Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Mars Rovers on New Missions 156

Posted by michael from the keeps-going-and-going dept.
mycro writes "According to CNN, the Mars rovers are on a brand new mission. Because the Mars Spirit and Opportunity rovers are in such great condition and 'keep going and going', NASA will be using them for a longer period of time to study water, rocks, and formations on Mars." An anonymous reader writes "Today NASA has given its Opportunity rover a green light to enter the steep Endurance crater. Looking at deeper martian bedrock layers is considered now a rich enough science payoff to weigh favorably against the real chance that the rover cannot get back out of the crater."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mars Rovers on New Missions More

Mars Rovers on New Missions

Comments Filter:

  • Normal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by madaxe42 ( 690151 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:09AM (#9343319) Homepage
    They make it sound like the rover is undergoing a massive risk, and doing something utterly untoward, by entering the crater - this is nothing new in science - the majority of space probes are designed for limited function, and not to survive their missions, witness voyager and the like.

    • Re:Normal (Score:2, Insightful)

      by DoraLives ( 622001 )
      They make it sound like the rover is undergoing a massive risk, and doing something utterly untoward, by entering the crater - this is nothing new in science - the majority of space probes are designed for limited function, and not to survive their missions, witness voyager and the like.

      "Oh tra la la, I sent a perfectly functioning multi-million dollar spacecraft into an environment that destroyed it. Well golly shoo, what a shame. No more science for the rest of you guys. Yeah, I know you've invested the

  • Why would they stop working? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lancomandr ( 785360 ) * on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:10AM (#9343321)
    Because the Mars Spirit and Opportunity rovers are in such great condition and 'keep going and going'

    Could someone please explain to me what exactly would cause a rover that cost $400 million to develop and deploy to fail after several months? I'm not trying to start a ruckus. Perhaps I should've kept up more but I honestly wonder what causes these rovers to cease functioning. It seems like the expectations for home robotics kits greatly exceed those of the Mars rovers. Hopefully someone can explain it.

    • Re:Why would they stop working? (Score:5, Informative)

      by twoshortplanks ( 124523 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:17AM (#9343333) Homepage
      They run out of power. The units are recharged by solar panels which stop working as well over time as they slowly get covered by dust and dirt that can't be cleaned off.

      Also every action the rovers take place them in danger, so there's risk associated with every day of their existance - if they get stuck, it's not like there's anyone there to pull them off a rock or turn them back over.

      • Seems to me, if dust on the solar panels was an eventual issue, they should have spent $400m + $20 bucks to equip them with wiper blades.

        • Re:Why would they stop working? (Score:5, Informative)

          by HeghmoH ( 13204 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @08:19AM (#9343720) Homepage Journal
          This has been discussed to death. The people working on these rovers are very smart, and they surely thought of this idea. Wiper blades imply a hefty wiper-blade subsystem, meaning less weight available to devote to other subsystems. Moreover, the solar cells are merely the first system likely to fail; find a way to keep them alive indefinitely, and you find something else that will die (such as the rechargeable batteries) in short order.
        • The dust on Mars is statically charged [nzherald.co.nz].

        • Re:Why would they stop working? (Score:4, Informative)

          by barakn ( 641218 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @12:17PM (#9344862)
          If you try to wipe off the dust without getting the surface wet, you scratch the surface and end up with a worse problem than dust. So in addition to your $20 blades (actually much more expensive because you'd need material that survives extremely cold temp), you'd need to find a fluid system that doesn't freeze at those temperatures, doesn't boil at that low pressure, doesn't interfere with any of the scientific instruments, and doesn't dissolve the panels or wiper components. To save weight you might try to recycle the fluid, introducing a filtration system, but there will be unavoidable loss to evaporation (it has to or it will remain and attract dust), so you'll need to bring more than enough for one wipe. Then one of your fellow engineers complains because the volume, mass, and energy requirements of your wiper system has bumped their scientific instrument out of the final design. An accountant finds your cost estimate was off by some 5 orders of magnitude. You're fired.
          • Or they could have taken a page from Nascar and used pull away covers over the solar panels that could be pulled off with the dust when they got full. But, like you said, these are pretty smart guys, I'm sure there was a reason.

    • Re:Why would they stop working? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's down to power mostly, as I understand it. These things are powered by solar panels, and Mars has quite a volitile weather system. I assume that the creators expect this little things to at some point get buried in dust, and no longer be able to get power.

    • Re:Why would they stop working? (Score:4, Informative)

      by SB5 ( 165464 ) <freebirdpat@noSpam.hotmail.com> on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:19AM (#9343341)
      The solar panels get covered with dust, and NASA has investigated solutions to stop that even using windshield washer type things and what not... all the solutions turned out to be worthless, impractical, and a waste of weight... NASA likes to equip multiple backup systems and they simply can't with that. Ultimately the solar panel cannot collect enough power and the battery dies... Mars isn't exactly a very nice enviroment to work in either... dust storms that last for days or longer...

      Home robotics kits couldn't do nearly anything these guys do... We would have to send HUNDREDs of home robotics kits to even get close to the results of a couple of our rovers... The failure rate would be higher on those kits too...
      • self cleaning glass? [glassonweb.com]
        I know there's no rain on mars, but perhaps any high winds, plus this type of glass, might extend the usefulness of the PV panels. Of course, I also don't know how much this new type of glass would degrade the electrical conversion rates with the panels either.
        • "The integrated coating reacts to the suns ultraviolet rays to gradually and continuously break down organic dirt through what is called a photocatalytic effect"

          That makes it sound like it can only work on dirt with a high organic content (which is all arond us).

          The dirt on mars probably isn't organic, so there is no organic content to break down.

          Also, they also rely on water to keep the glass clean. Water is very heavy, and would be very expensive to ship all the way to Mars.
    • Mostly, there's the problem of power. These robots are operating with only solar cells for additional power, much farther away from the sun, and in an extremely dusty/sandy environment.

      The wind, sand, and dust puts a lot of stress on the rest of the mechanical workings, too.

    • Re:Why would they stop working? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:23AM (#9343353) Homepage
      It seems like the expectations for home robotics kits greatly exceed those of the Mars rovers. Hopefully someone can explain it.

      Now, I am not an astronomer, but when I apply common sense to this problem, I can readily see the following points:
      • home robotics kits operate on Earth, within a stable atmosphere, relatively shielded from radiation, UV, etc.
      • home robotics kits do not operate millions of kilometers from their bases.
      • home robotics kits did not make a journey through the most hostile and unforgiving environment known -- outer space. Temperatures that would kill a human within seconds, radiation that would destroy conventional electronic components, etc.
      Now trying to flame ya, just my $0.02 is all.
      • home robotics kits did not make a journey through the most hostile and unforgiving environment known -- outer space. Temperatures that would kill a human within seconds, radiation that would destroy conventional electronic components, etc.

        While your general point sound, outer space is definitely not the most hostile environment known. Dig twenty or thirty miles straight down, and you will find an environment far more hostile and difficult to survive in than space. A couple thousand miles down, and no im
    • Seems like a prime opportunity for a nuclear powered rover! I mean seriously, couldnt we have a nice little home base nuclear reactor for the thing to plug into? Perhaps it's or even housed within itself?

      That might actually make it more worth the $400m pricetag.
      • The next one will. Not fission but thermal.

      • Re:Why would they stop working? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Sven-Erik ( 177541 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @06:14AM (#9343427)

        And to avoid the risk of launching rockets with nuclear material, this would be perfect for basing this on a lunar base that extracts nuclear materials, process it and launch rockets with nuclear-powered rovers, probes etc.

        This lunar base should probably be based somewhere around Mare Imbrium [xs4all.nl] where there most likely are concentrations high enough.

        • Sure we could process the nuclear fuel on the moon! It's easy! All we have to do is set up an entire mining and refining and launch complex complete with those P2 centrifuges the Iranians aren't using. Then all we have to do is transfer it to the launch facility and put it in a mars-bound orbit.

          Seriously; the cost for producing usable nuclear fuel on the moon would make the cost of the rover look tiny.

          • It would not be cheap! But it could be a part of a greater plan to build a large and permanent presence on the moon. And for that to be a success, it needs to be as independent of supplies from Earth as possible.

            And the production of nuclear materials for energy production could be one part of making it economical feasible.

      • Currently in the works for the 2009 launch window is the RTG-powered Mars Science Laboratory [space.com] which, I hope, will get a snappier name before launch.

        Can't wait for the Cassini-like protesters... oh, joy.

      • Seems like a prime opportunity for a nuclear powered rover!

        I believe that's exactly the thing they want to do with the Mars Science Laboratory [nasa.gov], to be launched around 2009. Some time ago I saw a presentation on Laser Induced Spectroscopy [lanl.gov], which they want to include in that mission. Essentially what they want to do is to put a high power pulsed laser with a small telescope on top of the rover mast. Its light can be focused to a tiny spot some tens of meters away. You pick up the light that is caused by t

      • Seriously, do you think that NASA, with its team of experienced scientists and engineers, DIDN'T think of this? Considering how the Viking landers, the Voyager orbiters, and other probes use nuclear power, it's not like you just came up with a brilliant new idea. Spirit and Opportunity both have several pellets of plutonium to generate heat.

        I don't know the exact reason why solar power was chosen over nuclear power. Suffice it to say, an informed decision was made that weighed all of the pros and cons of

        • Looking at all the cost cutting the led to the loss of the Mars Polar Lander, the Beagle 2... I think the cost is cheap.

          Exactly. $800 for an AMAZINGLY successful mission is infinately more valuable than a $300 or $200 million dollar mission that gives back zero science (Mars Polar Lander/Beagle2).

      • It is already being planned. [nasa.gov] For whatever reason public squeamishness about nuclear powered planetary probes has abated since it reached a peak with the Galileo and Cassini launches. A good thing for exploration.

      • Actually, the 2009 rover is planned to be nuclear. Much bigger than the current rovers and able to survive 2 Martian years (about 5 Earth years). Was kinda iffy whether they could proceed with that one but that now seems to be certain now with the presidential directive to go to Mars (and the moon).
    • As others have pointed out the problem is power but no one has mentioned yet that each rover requires a heater to stop the extreme cold at night from damaging the electronics.

      Of course if they had used RTG's....

    • Re:Why would they stop working? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mrright ( 301778 ) <rudiNO@SPAMlambda-computing.com> on Saturday June 05, 2004 @06:34AM (#9343458) Homepage
      You can thank the fear of everything nuclear for this. Usually you would run a mars rover from a RTG [wikipedia.org]. That way they would have enough power to run the rover continuously for years, and also enough heat to make sure none of the components fails because of excessive thermal cycling.

      But since nuclear==BAD, they have to run the rover from a solar cell which gives only a tiny trickle of power during the daytime and none at all during the night. All components are subject to massive thermal cycling. So sooner or later either the solar panel will be too coated with dust to work, or the battery will no longer work, or components will fail because of excessive thermal cycling.

      Note that all of these problems would be trivial to avoid if you had 50W electrical power and 1kw thermal power continuously, like you would get from a tiny RTG.
      --
      • How's the weight of one of those RTGs compared to removing the solar panels and possibly reducing the amount of batteries? Even the thermal output would be useful. They have to put Spirit into deep sleep mode each night because of a heater that won't switch off otherwise. That thermal cycling can't be good for it.

        Of course, with an RTG, they might find that a bunch of Martian gnorffl had curled up around it at night for warmth, but I guess that'd be an interesting discovery...

      • this is the new cheaper idea (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Not using an RTG was almost certainly not because of nuclear fears. NASA isn't afraid to use an RTG.

        It's most likely because of cost.

        Honestly, I think a solar cell is a better match anyway. Because the unit is going to stop working anyway due to the conditions. Despite what you said, preventing component failure is not a trivial thing.
        Second, the units had to be small and light. These vehicles have to move around. They have to haul that RTG around with them all the time. Making it heaver would make it les
    • It's because Nasa forgot to install windscreen wipers and windolene spray. The solar panels get covered in dust because it's really really dusty on mars. There's nobody around with a feather duster either.

      Eventually, the solar panels get covered in a layer of dust and that means the rovers can't see where they are going and fall of the edge of craters or bump into big rocks like Yogi.

      If a rover falls on it's back, it can't right itself again because NASA forgot to install a robotic arm that could flip the
    • It seems like the expectations for home robotics kits greatly exceed those of the Mars rovers. Hopefully someone can explain it.

      Put your home robotics kit on Mars and see how long it lasts. I give it a day or so, it's pretty harsh there, not like your backyard at all. You can't take it in at night either, and you never get to clean off its solar collectors or perform any maintenance whatsoever. That's where the development money goes.
    • To name a few:

      A mixture of dust accumlation on the solar panels restricting their ability to provide power, dust getting into the equipment eventually causing a failure, the batteries can only be recharged fully a finite number of times, the extreme temperature changes.

      That's just a few of the things that can cause a failure, then we have environmental things like dust storms and the rover getting stuck in the sand to worry about.

      It amazes me that they got to Mars at all in one piece, let alone that they
    • Yeah, people keep mentioning dust, solar panels, batteries degrading...
      These can work several years if developed properly.
      What is the worst nemesis that can change the fate of the rovers in matter of hours are the martian storms. With wind blowing 200-400km/h, object the size of the rover without a solid shelter firmly bolted to the ground will just take off and fly bouncing randomly at speed not much lower than the wind. Then just a random rock on route, *smash* and pick the pieces of the rover over next 5
    • Sandstorms, 60 K (110 F) daily temperature swings, and no way to do maintenance, cleaning, or repair.
    • Several people have already mentioned the dust accumulation on solar panels. There are certainly other factors -

      Mars is a windy, sandy desert. Anybody who has taken a high-tech device (camera, cdplayer, vehicle. etc) to the beach knows that it is nearly impossible to keep sand out of the workings. So the motors and gear trains are susceptible to degrading over time from wind-blown dust/sand entering. Surely there are dust seals on the bearings, but some particles are likely fine enough to get past those. E

  • Worth It (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ErichTheWebGuy ( 745925 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:12AM (#9343324) Homepage
    Looking at deeper martian bedrock layers is considered now a rich enough science payoff

    In my humble opinion, the geological data that might be extracted fom such a deep crater is more than worth it. Just think, potentially millions of years of Martian history, and who knows, maybe even a fossil or two? Wouldn't that be sweet?

    Way to go NASA, for considering the bigger picture in the face of losing such a wonderfully resilient craft. Although, I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a manned mission could someday retrieve the rover, and bring it all the way back to the Smithsonian.
    • or they are trying to pull a "Thelma & Louise" stunt on us.

      Guess it's better to go out in a blaze of glory than to fade away, I guess.

    • Re:Worth It (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Darkon ( 206829 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:44AM (#9343380)
      I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that a manned mission could someday retrieve the rover, and bring it all the way back to the Smithsonian.

      I'd like to think that by the time we have people on Mars with the equipment and time to go looking for old rovers and the like, we might have a museum on Mars itself to put them in.

  • well... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:14AM (#9343327)
    oh it's so frustrating to watch. Its like on horror movies...

    Don't go there. oh oh .. awww see now you are stuck with scary martians
  • It's really exciting science. I am still marveling at the fact that we can see actual pictures of the surface of Mars, from millions of kilometers away, as if we are looking at someone's holiday snapshots... I do wish, however, that NASA (or ESA) would turn all this ingenuity someday to an area that is even less explored than the surface of Mars or the Moon - our deep sea. Every time a mission goes out there, new species are discovered. The pay-off that may be generated by having a good look at our seas may be much greater than that of space exploration. Some of the reagents we use in the lab are derived from sea animals and have enabled us to gain deep insight into molecular biology. And I should think that the technical challenges of deep sea exploration should be worthy of the best NASA engineers' skills. Come on, guys, down is the way to go, not up :)

  • NASA should have consulted Q (Score:5, Funny)

    by Alain Williams ( 2972 ) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:19AM (#9343343) Homepage
    Looking at the picture of the crater, the rover presumably may not have enough grip to get out.

    If only NASA had fitted the tyre grips [bondcollectibles.de] used by James Bond in 'Die Another Day', it is not as if they cost a lot [bonhams.com] .

  • Falling down? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by anshil ( 302405 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:22AM (#9343351) Homepage
    I actually wonder if the only real danger as the story posts constits of never getting out of the crater, but actually also to make a safe journey downward without stumbling, falling and bursting? (Then you've a wreckage without any scientific data to make it payoff)

    • Re:Falling down? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Technonotice_Dom ( 686940 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @06:12AM (#9343426)
      From the pictures in the link [astrobio.net] it doesn't look that difficult to get a rover into - I think the main problem is traction when trying to get it out.

      According to NASA [nasa.gov] they're aluminium wheels and their main purpose looks like it was to absorb the shock and go over rocks than get the traction required to climb back out of a crater.

      I'd imagine they have quite a bit of weight behind them too...

  • We're in the future (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aussie_a ( 778472 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @05:28AM (#9343359) Journal
    NASA hopes both rovers will remain functional until at least September.

    As people we often take everything for granted. Unfortunately it's just too difficult to constantly be amazed by everything around us (take a moment to think about how a computer works, it's fucking amazing). But this article really does show this isn't the present but the future. We have rovers on another fucking planet.

    I remember thinking that the rovers wouldn't land successfully. But now they have and they're roaming around another planet. I'm sorry, but that's just amazing to me. And the above quote just reminded me.

  • Taking the risk? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @06:27AM (#9343447) Homepage Journal
    Heh, they risk it won't ever get out of the crater? Now what a pity would that be.
    They shouldn't pack it into the rocket and keep it on earth because here it wouldn't be put at risk of getting damaged.

    Okay, sarcasm aside: What reason would there be for Opportunity ever (before its technical death) to leave the crater? The surroundings are well examined and there's a strong doubt anything more interesting will be found outside the crater, and after all the probes are there not to PERFORM as much examinations and tests as possible but to FIND interesting things. You can ride around in circles and examine the same rock over and over for years finding nothing new, or you can move on into new, maybe more dangerous terrain, but find what you seek in matter of hours. Are we trying to make a progress or just to beat the time record?

  • Hmm... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by acceber ( 777067 )
    It's great to hear that the rovers are operating well beyond first expectations and predictions, it's sad to think that their eventual death will quite possibly due to the physical barriers of the Mars terrain, rather than because of the end of their "natural life".

    The question is, why didn't NASA incorporate this into the design of the rovers. They have such high tech equipment encompassed such as hazard avoidance cameras, mechanical senses etc, outlined here [nasa.gov] that it seems obvious that the rover should b

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AC-x ( 735297 )
      I think it's a physical limitation of the wheels more then anything else, the reason they think it might not be able to get out is because they'll just slip on the sandy slope.

      I mean, sure, they could've tried tracks on it, but they'd probably have their own problems. There's only so many situations they can guard against before the whole thing just becomes unfeasible.

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jeff munkyfaces ( 643988 )
      well they did aim for the flattest bits..

      how exactly do you design a robot that can get out of very steep sided craters anyway? grappling hooks?

      as for the oppertunity situation, as i understand it there is nothing else in the surrounding area anyway - and plenty within the crater to keep it going for a while.

      in my opinion it's pretty well designed for it's situation.

  • Shadows? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigattichouse ( 527527 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @06:55AM (#9343490) Homepage
    Going down in the crater will decrease the rover's daily income of sunlight, won't it.. granted maybe only a few seconds. But those seconds will add up to shave that lifespan down quite a bit.
    • Yes it will. But since the Opportunity rover has techinically outlived its current mission, they just want to squeeze some more data out of it, even if it mean shortening its lifespan.

    • Re:Shadows? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mrright ( 301778 )
      But there is also a positive side: being inside the crater, the rover is not as exposed to the cold night sky as it would be on a plain. And maybe they can drive the rover to a slope where the panels get pointed to the sun to compensate for the shadows.

      The slope will also be a major issue for spirit once it climbs the columbia hills. It will probably avoid the sides that point away from the sun. Maybe it will drive to an especially good spot each day to refuel the batteries.

      --

  • beagle (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I cant get the image of beagleII kicking back in a lawn chair, sucking down some tropical drink, and chidding the two working rovers. Cant you just hear beagle asking, "Off on another run through the rocks old chap? They are a bloody long way off. Cut the line and come have a drink."

  • battery power (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CAIMLAS ( 41445 ) on Saturday June 05, 2004 @12:37PM (#9344965)
    It would seem that the batteries in these rovers have lasted much longer than was originally expected - in a matter of maginitude.

    Does anyone know what the science might be behind the battery longetivity? To me, the science of that is equally, if not more, interesting than what might be on the planet itself.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Pok pok pok, P'kok!" -- Superchicken

Close