Houston, we have a problem. With the MSL., page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 5 times


reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 01:11 PM by ProudBird
reply to post by Vandalour



I hate to see a thoughtful and true science space exploration thread turned into a silly "conspiracy" based solely on a few individuals' desires for there always to be some ulterior motive with NASA:

....make our tax founded merchandise disappear by faking a malfunction....



This sullies the actual people involved in these programs, slanders them actually.

As if these highly intelligent people would go along with such "fakery"?? Ridiculous. Everything that's happening in this program is clear to those who are able to comprehend the science.

Sadly, many people prefer fantasies and wishful thinking, over solid science......


reply posted on 10-1-2012 @ 04:47 PM by Illustronic
reply to post by JimOberg



Jim, any more information about the drill mechanism on Curiosity? You started a short lived thread near the launch, and I only was able to do a short scan of the info. Thanks.


reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 07:43 AM by cloudyday
Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to
post by JimOberg



Jim, any more information about the drill mechanism on Curiosity? You started a short lived thread near the launch, and I only was able to do a short scan of the info. Thanks.


This may not be what you are looking for because it is old info from November:

Testing indicates that the rover can meet all of its mission success criteria. Experiments continue on engineering models of the rover's sampling system, including the hammering drill, to refine understanding of the best ways to use the system once Curiosity is on Mars. Continued testing on Earth will study which aspects of the drill performance will degrade during the mission and how to exercise operational workarounds. An example is that the percussion mechanism in the rotary-percussion drill can develop electrical shorts after prolonged use (beyond that required for mission success). The drill will be used in rotary-only mode on some rocks to prolong availability of hammering. The potential also exists for material to come off the drill bit as it wears and to complicate analysis of the powdered sample. In both cases, workarounds exist including the use of rotary-only drilling, replacing the bit, and using the scoop to provide soil samples directly to the analytic laboratory.

NASA Watch


reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 08:25 AM by Illustronic
reply to post by cloudyday



I believe that's it. It was my understanding from just a browse, that the designer of the drill wasn't satisfied with the number of tests performed mostly with the software programs. I will review this when I have a chance. Thanks.


reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 11:32 AM by ProudBird
reply to post by Illustronic



I'm not so convinced it has to do with the orbital mechanics at this point, since it is just a matter of the math (and, yes they had some targeting troubles with early Moon missions.....that was likely due to less than sophisticated computing power, and a lot of assumptions, then, about the exact mass of the Moon, etc).

With "Grunt" it appears to be a physical problem and equipment engineering failure. Possibly related to on-board computer software or hardware too.

There is a thread about the Russian Venera missions to Venus.....several of the landers sent back no photos, simply because the lens caps would not come off. There was an instance of one lander, had two cameras, but only one lens cap came off.

And, there is the case where the lens cap that did come off, happened to land by accident right where a probe needed to hit the ground, for a soil density test! Cracked the cap into pieces, shown by the photos.

They decided for future Venera Landers to attach a lanyard to the caps....LOL! It can sometimes be the unexpected an unanticipated that make you say "D'oh!"


reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 01:11 PM by Illustronic
reply to post by ProudBird



I expected the Russian Venus landers to come up when I said they are challenged with landing. Mind you the Venus probes relied on the thick atmosphere to slow them for hard landings as the parachutes were jettisoned at 50 km altitude. They were not powered landing. At that point in the atmosphere of Venus the atmospheric pressure is like 1,000 feet below our earth's oceans. From there they used a metal break, like you see aircraft and the Space Shuttle use for friction drag.

I will give you however that their orbital mechanics proved successful in their Venus endeavors. I never doubt the Russian technological expertise, I love what the Russians have been able to accomplish in space, I am part Russian myself. I am saddened by the political pressure their rocket scientists had to endure. They could have accomplished more if there were more checks and balances ingrained in their space infrastructure than just building bigger machines.


reply posted on 21-1-2012 @ 02:17 PM by samkent
reply to post by Illustronic



Solar panels from China are cheaper than designing a reliable RTG.
They have enough to worry about.
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^