Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 22 2007, 02:35 AM

Actually there are more costs due to the MMRTG.
1. MSL is contributing money for the development of it
2. There are launch vehicle mods
3. there are launch approval costs
4. there are launch processing costs

Posted by: nprev Jun 22 2007, 02:54 AM

True; close oppositions of Mars only happen every 17 years, so the next such opportunity (ta-dah, dah!) won't be until 2020.

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Jun 22 2007, 05:21 PM

Wasn't Delta II possible in 2005 and/or 2007 with a Venus and/or Earth gravity assist?

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 22 2007, 07:20 PM

The vehicles weren't design for that. Per Peter T., it was 2003 or the NASM

Posted by: AlexBlackwell Jun 22 2007, 07:28 PM

I know MER wasn't designed for that; the assumption was that the spacecraft would be modified for inner solar system cruise. My understanding is that there was trajectory analysis done that identified an Earth and/or Venus gravity assist for either the '03 or '05 launch opportunities.

Whether it was feasible is another issue, but assuming it was, then Delta II could have handled it.

Posted by: hendric Jun 23 2007, 10:44 PM

Rob,
How is MSL going to keep the sand out of its wheels? I noticed in the pictures from Emily that there wasn't much of a guard on the sides of the wheels to keep out sand and rocks.

Posted by: PhilHorzempa Jun 28 2007, 12:43 AM

Rob,

There is a thread here at UMSF discussing possible names for MSL. I know
that you have no control over the naming of MSL (isn't that a shame?), and
that someone over in NASA HQ will decide. Here are my questions -

1. Can you let us at UMSF know who that bureaucrat is and how we
can contact him/her?

2. Do you have any favorite name, or names, for MSL?

3. Is there a "pet" name for MSL at JPL?

4. Have you heard other names suggested by JPL engineers?


I know that these are not technical questions, but I still think that they are important.
Names go a long way in helping the public identify with a mission.
Imagine if, instead of Stardust, the comet mission was named Flypaper-1.

Also, I am tired of the "let the school kids name the mission" trend.
I would rather have the project team name the project.
If that isn't allowed, how about opening up a naming program on the Internet,
open to Everyone, including adults and school kids. If you get a million suggestions,
then count your blessings in that amount of public interest. If that happens, pick
a thousand out randomly, have someone read all of those, and pick 10 finalists.
Then let the American Idol crowd vote for their favorite.

Another Phil

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 28 2007, 02:38 AM

Mike Griffin and I am not joking

Posted by: mcaplinger Jun 28 2007, 06:48 PM

I can't speak for Rob or anybody at JPL, but I have never, ever heard any name for the vehicle other than MSL. JPL has never been big on "pretty names" for spacecraft: witness Mariner 9, Viking 2, etc. It's only been fairly recently that names started being used (Galileo and Magellan were the first I recall, obviously when you only have one spacecraft per mission type you can't use a number) and even then, those programs were often referred to as Jupiter Orbiter/Probe and Venus Radar Mapper, respectively. I will always think of Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander as the Mars Surveyor 1998 Orbiter and Lander; the names (pretty lame in that case) usually come very late in the process. There are plenty of people who still call Spirit and Opportunity MER-A and MER-B (or MER-2 and MER-1

Sometimes the assembly techs have pet names for spacecraft, but they're not always printable :-)

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 28 2007, 08:08 PM

Include me in this group

Posted by: Oren Iishi Jun 28 2007, 11:37 PM

I can't understand why the MER test rover couldn't be modified and used in a future Mars mission. I'm sure that the test rover hasn't gone through the rigorous space qualification processes of the other two rovers but its basic structure should be the same. I would think that it would cost maybe a tenth the cost of a new rover. It could be made better than the original rovers (as you stated) by adding better solar arrays, software and etc.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/solarsystem/mer-050606.html

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 29 2007, 01:32 AM

Because it has be used over and over in the Mars yard. All the parts would need to be clean and requalified.It has no brains. There is no lander or cruise stage, so it doesn't really save any money

Posted by: ElkGroveDan Jun 29 2007, 04:17 AM

Well that's interesting. What makes you think it's just him?

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jun 29 2007, 03:11 PM

Because the Admin has the final say.

As for bureaucrats, involved: Alan Stern, Doug Mcquistion (sp?) Mars program executive,

Posted by: gallen_53 Jun 29 2007, 11:43 PM

I've been told that the original in-house names for MER-A and B were Itchy and Scratchy. IMHO, those names would have been better than the lame ones actually used.

Posted by: djellison Jun 29 2007, 11:47 PM

Oh - I heard other names got used once or twice given the months of 50,60,70+ hour weeks involved.

Posted by: mchan Jun 30 2007, 01:55 AM

Those got mentioned here. Divorce was one, can't remember the others.

Posted by: MarsEngineer Jul 2 2007, 04:02 AM

Hi Hendric,

I do not know the answer. My first take on the matter is that it looks like the wheel design is tolerant to rocks and sand entering the wheel cavity as MER was intended (but ultimately, it turned out not not to be). You will recall that MER had a bit of a challenge with potato-sized rocks getting stuck between the inner wall of the wheel and the axel. The spacing on MSL's design is much larger (should we worry about eggplant sized rocks?). But I will ask the mobility team's lead engineers Jaime and Chris. They may yet want to close out the gaps as was done with the fill material and kapton used on MER. There is still time.

thanks!

-Rob

Posted by: MarsEngineer Jul 2 2007, 04:32 AM

You are right Mike. For reasons that probably lurk deep in the neuronal structure of us Dilbert-like engineers we find ourselves quickly getting comfortable with TLAs (three letter acronyms). MSL runs off our lips as loquaciously as VCR, EDL, PC and iPhone.

I have to agree that it is odd, but we really did not have special names for the two rovers under construction in ATLO (assembly, test & launch ops) during late 2002 and 2003 other than MER-1 & MER-2. We are a dull lot aren't we?

We did have unique names for some of our hardware that we used in jest. One particular "flight" rover's electronics module (REM) was put through its test paces inside inside a thermal chamber (hot & cold) where we had inadverantly let in ambient (not dry) air after it had been cold. The result was a soaking wet set of very expensive electronics. Forever after we called it the incredible "Aqua REM". This same REM took a turn on (I think) MER-1 / Opportunity and found iteslf getting zapped on an AC outlet by accident. We decided that neither rain nor sleet nor electircal shock would hinder that REM. It worked fine but we still decided it would be best it remained on mother earth. It still lives in the testbed.

When I first started working JPL (as a student electronics draftsman), I worked on what was still called "JOP" or Jupiter Orbiter Probe. It was renamed Gallieo soon just after I arrived around 1980 (it was scheduled to be launched in '83 or '84 by then I think). It took us a while to get used to "Gallieo". Some folks really did not like it, but we got used to it.

Unlike competed missions (like Phoenix which get named by their PIs) these big missions tend to get their final mission names relatively close to launch. Even Spitzer was SIRTF (Spaceborn InfraRed Telecscope Facility) prior to launch. I do not know the reason but I think it has to do with "reality". Even up to the weeks before launch there is some (low) probability that these machines will not be launched. Once the are really really going to launch, then a final name is selected.

-Rob

Posted by: David Jul 2 2007, 12:06 PM

The Soviets did y'all one better, not naming their spacecraft until after launch; that is, if they were successful; if they failed they got some dud placeholder name like "Kosmos".

Posted by: climber Jul 8 2007, 10:46 AM

I like this one Rob, you're still NOT used to it . It was called GALILEO and not Gallieo

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jul 8 2007, 12:33 PM

Not really. They all had names, just not public ones

Posted by: Stephen Jul 11 2007, 10:12 AM

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that lame as they may be, and despite being wary of them initially myself, I've kinda grown comfortable with the names "Spirit" and "Opportunity", just as most seem to have grown comfortable with other names for other NASA spacecraft--like "Hubble", "Sojourner", "Magellan" and "Voyager" (the last, BTW, if memory serves, started out in life being called "Mariner Jupiter/Saturn" before being renamed; I wonder how many diehards at NASA or JPL still call them that?

In some senses "Spirit" and "Opportunity" even, bizarrely, reflect the rovers' respective fates (with "Opportunity" have more than its fair share of luck--eg its hole-in--one in Eagle Crater--and Spirit of pluck).

But that said others have not gone down so well. Does anybody--except maybe NASA's PR office--habitually refer to the Mars Pathfinder lander as the "Carl Sagan Memorial Station"? Or the Viking 1 lander as the "Thomas A. Mutch Memorial Station"?

For that matter who would refer to certain (other) pieces of MER hardware as the "Columbia Memorial Station" or the "Challenger Memorial Station"?

I guess in the end it all comes down to what we feel most comfortable with, have grown used to, or find trips most easily off the tongue.

======
Stephen

Posted by: Toma B Jul 11 2007, 10:20 AM

I'm little impatient...
When is "Rob Manning Q'n'A" coming up?

Posted by: djellison Jul 11 2007, 10:43 AM

Plan is for me to pull all the questions together - hand them to Rob, and Rob will do written answers.

BUT

I'm not giving Rob the questions till after Phoenix is away I'm not going to get the blame if Phoenix has EDL issues.

My advice - forget it was ever thought of, and then it'll be a nice suprise when Rob starts answering the questions

Doug

Posted by: dvandorn Jul 13 2007, 01:07 AM

I may be misremembering, but I have this vagrant memory that, at one point, they were referred to by the mission name Mariner Outer Planets Explorer. I also have a vagrant memory that they were renamed quickly after that, since no one wanted to fly a MOPE...

-the other Doug

Posted by: lyford Jul 13 2007, 11:51 PM

All that MARDI talk over on the Phoenix thread got me to a thinkin':

Can the MARDI also be used to image the ground beneath MSL like Phoenix? Would this be helpful in any way to detect slippage? Or what other "stop you're in another Purgatory Dune" mechanisms are there?

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 14 2007, 08:00 AM

Some may feel this belongs in the Mars Sample Return thread, but my main question is about MSL. The July 9 Aviation Week has an article about Alan Stern wanting to move up a sample return mission to 2018/20, with the following quote:

"One approach may be to outfit the '09 MSL...with a sample cache that could be filled as the rover moves across the surface and retrieved by a later sample return mission."

Is this really possible, given how close MSL is to launch? It was my impression that the MSL design is pretty close to being frozen, and adding a sample cache seems to involve a nontrivial change to the rover design. I'll admit it could be done on an emergency basis, but given the budget problems MSL has already incurred, the schedule is currently very tight. I don't see how it could be done without restructuring the MSL program and delaying launch to 2011.

I applaud Dr. Stern wanting to shake things up a bit and challenge the Mars program, but this doesn't seem realistic.

Posted by: nprev Jul 14 2007, 12:39 PM

Agreed, Monitor. However, that sounds like a potentially valuable standard feature to add to any and all future rovers. It would be great to carry along significant samples for possible later return or more detailed examination, whether by MSR or eventual manned missions...saves a lot of footwork for the latter!

Of course, the science team would have to be pretty selective...I can just see Spirit & Oppy hauling around about 500 kg of rocks each after traveling only 1000 meters or so...

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jul 14 2007, 01:22 PM

Close to launch? CDR just happened and the sample handling portion was delayed until Oct

Posted by: lyford Jul 14 2007, 03:07 PM

Shades of http://www.amazon.com/Long-Trailer-Lucille-Ball/dp/6301972279

But we would have a good name for the rover - Lucy!

Posted by: edstrick Jul 15 2007, 07:05 AM

"...science team would have to be pretty selective..."

Doesn't take much.. imagine pencil-erasor sized grabs of soil or other "fines" and centimeter long pencil-thick minicores of rock. You can do incredibly lots with that.. each would more than everythign brought back from stardust.

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 15 2007, 10:29 AM

Instead of "close to launch" I probably should have said "so far along in the development cycle". What I was getting at is that MSL is not very receptive to adding major new features at this point. The volume of the rover has been split amongst the various systems and experiments, and adding a sample cache system now would mean moving a lot of things around, especially considering the cache location would be constrained by where the sample delivery system arm could reach.

I actually like the idea of adding sample caches to future rovers like ExoMars and the astrobiology rover, but I think it's too late for MSL unless a major funding increase is imminent.

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 15 2007, 10:49 AM

The great thing about this forum is that the interaction inspires creative juices to flow. My biggest talent is contradicting myself, and I just thought of something about a sample cache system for MSL. Not knowing a great deal of the rover's technical design, I'm still wondering if you could put a sample carousel on the side of the vehicle, oriented vertically (like a ferris wheel), with sealing chambers and a rotation of the carousel after each sample was deposited. Such a design wouldn't require moving other rover systems around, provided that a slight increase in the width of the rover were allowable and the sample delivery arm could reach that location.

I dunno, does this sound logical?

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jul 15 2007, 02:07 PM

As of now, it is going to be a horizontal carousel and placed in the front

Posted by: Phil Stooke Jul 15 2007, 06:14 PM

odoug: "I may be misremembering, but I have this vagrant memory that, at one point, they were referred to by the mission name Mariner Outer Planets Explorer. I also have a vagrant memory that they were renamed quickly after that, since no one wanted to fly a MOPE..."


I think you mean TOPS - Thermoelectric outer planet spacecraft.

Phil

Posted by: nprev Jul 16 2007, 02:52 AM

Yeah..I like it, I like it! Design such a system for all future rovers, and future human expeditions could conceivably acquire excellent mineralogical profiles for entire regions while minimizing in situ routine sample runs, enabling them to concentrate on interesting things they'd find in real time instead of baseline stuff.

I love it when a plan comes together!

Posted by: edstrick Jul 16 2007, 06:13 AM

There was a very very good general review of the TOPS mission proposal in one of the space-aeronautics journals when it was under concept development --- before the no-funding decision and budgetary de-scoping of the mission concept to Mariner Jupiter-Saturn.

I *THINK* it was Astronautics and Aeronautics, but it may have been in Space-Aeronautics. Good engineering libraries should have bound copies. It would be about 1972? 1973?.. not much later than that.

Posted by: mchan Jul 16 2007, 08:35 AM

I do recall reading the Astronautics and Aeronautics article. Before the descoping, the spacecraft were to be designed for longer minimum mission lifetimes. One spacecraft was targeted to same planets that Voyager 2 eventually encountered. The other was targeted Jupiter -> Saturn -> Pluto.

Posted by: climber Jul 16 2007, 07:42 PM

I remember MJS-77 as the name for a while !!!???

Posted by: edstrick Jul 17 2007, 05:00 AM

The original proposal was three spacecraft, I think.

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 17 2007, 05:35 PM

There was a small blurb in Aviation Week in the early 1970's mentioning that NASA was considering what was unofficially called the Grand Grand Tour, where huge unmanned motherships would be launched that would drop off orbiters/atmospheric probes at each of the outer planets. That was in the running for a VERY brief period of time.

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 18 2007, 05:36 PM

It appears that the sample cache system for MSL is easier to accomodate than I was assuming. I'm glad to hear that.

Edstrick, I think I know what you're thinking of with the three spacecraft MJS-77/Voyager/Grand Tour. In addition to the two MJS-77 spacecraft, I believe NASA wanted to upgrade an engineering model to a flightworthy spacecraft and launch it in 1978 or 1979 as a Mariner Jupiter-Uranus mission. One of the things that killed it was that an advanced version of the Voyager IR spectrometer (with a higher signal-to-noise ratio to get useful data at the colder Uranus temperatures) couldn't be finished in time. The other of course was funding. The whole history was tortuously reported in Aviation Week over a couple year span of time.

But it turned out we got to Uranus anyway, and more.

Posted by: PhilHorzempa Jul 18 2007, 05:56 PM

A few questions for Rob -

1. Are you making provisions for MSL's wheels to "free wheel" if an actuator
gets fried? I know that MER-1 is still able to drive with a "stuck" wheel,
but do you really want this on MSL? The MER-1 wheel performed for
quite sometime before freezing up, but what if an MSL wheel is "frozen"
right from the moment of landing?

2. What provisions must you make to protect the MSL science instruments
from high-energy sub-atomic particles emitted by the RTG? Also, what
difficulties would be caused by dust accumulation on the RTG radiator fins?


Another Phil

Posted by: helvick Jul 18 2007, 07:07 PM

Phil - there shouldn't be any high energy radioactive particles (or RF ) coming from the RTG - the fuel is predominantly Pu-238 which is overwhelmingly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238 and it decays into U234, again an alpha emitter with a half life of ~250k years. By overwhelmingly I think it's probably safe to say that there is going to be more high energy radiation hitting MSL from the Solar and Cosmic radiation that than there will be from the RTG.

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jul 18 2007, 08:12 PM

Lower power output and longer battery recharge times. The RTG is mounted at an angle to prevent the dust from settling

Posted by: edstrick Jul 19 2007, 04:23 AM

I'm in the process of moving out of "millenias-long" temporary living quarters into a real house, now that both Mom and Dad are gone, and eventually will have mine and my brother's archive of space magazines and stuff back out of boxes onto shelves in order etc etc etc.....

Then I'll actually be able to consult some of these things instead of rely on faded memories of what I'd read.

AND... for those that have inquired.... find and dub things like the MER EDL coverage and most press briefings from NASA TV from tape to DVD.

Posted by: dvandorn Jul 21 2007, 02:29 AM

Slightly off topic, and just for the record:

MER-2 = MER-A = Spirit
MER-1 = MER-B = Opportunity

-the other Doug

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 23 2007, 09:33 PM

Someone mentioned on this forum that the MSL mini-corer was replaced by a powdering drill. Does the adding of a sample cache to MSL mean that the mini-corer is back in, or will the sample cache store powdered samples?

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Jul 24 2007, 01:27 PM

Corer is not back in

Posted by: monitorlizard Jul 31 2007, 08:56 PM

I've been trying to understand this whole MSL sample taking and distribution issue, and it's finally starting to make sense to me. When I first heard that the mini-corer was being replaced by a powdering drill, I thought it was terrible, destroying possible stratigraphic information that a small core might contain. But I just saw a paper in the June JGR Planets titled "SPADE: A rock-crushing and sample-handling system developed for Mars missions." I believe SPADE was in contention for use on MSL up to a year or two ago.

OLD SYSTEM: SPADE would have taken a mini core and crushed it, delivering fines less than 150 micrometers in diameter to the X-ray diffractometer and SAM instruments. That would have destroyed any stratigraphic info the core would have contained (I guess the mini core couldn't have been imaged anyway).

CURRENT SYSTEM: A powdering drill will penetrate boulders and consolidated material, and deliver powdered samples to the X-ray and SAM instruments. The SPADE system won't be needed (at least the rock-crushing part), saving weight and complexity for the rover.

Maybe I was the only one confused about this, and I could still be making the wrong conclusions. If so, I would appreciate being corrected.

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Aug 1 2007, 01:15 AM

You are correct

Posted by: PaulM Sep 17 2007, 11:02 PM

Am I correct in thinking that the MSL can not communicate directly with Earth and so when MRO, Odyssey and Mars Express have all failed, MSL will no longer be able to communicate with Earth?

I understand that the 2011 Mars Scout will be an orbiter. I presume that this orbiter will be able to act as a relay for any landers?

Posted by: Del Palmer Sep 17 2007, 11:14 PM

You must be thinking about Phoenix, as MSL uses both a HGA and UHF system, much like MER.

Posted by: Geographer Sep 18 2007, 02:22 PM

The next Mars orbiter will be launched in 2011 so if MSL can survive that long and one of the three existing orbiters also survive till then, all's well.

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 19 2007, 02:00 AM

MSL will have DTE

Posted by: gndonald Sep 20 2007, 02:33 PM

This is beginning to sound more and more like a 1970's proposal I found on the NTRS, the idea was to take the third Viking lander (the one they didn't finish) and modify it to carry a rover to Mars in 1979.

The rover was to have a carousel set up built into it, samples would be collected by the rover and dropped into the carousel, the sample would then be crushed using a hammer that doubled as a seismic signal generator (to test the landers seismograph) and then run through a battery of instruments which included an x-ray diffractometer.

The more things change...

Posted by: PhilHorzempa Sep 20 2007, 05:06 PM

My question, after the halt of funding for ChemCam and the deletion of the Rock
Crusher from MSL, would be - What did the MSL team spend $1.7 Billion on?
Did most of the funds go for developing the new landing system?
This situation reminds me of the plight of the Surveyor lunar landers of
the 1960's. In that case, the science payload of Surveyor 1 was continually
chipped away until only 1 camera was left. However, for that project, the issue
driving the scale-down was the lifting capacity of the Centaur upper stage.
For MSL, it appears that cash is the driver for transforming MSL from a Science
mission to essentially an Engineering mission.
Again, this is reminiscent of Surveyor 1 which was essentially an Engineering mission
that qualified the landing system. It is interesting to compare the original science
payload of the Surveyors with MSL. They were both quite complex. In another
irony, Surveyor 1 was originally planned to carry a rock crusher.
My suggestion to Alan Stern and NASA would be to restore MSL's entire Science
payload and delay the launch until 2011. I would rather see a delay in MSL's flight
than see it hobbled by the recent slashes to its payload. The Viking Mars landers
offer a precedent, as their lauches were delayed 2 years. That delay resulted in
highly successful and scientific missions.

Another Phil

Posted by: Del Palmer Sep 20 2007, 09:54 PM

Here's the figures from the most recent NASA budget: (2007 development cost estimates $M)

Technology development 0.0
Spacecraft, rover, & carrier 424.8
Payload 64.9
Systems I&T 46.5
Launch vehicle/services 182.6
Ground systems 45.5
Science/technology 11.4
Other 292.8

Hmmmm, I wonder what other is? Coffee tabs at Starbucks?
It's worth remembering that the science instruments were competitively selected. Perhaps Las Alamos Labs deliberately underestimated the cost of ChemCam in order to sweeten the deal (knowing full well that they could get a few extra million from SMD later on)? Or perhaps it was a genuine estimate, and complex projects of these types have a way of over-spending, who knows. Whatever the reason, the actual cost of the instruments is largely out of the hands of NASA HQ, and they have to trust the proposers that they will deliver what they say they will at the cost estimates given. Stern was right to nip that in the bud; I'm sure LANL will find some money for ChemCam - they wouldn't want to miss this opportunity to get an instrument on Mars...

Posted by: marsman Sep 21 2007, 12:57 AM

Delaying the mission two more years will certainly increase the costs dramatically. A few additional millions to keep these science instruments is vastly offset by having to keep paying the army of people on the project. We MUST keep to the 2009 launch schedule, no matter what.

I assume that the MER experience with the RAT indicates we only need to brush the surface to have high confidence of the material composition? What is the science impact of just brushing?

Posted by: edstrick Sep 21 2007, 09:29 AM

Technically, Surveyors 1 through 7 were engineering missions only. Surveyors 8 through 14 were to be science missions.
The first 7 Surveyors incorporated LOADS of engineering sensors (temperature, pressure, voltage, strain-guage, whatever, plus the wiring, commutators, encoders, data handlers, etc, to support trying to spot any possible thing that had gone wrong before Loss Of Signal, and to understand the validity of engineering models that predicted what the instrumetation outputs would be, as opposed to what they really were.

Surveyor 1 carried NO science instruments. The panoramic camera and unused descent camera were engineering instruments. Strain-gages on the landing legs, temperature sensors on the electronics boxes, radar signal strength telemetry.... all engineering data.

They RETROFITTED the remainder of the engineering Surveyors, starting with #3, when #1 suprised the hell out of them, landed perfectly, lasted the lunar day, and then survived the first lunar night in good enough condition to resume imaging.

The Block 2 Surveyors were what were designed to carry all the science instruments. The engineering instrumentation would be largely stripped down to what was needed for infllight, landing and landed operations, removing CONSIDERABLE weight, and an upgraded spacecraft, expected to be launched by a somewhat more capable Atlas-Centaur, would have carried many instruments, some changing between missions.

Atlas-centaur was delayed and delayed. It's throw capability got smaller and more uncertain. Surveyor itself was way behind schedule. Apollo, by the mid 60's (before the Apollo 1 disaster) was coming up behind Surveyor fast, and needed more and more money. The science value of the Block 2 Surveyors, compared with Apollo's sample return and manned field-geology observations seemed less and less worth the cost of vehicle development and up to 7 flights. The block 2's were canceled, I think possibly before the flight of Surveyor 1.

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Sep 21 2007, 02:07 PM

"Other" is the MMRTG

Posted by: algorimancer Jan 31 2008, 07:01 PM

I'm curious about MSL's ground navigation (and hazard avoidance) software. Will it be a further evolution of the already multiply evolved MER software, or will they start from scratch? Is the software already in development & testing? If borrowing from MER, does MSL's higher speed have much impact on the usability?

Posted by: vjkane Jan 31 2008, 08:25 PM

An e-mail correspondent has alerted me that NASA is considering or may have decided to limit the next New Frontiers to solar power missions. $292M would be a good reason to try to avoid nuclear power.

Posted by: nprev Feb 1 2008, 02:23 AM

Isn't the $292M mostly development costs, though? Once the design effort's done, I wouldn't think that later MMRTGs would cost nearly as much, unless the scarcity of Pu-238 is jacking up the price (assuming here that NASA has to transfer funds to DOE or the AEC or somebody to procure it).

Posted by: mchan Feb 1 2008, 06:53 AM

I don't know how much is development vs procurement costs. I would suspect that direct MMRTG development costs are under a different umbrella such as technology development. In the case of MMRTG, there were certainly other non-space users of RTGs in the past. There may continue to be other users today meaning the development costs could be shared if the product requirements of the other users are met by the MMRTG.

Pu-238 does have to be expressly made, e.g., a reactor and pre-cursor materials must be devoted to making it. Unlike Pu-239, it is not in any appreciable amount in nuclear waste from conventional fission reactors. So it does cost bucks to make it.

Oh, and you'd have to go thru a time warp to transfer funds to the AEC!

Posted by: nprev Feb 1 2008, 02:11 PM

No problem; I apparently live in one! Didn't know that the AEC is history; I don't follow N-power stuff very closely at all, probably should start.

Yeah, I was thinking that MMRTG development should have been funded independently as well, but that big check written on MSL's budget really gives me pause...nearly a third of a billion dollars per device just does not sound reasonable for straight procurement without R&D.

Posted by: Jim from NSF.com Feb 1 2008, 03:32 PM

First users are always tagged for development costs. There isn't a first time use technology project office

Posted by: Spirit Jun 4 2008, 07:26 PM

At what point is the development and assembly of MSL completed? There is a little bit more than a year left to launch and having in mind all the tests and launch integration activities, I conclude that in several months MSL must be readied otherwise we will miss the launch window. Any timetables available?

Posted by: andrea Jun 11 2008, 03:08 PM

Since nobody is replying, I go for my first post ... while I left the project (and JPL) one year ago I am hearing that they are getting flight hardware delivered and integrated.
At this stage I would expect them to do the first functional tests with avionics/telecom/... on the rover. I am guessing but problably no science or mobility integrated yet.

For example there is news of thruster delivery here:
http://www.marsdaily.com/reports/Aerojet_Ships_Propulsion_System_For_Mars_Science_Laboratory_Mission_999.html

There is more than 1 year to go (and the advantage of having only one this time around), but I am sure they are busy and struggling with all the usual early problems (including software development).

Posted by: mcaplinger Jul 17 2008, 04:51 PM

MSSS DELIVERS FIRST SCIENCE INSTRUMENT TO JPL FOR 2009 MARS ROVER MISSION PAYLOAD

http://www.msss.com/press_releases/mardidelivery/index.html

Posted by: djellison Jul 17 2008, 04:55 PM

Congratulations Mike, those text images are very promising. Sharp, vivid, no noticeable noise and an artistic amount of motion blur

Is that a set of in-flight-calibration lights of some sort bolted on via what looks like a D9 serial port on the top right of the electronics box?

I like the 4 0's in the serial number.

Posted by: mcaplinger Jul 17 2008, 05:26 PM

No, that's a remove-before-flight shorting plug on the heater connector.

Posted by: djellison Jul 17 2008, 05:30 PM

Ahhhhh - thanks.

Posted by: ugordan Jul 17 2008, 05:31 PM

Wow, it looks like a great camera and a color one at that. Can't wait to see this baby do its job.

Posted by: Sunspot Jul 17 2008, 09:53 PM

So MSL's colour cameras will effectively operate like those of a modern digital camera? Is there a menu option for Martian Auto White Balance? lol How about a sunset/snow/beach with all that dust.sandy material

Posted by: mcaplinger Oct 24 2008, 07:46 PM

MSL MAHLI delivered:
http://www.msss.com/press_releases/mahli_delivery/index.html

Posted by: centsworth_II Oct 24 2008, 08:59 PM

Just let us know when the http://www.america.gov/st/space-english/2008/October/20081015150146lcnirellep0.4836847.html get there!


Concerning the article on the MSL MAHLI: Although interesting, I wonder if the subjects for demonstrating a camera headed to Mars are a bit provocative:

"Image taken by the MAHLI showing... an Eocene sandstone from San Diego, CA, containing a fossil marine gastropod shell ....The rock on the right... contains fossilized microbial mat remnants..."

Posted by: elakdawalla Oct 24 2008, 09:24 PM

MSSS is being very prompt with deliveries! Last time I checked (which was a few weeks ago), only MARDI and DAN had been delivered yet. Do you know if anything else has been delivered in the meantime?

Re: "provocative" choice of targets: Not in the slightest. One of the big questions being asked at the last MSL landing site selection meeting was: what kinds of evidence of past life that we study in Earth rocks would MSL be able to detect at any of its landing sites? I don't think anybody is seriously expecting MSL to see fossil gastropods on Mars, but it's very important to compare its capabliity to study and understand what we study on Earth to what it might be able to study on Mars, so it is highly appropriate to point it at Earth sedimentary rocks that contain evidence of fossil life. So including that grungy Precambrian rock with the microbial mats is perfectly appropriate.

--Emily

Posted by: mcaplinger Oct 28 2008, 07:15 PM

The description of the Mastcams has been updated; see http://www.msss.com/msl/mastcam/index.html

Posted by: djellison Oct 28 2008, 09:34 PM

Thanks for the heads up on that Mike - I was waiting to see what the end result of the 'issues' that happened last year were.

Getting full Pans in an hour is mentioned - is that using onboard intelligence to produce one data product for downlink ( in the way that MAHLI generates a single focused image and a DEM ) or is it just a symptom of faster between-frame imaging than previous instruments.

To put those res numbers into some sort of perspective - the wider Mastcam will produce 360 degree pans of about 28,000 pixels wide. The narrow Mastcam 84,000 pixels wide.

Note to self : get more monitors.

Posted by: mcaplinger Oct 28 2008, 09:43 PM

The latter. Mercifully nobody ever asked me to implement onboard mosaic construction (and I don't think it would save much downlink anyway.)

Also, keep in mind that that's taking a mosaic quickly, not downlinking it quickly.

Posted by: vjkane Oct 29 2008, 12:13 AM

Does anyone know what other navigation cameras will be on MSL?

Posted by: mcaplinger Oct 29 2008, 12:50 AM

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/mission/sc_rover_eyes.html

Posted by: elakdawalla Oct 29 2008, 03:58 AM

I was told the Hazcams and Navcams are copies of the MERs'. That should make it much easier to adapt the nav and hazard avoidance software to MSL.

--Emily

Posted by: OKB001 Dec 25 2008, 04:47 AM

Hi guys,

My apologies is this was asked before in this thread (I did a keyword search and didn't see anything that matched), but is there any plan on having some camera on the "sky crane" to take pictures of the landed rover as the flying contraption fly-away (and hopefully send them to either the rover or to orbiting spacecraft before it buy the farm)? That would make some very nice images IMHO. Possibly, totally un-educated guess here, the same camera could be used to survey the surrounding area, but maybe HIRISE imagery is enough for such task.

Cheers & season greetings!

Posted by: Oersted Dec 25 2008, 08:01 PM

Hi OKB,

I feel safe in saying that that is not planned at all. There might be a DIMES camera on the skycrane, but I don't think so. HiRise photos are excellent for planning purposes...

For the time being the skycrane has absolutely no other purpose than landing the rover and then crashing at a safe distance.

Posted by: lyford Dec 25 2008, 11:00 PM

I think MARDI is doing some of that work? According to http://www.msss.com/msl/mardi/MARDI_science.html

But I don't know if that is feeding the system real time like DIMES...

I wonder if MARDI will be able to function as a sort of slip sensor post landing? Since it can track movement under the rover and compare it to how far it should have moved based upon wheel rotations....

Posted by: djellison Dec 25 2008, 11:50 PM

No - MARDI is on the rover, not the descent stage. It's not used like Dimes. There isn't any similar camera onboard the descent stage.


Doug

Posted by: nprev Dec 26 2008, 01:23 AM

I figured as much. The descent stage should be kept as functionally simple as possible, particularly since it's a brand-new technique; the bells & whistles can come on later missions.

Posted by: OKB001 Dec 26 2008, 02:35 AM

Thanks Oersted and Doug for the answers.

Posted by: lyford Dec 26 2008, 06:55 PM

I knew that MARDI is on the rover itself, but I thought it was doing the descent imaging job like DIMES. I guess I am confused as to if it is doing science more by characterizing the landing area or will it help with the landing real time, like DIMES did with the drift?

What is the visual instrument being used then, or is one not necessary? I seem to remember Rob Manning saying somewhere that the 2 point motion problems with skycrane were actually easier than with the 3 point MER descent stage and could be dealt with simple sensors. Does this remove the need for a DIMES type system?

And can MARDI be used once on the ground, perhaps to detect slippage?

If someone could wrap up those answers and distribute them to us less informed persons, that would be appropriate for an UMSF Boxing Day...



edited to correct spellling

Posted by: djellison Dec 26 2008, 07:37 PM

MARDI is just imaging - it's not motion estimation like DIMES. I believe the radar for the descent stage will do everything needed in terms of horez. velocity etc. (Phoenix did fine without DIMES, for example)

As for use post-landing. That's not a baseline use or requirement - but Mike Caplinger did mention that they were looking at using it after landing. One potentially use would, of course, be motion estimation for wheel slip calculation.

Posted by: mcaplinger Dec 26 2008, 08:03 PM

MER needed DIMES because of the late realization that transverse velocity, which couldn't be measured by the simple radar altimeter on MER, could cause problems for the airbags. All the other landers have had or will have more capable radars that can directly sense transverse velocity (since obviously a powered soft lander has to zero out transverse velocity.)

Yes, we have been discussing using MARDI post-landing, but I would think that the MSL navcams and hazcams would be just as capable of detecting slippage.

Posted by: lyford Dec 26 2008, 08:21 PM

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I can't wait for 2011!

Posted by: OKB001 Dec 26 2008, 08:33 PM

Me neither, this is going to be an exciting mission!

Posted by: Oersted Dec 27 2008, 11:42 PM

But we WILL have to wait.. - Two more long years. *Sigh*