Closest and furthest pairs of unmanned space craft |
Closest and furthest pairs of unmanned space craft |
Dec 20 2007, 03:29 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 903 Joined: 30-January 05 Member No.: 162 |
Ok, obviously, furthest separation of spacecraft would be Pioneer 10 and depending on when we check, Pioneer 11, and later Voyager 1 and/or Voyager 2.
But what is the closest 2 craft have come on seperate missions ?? Were there any close approaches of Magellan to any Soviet orbiters at Venus ?? Has there any been a Soviet Lander on Mars close to either Viking ?? Any chance of the Halley armada vehicles being particularly close to each other during their missions ?? I would mostly be interested in active mission encountering each other, but a live mission 'checking out' a prior 'dead' one closely (Apollo 12 and Surveyor 3 type encounter for example, but keep in mind Apollo 12 was manned and not applicable here) would be interesting too. |
|
|
Dec 20 2007, 04:17 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
MGS vs MODY and MEX
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2005/05/19/ MGS to MODY was 90km (but I'm sure closer passes occur) - and MGS to MEX was 250 Oh BOY would I love to see HiRISE pull that off. Doug |
|
|
Dec 20 2007, 04:24 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 4763 Joined: 15-March 05 From: Glendale, AZ Member No.: 197 |
After the Lunar Surveyors (1 & 3) and Soviet Luna (16 & 20?), I'd say Viking 1 and 2. Of course if you are talking about any two craft as opposed to matched pairs, then on Mars it would be Viking 1 and Pathfinder
(Assuming we exclude possible classified ASAT touch and go encounters in Earth orbit.) -------------------- If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
|
|
|
Dec 20 2007, 06:58 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8783 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Blue-sky and possibly OT thought here, but might there be an advantage to landing future rovers in close pairs for teamed exploration? If we have very long-lived vehicles in 20 years or more, it might be good if they each had a wingman to compensate for platform instrument failures (to say nothing of being able to help each other out...if Oppy had had a partner with a boom & a winch back at Purgatory, she'd've been free much more quickly).
Again, totally blue-sky, and of course expensive. But, if we reach the point technologically that we can confidently expect 10 or 20-year UMSF mobile surface survey missions on Mars, Titan, Triton, Europa, etc. (and in practice get 30 yrs. plus), having a buddy would be a big help, providing an excellent return on investment in terms of both science return and overall mission risk reduction. Historically, this strategy has worked extremely well for human exploration, and of course it's a fundamental tenet of military operations which are conducted in often unfamiliar, always potentially hostile environments. -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Dec 21 2007, 04:48 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Director of Galilean Photography Group: Members Posts: 896 Joined: 15-July 04 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 93 |
Not likely, I think. Would you prefer to have both Spirit and Opportunity at Gusev, for example? More locations would always trump having a wingman.
-------------------- 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. |
|
|
Dec 28 2007, 06:13 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8783 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Wouldn't have been appropriate for the MERs with just 90-day nominal missions. Thinking of 20+ year surface surveys, which definitely are beginning to look achievable in the near future. For example, if we were to fly rovers to Titan in 2030, I'd put a pair in one place & a pair in another (deep, deep pockets and/or very inexpensive yet reliable designs assumed, of course...)
-------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Dec 28 2007, 06:22 PM
Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2173 Joined: 28-December 04 From: Florida, USA Member No.: 132 |
I'd put a pair in one place & a pair in another... I think most would agree that it would still be better to put them in four different places. I don't see how the advantage to sending a rover as a buddy to another rover could possibly outweigh the advantage to having a look at an entirely different location. Even with a different science payload on each of two rovers, the use of two sets of roving hardware (wheels, chassis, etc.) sent to one location would be an extravagant waste of payload budget. |
|
|
Dec 29 2007, 02:58 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8783 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Yeah, I think you're right. My thought was to provide some means of prolonging the overall mission at a given locale, but after further reflection how necessary is that really? 20 years is ideal for a comsat, but not for a planetary rover with limited range; there's only so much terrain that can be accessed properly.
Stay tuned for my next brilliant invention, the glass drum! -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Dec 29 2007, 09:58 AM
Post
#9
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1870 Joined: 20-February 05 Member No.: 174 |
There are 2 reasons to sent a new mission to an old locale...sample return of "we gotta get THESE in the lab" ground-truthed samples, or to revisit a maximally important and partially well understood site with an entirely new set of instruments.
In Meridiani, there's lots better places to go to get access to eroded stacks of geology than the safe and surprisingly undull (except when stuck in sand traps) plains. But at Gusev, the Columbia hills are *INTERESTING*. I doubt they're as interesting as places like the proposed MSL sites, but they're far more interesting than another randomly chosen (and they WERE randomly chosen, not part of the Spirit landing target lacustrine sediments at all). This is because we've now spent years picking apart their geology, have made partial sense of what the stratigraphy and history are, and so on. We'd be able to tell a sample return mission "goTHERE, and There, and there and tHeRe" to get samples for return.... or with new instruments we'd be able to really rip into the hills. These are probably to a significant extent, a sample of the ancient, 4+ billion year old geologic history of the planet, and the samples are diverse, variably altered, and have younger history in terms of sediments and salts sitting on them. I'm not saying we SHOULD, but the MSL or ExoMars sites, assuming both succeede, will be inevitable candidates for sample return (with or without caching), and might end up being visited "in person". |
|
|
Guest_PhilCo126_* |
Dec 29 2007, 10:26 AM
Post
#10
|
Guests |
During the Millennium flyby of Jupiter, Galileo (launched onboard the Space Shuttle in October 1989) and Cassini-Huygens (launched in October 1997) simultaneously explored the planet Jupiter.
I also believe that the Venera landers came quiet close to each other on the surface of Venus (but I'll check this) |
|
|
Guest_PhilCo126_* |
Dec 29 2007, 11:02 AM
Post
#11
|
Guests |
Listed my Venera landers 'claim' in a separate topic in the VENUS sub-forum: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=4868
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 05:43 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. |