Opportunity Breaks NASA's 40-Year Roving Record

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Opportunity Breaks NASA's 40-Year Roving Record

Posted by samzenpus on Friday May 17, 2013 @12:08AM from the long-and-dusty-trail dept.

astroengine writes "After nine years of hard Mars roving, Mars Exploration Rover (MER) Opportunity has broken a 40-year-old extraterrestrial distance record. On Thursday, the tenacious six-wheeled robot drove 80 meters (263 feet), nudging the total distance traveled since landing on the red planet in 2004 to 35.760 kilometers (22.220 miles). NASA's previous distance record was held by Apollo 17 astronauts Eugene Cernan and Harrison Schmitt when, in December 1972, they drove their Lunar Roving Vehicle 35.744 kilometers (22.210 miles) over the lunar surface. Although it's broken the NASA distance record, it hasn't surpassed the international record, yet. The Soviet Lunokhod 2 remote-controlled moon rover roved 37 kilometers (23 miles) across the lunar surface and, so far, remains the undisputed champion of distance driving on an extraterrestrial surface."

92 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Soviet Strong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 00:16 · Score: -1

NASA still can't beat the Soviet Union at the game of Space Exploration. What's the score 7 to 1? You losing the game NASA.
1. Re:Soviet Strong by JoeRobe · 2013-05-17 00:36 · Score: 1
  
  Where does 7 to 1 come from? 7 to 1 of what?
  I think NASA's done pretty well for itself...
  
  --
  The best way to predict the future is to invent it.
2. Re:Soviet Strong by SJHillman · 2013-05-17 00:39 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  We're still kicking ass in terms of total distance traveled in space, thanks to V'Ger... err, Voyager. But we still have a long way to go to catch up with total extraterrestrial crash landings and highest BAC in space.
3. Re:Soviet Strong by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-05-17 01:13 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Soviet Union
  1st Satleite to orbit Earth
  1st Animal in space
  1st Man in space
  1st Woman in space
  1st multiple personnel in space
  1st Object into inter planetary space
  1st lunar probe
  1st Venusian probe
  1st Martian probe
  1st Space walk
  1st space station
  NASA
  1st Cokacola in space
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
4. Re:Soviet Strong by thrich81 · 2013-05-17 02:00 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Kind of funny but wrong or misleading both by commision and omission. Commission: 1st Venusian probe and 1st Martian probe -- the USSR had the first landers on each (which operated for a few seconds or minutes) but the USA had the first flybys of each (Mariner II for Venus and Mariner IV for Mars; Mariner II was the first successful mission of any kind to another planet besides the earth-moon system) and "space probes" by definition include flybys.
  Omission: The list of "firsts" which USA-NASA accomplished is long, but the highlights are:
  Manned moon landing (had to put that one in first)
  First and so far only probes to Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune. First and only orbiters of Jupiter and Saturn.
  First and only spacecraft on escape trajectories from the solar system.
  First probe to Pluto (on its way now).
  First and only probes to Mercury (Mariner 10 flyby and Mercury Messenger in orbit now).
  Only landers on Mars which worked for more than a 15 seconds.
  The list above is far from exhaustive. Both the USSR and USA had notable space accomplishements and neither would have moved as fast without the competition of the other, but this pervasive meme that the USSR did everything first is just false.
5. Re:Soviet Strong by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-05-17 02:15 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  I know sorry USA also had 1st semi re-usable space craft, 1st docking in space and 1st Geo synchronos. However if you look at it pre 1966 it's pretty one sided with I think the only NASA 1st being having two manned space craft within 200 yards of each other whilst in orbit. It all changed when Sergi Pavlovich Korolyev died he had essentially blagged the Soviet space program from the start (They only let him launch Uri Gagarin because he told them they needed someone to man the radio).
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
6. Re:Soviet Strong by gblackwo · 2013-05-17 02:20 · Score: 1
  
  We are on the same team.
7. Re:Soviet Strong by SilentStaid · 2013-05-17 02:25 · Score: 1
  
  The hell? what about...
  
  NASA
  
  1st man on the moon...
8. Re:Soviet Strong by mlush · 2013-05-17 02:27 · Score: 2
  
  Soviet Union
  1st Object into inter planetary space
  If I remember rightly, the 1st Object into inter planetary space was Luna 1 which was ment to be the first first luna probe ... but missed went into solar obit and was hurredly dubbed a "new planet" and renamed Mechta ("Dream")
9. Re:Soviet Strong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  I know sorry USA also had 1st semi re-usable space craft, 1st docking in space and 1st Geo synchronos. However if you look at it pre 1966 it's pretty one sided with I think the only NASA 1st being having two manned space craft within 200 yards of each other whilst in orbit.
  I had noticed this.
  
  It all changed when Sergi Pavlovich Korolyev died he had essentially blagged the Soviet space program from the start (They only let him launch Uri Gagarin because he told them they needed someone to man the radio).
  Didn't know why it changed then, though -- thanks.
10. Re:Soviet Strong by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2013-05-17 02:41 · Score: 1
  
  Absolutely
  
  --
  Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
11. Re:Soviet Strong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 03:00 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Cassini is half european. The platform is NASA, but the antenna for communication is Italian, and the instruments come from both side of the pond.
12. Re:Soviet Strong by anotheryak · 2013-05-17 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  And the only reason for the entire Lunokhod project is that the Soviets failed to get a crew to the moon and blew up the second N1 rocket in 1969 after a loose bolt got sucked into a fuel pump.
  The Soviets lost the space race and never did get a man on another planet. They sent that thing instead, attempting to save face.
  Funny how the poster forgot things like "first space rendezvous" and "Winning the space race and PUTTING A MAN ON THE F*CKING MOON". He counts ten seconds of functioning lander as a victory, but the brass-ring of the space race does not even count in his mind.
  The largest and most expensive Soviet space program was their attempt to copy NASA's space shuttle, which flew once and got crushed in 2002 when it's hanger collapsed.
13. Re:Soviet Strong by cyborg_monkey · 2013-05-17 04:20 · Score: -1
  
  The moon is not a planet, so neither did we.
14. Re:Soviet Strong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  It all changed when Sergi Pavlovich Korolyev died...
  That may have been coincidental. The "Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies" was put into force on October 10, 1967 and removed concerns on how the USSR would react to space launches from the US. Up to that point, it's been said that it was easier to allow the USSR to go first and set the precedent.
15. Re:Soviet Strong by thrich81 · 2013-05-17 06:31 · Score: 1
  
  No hard feelings, especially since I see you are well informed in space history and not just repeating the meme without knowledge. One thing is certain about the first decade of space exploration -- without the competition between the USSR and USA, neither of them would have done near as much and they both achieved great things.
16. Re:Soviet Strong by cusco · 2013-05-17 10:06 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Actually the first object into interplanetary space was a manhole cover that predated the Space Race. The Pascal-B nuclear test in 1957 was supposed to test safety features which would stop an accidental premature detonation of a nuclear weapon. Instead the safety features failed miserably, the nuke went off with almost the full force, and the 900 kg steel cover welded on top of the test shaft was launched into space at several times escape velocity.
  
  I know far too much trivia.
  
  --
  "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
17. Re:Soviet Strong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 19:20 · Score: 0
  
  The Russians were also the first to have an astronaut die in a fire in a high-oxygen environment.
18. Re:Soviet Strong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-18 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  Or the cover was vaporized. I think the jury's still out on that.
19. Re:Soviet Strong by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-19 13:16 · Score: 0
  
  Certainly Korolev would have been stuck designing missiles for much longer if he hadn't been able to point at the US space efforts to get funding.
confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 00:18 · Score: -1, Redundant

records of 35.000 km broken by 37 km? I think someone is confusing the km and the m
1. Re:confusing distances by Dunbal · 2013-05-17 00:21 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  No I think you're confusing the decimal for a comma.
  
  --
  Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
2. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 00:27 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  That's European syntax. Ten thousand point five would be 10.000,5
3. Re:confusing distances by jcdr · 2013-05-17 00:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's European syntax. Ten thousand point five would be 10.000,5
  point == . != ,
4. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 00:56 · Score: 1
  
  In France they more commonly have a space instead of a point: 10 000,5
5. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 01:03 · Score: 0
  
  Actually he's not.
  1.000 km is 1 000 km or 1 000 000 meters.
  1,000 km is 1 km or 1 000 meters.
  1,5 km is 1500m or 1.500.000 cm.
6. Re:confusing distances by wagnerrp · 2013-05-17 01:07 · Score: 1
  
  Considering this website IS based in the US, then US convention rules.
  When you pronounce "1,5km", do you say "one point five" or "one comma five"?
7. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 01:09 · Score: 0
  
  Thats actually what the word definition means, but then again most people don't understand causality:
  http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/decimal
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma#In_numbers
8. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 01:26 · Score: 0
  
  When you pronounce "1,5km", do you say "one point five" or "one comma five"?
  Actually I say: "One and a half kilometers" ;)
9. Re:confusing distances by MrPsio · 2013-05-17 01:30 · Score: 1
  
  Well, as you wrote 1comma5 it is pretty clear, don't you think? Ask again for 1,500 km whether he will say onethousandfivehundred or onecommafive. Overall it is pretty clear that the OP used . as a thousand separator and not for decimals - the european way.
10. Re:confusing distances by MrPsio · 2013-05-17 01:35 · Score: 1
  
  Oups got it wrong . for decimals and , for thousands - the american way.
11. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 02:07 · Score: 1
  
  Considering this website IS based in the US, then US convention rules.
  After a moment of confusion, simply ask yourself whether the rover has completely circumnavigated Mars. If your answer is no, then it must be the US convention. If your answer is "I don't know," then hit Ctrl-W and go read Perez Hilton or something.
12. Re:confusing distances by TheDarkMaster · 2013-05-17 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  When you use metric units, you shoud use metric conventions... I also read "35760" kilometers instead of the correct "35,76", or "35 kilometers and 76 meters".
  
  --
  Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
13. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 03:07 · Score: 0
  
  If US convention rules, then why give km's first and then miles in brackets, and not the other way around, hmmm? ;)
14. Re:confusing distances by Golddess · 2013-05-17 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe, maybe not. I know when I first saw 35.760 and 22.220, I saw the decimal, but the trailing zero made me think that, for some reason, they were using European notation. It wasn't until I got to the part about the previous record being set by the Apollo 17 astronauts that I realized tens of thousands of kilometers/miles was probably the incorrect way of reading it.
  
  --
  "I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
15. Re:confusing distances by wagnerrp · 2013-05-17 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  When you speak English, you should use English conventions... Most of the English speaking world uses '.' as the decimal separator.
16. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  I would doubt that very much - maybe if we only count the ones having English (any version - the differences between GB English and US English are large) as a first language. But as English now is the international lingua franca most speakers probably have another first language. That makes the high population countries carry a higher weight - countries such as India and (Peoples republic of) China. But only a small fraction of their population knows English so it's hard to calculate their impact.
  But all that doesn't matter as the choice of decimal point or decimal comma isn't part of the language structure...
17. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 04:01 · Score: 0
  
  "In 2003, the 22nd General Conference on Weights and Measures officially declared “that the symbol for the decimal marker shall be either the point on the line or the comma on the line,” and the International Bureau of Weights and Measures uses the point in its English-language publications and the comma in its French publications."
  reference: http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/faq.html#decimal
18. Re:confusing distances by wagnerrp · 2013-05-17 04:51 · Score: 1
  
  Because this is science, and science is almost always done in metric regardless of locale.
19. Re:confusing distances by ShanghaiBill · 2013-05-17 04:58 · Score: 2
  
  countries such as India and (Peoples republic of) China.
  Except that both India and China use "." as a decimal point.
  Citation: Decimal Mark Use
20. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 06:02 · Score: 0
  
  Not here in Germany.
  We say Zehntausend Komma FÃ¼nf. Ten thousand comma five.
  And what we mean, makes only sense to you, if we say Ten thousand *point* five.
  Although where I come from, I learned to write things like 10'000,5.
21. Re:confusing distances by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 06:23 · Score: 0
  
  What's your point?
22. Re:confusing distances by jcdr · 2013-05-17 07:50 · Score: 1
  
  Of course you say "comma" when you write a comma, unlike in the parent post.
23. Re:confusing distances by Askmum · 2013-05-20 18:43 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is also the ambiguous use of "22.210 miles". That automatically makes you think it is 22210 miles and not 22.21 miles. I was reading 35760 and 22210 also.
And the winner is still a machine. by delt0r · 2013-05-17 00:19 · Score: 1

And likely will be for a long time to come. And so it should be, at least while we are doing for the science.

--
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
1. Re:And the winner is still a machine. by VortexCortex · 2013-05-17 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  After the asteroid, who will be around to control them? We need manned missions if the human race is to avoid extinction. We Have All Our Eggs In One Basket, you FOOL.
2. Re:And the winner is still a machine. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 00:33 · Score: 0
  
  A machine that was built by people.
  While we are doing [it!] for the science, it shouldn't matter at all who did it.
3. Re:And the winner is still a machine. by delt0r · 2013-05-17 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  Well the thing is we have centuries to get our eggs in other baskets without changing the probability of a ELE much at all. Its on the order of once every 10's of millions of years. And no not having one for a while does not put the probability up. And even then these events are sterilization events, and anything less than that is unlikely to wipe out homo sapiens.
  
  Right now the space station has cost us more than $100B, and for what? Even Apollo? Where is my return on investment, and no i don't mean money, I mean scientific return.
  
  We are a tool making species. Use the right tool. Meat bags is not the right tool.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
4. Re:And the winner is still a machine. by h4rr4r · 2013-05-17 00:51 · Score: 1
  
  Right now after the asteroid all that will happen is it will be a race to see if lack of food, water or air kills your off Earth humans.
  Robots will allow us to prepare a site for humans. You are trying to put the cart before the robot horse.
5. Re:And the winner is still a machine. by Xanlexian · 2013-05-17 01:24 · Score: 2
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_spin-off_technologies
  I'd say we've received SOME return on that investment.
  
  --
  "Congratulations, Boots. Your robot has become self-aware. You're a daddy now." -- Dr. Rho Bowman
6. Re:And the winner is still a machine. by Wonda · 2013-05-17 01:25 · Score: 1
  
  I don't know.. 9 years for a whole 22 miles, it'll take those television show people DAYS to cover more space if they ever get there.
7. Re:And the winner is still a machine. by Stenchwarrior · 2013-05-17 01:32 · Score: 2
  
  I completely agree and would mod you up if I had any points; Humans have accomplished these mile-stones (or baby steps?) and it shouldn't matter, over all, who has the biggest dick. Competition is a fantastic motivator, but shouldn't be the main purpose for advancing our species.
  
  --
  Loading...
8. Re:And the winner is still a machine. by delt0r · 2013-05-17 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  And for the same money we could send a much faster and more capable rover. Hell we could probably send dozen and even 100s more of much faster, more capable rovers. The current missions have cost about 1000x less than project manned mission.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
9. Re:And the winner is still a machine. by delt0r · 2013-05-17 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  These are from NASA, but in no way just spin off from a manned program. If there was no apollo or ISS theses things would have probably still happened. That is really my point. NASA is in fact not good at manned space missions. Its pretty good at remote sensing missions.
  
  Even if you are a space buff, wanting NASA to take humans to mars is not the way to humans living in space. Apollo push that goal no further forward and neither will another more extreme Apollo.
  
  --
  If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
speedy... by lfourrier · 2013-05-17 00:23 · Score: 4, Informative

35760m in 3309 days is about 45 cm/h
( and imperial types can translate from SI themselves)
1. Re:speedy... by JaredOfEuropa · 2013-05-17 00:27 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Wolfram Alpha converts 45cm/h to 0.7516 furlongs per fortnight. You're welcome.
  
  --
  If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
2. Re:speedy... by Hillgiant · 2013-05-17 01:20 · Score: 2
  
  .0000735 smoots/s
  
  --
  -
3. Re:speedy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  35760m in 3309 days is about 45 cm/h
  Bloody electric vehicles, should have stuck with a nice V8.
4. Re:speedy... by LeadSongDog · 2013-05-17 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  That's 4.17e-13 c to you.
  
  --
  Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.
5. Re:speedy... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 07:31 · Score: 0
  
  I don't want to be pedantic, but the SI unit is m/s. 1.251e-4 m/s to be (significantly) precise.
  I was lying about not wanting to be pedantic.
6. Re:speedy... by Xtifr · 2013-05-17 08:49 · Score: 0
  
  Wolfram Alpha? Seriously, you need an online resource for that?
  
  $ units "45 cm/hour" "furlongs/fortnight" * 0.75161059 / 1.3304762 $
And the winner is.... by Pyrotech7 · 2013-05-17 00:30 · Score: 1

Is there like, a trophy or something that goes to the winner? Maybe they should get a contract to manufacture electric powered vehicles to reward their expertise.
1. Re:And the winner is.... by SJHillman · 2013-05-17 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  First one to the finish line gets to use their secret moonbase laser to blow up the losers.
2. Re:And the winner is.... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 00:38 · Score: 0
  
  The luner rover has the extraterrestrial land speed record though.
3. Re:And the winner is.... by sconeu · 2013-05-17 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Except in North Carolina, of course....
  
  --
  General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
amazingly slow...and awesome by Covalent · 2013-05-17 00:54 · Score: 3, Insightful

Seriously, try walking 1 meter in 1 minute and 40 seconds and you'll get an idea just how slow the rovers travel. Now walk 22 miles at that speed. That said, the accomplishment is still incredible. Show me any moving device that had received no maintenance in 9 years and still works.

--
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
1. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by wagnerrp · 2013-05-17 01:13 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The rovers don't move anywhere near that slow. They only spend a minute or two moving per day. After budgeting daily energy requirements for heaters, communications gear, and science equipment, that's all they have left to move the thing around.
2. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 01:27 · Score: 0
  
  No wonder some wheels get bored and give up...
3. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 02:00 · Score: 0
  
  A Toyota Hilux?
  We should send Old Diesel Toyota Hiluxes (is that the plural of Hilux?) to space.
  You know, for science (and maybe a TopGear Challenge... As you can see i've done this properly a brought along a gun to shoot the martians with)
4. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by FishTankX · 2013-05-17 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Voyager 1, 35 years.
  My washing machine - 14 years
5. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by Derek+Pomery · 2013-05-17 02:42 · Score: 1
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_(rover)#Shoulder_troubles
  Probably would make more progress if it wasn't for this, then.
  
  --
  -- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"' /. ate my old sig. Bastards.
6. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  As you can see i've done this properly a brought along a gun to shoot the martians with)
  Nice. I totally read that in Jeremy Clarkson's voice.
7. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:10 · Score: 0
  
  Even I have needed maintenance!
8. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by Bearhouse · 2013-05-17 05:13 · Score: 1
  
  Show me any moving device that had received no maintenance in 9 years and still works.
  Never taken a taxi in Africa then, huh?
9. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by Hamsterdan · 2013-05-17 07:34 · Score: 2
  
  Even with incredibly dirty laundry, I doubt a washing machine operates in the same kind of harsh and hostile environment :)
  
  --
  I've got better things to do tonight than die.
10. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by FishTankX · 2013-05-17 20:18 · Score: 1
  
  You haven't seen my apartment. Heh.
  No, in all seriousness i'm merely pointing out that the original posters assertion as perceived by me, that it was incredibly rare for mechanical devices to survive 9 years without maintenance, is not necessarily the case. Plenty of washers, dryers, cars, and things like servos, industrial machines etc... may not receive maintenance for a LONG time and still continue to function as designed. A good example would be Russian nuclear lighthouses, which are hundreds of miles from the nearest person and did their job admirably with little in the way of maintenance, in similarly cold environments.
11. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by toddestan · 2013-05-18 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  how me any moving device that had received no maintenance in 9 years and still works.
  My fridge?
12. Re:amazingly slow...and awesome by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-19 20:22 · Score: 0
  
  I've got one. My mother's Husqvarna sewing/embroidery machine. Heavily used for at least a decade and a half, needs no maintenance. Not even lubrication. Still stitches a perfect stitch. Well, the needle needs changing every now-and-then but the rest of the mechanism? Nothing.
Electric, Solar-Powered Cars by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 01:11 · Score: 1

seem already to work quite well... on Mars
l10n by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-05-17 01:13 · Score: 1

I see how there could be confusion with the trailing 0 in the thousandths place. I have to presume they really did measure that distance down to the millimeter. Since NASA released the figures, make sure to localize the radix point and thousands separator to "US" when reading. Here's a lengthy but incomplete list of localized separators.

--
I am not a crackpot.
Re:l10n Ooops by Rob+the+Bold · 2013-05-17 01:15 · Score: 1

Should have read "down to the meter".

--
I am not a crackpot.
Cernan and Schmitt covered that distance in 22 hrs by Ellis+D.+Tripp · 2013-05-17 01:21 · Score: 3, Interesting

, spread over 3 separate EVAs in 3 days. All of the unmanned US and Russian rovers took a lot longer to set their distance records.
If the Apollo program was allowed to continue past 17, there were plans for even longer distance surface excursions. There were even preliminary studies done for a small flying vehicle to allow the astronauts to cover even longer distances from their landing site.

--
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
They see me roving... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 01:23 · Score: 0

they hatin'
Wrong notation. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 01:38 · Score: -1

Get the numbers correct. When using the metric system you use , to denote the decimal point.
yes there is a trophy/prize of sorts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 01:43 · Score: 0

jobs in Pasadena, CA as opposed to jobs in Houston, TX.
2.5 miles per year by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 01:49 · Score: 0

The rover would fit right in with the drivers on my daily commute in Cleveland...man I miss NY
Nope ! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 02:43 · Score: 0

Considering that the real accuracy is at the meter level (3 and a bit feet), NASA 'results' are a tie. No story.
Apples and Oranges by lbmouse · 2013-05-17 03:00 · Score: 0

I don't think lunar travel can even begin to compare to travel on a planet like Mars. There is no atmosphere and very low gravity.
mars probes vastly more geologic stops by peter303 · 2013-05-17 03:03 · Score: 1

If you define a geological stop for at least a day to take pictures and maybe manipulate rocks/soils. The MERs have done over a thousand of these stops in their combined 6000 days of work. Lunakhod nor Apollo never came close to this number.
42.195 km by krouic · 2013-05-17 04:43 · Score: 1

If they offer me the flight, I'll run the full marathon to break the record
Gene Cernan still has the speed record by MichaelSmith · 2013-05-17 09:59 · Score: 1

That was 19 km/h on the first Apollo 17 EVA, down a fairly steep hill, though John Young was sceptical, probably because he was the record holder at the time.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Bahhhh!!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-18 07:38 · Score: 0

"The metric system is the tool of the devil! My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead and that's the way I likes it."