Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Unmanned Spaceflight.com _ MSL _ MSL reasons for delay

Posted by: mcaplinger Mar 4 2009, 03:33 PM

I wanted to make sure that everyone interested sees Adrian Brown's articles at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1319/1 and http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1318/1 about the technical and budgetary problems with MSL that led to the launch slip. While I can't claim to be privy to the budgetary and political issues at the mission level, the technical discussion seems like a fair summary of the situation as I understand it, at least as good a one as can be gathered from public sources.

People in other forums have complained about errors in these articles, but without giving specific examples or providing any factual basis for their objections. I don't find that very useful. If there are real flaws in this account, I'd be quite interested to know what they are.

p.s. I guess we need to change the name of this subforum. sad.gif

Posted by: djellison Mar 4 2009, 03:41 PM

Thanks for linking to these Mike - they're very good, and quite thorough. What has this done to the Mastcam delivery date? I'm going to make the bold assumption that there's not a chance in hell of the zoom being reinstated.

And that's a good point about the sub-forum name sad.gif Phoenix needs to get stuffed into past missions as well.

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Mar 4 2009, 04:49 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Mar 4 2009, 07:41 AM) *
Phoenix needs to get stuffed into past missions as well.


...we should wait for the Spring thaw and see what happens.

Posted by: dvandorn Mar 4 2009, 06:24 PM

Yeah -- I've been meaning to ask when Phoenix was going to move to Past Missions, but figured that ever-optimistic Doug was waiting to make sure that Lazarus Mode failed before taking that step... smile.gif

-the other Doug

Posted by: tedstryk Mar 4 2009, 08:58 PM

I was thinking (and still think) that it would be a good idea to wait until after LPSC, the first major conference at which properly digested results will be presented. I figure it will receive a flurry of activity. Then move it.

Posted by: ugordan Mar 4 2009, 09:04 PM

QUOTE (dvandorn @ Mar 4 2009, 07:24 PM) *
I've been meaning to ask when Phoenix was going to move to Past Missions, but figured that ever-optimistic Doug was waiting to make sure that Lazarus Mode failed before taking that step... smile.gif

I'd rather have it moved only to find out Lazarus mode worked than leave it and find out L-mode failed. smile.gif

Posted by: monitorlizard Mar 5 2009, 03:58 PM

I had also seen the Adrian Brown essays. In his references, he links to a series of presentations made about MSL on Jan. 9, 2009. These powerpoints contain the things he mentioned and more, in quite a bit of detail. They are at:

www.lpi.usra.edu/pss/jan92009

Posted by: algorimancer Mar 5 2009, 08:16 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Mar 4 2009, 09:41 AM) *
...there's not a chance in hell of the zoom being reinstated.

I'm a bit confused about the zoom. I had thought that it had been definitively canceled, but I gathered from the Technical article that it may have been complete in December. I have mixed feelings about the zoom capability -- as I've stated before, I don't trust the mechanism not to lock-up once on Mars, though I appreciate the benefit of being able to get both telephoto and wide angle views from the same camera. In retrospect they might simply have placed a dedicated third camera with fixed telephoto capability centered between a pair of stereo wide angle cams on the mast head with rather less trouble and similar capabilities as the dual zoom system.

Posted by: mcaplinger Mar 5 2009, 09:34 PM

QUOTE (algorimancer @ Mar 5 2009, 12:16 PM) *
I'm a bit confused about the zoom. I had thought that it had been definitively canceled, but I gathered from the Technical article that it may have been complete in December.

The article could be more clearly stated. It says "A redesign of the MASTCAM zoom system ... was essentially complete and ready to ship." That would be better stated as "A redesign of the Mastcam system without the zoom" -- see http://www.msss.com/msl/mastcam/news/index.html
QUOTE
as I've stated before, I don't trust the mechanism not to lock-up once on Mars...

Did you trust the MER Pancam filter wheel or the MI cover to not lock up? There's little mechanical difference between them and the zoom. (You're basically saying that you don't trust MSSS to build an instrument that works.)

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Mar 5 2009, 10:36 PM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Mar 5 2009, 01:34 PM) *
(You're basically saying that you don't trust MSSS to build an instrument that works.)



...and them's fightin' words!

Posted by: mcaplinger Mar 5 2009, 11:20 PM

Forgive me if I lose patience with armchair engineers.

At any rate, the fixed-focal-length but adjustable focus Mastcams, like MAHLI, are mechanically very similar to the original zoom design, they just have one fewer motor and one fewer cam. From http://www.msss.com/press_releases/mahli_delivery/index.html:

"MAHLI focus is controlled by a precision mechanism developed by Alliance Spacesystems. This mechanism uses a stepper motor to position the internal focus group by means of a cam."

We're very confident that these mechanisms are not going to "lock up".

Posted by: stevesliva Mar 6 2009, 12:06 AM

You're forgiven. It is armchair-knee-jerk reflexive, but everybody gets the heebie-jeebies with anything mechanical after Galileo. Umbrellas and tape drives oh my.

The thing that gives me the greatest heebie-jeebies is Cassini's main engine cover, which has worked flawlessly. And not to comment on MSSS, but isn't there an outgas-contaminated camera with a locked up filter wheel wizzing towards a comet somewhere? Or am I combining two issues in my mind?

Posted by: djellison Mar 6 2009, 12:18 AM

You're thinking of the Stardust Navcam. That was a major spares-cupboard raid effort ( Voyager optics and shutter ) - and I don't believe MSSS had anything to do with it.

Doug

Posted by: stevesliva Mar 6 2009, 12:35 AM

To be clear, I did not mean to imply MSSS had something to do with it. More of a crap-happens sentiment. And we could all list crap that happens with solid state stuff, too.

Posted by: lyford Mar 6 2009, 01:53 AM

"Less moving parts!?!?!" The whole rover is a moving part! smile.gif

Posted by: centsworth_II Mar 6 2009, 02:14 AM

QUOTE (stevesliva @ Mar 5 2009, 07:06 PM) *
You're forgiven.

Actually it's to algorimancer that the apology is due.

Posted by: dvandorn Mar 6 2009, 03:27 AM

Let's face it, guys -- anything that has moving parts can fail. And a bunch of stuff without moving parts can fail, too.

There is a difference between equipment that fails because it's poorly designed and equipment that fails because it's poorly made or just because things happen that you can't prevent and wouldn't be expected to foresee.

It's not, I don't think, that anyone thinks that any given organization is incompetent at making any given piece of equipment. I think Steve is right, we tend to get more nervous about devices with more moving parts than we do about devices with less moving parts (witness the greater worries about Sterling RTGs and their moving pistons vs. the more classic thermocouple-based RTGs with no moving parts).

It is important to remember that almost all moving parts on almost every spacecraft we've ever launched have worked perfectly. My feel for it is that more spacecraft have died because of electronics failures than have died because a moving part broke or stuck. But we seem to remember and worry about the moving part failures more than about fried electronics... unsure.gif

-the other Doug

Posted by: mcaplinger Mar 6 2009, 03:43 AM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Mar 5 2009, 06:14 PM) *
Actually it's to algorimancer that the apology is due.

Asking for forgiveness is different than apologizing, I think. rolleyes.gif

One last (?) word on the Mastcam mechanisms. A mechanismless system would be more reliable, certainly. But it would also have compromised performance. We looked at fixed-focus systems like Pancam and concluded that the performance hit was too great (Pancam is really slow optically and it's only in best focus at 2m target distance.) Our mechanisms are as reliable as we know how to make them and make as much use of MER heritage as possible. We tested them for 3x mission life and they passed with no issues. If people have residual reliability concerns, I'd be curious to know how they think we could address them. But you'd probably have to know more details of the mechanisms than is publicly available to have a well-founded opinion.

If our cameras fail there will be plenty of B&W Navcam images. smile.gif

Posted by: algorimancer Mar 6 2009, 01:41 PM

QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Mar 5 2009, 03:34 PM) *
Did you trust the MER Pancam filter wheel or the MI cover to not lock up?...

As a matter of fact, I have had doubts about that as well smile.gif My perspective is reflective of my experience with commercial digital cameras -- true, the engineering quality isn't the same, but it's also true that every actuator-driven motion is a potential failure point, and I worry about that abrasive wind-blown dust. I'd lean towards solid-state systems, perhaps an optical phased array smile.gif

Seem to have touched a bit of a nerve here. I'm afraid that I am indeed guilty of playing armchair engineer -- and I've had a lot of fun doing it smile.gif

Posted by: jmcdesign Mar 6 2009, 04:23 PM

"In retrospect they might simply have placed a dedicated third camera with fixed telephoto capability centered between a pair of stereo wide angle cams on the mast head with rather less trouble and similar capabilities as the dual zoom system."


There are no unused MSSS camera interfaces in the MSL rover. If you want to lobby for an additional camera mention there are three unused engineering camera interfaces. smile.gif

Posted by: djellison Mar 6 2009, 04:41 PM

Of course, we have ChemCam as an ultra high res imager - but it's not the same as a pair of matched, zoomable, focusable Mastcams.

Posted by: Cruzeiro do Sul May 6 2009, 12:45 PM

One question about the RTG in MSL: in front of the natural decay of plutonium, will be the amount of power available for MSL lesser with the two years delay of launch?

Posted by: SpaceListener May 8 2009, 12:42 AM

QUOTE (Cruzeiro do Sul @ May 6 2009, 06:45 AM) *
One question about the RTG in MSL: in front of the natural decay of plutonium, will be the amount of power available for MSL lesser with the two years delay of launch?

It was previously discussed. The answer was that the loss of power is not of concern since it is very small. smile.gif About how much, I don't remember but the reference is to take in account that the half life span of this type of radiative is of 88 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium

Posted by: monitorlizard May 8 2009, 09:56 AM

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/technology/power

Above website states that the"MMRTG (used on MSL) optimizes power levels over a minimum lifetime of 14 years".

And if I recall correctly, the MSL delay press conference last December stated that the RTG power loss during the two year delay would be on the order of 5%

Posted by: Cruzeiro do Sul May 11 2009, 02:34 PM

5% is a small amount of lost, so we can hope that it will not be a seroius concerns in case of a possible extended MSL mission. Thanks for the information!

Posted by: SFJCody Jul 11 2009, 07:01 AM

Very interesting document http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2009/07/nasa_smd_briefi.html. Amongst other things, it looks like MSL may need a supplementary solar array.

Posted by: climber Jul 11 2009, 10:38 AM

You'll be interested in this .pdf presentation by Doug Mac Cuistion: http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/PSS.Jun.09.Mars.pdf
Among news, they envisione adding solar panels.

Posted by: SpaceListener Jul 11 2009, 03:06 PM

And hope that these probably existence of solar panels must have their own self cleaning mechanics by applying the learned lessons from MER's experience.

Posted by: centsworth_II Jul 11 2009, 03:48 PM

QUOTE (SpaceListener @ Jul 11 2009, 10:06 AM) *
...solar panels must have their own self cleaning mechanics...

My favorite solution is to mount the panels on vertical surfaces, like the sides of the electronics box. They would give less power with the sun overhead, but more with the sun near the horizon. Best of all, they should stay clean with no additional cleaning apparatus needed.

Posted by: djellison Jul 11 2009, 04:45 PM

QUOTE (SpaceListener @ Jul 11 2009, 04:06 PM) *
the learned lessons from MER's experience.


The lessons learned from MER experience is that actually, you can get away without cleaning solar arrays.(to a certain extent)

If having a vertical panel is the answer, how come we still have to clean our TVs and Monitors?

We've already got threads on solar array cleaning - this isn't the place.

Posted by: centsworth_II Jul 11 2009, 06:44 PM

QUOTE (djellison @ Jul 11 2009, 11:45 AM) *
If having a vertical panel is the answer, how come we still have to clean our TVs and Monitors?

The dirt that sticks to a monitor is nothing compared to what built up on Spirit's panels before their latest cleaning. For that matter, the top of a computer monitor gets a lot dustier than its face. I would expect a vertical panel to get as dirty as the MER camera lenses. Not too bad.

Posted by: dtolman Jul 13 2009, 07:48 PM

QUOTE (SpaceListener @ Jul 11 2009, 10:06 AM) *
And hope that these probably existence of solar panels must have their own self cleaning mechanics by applying the learned lessons from MER's experience.


After all the delays, overruns, and setbacks (they can't even power the darn thing now?), I'm wondering if learning anything is even possible - they're just trying to keep their heads above water...

Posted by: dtolman Jul 13 2009, 07:55 PM

Isn't it a little late in the game to figure out that the amount of power available is insufficient to power the vehicle? Assembly is supposed to start in 6 months, and they're still worried about basics of the design...

Posted by: SFJCody Jul 13 2009, 08:06 PM

I hope there's a TV documentary crew following MSL. The travails of this vehicle will surely be fascinating to watch.

Posted by: SpaceListener Jul 13 2009, 08:22 PM

dtolman,

I think that this might be a leak news from news media since it has no further detail information about the reason. If NASA informs this, I hope it would be well covered and explained.

About this I have many questions and I am not able to know what is the real reason. It would be to too early to get well acquainted.

I think that NASA must know it perfectly whether if it is or not necessary after studying their cons and pros. The main electrical energy would be based of nuclear and the solar ones would be interpreted as an supplemental and not as critical energy. On the other hand, it would to be insufficient to supply an extra needed energy due to a new requirements, or present instruments that might need an additional not planned electrical energy needs.

An additional battery capacity would be the most sounding acceptable but up to here, it is not worth to further discuss without knowing their cons/pros.

Posted by: mcaplinger Jul 13 2009, 08:24 PM

QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Jul 11 2009, 07:48 AM) *
My favorite solution is to mount the panels on vertical surfaces, like the sides of the electronics box. They would give less power with the sun overhead, but more with the sun near the horizon.

Obviously, they would only produce power when the sun was near the horizon and when they were on the sunlit side, assuming the rover was always parked with the panel pointed east or west. If the panel was pointed west, they wouldn't produce anything in the morning.

Fixed near-vertical panels have some use at higher latitudes, but not really near the equator. You can work out the math for various latitudes and orientations, but the cosine losses are quite dramatic, to the point of unworkability.

Posted by: helvick Jul 13 2009, 09:51 PM

This isn't completely true - vertically placed panels will always get some diffuse light (generally about 5-15% of direct insolation on Mars) and reflected insolation (1-2% usually, higher when local albedo is high) . And when atmospheric opacity is high (Tau>~2) there is more diffuse than direct insolation although the overall levels are down to a fraction of ideal conditions. However if all you are looking for is a small amount of extra power then covering the vertical surfaces with panels will always give you some power.

A major problem that I see with it is that the extra weight and additional power management circuitry would lead to something else being removed which would be very bad.

Posted by: dtolman Jul 14 2009, 01:25 PM

SpaceListener,
The main source of this seems to be an article in Nature - http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090710/full/news.2009.664.html.

I didn't see this in the summary, so it probably bears repeating. From the article (concerning cost and power overruns respectively):

QUOTE
The cause of the latest overrun is problems with motors, gearboxes and avionics controls. After switching from a dry to a wet lubricant, engineers have had trouble verifying the reliability of motors for the rover's robotic arm. Moreover, McCuistion says, a new snag was recently discovered: some of the premier instruments — the Sample Analysis at Mars or SAM instrument set — will suck twice as much power as was expected, and that means the rover needs to carry bigger batteries.


I'm assuming here that the "batteries" are the RTGs. not the L-I kind...is there sufficient P-238 unclaimed to supply larger batteries? as of early 2008, I read reports in the media that the unclaimed supply in the system was measurable counting on one hand (in kilograms). Or maybe they can find a clever way to shutdown systems to allow the SAM to run on the existing power supply.

Hopefully the latter is a viable solution. I doubt they can add kilograms of battery, without cutting weight from somewhere else...

Posted by: mcaplinger Jul 14 2009, 01:53 PM

QUOTE (dtolman @ Jul 14 2009, 06:25 AM) *
I'm assuming here that the "batteries" are the RTGs. not the L-I kind...I doubt they can add kilograms of battery, without cutting weight from somewhere else...

No, they are talking about the secondary batteries (I forget if they are using Li-ion or something else.) The RTG doesn't provide enough peak power to run the systems directly, so it has to be used to trickle-charge the batteries.

As for mass, I expect that they have enough mass margin to add batteries if there is no operational workaround. At least our cameras are coming in well under on both mass and power relative to predictions (not that we were very big either way.)

And for JPL bashers, note that SAM is provided by GSFC, not JPL.

Posted by: dtolman Jul 14 2009, 02:17 PM

mcaplinger - thanks for the clarification. It can get confusing trying to parse power supply issues when everything ends up getting called "a battery" in the media.

Also - if anyone is interested - there is related information in this presentation to the NASA Advisory Committee (courtesy naswatch/spaceref):
http://images.spaceref.com/news/2009/PSS.Jun.09.Mars.pdf

The slide of interest from the presentation:

QUOTE
• Rover power system design does not meet present mission requirements, requiring additional battery capacity, and possibly solar array
– Increased energy requirements to keep actuators above safe operating temperature
– Almost double energy requirement to operate/conduct SAM instrument science/sample analysis scenarios
• The SAM instrument has not completed its environmental qualification program, and the wide range
pump has not demonstrated life qualification (hours of operation and start/stop) requirements.


The bullets above make it sound more serious (at least to me), than the Nature summary. Does anyone have any idea if the problem is that they can't run the SAM with other operations running, or if they can't even draw enough power to run the SAM even by itself?

Posted by: mcaplinger Jul 14 2009, 02:26 PM

QUOTE (dtolman @ Jul 14 2009, 06:17 AM) *
Does anyone have any idea if the problem is that they can't run the SAM with other operations running, or if they can't even draw enough power to run the SAM even by itself?

Almost certainly the first one. These are total energy problems, not instantaneous power problems. As such there are most likely operational workarounds, though they may not be very attractive.

Posted by: Enceladus75 Jul 16 2009, 01:52 AM

I think MSL was just too big a leap, technology wise, from Sprirt and Oppy.

Cost and time overruns are a serious problem among NASA missions - and MSL is yet another prime example of this. sad.gif

Posted by: BrianL Jul 16 2009, 02:37 AM

I would say that Spirit and Oppy were a much bigger leap in technology from Sojourner, over a comparable time period, yet things seemed to work out just fine for them.

Posted by: dvandorn Jul 16 2009, 02:55 AM

Brian? Read "Roving Mars" by Steve Squyres sometime. The MERs came so close to cancellation so many times, it's almost a running joke.

Spirit and Oppy were once spoken of by Ed Weiler, who had the yea-or-nay vote on continuing with them, as things that "would look just great over at Air and Space." Unflown. Forever.

The MERs also got a major descope after the "final" design had been approved -- the Raman spectrometer was axed, something that Squyres has said all along is his greatest regret from the design and assembly phase.

So, no -- the MERs didn't have an easy path. It's almost miraculous that they even got launched. And their costs overran something fierce (I don't remember the original bid numbers vs. the eventual cost through the end of the primary mission, but it was something like a 60% to a 100% overrun.) Their development cycles were every bit as fraught with peril as MSL's has been, perhaps moreso.

-the other Doug

Posted by: mcaplinger Jul 16 2009, 03:42 AM

QUOTE (dvandorn @ Jul 15 2009, 07:55 PM) *
And [MER's] costs overran something fierce (I don't remember the original bid numbers vs. the eventual cost through the end of the primary mission, but it was something like a 60% to a 100% overrun.)

Relative to the original 2003 proposal, it was probably more like 3-4x. Even more relative to the original Athena proposal. Not that a final cost accounting for MER is easy to come by. That's why I can only sigh in frustration when someone suggests that flying copies of MER would be cheap and risk-free.

Posted by: nprev Jul 16 2009, 04:19 AM

To be fair (and not to stray OT), major projects of ANY sort very, very rarely stay within their original budgets. It's an endemic problem with a great number of underlying causes far beyond the scope of discussion on UMSF.

Posted by: dvandorn Jul 16 2009, 04:40 AM

Very true, Nick. Especially for revolutionary projects, like the MERs and like MSL.

It's a lot easier to plan a realistic budget for something that's basically been done before than to plan a budget for something that's *never* been done before. The latter tend to vastly underestimate the actual costs that will be incurred during the learning curve-induced episodes of redesign, rework, and retest. This is true of nearly every revolutionary project.

Evolutionary projects, like, say, the design and manufacture of the 737, tend to stay much more within their budgets since aircraft like that generally make use of tried-and-true technology and are being asked to meet performance standards that are very similar to their predecessors', in very well-understood environments. Now, had Boeing in the same timeframe decided to design the 737 as a passenger version of a flying wing (a la the B-2 bomber, et. al.), even if it used the same engines, avionics, etc. as a conventional aircraft, it would end up badly overrunning its budget and take considerably longer to deliver to market than the conventional 737 took.

-the other Doug

Posted by: MahFL Jul 16 2009, 12:45 PM

Often a low estimate is the only way to get a project running, everyone knows its going to cost more or take longer. Look at the Boeing Dreamliner, its way way behind the original schedule, also Airbus had major problems with the 380, just to be fair and balanced....... wheel.gif wheel.gif wheel.gif

Posted by: BrianL Jul 16 2009, 12:50 PM

I wasn't suggesting the MERs had an easy road. I just disagreed with the suggestion that MSL was too big a jump to take on. I wholeheartedly support pushing development to the limits and maybe a bit beyond. To just play it safe and stay near the status quo... well, to paraphrase an old axiom...

Those who repeat the past are doomed to regret it. biggrin.gif

Posted by: stevesliva Jul 16 2009, 03:29 PM

QUOTE (MahFL @ Jul 16 2009, 08:45 AM) *
Look at the Boeing Dreamliner, its way way behind the original schedule


In MSL's defense, at least they blamed actuators and not fasteners for the first big derailment.

Posted by: tedstryk Jul 16 2009, 06:50 PM

The problem is that MSL is so much larger in terms of cost in relation to the planetary exploration program. An 18% overrun for it is a lot more money than it would have been for the MERs (18 percent being randomly picked for an example). My real fear is that considering that the very real possibility that something could happen to it (anything from a launch failure to an EDL problem) could have dire consequences for the entire planetary program save perhaps the missions already in flight.

Posted by: climber Jul 16 2009, 07:10 PM

I agree Ted, but if the beast works, who knows what we'll discover? I've always basicaly the same fear/hope for every probe so I take it cool till things unfold.
Your remark could be a topic by itself to know how "we" at UMSF feel about this.

Posted by: SFJCody Jul 16 2009, 07:26 PM

I guess another reason MSL has to be such a big vehicle is that rovers can't get the 'faster better cheaper' treatment and be broken up into smaller separate missions as happened with the payload of the failed Mars Observer. You have to bring a whole suite of instruments if you want to get a complete picture of a particular locale.

Posted by: imipak Jul 16 2009, 08:49 PM

QUOTE (Kierkegaard @ 19th century)
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward."

QUOTE (Unknown saloon-bar sage)
"Hindsight is 20/20"


Although I'm curious about the fine details of exactly which components' power needs were underestimated, and why/how that happened, I'm entirely happy to wait a few years for the "Inside story of the stunning success of MSL!" books to appear to find out.

Posted by: centsworth_II Jul 16 2009, 08:55 PM

This is the kind of torturous process that leads to a machine that lives dozens of times past it's minimum requirement. (I hope.)

Posted by: mcaplinger Jul 17 2009, 01:59 AM

QUOTE (tedstryk @ Jul 16 2009, 10:50 AM) *
The problem is that MSL is so much larger in terms of cost in relation to the planetary exploration program.

You realize that MER cost over $1B, right? MSL is bigger, but only by about 2x.

(I've seen cost estimates for MER as low as $800M, but I don't think that's a fair accounting of various "slush fund" sources.)

Posted by: tedstryk Jul 17 2009, 03:28 AM

Right, but that means that x percent overrun is twice as much. When we are talking billions, that is significant. Nothing like an order of magnitude or something, but what I am saying is that a raw comparison of the percent overrun is a bit misleading if you don't factor in the difference in cost. Also, in the case of MER, the money funded two rovers, meaning that it was less susceptible to becoming a total loss due to rotten luck, such as a launch failure.

I agree that this will be a great mission if it succeeds. Fingers crossed.

Posted by: peter59 Jul 27 2009, 08:17 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8168954.stm
"In 2018, it is likely the entry, descent and landing (EDL) of Europe's rover would be handled by the Americans, using the "skycrane" system they have designed for their big 2013 rover known as Curiosity."

I hope that the date 2013 is a mistake in print.

Posted by: tedstryk Aug 20 2009, 05:45 PM

QUOTE (peter59 @ Jul 27 2009, 09:17 AM) *
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8168954.stm
"In 2018, it is likely the entry, descent and landing (EDL) of Europe's rover would be handled by the Americans, using the "skycrane" system they have designed for their big 2013 rover known as Curiosity."

I hope that the date 2013 is a mistake in print.


It probably isn't a misprint, but is likely a misinterpretation. The reporter probably saw it was due to launch in 2011 and that there was a two year delay, but missed that 2011 is the new date, not the original date.

Posted by: mcaplinger Oct 16 2009, 11:02 PM

Hadn't seen anyone discussing the MSL status report from last month -- http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/stories/PSDS%20Mars1%20Li-MSL.pdf -- as presented to the Mars panel of the decadal survey.

Posted by: James Sorenson Oct 17 2009, 01:34 AM

Ohhh Thanks for pointing that out!, I had not seen any pictures of the actual MastCam till now, looks very nice smile.gif.

Posted by: Oersted Oct 18 2009, 10:13 PM

Yes, thx so much for digging up this info, I avidly read any update on Curiosity. The excitement on launch and landing day will be excruciating.

Posted by: peter59 Oct 21 2009, 01:39 PM

More problems, greater costs. This is starting to look bad.
http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0910/20titanium/index.html

Posted by: MahFL Oct 21 2009, 08:20 PM

Ahh crap, how unlucky, lets hope things turn out ok.

Posted by: djellison Oct 22 2009, 07:15 AM

Given the litigious nature of US law and pending court cases of those involved, several posts that someone could consider potentially libellous have been culled.

Posted by: nprev Oct 22 2009, 07:25 AM

(sorry...we need a "deeply-embarrassed-'cause-I-shoulda-known-better" emoticon!)

Posted by: Holder of the Two Leashes Oct 22 2009, 02:11 PM

Guess I should've added a few "if"s and "allege"s to last night's post. I always have difficulty speaking lawyereze.

Posted by: djellison Oct 23 2009, 06:23 PM

As a guidance - if you have to prefix your post with "I hope this isn't sailing too close to the wind..." or " I hope this isn't over stepping the mark..."

Save us all the trouble, and just assume it IS.

AND AGAIN - more posts discussing the legal issues of the Titanium issue. Anyone who posts on the subject again will be suspended.

Posted by: climber Nov 18 2009, 11:06 PM

MSL Readiness to proceed review: http://nasawatch.com/archives/2009/11/msl-readiness-t.html

Posted by: Greg Hullender Nov 18 2009, 11:16 PM

QUOTE (climber @ Nov 18 2009, 03:06 PM) *
MSL Readiness to proceed review:


So they're supposed to decide (by November 20) whether:
- The project's revised technical baseline & implementation approach for the 2011 opportunity remains viable, and adequate plans exist for closure of open items;
- The project's technical and programmatic risks are understood, have been credibly assessed, and plans and adequate resources exist for managing these risks to levels that are acceptable;
- The current cost to go is credible, and the programmatic resources, including the schedule margin, scope margin, and budget reserve, are adequate to complete the project within constraints with acceptable risk; and
- The Project is prepared to restart ATLO operations in February 2010, or has adequate plans and resources to complete preparations

Not clear where/when they'll publish their conclusions, though.

--Greg

Posted by: elakdawalla Jun 12 2010, 02:00 AM

I split out some posts about delivery of components to a http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=6642 to be used for updates on Curiosity assembly and testing.

Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)