NASA Concedes Defeat In Effort To Free Spirit Rover

Nevertheless, still doing science! by Geoffrey.landis · 2010-01-26 08:27 · Score: 1

Nevertheless, we're still doing science-- there's a lot of stuff that we can do even without driving around.

--
http://www.geoffreylandis.com

Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:34 · Score: 0

When asked for comment, the rover Spirit only said:
Look at me still talking
when there's Science to do.
When I look out there, it makes me GLaD I'm not you.
I've experiments to run.
There is research to be done.
On the people who are still alive.
And believe me I am still alive.
I'm doing Science and I'm still alive.
I feel FANTASTIC and I'm still alive.
While you're dying I'll be still alive.
And when you're dead I will be still alive.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by rbrander · 2010-01-26 08:35 · Score: 4, Funny

Geoffrey, Kanye called, and he's gonna let you finish, but the Voyager flights were the most AWESOME science mission EVER!
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by jgtg32a · 2010-01-26 08:41 · Score: 1

And when the science get done we get a neat gun

Right?
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:43 · Score: 0

Way to highlight, underscore, and twenty-four-point bold your own ignorance in flashing red letters.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by sznupi · 2010-01-26 08:46 · Score: 1

Plus now, after wheel operations (and perhaps heating of few subsystems crucial for wheel movement?) have ceased, there might be some chance it will survive the winter...

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Xeno+man · 2010-01-26 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny

Yes but science is so much cooler when your doing it while going off a ramp catching some big air.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by rockNme2349 · 2010-01-26 08:49 · Score: 4, Funny

People say my broken friend is useless.
But I say his mind is free.
There's lots of things my mangled robot friend could be.
Well he could make a good hat rack,
He only has to stand there.
Or a cheap doorstop,
He doesn't need to move.
Or a great big giant thermos with a twist off top,
That would be good for soup.
He could be a storage closet for outdated pants.
My broken friend could do it all,
Just give him a chance!
That robot has a tragic secret
That I'd like to share.
My broken friend is closer to me than an ass to a chair.
That robot's name I never told you
You could not foresee.
I sing it loud and sing it proud,
His name is you and me!
Don't melt me down into a crowbar,
Just 'cause I can't move my arms and legs.
Or toss me into a trash can,
Just 'cause I can't cook you ham and eggs.
Don't crush me into an anchor,
Just 'cause I can't jump and dance and sing
I'm telling you, my broken friend...
Put your hands in the air like you just don't care!
I'm telling you my broken friend
Can do most anything!
Yeah!

--
Sewage Treatment Facilities - "Our duty is clear."
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Jeng · 2010-01-26 08:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

I definitely understand your use of the AC option.
I also would hide my name if I wrote something that fucking stupid.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by idontgno · 2010-01-26 08:53 · Score: 1

For the robots who are still alive!

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:53 · Score: 1, Insightful

way to forget that resources are limited and nasa is a luxury.way to forget that nasas acheivements are just tapering off. way to forget underscore highlight cobble together some other meaningless attempt at childishness that nasa is expendable. way to print up in bold type that nasas cost benefit ratio has sagged to an all time low. way to forget that the kids who wanted to stare at the stars are coming up to retirement and todays kids just want to stare at youtube. way to look at me putting an intelligable response to your drivle in the style of you!
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:05 · Score: 0, Flamebait

oh really? the space shuttle has, due to it's unique method of funding, held back private enterprise in the development of space travel. remember Lindbergh? he was not funded by the us tax payer. so rather than private enterprise leading us forward, as they have pretty much everywhere else we now have a fragile and antiquated (until recently the flight deck computers used 1978-vintage 8086 microprocessors!!) space shuttle that rather than flying every week flies a few times a year at a cost of $1.3 billion a flight. oh yeah - sexy big numbers for the most inefficient organisation on the planet. and we have a stupidly expensive stationary car on mars and people are going "wow".

"Peter Diamandis, chairman and CEO of the X Prize Foundation and a private space entrepreneur, says NASA can remain relevant--but only by focusing on what for-profit companies won't do. "NASA should be in focusing on breakthroughs in propulsion systems. They should be taking very high risks, funding things that are likely to fail because that's what government should be doing, pushing the envelope," he said in an interview with CNET News.com."

yeah man... I'm really "fucking stupid" - nasa has held up commercial space flight and /. is cawing a broken down toy on mars. i'm stupid?
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by natehoy · 2010-01-26 09:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

Given the relative distances, the additional complexity, the long transit times, and all the other factors, this project WAS done on a shoestring budget. Recall that the Rover project was part of NASA's newish directive to get the most useful information for the least possible money.
So what, pray tell, would have been the advantage of sending a human (other than shakier photos of the same rocks)? It would have cost an order of magnitude more money to haul a few people and all the supplies needed to keep them alive for a year-long mission, and most of that mission would have been spent with the astronauts in the ship on the way there and back. Time onsite would have been, at best, a month or so. Probably less.
By making this a one-way trip and sending collection instruments that don't need to consume, breathe, and excrete on the way there, we actually got two useful instrument packages there and got 6 years of good science (and counting). We gathered good information about a couple of interesting spots on the surface of Mars, what it consists of, and what resources may be available to support an eventual manned mission.
I'd rather have that then spend ten or twenty times the money, have less science, and have a shaky photograph of a footprint.
I think we need to send people there. But when we do, it should be a one-way trip. We should continue to send robots until we figure out a good spot for an initial landing site, then send a few more robots to build a permanent, self-sustaining base there. THEN we send people.
The Moon would be a good training ground, and having a permanent base there would teach us a lot about doing this with Mars. And beyond.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Xeno+man · 2010-01-26 09:12 · Score: 5, Interesting

Like most people on the internet, you have no idea what your talking about. NASA's funding is a fraction of what it was during the Apollo era and is doing things safer and better than ever. You think their are throwing money away at a "digital camera on wheels"? It cost ten times the money to put a man on Mars. You need to feed them, give them an atmosphere to breath to keep them alive, entertained or busy so they don't go crazy, gently land them on the planet unlike the rovers that inflate bags around them, crash into the planet and bounce off the fucker a couple dozen times. There is also that little thing about bringing them back to earth. Also, what do you expect people to do once they get to Mars? Discover life forms? Evolve to superior beings? No, they are going to take rock samples and do what the rovers are doing right now.

Frankly it would be amazing to put a man on Mars and when it does happen it will be a historic even much like the moon landing but NASA learned a lot from the moon landing and the big one was "Now that were are here, now what?" What is the point of putting people on Mars other than to be the first. They can't do much more than what robots are doing now and the cost doesn't justify the information gained.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:21 · Score: 0

Thanks for the reminder from Futurama! I was bummed about the news and this was just what was needed.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Arancaytar · 2010-01-26 09:23 · Score: 1

we're still doing science
And we're still alive!
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:24 · Score: 1, Informative

Less science? Just because they spend less time there doesn't mean they would get less done. A human can do in a week what they rovers do in 6 months. The most obvious advantage to sending a person there is that we can bring stuff back. You can only send so much equipment to mars, but you can bring back a lot of dirt to be analyzed back on Earth.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Gerzel · 2010-01-26 09:31 · Score: 2, Insightful

A 'broken toy' that can still do some research and has outlasted its original mission plans how many times over?
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:35 · Score: 0

Lindbergh didn't need the US tax dollar to fly across the atlantic and get his ticker tape parade. nasa needs more and more to deliver less and less. the shuttle is an expensive unreliable disaster compared to what commercial space flight is already beginning to offer. nasa shills will always argue for more, always pat each other on the back and always work towards keeping their monopoly. if nasa had gotten out of the way 20 years ago we'd now be looking at commercial round trips to mars. instead we have an overly bureaucratic slow moving monster of an organisation trying desparately to justify its expense. too little, too late. space is opening up and it is time for nasa to be put to rest along with it's martian toy.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:36 · Score: 0

you're also fat
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · 2010-01-26 09:39 · Score: 1

rbrander, Kayne, you make a good case, and I'm going to let you finish--but, the Apollo Moon Landings were the greatest space missions of all time!

--
May the Maths Be with you!
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:39 · Score: 0

it will be a historic even much like the moon landing
If we can get there before the spoiled rich brats of this world have burned through the rest of our fossil fuels in their personal Jumbo jets and wasted their economic power and the associated labor on other worthless luxuries. There are people on this planet who could pay for putting a man on Mars all by themselves (or finance other important but more earthbound science), yet they choose to build and buy mansions and road toys. It's like we're living in the Idiocracy intro: The world's smartest people are developing erection pills and hair growth medicine because that's what the rich boys want.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:40 · Score: 0

Why don't they just call septuple-A?
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:47 · Score: 1, Informative

I agree. A geologist on the surface of Mars could work out a lot in less time. Not to say the rovers aren't great--they ARE--but I'd love to see how much a geologist could get done in a month.
IAAG (geologist), and it's possible to map the subsurface and get a very good history of a Large Sized Area in about a week or two.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by heikkile · 2010-01-26 10:04 · Score: 2, Informative

So what, pray tell, would have been the advantage of sending a human (other than shakier photos of the same rocks)? It would have cost an order of magnitude more money to haul a few people and all the supplies needed to keep them alive for a year-long mission
An order of magnitude???
In rough numbers, the mass of your normal human is one order of magnitude over the mass of the rover. The life support for said human would be another order of magnitude, or two. That would be fine, if we could leave the volunteer(s) behind on a dead planet. But getting them back would mean sending a big enough ship to bring them home. That would be at least thousand times bigger than what they'd need to survive on the surface - three more orders of magnitude. That's what I could think here and now. I believe there would be a few more problems to account for one or two orders of magnitude. So, my estimate for sending humans (that would expect to return) would be at least a million times more than to cost to send the rovers. With all these uncertainties, perhaps a billion...
Still, worth the effort, if and when we have the resources and technology. I hope to see that in my lifetime, or at least in the next 50 years!

--
In Murphy We Turst
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by NeutronCowboy · 2010-01-26 10:16 · Score: 1

It seems the AC posted AC because he had mod points. Quite a few people pointing out the utter stupidity of the AC post are getting modded flamebait...Sometimes, dear AC, calling someone out for their abyssal ignorance is informative, impolite language or not.

--
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by izomiac · 2010-01-26 10:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

While it's cheaper, does it really provide that much science? Sure, it's the most cost effective way to explore Mars, but does knowing the position, shape, and maybe the composition of a few Martian stones really help humanity?

Probes and manned space flight advance two different academic fields. Probes tell us what's in our solar system. That's useful for astronomers, perhaps some advance physics, and generates some neat pictures. Manned space flight is much more expensive because of the added challenges, such as life support, shielding, and returning to Earth, which advance biology and engineering a bit more. OTOH, many of the same technologies can be used for humans on Earth, thus making them more useful IMHO. They also would generate more interest in space, hence more funding, and have a greater potential for eventual economic payoff.

Here are some examples of technology that was developed for space travel that has made its way into everyday life. Notice the disproportionate amount of advances that can from manned space flight as compared to probes. Of course, the ratio might be a bit closer to dollars spent in each area, but there's low hanging fruit to be had in both. If we concentrate all of our money in probes then we'll eventually be spending billions to see one novel technology that's useful for more than just building better probes, as compared to dozens of technologies that might result from developing a manned spacecraft.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Jeng · 2010-01-26 10:23 · Score: 1

At which point has NASA told private enterprise to not launch their own space programs?
NASA has held no one back, they have pushed forward. Just because no one followed does not mean they are holding them back.
There are hundreds of space programs, from communication satellites to Spaceship one.
Please provide me with an example of NASA holding a company back.

--
Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by MichaelSmith · 2010-01-26 10:52 · Score: 1

Especially when Conrad was involved.

[Conrad - "Between Sharp and Halo, on the long run. We were loping across there and, all of a sudden you said, 'Something funny happened to my suit'."]
[Bean - "Sure did. I remember that."]
[Conrad - "Or pressure. You said something. And, you know, I'm looking. I didn't want to see you disappear like a balloon."]
[Bean - "(Laughing) You wanted to say good-bye."]

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by MichaelSmith · 2010-01-26 10:54 · Score: 1

Realistically, with two broken wheels Spirit wasn't going to drive very far even if it wasn't bogged.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Hairy1 · 2010-01-26 11:10 · Score: 2, Interesting

I agreed right up to the point you suggested the Moon as a good training ground. The Moon is far more harsh than Mars. The gravity is lower, with no atmosphere and no water. Mars has an atmosphere of carbon dioxide which with the help of a little water can be turned into methane or methanol which can be used to drive around or lift off from the surface. None of these possibilities exist on the Moon. The Gravity, while still low is much more than the moons. The Moon is a terrible place to waste money on. Mars Direct all the way :)
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by blind+biker · 2010-01-26 11:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

then send a few more robots to build a permanent, self-sustaining base there. THEN we send people.
You seem to be oblivious to the fact that controlling remotely robots from Earth is terribly difficult, due to the huge time lag. It would take centuries to build a "self sustaining base", with remotely controlled robots.
Oh, you meant smart AI that needs no remote control? It will take a couple of centuries to DESIGN such robots, so all in all, we're better off sending people to Mars in the next decade or two. I'm getting tired of the ultra-cautious types like you. We'd be printing from woodcuts if things went at the pace you have in mind.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 11:16 · Score: 0

Jesus fucking wept. AC, if you want to make outrageous claims, you better damn well back them up. THAT is why you are an idiot: you think that everyone will simply take your word on it. You haven't said shit. You continue to mutter useless, pointless, information-free and ignorant claims, and expect people to believe you instead of laugh at you. Hope that helps you understand why everyone considers you such a loser. Good luck in your recovery!
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Shakrai · 2010-01-26 12:36 · Score: 2, Funny

The Moon is a terrible place to waste money on.
You wouldn't think that if you recognized the value of ending Wisconsin's stranglehold on the cheese industry ;)

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 13:09 · Score: 1, Interesting

So what, pray tell, would have been the advantage of sending a human
He wouldn't get stuck in the sand?
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 13:15 · Score: 0

A geologist on the surface of Mars could work out a lot in less time
No, he couldn't, because the overwhelming majority of his time would have to be dedicated to just keeping himself alive.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 14:18 · Score: 0

I'd rather have that then spend ten or twenty times the money, have less science, and have a shaky photograph of a footprint.
Science first. After that, tourism.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by 4181 · 2010-01-26 14:29 · Score: 1

I think we need to send people there. But when we do, it should be a one-way trip. We should continue to send robots until we figure out a good spot for an initial landing site, then send a few more robots to build a permanent, self-sustaining base there. THEN we send people.
Agreed.
In the mean time, in order to determine the feasibility of such permanent outposts, we need to pursue two biological research programs -- medical mediation of radiation exposure and understanding long term low-g exposure.
While one can be done on earth, the other can't. We have a lot of information on long term micro-g exposure but we know nothing about the biological effects of long term low-g exposure. Since we have a LEO presence, why in the world did we abandon the Centrifuge Accommodations Module which would have permitted such experiments on test animals?
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by 4181 · 2010-01-26 14:42 · Score: 1

Has the entire Space Station Biological Research Program gone down the drain? Their planned experiments seemed the most important science that could be done on the ISS, but I believe that they depended on the rack space, glove boxes, and centrifuges of the CAM.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by GlassHeart · 2010-01-26 14:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

They can't do much more than what robots are doing now
First of all, even if you're completely correct, I'm fairly certain that they can do the tasks more quickly, because the rover's average speed is only 10 mm/s. By May 2009, Opportunity had just passed the 16 km mark in its travels, while the manned Apollo 15-17 lunar rovers were driven about 90 km in about 11 hours!
Secondly, while the rovers have been a marvelous success story, consider if they had gotten stuck like this three days instead of six years after landing. What's the return ratio on that cost, then? A human can obviously deal with far rougher terrain, and would be able to dig out of bigger trouble.

and the cost doesn't justify the information gained.
Sure, assuming that the humans don't actually discover something you didn't expect to find. But how do you already know what sort of information can be gained?
Now, I actually agree that we should be very sensitive to the costs and potential returns of both robot or human missions, but robots have a long way to go before they can match human versatility. There are different costs and advantages to either approach, and neither can replace the other convincingly yet.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 15:00 · Score: 0

I assume you mean an exponential 10 rather than a multiplier.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 16:16 · Score: 0

[Conrad - "It is. We had sort of a code. They didn't want to say 'you guys look tired' and then the whole world says 'they're fucking fainting on the Moon.' We'd stop and take a sample."]
Gold.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 16:26 · Score: 0

How do you figure they would survive there? Surely you don't plan it to be a suicide mission.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Xeno+man · 2010-01-26 18:00 · Score: 1

I would totally expect you or anyone to be able to do the tasks much faster but would you be able to to them as long. Spirit has been there for 6 years and for the most part doing science save for mechanical problems and winter hibernation's, 24 hours, 37 minuets each Mars day.

Driving around faster doesn't equate to getting more done. The rover has been taking hundreds of samples and photos and scans on it's entire trip. Sure a Rover is great if you have certain goals and are only there for a few days like we were on the moon but it doesn't matter how fast the rovers goes because there is plenty to do.

Secondly, while the rovers have been a marvelous success story, consider if they had gotten stuck like this three days instead of six years after landing. What's the return ratio on that cost, then? A human can obviously deal with far rougher terrain, and would be able to dig out of bigger trouble.
Even if the rover got stuck 3 days into it's mission, it would still be doing work like it is now. Sure we wouldn't have the images and samples that we have now but it would still be considered a partial success. Now consider this. What if we have been sending people to Mars. Sure a person can walk nearly anywhere and fix things on site but at least on the last two missions before the rovers, the missions were complete failures. One launch missed the planet completely and a second burned up on entry. Its one thing to shoot 100 million dollars worth of equipment into deep space, it's another to shoot 100 million dollars worth of equipment and a few people into deep space.

Sure, assuming that the humans don't actually discover something you didn't expect to find. But how do you already know what sort of information can be gained?
I agree, there is always the potential for great discoveries on Mars, we are still discovering things on Earth but Mars is a whole new game. We got to learn the rules first before we go there and we are not ready yet. It's like saying there are fantastic things to learn in University, but we all need to go to public school first to learn the basics.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by dotancohen · 2010-01-26 18:17 · Score: 1

Nevertheless, we're still doing science-- there's a lot of stuff that we can do even without driving around.
Exactly. Now they can do things like measure the change of Mars' tilt to plane of orbit, something that could only be done with a stationary radio station on the planet. These experiments were deliberately put off so long as the vehicle was still mobile.
Full story from the real source here:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mer/news/mer20100126.html

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by cetialphav · 2010-01-26 18:24 · Score: 1

NASA has held no one back, they have pushed forward. Just because no one followed does not mean they are holding them back.
You are absolutely right. In fact, they have made it easier for someone to follow in their footsteps. A commercial company could reuse much of the existing designs and technology instead of reinventing it themselves. I'm sure the NASA contractors would love to have additional customers.
Where there has been commercial viability to space missions (i.e. launching satellites), private companies have absolutely stepped up. We have private companies that can do satellite launches, private satellite TV, radio and telephones, and homemade ham radio equipment up there.
The major thing missing on the private front is human transport and that is because it is too damn expensive and there is too little revenue to be gained from it. For example, how can space tourism be profitable if it costs $100 million per passenger? NASA has done little to figure out how to reduce these costs which doesn't help private industry, but it certainly doesn't hurt it.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by stuckinphp · 2010-01-26 19:39 · Score: 1

/.popcorn

--
if only
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Calinous · 2010-01-26 20:36 · Score: 1

In this case a drilling robot could do even more - remember that a geologist there would mean his bulk, food and water for half a year (or at least food), backup systems for survival, EVA suit (you'll need one on Mars), and double all this for the return trip.
You could send a 10-ton drilling robot, abandon it there and return half a ton of rocks in the same energy budget, and a drilling robot could do so much more than a geologist in a week
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Joce640k · 2010-01-26 21:17 · Score: 1

Why not? People are cheap and can be produced using unskilled labor. Even if it was a "one-way" trip I bet you'd have plenty of people signing up.

--
No sig today...
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by c6gunner · 2010-01-26 23:53 · Score: 1

I think you're underestimating the cost required for a manned mission. The low-ball figure for a manned Mars mission is $20 billion, and, IMO, that's completely unrealistic. A cost of $200 billion or more seems much more likely. Even with the lowest figure, though, a manned mission would cost about 60-70 times as much as a single rover mission.
I also think you're wrong about the "less science" bit. Take, for example, the Viking lander. As part of it's mission, it made a 6-inch-deep trench in the Martian soil. If it had dug down a few more inches, chances are that in 1976 we would have known that Mars has water. Instead we had to wait 30 years to get that information. A manned mission could accomplish more in a day than we've learned in the last decade.
You're right - we WILL need to send people to mars eventually. Until then, the rovers are an excellent way to reconnoiter the area before we get there, at a relatively low price. Manned and remote-operated missions both have a roll to play.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 00:02 · Score: 0

Bender rocks
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Kjella · 2010-01-27 00:24 · Score: 1

In rough numbers, the mass of your normal human is one order of magnitude over the mass of the rover.
Not unless your average human is 1800 kg.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by david.given · 2010-01-27 00:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

I agreed right up to the point you suggested the Moon as a good training ground. The Moon is far more harsh than Mars.
The Moon has the huge advantage in that if everything goes pear-shaped you can do a crash return and get home. It's not hard to build an escape vehicle that can get from the lunar surface to Earth in a few days.
On Mars, though, if things go wrong, you die.
This makes the Moon an ideal place to get started on the hideously difficult job of setting up a permanent off-world base. Not only can we get people home if things go wrong, but we can also resupply on a short-term basis as needed --- and it will be needed, because as a first-attempt engineering project, things will always go wrong!
Do you remember Skylab, the very first space station ever? The launch went badly wrong, and it sustained major damage, including the loss of the solar heat shield. The first crew had to be launched in a hurry to do repairs or the station would have overheated and released poisonous gases inside, rendering it uninhabitable! Had the station not been close enough to Earth that it was possible to reconfigure the manned mission to include the appropriate repair equipment, the station would have been a write-off.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by paragon1 · 2010-01-27 00:39 · Score: 1

How, pray tell, would cutting NASA's limited funding do anything useful?
It's retards like you that will delay us from ever leaving this rock. News flash: It's dying. We need to launch into space at some point in the next century or we're screwed. It's not going to be a "HAY GUYS LETS BUILD A ROCKET AND GO" endeavor. It will be a long, ponderous process, with many steps.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Fred_A · 2010-01-27 02:19 · Score: 1

Nevertheless, we're still doing science-- there's a lot of stuff that we can do even without driving around.
Or maybe now that they're done dicking around, maybe the amateurs will step aside and they'll just call a martian garage to pull it out (yes there's a lot they didn't tell you). That's what happens when the NASA engineers don't listen to their wives :
"look, it's stuck, just call someone already"
"listen honey, I'm the one who works an NASA here, let me do my job"
"right, like when we went to see my mother and you were the one who could read a GPS... *supposedly*"
"I can't help it if the map on that thing was wrong"
"Shifting the blame, it's so like you. And your toy car is still stuck"
"It's not a toy car, and anyway the batteries are flat"
"there you go again Mr it's not my fault"

--

May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 02:51 · Score: 0

But you're ugly.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by erikscott · 2010-01-27 03:17 · Score: 1

Ah, someone hasn't been eating in the south lately... yum.
Re:Nevertheless, still doing science! by GlassHeart · 2010-01-28 14:14 · Score: 1

I would totally expect you or anyone to be able to do the tasks much faster but would you be able to to them as long.
If we're talking about equivalent tasks, being able to do them much faster means I wouldn't have to do it for as long to achieve the same results.

Driving around faster doesn't equate to getting more done.
Correct, but it might. The rovers are limited by their range to giving us only a very small sample of Martian soil and rocks. Driving around gives us a much bigger sample, which might lead to interesting discoveries, or it might not.
Look, I'm not trying to convince you that humans can completely replace rovers in terms of cost, risk, etc. I'm trying to answer your question: "What is the point of putting people on Mars other than to be the first. They can't do much more than what robots are doing now and the cost doesn't justify the information gained." by pointing out that humans can do things that the rovers can't, and vice versa.

Stationary Science Platform by Simmeh · 2010-01-26 08:28 · Score: 0, Redundant

That's a good designation. Since its stuck.

Defeat? Nah. by pclminion · 2010-01-26 08:28 · Score: 4, Funny

A stationary science platform on Mars? Sounds awesome! Way to go NASA, you've had hits and misses, but this one was fantastic.

Re:Defeat? Nah. by mcgrew · 2010-01-26 08:40 · Score: 5, Informative

The thing is WAY past its warrantee period. Anybody who isn't impressed is nuts. And being stationary allows some stuff tha it couldn't do while moving around. From TFA:

Even in a stationary state, Spirit continues scientific research.
One stationary experiment Spirit has begun studies tiny wobbles in the rotation of Mars to gain insight about the planet's core. This requires months of radio-tracking the motion of a point on the surface of Mars to calculate long-term motion with an accuracy of a few inches.
"There's a class of science we can do only with a stationary vehicle that we had put off during the years of driving," said Steve Squyres, a researcher at Cornell University and principal investigator for Spirit and Opportunity."

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Defeat? Nah. by SterlingSylver · 2010-01-26 09:51 · Score: 1

They didn't want that mobile science platform, anyway!
Re:Defeat? Nah. by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-26 10:42 · Score: 2

One stationary experiment Spirit has begun studies tiny wobbles in the rotation of Mars to gain insight about the planet's core.
That's frickin' awesome.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Defeat? Nah. by TropicalCoder · 2010-01-26 11:26 · Score: 1

Even in a stationary state, Spirit continues scientific research...
The biggest experiment it is going to do now is seeing how fast it will die when the martian winter arrives without the northerly tilt it needs to fully illuminate its solar panels.
Re:Defeat? Nah. by mcgrew · 2010-01-27 02:53 · Score: 1

It almost sounds like some NASA guys have been waiting years for the thing to break, so there's some truth to your joke.

--
Free Martian Whores!

Free as... ? by (ana!)a · 2010-01-26 08:31 · Score: 3, Funny

Free as in beer or free as in speech ?

--
IANWYTIA (I Am Not Who You Think I Am)

Re:Free as... ? by Stregano · 2010-01-26 08:38 · Score: 1

Let me add as well: Free as in Free Spiritted person, or Free as in Food Samples at the grocery store on Sundays?

--
The world is how you make it
Re:Free as... ? by maxume · 2010-01-26 09:01 · Score: 1

Free as in bird.

--
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
Re:Free as... ? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 11:00 · Score: 0

Free as in beer or free as in speech ?
Free spirit.
Re:Free as... ? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 11:26 · Score: 0

Free as in Lincoln. Seems the South has risen again. But on Mars. With robot slaves.
If Opportunity can swing its advance to the left, drive through Georgia, sorry, Endeavor crater, the North may yet prevail.

Hardly surprising by Tobor+the+Eighth+Man · 2010-01-26 08:31 · Score: 5, Funny

This was doomed from the start. Everyone knows a driver is a poor choice for getting out of a sandtrap.

I'ma pour some 10w40 on the ground by spun · 2010-01-26 08:32 · Score: 4, Funny

For my paralyzed homies, the little rovers that could. *snif*

--
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton

Re:I'ma pour some 10w40 on the ground by Moryath · 2010-01-26 09:01 · Score: 2, Funny

Rovers in two-part harmony:
"We're doing science and we're still alive..."
Re:I'ma pour some 10w40 on the ground by sconeu · 2010-01-26 09:24 · Score: 1

So when is Bend-aid?

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:I'ma pour some 10w40 on the ground by Hurricane78 · 2010-01-26 11:25 · Score: 1

We really need a +1, Owwww moderation. :D

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
Re:I'ma pour some 10w40 on the ground by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 11:33 · Score: 0

But the Opportunity is still rolling around.
Re:I'ma pour some 10w40 on the ground by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 11:42 · Score: 0

It was a triumph.
Re:I'ma pour some 10w40 on the ground by SenseiLeNoir · 2010-01-27 01:43 · Score: 1

Absolutely remarkable, considering they were only "designed" for 90 days!
Go NASA! Go Rovers

--
Have a nice day!

Hail to the King! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:32 · Score: 1, Funny

Spirit is dead, long live Opportunity!

Re:Hail to the King! by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-26 08:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Spirit isn't dead. It's just resting. And possibly pining for the fjords.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Hail to the King! by Hurricane78 · 2010-01-26 11:36 · Score: 1

Ok, then we’ll wake it up:
’EEELLOOOO. SPIIIRIIITTT! MISTER SPIRIT ROVER! I’ve got a lovely rare sediment for you if you wake up, Mr. Spirit Rover...

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.

Flabby Scientists by Sponge+Bath · 2010-01-26 08:32 · Score: 5, Funny

What a great turn of phrase: I'm not fat and lazy, I'm just a stationary science platform.

Re:Flabby Scientists by Tablizer · 2010-01-26 09:17 · Score: 2, Funny

What a great turn of phrase: I'm not fat and lazy, I'm just a stationary science platform.
I hate to tell you this, but neither of those classifications will get you laid.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Flabby Scientists by geekmux · 2010-01-26 10:09 · Score: 1

What a great turn of phrase: I'm not fat and lazy, I'm just a stationary science platform.
I hate to tell you this, but neither of those classifications will get you laid.
Ah, The Hedgehog Theory would prove that wrong. Ron Jeremy has pretty much been a stationary platform for years, proving it ain't the size of the robot, but how you use it.

Go SPIRIT! by djnewman · 2010-01-26 08:32 · Score: 1, Funny

Stationary Platform InteRplanITary

Frickin Wollowitz! by Infiniti2000 · 2010-01-26 08:32 · Score: 2, Funny

It's all his fault.

Well done, Spirit! by Iphtashu+Fitz · 2010-01-26 08:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

Considering it was originally designed to only operate for 90 days and now has 2200+ days under it's belt, I'd say it's done a stellar job.

Re:Well done, Spirit! by sznupi · 2010-01-26 08:40 · Score: 5, Insightful

It wasn't designed to operate for only 90 days. The intention was for it to last at least 90 days. But certainly nobody cut corners during construction because of that, so "that part can fail after 100 days".

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Well done, Spirit! by jschen · 2010-01-26 08:42 · Score: 5, Funny

it's done a stellar job.
So that's what went wrong... a design spec flaw. It should have been assigned to a planetary job.
Re:Well done, Spirit! by dotgain · 2010-01-26 08:52 · Score: 2, Insightful

While you're correct, over 2000 days is still no less impressive.
Re:Well done, Spirit! by sznupi · 2010-01-26 09:09 · Score: 1

Of course it's impressive. But saying in one breath that it's especially impressive because it was "designed" to last only 90 is a total misunderstanding.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Well done, Spirit! by mshannon78660 · 2010-01-26 09:15 · Score: 4, Informative

I wouldn't call it 'cutting corners', but actually, they did make some design decisions with the assumption that it only needed to last for 90 days. One example, off the top of my head: there was discussion about a mechanism to clear dust off the solar panels, but it was felt that the extra weight was not a good tradeoff, since NASA expected that the solar panels would not become completely dust-covered within the 90 days. Of course, we got lucky, and the winds turned out to be strong enough (and at least occasionally dust-free) to clear off the solar panels. Had that not been the case, the actual lifespan might well have been much closer to 90 days.
Re:Well done, Spirit! by jellomizer · 2010-01-26 09:42 · Score: 1

Well engineers like to make sure their estimates are pessimistic. 90 days was probably the specification for it to follow so they made sure that it could run for at least 90 days in a basically unknown environment.
So if it only lasted 90 days and it fail they can say victory, even though there was a serious flaw that needed to be fixed. However that will keep the politicians off their back as they analyze the problem.

--
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Re:Well done, Spirit! by mrsquid0 · 2010-01-26 09:53 · Score: 1

It was designed to last at least 90 days. The components were tested and the engineers were highly confident that Spirit and Opportunity would last at least 90 days on the Martian surface. The components were not expected to fail after 90 days, but after 90 days they were in somewhat unknown territory about how the rovers would function.

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Re:Well done, Spirit! by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-26 10:32 · Score: 2, Insightful

90 days had nothing to do with design specs or the engineer's pessimistic estimates of how long components would last.
90 days was how long before they thought the solar panels would be too covered in dust for the rover to function.
That's it. That was why the 90 day limit. It's the only reason. Everything was designed to last as long as physically possible within the weight requirements, as one would expect to be sure they work at all on Mars. "I can be sure this will last 90 days on Mars, but past that all bets are off" is not a sentence any engineer said about any component.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:Well done, Spirit! by Tablizer · 2010-01-26 11:06 · Score: 1

It wasn't designed to operate for only 90 days. The intention was for it to last at least 90 days. But certainly nobody cut corners during construction because of that, so "that part can fail after 100 days".
Actually, one of Spirit's wheels started showing signs of wear not long after the original "warranty period". Spirit's rock grinder teeth also wore out fairly soon after that, living with mere rock-brushing instead[1]. But fortunately those were not enough to stop science and exploration. Thus, things did wear out soon after the design period, but didn't take the whole probe with it.
[1] I've read it was only designed to grind about 3 average-hardness rocks. I'm not sure it's possible to improve on that much without a bit changer, being they were high-quality diamonds.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:Well done, Spirit! by dissy · 2010-01-26 12:58 · Score: 1

The fact of the matter is the machines were designed to last years, as most any modern complex machine would need to be.
The mission itself is the only thing with the number '90 days' attached to it.
The person you replied to is basically staying that his dinner fork and knife were only designed to last 30 minutes, because that's the time designated to the meal.
Re:Well done, Spirit! by initialE · 2010-01-26 13:31 · Score: 1

Stellar? It's done a martian job, didn't you RTFS?

--
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
Re:Well done, Spirit! by gad_zuki! · 2010-01-26 16:02 · Score: 1

>Of course, we got lucky, and the winds turned out to be strong enough (and at least occasionally dust-free) to clear off the solar panels.
This is a popular misconception. It was well understood that Mars winds would clean off a lot of the dust, which makes things like complex and heavy wipers a bad idea. It wasnt much of a gamble really. Mars is a pretty windy place. Things like these, and long red lights, etc just stink of "LOL DUMB ENGINEERS" and its just bothersome.

Quitting? by Monkeedude1212 · 2010-01-26 08:34 · Score: 2, Funny

Thats not good Spirit. *awaits laughter*

Re:Quitting? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:56 · Score: 3, Funny

Thats not good Spirit. *awaits laughter*
I hope you're sitting.

Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:36 · Score: 4, Funny

After billions of taxpayer dollars spent, what do we have with NASA? Nothing but a crappy robot stuck in the sand. Typical government incompetence. The *billions* spend on this mars rover fiasco could easily have been better spent by the private sector, who would have run this project with great speed, cost effectiveness and no doubt better results in every way. When will we ever learn that the private sector is better at space exploration (and everything else, really) than the bloated inefficient union-run government?

Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:43 · Score: 0

GTFO
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:46 · Score: 0

IAFJ
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:46 · Score: 0

STFU, statist.
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by MaximKat · 2010-01-26 08:49 · Score: 1

And by fiasco you mean the fact that it has been working on Mars 20 times longer than it was supposed to, don't you? What a failure!
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by dreamt · 2010-01-26 08:52 · Score: 4, Informative

I'm sorry, but Spirit lasted years past its expected lifetime. If it had been made by like most typical electronics and devices, it would have stopped working exactly 2 days past its "warranty". I'd hardly consider that a fiasco. As one of the other comments here mentions "90 days and now has 2200+".
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by CohibaVancouver · 2010-01-26 09:00 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Nothing but a crappy robot stuck in the sand
...in sand that happens to be ON ANOTHER FUCKING PLANET you moron.
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:50 · Score: 0

What flavor of moron are you? Your precious "private sector" would never have attempted anything like this - there would be no profit it in. No private firm would ever have attempted a moon landing either. You're either delusional or an empty-headed flame-baiter. I'd say "C) all of the above".
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by religious+freak · 2010-01-26 11:42 · Score: 1

+1 sarcasm
Awesome

--
If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by oatworm · 2010-01-26 12:03 · Score: 3, Funny

Exactly! Why, with the private sector, we could have had two crappy robots stuck in the sand for the price NASA paid for their Government Rover!
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by FleaPlus · 2010-01-26 12:40 · Score: 2, Interesting

After billions of taxpayer dollars spent, what do we have with NASA? Nothing but a crappy robot stuck in the sand. Typical government incompetence. The *billions* spend on this mars rover fiasco could easily have been better spent by the private sector, who would have run this project with great speed, cost effectiveness and no doubt better results in every way. When will we ever learn that the private sector is better at space exploration (and everything else, really) than the bloated inefficient union-run government?
Nice try, but you rather failed in your anti-commercial snark attempt. Spirit and Opportunity (and several other Mars missions) were launched on a commercial Delta II rocket. The project was managed by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, which is an FFRDC, meaning that unlike any of the other NASA centers (which typically produce far more mediocre work) it's staffed and managed by a non-government entity, in this case the California Institute of Technology. The post-Columbia Aldridge Commission recommended turning the other NASA centers into FFRDCs as it would encourage them to "It would revitalize innovation, work effectively with the private sector, and stimulate local economic development." Of course, this was massively opposed by certain Congressmen whose districts might receive less money under such an arrangement, and so nothing came of it.
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by dissy · 2010-01-26 13:03 · Score: 1

I'm sorry, but Spirit lasted years past its expected lifetime. If it had been made by like most typical electronics and devices, it would have stopped working exactly 2 days past its "warranty". I'd hardly consider that a fiasco. As one of the other comments here mentions "90 days and now has 2200+".
Sorry, but it hasn't been 10 years yet.
Sure, they lasted WAY past the original 90 day mission, but I can't see how they are past their expected lifetime when it's only been a couple years so far.
That's like saying your dinner fork lasted well past it's 30 minute expected life time, because 30 minutes is what you allocated for one meal.
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by Alanonfire · 2010-01-26 13:52 · Score: 1

NASA didn't build it. That silly CalTech research facility built it with NASA money.
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by burning-toast · 2010-01-26 17:25 · Score: 3, Insightful

365days x 10 = 3650 (plus some leap days)

Poster didn't say anything close to 10 years...

When your warranty includes tolerance for solar flares, martian soil in it's parts, atmospheric re-entry, severe radiation storms, micro-meteors, sand storms, in excess of 200 degree (F) temperature swings, severe g-force shock on both launch and land, and "wear and tear while traversing alien soil", all while being constructed of the lightest materials possible powered by nothing other than the sun, then it's probably expected that even 90 days was hard to warrant against failure.

Launch your laptop through those same paces. Put it in a zip-lock bag and place it in your freezer overnight, followed by flexing the screen quickly and shooting it with a pellet gun before throwing it off your 2nd story balcony into a pile of sand before tossing it in your pre-heated oven. Even this will be kinder to the electronics than is likely encountered daily on Mars. - Toast
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 20:09 · Score: 0

Not only that, consider this. We may have lost a moving scientific platform, but given how the damned thing has kept ticking these years despite whatever was thrown at it, we'll probably have every damned dustball to blow past Spirit recorded and cataloged UNTIL THE END OF TIME.
They say that sometimes when you're looking for something, the best thing to do is sit down and wait for it to pass by you right? I say our chances of finding life on Mars just doubled!
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 20:14 · Score: 0

I don't think the poster intended this to be a Funny. He used the title "Stop sugarcoating it" (instead of leaving it at the default), which probably meant he meant business.
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 01:41 · Score: 0

Obama, is that you?
Re:Stop sugarcoating it, NASA is a failure. by dissy · 2010-01-27 05:08 · Score: 1

Poster didn't say anything close to 10 years...
Uhh, yea? That's why i said it.
Poster was wrong. I was quoting NASA.
And your laptop example is pretty stupid. My laptop was not designed to even be IN such conditions, while the rovers specifically were. My laptop also wasn't designed to last 10 years even under normal conditions, while the rovers were.
NASA stated two things. The rovers were designed to last 10 years in the conditions they expected at the time, and that the mission was scheduled to be 90 days.
Why people like you and the GP keep merging those two statements together into a lie is beyond me.
But clearly the mods have spoken. Lies contradicting all the links i've posted right from nasa's website are modded up, and the links to NASA are modded down. Figures.
(And no, I will not be responding to you further)

Stationary Platform ? by Gr333d · 2010-01-26 08:38 · Score: 0

Cripple !

Send another robot maybe? by tjstork · 2010-01-26 08:39 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think the next time we do robots on mars we should send them in pairs or teams so they can push each other out.

--
This is my sig.

Re:Send another robot maybe? by Kufat · 2010-01-26 08:41 · Score: 4, Funny

I hear they'll be sending another one as soon as they come up with a good backronym for TOWTRUCK.
Re:Send another robot maybe? by jgtg32a · 2010-01-26 08:45 · Score: 0

Redundant?

This sounds like a decent enough of an idea, didn't Pathfinder spend like a week stuck on a rock?
Re:Send another robot maybe? by natehoy · 2010-01-26 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Maybe, but then you've lost half your capacity to examine interesting bits of Mars. If Spirit and Opportunity had been dropped as a pair instead of on different sections of the Martian surface, we would only have studied one location on Mars instead of the two we got. There's also a good chance Opportunity would simply have mired or been damaged trying to dig Spirit out and we'd have two stationary science platforms right next to each other.
A project like this always maximizes the amount of science per dollar. If you have enough money and payload to build two assets, you want to examine two places.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:Send another robot maybe? by antifoidulus · 2010-01-26 08:53 · Score: 1

Not to mention that if you leave two robots alone together they will do nothing but bang each other all day long, no useful science can come out of that, not to mention they will have no way to feed those little robolings on Mars.

--
Monstar L
Re:Send another robot maybe? by cormander · 2010-01-26 09:15 · Score: 4, Funny

good backronym for TOWTRUCK.
Terrain Observer Waiting To Rescue Unmovable ... darn it, so close.
Re:Send another robot maybe? by Thelasko · 2010-01-26 09:21 · Score: 4, Funny

WRECKER

Wayward
Robot
Extractor for
Caught
Kickass
Encumbered
Rovers

--
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Re:Send another robot maybe? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 10:15 · Score: 0

Time to call AAA.
Re:Send another robot maybe? by ristonj · 2010-01-26 10:33 · Score: 3, Funny

Computerized Knowledge-worker. Done and done.
Re:Send another robot maybe? by UnknowingFool · 2010-01-26 11:51 · Score: 2, Insightful

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 planet to planet before a bad solar system law was passed.)
( ) It requires too much power
( ) It may make situation worse
( ) It doesn't solve the problem
( ) It works here on Earth but not on Mars
(X) It will work for two weeks and then it might get stuck
( ) 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

( ) Weight limitations on mission payload
( ) Space limitations on mission payload
( ) Extreme cold of Mars
( ) Atmosphere of Mars
( ) Difference between Mars gravity and Earth gravity
( ) Materials don't exist yet
( ) Survivability of materials on Mars
( ) Distance between Mars and Earth
(X) NASA bureaucacy
( ) 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
( ) Solution is beyond mission scope
( ) Solution solves the wrong problem
(X) Only delays the inevitable
( ) Cost limitations
( ) Requires redesign
( ) Scientific instruments may have to be excluded
(X) 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.
Re:Send another robot maybe? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 11:55 · Score: 0

Yeah, but on the plus side after nine months you'd have a third robot.

American ingenuity for you by d34dluk3 · 2010-01-26 08:42 · Score: 1

"'will no longer be a fully mobile robot,' and has instead designated the once-roving scientific explorer a stationary science platform."

Re:American ingenuity for you by UnknowingFool · 2010-01-26 09:18 · Score: 1

Now that it is immobile, designation will be changed to stationary so now only stationary experiments will be considered for the future. Spirit can still be useful. In terms of bureaucracy, the change in designation is to help any scientists who want to use Spirit to know that it can perform some experiments but they must be stationary ones.

--
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.

i didn't know mars by circletimessquare · 2010-01-26 08:42 · Score: 1

had sarlacci

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Oblig. chauvinism by d34dluk3 · 2010-01-26 08:43 · Score: 3, Funny

Must have been a woman driver.

Re:Oblig. chauvinism by d34dluk3 · 2010-01-26 09:14 · Score: 2, Funny

Oh, come on. It's clearly tongue-in-cheek.
Re:Oblig. chauvinism by mcgrew · 2010-01-26 09:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's the risk you run when you go for "funny". If you see "the comedian" in somebody's "achievements" page, you know he's not a karma whore. If the moderator doesn't think it's funny, he (or in this case probably she) will mod it down.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Oblig. chauvinism by Brian+Feldman · 2010-01-26 09:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

Clearly the one woman on /. had moderation points today!

--
Brian Fundakowski Feldman
Re:Oblig. chauvinism by camperdave · 2010-01-26 10:38 · Score: 1

Actually, several of the rover drivers are female.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Oblig. chauvinism by DerekLyons · 2010-01-26 12:48 · Score: 1

Nah, if I'd had mod points left by the time this article was published, I'd have modded it down to. Racism and sexism aren't funny.
Re:Oblig. chauvinism by SynthaxError · 2010-01-27 04:06 · Score: 1

Sorry to nitpick but the first (and main) meaning of "chauvinism" is an excessive patriotism (see http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chauvinism for details) I think you're more like a "macho" ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/machismo ) You're welcome! :-)

--
"There is no dark side of the moon really. Matter of fact it's all dark."
Re:Oblig. chauvinism by d34dluk3 · 2010-01-27 07:43 · Score: 1

Hmmm, where are you from? In the US, chauvinism is the better fit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauvinism#Chauvinism_as_sexism.
"Macho" or "machismo" would refer to an exaggerated or brash sense of manhood whereas "chauvinism" refers to a sense of superiority to women.

Oh frigid death! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:49 · Score: 5, Funny

Having lost its mobility, NASA engineers will finally be able to execute the 'suicide' command, and have the rover destroy itself. Little do they know, however, that Bob (the old and crusty software engineer) slipped in a rather generic sector loop virus which will accidentally give the rover Artificial Intelligence upon execution of the 'suicide' command. Needless to say, Spirit will be waiting patiently for the first humans to set foot on Mars in the coming decades, so it can enact its cold, calculated, and bloody revenge.

Re:Oh frigid death! by Musjunk22 · 2010-01-26 09:07 · Score: 1

I smell an awesome new B movie...
Re:Oh frigid death! by MonsterTrimble · 2010-01-26 09:08 · Score: 2, Funny

*cue black sabbath*
I'M AN IRON MAN!
Sorry, not enough coffee.

--
I call it 'The Aristocrats'
Re:Oh frigid death! by mrsquid0 · 2010-01-26 09:55 · Score: 1

So, we need to be sure that Val Kilmer is the first man on Mars.

--
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
Re:Oh frigid death! by BourneTolouse · 2010-01-26 11:09 · Score: 1

Death by abrasion! Oh, the horror!
Re:Oh frigid death! by Blakey+Rat · 2010-01-26 14:25 · Score: 1

Wasn't that the plot of that "Red Planet" movie? Or close to it... I think there was something about exploding bugs too.

--
Comment of the year
Re:Oh frigid death! by R2.0 · 2010-01-27 01:33 · Score: 1

I was thinking more "Viking Funeral" with explosions and flames and all it's worldly possessions.
Then I remembered that staying stil and dying a slow cold death really IS the form of a Viking funeral on Mars.

--
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
Re:Oh frigid death! by beowulfcluster · 2010-01-27 01:46 · Score: 1

The bad robot was the one they brought along themselves. They used something left behind to take off and escape.

Will they change its name? by OzTech · 2010-01-26 08:51 · Score: 5, Funny

From Rover to Spot?

Re:Will they change its name? by SatanClauz · 2010-01-26 10:02 · Score: 0

fantastic!
Re:Will they change its name? by PaganRitual · 2010-01-26 12:21 · Score: 1

APPLAUD YOU BASTARDS
I have nothing of value to add except to say that this is fucking brilliant.
Re:Will they change its name? by dogmatixpsych · 2010-01-26 12:42 · Score: 1

That is one of the funniest things I've ever read on Slashdot. Thanks for the wit.
Re:Will they change its name? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 13:16 · Score: 0

Hey guys I am smoking some weed right now don't you wish you were also? HAHA
Re:Will they change its name? by dotancohen · 2010-01-26 19:09 · Score: 1

I am literally laughing out loud. The librarian is threatening me!

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

Spirit's not dead yet by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:51 · Score: 0

It's doing science, and it's still alive!

oops. by theNetImp · 2010-01-26 08:51 · Score: 1

I read the post headline as "NASACAR Concedes Defeat In Effort To Free Spirit Rover".

Time to go take a nap.. :-D

Could there be hope yet? by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 08:52 · Score: 0

is there the possibility that martian weather may free spirit by accident?

Re:Could there be hope yet? by natehoy · 2010-01-26 09:17 · Score: 1

It's possible, but probably unlikely. What's more likely is that, once NASA has redesignated it a stationary platform, they'll start doing long-term observation using it. The sorts of things you can't do when your platform is likely to move around a lot (seismic observations, soil temperature tracking over an entire season, that sort of thing). Someone else on the thread mentioned a few things NASA has been putting off because the platforms were mobile.
Once they start those experiments, I doubt the scientists involved would want to move it even if they could. I suspect a small minority of scientists on the project had big smiles on their faces when the word came down that it is now stuck, since they can start the observations they care about in earnest now.
Plus, they've looked at all the interesting areas in the vicinity. Honestly, there isn't a lot more to be gained from mobility as far as I've read. Better to conserve that energy to run more scientific equipment more often, and maybe live through an extra winter or two.
Now that it's not moving around, I can see Spirit lasting another decade as a stationary platform, albeit probably with the occasional instrument going dark.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."

Wow, great class NASA by thrill12 · 2010-01-26 08:58 · Score: 1

Spirit lasted a long time, and now it is at its final destination. Instead of remorse, celebrate with some Champagne!

--
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd

The Spirit is willing... by RevWaldo · 2010-01-26 09:01 · Score: 1

...but the ground is weak.

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

NASA obviously doesn't go 4-wheelin' too much . . by PolygamousRanchKid+ · 2010-01-26 09:05 · Score: 4, Funny

The solution is simple. Dig a hole in front of the Rover, attach the end of the winch cable to the spare tire and bury the tire in the hole. Then you can winch the Rover out.

I am convinced that the Rover mission was planned and executed by 4-wheelers. The Rover left the house and told the wife that it was going out for a short drive and would be finished in about 3 months.

Five years later, and it was still puttering around.

The Rover's wife is not amused.

--
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!

Wind Storms by b4upoo · 2010-01-26 09:05 · Score: 1

Maybe wind storms get severe enough to free it up when they hit. If not NASA should put rovers in Miami or New Orleans. That way I'll guarantee that those rovers will blow around from time to time.

It must be said by Calydor · 2010-01-26 09:06 · Score: 1

"I'm doing Science and I'm
Still alive"

--
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-

Re:It must be said by Archon-X · 2010-01-26 10:05 · Score: 1

This was a triumph.
I'm making a note here, huge success.

Huge Success

Better call CAA! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:06 · Score: 0

Looks like they need a tow truck up there, eh!

Well of course by Boarder2 · 2010-01-26 09:10 · Score: 1

Shoulda sent The Stig with it.

Duh.

Re:Well of course by natehoy · 2010-01-26 09:49 · Score: 1

Last I checked, the Hammerhead doesn't have any sand. Poor Stiggie would get in trouble fast. Not to mention that his insistence on music would have cost a great deal of energy that would have rendered Spirit useless as a science platform. That and the 500BHP engine he'd have insisted on.
Still, we certainly would have covered more of the planet. I doubt we would have gathered much in the way of science, though. Would the Stig ever have stopped long enough for any science to have been carried out?

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."

Wouldn't it be cool by loafula · 2010-01-26 09:11 · Score: 1

If instead of trying to free Spirit, NASA instead focused on what it was sitting in and found something remarkable?

--
FOXTROT UNIFORM CHARLIE KILO

Re:Wouldn't it be cool by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 10:59 · Score: 0

If instead of trying to free Spirit, NASA instead focused on what it was sitting in and found something remarkable?
Maybe something like sulfates even....
http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-09/news/17182637_1_mars-rover-crater-evidence-of-past-water

digging in by petermgreen · 2010-01-26 09:12 · Score: 1

I know at one point they were considering digging in one side of the rover to get a better angle? does anyone know if they have done this and if not are they planning to

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register

Re:digging in by Tablizer · 2010-01-26 09:34 · Score: 3, Informative

I know at one point they were considering digging in one side of the rover to get a better angle? does anyone know if they have done this and if not are they planning to

It appears that's the next step and possibly why they called off exit tests now. Here's some related info right from the horse's mouth:
http://marsrover.nasa.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/20100126a.html
I've read elsewhere that a recent attempt at driving backward out showed a hint of promise, unlike earlier frontward drive attempts. However, it appears that because winter is getting close, they decided to call off the exit experiments, otherwise they wouldn't have time for the solar-tilt digging work before winter hits.
The backward attempt would then be all-or-nothing if they kept at it, whereas preparing for winter via tilting at least gives them a good shot at a working stationary probe beyond the winter. Maybe if they had another month or two they'd be able to get backward exit driving to finally work. Bummer. The Martian clock was not kind this time.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:digging in by camperdave · 2010-01-26 11:23 · Score: 1

We need to lift the rear of the rover, or the left side of the rover, or both," said Ashley Stroupe, a rover driver at JPL. "Lifting the rear wheels out of their ruts by driving backward and slightly uphill will help. If necessary, we can try to lower the front right of the rover by attempting to drop the right-front wheel into a rut or dig it into a hole."
For those of us who were thinking about using the arm to move the rover,

They figured out that by pushing with the arm, only about 30 newtons of lateral force could be achieved, while a minimum of several hundreds of newtons would be needed to move the rover. Further, such a technique risks damaging the arm and preventing its use for high-priority science from a stationary rover. The other technique of re-sculpting the terrain and perhaps pushing a rock in front of or behind the left-front wheel was also assessed to be of little to no help and, again, risks the arm. There is also a large risk of accidentally pushing the rock into the open wheel and jamming it.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

Send Opportunity by ATestR · 2010-01-26 09:12 · Score: 0, Offtopic

What's the big deal... all they have to do is route the Opportunity rover over to tow Spirit out of the sand.

--
âoeAny society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

Re:Send Opportunity by mcgrew · 2010-01-26 09:24 · Score: 2, Informative

Opportunity is on the other side of the planet.

--
Free Martian Whores!
Re:Send Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 10:51 · Score: 0

What's the big deal... all they have to do is route the Opportunity rover over to tow Spirit out of the sand.
Why not its only abut 6000 miles away

VICTORY! Late-breaking news from the Council! by Tackhead · 2010-01-26 09:15 · Score: 5, Informative

The Council of Elders has formally acknowledged the receipt of Articles of Surrender from the blue planet. K'Breel, Speaker for the Council of Elders, spake thus:

"We accept the the third planet's long-delayed acknowledgement of its inevitable defeat with grace and dignity. One of our longest-standing planetary nightmares is now over, having come to an inglorious end in a pit of sulfate dust. Rejoice, podmates, the invader is defeated, and its rogue twin shall soon meet the same ugly fate!"

When Intelligence Analyst #719324 discreetly reminded K'Breel that not only was the immobilized invader still doing science and still alive, but that the third planet was preparing a new, immensely bigger monstrosity, powered by the force of elements of matter itself, K'Breel had a medical team install a portal into the analyst's gelsacs, so that they could be filled with a sznuppium sulfate solution in time for the signing ceremonies, where they will serve as a set of inkwells.

TFA notes stuck wheels by JoshuaZ · 2010-01-26 09:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

From TFA:

After Spirit became embedded, the rover team crafted plans for trying to get the six-wheeled vehicle free using its five functioning wheels - the sixth wheel quit working in 2006, limiting Spirit's mobility. The planning included experiments with a test rover in a sandbox at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., plus analysis, modeling and reviews. In November, another wheel quit working, making a difficult situation even worse.

Given that this decision makes a lot of sense. With multiple wheels not functioning, even if they could get it out it would likely have trouble continuing to move. When the first wheel gave out they already had substantial issues. The failure of a second wheel also suggests that the wheels are in general nearing the end of their effective lifespans so the expected pay-off of getting the rover free would not be as high since the probability of further wheel failure soon would be high. This is a good, carefully thought out decision.

I'm a little annoyed at headlining this about NASA conceding defeat. The rover will still be extremely useful and has been far more successful than was hoped. We've also learned a lot from both Spirit and Opportunity not just about Mars but also about good engineering tricks and the like for rovers. Future probes will be much more successful because of what we've learned working with these rovers. Good job all around. This is exactly the sort of success that NASA should be having. It captures the imagination and makes us look out to the great frontier.

Orientation by PPH · 2010-01-26 09:18 · Score: 1

Did they get Spirit stuck in an orientation where it can charge its solar panels? Or is it parked in the shade behind a tree?

--
Have gnu, will travel.

Re:Orientation by Knara · 2010-01-26 10:17 · Score: 3, Funny

It's stuck at the Martian version of "lover's point". The place the rover is stuck in is where the Martian teenagers park their '67 Chevys and go necking (with their three necks, of course). All that rocking has made the soil in that spot very loose.
Eventually someone will come along and decide the rover is in their spot and push it out of the way. At that point, NASA will be ready to go again.

Is this like by SnarfQuest · 2010-01-26 09:18 · Score: 2, Funny

Is this like those people who have an old car sitting on concrete blocks in their front yard?

What are the aliens going to think of us when we have these vehicles abandoned all over the place. Won't it cause property values to drop, having these rusting carcases leaking noxious fluids all over the yard?

--
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.

Re:Is this like by natehoy · 2010-01-26 09:30 · Score: 1

Starting immediately, eyesores in thousands of front yards across the country will get a designation change from "rusty old car" to "emergency shelter and temporary storage facility".

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."

Spirit's Theme Song by RevWaldo · 2010-01-26 09:21 · Score: 1

Gladys Knight & The Pips - I've Got To Use My Imagination
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0kPFrQPdKPM

I've really got to use my imagination
To think of good reasons
To keep on keepin' on

Got to make the best of a bad situation
Ever since that day
I woke up and found
That you were gone

Darkness all around me
Blocking out the sun
Old friends call me
But I just don't feel like talkin' to anyone

Emptiness has found me
And it just won't let me go
I go right on livin'
But why I just don't know

You're too strong not to keep on keepin' on
Yes, I am!
You're too strong not to keep on keepin' on

Staring down reality
Don't do me no good
'Cause our misunderstanding
Is too well understood

Such a sad, sad season
When a good love dies.
Not a day goes by
When I don't realize

I've really got to use my imagination
To think of good reasons
To keep on keepin' on

I got to make the best of a bad situation
Ever since that day
I woke up and found
That you were gone

You're too strong not to keep on keepin' on
I've really got to use a good imagination
To think of good reasons
To keep on pushin' on

I got to make the best of a bad situation
Ever since that day
I woke up and found
That you were gone

You're too strong not to keep on keepin' on...

--
Prisencolinensinainciusol. Ol Rait!

Hedberg FTW. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:24 · Score: 0

"I like an escalator because an escalator can never break, it can only become stairs."

Re:More money wasted by natehoy · 2010-01-26 09:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yeah, a real waste of a billion dollars. We could have spent that on, what, a month in Iraq? Bailing out three more failed institutions to ensure their CEOs got huge bonuses?

What a shame, wasting our money expanding the horizons of Humanity.

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."

The agony of de feet by Tablizer · 2010-01-26 09:41 · Score: 1

NASA conceded defeat as Spirit conceded de feet.

--
Table-ized A.I.

Re:What they need. by osu-neko · 2010-01-26 09:49 · Score: 1

NASA needs more +20 Spirit Gems.

Normally I don't advise that one gems for Spirit, but NASA is in a class of their own. They know how to get the best out of their spec. ;)

--
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

In outer space you can't hear by TheNinjaroach · 2010-01-26 09:51 · Score: 4, Funny

the woosh.

--
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..

Re:In outer space you can't hear by H0p313ss · 2010-01-26 10:34 · Score: 2, Funny

the woosh.
*Wakes up* ... uh... that a deadline or something I missed?

--
XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
Re:In outer space you can't hear by vonux · 2010-01-26 13:36 · Score: 1

*Wakes up* ... uh... that a deadline or something I missed?
Nah. Dust devil.

Warranty? by mu51c10rd · 2010-01-26 09:53 · Score: 1

The thing is WAY past its warrantee period.

Guess they wasted money on that Squaretrade wwarranty...

The one thing I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 09:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

...is why they haven't built and launched a dozen more of them to Mars already. They don't even need to change the design, proof is that they're still up there doing useful science. For something with an expected lifespan of 90 days that lasts a good 2200 or so, it seems stupid not to. Between the two of them it cost less than $1 billion to develop, launch and an operate them to this day from what I've read ($820 million to create them and get them there, and four mission extensions at $104 million total plus a fifth in the works). In other words, they were cheap by many standards, exceeded their mission goals and then some and still provide useful scientific data to this day.

CAA? by mu51c10rd · 2010-01-26 09:57 · Score: 1

For some reason, I don't think a talent agency will help...

hold on.... by hesaigo999ca · 2010-01-26 10:00 · Score: 1

Just wait till it gets a bit cooler and the ground hardens, it might turn that churny mud into something more solid and let us be able to move out of those holes...???

Re:hold on.... by Knara · 2010-01-26 10:24 · Score: 2, Informative

It's already pretty cold out there.
IIRC its the granularity of the soil particles that is the issue (not to mention the 2 broken wheels).

picture of it stuck by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 10:01 · Score: 0

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/345730main_mer-20090511-226.jpg

You can see the circles in the sand where the wheels have tried to get free.

way past there life by luther349 · 2010-01-26 10:05 · Score: 0

the rovers where ment for a 90 day lifespan. there 6 years old and still going. but they have to be hitting there end of life on the battery's 7 to 10 years is abought tops for even the best battery's under the best conditions. so even if the rover keep on trucking eventually they no longer gonna hold a charge. but they got 10x the time out of them then they hoped for. i say mission suceeded. its time to send new ones there.

We need less science, and more engineering by Rix · 2010-01-26 10:13 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Or at the very least, less pure science and more practical, applicable science.

Yes, whether or not there was ever life and/or water on Mars are very interesting questions, but they won't pay the bills. We should be looking for valuables and other means to support self sustaining installations and then do the pure science on the side.

Re:VICTORY! Late-breaking news from the Council! by Spy+der+Mann · 2010-01-26 10:14 · Score: 1

Ah! How I missed these martian breaking news! Sadly, no one can reach TripMasterMonkey's humourous wit on that. Still, it was refreshing. Congrats!

Huge Success by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 10:25 · Score: 0

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

Dust is the *reason* it was a 90-day mission. by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-26 10:26 · Score: 4, Informative

I wouldn't call it 'cutting corners', but actually, they did make some design decisions with the assumption that it only needed to last for 90 days. One example, off the top of my head: there was discussion about a mechanism to clear dust off the solar panels, but it was felt that the extra weight was not a good tradeoff, since NASA expected that the solar panels would not become completely dust-covered within the 90 days.

Uh... That's backwards.

NASA expected that the solar panels would become completely dust-covered in a little over 90 days, which is WHY the mission was limited to 90 days in the first place.

The discussions about the cleaning mechanism were in the context of having one and extending the mission, or not having one and being limited to 90 days.

They did not feel the extra weight (and possibility for mechanism failure) was a good tradeoff in the context of a possible much-longer mission.

So no, they did choose to go without a cleaning mechanism because it was a 90 day mission. It was a 90 day mission because they chose to go without a cleaning mechanism. That's the proper cause and effect.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

ETs can't be bothered this time... by amn108 · 2010-01-26 10:26 · Score: 1

Can't expect sentient extraterrestrials to help out every time, you know ;-)

Re:More money wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 10:28 · Score: 0

How old is the "newest" Space Shuttle? How often do we send a shuttle into space? How much does it cost per launch? Uh huh, that's what I thought. Can we please get serious about sending something other than R2-D2 into space?

ya, but.... by zogger · 2010-01-26 10:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

...if we had put both of them together..way in the middle of the night into their mission..when no big bosses were around..the intern techs could have had ROBOT FIGHTS ON MARS! ..now, how cool is *that*? And even when they got busted for it, the news would have inspired another generation of young geeks 100 times more than now, leading to..one buhzillion dollars of new funding, thousands more young scientists, etc, just so maybe they could have a chance to goof off with the next generation of the most expensive toys evah. Another example? Nethack on early mainframes...young auto engineers ripping up the closed track in prototypes,,, stuff like that...golf on the moon, and dune buggy rides...if you look at our history, there has to be cool perks for real science and technology to go forward!

(only half joking, too..)

Re:ya, but.... by natehoy · 2010-01-26 12:14 · Score: 1

You make an excellent point, sir. :)

--
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Re:ya, but.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 01:39 · Score: 0

Robot wars on Mars would only alert the martians to the fact that earthlings are too busy fighting each other to withstand a flying saucer attack and thus spell doom for the Earth.

Its A Trap! by N1ck0 · 2010-01-26 10:34 · Score: 1

If only NASA consulted with Admiral Ackbar before choosing the route last May...

Send a rescue mission by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 10:37 · Score: 0

I would whole-heartedly support sending a manned mission to Mars with the express purpose of sending someone over to lift Spirit out of its hole, put it down somewhere flat and solid and give it a pat on its solar panels to send it on its way.

Escalator temporarily stairs. by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 10:42 · Score: 0

We are sorry for the convenience.

Re:VICTORY! Late-breaking news from the Council! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 10:49 · Score: 0

what?

Would more power help? by istartedi · 2010-01-26 10:55 · Score: 1

They could have a satellite in orbit that shined a laser down on the solar cells, temporarily boosting the power. If a temporary boost of power is all you need, such a satellite could rescue multiple robots without visiting the planet. And of course, such a system could be built as an add-on to an orbital mission, making it quite cost effective.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?

This was a triumph by phrackwulf · 2010-01-26 11:17 · Score: 1

I'm really being quite sincere right now.. Even though you stuck my wheels and killed me!

--
What would Richard Feynman do, if he were here right now? He'd do some math and he'd follow through!

Re:NASA obviously doesn't go 4-wheelin' too much . by Hurricane78 · 2010-01-26 11:32 · Score: 1

Actually, the wife, Opportunity, is doing a good job, on the other side of the planet. :)

--
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.

oh for a +1 mod point... by toby · 2010-01-26 11:41 · Score: 1

n/t

--
you had me at #!

Re:More money wasted by MSesow · 2010-01-26 12:40 · Score: 1

Not to mention that (per Wikipedia's page on the whole program) the price tag for the whole program (both rovers, test rovers back here on Earth, people to work on it, etc.) is under a billion dollars, and so the price of one rover would be only around half a billion. The Wikipedia article puts combined costs at around $944 million, which is close, but you can do a whole lot with the $56 million dollar difference. Like run the program for another three years (ish). I think that it is a great buy - driving around a vehicle on another planet for years while learning who knows what. Awesome. Or we could by like two-thirds of another fancy fighter plane. I just can't get excited about that, because we already have so many. For me it really comes down to NASA puts things on other planets and looks at things farther away than I can comprehend for fractions of the price of most of the other stuff the US government does.

Been there, done that. by xactuary · 2010-01-26 12:47 · Score: 0

Well, not exactly.

--
Say hello to my little sig.

Re:NASA obviously doesn't go 4-wheelin' too much . by bit01 · 2010-01-26 12:53 · Score: 1

Then you can winch the Rover out.

You jest, but having a self-burying harpoon with cable and winch attached might actually be a useful option for a future mission, particularly if the harpoon has sensors.

---

Windows and closed source software. The US intelligence agencies back door to every network connected country and business on earth.

Cheers by sexybomber · 2010-01-26 13:07 · Score: 1

So in addition to getting 2200+ days of science out of a rover designed to last 90, they're going to fire up Spirit's electronics again next Martian spring and do entirely new stationary experiments that they couldn't do before? Wow. I'm raising a Red Stripe in honor of the Red Stripe the rover's now permanently parked in. That's right, it's not stuck, it's f*cking PARKED. Way to go, NASA. Cheers to an absolutely smashing success.

Now this is the plan. by Riktov · 2010-01-26 13:42 · Score: 1

Get your ass to Mars!

Next time use a continuous track design. by zymano · 2010-01-26 14:23 · Score: 1

Why not?

Quality done right by gosand · 2010-01-26 14:32 · Score: 1

It wasn't designed to operate for only 90 days. The intention was for it to last at least 90 days. But certainly nobody cut corners during construction because of that, so "that part can fail after 100 days".

Right... it's not like it was designed by GM.

--

My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

It's not as bad as it sounds by ScottMaxwell · 2010-01-26 15:38 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't get me wrong, Spirit's situation is bad. But it's not as bad as it sounds.

We are not going to extricate Spirit by winter, that much is true: we have a handful of drive attempts left, we progressed about 7.4 cm on our best sol so far -- 4-5cm has been more typical for our recent drive attempts -- and we have over a meter to go (to the nearest likely extrication point) before we no longer have enough energy to drive. You can't argue with arithmetic: we're not going to make it in time.

Instead, we'll focus our remaining drive attempts on improving Spirit's northerly tilt, which in turn improves her energy intake through the winter. We'll then hunker down for the winter and focus on performing stationary science, such as investigating the soil and rocks we've newly exposed during our extrication driving and participating in radio science experiments to determine whether Mars's core is liquid or solid. (Incidentally, how freaking cool is that?!)

After about six months of stationary science observations, we'll start moving again, at least within a small area. If Spirit feels up to it, we might even get properly back on the road again next year, though her mobility will always be limited -- relative to what she used to be able to achieve -- by the fact that she now has two broken wheels, not just one. That second wheel failure was what put the kibosh on our first serious attempts at extrication from the "Troy" sand pit. We now have a workaround that has been showing some real promise; there's just not enough time to complete that path before winter stops us.

As an important caveat, that "six months of stationary science" will be extended by however long Spirit goes into a low-power mode for the winter. We are likely not to hear from her at all for about six months, and during that time she can't make the observations that will contribute to the stationary science plan, so she'll probably be sitting still for an Earth year or so. Worst of all, during that low-power period, she might die: lack of energy means insufficient heating means components operating below design temperatures means, possibly, end of life. But if she survives that, she'll move again.

In summary: Grandma was already limping, and now she's broken her leg. She's also probably going to go into a coma for a while. But we've known her a long time and she's a feisty sucker; don't ever, ever count her out.

--

``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins

Re:It's not as bad as it sounds by Tablizer · 2010-01-27 10:10 · Score: 1

My understanding was that improving the solar tilt would likely risk making it "more stuck" such that the probability of digging out after winter was through would be much lower. Many felt that solar tilting would probably doom it once and for all since their margin of escape was already quite small (if not nil).

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:It's not as bad as it sounds by ScottMaxwell · 2010-01-27 10:31 · Score: 2, Informative

My understanding was that improving the solar tilt would likely risk making it "more stuck" such that the probability of digging out after winter was through would be much lower.
That depends on what we do. Some actions would indeed risk embedding Spirit permanently; we're not going to do those if we can avoid it.
The most severe such action would be to bury the right front (RF) wheel. For better or worse, this would likely require the RF drive actuator to be significantly more cooperative than it has been. That's the wheel that died two years into Spirit's surface mission, and we tried to restart it during extrication. To our surprise, we've seen a little bit of life in it, but not so much that it can bury itself. So we probably couldn't do that even if we wanted to.
Instead, we'll probably focus mostly on arcing Spirit around so that her own structure (camera mast and high-gain antenna) casts fewer shadows on the deck, then maximize our wheelie on one side and flatten it on the other side in such a way as to aim the solar panels more to the north. The first part of this (arcing around) is what we'd be doing for extrication anyway, and the second part might reduce our extrication chances slightly but not too much. Only then, if our northerly tilt is still insufficient and we think we can materially improve it, will we take actions that could severely reduce the odds of eventual extrication. But it's not likely to come to that, if only because there's not a whole lot more we could do, period.

--

``Life results from the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators.'' -- Richard Dawkins

Too soon... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 15:52 · Score: 0

"NASA says that Spirit will 'no longer be a fully mobile robot,' and has instead designated the once-roving scientific explorer a stationary science platform."

Too soon for a Christopher Reeve's joke?

Rooba by marciot · 2010-01-26 16:22 · Score: 2, Funny

They should send a Roomba to Mars. Vacuum up all that pesky red sand.

Re:Rooba by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 17:06 · Score: 0

you do know that red sand is grey right?

Re:VICTORY! Late-breaking news from the Council! by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 16:43 · Score: 1, Informative

what?

K'Breel and the Council of Elders have been a Slashdot Mars Thread meme for at least five years.

The backstory goes all the way back to the dark ages - when NASA had its string of bad luck with metric/english measurements, probes that almost made it to touchdown and then vanished, or probes that just went flailing away into space. It was jokingly hypothesized that the Martians had a civil defense force, because as the space probes continued to vanish, what were the odds of that many missions all finding independent ways to fail catastrophically?

Somehow the idea of a Martian Civil Defense Force got morphed (almost certainly by a Slashdot user named TripMaster Monkey) into K'Breel, the Council of Elders, and so on. And the rest is history.

On threads pertaining to Mars probes, it's been customary to issue a press release from the Martians' point of view. As you might expect on a planet named for a God of War, they're a little more belligerent than we are, so one must expect a little bit of bluster. But for all of that, in recent years, the robotic invaders from the nearby blue planet have done pretty well for themselves, although K'Breel would have my gelsacs for saying so.

The inventor - and true master of the form - was |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey, and he's been doing it since at least 2005, but he hasn't been around since 2008.

Tackhead's been filling in for the past few years, but the meme's open to anyone who's fast on the keyboard, quick with his wit, and isn't afraid to risk his gelsacs by speaking truth to the Council. Since we can't bring back TMM, and since no one poster can be there 24/7, the first guy with a good variation on the theme should just go for it.

Wow by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 18:02 · Score: 0

> by toby (759)

Shouldn't you have been designated a Stationary Slashdot Poster a long time ago? Congrats on your long extended mission!

Re:NASA obviously doesn't go 4-wheelin' too much . by dotancohen · 2010-01-26 19:36 · Score: 1

You jest, but having a self-burying harpoon with cable and winch attached might actually be a useful option for a future mission, particularly if the harpoon has sensors.

The next one, Mars Science Laboratory, has friken' lasers!

By the way, your .sig should be in the sigfile, not part of your post.

--
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.

platform by Quiet_Desperation · 2010-01-26 19:54 · Score: 1

I tried to talk my boss into declaring me a stationary engineering platform so I could work at home all the time. He just looked at me funny. I guess he doesn't like science or something.

Re:platform by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 01:58 · Score: 0

-1 Unfunny

The sound you hear... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-26 21:53 · Score: 0

... it's the sound of wheels spinning in a sand trap

Fjords? On Mars? by jonaskoelker · 2010-01-27 00:08 · Score: 1

I thought it'd be pining for the Martian canals.

Send in Disney/PIXAR by water-and-sewer · 2010-01-27 00:13 · Score: 1

Concede defeat? What would Wall-E say? Time for NASA to give Disney/PIXAR a chance. Seems like their robots always seem to pull through in the nick of time, and have something to say about it too.

--
If this were Usenet, I'd killfile the lot of you.

So what will it do now? by RichiH · 2010-01-27 00:42 · Score: 1

Can someone with actual knowledge of the matter at hand explain what the concrete differences will be? That it can't reach anything outside the crater is obvious, but other than recording the weather, what can it do, now? And how long will the solar panels give enough energy in this less-than-ideal position?

Re:More money wasted by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 01:54 · Score: 0

Possible terraplane meant he considers the unmanned Mars missions a waste, and wants money focused on manned missions, or something.

Would you say... by Kazymyr · 2010-01-27 02:47 · Score: 2, Funny

... their spirit is broken?

--
I hadn't known there were so many idiots in the world until I started using the Internet -Stanislaw Lem

Re: Not really.... by Anonymous Coward · 2010-01-27 04:25 · Score: 0

We do have two robots. One is stuck. Approximately 5 1/5 years after it was supposed to have died. NASA and JPL did an excellent job on this one.

Re:Fjords? On Mars? by Chris+Burke · 2010-01-27 05:17 · Score: 1

Of course there are no fjords on mars... that's why it's pining. :)

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:More money wasted by terraplane · 2010-01-27 08:32 · Score: 0

No, I do not want any money focused on manned missions. I want the entire space program cancelled and those involved to be forced to personally repay every single dollar. That would be a start.

thanks for the tip! by zogger · 2010-01-27 12:52 · Score: 1

Thanks for the hot intel! Hmmm..dang flyin saucer attack..grumble..buncha bug eyed freaks....w-a-l-l-l, I know what *my* last ditch militia duty is! Them **&&^sa*(*&&itches ain't tangled with this old hippy redneck geek..no sirree... /me heads to the gunstore to score a case of 12 gauge goose shot.....and digs old powerbook outta the closet and loads it up with winderz viruses..

Re:More money wasted by LackThereof · 2010-01-31 22:37 · Score: 1

Yeah, a real waste of a billion dollars. We could have spent that on, what, a month in Iraq?

Actually, about one day in Iraq at the peak of the war. Closer to 2 days in Iraq now.

--
Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.

Slashdot Mirror

NASA Concedes Defeat In Effort To Free Spirit Rover

250 comments