Winter Quarters, at Low Ridge Haven |
  |
Winter Quarters, at Low Ridge Haven |
 Jul 11 2006, 07:39 PM
Post
#481
|
|
|
Founder  Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1  |
Of you go and listen to the Squyres Q'n'A
 ...the question was asked back in September. The rover's don't care what sol it is, but the scripts on the ground do...and they've been edited to do 4 digit sol numbers.Doug |
 |
 
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 08:09 PM
Post
#482
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 3431 Joined: 11-August 04 From: USA Member No.: 98 |
QUOTE (diane @ Jul 11 2006, 07:22 PM)  I'm a bit more worried about 1024. Oh, that's bad. 
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 08:24 PM
Post
#483
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 4279 Joined: 19-April 05 From: .br at .es Member No.: 253 |
OT: What about MMB and S1K, Mike?
|
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 08:52 PM
Post
#484
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 3431 Joined: 11-August 04 From: USA Member No.: 98 |
QUOTE (Tesheiner @ Jul 11 2006, 08:24 PM) OT: What about MMB and S1K, Mike? You know, I'm not entirely sure; I don't think there are any problems there, but I suppose it's getting to the point where I better check on it soon It's a nice problem to have - rovers that stay working for more than 1000 sols! |
|
|
|
|
Jul 11 2006, 08:52 PM
Post
#485
|
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Until Pathfinder, 1000 sols+ was the norm
 Doug |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 11:25 AM
Post
#486
|
|
 Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
Very true. We often forget Pathfinder was only a test mission, since it was launched even after the mission it was Pathfinding for was cancelled.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 03:23 PM
Post
#487
|
|
 Director of Galilean Photography Group: Members Posts: 896 Joined: 15-July 04 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 93 |
Just as a matter of comparison, here's the "lifetime" of the Viking landers:
CODE Viking 1: Landed: July 20, 1976 Comms lost: Nov. 11, 1982 Earth days: 2305 Mars Sols: 2247 Viking 2: Landed: September 3, 1976 Comms lost: April 11, 1980 Earth days: 1316 Mars Sols: 1283 Data taken from www.solarviews.com Go Sol 1300!!! -------------------- Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
-- "The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 03:41 PM
Post
#488
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 3431 Joined: 11-August 04 From: USA Member No.: 98 |
What I love about this forum is that people actually take time to look up stuff like that.
I would say the Viking guantlet has been thrown down, then. Go MER! |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 04:27 PM
Post
#489
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2920 Joined: 14-February 06 From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France) Member No.: 682 |
QUOTE (hendric @ Jul 12 2006, 05:23 PM) Just as a matter of comparison, here's the "lifetime" of the Viking landers: CODE Viking 1: Landed: July 20, 1976 Comms lost: Nov. 11, 1982 Earth days: 2305 Mars Sols: 2247 Viking 2: Landed: September 3, 1976 Comms lost: April 11, 1980 Earth days: 1316 Mars Sols: 1283 Data taken from www.solarviews.com Go Sol 1300!!! As Spirit will be 900 Sols old in 3 more sols, I was going to open up a topic about longevity and this sort of things. So fell free to move this if you want to. My thinking was if this is fair to compare : 1- Landers versus Rovers 2- Flight-by Spacecrafts versus orbiting (specialy aerobraking ones) 3- Solar powered versus nuclear (hendric : your source for Vikings come from a site called "solarviews". For a nuclear powered spacecraft that's interesting  )Another matter would be to compare designated life versus actual (Spirit is now 10 time), distance (Oppy is nearly 15 times), N° of pictures. Anyhow, I guess we'll all want to celebrate the 10 times duration of Spirit. If Steve Squyres was to get such a boost he would be around in another 750-800 years! Not sure the rovers will be dead by then 
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 04:44 PM
Post
#490
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 128 Joined: 5-May 04 Member No.: 74 |
QUOTE (diane @ Jul 11 2006, 07:22 PM) I'm a bit more worried about 1024. Most values stay on byte boundaries, so a value expected to exceed 255 (the one-byte limit) would most likely be stored in two bytes, which would mean we're good through Sol 65,535. |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 05:00 PM
Post
#491
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 100 Joined: 20-May 06 Member No.: 780 |
QUOTE (ToSeek @ Jul 12 2006, 12:44 PM) Most values stay on byte boundaries, so a value expected to exceed 255 (the one-byte limit) would most likely be stored in two bytes, which would mean we're good through Sol 65,535. A byte is whatever the designer says it is, and sometimes a specialized register such as a clock will be trimmed to the expected range of values. (I'm not going to show my age by reminiscing about machines with 6-bit bytes. Or machines that used 48 bits for a clock that was stored in a 64-bit word.) That said, such designs typically show up in manufactured items, where economies of scale and planned obsolesence can make such short-sightedness pay off. I remember more than one experience of buying a new hard drive only to find that my PC's BIOS wouldn't address its whole capacity. It seems that the BIOS chip designers always incremented the sector address register size by two bits. |
|
|
|
| Guest_Oersted_* |
Jul 12 2006, 06:35 PM
Post
#492
|
|
Guests |
Well, these rovers still need to travel many times as far to beat the mark of the very first robotic rovers, way back from the early 1970's...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunokhod |
|
|
|
|
Jul 12 2006, 09:48 PM
Post
#493
|
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I think it's fair to say that those three are all different, and similarly different, and certainly it's fair to classify the third as a 'good candidate' Doug |
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2006, 12:22 AM
Post
#494
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Moderator Posts: 2262 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Melbourne - Oz Member No.: 16 |
One time limit on the rovers is the use of a 9 digit time in the image filenames.
If my maths is right then 1,000,000,000 seconds after 1/1/2000 11:58:55.816 UTC is on 9/9/2031. That's sol 9841 for Spirit and 9820 for Oppy. Mark you calenders! James -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Jul 13 2006, 06:56 PM
Post
#495
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 128 Joined: 5-May 04 Member No.: 74 |
QUOTE (jamescanvin @ Jul 13 2006, 12:22 AM) One time limit on the rovers is the use of a 9 digit time in the image filenames. If my maths is right then 1,000,000,000 seconds after 1/1/2000 11:58:55.816 UTC is on 9/9/2031. That's sol 9841 for Spirit and 9820 for Oppy. Mark you calenders! James I'm hoping by that time there will be repairmen on Mars.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th April 2024 - 10:14 AM |
|
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |
|
