NASA won't dampen exploratory spirit of Mars rovers

Back in November, we knew things weren't looking up for the twin Mars rovers, but it seems that both Spirit and Opportunity will still be doing their respective thangs after a letter foreshadowing their doom was rescinded. Reportedly, the entity was tasked to slash $4 million from the project's budget just yesterday, which would have forced Spirit into hibernation and limited Opportunity's opportunities by mandating that commands be sent up every other day (versus everyday now). As it stands, NASA has issued a confirmation that neither creature will be affected, but given the apparent belt-tightening, we're curious as to whether Scarecrow will still see liftoff next year.

[Via Physorg]

[CharlieX @ Mar 25th 2008 1:46PM]

I'm not sure of the technical logistsics... but wouldn't this be a great opportunity for maybe a university or private science laboratory to take over one of the rovers? Or the ESA?

[mt @ Mar 25th 2008 1:59PM]

I think it's still amazing that the twins are still running after all this time.
They were only designed to last what, 3-6 months. (who says
Americans can't design quality!)

[tom @ Mar 25th 2008 2:16PM]

Because in most case, it is designed in US, made in China. I doubt any part of the rover ever made abroad.

iPod for example
"Designed in Cupertino California, Manufactured in China"

[Kamokazi @ Mar 25th 2008 2:23PM]

Actually tom, many components were 'off-the-shelf' parts, some of which quite possibly came from China.

And the reason they lasted much longer than anticipated is because they expected the solar panels to be dusted over after 3-6 months and lose power...it turns out that the panels being the height they are off the ground, the dust blows off them pretty easily. So they made sure everything would work for at least 3-6 months, and didn't test them much further than that.

[CharlieX @ Mar 25th 2008 2:46PM]

You know guys... the reply feature should be used to REPLY to a comment. Not gab on about some tangent.

And never call robots "the twins" again. That's grounds for banishment.

What a great chance for some advanced robotics lab to get their hands on some bad ass robots. MIT grads would eat it up. right?

[happy_penguin @ Mar 25th 2008 10:26PM]

It would be a good idea to get some other funding, such as from a university as you suggest, CharlieX, or some type of private funding. I would venture a guess that the scientific value is still quite high.

[aceattorney @ Mar 25th 2008 2:10PM]

These are amazing machines...

[RC @ Mar 25th 2008 2:14PM]

When I first heard this, my first thought was that some drama queen put it out there, just to cause a commotion. Oh, you want us to spend less? Okay, well then we have to abandddoonnnnn ssscccciiiieeeennnnceee. People won't like that!

There's nothing wrong with wanting certain programs funded, but at the same time you can recognize when you're being manipulated.

[ineedspace @ Mar 25th 2008 2:25PM]

Do some research before passing judgement. Even a quick glance at Wikipedia would be okay.

The fact is that the twin rovers are currently operated on a shoestring budget. The loss of funding and its impact to science activity on the rovers is REAL. After years of budget cuts, the money-saving tricks are used up. The team operating the rovers is at the top of their game, doing world-class exploration for next to nothing. I mean, $4 million is comparatively very little compared to what the war currently costs taxpayers -- $341.4 million per *day*.

If anyone should be at fault for manipulation, it is NASA HQ and the current administration. Shame on them.

[RC @ Mar 25th 2008 3:18PM]

I suppose you're right. No one would try to increase their funding through press releases and news stories. Sorry.

[wesg @ Mar 25th 2008 2:17PM]

I applaud NASA for their choice to keep the rovers moving. The Canadian space agency has all but shut down now that Dextre is on the ISS, and that's too bad. These two rovers have done more for Mars exploration that any other craft before them, and that is something to be proud of. A 9 month mission turning into 2 years? That's pretty incredible.

[Will @ Mar 25th 2008 3:34PM]

It'll actually be 5 years come January 2009.
It would be interesting if they were still semi-functional when humans make it to Mars. I wonder what we'll do with Viking and these rovers as well as all of the stuff left on the moon when we're able to recover it?

[Hax Or @ Mar 25th 2008 2:23PM]

Might want to get out in space yourself instead of having some robot do it.

You might just learn a thing or two.

[IndiaTech @ Mar 25th 2008 2:32PM]

What do they expect to find with low powered, end of life rovers? Martians?

[Erik @ Mar 25th 2008 3:33PM]

Had you said that maybe, three years ago, I *might* have agreed with you.

But given that they've been working many times over their designed lifespan and have found out so much about the history of Mars, I'm going to have to just say wait and see.

(Hint: not all breakthroughs need to be seeing little green men come out from behind a rock.)

[dcny @ Mar 25th 2008 3:47PM]

We actually built something that outlasted its warranty, good work Spirit and Opportunity

[dcny @ Mar 25th 2008 3:51PM]

Also what do they do if they actually do find a Martian or get damaged do they send out a SOS or Mayday until there batteries die out?

[Vincent Do @ Mar 25th 2008 4:19PM]

Request for an RMA and hope they pay for return shipping.

[Ahmed Alzayani @ Mar 26th 2008 11:36AM]

You know, the factor that used to be driving NASA forward “USSR” is no longer there, I think private sector should take initiative here, I know that rich people usually spend money to make money, but it will not be harmful if we convince couple of super rich billionaires of contributing view millions in the name of science.

[Magallanes @ Mar 26th 2008 11:45AM]

is it so expensive to keep running two robots on mars?. Or may be the cost is most involved with salaries?.