A post about a whole different subject has been culled. That's not what UMSF is about, for, or going to allow.

Doug

And Victoria crater

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/doug_im...ria_dem_480.mov

3.8 meg.

Enjoy.



D

Still not getting your point. We're no where near the end of the discussion as to what ESA and NASA might not fly. You're making an assumption about flying X and then finding funding to also get onboard Y. As yet - we don't know if X or Y will fly, or who will contribute, in what way, to which. There are far too many unknowns and options to establish what may or may not happen.

And remember - you're not going to have 'substantial contributions' from one space agency to another. You can have instruments going across, maybe a very large sub system ( HGA on Cassini for example ) but that's it.

Doug

I've had a hard time trying to do justice to these data sets, the Columbia Hills and the Victoria Crater HiRISE Dem's.

Here's my effort for the Columbia Hills
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/doug_im...bia_dem_480.mov
(4.8 meg)

Victoria Crater (with added 'rover') tomorrow

I was going to have two using Home Plate like a skate park, but I'm crap at animating


Doug

Just a bit of fun, if all else fails

There is an accelerometer that will tell the rover its own orientation - but even if there were code for 'if tilt > x degrees, don't use IDD' - firstly, we've seen the IDD used on slopes like this - and worse. Secondly, the IDD started to deploy, then stuck at an off-nominal point, and thirdly, any such safety code would get culled when trying to deploy for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th time etc.

Doug

That's what happened when the first winding died....followed by 3 months of not moving.

Arhgh.

Yup - I started it 8 days old

Again - you're talking as if ESA's going to write a big fat cheque to NASA. That's not how it can work - politically, that's an unacceptable thing to do. You do things like 'we'll do the launch vehicle, if we can have two instruments onboard' or 'you do the orbiter, we'll do the lander' but not ' here's a billion dollars, can we have in please?'

Doug

Given that one can not go back in time - when would be the appropriate time to 'backtrack' and look at them?

Doug

Unfortunately, it's very VERY hard to do international colab at any level other than the hard-cut offs ( i.e. Cassini / Hugyens ) or the instrument level ( although look at the Phoenix MET for how hard that's been). The transferring of pure cash is not a wise move in terms of public opinion.

Other than contributing whole spacecraft, or just instruments - I'm not sure what you're suggesting Stephen.

No.

It's fly in, fly out, at high speed, and balancing range for time and coverage.

Doug

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstre...5/1/07-3234.pdf

Awesome WHR graph for Opportunity in there - including the dust storm drop. Before the storm, the previous low for Opportunity had been about 350 on sol 850ish - and the storm took it to 120.whrs.

D

Actually - it's not as bad as I thought.

My understanding is that the rocker ( the front wheel, thru the diff, to the bogie pivot ) can rotate + / - 20 degrees. The bogie ( the rear two wheels ) can rotate + / -30 degrees. And yes - if they both go max in the same direction, the rear wheel will contact the bottom of a solar array.

BUT - on the upside - I don't think pulling a wheely like we are is as bad as all that after all. Probably about half-buried wheel.

Attached - a low fidelity sim of the RHAZ having a look, the side view of the max bogie tilt, and a movie that shows, I think, the full suspension extent.

Doug

Not front left. Middle right.

Doug

****

I'll get the low res MER model out when I get home and see what you have to do to the rocker bogie to make that happen. It's more motion than the height of the whole wheel imho.

Doug

And using the Victoria one to simulate shadowing with the sun high in the sky, and as low in the sky as it gets ( 63ish degrees )

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00001395/

D

http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ost&p=81794



My sims are unarguably too sharp - but they do represent the right sort of size object. For those easily confused - they're only sending one...not six to land in a circle (I had to say that about the mock version of the MPF presidential pan that has about a dozen sojourners on it once )

D

The middle wheel digging in will do that quite easily.

Doug

That'll be the usual El Dorado monitoring scheme.

Doug

Still figuring out the best way to explore and display these dems - especially the Colubia Hills.

Meanwhile - a revisit of an idea I had some years ago using a MOC dem. This is the 'power goodness' display - lit from the north in green, the south in red. A wider angle, and a close angle.

Nooo - what it needs is the handheld camera affect ( which doesn't work on the big screen, at all, without nausea kicking in ) - and then you never really show them Armstrong - just his leg, or his arm. Meanwhile you wish every other cast member would get into the LLTV and kill themselves. Call it 'Lunar Roverfield' or something.

Doug

Now that is very very cool.

I would say this is a reasonable starting point - http://www.mps.mpg.de/images/projekte/phoe...oenix08_xxl.jpg - it is very out of date I think - but the usual round of mission press con, and then science press con can not be too far away, and updated press pdf's will get released about then, and probably an updated landing time.

The attached is a bit more up to date.

Doug

If you want to have a slap fight about education - do so elsewhere.

D