Mars Rover Spirit May Never Wake From Deep Sleep 155
astroengine writes "After repeated calls from NASA to wake up Mars Exploration Rover Spirit from its low-energy hibernation mode, mission control is beginning to realize the ill-fated robot may never wake up again. After getting stuck in a sand trap in Gusev Crater and then switching into hibernation in March, rover operators were hopeful that the beached Spirit might yet be saved. Alas, this is looking more and more unlikely. In a statement, NASA said: 'Based on models of Mars' weather and its effect on available power, mission managers believe that if Spirit responds, it most likely will be in the next few months. However, there is a very distinct possibility Spirit may never respond.'"
Related xkcd strip, in case the headline wasn't anthropomorphic enough for you.
Well, just send the sys admin (Score:4, Funny)
He can go reboot it, right? I know it is the weekend, but it's obviously part of his job duties.
Or the onion article (Score:5, Funny)
This ought to be good. (Score:2, Funny)
"Just my allergies, I hate summer".
Duh... (Score:1, Funny)
Use Opportunity to jostle Spirit toward the sun again.
Thanks, I'll be consulting for NASA all week!
Re:Human nature (Score:2, Funny)
Ummm, isn't it named Spirit, not Sprite? Are you sure you were really involved with this project when they were "still being built"?
Disney|PIXAR (Score:4, Funny)
Forgive me (Score:3, Funny)
Re:RIP little buddy (Score:4, Funny)
I vote for curry as number one, that's easy. Then it gets a bit harder but I suspect there is a looong list of mankind's achievements ahead of a robot stuck on Mars.
Re:Human nature (Score:3, Funny)
Apparently you weren't there when they renamed the rovers after the soft-drink advertising fell through. Someone managed to save costs though and only redo the lettering just a little bit.
Re:It was inevitable. (Score:4, Funny)
Those Martians never stood a chance.
Re:Human nature (Score:4, Funny)
I am going to get (deservedly) ripped for this aren't I?
I plead diminished capacity, I was only on my first cup of coffee.
Oblig. xkcd (Score:1, Funny)
http://xkcd.co... oh wait.
the re-write (Score:5, Funny)
I think they both work.
Re:On the bright side... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Forgive me (Score:2, Funny)
Yah, but now there are 100's of nudes of spirit on the net. Stupid Dell Support.
Re:Die in my sleep (Score:3, Funny)
When I die, I'd like to go peacefully in my sleep, like grandpa.
Not screaming and panicking, like his passengers. (badum-tish)
Re:Well, just send the sys admin (Score:4, Funny)
Seriously, why don't we just send a guy to give the rover a push?
The technology is there, that we don't send a man there is just a matter of politics.
And, one of better plans I heard was to send a crew there with an one- way ticket (initially). For any multi-stage flights, the amount of gear, fuel and complexity rises expotentially with the number of stages: every stage has to include the oomph needed to carry not only the payload, but also all the gear+consumables for subsequent stages. Cutting that number by half would reduce the costs and difficulty to a manageable level -- and, you can use the freed space to include a lot of survival and scientific gear and still end up at a tiny fraction of budget needed.
The crew would sit there, play with their toys, and when they get bored, use 5000 years old technology to build things from local materials. A while later, there would be a next crew (or even an unmanned craft) with no survival gear but just the engines needed for takeoff and return -- it may be possible to produce fuel locally -- perhaps using nuclear power to produce energy for the reactions needed if it can't be gathered in an easy way. The second crew would either stay on Mars or go back together with the first one.