IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

7 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 6 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
MRO MOI Events Timeline, Time Zone Friendly
Marz
post Mar 10 2006, 10:38 PM
Post #46


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: 31-August 05
From: Florida & Texas, USA
Member No.: 482



QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Mar 10 2006, 04:28 PM) *
2225 GMT (5:25 p.m. EST)

IN ORBIT! The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is truly an orbiter now after successfully swooping into orbit around the Red Planet today, mission control confirms!
WAW MRO IS ALREADY IN ORBIT

Rodolfo


Wahoo! I guess it's better to slightly underburn than overburn, since the aerobraking seems to have more variables to it, and it's always better to have more fuel than less fuel to correct the orbit. I'd imagine this won't add any extra time to the 6 month trim manuvers?

Time to celebrate another great day on mars! At this rate, JPL will need to add traffic control operations for mars. laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Joffan
post Mar 10 2006, 10:53 PM
Post #47


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 178
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 498



QUOTE (Marz @ Mar 10 2006, 03:38 PM) *
Time to celebrate another great day on mars! At this rate, JPL will need to add traffic control operations for mars. laugh.gif

laugh.gif mental image of 3 or 4 rovers jostling to take pictures of an interesting rock... tongue.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MERovingien
post Mar 10 2006, 10:53 PM
Post #48


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 6
Joined: 10-March 06
From: France
Member No.: 698



I can breathe again!

Congratulations to the JPL for another amazing mission!! 3 orbiters! 2 rovers!! Bravo!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Mar 10 2006, 10:55 PM
Post #49


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



Burn time 1641 seconds vs 1606 expected. 1000.48 m/s compared to 1000.36m/s expected.

So burn performance 97.87% of nominal, but actual Delta V 100.012% of predicted.

i.e. yes - the burn was a little under the mark, but the onboard sequence saw this, worked off the Delta V, and terminated the burn according to the accumulated Delta V hitting the right mark.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lyford
post Mar 10 2006, 11:16 PM
Post #50


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1281
Joined: 18-December 04
From: San Diego, CA
Member No.: 124



M-R-O-O-O-o-o-o-o!


--------------------
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!" Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SFJCody
post Mar 10 2006, 11:22 PM
Post #51


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 8-February 04
From: Arabia Terra
Member No.: 12



Would be nice to have a Mars visualisation thingy that shows the locations of all four orbiters and two rovers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Marz
post Mar 10 2006, 11:47 PM
Post #52


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: 31-August 05
From: Florida & Texas, USA
Member No.: 482



QUOTE (djellison @ Mar 10 2006, 04:55 PM) *
Burn time 1641 seconds vs 1606 expected. 1000.48 m/s compared to 1000.36m/s expected.

So burn performance 97.87% of nominal, but actual Delta V 100.012% of predicted.

i.e. yes - the burn was a little under the mark, but the onboard sequence saw this, worked off the Delta V, and terminated the burn according to the accumulated Delta V hitting the right mark.

Doug


Excellent update! Thanks, Doug. I suppose this implies the aerobraking experienced less friction than anticipated, since the burn went longer than expected?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Mar 11 2006, 12:54 AM
Post #53


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



MOI and aerobraking are very seperate. The difference wasnt anything to do with aerobraking, I think it was simply a slight underperformance by the engines, and the sort of underperformance you only notice if you have a really long burn ( i.e. much bigger than TCM1 was).

First post in this thread updated with all the info from the 0030 conf.

We now have 6 spacecraft at work at Mars, that is a great thing.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Redstone
post Mar 11 2006, 12:55 AM
Post #54


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 134
Joined: 13-March 05
Member No.: 191



MRO isn't aerobraking yet. MOI took place outside the atmosphere (although Mars atmosphere does extend a long way, but very tenuously. The longer burn was due to the engines underperforming very slightly. Whether that was because of less thrust per unit of fuel or less fuel per unit of time is not clear yet.

EDIT: heh, knew someone would answer before me.

Zurek made a poignant point at the press conference, I thought. MRO has now completed the recovery of the loss of Mars Observer, whose instruments have been reflown on MGS, MCO (whose lost instruments have also been recovered), MODY and now MRO.

Space science teaches patience. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Sunspot_*
post Mar 11 2006, 01:00 AM
Post #55





Guests






How many journalists attended the press conference lol ?. Hmmmm we really need to send someone from this forum to ask questions. wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RNeuhaus
post Mar 11 2006, 01:14 AM
Post #56


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1636
Joined: 9-May 05
From: Lima, Peru
Member No.: 385



QUOTE (Rakhir @ Mar 10 2006, 05:26 PM) *
4 orbiters and 2 landers operating at mars at the same time !
What a pleasant day ! biggrin.gif

-- Rakhir

Maybe there are 6 orbiters including two Vikings are still looping on Mars, aren't they?

Rodolfo

Post-edit
Viking I is still orbiting around Mars at 320 x 56,000 km and it will crash on 2019.
Viking II is still orbiting around Mars at 302 x 33,176.
The other present orbiter is Mariner 9 until the year 2022.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
odave
post Mar 11 2006, 01:14 AM
Post #57


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 510
Joined: 17-March 05
From: Southeast Michigan
Member No.: 209



Sounds good to me - how would UMSF go about getting press credentials so we can dispatch "cub reporters" to various events? Much ado was made about the presence of bloggers at the political conventions during the 2004 US presidential campaign, and how this "Internet" thing was the wave of the future for journalism.

Anyhow, congratulations to all on the MRO team for a successful MOI. I can't wait for the images to start coming down!


--------------------
--O'Dave
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Messenger
post Mar 11 2006, 06:57 AM
Post #58


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 624
Joined: 10-August 05
Member No.: 460



QUOTE (yaohua2000 @ Mar 10 2006, 11:11 AM) *
From JPL Horizons, I prefer Orbiter UTC, so no Earth-received, no time zones, longitudes are areocentric:

2006-03-10 21:21:14, alt = 1000 km, lat = 73° S, lon = 285° E
2006-03-10 21:22:03, alt = 900 km, lat = 76° S, lon = 282° E
2006-03-10 21:22:57, alt = 800 km, lat = 80° S, lon = 278° E
2006-03-10 21:23:55, alt = 700 km, lat = 83° S, lon = 268° E
2006-03-10 21:25:02, alt = 600 km, lat = 86° S, lon = 232° E
2006-03-10 21:26:21, alt = 500 km, lat = 85° S, lon = 155° E
2006-03-10 21:28:09, alt = 400 km, lat = 78° S, lon = 130° E
2006-03-10 21:31:20, alt = 329 km, lat = 63° S, lon = 120° E

This was a braking manauver, the engine underperformed by 2%, but the approach was 71 km closer than the nominal target (400 km)? The delta V was returned to almost exactly nominal by burning longer, but I do not understand why this would result in a lower-than-expected altitude. (?) What am I missing this time?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Mar 11 2006, 07:42 AM
Post #59


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2511
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (The Messenger @ Mar 10 2006, 10:57 PM) *
What am I missing this time?

1) The post you referenced was made before MOI even happened.
2) Horizons is using a trajectory that is weeks old.
3) I have no idea if "Orbiter" is propagating the elements from Horizons correctly anyway.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bob Shaw
post Mar 11 2006, 11:05 AM
Post #60


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2488
Joined: 17-April 05
From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK
Member No.: 239



QUOTE (RNeuhaus @ Mar 11 2006, 01:14 AM) *
Maybe there are 6 orbiters including two Vikings are still looping on Mars, aren't they?

Rodolfo

Post-edit
Viking I is still orbiting around Mars at 320 x 56,000 km and it will crash on 2019.
Viking II is still orbiting around Mars at 302 x 33,176.
The other present orbiter is Mariner 9 until the year 2022.


Rodolfo:

There may be some Soviet vehicles still there, too. I doubt if they've all decayed so soon!

Bob Shaw


--------------------
Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 10:42 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.