Mars Rovers

[amicus]

Is there any interest in the current Mars exploration?

I eagerly waited for months until the January landing of the two NASA rovers.

When the big event finally ocurrred, there was a splash of news for a few days around each landing.

I view the Mars Daily website frequently to find some updates as national media has little coverage.

I emailed NASA about the lack of hard news but never received an answer.

I emailed again with a question..still no reply.

My question concerned the early statement that both Rovers had a life span of about 90 days. This was said to be because of the extreme cold temperatures of the Martian 'winter' and the accumulation of dust of the solar panels of the Rovers.

I wrote them that that was nonsense..as the Rovers travelled through space for nearly a year in near absolute zero temperatures.

I also suggested that even I could invent and install some device to remove the dust from the solar panels. Surely the engineers must have taken 'dust' into consideration.

Well...now it seems NASA has changed their story. Both Rovers continue on well past the 90 day lifespan.

I surmise it was 'funding' for the continued maintenance of the Rover control facilities here on Earth.

My feeling is that a wide disemmination of news and information would have received a large interest by the general public.

Am I wrong? Is there no interest?

Thank you....amicus

 

[neonlyte]

The whole Mars Rover thing was exactly reminiscent of posting a story at Lit

I look on the BBC technology site from time to time but 'new news' is a rare as Mars water.

 

[mismused]

Personally, though it may seem odd

I have no interest at this point in the Mars Rovers. Why? Maybe it's because NASA has become a bureaucratic nightmare. IOW, they are extremely unreliable, sorry to say, IMHO.

They do provide some nice pictures, but nothing my mind can grab a hold of and run with yet.

Oh, and amicus, quit p***ing them off or they'll never answer you.


mismused

 

[Guest]

 

[amicus]

Taltos...thank you...still not sure I understand...do you mean to imply the instruments were kept warm while in transit to Mars?

I understand the accumulation of dust on the solar panels might do exactly as you said, however, Mars does have some atmosphere, CO2, does it not...a small compressor with nozzles to blow the dust off, or even a system of brushes could have been engineered into the design.

I can surely be wrong, but it seems to me if the equipment could survive the cold of outer space between here and Mars, for the better part of a year, it could do so during the Martian winter also.

Not intending to be argumentative...the reasons they gave for the limited longevity of the Rovers just did not wash with me.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Taltos...thank you...still not sure I understand...do you mean to imply the instruments were kept warm while in transit to Mars?

I understand the accumulation of dust on the solar panels might do exactly as you said, however, Mars does have some atmosphere, CO2, does it not...a small compressor with nozzles to blow the dust off, or even a system of brushes could have been engineered into the design.

I can surely be wrong, but it seems to me if the equipment could survive the cold of outer space between here and Mars, for the better part of a year, it could do so during the Martian winter also.

Not intending to be argumentative...the reasons they gave for the limited longevity of the Rovers just did not wash with me.

Every system you add, increases not only weight, but also complexity and adds an exponential degree of probablity something will go wrong. Also, you reach a point of diminishing returns. With either brushes or a compressor, you would use stored energy in an attempt to keep energy coming in.

The rovers were designed to last long enough to accomplish a list of goals, every minute they last past the accomplishment of those goals is a bonus, but it isn't one the JPL folks counted on.

It is best to consider them as statistical modles, with each component counting as a probable failure, each minute therefor increases the chance of something going wrong. As the minutes on the surface pile up, the probabilty of nothing failing in the next minute becomes more and more a statistical anaomaly. The odds of any particular compnent failing remain a constant, but the odds of the whole system not experiencing a failure lessen over time.

It's very much like a crap shoot with shaved dice. You have engineered the dice so the probablity of a seven is greater than it would be normaly, but even shaved dice don't always roll a natural. While the odds on any particular throw remain at a constant that is an expression of how well you shaved them, the probability that the next trhow will be a sexen decreases as you pile up sevens behind it.

It only takes one circut on one borad to fy and you could potentially loose an entier system. While redundancies are built in, each failure strains those back up systems, until you hit a point where a critical failue occurs. Knowing this, JPL personelle developed a window of operations with an inside number and outside number. The inside number had to be 0, as there was no guarentee they would even land intact. The outside number is probably based on the life span of the batteries. The number they gave for the operational phase wa most likely somewhere in between, hedging their bets towards the inside.

Adding systems to cope with the expected accumulation of dust would have added components that ate into the battery life and increased the statistical probability of a failure. For the added operational life, the added weight and draw on the batteries was probably deemed prohibitive.

-Colly

 

[amicus]

hmmm..very interesting Colleen..and well said...and if that indeed is the process by which they plan and project a mission, it leaves me no room to question further.

I am entranced by the technology...the skills and planning that goes into one of these missions. Ion drives...****** sails, nuclear reactors for power and propulsion..it is fascinating to a non science person.

I would like to accept your thesis...perhaps I am just stubborn, but knowing somewhat the state of the art...in modern technology, mind you as a spectator only, I got the feeling that the Mars Rovers could have been constructed to virtually last forever and function likewise.

I recall the original Voyager mission, that has now left the confines of the solar system and is still functioning, with old technology.

I am happy to know that others here, follow the exploration of Mars, I only wish there was a good daily update of information. I have searched as many sites as I can find and locate very little current information on an ongoing basis. Disappointed in that, I am, said the little critter in Star Wars whose name has slipped my mind.

amicus

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Yoda

and he was a Jedi master, not a crittur

 

[amicus]

Yoda...yes...thank you....may the force be with y'all

 

[amicus]

Deleted..doubled...

 

[thenry]

The voyager mission didn't have to do anything except sit and take pictures. Even its course, once launched, is ballistic and unguided. Also its power source, though virtually infinite, is necessarily too much weight for too little power to justify hauling it around on little motorized wheels. Especially since the plutonium seeds would have to be shielded to prevent damage to the electronics and memory. (Though the theoretical 2009 mars rover will use nuclear batteries and be the size of a jeep, lowered to the surface from orbit on a cable, I kid you not.)

The trick with the mars rovers is not building them to last forever but building them to do everything you want/need with as little power as possible and then beaming the results all the way back to Earth. At landing the solar panels provided about 900 watt-hours per day. Between the dust and the winter shortening daylight hours that has decreased to 650 watt-hours per day. As you might expect, 650 watt-hours is enough to light a 60 watt lightbulb for ten and a half hours.

Figuring the day to only last about ten and a half hours, the mars rovers run off 60 watts an hour or basically the amount of energy it takes to light one corner of the room I'm sitting in.

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

hmmm..very interesting Colleen..and well said...and if that indeed is the process by which they plan and project a mission, it leaves me no room to question further.

I am entranced by the technology...the skills and planning that goes into one of these missions. Ion drives...****** sails, nuclear reactors for power and propulsion..it is fascinating to a non science person.

I would like to accept your thesis...perhaps I am just stubborn, but knowing somewhat the state of the art...in modern technology, mind you as a spectator only, I got the feeling that the Mars Rovers could have been constructed to virtually last forever and function likewise.

I recall the original Voyager mission, that has now left the confines of the solar system and is still functioning, with old technology.

I am happy to know that others here, follow the exploration of Mars, I only wish there was a good daily update of information. I have searched as many sites as I can find and locate very little current information on an ongoing basis. Disappointed in that, I am, said the little critter in Star Wars whose name has slipped my mind.

amicus

Could it have been designed to last forever? No. Nothing works forever. Even galaxies and universes don't last forever. What Colleen said is the analogy of the science. While you might wish for perfection, we can't get it. We are blasting a technologically advanced lightweight, solar powered bot to a dusty rock we know not as well as our own. It is a marvel of NASA's that they have been able to land so many on the planet's surface and keep them from tipping over, malfunctioning, failing to receive a signal or otherwise just fail. All through my undergrad college science labs, a technology failure or a bad connection was the reason for error half the time and a bloody-minded human error messed things up the rest of the time. Failed experiments and redos were a glorious tradition of frustration. In fact, most science is preventing the most f-ups long enough to get the data you want. The Mars Rover is the same thing, but with much greater complexity and no real way to do a fast redo.

An analogy. You have a windows desktop machine. It is a clump of insulated wires in a protective casing with circuits, etc. It crashes about once every day or two for software or hardware problems (mostly software). Now you take that clump of circuitboards, the components of which made by companies that don't talk to each other, and write software mostly by scratch to be able to remotely access the applications from another planet and to tell it to run certain features automatically and you're not sure they will fully work until it actually is a couple of thousand miles away. Now you transport that desktop to another planet, hope it lands okay, lands right side up, doesn't get jarred in the landing, hope that the new (non-nice indoors clean laboratory) environment doesn't affect the tiny little circuit connections or wires or clog the fan. Now by remote control, you try and play minesweeper. Will you be able to play the game indefinitely? And isn't it a technological marvel and a credit to science, if you're able to play it at all?

As far as daily update of information, what are you expecting? Most of what they're looking for is generally very complicated, worthless without the neccessary background information, and sometimes resricted. Also, some days may go by when few or no experiments actually occur. What are they finding? I don't know. Once they've processed the information, run countertests, checked their hypothesis and written up for a few science journals, we'll know. Until then, don't be impatient. The world of science moves quickly but it needn't become speed-oriented and entertainment-oriented for our internet sensibilities. That's not how science works. So, patience dude, patience. And I agree with some of the others. Stop annoying NASA. They have important things to do like working against entropy just to make sure nothing blows up and don't need a non-science geek metaphorically asking the hollywood question of whether the geek can remove the graniness on a spy sattelite picture.

 

[Tanuki]

Ah, I thought this was a post in the Story Ideas forum. I was thinking ok, Mars Rover . . . . ok I'm stumped!

I'm sure the 90 day lifespan is based on tests done back on Earth. I thought it was interesting, but after a few months it's no longer news - Mars is a big deserted rock. Basic research is usually not exciting.

 

[amicus]

I learn more with each new post...lowered to the surface of Mars with a cable? In all my searching and watching I have not ran across that one. I did see a program where microwave energy was transmitted from a solar collecting satellite on a cable to the surface of the earth...

Interesting on the power wattage of the Rovers, I had not seen that before either. But they are talking only microwatts of rf enery to communicate with earth...however..the amps used to move the Rovers must be substantial.

thanks....amicus

 

[amicus]

Lucifer....this is the same NASA with Thiokol and the O rings? Right? This is the same NASA that knew about the 'possible' damage on the underside of the shuttle and did nothing.

I do not trust this government agency and I feel free to bug the hell out of them for answers to whatever questions, informed or not, that I may have.

The reasons NASA gave for the short life time of the Rovers was and is not acceptable to even a layman such as I.

One of the points I was suggesting is that NASA has done a poor job in public relations in terms of providing the public with information about the mission.

My taxes pay for that mission and I damn well want to be informed about it. I have even offered my services to the NASA mission television channel, to voice their silent films and explain what people see.

There is a great interest about space exploration, by many and if I can prick and prod these bureaucrats enough to make them squirm... you can bet your ass I will.

amicus

 

[Lucifer_Carroll]

Lucifer....this is the same NASA with Thiokol and the O rings? Right? This is the same NASA that knew about the 'possible' damage on the underside of the shuttle and did nothing.

I do not trust this government agency and I feel free to bug the hell out of them for answers to whatever questions, informed or not, that I may have.

The reasons NASA gave for the short life time of the Rovers was and is not acceptable to even a layman such as I.

One of the points I was suggesting is that NASA has done a poor job in public relations in terms of providing the public with information about the mission.

My taxes pay for that mission and I damn well want to be informed about it. I have even offered my services to the NASA mission television channel, to voice their silent films and explain what people see.

There is a great interest about space exploration, by many and if I can prick and prod these bureaucrats enough to make them squirm... you can bet your ass I will.

amicus

Oh bloody brilliant. You do realize that you are most likely now blocked on a spam filter. Uninformed citizens whining about how their tax money goes towards their project are about as welcome at any organization as a dead vole. Policemen get that "I so wish there weren't any police brutality laws" look when people use that tax argument against them. Yes, NASA has problems politically, but they are one of the least dangerous of the beauracrats. They have to deal with one-of-a-kind special equipment on a shoestring and shrinking budget and deals that get them contractors of the lowest price instead of best quality. This means its a bloody marvel that not every mission doesn't blow up.

The short life span they gave Joe Citizen is most likely a political cover their ass lifespan that bears little reality to the real lifespan, because if they tell Joe Citizen that the Rover has a 20 yr lifespan and something blows up at year 2, Joe Citizen whines about incompetence and where's my tax money going. Meanwhile Joe Citizen doesn't care much about the outright theft and extortionism in other branches of the beauracracy, most notably weapon's manufacturing.

As a scientist to a non-scientist, let the poor bastards do their job, wait for the results like the rest of us. NASA has enough angst and nervousness without Joe Citizen whining about taxes. When the Social Services messes up a number, someone is short-changed a penny on their check, in NASA people blow up on the 7 'o clock news and not in the cool we're at war way. It's a dangerous, risky, and young science and it's one of the few agencies that do it.

 

[Rusty914]

I wrote them that that was nonsense..as the Rovers travelled through space for nearly a year in near absolute zero temperatures.

So moving that fast wouldn't generate heat? Solar heat while in flight wouldn't generate much heat?

 

[amicus]

hey gals...moving so fast creates friction..thus heat, when there is something to rub against...no such thing in space, near vacuum, no heat generated...

However, in earth orbit..side towards sun is hot...side away from sun is cold...but out towards Mars...less sun...side away from sun is near absolute zero...minus 450 some odd degrees, Kelvin, Celcius, Fahrenheit..who knows....the jerks in the program mixed up meters and feet..the metric system with meters and centimeters as opposed to yards, feet and inches and blew a landing on Mars....Rocket Scientists..yeah, sure....BS

thanks...amicus...

 

[alyxen]

You probably already have this on your list to check, but Arizona State University was involved in the Rover project, and posts updated images from it's THEMIS (Thermal Emission Imaging System) daily:

http://themis.asu.edu/latest.html

What I like best about those they post is that they do not colorize them like an old black and white movie, unlike how every single NASA picture is.

 

[SnoopDog]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have absolutely little interest in discovering Mars as I don't think it will give mankind anything useful at all. I know this is a subject that could be argued over for ages and gazillion threads so I won't go into any more detail.
I just wanted to say that sometimes it seems to me as if those guys at NASA are nothing more than a bunch of computer geeks that waste billions of money and all their time eating donuts, playing pong on their high-tech-nano-computers (probably NASA has them already, ) and wait for that red siren going off, that says 'Unknown Life Form detected'.
Honestly, I think this hole space travel and exploration thing (and I'm not only talking about the USA) wastes too much precious money for basically nothing, that could well be used for some useful things such as helping the poor and needing.

Snoopy

 

[amicus]

"oh, bloody brilliant..' you say...egads, man..lighten up a skosh, this is, after all, a democracy....it is also a free market economy, in which competition provides the best product at the lowest cost, although I think you do not know the concept.

I would much rather the Government not be involved in space exploration at all. I think corporate free enterprise would have been mining the Titanium on the moon ten years ago.

You have your own way of thinking, that a regulated, controlled effort funded by taxation is the way of the future.

My way of thinking is for all you bean counters, to 'get the hell out of the way' as John Galt said, (I paraphrase) in Atlas Shrugged, 50 years ago.

And...'Ne'r the twain shall meet.' I accept that, you want authoritarian control...I want a free market place, come what may.
And therein lies the rub...as the bard said...

amicus

 

[amicus]

Alyxen...thank you...Arizona State had a helluva football team a few years back if memory serves...I have found 'geek' and 'nerd' things here and there about the Mars Rover expedition and that is all well and good...

My point continues to be that the huge expediture for minimal results that most likely will have no practical applications is totally wasted if we don't know what the hell they are doing.

Personally, I am all for research and exploration, but if it is government funded, which it is, I want to KNOW...what they find and what it means.

Thank you for the URL...I will look....

regards..amicus...

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, I can only speak for myself, but I have absolutely little interest in discovering Mars as I don't think it will give mankind anything useful at all. I know this is a subject that could be argued over for ages and gazillion threads so I won't go into any more detail.
I just wanted to say that sometimes it seems to me as if those guys at NASA are nothing more than a bunch of computer geeks that waste billions of money and all their time eating donuts, playing pong on their high-tech-nano-computers (probably NASA has them already, ) and wait for that red siren going off, that says 'Unknown Life Form detected'.
Honestly, I think this hole space travel and exploration thing (and I'm not only talking about the USA) wastes too much precious money for basically nothing, that could well be used for some useful things such as helping the poor and needing.

Snoopy

Have you ever heard of Venus snoop? I'm not being acetious with the question, but the planet is an example of what a run-away greenhouse effect could do to a planet. The surface temperature is hot enough to melt lead, hotter even than mercury, although it's twice as far from the sun. In arguments about the greehouse efect and global warming, Venus is the global modle upon which most arguments of what could happen are based.

Mars once held water and therefore it may have once been the home to life. Venus still holds water vapor in its atmosphere. Recent radar scans suggest Mercury may still hold water ice near its ploes in the sheltered parts of craters. If it can be proven that any planet other than earth holds life, then it follows that we are not alone in the universe. More importantly, it provides strong evidence for the theory of evolution and throws a monkey wrench into the works for fundamentalist religions.

I don't see money spent in the pursuit of knowledge as being a waste. Not only does that money bring knowledge, it brings many things that have helped mankind here on earth. Sattelite communications, GPS, minitureization, computers, even Tang. The money spent by Nasa has produced not only knowledge, but things we use every day.

-Colly

 

[R. Richard]

One of the reasons that the Mars rovers have a limited life is that they will be used in increasingly dangerous missions to gather information. If a rover tumbles and does not land on its wheels, it is useless and there is no recovery.

The reason for the more and more dangerous missions is that the scientists (geologists mainly) are interested in very specific rocks and landscape features. Many of the features of interest are located in steep walled craters. Attempts to access itens at the bottom of a steep walled crater risk the survival of the rover.

I used to work at Jet Propulsion lab and we did a LOT of spaceflight support work.
R. Richard

 

[Tanuki]

Snoop, NASA's work falls under the category of basic research .

Def.
research that advances scientific knowledge but does not have specific immediate commercial objectives.

Without basic research, we could not have applied science. It is extremely vital to the advancement of mankind's knowledge and technology. To complain that there is no practical application is to entirely miss the point.