Author Topic: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates  (Read 139509 times)

Online LouScheffer

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3375
  • Liked: 6080
  • Likes Given: 829
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #420 on: 12/08/2023 02:50 pm »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1021
  • United States
  • Liked: 859
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #421 on: 12/08/2023 02:57 pm »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.

Could they test the wiring by connecting some other indicator to the wire (and having a way to disable the pyrotechnics during the test)

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9163
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #422 on: 12/13/2023 01:23 pm »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.

Could they test the wiring by connecting some other indicator to the wire (and having a way to disable the pyrotechnics during the test)
This does not protect you at all from miswiring errors as it requires you disconnect the pyro to test, then reconnect it - indeed, it just offers a new opportunity to introduce a new wiring error, and in a system that has been 'tested good'.
Since the OSIRIS REx issue was ambiguous labelling nomenclature, this could just have meant the cables would have been disconnected, passed the test, then reconnected to the wrong (but correct as per the label) pyro devices.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5357
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4196
  • Likes Given: 1694
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #423 on: 12/13/2023 01:33 pm »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.

Could they test the wiring by connecting some other indicator to the wire (and having a way to disable the pyrotechnics during the test)
This does not protect you at all from miswiring errors as it requires you disconnect the pyro to test, then reconnect it - indeed, it just offers a new opportunity to introduce a new wiring error, and in a system that has been 'tested good'.
Since the OSIRIS REx issue was ambiguous labelling nomenclature, this could just have meant the cables would have been disconnected, passed the test, then reconnected to the wrong (but correct as per the label) pyro devices.
As an amateur armchair engineer, my "obvious" solution is to uniquely key the connectors so they cannot be miss-mated. I suspect the reality of this "solution" would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare and some added mass.

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9163
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #424 on: 12/13/2023 02:20 pm »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.

Could they test the wiring by connecting some other indicator to the wire (and having a way to disable the pyrotechnics during the test)
This does not protect you at all from miswiring errors as it requires you disconnect the pyro to test, then reconnect it - indeed, it just offers a new opportunity to introduce a new wiring error, and in a system that has been 'tested good'.
Since the OSIRIS REx issue was ambiguous labelling nomenclature, this could just have meant the cables would have been disconnected, passed the test, then reconnected to the wrong (but correct as per the label) pyro devices.
As an amateur armchair engineer, my "obvious" solution is to uniquely key the connectors so they cannot be miss-mated. I suspect the reality of this "solution" would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare and some added mass.
Also would not have prevented this issue. The problem was not a "not plugged in properly" error, it was a "requirements document was not defined specifically enough" error (two teams using the same label to mean two different things) combined with the inherently untestable nature of single-use pyros.
A bench test rig may have caught the issue, as long as the test setup itself was designed to catch a "'chute line cut before 'chute released" sequencing issue. For example, a test setup that checked "was the hatch release signal fired after t+xxxx" and then "was the line cutter signal fired after t+yyyy" would have passed the test but missed the sequence error.

Offline mn

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1021
  • United States
  • Liked: 859
  • Likes Given: 324
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #425 on: 12/13/2023 02:42 pm »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.

Could they test the wiring by connecting some other indicator to the wire (and having a way to disable the pyrotechnics during the test)
This does not protect you at all from miswiring errors as it requires you disconnect the pyro to test, then reconnect it - indeed, it just offers a new opportunity to introduce a new wiring error, and in a system that has been 'tested good'.
Since the OSIRIS REx issue was ambiguous labelling nomenclature, this could just have meant the cables would have been disconnected, passed the test, then reconnected to the wrong (but correct as per the label) pyro devices.

The issue in this case if I understood correctly (and in several of the other examples at least) is a case of a wire that is supposed to connect to pyro A being instead connected to pyro B (or C, etc). By disabling the pyro and connecting to an indicator you can verify that each indicator turns on as expected when the correct signal is sent, and then enabling the pyro again. (doesn't even need to disconnect and reconnect any wires, the pyro can be built with a physical mechanical switch safely to test and then arm. (similar to the (A)FTS physical arm/disarm switches).

I'm not saying this will fix every problem, but such an arrangement will most definitely catch these types of errors. (with the only additional risk being the possibility of failing to arm the pyro after the test, but that is something easy to SEE so should be easy to protect against, there are lots of 'remove before flight' items and they are all easy to see so rarely if ever missed)

I have no idea what the voltages involved are and if it can be done safely but perhaps you don't need any switches, if the pyro needs 100v to fire, perhaps you can safely push 5v thru the same wire to signal an indicator?

Edit to add: I'm not saying they should or shouldn't do this, the pros and cons are way above my knowledge base. I was only responding to Lou's assertion that it is difficult to test this particular type of error.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2023 03:08 pm by mn »

Offline whitelancer64

Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #426 on: 12/13/2023 11:07 pm »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.

Could they test the wiring by connecting some other indicator to the wire (and having a way to disable the pyrotechnics during the test)
This does not protect you at all from miswiring errors as it requires you disconnect the pyro to test, then reconnect it - indeed, it just offers a new opportunity to introduce a new wiring error, and in a system that has been 'tested good'.
Since the OSIRIS REx issue was ambiguous labelling nomenclature, this could just have meant the cables would have been disconnected, passed the test, then reconnected to the wrong (but correct as per the label) pyro devices.
As an amateur armchair engineer, my "obvious" solution is to uniquely key the connectors so they cannot be miss-mated. I suspect the reality of this "solution" would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare and some added mass.

Unique keys also don't always prevent such problems. As I recall the spectacularly failed Proton rocket that did a U turn into the ground had a keyed IMU that was hammered into place backwards by brute force.

Idiot-proofing can result in the discovery of a higher level of idiot.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2023 11:13 pm by whitelancer64 »
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5431
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1792
  • Likes Given: 1292
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #427 on: 12/14/2023 04:52 am »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.
Think it will get to the point of each pyrotechnic device and other devices having their only identity as a smart device with an unique ID.

So that they can communicated with central processing unit/stage command computer. As well as the connected device below them and above them in the command and communication linkage.

That means you get to identified each devices in a linkage chain from the stage command computer down to end use device like a pyrotechnic  charge. As well as the serviceability of the devices in a command linkage chain.

Yes, that means some machine will monitored the vehicle assembly process for connection errors.


Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5991
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9163
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #428 on: 12/14/2023 11:29 am »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.

Could they test the wiring by connecting some other indicator to the wire (and having a way to disable the pyrotechnics during the test)
This does not protect you at all from miswiring errors as it requires you disconnect the pyro to test, then reconnect it - indeed, it just offers a new opportunity to introduce a new wiring error, and in a system that has been 'tested good'.
Since the OSIRIS REx issue was ambiguous labelling nomenclature, this could just have meant the cables would have been disconnected, passed the test, then reconnected to the wrong (but correct as per the label) pyro devices.
As an amateur armchair engineer, my "obvious" solution is to uniquely key the connectors so they cannot be miss-mated. I suspect the reality of this "solution" would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare and some added mass.

Unique keys also don't always prevent such problems. As I recall the spectacularly failed Proton rocket that did a U turn into the ground had a keyed IMU that was hammered into place backwards by brute force.

Idiot-proofing can result in the discovery of a higher level of idiot.
The "hammered in" myth persists! The real reason was because of poor process control: The IMUs are mounted to ring segments before the rings are integrated into the rocket body. Normally, the ring segment hosting the avionics will be inverted during this assembly process. A different jig was used that held the ring 'right side up' (because the normal jig was already in use), but process documentation had not been updated to advise any of the workers of this change. To install the sensor clusters when on the jig, a worker must lean through half-metre-wide access ports into the ring assembly by about a metre. The DUS sensor clusters are circular, and the colour-coded connectors had sufficient slack to be installed in any orientation. The only reference for correct sensor installation are the axis arrows printed on the face, and the install documentation requires them to be installed 'arrows up'. With the ring inverted, and no visual references within the install cavity, the 'arrows up' procedure was followed with the inverted ring segment. The pin imprints on the back of the DUS cluster were from the mounting bolts being torqued down to the required value, driving the housing against the pins (which were press-fit, so just pushed out through the backside of the through holes they were pressed into), not by hammer-blows.
In short: the IMU was installed following the correct procedure, but the rocket was upside-down at the time. "Check rocket right side up for installation" was never even considered as a failure mode or included part of the installation checklist.

https://twitter.com/JohnPalme/status/1675607917070893057
« Last Edit: 12/14/2023 11:31 am by edzieba »

Offline whitelancer64

Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #429 on: 12/14/2023 03:19 pm »
Pyrotechnics seem particularly susceptible to wiring errors, precisely because they cannot be tested, at least fully, as in "test as you fly".  Connectivity can tell you that a connection is complete to SOME pyrotechnic device, but not that it's the RIGHT pyrotechnic device.  This appears to be exactly what happened to Osiris-Rex.

Could they test the wiring by connecting some other indicator to the wire (and having a way to disable the pyrotechnics during the test)
This does not protect you at all from miswiring errors as it requires you disconnect the pyro to test, then reconnect it - indeed, it just offers a new opportunity to introduce a new wiring error, and in a system that has been 'tested good'.
Since the OSIRIS REx issue was ambiguous labelling nomenclature, this could just have meant the cables would have been disconnected, passed the test, then reconnected to the wrong (but correct as per the label) pyro devices.
As an amateur armchair engineer, my "obvious" solution is to uniquely key the connectors so they cannot be miss-mated. I suspect the reality of this "solution" would be a logistical and maintenance nightmare and some added mass.

Unique keys also don't always prevent such problems. As I recall the spectacularly failed Proton rocket that did a U turn into the ground had a keyed IMU that was hammered into place backwards by brute force.

Idiot-proofing can result in the discovery of a higher level of idiot.
The "hammered in" myth persists! The real reason was because of poor process control: The IMUs are mounted to ring segments before the rings are integrated into the rocket body. Normally, the ring segment hosting the avionics will be inverted during this assembly process. A different jig was used that held the ring 'right side up' (because the normal jig was already in use), but process documentation had not been updated to advise any of the workers of this change. To install the sensor clusters when on the jig, a worker must lean through half-metre-wide access ports into the ring assembly by about a metre. The DUS sensor clusters are circular, and the colour-coded connectors had sufficient slack to be installed in any orientation. The only reference for correct sensor installation are the axis arrows printed on the face, and the install documentation requires them to be installed 'arrows up'. With the ring inverted, and no visual references within the install cavity, the 'arrows up' procedure was followed with the inverted ring segment. The pin imprints on the back of the DUS cluster were from the mounting bolts being torqued down to the required value, driving the housing against the pins (which were press-fit, so just pushed out through the backside of the through holes they were pressed into), not by hammer-blows.
In short: the IMU was installed following the correct procedure, but the rocket was upside-down at the time. "Check rocket right side up for installation" was never even considered as a failure mode or included part of the installation checklist.

https://twitter.com/JohnPalme/status/1675607917070893057

Poor process documentation for the L once again. Thanks for the correct details!!

I wonder which launch it was that had something hammered in backwards.... Where the myth started....
"One bit of advice: it is important to view knowledge as sort of a semantic tree -- make sure you understand the fundamental principles, ie the trunk and big branches, before you get into the leaves/details or there is nothing for them to hang on to." - Elon Musk
"There are lies, damned lies, and launch schedules." - Larry J

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10768
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8136
  • Likes Given: 7425
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #430 on: 12/16/2023 04:47 am »
Background documentary

NASA Explorers Season 6, Episode 5: Sample Return

Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Online ChrisC

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2200
  • Liked: 1521
  • Likes Given: 1710
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #431 on: 12/18/2023 01:42 am »
A WaPo article last Monday (paywalled, MSN rerun not) said this:

Quote
On Monday, the scientific community got its first description of that precious, exotic stuff, revealed by the mission’s top scientist, Dante Lauretta, at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco.

For years I have diligently watched all of the press conferences that attend these meetings (AGU, DPS, AAAS).  Here's the official Youtube playlist for last week's AGU pressers and I don't see Dr. Lauretta's presentation on it.  That's not too surprising since it was apparently a "lecture" not a press conference, but I'm still hoping it's on YT somewhere.  I can't find it.  Can you?
PSA #1: EST does NOT mean "Eastern Time".  Use "Eastern" or "ET" instead, all year round, and avoid this common error.  Google "EST vs EDT".
PSA #2: It's and its: know the difference and quietly impress grammar pedants.  Google "angry flower its" .  *** See profile for two more NSF forum tips. ***

Offline AegeanBlue

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 698
  • Raleigh
  • Liked: 262
  • Likes Given: 49
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #432 on: 12/20/2023 05:13 am »
They added a new AGU press conference 4 hours ago, so the one you are looking may pop up in the future

Offline Don2

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 506
  • Liked: 273
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #433 on: 12/24/2023 10:08 am »

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 47467
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 80355
  • Likes Given: 36343
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #434 on: 12/27/2023 04:18 am »
https://www.nasa.gov/missions/osiris-apex/nasa-asteroid-sampling-mission-renamed-osiris-apex-for-new-journey/

Quote
NASA Asteroid Sampling Mission Renamed OSIRIS-APEX for New Journey

Rob Garner
DEC 22, 2023
ARTICLE

The former OSIRIS-REx spacecraft sets off on a journey to study asteroid Apophis and take advantage of the asteroid’s 2029 flyby of Earth, the likes of which hasn’t happened since the dawn of recorded history.

At the end of a long-haul road trip, it might be time to kick up your feet and rest awhile – especially if it was a seven-year, 4 billion-mile journey to bring Earth a sample of asteroid Bennu. But OSIRIS-REx (Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification and Security – Regolith Explorer), the NASA mission that accomplished this feat in September, is already well on its way (with a new name) to explore a new destination.

When OSIRIS-REx left Bennu in May 2021 with a sample aboard, its instruments were in great condition, and it still had a quarter of its fuel left. So instead of shutting down the spacecraft after it delivered the sample, the team proposed to dispatch it on a bonus mission to asteroid Apophis, with an expected arrival in April 2029. NASA agreed, and OSIRIS-APEX (Origins, Spectral Interpretation, Resource Identification, and Security – Apophis Explorer) was born.

A Rare Opportunity at Apophis

After considering several destinations (including Venus and various comets), NASA chose to send the spacecraft to Apophis, an “S-type” asteroid made of silicate materials and nickel-iron – a fair bit different than the carbon-rich, “C-type” Bennu.

The intrigue of Apophis is its exceptionally close approach of our planet on April 13, 2029. Although Apophis will not hit Earth during this encounter or in the foreseeable future, the pass in 2029 will bring the asteroid within 20,000 miles (32,000 kilometers) of the surface – closer than some satellites, and close enough that it could be visible to the naked eye in the Eastern Hemisphere.

Scientists estimate that asteroids of Apophis’ size, about 367 yards across (about 340 meters), come this close to Earth only once every 7,500 years.

“OSIRIS-APEX will study Apophis immediately after such a pass, allowing us to see how its surface changes by interacting with Earth’s gravity,” said Amy Simon, the mission’s project scientist based at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

Apophis’ close encounter with Earth will change the asteroid’s orbit and the length of its 30.6-hour day. The encounter also may cause quakes and landslides on the asteroid’s surface that could churn up material and uncover what lies beneath.

“The close approach is a great natural experiment,” said Dani Mendoza DellaGiustina, principal investigator for OSIRIS-APEX at the University of Arizona in Tucson. “We know that tidal forces and the accumulation of rubble pile material are foundational processes that could play a role in planet formation. They could inform how we got from debris in the early solar system to full-blown planets.”

Apophis represents more than just the opportunity to learn more about how solar systems and planets form: As it happens, most of the known potentially hazardous asteroids (those whose orbits come within 4.6 million miles of Earth) are also S-types. What the team learns about Apophis can inform planetary defense research, a top priority for NASA.

OSIRIS-APEX: Travel Itinerary

By April 2, 2029 – around two weeks before Apophis’ close encounter with Earth –  OSIRIS-APEX’s cameras will begin taking images of the asteroid as the spacecraft catches up to it. Apophis will also be closely observed by Earth-based telescopes during this time. But in the hours after the close encounter, Apophis will appear too near the Sun in the sky to be observed by ground-based optical telescopes. This means any changes triggered by the close encounter will be best detected by the spacecraft.

OSIRIS-APEX will arrive at the asteroid on April 13, 2029, and operate in its proximity for about the next 18 months. In addition to studying changes to Apophis caused by its Earth encounter, the spacecraft will conduct many of the same investigations OSIRIS-REx did at Bennu, including using its instrument suite of imagers, spectrometers, and a laser altimeter to closely map the surface and analyze its chemical makeup.

As an encore, OSIRIS-APEX will reprise one of OSIRIS-REx’s most impressive acts (minus sample collection), dipping within 16 feet of the asteroid’s surface and firing its thrusters downward. This maneuver will stir up surface rocks and dust to give scientists a peek at the material that lies below.

Although the rendezvous with Apophis is more than five years away, the next milestone on its journey is the first of six close Sun passes. Those near approaches, along with three gravity assists from Earth, will put OSIRIS-APEX on course to reach Apophis in April 2029.

What OSIRIS-APEX will discover about Apophis remains to be seen, but if the mission’s previous incarnation is any indication, surprising science lies ahead. “We learned a lot at Bennu, but now we’re armed with even more questions for our next target,” Simon said.



NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center provides overall mission management, systems engineering, and the safety and mission assurance for OSIRIS-APEX. Dani Mendoza DellaGiustina of the University of Arizona, Tucson, is the principal investigator. The university leads the science team and the mission’s science observation planning and data processing. Lockheed Martin Space in Littleton, Colorado, built the spacecraft and provides flight operations. Goddard and KinetX Aerospace are responsible for navigating the OSIRIS-APEX spacecraft. International partnerships on this mission include the spacecraft’s laser altimeter instrument from CSA (the Canadian Space Agency) and science collaboration with JAXA’s (the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency) Hayabusa2 mission. OSIRIS-APEX (previously named OSIRIS-REx) is the third mission in NASA’s New Frontiers Program, managed by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, for the agency’s Science Mission Directorate in Washington.

By Lonnie Shekhtman and Rob Garner
NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.



Quote
This animation depicts the orbital trajectory of asteroid 99942 Apophis as it zooms safely past Earth on April 13, 2029. Earth’s gravity will slightly deflect the trajectory as the 1,100-foot-wide (340-meter-wide) near-Earth object comes within 20,000 miles (32,000 kilometers) of our planet’s surface. The motion has been sped up 2,000 times.
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech

Image caption:

Quote
These images of asteroid Apophis were recorded in March 2021 by radio antennas at the Deep Space Network’s Goldstone complex in California and the Green Bank Telescope in West Virginia. The asteroid was 10.6 million miles (17 million kilometers) away, and each pixel has a resolution of 127 feet (38.75 meters).
Credit: NASA/JPL-Caltech and NSF/AUI/GBO

Offline jeffchan

  • Member
  • Posts: 13
  • Liked: 32
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #435 on: 01/11/2024 07:31 pm »
Finally, the TAGSAM (Touch-and-Go Sample Acquisition Mechanism) head has been removed!  It will be interesting to see how successful the intended sample turned out...

https://www.yahoo.com/tech/nasa-finally-cracks-open-asteroid-184300002.html

https://blogs.nasa.gov/osiris-rex/2024/01/11/nasas-osiris-rex-team-clears-hurdle-to-access-remaining-bennu-sample/
« Last Edit: 01/11/2024 07:32 pm by jeffchan »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15217
  • Liked: 7678
  • Likes Given: 2

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15217
  • Liked: 7678
  • Likes Given: 2
« Last Edit: 01/19/2024 06:32 pm by Blackstar »

Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15217
  • Liked: 7678
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #438 on: 01/20/2024 12:14 am »
Here's the high-res version attached. 23 megs.


Online Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15217
  • Liked: 7678
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: OSIRIS-REx/OSIRIS-APEX Mission Updates
« Reply #439 on: 01/20/2024 02:10 am »
And here is a closeup. Largest sample is about 1 cm.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0