Spirit Rover Reaches Safety 147
dylanduck writes "Good news for rover fans - Spirit is safe for the winter. It had been heading for a north-tilting spot to make sure its solar panels got enough sunlight during the imminent winter to survive, when a sand trap appeared. But, despite its busted wheel, it scooted round and is now sitting pretty. From the article: 'We've got a safe rover,' says principal investigator Steve Squyres. 'That's huge news for us.'"
Tough decisions (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, its made of rock.
Now wheres the damn aliens we were promised.
I know, I know - its really a good thing.
If it lasts the winter and moves on, dragging a broken wheel around may end up being a blessing in disguise, you never know what it might uncover.
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2)
will probably attract the attention of the Martian Highway Patrol
Or the Council of Elders. Someone please post some Late Breaking News - I wanna know how K'Breel is doing!
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2)
Oh, it's right here [slashdot.org]. I guess I should have RTFC before posting.
Sorry about that.
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2)
Yeah, it will uncover a very mysterious groove in the dirt that seems to always be along the path it just took... ITs THE ALIENZ!!!!1
Re:Tough decisions (Score:3, Informative)
>
> Now wheres the damn aliens we were promised.
We're right here, you ugly bag of mostly-water. Your master of psychotropically-voyaging primates is presently unavailable, and the Council has temporarily deigned to occupy waterbag 54550 to answer your pathetic cries.
Once more, panic swept across the beaches of Low Ridge Haven during the Late Autumn Festivals. K'Breel, Speaker for the Council, stressed that there was no cause for alarm:
Re:Tough decisions (Score:5, Funny)
Slows what yu know.
I'm nostly ful of alochol.
Wouldn't it be nice.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (Score:3, Funny)
That's why, in 2008, I'm voting for Skynet.
Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (Score:2)
Is that who we vote for when we get tired of voting for the lesser of two evils?
Re:Tough decisions (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tough decisions (Score:3, Informative)
Every american car has a clutch - in 95%+ of the cases it's just not operated by the driver, so I hardly doubt they were unaware. I'm sure there are good reasons why they didn't include it, such as reducing complexity and weight. It outlived its design life by far, and even when one fails it's still reasonably operable. Hell, we still got a twin where all wheels ar
Re:Tough decisions (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2)
Second, I was joking (at least to some extent).
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2)
And you should be so modded - because it's not nearly as simple as that. You make it into a black-and-white case of bias rather than the complex engineering decision it really is.
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2)
You are right for the short predicted lifespan of the rovers.
For their actual lifespan so far - dunno. If there will be one more wheel failure the rover is dead. If it had a mechanical wheel disengage it could have survived with only one functional motor remaining on either side.
As far as the designs are concerned it is still a rehash of old and actually bad designs. There are much more interesting all terrain transmission designs
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2)
Clutches can also fail (either engaged or disengaged). This reduces survivability.
If it had a mechanical wheel disengagement system - that too could fail. (Either by failing to engage, or failing to disengage w
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2)
Yes, yes, Americans only make crap and it never works right. That's why Voyager 1 is no longer func... err wait.. Voyager 2 is no longer func... damn.. the Mars rovers are no longer func... oh, hmm, why Americans never got a man on the moo... nope, that's not it.
If you can see past your anti-Americanism for three seconds, you may want to notice that we have, by far, the most successful space exploration pro
Re:Tough decisions (Score:2)
Do you have an operational manned space vehicle at the moment. Oooooooops not... Let's ship some americans in space on a russian rocket.
That about says it. But I will continue.
Been to Venus? Mars is a walk in the woods by comparison. Ooooooooops not...
Had a working space station for 20+ years? Oooooooops not...
By the way at that level of foaming you may choke on your own foam at some point.
And by the way - if NASA designed the rover for their lifetime so far it would have designed them with a CLUTCH.
Amazing (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA did a bang up job on these. Build more and recover the economies of scale!
-nB
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
I don't know about his, but it certainly is in mine. They should field-test these things in my apartment before they send them out there, they'd be indestructible! I'll only charge $30,000 per week for a testing area next to the couch. Cheap!
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
Not much hair on Mars, I expect.
RC Toys (Score:3, Interesting)
Once you think your kid is old enough to handle the responsibilities of an expensive toy, pick something out from a hobby catalog and introduce them to real RC stuff.
Compared to a $30~$50 car, yes, it's an expensive investment, but like the rover, you'll get a lot more bang for your buck.
Just like the Voyager Probes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Shuttle was always a compromise nasa/military (Score:2)
However, the desire to increase it's size, lead to the large external booster tank, the SRB's, all of which reduced the maximal launches to around 20/yea
Re:Shuttle was always a compromise nasa/military (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
One might also argue that since they so grossly exceeded their life expectancy then they were overdesigned and cost too much.
But I agree. Great job.
Build more and recover the economies of scale!
Yes! Yes! Yes! I can't understand why they insist on going back to the drawing board every time. I've read about the next generation rovers [space.com]. They're very different in many ways including the way they'll land on Mars.
I just don't understand why, with the success that Spirt and Opportunity have had, they don't build these as a platform. Surely if the research was put into new instruments that could be attached to the current design, rather than redesigning from scratch, that would be a better use of the money.
I'm sure (or hope) NASA has thought this through, right?
-S
Re:Amazing (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes! Yes! Yes! I can't understand why they insist on going back to the drawing board every time. I've read about the next generation rovers. They're very different in many ways including the way they'll land on Mars. "
Because there aren't any economies of scale to be had.
The big cost of the rovers isn't the rover but the launch vehicle and the time on the DSN to keep them running. Mainly the launch vehicle. The Rover themselves are pretty cheap in comparison.
Also after each mission NASA learns more about what works and doesn't and finds new questions to ask and that requires new tools.
Finally because stuff gets better over time. You know that Moore's law thing?
In reality trying to get "economies of scale" from the space program is EXACTLY the wrong way to do things. That is what lead to trying to use the Shuttle for everything.
The space program should be more about trying new ideas than mass production.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
That's not entirely true. The biggest cost savings that a space project (the project, not the launch) can have is preventing systems failure - because a systems failure requires a new launch.
So while I agree that reusing the rovers is moderately silly, given that certain technologies have proven themselves very very well, I would be extremely upset if those (successful, proven) technologies weren't used in future rover missions.
In some sense, that is 'ec
Just say no to Solar Power (Score:2, Insightful)
Heck, MSL still states that solar power is under consideration.
I'm surprised to hear that solar power is being considered for the next generation of Mars Rovers. That alone would rule out examining any feature with significant relief, like canyons and polar regions. Both Spirit and Opportunity got aid in cleaning off their solar panels from Martian wind gusts.
Would any engineer want to sign off on a design that requires sporadic Martian wind in order to keep power levels high? Without solar panel c
Re:Just say no to Solar Power (Score:2)
MSL might be a multi-rover mission (like MER) - which implies that solar panels/batteries might be a reasonable solution for some subset of the rovers.
To be honest, they're probably just a little surprised at how useful solar power has been fo
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
Moore's law doesn't apply to the launch vehicle, but ec
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
That and maybe little tweaks that would improve performance. Kind of like Rover 1.0 (current model), 1.1 (Improved Flash memory). Treat this as a test platform and attach whatever modules you want to it. Send it off to anywhere on mars or the moon (asteroid belt?) where there is enough sunlight and explore the hell out of it.
-nB
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
One might argue that. One might, equally as fruitfully, argue that the earth is flat. The simple fact is this; the key pacing item for the life expectancy of the rovers is the amount of dust that collects on the solar panels - and a series of fortuitous events have prevented the du
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
They don't.
Spirit and Opportunity reused:
And probably half a dozen other portions I'm not even suggesting here. Note that they didn't reuse them exactly the same - that'd be silly, they tweaked them, of course. But the Mars rovers missions have been reusi
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
You'll be pleased to know that they did this once already -- Spirit and Opportunity are themselves descendants of the Sojourner rover, using the same landing system and tetrahedral platform with solar panels.
According to the "Nova" show I saw about these, though, they're already at about the limit of this technology -- these rovers had a lot of extra complicated features which allowe
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
NASA did a bang up job on these. Build more and recover the economies of scale! - I don't think it's NASA problem to recover economical value from their work, but they could in principle spin-off a firm that would use NASA tech for other purposes. Maybe we could use robots like this here, on Earth?
I think NASA uses the proven design decisions in their new development work, but how would they really know what works best without trying the thi
Re:Amazing (Score:2, Interesting)
NASA did a bang up job on these. Build more and recover the economies of scale!"
Not long from now people will start speculating that the rovers are CGI animation and start finding hundreds of "deffects" in the Mars shots that demonstrate they've been "Photoshopped".
It's kinda already happening in the form of humor and parody.
It happened with the Moon landing.
People are cruel, people are doubtful. You can respect the latter but pitty the form
Re: Amazing (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
Now that they know, surely the next ones will greatly benefit from the experience.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
For comparison, the rovers produce only 140 watts during peak solar times (4 h
Energizer Bunny, where for art thou? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Amazing (Score:2)
I think you mean they didn't bang these ones up. They did a bang-up job on the Mars Polar Lander [slashdot.org].
thank goodness (Score:5, Funny)
I was really getting worried about my winter supply! :P
I've seen this one before (Score:2, Funny)
Re:I've seen this one before (Score:3, Funny)
Who unwillingly served as a feast,
For his ship, it did fall
To the planet of Trall
Near a ravenous bug-blatter beast.
(Oh yes, I wrote this all on my own!)
Re:I've seen this one before (Score:2, Funny)
Which will provide us with lots of fantastic scientific data about the biology of the Martian Sarlacc, and perhaps will help xenobiologists determine where it fits on the evolutionary tree in relation to the better-studied Tatooine Sarlacc.
Just in time! (Score:5, Funny)
I hope it works better than... (Score:5, Funny)
"Ok... wake up"
"I'm sorry Dave. Everything you were working on is know kaput and I've forgotten about everything that you were doing. By the way, where did that network connection go?"
Re:I hope it works better than... (Score:2)
Re:I hope it works better than... (Score:2)
Re:I hope it works better than... (Score:2)
Re:I hope it works better than... (Score:2)
Most likely it's dodgy hardware/drivers that makes Windows Hibernation fail.
Never play the odds! (Score:5, Funny)
Las Vegas Releases Odds For Mars Probe Trifecta-of-Failure [newshax.com]
Re:Never play the odds! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Never play the odds! (Score:2)
Nah, Spirit is just faking -- the bookie is cutting him in on the proceeds of the bets. Hell lose a few more games, and then they'll bet heavy in the finals.
Pure genius!
Hey, cheer up -- Maybe ESA'll pull another Beagle! (Score:2)
Martian Golfers? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Martian Golfers? (Score:2)
Didn't make it to McCool Hill (Score:2)
Re:Didn't make it to McCool Hill (Score:2)
Yes but they found a (small) red spot. Its not like spirit has to set up camp or anything. As long as the solar panels face north it should be ok.
TFA mentions being close to an outcrop. I haven't seen pictures yet. I wonder what the chance is of a thick sheet of dust being blown on to the rover by a winter storm.
This just in (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This just in (Score:2)
They sent one to Mars and kept at least one on Earth to use for trouble shooting. When the wheel failed, they 'broke' the same wheel on their test model and played around with it before futzing with the real thing.
Well now, (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well now, (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry but I don't see it. Care to elaborate on this point?
While I do think the rovers are a great success I can't help but think that if we would make the proper moves to getting people to the moon we could make space exploration cheaper. Also consider that it's taken the rovers over a year to do what a manned exploration could have completed in a week.
Aside from the durability of the crafts there is little to be amazed by here.
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
Since this particular thread deals with manned vs. unmanned spaceflight I think my argument is very relevant.
A lot of unmanned exploration can happen for years before we even have a viable launch vehicle, simply because the rovers don't need food or oxygen and other heavy and expensive to move requirements.
I would rather see NASA (or whomever) funnel the lion's share of their fun
You need both - look first land later (Score:3, Insightful)
Well yes, they are well and truly in the exploration stage instead - which robots are very good at. The much cheaper robots can look around and the best they find is what's worth sending people on a three+ year round trip that takes many years to plan to take a closer look at. Efforts are being made towards colonisation technology - like the hydroponics facility at the south pole designed to be similar to what you would use on the moon.
The disparaging com
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
The difference is that they did 100% of what they were designed to do. Now, go ask this project leader if he could have had humans on the moon for the same period of time (as in the initial programs lifespan) what would he have the human do instead? I have zero doubt that the expectations would be much much higher. Why? Because humans ARE more capable of completing these tasks no matter what the naysayers would have you believe.
In this way I'm sti
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
Uh, I was speaking of the rovers (just as you were in your GP).
The planning and technology required to safely land humans on Mars is staggering and comes with a high likelihood of failure.
I agree, to a point. I know it's a high end task (one of the reasons I suggested the moon in the first place, not to mention costs and logistics). With steps taken from the moon to the next planet we will doubtlessly overcome several of these daunting tasks.
With a manne
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
Perhaps to you it is but let me point out that since the space program is no longer a matter of national pride and has become more about science the funding has decreased as well as the progress of the space program. Introduce some profits and I bet you'll find renewed interest.
Not to mention that Joe Sixpack is going to be mighty upset about losing twenty billion dollars' worth of time and research and x great scientists when the ship more likely than not cr
Re:Well now, (Score:2, Informative)
The shuttle came into play when NASA decided to send up experiments with the astronauts. The bay gave them a massive storage space to play with. Problem is the shuttle burned out long ago. It's well past warranty and needs a replacement badly...cept we're stuck with the shuttle until the ISS is finished since parts are built with the shuttle's bay in mind.
No other rocket in service has the storage space like the shuttle does if
Re:Well now, (Score:3, Insightful)
Apollo 1 - Virgil Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee.
NASA gets burned hard when they lose a probe...
NASA gets burned worse when they lose astronauts.
It's completely impossible for a human to make it to another solar system within my lifetime - but using microwave-based solar sails, it's possible to send a camera through a nearby solar system and get pictures back, in that timeframe.
I'm not voting against manned missions - I'm just vo
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
You plan to live long, I see. The fastest interstellar probe we've made (Voyager I) would take 73,000 years to reach the next star (267,000 AU at 3.64 AU/year) - in fact, sending images back would take 4.23 years just for the signal to get here. What propulsion technique we u
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
The idea is to make a microwave sail with a camera - that's it. Then you blast microwave energy at the thing to make it go, go, go! You keep blasting microwaves at it for the entire journey - accelerating it the entire time. You get to a pretty significant percentage of the speed of light.
The propulsion technique is everything - you don't slingshot around jupiter - you push straight to your destination. The whole point is that you're not carrying your fue
Re:Well now, (Score:5, Insightful)
Not really, space is not your local highway and a dozen dead astronauts over twice as many years is not that high of a price. They're aware of the risks involved (as any pilot is), the NASA is aware of them too, only the public ever cries bloody murder, but that's because the public is idiotic.
Many more lives will be lost during the conquest of space, it's part of the game, and the number of lives taken by the whole space conquest is still lower than the daily death toll of car accidents across the US.
Re:Well now, (Score:5, Insightful)
No doubt.
Another point about manned and unmanned. The unmanned is great for simple things like this. It can go on and on doing very simple tasks and won't get tired of doing it. The manned flights are for sophisticated situations, but there's another less obvious point. PUshing to get people out there, will develop new technologies in life support that can be used for many other industries both in space, and here at home. Even if we develop great technologies to live in a colony on the moon, or on Mars, we can use those same technologies to extend our stay here on this planet. Since we're doing a good job of burning this one up that cannot support the numbers of people we have.
I know you are not protesting the manned space flight. I just wanted to comment that there are many great reasons for manned space flight that are less obvious than the per mission benefits of the manned flight itself. It would be very unwise to try to send a man to another galaxy on the first shot, if we never figured out how to do it locally first.
Cheers,
Scott
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
OK
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
yeah, forget shit like satelites... who needs that crap anyway. The billions spent on the R&D to get them there was wasted, nothing but a fad that will die down soon.
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
Actually the manned missions are more successful (Score:2)
It depends on what you mean by success. The Mars rover missions have failed more than 2/3 of the time. Those aren't really good odds.
Re:Well now, (Score:2)
See what now? (Score:3, Insightful)
Were you referring to a craft with a broken wheel that would take about ten seconds for a human to replace if there were one close at hand?
Or the fact that the entire life of both rovers has done about as much science as a human could do in a day, if they took a long lunch?
It's like if you had built a scooter that carried you to the end of your driveway, then proclaimed that no-one would ever need an aeroplane. The two things
Steve Squyres (Score:2)
1000 Years (Score:2, Insightful)
Good thing it got around the "sand trap", otherwise it would have found a new definition of pain and suffering as it was slowly digested over a thousand years.
What a beautiful Martian landscape naming (Score:2, Informative)
What a nice names! One thing I love about English and English naming in general is that English really cares about places and good naming habbits in general.
Most of the Americans take it as "a normal thing", but don't forget people that there are still nations and languges that do not care, they use latin characters like a whore, take languages of eastern Europe for example, full of phoneticaly written words that use latin characters in inproper/bad way. God bless Ameri
Re:What a beautiful Martian landscape naming (Score:2)
From Woody's Point to Come by Chance,
To good ol' Fairyland!
Come take a look at Gander,
Blackhead's mighty grand!
Don't let the names deceive you,
Newfoundland's mighty fine.
So spend a night in Dildo,
If you think you've got the time.
On behalf of English speakers everywhere (Score:2)
I do not myself know if it's exactly an English thing though so much as a space science thing, I would wager that space oriented scientists have a lot of imagination to devote to names - or at least a lot of desire to do so.
Mars science ha
Tag this one awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Tag this one awesome! (Score:2)
Dude, read the article.
The rover has one broken wheel. In just about the most literal way possible...
Re:Tag this one awesome! (Score:2)
Re:Tag this one awesome! - Duh! (Score:2)
See what the rovers & drivers see (Score:3, Interesting)
Still, it is excellent software, and fun to use even if you don't get where Spirit is today. With Maestro you can see what the rovers see, and what the rover operators and instruments see... Actual software used in mission control.
Re:Rovers are doing great. (Score:3, Funny)
Not until they've safely sent at least 50 people ready to serve and worship me.
Thanks anyways
Re:Movies in 30 years.. (Score:2)
http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/rovingmars/ [apple.com]