IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
InSight mission
Explorer1
post Oct 4 2017, 02:53 AM
Post #136


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2073
Joined: 13-February 10
From: Ontario
Member No.: 5221



A second chip full of names is going on the craft (one benefit of the delay, I guess); anyone who missed it the first round can put their name in now: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?feature=6959
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Paolo
post Oct 14 2017, 07:55 PM
Post #137


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1729
Joined: 3-August 06
From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E
Member No.: 1004



an entire issue of Space Science Reviews dedicated to InIsght
https://link.springer.com/journal/11214/211/1
too bad most of the papers are beyond the paywall mad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vikingmars
post Oct 25 2017, 06:00 AM
Post #138


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1073
Joined: 19-February 05
From: Close to Meudon Observatory in France
Member No.: 172



QUOTE (Paolo @ Oct 14 2017, 09:55 PM) *
an entire issue of Space Science Reviews dedicated to InIsght
https://link.springer.com/journal/11214/211/1
too bad most of the papers are beyond the paywall mad.gif

Yes indeed !
And especially from France when looking to the articles written by Institut de Physique du Globe (Paris-Sorbonne Paris Cité, Université Paris Diderot) in Paris : a French State public entity, managed under the authority of the French Ministry of National Education, for which we, as French people, are the taxpayers giving them a budget to support their teams and their experiments.
They owe their success to their great skills and work, of course, but also to us : their publications should have been made public at least in France.
Look to their website : the links are there ( http://www.ipgp.fr/fr/publications ) but pointing to Space Science Reviews' articles.
No chance to get them for free mad.gif mad.gif mad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Oct 25 2017, 03:13 PM
Post #139


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



This inevitably jumps thread topic, but it's too bad that journals use a firewall/pay system, when their actual "market" is so small and the price for an article is extremely high. For the amateur science enthusiast, the economics make participation impossible, which is not anyone's intention.

But in this case, there is a solution. Try a Google search for the names of the authors + the subject, and you can find free preprints in many cases.

https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.05664

Enjoy!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rlorenz
post Nov 29 2017, 01:42 AM
Post #140


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 609
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Occasionally in Columbia, MD
Member No.: 1764



QUOTE (vikingmars @ Oct 25 2017, 01:00 AM) *
their publications should have been made public at least in France.


In the last year or so, NASA, at least, has started to insist that at least preprints are made available. I think the UK has a similar policy.

For what it's worth, my paper just came out (Open Access) on an archive product making the Viking seismometer record easy to access (the product has been on the PDS for a few months - basically I reassembled very ugly short ASCII records of different interleaved types into a nice set of tables, and integrated them with meteorological data so you can see when the seismometer recorded data when it was windy or not, etc.) We even found evidence of a dust devil encounter in the seismic signal.
The supplemental information to the paper includes scripts in 'R' (a free package) to interrogate and display the data - using the figures in the paper as examples.

The paper is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EA000306/full
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vikingmars
post Dec 4 2017, 08:09 AM
Post #141


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1073
Joined: 19-February 05
From: Close to Meudon Observatory in France
Member No.: 172



QUOTE (rlorenz @ Nov 29 2017, 02:42 AM) *
In the last year or so, NASA, at least, has started to insist that at least preprints are made available. I think the UK has a similar policy.
The paper is at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017EA000306/full

Thank you very much Dr. Lorenz for having this paper published with a free access smile.gif and it is very nice indeed.
I thought that the Sol 80 event was dismissed as a seismic event : now, thanks to your nice work, it may come back as being a real one.
Thanks a lot smile.gif smile.gif smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Apr 16 2021, 06:39 PM
Post #142


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



Now that InSight is nearing a sort of endgame (though hopefully the end is not close), I wonder about future missions to explore the same objectives. One of InSight's two instruments was never deployed. The seismometer was an engineering success, but in addition to the science, we learned of challenges in terms of wind and noise. There is obviously room for future science that could be as simple as flying a modified repeat of InSight with optimizations to deploy successfully a heat probe and a seismometer with a bit more safeguard against wind. Other upgrades could include multiple landers to permit triangulation of quake location and/or longer life.

I hope there's some follow up of this kind, perhaps involving programs other than NASA. The ESA and Chinese rovers to Mars, as well as the UAE and Indian orbiters seem to launch all these many space programs on Mars science pathways similar to NASA's when there is so much room to take a different pathway and return more original science.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rlorenz
post Apr 17 2021, 08:16 PM
Post #143


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 609
Joined: 23-February 07
From: Occasionally in Columbia, MD
Member No.: 1764



QUOTE (JRehling @ Apr 16 2021, 02:39 PM) *
we learned of challenges in terms of wind and noise. There is obviously room for future science that could be as simple as flying a modified repeat of InSight with optimizations to deploy successfully a heat probe and a seismometer with a bit more safeguard against wind. Other upgrades could include multiple landers to permit triangulation of quake location and/or longer life.
I hope there's some follow up of this kind, perhaps involving programs other than NASA. The ESA and Chinese rovers to Mars, as well as the UAE and Indian orbiters seem to launch all these many space programs on Mars science pathways similar to NASA's when there is so much room to take a different pathway and return more original science.


Remember Mars Pathfinder? It was originally MESUR Pathfinder, i.e. a single flight to demonstrate a small solar-powered lander with airbag landing. It worked, but the project is was meant to be a pathfinder for never flew. There have been many proposals for network science on Mars (weather stations, sometimes with seismometers, sometimes with other instruments) - ESA's Marsnet, then InterMarsnet, The French Netlander. Various Discovery proposals. Somehow they never seemed to happen. Even a couple of missions got on their way that would have either implemented (very) small networks (Mars-96, 2 penetrators and 2 small stations), or would have demonstrated relatively inexpensive delivery that would have enabled an efficient network mission (New Millennium DS-2 penetrators), but these missions were lost.

InSight showed nicely how single-station seismology can work on Mars (by using the 3-axis waveform to determine the azimuth and range to the source). But the lack of detection of large events by InSight (and indeed Viking - with Viking data we already knew there weren't lots of big Marsquakes) may mean that a network of many stations would just mean each detects its own set of local events, without the sort of novel global interior probing that the classical seismic network on Earth would promise. Of course you don't know until you look.

I'd guess that a future network mission will be easier to sell on meteorological grounds than geophysical ones. Certainly there's a stronger support to human exploration. Hopefully such a network mission will happen soon, and hopefully have at least some geophysics on board too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Apr 17 2021, 09:23 PM
Post #144


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 704
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



The Russian platform that will deliver the ExoMars 2022 land will carry a seismometer, weather station, and other instruments. Unless InSight gets a serious dust cleaning, I question whether it will make concurrent measurements


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Apr 18 2021, 12:35 AM
Post #145


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



Great points. I am reminded again of the PhD student in geology who told me in earnest that "the problem is" (for his research) that there aren't enough big earthquakes. I'm not sure that most people agree when it comes to Earth, but for Mars it may be true.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Explorer1
post Apr 18 2021, 01:45 AM
Post #146


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2073
Joined: 13-February 10
From: Ontario
Member No.: 5221



It's largely a matter of waiting for a large enough impact, right? With the lunar seismometers, there was the advantage of a large chunk of metal hitting at high speed at a known time and place, in the form of the upper stage impacts. In their absence (at least for now, Mars may start getting hit a bit harder in the medium term!), patience is the name of the game.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hendric
post Apr 18 2021, 04:02 PM
Post #147


Director of Galilean Photography
***

Group: Members
Posts: 896
Joined: 15-July 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 93



Maybe with the Vera Rubin Observatory coming on-line we'll get a chance to detect a Mars impactor before it hits, and send a few landers beforehand. It has sub-km detection capabilities out to the Main Belt.

https://www.lsst.org/scientists/publication...lometer%20sizes.



--------------------
Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
--
"The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke
Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JRehling
post Apr 18 2021, 04:21 PM
Post #148


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2530
Joined: 20-April 05
Member No.: 321



I see an estimate that the Tunguska Event would have been about a Richter 5.0 so the occurrence of impacts on Mars bigger than the quakes already recorded might be frustratingly rare, or subject to rare good luck. And, while an impact can tell you a lot about how the planetary bell rings, it doesn't give you the information that a quake does about endogenous activity.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

10 Pages V  « < 8 9 10
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th March 2024 - 06:30 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 funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.