![Mars Mars](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/mars_64.png)
![Space Space](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/space_64.png)
![The Almighty Buck The Almighty Buck](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/money_64.png)
![United States United States](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/usa_64.png)
![Science Science](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/science_64.png)
Mars Rovers Get Extra 18 Months 205
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Good value... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Good value... (Score:5, Insightful)
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... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good value... (Score:2)
The rovers have pictures; hell, they have individual names--they aren't numbered "probes" or anything hyper-nerdy like that.
Rovers = PR toys
Probes = nerd toys
Don't undersell Voyager (Score:2)
Especially if they bash into that great big crystal sphere with the galaxies painted into it. (-:
Re:Don't undersell Voyager (Score:2)
It'd make for good sci-fi tv, no doubt. Especially if the bubble or lens or whatever was shrinking.
Re:Good value... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good value... (Score:2)
Well, it's not that they would be getting them back for repair, is it? Probably the cost will be mostly personnel looking at the pictures and pressing buttons. The article is somewhat vague on this.
Re:Good value... (Score:2)
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
Hating Bush because he's Bush is cool and all, but he actually increased NASA's budget [newscientist.com]. They got a 5.6% increase for 2005 and are expecting (maybe already got?) a 4.7% increase for 2006. NASA is one of the few non-defense arms of the government which has gotten a funding boost, and there's actually worry that it might make it a target for other interests ("We should spend money on earth," blah blah).
Re:Well.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.. (Score:3)
So basically, you're telling me that the only facility Bush isn't cutting is th
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
surprising how ones memory goes
From the article: "NASA officials said the possibility of cutting Voyager and several other long-running missions in the Earth-Sun Exploration Division arose in February, when the Bush administration proposed slashing the division's 2006 budget by nearly one-third -- from $75 million to $53 million."
try again, bush is supportive of the "I love space and su
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
What you really mean is that he isn't supporting your pet projects.
Wrong. I've already benefitted from one of these programs, and therefore have nothing to lose personally from their cancellation. I'm thinking more of the general science impact; there is nothing in the USA funding structure that can support long-term projects in the same way as the LTSA program. But you wouldn't be aware of this, since you obviously haven't got a fucking clue what you're talking about.
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
Don't forget that the public is paying for it. (Score:2)
But in this case there is a dealbreaker- Joe Public is funding NASA. If the majority of the public doesn't see a use for NASA, they can demand a cut in its funding.
It's a public program that's taxpayer funded.
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Well.. (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought that interstellar space was where the solar wind from our sun was weaker than the ambient interstellar wind. Perhaps radio waves from other stars are a lot stronger out of our solar 'atmosphere'. We won't know anything until we actually go there and look. That's why it's important.
It would appear to me... (Score:4, Insightful)
[...]
"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."
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Degrees in engineering and physics aside, you still shouldn't trust me."
I don't.
"Voyager has had a *30 year mission*.
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.. (Score:2)
In a manner of speaking, yes. The probes should, or might have already, pass through "termination shock", which is the area where the solar wind collides with interstellar plasma and slows down. What happens at this boundary layer of the solar system is interesting, and potentially useful in the long term. Later space exploration could benefit from knowing what
Re:Well.. (Score:5, Informative)
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.. (Score:2)
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
Are you sure? (Score:2)
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
We still don't have an intimate understand how a neutron breaks down! How you can even begin to claim that "we've already solved that the whole atom issue", I don't know.
Leftist? Not quite. Besides, I not ignorant enough to assign myself, or anyone for that matter, to a "left side" or a "right side".
The usefulness is far from over, I suspect that many more anomalies will be discovered by these probes. If you consider anomalies useless, then there is no reason to argue with yo
why? (Score:5, Funny)
why is that? Did it try to escape or something?
Most successful ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Shame that our British version was ever so slightly less successful. *Sobs*
Re:Most successful ever? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Most successful ever? (Score:4, Insightful)
Rear hazard-avoidance camera? (Score:5, Funny)
"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 (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Driving backwards a lot of time (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Driving backwards a lot of time (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Rear hazard-avoidance camera? (Score:2, Funny)
Anything to keep those insurance premiums down.
Re:Rear hazard-avoidance camera? (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Rear hazard-avoidance camera? (Score:2)
I think counting how many times the wheels had gone 'round would be a far easier, and more accurate, method.
Re:Rear hazard-avoidance camera? (Score:2)
But I'd suggest trying it out some time with a simple robot across various surfaces - you'll fnd it isn't easy or more accurate. It relies on the assumptions that the diameters of the wheels are constant (they could change as they wear or pick up/shed debris) and that 1 revolution of a w
Re:Rear hazard-avoidance camera? (Score:2)
I think counting how many times the wheels had gone 'round would be a far easier, and more accurate, method.
If, as has often been the case, the wheel doesn't have traction and spins, you won't have an accurate measure. And it's hard to know that it's spinning and not providing forward motion without looking at it. And it's a good idea to have an absolute measure of distance traveled, rather than a reckoned measure.
Re:Rear hazard-avoidance camera? (Score:2, Funny)
Really nice new (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Really nice new (Score:2)
Kinda like robot wars on mars.
Re:Really nice new (Score:2)
Re:Really nice new (Score:5, Insightful)
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, (Score:4, Insightful)
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, (Score:3, Insightful)
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, (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:When NASA gets it right, (Score:2)
Re:When NASA gets it right, (Score:2)
Oh, and I hadn't heard this before: apparently it carried a rover [planetary.org]! A little less sophisticated than the modern version ...
Good old NASA (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Good old NASA (Score:2)
Keep in mind that absent the absolute control over all variables pretty much anything [including space travel] involves a whole heap of "luck" along with that over engineering.
Ever been in a plane? Prove that it was impossible for it to crash.
tom
Re:Good old NASA (Score:2)
Of course, there are overhead costs right now that are harder to eliminate. It costs a lot of money to process the data (though I'm not sure it should cost as much as it does). And it's a big deal to put a rover on mars or launch a Voyager 6. But that problem is also, arguably, another man
Manned mission to Mars (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Manned mission to Mars (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Manned mission to Mars (Score:2)
It should be his job to bronze it and its tracks. Some day the tracks can be a pedestrian trail. Ok, well maybe flag it off until we start building.
The little golf carts that could (Score:4, Interesting)
Here's hoping they'll be getting another extension in September 2006!
The truth ... (Score:5, Funny)
... the robots are frigging DRUNK!
.
.
FOR SALE (Score:5, Funny)
odometer: 0000003 miles
abrasion tool slightly dulled
slight steering problem
needs a good buff
runs great!
Asking $15,000,000 OBO
Delivery option: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:FOR SALE (Score:2)
When the funding for the rovers finally runs out and if the rovers are still usable, how about NASA running a campaign that will allow people to direct and have the rovers take pictures of whatever they wish, for a fee of course. For an additional fee, you might even be able to use the R.A.T. to inscribe a message or image onto a rock (if they are still working).
Re:FOR SALE (Score:2)
It wouldn't take much for someone to replicate the rover's camera scene and rock abrasion tool in a buildi
Bravo, NASA!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's hoping they can get an additional 18 months of service out of those things!
And when they're done (Score:3, Funny)
Re:And when they're done (Score:2)
He could take possession of them by law. He just won't be able to take his possession for some time.
logo (Score:4, Funny)
Little green jokers (Score:2)
I visualize three small green guys with smirks sneaking up underneath the cameras with an extension cord from a hidden entrance...
sending the money (Score:2)
Next steps in Mars exploration (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
instrumentation (Score:2)
No meteorological instruments? Anemometers and barometers are small and require minimal power to collect data continuously...why were these omitted from the p
Well, it's difficult to answer that (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, Voyager is useless now, and money used to fund that project could be going
Re:Well, it's difficult to answer that (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Sooner than you think (Score:2)
Re:Sooner than you think (Score:3, Informative)
Hardly
Re:Sooner than you think (Score:2)
Medusa (for what it's worth, the one of the primary reasons I think that Orion drives would be suitable for unmanned probes is that they could easily be designed to withstand high acceleration. That high acceleration is the only reason I know of that an Orion drive would be better than an Ion drive or a solar sail.)
mini-magnetospheric propulsion
antimatter catalyzed microfission/microfusion
"the various fusion core concepts" what? more than one?
magnetohydrodynamic
Re:Sooner than you think (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Sooner than you think (Score:2)
its more time consuming to race round the solar system building up speed, but its far cheaper and we can do it now
theres also the "mini" solar sail designs, where a probe with specially designed shielding travels very close to the sun, when then get rather forcefully accelerated out of the solar system. iirc they were quoting in
Re:Sooner than you think (Score:2)
Re:Sooner than you think (Score:2)
You mean like Deep Space 1 [nasa.gov]? It sounds like you have a good proposal for a mission. Personally, I think particle and fields science is pretty dull.
No, no, NO! He meains Orion Drive [swarthmore.edu], not Ion Drive [ucar.edu]. The Orion Drive was thought up in the 50s, when other great ideas, like the Flying Crowbar [merkle.com] were being developed. Compare detonating nuclear bomblets as a propulsive force (Orion Drive) with
Re:Sooner than you think (Score:2)
"The flying crowbar" is an amusing footnote of history. It's a good thing that someone started thinking about the radiation effects before it was finished. Although, if it was only used on those rare occasions when you needed to get
Re:Sooner than you think (Score:2)
Re:Well, it's difficult to answer that (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well, it's difficult to answer that (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, it's difficult to answer that (Score:2)
Re:Well, answer me this. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Well, answer me this. (Score:2)
Then, the agency will be in total public disrepute and can easily be downsized to a near-negligible scale.
Re:Well, answer me this. (Score:2)
Re:Well, answer me this. (Score:2, Insightful)
If you're looking for a choice between the two, I believe its no contest - Mars is closer and more scientifically interesting and important than the empty space outside our solar system.
Re:I bet a japanese robot vehicle wouldnt break do (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I bet a japanese robot vehicle wouldnt break do (Score:2)
Re:Great News (Score:4, Insightful)
The previous rover was Sojourner in '97... and it lasted much longer than it's planned mission as well.
Bill
Re:Great News (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Eventually it must come to an end (Score:2, Informative)