Top Ten Discoveries of the Mars Rovers 176
eldavojohn writes "Space.com brings us the top ten discoveries of the Martian rovers that landed there in 2004. They were expected to last three months but, as Slashdot has covered time and time again, they have lasted over three years. From minor discoveries about the formation of Mars to images of atmospheric phenomena, to final and definitive proof of a Mars with water, these two robots have definitely reserved themselves a place in the history books. Pending a dust storm, they may not even be done with their mission yet."
Costs (Score:4, Informative)
NIH: $28 billion
NSF $5.5 billion
NASA $16 billion
NSF Math and Physical sciences : 135 million in 2002
NSF CISE (Computer
Nasa's Spirit probe $820million
Viking missions cost $935 million in 1974[1] or $3.5 billion in 1997 dollars
Here's the list without all the clicks (Score:5, Informative)
9 - Evidence of volcanic origin for Gusev crater.
8 - First meteorite identified on another planet.
7 - Discover of sulfur suggests Mars stink.
6 - Helps scientists determine that Mars had three distinct geological eras.
5 - Martian dust devils captured on film.
4 - First shot of Earth from distant planet.
3 - Photographs Earth-like clouds on Mars.
2 - Helps scientists create first atmospheric temperature profile of Mars.
1 - First definitive evidence that water flowed on mars, including blueberries, hematite, and silica.
Re:top 10 (Score:3, Informative)
Re:top 10 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Greatest discovery (Score:5, Informative)
The mission plans called for a minimum of 90 days operations and a certain amount of driving (400 meters IIRC). This was not a prediction of the actual performance, but the criteria for mission success. Less than that would be considered only partially successful.
However, they did expect the rovers to last longer, based on the performance of Pathfinder and Sojourner, and therefore included an operations budget extension of 90 days in the budget. Not exactly a secret. By this time they figured it was about 50/50 whether dust accumulation would have robbed them of too much power or something would've broken, so the budget had an allowance for another extension of 180 days just in case.
At this point, they were pretty sure the rovers would be dead. NASA actually had to get special approval from congress to fund an additional one year of operations funding. Well guess what happened when that year was up. Yep.
So now they've gone 14 times the mission success criteria and 3-1/2 times NASA's best predictions. Opportunity has had a disabled heater on its infrared spectrometer for a while, Spirit has had a dead wheel motor for well over a year, and both of the rock abrasion tools are worn out from so much use, but they're still ticking. Of course, there is a real danger from the dust storm currently enveloping the planet, but I've got my fingers crossed.
Re:top 10 (Score:3, Informative)
>are extremely useful in running
>simulations, in engineering, fluid
>dynamics, etc, which may help us
>advance the propulsion technology.
>Moreover, landing men on Mars won't be
>as easy as the Moon, as the landing is
>considerably trickier (thanks to
>gravity and atmosphere), for which
>things like flight computers would
>certainly be useful.
I am fully aware of that, I do it for a living. However, the simulation capability was sufficiently good at the time of Apollo. Better is only vaguely better and doesn't greatly increase the probability of success and doesn't decrease the cost at all. In fact, developing the simulations is a continual problem and over-reliance on simulation (vs. test and flight experience) tends to increase the risk. The cost tends to be higher (to monumentally higher) and the schedule is almost always limited by slow software development. I run simulations every day of the same level of complexity, or higher, that ran perfectly well on computers extant in 1970. In fact a lot of the code was written in the late 60's and is still in use. "Improved" versions in "modern" languages require 8-processor DEC Alphas TO DO EXACTLY THE SAME CALCULATIONs, but with persistent and apparently unresolvable bugs. It doesn't *have* to be that way, of course, but the fact is that in practice that has happened time and again.
>Are you are aware of the quality the Space Shuttle Onboard Systems team produces?
Yes, because the process discipline used is not in line with "modern" standards, thankfully. If they had to redevelop it today, in 2007 (not 1980) there is no reason to believe that it could be done in any reasonable amount of time or with any reasonable chance of success. And once again, increased software sophistication IS NOT REQUIRED. A few minor operational irritations could be avoided but the Apollo system was quite obviously sufficient, and "improving" it would almost certainly entail all sorts of unnecessary bloat like autonomous failure detection, etc, that was handled with a guy flipping a toggle switch back in 1969.
Brett