%20in%20front%20of%20the%20lander%20and%20facing%20northwest.){kind=link}
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Spirit Rolls on Mars
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some rays and became a tangent ?
More info (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a photo [spaceflightnow.com] of the landing platform it just rolled off of.
From the cited article: 'Data from the Spirit rover shows it completed this morning's drive off the lander at 3:41 a.m. EST. Confirmation was received on Earth just before 5 a.m. EST, verifying that Spirit had performed the 10-foot voyage on its own.
The move took approximately 78 seconds, ending with the back of the rover about 2.6 feet away from the lander egress ramp, officials report.
"It's as if we get to drive a nice sports car, but in the end we're just the valets who bring it around to the front and give the keys to the science team," says flight director Chris Lewicki.'
Re:Why was moving dangerous? (Score:5, Informative)
Because mission engineers had tested the same setup (airbag position, rover position) and found that the orignal exit ramp had a chance that the rover's solar panel would get caught on the airbag. They decided to opt for the safest route, and turned the rover around and out through the second exit ramp.
Spaceflightnow.com has all the details. [spaceflightnow.com]
-Cyc
Re:What do the conspiracy dumbasses say now? (Score:1, Informative)
-- the Monitors.
Re:Why was moving dangerous? (Score:2, Informative)
Spirit actually had to roll off a 4-5" drop at the bottom of the ramp, possibly because of rocks, uneven ground, etc. That drop would've flipped Sojourner, for example, on its back. Being the size of a golf cart, Spirit has some advantages in this area. But as it's more massive, it has its own set of problems, as I've also commented on.
I also agree with the poster who states that the real danger is as much political as it is technical. But MER's operators probably aren't thinking that. Managers, yes. Engineers and scientists, probably not.
Interesting soil (Score:5, Informative)
Flash forward to today and we've got the "magic carpet", and dirt sticking to Spirit's wheels, sans digging - very interesting, and by the sounds of it also very unexpected. It will be great to find out what's making it stick, and just "how Mars works" in general.
Did I ever mention how glad I am humanity has another rover on an alien world?
Official pics (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Revisit Sojourner! (Score:3, Informative)
While I generally agree with the rest of what you say, please don't call RTGs "nukes". They're simply heavy metals that emit some radiation and really don't post a threat to anyone. Heck, you've probably got similar materials in your backyard [cameco.com]. But we're *never* going to convince people otherwise if we don't stop calling them "nukes".
Re:Jennifer Trosper is a VOLLEYBALL PLAYER! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Revisit Sojourner! (Score:5, Informative)
It had a solar panel and a primary battery. It was only meant to run for a few days.
Bruce
Re:Revisit Sojourner! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost) (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure of the specifics, but the missions principal scientist was my professor in college and he specifically said that they tried some of your exact ideas for the next rover (which was actually a cancelled 2003 mission). They tried a windshield-wiper type deal, layers of plastic film that would roll off every few days (think like a doctor's office, how they tear off that butcher paper and roll a new cover over for each new patient).
He didn't delve too much into specifics, but he definately said that they simply didn't get any of these ideas to work. Actually, there was a brief period of time when they were actually close to getting RTGs to power the rovers (plutonium, like the ones used in the Viking landers that allowed them to operate for 5 years), but the Greens stopped that
Re:Oh man what a hack (Score:3, Informative)
You can even download via Bittorrent...those JPL guys are so nerdy it's great.
I downloaded and skimmed the manual but haven't tried it myself yet, but from the manual it's apparent you can view your rover in 3rd-person 3D.
my usual RTG post (Score:3, Informative)
RTG's are very, very, very safe. The poisonous gasses released by a rocket explosion are far worse than what an RTG can do. Here's why.
RTG's contain Plutonium 238, (an isotope which cannot be used in fissile weapons, its too unstable) that generate lots of heat which is how they work. Now a note about the safety of Pu238.
Plutonium is among the safest to handle radioactive elements. It only generates alpha particles which are stopped by a sheet of paper, your skin, etc. You could eat a piece of Pu and suffer few effects because it would pass through you before the damage would have time to accumulate to something serious. Compare this to other, much more common elements used in medicine that generate gamma rays and other nastiness.
It is only dangerous in dust particles that are small enough to get embedded in the lungs and stay there. Now to address this issue, Pu238 readily binds into an oxide and is turned into a ceramic for RTG's which makes it very resistant to forming particles that small in the event of an explosion.
Now this small amount of material is then encased in a very strong canister designed to survive accidental reentry and explosion. So in the unlikely event of the explosion and then even unlikelyer event the canister is broken open, its even more unlikely that small dangerous dust particles will be generated in sufficient volume to cause serious harm to humans. This depends on your area of disaster, but as I said, rockets contain very noxious chemicals that pose a far greater risk to the public than the Pu238.
Re:Interesting soil (Score:3, Informative)
Extremly fine dusts will act similar to this depending on the type of minerals the dust is composed of.
Re:Revisit Sojourner! (Score:2, Informative)
RTGs are as safe as any other rocket system. If I were you, I'd be more worried about all the chemicals used in the construction of the craft.
Re:Revisit Sojourner! (Score:3, Informative)
*cough* *choke* *gag*
I can't believe I've got another one of you people [slashdot.org]. We're not even talking about a nuclear pile/reactor! We're talking about stuff similar to what's in your BACKYARD [cameco.com]!
Did you know that plutonium gives off Alpha radiation?
Did you know that Alpha radiation is not in any way shape or form dangerous unless lodged inside your body?
Did you know that Alpha radiation can be shielded by a sheet of paper?
Did you know that dead skin cells are thicker than a sheet of paper?
Did you know that plutonium can burn?
Did you know that when plutonium burns, it forms Plutonium Oxide?
Did you know that Plutonium burning is no more dangerous than magnesium burning? In fact the results are very similar.
Did you know that you have been brainwashed into thinking that nuclear power can destroy the world?
Did you know that if every Hydrogen, Neutron, and Atomic bomb were detonated, it wouldn't even penetrate the earth's crust?
Did you know that nuclear reactors exist that put out only about 6 MegaWatts? In comparison, the smallest coal plants puts out about 30 megawatts.
Did you know that the laws of physics say that 6 megawatts of destructive force is the same whether it's 6 megawatts of coal, nuclear, oil, or dynamite power?
Did you know that more radiation is put out by a single coal burning plant than all the nuclear plants in the US? (Coal contains uranium)
Did you know that the average home consumes about 13 megawatts hours of power per year?
Did you know that Chernobyl has 4 nuclear reactors, three of which continued to operate after the disaster?
Did you know that Russia TRIED to get Chernobyl to blow in order to perform safety tests?
Did you know that only 40 people on site died in Chernobyl?
Did you know that Chernobyl was a stolen US design that was decommissioned in favor of safer designs?
Did you know that Russia did very little to clean up the waste that was expelled and as a result killed about 200 more people through inaction?
Don't take the environmentalists at face value. Do some research for yourself. Oh, and the odds of the RTG not surviving are about the same as the black box in an airplane not surviving.
Re:dust removal -- static charge? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Short Mission Duration (given the cost) (Score:3, Informative)
So the solar cells will provide less power due to the lower sun angle and brightness, even without any dust accumulation.
Assuming no major mishaps, what will eventually kill the rover is lack of power to heat the electronics at night. Electrical components don't last very long unprotected from the wild temperature swings on Mars.
That said, NASA always builds tons of redundancy into its hardware, so I wouldn't be surprised if the rovers outlasted their design lifetimes...
Re:Revisit Sojourner! (Score:3, Informative)
Radioisotope Thermal Generator
If you punch it into google, you'll find that it takes the heat from plutonium or strontium-90 and turns it into usable electricity. There are no moving parts and no fission or fusion reaction. It's just a lump of rock (actually metal) that gets very hot.
SRG stands for Stirling Radioisotope Generator
These are more efficient power sources that use the heat from radioisotopes to power a stirling engine (the precursor to the combustion engine). They produce several times the power of an RTG with the same amount of hot rock.
Re:Backwards hazard camera? (Score:1, Informative)
They seem to be better prepared this time ;-)