New Horizon Cameras |
New Horizon Cameras |
Guest_vjkane2000_* |
Apr 22 2005, 03:57 AM
Post
#1
|
Guests |
I've been wondering what the focal lengths are for the two New Horizon cameras (Ralph and Lorri). Curious to know how much Alan et al. were able to squeeze into their weight budget.
|
|
|
Sep 12 2005, 08:44 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1870 Joined: 20-February 05 Member No.: 174 |
Bob Shaw: "... but it doesn't change the fact that nowadays the problems are known yet dumb mistakes keep getting made. "
AMEN. I think it was a BAD mistake not to have a coarse focus adjustment on the deep impact camera. A big "Uh... I thought we knew about this..." problem... Stardust had a massive problem with condensate from outgassed crud fogging the optics. The earth-flyby image of the moon was 90% fog and 10% image.... massively blurred. Repeated heating of the camera to degass the optics got most of it, but I'm not at all sure they ever did get all of it and the Wildt comet flyby pics I think are somewhat degraded by it. NEAR's optics were significantly fogged by hydrazine byproducts during the loss-of-control event at the first arrival burn attempt that nearly lost the mission (not the camera's fault), and Cassini has had significant fogging problems between Jupiter and Saturn that I think still has some residual that makes it impossible to search for low brightness outgassing plumes at Enceladus. Fogged optics seem to be the other problem-of-the-decade, besides out of focus cameras. |
|
|
Sep 13 2005, 09:42 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
QUOTE (edstrick @ Sep 12 2005, 12:44 PM) Bob Shaw: "... but it doesn't change the fact that nowadays the problems are known yet dumb mistakes keep getting made. " AMEN. I think it was a BAD mistake not to have a coarse focus adjustment on the deep impact camera. I don't know all the details of the DI story, but I don't think you guys are being completely fair here. You might recall that in the "old days" cameras had all-metal structures and masses of over 50 kg. For example, the Cassini ISS mass is about 58 kg, fully 4x heavier than the MOC on MGS with its graphite-epoxy optical structure. But for that mass savings, you have to work with a much trickier material. To say that all of the problems are known at this point is not really accurate. You can usually assume that with optics, even mistakes that seem dumb with 20:20 hindsight are fairly subtle and hard to avoid once you appreciate all the details. As for focus adjustment; it may be nice to have, but it's heavy and complex and if it fails, you can easily be worse off than before. We studied this trade very carefully for MRO CTX and ended up with no focus adjustment, and we intend to do the same for our LRO instruments. The MOC has focus control heaters, by necessity, but they have only a fairly limited adjustment range. See Ravine, M. A., et al., Graphite-epoxy optical systems: lessons learned on the way to Mars, Proceedings of the SPIE, 5179, 311-322, 2003. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Sep 14 2005, 09:44 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Sep 13 2005, 10:42 PM) I don't know all the details of the DI story, but I don't think you guys are being completely fair here... I'm sure you're right (and closer to the subject matter, too!). But (and it's a big but) if graphite-epoxy structures have inherent problems, but are lighter, and metal structures are well-understood, but heavier, then that strikes me as being an excellent argument for 50Kg heavier spacecraft! The MSS kit has all worked well so far, and we all hope that it will continue to do so, but there's no virtue in weight loss if something then fails to perform - it's not as if there was a production line of interplanetary spacecraft and another could just be tweaked and slotted into the cycle for the next launch window! There *have* been some dumb mistakes, and I'm sure that some technological adventures have also - in hindsight - appeared less than sensible, although they seemed like good ideas at the time. And there have been some technological innovations which have been utter triumphs, too! The fact remains that what appear to be 'no-brainer' errors are bad for everybody, even if the root cause is subtle and unexpected and actually nobody's fault. The folk who fund (or try not to fund) our toys shouldn't be given any free ammunition with which to shoot 'em down, and words like 'out of focus' or 'basic errors in arithmetic' are way too easy for them to grab hold of. Those guys don't do subtle... -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2024 - 06:52 AM |
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. |