Nasa rover breaks down on Mars

[Doctor Q]

Two questions:

Are there separate teams on the ground for each rover? I can't believe they would waste Spirit's abilities rather than use it to the maximum possible, just because they were sharing staff time at JPL between it and Opportunity.

The Spirit ground staff adjusted their daily life to keep on the same schedule as Spirit's day. Since Opportunity is on the other side of Mars, will the Opportunity staff have the opposite hours?

 

[alphaone]

Update

They're having problems with the Rover's Flash memory:

From Spaceflightnow.com
"So we have a vehicle that is stable now in power and thermal," Theisinger said. "We have a working hypothesis that we have confirmed. The fault protection to the best of our estimation has worked as designed. It took us a lot to figure out what was going on, but we think everything has worked in the fault protection as we expected it to do."

But Spirit is not yet out of the woods. Flight controllers must develop an efficient way to operate Spirit in cripple mode, without flash memory, until they can determine exactly what happened to cause the problem in the first place. If the flash memory cannot be recovered - and it will take quite a while to figure that out - the team must develop new procedures to operate the entire mission with the RAM memory.

 

[Snowy_River]

Re: Update

Originally posted by alphaone
They're having problems with the Rover's Flash memory:

I shudder to think that maybe there was a non-radiation hardened RAM chip that got sent up...

 

[Doctor Q]

It's interesting that Opportunity landed almost exactly at the center of the Mars map, 0 degrees latitude and 0 degrees longitude.

Since the Mars equator (0 degrees latitude) is defined as the circle perpendicular to the axis of rotation, halfway between the poles, it is a real, scientific property of the planet. The Mars rovers needed to stay in the central latitudes in order to have the most sunlight to power themselves. It just so happened that the desired landing site for Opportunity, the Meridiani Planus, is very near the equator. It looks like Opportunity is a little south of the equator, but I haven't seen the exact coordinates.

Longitude on Mars, as on Earth, is a measure around the planet, starting from an arbitrary point (the prime meridian) selected simply by agreement. It just so happens that the Mars prime meridian, picked long ago by astronomers, is where Opportunity was headed. The name Meridiani Planus comes from "meridian" and "plain".

I wonder if Opportunity is east or west of 0 degrees longitude, and whether it is much south of the equator. Does anybody know the landing coordinates?

 

[Mr. Anderson]

I really like the fact that the location looks quite different from Spirit's landing zone.

I hope they get more pictures up soon.

Doctor Q - how do they determine lat and lon? There is no GPS equivalent for Mars yet. Do mission control look at the pics, determine the position, then tell the rover where it is? I didn't think the magnetic field on Mars is all that strong either - is there a discernible magnetic North?

D

 

[Doctor Q]

Your questions are good, and I am simply guessing.

The keys to defining the map are (1) the axis of rotation, which determines the orientation for mapping (i.e., which way is north) and (2) the surface features that allow us recognize a particular place on the surface, through which we draw the prime meridian. The rest is just measurement, dividing the surface into degrees.

The keys to measuring to determine the current location, I would assume, are based on looking at the relative positions of the stars and planets. From which stars are above the horizon in each direction, you should be able to compute your location on the planet.

I wonder if having two rovers on opposite sides of the planet lets scientists make any measurements, using triangulation, that they couldn't do as accurately before?

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I really like the fact that the location looks quite different from Spirit's landing zone.

I hope they get more pictures up soon.

Doctor Q - how do they determine lat and lon? There is no GPS equivalent for Mars yet. Do mission control look at the pics, determine the position, then tell the rover where it is? I didn't think the magnetic field on Mars is all that strong either - is there a discernible magnetic North?

D

As Dr. Q noted, the lat and lon on Mars were defined a long time ago. Also, lat and lon were defined on Earth long before GPS existed.

The rover doesn't need to know where it is, lat and lon wise. It only really matters to us. The rover will only operate within a relatively small radius of its landing site, so lat and lon are not an effective means of measuring location.

As to Mars' magnetic field, as I understand it, it is no where near as strong or reliable as Earth's. You could use a compass to get you within about 20-30 degrees of North, and from there you'd want to use the stars to get a true bearing.

 

[MrMacMan]

Originally posted by idkew
but, you must realize, the newest technology is not necessarily the most robust technology. i doubt nasa wanted to save a few hundred/thousand dollars by using an old piece of hardware, especially an important one such as the cpu.

I didn't know a good drive was hard to come by...

Flash memory?

Bah, why, why?

How about you get some ECC memory... and a tested flash memory... bah.

Lat and Long ... intresting.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by MrMacman
I didn't know a good drive was hard to come by...

Flash memory?

Bah, why, why?

How about you get some ECC memory... and a tested flash memory... bah.

Lat and Long ... intresting.

Hard drives are far more susceptible to radiation damage than physical RAM, flash or otherwise. So, the reason that the rovers use flash RAM instead of drives is for durability issues...

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
There's only so much you can do to help a robotic probe or a landing party from so far away. Failures like this should underline just how difficult and unpredictably problematic space exploration can be. Take this as a cautionary note, not a rallying cry to send people to Mars.

It's all fun and games until somebody loses and dies.

Just because there is the possibility of systems failure and death does not mean we should not try.

If everyone subscribed to that way of thinking, we'd still be living inside cold dark caves, hoping that animals don't come in to eat us.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Hard drives are far more susceptible to radiation damage than physical RAM, flash or otherwise. So, the reason that the rovers use flash RAM instead of drives is for durability issues...

not just durability - but when you pull Gs on liftoff and landing/re-entry, a harddrive won't really work well under those circumstances. They use flash memory drives in combat aircraft as well for the same reason.

D

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Just because there is the possibility of systems failure and death does not mean we should not try.

If everyone subscribed to that way of thinking, we'd still be living inside cold dark caves, hoping that animals don't come in to eat us.

No. Of course not. But technologically, we are a long, long way from being able to send people to Mars. Contrary to some people's beliefs, this isn't merely going to the Moon, but farther. There's a bevy of problems that we haven't even begun to tackle that don't even have to do with propulsion. Going to Mars is a swell idea, but don't count on it happening in the next 25 years. It boggles my mind how simple of an endeavor most people (including President Bush) make this out to be. The problems with it have very little to do with desire and budget. It's simply far beyond our ability right now. Let's take the steps if we want to, but put all this silly "send a man to Mars" talk aside until the most basic of problems (like life-support) are worked out.

 

[Frohickey]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
I really like the fact that the location looks quite different from Spirit's landing zone.

I hope they get more pictures up soon.

Doctor Q - how do they determine lat and lon? There is no GPS equivalent for Mars yet. Do mission control look at the pics, determine the position, then tell the rover where it is? I didn't think the magnetic field on Mars is all that strong either - is there a discernible magnetic North?

D

Huh?

GPS did not invent latitude and longitude!

Here is a history lesson for navigation

As far as I can tell, latitude is how far away from the equator, and longitude is long far away from one particular point.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Originally posted by Frohickey
Huh?

GPS did not invent latitude and longitude!

Here is a history lesson for navigation

As far as I can tell, latitude is how far away from the equator, and longitude is long far away from one particular point.

Uh, I know that - my point is that determining lat and lon is made more difficult with out GPS, especially for a robot. I know about the history of navigation - but one thing that's made even more difficult on Mars is the very weak magnetic field. The one good thing is that the clock on the rovers is quite accurate. Regardless, you still need to have some sort of reference points - I was just wondering what they use - could it be stars?

D

 

[idkew]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
could it be stars?

D

i know that it uses stars and planets to point its antenna towards earth, so it wouldn't be a leap for it to figure out its location with the stars.

but- why does it need to know where it is on mars? stars would not be accurate enough for the small movements it makes, neither would gps, if mars had it.

i just think it needs to know left from right and forward from back. we know generally where it is, we can tell it to go "over there", "100 yards straight forward..."

as long as it knows where the point of origin is located, it will know where it currently is located. no lat/lon needed.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
No. Of course not. But technologically, we are a long, long way from being able to send people to Mars.

Would you care to explain your credentials for making such a proclamation?

I've listened to aerospace experts talk on this subject, and they have all concurred that we have the technology today to go to Mars. Spending the money to get there is another matter. But, if the money were available, the general estimates that I've heard are that if we were to start now, we could have a flight heading for Mars in about 7 to 8 years, 10 at the outside...

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Would you care to explain your credentials for making such a proclamation?

I've listened to aerospace experts talk on this subject, and they have all concurred that we have the technology today to go to Mars. Spending the money to get there is another matter. But, if the money were available, the general estimates that I've heard are that if we were to start now, we could have a flight heading for Mars in about 7 to 8 years, 10 at the outside...

One word: biosphere.

We can get people there. We just can't keep them alive for that long.

That's ridiculous to say we have the technology. Where is it? What is it doing? We've tested nothing remotely like this type of endeavor. This is HUGELY complicated. Heck, 30 years is probably being generous. For every idealistic, sci-fi-fan aerospace expert you hear spouting off on the latest Discovery Channel special, there another more seasoned, realistic expert whose sound-bites aren't the stuff ratings are made of. It's folly and politico talk here, but don't take my word for it. Watch, wait, and see it all dissolve right before your eyes.

I think it would be way-cool to go to Mars, but it's not like this is planned out and has blueprints locked away in a closet. The scary thing is, it could be 15 years and half a trillion dollars before we decide to abandon this idea. Like the "Star Wars" program, whose technology was always right around the corner. 20 years and billions of dollars later- nothing.

But this is the stuff dreams are made of, so dream on...

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
One word: biosphere.

What does that have to do with a trip to Mars? I highly doubt that the first trip will be to establish a colony. And even if they did, the approach taken in the Biosphere project was significantly flawed. Did you know that one of the biggest problems that they had was crazy ants? They clogged up the electrical outlets. Do you really think that crazy ants will be a problem on Mars?

In any event, primary methods of food production on Mars would be based not on standard cultivation (which is what Biosphere did), but rather on hydroponics, at least until they can properly convert Martian soil to grow Earth crops.

...That's ridiculous to say we have the technology. Where is it? What is it doing? We've tested nothing remotely like this type of endeavor. This is HUGELY complicated. Heck, 30 years is probably being generous. For every idealistic, sci-fi-fan aerospace expert you hear spouting off on the latest Discovery Channel special, there another more seasoned, realistic expert whose sound-bites aren't the stuff ratings are made of...

Uh, for the record, I never said that I heard these experts on the Discovery channel. The fact is that I've heard these as part of the graduate colloquium series at U of A. These were talks held at the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory as a cross over between the physics and astronomy departments. Please try to tell me that this was about 'ratings'.

... It's folly and politico talk here, but don't take my word for it. Watch, wait, and see it all dissolve right before your eyes.

Now, I'm not saying that won't happen. But, if it does it won't be because we don't have the technology to do it. It will simply be a matter of money and politics that will keep us from doing it...

...Like the "Star Wars" program, whose technology was always right around the corner. 20 years and billions of dollars later- nothing...

Yes, but the experts were questioning whether or not SDI was even possible, one of whom work at the U of A physics dept.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
One word: biosphere.

Oh, one other thing, this is a reference to Biosphere 2, right?

Here's a little quiz. Do you know where Biosphere 1 is?

 

[patrick0brien]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
That's ridiculous to say we have the technology. Where is it? What is it doing?

-jayscheuerle

Humans really do have the technology now to go. In fact, we are better prepared to go to Mars now, than NASA was in going to the Moon when they succeeded in landing on it.

The challenge, is that the technology is scattered all over the place. Bob Zubrin and his Mars Direct plan solves the transportation issue, and all of it's client issues (and the project plan is all fleshed out BTW - no money need be spent by NASA to develop this). The operations on Devon Island in Canada and in the Dry Valleys of Antarctica have proven the human life support and subsistence technology and methods - and training to boot!

We can do it, we just need the motivation. This Moon base and trip to Mars is the best idea to come out of Bush's mouth, perhaps ever IMHO.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
Oh, one other thing, this is a reference to Biosphere 2, right?

Here's a little quiz. Do you know where Biosphere 1 is?

It's a reference to Earth.

My reference to a biosphere had nothing to do with establishing a colony on Mars. It had to do with producing enough food for a trip that's going to take 18 months round trip, minimum, providing we have the best of all alignments. Remember, the recent trips to Mars took advantage of the fact that we were the closest we've been to it in 60,000 years. Don't talk about all theses experimental engines that they cover in the back of Wired. The only thing that we know we can use to move large mass is conventional rocketry, so this trip's going to take a while.

Let's say we don't produce food along the way. We pack it. How many people will send out there? With all the effort that would go into this, and considering that we'd most likely be taking off from orbit because the ship would be HUGE (we're not talking X-Wing fighter here), we'd probably send about 6 (just a guess). There'd need to be a great group dynamic. 18 months of food (better make it 24 in case something goes wrong) for 6 people is a LOT. I'm sure we'd be making a mess along the way, jettisoning our turdsteroids into space, but we'd still be needing something the size of a semi-truck just for food.

It would be a boring as heck trip too. Exercise and checkers. Science could be done, but really... that's what the Space Station is supposed to be for, right? Speaking of which, a Mars craft would probably end up looking a bit like the Space Station, with solar panels everywhere, modules splayed every which way, leaks... Hey, let's just put some boosters on there and send it towards Mars!

There is great romance in the idea of jettisoning off to Mars, and I'm not saying it can't be done. It's just not the "pack our bags and go" type of scenario that's being tossed out. I'm not even saying it's not worth doing, but by pushing the vision of it happening anytime soon, this administration is merely going to frustrate a short-attention-span nation and end up having the entire program cancelled. We have propulsion inefficiencies to deal with. We have life support to deal with. We have psychological issues that are going to be difficult to predict (how would YOU feel when your home planet is no brighter than the brightest star?). Call them baby steps, but they are HUGE baby steps. Methodically attack them and we'll get there someday. We're just nowhere near ready yet. - j

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by jayscheuerle
...a trip that's going to take 18 months round trip, minimum...

Well, again, for the record, I'm not a reader of Wired, I don't base what I'm talking about on things I've learned on TV or reading magazines. Most of what I'm talking about comes from people that I've directly interacted with both here at U of A and guests who have come to lecture here.

Based on what I know, to best equip the astronaughts to deal with landing on Mars, the trip should be taken under power, not at drift. Yes, this will mean that the fuel supply needed will be extensive, but the trip will be more on the order of six months round trip, or shorter, depending on the level of thrust used.

...I'm not even saying it's not worth doing, but by pushing the vision of it happening anytime soon, this administration is merely going to frustrate a short-attention-span nation and end up having the entire program cancelled...

Yes, but even if you're right and we need new technologies to get there, how is leaving the space program to languish in LEO going to develop those programs? This is what has been happening for the past two decades. NASA's manned space program has been, essentially, without a purpose. If NASA isn't working toward a goal, then, as you say, our 'short-attention-span nation' will think that it's just wasting money (which is what most of the public has felt for the past, uh, what is it, oh, yeah, two decades). NASA once had, in relative dollars, four times the budget that it has now. It's been significantly cut back in the past two decades.

...Don't talk about all theses experimental engines that they cover in the back of Wired. ...

... (we're not talking X-Wing fighter here)...

Okay, now, please stop using phrases like these. They are insulting and putting down my knowledge. I've only ever asked where your information comes from. So far as I can tell, your information seems primarily like FUD. If you're not willing to have a civil discussion of this topic, then I'd rather not discuss it with you.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Nuclear powered craft are well within the realm of possibility. And the fuel supply is significantly smaller than conventional power sources. But there are issues with using nuclear in a manned craft.

And even if you were under power the whole way there, once you reach the half way point, you have to turn around and *reduce* velocity. But if you could create enough thrust, even a continual .5 G, that would solve the problem of long term effects of weightlessness.

But all of this is scifi right now. Just because we can build it, doesn't mean we should. There are many more things that need to be done before a Apollo-esque mission to Mars.

D

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
If you're not willing to have a civil discussion of this topic, then I'd rather not discuss it with you.

I apologize for coming across as insulting Snowy. I mean no offense.

A simple Google search of phrases like "Mars trip difficulties" will point you to many articles (mostly from the States and Russia, NASA included) that have to deal with the difficulties astronauts will face in going to Mars.

To ask the average rocket-scientist about the feasibility of going to mars is like asking Emiril about the tastyness of food. Of course, they want to believe in our ability to go to the Red Planet. Why do you think they pursued those fields in the first place? Take their "information" with the same grain of salt which you would anything coming from The Mars Society.

Here's a few buried tidbits:

Fuel Issues

Psychological Issues

Interesting scenario.

Take what you will from any of that. Information is only and good and biased as its source.

I don't want to be snide. You believe this is going to happen soon. I don't. You're a hopeless romantic. I'm a negative ninny. But in the end, we'll both be happy if this happens anywhere within our lifetimes.

- j

 

[jayscheuerle]

Originally posted by Mr. Anderson
Nuclear powered craft are well within the realm of possibility. And the fuel supply is significantly smaller than conventional power sources. But there are issues with using nuclear in a manned craft.

One interesting article I stumbled across said that with conventional rocketry, a round-trip flight to Mars would require 98-99% of the mass of the craft to be devoted to fuel.