A few miles of light-transmitting
fiber spooled out behind the cryobot shouldn't weigh any more than the
proposed transmission "pucks". Also, if a metallic filament
were adjacent the optical line(s), it could be periodically heated to
reposition and de-stress itself in the event of ice movement.
Jack
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday 28
October 2002 05:45
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Radio control v. Wire...
and 1 part or 2?
Are we going to have this thing radio controlled or a
cable/wire attached to it?
>From the CalTech glaciology website...
"For electromagnetic waves with
frequencies from 5 to 300 MHz the loss of energy by absorption in ice is
sufficiently small that they can penetrate large ice masses great
distances."
This means that a radio controlled or transmitting device won't be a problem,
but are we going to have a camera on this device? That would require that we
did have a cable running to the surface because TV signals are much greater
than that correct?
We would want to see where this thing is going and what it sees. And it would
be helpful with the navigation around any obstacles. I know that the end model
should be self-sufficient, with the ability to navigate on it's own around
obstacles but for this first experiment we might be biting off more than we can
chew. Self navigation would require some good A.I. and computer power and we
are planning on leaving it down there correct?
Some ideas and price ranges
FM and AM
Transmitters, professional radio equipment, FM power amplifiers
Second reason why a cable attached would be more beneficial to our model is...
"Radio waves are reflected by
inhomogeneities in the ice and at material boundaries, especially at the
ice-water and ice-rock interfaces"
If our little cryobot does maneuver around boulders/asteroids in the ice, the
radio control could get lost because of their interference.
Also what package are we trying to deliver when we get through the ice? Is this
cryobot an ice melter and an ocean
explorer? Or should we have an ice melter casing that then is carrying an ocean
explore/biological detection package? It would seem that the NASA funded and
the better of the two would be the 2 part. It would be much
"better/faster/cheaper" for us to concentrate on just a casing that
can melt through the ice to deliver a then water exploring ROV. Should we split
into two groups to design the two parts now to save time instead of one and
then the other?
|
