Slashdot Mirror


NASA Gives Mars Rover Extra Smarts

coondoggie writes "NASA today said it upgraded the software controlling its Mars Rover Opportunity to let it make its own decisions about what items like rocks and interesting red planet formations to focus its cameras on. The new system, which NASA uploaded over the past few months, is called Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science, or AEGIS and it lets Opportunity's computer examine images that the rover takes with its wide-angle navigation camera after a drive, and recognize rocks that meet specified criteria, such as rounded shape or light color. It can then center its narrower-angle panoramic camera on the chosen target and take multiple images through color filters, NASA stated."

116 comments

  1. What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by eldavojohn · · Score: 5, Funny

    Good upgrade but I really gotta question the added 'inferiority complex routine' listed in the release notes that requires the rover to periodically contemplate its ultimate fate and update a twitter feed where NASA engineers can either encourage the rover or ridicule it.

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Hey, as someone said: Don't anthropomorphize machines, it's the one thing they *really* hate.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    2. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by bakawolf · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Guess what's worse than linking to XKCD?

    3. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your face?

    4. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science, or AEGIS

      I know -- I know -- using fucking stupid-ass backronyms like "Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science, or AEGIS".

    5. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The holocaust?

    6. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by Kymermosst · · Score: 1

      I am going to start a group named TERRA

      Terrestrial Earthlings for the Reduction of Retarded Acronyms.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    7. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not linking to XKCD.

    8. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Howard the Duck?

    9. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      asking a question and not answering it?

    10. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 1

      I am going to start a group named TERRA

      Terrestrial Earthlings for the Reduction of Retarded Acronyms.

      Would TERRA aprove of our new group's acronym? Reasonable Efforts To Address Ridiculous Decisions & Standards

    11. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      What about the Foundation for the Invention of Really Simple Texts to be Posted On Slashdot by Trolls?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    12. Re:What's This Line in the Release Notes About? by jpl166 · · Score: 1
  2. I for one by c++0xFF · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...welcome our newly upgraded martian overlord.

    1. Re:I for one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I for one hate asshats who insist on putting half their post in the subject line. Why do you insist on being an idiot?

      FAIL.

  3. Technology behind this? by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Can anyone give any insight behind how they perform upgrades like this?

    I'm sure we all have a "friend" who has bricked a router doing something. Thankfully my Sheeva Plug has JTAG built in and was able to get to the interface through that.

    Send everything, checksum it and then flash? If something goes wrong (solar wind) is there a very basic firmware that sits and listens? Probably some basic security so the Chinese can't sit there and flood it with fake update requests?

    I'm sure stuff is a lot more fun when pings aren't measured in seconds or minutes.

    1. Re:Technology behind this? by NEDHead · · Score: 3, Funny

      Geek Squad goes on site, does a full backup, and certifies successful update.

    2. Re:Technology behind this? by Saishuuheiki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, the code they're uploading would be higher-level processing that would just control what it does, not how it does it. Think of it as re-writing the main subroutine, but all the other functions are the same.

      No doubt then there's still error handling to escape the process to return to normal control, and the code-upload area would be separate so even if that part froze, you could overwrite it.

    3. Re:Technology behind this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Please tell me it's a one-way trip.

    4. Re:Technology behind this? by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      I'm sure they have a rudimentary OS in the rover, which likely remains unchanged. They probably designed the rovers with future updates in mind, and fail-safes for bad flashes due to solar interference, etc. Even if not, NASA presumably designed a very simple earth communications interface to be a separate system from the mechanical controller, so even if the robot gets stuck in a loop or something there is a from-earth reset button.

    5. Re:Technology behind this? by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      While true, I don't think thats quite what he was asking about.

      He means, if they lose a packet, or if it is going to recieve false data from other countries - how does NASA handle it? The latency between here and Mars is high enough that something like TCP is impractical and UDP doesn't really preform for an update, so what protocol are they using to transmit upgrades that has enough security built into it?

    6. Re:Technology behind this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A standard technique in telecom gear for safe upgrades is to keep two copies of the software load. To upgrade, you erase one copy (still keeping the other one), download the new version, verify the new version, and only when it's secure, you erase the remaining old copy and make a second copy of the new one. The boot routine is smart enough to find a valid copy. (The truly paranoid will put these two copies in different hardware devices with a watchdog timer mechanism to toggle between them.)

      Errors during transmission are usually handled by some sort of ARQ in the download protocol.

      Cheap consumer electronics might not bother with the extra flash space for two copies; hence the "don't turn the power off during the upgrade or you'll brick your box" warnings.

    7. Re:Technology behind this? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      I don't know for certain about these two Rovers but if it's like other NASA hardware there are two computers and a very basic system that is supposed to automatically switch to the backup if the primary doesn't respond for a while. Just only update one of the computers at a time and you are ok.

    8. Re:Technology behind this? by robot256 · · Score: 5, Informative

      There are multiple levels of software on the rover. There is a failsafe module to turn everything off if it runs out of power, there is a bootloader OS to handle software crashes and give memory dumps to ground controllers, there is the main OS that runs the vehicle, and then there are scripts the main OS can run. This is one of the scripts.

      Note that the summary says they spent "months" uploading the new software--they did it very meticulously, in chunks, with checksums, and probably read back the whole memory before giving it execute permissions.

      If you were keeping up with the news when they launched the rovers, you might remember that they launched with only the bootloader installed--they actually uploaded the vehicle OS mid-flight before they reached Mars. So something like this isn't a big deal once it's been tested within an inch of its life to get "flight" qualified. The big deal is that they actually got it that far--NASA has historically been very reluctant to give their craft any more autonomy than absolutely necessary. Hopefully we are turning a corner on that.

    9. Re:Technology behind this? by DrVomact · · Score: 1

      Can anyone give any insight behind how they perform upgrades like this?

      FPGAs, of course. It's a test of SCORPION STARE...or maybe the rover ran into something that had to be handled with extreme dispatch. You can read the details here. WARNING: I am not responsible for any consequences that may ensue from your accessing this information without sufficient clearance.

      Here's an abstract:

      This document describes progress to date in establishing a defensive network capable of repelling wide-scale incursions by reconfiguring the national closed-circuit television surveillance network as a software-controlled look-to-kill multiheaded basilisk. To prevent accidental premature deployment or deliberate exploitation, the SCORPION STARE software is not actually loaded into the camera firmware. Instead, reprogrammable FPGA chips are integrated into all cameras and can be loaded with SCORPION STARE by authorised MAGINOT BLUE STARS users whenever necessary.

      --
      Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
    10. Re:Technology behind this? by hey! · · Score: 1

      Question:

      Can anyone give any insight behind how they perform upgrades like this?

      Dr. Zen's Answer: No.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    11. Re:Technology behind this? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Even NASA can't afford those incompetent thieves. Last night I was in the bar, and Bill says he took his new multimedia computer back to Best Buy because the sound going from the HDMI to the TV had stopped after a Windows update. They charged him $135.00, which he didn't know was to reinstall the original, perfectly good driver that Microsoft had replaced with one that didn't work! Microsoft did that to me with XP several years ago; I told him NEVER let Windows Update change anything that isn't security related. I also said a few other choice things about Microsoft as well, but I won't add them here.

      I told him next time call me, I'd save him $135 and a trip to Bust Buy. It would have taken them all of five minutes (if that) to solve it, assuming they had a ghost of a clue as to what they were doing.

    12. Re:Technology behind this? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      The big deal is that they actually got it that far--NASA has historically been very reluctant to give their craft any more autonomy than absolutely necessary. Hopefully we are turning a corner on that.

      I wouldn't bet on it.

      Remember "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that"?

      Well, they do.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:Technology behind this? by Ruvim · · Score: 1

      It would require too much soda and junk food to get them to that to service that order.

    14. Re:Technology behind this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Even NASA can't afford those incompetent thieves. Last night I was in the bar, and Bill says he took his new multimedia computer back to Best Buy because the sound going from the HDMI to the TV had stopped after a Windows update. They charged him $135.00, which he didn't know was to reinstall the original, perfectly good driver that Microsoft had replaced with one that didn't work! Microsoft did that to me with XP several years ago; I told him NEVER let Windows Update change anything that isn't security related. I also said a few other choice things about Microsoft as well, but I won't add them here.

      I told him next time call me, I'd save him $135 and a trip to Bust Buy. It would have taken them all of five minutes (if that) to solve it, assuming they had a ghost of a clue as to what they were doing.


      I don't believe that story for one second! Everyone knows that the Geek Squad wouldn't know how to fix a problem like that.

    15. Re:Technology behind this? by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Informative

      Send everything, checksum it and then flash? If something goes wrong (solar wind) is there a very basic firmware that sits and listens?

      Probably something like:

      1. Verify the hell out of the code on an emulator.
      2. Verify the hell out of the code on the engineering testbed (a rover computer sitting on a table).
      3. Verify the hell out of the code on the engineering development rover (a real rover at JPL running on various simulated terrains).
      4. Send everything, twice. Compare one copy to the other. Checksum each copy received twice. Send the checksums to Earth twice. After receiving the enable and execute codes (which have protections of their own) from Earth, flash it from data storage into firmware. Checksum the firmware twice. After receiving the enable and execute codes from Earth (which have protections of their own), transfer control to the new software (keeping in mind the OS is robust and has various protection features of it's own to prevent apps from bricking the computer and limited protect against trashing the rover).

       
      Seriously, the only people who take validating the code and the authority to execute it more seriously than NASA are the guys at the launch control consoles out in the missile silos and SSBNs.
       
      But they don't beat NASA by much. NASA's unmanned branch does take lessons learned pretty seriously (they've bricked probes before), and when the budget allows does things the right way.

    16. Re:Technology behind this? by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D · · Score: 1

      I know NASA used Reed-Solomon codes for the old Voyager probes. Maybe they're using something more efficient these days, but I'd have to imagine they'd be using error-correcting codes of some sort in whatever custom protocol they've devised. It would be ludicrous to use simple error-detection (necessitating a retransmit) at that latency.

      As for the software itself, the Mars rovers just run VxWorks, right? Once you've got the code uploaded I'd think it'd be as simple* as restarting the process.

      * Yes, I'm sitting in my pyjamas eating a bagel right now and describing what NASA does as "simple". Suck it!

    17. Re:Technology behind this? by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Informative

      They upload the new program, it sits in storage and then is checked, if OK then they schedule a time to do the software install. if the software installs wrong it falls back to the last known good program.

      It's like a motherboard with "crash proof" or "dual bios" but with a lot of checking and waiting and testing.

      That's the 10,000 foot view of how it works, you can find online a more detailed article on how the rovers are designed.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    18. Re:Technology behind this? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Probably not wanting people to know they have a sort of networked hubs floating in space, that work like routers all picky backed to one another, so they can send the info to the rovers by way of digital waves of sorts. If everyone knew, they would try to hack into that feed and disrupt the rover's mission. i think keeping it secret is a good thing...

    19. Re:Technology behind this? by brennz · · Score: 1

      Don't some consumer motherboards have the triple BIOS features now?

      Shoot, even Gigabyte and Asus have passed NASA technology. No wonder the US is in trouble!

    20. Re:Technology behind this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707)

      I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

      How much is a subscription to The Daily F9xS0fS3v9XlvfM ?

    21. Re:Technology behind this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I know the DSN (Deep-Space-Network) is pretty much an IP network with tweaks (Delay tolerant) to optimize for propogation delays over large distances.

    22. Re:Technology behind this? by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      Can anyone give any insight behind how they perform upgrades like this?

      FPGAs, of course. It's a test of SCORPION STARE...or maybe the rover ran into something that had to be handled with extreme dispatch. You can read the details here. WARNING: I am not responsible for any consequences that may ensue from your accessing this information without sufficient clearance.

      Here's an abstract:

      This document describes progress to date in establishing a defensive network capable of repelling wide-scale incursions by reconfiguring the national closed-circuit television surveillance network as a software-controlled look-to-kill multiheaded basilisk. To prevent accidental premature deployment or deliberate exploitation, the SCORPION STARE software is not actually loaded into the camera firmware. Instead, reprogrammable FPGA chips are integrated into all cameras and can be loaded with SCORPION STARE by authorised MAGINOT BLUE STARS users whenever necessary.

      Well done sir. The Concrete Jungle by Charles Stross was an entertaining read. Have you read Scratch Monkey yet?

  4. Autonomy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's nice and all, but will it start looking for John Connor yet, or do we have to wait for the next upgrade?

  5. One down, one still very good to go. by JoshuaZ · · Score: 3

    I'm amazed at how long Spirit and Opportunity have lasted. Spirit is stuck in place but is still giving us very good data and Opportunity is still kicking and researching well. Aside from some minor problems with the robotic arm, Opportunity is doing fine. These missions have now lasted years when they were expected to last 90 days. These are really amazing pieces of engineering and I hope that NASA is taking a lot of notes about them for how to design future probes. The engineers who made these must be very proud. And now one of their two babies is getting to make decisions for itself! Awww...

    1. Re:One down, one still very good to go. by beakerMeep · · Score: 3, Funny

      Just wait, another year or two it will be asking to borrow the car.

      --
      meep
    2. Re:One down, one still very good to go. by quangdog · · Score: 1

      Not only should they be taking careful notes, they should be making a lot more public noise about the huge success of this project. I fear the general perception amongst Americans is that NASA is a bunch of brainiacs with too much money and little to show for it. Seems like they don't tout their successes well enough.

    3. Re:One down, one still very good to go. by Arancaytar · · Score: 1

      And promptly drive it into a ditch and get stuck. :P

    4. Re:One down, one still very good to go. by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Too bad neither has a reprap on board

    5. Re:One down, one still very good to go. by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      These missions have now lasted years when they were expected to last 90 days.

      They were never expected to last only 90 days - the initial(!) budget did only provide for
      that mission length. It was fully expected to be extended.
      The rovers being able to go for many years is indeed a bonus, proof of great engineering and in part
      due to the unanticipated positive effect of the wind: it cleaned the solar panels instead of depositing dust.

      But to state that "they were only expected to last for 90 days" is plain wrong.

    6. Re:One down, one still very good to go. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not really "plain wrong". The desigers expected the rovers to last ~180 days (that was what their projections showed for the dust buildup on the solar panels) but only guaranteed them (for budget reasons) for 90 days. Either way, the mission has lasted so long now that the difference between 90 and 180 days is almost trivial. The rovers have hugely outperformed their mission objectives.

    7. Re:One down, one still very good to go. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      They were never expected to last only 90 days - the initial(!) budget did only provide for
      that mission length. It was fully expected to be extended.

      The AC is right, they really were expected to only last for 90 days, not because they were engineered to fail (obviously to ensure any degree of survival on mars, they had to be engineered as robustly as possible), but because of dust buildup.

      We got lucky that the Martian wind is stronger than we expected. Otherwise the rovers would have died due to lack of power after a few months.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    8. Re:One down, one still very good to go. by owlstead · · Score: 1

      They sure seem to be in need of a set of wheels :)

    9. Re:One down, one still very good to go. by nschubach · · Score: 1

      I actually haven't got that perception at all... from what I see it's the politicians that feel that way because they can't find benefit from what's going on.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  6. I would just like to add... by Vyse+of+Arcadia · · Score: 1

    ...that I hate backronyms.

    1. Re:I would just like to add... by tomhudson · · Score: 1

      ... you beat me to it.

      Why couldn't we have a vote - we could have renamed it the "COlbert ROver Redundant System for Identification and VErification". - CORROSIVE.

      The the next upgrade could be SUBsystem with VERification Software In Virtual Environments = SUBVERSIVE

      Then NASA (Need Another Seven Astronauts) would get HUGE funding to track multiple SUBERSIVEs.

    2. Re:I would just like to add... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Then NASA (Need Another Seven Astronauts) would get HUGE funding to track multiple SUBERSIVEs.

      Nah. NASA could just let South Carolina do it.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  7. Awesome by Rival · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The autonomy of these rovers is already quite impressive, as they can choose parts of their paths based on a braveness variable provided by the engineers.

    This latest enhancement is really interesting, essentially giving them something of a sense of curiosity. I'm not trying to anthropomorphize; the rovers are now allowed to use some sort of Bayesian-like algorithms for determining objects of interest, and examining them without direct input from us. This gives them the potential for returning more scientifically interesting information for the communication cycle.

    Way to go, NASA! You guys rock!

  8. In other words ... by troll8901 · · Score: 1

    ... the rover gets to look at curvy, fair-textured things on the job, and take colored photos of them.

    Would "rovingeyes" be an appropriate tag?

    1. Re:In other words ... by BigBlueOx · · Score: 1

      Yes, Opportunity has found a bird! The probe has struck crumpet - and she looks pretty good too!

      Do you think we're going to see underwear become even naughtier?

  9. It's amazing to me by Digital+Pizza · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... that they can do a software upgrade of this kind adding a major feature such as this, remotely, without "bricking" it, and without the ability to add more CPU or RAM. Amazing job, guys!

    --
    We apologize for the inconvenience.
    1. Re:It's amazing to me by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      that they can do a software upgrade of this kind adding a major feature such as this, remotely, without "bricking" it, and without the ability to add more CPU or RAM.

      What's more amazing to me is the fact that a multibillion dollar software company can't.

    2. Re:It's amazing to me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that they can do a software upgrade of this kind adding a major feature such as this, remotely, without "bricking" it, and without the ability to add more CPU or RAM.

      What's more amazing to me is the fact that a multibillion dollar software company can't.

      Well a multi-billion dollar company could do it, but it would require diverting money from more important things like corporate jets and renovations of senior executive offices!

  10. Re:AEGIS by Jainith · · Score: 4, Funny

    Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science

    Clearly from the lameness of the title they chose the acronym first and then found a title to fit it. Why anyone would think its appropriate to use the acronym AEGIS for something that doesn't involve defense or a shield I dont know.

  11. Then the XKCD really can come true by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1
  12. Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Spirit and Opportunity have been the most successful NASA project since Armstrong landed on the Moon. What I find curious is that we have not launched a dozen or so more of these capable rovers to the Red Planet.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by Em+Emalb · · Score: 1

      the most successful NASA project since Armstrong landed on the Moon.

      WHAT! NO WAY! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-f_DPrSEOEo

      --
      Sent from your iPad.
    2. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well yes they are very successful but I think you may be forgetting Voyager which was unbelievably successful and Pioneer 11 and 12 which are still ticking over as they coast out of the Solar System.
      Not to mention Viking, and Hubble.
      All of these projects have been extremely successful projects.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    3. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We should send a couple to the Moon as well.

    4. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      Well one aspect of Mars missions that is not common is success. Only 1 out of every 4 spacecraft sent to Mars even made it to Mars.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think the parachutes would work all that well on the Moon.

    6. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by Convector · · Score: 1

      I think it's closer to 1 in 2.

    7. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by camperdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Um... Contact was lost with Pioneer 11 in 1995. Pioneer 12 ran out of fuel and crashed into Venus in 1992. Viking 1's antenna pointing software was accidentally overwritten in 1982, and Viking 2's batteries died in 1980 after only three years. Voyager 1 and 2 are still "ticking over" as you say, making them the longest running space probes.

      But is longevity the measure of success? What about capturing the public's imagination? One could argue that despite their much shorter "lifespan", Spirit and Opportunity have done more to boost interest in Space than Voyagers 1 and 2 have.

      My question remains, though. Why haven't we launched a few more of these rovers.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    8. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      So Viking ran for 6 years and viking 2 for only 4.
      I would say Voyager was nothing short of mind blowing. They showed us four worlds and I forget how many moons! It was the grand tour of the solar system. Sprit and Opportunity may be the current stars but I can tell you that when Voyager flew by Jupiter they rolled a TV into my classroom and we all watched. Same a few years latter for Saturn..
      So I will put voyager 1 and 2 as the winners.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    9. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      It's okay, cheese is soft.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    10. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by digitalchinky · · Score: 1

      Another one is going to Mars next year apparently - the Mars Science Laboratory

      You can even put your name on it.

      http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/overview/index.cfm

    11. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by camperdave · · Score: 1

      The Mars Science Laboratory is a completely new rover. What I'm talking about is knocking off a dozen copies of the MER rover (which has a design proven to be reliable and capable) and sending them to Mars.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:Gumption, Destiny, Resolve, Prosperity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were watching Voyager's Jupiter flyby in class, then you were long out of school for Spirit and Opportunity's landing. There were/are websites, classroom discussion guides, curricula, games, kits, fun and excitement for kids of all ages. Did you know that Lego was a participant in the Mars Exploration Rover missions, and that there are Lego bricks on Mars?

  13. AEGIS by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Another Excuse to Get Itself Stuck

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:AEGIS by Mashdar · · Score: 1

      I think they picked their favorite Diablo II item, then decided it made no sense as a name, so they made it an acronym.

    2. Re:AEGIS by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Was I the first to think about AEGIS Combat Systems ?

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    3. Re:AEGIS by InsertWittyNameHere · · Score: 1

      "Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science"

      Is much better than the other proposed name:

      "Cultural Learnings of Mars for Make Benefit Glorious Planet of Earth"

    4. Re:AEGIS by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Duh... obviously it shields the scientists from a bunch of boring rock data.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    5. Re:AEGIS by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science

      Clearly from the lameness of the title they chose the acronym first and then found a title to fit it. Why anyone would think its appropriate to use the acronym AEGIS for something that doesn't involve defense or a shield I don't know.

      Look, Mr. Know-it-all, I know you think it's a lame acronym, but if you've got a rover on Mars, and you want it to gather increased science while it's there, and you've worked out some system that lets it do this autonomously for better efficiency, how else are you gonna acronym that? "Increased Science Gathering Autonomous Exploration System" might sound better, but ISGAES isn't a word at all, is it?

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
  14. I'm in acronym hell. by sammy+baby · · Score: 3, Funny

    The new system, which NASA uploaded over the past few months, is called Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science, or AEGIS and...

    Well, thank god it's gathering increased science. I would hate to think that we were collecting decreased science. Perhaps we could design a program and call it Autonomous System for Scientific and HOlistic Learning and Exploration.

    Then again, we could have called it Rover OS 2.0.

  15. 4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by ls671 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It takes 4 to 20 minutes for data to travel between Earth and Mars (each way) depending on the planet positions.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/137509/coolest_tech_jobs_driving_the_mars_rover.html

    Still, Mars is one of the closest planet to Earth. It looks like we will need to find some kind of warp driven data transfer mechanism to network the planets and take full advantage of IPv6 for real time applications. ;-)

    Achieving warp speed for data transfer should be easier than for matter and human beings so I suggest we look at this first. ;-))

    --
    Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    1. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      Quantum association

    2. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by ls671 · · Score: 1

      > Quantum association

      I might have had the same idea as you did but unfortunately I can't find any documentation on "Quantum association" and I do not remember how to call that principle I heard about a while ago.

      Basically it works that way: There is some kind of particle that has a sister particle. You can take them apart has far as you want but some action on one of them propagates instantaneously to the sister particle without regards for the distance.

      Do you have any reference on "Quantum association" or another name to express the same thing ?

      Thanks,

      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    3. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by mcgrew · · Score: 1

      Still, Mars is one of the closest planet to Earth. It looks like we will need to find some kind of warp driven data transfer mechanism to network the planets and take full advantage of IPv6 for real time applications

      Since light can't travel faster than light, that's not very likely, making the advances in robotics incredibly important to unmanned space travel.

      Achieving warp speed for data transfer should be easier than for matter and human beings so I suggest we look at this first

      I've see writeups of theories that may someday allow a "warp bubble" to enable matter to travel faster than light, but not data.

    4. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by ls671 · · Score: 1
      --
      Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
    5. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Google for "quantum entanglement" instead.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    6. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it was called quantum entanglement. But as usual there are a few catches to it that just makes it a really annoying concept that sounds really cool but seems to be near impossible to implement in reality.

    7. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by molo · · Score: 1

      Try quantum entanglement. But it is not able to transfer information faster than light (FTL). A classical channel is required to tell the other side what your findings are if you decohere the state.

      -molo

      --
      Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
    8. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by davidtupper · · Score: 1

      Can you say "lag frag"?

    9. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by smaddox · · Score: 1

      Information still can't be transferred faster than the speed of light. Information transfer with Quantum entanglement requires one of the entangled particles to be sent to the destination (never faster than light). Once the particle is at the destination the transmitter can cause the unmoved particle to collapse which will cause the transferred particle to collapse instantaneously, after which the two particles are no longer entangled. This is not FTL since the particle had to get there somehow.

      General Relativity requires that FTL information transmission cannot happen without some kind a time travel mechanism. Time and space are inherently linked. Everything moves at the same 'speed' through the 4 dimensional spacetime. If an object is not moving through space, it is moving through time at the maximum 'speed'. If it is moving through space at the speed of light, it is not moving through time.

    10. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by agrif · · Score: 1

      Relativity basically forbids faster than light anything if we want to retain causality. If you start traveling faster than light, then you can end up with causality reversals, like if on earth removing a support from a bridge causes the bridge to fall, then on a faster than light ship the bridge rising into place causes the support to rise up.

      Something similar happens with FTL communication. An ansible operator tells someone to launch the ship, but in a sufficiently fast frame, the ship launches before the order is given.

      FTL communication would be convenient, but I'd rather retain some semblance of free will. Relativity, FTL, and free will: choose two.

    11. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      I'm not an astrophysicist, but I think it might be possible someday to use gravity waves for FTL comm. (presented by sci-fi author David Weber in his 'Honorverse' series, and I think also by Steve White in his 'Stars at War' series')

      Use the gravity waves like Morse code.
      Now the problem is the ability to build gravity generators and receivers!

      This idea seems plausible, but who knows....I don't.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    12. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

      Something similar happens with FTL communication. An ansible operator tells someone to launch the ship, but in a sufficiently fast frame, the ship launches before the order is given.

      I'm afraid I don't get it... I feel like I generally have a pretty good understanding of relativity but I'm obviously missing a piece of it here.

      The bridge example - isn't this example of "reversed causality" just a matter of observations made by the FTL traveler appearing to occur in reverse because of the normal lightspeed limit on how fast the information can reach them?

      I don't understand the FTL communication example at all... How is causality reversed in that case?

      And if the ship did launch before receiving the message to launch, then wouldn't they just be like "Oh, well it's a good thing we launched, then!" :)

      --
      Bow-ties are cool.
    13. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by agrif · · Score: 1

      I wish I could whip up some spacetime diagrams to show you, as that's really the clearest way, but I lack the time and hosting. Here is a similar, though different, example with some pretty well made diagrams.

      What it really boils down to is, with one event outside of your light cone, not everybody agrees on the order of events. You may say that A happens before B, but if A is farther from B in space than in time, there's always some other frame that says B happened before A. This is trouble when we connect A and B with some cause, like FTL travel or communication.

      The bridge example - isn't this example of "reversed causality" just a matter of observations made by the FTL traveler appearing to occur in reverse because of the normal lightspeed limit on how fast the information can reach them?

      This is what I thought too at first, but strange things happen at c and above. If you travel at the speed of light, your time and space axes merge into one, which is odd enough. Faster than c and they switch places. Meaning that you can always find a frame where the two events switch places in time, as long as they are not in the same place. This is true even when you extrapolate when they actually occurred, correcting for light lag. (And, in this case with FTL travel, this is true for any two events, even those where both are within your light cone.)

      As for why causality is important, imagine if we fire two bullets at a barn, and set the doors to close when the first bullet hits the back wall with an FTL link. You can set it up so there's a frame where bullet 1 is outside the barn when 2 hits the back (and the doors close), and another where bullet 1 is inside. (Again, diagrams make this easier to see.) Of course, that means in one frame the bullet hits the door, and in the other it hits the back wall, and the two frames have mutually incompatible histories.

      Sorry if I'm not too helpful here... I love relativity and it's so frustrating without being able to draw diagrams.

    14. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for why causality is important, imagine if we fire two bullets at a barn, and set the doors to close when the first bullet hits the back wall with an FTL link. You can set it up so there's a frame where bullet 1 is outside the barn when 2 hits the back (and the doors close), and another where bullet 1 is inside. (Again, diagrams make this easier to see.) Of course, that means in one frame the bullet hits the door, and in the other it hits the back wall, and the two frames have mutually incompatible histories.

      Sorry if I'm not too helpful here... I love relativity and it's so frustrating without being able to draw diagrams.

      I think I understand but speaking as an electrical engineer, I'm far more interested in practical considerations, both positive and negative, of this theoretical technology. For example, how could getting a message from Mars faster than the light reflected off the transmitter violate the causality from the local perspective of an observer on either Earth or Mars (the chain of events experienced by them should be about the same even if the message was truly instantaneous) or mess-up the time-space continuum on a human-appreciable level? To use some more cliched examples how does this cause the Nazis to win WWII, erase someone from existence, or cause a person to become their own grandparent? I mean if it doesn't alter collective or personal history for anyone or something similarly significant, what exactly is the big deal?

      IMHO, unless faster-than-light communications is somehow innately dangerous to how reality functions I see it as potentially beneficial technological jump as the telegraph and then radio almost-as-fast-as-light communications were over physically delivered written messages and semaphore. If the only negative result is to cause theoretical physicists to have more frequent headaches and lost sleep over the possibility that in some very specific circumstances B is perceived as happening before A, well I still think it's a price society would and should be willing to pay!:P On the other hand, if this could somehow allow people to really manipulate past events, or unravel the fabric of the universe, or even allow someone to commit "the perfect murder" using your theoretical multiple bullets; then I would be loosing sleep along with the theoretical physicists (provided of course I still exist in any recognizable form).:/

    15. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by agrif · · Score: 1

      Ah, here's the practical, worked example you want:

      As noted in the article I linked you, if you have instantaneous communication, then if you send a message to something moving at any speed, and they reply, you'll get the reply before you send the first message. You'll get it exactly x*v/c^2 earlier, with v as the relay's velocity and x its distance from you. You can just ping messages back and forth and gain more time each trip, so you don't even need that fast a relay. You can do all sorts of naughty things to causality with the ability to send messages back in time.

      What's more fun, is for merely FTL communication (not instantaneous), you just need a relay that moves faster than c^2/v with v the speed of communication, and the same thing happens: you can send messages to the past. This rule actually holds true for any communication system... when communication uses light, you'd have to move faster than c, which works out.

      What this rule also shows is that if you can move objects faster than c, then you can send messages to the past with only lightspeed communication, but that's a less interesting consequence.

      Being able to send messages to the past with relative ease would certainly keep me up at night, but luckily it's more likely that FTL is impossible than the universe to have some sort of trick that prevents self-consistency funny business. I'd really rather not have FTL than have to deal with causality issues, myself.

      (Thanks for the discussion, I love working with relativity and hadn't had the chance for a while, and it's always rewarding. I myself never knew about using FTL as a messenger to the past until I looked it up for this.)

    16. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, here's the practical, worked example you want:

      As noted in the article I linked you, if you have instantaneous communication, then if you send a message to something moving at any speed, and they reply, you'll get the reply before you send the first message. You'll get it exactly x*v/c^2 earlier, with v as the relay's velocity and x its distance from you. You can just ping messages back and forth and gain more time each trip, so you don't even need that fast a relay. You can do all sorts of naughty things to causality with the ability to send messages back in time.

      OK I admit that would be weird. Yet wouldn't the reply still be, from the perspective of whatever generates the reply, the result of the message you would send? In other words, regardless of when I send the message, any reply would be based upon that message, so causality would be maintained from at least one side of the communication. Thus for your given example, I see it as only slightly more unsettling than the situation where 20 years ago a person could take a Concorde flight from Paris to New York and arrive with the sun's position in the sky indicating it is "earlier" than when they left. Of course I could still be thinking about this the wrong way (and yes, I know that I'm postulating a closed-loop solution to time paradoxes but IMHO there aren't any challenges to that theory in the posed by the discussion so far).

      What's more fun, is for merely FTL communication (not instantaneous), you just need a relay that moves faster than c^2/v with v the speed of communication, and the same thing happens: you can send messages to the past. This rule actually holds true for any communication system... when communication uses light, you'd have to move faster than c, which works out.

      What this rule also shows is that if you can move objects faster than c, then you can send messages to the past with only lightspeed communication, but that's a less interesting consequence.

      Being able to send messages to the past with relative ease would certainly keep me up at night, but luckily it's more likely that FTL is impossible than the universe to have some sort of trick that prevents self-consistency funny business. I'd really rather not have FTL than have to deal with causality issues, myself.

      I'm not sure if this fits my definition of "easy", but then again I'm still not sure there are any significant violations of causality with some forms non-instantaneous of FTL.;) Although I guess it really depends on your definition of FTL. Technically sending either physical objects or signals through a stable wormhole between two distant enough points would be "faster-than-light" travel/communications in at least one sense of the term. That is because the object/message would reach the recipient faster than any photon traveling in normal space-time between the two points even if it traveled at significantly slower speeds than light within the wormhole. However, I don't see how that is any more time travel or a violation of causality than taking a tunnel through a mountain rather than traveling over it or around it would be!

      (Thanks for the discussion, I love working with relativity and hadn't had the chance for a while, and it's always rewarding. I myself never knew about using FTL as a messenger to the past until I looked it up for this.)

      I too find this discussion very interesting. I questioning your conclusions because I'd like a thorough examination and explanation for them, not because I necessarily think they are wrong.

    17. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by agrif · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately this is not an ideal medium for explaining these sorts of problems, but I'm sure there are well illustrated articles on this subject if you feel interested enough to find them.

      Using a wormhole for FTL isn't really FTL at all, because you've just shortened the distance between two points instead of sending a message faster, so there's no problems with that. I'm talking about literally v > c, and I'm assuming special relativity only (no hairy business with gravity; I have no good experience with General Relativity).

      As for how easy the message to past thing is, it gets easier as the speed of the transmission increases. Especially for instant, you could just launch a satellite to fly away from Earth, and there you have it. You send a message after it's been on it's way for a while, and it'll be guaranteed to be sent back all the way to launch: it'll relay back through time, and the satellite is known to be in range for that long.

      For the first set of send/reply, indeed, causality is maintained in the satellite's frame... but not afterwards. If we send it's reply back to the relay, we have the same issue as first, except the frames are switched. The satellite gets it's own message back before it sends it. So, causality is still there on one side for each interaction, but it changes each time.

      As for your plane flight analogy, the difference is that you couldn't get back in that plane, fly home, and have the sun even earlier in the sky. If you fly back, it's back to where it was. In this case, the message comes back genuinely earlier by any method of timekeeping we can use, in any (non FTL) frame.

      Besides, Physics as we have it now maintains two things as axioms: causality and universal laws. That is, everyone, no matter what frame, will agree in the order of cause/effect events, and that objects behave according to only one set of laws. Special Relativity can be derived from just this, and the experimental evidence that the speed of light is always constant. Relativity may be wrong, and maybe there's some more elegant theory that allows FTL, but right now Relativity and FTL breaks causality in not too subtle ways. Without causality, we can't assume relativity anymore. They're incompatible.

    18. Re:4 to 20 minutes for data to travel ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately this is not an ideal medium for explaining these sorts of problems, but I'm sure there are well illustrated articles on this subject if you feel interested enough to find them.

      I agree, but I do greatly appreciate the time you've taken to discuss these things.

      Using a wormhole for FTL isn't really FTL at all, because you've just shortened the distance between two points instead of sending a message faster, so there's no problems with that. I'm talking about literally v > c, and I'm assuming special relativity only (no hairy business with gravity; I have no good experience with General Relativity).

      All right, but as stated before I'm more interested in practical technological applications. While it might not FTL as defined by the underlying physics, for my intents and purposes any method that allows me to send a message or technological artifact to another point in space faster than simply heading in that direction going the speed of light is sufficiently FTL-ish to be interesting and desirable (provided it doesn't screw-up the universe or anything like that).:)

      As for how easy the message to past thing is, it gets easier as the speed of the transmission increases. Especially for instant, you could just launch a satellite to fly away from Earth, and there you have it. You send a message after it's been on it's way for a while, and it'll be guaranteed to be sent back all the way to launch: it'll relay back through time, and the satellite is known to be in range for that long.

      For the first set of send/reply, indeed, causality is maintained in the satellite's frame... but not afterwards. If we send it's reply back to the relay, we have the same issue as first, except the frames are switched. The satellite gets it's own message back before it sends it. So, causality is still there on one side for each interaction, but it changes each time.

      As for your plane flight analogy, the difference is that you couldn't get back in that plane, fly home, and have the sun even earlier in the sky. If you fly back, it's back to where it was. In this case, the message comes back genuinely earlier by any method of timekeeping we can use, in any (non FTL) frame.

      Now I'm beginning to understand the actual complications that would arise and why they really would be very troublesome. Thank you for your patience and effort you devoted to this explanatory thread. Despite the imperfections of the medium, you really changed my perspective on this matter.

      Besides, Physics as we have it now maintains two things as axioms: causality and universal laws. That is, everyone, no matter what frame, will agree in the order of cause/effect events, and that objects behave according to only one set of laws. Special Relativity can be derived from just this, and the experimental evidence that the speed of light is always constant. Relativity may be wrong, and maybe there's some more elegant theory that allows FTL, but right now Relativity and FTL breaks causality in not too subtle ways. Without causality, we can't assume relativity anymore. They're incompatible.

      I suppose it's that "everyone, no matter what frame, will agree in the order of cause/effect events" in completely absolute terms has always seemed to me to be intuitively... superfluous. If there happen to be a few specific scenarios (especially if they were temporary) which the order of events appear different than the vast majority of frames (which would be in agreement with each-other), I don't see how that makes Physics, or reality in general, crumble. In my mind, it would only require these scenarios to be properly identified to resolve any theoretical issues.

  16. Onsite support by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1

    The downside? No travel expenses.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

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

  17. basic autnomous functionality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They're playing it very safe, as they should be. This is very basic autonomous functionality. The kind that an undergrad CS student might implement for a semester project. Not to say it isn't amazing and great and all...but they're pushing any groundbreaking software into these bots.

  18. 2020 by sohp · · Score: 2, Funny

    Newsflash: A mysterious intelligent probe calling itself "O'nity" is threatening Earth. Scientists say that it is demanding access to "interesting rocks and formations"

    1. Re:2020 by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      Actually, the definition shifted a bit in all these years, an now it’s interested in interesting rock formations.
      I’s a KISS or KILL situation. ^^

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
  19. behold it's terrible glory! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  20. broadcasting programs by chord.wav · · Score: 1

    Hypotetically speaking: If they broadcast the programs, and I get that transmission and save that software. Is it considering pirating?

    1. Re:broadcasting programs by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Upload it to bittorrent and find out.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  21. Persona 3 joke by dionarapthevicious · · Score: 1

    If it gets stuck again, it can just call NASA and say "I NEED YOUR HALP!".

  22. Red Rover, Red Rover... by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

    NASA today said it upgraded the software controlling its Mars Rover Opportunity to let it make its own decisions about what items like rocks and interesting red planet formations to focus its cameras on.

    Opportunity (via IM): i spy with my little eye something beginning with the letter r
    JPL: rock

    (sixteen minutes later)

    Opportunity: right! yr turn!
    JPL: ok - letter m

    (sixteen minutes later)

    Opportunity: u have 2 say the whole thing. u lose a turn! i would have guessed mug.
    Opportunity: i spy with my little eye something beginning with the letter s.

    (later that day)

    Opportunity: can we stop for ice cream?
    JPL: no ice cream on mars. we discussed this.

    (sixteen minutes later)

    Opportunity: compute 65% prob object in dist is dairy queen. c pix
    JPL: object is crater edge. 5km away. 6 sols travel time min.
    JPL: see crystal formations < 500m NNW. that will be fun. lets go there.

    (sixteen minutes later)

    Opportunity: DQ! DQ! DQ!!1!

    1. Re:Red Rover, Red Rover... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      wow you suck...

    2. Re:Red Rover, Red Rover... by RevWaldo · · Score: 1

      And wow you swallow whatever your mamma spits out. Definitely living up to the C part of AC.

  23. Planet 51 anyone? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the rover on Planet 51, which was just absolutely nuts for collecting rocks, while seemingly unaware of the intelligent species and the thriving civilization all around it.
    You'll have to excuse me, I have young children.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  24. It's worse when the meaning is totally lost if you by Tetsujin · · Score: 1

    don't read the subject line.

    --
    Bow-ties are cool.
  25. How do we known what Mars life look like? by kentsin · · Score: 0

    Ya, NASA known what to look for. But are they always right?

  26. NASA or DOD ? by barath_s · · Score: 1

    So Nasa now has an Aegis cruiser on another world. The War of the Worlds can now begin. Clearly the stationary Spirit rover did not qualify for the upgrade.

  27. Best laugh I have had in a long while! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best laugh I have had in a long while! Actually got spittle on my laptop.

    Autonomous Exploration for Gathering Increased Science, or AEGIS

    The acronym seemed a bit contrived to me, but I didn't give it much thought.
    It was when I finished reading, and noted one of the tags was CRAPRONYM, that I burst out laughing. :)