IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Chemcam, Laser Induced Remote Sensing
odave
post Apr 21 2005, 03:00 PM
Post #16


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 510
Joined: 17-March 05
From: Southeast Michigan
Member No.: 209



QUOTE (Marcel @ Apr 21 2005, 05:07 AM)
.....besides: i want them to show us multiple succesfull  (completely) autonomous skycrane landings in rocky terrain on earth, before they send these babies !! The testing of this landing technology is going to take a lot of time and attention.
*


Agreed - test, test, test! While I know that there have been incredible advances in machine vision and automatic controls, I can't stop the image of Armstrong ejecting out of the "flying bedstead" from entering my mind every time I think about skycrane...


--------------------
--O'Dave
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 21 2005, 03:22 PM
Post #17





Guests






QUOTE (Marcel @ Apr 21 2005, 01:56 PM)
To be honest, I don't understand how NOT finding any organics by the first MSL can improve the chance for MSL 2 to do so. In other words: if MSL 1 does not give us data that wants us to go there again to get samples to bring to Earth, then what data can it provide us in order to let MSL 2 land on a location more likely to actually have organics ? Can you explain what you mean by "likely to be important in selecting the best landing site for the second "?
*

_______________________________________

Just this: if MSL-1 doesn't find organics at one site that was previously regarded as the most promising for the possible retention of fossil organic evidence, then we can send MSL-2 to the NEXT most highly-ranked site. We may also use the data we got from MSL-1 to revise that selection (especially MSL-1's new, detailed mineralogical data on the history of Mars and on the extent to which fossil evidence is likely to be preserved in different Martian geological environments).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 21 2005, 03:27 PM
Post #18





Guests






QUOTE (djellison @ Apr 21 2005, 02:06 PM)
I still wish they'd find room for a netlander mission in the next 3 launch ops - it's ripe for an ESA/NASA colab like Huygens

Doug
*


You might well see it -- there are, after all, currently supposed to be two separate Mars Scout missions in 2011. (Firouz Naderi, however, said at the Mars Roadmap meeting that he doesn't think the current $400 million cost cap for Mars Scout missions will allow any more lander missions after Phoenix, which of course benefittted from having its spacecraft already built. I suspect you'll soon see the Mars Scout cost cap raised in the same way that the Discovery cap has just been raised.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Apr 21 2005, 03:38 PM
Post #19


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14201
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Perhaps there's scope for something like ESA provide the launcher and part of the instrumentation - NASA provide the relay capacity and the bulk of the spacecraft. Something in that mould must surely be possible - and sharing the cost between a mars scout budget and a small ESA project would make it not only fiscally possible, but might count as the soft-landing experience required by ESA before attempting the Exomars lander.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 21 2005, 05:29 PM
Post #20





Guests






There is certainly a lot of interest, after Cassini/Huygens, in another major NASA/ESA collaboration. The three possibilities being talked about most, however, are (1) a Europa orbiter; (2) the "Constellation-X" formation flight of 4 X-ray telescopes for powerful X-ray interferometry; and (3) thcomparable "TPF-I" formation flight of several IR telescopes to carry out the second phase of the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission. (The first part -- TPF-C -- involves a somewhat cheaper single space telescope which NASA seems willing to build on its own.)

A Mars mission collaboration of the sort you talk about would seem to be a natural, which makes it surprising that I haven't heard more about the possibility.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cIclops
post Apr 22 2005, 07:57 AM
Post #21


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 29-January 05
Member No.: 161



Collaborations work best when all partners gain something. Space agencies look to gain a mixture of national prestige, enhancing science & technology, defense and commercial interests. As ESA now has the capability to design, build, launch and operate a Mars rover, and given the European priority to be independent of the US, there is no benefit to such a collaboration.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Apr 22 2005, 09:16 AM
Post #22


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14201
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (cIclops @ Apr 22 2005, 07:57 AM)
As ESA now has the capability to design, build, launch and operate a Mars rover,
*


We do? Since when ohmy.gif

Before MER - JPL had Viking 1, Viking 2, Pathfinder and Sojourner, and the failed MPL.

We've had Beagle 2.

Something like netlander is, imho a VITAL step towards attempting something like Exomars - if for little reason than to gain experience in operating a spacecraft on mars - and experience and data in the engineering challenges of getting there.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cIclops
post Apr 22 2005, 03:51 PM
Post #23


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 29-January 05
Member No.: 161



QUOTE (djellison @ Apr 22 2005, 09:16 AM)
QUOTE (cIclops @ Apr 22 2005, 07:57 AM)
As ESA now has the capability to design, build, launch and operate a Mars rover,
*


We do? Since when ohmy.gif

Before MER - JPL had Viking 1, Viking 2, Pathfinder and Sojourner, and the failed MPL.

We've had Beagle 2.

Something like netlander is, imho a VITAL step towards attempting something like Exomars - if for little reason than to gain experience in operating a spacecraft on mars - and experience and data in the engineering challenges of getting there.

Doug
*


Today the technology of landing on Mars is not exactly rocket science ... oh it is isn't it ha ha.

ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission. Look what NASA did with Viking in 1975 without any previous experience of landing or orbiting Mars. ESA can do it if they have the resources.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Apr 22 2005, 04:31 PM
Post #24


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4393
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (cIclops @ Apr 22 2005, 03:51 PM)
QUOTE (djellison @ Apr 22 2005, 09:16 AM)
QUOTE (cIclops @ Apr 22 2005, 07:57 AM)
As ESA now has the capability to design, build, launch and operate a Mars rover,
*


We do? Since when ohmy.gif

Before MER - JPL had Viking 1, Viking 2, Pathfinder and Sojourner, and the failed MPL.

We've had Beagle 2.

Something like netlander is, imho a VITAL step towards attempting something like Exomars - if for little reason than to gain experience in operating a spacecraft on mars - and experience and data in the engineering challenges of getting there.

Doug
*


Today the technology of landing on Mars is not exactly rocket science ... oh it is isn't it ha ha.

ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission. Look what NASA did with Viking in 1975 without any previous experience of landing or orbiting Mars. ESA can do it if they have the resources.
*



That is a big "if"


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Apr 22 2005, 06:11 PM
Post #25


Senior Member
****

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



QUOTE (cIclops @ Apr 22 2005, 10:51 AM)
ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission.
*


Many of the missions you list weren't designed, managed or operated by ESA. Yes, there is a good amount of experience *worldwide* in various aspects of spacecraft design and operations, and even mission/program management. But we must remember that, according to stories I've heard, the NASA/JPL people told the Beagle 2 designers that American airbag-landing success was based on combining airbags with a terminal phase rocket brake, and gave Beagle 2 a far smaller chance of success than Pathfinder or the MERs because ESA decided they didn't need to bother with a rocket brake at the end of the descent.

And thus, Beagle hit and went splat.

The only way someone else's experience can benefit you is if you heed the other person's advice...

-the other Doug

Quick edit -- I really should say ESA decided they couldn't afford the weight of a terminal rocket brake, not that they couldn't be bothered to use one. I guess my disappointment over the somewhat-predictable failure of Beagle 2 still makes me a little bitter... *sigh*... DVD


--------------------
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
cIclops
post Apr 23 2005, 11:24 AM
Post #26


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 29-January 05
Member No.: 161



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Apr 22 2005, 06:11 PM)
QUOTE (cIclops @ Apr 22 2005, 10:51 AM)
ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission.
*


Many of the missions you list weren't designed, managed or operated by ESA.
*



Those missions are listed in approximate order of ESA's contribution and involvement. From instruments only on Sojourner and MER, through major subsystems such as Huygens, to complete spacecraft in the case of Ulysses, Giotto, Rosetta, SMART-1 and Mars Express/Beagle 2. In addition ESA has designed, built, managed and operated several observatories, such as XMM, INTEGRAL, Cluster and Hipparcos. Well before ExoMars is launched ESA will also have constructed and launched Venus Express, COROT, Herschel and Planck, all very complex spacecraft.

Even though it has been done three times already by NASA, putting a rover on Mars is a natural next step for ESA and well within European capabilities. Now if only Beagle 2 can be located perhaps ExoMars can repair it smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gpurcell
post Apr 25 2005, 07:59 PM
Post #27


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 242
Joined: 21-December 04
Member No.: 127



QUOTE (cIclops @ Apr 23 2005, 11:24 AM)
QUOTE (dvandorn @ Apr 22 2005, 06:11 PM)
QUOTE (cIclops @ Apr 22 2005, 10:51 AM)
ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission.
*


Many of the missions you list weren't designed, managed or operated by ESA.
*



Those missions are listed in approximate order of ESA's contribution and involvement. From instruments only on Sojourner and MER, through major subsystems such as Huygens, to complete spacecraft in the case of Ulysses, Giotto, Rosetta, SMART-1 and Mars Express/Beagle 2. In addition ESA has designed, built, managed and operated several observatories, such as XMM, INTEGRAL, Cluster and Hipparcos. Well before ExoMars is launched ESA will also have constructed and launched Venus Express, COROT, Herschel and Planck, all very complex spacecraft.

Even though it has been done three times already by NASA, putting a rover on Mars is a natural next step for ESA and well within European capabilities. Now if only Beagle 2 can be located perhaps ExoMars can repair it smile.gif
*



And how many of those complex missions involved EDL?

Sorry, but going from Huygens to a large rover on Mars is a huge leap.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cIclops
post Apr 25 2005, 09:14 PM
Post #28


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 126
Joined: 29-January 05
Member No.: 161



QUOTE (gpurcell @ Apr 25 2005, 07:59 PM)
<cut>

And how many of those complex missions involved EDL?

Sorry, but going from Huygens to a large rover on Mars is a huge leap.
*


Two more than NASA had when they landed Viking on Mars. Sure EDL on another planet is state of the art stuff, but ESA has been in the space business a long time and has had the benefit of seeing how NASA did it. It's a piece of cake smile.gif


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Apr 25 2005, 09:35 PM
Post #29


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 4393
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (cIclops @ Apr 25 2005, 09:14 PM)
QUOTE (gpurcell @ Apr 25 2005, 07:59 PM)
<cut>

And how many of those complex missions involved EDL?

Sorry, but going from Huygens to a large rover on Mars is a huge leap.
*


Two more than NASA had when they landed Viking on Mars. Sure EDL on another planet is state of the art stuff, but ESA has been in the space business a long time and has had the benefit of seeing how NASA did it. It's a piece of cake smile.gif
*



Yes, but Viking was a billion-dollar mission, and that was in the 1970s. I worry that the European mission won't be properly funded. Hopefully if that is the case they will scale back instead of cutting corners.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_BruceMoomaw_*
post Apr 25 2005, 10:41 PM
Post #30





Guests






One more interesting little tidbit from the first Solar System Exploration Roadmap meeting: the total cost of Viking in today's dollars would have been $4 billion. (Of course, a great deal of the cut in costs for the modern Mars landers -- including Pathfinder -- was due to the fact that their needed research had already been carrried out for the Viking project.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th January 2020 - 10:05 PM
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.