Slashdot Mirror


NASA Rover May Contaminate Its Samples of Mars

sciencehabit writes "The Curiosity rover will definitely find evidence of an advanced civilization if it lands safely on Mars. That's because rock samples the rover drills are likely to be contaminated with bits of Teflon from the rover's machinery, NASA announced during a press teleconference. The bits of Teflon can then mix with the sample, which will be vaporized for analysis. The problem for the scientists is that Teflon is two-thirds carbon — the same element they are looking for on Mars." Fortunately, this problem isn't a showstopper: "...there are still mitigation steps to take if SAM's analysis is potentially compromised. Contaminant production appears to be stronger in the drill's percussion mode, when it pounds powerfully and rapidly on Martian rock. So ratcheting the percussion down, or switching over to the more gentle rotary mode, may make the issue more manageable. If that doesn't work, the MSL team could just take the drill out of commission, solely scooping soil instead of also boring into rock. Curiosity could still access the interior of some Martian rocks by rolling over them with its wheels, Grotzinger said. But all in all, he's confident that the team will figure things out in the next month or two."

11 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. Two-thirds carbon? by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think somebody had another English-metric goof when they were doing their stoichiometry.

    (CF2)n -> 24% carbon, 76% fluorine by mass, at least by my calculations.

    1. Re:Two-thirds carbon? by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 4, Informative

      > I recall Voyager...

      Viking, and it wasn't looking for carbon, specifically, it was looking for long-chain hydrocarbons. Good link here.

      --
      2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    2. Re:Two-thirds carbon? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why didn't someone say, "Presume the test is positive -- let's shoot holes in it." them iterate proving the test until there are no more holes they can think of.

      Is that so hard before you spend billions?

      The flip side is spending tens of millions thinking of all the possible ways the test could provide a false positive, designing them out of the test, then sending Viking to Mars and having the test come out negative. Then you get criticized or wasting all that money coming up with a test which would generate a foolproof positive result, forgetting that the result could be negative.

      Science is like filling an empty map. If you blindly concentrate all your resources in one area of the map, you could end up knowing a lot about an uninteresting place (like say, the middle of the ocean). But if you use a shotgun strategy and first spend minimal resources in lots of locations, you can see where the interesting parts of the map are and concentrate your resources on exploring those in the future.

      Viking was the first Mars lander. By no means was it planned to be the last. They put a simple experiment (along with several others) on board which would provide a quick answer to a "gee I wonder what happens if..." question. If it came back negative, oh well. Since it came back positive, then they could spend millions scrutinizing the result and planning a better test for future landers.

  2. Re:really? by SomePgmr · · Score: 5, Informative

    It sounds like the teflon is from rings higher up in the assembly. It's not like they covered the bit in teflon and later did a full-on Picard facepalm.

    They seem optimistic that they'll be able to work around it. I guess these lessons come with the territory when operating hugely complex projects to other friggin planets.

  3. Re:How'd they catch it? by BradleyUffner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Right now, the rover is in *space*. I can definitely understand catching this problem in simulations or in on-Earth tests, or catching it belatedly when they finally get to Mars and wonder why all the rocks contain fluorine, but in space? Only thing I can think of is "someone re-ran some simulations and noticed they messed up", which doesn't seem very probable (unless the engineers had been suspecting this since before launch, and only now have sufficient "proof").

    Then again, I'm not a rocket scientist, so I probably missed something.

    They probably have an identical unit to mess with locally in case of electrics problems. If something goes wrong in space it is extremely helpful to have a physical replica you can actually put your hands on and experiment with to find the best fix.

  4. Teflon by ravenspear · · Score: 5, Funny

    Well, at least the samples won't get stuck.

  5. Re:How?? by Jeng · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't they find a nice abrasive rock to grind on till the Teflon wears off?

    --
    Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
  6. Re:How'd they catch it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    For this kind of thing, you typically deliver three pieces of hardware at the very least: The flight model (FM), flight spare (FS) and engineering model (EM). The FM goes on the rocket, the FS sits around in case you damage the FM before launch, and you run tests on the EM. You can keep running tests on the EM during cruise and surface operations. You might learn new things then. You certainly don't want the EM to teach you alarming new things after the FM has already launched, but it's better than having the FM surprise you later.

  7. Re:really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    did you even read TFA ?

    Lab testing of a backup version of the drill uncovered the contamination problem shortly before launch of the rover and its drill last November, according to Paul Mahaffy of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland

    They launched anyway knowing the drill bit was contaminated. if thats not a facepalm i dont know what is.

  8. Re:really? by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Informative

    The MSL uses an RTG power source. The problem with RTGs is that you can't turn them off, they start to run down as soon as they are built. MSL already missed a launch window due to delays and so was 2.5 years behind. Another delay would use up 5 years of the expected 10 years of RTG life.

    Sometimes external factors force your hand.

    --
    Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
  9. Re:really? by Solandri · · Score: 4, Informative

    The multi-year delay for Galileo following the Space Shuttle Challenger explosion is what's believed to have caused its high gain antenna to get stuck in the closed position. When you have a million parts designed to start being used in 9 months, a 2 year delay introduces all sorts of unforeseen possible modes of failure. The drill is not the only experiment aboard Curiosity. At some point, a risk assessment was made which concluded that launching it with the faulty drill was a better option than delaying the whole mission by 26 months until the next launch window and potentially jeopardizing all the other equipment aboard.