Enceladus-3 (March 12, 2008) |
Enceladus-3 (March 12, 2008) |
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Feb 24 2006, 09:12 PM
Post
#1
|
Guests |
Excerpt from Cassini Significant Events for 02/16/06 - 02/22/06:
"As mentioned in previous weeks, the project has been working on adopting a new reference trajectory in order to raise the minimum Titan flyby altitude for various encounters. Today the project reached a decision to proceed with the 'optocc2' trajectory. Additional work is still to be performed before delivery of the final files. This will include minor tweaks that have been analyzed in other trajectories, adjusting orbit 68 timing, and capture of an Enceladus plume occultation on orbit 28." For the record, the new reference trajectory will result in an even more spectacular Enceladus-3 flyby [61EN (t) E3] on March 12, 2008. |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 10 2006, 11:20 PM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
Actually, Bruce, you're manufacturing a dispute. I was merely amazed that someone involved in architecting a Flagship-class mission, and no, I don't mean you, would have to state something as obvious as "we do NOT want something as expensive and long-term as a Europa Astrobiology Lander to fail at the very moment it's trying to land on Europa." Moreover, I was amazed that you found that such an important point. I guess I would have just said, "You think?" *sigh* The significance of my putting "NOT" in capitals, for special emphasis was something that YOU didn't catch. Of course everyone knew damn well that we don't want EAL to fail during landing. What struck me (to repeat what I've been saying from the start) was that until Clark and I opened our yaps, virtually all the discussion in the little group had been about whether a small Europa lander was justifiable on purely scientific grounds or not. There didn't seem to be much thought about the fact that minimizing the chances of an EAL landing failure was so important that it might well justify the small earlier lander even if it WASN'T justifiable on scientific grounds. Clark noted the same thing, and got downright shrill about it when she started talking. Actually, I have the whole thing on tape, since I tape-recorded all the subgroup's deliberations (with their permission). At some point in the near future I'll review it -- and if it doesn't match up with my memories of what happened, I will not only admit it here; I will kill myself in the most disgusting manner conceivable. Now, back to Enceladus (I hope). |
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Mar 10 2006, 11:51 PM
Post
#3
|
Guests |
Actually, I have the whole thing on tape, since I tape-recorded all the subgroup's deliberations (with their permission). At some point in the near future I'll review it -- and if it doesn't match up with my memories of what happened, I will not only admit it here; I will kill myself in the most disgusting manner conceivable. Bruce, you really crack me up. That's what I meant about manufacturing a dispute. I'm not questioning your veracity. Jeeez. I accepted what you said at face value. I was only amazed that something so obvious had to be stated. That's all. Now, I'll await your inevitable (1,000 word?) response to this. Actually, I'm beginning to feel like a sadist poking a stick at a caged tiger |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2024 - 04:45 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. |