Mro On Approach, TCM-3 not required |
Mro On Approach, TCM-3 not required |
Feb 3 2006, 11:06 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 134 Joined: 13-March 05 Member No.: 191 |
MRO has shifted from the cruise phase to Approach phase. Apparently, the trajectory is so good that TCM-3 was cancelled. This is good news for the prospects for a long life for MRO supporting future missions. TCM-4 is on Feb 28, and MOI on March 10. Only 5 weeks away!
|
|
|
Feb 16 2006, 03:46 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14448 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
|
|
|
Feb 16 2006, 05:00 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
Given the addition of some post-moi-pre-aerobraking imaging, at what appears to be between about 0000 and 0600 on the 15th of March - any idea on a nadir target for that sort of time? Doug Looks like it's the north polar ice cap. Here's the view midway in that interval (+ marks the nadir point): Note that the FOV above is 5 degrees. CTX has an FOV 0f 6 degrees; HiRISE 1.14 degrees. -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 16 2006, 05:34 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2547 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Looks like it's the north polar ice cap. Here's the view midway in that interval (+ marks the nadir point): Try looking (hint, hint) closer to 6:00 UTC. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Feb 16 2006, 06:03 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
Try looking (hint, hint) closer to 6:00 UTC. Hmmm... here is the view at 0600: Wondering what you are hinting at--perhaps this is targeted after one of the proposed Phoenix landing sites? The subpoint above is 75N 141W. -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 16 2006, 10:14 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2547 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Wondering what you are hinting at--perhaps this is targeted after one of the proposed Phoenix landing sites? The subpoint above is 75N 141W. I think your software is confused, or ours is. What SPICE kernel are you using? -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Feb 16 2006, 10:42 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
I think your software is confused, or ours is. What SPICE kernel are you using? Could be. Here are the kernels I'm using: CK: '$KROOT/ck/DESAT_MOI_sc_20060103171803.bc', SPK: '$KROOT/spk/spk_c_tcm1-od006_050812_060315_p-v1.bsp', '$KROOT/spk/spk_moi_lowperf_t2_051123_060320_p-v1.bsp', '$KROOT/spk/spk_moi_ideal_051123_060320_p-v1.bsp', '$KROOT/spk/spk_moi_highperf_t1_051123_060320_p-v1.bsp', I notice there's a big difference whether highperf, ideal or lowperf is used, so maybe that's the difference. The projection above uses highperf (since it's the last listed in the config file). -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 16 2006, 11:31 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2547 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
I notice there's a big difference whether highperf, ideal or lowperf is used, so maybe that's the difference. The projection above uses highperf (since it's the last listed in the config file). We were doing this planning several weeks ago, so the kernel I used was from mid-January. In those kernels, we were near periapsis at 6:00 UTC. Looks like we're looking at some replanning if the MOI performance makes this much difference. I would try rerunning with ideal and see what that looks like. BTW, what software are you using for this? -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Feb 17 2006, 02:00 AM
Post
#9
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
We were doing this planning several weeks ago, so the kernel I used was from mid-January. In those kernels, we were near periapsis at 6:00 UTC. Looks like we're looking at some replanning if the MOI performance makes this much difference. I would try rerunning with ideal and see what that looks like. BTW, what software are you using for this? Hmmm... using the "ideal" kernel gives periapsis on 15MAR2006 at 06:24UTC, 399km, at 67S 28E, although it's on the night side so the picture is dark. Pretty big difference there. The software I'm using is a C program that I wrote to use the CSPICE library--so there could be a bug or three there. The same program works pretty well with Cassini, but at least in that case I have actual images to compare against for testing. Choice of kernels seems to be a big factor. One kernel tells a cautionary tale: spk_nomoi_051123_060320_p-v1.bsp No MOI--gulp! That pessimistic kernel gives this view on 15MAR: -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 17 2006, 04:05 AM
Post
#10
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2547 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
Hmmm... using the "ideal" kernel gives periapsis on 15MAR2006 at 06:24UTC, 399km, at 67S 28E, although it's on the night side so the picture is dark. Pretty big difference there. The software I'm using is a C program that I wrote to use the CSPICE library--so there could be a bug or three there. The same program works pretty well with Cassini, but at least in that case I have actual images to compare against for testing. Choice of kernels seems to be a big factor. That result sounds pretty close to ours, so I'd say your code is working well. Those kernels just appeared on the NAIF website and I don't know what sort of burn performance differences they represent; it would surprise me if plausible burn variations would change the orbit timing so much. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Feb 17 2006, 12:18 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
That result sounds pretty close to ours, so I'd say your code is working well. Those kernels just appeared on the NAIF website and I don't know what sort of burn performance differences they represent; it would surprise me if plausible burn variations would change the orbit timing so much. Guys, can you *please* work out whoever is right, you're beginning to (gulp) worry me! MOI has already eaten several pretty toys... Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Feb 17 2006, 06:13 PM
Post
#12
|
Guests |
|
|
|
Feb 17 2006, 06:28 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1465 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Columbus OH USA Member No.: 13 |
You think Mike might be using metric figures, while jmknapp is using English units? Hmm. That sounds vaguely familiar. I tend to prefer pixels per fortnight. Be that as it may, any non-hyperbolic insertion orbit that doesn't intersect the surface is a good one. -------------------- |
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Feb 17 2006, 06:34 PM
Post
#14
|
Guests |
|
|
|
Feb 17 2006, 06:36 PM
Post
#15
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
That might be why the MRO mission designers baselined for aerobraking instead of lithobraking I was going to crack that joke but I thought "Naw -- it's too old and tired." I guess no joke is too old and tired for an academic --Emily -------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Feb 17 2006, 06:50 PM
Post
#16
|
Guests |
I was going to crack that joke but I thought "Naw -- it's too old and tired." I guess no joke is too old and tired for an academic --Emily Yeah, the joke was pretty stale. In fact, as Mike has pointed out over the years, the public has gotten an incomplete if not distorted view of the MCO/MPL/DS2 losses, mainly that the root causes, especially of the MCO loss, can't be simply described as "Oh, they screwed up because they didn't know the difference between metric and English units." For balance, I would also recommend the following: Euler, Edward A., Steven D. Jolly, and H.H. Curtis; The Failures of the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander: A Perspective From the People Involved; AAS 01-074, 24th Annual AAS Guidance and Control Conference, Breckenridge, CO, January 31-February 4, 2001. A few years ago, Steve Jolly (of LMAO) also sent me some PowerPoint slides, prepared, I believe, for a subsequent conference. These offered some nice perspective, as well as being pretty instructive. * EDIT - Before "[f]or balance" above, I should have inserted "In addition to the 'official' mishap investigation reports, which can downloaded, among other places, here, as well as the popular press coverage (of varying degrees of accuracy),..." This post has been edited by AlexBlackwell: Feb 17 2006, 07:56 PM |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:30 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. |