IPB
X   Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

462 Pages V  « < 286 287 288 289 290 > » 

djellison
Posted on: Jul 9 2006, 04:39 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


QUOTE (Jeff7 @ Jul 9 2006, 03:06 PM) *
If the crust breaks, move on..


And if the arm breaks?

Better to do as they do - set tight slip-check constraints.

Doug
  Forum: Opportunity · Post Preview: #61213 · Replies: 1472 · Views: 708408

djellison
Posted on: Jul 8 2006, 06:06 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Excellent WVS from the simulated tile repair tests right up on P1 - they get quite a lot of motion from the OBSS flexing...but it's certainly a workable solution should the need arise.

Doug
  Forum: Manned Spaceflight · Post Preview: #61148 · Replies: 174 · Views: 120962

djellison
Posted on: Jul 8 2006, 08:43 AM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Even Squyres is on record as saying that it takes the rover a day to do what it takes a person 30 seconds, and that the total Spirit expedition ( to around the summit time ) was little more than a weekends work for a geologist smile.gif

The whole argument is moot. We currently have rovers. We do not have the option for people. We have rovers that were supposed to cost around $4M per sol and cover about 600m and have ended up being less than $500K per sol and cover 10x that range. Can't argue with that. In terms of value for money, it's hard to imagine any way of beating that, wheel tracks, footprints or otherwise.

Doug
  Forum: Opportunity · Post Preview: #61124 · Replies: 1472 · Views: 708408

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 06:33 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Val Mer would be OK - it was after all one of the candidate MER sites - but Oly Mons is actually quite a boring place. The dome itself is only a few degrees of slope, for several hundred miles. You couldn't target near the Caldera really - which WOULD be interesting, and the end of the dome is a cliff, which again you couldn't target for smile.gif Hartmann writes about it very well in the totally fantastic 'Explorers Guide to Mars'

Doug
  Forum: Past and Future · Post Preview: #61078 · Replies: 64 · Views: 67635

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 05:51 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


MER EDL wouldn't work at the altitiude of Oly Mons

Doug
  Forum: Past and Future · Post Preview: #61074 · Replies: 64 · Views: 67635

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 04:41 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


I think you have to be sensible. You land - do science with whatever you're presented with, and then head off for your chosen target reserving the bulk of your expendable resources for that.

They SORT of did that with Spirit...Adirondak, Humphrey, Mazatsal, Route 66, and then no RAT work until Pot-of-Gold ( I think ), and then Clovis.

Doug
  Forum: Mars · Post Preview: #61064 · Replies: 18 · Views: 16994

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 02:54 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Can't quite remember....there are graphs around that highlight the details.

Doug
  Forum: Spirit · Post Preview: #61045 · Replies: 603 · Views: 379892

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 02:49 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


You'll see quite a lot of it in Steves book (When are you doing yours Rob?..don't tell me you hadn't thought of it wink.gif ) but it wasnt really very public at the time. Airbags and chutes, yes...the deep inner stuff, not really.

Doug
  Forum: Tech, General and Imagery · Post Preview: #61043 · Replies: 23 · Views: 26445

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 01:31 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Jul 4 2006, 10:38 PM) *
I have to take exception to one thing that Jim said, about the Pancam field of view. It isn't necessarily as simple as taking the IFOV and multiplying it by the number of pixels, because most optical systems with fields of view more than a few degrees have optical distortions that cause the IFOV to vary slightly from the center to the edge of the field. I'm not sure if the Pancams have appreciable distortion, but the Navcams certainly do.


From JB

QUOTE
In case anyone wants to know them, the similar IFOV numbers for the Navcam is 0.82 mrad/pixel, and for the Hazcam is 2.1 mrad/pixel.
This is ultimately the origin of statements like "Pancam has 3 times the resolution of the Navcams", etc. For reference, the MI gives 0.42 mrad/pixel, MPF IMP had 0.99 mrad/pixel and the Sojourner rover had 3.1 mrad/pixel, and the Viking Lander cameras had two modes that gave 0.70 and 2.1 mrad/pixel. These numbers are referenced and derived for the MER engineering cameras in a paper Justin Maki et al. wrote in JGR, vol 108, No. E12, pages 12-1 to 12-24, 2003.

Determining the total size of the field of view for these other cameras is not as simple as it is for Pancam, however. That's because most wider-field camera systems have appreciable geometric distortion. So you can't just take Navcam's 0.82 mrad and multiply by 1024 and convert to degrees. That will get you close, but not spot on, and the calculation is even worse for the Hazcams, which have an enormous amount of distortion. The details of those cameras' fields of view can be found in Justin's paper--which I hope is posted online somewhere for folks to access, but I am not sure. The reason that the simple "multiply 0.273 by 1024" equation works for Pancam is simply because there is *no* geometric distortion in the optical system. We tried hard to measure it so we could characterize and correct for it, if needed, but as we wrote in our 2003 JGR paper we couldn't detect *any* distortion down to a residual of 0.01% or so across the field--even in the corners. The Cooke triplet lenses, designed by optics guru Greg Smith (see Chapter 31 of Greg's book at http://www.zemax.com/kb/articles/103/1/The...r-Camera-Lenses
, http://www.mwoa.org/Ch31.pdf , and
http://bookstore.spie.org/index.cfm?fuseac...roductid=660181
for details), are just absolutely spectacular--as you can tell.


wink.gif

Doug
  Forum: Forum News · Post Preview: #61030 · Replies: 18 · Views: 37194

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 12:48 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


L8 ( and R8 ) are Solar filters - and those images are taken for two reasons
http://www.ominous-valve.com/pancam.html


1) To locate the sun, so they can use onboard maths to locate the Earth

2) To measure the sky opacity - how dirty the air is

Doug
  Forum: Spirit · Post Preview: #61025 · Replies: 603 · Views: 379892

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 12:00 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


There is Giotto stuff at the PSA, but because it's stuck behind this Java interface it's awkward and clunky to actually get (best ever mission data delivery is Deep Impact and Stardust via the small body PDS node. Zip's of data day by day...perfect )

However, once youv'e drawn digital blood in getting there, there does seem to be 2000ish Giotto Halley Multicolour Camera images - concluding with data that I recognise as the fairly often seen close appr. imagery

Doug
  Forum: Mars Express & Beagle 2 · Post Preview: #61019 · Replies: 12 · Views: 13599

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 07:23 AM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Huygens, Smart 1, hell...ENVISAT...data should be going online for all of these...and frankly, should have done so some time ago.

Doug
  Forum: Mars Express & Beagle 2 · Post Preview: #61003 · Replies: 12 · Views: 13599

djellison
Posted on: Jul 7 2006, 07:21 AM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


I don't think these are DD related to be honest - just the wind whipping in and then out of VC.

Doug
  Forum: Opportunity · Post Preview: #61002 · Replies: 778 · Views: 415006

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 09:42 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


I can see where you are coming from.

Science Comittee's should outline the priority science, the order of how they'd like things to be investigated.

Engineers should then examine that, and propose a series of missions to do those investigations

Then politicians given them 10th as much money as any of it needs. wink.gif

BUT - Are the engineers going to be guilty of designing the things they WANT to design instead of the 'best' (be that quickest, cheapest or whatever ) way to go and do those investigations. That's the ever-present tensions - engineers and scientists, questions and answers, ying and yang blah blah blah

I think MER has produced an orgy or people wanting to reuse the platform, but even Squyres admits that it's not ideal. There's a certain fondness for the platform, a belief that because two of them have worked, that if you sent two more you would get another 2 x 800+ sols of exploration.

I think two of everything makes sense, historically it's made sense as well. Viking, Voyager, Mariner, Viking, MER. I'm dissapointed that NH2 was not selected, and I'd have thought that an MSL2 would have made quite a lot of sense as well....but as ever, the money just isn't there.

There are situation when many copies of a vehicle make sense. Comms sats, weather sats, and obviously something like a netlander mission would justify many copies of the same probe...ditto impactors etc.

But more MER's, 5,6 years after they started building the first two, wouldn't make as much sense as say, investing the same cash in doing 2 MSL's.

The current problem I guess is that we have a load of questions, but don't really know where to go to get the answers.

Doug
  Forum: Past and Future · Post Preview: #60978 · Replies: 15 · Views: 20063

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 07:43 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Come on then MC - what would you like to see flown smile.gif

Doug
  Forum: Past and Future · Post Preview: #60963 · Replies: 15 · Views: 20063

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 02:54 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Well - to be fair - your subject is a bit of gun-jumping. This report has suggested they SHOULD revise it....it's up to NASA to see if they take the advice and make those changes smile.gif

Doug
  Forum: Past and Future · Post Preview: #60932 · Replies: 15 · Views: 20063

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 02:51 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


The wings are to blame for much fo the Shuttles problems...and I know it's irrational and silly and pointless romanticising of what should be a clean, clinical analysis of the vehicle.......but I think it looks cool smile.gif


(He said - watching it dock to the ISS)

Doug
  Forum: Manned Spaceflight · Post Preview: #60930 · Replies: 174 · Views: 120962

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 02:45 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Well heck - it's different to the one on the BBQ pic smile.gif

Doug
  Forum: Chit Chat · Post Preview: #60929 · Replies: 102 · Views: 82797

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 01:29 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


I know it's expensive, dangerous, wastefull, inefficient, etc etc...

But DAMN it looks spectacular from that ISS shot that was on NTV just then. I'm looking forward to the CEV and whatever may come in the future, but I don't think it will ever look as stunning as a Shuttle as seen rushing across the planet below.

Doug
  Forum: Manned Spaceflight · Post Preview: #60920 · Replies: 174 · Views: 120962

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 11:49 AM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Mars Network for me please smile.gif I'd suggest 120kg landers ( so double the size/mass of Beagle ), approx 3-5 of them with a parental Orbiter designed to act as relay in a higher Mars orbit ( several thousand km ). BUT... .Mars is out of the scope of New Front, Flagship, and Discovery.


SO....

Discovery Class:
Contour 2

New Frontiers:
Venus Balloon that dips to and from the surface for sample collection, imaging, then going higher for relay and cool-off.

Flagship
Europa mission. Distant Jupiter orbit with high powered imager for mapping of all Gallileans, then multiple Europan flybys for very high resolution imaging, some form of radar/sounding instrument, and impacting microprobes.



Doug
  Forum: Past and Future · Post Preview: #60910 · Replies: 64 · Views: 67635

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 11:47 AM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Well - I would put Exomars on a similar footage to that of MER in terms of daily range and driveability.

MSL, perhaps double the MER ability.

The old Lunokhods would do it in 10 minutes probably - as they were driven my humans sat on the earth....which is obviously not possible with Mars.

Doug
  Forum: Mars · Post Preview: #60908 · Replies: 18 · Views: 16994

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 09:21 AM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


That's dust and other crud on the optics/ccd etc. They get pulled out ( mostly ) via calibration etc - but the raw JPG's can often really really show them well because they might be looking at a low contrast object and then get very heavily stretched.

Doug
  Forum: Cassini general discussion and science results · Post Preview: #60897 · Replies: 48 · Views: 57878

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 07:42 AM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


QUOTE (CosmicRocker @ Jul 6 2006, 06:42 AM) *
I couldn't find a mention elsewhere (other than her blog) that Doug has taken on a week-long stint as a pinch hitter on Emily's TPS blog. I look forward to that.


Yup - huge privelage, and even more so given the company I've just found I'll be keeping. Jim and I had a chat about it before the last PCU and we're both excited, but nervous.

The plan is for me to blog from here - http://www.iac2006.com - I'm just waiting for press accreditation to come through!

Looking at the list, I'm quite looking forward to reading what my fellow gloggers ( guest bloggers ) have to say, but like when you have a long holiday..you enjoyed being away..but it's nice to get home so I'll be looking forward to 'THE RETURN' at the end of October as well biggrin.gif

Doug
  Forum: Chit Chat · Post Preview: #60887 · Replies: 102 · Views: 82797

djellison
Posted on: Jul 6 2006, 07:36 AM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


I'd imagine that the Navcam sequence comes straight out the book and is the same for every drive - whereas the Pancam sequence is usually customised a little more closely for direction etc - and is dependant on data and power budgets for the day

Doug
  Forum: Opportunity · Post Preview: #60886 · Replies: 1472 · Views: 708408

djellison
Posted on: Jul 5 2006, 10:37 PM


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14457
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1


Well - most of these are just me wanting to shout at the HRSC scientists....but some might be appropriate. You have a knack of wording things somewhat more appropriately than I biggrin.gif

- Can we not just have an FTP server of the data like the PDS so one can just go and grab it instead of ploughing through an awkward JAVA interface that's buggy as hell ( I can see where they're going, but it's currently dreadfull to use, the map method being utterly broken)

- For the love of god zip up the .img's...They could save 50% + of their bandwidth if they had .gz versions of the files...some are >200mb...they're nuts not to do so.

- We need more supporting processing information. The MER Workbook is a haven of large, detailed PDF's telling us exactly how to read the data, specifics regarding IMG headers etc...we need this information for ESA instrumentation as well.

- Map projected HRSC images of the R, G, B, IR and ND channels are available, but not the stereo channels. Any reason?

and this one's actually paraphrased from one I spotted from JB in the first MSL landing meeting write up...
Are the HRSC Dem's going to make it into the public domain? If not...why not. Seems like a fairly fundamental data set from a High Resolution Stereo Camera ph34r.gif

Hope it's a constuctive chat!

Doug
  Forum: Mars Express & Beagle 2 · Post Preview: #60859 · Replies: 12 · Views: 13599

462 Pages V  « < 286 287 288 289 290 > » 

New Posts  New Replies
No New Posts  No New Replies
Hot topic  Hot Topic (New)
No new  Hot Topic (No New)
Poll  Poll (New)
No new votes  Poll (No New)
Closed  Locked Topic
Moved  Moved Topic
 

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 17th December 2024 - 07:22 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.