MSL development & assembly, Until it's shipped to the Cape |
MSL development & assembly, Until it's shipped to the Cape |
Mar 29 2010, 08:11 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2922 Joined: 14-February 06 From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France) Member No.: 682 |
In case you missed it there's 9 minutes on MSL (actual hardware visible) + 5 minutes with Dr Elachi on "This week in Space" there: http://www.spaceflightnow.com/
14 minutes out of 23 regarding Unmanned, not bad. -------------------- |
|
|
Jul 29 2010, 11:17 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 29-August 06 From: Columbia, MD Member No.: 1083 |
I admire their confidence. I hope it's warranted. I have no technical expertise to cast doubt on it.
If I were in their shoes, I'd have to be supremely confident to set my mission baseline at sampling so many targets. I'd rather aim lower, particularly with a never-flown before instrument and then have it overperform. Same way the MERs were only baselined for 600m and 3 months. Steve Squyres himself said in his book he thought they'd be able to go longer, but didn't want to oversell. MOLA is not in the same class as ChemCam. MOLA had a much higher TRL when it flew with a long heritage. Although LIBS technology is well established, it has never flown in space before. |
|
|
Jul 29 2010, 11:42 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3652 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
I'd rather aim lower, particularly with a never-flown before instrument and then have it overperform. The point is, what makes you think they aren't being conservative in their estimates? QUOTE I have no technical expertise to cast doubt on it. So why do it in the first place, then? -------------------- |
|
|
Jul 30 2010, 12:21 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 29-August 06 From: Columbia, MD Member No.: 1083 |
The point is, what makes you think they aren't being conservative in their estimates? Maybe they are. Each target obviously takes time to identify, prepare the system, fire, analyze the results, possibly fire again (the first firing might be to remove dust), analyze again, and then move in closer for APXS or other instrument analysis. Some targeting apparently will be autonomous. Only so many hours in a day though. QUOTE So why do it in the first place, then? To make conversation. I want to see if someone knows better. If no one does, we can have the conversation. |
|
|
Jul 30 2010, 12:25 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14448 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Maybe they are. Each target obviously takes time to identify, prepare the system, fire, analyze the results, possibly fire again (the first firing might be to remove dust), analyze again, and then move in closer for APXS or other instrument analysis. Why are you assuming they'll move in and APXS every ChemCam target? |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 10:51 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE 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. |