[Bikers4Bush]

So as I understand it we sent a probe to a planet millions of miles away and never bothered to have some computer geeks do a dry run of the hardware and software before we sent it?

Is there any reasonable explanation for not having run some continuous testing before we shot this sucker into space?

[Tallguy]

Is there any reasonable explanation for not having run some continuous testing before we shot this sucker into space?

Yeah, and you have to wait 1-1/2 years for the darned things to arrive at Mars after launching, too! Just what were the so-called systems experts doing during that time? Twiddling their thumbs?

BTW, most operating systems have a limit when it comes to the number of files. So why should the Rover's OS be any different?

[brownsfan]

Is there any reasonable explanation for not having run some continuous testing before we shot this sucker into space?

No, the explaination is not reasonable, but troubling. The rovers were designed to last 90 days, (and travel 8 months). The longest test was 9 days! NASA is still infested by "faster, cheaper". I can't even imagine who would be dumb enough to let these guys send them to Mars!

[HamiltonJay]

Its not a matter of dry run of the hardware or software, its the fact that despite the best efforts of thousands of individuals, all for the most part highly intelligent, unforseen situations arrise.....

This is very common in software, to find problems in underlying systems that are not documented or known or even acknowleged by the manufacturer, or other underlying system.

Or even if documented aren't really considered because no one bothered to consider the contingency.

Fortunately it appears salvagable which is good... the other rovers heater though, now that's going to drain the batteries long before it should.. I hope they get that resolved quickly.

[from occupied ga]

Is there any reasonable explanation for not having run some continuous testing before we shot this sucker into space?

From the same people who brought you the Hubble and didn't test it either, but what the heck. It's only taxpayer money.

[discostu]

Welcome to the real world. No ammount of testing will find more than about 1/3 of the bugs. The goal of testing is to find the same 1/3 that would be encountered in the field. They missed one, it happens, a lot, on more expensive and more important systems than this. The good news is it seems to be easily recovered from has an easy work around.