IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

6 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
MAVEN development to orbit insertion
Marslauncher
post Jul 30 2012, 02:31 PM
Post #1


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 22-October 04
Member No.: 102



Not sure if this has been touched on before, I did not see a place for the MAVEN mission on the Past or Future missions subsection.

1)Will MAVEN have the ability to relay communication from the surface vehicles to Earth?
2)Am I correct in reading there are no visual cameras on MAVEN?


Fair Use.

http://lasp.colorado.edu/home/maven/scienc...rument-package/

The Particles and Fields Package, built by the University of California, Berkeley/Space Sciences Laboratory (SSL) with support from the University of Colorado Boulder/Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) and Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC), contains six instruments that will characterize the solar wind and the ionosphere of the planet:

•Solar Wind Electron Analyzer (SWEA)
•Solar Wind Ion Analyzer (SWIA)
•Suprathermal and Thermal Ion Composition (STATIC)
•Solar Energetic Particle (SEP)
•Langmuir Probe and Waves (LPW)
•Magnetometer (MAG)
The Remote Sensing Package, built by LASP, will determine global characteristics of the upper atmosphere and ionosphere via remote sensing.

•Imaging Ultraviolet Spectrometer (IUVS)
The Neutral Gas and Ion Mass Spectrometer (NGIMS), provided by GFSC, will measure the composition and isotopes of neutral ions.



Apologies in advance if this has already been answered. (btw I think we do need a MAVEN sticky in future missions)

John (Mars)

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Jul 30 2012, 03:34 PM
Post #2


Forum Contributor
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1101
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



"NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., will provide navigation support, the Deep Space Network, and Electra telecommunications relay package."

Overview

So yes to Q1.

As far as I recall it's going to be NASA policy to fly a relay package on all NASA orbiters, and proberbly ESA has the same policy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Drkskywxlt
post Jul 30 2012, 03:49 PM
Post #3


Member
***

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



Yes to both questions. However, MAVEN will not as useful for surface communications since it will be in a highly elliptical orbit. It's possible after several years they might adjust the orbit to make it more comm-friendly, but I wouldn't count on it. For that very reason, a *possible* 2018 orbiter will almost certainly have future lander comm as one its primary objectives.

NASA pays to put an Elektra comm package on all Mars-bound spacecraft and will pay for one on the 2016 ESA Trace Gas Orbiter if/when it flys. That, in fact, is the only remaining US contribution to that mission.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marslauncher
post Jul 30 2012, 04:18 PM
Post #4


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 60
Joined: 22-October 04
Member No.: 102



Thanks, That was what I had assumed (Telecom on all orbiters) but could not find any mention (without knowing the Elektra package was that).

As much as I wish all missions could be mobile rovers / Sample Return / Human Exploration setup missions, we certainly need coverage for our landers and orbital relay capability. I was sad to see the MTO cancelled.

I will have my mini mission control set up for next Sunday / Monday mornings MSL landing (with Odyssey thankfully back on track) which led me to that question about coverage.

Thanks again.

John
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Jul 30 2012, 05:08 PM
Post #5


Forum Contributor
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1101
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



I believe the plan with MAVEN is to park it in a good orbit for communications once the primary mission objectives are achieved, I think I heard that on a conference one time. It would be illogical to put an electra onboard that could hardly be utilized.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Drkskywxlt
post Jul 30 2012, 06:12 PM
Post #6


Member
***

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



QUOTE (MahFL @ Jul 30 2012, 12:08 PM) *
I believe the plan with MAVEN is to park it in a good orbit for communications once the primary mission objectives are achieved, I think I heard that on a conference one time. It would be illogical to put an electra onboard that could hardly be utilized.


Yes, I've heard something similar. But I've also heard that they have intent to lower their "dip" altitude during an extended mission to get some additional science.

The Elektra isn't useless in an elliptical orbit (see Mars Express for an example), just not as reliable for daily science relay operations like a lander would need.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Jul 31 2012, 02:13 AM
Post #7


Forum Contributor
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1101
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



QUOTE (Drkskywxlt @ Jul 30 2012, 06:12 PM) *
Yes, I've heard something similar. But I've also heard that they have intent to lower their "dip" altitude during an extended mission to get some additional science..


Well the comms orbit would be after an extended mission then smile.gif.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stone
post Jan 31 2013, 01:18 PM
Post #8


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 21-January 13
Member No.: 6845



QUOTE (MahFL @ Jul 31 2012, 03:13 AM) *
Well the comms orbit would be after an extended mission then smile.gif.


One scientist of MAVEN said in 2009 on a Marsexpress meeting they told nasa they will built in the electra package and nasa said no you also have to connect it.

This brings it to the point the scientists will like to go deeper and deeper into the atmosphere and in the end burn the thing in a very low dip. The scientists are not in favor of the idea that the spacecraft although it is still working has to do relay work.

I still hope for enough orbiting spacecrafts in the future. The ExoMars Tacegas Orbiter will also have an electra module.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mwolff
post Jan 31 2013, 03:53 PM
Post #9


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 44
Joined: 16-January 06
Member No.: 646



QUOTE (stone @ Jan 31 2013, 07:18 AM) *
This brings it to the point the scientists will like to go deeper and deeper into the atmosphere and in the end burn the thing in a very low dip. The scientists are not in favor of the idea that the spacecraft although it is still working has to do relay work.



Given NASA's lack of any NASA-primary orbiters before the 2020 rover (concept), it is unlikely that NASA would be highly motivated to sacrifice the spacecraft for the ultimate "deep dip". Furthermore, with extended missions comes extended (though usually reduced) funding...and I have faith that the MAVEN PI and Co-Is will see the wisdom of continued, if reduced, funding and scientific returns enabled with a more telecom-friendly orbit.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Drkskywxlt
post Jan 31 2013, 05:38 PM
Post #10


Member
***

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



Per Bruce Jakosky at the pre-AGU MAVEN workshop, MAVEN's nominal orbit is not as unfriendly to rover/lander comm as one might think just by eyeball.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Jan 31 2013, 10:04 PM
Post #11


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 473
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



For the 2020 rover mission, NASA is planning on having the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, MAVEN, and ESA/Russia's Trace Gas Orbiter. I believe the Odyssey will run out of fuel before then. MRO would be especially important for detailed imaging, although it has been actively imaging a list of candidate sites. I think that prophylactic imaging covers only the potential landing eclipse, not the full extent of the possible roving area. Anyone know for sure?


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stone
post Feb 2 2013, 11:20 AM
Post #12


Junior Member
**

Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 21-January 13
Member No.: 6845



QUOTE (Drkskywxlt @ Jan 31 2013, 06:38 PM) *
Per Bruce Jakosky at the pre-AGU MAVEN workshop, MAVEN's nominal orbit is not as unfriendly to rover/lander comm as one might think just by eyeball.


The problem is not that they do not have a unfriendly orbit, but that they have to serve the rovers and their own science, puting some restrictions on them.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevesliva
post Apr 9 2013, 09:42 PM
Post #13


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1295
Joined: 14-October 05
From: Seattle
Member No.: 530



Some integration photos of MAVEN here
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Explorer1
post Apr 10 2013, 03:34 AM
Post #14


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1349
Joined: 13-February 10
From: British Columbia
Member No.: 5221



Was it ever explained why the ends of the solar panels are bent inward like that? Does it have to do with the magnetometers? I don't see how that angling would provide more power.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Apr 10 2013, 04:03 AM
Post #15


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2134
Joined: 28-December 04
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 132



QUOTE (Explorer1 @ Apr 9 2013, 11:34 PM) *
Was it ever explained why the ends of the solar panels are bent...?
My guess: So they can be as long as possible and still fit in the fairing? Also, no solar cells are on the bent portions so nothing to do with power, just increasing the length (distance from craft).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 22nd January 2017 - 05:58 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.