ExoMars |
ExoMars |
Aug 5 2010, 09:10 PM
Post
#316
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 50 Joined: 16-January 06 Member No.: 646 |
Does anyone know if an occultation spectrometer can differentiate isotopes, e.g., C14 vs. C12? I haven't seen it mentioned. There is nothing intrinsic to the occultation technique that would prevent isotope differentiation. However, detection is a question of the amplitude of the isotopic shift and the abundance of the trace isotopes. For carbon, such shifts would be much larger in the IR and sub-mm...where the literature seems to place the proverbial observational action. Even at the allegedly observed methane abundances, one might suspect that the differentiation of C(12)H4 from C(14)H4 in the near-infrared is likely to require more S/N and higher spectral resolution than available from a MATMOS observation. |
|
|
Aug 6 2010, 12:25 AM
Post
#317
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 267 Joined: 5-February 06 Member No.: 675 |
|
|
|
Aug 6 2010, 04:27 AM
Post
#318
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 399 Joined: 28-August 07 From: San Francisco Member No.: 3511 |
-------------------- 'She drove until the wheels fell off...'
|
|
|
Aug 6 2010, 01:58 PM
Post
#319
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 29-August 06 From: Columbia, MD Member No.: 1083 |
There is nothing intrinsic to the occultation technique that would prevent isotope differentiation. However, detection is a question of the amplitude of the isotopic shift and the abundance of the trace isotopes. For carbon, such shifts would be much larger in the IR and sub-mm...where the literature seems to place the proverbial observational action. Even at the allegedly observed methane abundances, one might suspect that the differentiation of C(12)H4 from C(14)H4 in the near-infrared is likely to require more S/N and higher spectral resolution than available from a MATMOS observation. Thanks! I read the report from the ExoMars Joint Instrument Development Team that vjkane posted on his futureplanets blog. It makes a mention of isotopic differentiation, but goes no farther than that. |
|
|
Aug 8 2010, 07:53 PM
Post
#320
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 6-August 10 From: Flagstaff, Arizona Member No.: 5402 |
There is nothing intrinsic to the occultation technique that would prevent isotope differentiation. However, detection is a question of the amplitude of the isotopic shift and the abundance of the trace isotopes. For carbon, such shifts would be much larger in the IR and sub-mm...where the literature seems to place the proverbial observational action. Even at the allegedly observed methane abundances, one might suspect that the differentiation of C(12)H4 from C(14)H4 in the near-infrared is likely to require more S/N and higher spectral resolution than available from a MATMOS observation. In its press releases MATMOS does not claim to differentiate isotopes but SOIR-NOMAD is supposed to be able to differentiate a few variants of methane, carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide (see factsheet at http://www.aeronomie.be/en/press/soir-nomad.htm). |
|
|
Sep 21 2010, 02:23 AM
Post
#321
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 234 Joined: 8-May 05 Member No.: 381 |
I was surprised (and disappointed) to read that the currently planned weight for the MAX-C rover, to be landed with the ExoMars rover, is now down to 65 kg:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Astrobio...Explorer-Cacher Yeah, I know wikipedia isn't always the most reliable, but this entry draws on reputable JPL/MEPAG documents. A little more than a year ago, I was reading that the MAX-C strawman design was for a rover larger than MER with a sophisticated astrobiology payload. Funny thing is, the wikipedia entry still infers a capable astrobiology suite, but at 65 kg I can't imagine MAX-C having much more than a couple of cameras and the sample collecting/caching hardware. Perhaps someone at the upcoming MEPAG and Mars landing site meetings will clarify what the current thinking is on this. I'd like to know what's driving the MAX-C shrinkage. Reduced performance of the skycrane relative to previous estimates? Growth in the weight of the ExoMars rover? |
|
|
Sep 22 2010, 12:15 AM
Post
#322
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 293 Joined: 29-August 06 From: Columbia, MD Member No.: 1083 |
I was surprised (and disappointed) to read that the currently planned weight for the MAX-C rover, to be landed with the ExoMars rover, is now down to 65 kg: No way this is correct. The JPL report to MEPAG that's linked on that page says the mass is expected to be much less than MSL but larger than a MER. So maybe 650kg? Dropped a zero? 65kg sounds more reasonable for the instrument payload alone. It's possible that MAX-C could get downsized no/cancelled, much will depend on the Decadal Survey. But, it's hard to imagine ANY 65kg rover could get the kind of science done that NASA's expecting for the Mars program now. |
|
|
Oct 14 2010, 02:59 PM
Post
#323
|
|
The Poet Dude Group: Moderator Posts: 5551 Joined: 15-March 04 From: Kendal, Cumbria, UK Member No.: 60 |
-------------------- |
|
|
Oct 14 2010, 04:44 PM
Post
#324
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 214 Joined: 30-December 05 Member No.: 628 |
That's the first time I ever saw the adjective "doomed" applied to Mars Express.
|
|
|
Oct 14 2010, 05:50 PM
Post
#325
|
|
Dublin Correspondent Group: Admin Posts: 1799 Joined: 28-March 05 From: Celbridge, Ireland Member No.: 220 |
Yeah that was a bit of an unfortunate editing mistake - very nice article apart from that blip though.
|
|
|
Nov 9 2010, 07:30 PM
Post
#326
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
this week in Aviation Week: ESA Hones Design For Mars Orbiter/Lander
|
|
|
Nov 16 2010, 04:44 PM
Post
#327
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 11 Joined: 28-April 09 Member No.: 4752 |
Yeah that was a bit of an unfortunate editing mistake - very nice article apart from that blip though. Apart from the other errors: 1. "When Beagle 2 got lost on its journey – it is thought to have fallen into a crater, smashed on impact or failed to land on the planet at all " a. It did not get lost on its journey - it was never allowed by ESA to radio home during its journey. b. It is a myth perpetuated ad nausiam[/i] that Beagle 2 crashed or missed the planet or fell into a crater. There is NO evidence for any of these suggestions as there is NO published evidence at all. 2. "the £66 million Beagle 2 spacecraft...." a. The published cost of the programme was £42.5 million. 3. Beagle 2 was built at the OU in Milton Keynes in an 'Aseptic Assembly Facility' of the highest quality (way better than anything NASA have done) in terms of cleanliness and sterility. It had to be, because its life-detecting Instrument was much more sensitive than anything NASA have done (or are planning to do). If you don't bel;ieve me, ask Dr. Everett Gibson at NASA |
|
|
Nov 17 2010, 03:19 PM
Post
#328
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 2 Joined: 7-November 10 Member No.: 5518 |
Full inline quote deleted - ADMIN
But why we dont build quickly new Beagle 2 spacecraft and send it to Mars? Are the blueprints lost/deleted ? Do we save money and time to not makeing new blueprints for the spacecraft ? I admire Chinas desision to send twin to orbit. Why we cant do it ? |
|
|
Nov 17 2010, 03:59 PM
Post
#329
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2077 Joined: 13-February 10 From: Ontario Member No.: 5221 |
There are other replacements in the planning stage already, Exomars, MSL, etc (with mobility this time).
|
|
|
Nov 17 2010, 04:02 PM
Post
#330
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14431 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I'm sure all the CAD and other detailed specs are safe and available. What's not available is a budget to build it or a ride to get it to Mars. Moreover, Beagle 2 didn't work. We don't know exactly why, but the fact is that it didn't. Building another and sending it straight away would have been like launching the 2001 Mars lander after the MPL failure. The sensible thing to do was stop, figure out why, and then only fly once they were sure of what had happened and how to fix it. Hence Phoenix landed 7 years after the 2001 lander should have done.
I do hope landers at the scale of B2 ( certainly in the <150kg class ) make it to Mars eventually - but they'll be derivatives of that design, not a build to print. And it's worth mentioning, whilst B2 was in itself not a success, it brought Mars into the media spotlight like nothing has ever done before in the UK, it inspired a lot of interest in STEM subjects, and some of the instrumentation has found a home in the medical industry - so it was a project worth doing all the same. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th April 2024 - 09:10 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE 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. |