51–60 of 72 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"So they actually performed a software upgrade of on the spacecraft to give it optical navigation capabilities..." God dammit. And here I have trouble getting software updates into a server I have full control over on Earth.
Then again NASA has a $22B budget.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many large corporations have budgets in excess of that and still struggle with delivering solutions and software updates. Internally or externally.
Sure, but I was trying to cheer `moron4hire` up, who I assume has a lot fewer zeroes in their budget.
So no max depth set into the software controlling the excavating arm? "Bugs are boundary conditions we refused to take seriously."
Watch the Manley video linked elsewhere in the comment thread. The capture was entirely analog.
I disagree that it was an analog system. They were measuring force as a proxy for contact, with no depth-finding system in place. The arm just sank in and never hit the force threshold for the automated system to react.
I wonder whether they can make use of momentum to close the sample doors and capture the samples preventing closure.
Since there are some chunks preventing closure and they had planned to be able to sample more than once in the event that the first attempt didn't recover enough material that means that they can control the opening and closing of the sample doors.
It seems to me, having grown up as a kid being transported in an old Pontiac station wagon back before seat belts, that you could extend the arm behind Osiris-Rex pointing opposite the direction of travel and then trigger the doors open just as you fire to decelerate and the particles preventing closure should zoom into the collector like preschoolers into the windshield of that old station wagon when the brakes were applied.
So no max depth set into the software controlling the excavating arm? "Bugs are boundary conditions we refused to take seriously."
Edit: and by 2nd law, I really mean 3rd
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks. That means there are two containers: the open one where the samples are now, and the sealed return capsule, where the contents will be transferred soon. In that light, this quote confuses me: > scientists won’t know how much the sample capsule holds until it’s back on Earth. They wanted to spin the spacecraft to measure the mass, but they can't risk losing more samples from an open container. But why can't th…
> But why can't they spin the spacecraft after the sample is secure in the return capsule, but before reaching Earth? Is it precisely in the center of mass? They might be able to, but there’s no reason to. The purpose of the sample mass measurement was to determine if they needed to try again, however that’s not an option with a jammed container.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Many large corporations have budgets in excess of that and still struggle with delivering solutions and software updates. Internally or externally.
Sure, but I was trying to cheer `moron4hire` up, who I assume has a lot fewer zeroes in their budget.
After watching the video from Scott Manley (great video) I can see how the sampling mechanism is supposed to work. I wonder whether they can make use of momentum to close the sample doors and capture the samples preventing closure. Since there are some chunks preventing closure and they had planned to be able to sample more than once in the event that the first attempt didn't recover enough material that means that t…
I'm sure NASA has thought of this, but won't the mylar film close if the sampling disk loses some material, before it loses all of its material? Why not give it a shake to get some of it out so the seal can close?