode Island phenomenon. Even the news casters have joked about it ("might be mildly bad weather... better go out now to beat the milk and bread rush"). I blame the elderly. We have too many.

Re:Call a tow truck

[sckeener]

Alien Automobile Association?

Since we're the aliens on Mars, I guess that means us.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Armakuni]

Ah, but surely this is a great opportunity to show some rover spirit.

Um.

[crickets]

Re:Call a tow truck

[weszz]

Beer and TP.

In Wisconsin when there is a severe snowstorm predicted, those two sell out.

Milk is nice, but the beer and TP will help you weather the storm.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

What baby drinks the milk you buy at the store? I thought it was breast milk, formula, or toilet paper (obviously).

Re:Call a tow truck

[Sentax]

I see you're the glass half full, and I'm the glass half empty type of person.

Re:Call a tow truck

[rackserverdeals]

IT's not just in your area. Milk and bread (as well as eggs, fruits and vegetables) are usually things that sell out fastest in most areas when there is an event that might keep people from going shopping.

Milk and bread are staples that almost everyone reading this has in their home.

They are also perishable so you're not likely to have a reserve in case of emergency like you might have steaks and chicken in the freezer or cans of tuna and tomato paste in the pantry. In fact things like milk, bread and eggs are things people buy more frequently than just their weekly shopping trips because they only buy enough to last a short while. That's why these items seem to do well at gas station convenience stores that people can pick up while their filling upa fter work.

Stores usually only stock a little more than a days supply of these items in most cases unlike something like Frosted Flakes that has a longer shelf life.

People don't buy 10x as much bread and milk before a storm. It's usually around twice as much but the stores don't have twice as much on hand so it looks like people are hoarding bread and milk.

Re:Call a tow truck

[NeilTheStupidHead]

No, the glass is simply twice of large as it needs to be.

Re:Call a tow truck

[cattrain]

You have to be standing behind your vehicle holding the AAA card when the rep arrives.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

piss on it wet that bitch

Re:Call a tow truck

[bughunter]

Areological Automobile Association, actually.

Re:Call a tow truck

[dkleinsc]

Given how fast the rovers travel, Opportunity could be on the scene in late 2157

... so it too can get caught in the same pile of sand.

Re:Call a tow truck

[dkleinsc]

New England Law of Driving: The rudeness and stupidity of drivers in New England is inversely proportional to your distance from Boston.

Note that this formula has the interesting property that as you approach Boston rudeness and stupidity rises first to infinity, and then to undefined territory.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

Here in Rhode Island, people are terrified of snow. If they predict snow, all of a sudden there is no milk or bread in any store in the state. This always baffled me. Bread, ok. But WHY would you buy milk when there could be severe weather. If you're trapped in your house, your power will likely go out, and now you have a new gallon of spoiled milk. Genius.

I remember my parents placing the milk and other perishables out in the snow when we lost power. It typically kept them since since the snow would be about the same temperature as the inside of a refrigerator.

Re:Call a tow truck

[GodfatherofSoul]

That trick only works for tripping up armored walkers.

Re:Call a tow truck

[turgid]

Duh. Sharks can't live in space.

Sharks can live under water. There is no air under water. There is also no air in space. Therefore sharks can live in space.

Re:Call a tow truck

[BStorm]

Apparently Spirit while stuck, soiled itself.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Jarik C-Bol]

snow != sand unfortunately.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Jarik C-Bol]

if it snows, i doubt the milk will spoil if the power goes out. automatic refrigeration in the big room outside your house happens with snow.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Anonymous Coward]

You could also just put the milk outside. It's probably colder than the refrigerator.

Re:Call a tow truck

[linzeal]

Next rover should be designed by those insane miniature 4x4 enthusiasts. At least the drive train and suspension.

Re:Call a tow truck

[Captain Electrode]

Hello, dispatch? Yeah, I'm here, vehicle's a 5-wheeled Spirit. I've been here 15 minutes and there's no sign of the member. X5? Thanks! Whooosh!

Re:Call a tow truck

[dudpixel]

There is no air under water.

really?

Re:Call a tow truck

[Tubal-Cain]

My back-of-the-napkin estimate says you claim it is only ~300 miles to the far side of the planet.

10 miles / 5 years * 148 years

Re:Call a tow truck

[Tubal-Cain]

the big room outside your house

Rooms are inside houses, not the other way around.
What you call a house is actually a 'fort'.
Surely I don't need to link to XKCD?

Re:Call a tow truck

[Skye16]

So you keep your fridge at or below freezing?

How do you like your milk slushy on your cereal each morning? Is it nummers?

Re:Call a tow truck

[camperdave]

My back-of-the-napkin estimate says you claim it is only ~300 miles to the far side of the planet.

You seem to be using elapsed distance over elapsed time as a measure of the rover's speed. However, the rovers are often sitting still doing science and taking pictures for a good deal of the time, so that's not a realistic speed.

So, Let's see... [/me finds napkin, turns over]... 148 years at MER top speed of 5 cm/s (as per NASA site) comes to about 234,000 km, or 47,000km if you use the 1cm/s average speed the rover gets when you take obstacle avoidance into effect. Opportunity could drive itself around Mars twice in that time. Of course this assumes travel 24h/day (or 24.6597h/sol). If we only have usable sunlight for a third of that time, then Opportunity can only travel 16,000km.

So how far apart are the rovers? Plugging some latitude and longitude figures into a great circle calculator and compensating for the different Mars parameters... 9700km apart, as the Martian crow-equivalent flies. So, assuming a travel day of 1/3 of a sol at the 0.036 km/h rover self drive speed, and allowing for an increase in distance to avoid obstacles of 50-60% - 15,000km.

Wow! My my pull-a-number-out-of-thin-air wild guess came remarkably close.

Re:Call a tow truck

[LunaticTippy]

You know about XKCD and not the big room?! Kids these days...

Big Room: n.
(Also Big Blue Room) The extremely large room with the blue ceiling and intensely bright light (during the day) or black ceiling with lots of tiny night-lights (during the night) found outside all computer installations. "He can't come to the phone right now, he's somewhere out in the Big Room."

Re:Call a tow truck

[Tubal-Cain]

You know about XKCD and not the big room?!

I know about the Big Blue Room. Hence the 'fort' comment. We all live in the basements of our mothers' forts, all of which are in the Room.

Poor NASA

[Mendoksou]

All they need is something to lift their Spirits... maybe a good comedy movie will do the trick. (sry, the pun HAD to be made)

Re:Poor NASA

[Spazztastic]

(sry, the pun HAD to be made)

No, it didn't.

Whoa! Time to stop drinking.

[Forty Two Tenfold]

I visualized a bottle of rectified spirit in Martian soil.

Re:Whoa! Time to stop drinking.

[Anonymous Coward]

I visualized a bottle of rectified spirit in Martian soil.

No sir, no it didn't.

Should have used show chains...

[tippe]

... but I guess it's a little too late now. Oh well, better luck next time.

Re:Should have used show chains...

[ianare]

How would they have helped, if they're only for show ?

Re:Should have used show chains...

[lazyforker]

How would they have helped, if they're only for show ?

Dude - cos the whole damn thing is being filmed on a Hollywood backlot. You don't *seriously* believe they actually flew this stuff to Mars?

Still the cheaper option?

[biocute]

Does anyone know if managing the twins is still cheaper than sending a new rover?

This occurs to me recently when I had to copy a 600MB file via USB1.0 port to thumb drive, which would have taken about 20 minutes.

I decided to stop the copying, took out my laptop, connected to the network, mapped drive and copied that file in 2 minutes, altogether less than 10 minutes.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Lumpy]

Yes.

same as your 20 minutes waiting is cheaper than buying you a new laptop with Usb 2.0 high speed ports.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[ducomputergeek]

The next rover to mars is costing $1.8B to build. Spirit and Opportunity costs around $4M per year to operate. So I think you can fund a lot of years of operations for $1.8B. Hell what does a Delta IV heavy launch cost these days? $50M? $100M?

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[dotancohen]

Does anyone know if managing the twins is still cheaper than sending a new rover?

Sending a new rover for what? There is a new rover on the way, but that does not make Spirit and Opportunity any less valuable. Even getting stuck in soft soil is doing science: the things that the scientists learn from the experience (what soft soil looks like when you approach it, what techniques to use to get out, how to built a rover that can handle it) will be useful.

And don't forget, turning up this soft soil may reveal something important. Many of Spirit's discoveries were because of soil turned over due to her stuck wheel.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Kamokazi]

Most entry-level helpdesk people make enough money in 20 minutes to buy a 4GB USB 2.0 flash drive.

However, launching a rocket into space is far from cheap. Sending it to Mars for a successful landing does not decrease the cost in the slightest. And you still need the same rough team size to run the thing.

But they are currently developing a new rover, one built on everything learned from Spirit and Opportunity.

Also, why does Spirit continually get the shaft? Crappy landing spot, bum wheel, can never find good winter shelter, and has been stuck in soil more than once now. Opportunity on the other hand landed near an amazing crater, and has had few mechanical issues, and the terrain has generaly been cooperative.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Aquaseafoam]

How does a rover on Mars cost 4 million per year to operate? Personnel for operating the rover couldn't possibly cost that much, and I'm sure the communication infrastructure for it was already in place.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[rackserverdeals]

How does a rover on Mars cost 4 million per year to operate?

Long distance charges.

I don't think the $4million number is accurate anyway. It's likely higher. Last year they were going to cut the budget by $4 million and turn off one of the rovers but then changed their minds. IT looks like the budget for the program is actually $20 million according to this article.

Hmm... maybe they didn't change their minds and it's not really stuck.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[yuriyg]

Don't be so quick to judge. If the GP is a highly paid professional, his time actually might worth more than a modern netbook.
Same story with the rovers. That was a legit question.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Zordak]

And don't forget, turning up this soft soil may reveal something important.

Especially if the "soft soil" turns out to be warm poo.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[oldhack]

New, old, they all cost less than a thousandth of Goldmand Sach's bailout (GSB).

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Anonymous Coward]

Communications infrastructure maintenance costs and data warehousing maintenance costs probably don't come cheap for a project like this. I'm sure they don't communicate with these rovers over a walkie talkie.

I don't know how many people are on the team that operate each rover, but lets assume five. I'm sure they're making a smidge more than $8/hr, so chalk up another million in pay and benefits right there.

I read somewhere that your average local walmart has an operating cost between 1 and 1.5 million. These guys are performing science and maintaining a robot on another planet for a little less than 3 times that cost.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[sckeener]

personnel to operate
personnel to plan where to go
personnel familiar with the hardware
personnel familiar with the software
management
Public relations
Webadmin to post updates
Storage space for data
Servers
electricity
Earth based equipment to communicate with rovers
etc...

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

To be fair, the "next rover to mars" is a LOT MORE than what Spirit and Opportunity are, but it's definitely cheaper to use the resources we have there now. That's why we are servicing Hubble to make it into pretty much a new telescope.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Thumper_SVX]

The personnel may not, but the building they're housed in might. Oh, and electricity costs, overall infrastructure share cost (plumbing, networking, etc).

And from my experience, NASA doesn't build a new comms infrastructure for every launch. They have large consolidated arrays that are actually owned by separate companies... sometimes literally, sometimes they're just "shadow" companies. Communications time is "rented" from these companies at a set rate.

Yes, sometimes it's all just a shell game when dealing within NASA and the USA, but it makes a certain kind of sense. Instead of having a communications infrastructure that's "in the dark" for 12 hours a day and can't talk to the rovers, they instead rent that infrastructure out to people "looking the other way" and rent antenna time in Australia, Japan, Russia etc. Having the arrays manage by another company actually keeps the books easier to keep straight than if you were a project owning your own infrastructure and leasing out antenna time to projects from ESA.

And no, not a rocket scientist... but drank with plenty and a few have talked about this :)

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[jmpareja]

A new rover with the recently invented instruments I hope. And maybe new experiments. Finding life in Mars, $4million/rover/year. Introducing life on mars, priceless.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[SpaceLifeForm]

Maybe the soil will turn itself up due to a rising water table.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[stillnotelf]

Every time they run into a problem (like these stuck wheels), they'll do model experiments here on Earth with leftover rover bits and pieces. (It says so right in the summary.) The emergency experiments probably account for a large chunk of money...

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Blakey Rat]

Many of Spirit's discoveries were because of soil turned over due to her stuck wheel.

For the next rover, they should just break one of the drive wheels before it even lands, whack at it with a hammer or something. That would save time.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Anonymous Coward]

Personnel could easily cost that much. It costs around $250K-300K/yr for a scientist or engineer, by the time you count all the infrastructure, computers, networking, etc. So $4M = about 12-16 people full time. If you have just one person on, 24/7 that's 4 full time equivalents (e.g. 8640/2000 hrs), and in reality, it takes more than one person to do things.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[YouWantFriesWithThat]

Most entry-level helpdesk people make enough money in 20 minutes to buy a 4GB USB 2.0 flash drive.

the cheapest a quick search revealed for that drive would be about $10.

20 minutes is 1/3 of an hour

do you think that entry-level helpdesk pays $30/hour? (that's over $60,000 annually)

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Tablizer]

Last year they were going to cut the budget by $4 million and turn off one of the rovers but then changed their minds.... maybe they didn't change their minds and it's not really stuck.

Is the Mafia running NASA? "If ya don pay ya dues, we'll gitcha a pair uv ceement goulashes. Ya got dat?"

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[ChrisA90278]

Personnel for operating the rover couldn't possibly cost that much,.....I'm sure the communication infrastructure for it was already in place.

(1) Thos guys make between $85K and $120K per year. "overhead" about doubles that. This covers things like the building they work in, insurance, vacation pay and the bosses and office cleaning staff and capital equipment. So for $4M/year you get about 16 people full time.

(2) The communications system is HUGE. We are taling about football sized antennas all around the world, satalites in orbit and so on. All these cost money and every space program has to pay a "tax" based on usage and so on. So your $4M does not cover 16 people.

I've been in the software business for many years. I was surprized the first time I had to cost out a project. $1M does not buy many lines of code. We get about 250 lines of code per man-month.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Kamokazi]

I've seen them go for $6, and I used a little dramatic exaggeration. The point at hand is the rovers. Sheesh.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[BikeHelmet]

Personel, archiving, etc. - every single piece of data they get back is stored, forever.

They're still using expensive and old equipment. Surely sometimes it breaks down, and they have to fix/replace it. 4 million isn't a lot - in fact, if it were that low, I'd say they're doing great!

20 million seems more reasonable, depending on how many people they have working with the rovers.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Anonymous Coward]

That was a legit question.

No, actually, it wasn't. There's a couple orders of magnitude difference. GGP made a lot of assumptions about the availability and future utility of infrastructure, which simply doesn't apply here. As much as I cringe to agree with Lumpy, he nailed it. He didn't provide much explanation, so here it is: Spacecraft are single-use devices, and most of the cost is in the design, integration, and launch. You need to account for the entire effort - i.e. you need to balance selecting, purchasing, receiving, and commissioning the new laptop against the ggp's 20 minutes.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Lumpy]

Even if he is paid $100.00 an hour it's still far cheaper to make him wait 20 minutes than to buy a new $1000.00 laptop.

now if he waits 3 hours in a day then you approach the cost justification.

I have never met a IT guy or even CIO that get's $100.00 an hour.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Tubal-Cain]

now if he waits 3 hours in a day then you approach the cost justification.

I don't know about you, but I keep my computers longer than a few days. That investment will continue to pay off throughout the lifetime of the laptop.

Re:Still the cheaper option?

[Tubal-Cain]

A new rover with the recently invented instruments I hope.

Newer than either probe already there? Certainly.
Anything less than 5 years old? I doubt it.

5 out of 6 wheels?!?

[DavidChristopher]

SOURCE: Wikipedia
On sol 779, the right front wheel ceased working after having covered 4.2 mi (7 km) on Mars. Engineers began driving the rover backwards, dragging the dead wheel. Ironically, although this has resulted in changes to driving techniques the dragging effect has also had a positive effect in the fact that the wheel dragging has partially cleared soil away on the surface as the rover travels and allows for imaging areas that would normally be covered in soil.

http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/mission/images/rover1_detail_500.jpg

NASA got awesome mileage out of this vehicle... considerably more than was initially expected- over 7700 meters! Hopefully they get it unstuck. According the the NASA website, they've gotten it backed up by a few CM over the last few Sols...

Re:5 out of 6 wheels?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's more mileage than most American cars :)

Re:5 out of 6 wheels?!?

[Smidge207]

NASA got awesome mileage out of this vehicle... considerably more than was initially expected- over 7700 meters!

Bah on your 7.7k meters;I demand nothing less than total disambiguation. We need sufficient variation in measurement to make sure that the sense of each number is clear. I shouldn't have to depend on context to infer what you mean. If you reply to this post and call me "slipshod," I want to know that you are referring to the sloppy, careless reasoning of my post, and not to the looseness of my footwear (for which I propose to the new substitute "slipshoed"). Likewise, trademarks using common words will be disambiguated from the meaning of those words - popular word game Scrabble would need to be renamed, as this spelling is already in use by at least four other meanings, each of which will need its own variation anyhow. We can keep "scrabble" for "to scratch or scrape," but make subtle changes to the rest; "scragble" for "to struggle toward a goal," "scrubble" for "to climb over" (as over rubble!) and the sense "to scribble" should simply be eliminated, as "scribble" is already too close to "scrabble" anyway and might as well be handled as a variant of pronunciation. The game itself might be renamed B-3, after the second letter in the alphabet and its point value in the game (A-1 having been used for the tasty steak sauce and several thousand local plumbing, towing, and other services companies vying for the first spot in the telephone directory, each of which will celebrate its uniqueness with a new, never-before-seen name). Each town with the same name as another will also need to be reborn under a new moniker (surely a cause for revelry in the Midways, Fairviews, and Oak Groves [nwlink.com] of the world!). Finally, each of us whose name unfortunately coincides with that of another, shall have to make the tiniest of adjustments, on a first-come, first-served basis; thus, the eldest John Smith on record shall keep his spelling, while the next shall have to be subtly altered (Johnn Smith), and the next altered only the tiniest bit (Jahnn Smith), and so on (Djahnne Pschmiythe). For completeness, the birth and death certificates, tax and census records, and headstones or memorial plaques of some few billions of our ancestors shall likewise need to be "tweaked," possibly according to some fractal algorithm in cases where no living relatives can recommend how John might have preferred it, if only he'd taken the opportunity.

=smudge=

Re:5 out of 6 wheels?!?

[Anonymous Coward]

The effect of dragging one wheel can be seen in this panoramic image. Hopefully they can get the rover unstuck, but suppose they can't: Will Spirit be of further use if it's stationary or is there no point in making more observations and measurements unless it can reach new vantage points?

Re:5 out of 6 wheels?!?

[jdong]

NASA got awesome mileage out of this vehicle... considerably more than was initially expected- over 7700 meters!

DAMN! Watch out Ford, you've got competition!
(Haha joking, joking, don't kill me)

Re:5 out of 6 wheels?!?

[tsalmark]

The things are like zombies, they'll never die.

Life in slow motion...

[yogibaer]

In an era where time is the devil and speed is God, it's interesting and heart warming to see that there is actually an engineering job where you can spend weeks looking at the dust under your feet, comtemplate your (modest) goals (another 100 feet, yeah!) and then very, very slowly take you next step. And if a dust storm comes along, just wait for the next breeze to gently brush the dust of your panels and let the sunshine in. Envious. Quite envious.

Re:Life in slow motion...

[DerekLyons]

That's the wonder of having an open ended mission without any specific goals. Go slow and produce something every once-in-awhile and you stay employed.
 
Seriously, that's why NASA accomplished so many great things in the 60's - they had a goal and a deadline on the manned side, and a bunch of firsts to grab on the unmanned side. Since then, it's been mostly routine and ass covering as (like any bureaucracy) they revert to type.

Re:Life in slow motion...

[Blakey Rat]

You could just work for the DMV.

Re:Life in slow motion...

[Tablizer]

That's the wonder of having an open ended mission without any specific goals. Go slow and produce something every once-in-awhile and you stay employed.

They "go slow" for a reason. For one, they only get approximately 2 communication sessions a day. If you let the rover keep trying something on its own, it may end up even more stuck. Thus, they back out incrementally and slowly.

Further, it takes time to set up simulations of specific situations. Before opportunity went down into its first big crater, they studied the pathway photos and reproduced a test-bed with similar-looking rock and gravel. They went to the local Home & Garden Depot and purchased a bunch of flat patio rocks, chiseled them to shape, and stuck BB's into notches to simulate the so-called "blue-berries" discovered in the area (and in the crater photos). The interns that helped work on that must have been tickled. "Mom, I built Mars in NASA's back lot! I hope you still have Tide."

I see very little reason to rush things unless there's a known time-limit. Plus, the rover can take multi-spectrum photos and readings of the surrounding area while waiting. It takes times to send big photos back unless you compress all the good details out of them. It's like dial-up across 70 million miles. While on the move the rovers cannot stop to smell the roses very deeply as they can while waiting for something.

And, I hope future rovers have bigger wheels. This is about the 5th time I've read of getting stuck in sand/soil to some degree.
   

Craigslist Mars

[BigBlueOx]

WANTED: IlludiumQ36 space modulators. New or used. Top prices paid! Contact Shirley or Bobbie @NASA.

Re:Craigslist Mars

[Some guy named Chris]

Do you need the explosive or non-explosive model?

Inflatable Tires?

[Ukab the Great]

I wonder if they could put inflatable tires on rovers and then manually adjust the pressure for each one to accomodate different soil types, a la WWII DUKW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DUKW It might help the rover to better adapt to different kinds of soils.

Of course, it would have to be designed for the different pressures of the martian atmosphere.

Re:Inflatable Tires?

[PoliticalGamer]

That would work well, however, its still just one more thing to break

Re:Inflatable Tires?

[DerekLyons]

They could - at a fairly steep cost in weight and complexity, two things a spacecraft designer avoids at almost any cost.

Re:Inflatable Tires?

[Tablizer]

I wonder if they could put inflatable tires on rovers and then manually adjust the pressure for each one to accommodate different soil types

Mission control: "Forty meters...fifty meters...sixty meters...pointy rock..[Plblblblblblb...shsphhhh..] three hundred meters! But, upside down."
   

Shoulda...

[Anita Coney]

Shoulda went with that optional AWD package.

Re:Shoulda...

[courteaudotbiz]

Well, it actually is an AWD vehicle. It's just one of the wheels that doesn't respond anymore...

When does this end?

[wandazulu]

It's great to see that the rovers have lived on for so long, even if they are showing some wear-n-tear, but given the circumstances, they're clearly well built and I'd buy a used one off ebay any day (uh, shipper pays postage).

I'm curious though, in a totally non-judgmental way, about the cost of the program in general; they expected the rovers to last, what, 90 days? So presumably someone budgeted so many resources here on Earth for people, etc., for that length of time. Since the rovers have been doing such a great job of defying expectations, what kind of effect does that have on the budget for the program; is it sufficiently small enough that it just gets lost in the wash?

Also, since their plans were presumably all built for a 90-day time frame, how do they determine what to do now? Do they take requests from PhD candidates and researchers from around the world?

Re:When does this end?

[NETHED]

I've been wondering the same thing myself. I bet in the first 100 days, only very pre-planned experiments and moves were made.

Now that we're what, 4 years in, I wonder if grad students are allowed minor joy rides in em. ("You published 2 Science papers, take Oppy for a spin").

You know, now that I'm nearing the end of getting my PhD, it amazes me how science is done. And not in a good way. If you have not read the PhD Comic, you should, its funny because its (sadly) true.

Re:When does this end?

[Phairdon]

I'm assuming that you have gone straight through school to get your PhD and haven't had a job in industry yet. If I'm wrong, then I'm sorry.

One thing that I learned after graduating with my degrees and getting a real job is that real science and engineering is much different than school and research science.

Real science is when you are working on a spacecraft (or some other physical product) and trying to get a real vehicle in the air. School science and lots of research science is plagued by lots of bad things that get mentioned in PhD Comic. I work on trying to get a vehicle in the air and I get really frustrated with some groups out there that we work with that are mainly for research and they don't get the big picture.

Re:When does this end?

[DaveV1.0]

By far, the largest cost of the project was building the rovers and sending them to Mars. Every day of return amortizes the cost of sending the rovers to Mars. The scientists studying the data sent back would have been studying data regardless. This just means they have gotten way more data than they could have hoped for.

Re:When does this end?

[lwsimon]

My understanding is that NASA designed the rovers to last as long as possible, but only committed to 90 days. Saying its good for a year and getting 6 months would be bad, saying its good for 90 days and making it 6 months is great :)

Lowered expectations.

Re:When does this end?

[Dunbal]

now that I'm nearing the end of getting my PhD, it amazes me how science is done. And not in a good way. If you have not read the PhD Comic, you should, its funny because its (sadly) true.

      All arguments of "a medical doctorate is not a "real" doctorate" aside - you should try med school if you want to see how far the definition of ass-kissi- er, science, is stretched.

Re:When does this end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Real science is when you are working on a spacecraft (or some other physical product) and trying to get a real vehicle in the air.

I always thought that was engineering. Don't get me wrong. I have great respect for both and scientists spend a significant time doing engineering, but building a spacecraft isn't testing a hypothesis. It's not science at all. It's what you do with the spacecraft after it's launched that's science. As someone who works with JPL, I've seen first hand how the engineering project becomes more important that the science experiments it was designed to run.

Re:When does this end?

[NETHED]

Funny you should say that, I'm going to continue to get my MD after my PhD.

The main thing I learned from getting a PhD? Cite the right people, and choose the right reviewers. "Peer reviewed" my ASS

Re:When does this end?

[DerekLyons]

I'm curious though, in a totally non-judgmental way, about the cost of the program in general; they expected the rovers to last, what, 90 days? So presumably someone budgeted so many resources here on Earth for people, etc., for that length of time. Since the rovers have been doing such a great job of defying expectations, what kind of effect does that have on the budget for the program; is it sufficiently small enough that it just gets lost in the wash?

Nothing gets lost in the wash in NASA's budget. Not only are there harsh internal reviews, NASA's line items are a popular target for Congressional review. Almost nothing NASA does is low profile, and politically (except for the really big programs) they're neutral - they have no strong constituency in favor, and they're a good place to hide a little pork from public view.
 
That being said, if a program runs long NASA can (and does) reprogram funds from elsewhere to keep it running and then adds it into next years budget request. Programs are paid for annually, not in a lump sum up front.

Re:When does this end?

[2short]

Well, while it sounds simple in press reports, you don't really design something to last 90 days exactly.

You make some estimates and design something such that you think it has (for example) a 95% chance of lasting 90 days. You don't want to send the thing to Mars without being pretty sure it's going to last for the length of time you've decided will make it worth sending.

But if it has a 95% chance of lasting 90 days, how long does it have a 50% chance of lasting? Probably years. "How long can you say it will last with a high degree of confidence?" is a very different question than "What's your best guess?"

The durability of the rovers, while impressive, is not as completely shocking as it might first seem.

Re:When does this end?

[sckeener]

actually I was wondering about the sleep schedules of the techs working it. At the beginning they were working on Martian hours and not Earth hours.

A martian day being 24 hours and 40 minutes roughly. The techs were coming in later each day which sounds nice until you get to the odd hours and leaving home when your significant other is just getting home.

Re:When does this end?

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Well, it is Mars. It's probably tough to make an estimate. They really could have gotten stuck in soft soil or covered by a dust storm and died at any point.

Re:When does this end?

[RalphTheWonderLlama]

Oh just to add, they have learned a lot about what it takes to drive rovers on Mars to optimize opportunities for discovery and how to be careful about things which is a huge plus for future robotic exploration.

Re:When does this end?

[guruevi]

They probably cleared out some more resources from somebody's spare budget. It doesn't cost that much to keep a few people around to play around with it and take some pictures, it's cheaper than sending another one (probably 10 to 100 times cheaper) and leave that one to rot.

For this little problem, they should just tell it to rock back and forth a few times. I figure it's kinda like off-road driving, you give gas until something gives (and hope it's not your vehicle that gives). If they really want/need to kill it, I would say, go full throttle and go as far as you can go while taking pictures. It would give a lot of new information for just being reckless for a bit. Now they've been there for a few years and have only gone as far as what would take us a short walk

Re:When does this end?

[MRe_nl]

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

Re:When does this end?

[solafide]

See: the diary of a rover driver

Re:When does this end?

[Anonymous Coward]

what kind of effect does that have on the budget for the program; is it sufficiently small enough that it just gets lost in the wash?

It eats up budget that would otherwise have gone to other things. However, MER continues to provide science, they're the only active platforms on the ground, and they're very popular with the public. Alan Stern tried to defund MER as Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate and was overruled, which basically led to his resignation.

Re:When does this end?

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay guy, just for you, when you get cancer your doctor will give you a smooch on the ass and send you on your way. You should hope that yours is an aggressive variety and you only last a few months.
 
I've known and worked with many PhD's and MD's, and the PhD's don't come off well in comparison.

DUI-S

[youn]

would the cause of the accident be a driving under influence of spirit ?

power up the...

[mehrotra.akash]

tractor beam

Saw that coming

[Anonymous Coward]

Should have had Toyota design it.

A comedy?

[denzacar]

maybe a good comedy movie will do the trick.

Like that recent JJ Abrams comedy based on Star Trek characters?

Re:A comedy?

[gumpish]

Oh snap!

Re:A comedy?

[AlphaBit]

maybe a good comedy movie will do the trick.

Like that recent JJ Abrams comedy based on Star Trek characters?

Wait, I thought the original Star Trek was a comedy. You know, like Mork and Mindy...

Re:A comedy?

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe a good comedy movie will do the trick.

Like that recent JJ Abrams comedy based on Star Trek characters?

Wait, I thought the original Star Trek was a comedy. You know, like Mork and Mindy...

Well, since Star Trek TV episodes, books, and movies usually had a positive ending, it can be argued that most forms of Star Trek fits the classical definition of comedy.

Enough of these rovers...

[Rog-Mahal]

Let's get some real people up there! Our unmanned rovers have given us a lot of valuable scientific data, but our space program needs some new life breathed into it. The days of the Shuttle are numbered, and technology such as ion rockets seems very promising.

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[2short]

"Let's get some real people up there!"

Who do you think designed, built, launched, and now drives the rovers.

"Our unmanned rovers have given us a lot of valuable scientific data"

Yes, they sure have! Humans who explore using mechanical probes have been fabulously successful. Humans who explore by sending other humans? Not so much. Thousands of times the budget, and they can't keep their toilet running in LEO. Drop them and give me a thousand times as many mechanical probes; can you imagine the improvement in scientific results for the money?

"technology such as ion rockets seems very promising."

For moving mechanical probes to the far reaches of the solar system, absolutely! For moving anything with the mass to contain a human life-support? Um, no. The thrust level is too low by a factor of roughly... something ending in "illion".

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[Paul server guy]

I saw a study last year (Dont ask me to cite it, it was last year. Check "New Scientist" or something like it.) that stated that a 3 person human crew could have covered all the distance, and done better science than either of the rovers in two weeks... Sure, at an order of magnitude more expense, but still less than the bank bribes - um - I mean bailouts...

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[c6gunner]

Thousands of times the budget, and they can't keep their toilet running in LEO. Drop them and give me a thousand times as many mechanical probes; can you imagine the improvement in scientific results for the money?

Besides the obvious PR value, a human team could do more work in the first hour than the rovers have done since first landing. Properly outfitted, a human team could spend months on Mars, performing practical experiments, collecting core samples, and exploring vast stretches of terrain. Best of all, they could easily change their plans/experiments if significant new discoveries are made, whereas with machines it takes decades to design, construct, launch, and land a new probe capable of performing the required work.

It's an old argument, and a pointless one. No machine can come close to matching the versatility of a human being, nor will they in the foreseeable future. While unmanned probes will always be an extremely important part of space exploration, it's silly to suggest that they can replace manned missions.

Of course, the big clincher is that manned missions are an absolute necessity if we plan on establishing colonies on other planets or moons, or if we want to start exploiting the vast resources of the asteroid belt. Even if all of our scientific missions could be successfully performed by remote, sooner or later we're going to want to establish new frontiers.

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[2short]

If humans on Mars can do more than humans on earth controlling probes on Mars, tell them to get on with it.

You seem to be saying, humans on mars can do more than humans controlling probes, if you ignore the difficulty and expense of getting them there and keeping them alive and operating. In space exploration, getting there and staying alive and operating is the whole problem. Everything else is pointlessly trivial by comparison.

"While unmanned probes will always be an extremely important part of space exploration, it's silly to suggest that they can replace manned missions."

I suggest they not only can, but have. It is not clear to me manned missions will ever achieve what remote probes are doing now. e.g. years of operation on mars.

"the big clincher is that manned missions are an absolute necessity if we plan on establishing colonies on other planets or moons, or if we want to start exploiting the vast resources of the asteroid belt."

We could argue just how far in the future colonies on other planets are, if feasible ever, or what vast resources you imagine some incredibly hard to get to rocks represent. But in any case it seems clear to me that these goals are best advanced today by gaining as much knowledge of other planets as we can. Which exploration by remote probe is doing a great job of, and manned exploration isn't even seriously contemplating making any progress on at all.

They have vastly more money, and just as much time. If they are better for the job, where are they? Saying manned exploration is better if you ignore the drawbacks of manned exploration is just dumb.

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[c6gunner]

You seem to be saying, humans on mars can do more than humans controlling probes, if you ignore the difficulty and expense of getting them there and keeping them alive and operating.

When Bush suggested launching new missions to the moon and mars, the NASA estimate for the entire effort came out to $120 billion. The Mars Rover missions cost something like a billion each. That means that for the price of 120 remote missions we can afford to launch two manned missions - one to the moon, and one to mars. Following missions would be significantly cheaper, since the initial R&D and infrastructure costs would have already been covered.

Even if they only stayed there for a couple days the astronauts could gather more data than a dozen rover missions, AND they could bring back samples for earth-side analysis - something which is essentially impossible with probes.

I suggest they not only can, but have. It is not clear to me manned missions will ever achieve what remote probes are doing now. e.g. years of operation on mars.

Doing something for years and years is only an accomplishment when there isn't a faster way of doing it. If you spend years manually calculating the value of Pi to the Nth digit and someone comes along with a computer and replicates the same feat in half a second, does that mean that his achievement was somehow inferior to yours because it took less time?

Human missions don't need to "achieve years of operation on Mars" in order to justify the expense. A couple days of human time on mars will achieve FAR more than your "years of operation" via rover.

But in any case it seems clear to me that these goals are best advanced today by gaining as much knowledge of other planets as we can.

Really?

How did we get to the moon? By building better telescopes and studying it in detail from the ground? Or by developing rockets?

The only things we need to know in order to create settlements on Mars and the Moon is:

1. How to get there.
2. How to take our environment with us.
3. What hazards to expect during the journey and after arrival.

Gaining more knowledge about our destinations is a great idea, but it does nothing to actually get us there. At best it gives us a better understanding of what to pack before we leave - at worst it provides no relevant insights.

If they are better for the job, where are they?

Waiting for the funding, mainly.

Saying manned exploration is better if you ignore the drawbacks of manned exploration is just dumb.

The only drawback is that politicians don't want to authorize the necessary funding when it's much simpler to just toss NASA a bit of spare cash every now and then, and pretend that it's being well spent.

You're arguing that manned Mars missions haven't accomplished anything, so we shouldn't fund manned missions. The reason they haven't accomplished anything is because we haven't funded any. That's a circular argument. If you do not fund a line of research, you cannot use the the lack of results as a reason for not funding it. Otherwise we could have used the same "logic" to refuse funding for remote missions in the first place, or for any space exploration whatsoever. Using that argument, we would have simply said "nobody has ever launched anything into space, therefore we shouldn't bother funding rocket research, and should make better telescopes instead". NASA would have, quite literally, never gotten off the ground.

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[Tablizer]

Let's get some real people up there! Our unmanned rovers have given us a lot of valuable scientific data, but our space program needs some new life breathed into it.

What, you want to watch Mars Idol or something? This is science: it's supposed to be slow and stiff.
   

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[2short]

"When Bush suggested launching new missions to the moon and mars, the NASA estimate for the entire effort came out to $120 billion."

People with more expertise than me have called that estimate ridiculous, but for the sake of argument, let's go with it.

"The Mars Rover missions cost something like a billion each."

No, about a billion total, for both rovers over four years of operations on Mars. Roughly the cost of a single shuttle flight to the IIS so some astronauts can skim the edge of the atmosphere for a few days.

"Even if they only stayed there for a couple days the astronauts could gather more data than a dozen rover missions"

I'm not sure why you think so. When the astronauts went to the moon, is it your impression they so much as turned over a rock without discussing it with earth-bound controllers? Also, by your numbers, it's not a dozen, it's 5 dozen. What do you imagine them doing that 60 remote probes could not? Keeping in mind that every one of those probes will be designed and deployed by a team of humans every bit as clever as your astronaut. A team that knows what the previous 50 probes encountered, and has plenty of time to consider it from the comfort of Earth, with no distracting other tasks like staying alive on Mars.

"AND they could bring back samples for earth-side analysis - something which is essentially impossible with probes."

Are the rest of your comments based on the same expert knowledge of space exploration as this one? The Soviets completed successful sample return missions to the moon via remote probes 3 times in the 1970s. NASA's Genesis and Stardust missions returned samples of the solar wind and comet debris from far farther away than manned missions have ever traveled. NASA has plans for a Martian sample return mission (real plans, not GW Bush make beleive) which will certainly happen long before we contemplate sneding a manned mission.

I certainly endorse a sample-return mission. Almost everything we learned about the moon from Apollo was thanks to the samples brought back so they could be analyzed on Earth. Because it's much easier to have humans do their work on Earth. The astronauts weren't doing any lab work up there.

"How did we get to the moon? By building better telescopes and studying it in detail from the ground? Or by developing rockets?"

By developing rockets. On Earth. Nothing about how to get to the moon was learned by astronauts on the moon (obviously).

"'If they are better for the job, where are they?'
Waiting for the funding, mainly."

Human space flight has many times as much funding as unmanned exploration, and much less to show for it. It is simply much less cost effective. I don't understand why you think the current wild imbalance in cost effectiveness will not just scale up to larger funding levels. Apparently you think it will completely reverse itself.

"You're arguing that manned Mars missions haven't accomplished anything, so we shouldn't fund manned missions."

I'm arguing that we have funded manned missions extensively, and accomplished very little. We have funded remote missions and accomplished much more for much less money.

I dislike calling it "robotic" exploration. It's not robots doing the exploring, it's humans. Humans, as you note, are quite clever. They can figure out better ways to get things done. Remote probes are one of those ways. I assume you wouldn't object if a martian explorer used a shovel to collect a sample instead of his hands so he can stay inside the life-supporting environment of his suit. Why can't a martian explorer design a really clever shovel that let's him do his shoveling from inside the much nicer life support environment we call Earth?

You argue people are so clever we must send them. Why doesn't that cleverness count when they design tools to do the job a faster, cheaper, better way?

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[c6gunner]

No, about a billion total

You're right, I misread the figures.

What do you imagine them doing that 60 remote probes could not?

Taking less than a day to walk 100 meters is a good start. If you don't have the mental faculties to think of anything else, then we may as well end this conversation.

The Soviets completed successful sample return missions to the moon via remote probes 3 times in the 1970s

You're comparing launching a remote probe off of the moons surface to launching one from the Martian surface?

Go on, pull the other one!

By developing rockets. On Earth. Nothing about how to get to the moon was learned by astronauts on the moon (obviously).

You know, you could have just written "yes, I was wrong, probes won't help us get to Mars". Really, it's ok. You CAN say the words "I was wrong". I have faith in you. Go on, try it!

I'm arguing that we have funded manned missions extensively, and accomplished very little. We have funded remote missions and accomplished much more for much less money.

That's a load of crap. We stopped funding manned missions decades ago. Up until that point, we had accomplished plenty with manned missions, and practically nothing via remote. Once again, your argument is circular.

You argue people are so clever we must send them.

No, that's not what I said. Being clever has nothing to do with it.

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[2short]

"Taking less than a day to walk 100 meters is a good start"

How about I just land the next one 100 meters away? "Walking" is not the objective. Getting there is. Probes can get to Mars now, humans cannot.

"If you don't have the mental faculties to think of anything else, then we may as well end this conversation."

I cannot think of a scientific objective achievable by one human mission not achievable by a series of 60 probe missions. Clearly, neither can you. I don't think it's because we are both stupid.

"You're comparing launching a remote probe off of the moons surface to launching one from the Martian surface?"

Right, because you haven't implied the moon missions suggest a mars mission is feasible. It is my impression that the success of sample return missions to the Moon implies they might be possible for Mars. Certainly NASA thinks they are possible, they have such a mission scheduled. Probes have gone to Mars and collected samples. I'm not clear why you think the presence of humans would make launching them back to earth easier. Please explain.

"You know, you could have just written 'yes, I was wrong, probes won't help us get to Mars'"

I would have been wrong if I said probes would help us get to Mars. Or if I had somehow implied I thought our getting to Mars should be an objective in the first place. Sorry if there was any confusion there.

"That's a load of crap. We stopped funding manned missions decades ago."

I don't even know how to respond. What are you talking about? Manned space exploration is the largest part of NASA's operations budget, and always has been. There are astronauts up there now fixing the Hubble. BTW, an excellent use of manned missions: maintenance on remote probes stationed in LEO; it's easy enough to get there that using a human is worth it for a short trip. Maybe you're only counting "lander" missions? It's hard to keep track, when you mock me for thinking sample-return missions to the moon are relevant. Anyway, I'm counting results of all missions beyond the atmosphere, and remotes win by a landslide.

"we had accomplished plenty with manned missions, and practically nothing via remote."

If your objective is a manned mission, yes. Mine is not. Mine is scientific results. Remotes have vastly outstripped manned, and I see nothing manned has produced that could not have been done cheaper by remotes. If you disagree, an example would be helpful.

"No, that's not what I said. Being clever has nothing to do with it."

You don't want to send humans for their cleverness? WTF? Getting a humans adaptable intelligent brain as close to the problem as possible would obviously be wonderful, I wouldn't argue that. My whole point is that the downsides of their physical needs is too great. You want to send humans because their bodies are so much better adapted to Mars than a purpose-built probe? I don't understand what advantage you think the enormous weight of a human is worth if it isn't his brain.

It comes down to this: You give one program some money and you get some results. You give another program a hundred times as much money and don't get results and the proponents say "we'd get much better results if only you'd give us a lot more money." Call me crazy, but I just want to give the first program more money and tell the other guys to go back to writing Buck Rodgers fan fiction.

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[c6gunner]

How about I just land the next one 100 meters away?

In that case you're taking 10 years to go 100 meters. Even worse. Maybe you're happy taking 500 years to accomplish what one manned mission could do in the next 20 - I'm not.

I cannot think of a scientific objective achievable by one human mission not achievable by a series of 60 probe missions. Clearly, neither can you.

How about taking a core sample, and bringing it back to Earth? Sure, you can do it with probes, but how much will THAT cost? How about gathering such samples from 15 different locations in a 25 mile radius? How much will THAT cost? 10 times as much? 20? 30? How long will it take? At the present speed of the Mars rovers, probably about a century.

Just because costs have been low so far doesn't mean that they're going to stay consistent for all missions. Any time you need have a return mission, you're going to increase your costs, probably by an order of magnitude at the least. I don't think you truly appreciate the complexity and cost of the systems which would be needed to do these things. If your missions get complex enough, pretty soon you're looking at costs starting to approach those of manned missions.

More importantly, the primary purpose of sending manned missions shouldn't be scientific, but infrastructure development. Send them there with enough resources to set up a small building. Send a second mission with a small nuclear generator, a greenhouse, and supplies for setting up hydroponic gardens. Build yourself a nice outpost and you can have a small community doing all the science you like. Better yet, start with the moon and turn it into a launching pad for future missions. You'd massively decrease the costs of all future missions, both manned and unmanned.

As to the rest of your comment, I won't even bother. It's quite clear that we're speaking two different languages. It's not so much that we disagree on any specific points, but that you're either not understanding what I'm writing, or you're deliberately misinterpreting it. Either way, I'm out.

Re:Enough of these rovers...

[2short]

Please tell me what I'm misunderstanding or misrepresenting:

You think a sample return mission to Mars is "basically impossible" because of some conditions the don't apply to the Moon (where such missions have been done), and that these conditions can only be overcome by a human. These are conditions that NASA planners who have designed (and scheduled, before the challenger disaster threw them off) a sample return mission to Mars somehow overlooked.

Looking at your statements so far and taking them at face value, I really can't see what I'm distorting there so I would be genuinely fascinated to hear what these conditions are.

I suspect what is actually going on is that you had no idea sample return missions had been conducted to the moon and planned for mars. That's OK. It's fine to day dream about space exploration without much background knowledge. But you might not want to get offended if people disagree with your uninformed speculation.

My own knowledge of the state and difficulty of space exploration suggests to me that your Martian colony idea is not likely to be possible in our lifetimes for a cost of less than all the money in the world. I believe my knowledge of the state and difficulty of space exploration exceeds yours to a significant degree, and I will continue to believe that until you explain the magic conditions that make sample return missions to Mars "basically impossible".

Gernsbeck Continuum

[afabbro]

Reading that headline, "Spirit Stuck In Soft Soil On Mars," I thought I'd been transported back to a 1930s Northwest Smith story about a haunted being trapped in the Red Planet. Alas...no.

Re:Gernsbeck Continuum

[Anonymous Coward]

Reading that headline, "Spirit Stuck In Soft Soil On Mars," I thought I'd been transported back to a 1930s Northwest Smith story about a haunted being trapped in the Red Planet. Alas...no.

How old are you?

There is precedent

[edremy]

Grumman billed North American Aerospace for towing the crippled Apollo 13 command module back from the moon. Make it worth enough and I'm sure someone will be up there shortly

And I need to stop watching horror movies

[Daimanta]

I visualized an tortured spirit in Martian soil. ;)

FLOOR MATS!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could always drive over its own "hands" ...

The Big Bang Theory

[thespacemark]

Okay, it is pretty obvious that someone at NASA is a fan of the show, and figured if it worked for Wolowitz... Hey, surely 'I' won't be so stupid as to get the rover stuck. Maybe they will discover life on Mars while stuck in the dirt.

Rover Driver's Blog

[TrekkieTechie]

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.

Scott Maxwell, one of the rover's drivers, has a blog detailing the events of the mission exactly five years behind schedule.

Re:Rover Driver's Blog

[RockWolf]

Scott Maxwell, one of the rover's drivers, has a blog detailing the events of the mission exactly five years behind schedule.

I'd like to echo that - I've got it on my RSS feed, and I look forward to the postings. It's a fantastic read.

I'm pretty sure Scott has an account here at /.. Scott, if you read this, keep up the good work in the blog - it's a fascinating insight into what goes on inside NASA for those of us curious geeks who like to know what happens in one of the most iconic R&D organisations in the space game.

/~Rockwolf

Re:Rover Driver's Blog

[TrekkieTechie]

I'm always on the lookout for a chance to plug his blog. We need more Mars-related /. submissions!

Song dedicated to Spirit and Opportunity

[DanCentury]

I wrote a song about Spirit and Opportunity on my album The Secret Lives of Probes, Satellites and Rovers (2008). The song is called Good Life.

Free (as in beer) to download and share of course http://milkshakedaddy.rpmchallenge.com

Re:Song dedicated to Spirit and Opportunity

[Tablizer]

wrote a song about Spirit and Opportunity on my album...free...

If the song sucks, can we bury you in sand? ;-)
   

PATHETIC! Pathetic Earth vehicle!

[phrackwulf]

Zim laughs at your inferior Earth technology! Stuck in pathetic martian dirt.. with your.. grr.. pathetic.. wheels of smell. With worthless... Errh..! BOW BEFORE ZIM!!!!

Geocities is dead you moron

[Liath]

http://myweb.accessus.net/~090/as13/as13bill.png

Full glass

[camperdave]

...or, the glass is full - with an overfill safety margin of 100%

Mmm, Mars . . .

[Caffeinate]

Clearly they're finally through into the nougat layer.