IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Cameras For Msl, MSSS gets all the contracts
djellison
post Dec 14 2004, 08:34 PM
Post #1


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



http://www.msss.com/press_releases/mslselection/index.html

Some astonishing proposals there - full colour motion descent imagery ohmy.gif

Not sure what use 10fps video is - as even MSL will still crawl along at a slow pace making it very boring viewing smile.gif Notice the HDTV resolution of it though - James Cameron has got involved - should be interesting!

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dot.dk
post Dec 14 2004, 09:11 PM
Post #2


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 578
Joined: 5-November 04
From: Denmark
Member No.: 107



Nice to see video from MARS! ohmy.gif

Can't wait for MSL! It will use nuckclear power right? Any idea how far this thing can go?

Just so long before 2009 smile.gif
As we wait we will have MRO and Phoenix landers

NASA.. Please don't screw these missions. Way to exciting cool.gif


--------------------
"I want to make as many people as possible feel like they are part of this adventure. We are going to give everybody a sense of what exploring the surface of another world is really like"
- Steven Squyres
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Dec 14 2004, 10:14 PM
Post #3


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



With the Mars Telcom orbiter in limbo or dead, how do they intend to downlink all this wonderful coverage? MRO?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Dec 14 2004, 10:32 PM
Post #4


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (tedstryk @ Dec 14 2004, 10:14 PM)
With the Mars Telcom orbiter in limbo or dead, how do they intend to downlink all this wonderful coverage? MRO?

MRO has a huge capacity for downlink - not as much as MTO - but 4Mbit/sec DTE at least - and of course, the Electra UHF payload is designed for a relay between 4kb and 2Mbit/sec - the expected total relay is about 150MBits/day for MRO.

However smile.gif MTO is expected to be able to relay 1.5GBit/sol smile.gif

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Dec 14 2004, 11:29 PM
Post #5


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



Has anyone heard anything lately on the status of MTO?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Sunspot_*
post Dec 15 2004, 12:10 AM
Post #6





Guests






10:1 zoom.........cool, ive always wondered why they never had the those before. biggrin.gif .....and single colour imaging blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Sunspot_*
post Dec 15 2004, 01:30 AM
Post #7





Guests






A little more information on some of the other proposed science intruments:

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2004-290

Selected investigations and principal investigators:

-- "Mars Science Laboratory Mast Camera," Michael Malin, Malin Space Science Systems, San Diego, Calif. Mast Camera would perform multi-spectral, stereo imaging at lengths ranging from kilometers to centimeters, and can acquire compressed high-definition video at 10 frames per second without the use of the rover computer.

-- "ChemCam: Laser Induced Remote Sensing for Chemistry and Micro-Imaging," Roger Wiens, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, N.M. ChemCam would ablate surface coatings from materials at standoff distances of up to 10 meters and measure elemental composition of underlying rocks and soils.

-- "Mahli: Mars HandLens Imager for the Mars Science Laboratory," Kenneth Edgett, Malin Space Science Systems. Mahli would image rocks, soil, frost and ice at resolutions 2.4 times better, and with a wider field of view, than the Microscopic Imager on the Mars Exploration Rovers.

-- "The Alpha-Particle-X-ray-Spectrometer for Mars Science Laboratory," Ralf Gellert, Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany. This instrument would determine elemental abundance of rocks and soil. It will be provided by the Canadian Space Agency.

-- "CheMin: An X-ray Diffraction/X-ray Fluorescence instrument for definitive mineralogical analysis in the Analytical Laboratory of Mars Science Laboratory," David Blake, NASA's Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, Calif. CheMin, would identify and quantify all minerals in complex natural samples such as basalts, evaporites and soils, one of the principle objectives of Mars Science Laboratory.

-- "Radiation Assessment Detector," Donald Hassler, Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, Colo. This instrument would characterize the broad spectrum of radiation at the surface of Mars, an essential precursor to human exploration of the planet. The instrument would be funded by the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters.

-- "Mars Descent Imager," Michael Malin, Malin Space Science Systems. The Mars Descent Imager would poduce high-resolution color-video imagery of the descent and landing phase, providing geological context information, as well as allowing for precise landing-site determination.

-- "Sample Analysis at Mars with an integrated suite consisting of a gas chromatograph mass spectrometer, and a tunable laser spectrometer," Paul Mahaffy, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. This instrument would perform mineral and atmospheric analyses, detect a wide range of organic compounds and perform stable isotope analyses of organics and noble gases.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Pando
post Dec 15 2004, 01:36 AM
Post #8


The Insider
***

Group: Members
Posts: 669
Joined: 3-May 04
Member No.: 73



I'm wondering what the actual CCD pixel resolution is for the MastCam? Yes it has been indicated that it can do 1280x720 HD video, but what is the resolution for stills? I can't believe they will attempt 1280x720 stills with this thing; it's gotta be in the order of 10+ megapixels, right??
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Dec 15 2004, 08:11 AM
Post #9


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Well - if the hand lends is 2.4 more than the MER MI - and all three are using the same CCD Design - it's 2.4 megapixels - so perhaps not square pixels - but something in the order of 2000 x 1200 pixels - or 1500 square?

Remember - MER launched at a time when 3, 4, 5 megapixel cameras were normal commercial products - and has only 1 smile.gif MSL will launch when 6, 8, 12, meg pixels is normal - so launching with 2-3 is to be expected.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
YesRushGen
post Dec 15 2004, 01:37 PM
Post #10


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 26-May 04
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (dot.dk @ Dec 14 2004, 09:11 PM)
...NASA.. Please don't screw these missions. Way to exciting cool.gif

That's one reason I really wish they were sending TWO MSL's. Since MSL is not using a tried and tested EDL sequence, there is far greater risk.

I mean, the lander just hovering and lowering the rover on a teather??? That sounds crazy to me. (Then of course, so did Pathfinder's EDL sequence in 1997!)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Dec 15 2004, 02:10 PM
Post #11


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Two $400M rovers - that's doable on the Mars Exploration budget

Two $800-1000M rovers. That's hardly doable on the ISS budget biggrin.gif

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Dec 15 2004, 02:50 PM
Post #12


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



I don't know....I think if you include the nearly annual overruns, you could send several. I mean, at 1.2 Billion per shuttle mission, that's a rover and a part of another.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
YesRushGen
post Dec 15 2004, 03:15 PM
Post #13


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 76
Joined: 26-May 04
Member No.: 77



QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 15 2004, 02:10 PM)
Two $400M rovers - that's doable on the Mars Exploration budget

Two $800-1000M rovers. That's hardly doable on the ISS budget biggrin.gif

Doug

LOL. Well, that's true about MSL costing more than the MERs did. Still, the Viking spacecrafts were pretty pricey - and two of those were sent!

As a side note, it seems they could build more clones of MER for pretty cheap.

Now, I know that the MER design is now "obsolete" and that MSL's instrumentation/longevity will far outlast MER. In spite of that, it seems a shame to waste a perfectly good design.

It seems to me that if more MERs were built, each one would be cheaper than the last. The development cost is already done - spent on the initial development of Spirit and Oppy. The "how to operate them" is also done. The lessons of operation have been learned. Just build carbon copies. (Well, maybe plug in different instrumentation)

Let me re-iterate that I'm not arguing for a "MER-only" approach to exploring Mars. I'm simply suggesting that using additional MERs to "augment" the ongoing exploration of Mars would be a good thing.

regards,

Kelly
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_AlexBlackwell_*
post Dec 21 2004, 06:03 PM
Post #14





Guests






QUOTE (tedstryk @ Dec 14 2004, 10:14 PM)
With the Mars Telcom orbiter in limbo or dead...

You must have access to some unique information, especially since JPL is deep in the design and subcontracting process for MTO. Indeed, a science definition team (SDT) has already forwarded its recommendation to NASA prioritizing potential areas of interest that could utilize the minor mass allocation for science investigations MTO currently has.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Dec 21 2004, 06:16 PM
Post #15


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Good point Alex - when I read his post i thought he meant a failed mission - and not a cancellation. MTO is a go, and a necessity for future landers

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th March 2024 - 05:13 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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.