Opportunity knocked? Rover survives Martian winter, may not survive budget cuts The knives are out for MER-B, better known as the Opportunity rover, at NASA beancounter central. The beloved rover has just passed the 5,000 sol mark on Mars and is approaching the 15th anniversary of its launch (thankfully without the desolate rendition of "Happy Birthday" played by its plutonium-powered successor, Curiosity …
I wonder if they could upload some software to have it drive itself around and send photos?
If it crashes into a ditch, no big deal because it's EOL anyway. If it sends something interesting, take back control of it.
Obviously it's going to be more than
10 DRIVE ABOUT A BIT
20 GOTO 10
But I wonder if it's doable for less than a years running costs?
"But I wonder if it's doable for less than a years running costs?"
Nice idea, but I would guess that the hardware isn't up to running software of the sophistication that would be required for that. Space hardware is usually a number of generations behind your average PC at launch and this was launched in 2003 so its hardware & CPU (too lazy to google) is probably circa mid 90s at best.
One of the problems with that idea is, I fear, access to the deep space communications network. You can't just point a 1 meter dish in the general direction of Mars and get an IP connection going. You need access to NASA's network of dishes dotted around Earth. And they're pretty busy, and expensive.
However, my view is that whilst there's a prospect of the Martian marauder still doing useful science, then it would be a hideous waste of money to not use it. Arguably these two trundlers, and Curiosity too, represent astonishing science (and public) value for US taxpayer dollars; they've gotten far, far more for than anyone ever bargained for. The original project Balance of Investment report is utter toast; the costs account is so heavily outweighed by the delivered benefits account those responsible should get medals.
Really the answer should be, build more deep space communications dishes, and get even more value out of the missions that are running, and out of other future long lived missions. There is an argument that international collaboration on that network is the way forward.
the answer should be, build more deep space communications dishes
I've read multiple times that Nasa's deep space comms system is stretched thin. I've always wondered why something (more dishes on Earth, maybe relay satellites) hasn't been done to increase capacity. I guess it's because improved comms is less sexy than big rockets.
@bazza, it's costing 12 million dollars a year to keep the program running. So the question: is Opportunity still doing 12 million dollars worth of science a year? Or should we save that money and put it to launching Curiosity Mk2 (or a different mission) and fund THAT for 12 million a year?
The problem with doing that is congress will think "we don't need to fund anything at NASA anymore, we can drop NASA's funding to $0 and rely on crowdfunding for missions like the Mars rover and corporations to go to the Moon and Mars". Then they'll wail and moan when China leaps ahead of the US in space!
The problem with areas of the budget doing basic science like finding out if there was/is water on Mars etc. is that some republicans don't like science in general. Science says bad things like the universe was created via a big bang rather than a god, or that the Earth is getting warmer, so it must be stopped!
congress will think "we don't need to fund anything at NASA anymore,
Have a look at the other project funding on the image that is in the article. On this excerpt, seems to me that Mars project funding is actually pretty constant, and somebody has reasonably decided that they will get more than $12m of benefit doing something else. Personally, I'd be surprised if using the same fifteen year old asset would continue to give good returns, and throwing more money at it in future because it was successful and great value in the past is hardly a sensible investment strategy for science, any more than it would be in financial markets.
"The problem with areas of the budget doing basic science like finding out if there was/is water on Mars etc. is that some republicans don't like science in general."
I was with you until this point. Who is to say who is more vested in science?? What has a political party have to do with it?? It wasn't that long ago when the Democrats rode on horses wearing white sheets. So just don't mix science with ideology.
"I truly hope that Americans are ashamed of their President. This is just another reason to be so."
How dare you say that! Right now the greatest dealmaker ever is doing the deal of the century flogging a clapped out second hand Rover Discovery to his 'friend' Vlad for more dosh/votes than Barack could dream of. The p&p is the only sticking point.
But I await the crowing tweet with [almost] complete confidence.
In terms of US goverment funding it is not even a rounding error.
Quite. Just mandate that all government & state employees will have tap water available rather than bottled water in meetings etc would probably save more money each year than they're talking about here.... while they're dooing thay, they have a car, on Mars.
One of the things they have to balance is what they expect to learn if the launch, transit, and landing succeed for whatever they do next; against the continued learning opportunities for having a whole bunch of scientific instruments successfully deployed on Mars already.
I can't imagine we've learned all we can about Mars witht he currently deployed configuration. We've only covered a few miles. Who knows what we'll discover over the next ridge.
Operating the Rover doesn't cost much - the only direct billing is the data link and that only costs you money if you are having to build extra capacity to support newer missions that you could run now if the rover was turned off.
Most of the tiny amount is staff that you need to keep but aren't directly part of a current project, so you stick them on some project that looks safe. They will just be re-assigned (and re-budgetted) somewhere else.
But you only save these costs if you have other paying customers that you are turning down. I don't know the details of Mars Rover, but unless they are paying for commercial services then cutting a small % usage of infrastructure that you own rarely saves the money it shows on the accountants spreadsheet
"There ARE costs at 3 levels. First is the Deepspace Network costs. Second is Mars-relay-orbiter costs. Third is project-direct costsfor MER."
But who are you paying the money to and will you be be saving anything by not paying it? The answer is they are basically paying themselves so no, at best the money goes somewhere else. The real question is will the money be used more effectively by using the resources on other projects.
Now we know that there's f* all on Mars it's time to leave it. Why not use the money to experiment with autonomous robots on the Moon? Until the technology exists for robots to build habitats in advance of humans arriving I don't think that we will be going anywhere. Unless of course you don't mind being irradiated and peppered with micro meteorites etc.
We just need a nuclear powered robot that can go into sunless craters at 100K and chisel out rock-hard water ice. Shouldn't be too difficult /s
Sounds like a job for the BFR (Big Fecking Rocket) to deliver another BFR (Big Fecking Robot) to the moon.
When they finally build a Moonbase, I sincerely hope they don't to include a barber so that the girl with the sideburns can have a shave.
There were plans to bring Moonbase Alpha back as Space 2099, dunno what happened to that.
@Martin Budden
Someone needs to bone up on their Irish.
Until the technology exists for robots to build habitats in advance of humans arriving I don't think that we will be going anywhere. Unless of course you don't mind being irradiated and peppered with micro meteorites etc.
I'd rather that than rotting in a care home. Sign me up for the one way ride in about another 35 years and I'll get something built before I croak - the next codger along can continue the work. Space Codgers.... I'm sure there's a movie about that......
He has a new fridge installed on Air Force one at double the price of Opportunity's annual maintainance.
His aides wouldn't let him play golf last weekend because of the optics with the school shooting having taken place not too far away, so instead he spent his weekend watching TV and angry tweeting. That seems to be all he does, he relies on his swamp creatures to do the ruining for him. That's why he thinks he's such a great leader, he doesn't actually do any work he has his underlings do it for him!
The Rover was initially commissioned to last 90 days because the official NASA story is that Mars has no atmosphere, and even if there is something "in the air" there, it must be deadly and dissolving even stainless steel in no time. If this Rover lasted so long there can only one be ONE EXPLANATION to its and its sibling's longevity (apart from good craftsmanship) - THERE MUST BE SOME KIND OF ATMOSPHERE ON MARS THAT SHIELDS AND PROTECTS MAN MADE MACHINES PROBABLY NOT WORSE THAN THE EARTH'S ATMOSPHERE.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
