IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

37 Pages V  « < 32 33 34 35 36 > »   
Reply to this topicStart new topic
InSight Surface Operations, 26 Nov 2018-
MahFL
post Mar 2 2019, 03:36 AM
Post #496


Forum Contributor
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1223
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



QUOTE (Explorer1 @ Mar 2 2019, 03:31 AM) *
Not sure if it's plausible to redeploy the instrument once it's release. There's no way to draw it back up, is there?



No, once its drilling, it's one way only.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulH51
post Mar 2 2019, 03:52 AM
Post #497


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1651
Joined: 30-January 13
From: Penang, Malaysia.
Member No.: 6853



Animated GIF cropped from processed ICC frames from sols 89 & 92. It shows the movement of HP3 after the mole was released, I selected these frames because of the similar solar time.
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SteveM
post Mar 3 2019, 07:59 PM
Post #498


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 267
Joined: 5-February 06
Member No.: 675



"Tests with pebbles in sand suggest that the mole takes some hours but can work itself through a layer of pebbles or move a stone out of the way. Geological evidence suggest that the regolith should be mostly sandy. So hopefully we can get past the obstacle on Sunday and get to 70 cm more easily. But we should not forget, we are moving into the unknown." DLR Blog

Do any of the geologists here have an idea whether there could be a layer of relatively impenetrable consolidated material e.g., a natural cement that, unlike pebbles or stones, makes it difficult or impossible for the mole to move it or go around?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulH51
post Mar 3 2019, 08:31 PM
Post #499


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1651
Joined: 30-January 13
From: Penang, Malaysia.
Member No.: 6853



IDC GIF with processed frames from 87, 92 & 94 shows more movement of the HP3 support structure after the second hammering attempt. The PI blog dated March 3, 2019 only appears to have provided additional details on the 1st attempt
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Mar 3 2019, 08:32 PM
Post #500


Senior Member
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8349
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



Not a geologist, but I have been wondering about duricrusts. IIRC, Elysium is primarily a volcanic province but sand covers all on Mars. There could well be ancient evaporite deposits almost anywhere beneath the surface, I'd imagine.


--------------------
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
HSchirmer
post Mar 4 2019, 01:00 AM
Post #501


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 426
Joined: 24-July 15
Member No.: 7619



QUOTE (SteveM @ Mar 3 2019, 07:59 PM) *
Do any of the geologists here have an idea whether there could be a layer of relatively impenetrable consolidated material — e.g., a natural cement — that, unlike pebbles or stones, makes it difficult or impossible for the mole to move it or go around?



Also not a geologist, but there is a fair bit of evidence from shoreline studies suggesting that the Insight landing site
-edit-
sits roughly between the Deuteronilus and Arabia shorelines
The landing site in Elysium is at 135 degrees longitude, about 4.5 latitude, so around 2 o'clock in this polar view


so there is a chance this area
-edit-

was a shallow sea at one time.

QUOTE
https://eprints.ucm.es/33193/1/3-Marte%20SL.pdf
Parker et al. (1989, 1993) also proposed an older, higher-standing Contact 1, later on
renamed Arabia shoreline (Clifford and Parker, 2001). This shoreline, which would be of
Noachian age (see Clifford and Parker, 2001), is roughly coincident with the Martian
dichotomy separating the lowlands from the highlands,


So, there may well be buried duri-crusts or conglomerates or drainage delta materials.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
serpens
post Mar 4 2019, 07:48 AM
Post #502


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 787
Joined: 17-February 09
Member No.: 4605



The deviation of the probe was expected if it encountered a rock and this is taken into account in analysis of results. The rocks exposed on the surface and the size of those excavated by the thrusters does seem to indicate a reasonable probability of encountering an obstruction, so I doubt we need to hypothesize evaporates or buried duricrust. But on Mars we are in the position of dark ages navigators. Here there be dragons, which is quite exciting really.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulH51
post Mar 4 2019, 11:29 AM
Post #503


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1651
Joined: 30-January 13
From: Penang, Malaysia.
Member No.: 6853



Sol 92 & 94 ICC GIF Showing what looks like the upper part of the HP3 'Mole' after the 2nd hammering attempt on sol 94.
Credit to the observation to Lars on Twitter (https://twitter.com/LarsTheWanderer)
If this is the mole it must be close to full insertion, but likely at an angle to have pushed the housing away
I've processed / cropped the images to 600x600
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Mar 4 2019, 03:45 PM
Post #504


Forum Contributor
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1223
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



So the current depth is 30cm. 50 cm is needed for the first temp measurement. Tough going.

https://www.musc.dlr.de/hp3/
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulH51
post Mar 5 2019, 02:05 AM
Post #505


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1651
Joined: 30-January 13
From: Penang, Malaysia.
Member No.: 6853



Sol 95 IDC GIF, of the grapple being stowed. Cropped to reduce GIF load time
Attached Image
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Mar 6 2019, 03:20 AM
Post #506


Forum Contributor
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1223
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



Setback on the drilling, a two week pause, seems their good luck may have ran out...

https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8419/mars-insigh...g/?site=insight

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PaulH51
post Mar 6 2019, 04:17 AM
Post #507


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1651
Joined: 30-January 13
From: Penang, Malaysia.
Member No.: 6853



There is a large collection of IDC & ICC frames from sol 96. These may be one attempt over several sols to capture the shadow of Phobos as it crosses the terrain around the lander mentioned in the HP3 blog linked in the previous post.

I think the IDC images may be pointing at the ground covered by HP3's radiance sensor 'RAD'.

I've reviewed all the images from both cameras that were downlinked (so far) but can't see any obvious darkening.

I'm not sure if these cameras are auto exposure and may have compensated for any variation of lighting, or if the shadow passed over between frames.

Note: The HP3 blog updates are extremely welcome, but they do confuse me a little when they refer to future events on Mars. E.g: These Phobos shadows events don't mention mission sols, but use dates (5, 6 and 8 March 2019). I think they're using JPL dates, not DLR dates, but it's a tad confusing to my ageing brain smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Mar 6 2019, 04:41 AM
Post #508


Forum Contributor
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1223
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



Pretty sure the cameras are not auto exposure.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James Sorenson
post Mar 6 2019, 07:46 AM
Post #509


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 647
Joined: 21-December 07
From: Clatskanie, Oregon
Member No.: 3988



QUOTE (MahFL @ Mar 5 2019, 08:41 PM) *
Pretty sure the cameras are not auto exposure.


They are flight MER/MSL spares with just the addition of a Bayer filter mask. Identical software and electronics. No reason to suggest they don't have auto-exposure, which MER and MSL did.

In regards to the SP3 mole issues. Why not use the strong, capable arm with it''s unused scoop to dig a deep trench next to the instrument down to the depth that the mole was having issues penetrating to see what we are up against? Knowing that information visually would help in the testbed work out ways to get around it. At the very least determine what stopped the mole if it is unable to get through and help redesign it to handle simular situations on future missions that include something simular to it.

The only reason I could think of to not do that would be potential cave in''s effecting the SEIS data. In that case, just fill in the trench after.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MarcF
post Mar 6 2019, 01:08 PM
Post #510


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 217
Joined: 16-May 06
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Member No.: 773



From the HP3 blog
https://www.dlr.de/blogs/en/desktopdefault....9577_read-1090/
"Excellent news! We just got the data from the first Phobos eclipse observation and the cooling by the shadow passing through the fields of view of the radiometer in about 30 seconds is clearly visible. The cooling is by about 1C and is thus somewhat larger than expected and certainly better than with the most pessimistic estimates (that would have said, we will not be able to see it at all)! So the team is happy and is rejoicing about the first eclipse on Mars ever observed with a radiometer."
smile.gif
Regards,
Marc.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

37 Pages V  « < 32 33 34 35 36 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2019 - 12:48 PM
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.