Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Spirit Rover Makes Longest Trip Yet 229

Posted by CmdrTaco from the robots-on-another-planet dept.
ivan1011001 writes "Spirit traveled just over 88 feet in an attempt to visit the crater "Bonneville" to look for evidence of water on Mars. Engineers had hoped the rover would travel 164 feet, but Spirit didn't cover the full distance because it spent more time than initially planned studying rocks and soil along the way. This is longer than its earlier PR of 70 feet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spirit Rover Makes Longest Trip Yet More

Spirit Rover Makes Longest Trip Yet

Comments Filter:

  • well... (Score:5, Funny)

    by xao gypsie ( 641755 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:50AM (#8303941)
    at least it moves faster than my grandmother...

    • No it doesn't (Score:5, Funny)

      by essreenim ( 647659 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:08AM (#8304112)
      My grandmother in the last 5 years has had an average speed of 0.000004mph. This is because she moves only every now and then.

      The Spirit rover does 0.00000000001mph on average since it landed on Mars because most of the time
      it does nothing.

      They need to give the remote controls to some punk kids that dont know its importance.

      If they did that they would have found beagle,
      discovered that Mars is just a shitty desert, overloaded Nasa's database of names for every shitty litte rock they find, and eventually drove
      off a cliff giving us spectacular images of Mars!

      • llaagg (Score:2, Funny)

        by tepples ( 727027 )

        They need to give the remote controls to some punk kids that dont know its importance.

        You think playing a first-person shooter over satellite is bad? Imagine the six-figure ping times to Mars.

      • maybe they should try to land some kind of half-pipe on the red planet and then let some skater kid grab the controls, now that would be a sight for sore eyes, especially if they could get Opportunity there and film it as well! (I know, I know, it would be a bit of a trek)

    • Re:well... (Score:3, Funny)

      by Rotting ( 7243 )
      Continental drift is faster than my grandmonther.

    • Re:well... (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @12:51PM (#8305734)
      I think the reason it went so slow was not because it was "studying rocks" but because it takes a lot of time to transmit the message "Wouldn't you like to be a pepper to?" and "neeeeeed iiiiinnnpuuuuut".
  • Actually, I'm impressed even at this. As long as nothing is failing, it gives me hope for future missions.
    • Agreed, I'm glad the reason it's moving so slowly is 'so it can do more measurements' instead of 'it broke'.

    • Re:One short trip for Artificial Intelligence (Score:5, Interesting)

      by turnstyle ( 588788 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:12AM (#8304138) Homepage
      The robotics is cool, but I'd say even cooler is the artificial intelligence.

      The rover's stereo vision dynamically builds a 3D representation of its environment, and then figures out safe paths within that map.

      That's all necessary because it just takes too long to specifically instruct each step (it's a 10 minute round trip at the speed of light to send instructions -- and so you want the rover to have some autonomy).

      • Re:One short trip for Artificial Intelligence (Score:5, Informative)

        by cozziewozzie ( 344246 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:24AM (#8304223)
        Strictly speaking, that's not a domain of artificial intelligence, but pure computer vision. There are known techniques for building a map, given processed camera images, and there is usually no reasoning involved. Just a simple algorithm to find the shortest path. The search space is usually small enough not to warrant AI techniques.

        Of course, it is possible that they are using higher-level AI techniques for finding the optimal path, but I doubt it as the classical image processing techniques are fast and robust enough for this sort of task.

        • Re:One short trip for Artificial Intelligence (Score:5, Interesting)

          by turnstyle ( 588788 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:38AM (#8304358) Homepage
          I'll not quibble over what formally counts as AI, but it seems pretty intelligent to me -- the rover dynamically builds a 3D map, identifies danger spots, and avoids them in order to get to a goal.

          Also check out the QT animation on the NASA site [nasa.gov] titled "Rover Navigation 101: Autonomous Rover Navigation"

          AI or not, it's pretty darn cool.

        • That sure sounds like the classic definition of AI as "anything a computer can't do yet". At one point, translation of high-level statements into machine code was considered AI. Then Fortran came along and it's not AI, it's solved, see? Decent speaker-dependent voice recognition was once AI, now it's something you can buy in the store and nobody considers it to be AI.

          All the stuff you describe sounds an awful lot like AI to me. Just because it's actually doable with known techniques shouldn't disqualify it

          • Re:One short trip for Artificial Intelligence (Score:5, Insightful)

            by cozziewozzie ( 344246 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @11:32AM (#8304864)
            Well, that seems to be the 'common' understanding of AI, but in the computer science (and other scientific fields), it has a more specific meaning. Otherwise, factoring large numbers would also be considered AI, although there is nothing intelligent about it, given a good algorithm. Finding that algorithm is what would require intelligence.

            Here is a definition I like:

            AI is the capacity of a digital computer or computer-controlled robot device to perform tasks commonly associated with the higher intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience. The term is also frequently applied to that branch of computer science concerned with the development of systems endowed with such capabilities. --- Herbert A. Simon, Professor of Computer Science and Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University

            I am nitpicking here, but given an algorithm to extract edges and corners from two images, using the camera calibration values to calculate distance, and creating a map based on these data does not require intelligence, and as such isn't strictly AI.

            The robot still follows strict instructions which find the optimal path. It will not learn if this algorithm fails a certain number of times, it will not generalise to make future computation quicker, like a human would. It does not have a concept of the obstacles. It does not get more proficient after doing the same for a while. So, even though it's a brilliant example of applied computer vision and autonomous navigation, there is very little of what is considered AI involved. Hope this clears it up a bit.
            • That definition agrees with what I said, IMO:

              "tasks commonly associated with the higher intellectual processes characteristic of humans, such as the ability to reason, discover meaning, generalize, or learn from past experience...."

              What exactly is a 'higher' process? Obvious! It's something a human can do but a computer can't. The trouble is that this is a moving target.

              Ok, so Spirit's fancy image-processing stuff isn't AI by today's standards. But I bet if you'd asked in 1980, people would have consider

              • Re:One short trip for Artificial Intelligence (Score:4, Insightful)

                by cozziewozzie ( 344246 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @01:26PM (#8306112)
                I've seen no proof that the Rover reasons, discovers meaning, generalizes or learns from past experience. It just runs a program which gives it very direct commands.

                It's a bit like this: If I ask you to get some good tomatoes, you would break this up into several steps: Go to the market, find the tomatoes, then select some good ones. But what is a 'good' tomato? You will have to rely on your experience, your taste, and the past input from others to determine what a good tomato is. Then you would choose the tomatoes which best fit the ideal you have in your mind.

                A computer cannot do that. It has no concept of what a tomato is. It doesn't deduce properties from past experiences. You can program a robot to go to the market (by giving it specific instructions on how to do that), then have it pick up tomatoes which have a certain height, weight, a given hue, and a softness, all expressed in measurable units. The robot would bring back some 'good' tomatoes according to these requirements, but it wouldn't be doing anything remotely intelligent, even though it might look like it from the outside.

                Now, an AI approach to this would be to model a tomato internally, for example, using a Bayes net of different fruits, associated with different properties. A tomato would be grouped with similar fruits according to some characteristics. The computer would learn through repeated observations (like a human does), and propagate its deductions throughout the net. For example, a squashed tomato and a squashed pepper are both 'bad' fruit/vegetables, and a red pepper and a red tomato would both be 'good', but a green pepper can be good, while a green tomato cannot. The network gets updated to accommodate these observations and build a better model, up to the point where the computer can pick the 'good' fruit without being told exactly what it is.

                See, in the second example, there is learning, there is deduction, and there is reasoning, as well as generalization. In the first one, there isn't. That is the fundamental difference.
                • You haven't addressed my fundamental objection, which is that the definition of AI changes.

                  You stated two things. First, a definition of AI today. Second, that nothing Spirit does fits this definition.

                  I have no argument with this.

                  My complaint is that what Spirit is doing would have been considered AI twenty years ago. And twenty years from now, when we have a super-rover on Mars that is doing some of the stuff you quote, the definition of AI will have changed yet again so that it will only include things

  • another spirit record (Score:5, Funny)

    by moojin ( 124799 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:51AM (#8303948)
    After successfully completing a journey of 88 feet yesterday, the Spririt Mars Rover completed a journey of 88 feet 2 inches today. This is a new Mars distance record.

  • Let me guess... (Score:5, Funny)

    by rackniraz ( 593103 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:51AM (#8303952)
    it was up on a hill, and the brakes malfunctioned...

  • Any evidence. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:52AM (#8303954)
    Have anyone of them found any evidence of past weather yet?

    Seems like everything they look at is of vulcanic origin.

  • Reasoning (Score:5, Funny)

    by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:52AM (#8303956) Journal
    It was probably cloudy out (negating some of the efficiency of the solar panels). I hope that it finds water.

  • (TA)RDIS (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:52AM (#8303963) Journal
    (Time And)Relative Dimensions in space... for the uninformed :-)

    Anyone else think it's sort of funny that you have a probe that travels millions of miles to another planet, and the news is that it's then travelled a further 88 feet :-)

    Simon.

    • Re:(TA)RDIS (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Zakabog ( 603757 ) <john.jmaug@com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:02AM (#8304064)
      Anyone else think it's sort of funny that you have a probe that travels millions of miles to another planet, and the news is that it's then travelled a further 88 feet :-)

      Well think of it this way, spirit was launched through space flying towards mars at very high speeds, crashed into the martian surface, got out and managed to move 88 feet. That's increadible, the ability to land and still function on mars is more increadible than the fact that it made it their. NASA is fairly decent at launching stuff towards targets in space, the problem is having that stuff still work when it hits the target.

      • Re:(TA)RDIS (Score:5, Insightful)

        by whizzter ( 592586 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:30AM (#8304276) Homepage
        the most important thing to consider here apart from those things is that the movement is made by an AI,
        thus travelling even a feet requires alot of analysis so it doesn't get stuck or fall down some slope.
        and because of all conditions surrounding this, i doubt they're using a computer that can be called fast by todays standards.
    • Add to that that it took years of planning and travel to get to Mars, but once there, it'll be lucky to work for more than 3 months. JPL spends time each day in a power meeting where the various groups negotiate who gets how much of the available power. There's not enough to go around so they have to haggle over who has priority.

      Next time we spend $800 Million to go to Mars couldn't we equip the lander with enough power so the thing can survive a few years and be able to travel more than a mile total?

  • Could this be a problem in the future (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ObviousGuy ( 578567 ) <ObviousGuy@hotmail.com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:52AM (#8303965) Homepage Journal
    If the Mars rover is wont to go off on its own accord to discover and analyze things instead of following the directions given to it by mission control, could this possibly have disastrous side effects?

    What if there were an impending rock-slide and instead of maneuvering out of the way as mission control told it to, it decided to look at the shiny rocks instead and got crushed in the process?

    A little 'intelligence' is important for these things to figure out how to move around correctly, but artificial 'curiosity' seems to be problematic.

    • Re:Could this be a problem in the future (Score:5, Insightful)

      by avalys ( 221114 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:55AM (#8304000)
      I don't think it was artificial curiosity - Mission Control gave it instructions to the effect of: "study these rocks, then move towards the crater". They thought it would take x minutes to study the rocks, leaving enough time to travel 164 feet, but instead it took 2x minutes, and the rover only had enough time left to travel 88 feet.

      • Re:Could this be a problem in the future (Score:5, Funny)

        by Gleng ( 537516 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:42AM (#8304403)
        "study these rocks, then move towards the crater"

        I wonder if they used Inform [inform-fiction.org] for the control interface.

        Mars
        You are on the surface of Mars, millions of kilometers from Earth where you started your journey. The sun is rising in the red sky, only slightly easing the chill of the Martian morning.

        There are some rocks here.

        > look at rocks

        I only understood you as far as you wanting to look at the rocks.

        > take rocks

        rocks: That's hardly portable.

        > examine rocks

        You see no rocks here.

        > quit

        Are you sure you want to quit? y

    • Re:Could this be a problem in the future (Score:5, Informative)

      by fatwreckfan ( 322865 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:57AM (#8304024)
      With a maximum speed of 10 feet/min, I don't think it would be avoiding any rockslides, period.

    • Re:Could this be a problem in the future (Score:5, Interesting)

      by kylegordon ( 159137 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:00AM (#8304043) Homepage
      The software is designed to be given instructions from mission control, and then to act out these instructions in the best possible way. Mission Control tell the rover to drive from A to B, and then leaves the rover to figure out which rocks that it can climb over, and which rocks it will have to drive around. The rover most likely spent too long 'analyzing' the rocks to figure out the best way (after all, have a look at the kind of environment Spirit has landed in).

      If there's a Landslide in progress, the rover is humped - either way. The rover will not be programmed to take avoiding action, or to override the instructions from mission control. It simply figures out the best way from A to B.

      HTH

    • Re:Could this be a problem in the future (Score:5, Funny)

      by TheWickedKingJeremy ( 578077 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:00AM (#8304045) Homepage
      What if there were an impending rock-slide and instead of maneuvering out of the way as mission control told it to, it decided to look at the shiny rocks instead and got crushed in the process?

      You have been watching too many SUV commercials ;)

    • lag time (Score:4, Informative)

      by Cappy Red ( 576737 ) <miketoon@LISPyahoo.com minus language> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @11:04AM (#8304592)
      If there's an impending rock-slide, then the rover gets crushed. Remember that whatever the scientists in control see is around five minutes old, and that any directions of avoidance take an addition five minutes or so to reach the rover.

      Besides, I don't believe they're letting the rover choose its own targets, nor did they give it power to override an imperative command.

      *honk*

  • I think I can, I think I can, I think I can (Score:4, Funny)

    by wheany ( 460585 ) <wheany+sd@iki.fi> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:52AM (#8303966) Homepage Journal
    OOOOOH, Shiny!

  • Going to get Modded to hell but.... (Score:5, Funny)

    by AbbyNormal ( 216235 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:53AM (#8303970) Homepage
    can't resist urge.

    Go SPEED Racer! Go Speed Racer!

  • Quit messing around! (Score:5, Funny)

    by QuiK_ChaoS ( 190208 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:53AM (#8303975) Homepage
    "Spirit! Quit playing in the dirt! We have 100 more feet to go!"

    "(sad R2-D2 sound)"

  • Wow. Amazing. Not. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by moehoward ( 668736 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:53AM (#8303977)
    Didn't the Soviet built lunar rovers go much further in a single day back in the early 70's? What sort of over-hyped/overly-specific record is this?

    "And the award for longest roving in the past 3 weeks on a neighboring planet by an American robot who's name rhymes with 'kirit' goes to...."

    I demand a recount!
    • Didn't the Soviet built lunar rovers go much further in a single day back in the early 70's? What sort of over-hyped/overly-specific record is this?

      It was supposed to travel 88m, but someone got their units mixed up.

    • Re:Wow. Amazing. Not. (Score:5, Informative)

      by mikerich ( 120257 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:04AM (#8304077)
      Didn't the Soviet built lunar rovers go much further in a single day back in the early 70's?

      Lunokhod could manage between 0.8 and 2 kilometres per hour depending on soil conditions and slope. Lunokhod 1 survived for 10 months and covered 10.54 km, Lunokhod 2 lasted only 3 months but did 37 km. I'm not sure how much of that time was 'active' since the rovers were shut down during the 14 day Lunar night.

      However neither vehicle was autonomous, they were remote controlled from Earth. This is possible with a 2 second lag to the Moon, but unfeasible on Mars.

      Best wishes,
      Mike.

    • Re:Wow. Amazing. Not. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by vt0asta ( 16536 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:06AM (#8304095)
      What sort of over-hyped/overly-specific record is this?

      Spirit is only competing with it's self. 88 feet is further than 70 feet, which was it's previous farthest distance traveled. If you're not going to RTFA, RTFS. Sheesh

    • Re:Wow. Amazing. Not. (Score:5, Informative)

      by C0vardeAn0nim0 ( 232451 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:09AM (#8304115) Journal
      a lunar day is equivalent to several earth days. this means the russian rover could drive across the moon on solar power for much longer than spirit. the drawback is that it also had to sleep for almost 2 earth weeks at a time.
      • If I recall correctly, the moon doesn't rotate on it's axis, therefore, a lunar day is forever. That's why the moon has a dark side and a light side.

        • Re:Wow. Amazing. Not. (Score:4, Informative)

          by mikerich ( 120257 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @03:36PM (#8307786)
          If I recall correctly, the moon doesn't rotate on it's axis, therefore, a lunar day is forever. That's why the moon has a dark side and a light side.

          It's a common misconception. The Moon does rotate on its axis - but one rotation takes exactly the same time as it takes for the Moon to orbit the Earth.

          Still don't believe me? Put a chair in the middle of the room (that will be the Earth). Now (slowly) walk in a circle around the chair always facing the chair. When you've completed the circle you will have faced every wall in the room - but anyone sitting in the chair will only have seen your face.

          What this means for the Moon is that every part of the surface experiences a continuous day 14 Earth days long, followed by an equally long, chilly, night.

          Instead of speaking of a permanent light side and a permanent dark side, it is correct to speak of a near side (the bit seen from Earth) and a far side (which is never seen from Earth).

          Best wishes,
          Mike.

    • Re:Wow. Amazing. Not. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by FrostedWheat ( 172733 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:21AM (#8304199)
      Yes they did. But remember, that was on the moon and that's not that far away. The round trip for a radio signal would be just over one second. This allows for direct control of the probes from Earth. What the soviets landed where basically lunar RC cars. (Not to say it wasn't impressive! It definitly was for the time.)

      Now Mars is a different matter. It's a LOT farther. A radio singal takes over 12 minutes to get there (and only when Mars is on our side of the Sun). The round trip would be 25 minutes. It would be impossible to directly drive the probe anything more than a few meters at a time with that lag. You'd get nowhere!

      What's impressive here is that these rovers can drive themselves! They are just told where to go and they make there best effort to get there. It's really very impressive.
    • Didn't the Soviet built lunar rovers go much further in a single day back in the early 70's?

      With a three-second ping time, those lunar rovers could be directly controlled by people on earth, like a glorified radio-controlled model car. With a 20-minute ping time, the mars rovers have to autonomously execute a list of high-level goals transmitted from earth. Not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison.

    • Re:Wow. Amazing. Not. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by linoleo ( 718385 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:35AM (#8304324) Journal
      What sort of over-hyped/overly-specific record is this?

      NASA has the unfortunate habit of framing everything in terms of firsts and records, as if space exploration was some sort of spectator sport. I've lost count of how often I've seen the headline "Hubble spies oldest galaxy" - well duh, since Hubble is the only instrument in its class for imaging faint red-shifted objects, I'd be worried if it didn't find a new "oldest known galaxy" every month or so. The current "first sneeze/fart/ping/macarena/kernel panic on another planet" spate of Spirit/Opportunity PR is in the same vein.

      Through a PR machinery that caters to the lowest common denominator, NASA systematically undermines the many good reasons we have for exploring space, and thus ends up shooting itself in the foot. If you reduce your own work to a mere set of pointless Guiness Book of Records entries, you shouldn't be surprised if people start to wonder whether it's worth paying billions of dollars for it. What NASA really needs is a tool to filter all superlatives from its press releases.

      PS: a NASA TV channel that isn't dumbed down so much would also be nice.

      • Re:Wow. Amazing. Not. (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Eccles ( 932 )
        NASA has the unfortunate habit of framing everything in terms of firsts and records, as if space exploration was some sort of spectator sport.

        Let me ask, though: would "Spirit finds even more rocks" or even "Spirit finds some slightly different rocks" have gotten accepted as a slashdot story? If not, would as many of us be thinking about the li'l fella today?

        NASA tells of new feats because it works. Lowest common denominator attention is better than no attention at all.

      • Re:Wow. Amazing. Not. (Score:4, Insightful)

        by QuantumFTL ( 197300 ) * on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @04:17PM (#8308343)
        NASA has the unfortunate habit of framing everything in terms of firsts and records, as if space exploration was some sort of spectator sport. I've lost count of how often I've seen the headline "Hubble spies oldest galaxy".

        I agree that it is sometimes a bit cliche, however there are many scientific reasons to be concerned about these "records." Record-setting missions do not merely mark achievements, they also provide data in regimes not previously explored. The "oldest known galaxy" being observed at provides us with a valuable data point, one which is unique at the time of the writing. No one wants to hear that "Hubble Finds Galaxies Just Like Every Other Galaxy" or "Spirit Finds Another Rock". News is about what is *NEW*. People are interested in occurances which are novel, different, and exciting.

        NASA is dedicated to pushing the envelope in science and engineering. There are many obstacles in space exploration and I for one see absolutely nothing wrong with being happy/excited that we have overcome the numerous significant problems to do what we do. Spirit has the most advanced autnomous navigation software of any (declassified) space probe yet, and it is awesome to see that it is working very well! Also, spirit is in an area that makes mobility a bit difficult as there are many rocks that it must detect.

        It is my opinion (and not necessarily that of NASA) that NASA PR should seek to provide a multi-tier service which caters not merely to the lowest common denominator, but also the the more scientifically inclinded citizens who seek more details.

        What NASA really needs is a tool to filter all superlatives from its press releases.

        Superlatives are why we are there. If we want things that are ordinary, we can stay stuck here on earth for the next 5 billion years.

        Disclaimer: I work on MER as a software engineer.

        Cheers,
        Justin

  • What?! (Score:3, Funny)

    by eibhear ( 307877 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:53AM (#8303981) Homepage
    ...but Spirit didn't cover the full distance because it spent more time than initially planned studying rocks and soil along the way.

    Do we have to put blinkers on the little fella?

    Eibhear

  • I am really worried (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ignorant Aardvark ( 632408 ) <cydeweys.gmail@com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:53AM (#8303984) Homepage Journal
    How do we know it was actually studying rocks ... maybe it was, oh, working on that Q-36 Illidium Space Modulator Death Ray?!?!

  • latest information can be found here.. (Score:5, Informative)

    by kernkopje ( 414100 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:54AM (#8303987) Homepage
    The latest information on Spirit's and Opportunity's adventures can be found here [nasa.gov]!

  • Who is controlling this thing? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by scorp1us ( 235526 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:56AM (#8304009) Journal
    I highly doubt the vehicle is that autonomous that they can say, "heay, head off bearing 110 deg, for 50m and take photos of interesting things along the way"

    I always figured that mission control would give it vector commands like that, but that any kind of inspection would be manually done by instructions from mission control?

    I can understand that it might have some self-preservation features, like slow down if too much wobble, or if grade is steep, but it seems like that things is really calling the shots.

    Maybe we're not as far as logn as we thought, a la Stanly Kubrik's 2001 space oddesy.

    • Re:Who is controlling this thing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Niles_Stonne ( 105949 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:15AM (#8304164) Homepage
      I think it is a combination of the two...

      Mission control sends a command like:

      "Go to Rock A"
      "Extend Arm, place payload element X on Rock"
      "Let Payload element X analyze rock A"
      "Switch to Payload Element Y"
      "Let Payload Element Y Analyze Rock A"
      (...repeat for each element Mission control wants to use...)
      "Stow Arm"
      "Navigate at bearing of 110deg until Z time"

      Each of the science payloads may take an unknown amount of time to perform it's task - the rock grinder probably moves at different speeds based on the density of the rock.

      Also, the driving algorythm probably takes more time to analyze no-so-good paths than good paths.

      • Get Maestro and check it out! (Score:5, Informative)

        by Lispy ( 136512 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @11:51AM (#8305065) Homepage
        You can learn more about how the rover works by downloading NASAs Maestro Program [telascience.org]. It's a RAM hungry Javaapp that is nicely documented and let's you plan your own mission using their stripped down version of the Uplink-Browser. Give it a shot, it's pretty interesting (well, at least if you got some spare time on your hands to fiddle with it and are into Marsroving at all!).

        cu,
        Lispy
    • It might be worth taking a look at the "Computer Simulation of Autonomous Navigation" video at

      http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/video/oppor tunity01.html

      I think it would clear up a lot of the misconceptions about what the rover can and can't do.

  • Perspective (Score:3, Funny)

    by RealityMogul ( 663835 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:56AM (#8304017)
    This thing travelled millions and millions of miles at tens of thousands of miles per hour to get to the planet, and now we're measuring its progress in terms of "feet per day".

  • Was that during one martian day? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:58AM (#8304028) Journal
    One martian day is apparently 24.7 hours.

    So I guess it moved at this [google.com] amazing speed? :-)

  • We apologise for the delay on platform 1... (Score:5, Funny)

    by SmackCrackandPot ( 641205 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:58AM (#8304033)
    ... as there is the wrong type of dust on the ground.

  • Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)

    by benlinkknilneb ( 708649 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @09:58AM (#8304035) Journal
    Are they sure it was 88 feet? Could've been meters...

  • Who knew? (Score:2, Funny)

    by JavaSavant ( 579820 )
    88 feet is longer than 70 feet? By golly, I'm glad that someone made sure to mention that. :P

  • Attention Span? (Score:3, Funny)

    by timsmells ( 727918 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:02AM (#8304053)
    Spirit didn't cover the full distance because it spent more time than initially planned studying rocks and soil along the way So they sent a robot with ADD to Mars?

  • medicine (Score:3, Funny)

    by rubenmiranda ( 680189 ) <rubenmiranda@gmail.com> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:03AM (#8304075) Homepage
    > Engineers had hoped the rover would travel 164 feet, but
    > Spirit didn't cover the full distance because it spent more
    > time than initially planned studying rocks and soil along the
    > way.

    Sounds like the li'l guy could use some Ritalin! Hey stop playing in the dirt!

  • For the metric-minded (Score:4, Informative)

    by rjw57 ( 532004 ) <richwareham@nOSPaM.users.sourceforge.net> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:05AM (#8304090) Homepage Journal
    88 feet is roughtly 25 metres [google.com], one width of an Olympic sized swimming pool [wikipedia.org].
  • These little mini-missions are getting to be interesting. I wonder how long it will be before Spirit reaches the crater it is heading for.

    On an aside, Opportunity is in its crater, has been since it landed, pretty much. How much have we learned from it?

    How much longer are these rovers going to last? Anybody want to set up a pool so we can all bet Karma on which rover will last longest/go farthest/etc. ? :)
    • NASA: "Look Spirit, your brother's already in his crater. Why can't you be more like him?"

      Spirit: "Opportunity, this. Opportunity, that. You're always taking his side. At least I'm not like Beagle. Did you ever think of that?"

      NASA: "Well that's enough out of you! Beagle isn't our problem, you are. And you could learn a thing or two from Opportunity. So you just get a move on and think about what I've said!"

      Spirit: [grumbling and moving off at a snail's pace] Hey, 89 feet! Look at me, I'm ju

  • 88 'feet'?! You mean Mars hasn't gone metric?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by ewg ( 158266 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:14AM (#8304155)
    88 'feet'?! You mean Mars hasn't gone metric?!

  • Feet ?! Stop these anachronisms! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:15AM (#8304166)
    Metric units please ! - NASA have enough trouble with Imperial-Metric conversions without the Slashdot breeding another backward Imperial generation.

    ( Of course, with the pathetic spelling and grammar here, American Literature also seems doomed... ).

  • When asked about the heat issue, Bush assured reporters we'd be going at night.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:19AM (#8304184)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • It traveled 88 feet BUT .... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:20AM (#8304192)
    It had it's left turn signal blinking the entire way :)

  • My dog has the same algorithms (Score:5, Funny)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:24AM (#8304225)
    Yes, my dog never gets as far as you would expect in a given time because he has to investigate things on the way. And I think he's looking for evidence of life - certainly if you saw what he puts his nose into you'd agree it was pretty organic.

    Computers may not yet pass the Turing test, but it's pretty good that we've managed to get them up to pooch standard.

  • It's like going for a walk with a kid! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:26AM (#8304241)
    Anyone who has tried to go for a walk with a 2 or 3 year old kid knows what I'm talking about. You want to walk, but the annoying little brat will stop and examine very carefully every piece of litter, little stone, gravel or mark on the floor. Half way through the whole thing you'll get tired and just go home.

    • Re:It's like going for a walk with a kid! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by linoleo ( 718385 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:52AM (#8304474) Journal
      Anyone who has tried to go for a walk with a 2 or 3 year old kid knows what I'm talking about. You want to walk, but the annoying little brat will stop and examine very carefully every piece of litter, little stone, gravel or mark on the floor. Half way through the whole thing you'll get tired and just go home.

      Exploring that piece of litter, stone, gravel, mark on the floor is the whole point of the walk for a little kid. Ditto for the Mars rovers. Our concepts of what a walk should be like do not apply - there is no predetermined itinerary that must be covered, only wide open eyes that want to understand all the marvels that they see.
  • and its acid fields [slashdot.org]. Now that would be a trip!

  • Tomorrow's News... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ash87 ( 739997 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:36AM (#8304336)
    The Spirit Rover breaks its record once again by travelling 185 feet - unfortunately, this was due to it getting a bit TOO close to the crater, and was 185 feet downwards.
  • I wonder if NASA had, at some point during the construction and testing of the rover, actually put the rover through a simulated Martian drive.

    The reason is that, depending on the consistency and the texture of the Martian soil, you would probably want to build the rover somewhat differently if it's dry and dusty as opposed to rocky and uneven - much like how we build our cars and SUVs.

    I suppose they probably still have data from the Vikings expeditions, but that is more than twenty years ago.

  • sounds familiar (Score:5, Funny)

    by Trailer Trash ( 60756 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:40AM (#8304378) Homepage

    ...but Spirit didn't cover the full distance because it spent more time than initially planned studying rocks and soil along the way.

    Anyone who's been hiking with a 4 year old knows what that's like.

  • Anybody see the PBS Nova special (Score:4, Informative)

    by rqqrtnb ( 753156 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:40AM (#8304385)
    After watching that special I have more respect and admiration for the people at JPL. Alot of creativity and problem solving went into this project and I'm really happy for all of them.
  • when Star Trek Voyager's Captain Janeway is in command :)


    but Spirit didn't cover the full distance because it spent more time than initially planned studying rocks and soil along the way.


    We have 7 years of the same coming up :-P

  • Get A Life (Score:3, Funny)

    by Walrus99 ( 543380 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @10:59AM (#8304553)
    The thing is that the rover is not looking for signs of life, just for rocks and possibly signs of water. Its obvious that the aliens that control the U.S. government had NASA design it that way. The aliens don't have as much clout with the European Space Agency so they weren't able to keep the creators of the Beagle from designing it to look for life. They had to disable it once it got to the planet. This way they won't find any evidence of life that gets to the surface from the underground Martian cities.
  • ... because it spent more time than initially planned studying rocks and soil along the way ...

    Mmmm, sounds like walking the dog .... sniffing here a bit, peeing there a bit, etc. Maybe a vet should be included in the design team. :-)

    I have written this type of software in the past. And it is pretty complex, because the 3D data you get is so damn unreliable. However, the Spirit has one advantage, on Earth a lake or other piece of water looks for a vision system exactly the same as a nice flat piece of ta

  • How the MER Navigates (Score:3, Informative)

    by Spencerian ( 465343 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @11:54AM (#8305091) Homepage Journal
    You might want to see this mildly humorous QuickTime movie [nasa.gov] on the official MER site detailing how the rovers get around without engineers having to shimmy the things around every other obstacle. The thing does it by itself--something the Russian lunar rovers didn't do.

    Two words about the movie's beginning: Bullet time.
  • It's nice to see it has the sense to stop and smell the roses* instead of blindly rowing to the corporate drum.

    * - well, if you were made of tin and had a spectrometer for a nose, it'd be the same.

  • Is it just me? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PotatoHead ( 12771 ) * <doug.opengeek@org> on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @12:41PM (#8305624) Homepage Journal
    seems the hype on this thing is way out of scale. I am not trying to marginalize NASA accomplishments, though I do find some statements pretty funny.

    When they cut into one of the rocks:

    "It went deeper than we ever imagined!" (Few millimeters)

    Assessing the landing site:

    "We can't believe our luck!" (Flat, with a few rocks)

    etc.

    Now, I think the rover is cool, and want the science just as much as anyone else does, but the statements from the scientists (or their PR person) are just giddy.

  • Our fall from glory (Score:3, Funny)

    by b-baggins ( 610215 ) on Tuesday February 17, 2004 @01:19PM (#8306017) Journal
    In 1969, the world stood breathless as an American stepped onto the surface of a new world.

    Today, we get all excited because a golf cart moves 80 feet.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Protozoa are small, and bacteria are small, but viruses are smaller than the both put together."

Close