Mars Rover Shot

[S. Sampson]

NASA has reported today that the Mars Rover did not land on Mars,
but somehow landed in Iraq, where yesterday two enlisted men filled it
full of holes when its extended arm made a threatening gesture.

[Vivtho87700]

He He

[machf]

On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:29:36 -0600, "S. Sampson" > wrote:

>NASA has reported today that the Mars Rover did not land on Mars,
>but somehow landed in Iraq, where yesterday two enlisted men filled it
>full of holes when its extended arm made a threatening gesture.
>
So *that* is the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq... they needed a "safe" place
to stage the "mars landings" where no nosey reporters could get too close and
bust it. But then, apaprently, they didn't succeed after all.

;-)

--
__________ ____---____ Marco Antonio Checa Funcke
\_________D /-/---_----' Santiago de Surco, Lima, Peru
_H__/_/ http://machf.tripod.com
'-_____|(

remove the "no_me_j." and "sons.of." parts before replying

[Stephen Harding]

machf wrote:

> On Fri, 23 Jan 2004 04:29:36 -0600, "S. Sampson" > wrote:
>
>
>>NASA has reported today that the Mars Rover did not land on Mars,
>>but somehow landed in Iraq, where yesterday two enlisted men filled it
>>full of holes when its extended arm made a threatening gesture.
>>
>
> So *that* is the reason why the U.S. invaded Iraq... they needed a "safe" place
> to stage the "mars landings" where no nosey reporters could get too close and
> bust it. But then, apaprently, they didn't succeed after all.
>
> ;-)

Although it now seems "Spirit" is on the mend, or at least can
be used in such a way that it can continue to serve its purpose
(apparently some bad memory areas), there has been speculation
on why the malfunctions occurred.

One current theory is that the perfidious Europeans, desperate
to keep any success from attaching itself to George Bush, sent
a command to Beagle2 to "stab" the rover.

Beagle has a spring loaded arm that could do some damage if
the rover roved by. The fact that Beagle doesn't move doesn't
matter. It need only wait quietly and ambush the rover as it
ambled by. Perhaps the rover might interpret Beagle as an
interesting geologic feature, thus being lured within stabbing
range?

Now it is said that Beagle and [now both] rover(s) are quite
far separated on the planet, but this may simply be a ploy on
the part of the US government to hide the dastardly deed of the
Euros against the peace loving rover in an effort to dupe the
American people into continuing to believe we and Europe are
still in happy alliance.

What do you think Michael P?


SMH

[Emmanuel.Gustin]

Stephen Harding > wrote:

: Although it now seems "Spirit" is on the mend, or at least can
: be used in such a way that it can continue to serve its purpose
: (apparently some bad memory areas), there has been speculation
: on why the malfunctions occurred.

IIRC the success rate of Mars landings so far is only
30%... Which indeed makes one wonder whether there is
something about the planet we ought to know. At least
this rate needs to become very much better before
one can even seriosuly consider manned exploration...

: ambled by. Perhaps the rover might interpret Beagle as an
: interesting geologic feature, thus being lured within stabbing
: range?

Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...

Emmanuel Gustin

[Stephen Harding]

Emmanuel.Gustin wrote:

> Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> : Although it now seems "Spirit" is on the mend, or at least can
> : be used in such a way that it can continue to serve its purpose
> : (apparently some bad memory areas), there has been speculation
> : on why the malfunctions occurred.
>
> IIRC the success rate of Mars landings so far is only
> 30%... Which indeed makes one wonder whether there is
> something about the planet we ought to know. At least
> this rate needs to become very much better before
> one can even seriosuly consider manned exploration...

Geez Emmanuel. I actually agree with you!

Given problems with landing on the planet, and the fact
that characterizations of the planet seem to change dramatically
every 10 years with additional knowledge, I really can't see
how *anyone* could get a man *on* the planet *and* safely back
inside of 20 years. Just too much unknown about the place and
not enough time to learn in a mere 20 years.

> : ambled by. Perhaps the rover might interpret Beagle as an
> : interesting geologic feature, thus being lured within stabbing
> : range?
>
> Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
> feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
> or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...

But was there UN authorization to do so?


SMH

[Tarver Engineering]

"Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
...
> Stephen Harding > wrote:

> Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
> feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
> or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...

A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as outlined
in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia is
rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has been
all EE since then.

[John Mullen]

Tarver Engineering wrote:
> "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
>
>>Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
>>feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
>>or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...
>
>
> A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as outlined
> in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia is
> rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
> controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has been
> all EE since then.
>
>

Mmm. Nurse! More meds for Mr Tarver please!

John

[Tarver Engineering]

"John Mullen" > wrote in message
...
> Tarver Engineering wrote:
> > "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
> >>feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
> >>or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...
> >
> >
> > A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as
outlined
> > in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia
is
> > rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
> > controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has
been
> > all EE since then.

> Mmm. Nurse! More meds for Mr Tarver please!

You didn't know?

As the ex-chief scientist of Dryden said in his final speech to their
community, it has all been done, from an aerodynamic perspective.

[The CO]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> > Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
> > feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
> > or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...
>
> A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as
outlined
> in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia
is
> rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
> controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has
been
> all EE since then.

Actually, it now appears highly likely that it's a problem with the
FLASH memory management
software module. The FLASH hardware is apparently ok. In short, it
appears to be either a
bug or something corrupted it, such as a high energy particle impact.

The CO

[Tarver Engineering]

"The CO" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
> > > feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
> > > or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...
> >
> > A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as
outlined
> > in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia
is
> > rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
> > controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has
been
> > all EE since then.
>
> Actually, it now appears highly likely that it's a problem with the
> FLASH memory management software module.

Perhaps.

> The FLASH hardware is apparently ok. In short, it appears to be either a
> bug or something corrupted it, such as a high energy particle impact.

I know that JPL would lie, so I can't put much stock into what they say.
There is an identical module on Mars now and in a week you right be able to
make such a case. Right now, any such "cause" is unknowable.

I will give JPL credit for creating something that works at all, which is
something that has been problematic at NASA for some time.

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "The CO"
> wrote:

> "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Stephen Harding > wrote:
> >
> > > Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
> > > feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
> > > or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...
> >
> > A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as
> outlined
> > in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia
> is
> > rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
> > controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has
> been all EE since then.

Not all EEs. Hughes Aircraft had an ME at the helm for a good while.

> Actually, it now appears highly likely that it's a problem with the
> FLASH memory management
> software module. The FLASH hardware is apparently ok. In short, it
> appears to be either a
> bug or something corrupted it, such as a high energy particle impact.

Some EE apparently didn't put in EDAC.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[The CO]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
...
>
> "The CO" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> > > > "The CO" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> >
> > > > Actually, it now appears highly likely that it's a problem with
the
> > > > FLASH memory management software module.
> >
> > > Perhaps.
> >

<snip>

> Today the claim is a "file management" problem, which seems likely.

Yes, the software that manages it is the suspect, as they stated
previously.

> The flash memory controller is being reported as being software

Yes. That's probably not the ideal way to do that, possibly they were
considering
the likelihood of an unrecoverable hardware failure due to rad or
thermal impact
as more likely than using software for the task. It's probably that the
software
can be debugged or a new version uploaded from here, even now, however
changing out a dodgy card would not be possible.

> and this
> would not be the first time some softhead grabbed up all the memory
> themselve, so that their program alone would run better.

I get the impression it's an actual bug that has arisen due to something
that was
not tested for rather than a memory or cycle hog.

> It would net be
> the first time such a thing has happened and a goo reason why memory
> management units are usually hardware.

Well, it's certainly one reason.

> Politics, funding and the need to protect certain people, are the
standard
> reasons why Governemnt Agencies lie.

No doubt, but I was under the impression you had some specific reason to
be suspicious.
They do seem to be being quite candid at the moment. Were you perhaps
being a little
over critical based on your perception?

> Software and hardware both seem to be faulty.

Software seems to be the very high probability candidate. I've heard
nothing more
about the teams investigating a possible hardware anomaly (on the motor
board) and
this seems less and less likely to be the case as time goes on.

> It is an age old mistake of
> developers to use the interupt that halts the processor and there was
a
> scientist on TV making the claim that the processor was being
interupted,
> right before the 138 reboots.

Quite so, but the interrupt is being software driven. The type of error
you describe
would be rather unlikely given the amount of development. I suspect
it's rather more
obscure than that, I get the feeling this is more likely to be something
that only occurs
during heavy memory workloads.

<snip>

> Right now JPL is hacking the system and deleting old files and no
longer
> necessary software and perhaps the robot will come back.

I think it's a little more involved than that.

<snip>

> All we can really know is that the machine is suffering from memory
> starvation right now. Some how there is a leak, much like what
happens to a
> PC under Windows.

Doesn't seem to be a simple memory leak. If I may use a *very* crude
analogy,
it looks to bear some resemblance to the issue that arises with DOS when
the
root directory has it's maximum of 255 entries.

> > I respectfully suggest therefore that your statement is indicative
of
> > strong personal bias not based on
> > realistic knowledge of the onboard computer system. How much do you
> > actually know about the effects of
> > ionised particles/he protons on computer memory, specifically,
FLASH, or
> > memory diagnostic routines in VxWorks RTOS environments running on a
> > 20Mhz RAD6000 hardened version of the PowerPC chip?
>
> Quite a bit.

Ok. I'll be interested to see the end result of the rover recovery
efforts.

> I was mistaken is claiming the two landers are identical, as the
second
> robot has some chips that are a generation newer than the broken bot.

Not aware of that. Thank you. Interesting.

<snip>

> > JPL's track record may not be perfect, but I suspect that they are
well
> > in front of whoever is in second
> > place. (Russia?)
>
> As was pointed out to the Queen at the completion of the first
America's
> cup:
>
> "there is no second place"

LOL. I can agree with that.

> The US has to go back to the Moon for strategic reasons,

Strategic? What can you do from the moon that you can't do from
LEO (in the military sense)?

> otherwise the Chinese will gain a military advantage within a few
years.

Hmm, seems unlikely that it would be either significant or any real
advantage.
They are very much playing catch-up ball here.

> Mars is a dead planet

That is yet to be scientifically demonstrated. Make it 'likely to be a
dead planet' and
I might agree.

> and probably is not going to be of much interest.

Sorry, can't agree.

> I'd like to see JPL send a robot to one of the Moons of Jupiter

ISTR there is a mission of that kind planned.

> instead of sending a man to Mars.

How about 'as well as'.

The CO

[Tarver Engineering]

"The CO" > wrote in message
...
> > I was mistaken is claiming the two landers are identical, as the second
> > robot has some chips that are a generation newer than the broken bot.
>
> Not aware of that. Thank you. Interesting.

Today JPL validated what I wrote yesturday and they now expect to be able to
have the broken robot completely functional, in a few days.

If JPL does that, I say they are pretty smart.

[Joe VxWorks]

"Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message >...
> "Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article >, "The CO"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > "Tarver Engineering" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Emmanuel.Gustin" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
> > > > > Stephen Harding > wrote:
>
> > > > > Wasn't the rover about to attack 'an interesting geological
> > > > > feature' when it failed? So it would be legitimate self-defence,
> > > > > or at worst a legitimate pre-emptive strike...
> > > >
> > > > A much more likely source of failure is the lack of EEs at NASA, as
> outlined
> > > > in the Shuttle crash investigation board report. Until the areo mafia
> is
> > > > rooted out of NASA, there can be no forward movement. Aero's havn't
> > > > controlled a successful aerospace company since the 1970s, as it has
> > > been all EE since then.
> >
> > Not all EEs. Hughes Aircraft had an ME at the helm for a good while.
>
> My mistake, you are quite correct. In fact, most MEs can work complex
> numbers; while an Aero with a BSAE will be lost. I had an aero come up to
> me at Dryden and speak with fascination at the huge difficulty he had
> applying complex numbers. From the way he described it, I don't believe he
> had ever seen a number written with a "j". before his masters level work.
>
> > > Actually, it now appears highly likely that it's a problem with the
> > > FLASH memory management
> > > software module. The FLASH hardware is apparently ok. In short, it
> > > appears to be either a
> > > bug or something corrupted it, such as a high energy particle impact.
> >
> > Some EE apparently didn't put in EDAC.
>
> From the story today it apears JPL used a software MMU. That would make the
> most likely cause of the problem some softhead that couldn't get their
> program to run without hogging memory. It is a story repeated again and
> again in industry.
>
> It is nice to see you posting, Harry.

I have been programming vxWorks for 12 years. There is a basic mmu
that comes with and another that is more traditional that keeps tasks
from clobbering each other. But from the press release, it sounds like
to me exactly the same problem I complained to Wind River 10 years
ago: That all the directory entries are cached in regular dram memory
(on bootup, it rereads all the directory entries into memory). I
believe it was something like 64 bytes per entry. So when a customer
of mine logged 20000 data files, his system ran out of regular memory
because I didn't factor in this possibility. I think I heard they had
to delete 10s of thousands of files - probably freeing a few precious
megs of memory.