Sniff.....

RIP Opportunity. That Rover long outlived it's mission, and it's sister.
 
Last edited:
Oh dear.... RIP Oppy. It is sad to read about that. The little guy did a good job.... 15 years. Wow.
 
One can not be disappointed in the performance of this machine, nor should one be sad. It's like having your grandfather make it to 103 years old (as my friend's did).
 
“They've sent more than 835 recovery commands that remain unanswered.”

Even I know if you send a girl that many text messages and she doesn’t reply that it’s probably time to say goodbye.
 
DutchRoller said:
“They've sent more than 835 recovery commands that remain unanswered.”

Even I know if you send a girl that many text messages and she doesn’t reply that it’s probably time to say goodbye.
Click to expand...
Well, not trying to speak for all the other nerds, geeks, and dweebs, buy sometimes we can't take a hint.

Very impressive run for a 9 month mission.
 
If she's gone cold, then all I can say is "Well done". But hey, if a bit of dust is all that's wrong, you just never know, some sunshine may yet reboot her. Or maybe someday if a human hand ever reaches that red ball, maybe they'll leave a plaque on her out of respect.
 
RIP, Opportunity. But I console myself in the knowledge that the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft are still sending data after almost half a century.

NASA and JPL have made some big mistakes over the years, but when they get it right, it's RIGHT.
 
Eric Stoltz said:
Well, not trying to speak for all the other nerds, geeks, and dweebs, buy sometimes we can't take a hint.

Very impressive run for a 9 month mission.
Click to expand...
Guess again. According to the article it was only supposed to be a 90 day mission. That means she outlived her expected life by 5385 days. That's 6000.83% longer than expected. I would call that a success. I hope my airplane gets that kind of lifespan.
 
Stephen Poole said:
RIP, Opportunity. But I console myself in the knowledge that the Voyager 1 and 2 spacecraft are still sending data after almost half a century.

NASA and JPL have made some big mistakes over the years, but when they get it right, it's RIGHT.
Click to expand...
A pessimist (that would be me) can still find a negative in it. Consider that they vastly over spent on the engineering if it could last that much longer than intended.
 
Salty said:
A pessimist (that would be me) can still find a negative in it. Consider that they vastly over spent on the engineering if it could last that much longer than intended.
Click to expand...

I don't know how old you are; I am a child of the Space Race in the 60's. Back then, there were still many, many unknowns, even in the late 70's when the Voyagers were launched. There was no way to know for sure if the hardware would last that long; it was over-designed (and it SHOULD have been). But I distinctly remember that there was already talk, while the Voyagers were still taking pictures of the planets, of extending the mission. Both Voyagers -- just like Opportunity -- greatly exceeded expectations.

And in the case of the Voyagers, that's with ancient (by our standards) technology. The "processors" in those things were essentially discrete designs with wire-rope memory. (!)

Don't forget the budget, either. It's one of those annoying facts of life. "Extending the mission" isn't a simple matter of deciding to keep people at the monitors longer. They have to be paid, and extensions must be approved again and again. Time on the Deep Space Network (which has become quite busy in recent years) has to be allocated. In fact, the Deep Space Network itself required a substantial upgrade to receive data from the Voyagers, which are now in interstellar space.

Finally, considering what we've learned from the Voyagers about where we are in interstellar space, and what any future craft might experience way "out there," I think the money was extremely well spent. Just my opinion. ;)
 
Stephen Poole said:
I don't know how old you are; I am a child of the Space Race in the 60's. Back then, there were still many, many unknowns, even in the late 70's when the Voyagers were launched. There was no way to know for sure if the hardware would last that long; it was over-designed (and it SHOULD have been). But I distinctly remember that there was already talk, while the Voyagers were still taking pictures of the planets, of extending the mission. Both Voyagers -- just like Opportunity -- greatly exceeded expectations.

And in the case of the Voyagers, that's with ancient (by our standards) technology. The "processors" in those things were essentially discrete designs with wire-rope memory. (!)

Don't forget the budget, either. It's one of those annoying facts of life. "Extending the mission" isn't a simple matter of deciding to keep people at the monitors longer. They have to be paid, and extensions must be approved again and again. Time on the Deep Space Network (which has become quite busy in recent years) has to be allocated. In fact, the Deep Space Network itself required a substantial upgrade to receive data from the Voyagers, which are now in interstellar space.

Finally, considering what we've learned from the Voyagers about where we are in interstellar space, and what any future craft might experience way "out there," I think the money was extremely well spent. Just my opinion. ;)
Click to expand...
The rover was a far cry from Apollo technology. But you miss my point in general. Which was about the power of pessimism more than a criticism of the design.
 
Salty said:
The rover was a far cry from Apollo technology. But you miss my point in general. Which was about the power of pessimism more than a criticism of the design.
Click to expand...
I consider it pragmatism, not pessimism. Unnecessary resources were expended on this project that could have gone elsewhere. It's good that additional science was done and the resources weren't wasted. But what if some of those resources had been conserved for follow-on missions?
 
Lindberg said:
I consider it pragmatism, not pessimism. Unnecessary resources were expended on this project that could have gone elsewhere. It's good that additional science was done and the resources weren't wasted. But what if some of those resources had been conserved for follow-on missions?
Click to expand...
Someone please correct me if wrong, but I'm pretty certain the cost of the launch and the launch vehicle cost many times what the payload costs to develop, so really it would have been pennies for a new follow-on mission that really wouldn't make a difference.
 
Oppy has gone silent, but remember that there is always hope for the future. At least one long-dead spacecraft has come back up before and lived on. AMSAT-OSCAR 7 was launched in 1974, and went silent in 1981. IN 2002 it came back on line and is still operating to this day in a limited capacity.
 
DaleB said:
Oppy has gone silent, but remember that there is always hope for the future. At least one long-dead spacecraft has come back up before and lived on. AMSAT-OSCAR 7 was launched in 1974, and went silent in 1981. IN 2002 it came back on line and is still operating to this day in a limited capacity.
Click to expand...
Big difference between a satellite in space and a rover in the dust. Maybe another storm will clear the dust and it can dig its way out, but it’s a long shot to say the least.
 
Salty said:
Big difference between a satellite in space and a rover in the dust. Maybe another storm will clear the dust and it can dig its way out, but it’s a long shot to say the least.
Click to expand...
Absolutely true. And still possible. Nobody thought it was possible that AO-7's battery would un-short itself after over 20 years, either.

I'm just not quite the pessimist that you are. :)
 
The problem with Rover wasn't the dust storm......

21501BP~Marvin-The-Martian-Posters.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top