Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
typodupeerror delete not in
  • Preferences

Comments: 137 +-   Spirit Outlasts Viking 2 Lander on Sunday August 12 2007, @07:41PM

Posted by Zonk on Sunday August 12 2007, @07:41PM
from the in-for-the-long-haul dept.
space
mars
nasa
ScottMaxwell writes "Spirit, the Mars rover designed for a 90-day mission, has now outlasted the Viking 2 lander. Viking 2 survived until its 1281st sol (Martian day); Spirit is now on sol 1282 and counting. Assuming both rovers continue to weather the ongoing dust storms, Spirit's sister, Opportunity, will reach the same age in a few weeks. They aren't breathing down the neck of the all-time record just yet, though — the Viking 1 lander lasted 2245 sols on the surface of Mars; Spirit and Opportunity won't break that record for another 2.7 Earth years."
story

Related Stories

Submission: Spirit Outlasts Viking 2 Lander by ScottMaxwell (108831)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Spirit Outlasts Viking 2 Lander 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Nuclear powered (Score:5, Informative)

    by FTL (112112) <slashdot&neil,fraser,name> on Sunday August 12 2007, @07:48PM (#20206993) Homepage
    Mars lander trivia:
    • Both Viking landers were nuclear powered [space.com] (RTGs).
    • So are both of the rovers, to a certain extent. Both rovers contain slugs of plutonium [harvard.edu] which keep the electronics boxes warm and reduce the amount of solar power needed for heating.
    • Viking 2 lasted 1281 sols and died when its batteries failed. Although the RTGs would have produced usable power for another ten years, the power levels were too low for 70s electronics. So the RTGs would slowly charge the batteries then the batteries would power up the lander for short durations.
    • Viking 1 lasted 2245 sols and lost contact with Earth when a bad command [unmannedspaceflight.com] was sent which instructed Viking to point its antenna in a different direction (sort of like typing "shutdown -h now" on the command line of a remote server, there's no recovery short of a house-call).

    • Re:Nuclear powered (Score:5, Insightful)

      by QuantumG (50515) <qg@biodome.org> on Sunday August 12 2007, @08:09PM (#20207131) Homepage Journal

      sort of like typing "shutdown -h now" on the command line of a remote server
      More like typing "ifdown eth0".

    • Delete *.* (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Tablizer (95088)
      lost contact with Earth when a bad command [unmannedspaceflight.com] was sent which instructed Viking to point its antenna in a different direction (sort of like typing "shutdown -h now" on the command line of a remote server, there's no recovery short of a house-call).

      That seems to happen too often in space flight. Everyone remembers the metric conversion, but there is also the "cook battery" command on a recent Mars orbiter death (fortunately, it lasted almost 10 years before the error), and then the Tit

        • if the remote software were able to reject commands deemed likely to cause mission failure.
          The kind of AI it would need to effect this would be horrendous, and probably suck more juice than they really want the hardware sucking.
          Now, if they gave each command to a terrestrial version of the hardware, and saw how the command played out, the engineers running the mission might have a chance to say "oops, let's not bother to send that one..."

        • Re:Delete *.* (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Lord Crc (151920) on Sunday August 12 2007, @09:17PM (#20207591)
          It would be nice if the remote software were able to reject commands deemed likely to cause mission failure.

          Or perhaps something like what they did to the display resolution dialogs after a while... Ie if communication is lost after a command for X time units, undo the command.

    • when a bad command was sent which instructed Viking to point its antenna in a different direction


      I'm surprised that systems, even back then weren't designed for some kind of autonomous "recovery mode". No communications with Earth for an extended period? How about slowly rotating the antennae through a pattern in search of a "beacon" we would send out on a separate frequency in such an event?
      • It also seems that they could have wrapped a recovery mission into a probe flyby. Just have a small probe fly past and shoot a signal down to the surface to reset the antenna.

        I guess they got everything out of the rover they needed. Additional time from the rover would not have added any significant value.

        IIRC, the main reason these new rovers were really stressed is that the first one landed in a shithole. They needed to go a few miles to get out of volcanic ash to find anything interesting.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by PPH (736903)

      Viking 1 lasted 2245 sols and lost contact with Earth when a bad command was sent which instructed Viking to point its antenna in a different direction (sort of like typing "shutdown -h now" on the command line of a remote server, there's no recovery short of a house-call).

      Maybe Viking 1 just liked the programming on a different satellite.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by xant (99438)
      Viking 1 lasted 2245 sols and lost contact with Earth when a bad command was sent which instructed Viking to point its antenna in a different direction (sort of like typing "shutdown -h now" on the command line of a remote server, there's no recovery short of a house-call).

      Sounds like a good mission for one of the rovers. Go bump the bastard in the right direction.

      • Re:Nuclear powered (Score:4, Informative)

        by nelsonal (549144) on Sunday August 12 2007, @08:38PM (#20207331) Journal
        From the summary, it looks like sunrise/sunset cycle on the local planet (~24 hours on earth). My knowledge of the solar system is fuzzy (it's been a long time since I was a "junior astronomer" but I think the martian day is about 25 Earth hours (their year is considerably longer, though).

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by camperdave (969942)
          This [solarsystem.org.uk] is a good site to bookmark. It includes a virtual scale model of the Solar System. It is quite informative to scroll from Sol out to Pluto. BTW, Mars has a rotation period (sol) of 24 hrs, 37 mins, 22.66 secs, and a year of 686.98 Earth days.

      • Re:Nuclear powered (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 12 2007, @08:41PM (#20207359)
        A 'sol' is a day in local time. Different planets rotate at different speeds making the length of their days different. One sol on Earth is 24 hours. One sol on Mars is 24.5 hours. One sol on Venus is a staggering 243 Earth days.
  • Say what you want about them, but they sure as hell know how to make a good autonomous vehicle. Anybody want to make a list of things NASA has made recently that didn't last waaay longer than anyone thought?

    • Re:NASA (Score:5, Funny)

      by niteice (793961) <icefragment@gmail.com> on Sunday August 12 2007, @08:02PM (#20207075) Journal

      Challenger

      Columbia

      • Made me wince, then laugh

      • Re:NASA (Score:5, Informative)

        by TheSuperlative (897959) on Sunday August 12 2007, @08:13PM (#20207159)
        Got me on Challenger, but Columbia, no. The shuttles were all designed with a 10-year lifespan in mind - they have more than outlasted that expectation
        • If you really want to pick nits... Challenger didn't fail, the shit to which it was strapped failed.

          • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward
            The difference being that mission parts that are replaced in the orbiter's downtime are not what have an impact on the operational lifespan of the vehicle. The platform's non-replaceable parts were meant to last ten years--the time on Earth is much harder on them than a high operational tempo.

            Each orbiter was only meant to last, structurally, for ten years. The number of missions it flew is largely a separate issue, given that much of the vehicle is replaced after each mission. Time was and always has be
      • Well, the expected operational life of a shuttle was only 10 years, so Challenger, yes, but Columbia, no.

    • Re:NASA (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Rorzabal (1138403) on Sunday August 12 2007, @08:04PM (#20207089)
      It's called "managing expectations". Someone at NASA decided, "Let's tell everyone we're only expecting it to last 90 days. If the thing craps out, no one will have expected it to last longer. If it lasts longer, we'll be praised by all the geeks on /."
        • I think it's very much in the Scotty style. Rather than doubling the expected time to delivery, drastically underestimate the life expectancy. I'm sure Scotty would approve.

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by Short Circuit (52384)
          In the ST:TNG episode Relics [memory-alpha.org], Scotty criticized Geordie for giving Picard accurate repair time estimates.

  • JPL Closed, Scientists Search for Nothing (Score:5, Funny)

    by DynaSoar (714234) on Sunday August 12 2007, @08:18PM (#20207199) Journal
    Immediately following the news release regarding the Mars rovers' longetivity, JPL announced its intention to replicate the rover design as an energy efficient and highly durable automobile. As a result, American, Japanese, American, that one German outfit, and American automobile manufacturers forced the entertainment branch of U-global-S business, the US government, to close JPL, claiming violations of monopoly, unintellectual property, lack of unrenewable energy usage, and for no good reason other than they can, Homeland Insecurity.

    The unemployed JPL engineers and scientists then gathered their equipment at the Florida shore and launched a rover-based underwater probe to locate the cause of the Bermuda Triangle. Unfortunately the mission was a failure, as the Bermuda Triangle seems to have disappeared into the Bermuda Triangle. This important failure was discovered by the scientists who noted the rover's failure to fail to return. Hopefully the ex-JPL crew will turn their expertise to neuroscience in order to discover precisely why the previous sentence makes my brain hurt.

    Finally, a public service announcement: Friends don't let friends post to /. after watching The Best of Spike Milligan.

    Finally, finally: I have no friends.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by tftp (111690)
      Finally, finally: I have no friends.

      But you have 23 fans ...

      • tftp (111690) sez:

        >> Finally, finally: I have no friends.

        > But you have 23 fans ... ... which would certainly account for my ability to move a large amount of hot air. Better that than RAW air.

  • what is really impressive is the fact that these things have been mobile for this long without *any* physical maintainence millions of miles away! and that they are completely solar powered. impressive when you really think about it. It may not have as much shock value as landing on the moon did, but its an impressive accomplishment.
    • Haven't they only traveled a few kilometres though?

      While my car car hasn't had to withstand millions of miles wrapped up in radiation soaked gold foil, pass through reentry on a distant planet, followed by a good bounce across the ground, it has managed to take me more than 120,000 kilometres in 2 years without ever needing a service. Traveled on all kinds of road surfaces - including that outback powdery red dirt crap that is rather common in Australia. Alright, I had to change the tires a couple of times,
      • Alright, bad form to reply to myself, though before anyone flames me, I did have to refuel rather a lot - the rovers, not so much. Nuclear reactors are still socially unacceptable under the hood, otherwise I'd have one - stupid hippies.

      • 120,000 kilometres in 2 years without ever needing a service

        I sincerely hope you had at least 9 or 12 oil changes in that time (depending on the schedule). And checked the air filter regularly, especially if you'd been spending time in the fine red dust.

        Change your oil regularly and your car will love you.

  • Slashdot Tags of any worth? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by LS (57954) on Monday August 13 2007, @03:44AM (#20209637) Homepage
    If you needed more evidence to support the fact that Slashdot tags are worthless, unfunny, manipulated by editors, and clearly not reflective user input, just look at the fantastically retarded tags attached to this story:

    theydomakethemliketheyusedto, gogogadgetlander

    What exactly is the criteria for tags getting on the front page? Are you seriously saying that several Slashdot users all came up with these tags at the same time? That is clearly either evidence of editorial manipulation, or that cyanide pills need to be handed at the next nerd convention.

    LS
    • Good list, but I'd add a couple more:

      * V'ger
      * Nomad

      • Re:Spirit? Opportunity? (Score:5, Funny)

        by liquidpele (663430) on Sunday August 12 2007, @09:14PM (#20207563) Homepage Journal
        I'd want to be named
        Johann Gambolputty-de-von-Ausfern-schplenden-schlitter-cr ass- cren-bon-fried-digger-dingle-dangle-dongle-dungle- burstein-von- knacker-thrasher-apple-banger-horowitz-ticolensic- grander-knotty- spelltinkle-grandlich-grumblemeyer-spelter-wasser- kurstlich-himble- eisenbahnwagen-guten-abend-bitte-ein-nürnburger-br atwürstel- gespurten-mitz-weimache-luber-hundsfut-gumeraber-s chönendanker- kalbsfleisch-mittleraucher-von-Hautkopft of Ulm.

        For those whose heads that went over:
        Explaination [wikipedia.org]
        Video [youtube.com]
        • Not over my head ... I've been a Monty Python fan since PBS first began broadcasting it here some thirty years ago. Truthfully though, I've never seen Johann's name spelled out in it's entirety before.
            • I know. Some people just don't get Monty Python though, even if they have seen it. Now, I'm American and I always enjoyed that show immensely, but I know that I don't get a lot of it. I've watched episodes of Monty Python with a couple of English people around to explain it to me, and there's a lot going on in that show that is over my head. Funny stuff.
    • On the contrary - the hardware may eventually perish, but the Spirit will live on forever.
    • Optimus Prime?

    • Sorry, not Barry Bonds here (Score:5, Informative)

      by Tablizer (95088) on Sunday August 12 2007, @08:29PM (#20207263) Homepage Journal
      that needs a big fat asterisk. Seriously, a "90-day mission" and it's still going 3 years later? Something is rotten in Mars.

      Most thought that dust on the solar panels would end the missions after a few months. Turns out that whirlwinds clean them every now and then. They didn't know such would happen since long-duration solar missions hadn't been done yet.

      And mechanics *are* wearing out, it is just that they find workarounds. Spirit drives backward because of a failed wheel, and Oppy holds its elbow in a single place most of the time, using wheels to maneuvor instead of bend the bad elbow. And some if it is probably luck; the electronics could snap at any time due to heat-cold cycles. (Oppy's front wheel is showing signs of wear also.)

      It is also true that statistically, once missions get past the early phase, they tend to last well. The failure spots are usually early in most missions if there are failures.
             

    • Yawn: Another broken record (Score:4, Interesting)

      by camperdave (969942) on Sunday August 12 2007, @09:51PM (#20207817) Journal
      in 1962 Canada launched Alouette 1 into orbit. It had a one year design lifespan. After running for ten years, the satellite was deliberately shut down. It is still in orbit and can be re-activated by sending the correct wakeup signal.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by phoenix.bam! (642635)
      The Viking craft weren't rovers. They simply sat where they landed taking readings and running on a nuclear reactor. Not much on them to break. Since they ran off nuclear power dust and winter weren't obstacles to keeping the landers running. I think Viking was transmit only too. No user input to change the mission. The rovers are much more impressive.
      • Yeah I just realised that, it's still very impressive they had photos and successful landings of devices on the surface in the 70's - I'm really impressed.

        • don't think this is the case. After all, they had to survey the surface to decide where to sample the soil from for the soil and life tests. They had the sampler arm turn over a small rock to get soil from underneath it. They had computers in them, just not very powerful ones.

          That is the case. As a matter of fact, what finally did Viking 1 in was a bad command issued to the lander's computers that caused it to point its antenna away from Earth.
    • Russia also had lots of rovers on the Moon and one lander on Venus, which took the only photos we have of the venusian surface, which is kinda muggy, murky, rocky and acidic.

    • Re:Oh my goodness me (Score:5, Informative)

      by big-magic (695949) on Sunday August 12 2007, @09:11PM (#20207535)
      Assuming I counted correctly, there have only been 5 successful landers/rovers (Viking 1 and 2, Mars Pathfinder, Opportunity, and Spirit) and 1 partial success (Mars 6). Check the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars [wikipedia.org]. There were a lot more missions to Mars than I realized, most of them failures. Going to Mars is hard, which makes the success of Opportunity and Spirit even more amazing. It would be a mistake for us to get cocky and think we've got this mastered, just because our couple missions went really well.

    • Re:Oh my goodness me (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sibko (1036168) on Sunday August 12 2007, @09:16PM (#20207575)
      And yet, it's a bit sad to think that, since the 70's, all we've managed to do is land a couple more landers on mars.

      20, almost 30 years of no significant space achievements. :(

      Oh sure, there's a couple of impressive things that have been done with probes. Crashing them into asteroids, flinging them out towards Pluto, but where are the asteroid mines and space colonies, the moonbases and He3 refining facilities, or even an interstellar probe to the nearest star system?

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by solios (53048)

        but where are the asteroid mines and space colonies, the moonbases and He3 refining facilities, or even an interstellar probe to the nearest star system?


        They're hanging out with the flying cars, of course.
Search
Certainly there are things in life that money can't buy, But it's very funny -- did you ever try buying them without money? -- Ogden Nash

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.