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."
Greatest discovery (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Greatest discovery (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Somebody with enough brain to not credit the tinfoil hat nonsense that NASA somehow overdesigns their craft and make performance claims only a fraction of that actually built.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you work in IT? The decision in favor of a solution/team/product/company often comes down to marketing. Well, NASA is in the same boat.
Imagine yourself in a position to make a decision that affects mountains of taxpayer money, and therefore your reputation, and in turn your future employment prospects. You certainly don't have time to critically evaluate everything that comes your way.
Re: (Score:2)
Previously, I think the longest extraterrestrial rover live was about 85 days. There is no experience with or history of multi-year rover life like this. A few rovers didn't last for days.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
You might have some trouble finding a gas station...
sigh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Why the childish urge to conjure up cute little clanking robots instead of simply patting a fellow human being on the back?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The people are many and nebulous. It takes a lot of people to pull something like this off.
By contrast, there are just two rovers on Mars. People know their names.
And they are easy to anthropomorphize. There they are, alone in a harsh landscape far from home. "Surviving" far longer than anyone had expected. And let's face it, they're kind of cute in a way.
The Hubble telescope is a similar situation. For that matter, so are manned launches. It's a lot easier to idolize the handful of astronauts
Re:sigh... (Score:5, Funny)
was Re:sigh... now, survivor mars, or, anthropomo (Score:2)
Rambling Rover
- trad,from Silly Wizard
- chorus: -
Oh there's sober men & plenty
And drunkards barely twenty
There are men of over ninety
That have never yet kissed a girl.
But give me a rambling rover
Fae Orkney down to Dover
We will roam the country over
And together we'll face the world.
I've roamed through all the nations
Ta'en delight in all creation
And I've tried a wee sensation
Where the company did prove kind.
When parting was no pleasure
I've drunk another measu
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
In light of recent news this reads like... (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, no band survives the greatest hits album.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too bad #1 couldn't have been.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Died there unfortunately (at least, according to the original edit, not the original release). Beautiful Platinum Blonde girls from another planet dying in a nuclear explosion on a Jungle Venus make me a sad panda :(
Wasting Taxpayer Money? (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, NASA engineers managed to create machines that were able to accurately and consistently navigate the surface of Mars safely and efficiently almost entirely on their own.
If anything, I wish NASA got more taxpayer money.
AC
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I think the success of the Russian space program is attributable in large part to the fact that they co
Top 10 list and... (Score:2)
And a few things they didn't find... (Score:2)
No thanks to Richard Hoagland.
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.
ASCII Version of list (Score:5, Funny)
9 -
8 -
7 - ~~~ stink
6 - A..B..C three eras
5 -
4 - [ . ] Earth from mars
3 - o@o clouds
2 - ~!~ atmospheric profile
1 - H2O water history
I think the 2 neatests things from a spectator's viewpoint were the dust devil movies and the spherical blueberries. Burn's Cliff was also cool.
Re:How many found AFTER the expected mission life? (Score:4, Interesting)
Required extended mission, obviously - rovers did not land near the site.
9 - Evidence of volcanic origin for Gusev crater.
Same as above - you may need to travel for a long time to get to the interesting site.
8 - First meteorite identified on another planet.
Required extended mission - you need to find the meteorite.
7 - Discover of sulfur suggests Mars stink.
May not require an extended mission.
6 - Helps scientists determine that Mars had three distinct geological eras.
Most definitely requires an extended mission, and likely to require far more than that to know those eras in detail. Earth geology is not dead yet even though people study rocks for thousands of years.
5 - Martian dust devils captured on film.
Requires an extended mission, unless the dust devil pays you a visit just when and where you landed.
4 - First shot of Earth from distant planet.
Depends on the landing site and the rotation of Mars.
3 - Photographs Earth-like clouds on Mars.
Likely requires an extended mission, unless those clouds are common and can be always seen.
2 - Helps scientists create first atmospheric temperature profile of Mars.
Most definitely requires an extended mission. It will later take thousands of probes spread over the whole planet, and several years, to create the precise, correct thermal profile that the settlers will require.
1 - First definitive evidence that water flowed on mars, including blueberries, hematite, and silica.
May or may not require an extended mission depending on where the samples were collected.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How many found AFTER the expected mission life? (Score:2)
10 - Opportunity provides tantalizing glimpse of Victoria crater.
EXTENDED. Very extended.
9 - Evidence of volcanic origin for Gusev crater.
ORIGINAL mission. But the extended mission has clarified things a lot.
8 - First meteorite identified on another planet.
EXTENDED. I think. It was close to the heat shield so it was found early but I think it was still in the extended portion of the mission.
7 - Discover of sulfur
Re: (Score:2)
is always required before:
x+1) profit!!!
This is cool stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Scientific Speculation (Score:2)
Certain scientific speculation may have its merits, but I could do without this kind!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Before then of course, you can issue a few POKE commands to shake the ant hill a bit. You might make burning bushes talk to people, or the virgin Mary appear in supermarket freezer window condensation.
Beats playing solitaire to pass the time.
Re: (Score:2)
It's all about the games baby. Woot!
Missing from the list... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Missing from the list... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Discovery #11 (Score:4, Funny)
http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/gallery/all/2/n/001/2N
Do a blow up on the circular object on the panel, left and down from center.
The last mission of the rovers... (Score:5, Funny)
Putting the article text in a six line scroll box while 95% of the page is ads or blank should be an offense punishable by being skinned alive.
Re: (Score:2)
Shards of glass and a bathtub full of tobasco.
somewhat annoying.. (Score:2)
Thank goodness for marketing (Score:2)
Has holes in the ground.
Evidence of volcanic origin for Gusev crater:
Has a rock.
First meteorite identified on another planet:
Has a foreign rock.
Discover of sulfur suggests Mars stink:
Maybe Has some kind of smell.
Helps scientists determine that Mars had three distinct geological eras:
Has rocks.
Martian dust devils captured on film:
Has atmosphere.
First shot of Earth from distant planet:
Earth is still here.
Photographs E
#11 Artificial Intelligent rover-geologists work (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I had to pick just one:
1) reread all of the calibrations to verify the ability to land (safely)
Once that is verified, how about a remake of Capricorn One?.
I'll overlook the fact (in CI) conversations are instantaneous (instead of a delay).
This time, leave OJ[1] on Mars and let the other two come back, even if the simulations say it won't happen.
[1]Yes, OJ Simpson. If you haven't watched it, there's no spoiler there because the rest of the statement is explained fairly early in the film.
I wo
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
That's actually the case for everything but metals. As Penn and Teller put it, when recycling becomes so efficient that bums on the street will do the sorting, then you'll know it's actually beneficial for society.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Totally, and that's what I try to do with them. Sending them to be processed is potentially even worse than just throwing it away (considering that we have plenty of landfill space).
Right, I mentioned those. Definitely good to recycle these, and they're the one thing that I actively recycle.
Re: (Score:2)
In Germany you take everything back to the shop for re-use. When you buy a two liter bottle of Coke there you can see that it's a bit worn.
Also, when the pizza guy comes to your house he slides the pizza out of a metal box onto one of your plates - no cardboard pizza box.
etc., etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But that's the entire problem with environmental impact; it's an externality.
Spending energy contributes to global warming. But the *cost* of global warming is generally not carried by the company doing the pollution. Releasing Ozone-killers leads to increased UV-radiation, which again gives more skin-cancer, among other problems. But the *cost* of that isn't generally carried by the compan(ies) that d
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Costs (Score:5, Insightful)
Costs and benefits (Score:2)
So what? That's still less than the economic damaged caused by a few years of MS viruses, the damage runs at several billion per quarter. Then there would be the general maintenance costs for MS junk which is throwing even more good money after bad. I'd say compared to all that, the Mars rover is cheap. When you start taking into account the merits of what you get for the money, the difference is even greater.
It took a few decades for the scientific benefits of the Apollo missions to spread out to th
$400m x 2 + $10m / per month (Score:2)
Another example is Hubble, initally $1.5B. However three servicing missions doubled that, and two decades of operation doubled it again. Still getting great results but may be retired if the final servicing mission never occurs due
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The other thing, though, is that private industry is somewhat better at funding things with obvious applications than it is at funding things whose primary goal is pure science, bec
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:top 10 (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dust are really really really small rocks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:top 10 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Improved efficiency of fuel cells. Even though development didn't continue
Mylar film. Used as insulation to keep long distance runners warm and emergency shelter for forest fighters.
One of the first users of Velcro.
Space pen. Even though it wasn't designed with NASA funding. Made a good Seinfeld episode.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>about 10 years, and in the 38 years
>since we landed on the moon all things
>electronic have improved with such
>incredible speed, going to Mars soon
>should be a piece of cake right? No. Is
>it because the GHz processors we have
>are too weak? No
A billion times more processor power has no effect because the PROCESSOR POWER IN 1969 was PLENTY ENOUGH. The hard job of landing men on the moon had nearly nothing to do with comp
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The hard problems to solve were structural design and propulsion, not algorithms. Propulsion technology- at least propulsion technology useful for manned lunar missions - hasn't advanced one iota since the mid-60's.
The huge increases in computation power 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.
Virtually every current space project of which I am aware has had massive problems with the flight software and database, and it's coincident with trying to use inappropriate programming techniques made possible by faster computers.
Are you are aware of the quality the Space Shuttle Onboard Systems team produces?
To take manual control before landing (Score:2)
Now:
1. Use track ball to designate flight control system UI
2. Pull down Control Mode menu
3. Select Manual Mode option
4. Wait for confirmation dialog
5. Click Yes (and uncheck Don't ask me this again)
6. Check distance to landing site
Its a joke, I know, but I have never met a pilot who likes the Airbus UI. It needs a Dumb mode. All the Apollo spacecraft were dumb.
Re: (Score:2)
I guarantee that we will wind up with all sorts of "autonomous labor-saving features" that will cost fantastic a
Re: (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 capabili
Re: (Score:2)
Computers aren't the issue here, mechanical engineering and guts are.
Re:top 10 (Score:5, Insightful)
1. No LIFE!!! Stop wasting taxpayer money!!
Yes, lets stop pursuing scientific discoveries and focus our meager resources on invading countries under false pretenses as a proper imperial power should. Books and learning are for hippy surrender monkeys!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"Marwth Vallis Regions"? Anyone else see what's wrong with that?
(Ok, yes, my computer naming convention at work is after the Welsh words for the planets, what's it to you?)
Re:top 10 (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know. How much does it cost to sit around, examine data gathered from sources like NASA, and theorize all day? Space exploration actually requires developing and utilizing new technologies. That costs money. Besides, NASA is pretty much the only show in town for space exploration. The NSF is one of many government sources of funding for math and physical science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think we should support string theory, the study of the big bang and number theory just a little more ?
Why don't we put it to a public vote? Pure research is great and sometimes leads to more "practical" benefits, but not everyone's idea of "valuable research" is the same, and the gov't has a responsibility (not saying they live up to it) to spend tax revenue wisely. Somehow I don't think Joe Q. Public cares beans about funding more research into string theory and the big bang. Frankly, I'm not sure I do, either. And number theory? Pardon my ignorance, but what kind of research is going on in number th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Mars is not our nearest neighbour. Venus is, and by a fair way too.
A scientist should know this.
This business of "our nearest neighbour" has been spun by the pro-space
lobby to good effect. The fact is that probes sent to Venus are far cheaper.
For a start, they go Sun-ward and enjoy a good gravity-assist.
What? You don't like the weather on Venus? That doesn't justify the "nearest neighbour" myth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You make it sound like NSF is the only government source of funding for those things. I have heard that DARPA actually represents the primary source of government funding for research.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You're level of meanness is a real detriment to Slashdot, where people try to have serious discussions about science and technology.
I've worked as the director of a condensed matter lab for many years at a large well known institution. My field could use some more money, and I must admit I resent so much of it going to NASA. If your not in a scientific field, it might not be obvious to you how m
Re:top 10 (Score:4, Insightful)
uh huh
'I could probably solve more math and physics problems in an evening that you could in a month.'
Likely. Are you implying that there is some sort of association between the two?
Sorry but you aren't a female, you aren't a 'insert race here', you aren't a 'insert nationality here', you are an individual. You neither get to stand taller due to the achievements of nor spin the failures of other individuals simply because they happen to share a group designator with you.
The thing I personally find most amusing, is that the only valid use of gender as a designator is to classify sex objects. And yet, those who want to be identified first by their gender don't seem to want their sex used to identify them as sex objects notwithstanding the entire biological purpose of having genders and the natural reproductive instincts associated with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can see now why the discussion went over the head here. Scientists and to a lesser extent Engineers are in the trade of doing new things instead of being trained to operate specific items of equipment designed by other people.
Re: (Score:2)
My education is to be a R&D design validation tech/engineer. I took a maintenance position for the change of pace and found it to be peaceful. Now, when A0 silicon is in the lab and a piece of equipment has issues I'm busy until it's fixed. I don't go home, I take minimal breaks (one still must eat). However, with proper preventive maintenance that rarely happens and because my job no longer involves writing t