IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

18 Pages V  « < 16 17 18  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Wheel Trouble, ...down to 5 good wheels?
Bob Shaw
post Apr 26 2006, 08:39 PM
Post #256


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



FWIW, the Lunokhod wheels were, like the MER wheels, each equipped with an electric motor, but provision was made to 'blow' the motor if it stalled so that the wheel could freely turn. I don't think this feature was ever actually used.

Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Apr 26 2006, 09:14 PM
Post #257


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14432
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Blimey - I'm reaching WAYYy back into the distant past here - I seem to remember that they were a few degrees above predicts whilst still sat on the lander, but I've not heard anything since then.

Trying to convert that heat into a 'power saving' obviously requires more MER facts than we mortals have.....

Call it 4 degrees. Say we have an equiv within the structure and contents of the WEB of say 20kg of water in terms of equiv thermal capacity.

Specific heat is 4186J, x 20, x4 - 334880 Joules of energy.

3600 seconds in one hour, 1 Whr thus provides 3600 Joules - so 4 degrees of heat in 20kg of water is 93 Whrs. I have no idea if that relates in any way shape or form to the potential for saved power onboard a rover, but it's a thought isn't it.

Still waiting for that sky hemisphere eh Mike ph34r.gif

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Apr 26 2006, 09:50 PM
Post #258


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (djellison @ Apr 26 2006, 09:14 PM) *
3600 seconds in one hour, 1 Whr thus provides 3600 Joules - so 4 degrees of heat in 20kg of water is 93 Whrs. I have no idea if that relates in any way shape or form to the potential for saved power onboard a rover, but it's a thought isn't it.

It is a thought alright. The original engineering requirements documents go into quite a bit of detail on the thermal performance and the amount of IR heat energy the Rovers would be subjected to on the surface. Looking at the charts it seems that the design specified downward IR flux that varied from 20-50 watt/m^2 throughout the day when Tau was low up to 20-75watt/m^2 when Tau was around 2. That amounts to between 600 and about 1000 whr/sol for the rovers since the downward IR seems to remain around about ~20watt\m^2 even at night.

All of this is very speculative though considering that we have no idea how well insulated the rover body is and even if we had such detailed thermal model data we still don't really know what the temperature limits actually are. It could be that the components can just handle much colder temperatures than they had been designed for or it could be that they are managing to remain warmer than expected. I suspect the former because the latter would surely have led to real overheating problems.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Apr 26 2006, 09:59 PM
Post #259


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14432
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (helvick @ Apr 26 2006, 09:50 PM) *
real overheating problems.


LIke the one's that resulted in cancelled UHF sessions whilst still on the lander, and turning the spacecraft off in the afternoons whilst atop Husband Hill smile.gif

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Apr 26 2006, 10:15 PM
Post #260


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1799
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



QUOTE (djellison @ Apr 26 2006, 09:59 PM) *
LIke the one's that resulted in cancelled UHF sessions whilst still on the lander, and turning the spacecraft off in the afternoons whilst atop Husband Hill smile.gif

I was thinking that as I was typing but at that time the total insolation was almost 20% higher than the maximum that would ever have been planned for in the original mission and even with the most optimistic hope for extended operations so overheating at that point wasn't really surprising. I seem to recall though that overheating was mentioned much earlier in the mission too but I can't remember when so maybe the insulation is just working much better than intended.
My comment was based on my own opinion that it would be much more of a surprise that the insulation on the rover worked better than expected than having components survive more repeated heating\cooling cycles than they had been designed for.
Hopefully there will be some nice papers on this at some stage. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mwolff
post Apr 27 2006, 02:45 AM
Post #261


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 50
Joined: 16-January 06
Member No.: 646



QUOTE (djellison @ Apr 26 2006, 04:14 PM) *
[snip]

Still waiting for that sky hemisphere eh Mike ph34r.gif

Doug


...in LOCO! biggrin.gif

--mike

QUOTE (helvick @ Apr 26 2006, 05:15 PM) *
My comment was based on my own opinion that it would be much more of a surprise that the insulation on the rover worked better than expected than having components survive more repeated heating\cooling cycles than they had been designed for.
Hopefully there will be some nice papers on this at some stage. smile.gif


rover naps were definitely inserted into the tactical planning process as a result of the need to "cool". you'll get
more reliable information from Emily, though. Atmospheric STG concerns about thermal issues was typtically limited to the amount of power that had to be used to pre-heat before overnight miniTES observations...

QUOTE (mwolff @ Apr 26 2006, 09:44 PM) *
...in LOCO! biggrin.gif
--mike
rover naps were definitely inserted into the tactical planning process as a result of the need to "cool". you'll get
more reliable information from Emily, though. Atmospheric STG concerns about thermal issues was typtically limited to the amount of power that had to be used to pre-heat before overnight miniTES observations...


...though apparently grammar wasn't a concern either. blink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

18 Pages V  « < 16 17 18
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 6th May 2024 - 11:44 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.