Landing Site Imagery |
  |
Landing Site Imagery |
 Dec 20 2004, 02:13 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Founder  Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1  |
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/guest/...23_phoenix.html
Some of those areas have NO features at all!! Even with a descent camera - I wonder how easy localisation will be  Actually - given MRO's huge swath width and resolution, easy  Doug |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 02:34 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Rover Driver Group: Members Posts: 1015 Joined: 4-March 04 Member No.: 47 |
the main thing is to analyse some sub-surface ices right?
MPL was a while ago and I can't remember the details anymore... |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 03:14 PM
Post
#3
|
|
 Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
In a way I hope it does land in a pretty blank place. After the MERs, I would hate to land with something interesting just poking out from behind a hill or just out of reach of the arm. I think for those of us obsessed with imagery, this mission will get frustrating once the initial pan is taken, although images of its activities, different times of day, and frosts it might or might not spot (and clouds, now that I think of it) might mitigate this somewhat.
Ted -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 03:27 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 26-May 04 Member No.: 77 |
Yeah. We're so accustomed now to actually moving around. I propose that Phoenix be the LAST static lander mission.
Well, it's a long shot, but maybe the decent rockets will have enough gas left in them to take a small hop to a not-so-far-away spot.  (One of the Lunar Surveyors did that - although only a few meters away)
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 04:10 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Oh - static landers still have their place - but I think Phoenix may be the last 'primary' martian mission without wheels.
i.e. Netlander or a similar mission would be hugely worth while - you dont HAVE to have wheels to do good science, and they cost you a LOT of volume, mass, power, and money Doug |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 04:14 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
Well, for some kind of missions, such as setting up meteorological stations and seisometry, static is best. But for other types, I hope we go mobile (or the Pathfinder approach - a small lander with a rover).
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 04:23 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 26-May 04 Member No.: 77 |
Yeah, that is true. It would be way neat to have many many small meteorology landers scattered about the planet.
|
|
|
|
| Guest_Sunspot_* |
Dec 20 2004, 04:24 PM
Post
#8
|
|
Guests |
QUOTE (remcook @ Dec 20 2004, 02:34 PM) the main thing is to analyse some sub-surface ices right? MPL was a while ago and I can't remember the details anymore... No ones 100% sure what went wrong as there was no data sent back during decent and landing...but the most likely reason for the failure was the premature shutdown of the decent thrusters just a few hundred feet above the surface. Software and sensors designed to detect the landing legs touching down on the surface may have been fooled by the landing legs being deployed during the decent. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?MarsPolarLander By the way here's the website for Phoenix: http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/ Launch: August, 2007 Arrival: May 25, 2008 Science Instruments: Mars Descent Imager, Stereo Imager, Robot Arm and Camera, Thermal Evolved Gas Analyzer, Microscopy Electrochemistry & Conductivity Analyzer, Meteorology Suite |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 04:52 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
This is the 'other' Phoenix website - to be honest, neither are any good
http://planetary.chem.tufts.edu/Phoenix/ A real pity that Marie Curie got dropped from the '01 payload - I hope she finds a good home somewhere Yup - the lander pad sensor thing was the most popular reason for the '98 failure - however - there are suggestions that fuel sloshing might have had something to do with it as well  doug |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 07:54 PM
Post
#10
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 710 Joined: 28-September 04 Member No.: 99 |
QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 20 2004, 04:52 PM) Yup - the lander pad sensor thing was the most popular reason for the '98 failure - however - there are suggestions that fuel sloshing might have had something to do with it as well I always thought it was strange that everybody ignored the fact that BOTH Deep Space-2 probes were never heard from as well!!! It may well be that the failures of MPL and DS2 had different causes, but everytime I read about the crash I have this nagging feeling that the mission may have been lost way sooner when MPL and DS2 were still bolted together. I watched the landing live at the time (  ) and I remember that just before landing the entire Cruise stage/MPL/DS2 combo had to turn away from earth to the landing orientation which caused the loss of comm. Maybe the turn was not complete, or it didn't stop turning causing a tumble...I just don't like the idea of three different spacecraft all failing at the same time for three different reasons. 
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 08:05 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Ditto - my initial reaction was "well - surely the cruise stage didnt seperate properly or something?" - but actually- the DS2 probes would have still been released as they deployed just before the main spacecraft.
What amased me is to see how amazingly easy it was to spot the MER's from MOC, yet nothing of MSL, the DS2 probes, or B2 Doug |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 08:08 PM
Post
#12
|
|
 The Insider Group: Members Posts: 669 Joined: 3-May 04 Member No.: 73 |
I think it was brilliant to add the low-level comms to the MER landers; it just sent simple beeps but it was something to watch during the entire landing process. In case there is failure a lot can be learned from a simple beep...
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 08:14 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 710 Joined: 28-September 04 Member No.: 99 |
QUOTE (djellison @ Dec 20 2004, 08:05 PM) Ditto - my initial reaction was "well - surely the cruise stage didnt seperate properly or something?" - but actually- the DS2 probes would have still been released as they deployed just before the main spacecraft. What amased me is to see how amazingly easy it was to spot the MER's from MOC, yet nothing of MSL, the DS2 probes, or B2 But what if the entire stack was tumbling or in a wrong orientation BEFORE anything separated? Would the DS2 probes put themselves in a correct orientation once they encountered the Martian atmosphere? The DS2 probes were quite small and designed to go underground, so I don't think it's strange MGS didn't spot them. MGS was not equiped with a temporal-camera, so imaging MSL was not an option .
|
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 08:25 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 76 Joined: 26-May 04 Member No.: 77 |
QUOTE (Pando @ Dec 20 2004, 08:08 PM) I think it was brilliant to add the low-level comms to the MER landers; it just sent simple beeps but it was something to watch during the entire landing process. In case there is failure a lot can be learned from a simple beep... Absolutely. I sincerely hope that Phoenix has been updated to provide some low level comms like MER had and MPL didn't. Anyone seen any info on this? |
|
|
|
|
Dec 20 2004, 08:50 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
The DS2 probes were designed to re-enter totally unguided from any tumble / orientation
I loved those little guys - they were superb. Such a pity they didnt work. I think EDL tones are almost a requirement for a Mars Scout mission arnt they? They're not a new thing - MPF had them in 97 Doug |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th April 2024 - 02:59 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. |
|
