IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
InSight mission
JRehling
post Aug 21 2012, 09:07 PM
Post #46


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2246
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



Mars Geophysical network options with anywhere from 1 to 4 stations have been studied. This passage seems to say it all:

"Although a network of four or more stations would be ideal, fewer stations could still provide much of the necessary information for addressing the science objectives described above. There are many analysis techniques that have been developed for seismology, particularly in the last decade that could extract interior information from seismic measurements at fewer stations, or even a single station. One seismic station could use techniques such as P-S/back-azimuth tracing to provide locations, multiple phase arrivals (P, S, PmP, PcP, PKP, etc.) to derive interior velocities and boundary depths, receiver function and surface wave analysis to delineate crust and upper mantle structure, and Phobos tide measurements and possibly normal mode observations to constrain core size and state. Two stations constitute a substantial improvement in capability, providing correlation capacity for unambiguous identification of seismic events, an improved ability to compute surface wave phase velocity, and noise correlation techniques that can provide planetary structure from background noise analysis while strengthening the interpretation of the single-station techniques described above. A three-station network has the additional advantage that it could provide event locations using conventional P-wave arrival techniques combined with a limited set of a priori assumptions.

For this study a two-station network of seismometers is considered the minimum network size to address the baseline science of MGN for a New Frontiers class mission. However, single station missions were also investigated, as they would provide science value commensurate with Discovery class missions."

Source: http://ia700504.us.archive.org/26/items/Ma...tions-Final.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Aug 21 2012, 11:31 PM
Post #47


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 549
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



A Universe Today article stated that the landing site will be in Elysium Planitia: “Our planned landing site is in Elysium Planitia,” Banerdt told me. “It was chosen for optimizing engineering safety margins for landing and power.”

In emails with Banerdt, he told me that the lander will carry some meteorology instruments to characterize the effect of wind and temperature on the seismic instrument.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Drkskywxlt
post Aug 21 2012, 11:45 PM
Post #48


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 293
Joined: 29-August 06
From: Columbia, MD
Member No.: 1083



QUOTE (vjkane @ Aug 21 2012, 07:31 PM) *
In emails with Banerdt, he told me that the lander will carry some meteorology instruments to characterize the effect of wind and temperature on the seismic instrument.


Thanks for confirming that. That met data is basically engineering data aka "noise". But, hopefully it can be useful scientifically as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
NickF
post Aug 22 2012, 02:38 AM
Post #49


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 107
Joined: 29-January 09
Member No.: 4589



I suppose that (re)flying the Planetary Society's Mars mike is out of the question?


--------------------
Protein structures and Mars fun - http://www.flickr.com/photos/nick960/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
briv1016
post Aug 22 2012, 06:46 AM
Post #50


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 18-December 07
From: New York
Member No.: 3982



Any word on a launch vehicle? An Atlas V seems kind of overkill.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
climber
post Aug 22 2012, 06:52 AM
Post #51


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2829
Joined: 14-February 06
From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France)
Member No.: 682



QUOTE (NickF @ Aug 22 2012, 04:38 AM) *
I suppose that (re)flying the Planetary Society's Mars mike is out of the question?

May be not: http://www.planetary.org/blogs/bill-nye/we...rs-in-2016.html
Read last Bill Nye sentence
smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paolo
post Aug 22 2012, 07:33 AM
Post #52


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1695
Joined: 3-August 06
From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E
Member No.: 1004



cool video on the German heat probe
http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/Portaldata/1/Reso...hp3_640x320.mp4
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mongo
post Aug 22 2012, 04:32 PM
Post #53


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 709
Joined: 13-June 04
Member No.: 82



QUOTE (briv1016 @ Aug 22 2012, 07:46 AM) *
Any word on a launch vehicle? An Atlas V seems kind of overkill.

It occurs to me that the Falcon 9 has a TMI mass capability of approximately 2,500 kg. Given the Mars InSight lander mass of 350 kg (and maybe double that amount for the cruse stage plus EDL hardware plus lander), you could launch 3 Mars InSight spacecraft to Mars for $50 million. How much extra would it cost to produce two extra flight-ready copies of the InSight spacecraft? (Remember that you just saved $50 million in launch costs over a Delta IV.)

I am sure that it would cost more than $50 million to manufacture and test two extra copies, but it still sounds like a bargain to me. I imagine that the total cost would still exceed the Discovery cost cap, though.

But even if you only send one copy, you would still have an extra $50 million saved by moving from Delta IV to Falcon 9, which could be used to upgrade the spacecraft.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SFJCody
post Aug 22 2012, 11:42 PM
Post #54


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 8-February 04
From: Arabia Terra
Member No.: 12



QUOTE (Mongo @ Aug 23 2012, 02:32 AM) *
It occurs to me that the Falcon 9 has a TMI mass capability of approximately 2,500 kg. Given the Mars InSight lander mass of 350 kg (and maybe double that amount for the cruse stage plus EDL hardware plus lander), you could launch 3 Mars InSight spacecraft to Mars for $50 million.


Or one copy of InSight... and a really big lump of copper to thwack Mars with. blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Aug 23 2012, 12:51 AM
Post #55


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



Remember too, if you start saying "Hey, with a bigger booster we can add..." and go down that road, then you're getting into unproven EDL realms, you have to re-do your parachute, your landing strategies, etc., etc.

And then your proven, lowest-risk bid of "We already know the Phoenix architecture works, so we'll just duplicate it" becomes something entirely different.

I hear they are still building Delta II's...

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
climber
post Aug 23 2012, 08:25 AM
Post #56


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2829
Joined: 14-February 06
From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France)
Member No.: 682



Yep, I guess that the TPS microphone would be the only extra they could afford since it was already on MPL i.e. Phoenix concept... and this will not require a rocket change laugh.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
briv1016
post Aug 23 2012, 08:53 AM
Post #57


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 239
Joined: 18-December 07
From: New York
Member No.: 3982



Taking another look at the animation video it appears that like Phoenix, InSight will not have a high gain antenna and will be completely reliant on orbiter relay for telecommunications. It has already been mentioned up thread that we shouldn't rely on MRO for landing location identification, should we really rely on it for data?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Aug 23 2012, 12:50 PM
Post #58


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2156
Joined: 28-December 04
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 132



QUOTE (briv1016 @ Aug 23 2012, 03:53 AM) *
...It has already been mentioned up thread that we shouldn't rely on MRO for landing location identification, should we really rely on it for data?

The only reason not to rely on MRO for locating the lander is the possibility that MRO may no longer be functioning. In the (likely) event that MRO is still functioning, of course we can expect it to image InSight on the surface.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevesliva
post Aug 23 2012, 09:21 PM
Post #59


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1428
Joined: 14-October 05
From: Vermont
Member No.: 530



QUOTE (briv1016 @ Aug 23 2012, 03:53 AM) *
Taking another look at the animation video it appears that like Phoenix, InSight will not have a high gain antenna and will be completely reliant on orbiter relay for telecommunications. It has already been mentioned up thread that we shouldn't rely on MRO for landing location identification, should we really rely on it for data?


MAVEN will have a data relay capability as well.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
antipode
post Aug 24 2012, 08:35 AM
Post #60


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 261
Joined: 1-October 06
Member No.: 1206



QUOTE
Any word on a launch vehicle? An Atlas V seems kind of overkill.


NASA just bought 3 Delta II launches after most people though it was all over for that vehicle.
I believe there are still 2 left, so I guess its possible that InSight might find a ride on a DII.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 8th July 2020 - 02:18 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.