IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Lot Of Rocks
dilo
post Apr 1 2005, 09:19 PM
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 15-January 05
From: center Italy
Member No.: 150



This mosaic of 4 Panoramic frames from Sol442 show a strong increase in density of rocks, even big ones! Don't know if could be an issue for further movements toward the hill top?


--------------------
I always think before posting! - Marco -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Sunspot_*
post Apr 1 2005, 10:18 PM
Post #2





Guests






QUOTE (dilo @ Apr 1 2005, 10:19 PM)
This mosaic of 4 Panoramic frames from Sol442 show a strong increase in density of rocks,  even big ones! Don't know if could be an issue for further movements toward the hill top?

*


I remember thinking the same when Spirit was driving up to the rim of Bonneville Crater....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tman
post Apr 2 2005, 08:20 AM
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 877
Joined: 7-March 05
From: Switzerland
Member No.: 186



I have also some reservations. This spiky high rocks are so numerous as never before on Spirit's way.

For comparison:

Sol065 at the side of Bonneville:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P1835L0M1.JPG

Sol106 on the rim of Missoula:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P1846R0M1.JPG

Sol132 on the plane of Gusev:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P1846R0M1.JPG

Sol381 at the side of Husband Hill:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...IOP1916R0M1.JPG

Even I guess Spirit can't drive over. In this case we have to go another way to the top of the (an) Hill. We could drive through the Tennessee Valley. Then at its end it gives divers options to go higher.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElkGroveDan
post Apr 2 2005, 04:15 PM
Post #4


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4763
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Glendale, AZ
Member No.: 197



QUOTE (Tman @ Apr 2 2005, 08:20 AM)
I have also some reservations. This spiky high rocks are so numerous as never before on Spirit's way.

For comparison:

Sol065 at the side of Bonneville:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P1835L0M1.JPG

Sol106 on the rim of Missoula:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P1846R0M1.JPG

Sol132 on the plane of Gusev:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...00P1846R0M1.JPG

Sol381 at the side of Husband Hill:
http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all...IOP1916R0M1.JPG

Even I guess Spirit can't drive over. In this case we have to go another way to the top of the (an) Hill. We could drive through the Tennessee Valley. Then at its end it gives divers options to go higher.
*

One of the things to keep in mind, especially with the pancam is that there is a certain amount of optical foreshortening in these images (can anyone calculate the relative focal length on a lone pancam shot compared to a 35mm slr? I'm guessing it's the equivalent to 60-80mm). The rocks appear closer together and hence denser in number than is actually the case. Spend a lot of time viewing the analglyphs (as I did in the first 150 sols) and the effect will become apparent.

Granted that navigation must be getting more complex, but I'm guessing there is still enough room between the larger obstacles to maneuver for a while longer.


--------------------
If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Apr 2 2005, 05:16 PM
Post #5


Founder
****

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



QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ Apr 2 2005, 04:15 PM)
can anyone calculate the relative focal length on a lone pancam shot compared to a 35mm slr?  I'm guessing it's the equivalent to 60-80mm). 


105mm I believe.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Jeff7
post Apr 2 2005, 05:35 PM
Post #6


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 477
Joined: 2-March 05
Member No.: 180



And remember too, the rover was designed to be able to traverse obstacles 2x the diameter of the wheels (wheel diameter = 25cm). Might be a bumpy ride, but the rover shouldn't tip over or get stuck. Those wheels have a lot of torque too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Buck Galaxy
post Apr 3 2005, 06:28 AM
Post #7


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 6-March 05
Member No.: 185



All these sharp rocks will make designing a safe Mars suit more difficult. Suit punctures from falling or even just walking could be a serious problem for future human explorers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 3 2005, 12:39 PM
Post #8





Guests






EVA suits present a severe problem for manned Mars exploration in any case, given the fact that the planet's surface gravity is over twice that of the Moon -- and that we want to absolute minimize the extent to which leakage of human atmosphere contaminates Mars with Earth germs. One interesting point made at the first meeting of NASA's Mars Strategic Roadmap group is that, for these reasons, manned Mars exploration will be something radically different from what we're used to from Apollo -- it will consist very largely of humans running robots by remote control from the central base or from the cabins of their pressurized rovers, with suited-up EVAs limited to the absolute minimum necessary.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ElkGroveDan
post Apr 3 2005, 03:17 PM
Post #9


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4763
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Glendale, AZ
Member No.: 197



QUOTE (Buck Galaxy @ Apr 3 2005, 06:28 AM)
All these sharp rocks will make designing a safe Mars suit more difficult.  Suit punctures from falling or even just walking could be a serious problem for future human explorers.
*

Yes basalt and human shoes or clothing do not get along well. Places where there are miles of fractured basalt will do nasty things to modern hiking boots. Southern Idaho, or the cinder cones in California's Owens Valley come to mind. I once had the sole of a leather boot come completely off after a day of hiking near "Craters of the Moon" national monument in Idaho.

On the other hand, I would bet that if we had to make a decision where to land an astronaut tommorrow, the plains of Meridiani would be higher on the list than the rocky hills of Gusev.


--------------------
If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dilo
post Apr 3 2005, 05:11 PM
Post #10


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 15-January 05
From: center Italy
Member No.: 150



Now it seems to me that Spirit is avoiding the dense rock fields... rolleyes.gif :

In the meantime, now we see again the North Gusev rim (I didn't for a while...); increased transparency or only favorable light conditions? huh.gif

(the top blue portion was elaborated in order to have some smoothing and huge contrast increase).


--------------------
I always think before posting! - Marco -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Sunspot_*
post Apr 3 2005, 06:37 PM
Post #11





Guests






Which sol are those images of Spirit's tracks from? blink.gif

......exploratorium site down again? blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Buck Galaxy
post Apr 4 2005, 02:22 AM
Post #12


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 6-March 05
Member No.: 185



"...with suited-up EVAs limited to the absolute minimum necessary."

A mandatory EVA being the first human setting foot on Mars of course. :-) I would think the entire crew would get a chance to do EVAs at least once for symbolic sake alone.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dilo
post Apr 4 2005, 04:27 AM
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2492
Joined: 15-January 05
From: center Italy
Member No.: 150



QUOTE (Sunspot @ Apr 3 2005, 06:37 PM)
Which sol are those images of Spirit's tracks from?  blink.gif

......exploratorium site down again?  blink.gif
*


SOL443. I taken them from exploratorium yesterday but now you can find same Pancam images also in MER site: http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/gallery/all/spirit_p443.html

QUOTE (Buck Galaxy @ Apr 4 2005, 02:22 AM)
"...with suited-up EVAs limited to the absolute minimum necessary."

A mandatory EVA being the first human setting foot on Mars of course. :-)  I would think the entire crew would get a chance to do EVAs at least once for symbolic sake alone.
*


About EVA activity, it seems to me foolish send humans on Mars surface and then use robots...; using this philospohy, in order to reduce risk, is even better to remote control a robot from Mars orbit!


--------------------
I always think before posting! - Marco -
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 4 2005, 06:40 AM
Post #14





Guests






"About EVA activity, it seems to me foolish to send humans onto Mars' surface and then use robots... Using this philosophy, in order to reduce risk, it's even better to remote-control a robot from Mars orbit!"

I agree enthusiastically with Dilo. In fact, that possibility has been repeatedly discussed, and it too was mentioned by some of the members of the Roadmap Committee. According to an Op-Ed that Donald Robertson wrote in "Space News" several years ago, it's the position toward which a rapidly growing segment of the planetary science community is also leaning. If the US insists on actually landing humans on Mars just for PR purposes even though that act will run a serious risk of biocontaminating the planet, it's likely to run into very serious opposition from the science community.

I think of this as the "Martian Catch-22": the only scientific discovery which could justify something as expensive as a manned expedition to Mars is the discovery of evidence of present or past life, but manned landings will disastrously contaminate the very thing they were sent there to study!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Buck Galaxy
post Apr 4 2005, 07:36 AM
Post #15


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 24
Joined: 6-March 05
Member No.: 185



QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Apr 4 2005, 06:40 AM)
"About EVA activity, it seems to me foolish to send humans onto Mars' surface and then use robots... Using this philosophy, in order to reduce risk, it's even better to remote-control a robot from Mars orbit!"

I agree enthusiastically with Dilo.  In fact, that possibility has been repeatedly discussed, and it too was mentioned by some of the members of the Roadmap Committee.  According to an Op-Ed that Donald Robertson wrote in "Space News" several years ago, it's the position toward which a rapidly growing segment of the planetary science community is also leaning.  If the US insists on actually landing humans on Mars just for PR purposes even though that act will run a serious risk of biocontaminating the planet, it's likely to run into very serious opposition from the science community. 

I think of this as the "Martian Catch-22": the only scientific discovery which could justify something as expensive as a manned expedition to Mars is the discovery of evidence of present or past life, but manned landings will disastrously contaminate the very thing they were sent there to study!
*



So why not set aside 99% of Mars for robotic-only exploration but build a few bases in one small section of Mars? Surely a base or two won't contaminate an entire planet? Especially if they are very careful not to contaminate.

An aside, I HATE the word "contaminate" when refering to bring life to other worlds.
I can see the point when there is a question if there is life somewhere or not and the need to study some alien microbes without any earth bugs getting in the mix etc etc, but I think it is ultimately humanity's responsiblility and calling to spread life throughout the Solar System and Galaxy. Not just microbes but advanced life.
What greater purpose could our existence serve?
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: 10th April 2024 - 06:04 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.