Insight lander - Page 9

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next
Author Message
Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 161

PostPosted: October 18, 2019 5:50 PM 

Altered view of the Sol 312 and 316 scoop, with interior and upper body showing accumulated fine material giving an impression of standing linear borders in the shadow area, and darker zones around the upper scoop body where clumps appear defined by high standing lobes.
Does vibration cause these details or there another reason for the patterns?
Sol 312 appears undulating, Sol 316 appears angular, with the upper body lobes missing.

Image credits, originals; NASA/JPL-Caltech

HiRISE initial altered view at 4X the released corrected view crop, thumbnail view 1 to 1.

Image credits, originals; NASA/JPL/University of Arizona

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 162

PostPosted: October 20, 2019 4:00 PM 

The image total for Sol 318 is 3202 and the last close arm camera view of the scoop and tube is from a different taking angle again. Progress in the hammering is clear. It appears there is only a short distance between the tube top end and the soil surface.
The height and possible crisis is serious as the hammer might stall as the end descends below the soil surface. Possibly they may have to try an overfill with pressure to force further penetration. That stress on the instrument cable strap could be damaging. Side angle overfill with the strap free might be a technique they could consider. Hopefully the free working hammer will continue without dangerous techniques.
It will be interesting to see the results of the SEIS recording of the hammering on the soil basis.
Below is an image combining Sol 312, Sol 316, and Sol 318 on the last days total of 3202 images, cropped and enlarged to 2X at DPI 72. The view of the scoop body remains steady in size, but the view angle has changed somewhat. The side wall of the original hole shows no significant collapse or degradation.

I noticed the highly altered image of the Sol 312 and Sol 316 I presented in a prior post was degraded and shows no content where I had seen a difference between the Sol 312 undulating particulate lineup at the lip and the subsequent angular desiccation type crack pattern on the Sol 316 lip area. I don't know if I can present a corrected view of that image.
NASA has an anigif movie of the hammering and I'll find a link for that.

News release from NASA states that the actual activity which was seen in the weeks images was a total of more than 220 hammer blows over a series of three efforts, and that is a large amount of impulse on the side wall of the original stalled hole shape. I have an image I was studying from Sol 000 on the ICC deck camera showing several angular fracture patterns which gives the impression of a broken near solid layer at the surface around the lander deck front. It is possible that the pattern is caused by tight packing or by breakage of a former solid surface, but after watching the angular fracture patterns on the scoop body bottom I am inclined to think about concurrent alteration of the near surface by weather and other causes for a 'patterned soil' below the sunlit exposure.

Image credits, originals; NASA/JPL-Caltech

I notice the tube has rotated counter-clockwise over the 220+ motions, but is that going to be a problem if the depth versus turns gets extreme and is a stable ratio? Over a couple weeks it has only turned a portion of one rotation.
If the total of 10,000 to 40,000 blows is used will the process spin at depth?

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 163

PostPosted: October 21, 2019 2:06 PM 

October 21, 2019, the recent returns show no new movement, but the opportunity to try a ICC deck camera view of the early day lighting combined with the afternoon sunlight gives an interesting view of the large rock in front of the lander deck.
I used a 50-50 setting for the two to study the scene and found a good view of thruster altered soil not shown until the next post, and a 4X enlarged view of the large rock color and texture. I added an approximately 12X view of the 'spock's ear' small rock from be the side of the lander deck as it was an IDA camera image of greater detail. The local rock is very active and complex when laid down by whatever the source was. I can't wait for the professional imaging views in publications with estimates of content and descriptions by geologists.
The blog views are less than the downloaded enlarged views.

Sol 319 and Sol 320, combined, cropped, altered.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 164

PostPosted: October 22, 2019 5:50 PM 

Only a small amount of new information in the daily news.
A reference to 150 SEIS incidents recorded as 'Marsquakes', with only three greater than a magnitude 3.
I would think three was a considerable number for a planet as cold as Mars, but the hopes of researchers are diminished apparently.

"SEIS has already detected 150 seismic events, 23 of which are definitely marsquakes, Hoffman said. But just three of the 23 were larger than a magnitude 3 quake here on Earth, he added."


The quote in the story is from Tom Hoffman, of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, California, InSight project manager.

No mention of the altered soil around some of the thruster fuel release spots was discussed.

The soil was referred to as 'alien' and not like Earth soil.

Only one new image of the day. I will show the ICC view of the altered soil in the next post. It was several feet from the digging location selected for the MOLE operation, and may not have influenced the subsurface conditions encountered.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 165

PostPosted: October 24, 2019 4:08 PM 

The promised soil image is delayed a day or two as my photo editor has been disabled and is being replaced. This is a single lighting source view of the large rock in front of the lander deck. It is a 8X enlarged color saturation increased altered view, but fairly close to a normal view. The Loss of 3D effect from two lighting angles is disappointing but it remains a very complex and ordered structure. The color in Earth daylight would probably be far less obvious. The thrusters and fuel seems to have changed the face of the rock substantially.

The recent images do not show much change in the penetration of the hammer mechanism.

The important information in these rock can only be seen at about 4X to 8X, so it should be downloaded to view. The blog thumbnail is about 1.5X.

Image credits, originals; NASA/JPL-Caltech

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 166

PostPosted: October 26, 2019 12:05 PM 

An entry from Tilman Spohn, the Instrument Lead representative of DLR InSight mission, gives a considerable amount of new information on the progress and declining speed of penetration on the Mole during the transition from a 'pinned' condition assist to the new soil compression technique.
Hammer strokes totaling more than 8,000 have resulted in less the 15" of depth thus far.
The effectiveness of the hammer is declining as the effort continues.
It is so nice to have detailed new information now.
If this device works as expected to more than 40,000 strokes, it may not exceed a meter, apparently. Deeper conditions may be more favorable, however.

New post from October 25, 2019

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 167

PostPosted: October 27, 2019 10:51 AM 

From a Mole to an flying missile! ?

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 168

PostPosted: October 27, 2019 12:05 PM 

The easiest post is to make a second guess gesture about solutions.

Bi-metal or other activated 'flip out' sheet fins that would gather dirt above the fin and hold added weight from the mid-range to the top of the tube, like barbs in a organic body. Not much added weight but a partial possible trick.

A narrower tip which rotates separately from the main body.

Radar type detailing of soil after landing.

Never too late to plan for another drill in a different location. Is Mars characterized at this geological formation by tough layers close to the surface most everywhere?

No technique will work if the Mole is striking near solid layers that are tougher than the upper loose debris, or, if the lower debris is compacted and ordered flat as seen in the surface larger rocks.

Possibly they might try to pin the hammer from the 'left' side? A retry at hammering might find a way around a large rock section if it doesn't simply fall over to the right side as viewed. Filling the hole might stabilize the tilt but the hammer is so far to the chisel tip upward that it looks nearly hopeless.

I expect some smart thinking is underway for this new development.
The SEIS information from the event should tell something about the nature of the obstruction and it's size or other characteristics.

For this is Halloween week, and it may pass.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 169

PostPosted: October 27, 2019 12:42 PM 

Sol 325, the total hammer strikes not reported as yet, has reversed the early work to nearly the tip of the tube.
This is a 2X crop of the original. Many images from Sol 325 show the upward motion of the hammering.

Image credits, originals; NASA/JPL-Caltech

The 'scrape' along the metal tube shows no rotation on the extent. Why is that? Is the scrape from another object other than the metal scoop body or the Mole housing?

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 170

PostPosted: October 27, 2019 5:37 PM 

The scrape along the tube appears to be from the contact of the left side of the hole, on an object which did not record rotation along the length of the shaft. That indicates to me it is a seam along the shaft as we saw the shaft rotate when the hammering was underway.
A open question as yet therefore.
The alternative is that the scrape is from the housing in the early hammering, for some reason not only prevented from being covered in dust but also not changed by the thousands of impacts and added motions.

A combination of Sol 305 and Sol 325 showing the rotation at those days. More rotation may have been underway during the months of efforts.


Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 171

PostPosted: October 28, 2019 12:56 PM

Gremlins, rocks, layers of old strudel. ?

No weather for Sol 322 AND 323.

John Radogno

Posts: 37

Reply: 172

PostPosted: October 28, 2019 5:13 PM 

Just watched a time lapse video of the mole backing out of the hole. It was not pulled out but forced out by "unexpected soil properties." It is like what ever is in the ground that has stopped the mole from going deeper now wants the mole to get the hell out! As the team works on this they have come up with an idea that has happened in testing on earth that "soil could fall in front of the mole's tip as it rebounds, gradually filling the hole in front of it as the mole backs out."

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 173

PostPosted: November 1, 2019 11:12 AM 

I can't see to read your latest post, #172, John, however it appears they have moved the scoop to the ground level to apply pressure again, and, it may be they have moved to contact the tube but I cannot see that directly. A simple repeat seems the first test for a return to digging possibly.
The device seems to work with proper applied pressure until the pressure is removed. It may be there is not a solid obstruction, and I still don't know where the polished linear scrape along the tube arose.
A 'handed' grapple would be useful now.

Image credits, originals; NASA/JPL-Caltech

There are several corrections to my descriptions I need to add in a post soon. Bought another laptop and added the photo editor to the previous, so I am working again on watching the various teams work. This post may bring up your last post so I can read it.
It is humorous but intriguing that communication between humans is so important but difficult, and this study may aid in the future 'wireless' systems that would make us better astronauts and social groups. The type of items we expect from extraterrestrials as we imagine what would be advanced type 'biology'.
Even the Mars Spiders and fans on Mars seem to be able to communicate and co-ordinate activity by some means.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 174

PostPosted: November 1, 2019 11:26 AM 

I have found that the 'refresh' code must be '?/refresh' added even without the '&' code statement. Helps me some. I believe. Yes, I had read the falling debris suggestion, but maybe it is the powder debris which is loose at depth? Dunes at lander spots seems to fall as loose particles so maybe the duricrust is shallow as they explain. A strong scoop and arm is needed but the arm is carbon fiber and thin.
Eventually there will be deep mining techniques and cores taken on Mars. This would be a possible good spot for that.
Those surface large rocks sure look solid though porous.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 175

PostPosted: November 3, 2019 2:05 PM 

New images for the week show they have backed off and over the 'hole' to view the scene nearly overhead with the IDC camera, giving a couple of odd mysteries returning to explain.
Within the hole there is a 'bright' pixel shape again on the near right of the tube in the hole.
The tube tilted additionally to the left, then the hammering forced the soil up near and on the right under the bright item.
I'll look more at the images, and here are two marked views at @x and DPI 72.

Sol 332.

More when my battery is charged.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 176

PostPosted: November 3, 2019 5:54 PM 

I seem to be wasting my time making presumptions about particulars. The dark angles that appear to be the tube pressing the back side of the hole do not at all seem to be present at a closer view. These are 2X and then 4X views of the 'soil' there, and it shows distinct pebbly assembly of lumps with brighter interaction matrix or packing around the 'lumps'.
I'll have to go through some corrections of various details now.

The tube angles aren't far from correct on the right side red line, but the left red line is just presumption and may not be a real press mark on the wall.
The 'bright pixel' shape at the near right of the hole is probably a angular section of the soil surface. The flatness of the soil where pressed and not fallen in the hole seems to be tonally not changed, therefore not angled upward in the near right area as well.
That makes several bad judgments about the earlier views in the same day from a prior image.
The images here are from the IDA camera, and are the most recent returned for Sol 332. I'll try to oversee posts before making claims.

I have several added details from this image to display and I am concerned about the constant mysterious 'blebs' which may be from the Earth based lander instruments. Thought I should correct this right away.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 177

PostPosted: November 4, 2019 11:10 AM 

Looking at the Sol 332 images, the shaded back or bottom of the scoop shows small 'blebs' attached to the metal body along with tiny sub-resolved dust or other materials.
What would constantly attach with the vibration and wind blowing?

2X full image, 4X insets along with 2X altered views.

Would ice be falling in the area at times, or is there a cold adhesion factor in the soil?

The full image shows the tube from overhead and it would be supported by the right side of the hole if vertical with scoop pressure applied from the left side, but the grapple might impede the hammering.causing damage.
If the grapple, cable, and other items are coated with droplets, are the soil 'blebs' a product of the lander and Earth chemistry?
What causes the pebble characteristics and duricrust if not ice/frost buildup?

Two processes probably, but which is which?

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 178

PostPosted: November 6, 2019 11:03 AM 

Significant weather pattern this week at Insight area, SSE versus SSW winds predominate with change of air pressure and temperature highs and lows following suit with the difference in air movement. I hope we see some climate research early from the mission on these repeat patterns and the regional causes for the clear pattern which does not show in the 'chart' type 3 day display info box.

The Sol 335 images and prior days images are much lower in contrast and show surface texture on most all the instrument faces. That gives a good start for surface feature study. Worth a close look.
The scoop has been returned to the right side of the tube, casting a shadow on the tube.
I can't discern whether there is activity on the hammer as yet, but I see no 'scrape' effect on the tube wall where contact has occurred in the past.

Image credits, originals; NASA/JPL-Caltech

The 'blebs' on the scoop are very clear in the newest darker low contrast images, but require magnification. Some interesting 'fracture pattern' occurs on the bright arm tube in the highlight area near the grapple. Is weather involved or is all the detail just material from the lander?
I'll show details later.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 179

PostPosted: November 9, 2019 12:10 PM 

Two images from Sol 333 and Sol 335 show the distinct liquid migration of chemistry in across the surface of the scoop during the recent operations. While it is possible that the chemistry was a gas it is unlikely due to the distinct margin edges on both the upper inside of the scoop and the outer back side of the scoop body.
The teams would have identify the chemistry involved as there were several possible additions by the lander to the soil basic materials.

These are 3X enlarged cropped areas with smaller altered views of the effects. How much of the soil is affected, as we see in the prior posts altered clumping with what appears as ice between the clumps in the enlarged views? Has this remained from the landing all these months or is a serious source of liquid or ice being transferred to the soil in an ongoing leakage? Is this a natural process of the near surface soil of Mars without contamination?

Adhesion of the bright small 'blebs' apparently is conditioned by the liquid or gas at the scoop surface.
The images of these days also still shows the fracture 'ice' type pattern on the painted or covered surface of the carbon fiber instrument arm. That pattern is difficult to show in an enlarged view but I might try to produce a closeup.

Image credits, originals; NASA/JPL-Caltech

The weather has shown a slight rise in temperature this week.

Dana Johnson

Posts: 1195

Reply: 180

PostPosted: November 11, 2019 12:47 PM 

Lack of detail in the ICC lander deck camera gives a general view of the effect of the landing chemistry on the local disturbed soil. Clumping and adhesion of the loose material at the lowest depth seen shows stable clumps and a 'layer' effect to the left of the largest seen heavy nozzle exhaust blast. Unseen effects may be more substantial.
Although the loose material is seemingly at depth perhaps the local material can 'loosen' rather than being a fine powder before the landing alteration. I haven't read any assessment of why the hammer has not penetrated what in this 2X high contrast view seems to be loose material with angular shards fairly tightly packed.
We see both the porous rounded pebble type and angular larger pieces, then the finer 'blebs' or sand sized items, mixed with disturbed fine loose bulk. Gives the impression of much loose material at depth seen here, yet the dark rocket blasting shows angular shards not removed, so it could be any of the types of materials responsible for interrupting formation of a 'hole' when hammering.
They seem to not have placed the scoop to the actual solid surface as of Sol 340 now today.
There is on the underside of the scoop currently a developing sand-like debris layer formed. The new hammering may be underway even without scoop assistance. Somewhere in the past couple weeks the debris has roughened the former scoop compressed smoothed surface. I will make a closeup of that.
I haven't read a new total for the hammer blow count this past week.
I believe you are correct , John, the planet may be difficult to predict and work on until experience accumulates over the years. Wondering how the '2020' helicopter-drone will work in 20-50 MPH winds blowing most days in 2021 and after.

Image below is 2X if downloaded, and I believe your screen view at the second mouse click gives a 2X view without downloading. Clumped soil is at the middle bottom of the cropped image.

Image credits, originals; NASA/JPL-Caltech

One last comment. What is the clumping, bright margins of the loose materials affected, and why is there such a mass of sublimating or state changing liquid appearing effect happening in the closeups over nearly a years timing of images? Lots of mystery to me in the presence of unseen ice or active chemistry that is not seen in surface layering or deposition. Why and what?

Previous 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 Next

Join the conversation:

Very Happy Smile Sad Surprised
Shocked Confused Cool Laughing
Mad Razz Embarassed Crying or Very Sad
Evil or Very Mad Twisted Evil Rolling Eyes Wink
Powered by MTSmileys