Mars Rovers Get Extra 18 Months

iamlucky13 writes "NASA has stated in the latest mission press release that funding for an additional 18 months of exploration has been approved. The rovers have breezed through 14 months of operation so far, and the money will cover expenses through September of 2006. The rovers are still operating well, and recently both experienced dramatic power boosts from their solar cells. They are no longer like new, however. Opportunity has recently experienced data loss from one of its spectrometers, while Spirit has a smudged camera lens, a heavily used rock abrasion tool, and has previously struggled with intermittent steering issues."

Well..

[Flounder (42112)]

At least SOMETHING is getting enough funding in NASA.

Good value...

[PornMaster (749461)]

Incremental costs of running them must be a bargain. Great to see how well these things were made.

Re:Good value...

[LordPixie (780943)]

Incremental costs of running them must be a bargain. Great to see how well these things were made.

One can basically say the same about the Voyager probes. But that doesn't seem to have saved them from being eyed for downsizing.


--LordPixie

Re:Good value...

[rbanffy (584143)]

They can't send nice pictures to spice up press releases anymore...

Re:Good value...

[JJ (29711)]

One can disagree with that. As Voyager gets further and further away, the radio receivers required to hear it and transmit to it must get more powerful/ more sensitive (read that as more expensive.) The Mars probes, sitting on Mars, are at a relatively fixed distance from Earth (note to planetary orbital geeks: I know that the distance isn't really fixed, it just varies within the limits of E + M to M - E and I don't care to describe the pattern of this distribution, just permit "relatively fixed" to be ade

Re:Well..

[beset (745752)]

True. We all know what happened to the farscape project!

Re:Well..

[mboverload (657893)]

Only because it holds the public's interest.

Pathetic.

Steve: "Oh, hey bob, no one cares about voyager anymore, so lets just scrap it!"
Bob: But it will be the first man made object ever to be in interstellar space! It will be the first transmission from out of our solar system!
Steve: Will there be any pictures?
Bob: Thats not the point
Steve: But what are we supposed to show on TV?
Bob: ........
Steve: For motherland Russia!
Bob: WTF? I thought this was NASA?
Steve: err..um..I mean, bring me that beer and hamburger! Time for Monday Night Football!

Re:Well..

[starseeker (141897)]

"'Interstellar space' is an arbitrary distinction. What, it crosses this boundary and all of a sudden the state of the universe massively changes? For all practical purposes, there is no comparatively valuable information that can be obtained beyond the volumes of information it's already given us from it's primary mission."

For all we know, maybe it DOES change. Who's to say? If it did it would have MASSIVE implications for astronomy. If it doesn't, then we have experimentally confirmed that assumption. It's a very rare chance to do this experiment. We've got them out there. Let's check! How many other chances will we get in our lifetimes?

Re:Well..

[leeward (313589)]

I think that generally interstellar space is usually that space beyond the heliopause. Are "MASSIVE" implications for astronomy really required to justify continuing the mission? Very little time and resources are used now, and the will be the only opportunity to make direct measurements for a very long time.

It would appear to me...

[maynard (3337)]

"Voyager is useless now. (No. It really is. No. Really.) This isn't about pictures on TV. This is about good science."

[...]

"If you want to use it as an excuse to Bush-bash (not saying YOU are doing that specifically), or, startlingly, make irrelevant and nonsensical references to the US apparently devolving into the former USSR, because we won't continue to fund a useless project, go for it. Everyone else is, comrade."

...that your primary concern in posting these comments is to defend Bush and his policies regardless of the scientific objective. You appear to have concluded a priori that the Voyager probes have no scientific value simply because Bush has concluded so. Any argument in furtherance of the scientific value of collecting data as they continue out of our solar system is met with hostile political rhetoric and tautological claims that the data is worthless because it is worthless. I find your arguments highly unconvincing; your heated political rhetoric even less so.

Dropping the partisan issues here, let me ask: what expertise in the fields of space science, astronomy, and physics, do you posess which give scientific validity to your claims of the low relative worth of future Voyager data? Why should I believe you when specialists in the field are quoted as saying that the data is highly valuable, especially given the low collection cost? How about some facts instead of hot air? --M

Where are your facts?

[maynard (3337)]

[political fingerpointing snipped as irrelevant]

"Degrees in engineering and physics aside, you still shouldn't trust me."

I don't.

"Voyager has had a *30 year mission*. ... But we haven't gotten any scientifically worthwhile, manifestly surprising, or unexpected data from it for years. The only thing surprising about the Voyager mission is how long it's lasted."

Well, that's a very interesting assertion. You claim that the Voyager probes haven't sent, nor have we haven't received any scientifically worthwhile data from the probes in years. I simply don't believe this. Not just because you say so, but because scientists related quoted in the previous article say just the opposite. As referenced in that Newscientist article on 13 anomalies that don't make sense, there are real questions about shifts in the velocity and travelled distance in the Pioneer probes that the Voyager probes could shed additional light upon with further data collection. There's at least one specific question worth answering with that additional data. And probably many more. I've yet to see any factual basis for your claims to the contrary. Not even a cite; bias regardless.

"But if you think it's George W Bush personally making decisions to pull the plug on Voyager, you kind of need to get a fucking grip. Budgets get reprioritized[...]"

No. I think it's members of his cabinet furthering Bush's stated policy objectives, flowing down the ranks through to undersecretaries and Republican members of congress who make these specific and individual budgetary decisions. So what? The issue is relative merit of that decision, not party affiliation and political association. I argue that it's a bad decision. Period. Do I still need to "[...] get a fucking grip" for disagreeing? Should party affiliation trump agreement or disagreement on specific policy and budgetary goals, or must we all walk in lock step with the party faithful regardless of outcome?

"Lose your emotional and symbolic ties to Voyager and seriously think about what information that would be really valid that they could return simply because they've crossed an artificial boundary?"

Who's the one being emotional here? I and others have already cited arguments to continue collecting data. You have ignored these arguments, repeating the same tautological assertion that the data is worthless because it is worthless without a factual response. IMO, this only damages the credibility of your position. --M

Re:Well..

[Rei (128717)]

Incorrect [mit.edu]. It's not an arbitrary distinction whatsoever. The region where the solar wind drops below the speed of sound is called the "termination shock". Just like how on an aircraft, differences between supersonic and subsonic regions of flow create strong turbulent artifacts, so will happen with the solar wind (which is charged, meaning that it produces electromagnetic radiation when its path is changed). More significantly, at the heliopause, another issue arises: charge. The heliopause is where the solar wind balances out the pressure of the interstellar medium. Do the charged particles collect there, and if so, how densely? This could have profound effects for any kupier belt (or beyond) missions, as well as our models of solar system formation. Heck, we don't even know how far out the termination shock and heliopause are (and they're not in constant locations, as the sun is moving with respect to the local interstellar medium; the shape is something like a comet). Despite what we don't know about it, we do know this: the heliosphere is the source of the most powerful radio waves in our solar system - more than 10 trillion watts. By the way - it was Voyager who first detected these emissions.

After the heliopause comes the heliosheath, which has its own set of properties which are largely unknown. It's the area where the solar-influenced material blends into the interstellar medium (and getting any data on the interstellar medium would be a great boon for astronomy)

Re:Well..

[wambaugh (666794)]

Like much of what the Bush administration does, your claim is not really true while containing a grain of truth. While the overall NASA budget is being slightly increased, the administration is also dictating which areas of research will be cut and which will be expanded. Most everything but manned space-flight is being extremely reduced.

Many projects in which billions have already been invested are being tossed asside because NASA has been directed to return to the moon and Mars and only been given a s

Re:Well..

[dgatwood (11270)]

Personally, I think they should cut Houston. AFAIK, the separation of mission control from launch control is largely a carry-over from from the early missions where they needed lots of people and gear to do trajectory calculations, etc, and where they needed more ground to orbit communications stations. With modern computing, TDRS, etc. all of their manned flight ops could easily be centralized at KSC for significant savings.

So basically, you're telling me that the only facility Bush isn't cutting is th

why?

[R.D.Olivaw (826349)]

"Mars Rovers Get Extra 18 Months"

why is that? Did it try to escape or something?

Most successful ever?

[Pants75 (708191)]

In terms of science per dollar these two babies have got to be the most effective probes ever sent to another planetary body. Surely

Shame that our British version was ever so slightly less successful. *Sobs*

Re:Most successful ever?

[ptomblin (1378)]

You sent a Bagel, and it became a pancake.

Re:Most successful ever?

[LWATCDR (28044)]

They should try again. Success is what happens after you learn from your mistakes. Failure is what happens when stop trying.

Rear hazard-avoidance camera?

[sdo1 (213835)]

From the quote under the picture in the article...

"This image is from the rover's rear hazard-avoidance camera"

What, are they worried about something sneaking up on it from behind?

-S

Driving backwards a lot of time

[Frans Faase (648933)]

To improve lubrication the rovers have been driving backwards a lot of times lately. I remember they started doing this when one of the front wheels of the Spirit rover started to show more friction. After driving in reverse the friction became less.

Re:Driving backwards a lot of time

[Tibe (444675)]

Uh, 0.0223693629080171796mph speed.. hey NASA do it too. :|

Re:Driving backwards a lot of time

[Atzanteol (99067)]

Because when somebody says "go forwards 30 feet" they want to be sure it doesn't back into a 100ft deep chasm?

Re:Rear hazard-avoidance camera?

[MichaelSmith (789609)]

What, are they worried about something sneaking up on it from behind?

If a wheel develops a problem during the life of the rover it may be necessesary to drive it backwards.

Also, these robots, like many others, spent a lot of their time getting too close to hazards and having to reverse away, so being able to see behind you is pretty important.

And another thing ... a good way to measure how far you have gone is to take a picture of your tracks. This makes it easy to integrate your movements and calculate your new position

Really nice new

[MaDeR (826021)]

I like both rovers. :) But I think they get more funding because of "to moon, _mars_ and beyond" thing. If NASA want to fulfill this goal, then must gather as much information as possible about Mars. I like idea of human presence on Moon and Mars, but not for price of cutting other succesful projects like Voyager.

Re:Really nice new

[Eminence (225397)]

• I like idea of human presence on Moon and Mars, but not for price of cutting other succesful projects like Voyager.

I don't like the idea of scraping Voyager too, but if we really get to the Mars the amount of technology developed and overall advancement of space exploration would make another long distance probes more likely than not.

In other words, if we go to the Mars we may some day go beyond our system but if we don't then surely not.

When NASA gets it right,

[by Anonymous Coward]

NASA gets it right.

These things have dramaticly outlived their projected lifetimes, while their british counterpart didn't even survive to the first day.

Nurmerous other probes and exploration devices have been lost over the years...

Glad they done it. And they deserve all the credit for successfully pulling off such a difficult task.

This and successfull space flights by private industry has rekindled my hope in being able to visit space and the moon... and possibly mars, within my lifetime.

Re:When NASA gets it right,

[Dammital (220641)]

"These things have dramaticly outlived their projected lifetimes, while their british counterpart didn't even survive to the first day."

Don't be so hard on Beagle; space travel is hard. Or have you forgotten the spectacular failures of NASA's own Mars Observer [msss.com] and Mars Polar Lander [space.com]?

Re:When NASA gets it right,

[GileadGreene (539584)]

NASA gets it right.

Uh... having actually worked on the development of MER, I can tell you "NASA got lucky". Which is not to say that there weren't a bunch of incredibly talented people working on the project, or that the rovers are not well designed. But the rovers were never expected to work this long (lucky that winds seem to have cleaned the dust off the solar arrays). And there were many things that could have gone wrong (many not under the control of the design team - particularly during entry/descent

Good old NASA

[kkelly (69745)]

Perhaps we are getting back to the good old days of NASA. You just cannot go cheap on space/planet exploration. Look at the original Pioneer probes, these things might just run forever, they were overengineered for the task from the get go. After all of the recent shuttle and probe failures, I'm glad NASA is getting more than they paid for on this one. Space exploration shoud ensure the future of the human race.........

The little golf carts that could

[Zerbey (15536)]

Well done NASA and the MER team, you've really exceeded all expectations with this one! I'm really intrigued to see how long they'll continue to function. Aside from some minor issues, they're still in perfect working order.

Here's hoping they'll be getting another extension in September 2006!

The truth ...

[tomhudson (43916)]

Spirit has a smudged camera lens, a heavily used rock abrasion tool, and has previously struggled with intermittent steering issues."

Blurring vision, dulled senses, unable to go in a straight line ...

... the robots are frigging DRUNK!

.

.

FOR SALE

[jmrobinson (660094)]

'03 Spirit Rover

odometer: 0000003 miles
abrasion tool slightly dulled
slight steering problem
needs a good buff
runs great!
Asking $15,000,000 OBO

Delivery option:

[LiquidCoooled (634315)]

Delivery option: not available, buyer collection is required.

Bravo, NASA!!

[IdJit (78604)]

It's nice to know that some NASA projects perform beyond expectations, even with a reduced budget. The first rover mission was a prime example of pride in workmanship, despite the lack of proper funding.

Here's hoping they can get an additional 18 months of service out of those things!

And when they're done

[ch-chuck (9622)]

NASA could auction them off on ebay - The lucky buyer (or heirs) couldn't actually take possession of them for some time but it makes as much sense as paying to have a star named after someone.

logo

[confused one (671304)]

they should have gotten commercial funding from Energizer and put the bunny logo on the rover, strategically placed where they can get a periodic shot of it with the pancam.

Next steps in Mars exploration

[FleaPlus (6935)]

This is from last month, but Space Daily's Bruce Moomaw has an extensive overview [spacedaily.com] of NASA's future plans for Mars exploration, based on the results of the first meeting of the Mars Strategic Roadmap Committee. It's a highly recommended read.

Some highlights:
* The 2007 Phoenix [wikipedia.org] will "land on the near-surface layer of ice-saturated ground discovered by the Mars Odyssey orbiter in Mars' north polar regions to study the ice itself and its potential for preserving biochemicals."
* Mars Telecommunications Orbiter in 2009, which could boost the data rate coming back from Mars 10x to 100x.
* The Mars Science Laboratory [wikipedia.org] will likely be pushed back to 2011 (instead of 2009), but is likely to have two or more versions constructed and sent to different areas. The base cost for a single rover is estimated at $1 billion, but another rover is expected to add $400 million. The MSL (or MSLs) will be looking for traces of organic chemicals and be further investigating the geological/climate history of Mars. The MSL is expected to weigh 600 kg including 65 kg of scientific instruments, compared to the MERs which weigh 185 kg including 5 kg of scientific instruments.
* There still seems to be considerable debate over when and how to launch a Mars Sample Return mission. One proposal I like is to send one (or more) to land near a MSL, have the MSL load a pre-drilled soil sample into the MSR, and then have the loaded MSR's return vehicle launch back.

Well, it's difficult to answer that

[Seoulstriker (748895)]

There are many shared costs involved: salaries of researchers, replacement equipment, dish-time. However, operating the rovers (both of them) is much more expensive because there is more science being done (cutting open rocks, spectroscopy, moving across the landscape) with the rovers than with the Voyager (sending back occasional data). The Voyager project is obviously less expensive to maintain than the rover projects.

Frankly, Voyager is useless now, and money used to fund that project could be going

Re:Well, it's difficult to answer that

[jeffy210 (214759)]

Frankly, Voyager is useless now, and money used to fund that project could be going to more worthwhile projects like the JPL rovers. The Voyager project was never meant to measure data outside of the solar system, but rather to gather data on the gas giants and outer planets. They accomplished that a long time ago.

Yes, but tell me, when is the next time we'll have a probe that far out in say, oh, the next 20-30 years?? While we're out there and it's sending data we might as well gather it. All data is new data that can be used. And as for "the original mission", don't forget the rovers were only supposed to be for about 90 days and look how much they've done.

Sooner than you think

[amightywind (691887)]

Yes, but tell me, when is the next time we'll have a probe that far out in say, oh, the next 20-30 years??

A lot sooner than you think. [jhuapl.edu] The Pluto probe will be launched by a souped up Atlas V (Model 551). That with a Jupiter flyby will have the probe screaming into the outer Solar system in a few years. It will be wandering the Kuiper belt like the Voyagers in 2020.

Re:Sooner than you think

[bleckywelcky (518520)]

I have some news for you: the Kuiper belt extends from about 30 AU to 50 AU. Voyager is currently nearing 100 AU. Unless you're talking about an EP engine probe that will accelerate through 40 AU or more, then you'll probably need to double the time it takes to get to 50 AU to determine how long it will take to 100 AU.

Re:Sooner than you think

[Rei (128717)]

only way to get it out there in a reasonable amount of time is nuclear explosions against a pusher plate

Hardly :P First off, the Orion concept has been largely outmodded by the Medusa concept - it's more efficient, lighter weight, and has less acceleration shock. These together are referred to as "pulse detonation" concepts. Secondly, there are about a dozen currently achievable concepts that can do it: Orion and medusa, mini-magnetospheric propulsion, solar sail, antimatter catalyzed microfission and

Re:Sooner than you think

[Rei (128717)]

Sorry, that should be "various fission core designs", in addition to the fusion core concept - thanks for catching my mistake. :) Yes, there are solid core, liquid core, and even gas/plasma core designs. Solid are the furthest along, but the least efficient.

A number of different propulsion methods are discussed here [wikipedia.org], although it's far from a complete list.

The problem with Orion's acceleration is that it comes in bursts. Medusa involves using a large "sail", which captures more of the explosive force.

Re:Well, it's difficult to answer that

[Rakshasa Taisab (244699)]

Voyager is only useless if you don't care about finding out what it the extra "pull" the probes are experiencing is real or not. You know, the dark matter thing?

Re:Well, it's difficult to answer that

[UrgleHoth (50415)]

Frankly, Voyager is useless now

Useless? [nasa.gov]

"For the past two years or so, Voyager 1 has detected phenomena unlike any encountered before in all its years of exploration. These observations and what they may infer about the approach to the termination shock have been the subject of on-going scientific debates. While some of the scientist believed that the passage past the termination shock had already begun, some of the phenomena observed were not what would have been expected. So the debate continues while even more data are being returned and analyzed."

Re:Well, it's difficult to answer that

[exp(pi*sqrt(163)) (613870)]

These observations and what they may

infer...

Ugh! You'd think NASA would hire people who know English to write their web pages.

Re:Well, answer me this.

[d4v3c (633946)]

I wonder if this is related to Bush's goal of getting a man to Mars. The more we know about Mars, the better we might achieve that goal. Then again, if we kept Voyager going... the more we know about interstellar space, yeah, I know, we can't plant a nice big American flag in interspace.

Re:I bet a japanese robot vehicle wouldnt break do

[The Cisco Kid (31490)]

Im sure you were trying to be funny (and when it comes to the used car market, Id be 100% with you), but what 'breakdown' are you referring to? The whole point of the story is that even though the rovers were designed to last only three months, so far they have lasted almost 4 times that long, and are still going strong.

Re:Great News

[wjsteele (255130)]

Which "previous mars rover's failures" are you referring too? No other "rovers" have failed. All the failures were either orbiters or landers, not rovers.

The previous rover was Sojourner in '97... and it lasted much longer than it's planned mission as well.

Bill

Re:Great News

[zakath (180357)]

I'll bet the general public isn't even aware of the previous Mars rovers.