Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

NASA Mars Rovers Hit 5-Year Anniversary

Posted by Soulskill on Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:01 PM
from the exceeding-expectation dept.
An anonymous reader writes "NASA's Mars rovers have been on the red planet for five years now. The rovers were originally planned to stay operational on the planet for only 90 days, but it has turned into a much longer mission than anticipated. NASA has put together a video to celebrate the anniversary. The rovers have made important discoveries about wet and violent environments on ancient Mars. They also have returned a quarter-million images, driven more than 21 kilometers (13 miles), climbed a mountain, descended into craters, struggled with sand traps and aging hardware, survived dust storms, and relayed more than 36 gigabytes of data via NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter. To date, the rovers remain operational for new campaigns the team has planned for them."
+ -
story

Related Stories

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Shakrai (717556) on Saturday January 03 2009, @12:07PM (#26312281) Journal

    and relayed more than 36 gigabytes of data via

    Seems a little slow. Maybe Obama can extend some broadband lines to Mars and bring them into the 21st century? ;)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Most of that's relayed via MRO and Mars Odyssey. As others have remarked elsewhere, the drips and drops of data from MER is lost in the firehose from MRO. (Ever pulled a JP2 of HiRISE data? Those things are VAST. Here's a random example [arizona.edu].) Incidentally the IAS quick-viewer is the third useful client-side Java application ever written, according to this book I just made up.
        • Wrong on several counts. Even treating a modem line as a serial line (which it was), before adding on TCP/IP, the maximum bandwidth supported by the phone system was 56k, due to the bit-robbing scheme used for in-band signaling. In the US, the maximum attainable connection speed was further limited to about 53.3k by FCC limits on the power output of modems. The overhead of PPP, IP, and TCP further subtract from the usable bandwidth.

          • by m.dillon (147925) on Saturday January 03 2009, @01:54PM (#26313067) Homepage

            Actually, that isn't quite true either. If the ISP end of the connection is taking a T1 then one entire channel is reserved for out-of-band signaling, leaving (I think) 23 64 Kbit channels available for modem connections. I remember there were two options available and to make 56Kbit modems work well we had to use the out-of-band signaling option, which reduced the number of phone lines we had on each T1 by one.

            Direct T1s quickly became the standard for ISPs starting around 1994 ish, until T3's became cheap in '95 and '96. By 1998 most medium and large ISPs were splitting channels out of fiber directly, or had farmed their physical dialup to third parties which then backhauled them back to the ISP.

            Phone companies also played their own games involving far more then an 8Kbit loss, but by the late 90's they could only use those tricks in places where they had insufficient physical copper to meet demand and they couldn't hide the fact that modems simply didn't work well with the line doubler technology they were forced to use in those places.

            -Matt

      • You can't control the rover in real time. The control signals take several minutes to reach Mars from Earth. The mission people have to plan and map the course of the rover a small piece at a time carefully. You don't just throw it into reverse instantly when you run into a large rock or get stuck in the sand....
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 03 2009, @12:07PM (#26312283)

    Supposed to be finished in 90 days, ends up taking 5 years.

  • Fascinating (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JackassJedi (1263412) on Saturday January 03 2009, @12:14PM (#26312329)
    It's still so unbelievable to me that we actually have a satellite and stationary vehicles on another planet and are using them to do stuff there. If you really think about this for a moment in terms of what has to be accomplished for this to work it's just mind-blowing.
    • Re:Fascinating (Score:5, Interesting)

      by BZWingZero (1119881) on Saturday January 03 2009, @01:09PM (#26312677)
      Not only do we have landers, rovers, and satellites around another planet, but we can coordinate them so one of the orbiting satellites can take a picture of a lander as it is landing!

      A photo from Mars Odyssey (satellite) taking a picture of Mars Phoenix Lander with enough detail to see the parachute shroud lines can be found here [spaceflightnow.com]
    • Just wanted to speak up in agreement with your post. Our robots are taking over the solar system :)

    • Re:Fascinating (Score:4, Insightful)

      by couchslug (175151) on Saturday January 03 2009, @02:24PM (#26313299)

      Imagine how much more we could have accomplished by using robot probes instead of wasting money on primitive systems like the Space Shuttle. We could send robot after robot after robot and leave the tourists at home for a few decades.

      • Re:Fascinating (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Kjella (173770) on Saturday January 03 2009, @11:08PM (#26317109) Homepage

        In a way you're right, but it's also a bit like "Well, I haven't actually been to Africa but I saw a documentary on National Geographic. Gee, how much money I saved." I really doubt JFK would have gotten the same effect if he promised to send a lump of electronics to the Moon and back either. Part of the reason Mars is so interesting is exactly because it's fairly Earth-like, and why would we care about that if only robots would ever go there? I can't speak for anyone else but I want humans in space.

        I think establishment of a permanent colony outside Earth would be pretty much the greatest achivement in human history ever. For that we need three things:
        1) The ability to bring fragile little meatbags from Earth to Mars
        2) The ability for fragile little meatbags to survive on Mars
        3) The ability to mostly support itself without supplies from Earth

        Obviously, we're well short on 3) but certainly we could get some experience on 1) and 2) with a manned Mars mission. A lot fo people seem to think "Well, we did that on the Moon so what's the big deal sending guys to sit in a bunker and eat canned food?" Well we've never done it. Not going to for a while either, it seems. But if we stopped with manned flight, how much would it take to revive it? Like if we wanted to return to the moon we wouldn't break out a few Apollo rockets from storage, we'd have to start over.

        NASA didn't pick a "primitive system" on purpose, they picked what looked like the best choice at the time. Like pretty much everything else you do of early experimentation it probably wasn't the best one. That's how you learn, how you build better crafts, after all if you can't reasonably keep people healthy and alive in near orbit you sure aren't going to make it out to Mars. How about some experience in orbital construction like the ISS? After all, a Mars launcher might be built in space from modules. In short, what you call "space tourist" is what I call "Our home base on the outskirts of Earth's gravity well." We're going to want people up there if we ever want to get anywhere further.

  • This is a perfect example of the best that America has to offer. The people who built these rovers obviously knew they only needed to last 90 days yet obviously they built them to last as long as possible. This makes me proud to be a member of the most advanced country on earth, even setting aside the misguided leadership we've endured for 8 years and are about to be liberated from.
    • by Forty Two Tenfold (1134125) on Saturday January 03 2009, @12:22PM (#26312385)

      This is a perfect example of the best that America has to offer.

      The people who built these rovers were not all "American."

      • The people who built these rovers were not all "American."

        Did we coordinate the mission and enable a group of bright people to make something like this happen? Yes, of course we did. That's MORE American (in the real spirit of the Country) than some xenophobic team of wasps who have never stepped foot out of the US doing the work.

  • by Murphy(c) (41125) on Saturday January 03 2009, @12:32PM (#26312435)

    5 Years on an other planet, think about it.
    Imagine the amount of food, water, O2 and energy that would have been required if they had sent humans instead of machines.

    Never mind the fact that they extended the original mission by more than 2000% and the fact that they never needed resupply missions.

    When you read the mission reports for the ISS and see that they need a two man crew just to keep stuff from breaking too badly, it's hard to imagine the size of the crew that would be needed for a 5 year mission to Mars.

    Yet one of the two (ISS vs Mars rovers), has a budget at least one order of magnitude larger than the other and has yet to produce any real science (unless teeing off a gold plated golf ball from the ISS [latimes.com] is ones idea of science)

    Murphy(c)

    • by Rinikusu (28164) on Saturday January 03 2009, @01:07PM (#26312665)

      Actually, when compared to humans, it's not that great. A human could've crossed that 12 miles in a day. Humans can scale that "mountain" and the "crater" in a matter of minutes. Basically, a Human team could've done the entire 5 year mission (so far) in less than a couple days. In fact, with a geologist on board, they probably could've done even more science as other opportunites presented themselves.

      • by grumbel (592662) <grumbel@gmx.de> on Saturday January 03 2009, @01:56PM (#26313089) Homepage

        How many rovers could you have send to Mars for the price of a human mission? Around a thousand or so I think, puts things into perspective.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        Point taken, but if science is our goal then our performance metric should be discoveries achieved per dollar spent.

        The Mars Exploration Rover mission cost less than $1 billion total. In contemporary dollars the Apollo program cost $150-200 billion (and going to Mars would be WAY tougher than the Moon). Imagine - the price of a human mission we could fill the solar system with squadrons of rovers. The numbers are rough, but they suggest that we can get more science for our buck with robots.
    • by daigu (111684) on Saturday January 03 2009, @01:22PM (#26312783) Journal

      Perhaps part of the ISS science is figuring out the engineering and logistical problems of how human's can live for extended periods in space, which is a much harder problem. I'd say getting something so big into orbit, operational and supporting an onboard crew for more than 8 years is a significant accomplishment.

    • Imagine the amount of food, water, O2 and energy that would have been required if they had sent humans instead of machines.

      Since humans could have accomplished what took the rovers five years in a few days, imagine how much more science could have been done with humans on site for five years.

      What truly boggles my mind is that people are impressed that a robot has done in five years what a man could do in a day or two.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        People have been talking about manufacturing in orbit for decades. Instead, manufacturing moved to China. The motivation for the move to East Asia mirrors the reason why space manufacturing remains just talk. If you consider the overhead and transportation costs of manufacturing in orbit, it makes unionized factories in the US and Europe look dirt cheap.

  • Does anyone know if the rover cameras can look upward? Could they see Phobos or Deimos clearly from the surface? Or is the atmosphere too dusty? That would be a pretty cool photo. According to "Shawn Of The Dead," dogs can't look up. 'Rover' might have a problem then.
  • The rovers have made important discoveries about wet and violent environments on ancient Mars. They also have returned a quarter-million images, driven more than 21 kilometers (13 miles), climbed a mountain, descended into craters, struggled with sand traps and aging hardware, survived dust storms, and relayed more than 36 gigabytes of data via NASA's Mars Odyssey orbiter. To date, the rovers remain operational for new campaigns the team has planned for them

    Yes, but do they run linux?

  • by bubbaprog (783125) on Saturday January 03 2009, @12:50PM (#26312567)
    I would argue, or at least allow for the argument, that the Mars Rovers have been the second-most successful accomplishment of NASA after Apollo 11.
  • 90 days? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mosb1000 (710161) <mosb1000@mac.com> on Saturday January 03 2009, @12:55PM (#26312597) Homepage
    I'd like to point out that the engineers designing the rovers probably expected them to last longer than that (though certainly not 5 years). They probably budgeted for 90 days to keep the projected costs down so that NASA would chose the project. They knew that the budget would be extended once the rovers were there.
    • Re:90 days? (Score:5, Informative)

      by ScottMaxwell (108831) on Saturday January 03 2009, @04:03PM (#26314069) Homepage

      I'd like to point out that the engineers designing the rovers probably expected them to last longer than that (though certainly not 5 years). They probably budgeted for 90 days to keep the projected costs down so that NASA would chose the project. They knew that the budget would be extended once the rovers were there.

      A lot of people seem to believe this, but it's really not true. I'm not saying we expected the rovers to drop dead at the stroke of midnight on sol 91, but even the wildest optimists on the project did not openly dare to hope that we'd even double that 90-sol lifetime. (We've just hit twenty times that number, as it happens. Incredible!)

      Also note that underestimating surface survival time doesn't significantly reduce costs. Getting through the first 90 sols on Mars cost a little over $800 million. But most of that cost goes into design, development, testing, launch (about $100 million per rover goes to launch costs alone, IIRC), and so on. Operations, by comparison, is cheap: now that they're there, we run the rovers for ~ $20 million per year. If we'd known, for example, that we'd survive a year on the surface, we could have promised NASA four times the science for a ~ 10% cost increase; that would have made the project a better sell, and we'd have been fools not to do it.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Sounds like NASA sent them to New Orleans, not Mars.
  • Now, if NASA could just get their shit together regarding putting actual PEOPLE in space again...
  • by Xaositecte (897197) on Saturday January 03 2009, @02:09PM (#26313193) Journal

    There used to be a guy who wrote stories about how the Martians were interacting with the rover in comments every time a Rover story came up on Slashdot.

    Whatever happened to that guy? Where's he at?

  • NASA can send Humans to Mars right now, or start working on it now with full NASA manned budget on that instead of ISS and the Space Shuttle, and we could have the first Humans on Mars within 4 years from now. It will cost less than $30 billion to send 24 astronauts on 4 spaceships to Mars, with 4 earth-return spaceships sent there at the same time for the trip home. 6 months travel to go, 1 and a half years spent on Mars and 6 months for the return trip. It'd be a 2.5 year at least live Mars reality show,

  • by ScottMaxwell (108831) on Saturday January 03 2009, @03:17PM (#26313741) Homepage

    I'm one of MER's rover drivers; I've been on the project from the start. Which has been considerably longer than five years, as development started about 3.5 years before landing, so MER has been the focus of my life for nearly a decade now. I co-wrote the software (RSVP) we use to drive the rovers, and I've been using that software to drive Spirit and Opportunity ever since.

    As a contribution to MER's five-year anniversary celebration, I'm blogging my personal mission notes from the early days of the mission. They'll be posted in "real time" -- roughly one update per day, five years after the fact -- at http://marsandme.blogspot.com/ [blogspot.com]. First update will be tonight around 18:30 (Pacific time).

    Be prepared to stick with it; it's a little slow for the first few days. And be aware that it's a personal activity, not a JPL-sponsored activity, so I occasionally swear and stuff. But if you're a fan of the rovers, it will, I hope, give you a new insight into what it's been like to be a small part of an historic adventure.

    Ah, and for twitterati: you can follow the official MER feed at http://twitter.com/MarsRovers [twitter.com]; you can follow me at http://twitter.com/marsroverdriver [twitter.com].

  • Wonderful (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Colourspace (563895) on Saturday January 03 2009, @03:32PM (#26313829)
    And absolutely beautiful. In the current times we are all living in, Spirit and Opportunity remind us of what mankind can acheive, when we put our mind to it, and also how lucky we can be, unexpectedly.
  • by bacon volcano (1260566) on Saturday January 03 2009, @03:56PM (#26313989)
    There is a great show [nationalgeographic.com] on this subject that aired on the National Geographic channel. I highly recommend it to anyone that hasn't been paying much attention to the rovers for the last five years.
  • by marcel-jan.nl (647348) on Saturday January 03 2009, @04:45PM (#26314341) Homepage
    The Planetary Society has a very interesting article [planetary.org] about the five years the rover Spirit has been on Mars. And I wrote this one [astrostart.nl] about the Mars rovers in Dutch.
  • by Tablizer (95088) on Saturday January 03 2009, @10:14PM (#26316661) Homepage Journal

    I've been reading about Spirit of late, and it seems like its last days are near. It's so dusty that it can probably only do decent roving in the summer, and will also not have enough power to survive the winter.

    It's busted wheel makes it difficult to find and move to a solar-panel-friendly high-tilt area that is near exploration areas. Thus, if it wonders off too far, it cannot get back to a safe spot fast enough to survive the cold or surprise dust storms, which block light. It almost hit the limit during a recent dust storm about 2 months ago.

    They may just send it off to explore and say, "screw the winter and dust storms; if it ends it ends." This probably depends on whether they can find good targets without going far.

    It could get lucky and get another whirlwind cleaning, though. These things have 9 lives, I swear.
           

    • This message is a potential instance of steganography on Slashdot. Why is there an H3 in the word 'down'? Why the ill grammar and meaningless (to us) message? Such messages must be considered potential secret communications and analyzed.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      As I understood it, the 90-day figure was because dust was expected to accumulate on the solar panels. The rovers should have died from lack of power a long time ago. But, as it turned out, the Martian winds are a little stronger than had been thought, and the dust rather lighter; OK, so the rovers are hardly clean, but enough dust blows away that they're able to keep going.