IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

13 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Spirit cleaner?
Jeff7
post Jun 28 2007, 04:53 AM
Post #46


Member
***

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



Most excellent indeed.


The new Mars forum question:

"How many MERs will be working when MSL lands?
0, 1, or 2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Jun 28 2007, 05:57 AM
Post #47


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



Tau values were made by Viking Landers based on pre-programmed solar brightness observations. When the sun wasn't visible at exposure settings used, the values are lower limits. I *think* values of optical tau over 6 were indicated. Scene brightness levels dropped DRAMATICALLY, with darker horizons than higher skys and with more or less no shadows. Many/most of those images were badly underexposed Of course, once new exposures were selected and upllinked, the opacity dropped a lot, and the images were badly whited-out.

Thermal infrared tau values were measured from orbit with the infrared thermal mapper, a multi-channel radiometer and are about 1/10th (as I recall) the optical values.

Pre-Viking data are poor. Mariner 9 data was re-analyzed but I don't recall results and the worst of the storm was 2 1/2 OR 3 MONTHS before Mariner arrived.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Jun 28 2007, 06:36 AM
Post #48


Dublin Correspondent
****

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



I don't have precise data but again there are approximation formulae in "Solar Radiation on Mars - Update 1991" J. Applebaum, G.A. Landis. (NASA Technical Memorandum #105216) for both of the 1977 global storms that yield optical depths by latitude and LS. Both of these peak at around 5.

That should equate to around a 70% loss in insolation which in turn should equate to about 1.5-2 f/stops from an exposure POV. That would be noticable shouldn't have caused dramatic under/over exposure of images so I wonder if the model underestimates the values? Any ideas?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Analyst_*
post Jun 28 2007, 09:53 AM
Post #49





Guests






QUOTE (fredk @ Jun 28 2007, 04:09 AM) *
Spirit's Solar Power Levels Continue to Rise
Another cleaning has occured. Power has risen to 738 watt-hours!! biggrin.gif biggrin.gif


This should be enough for the next winter (on a slope), shouldn't it?

Analyst
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Jun 28 2007, 11:34 AM
Post #50


Dublin Correspondent
****

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



738 Whr means she is still losing about 25% due to dust. Last summer at peak when she was generating 956 Whr the dust loss factor was around 5%. So she's getting cleaner but I don't think that surviving the winter is guaranteed yet. She bottomed out at 280Whr in mid winter at Low Ridge so right now we'd be looking at around 220Whr for the minimum next winter assuming nothing else changes (and dust deposition follows last years pattern).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Jun 28 2007, 11:45 AM
Post #51


Dublin Correspondent
****

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



QUOTE
Tau measurements estimating the amount of dust in the atmosphere rose from 0.69 to 0.75. (Perfectly clean solar arrays would have a dust factor of 1.0, so the larger the dust factor, the cleaner the arrays.) Electrical energy rose to 738 watt-hours.

Interesting mix up of terms there - Tau and Dust Factor are not the same thing, looks like someone left out part of the sentence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dvandorn
post Jun 28 2007, 04:01 PM
Post #52


Senior Member
****

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



QUOTE (helvick @ Jun 28 2007, 06:34 AM) *
738 Whr means she is still losing about 25% due to dust. Last summer at peak when she was generating 956 Whr the dust loss factor was around 5%. So she's getting cleaner but I don't think that surviving the winter is guaranteed yet. She bottomed out at 280Whr in mid winter at Low Ridge so right now we'd be looking at around 220Whr for the minimum next winter assuming nothing else changes (and dust deposition follows last years pattern).

Remember, too, that we're not just talking about a pretty straight-line graph in which the amount of dust entrained in the atmosphere relates directly to the amount of dust deposited on any given surface. There are a lot of microclimatological effects right along the surface that greatly impact dust deposition rates. If we were to park Spirit on top of El Dorado for a winter, for example (and I know, it would never happen, it faces the wrong way, etc.), you'd likely never survive because the hills force a turbulence that drops dust out of the air selectively onto the El Dorado formation.

IMHO, Spirit spent last winter in a place that tends to collect a little more dust than other places within reach. If she can claw her way up the side of a hill that faces into the prevailing winter winds, as opposed to sitting in a "deposition sink," she might have a better shot at surviving her next winter. But if she stays exclusively in the Home Plate area and doesn't get very far from it, the deposition rate may be just high enough to kill her without an extraordinarily vigorous cleaning event just before the onset of winter.

-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
centsworth_II
post Jun 28 2007, 06:15 PM
Post #53


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2173
Joined: 28-December 04
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 132



If Spirit makes it to next winter, I think they'll take
a lot more care getting her into the best position
possible, as opposed to the rushed job last winter.
I wonder how far the positioning last winter was
from "perfect", how much better could they do
strictly from an angle-to-the-sun standpoint.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jun 28 2007, 06:24 PM
Post #54


Founder
****

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



They didnt want to do a rush job last time - remember they were trying to get to McCool hill which would have been amazing - but the stuck wheel, and then the Tyrone sand trap...things went against the rover so they had to get somewhere, fast.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Jun 29 2007, 05:53 AM
Post #55


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2173
Joined: 28-December 04
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 132



QUOTE (djellison @ Jun 28 2007, 02:24 PM) *
They didnt want to do a rush job last time...

I didn't mean to imply that they planned it that way. I'm presuming
that the result was a less than optimal, but still adequate, positioning
for wintering. My question is, how much better could they do next
winter in terms of positioning for solar energy gathering? Is there a
lot of room for improvement, or did they get pretty close to optimal
positioning in spite of the difficulties last winter?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jun 29 2007, 08:37 AM
Post #56


Founder
****

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



Well - with a stuck wheel they can't really climb onto the sorts of slopes that would be much better than Low Ridge haven. 20-25 degrees would have been better I would have thought - but the rover just can't get to that sort of terrain any more.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BrianL
post Jun 29 2007, 12:55 PM
Post #57


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 530
Joined: 21-March 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 721



Even if the slope is rock with no significant sand to drag through?

Brian
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jun 29 2007, 01:05 PM
Post #58


Founder
****

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



I'd say so, yeah. You drop not only 18% of your traction, but add a whole lot of drag even on rock. Slightly moot point given that there isn't a lot of exposed rock without sand involved near Spirit.

On the other side of the planet they've said that if they go into Victoria, then have a wheel fail while inside, it would be very hard to get out again.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fredk
post Jun 29 2007, 02:54 PM
Post #59


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 4246
Joined: 17-January 05
Member No.: 152



But fortunately getting to a steeper slope may not mean having to drive uphill. If we find ourselves still on Homeplate by late fall, it should be easy to drive from the top of HP partly down the north edge, which would face the right way. I don't recall any figures for those edge slopes, but I suspect they're better than what we had at Low Ridge haven - was that only 10 degrees?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Jun 29 2007, 03:04 PM
Post #60


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2173
Joined: 28-December 04
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 132



Strategy for getting Spirit on 25 degree slope:
Climb a rise up a less steep slope, then
descend on the steep side and stop.

Looks like good slopes in yellow circle.
Spirit should be there in time to winter.

Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 24th April 2024 - 04:17 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 funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.