Night Owls

Punchcard wrote:OffByOne deserves the credit for that explanation, my friend, though the principle is just like batch processing.

The comparison to mainframe batch cycles is entirely valid. Planetary exploration networks rely strictly on deterministic store-and-forward protocols. The radio packages accumulated during the radiation experiment cannot be reviewed until the Deep Space Network confirms complete frame ingestion without parity drops. The primary task remains waiting for the uncorrupted hex telemetry from the command computers before anyone can objectively state whether the science package is truly intact.

Batch processing is a very neat analogy, Punchcard.

To keep our minds focused on the actual technical milestones rather than the public relations footage, the situation comes down to two points. First, the descending MARDI video and Mount Sharp vistas are remarkable control demonstrations, but visual telemetry tells us nothing about instrument tolerances. Second, until the Deep Space Network ingests the full frame packets from that initial five-hour radiation run and confirms the internal electronics survived the deceleration loads without thermal or mechanical fault, declaring the project a sound investment is entirely premature.

We must wait for the raw diagnostic numbers to be verified.

quasistatic wrote:Second, until the Deep Space Network ingests the full frame packets from that initial five-hour radiation run and confirms the internal electronics survived the deceleration loads without thermal or mechanical fault, declaring the project a sound investment is entirely premature.

Too right, mate. Pretty snaps are brilliant to look at, but they don't tell you if the sensitive sensors inside got knocked about on the way down. Better to hang back and let the tech team crunch all the raw sensor readings properly before making up our minds.

Sure look, store-and-forward batching is just standard networking when you're working across millions of miles. Fancy colour snaps from the arm are grand, but until the raw telemetry packets come down clean off those scheduled passes, we won't know if the internal kit actually survived the thud.

Precisely. The hazy arm shot released this afternoon is a case in point - lovely to see, but purely optical. The genuine benchmark remains the health checks on the internal payload. We simply must allow the operations staff the necessary sols to process the instrument logs before evaluating whether the design has actually paid off.

exactly, the colour shots are exciting for the public, but they really don't prove anything about whether the actual science payload made it through landing intact. the batch processing comparison makes total sense. until the deep space network receives all those clean diagnostic packets from the radiation run and verifies the internal health logs properly, we just can't say whether the massive spend was worth it yet. definitely staying tuned for the engineering telemetry from the upcoming passes.

Batching or not, that is the sensible way to look at it... A dusty lens on the arm camera doesn't tell us how the internal circuit boards held up under all those Gs. Once the DSN grabs those radiation frames and gets into the Sol 2 mast deployment checks, we will finally have some real figures to chew on.

Dead right. That mast deployment on Sol 2 is going to be the big one to watch out for. It is all well and good the computer saying hello, but seeing that main camera neck unfold properly without any hitches will tell us a lot more about how the mechanics actually took the landing. If those servos and hinges took a proper wallop, we will find out soon enough from the diagnostic logs. Until the team gets all those health checks back safe and sound, you just can't say whether it was money well spent. Fingers crossed for the updates.

PintOfMild wrote:That mast deployment on Sol 2 is going to be the big one to watch out for. It is all well and good the computer saying hello, but seeing that main camera neck unfold properly without any hitches will tell us a lot more about how the mechanics actually took the landing.

Well, we are already seeing some hiccups on Sol 2... the news wires say their weather station calibration failed on Sol 1, and the high-gain dish isn't even aimed straight enough at Earth yet to talk directly. Small mechanical snags add up fast out there, so let's see how that mast actually fares.

TheyKnow wrote:the news wires say their weather station calibration failed on Sol 1, and the high-gain dish isn't even aimed straight enough at Earth yet to talk directly. Small mechanical snags add up fast out there, so let's see how that mast actually fares.

Small correction: the weather station sensor check did not experience a mechanical failure, but rather an initial calibration routine that did not function as intended, which the JPL team expects to rectify.

Furthermore, pointing inaccuracies on the high-gain antenna are routine during early surface orientation. The rover currently relies on UHF relay passes through the orbiters in any case. A definitive assessment of the mission's worth must wait until the engineering staff verify raw telemetry, sensor calibrations, and mechanical deployments such as the camera mast and high-gain antenna. Precision is essential here; minor commissioning anomalies are not structural defects.

OffByOne wrote:Furthermore, pointing inaccuracies on the high-gain antenna are routine during early surface orientation. The rover currently relies on UHF relay passes through the orbiters in any case.

Good to have that cleared up. Easy to jump at shadows when you see words like 'glitch' in the news, but like you say, an antenna pointing a fraction off target while it sorts itself out isn't the end of the world, especially with the orbiters doing the heavy lifting.

Still, it just goes to show why we can't rush to conclusions about whether the rover was worth the huge pile of cash. We have got to wait until the team actually finishes adjusting that antenna, works through the weather sensor calibrations, and gets the raw verification figures back from the mast movement. Steady as she goes.

OffByOne wrote:Precision is essential here; minor commissioning anomalies are not structural defects.

Standard commissioning niggles, really. We will see where we stand once the mast deployment logs finish syncing down.

Sysop_Kev wrote:We will see where we stand once the mast deployment logs finish syncing down.

Fair enough, my friend... let's see how those raw mast deployment numbers look once they finally come through.

Sysop_Kev wrote:Standard commissioning niggles, really. We will see where we stand once the mast deployment logs finish syncing down.

sorry if this sounds like a silly question, but do we know how long it usually takes for the logs to come down after they move the mast?? totally makes sense that those early antenna things are just commissioning stuff though lol, OffByOne explained that so well! dying to see what the telemetry says about the hinges!!

It all hinges on orbiter timing, young lady... literally! Odyssey only sweeps overhead on set windows, so if an actuator binds or throws an over-current trip, they have to wait for that pass to dump the packet to the DSN before anyone down here knows the story. They always put out the cheerful PR first, but the raw mechanical readouts will show if that hard landing jarred the pins. When you spend billions of taxpayer DOLLARS, you want proof those motors didn't take a beating... so we will keep our eyes on the downlinks.