IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Amount of fuel onboard, Potential life expectancy?
briv1016
post Jul 1 2008, 05:53 AM
Post #1


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 18-December 07
From: New York
Member No.: 3982



Assuming that there are no MGS type anomalies and funding holds out (according to NASA's FY09 budget, the current extension ends in September); how much longer can Odyssey remain operational with the fuel onboard?

(I know you guys are strict about starting new threads, but I couldn't find any other thread related to this topic.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jul 1 2008, 06:12 AM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7092
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



smile.gif ...Don't think that anyone is strict about new threads per se, just relevant ones.

This one seems relevant indeed to me, anyhow, because I've been worrying over the loss of relay capability for surface missions. Relying solely on DTE links for future missions just doesn't seem like a good option, and there are no new Mars orbiters in the pipeline at present.

I sometimes fear that the embarassment of riches we currently have around Mars--three, count 'em, three!!!--orbiters doing hard science and providing relay service for three (count 'em!) active surface missions may lead to a sense of complacency. If nothing else, the comm infrastructure will have to be replenished to support future surface missions, and I find it worrisome that MRO looks right now like the long pole in the tent for MSL, ExoMars, and ASL.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jul 1 2008, 07:40 AM
Post #3


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 13806
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/newsroom/.../20040825b.html
...The spacecraft has enough fuel onboard to keep operating through this decade and the next at current consumption rates.

A google search hints at far more details here - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=A...78ab683f86ac8c3 - but it's clearly a pay-for paper.

"Odyssey was the first Mars relay satellite conforming to the CCSDS ... With 37 kg of fuel remaining and fuel use at a level of less than 1 kg/year, ..." Not sure if that's a contiguous citation from the ScienceDirect paper.


Doug

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheChemist
post Jul 1 2008, 09:36 AM
Post #4


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 521
Joined: 24-November 04
From: Heraklion, GR.
Member No.: 112



It probably is Doug. Citing from the above article :

Odyssey
"The Odyssey mission is in excellent health, with none of its avionics redundancy yet exercised. With 37 kg of fuel remaining and fuel use at a level of less than 1 kg/year, it is possible that Odyssey could continue to provide relay services well into the next decade."

MGS
"Current orbit operations have achieved very efficient fuel usage at the level of 1–2 kg/year; with over 8 kg of usable propellant available, operation through the time frame of the Phoenix 2007 mission is very likely; operations through the 2009 Mars Science Laboratory is possible but less certain."

Since the article was published in 2006, two years of fuel should be substracted for current estimations.

*Edit*. Pardon the accidental necrology ....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Jul 1 2008, 10:56 AM
Post #5


Forum Contributor
***

Group: Members
Posts: 974
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



MGS died......sad.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jul 1 2008, 03:58 PM
Post #6


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7092
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Yeah, and that's my point. Not getting a warm fuzzy for lander relay capability during the next decade at all, and I'd sure love to see a mission proposal for at least a gapfiller orbiter to cover the next three surface missions. When it comes to Mars, you need to wear a belt and suspenders, IMHO.

Long ago on another thread far, far away I proposed a transient event detection (TED) capability for a follow-on Mars orbiter. This would look for things like landslides, dust devils, CO2 geysers in the South Polar region, and maybe, just maybe, H2O hot spring detection. This seems like a viable science objective: understanding the nature and frequency of currently active surface processes is manifestly of interest across many disciplines, and certainly of great interest to long term manned mission planning. And, of course, any orbiter would have a relay capability for surface missions.

To me, this looks like a desirable convergence. Hell, I'll even admit that I invented TED to sex up the idea of a new orbiter...because the bottom line is that sooner or later we're gonna need one quite badly.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Jul 1 2008, 04:11 PM
Post #7


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 13806
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (nprev @ Jul 1 2008, 04:58 PM) *
Not getting a warm fuzzy for lander relay capability during the next decade at all,


Well - I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling for a requirement for lander relay capability during the next decade either.

Seriously - MSL is the only landed asset firmly scheduled. That's it. The next up to the pad is, currently, the last.

We do have the next scout, which will be an orbiter with at least Odyssey like relay ability - which will (if you presume a decade lifespan) relay capacity out to at least 2020+. There's no reason to expect MRO, MEX and MODY to all die especially soon either. MRO, imho, will last a LONG time.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Jul 1 2008, 04:24 PM
Post #8


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7092
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Hope so...but as an old crusty avionics maintenance guy, I'll naturally advocate redundancy, redundancy, redundancy! tongue.gif

I see your point, Doug. One thing I didn't mention though is what might be planned for MSR, if anything. By the time it flies (2020+) under the current schedule it becomes increasingly less likely that any present orbital assets will still be operational. Hate to rebuild infrastructure from scratch all the time, every time. We've GOT one now, and that certainly provides a supporting argument to maintain the mission pace.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
elakdawalla
post Jul 1 2008, 11:03 PM
Post #9


Bloggette par Excellence
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4469
Joined: 4-August 05
From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth
Member No.: 454



Thanks guys, this'll be this week or next week's Q and A smile.gif

--Emily


--------------------
My blog - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
briv1016
post Jul 2 2008, 12:19 AM
Post #10


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 238
Joined: 18-December 07
From: New York
Member No.: 3982



Thanks guys.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
andrea
post Jul 2 2008, 05:50 AM
Post #11


Newbie
*

Group: Members
Posts: 11
Joined: 11-June 08
From: Portsmouth (England)
Member No.: 4202



One thing to consider is that not all relay capabilities in the existing orbiters are equal.

MRO relay capabilities (higher data rates and the capability of changing data rates during a pass) will allow MSL a 4x,5x times the data volume is possible with ODY (MEX has even lower data rate 128 kbps and an eliptical orbit that do not make the tactical planning easy). Phoenix and the MERs have the same UHF radio as ODY and cannot really take advantage of the MRO capabilities. So while I am extremely proud on how Odyssey relay worked all this year, the functional redundancy does not offer the same capabilities. If MSL lasts many many years this could be indeed a problem.

For EDL communications also more the better. The overall MSL launch/arrival strategy is terrible complicated amongst the other things so that at least one orbiter will cover.

This is an area where Europe should definitely step in and help fill in some gap.

QUOTE (djellison @ Jul 1 2008, 05:11 PM) *
Well - I'm not getting a warm fuzzy feeling for a requirement for lander relay capability during the next decade either.

Seriously - MSL is the only landed asset firmly scheduled. That's it. The next up to the pad is, currently, the last.

We do have the next scout, which will be an orbiter with at least Odyssey like relay ability - which will (if you presume a decade lifespan) relay capacity out to at least 2020+. There's no reason to expect MRO, MEX and MODY to all die especially soon either. MRO, imho, will last a LONG time.

Doug

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mariner9
post Jul 6 2008, 05:26 PM
Post #12


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 216
Joined: 13-October 05
Member No.: 528



I rather doubt having 3 operational orbiters and 3 landers is something that is likely to be the norm for the next decade.

Aside from the fact that Mars Express was a one-shot mission, I think the main culprit is cost.

Looking at the ballpark cost figures for the Mars missions,

MGS - 250 million
Mars Odyssey - 300 million
MER - 800 million
MRO - 700 million
Mars Phoenix (scout) - 400 million (really closer to 500 when you consider they got the base spacecraft for free).

Then looking at the future (that is far from set in stone, and is shifting as we speak)

MSL - 1.9 billion
Mars Scout 2011 (now 2013) - 425 million
MSO 2013 (now 2016 +) - 700 million
Mars Exobiology Rover - 1.5 billion
Mars Networking mission - 1 billion plus



Roughly speaking, we seem to have left an era where the mission costs were 300-700 million, and went into one where they are 450 - 1.5 billion.

In other words, we got our current infrastructure at mission costs roughly half what the upcoming missions look likely to cost.

So, while on the surface of things it makes sense to argue to "keep the mission rate up", the problem is that the upcoming missions are much more expensive. If we were talking Mars Surveyor and Mars Scout missions, it might be possible under the NASA budgets. But I just don't see how they can keep launching a mission every 26 months if they keep increasing the cost per mission.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_PhilCo126_*
post Oct 31 2008, 03:34 PM
Post #13





Guests






Mars Odyssey performed well (Launched April 2001, Mars orbit since 24th October 2001) but its second extended mission was due to end in October 2008. Will NASA keep it alive after Phoenix Lander gave its last breezy breath ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Oct 31 2008, 03:53 PM
Post #14


Senior Member
****

Group: Moderator
Posts: 7092
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



I don't see why not. An operational mission is worth an infinite number of mere mission proposals. Don't think we've ever just shut one down, we just run 'em till they break.


--------------------
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Oct 31 2008, 03:56 PM
Post #15


Forum Contributor
***

Group: Members
Posts: 974
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



It's good till at least September 2010.

"NASA's Mars Odyssey is altering its orbit to gain even better sensitivity for its infrared mapping of Martian minerals. During the mission extension through September 2010, it will also point its camera with more flexibility than it has ever used before. Odyssey reached Mars in 2001"

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2008-191
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 26th October 2014 - 02:56 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 a project of the Planetary Society and is funded by donations from visitors and members. Help keep this forum up and running by contributing here.