Форум переехал. Регистрация пользователям прежнего форума не требуется, достаточно ВОССТАНОВИТЬ ПАРОЛЬ ПРИ ВХОДЕ. Короче, жмите сюда и вводите свой почтовый адрес. Не получается восстановить пароль - пишите на noreply (собака) novosti-kosmonavtiki.ru

MER-C in 2007?

Автор Олигарх, 20.02.2005 18:17:55

« предыдущая - следующая »

0 Пользователей и 1 гость просматривают эту тему.

X

ЦитатаРабота MER-A и MER-B только что продлена до сентября 2006 г., так что MER-C вряд ли потребуется :-)

На
http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=1472

идет голосование и обсуждение по теме

Mer 3 Possibility?

Should NASA Send a MER C To Mars in the interim between now and the next rover in 2011?
 
Yes they should                          [ 13 ]     [41.94%]
Yes they should with different equipment [ 10 ]     [32.26%]
No they shouldn't                         [ 6 ]     [19.35%]
No whats 6 years anyway                   [ 2 ]      [6.45%]
Total Votes: 31
Guests cannot vote

Вопрос автора ветки:
I was just wondering about this, they have test rovers at JPL, which will
eventually not be needed, they have a Proven EDL system and they have
a few sites which were still MER rated (although I would like to see the
one featured in Steve's book Roving Mars, where they land in Valles
Marineris (I think that was right one of the Valles anyway) (solar power
would suck though..)
What would be the chances of using all the
materials we already have and launching a new MER or pair of MER's in
2007?  
They could upgrade some of the payload, based on results from the MER's
data, must be something they wished they had.?
Just wondered.
How much would this cost?

Народ в целом да!  
 
Некоторые ответы:

1. It's impossible.  
The MER rovers were optimized !!!! for a boeing Delta-2 rocket
and up until
2018 the coming Mars oppositions will be so bad that the Delta-2 can't lift
the mass of a MER rover to Mars. Using another booster will be very
costly.
 
2. The problems are:
 
(1) The MERs, unmodified, simply can't carry that many scientifically
cost-effective science instruments. Their goal was to settle once and for
all the question of whether ancient Mars had significant amounts of liquid
water on its surface, which they did.

!!!!! There is that proposal (which JPL is still close-mouthed about) to modify a MER into a cut-price, scientifically inferior version of MSL (http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2005/pdf/2219.pdf ) -- but this
would take major modification.

As they now stand, the instruments that
could be added on could not actually ingest and grind up samples for a
detailed search for trace organic compounds, which is now the next
important phase of Mars exploration. You could add some things like a
LIBS or a Raman spectrometer -- at the cost of removing some of the
existing instruments -- but their usefulness by themselves is limited.
 
(2) You still have the serious problem of the MER landing system's
extreme vulnerability to horizontal crosswinds -- which is what finally
ruled out at least two landing sites in the bottom of Valles Marineris which
would otherwise almost certainly have been picked for MER-A. As things
are, it barely survived its landing in the less windy Gusev. To solve this,
you've got to switch all the way over to a full-blown soft-landing system
with throttleable liquid rockets directed by sophisticated radar -- but if
you're going to make that sort of radical addition to an MER, why not go
further and land an MSL (or some scientifically intermediate class of
rover)?
   
 

3. The two engineering models sat on the ground here on earth have
probably covered a LOT more ground than the ones on mars - they're
probably very tired anyway.
 
I asked Steve about this in the Q'n'A and he believes it would be hard to
do a third MER inside a Mars Scout budget of say $400M
 

4. If NASA/JPL had unlimited money, I'd say send another MER rover, but of
course, it doesn't. Ultimately it is probably better to put the funds into a
more capable platform, even if it does take longer.
 Personally, I don't find grinding rocks all that interesting, except that
there may be something hidden within, which hasn't obviously happened
yet (depending on who you ask, I suppose). A MER with specifically
biology-detecting instruments would be nice, but, you know, money. Go
for the big rover that can do it all, I say.


Мне кажется, практикам, точнее политикам :), нашей космонавтики стоило бы подумать
о возможном участии в Mer 3,
если Cоюз-2б/Фрегат сможет заменить Delta 2.

А как вы считаете, стоит ли России и на каких условиях участвовать в этом проекте?
Некоторая борьба вокруг этого проекта ведется и наше появление с Союз-2б/Фрегат
может склонить чашу весов ...

mike

ЦитатаА как вы считаете, стоит ли России и на каких условиях участвовать в этом проекте?
Некоторая борьба вокруг этого проекта ведется и наше появление с Союз-2б/Фрегат
может склонить чашу весов ...
Лично мне идея нравится. В 2009 году есть возможность запустить АМС класса Марс Скаут (2007ой занят под Phoenix да и не успеют так быстро подготовить новый MER). Первые MERы к тому времени уже отдадут кранты, Phoenix тоже - на Марсе не останется ни одного посадочного аппарата. А до MSL ещё ждать и ждать - полетит наверно не раньше 2013-го, так как много денег перекинули на CEV. Так что если JPL сумеет вместить MER-C в финансовые рамки программы Mars Scout, я за то чтобы наши запустили его на Союзе/Фрегате за получение доступа к научным данным приборов.  :wink:

Союз-2б/Фрегат выводит с Куру к Марсу около 1500 кг, это почти в полтора раза больше чем Дельта-2.

X

Если говорить серьезно то MER-C уже готов.
Это "The K9 rover robot".


An experimental NASA K9 rover robot recently showed it could carry out tasks similar to those that robots now exploring Mars are doing, but complete those jobs more than 10 times faster.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/multimedia/images/2005/K9.html






NASA To Show Intelligent Space Robots In Action At Ames 'Marscape'

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/mars-robot-05a.html

X

Цитата
ЦитатаА как вы считаете, стоит ли России и на каких условиях участвовать в этом проекте?
Некоторая борьба вокруг этого проекта ведется и наше появление с Союз-2б/Фрегат
может склонить чашу весов ...
Лично мне идея нравится. В 2009 году есть возможность запустить АМС класса Марс Скаут (2007ой занят под Phoenix да и не успеют так быстро подготовить новый MER). Первые MERы к тому времени уже отдадут кранты, Phoenix тоже - на Марсе не останется ни одного посадочного аппарата. А до MSL ещё ждать и ждать - полетит наверно не раньше 2013-го, так как много денег перекинули на CEV. Так что если JPL сумеет вместить MER-C в финансовые рамки программы Mars Scout, я за то чтобы наши запустили его на Союзе/Фрегате за получение доступа к научным данным приборов.  :wink:

Союз-2б/Фрегат выводит с Куру к Марсу около 1500 кг, это почти в полтора раза больше чем Дельта-2.

MARS SURFACE MOBILITY:
COMPARISION OF PAST, PRESENT, AND FUTURE ROVER SYSTEMS.

G.R. Wilson1, J.M. Andringa1, L.W. Beegle1, J.F. Jordan1, G.S. Mungus1, D.A. Muliere1, J. Vozoff1, and T.J. Wilson1. 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, MS 183-501, Pasadena, CA 91109 USA (gwilson@jpl.nasa.gov).  

Introduction: The future robotic and human exploration of Mars will rely heavily on mobile
system to meet exploration objectives.

In particular, the next decade of exploration (2009-2020) will utilize rovers and other mobile surface platforms to conduct a wide variety of tasks, including in the search for water and life, characterization of terrain
and its geology, and conduct precursor measurements prepare for future human exploration.

Objective: The objective of this study was to explore past, present, and future Mars rover concepts
and compare their cost, size, and performance metrics in the context of the goals and objectives of the Mars
Exploration Program.

Numerous rover designs and concepts have been developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, including the successful Mars Pathfinder Sojourner rover, the Mars Explorations Rovers Spirit and Opportunity, and the
next generation Mars rover MSL.

In addition to these rovers, numerous concept studies have also been conducted and are included for
comparison purposes. The goal of this study was to explore the "continuum" rovers designs over the
widest possible range so that decision makers and mission planners can understand, to first order, cost
and performance of future mobility system.

Analysis: Figure 1 shows the relative sizes of four rover concepts developed at JPL.

Table 1
compares the rover mass, mass of instrumentation, number of instruments, and the number of samples
that can be analyzed by an analytical laboratory by the four rover concepts.

As requirements on mobility, sample analysis, and number of instruments increase, so does the size of the rover. The exact dimensions and mass of the rover depend on the type power source and mobility requirements.

Table 2 compares the scientific objectives of the rover mission.
Note that MER-C and MSL rover objectives are identical and that differences in mass are functions of the mission performance, particularly the number of sample that can be analyzed.

Table 2- Mission goals of the four rovers comparedin this work.
Rover Mission goal.

Sojourner (Pathfinder)
The mission seeks to demonstrate technology, and determine the elemental abundances of surface
rock.

MER The mission seeks to determine the history of climate and water at a site on Mars where conditions may once have been favorable to life.

MER-C The mission seeks to explore and quantitatively assess Mars as a potential habitat for life, past or
present.

MSL The mission seeks to explore and quantitatively assess Mars as a potential habitat for life, past or
present.

Figure 2 shows the cost per kilogram of rover mass as a function of rover mass for 18 rover concepts. Not surprisingly, as the mass of a rover system increases, the cost per kilogram decreases due primarily to increases in system efficiencies.

For Table 1- Mass of the rovers as compared to the instrumentation.

Note: Mass of the instruments does not take into account arms, masts, and drill. "# of
Samples" represents the number of samples analyzed by analytical instruments.

                                             Sojourner                        MER     MER-C     MSL
Mass of rover (kg)               10.6                                183.5    226.6        ??

Mass of
Instruments (kg)                 ~ 1 kg                                  5.5    23.6            49

# of

instruments                              1                                      6          9                11

# of

Samples                                   0                                     0           8                 25-75

Figure 1. A scale comparison of four JPL rovers.

(L to R) Mars Pathfinder Sojourner, Mars Exploration Rover (MER), a 2009 nuclear powered
MER follow-on mission called MER-C, and the2009 Mars Science Laboratory.

Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005) 2219.pdf
future rover concepts, a balance must be struck between the total rover cost and system efficiencies
desired.
Current analyses show that rovers between 300 and 400 kg have the most overall affordability.

Conclusions: Eighteen past, present, and future rover concepts were compared. Data indicate that a
"continuum" of rover cost and performance exists.
As the Mars Program prepares for the next decade of exploration it is imperative that we understand the
cost and performance of future mobility system.

Figure 2. Cost per unit mass as a function of totalrover mass for 18 rover concepts studies at JPL.
Lunar and Planetary Science XXXVI (2005) 2219.pdf