IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Pancam Filter Issues, Sol 673
sranderson
post Dec 18 2005, 04:46 PM
Post #16


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 11-May 05
From: Colorado USA
Member No.: 386



QUOTE (tty @ Dec 17 2005, 04:09 PM)
The bathtub curve really only applies to mechanical systems that can wear out, not to electronic components that tend to have rather constant failure rates. Of course there are lots of mechanical systems on the MER, and up to now they are the ones that have been showing signs of wear and incipient failure. Remember though that some vital electronic component can also fail at any time.

tty
*


Actually, in my experience over the past 20 years dealing with aging systems that are still in use but were built in the late 1960's through late 1980's, I have seen that even for electronics there is a right side wall to the bathtub curve.

I think that for most electronics systems the end-of-life increase in failures is not seen because the systems are usually discarded upon first failure.

The failure curve starts with initial infant mortality, followed by constant fairly low failure rates, and then a significant increase in failures (that at first appears random), with finally a rather catastrophic increase in failures caused by specific issues that affect large numbers of parts. These final failures are traced to things like internal bonding material failures, bimetallic formation leading to bond-wire and other connection failures, migrations of materials (flow), crystal growth, the formation and movement of conductive particulates, seal failures leading to leakage of electrolytes, epoxy degradation with age, shrinkage and hardening of soft goods (in connectors and shock mounts), etc. Most of these processes are greatly exacerbated by environmental extremes and low pressures.

So really what we see are materials and mechanical failures within the electronics components. I have seen the oddest things happen.

I have also become much more concerned about corrosion on Mars lately.

Scott
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mike
post Dec 18 2005, 08:17 PM
Post #17


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 350
Joined: 20-June 04
From: Portland, Oregon, U.S.A.
Member No.: 86



As my good friend Yogi Berra once said, "It ain't over til it's over."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Myran_*
post Dec 18 2005, 08:50 PM
Post #18





Guests






Nope it isnt over yet, theres more working cameras on the rover. We can still get to see more interesting things even though the perspective would be rather distorted in some cases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Dec 19 2005, 10:31 AM
Post #19


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14432
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



You've had to have a failure of 4 cameras to kill of the driveability of a rover, and even then you've had to kill of FHAZ as well to make it really really impossible.

Given that there's a lot of PC imaging scheduled, I think we can put this down to a brief glitch that they understand or perhaps was the result of a brain-fart in a pancam sequence. Funny images, and they'll make a nice entry into a Mars talk anyway smile.gif


Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marcel
post Dec 19 2005, 01:22 PM
Post #20


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 290
Joined: 26-March 04
From: Edam, The Netherlands
Member No.: 65



QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 19 2005, 10:31 AM)
or perhaps was the result of a brain-fart in a pancam sequence. 
Doug
*

Could this happen (acquisition of the image while the filterwheel is not positioned properly) simply because they sent up a faulty command sequence, or is there really something wrong ? I can imagine that there's a built in safety in the camera that makes sure the camera only snaps while wheel is in right place. Is there ? If yes....it obviously failed now !
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DEChengst
post Dec 19 2005, 05:27 PM
Post #21


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 270
Joined: 29-December 04
From: NLA0:
Member No.: 133



QUOTE (Marcel @ Dec 19 2005, 02:22 PM)
I can imagine that there's a built in safety in the camera that makes sure the camera only snaps while wheel is in right place.
*


Dunno. Most of also thought at first a MI sequence wouldn't run if the IDD deployment sequence would fail. A lot of people thought it was just a sequencing error at the day the first "MI in stowed position" images showed up, and that turned out to be a wrong assumption. I'm not placing any bets on this subject smile.gif


--------------------
PDP, VAX and Alpha fanatic ; HP-Compaq is the Satan! ; Let us pray daily while facing Maynard! ; Life starts at 150 km/h ;
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Edward Schmitz_*
post Dec 20 2005, 01:54 AM
Post #22





Guests






QUOTE (DEChengst @ Dec 19 2005, 10:27 AM)
Dunno. Most of also thought at first a MI sequence wouldn't run if the IDD deployment sequence would fail. A lot of people thought it was just a sequencing error at  the day the first "MI in stowed position" images showed up, and that turned out to be a wrong assumption. I'm not placing any bets on this subject smile.gif
*

I thought that too, about the MI sequences. I started to realize later that those were the first in a long sequence of images designed to diagnose the arm failure. I think they were looking for small movements of the arm.

They already knew the arm was stuck by the time we started wondering.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CosmicRocker
post Dec 20 2005, 05:54 AM
Post #23


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2228
Joined: 1-December 04
From: Marble Falls, Texas, USA
Member No.: 116



I'm encouraged by the fact that the filter wheel seems to be operating normally, now. But I think I am still in DEChengst's camp, or maybe it's SRAnderson's bathtub. ohmy.gif I'm not ready to place any bets yet.

This may have been a spurious event, but I'm pretty sure they didn't plan to do this.


--------------------
...Tom

I'm not a Space Fan, I'm a Space Exploration Enthusiast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tty
post Dec 20 2005, 11:23 AM
Post #24


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 688
Joined: 20-April 05
From: Sweden
Member No.: 273



QUOTE (sranderson @ Dec 18 2005, 06:46 PM)
Actually, in my experience over the past 20 years dealing with aging systems that are still in use but were built in the late 1960's through late 1980's, I have seen that even for electronics there is a right side wall to the bathtub curve. 

I think that for most electronics systems the end-of-life increase in failures is not seen because the systems are usually discarded upon first failure.

The failure curve starts with initial infant mortality, followed by constant fairly low failure rates, and then a significant increase in failures (that at first appears random), with finally a rather catastrophic increase in failures caused by specific issues that affect large numbers of parts.  These final failures are traced to things like internal bonding material failures, bimetallic formation leading to bond-wire and other connection failures, migrations of materials (flow), crystal growth, the formation and movement of conductive particulates, seal failures leading to leakage of electrolytes, epoxy degradation with age, shrinkage and hardening of soft goods (in connectors and shock mounts), etc.  Most of these processes are greatly exacerbated by environmental extremes and low pressures.

So really what we see are materials and mechanical failures within the electronics components.  I have seen the oddest things happen.

I have also become much more concerned about corrosion on Mars lately.

Scott
*


That does not fit well with my experience. We had quite a lot of 50’s and 60’s vintage avionics flying until quite recently (some still do) and while we have had a few issues about particular brands of insulation materials deteriorating, there have been no massive reliability problems.

In my experience aging electronics go out of service because:
a spares are no longer obtainable
b operating and maintaining them has become a lost art
c integrating digital and analog systems can be very difficult

Perhaps living up here in the cool and fairly dry north has something to do with it. One thing we have learned in recent years is that dehumidifiers, even if only used intermittently, dramatically improves the reliability of electronics (and almost everything else).

In this respect at least Mars should be a very favorable environment though that still leaves extreme temperature cycles, dust, low pressure and perhaps corrosive chemicals.

tty
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
odave
post Dec 20 2005, 01:06 PM
Post #25


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 510
Joined: 17-March 05
From: Southeast Michigan
Member No.: 209



If they are using a full encoder on the filter wheel, and the software counts pulses to know when a filter is in place, they could have fat-fingered the number of pulses to count in the rotation sequence. But I would imagine that there are some "fixed" subroutines to handle pulse counting for moves from filter to filter that would make it a no-brainer.

My ST-237 CCD camera uses a simpler system on its filter wheel. Each filter has a single dot beside it that a simple photo detector sees and the software keys off of when responding to commands. Sometimes it does miss and I get a few extra spins before it finds itself again. I haven't seen them get stuck in the middle, though.

Encoders are a robust technology, we've got thousands of robots out there that have been running for many years with few encoder failures - admittedly they're not running in such a harsh environment.

I suspect a sequencing error too...


--------------------
--O'Dave
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
sranderson
post Dec 21 2005, 05:23 AM
Post #26


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 71
Joined: 11-May 05
From: Colorado USA
Member No.: 386



QUOTE (tty @ Dec 20 2005, 05:23 AM)
That does not fit well with my experience. We had quite a lot of 50’s and 60’s vintage avionics flying until quite recently (some still do) and while we have had a few issues about particular brands of insulation materials deteriorating, there have been no massive reliability problems.

In my experience aging electronics go out of service because:
a spares are no longer obtainable
b operating and maintaining them has become a lost art
c integrating digital and analog systems can be very difficult

Perhaps living up here in the cool and fairly dry north has something to do with it. One thing we have learned in recent years is that dehumidifiers, even if only used intermittently, dramatically improves the reliability of electronics (and almost everything else).

In this respect at least Mars should be a very favorable environment though that still leaves extreme temperature cycles, dust, low pressure and perhaps corrosive chemicals.

tty
*


Hmm....your post sure brought back some memories of meetings where there were heated discussions of whether the problems we were seeing were indicative of ageing or were caused by handling/environments.

Your "b" above is particularly true when you combine it with the fact that young engineers out of college don't want to do patch-up redesign on 40-year-old systems. What finally forced retirement of the system I'm talking about was a microscopic corrosion issue (which was caused by humidity outgassing from materials inside sealed boxes), along with your "b."

As far as the rovers go (after looking at some old briefing charts that I dug up), I think you have convinced me that it is unlikely that we will see any increase in electronics failures during their useful lifetime -- at least for those electronics that are protected in the WEB.

But a random failure could still happen at any time.

Scott
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CosmicRocker
post Dec 21 2005, 05:28 AM
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2228
Joined: 1-December 04
From: Marble Falls, Texas, USA
Member No.: 116



QUOTE (sranderson @ Dec 18 2005, 10:46 AM)
...
I have also become much more concerned about corrosion on Mars lately.

Scott
*

One might suspect that, but we haven't seen any signs of corrosion on any of the imageable parts of the rover so far, have we?


--------------------
...Tom

I'm not a Space Fan, I'm a Space Exploration Enthusiast.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jan 16 2006, 06:05 PM
Post #28


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14432
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Dragging up an old thread, but I've spoken to Jim Bell about this and the root cause was that the filter wheel wasnt heated enough. It was an early morning sequence, and the thermal system engineers did not think that the wheel would be as cold as it was, so they didnt use the heater. It turned out that it was JUST a little bit too cold and so there was some 'stiction'. The right filter wheel doesnt stick until a tiny bit colder than the left wheel, and just by chance, the temperature at the time was between the two.

No harm done, and the wheel has been fine ever since, they've just adjusted the thermal models and reshot the sequence later.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Airbag
post Jan 16 2006, 07:12 PM
Post #29


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 408
Joined: 3-August 05
Member No.: 453



Thanks for following up on that issue Doug; good to know it was just a procedural issue after all.

Airbag
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th May 2024 - 06:55 PM
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.