InSight Surface Operations, 26 Nov 2018- 21 Dec 2022 |
InSight Surface Operations, 26 Nov 2018- 21 Dec 2022 |
Nov 26 2018, 08:20 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8785 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Congratulations to the InSight team on a successful landing! We'll discuss the remainder of the mission here.
-------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
May 4 2019, 06:09 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 4256 Joined: 17-January 05 Member No.: 152 |
Thanks for that reference. I can imagine that a matrix to sRGB would have to work hard to discriminate some colours. Still, the test chart images (Fig 8) seem to show that the sRGB conversion works well. Maybe being in a high S/N lab situation helps.
This makes me wonder what has been done to the public pngs. Perhaps just a white balance but no sRGB conversion? The public png colours look not bad, but I guess being in a nearly monochromatic environment helps! The flags and green and blue dots on the calibration target do look fairly desaturated, eg in this sol 10 image: https://mars.nasa.gov/insight-raw-images/su...0004_0010M_.PNG That's what you'd expect for an image before transforming to sRGB. |
|
|
May 6 2019, 01:00 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
Thoughts of the mole being obstructed remind me of other cases where similar impasses occurred.
Apollo 15 drilled for two purposes, the first being the very same: To put a heat-flow probe below the surface. This was much more difficult than anticipated and led to delays and eventually accepting a lesser depth than desired. Drilling for a second purpose, a deep core sample, also did not go well, and even removing the drill proved more difficult than anticipated. The drill gear/procedures were redesigned for Apollo 16, solving the drilling problem, but a different mishap disabled the heat-flow experiment on Apollo 16. Apollo 14 used a sampling tube plus hammer without a drill and achieved a depth of only 70 cm. Drilling was also difficult during Apollo 17 and consumed more time budget than expected. Harrison Schmitt, who operated the drill, summarized, "Anybody who's thinking about drilling on the moon — I don't think we have those issues settled yet." I'm also reminded of the difficulty in placing a sample of ice into the Mars' Phoenix experiment (this was never accomplished as planned) and the outstanding possibility that the Deep Space 2 penetrator probes also failed due to unanticipated difficulty in the mechanical entry of the probes into the regolith (the true cause of failure may never be known). All told, the rate of mishaps in penetrating the surface of another world more than a few centimeters is probably nearer 100% than 0% and, in context, the difficulty with the mole is not surprising. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 20th September 2024 - 10:47 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. |