InSight mission |
InSight mission |
Dec 30 2015, 07:24 PM
Post
#121
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
...to track the arm's movement - two b/w cameras. Actually (and despite my earlier skepticism), the cameras were upgraded to Bayer color. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Dec 30 2015, 08:02 PM
Post
#122
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
So what happens to the readied Atlas V that they were going to launch with in this sort of case? ULA takes it back and uses it for something else. There's almost certainly a cancellation cost in the launch contract. Usually the mission-specific fairing sticker isn't put on until encapsulation, but if it's on already they can peel it off pretty easily -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Jan 1 2016, 10:39 AM
Post
#123
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 206 Joined: 15-August 07 From: Shrewsbury, Shropshire Member No.: 3233 |
I can tell you this with certainty, that's not going to happen. Instrument selection happens early in the design and the lander is pretty much now complete. Because of the launch slip and subsequent storage, Insight may hit its cost cap of $675 million. If that happens NASA will have to decide whether to cancel the mission or continue with it. At this point in the game, any new instruments isn't on the table, but perhaps possible descoping some things is? I made this comment because I read that to fund the 10% or so increase in Insight mission cost then another discovery mission would need to be sacrificed. My argument is that if another discovery mission did not fly then it would be possible to fund a few more instruments such as LIDAR on Insight's deck. |
|
|
Jan 1 2016, 12:33 PM
Post
#124
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8785 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
One primary reason that's not possible is that new instruments require not only testing of said instruments but also integration and testing with (and of) the entire spacecraft. New equipment introduces new interdependencies, some of which can be unexpected, difficult to detect, and detrimental. Obviously this increases not only mission risk but also cost--significantly.
Also, it's generally not an easy proposition to shuffle money between programs. It's been done, but it's not done lightly, and I suspect that InSight would only ask for something like that to save the mission from outright cancellation--definitely not to add new instrumentation. -------------------- 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.
|
|
|
Jan 1 2016, 05:48 PM
Post
#125
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
One primary reason that's not possible is that new instruments require not only testing of said instruments but also integration and testing with (and of) the entire spacecraft. More fundamentally, there are typically not spare data and power connectors on spacecraft like this. Even adding mounting holes to bolt on new stuff is non-trivial; assuming there was enough unused area at all, the spacecraft would have to be at least partially disassembled to do so. The combination of Insight being a cost-capped PI mission and the problem instrument not being funded by NASA makes this a complex and AFAIK unprecedented situation. We'll just have to wait and see how it develops. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Jan 3 2016, 05:06 AM
Post
#126
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
This is vaguely reminiscent of the problems that Dawn had during its development cycle:
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=1645 However, InSight has a problem with what is unambiguously its main instrument. You can't downscope that instrument away, or you'd be eliminating the purpose of the mission. |
|
|
Jan 3 2016, 07:42 PM
Post
#127
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
This is vaguely reminiscent of the problems that Dawn had during its development cycle... Thanks for pointing that out, John, I had forgotten that tale of woe. What's missing from Dawn is the international aspect; although much of Dawn's payload was provided by foreign partners, as far as I know most of the developmental problems were with the spacecraft. I wish there was better information about what actually happened with Dawn and how it was resolved; the best I've been able to find is http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1112 but that falls well short of an official report/policy statement. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Jan 4 2016, 01:27 PM
Post
#128
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 715 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 |
I wish there was better information about what actually happened with Dawn and how it was resolved; the best I've been able to find is http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1112 but that falls well short of an official report/policy statement. Check out this SpaceFlight Now article: http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0603/03dawn/ At least some of the issues like the xenon tank seem to represent crap happens -- the team did the testing but problems were found late in the process in other tanks of the same design. I hope that there are quiet review boards done for issues like these so that the experience gained can be passed to other teams. For example, why didn't the thrusters and harpoon function on Philae and what can future comet lander missions learn? -------------------- |
|
|
Mar 9 2016, 05:17 PM
Post
#129
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 51 Joined: 31-December 10 From: Earth Member No.: 5589 |
Apparently, the project has been given a path forward towards the next launch opportunity: http://spaceref.com/mars/nasa-targets-may-...ht-mission.html
To those knowledgeable about such things, How likely is it that CNES actually gets the instrument working according to specifications? |
|
|
Mar 9 2016, 05:25 PM
Post
#130
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
How likely is it that CNES actually gets the instrument working according to specifications? the defective vacuum vessel is no longer the responsibility of CNES, apparently http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=5746 QUOTE NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, will redesign, build and conduct qualifications of the new vacuum enclosure for the Seismic Experiment for Interior Structure (SEIS), the component that failed in December.
|
|
|
Mar 10 2016, 01:09 AM
Post
#131
|
|
Solar System Cartographer Group: Members Posts: 10227 Joined: 5-April 05 From: Canada Member No.: 227 |
I wonder if the landing ellipse will change now... as happened with Schiaparelli for its 2 month delay.
Phil -------------------- ... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Also to be found posting similar content on https://mastodon.social/@PhilStooke Maps for download (free PDF: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/comm...Cartography.pdf NOTE: everything created by me which I post on UMSF is considered to be in the public domain (NOT CC, public domain) |
|
|
Mar 11 2016, 10:22 AM
Post
#132
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 234 Joined: 8-May 05 Member No.: 381 |
The MEPAG meeting at the beginning of March had an InSight update that gave some information on the history of the seismometer problems, as well as several photos of problem areas. The Mepag presentations are at http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/meetings.cfm?expand=m29. The newest meeting is #31, scroll down to the presentation titled "InSight Mission". Slides 11 through 15 are about the seismic instrument. Lots of other interesting talks also listed.
|
|
|
Sep 6 2016, 09:52 PM
Post
#133
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 27-January 12 Member No.: 6325 |
InSight cleared for May 2018 launch. Godspeed.
http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/nasa-appro...insight-mission |
|
|
Mar 29 2017, 07:21 AM
Post
#134
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2106 Joined: 13-February 10 From: Ontario Member No.: 5221 |
Good seismometer news, passed vacuum testing. https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/03/28/insig...ses-major-test/
Leak free! |
|
|
Mar 29 2017, 11:49 PM
Post
#135
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 71 Joined: 12-December 16 Member No.: 8089 |
Ayy! This is good news indeed!
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th September 2024 - 02:10 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. |