djellison
Oct 20 2009, 07:05 AM
I just can't help thinking of the old chestnut "Let's work the problem people, let's not make it any worse by guessing". I don't need to tell you where that comes from. I could site other references - but they would be in breach of the forum rules.
This is - without a shadow of doubt - the right way to be doing this. Impatience is not an option.
MarsIsImportant
Oct 20 2009, 07:53 AM
I haven't chimed in on this topic yet because regardless the result of the extraction effort Spirit cannot be traveling great distances from where it is currently. It cannot necessarily go where we want it to go because of a seriously gimpy wheel. I've accepted that unfortunate fact a long time ago. I wasn't too worked up about this because Spirit was already @ a 'treasure chest' of a huge science target that eventually paid big dividends.
If it is stuck, then it can still do some science. As long as it is alive, it is useful. Let the MER team worry about extraction. We should just enjoy the ride wherever that may take us. If it is stuck, there is plenty of Spirit data to review.
Given the change in perspective from what has been learned since MER's arrival. Wouldn't it be fun to go back and reinterpret stuff from day or sol 50 with the knowledge we have currently at sol 2000+? That in of itself should be another adventure. So the real question is whether we can get our minds or consciousness unstuck...not the rover. At this point, we cannot control what happens to Spirit; but we can change our perspective.
climber
Oct 20 2009, 09:25 PM
You know, the "problem" is, Spirit is a "she", not a "it", so, plenty of us want her to GET OUT, and she will.
Tman
Oct 21 2009, 06:00 AM
QUOTE (MarsIsImportant @ Oct 20 2009, 09:53 AM)
At this point, we cannot control what happens to Spirit; but we can change our perspective.
You're right, going back and reinterpret all the fascinating stuff would be great too and with all the calibrated data accessible now, one could rework many images/pans and animations we did then.
One thing I would still wish is that Spirit could reach finally a higher spot to get better sight over the plain.
ustrax
Oct 21 2009, 10:25 AM
QUOTE (Tman @ Oct 21 2009, 07:00 AM)
going back and reinterpret all the fascinating stuff would be great too and with all the calibrated data accessible now, one could rework many images/pans and animations we did then.
All my thumbs are up for that, even the ones in my feet.
RobertEB
Oct 23 2009, 04:12 PM
QUOTE (Tman @ Oct 21 2009, 01:00 AM)
You're right, going back and reinterpret all the fascinating stuff would be great too and with all the calibrated data accessible now, one could rework many images/pans and animations we did then.
One thing I would still wish is that Spirit could reach finally a higher spot to get better sight over the plain.
I wanted to get a closer look at
Pitchers Mound.
fredk
Oct 23 2009, 04:46 PM
If we do get out, I have to wonder about further embedding events. We did remarkably well on our drive from the WH3 area. And we are more than a third of the way to VB/G from WH3. So if Troy is an anomaly, we can expect to get a lot closer to VB/G. I wonder what the thinking is on this with the team, and whether they have any ideas on how to avoid potential Troys in the future.
centsworth_II
Oct 23 2009, 05:43 PM
QUOTE (Tman @ Oct 21 2009, 02:00 AM)
One thing I would still wish is that Spirit could reach finally a higher spot to get better sight over the plain.
Higher than the top of Husband Hill?!
Click to view attachment
djellison
Oct 23 2009, 06:10 PM
McCool Hill was found to be SLIGHTLY higher
Tman
Oct 23 2009, 06:21 PM
climber
Oct 23 2009, 07:55 PM
QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 23 2009, 08:10 PM)
McCool Hill was found to be SLIGHTLY higher
So they named the top of Husband Hill "Everest", saving "Olympus Mons" for McCool's I'd said
fredk
Oct 27 2009, 03:41 PM
Looks like the review will take place this Wednesday, from
Maxwell's blog.
CryptoEngineer
Oct 27 2009, 06:25 PM
QUOTE (climber @ Oct 23 2009, 03:55 PM)
So they named the top of Husband Hill "Everest", saving "Olympus Mons" for McCool's I'd said
I don't know exactly what the naming rules are, but I'd be astonished if they allowed naming a hill on Mars after a hill on Mars. That would be ... confusing.
How about "Kilauea"?
ce
djellison
Oct 27 2009, 06:39 PM
QUOTE (climber @ Oct 23 2009, 07:55 PM)
So they named the top of Husband Hill "Everest", saving "Olympus Mons" for McCool's I'd said
They thought Husband was higher. It wasn't until doing basic trig from the top of it, they discovered McCool to be a few metres higher.
climber
Oct 27 2009, 09:30 PM
QUOTE (djellison @ Oct 27 2009, 07:39 PM)
They thought Husband was higher. It wasn't until doing basic trig from the top of it, they discovered McCool to be a few metres higher.
Thanks for this Doug, I didn't know.
An whaouu, I love "ce" statment of Olympus Mons been a "hill on Mars"
. Isn't it the tallest mountains of the solar system?
Vultur
Oct 27 2009, 10:28 PM
QUOTE (CryptoEngineer @ Oct 27 2009, 06:25 PM)
How about "Kilauea"?
Well, if you measure from the base of the mountain rather than from sea level, Mauna Kea is Earth's highest mountain - it's just that 6000 meters of it is underwater.
CryptoEngineer
Oct 28 2009, 05:27 PM
QUOTE (climber @ Oct 27 2009, 04:30 PM)
Thanks for this Doug, I didn't know.
An whaouu, I love "ce" statment of Olympus Mons been a "hill on Mars"
. Isn't it the tallest mountains of the solar system?
I was quite aware of the disparity in size. The point remains; having two Olympus Mons on Mars would be source of confusion, even if one is a thousand times the size of the other.
As others have pointed out, Mauna Kea is actually higher than Kilauea; I was just more familiar with Kilauea since it is active, MK is dormant.
Both are peaks on the Big Island of Hawaii, Mauna Kea rises 10,203m above its seafloor base. Olympus Mons is 27,000m high.
ce
alan
Oct 28 2009, 05:27 PM
From Scott Maxwell's twitter page
QUOTE
Today's the big review: if we pass this, we're ready to start extricating Spirit Nov 9-ish (assuming no *other* problems). #FreeSpirit
Phil Stooke
Oct 28 2009, 07:29 PM
"I don't know exactly what the naming rules are, but I'd be astonished if they allowed naming a hill on Mars after a hill on Mars. That would be ... confusing."
Not to worry, these are only informal names, very mission-specific. You're right that no formal naming of that type would be permitted. But look at the Moon, where craters at some Apollo sites (Sharp, Nansen etc.) received the same names as existing craters. When some of them were made official, the landing site names were changed (Sharp-Apollo, Nansen-Apollo etc.) to remove the uncertainty.
Phil
climber
Oct 28 2009, 08:27 PM
QUOTE (CryptoEngineer @ Oct 28 2009, 06:27 PM)
I was just more familiar with Kilauea since it is active...
ce
Pretty right on this
(Family & me by mid of august this year)
Click to view attachmentSorry ce, I know what you mean about Olympus Mons.
BrianL
Oct 28 2009, 11:22 PM
Aaaarggghh!!! 6:20 pm here and still no news about the review. Rui, call Steve, we know you have the number.
fredk
Oct 29 2009, 04:02 PM
From
Maxwell:QUOTE
Big review is done! In a few days, we get the board report & know their findings. I think it went well overall & am optimistic.
jamescanvin
Oct 29 2009, 04:17 PM
QUOTE (fredk @ Oct 29 2009, 04:02 PM)
From Maxwell:
A couple of days ago he also tweeted that if they pass the review then the extraction process should start around 9th November.
JayB
Oct 30 2009, 10:45 PM
Amnesia-Like Behavior Returns on Spirit
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?rele...FeaturesHome%27maybe she's just bored and restless....
djellison
Oct 30 2009, 11:26 PM
They're formatting the flash today - something they last did back on Sol 32.
Since then - I've reformatted MY main workstation about 10 times.
fredk
Oct 30 2009, 11:33 PM
From
Maxwell:QUOTE
Hypothesis: problem is in flash file system block holding file system metadata. Reformatting will notice bad block, relocate metadata.
eoincampbell
Oct 31 2009, 02:54 AM
Is the reformatting procedure a snap! now?
I remember holding my breath last time...
Astro0
Oct 31 2009, 01:25 PM
Missed this move by the MI.
Hope it's telling the team something good.
Animations...
Click to view attachmentClick to view attachment
Wow, those provide great perspective -- thanks for taking the time to put them together.
fredk
Nov 1 2009, 05:19 PM
From the
latest Planetary Report:QUOTE
the engineers... staged an operational readiness test on October 12. Basically, they initiated the plan on the ground replicate of the twin MERs, then left the laboratory for five days, only accessing it electronically and only analyzing and adapting to the rover's data from afar, like they do for real with Spirit and Opportunity every day. The extraction plan, which begins with crabbing up hill and moving forward, made progress and the ORT was deemed a success.
The MER team then presented the plan and the test results before a review board last Wednesday, October 28. "It went well," said Squyres. "Now the review board is going to write a report, then brief the decision-makers at NASA headquarters. At that point, we will hear what we should do." That briefing, according to various sources, could take place early next week.
Also this month's report includes a very good, detailed description of the HGA brake anomaly.
imipak
Nov 2 2009, 07:24 PM
http://twitter.com/marsroverdriver/status/5366585497QUOTE
(...) Flash reformat has not executed yet; go/no-go later today.
(Edit: apologies for current re-editing of every comment; I'm on alpha s/w here which has an annoying bug with form textarea widgets.)
centsworth_II
Nov 2 2009, 07:54 PM
I like that they are seriously documenting the rock's position to see how the rover moves relative to it during the extraction maneuver.
ustrax
Nov 2 2009, 08:23 PM
QUOTE (BrianL @ Oct 28 2009, 11:22 PM)
Aaaarggghh!!! 6:20 pm here and still no news about the review. Rui, call Steve, we know you have the number.
Hmm...the answer is
always the same...
Astro0
Nov 3 2009, 06:45 AM
Another look underneath Spirit.
A quick stitch jpg...
Click to view attachment...and a rough position comparison (animated gif).
Click to view attachment
RobertEB
Nov 3 2009, 02:34 PM
Spirit being stuck here for so long provides a good opportunity to study how the rover's tracks fade away. It would make an interesting movie if day by day frames could be stiched toether.
Here is the latest image I could find;
fredk
Nov 3 2009, 04:38 PM
Speaking of long-term monitoring, something caught my eye about the latest rhazcam frame from sol 2072. At first I thought the rover had shifted a bit counter-clockwise between 2072 and the previous frame, 1998. But then I noticed that the entire frame, including the underside of the solar deck, shifted to the right. So it doesn't look like the rover shifted, but instead the rhaz camera itself rotated slightly towards the left (counter-clockwise from above) by sol 2072. I would've thought the camera was mounted pretty snugly, so this is surprizing.
Here's an animation showing the movement. You can tell it's not a lighting effect by concentrating on the silhouettes of features against the bright sky:
Click to view attachment
Hungry4info
Nov 3 2009, 04:48 PM
I confirm.
In a few Sols, the camera may be laying on the ground, conveniently aimed underneath Spirit
Wait... that's not a good thing
djellison
Nov 3 2009, 04:54 PM
I have tweeted the appropriate people
One could explain the solar array moving with wind - but not the whole scene. Perhaps strong winds have been moving the rover around ever so slightly and the array as well. 120deg FOV on Hazcams - a 3 pixel shift would be the rover moving by 0.3 degrees.
Hungry4info
Nov 3 2009, 06:34 PM
So, if nothing else works, by sol 20,000 we should be out of here?
ilbasso
Nov 3 2009, 06:56 PM
I think you're on to something. If we wait a couple of billion years, the ground will erode out from under Spirit like it did for the Meridiani meteorites. Then we can just drive away with impunity.
bgarlick
Nov 3 2009, 07:28 PM
fredk is right, It does not look like the rover is moving, but rather that the camera is turning. Since the shift corresponds to how bright the surroundings are is it possible that thermal expansion is causing the camera mount to twist to one side? (Under recent darker, colder, conditions is the shift not as pronounced?) If the shift has been monotonically increasing over time then that might indicate seasonal temperature changes or something unrelated to temperature... (what else could cause the camera mount to shift? I doubt wind could, and wind would not cause a monotonic increase)
Hungry4info
Nov 3 2009, 07:40 PM
QUOTE (ilbasso @ Nov 3 2009, 12:56 PM)
If we wait a couple of billion years, the ground will erode out from under Spirit like it did for the Meridiani meteorites.
A great idea! But if that rock under Spirit is sturdy, then by the time the ground significantly erodes, Spirit may be trapped further. Maybe she'll be up at enough tilt to get some traction though. How would the rock scraping up against the underside of Spirit fare on the rover's health in such a situation?
Astro0
Nov 3 2009, 10:39 PM
I've noticed these 3-4 pixel wabbles before. I'd have to get back to my other computer, but I did an animation once using Navcam images looking at the layers in HP and the presumably fixed camera position moved by 3-4 pixels during the course of about 30 images.
My thought at the time was as temperatures changed throughout the day that either the soil or parts of the rover itself were expanding and contracting slightly changing the cameras position. That was my theory at least, but perhaps the explanation lies elsewhere.
I'll find that animation and post it later.
djellison
Nov 3 2009, 11:09 PM
Scott's going to have a look at it.
fredk
Nov 3 2009, 11:10 PM
It's a lot easier to imagine a variety of things causing the navcams way up there on the mast to drift around a bit. But hazcam really surprizes me. Bgarlick's idea of thermal expansion could be an explanation though.
ElkGroveDan
Nov 3 2009, 11:24 PM
Is it possible that the hazcams are attached with some kind of gasket for vibration dampening that could be expanding and contracting after so many thermal cycles?
Astro0
Nov 4 2009, 12:42 AM
I'm just having another thought about this apparent movement in the Hazcams. I think that there is also a tiny movement in the left Haz images as well as the right. Maybe not as pronounced.
Just looking at the timing between these frames, perhaps someone with more time could check, but did this movement occur in the interval when they were testing whether one of the middle wheels was jammed. Didn't they do a quarter/full wheel rotation at some stage?
Perhaps this motion moved the rover a little.
Tesheiner
Nov 4 2009, 06:40 AM
QUOTE (Astro0 @ Nov 4 2009, 01:42 AM)
Perhaps this motion moved the rover a little.
Maybe, but I think we are here dealing with a movement of the camera relative to the rover itself, isn't it?
djellison
Nov 4 2009, 08:09 AM
QUOTE
MarsRovers
@doug_ellison team thinks it could be due to slight settling after diagnostic tests on 1916, 1933 & IDD work on 1998, 2072. Great catch.
I think Scott's looking at it a bit more closely. If we've discovered that RHAZ DOES move - then there's perhaps implications for generated terrain meshes.
Astro0
Nov 4 2009, 11:16 AM
My brain keeps recalling something I saw in the Navcams which suggested to me some odd movement.
I've tried to find it on my computer but to no avail. Possibly deleted it.
However, going back through the Navcam images I found something similar.
Click to view attachmentThis sequence taken on sol1972 (left navcam) between 13:27.17 and 18:26.41 local time shows the movement which I was putting down to the effect of thermal changes on either the soil or vehicle. The alternative suggested above maybe movement of the IDD or wheel tests - not sure about the activity going on through this sol on that afternoon.
Of course, it could all be a trick of the light, but a giveaway to me is the position of the 'hot pixel' lower right (~1/4 up, ~1/4 from right) which stays in place while the background shifts.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please
click here.