As a fixed station, it would need a name: The Arthur C. Clarke Memorial Station? Sorry if I'm jumping the gun here.

There's also the great unwritten heuristic of UMSF to acknowledge: A spacecraft in place with any data acquisition capability is worth more than an infinite number of paper projects.

I am impressed by the amount of progress that was made before this decision. I am happy with what was decided, but sad that its the end of the yellow brick road for spirit's long successful journey a crossed Gusev Crater. May the best of luck to Spirit's survival through the Martian winter .

Just heard an interview with Ashley Stroupe on BBC Radio 4's 'Newsnight'. (EDIT: corrected below)

She said efforts to extricate have had to be put "on hold". Asked if they had given up hope of extrication she said "Whatever we do [in the spring] there will be no long traverses . . "

The item as a whole was well reported and not in any way negative. Well done BBC.

Sorry I can't remember more direct quotes. 'Listen again' is available on BBC iplayer for UK folks at least.

Allow me to correct you ngunn, the programme is 'The World Tonight' on R4 for anyone looking for it on iPlayer. The interview is approximately 30 minutes after the start of the programme.

Thanks! At this time of night accuracy is not my strong pint.

Firstly, thank you for all your posts this evening (UK time). I was unable to get the audio stream so I was relying on you all to keep me informed.

I don't know why but I just have a gut feeling that Spirit has not finished roving yet. Maybe I have read too many inspirational posts from ustrax! Maybe I just don't want to accept what may well be good scientific sense. But I sense that whilst the current location shouts of great interest and great science at some point those soft whisperings from Von Braun and Goddard may gain the ascendancy. I seem to recall those involved in this magnificent mission saying there will always be another site, another question to be answered just over the brow of the next hill and given what the trek to Endeavour requires from Opportunity I feel a similar trek to Von Braun and Goddard may one day (hopefully) come to pass for Spirit.

One final thought - In this uncertain time for Spirit can I say a massive thank you to the rover drivers (Scott, Ashley etc) and all the other staff involved. This must be a very emotional and uncertain time for them and the whole team and I just wanted to place on record one guy's admiration at the job they have done... so far

Neil

If anyone without access to iPlayer would like to listen to Ashley Stroupe's short BBC interview tonight, send me a PM with your contact details and I'll mail you the relevant clip (3 min mp3, 3.5 Mb).

By the way, it was mentioned that a recording of the audio conference can be heard for a week by dialling toll-free (866) 502-6119 in the U.S. Some other number was given for international calls, but I didn't write it down.

As much as I have been rooting for extrication, I have been wondering whether we'd get very far afterwards. They have to have weighed "what can we visit within a few dozen meters" versus "what can we do stationary."

How far we could get is a good question. But we'd need to see real data/test results using four wheels to know how far we could drive if we got out. She's driving several cms a day now, with several wheels buried, so I could imagine reasonable progress if she was completely extricated. As Marz said above, even 50 cm a day could get us somewhere.

Emily has posted a good summary of the briefing at her blog. She makes a similar point to mine about why the pronouncement of a stationary rover, but adds that it was NASA HQ that made the call, not the rover team:

Emily, your spirit lifts us! Thank you for your posts, and here's hoping we see our rover roll away next spring!

Very informative Comment on Slash.dot from Scott Maxwell: http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si...mp;cid=30913324

Radio programmes on iPlayer are available outside the UK - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00q2...ght_26_01_2010/ for anyone interested; starts at 27 minutes.

Oh, that's a gem!

I feel a bit about this as I felt about the Concorde. Please don't let her stop with a mobility problem (in the case of Spirit) / disaster (in the case of Concorde). I still think we should get Spirit out of Troy and rove a bit more, if at all possible. Just like the Concorde flew for some more time after the crash. To show that we CAN, even though it might not be scientifically necessary. Just like the entry back into service of the Concorde probably didn't make economic sense.

Spirits trenching lead to one of the most important discoveries of the mission. A mega-trench out of Troy can't be a bad thing, scientifically, with some arm measurements along the way.

Here's to further extraction attempts when energy comes back!

I can't help thinking that the decision making process is a bit behind the "ground truth" here, but probably the stationary strategy is better when it comes to securing funding for future operations.

I know what you mean. Coincidently I saw Concorde flying over my place on its maiden flight...and was in Pasadena for Spirit landing.

If Phoenix were alive to see it, I am sure it would be proud.

Like the Norwegian Blue Parrot, Phoenix is not dead she's just resting. We nailed her to the perch right before winter.

Did you remember to nail the solar arrays to the perch as well. They could well be pushing up the daisies.

I had the pleasure of helping mod this one up. :-)

--Greg

Seems that way to me. Spirit's on borrowed time anyway, and has been for years -- it seems IMHO that they are erring rather heavily on the side of caution.

Even now I can't believe they're not pushing to get her out. Seems that some chance of a working rover, some chance of zero, is better than certainty of a stationary platform of very limited use (since not designed for that - no seismometers etc).

I wonder if one element is funding for future stuff & perceptions of 'success' - rover loss because of too-eager attempts at extrication might be perceived worse than rover loss by natural causes?



Me too.



Certainly, but there's a matter of probabilities, nothing's guaranteed. Is a bigger chance of survival-as-a-much-more-limited-asset better than a smaller chance of survival-as-a-much-more-useful-asset?

--
I'm sure they know what they're doing*, I'm just frustrated...

*my only doubt being that funding concerns might make what's being done different from the ideal-for-science action

NASA took the right decision, but how much science will Spirit be able to do while in "winter hibernation"?

Little to none. The point is that she will barely have enough power to remain active at all - so asking how much power will remain to do science is somewhat moot don't you think.

Even on very low power, I was wondering if Spirit, as a stationary rover, could act as a "weather station" ...?
Although they announced to reactivate Spirit after the winter, it remains to be seen how (next week's) NASA's fiscal year 2011 budget request will be received

All power will be devoted to keeping her alive when the power gets that low. I'm much more interested in keeping the rover alive (and thus useful in the summer) than having to sacrifice it to deliver the daily forecast.

It's all dependent on how much tilt we can find before the power gets below anything drivable. It also depends how much more dust deposition or cleaning we experience. Trying to forecast how much power may or may not be available in the future for activities is premature. Basically, we'll find out when we get there.

Adding to the frustration, the 6 months (actually 7 months) of sandbox testing, computer simulations, and multiple reviews, including at the HQ level, occurred during a high-energy period,. In retrospect, the science program to precisely measure the wobble of Mars could have been done then while the rover was stationary. Of course, they didn't know precisely how long the hiatus would be. It is also ironic that once extraction attempts began, the condition of the rover changed almost immediately from the configuration that had been tested. (Nevertheless, I'm sure the experience gained from the extensive testing was valuable.)

The science return from the rover should not be the only consideration. There is engineering benefit from testing a system to failure, and anything learned from Spirit may be applicable to Opportunity. In that regard, I think some attention should be given to diagnosing the electrical problems that Spirit has encountered, which do not appear to be yet fully understood. Who knows, it may be possible to revive one or more of the failed wheels....

All the sandbox testing had the additional positive effect of helping JPL evolve their methodology of analyzing such situations. It may have done little to help Spirit but what they learned in going thru the motions may prove priceless in the future when Oppy has some problem, or some other future project - the process undoubtedly taught JPL about a lot more than how a rover drives in sand. Things like how to organize and operate such an ad-hoc project effectively, for example.

Only one thing to say, and I think it may be time to close this topic about the time taken at the sandbox.

It's very easy to look back to past events or decisions and analyse them now from the present point of view. What is completely different and much more complex is to know on that time in the past how an event or decision would impact the future.

After thinking you had I great point, I also think they were using the arm and the pancam pretty often. Not sure if those movements are incompatible with the radio science, and seismometer emulation. It's probably worth listening closely over the next few weeks as plans solidify to see what the restrictions are. Are we going to have a pancam looking straight up to measure tau for 6 months and no moving parts? Is the HGA going to be moving anyways?

Sol 2158 is a driving sol. I think it's a matter semantics whether it's an "Extraction" drive or a "Tilt Enhancing" drive.

Also, it might be old news but I think the team has switched to every other day communications to save power.

Drive pics from 2158 are down. Looks like continued progress on extrication, but hard to tell about tilt - anyone decipher the numbers?
http://qt.exploratorium.edu/mars/spirit/fo...WVP1254R0M1.JPG

The LR wheel has dropped into the crust a bit now:
Click to view attachment

If you mean Left rear, I agree.
I feel right rear is "nearly out" rising even been pushed (instead of sinking).
Altogether this is no good as far as tilt is concerned.

Six or seven months of sandbox testing, and they (a collective they) ended up just continuing on driving backwards as they were doing from the moment Spirit got stuck to actually see notable progress.

The lesson I learned from all that sandbox time was whatever they thought they figured out did not actually help at all on Mars. And then they wait till the last possible moment to just continue driving, which seems to be working well. Perhaps if they had tried more of that earlier we would still have five good wheels.

I know it sounds like many of us are second guessing the powers that be, but six months to test various extractions techniques does seem like a long time. Especially since we had the energy during that time to actually confirm the testing results one way or another. And the chosen extraction effort after all that testing did not seem that novel. Reverse course. And throw in a few wheel wiggles. Six months for that?

I love NASA and JPL, which I have visited twice. I admire the designers, the creators, the drivers, and all involved with these amazing rovers on Mars. I just wished they had moved a bit quicker on the testing. Maybe I am just venting at the situation poor Spirit has gotten into. Psyche majors, please tell me what coping stage I am in? lol

I'd guess the RS experiment has to live with noise induced by moving PMA and HGA, but that those would be limited. I'd also guess the forcing for that has meaningful periods down to a couple sols, so over 6 months you'd smooth that out. Seismo tests have been done; I have the same concerns--about wind and such--that others have expressed, but assume that experience has generated reason for optimism. I can say that the PMA will not be looking straight up for 6 months, except in the unlikely event of rover failure when it happens to be looking there. The trivial reason is that opacity measurements image the Sun, which will be much lower. But more to the point, the Sun's position at useful times will drift; and the potential dust collection on pancam over 6 months would be unacceptable to all. Even for opacity, you'd be unable to distinguish opacity on the window from that in the sky by the end.

I bet the rover drivers wish they had your crystal ball, or that shiny new pair of Meade 20/20 Hindsight Binoculars you're using.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it true that they're not just "driving backwards" now -- they're doing wheel wiggles first to pack soil, then rolling? Driving backwards is what got them into the mess; wheel wiggles plus driving, which is (I think) what's helping them make progress now, would be something they were trying based upon their lengthy experiments in the sandbox.

The 20/20 hindsight argument is totally unfair. They didn't need a crystal ball to know that winter was coming. And they knew progress was going to be slow.
It's true they needed sandbox testing, but six months?

I guess one can never be too certain. But again, even if we did get out, where would we go? Two wheels down, we need a slope. Closest one we have is the sand-trap. I imagine if we had gotten out with only four months of sand-box testing, the news conference would have been more like "I know you all are excited that we're out, but we need to go back in to get the tilt."

Personally, I applaud the MER team on taking their time with this, and making sure that what they decided to do is the best option, regardless of this unfortunate outcome. While no one likes the idea of losing mobility, I put full trust in the decision by the team, and I cannot see any reason to fault them for anything throughout this extraction process.

I don't think it's unfair at all. If they thought they needed 6 months, then they needed 6 months. I know people are frustrated, and disappointed, but I honestly don't understand this criticism. These people are experts, professionals; they do this for a living, as their job, with NASA and the rest of the world - including countless backseat drivers, like us - watching their every move and breathing down their necks, just waiting for them to trip up whilst impatiently nagging "Are we there yet?" from behind. I don't envy them, but I admire, respect and will support them at every opportunity, especially now when they must all be feeling really disappointed at best and really, really hacked off and ready to punch their way through the nearest wall at worst. If any of them are reading this (and actually, I know they are) then heads up guys, you're all heroes and heroines in my book.

I'm guessing that the first experiments in the sandbox told them that they'd easily make things worse. That doesn't exactly translate to "let's command the spacecraft anyways!" Mobile enough to maximize tilt is more mobile than high-centered.

Here here.

If I may interrupt the Monday morning quarterbacks I'd like to point out the left rear wheel reached the transition from the bright material to the regular soil on sol 2154.
Click to view attachment

I bet the wheel-wiggle technique is an _innovation_ proven from the 6 months of teststorming.

This is another tool in the bag of tricks for both rovers, and future rovers too!

Some personal thoughts on Spirit's change in circumstances here:

http://cumbriansky.wordpress.com/2010/01/2...it-time-to-rest

To me it looks like that might just be a difference in lighting on those two bits.

I loved reading that article Stu. It was obviously very personal and written from the heart and for that you deserve great credit. Well done.

As for Spirit herself, do we have any news on her current tilt situation after her latest drive?

Old rovers never die, they ... only ... fade ... away.

More constructively, assuming the rover goes into "hibernation" mode, is there some very low-power way that Spirit could signal it is still alive? Sending an occasional "heartbeat" tone? Maybe extending and retracting the IDD arm could be detected in a hirise image?

I don't think anyone here meant any criticism of the heroic roverdrivers. The sandbox testing was all necessary and useful. However, I think there is a lesson to be learned about the utility versus risk of extensive management reviews, which contributed to the delay. Ironically, it seemed the main message that came out of the final HQ review was "get cracking---you are running out of time."