If Mars Rover(s) Fail Due to Hardware/Software Problem...

What would be the impact should one or both of the
twin NASA Mars rovers fail due to either inadequate
testing or damage to flight hardware during
unusual handling (for instance when explosive bolts
were fired to swap out a faulty ciruit board shortly
before launch). There is also some flight hardware
that has no ground test articles (certain science
insturments at least) so the flight hardware in
some instances was certified on the basis of a single
test of one unit, a test that did not stress the
hardware to any failure (of course, or else there
would be no hardware to fly). According to a Nova
documentary on the matter, the JPL team saved 5
million dollars by not having one or more extra
pieces of one partcular item. Penny wise, certainly.

If the mission fails would or should the JPL and NASA
directors who are ultimately responsible be forced to
resign?

-McDaniel

On 22 Jan 2004 12:08:03 -0800, (Hobbs aka
McDaniel) wrote:

What would be the impact should one or both of the
twin NASA Mars rovers fail due to either inadequate
testing

They were tested well enough.

or damage to flight hardware during
unusual handling (for instance when explosive bolts
were fired to swap out a faulty ciruit board shortly
before launch).

That is unlikely seeing that they get loads of data back indicating
the health of this rover.

So had damage been done during roll off, then they should have noticed
things not as they should be before failure.

There is also some flight hardware
that has no ground test articles (certain science
insturments at least) so the flight hardware in
some instances was certified on the basis of a single
test of one unit, a test that did not stress the
hardware to any failure (of course, or else there
would be no hardware to fly).

Nothing that I have heard before. Things were rushed a bit, but all
this hardware, except for the science instruments maybe, have had
considerable space usage before.

Solar panels work, batteries are known, communication is obvious,
where most of all Spirit's brain is the same radiation hardened thing
found in most satellites these days.

All good hardware, but here we are.

According to a Nova
documentary on the matter, the JPL team saved 5
million dollars by not having one or more extra
pieces of one partcular item. Penny wise, certainly.

Maybe you should say more clearly some real facts, instead of they
said something.

If the mission fails would or should the JPL and NASA
directors who are ultimately responsible be forced to
resign?

Since there have been many successes on this mission so far, then I do
not believe that this is likely.

The biggest issue is that if Opportunity also fails to come close to
it's expected 90 day minimum lifetime, then you have to ask the very
serious question of why this is?

The answer would rest in the design, which could roll a few heads if
this is found to be serious enough.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

In article ,
Cardman wrote:

On 22 Jan 2004 12:08:03 -0800, (Hobbs aka
McDaniel) wrote:

There is also some flight hardware
that has no ground test articles (certain science
insturments at least) so the flight hardware in
some instances was certified on the basis of a single
test of one unit, a test that did not stress the
hardware to any failure (of course, or else there
would be no hardware to fly).

Nothing that I have heard before. Things were rushed a bit, but all
this hardware, except for the science instruments maybe, have had
considerable space usage before.

Solar panels work, batteries are known, communication is obvious,
where most of all Spirit's brain is the same radiation hardened thing
found in most satellites these days.

All good hardware, but here we are.

Some of the news reports are saying the problem could be a software
glitch. If that's the case then the problem should (hopefully) be
correctable.

BTW, I was watching a documentary on NASA TV last night about the
development of the rovers and at one point it seemed to imply in passing
that the rovers' software was still being developed right up until the
last minute (and doubtless continued being developed and tested right up
until last minute before landing).

While that may be par for the course with computer software (there is
always on more bug to squash), that is not the way it should really
happen. The most reliable software is the sort that has been around for
a while and is in regular use. Some day NASA will be sending robotic
probes to places where fixing software glitches as they occur (rather
than beforehand) may be less viable. NASA's proposed interstellar probe,
for example.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

Stephen Souter writes:

BTW, I was watching a documentary on NASA TV last night about the
development of the rovers and at one point it seemed to imply in passing
that the rovers' software was still being developed right up until the
last minute (and doubtless continued being developed and tested right up
until last minute before landing).

It was (and is) worse than you thought. They continue developing
software after launch and beam it up on the way. I'm fairly sure I
remember reading that MERs and the Voyagers did it. Probably others.
It's possible to replace all of the software, with or without a
reboot. I'm not sure, but some missions might have some redundant
ROM-based hardware to keep some things going during reboots.

While that may be par for the course with computer software (there is
always on more bug to squash), that is not the way it should really
happen. The most reliable software is the sort that has been around for
a while and is in regular use. Some day NASA will be sending robotic
probes to places where fixing software glitches as they occur (rather
than beforehand) may be less viable. NASA's proposed interstellar probe,
for example.

Which would be a reason the current scheme is a bad idea, developing
almost new designs for every landing. It might have been better to
develop a soft-lander truck to haul up various stations and rovers,
with time to get all the bugs worked out of the lander. Or not.

Cardman wrote in message . ..
On 22 Jan 2004 12:08:03 -0800, (Hobbs aka
McDaniel) wrote:

What would be the impact should one or both of the
twin NASA Mars rovers fail due to either inadequate
testing

They were tested well enough.

or damage to flight hardware during
unusual handling (for instance when explosive bolts
were fired to swap out a faulty ciruit board shortly
before launch).

That is unlikely seeing that they get loads of data back indicating
the health of this rover.

So had damage been done during roll off, then they should have noticed
things not as they should be before failure.

There is also some flight hardware
that has no ground test articles (certain science
insturments at least) so the flight hardware in
some instances was certified on the basis of a single
test of one unit, a test that did not stress the
hardware to any failure (of course, or else there
would be no hardware to fly).

Nothing that I have heard before. Things were rushed a bit, but all
this hardware, except for the science instruments maybe, have had
considerable space usage before.

Solar panels work, batteries are known, communication is obvious,
where most of all Spirit's brain is the same radiation hardened thing
found in most satellites these days.

All good hardware, but here we are.

According to a Nova
documentary on the matter, the JPL team saved 5
million dollars by not having one or more extra
pieces of one partcular item. Penny wise, certainly.

Maybe you should say more clearly some real facts, instead of they
said something.

It is a fact that the team's lead scientist said they
were saving 5 million dollars because each of these two
science insturments (1 per rover) cost 5 million to make.
He was visibly stressed out about the testing too. These
are facts, even if I don't remember the name of the unit.
Now could this unit send spurious signals in such a way
that they disrupt other things in the rover? Maybe not.
Of course the team wouldn't believe it's possible but
then they didn't know that firing off the explosive
bolts could short out the firing circuits potentially
until AFTER they fired the bolts and somebody said, 'oh
yeah...' I'm just asking questions... sorry I don't
have a transcript of the NOVA documentary in front of
me to quote from.

-McDaniel

"Hobbs aka McDaniel" wrote in message
om...
What would be the impact should one or both of the
twin NASA Mars rovers fail due to either inadequate
testing or damage to flight hardware during
unusual handling (for instance when explosive bolts
were fired to swap out a faulty ciruit board shortly
before launch). There is also some flight hardware
that has no ground test articles (certain science
insturments at least) so the flight hardware in
some instances was certified on the basis of a single
test of one unit, a test that did not stress the
hardware to any failure (of course, or else there
would be no hardware to fly). According to a Nova
documentary on the matter, the JPL team saved 5
million dollars by not having one or more extra
pieces of one partcular item. Penny wise, certainly.

Almost $1billion down the drain because of a faulty radio modulator design.
Sjjeeesh!

The thing is: there's nothing they can do to prevent Oppurtunity from
failing the same way. Reminds me of HAL saying in '2001: A Space Oddesey':
"The AE-34 (radio) unit is going to go 100% failure within 24 hours"


If the mission fails would or should the JPL and NASA
directors who are ultimately responsible be forced to
resign?

JPL directors, maybe. NASA directors: no.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message ...
"Hobbs aka McDaniel" wrote in message
om...

What would be the impact should one or both of the
twin NASA Mars rovers fail due to either inadequate
testing or damage to flight hardware during
unusual handling (for instance when explosive bolts
were fired to swap out a faulty ciruit board shortly
before launch). There is also some flight hardware
that has no ground test articles (certain science
insturments at least) so the flight hardware in
some instances was certified on the basis of a single
test of one unit, a test that did not stress the
hardware to any failure (of course, or else there
would be no hardware to fly). According to a Nova
documentary on the matter, the JPL team saved 5
million dollars by not having one or more extra
pieces of one partcular item. Penny wise, certainly.

Almost $1billion down the drain because of a faulty radio modulator design.
Sjjeeesh!

Actually these sorts of things happen all the time and have always
happened--in everyday life as well as in space exploration. Stupid
people doing stupid things or smart people overlooking something.

Back when it was still a matter of national pride within a cold-war
space race people just accepted it and went on to the next mission.

But now it's all "pure science," in which mistakes are not meant to
happen, and giant media blitz events, in which failures are a big-time
embarrassment and loss of face.


The thing is: there's nothing they can do to prevent Oppurtunity from
failing the same way. Reminds me of HAL saying in '2001: A Space Oddesey':
"The AE-34 (radio) unit is going to go 100% failure within 24 hours"

If the mission fails would or should the JPL and NASA
directors who are ultimately responsible be forced to
resign?

JPL directors, maybe. NASA directors: no.

And would either change anything?

Making space flight cheaper, so we can afford to design a few more
probes and lose a few more, too, is the way to go. And choosing des-
tinations first that maybe *aren't* quite as far away?

I think it's remarkable that they can do what they did on Mars in the
first place, all those millions of miles away. But I do *not* under-
stand why they've never had a rover scout out the Moon so far--with
today's technology, I mean...

How many rovers or landers can you afford to lose on the Moon for the
price of one lost on Mars?? How much easier would it be to control
them for lack of a major time lag? And how much less glitches would
you suffer and prolonged lifetime would you have once you had your
stuff properly "Moon-tested?"

Is it because of popular interest? Is it because Mars is more fasci-
nating to the naked eye? So far, as scenery goes, I must say the Moon
looks a lot more interesting on photos from the ground...



--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

"Ool" wrote in message
...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...
"Hobbs aka McDaniel" wrote in message
om...

What would be the impact should one or both of the
twin NASA Mars rovers fail due to either inadequate
testing or damage to flight hardware during
unusual handling (for instance when explosive bolts
were fired to swap out a faulty ciruit board shortly
before launch). There is also some flight hardware
that has no ground test articles (certain science
insturments at least) so the flight hardware in
some instances was certified on the basis of a single
test of one unit, a test that did not stress the
hardware to any failure (of course, or else there
would be no hardware to fly). According to a Nova
documentary on the matter, the JPL team saved 5
million dollars by not having one or more extra
pieces of one partcular item. Penny wise, certainly.

Almost $1billion down the drain because of a faulty radio modulator
design.
Sjjeeesh!

Actually these sorts of things happen all the time and have always
happened--in everyday life as well as in space exploration. Stupid
people doing stupid things or smart people overlooking something.

Back when it was still a matter of national pride within a cold-war
space race people just accepted it and went on to the next mission.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. Most of these designs are actually
very common in the 'real' world. Actually, the designs used by NASA are
probably wholely outdated but that's because they insist on using a
tried-and-tested design. But obviously, even that isn't enough to guarantee
success. That's pretty pathetic. If the guys that designed it made a mistake
they shouldn't be be there, because they're not competent. I expect the guys
at JPL to have at least PhDs and stuff in electrical engineering but they
still can't get a simple modulator or radio right? Come on!

Let's just hope that the thing recovers or there's some external cause.


But now it's all "pure science," in which mistakes are not meant to
happen, and giant media blitz events, in which failures are a big-time
embarrassment and loss of face.

But radio's and computers are made and designed every day that are perfectly
reliable and have been for the last 50 years.

"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message ...

But radio's and computers are made and designed every day that are perfectly
reliable and have been for the last 50 years.


Wow! I never thought I'd see the words "computer" and "perfectly re-
liable" in the same sentence--outside of a sales brochure!


--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

"Ool" wrote in message ...
"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message ...
"Hobbs aka McDaniel" wrote in message
om...

What would be the impact should one or both of the
twin NASA Mars rovers fail due to either inadequate
testing or damage to flight hardware during
unusual handling (for instance when explosive bolts
were fired to swap out a faulty ciruit board shortly
before launch). There is also some flight hardware
that has no ground test articles (certain science
insturments at least) so the flight hardware in
some instances was certified on the basis of a single
test of one unit, a test that did not stress the
hardware to any failure (of course, or else there
would be no hardware to fly). According to a Nova
documentary on the matter, the JPL team saved 5
million dollars by not having one or more extra
pieces of one partcular item. Penny wise, certainly.

Almost $1billion down the drain because of a faulty radio modulator design.
Sjjeeesh!

Actually these sorts of things happen all the time and have always
happened--in everyday life as well as in space exploration. Stupid
people doing stupid things or smart people overlooking something.

Back when it was still a matter of national pride within a cold-war
space race people just accepted it and went on to the next mission.

But now it's all "pure science," in which mistakes are not meant to
happen, and giant media blitz events, in which failures are a big-time
embarrassment and loss of face.


The thing is: there's nothing they can do to prevent Oppurtunity from
failing the same way. Reminds me of HAL saying in '2001: A Space Oddesey':
"The AE-34 (radio) unit is going to go 100% failure within 24 hours"

If the mission fails would or should the JPL and NASA
directors who are ultimately responsible be forced to
resign?

JPL directors, maybe. NASA directors: no.

And would either change anything?

Making space flight cheaper, so we can afford to design a few more
probes and lose a few more, too, is the way to go. And choosing des-
tinations first that maybe *aren't* quite as far away?

I think it's remarkable that they can do what they did on Mars in the
first place, all those millions of miles away. But I do *not* under-
stand why they've never had a rover scout out the Moon so far--with
today's technology, I mean...

How many rovers or landers can you afford to lose on the Moon for the
price of one lost on Mars?? How much easier would it be to control
them for lack of a major time lag? And how much less glitches would
you suffer and prolonged lifetime would you have once you had your
stuff properly "Moon-tested?"

Some years back there was a private company talking about sending
a rover to the moon that could be 'driven' about by anybody on
earth for a fee. It was billed as a recreational/entertainment
venture and not as a science mission however. Hazard avoidance
software on the buggy would keep the paying kids on earth from
driving the rover off a cliff - or so the idea went. Assuming
you go through the trouble of building a rover and landing
equipment you could send the thing to the moon for the price
of a commercial satellite launch. Not much in the grand scheme
of things but they would've had to sell a LOT of tickets at
county fairs to make their money back and given the startup
costs and risks it's not hard to see why serious investors didn't
flock to the project.

But if somebody came up with a way of putting say 50 or 100
tiny rovers on the moon in a single launch or two and had the
communiations network to control them then it makes a little more
sense --assuming-- there's a market. I'd pay a couple of bucks to
drive a rover around on the moon remotely but I wouldn't blow my
vacation money on it.

Is it because of popular interest? Is it because Mars is more fasci-
nating to the naked eye? So far, as scenery goes, I must say the Moon
looks a lot more interesting on photos from the ground...

It'd be cool if we could use robots to remotely construct a moonbase
too. Robots don't need all the environmental support stuff people
do and you can set them to work for longer hours.

-McDaniel