As self assigned homework for certifying as an ECAM PUL on MSL ( and soon, hopefully, MER ) I actually read Space System Failures. Damn - so many lessons for the entire industry there.

Further to that - there are some special cases. CRISM on MRO has a single axis gimbal, as does CaSSIS on ExoMars

This and that :-)

Ooo - later missions that did Standup EVAs might be good for this!

Doug

If you look super close at the raw image page - you'll find some old sols got new data added. That would also be indicative of run-out activities - just down-linking what's in flash, without acquiring anything new.

Yeah - structure from motion can struggle with flat mechanical parts - I tried a couple of years ago with the refurbished Ranger bus being worked at the California Science Center ( https://sketchfab.com/models/cae6c1b3d25349...59bc6af98f95e51 ) and the effort was barely worth it. I'd like to try with your photos - but the links to your albums earlier in this thread appear to have died.

As someone who has dabbled in various 3D platforms for some time - including SketchUp - I genuinely doff my cap to you - this is incredible work, Tom.

Have you considered using Structure from Motion (i.e. ingesting a LOT of photos into something like AgiSoft Photoscan) - as way of getting reference photos into a 3d digital domain? Happy to help with that if it could be useful.

Yup - you can set tilt limits (that would get triggered early off a cliff) - every drive gets those. If AutoNav is on, it would see something like that as a hazard and stop - depending on what parameters you gave it.

I think this was simply a blind drive to the edge of the previous NavCam mesh though. That's what usually gets you the most bang per buck (meters per Whr)

D

Yeah...what's now called Clipper was known as Clipper really from the outset....we even called it that when I added it to Eyes on the Solar System. Then from on high it was decided it just be called 'The Europa Mission' and we all tried to remember NOT to call it Clipper, Now....it's Clipper again.

It's possible the batteries could last 15,000 sols before really degrading.

Who knew it could go full circle. Even when I started working at JPL 7 years ago, the idea of working in surface ops didn't even enter my mind. It was only last summer when people like Paolo suggested it that it became a possibility. Certified as an ECAM Uplink Lead on MSL just before Christmas, and Wednesday was my first training shift on MER for the same role ( plus MI duty! ) . It'll be a month or two before I'm certified on MER as well - but I can't wait to start contributing meaningfully to a mission that in every possible way - absolutely changed my life.

Paolo, Keri, Mike, Kim, Hallie, Fred, Scott...... I just hope I can make you proud

FWIW - a sample return canister launched from Mars would almost certainly be an order of magnitude smaller than that.

It did. Not uncertainty in the pointing, exactly - but uncertainty in the location of Pluto along the track of the spacecraft.

If you don't Livestream, do you YouTube?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G9LudkLWOY

What are you using to do the SFS?

I've not heard that. Would it be 'cool'. Yes. Is it scientifically meritorious? No. Far better to transect the lower strata at multiple locations.

Went a bit nuts on the Sol 1100 mosaic - just the Mt Sharp part.

I've not been a member of the UMSF admin team for some years.

I know. Those are the models I submitted to that repository to try and 'drown out' the unprintable stuff with printable stuff. It's all I could do in short order.

FWIW - the artists responsible for many of the models that someone made it into the 'printable ' category ( wrongly ) now has a 3D printer and is working on figuring out how to try and make as many of them as possible printable.

Just to repeat - the Cassini and Juno you're talking about were never, ever designed to be 3D printed.

So I don't yet have a printer of my own (I have a Cobblebot kit in a box - but it's unlikely to come together as a great printer... and a Micro3d printer on the way) but I've played with a few at work (Tinkererine...great. Makerbot...awful. Flashforge Dreamer...great with PLA..tricky with ABS)

A MASSIVE word of caution about the models here : http://nasa3d.arc.nasa.gov/models/printable

Cassini, Dawn, Juno, Kepler, LRO, MESSENGER, MRO, Pioneer, Rosetta, Stardust, TDRS and Voyager...they're very very NOT printable. The Eyes on the Solar System team ( I used to be a member of ) supplied them to the 3D model repository as Blender files for use as an animation asset for people to play with. Sadly a year later the people behind that website went "File...Export STL" and called them printable. They're just not.

When that happen I tried to 'drown' them out with these : http://nasa3d.arc.nasa.gov/search/ellison/3dprint : that I know are printable ( as I've printed them all on a Tinkerine or Makerbot at work )

It's still not going to be as good as the best ground based observatories and assets like Hubble. This issue has been done to death.

You say zero thrust - then talk about an RTG powered Dawn Thruster.

Dawn's thrusters require approx 10x the output of a typical RTG. Also - assuming you could apply every ounce of Delta V that Dawn has generated and apply it to a Hubble sized payload, the total Delta-V it would impart would drop from approx 10km/sec to 1.4 or so.

Exploring the Earth-Moon region with little Delta-V is easy. It's been done time and again. That Scientific American article is somewhat disingenuous to talk about the '300 million miles' that Genesis traveled....when it actually just went to L1 and back, via L2... in an geocentric frame, a few million miles, not hundreds of millions. It also negates the fact that getting from LEO to L1 requires >3.5km/sec in the first place.

Getting out to Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and beyond....I see no reference to the zero Delta-V trajectories in either of the papers you cite.

I'd be delighted to see a realistic trajectory that gets 11 tons from LEO or even L1 to Mars, Jupiter and beyond with zero delta V in a time frame realistic for the lifetime of a spacecraft. Say, 10-20 years.

Indeed. The examples I cited ( MRO, Cassini, Galileo, MESSENGER, Uranus orbiter ) almost all end in exceptionally eccentric orbits - they are pretty much the minimum delta V you could possibly use whilst remaining gravitationally bound to the spacecraft. MESSENGER wasn't hugely excentric - but far from circular. It's already highly energy intensive to get into ANY orbit - let alone a circular one.

in the case of Cassini and Galileo, multiple gravity assists from moons were used to manipulate the orbit thereafter.

In the case of MRO - it's aerobraking that makes up the difference.


The spare NRO hardware equates to enough hardware for one telescope. It's to be used as the basis for the proposed WFIRST mission. Getting a spacecraft that massive ( >11 tons ) into some sort of orbital tour of Mars, asteroids and the outer solar system would require extraordinary amounts of Delta V that would pretty much require next gen solar-electric prop ( which obviously isn't going to work beyond Jovian like distances )

Yes - obviously.




The part you're missing is that by the time you are at that point, the spacecraft has been falling thru the planets gravity well to a speed greater than that of the orbital velocity you want, and so you're doing a flyby.

Not to put too fine a point on it - but if orbital capture were this easy.....everyone would be doing it. Galileo's orbit insertion was 630m/sec - Cassini's was 626m/sec - MESSENGER, after putting itself thru many gravity assists still needed 800m/sec+ for it's orbit insertion burn. A Uranus orbiter is expected to need around 800m/sec. Mars orbiters often have burn of 1 km/sec to go into orbit.

Another way of thinking of the problem..... say you are in an orbit with a Perihelion of 1AU and Aphelion of, say, Saturn orbit. When you are aphelion, you are travelling significantly slower than Saturn. Assuming you time it right and you arrive at that point as Saturn does - Saturn is now catching you up - so when you enter it's gravity well you are now falling towards Saturn...thus, in the solar frame of reference...you're slowing down. Your orbit around the sun is now LESS Saturn like than when you arrived.

Legitimately, the way KSC have displayed Atlantis is superb. The reveal is beautifully done - I cried like a baby.