Going To Mogollon..., ...and points South |
Going To Mogollon..., ...and points South |
Jan 20 2006, 02:30 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3009 Joined: 30-October 04 Member No.: 105 |
QUOTE (Tesheiner @ Jan 20 2006, 05:38 AM) It was already said that those structures seen on previous hazcam pics (well, in all sort of cameras and filters...) were delicate. [attachment=3535:attachment] (138k) But what about these ones? It looks like the smallest touch could broke them. [attachment=3536:attachment] (138k) PS: It's time to open a new thread, don't you think so? Good idea. That topic was "tired" and had the cord showing. Delicate, to be sure. One thing I've noticed is that the "ledge-forming" rocks are a layer and extend to the right and left of where we camped out. I wonder if that feature is related to the bluff at Mogollon Rim? We need to check out the "mobile dust" at that site and see if there has been more movement during the stopover. --Bill -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 12:51 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1887 Joined: 20-November 04 From: Iowa Member No.: 110 |
Question: does this mean that when the joint motor does fail and the arm can not be stowed anymore, there will be no more long drives for Opportunity? And can we conclude from this that the team has decided that a rover without IDD has less scientific value than a relatively static platform with IDD? I agree completely ! when one thinks about it: one single Rover that is capable of doing medium to long distance drives is kind of equivalent to *multiple* static space probes landed on different places of the planet so in essence 1 Rover = several "Viking-type" static platforms with this huge, inherent advantage of a Rover (compared to all former static probes) in mind I have been asking myself why with the MER mission the "static operations" always seemed to have gained clear priority over the roving (mobile) operations ... and with the new unstowed-drive policy, again, the priority seems clear: take the risk of jeopardazing the whole (mobility of the)rover in favour of the IDD .. If the priority was on Roving/Mobility instead, the strategy could have been to keep the arm stowed completely for the safest driving possible and make use of the arm much more "parsimoniously" to save it for less frequent, (but potentially more interesting) further targets along the way ... I suppose for some on the science team a rover without the IDD is just a Mars Tourism Rover. |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 02:23 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 72 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 272 |
I suppose for some on the science team a rover without the IDD is just a Mars Tourism Rover. Well the main objective of the mission is to find evidence of water on Mars. Without the IDD that mission is severely hampered. It's a judgement call they are continually having to make but it seems to me that for now they are still putting the future use of the IDD ahead of zooming off to Victoria. It's a tough spot to be in, but I suspect they will continue to baby the arm until they're done with Erebus. With a significant vertical rock face within easy reach, they want to make sure they still have the IDD available to examine it. After that, perhaps then they will make Victoria number one priority. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:38 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. |