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: 3008 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 19 2006, 09:13 PM
Post
#76
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 544 Joined: 17-November 05 From: Oklahoma Member No.: 557 |
Probably get just a little bit more science done too, even if it's only photographing exposed bedrock close up while in transit. And I'm all for "transit" at this point. The more, the better.
|
|
|
Feb 19 2006, 10:27 PM
Post
#77
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 713 Joined: 30-March 05 Member No.: 223 |
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'm wondering about this too. I certainly hope not. Even without the IDD arm the rover still has all the cameras except the MI, plus the mini-TES. The RAT is at or near the end of its useful life. The whole point of having a rover is to have mobility, so to be mobile should have priority, and the sooner the better. 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 ... |
|
|
Guest_Sunspot_* |
Feb 20 2006, 12:41 AM
Post
#78
|
Guests |
We're a couple of days away from spending 3 months in the same location.
|
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 12:51 AM
Post
#79
|
|
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
#80
|
|
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. |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 02:48 AM
Post
#81
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3008 Joined: 30-October 04 Member No.: 105 |
It would be nice to have the IDD instruments, but with reconnaisance geology the primary thing one needs is boots and eyes (ie, a mobile Rover with functional Pancams); the handlens and scratchplate are useful but not essential. Oppy needs to stow the IDD and get to the next outcop...
--Bill -------------------- |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 03:17 AM
Post
#82
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 4763 Joined: 15-March 05 From: Glendale, AZ Member No.: 197 |
It would be nice to have the IDD instruments, but with reconnaisance geology the primary thing one needs is boots and eyes (ie, a mobile Rover with functional Pancams); the handlens and scratchplate are useful but not essential. Oppy needs to stow the IDD and get to the next outcop... --Bill I agree with you Bill, but I should point out that without the IDD our science in Endurance would have consisted of a lot of pictures of pretty stripes along the cliffs. The rules of superposition are kind of useless on an alien world without a means to put it all in context. (Wouldn't it be nice if a future mission had an isotopic absolute dating instrument?) Although now that we have some details on Endurance's layers, I'm guessing that we will be able to visually correlate those same layers in Victoria. But of course, the hope is we will find some deeper, older layers we haven't looked at yet. If those layers are chock full of rotini beastie fossils, I'll sure want to have the MI working I would say though that if the Pancam was the last functioning device on Oppy, it sure would be poetic fate for Steve Squyers. -------------------- If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
|
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 03:21 AM
Post
#83
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 30 Joined: 15-November 05 Member No.: 553 |
It would be nice to have the IDD instruments, but with reconnaisance geology the primary thing one needs is boots and eyes (ie, a mobile Rover with functional Pancams); the handlens and scratchplate are useful but not essential. Oppy needs to stow the IDD and get to the next outcop... --Bill Bill: I am in total agreement. They need to find a way to stow it and get moving again. I doubt we will find anything so totally different that we can't visually understand it. Ben |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 04:46 AM
Post
#84
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1229 Joined: 24-December 05 From: The blue one in between the yellow and red ones. Member No.: 618 |
Bill: I am in total agreement. They need to find a way to stow it and get moving again. I doubt we will find anything so totally different that we can't visually understand it. Ben Ahhhh. I think I detect a gauntlet hurled to the dust! Visual vs. Analytical Geology. I love it! I wonder how that debate might have fared in Gusev Crater - up until we arrived at Home Plate. I wonder if Victoria will become the HP of Meridiani. P.S. I hope we are all praying fervently for the recovery of Exploratorium. Where there's life there's hope. -------------------- My Grandpa goes to Mars every day and all I get are these lousy T-shirts!
|
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 07:03 AM
Post
#85
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 648 Joined: 9-May 05 From: Subotica Member No.: 384 |
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? This question should be re-posted in "Jim Bell Q'n'a" topic... I would like to hear answer to that... -------------------- The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful.
Jules H. Poincare My "Astrophotos" gallery on flickr... |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 08:34 AM
Post
#86
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
If the IDD breaks, then do what can be done with where-ever it is, and then just start driving. If it breaks - so what ,it's expired anyway.
Doug |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 08:39 AM
Post
#87
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 25 Joined: 20-April 05 From: Japan Member No.: 283 |
Well the main objective of the mission is to find evidence of water on Mars. I suppose so, I just wonder if the fixation on water isn’t compromising other science objectives -like documenting as many types of surface feature as possible. There seems to be a bias operating in favour of studying subtle small-scale features (mostly water deposition evidence) and against studying large scale ones. Not trying to stir the pot but -is the purpose of this mission to look for support for the hypothesis that there was once standing water on Mars, or is it to characterize the surface of Mars as well as possible? |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 09:12 AM
Post
#88
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Not trying to stir the pot but -is the purpose of this mission to look for support for the hypothesis that there was once standing water on Mars, or is it to characterize the surface of Mars as well as possible? Unquestionably the former. Don't confuse scientific aspirations with engineering limitations. What the scientists would like to do is not always possible. Doug |
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 11:50 AM
Post
#89
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2870 Joined: 22-April 05 From: Ridderkerk, Netherlands Member No.: 353 |
|
|
|
Feb 20 2006, 12:20 PM
Post
#90
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3008 Joined: 30-October 04 Member No.: 105 |
QUOTE They need to find a way to stow it and get moving again. I can see the rationale for their current actions: the IDD may fail soon and become history, so they are trying to get most detailed information on the wonderful sedimentary structures while they can. But Jimminy Cricket, we've been at this site forever-and-a-day and we need to get to the next outcrop which might well be the Holy Grail of this region. QUOTE ...is the purpose of this mission to look for support for the hypothesis that there was once standing water on Mars, or is it to characterize the surface of Mars as well as possible? I'd say that they are (or should be) studying the Geology to find evidence of water. --Bill -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 22nd September 2024 - 06:59 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. |