...Mars Rover in Trouble? Or a hoax video?

(Newsgroups trimmed from 5 to 3)
From:
Personally, I'd rather NASA take what they've learned from the existing
machines and build better ones.
I agree. Overall in the long run, this seems to be the best way to go.
The Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover is an extension of this
philosophy, building off of the experiance gained from the diminutive
Sorjourner rover from the Pathfinder mission 10 years ago and the more
recent, larger and more capable Mars Exploration Rovers (MERs). Each
mission has improved apon the other substantially, and each mission's
objectives and goals are altered based on the lessons learned from the
previous missions. However, the one thing that MSL cannot take from
the previous two missions is the air bag landing system, and instead
must use the untried "sky crane" lander concept. That is the area of
concern that looms largest for me.

I agree with your concern, and for that reason I wish they would
have hedged their bets. The MER rovers seem to have established
themselves as a lot more robust than originally designed. Their
landing systems worked just fine too. We should change out the
instruments to satisfy the next set of geological objectives, but
otherwise send at least two more such craft with each launch
opportunity. In addition, we should try the new "sky crane" system
with one vehicle. If the "sky crane" works, we get the good info.
If the "sky crane" fails, at least we have the MERs with new
instruments getting the new kind of information, not over the wide
geography the new rover would have gotten, but at least enough to
make scientists mildly happy and very busy for years.

As for the descent into Victoria Crater as soon as the dust storm
clears: I don't think we should plan for the rover to ever get back
out. The thing to be careful about is *not* to lose grip and slide
and fall over during descent and therefore become immediately
worthless. If the rover can safely descend to the floor of the
crater, then spend the rest of its operational life exploring
what's in there, I think that (plus what it already accomplished)
should be more than enough success for one rover. In the unlikely
event the floor and lower-sides of Victoria Crater are fully
explored, no more to see there, everyone bored, and the rover is
still working fine, sure give it a try to get back out and explore
more of the plain outside the crater. But right now, don't even
plan for that, just get to the floor safely, OK?

From: "George Dishman"
a large part of the cost is the ground operations after they
land. The DSN in particular is a very limited resource.

I agree. But I see a solution to make everyone happy: Launch more
missions than DSN can fully support. If they all are successful,
then use pre-processing of data and careful selection of what data
is "important" to reduce the amount of data from each mission,
giving us a thinner set of data from a wider variety of sources. For
example, if we have twenty operational missions on/orbiting Mars
simultaneously, we get the very best data from each site, and
nevermind the rest. On the other hand if some of the missions fail,
then it's not a problem, we simply re-distribute DSN time to pass
more of the data from the fewer successul missions, so we get more
detailed and complete coverage from a smaller number of sites.
Also, when rovers are hibernating, we can spend more DSN time on
the orbiter images, while when rovers are very actively returning
valuable data we can put orbiters into hibernate mode. When orbiter
is passing over a missing spot from earlier surveys, when we
*really* want the images from that spot to complete our map, and
rover is busy at the same time, one or the other simply stores all
its new data until later. It's my understanding that all the
orbiters and landers/rovers of recent years have sufficient
software capability to be flexible enough to share DSN in novel
ways that depend on post-launch post-arrival information such as
which mission died and which mission is still working.

But I agree, we could really really use more DSN capacity, both for
raw throughput, and redundancy in case of local disaster (wildfire,
earthquake, tropical storm, etc. etc.). But until we have more, we
needn't artificially limit the number of simultaneous deep space
missions for fear of not having enough DSN capacity.

"Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t" wrote in
message ...
From: "George Dishman"
a large part of the cost is the ground operations after they
land. The DSN in particular is a very limited resource.

I agree. But I see a solution to make everyone happy: Launch more
missions than DSN can fully support. If they all are successful,
then use pre-processing of data and careful selection of what data
is "important" to reduce the amount of data from each mission,

And exactly how do you determine what data is "important" without knowing
what it is first?

"Jimbob Jumpback" wrote in message
...
Usually I take your postings with a grain of salt... but this is a
truly inspired idea. I second the motion.

If you were serious, we'd see you voting with your dollars.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Jimbob Jumpback" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:38:52 -0000, "
wrote:

a obvious question. they are so rugged ands reliable why not produce
more and send them on their way? have some land in interesting but
dangerous places. so some dont land safely? who cares the returns from
the ones that work would be wonderful.

sell their names to help pay.

rather than spirit and opportunity how about coke and pepsi?

advertising worth big bucks
Usually I take your postings with a grain of salt... but this is a
truly inspired idea. I second the motion.

So you two form a company. If it's such a good idea, investors should
line
up for it.


Make a million. go for it!


Too late! Nasa already thought of it

http://www.funny-potato.com/nasa-fin...-solution.html






--

Jim in Houston
osPAm
Nurse's creed: Fill what's empty, empty what's full,
and scratch where it itches!! RN does NOT mean Real Nerd!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com
http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:38:52 -0000, "
wrote:

a obvious question. they are so rugged ands reliable why not produce
more and send them on their way? have some land in interesting but
dangerous places. so some dont land safely? who cares the returns from
the ones that work would be wonderful.

sell their names to help pay.

rather than spirit and opportunity how about coke and pepsi?

advertising worth big bucks


Are you kidding? You ever heard those pompus, ultra-pc,
written-by-a-committee, lift-off speeches? "NASA" and "risk" are not
even in the same universe let alone the same dictionary. Long gone
are the days when they'll try something that hasn't been done before,
preferably as long ago as possible. They'll simulate on a computer of
course (at least until someone decides that failure in a simulation is
a bit too much risk to take) but you'll never see another X-15 or
flying bedstead let alone something as ground-breaking as Viking or
Apollo. Can anybody here remotely imagine them sending up a
man-in-can in something that was smaller than a Minuteman these days?
No, unless it's so child-proof that it would disgust even Fisher Price
NASA won't even think about it and never mind ten-foot poles.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 06 Jul 2007 14:38:52 -0000, "
wrote:

a obvious question. they are so rugged ands reliable why not produce
more and send them on their way? have some land in interesting but
dangerous places. so some dont land safely? who cares the returns from
the ones that work would be wonderful.

sell their names to help pay.

rather than spirit and opportunity how about coke and pepsi?

advertising worth big bucks


Are you kidding? You ever heard those pompus, ultra-pc,
written-by-a-committee, lift-off speeches? "NASA" and "risk" are not
even in the same universe let alone the same dictionary. Long gone
are the days when they'll try something that hasn't been done before,
preferably as long ago as possible. They'll simulate on a computer of
course (at least until someone decides that failure in a simulation is
a bit too much risk to take) but you'll never see another X-15 or
flying bedstead let alone something as ground-breaking as Viking or
Apollo.

Yeah, thank god they didn't try something knew and radical like airbags for
landing on Mars.

and thank god they're not trying something like the "flying crane" to drop
off the next lander!


Can anybody here remotely imagine them sending up a
man-in-can in something that was smaller than a Minuteman these days?

What would be the point of that?


No, unless it's so child-proof that it would disgust even Fisher Price
NASA won't even think about it and never mind ten-foot poles.

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

Yeah, thank god they didn't try something knew and radical like airbags for
landing on Mars.

and thank god they're not trying something like the "flying crane" to drop
off the next lander!


You ARE aware those are both because they are LESS risky right?






Can anybody here remotely imagine them sending up a
man-in-can in something that was smaller than a Minuteman these days?

What would be the point of that?


Well you obviously MISSED the point. The point being if NASA had the
same horror of risk back in the day that they do now we'd have never
got into space.

"Scott Ferrin" wrote in message
...

Yeah, thank god they didn't try something knew and radical like airbags
for
landing on Mars.

and thank god they're not trying something like the "flying crane" to drop
off the next lander!


You ARE aware those are both because they are LESS risky right?


Umm, tell that to the folks doing them. They didn't seem to think so.







Can anybody here remotely imagine them sending up a
man-in-can in something that was smaller than a Minuteman these days?

What would be the point of that?


Well you obviously MISSED the point. The point being if NASA had the
same horror of risk back in the day that they do now we'd have never
got into space.

Right. Whatever.

In article ,
Robert Maas, see http://tinyurl.com/uh3t wrote:
...The DSN in particular is a very limited resource.

I agree. But I see a solution to make everyone happy: Launch more
missions than DSN can fully support.

Already accomplished. :-( DSN is chronically overworked already.

If they all are successful,
then use pre-processing of data and careful selection of what data
is "important" to reduce the amount of data from each mission...

Unfortunately, it's very hard to decide in advance which data is more
"important", especially when you aren't allowed to inspect it first.

It's not like any of the missions deliberately uses scarce DSN time (not
to mention scarce spacecraft resources) to send data that's not thought to
be useful. There is constant pressure to limit data volume.

...if some of the missions fail,
then it's not a problem, we simply re-distribute DSN time to pass
more of the data from the fewer successul missions, so we get more
detailed and complete coverage from a smaller number of sites.
Also, when rovers are hibernating, we can spend more DSN time on
the orbiter images, while when rovers are very actively returning
valuable data we can put orbiters into hibernate mode.

Uh, just what do you think is done now? DSN time is managed *very*
carefully.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |