IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

39 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
MSL "Drive, drive, drive" toward Glenelg, The scientists (mostly) get the keys - sols 38-56
centsworth_II
post Sep 14 2012, 06:37 PM
Post #16


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2045
Joined: 28-December 04
Member No.: 132



QUOTE (akuo @ Sep 14 2012, 12:35 AM) *
200 metres per sol is the original engineering goal for MSL...

I'm guessing the 200m per sol figure is hoped-for long drive capability based on experience with the MERs. From the below, it looks like the mission requirement was for 50m per sol.

"The following table summarizes some of the key resources affecting operations and the required capability for each."

Attached Image

http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/scienceplanning/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akuo
post Sep 14 2012, 06:51 PM
Post #17


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 436
Joined: 24-March 04
From: Finland
Member No.: 63



QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 14 2012, 06:03 PM) *
I've never seen figures that high quoted anywhere. Where do you get that number from?

For example in the MSL Fact Sheet: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/news/pdfs/MSL_Fact_Sheet.pdf
"...travel up to about 200 meters (660 feet) per day on Martian terrain."


--------------------
Antti Kuosmanen
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hungry4info
post Sep 14 2012, 06:55 PM
Post #18


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1013
Joined: 26-July 08
Member No.: 4270



I think the difference is "designed to" vs "mission requirement."


--------------------
-- Hungry4info (Sirius_Alpha)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
akuo
post Sep 14 2012, 07:10 PM
Post #19


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 436
Joined: 24-March 04
From: Finland
Member No.: 63



Yeah, I didn't mean "goal" in the sense of a mission requirement. As far as I understand, the mission requirement is to survive a Martian year and to fulfil the science goal. The roving ability is there to support that.

It would be interesting to know how much of an estimated advantage in roving distance Curiosity has over MER because of the larger size - that is bigger clearance over obstacles and an ability to see further ahead for blind drivers, because of the higher elevation of the navigation cameras.



--------------------
Antti Kuosmanen
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Guest_Oersted_*
post Sep 14 2012, 07:13 PM
Post #20





Guests






Maybe it would be good to have the starting date as the beginning of the thread title, like this: 2012-09-14. MSL drive etc etc. It is really hard to beat chronology as an organizing tool, I speak as a historian!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Sep 14 2012, 07:19 PM
Post #21


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2045
Joined: 28-December 04
Member No.: 132



QUOTE (pmetschan @ Sep 14 2012, 12:33 PM) *
sorry if this has been asked but is Glenelg visible in this image and if so where? Could someone "red arrow" it?

Combining jmknapp's "FWIW, the Google Mars view (based on a MOLA DEM I think) shows that Glenelg is below a rise in the foreground" image from this post (on left, rotated) with an MSL route map from here (on right). It looks like we may see it after another drive or two?

(My eyeball estimate of the rise location between landing site and Glenelg circled in blue.)
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Sep 14 2012, 07:23 PM
Post #22


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2045
Joined: 28-December 04
Member No.: 132



QUOTE (akuo @ Sep 14 2012, 02:10 PM) *
It would be interesting to know how much of an estimated advantage in roving distance Curiosity has over MER...
I'm not sure it has any advantage in terms of meters per day. MSL goes the same speed (maybe a little slower) and the extra weight takes a lot of energy to move so the time-length of drives may be similar to MER as well. The advantage may be in more freedom in choosing drive direction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
atomoid
post Sep 14 2012, 07:36 PM
Post #23


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 419
Joined: 15-March 05
From: Santa Cruz, CA
Member No.: 196



QUOTE (centsworth_II @ Sep 14 2012, 11:37 AM) *
"The following table summarizes some of the key resources affecting operations and the required capability for each.
Attached Image

http://msl-scicorner.jpl.nasa.gov/scienceplanning/

What surprises me is the "Rover awake Time" of 6 hours.. only six hours? with RTG power, why 'sleep' at all? (ok maybe i should read more specs)
based on RTG power alone, MSL should be able to quarduple the distance per SOL over MER (Oppy's top was i think over 200 M on one SOL, If MSL did that for 24 hours, we could theoretically do a mile in 2 days instead of 8 in the optimal scenario..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
fredk
post Sep 14 2012, 07:39 PM
Post #24


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3162
Joined: 17-January 05
Member No.: 152



I thought the main advantage for MSL over MER in terms of drive distance per sol was the height of the mast cameras (as akuo mentioned) and also the resolution of MC100. Both mean potential obstacles can be spotted farther away, and so longer non-blind drives can be planned. (Also there's power, which can negatively affect MER drives in times of very low solar array output).

Of course we'll just have to see what they can do with MSL.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Phil Stooke
post Sep 14 2012, 08:12 PM
Post #25


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 5629
Joined: 5-April 05
From: Canada
Member No.: 227



"based on RTG power alone, MSL should be able to quarduple the distance per SOL over MER "

It's a mistake to think of MSL as RTG powered. Like MER it is really battery powered. The RTG just trickles power into the batteries. (as I understand it, and really I'm just repeating others here - I think Doug said pretty much exactly this).

I'm nearly home and will soon be working on route maps again. East of Boston right now.

Phil

EDIT - east of Boston (changed it above) - not west! I have been the Enrichment Lecturer on a cruise ship. It's a tough life, but somebody has to do it.


--------------------
... because the Solar System ain't gonna map itself.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
helvick
post Sep 14 2012, 08:16 PM
Post #26


Dublin Correspondent
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 1795
Joined: 28-March 05
From: Celbridge, Ireland
Member No.: 220



RTG power is not limitless, it's still only around 100-125watts max. MSL uses it in just the same way the MER's used their solar panels, to charge it's batteries which can then provide the power to cover the many things that MSL can and must do when she's active that add up to a lot more than 100watts of load. So she has to get her beauty sleep to recharge her batteries.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
climber
post Sep 14 2012, 08:29 PM
Post #27


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2612
Joined: 14-February 06
From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France)
Member No.: 682



QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Sep 14 2012, 10:12 PM) *
I'm nearly home and will soon be working on route maps again. West of Boston right now.
Phil

Ready for EDL I suppose!
Welcome on Mars


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Sep 14 2012, 08:38 PM
Post #28


Forum Contributor
***

Group: Members
Posts: 955
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



The main advantage is MSL won't have to stand down during the winter. As for returned data they did more than 500 megabits with MRO in one pass. Once out of Mars time though the team won't always be able to prepare the next days upload in time, so there will be quiet days, where I guess some safe run out science could be done. Also Mr Cook said they expect to have 10 years or more to explore. Of course they will have a "time line" to try accomplish the main mission objectives, which I suspect maybe extended beyond two years should MSL continue to be a reliable spacecraft.
What happened to Pete ?, as I see on the MSL website Cook is now the MSL Project Manager.

Edit : Wiki says this...
"He is currently director for the Engineering and Science Directorate at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory."

I guess Pete Theisinger got promoted smile.gif.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 14 2012, 09:35 PM
Post #29


Administrator
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 13742
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Sep 14 2012, 01:12 PM) *
It's a mistake to think of MSL as RTG powered. Like MER it is really battery powered. The RTG just trickles power into the batteries. (as I understand it, and really I'm just repeating others here - I think Doug said pretty much exactly this).


Exactly that. It consumes more than 110Watts to 'run' the rover - and some activities use much much more than that. You use up battery power during the day, and then recharge with the RTG over night.

QUOTE (MahFL)
What happened to Pete ?, as I see on the MSL website Cook is now the MSL Project Manager.


That information is probably out of date. Richard was MSL ProjMang for a while a few years back as Pete had some medical issues to deal with. Then Pete took the position again. At the moment, it's still Pete at the top and Richard as his deputy.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DFinfrock
post Sep 14 2012, 10:07 PM
Post #30


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 160
Joined: 20-September 05
From: North Texas
Member No.: 503



QUOTE (Oersted @ Sep 14 2012, 07:13 PM) *
Maybe it would be good to have the starting date as the beginning of the thread title, like this: 2012-09-14. MSL drive etc etc. It is really hard to beat chronology as an organizing tool, I speak as a historian!


Or perhaps when each thread is closed, an admin can change the title, with a prefix, such as "Sol 34 - Sol 58, Drive, Drive, Drive toward Glenelg".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

39 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 30th August 2014 - 04:14 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.