New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Spirit Rover Contacts NASA

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Just like E.T., Spirit has called home, NASA scientists reported Friday. After a worrisome period of silence, the Mars rover sent information back to the control room at the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena, Calif., at a low rate of data transfer. "The spacecraft sent limited data in a proper response to a ground command, and we're planning for commanding further communication sessions later today," project manager Peter Theisinger says.

Since its landing on the Red Planet on January 3, the robotic rover has been sending back large amounts of information, including colorful images of the Martian landscape. Attempts by NASA to contact the rover with instructions on Wednesday morning showed signs of trouble, however. Scientists thought that a thunderstorm over the Canberra station in Australia was to blame for the bad connection, but neither did the next scheduled connection a few hours later go as planned. Spirit then missed opportunities to return meaningful information both through the Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey spacecraft and through direct-to-Earth transmission. In terms of trying to explain what has gone wrong, Theisinger remarked that "there is no one single fault that explains all the observables."

On Thursday morning, the Mars rover successfully sent a simple radio signal acknowledging receipt of a transmission from Earth, but a Friday morning call from Earth elicited no response. As NASA scientists were preparing to send a second beep, however, the rover contacted them. In all, Spirit spent 35 minutes ¿talking¿ to its handlers. A newly formed anomaly team will attempt to get Spirit back up and running properly even as its twin, Opportunity, prepares to land on the opposite side of the planet late Saturday night and early Sunday morning. For the next several days, scientists will contact Spirit to gather more data about its problems, propose theories of what when wrong and test them against observations of the spacecraft. "I think that we should expect that we won¿t be restoring functionality to Spirit for a significant period of time," Theisinger notes, "perhaps many days, even a number of weeks, even under the best of circumstances from what we see today." Overall, Theisinger is cautiously optimistic about the rover¿s reinstatement, but "the chances that it will be perfect are not good."

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe