InSight mission |
InSight mission |
Jan 7 2012, 08:29 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
the GEMS Discovery finalist has been renamed InSight and now has its own website: http://insight.jpl.nasa.gov/
|
|
|
Jan 10 2012, 02:44 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 318 Joined: 1-October 06 Member No.: 1206 |
QUOTE Too bad a pair of DS2 seismographs couldn't be dropped off the deck as is falls Exactly what I was thinking! Its too bad that penetrator technology seems to have gone nowhere since then, and Im not just talking about for Mars. Still, here we all are musing about bolting stuff onto a Discovery class proposal, stuff that wouldnt make it a Discovery class proposal any more. That cap is why I love TiME so much, assuming they CAN actually fly the thing under the cap... P |
|
|
Jan 10 2012, 03:34 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: 15-August 07 From: Shrewsbury, Shropshire Member No.: 3233 |
I assume that there is a mission assumption is that the solar panels will continue to suppy power for much more than 90 days. I understand that the Pathfinder lander only lasted 90 days because of a complete lack of cleaning winds. The question that I want to ask is how common are cleaning winds on Mars? Perhaps the only safe landing site for the InSight mission is the Opportunity landing elipse? At least there cleaning winds are guaranteed.
I also wonder how much of its potential payload mass this mission is using? Would it really cost anything for the odd Phoenix instrument to be reflown? I would like to see Lidar reflown to a landing site where it could operate for longer than a very limited 150 days. Obviously the most important missing instrument is a camera to scan the horizon. Would a pair of black and white Navcams cost much to fly? I guess that Navcams are two a penny given the number of spare Navcams that are flying on MSL. |
|
|
Jan 10 2012, 03:42 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14449 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
. I understand that the Pathfinder lander only lasted 90 days because of a complete lack of cleaning winds. No- the battery died. It was a silver-zinc battery, and couldn't withstand the manifold charging cycles that more recent technologies can. Estimate were between 30 and 100 recharges would be the end of it. It lasted 83 sols (not 90) Thereafter, the lander couldn't keep itself warm at night, and presumed failures of other components quickly followed. The Level 1 requirement was a month. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 10th November 2024 - 05:51 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. |