Mars rover Daily Updates -Spirit Making Ground - Opportunity-A Beautiful Grind

NASA - JPL ^ | 2-24-2004 | NASA/JPL

[Phil V.]

Daily Updates - February 24, 2004

Spirit Status for sol 51 Making Ground posted Feb. 24, 2 pm PST

To inspire a morning "run" on sol 51, which ended at 3:15 p.m. Tuesday, PST, Spirit woke up to Vangelis’ "Chariots of Fire." The rover deployed its arm, took microscopic images of the soil in front of it and then proceeded toward its target, "Middle Ground." Spirit drove 30 meters (98.4 feet), breaking its own record for a single-sol traverse. Along the way, Spirit paused to image rocks on both sides of the drive path with its panoramic camera.

The auto-navigational software that drove the last 12 meters (39.4 feet) of the traverse to the "Middle Ground" target warned Spirit that the slope into the hollow that houses it was too steep (according to parameters set by rover engineers). Spirit then paced along the rim, looking for a safe way down. Unable to locate a secure path into the crater before the sol ended, Spirit ended up facing slightly west of north instead of northeast, as called for by the plan. This orientation will reduce the amount of data the rover can return (due to interference between the UHF antenna and items on the rover equipment deck), but it will be corrected in the coming sols.

As of today, Spirit has moved 183.25 meters (601.21 feet) and is now roughly 135 meters (442.91 feet) from its landing site, Columbia Memorial Station.

The intent for the next several sols will be to drive Spirit into "Middle Ground" and take a full panorama of the surrounding area to identify scientifically interesting rocks.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Opportunity Status for sol 30 A Beautiful Grind posted Feb. 24, 11:15 am PST

On sol 30, which ended at 2:56 a.m. Tuesday, February 24, Opportunity performed its first rock abrasion tool operation on a rock target known as 'McKittrick Middle Rat' at the El Capitan site inside the crater. The tool shaved the rock over a period of two hours, grinding into a total depth of about 4 millimeters (.16 inches).

The auspicious day began with the song 'Rock'n Me' by Steve Miller and some miniature thermal emission spectrometer sky surveys and sky stares to study the atmosphere. After completing these activities, Opportunity took a short siesta to recharge its batteries. The rover has been doing a lot of science work at night, and the season on Mars is changing to winter, so the rover has less energy to work with than it did earlier in the mission. The martian days are getting shorter and the sun angle is not allowing either rover to power up the solar panels as much as in the past.

Opportunity woke up from its nap at 11:30 Local Solar Time on Mars to run through the series of commands required to retract the alpha particle X-ray spectrometer and close its doors; take several microscopic images of another nearby rock abrasion tool target called 'Guadalupe;' flip the wrist; take a microscopic image of "McKittrick Middle Rat;" and place the rock abrasion tool on its target to run at 13:00 Local Solar Time.

After the abrasion tool was retracted, a series of microscopic images of the scene were taken, and the alpha particle X-ray spectrometer was successfully placed into the abrasion tool's hole late in the day.

Some additional panoramic camera, miniature thermal emission spectrometer readings, and hazard avoidance camera imagery was completed through the day.

The plan for sol 31, which will end at 3:36 a.m. Wednesday, February 25, is to continue getting long Moessbauer readings of the rock abrasion tool hole and to prepare the tool for more work again on sol 33 or 34.

[from occupied ga]

So, in my opinion, they're not really playing the music "for the rovers", but for themselves to

So, in your opinion why don't they just say so rather than the stating that they're playing it for the rovers? It's not the playing of the music that's weird. It's

1. Saying that they're playing it for the rovers and
2. Thinking that people find it normal to play music to a computer and
3. Thinking anyone gives a $hit what music they're listening to

For the record I don't care what brand of coffee they drink, what nerd fantasies about robots they indulge in, what flavor pop tarts they eat or how many pens they carry in their pockets.

[Frank_Discussion]

If you don't care, then why is it bothering you so much?

FWIW, people DO care, and it is important that they do "give a $hit" with our efforts in space. If a little PR fun gets the job done, WTF is the problem?

That's part of what been wrong with the whole program: the public only being interested in the failures, not the fun, not the elation at finding something new. The team at JPL is doing a stellar job (pun intended) with this mission AND having a h*ll of a good time. If this pisses you off, I can't help you.

By all means, wallow in your strange annoyance.

If this is so distasteful, why are you watching this bit of history? Your comments remind me of the two old geezers who watched the Muppet Show from the balcony.

You started the grousing, so do be surprised when you get called on being a mirthless wonder.

[Frank_Discussion]

My last sentence: "do" should be "don't".

[Paradox]

Hey, I like it, lets call them, for the time being "Mars Maggots".

Very interesting stuff we are seeing. As another poster said, non-biologic sources for what we are seeing ARE out there, so one must temper ones enthusiasm.

Do we know the composition of the rock we are looking at?

[from occupied ga]

If you don't care, then why is it bothering you so much?

Because I'm paying for it.

, I can't help you.

I don't recall asking for your help. I'm sure I would have remembered.

If this is so distasteful, why are you watching this bit of history?

Because I'm paying for it even though we have plenty of rocks and dirt right here that don't cost $820 million to look at. In fact here in GA we even have red rocks and dirt. If you want to come and take some home with you I'll be happy to post a map refernce that will even have a few fossils in it.

Your comments remind me of the two old geezers who watched the Muppet Show from the balcony.

And you and the other science fiction fans who ceaslessly cheerlead for spending other peoples' money on their own pet projects remind me of Democrats. Doing "good" with other people money.

[Frank_Discussion]

I read you.

By all means, vote for congresscritters that share your view. Perhaps someday we'll stop spending money on "pet projects" and get back to our lives of work-sleep-die and be real, REAL happy that we don't have to learn something new every day.

Until then, remember that a high majority of the voting public and the representatives they elect think this is money well spent.

[FireTrack]

"Doesn't look so much like "dots" to me, but more like a round object with a series of radial arms."

I agree that these particular artifacts appear to have radial arms. They seem to be scattered throughout the "grind". I think they're something different from the worm looking critter unless the worm is one of these from the side.

[Frank_Discussion]

More Thoughts:

"And you and the other science fiction fans who ceaslessly cheerlead for spending other peoples' money on their own pet projects remind me of Democrats. Doing "good" with other people money."

I view the space program differently. I see it as enhancing shareholder value, and at this point the pursuit of the space program as in line with shareholder wishes. This includes me. There will some dissenting shareholders (you) but you are not in the majority.

However, I would understand your ire more if you were protesting something that the congresscritters had done without majority shareholder agreement. As I said, government-sponsored space exploration is not one of those somethings.

[FourtySeven]

So, in your opinion why don't they just say so rather than the stating that they're playing it for the rovers?

Ummm, maybe for just a little bit of humor in what is otherwise an exceedingly difficult job?

I honestly don't think that, if forced to answer the question, "Do you believe these robots 'appreciate' the music you 'play for them'?", they would answer "Yes".

Sheesh, it's like Frank Discussion said, "Lighten up".

[from occupied ga]

Until then, remember that a high majority of the voting public and the representatives they elect think this is money well spent.

Is it then your contention that the majority also thinks welfare and corporate subsidies are even better ideas than space exploration since so much more is spent on them? Somehow I don't think you believe this. Implicit in your statement is also the assumption that the majority has the unfettered right to that assets of all. Do you really believe that or do you think that there should be some limitations?

BTW I would be happy to supply rocks and red dirt for a nominal fee.

[from occupied ga]

Ummm, maybe for just a little bit of humor in what is otherwise an exceedingly difficult job?

I have a difficult time laughing at what I see to be a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. It's like welfare recipients joking about their checks. I don't find it funny.

[Frank_Discussion]

You're getting close.

Welfare and Corporate subsidies - drop 'em off the cliff. That's my personal feel, and that's how I vote. The latter in particular is cogent to this discussion, in that such subsidies has squashed the launcher market into just a couple of very large corporate players. I don't like that particular part of our nations space effort.

But it's not enough of an irritation to make me view good accomplishments by NASA with such a jaundiced eye as you.

"Implicit in your statement is also the assumption that the majority has the unfettered right to that assets of all."

Not in the communistic way you're implying. No "taxation without representation" is the idea, and that's why we have representatives, and barring that control over how we spend funds, we have a judiciary and the GAO (idiots though they may be) to review what gets spent, with some interaction with the voters.

It isn't quite as simple as a raw majority as I presented it. Yes, the majority opinion has control over spending. No, it is by no means unfettered.

Though I would say we have a common ground in understanding that not every federal program is worthy of funding, and such things should be opposed.

I'm truly sorry that you can't see the importance of the rovers' missions and technical significance. I mean the real news here, on this thread, is that there may be a fossil showing in the rocks. That is huge news, if true, and the mission still has a lot more to investigate.

And compared to earlier missions, it's bargain-basment pricing. It keeps getting cheaper with each mission, too, because we are getting better at the basics, Columbia notwithstanding.

[RightWhale]

Robot Road Warriors: Unmanned Vehicles to Race for $1 Million in DARPA Contest

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/techwed_darpa_040225.html

Speaking of robots . . .

Also, ESA is preparing to launch Rosetta, finally. The Arianne 5 looks like a Hollywood sci-fi rocket, especially in the press photos. This is our competition

[Frank_Discussion]

"It's like welfare recipients joking about their checks."

There ya go. It's all in perspective, and yours is way, way, skewed.

These are government employees working very hard to get paid a salary. They aren't being given welfare checks, and they have a vision for the country that goes beyond a serial welfare recipient.

[from occupied ga]

There ya go. It's all in perspective, and yours is way, way, skewed.

Just another form of welfare for PhDs and engineers. I think your perspective is skewed, but then I'm what would be considered a paleocon. I think that the space program ought to be privately funded from voluntary contributions, and if there weren't enough money for some stuff then it wouldn't get done. I guarantee that there would be a lot fewer failures if there were employment/funding consequences of those failures.

[from occupied ga]

Welfare and Corporate subsidies - drop 'em off the cliff. That's my personal feel, and that's how I vote

Unless you're in Kongress, you don't get to vote on these. You are only allowed to vote for representative tweedledee (r) or tweedledum (d) whose actions on 99.9% of spending is indistinguishable.

Though I would say we have a common ground in understanding that not every federal program is worthy of funding, and such things should be opposed.

Kill 'em all (spending programs) and let God sort 'em out. Though the first to go should be the NEA rather than NASA.

Most of the reps don't even read the budget bills (or any other bills for that matter) that they vote for so you can't really claim that they represent your interests. Most of them are party hacks and vote the way the party leadership tells them to irrespective of the wishes of their constituents.

[Frank_Discussion]

"I guarantee that there would be a lot fewer failures if there were employment/funding consequences of those failures."

Your guarantee is worthless. Private R&D flops all the time, and is a good thing. Government R&D does too, all the time, and is still a good thing in the long run. Failure is the cost of learning.

Fiscal responsibility does not reduce the level of failure. Heads rolling for failure is counterproductive, and is why you didn't see mass firings after Columbia went down, just slapping hands doesn't cut it. Corporations invest in talent and keep that investment as long as possible even when it fails. You try to find out what went wrong, find some way to fold it back into your experience base, and then move on.

That said, I agree that private enterprise should step up to the plate. It is. If NASA is smart, it will take advantage of this, and broaden the effort to effect a lot more of us in a direct, positive way.

Oh, also:

"I'm what would be considered a paleocon."

So If I don't agree, then I'm a "neocon", right? C'mon, sheesh.

[from occupied ga]

Private R&D flops all the time, and is a good thing.

But it isn't a direct expense to the taxpayers when it does.

Government R&D does too, all the time, and is still a good thing in the long run.

No way is this good. For one thing the same ijits who screwed up the Hubble telescope (supposed to cost $200 million but actually cost $1.8 billion) are still in NASA. (except for those who have retired with big fat taxpayer funded government pensions)

Failure is the cost of learning.

Gross oversimplification. If I don't have a clue and keep failing in private industry, then someone competent will eventually step up to the plate (provided the endeavor is worthwhile enough to attract investors). In the government sector all I need to say is we just didn't spend enough and that seems to excuse anything. No consequences to the people who failed, but plenty of consequences to the taxpayers (as always)

[Frank_Discussion]

If your reps are not representing you, PROTEST to THEM. Email them, Write a letter, Send a Fax, VOTE THEM OUT, RUN FOR OFFICE YOURSELF. Make the sidewinders follow the system as best you can.

MY Point is that NASA funding is an area where most reps show up for the vote and are pretty faithful to their constituent's majority view. Military spending trends similarly.

Certainly, complain about it if you want, but the issue of space exploration is represented with pretty high voter fidelity.

[Frank_Discussion]

MAN, I gotta get busy around here, but:

"But it isn't a direct expense to the taxpayers when it does."

Ah, no, but it is folded into the costs of products and services, and passed onto the consumers.

"No way is this good. For one thing the same ijits who screwed up the Hubble telescope..."

Yes it cost us a lot to get Hubble on-target, but it's still working very well beyond its service life. And yes, some of the same folks are there, and their next project, the Webb telescope, will be much better than Hubble. (This would be called learning from mistakes. A typically mandatory feature of learning, BTW.)

Is there deadwood at NASA? Oh my, yes! Nothing is perfect. The blunders by that deadwood costs you very little, and is much cheaper than "successful" grants from the Nat'l Endowment for the Arts. Pick your battles, I always say.

"Gross oversimplification. If I don't have a clue and keep failing in private industry... In the government sector all I need to say is we just didn't spend enough and that seems to excuse anything. No consequences to the people who failed..."

What you're writing is commonly called a strawman. It does not square with reality.

"Keep failing" would imply the same exact mistakes keep occuring. Genrerally speaking, this is not true, though the Shuttle program comes very close to your model of NASA's failure history.

Here's what I mean:

1. Hubble is myopic. We b*tch-slap a few manangers and then go about fixing the technical problems, and make sure they don't occur again. We send a crew to put on the bifocals. New development plans take into account the previous embarrassing blunder, and we end up improving the overall system that performs above and beyond the call for much longer than anticipated.

2. Various probes have been sent to Mars with static data programming, with some success, and some considerable difficulty in fixing faults. Results are good, but could be better, when we don't crash them into the planet. Somebody says, "what killed us before? Lack of flexibility and bad use of unit conversion? Let's not do that again." Now we have two rovers that can be programmed in-flight and on-mission (demo'd by Spirit's little hiccup) and a landing protocol that is scrubbed to death to avoid embarassment. (Side note: in this scenario, if the mission teams were as apathetic as you suggest, why would they go to all the trouble to improve everything?)

Theres more, but let me "oversimplify" again: NASA science and engineering, for all it's inefficiency, is not a welfare system. The people who work there, on the whole, are very concerned with providing a quality result to their work. On a systemic scale, "off with their heads" only breeds timidity, as is the case in the corporate world.

Have a great day, I gotta go.