PFS issue on Venus Express, PFS scanner stuck in its closed position |
PFS issue on Venus Express, PFS scanner stuck in its closed position |
Mar 22 2006, 10:04 PM
Post
#16
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 311 Joined: 31-August 05 From: Florida & Texas, USA Member No.: 482 |
Yeah, actually it was (although you'll note that I was actually sneering at US pretensions of superiority in that post, by doing a Merle Haggard imitation with a sarcastic snark at the end). My apologies. (Also, I thought Messenger was GRRRing at me, rather than at the damn PFS.) I would imagine that solar cycling has as much chance of remedying this as anything, although it will be tricky to pull off. If they can't correct this, it WILL be a pity to lose it -- PFS was the second most important instrument onboard. Yet again, moving parts prove to be the bane of space missions, and we have proof that it's better to err on the side of excess in designing the strength of actuators (whether motors or springs). Dumb question, but is VIRTIS the primo instrument of VExpress? Are some mission objectives compromised if PFS remains stuck, or can VIRTIS still achieve the main science goals? After Mars Express gave us the Great Boom Scare of '05, I wonder if some serious thought & money should be spent trying to make deploy-or-bust designs? |
|
|
Mar 22 2006, 10:31 PM
Post
#17
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
|
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 23 2006, 01:34 AM
Post
#18
|
Guests |
Did I happen to mention the central relevance of this to the Discovery Program?
|
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 02:21 PM
Post
#19
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 124 Joined: 23-March 06 Member No.: 723 |
|
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 03:14 PM
Post
#20
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
I am only able to remember one instance where a stuck instrument cover was removed DURING the mission. The Viking Mars scoop cover that was shaken out over several days of back and forth motions of the motor controlling it. Are there more examples? All the others I can think of, Galileo HGA, Pioneer camera cover not popping off, Venera camera cover not popping off and some missions where solar panels fail to open, were never fixed.... The Venera incident was a bit different...the caps melted on! -------------------- |
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 03:29 PM
Post
#21
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
For those that have not seen the BBC series 'The Planets' - a Venera scientists recalled the problem being described thus
Senior Engineer "I believe we have landed in something sticky and viscous" Junior Engineer "Yes sir, in the sh**" Doug |
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 04:06 PM
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 624 Joined: 10-August 05 Member No.: 460 |
BINGO - Alex now owes me $1 - we had a book going on how long it'd be He had 'increasingly obvious' for $2, and I had 'JAXA' for $3. Good job you didnt mention the Discovery program, that would have emptied my wallet. Doug You blokes will take a wager on anything! I Guess Bruce's predictability is a safe bet Most of the tasking in the building I work in is related to flight hardware predicability: We stress, we strain, we Eddy, ultrasound, Xray, thermal image for ply debonds and on and on. We do it in vacuum, at extreme temperatures. A chemist down-the-hall from me has even tested deployment in the 'vomit comet'. We do everything we can think of that will assure the hardware will perform the way we expect it to, where we expect it to. What I am getting at, is I am sure they are doing these same things in Europe, and expecting the designs to work under any and all possible conditions. So why so many failures? We must not understand all the failure modes. I can't pull up the level of detail I think would be necessary for me to understand the deployment difficulties experienced by the Mars Express, and I cannot even begin to comment on whether or not the PFS problem is in any way related. But I get to wonder out-loud if the Venus Express engineers are completely on-top of the possible failure modes of the Mars probe, and if they addressed the issues. We have a prospective of how tightly the different Huygens groups guard their data, not always sharing with each other. Did the Venus Express engineers have a detailed report on the Mar Express boom problem, and upon why Huygens channel A failed? |
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 04:46 PM
Post
#23
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
There is no commonality between the aparant failure of the PFS cover, and MARSIS or the Huygens problem. I know you like to think outside the box, but that's just wayyy waAYy outside it
Doug |
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 04:49 PM
Post
#24
|
|
Director of Galilean Photography Group: Members Posts: 896 Joined: 15-July 04 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 93 |
I've wondered if missions shouldn't start adding "engineering webcams", similar to the Hazcams on MER that are there to monitor deployments and moving parts on sciencecraft. It might not have helped Galileo, but then again knowing the exact configuration of the antenna might have allowed for some kind of partial recovery by simulating the antenna coverage pattern.
-------------------- Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
-- "The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality. |
|
|
Guest_AlexBlackwell_* |
Mar 23 2006, 04:56 PM
Post
#25
|
Guests |
I've wondered if missions shouldn't start adding "engineering webcams", similar to the Hazcams on MER that are there to monitor deployments and moving parts on sciencecraft. It might not have helped Galileo, but then again knowing the exact configuration of the antenna might have allowed for some kind of partial recovery by simulating the antenna coverage pattern. In Galileo's case, while live imaging of the HGA deployment wasn't possible, I seem to recall that NIMS took an image of the spacecraft during cruise (I saw it in AW&ST) that gave a rough idea of the post-deployment antenna configuration. And analyses during cruise showed that the anomalous HGA deployment did not result in any usuable gain/side lobe patterns. There is no commonality between the aparant failure of the PFS cover, and MARSIS or the Huygens problem. I know you like to think outside the box, but that's just wayyy waAYy outside it The only obvious commonality would be quality assurance inspections or pre-launch reviews but, as any U.S. scientist/engineer can tell you, even those can't catch everything. This post has been edited by AlexBlackwell: Mar 23 2006, 05:24 PM |
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 05:23 PM
Post
#26
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2454 Joined: 8-July 05 From: NGC 5907 Member No.: 430 |
I've wondered if missions shouldn't start adding "engineering webcams", similar to the Hazcams on MER that are there to monitor deployments and moving parts on sciencecraft. It might not have helped Galileo, but then again knowing the exact configuration of the antenna might have allowed for some kind of partial recovery by simulating the antenna coverage pattern. In this era of miniaturization, would it be feasible to send along a little repair robot or two to fix stuck wires, antenna, solar panels, etc.? Or is that still just too expensive and science fictiony? But some real robot repair tests have been made: http://www.nasda.go.jp/press/1999/03/ets7_990319_e.html And then there is this idea: http://www.tsgc.utexas.edu/archive/fulltext/raptor.pdf And this little guy: http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/droid.asp Other relevant items: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cs.RO/0601056 http://ranier.hq.nasa.gov/telerobotics_page/photos.html Keeping on the theme of miniaturization, I think we should send out groups of small probes to a target world, each with one or two specific science tasks. If we lose a few, it is unfortunate, but does not stop the overall mission. Multiple probes can cover more ground, literally, and we won't have all our eggs in one basket. -------------------- "After having some business dealings with men, I am occasionally chagrined,
and feel as if I had done some wrong, and it is hard to forget the ugly circumstance. I see that such intercourse long continued would make one thoroughly prosaic, hard, and coarse. But the longest intercourse with Nature, though in her rudest moods, does not thus harden and make coarse. A hard, sensible man whom we liken to a rock is indeed much harder than a rock. From hard, coarse, insensible men with whom I have no sympathy, I go to commune with the rocks, whose hearts are comparatively soft." - Henry David Thoreau, November 15, 1853 |
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 05:30 PM
Post
#27
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Woudlnt it make more sense to simply spend the time, money, volume, mass and energy on making a more robust deployment mechanism in the first place? Anything dynamic and adaptable enough is going to be far far more complex than whatever mechanism it's sent to fix, and as a result, far more likely to fail that the mechanisms in question anyway
Doug |
|
|
Mar 23 2006, 07:31 PM
Post
#28
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
You blokes will take a wager on anything! I Guess Bruce's predictability is a safe bet The MoomawBot script I wrote in Perl was fed the text of this thread and called for a massive reduction of the manned space program. It also referred to conversations it had had with members of the Decadal Survey that can be seen as insightful and pivotal in changing their opinions. |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Mar 23 2006, 09:30 PM
Post
#29
|
Guests |
Well, you know, constant repetition is a very important tool in educating the slow...
By the way, I only got one chance to talk with members of the Solar System Decadal Survey -- during which, sure enough, one member thanked me for clearing up a misconception his subgroup had had (and printed in their first draft) about what New Horizons could do at Europa. (E-mail available on request.) See if any of YOU get invited to my Nobel Prize party. |
|
|
Mar 24 2006, 12:47 AM
Post
#30
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
Well, you know, constant repetition is a very important tool in educating the slow... True, to a point -- but the Big Lie theory of ideological control also calls for the repetition of the lie, over and over, until it's been heard and repeated so often that it's accepted without question... Oh, and don't call those who legitimately disagree with you "slow" or "uneducated." Makes it sound more like you're pushing the Big Lie than it sounds like you're right. -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th September 2024 - 10:36 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. |