Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Inner Workings of High-Gain Mars Rover Antennas?

Cliff posted more than 10 years ago | from the how-do-they-work dept.

Wireless Networking 63

cavac asks: "I've been searching for detailed info on how the high gain antennas on the Mars Rovers work, but did not find much useful information except that they DO work. I've been wondering: they are disc-shaped and are approximately the size of a CD. They somehow reassemble parabolic antennas but actually aren't, are they? Anyway, how much use would a parabolic antenna that size have? When I first saw them, they reminded me of the old antennas[*] (enclosed in plastic) used on vacuum tube based radio projects[*]. So, what's really inside the Mars Rovers high gain antennas? Note: Links marked with [*] are german language but the pictures should be self explaining."

cancel ×

63 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Martians (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7958098)

Naturally we're just piggy-backing on the already built martian wireless infrastructure.

why not try (-1, Offtopic)

mjc_w (192427) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958101)

FP?

signal strength and range (0, Flamebait)

sycotic (26352) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958113)

would the strength of the signal they are using up there be alot stronger than that which we use here on earth? possibly they use a different range than 2.4GHz? surely there are no FCC regulations on mars ;-)

FCC regulations (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7961046)

Most US laws apply everywhere: remember Sklyarov?

Mars now joins Venus as one of the few places where the US has a positive trade balance. [This is serious: when NASA imported the diamond window for one of the Mariner Venus spacecraft, they claimed exemption from customs duty because they were going to re-export it to Venus; and they got it, too].

Re:FCC regulations (1)

Y2 (733949) | more than 10 years ago | (#7965919)

There's not just the trade balance, there are also the questions of customs & immigration [att.com]

Look like Pringles to me (1, Funny)

ObviousGuy (578567) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958163)

Paint some cans white and glue them together and voila! You've got yourself a nice set of omnidirectional antennae.

The Beagle (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7958175)

Are they still looking for "The Beagle"? Or have the technicians basically declared "this mission has gone *BSD" and given up.

Re:The Beagle (4, Interesting)

bandy (99800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958496)

Beagle2 hasn't reported back. They're now trying silence to try to get it to go into "CSM2". In February, it's scheduled to go into broadcast mode [e.g. "Help! Can't hear you at all!"] on Groundhog Day or thereabouts.

Re:The Beagle (1)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959392)

In February, it's scheduled to go into broadcast mode [e.g. "Help! Can't hear you at all!"] on Groundhog Day or thereabouts.
So if Beagle sees its shadow, we'll get 6 more weeks of silence..?

everybody's a comedian (1)

bandy (99800) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959464)

What it will do is to start sending its ID signal whenever the sun is overhead. Provided it made it down to the surface in one piece. Mars Global Surveyor should have seen evidence of its parachute near the landing ellipse. And they should probably make those 'chutes out of something nice and shiny so MGS and its successors can find 'em easier. "Brightest three pixels on Mars!"

Re:The Beagle (1)

RobertB-DC (622190) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963369)

So if Beagle sees its shadow, we'll get 6 more weeks of silence..?

Actually, the Groundhog Day reference put me in mind of the Bill Murray movie [yanman.com] , and the Beagle engineers. Every day, they wake up to the same thing, over and over again:

Can you hear me now? Crap!
Can you hear me now? Crap!
Can you hear me now? Crap!

X-band, and other matters. (5, Informative)

mlyle (148697) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958209)

The MERs use X-Band for high data rate communications back to earth-- which has a wavelength of 3cm, making high gain antennas considerably smaller and more practical.

It's my understanding that the high gain antenna on MER is a compact phased array design. Even parabolic antennas could be practical at the 3cm wavelength, though they wouldn't be flat (which was obviously preferable for footprint issues).

Re:X-band, and other matters. (5, Informative)

stienman (51024) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958588)

The X-Band Phased Array Antenna [nasa.gov] has one major benefit. Phased array antennas are meant to mimic the directivity and gain of a parabolic antenna, with the ability to aim it, in an array of antennas that does not move and is flat.

So basicly you take a bunch of flat antennas, do some 'magic' between the array and the signal source (or destination) and you can effectively aim the antenna as though you were actually moving a parabolic antenna.

Since the antenna on spirit is aimed mechanically, and phased array antennas are, IIRC, still pretty power hungry, then it may be that they are not using a phased array. However, it would make a lot of sense to use a phased array for fine control aiming and the machanical link for coarse control.

-Adam

You mean like this? (5, Informative)

JCMay (158033) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958797)

Before Harris [harris.com] sold it to JetBlue [jetblue.com] , they developed LiveTV [livetvifs.com] , a system to bring DirecTV to airliners in-flight. The receiver includes a phased array antenna [livetvifs.com] that scans in elevation while sitting on a gimble that allows the beam to be scanned in azimuth.

Phased arrays use lots of power, but that's because each antenna element in the array requires its own amplifier(s) and phase shifter (or time delay unit). Fortunately, those amplifiers cam be much smaller than the monolithic amplifier required to drive a dish (since the signals from each amplifier in the array are summed together).

Re:X-band, and other matters. (2, Informative)

mlyle (148697) | more than 10 years ago | (#7960008)

Yes, there are plenty of advanced technology phased array antennas where delay lines and elements are dynamically swapped in and out.

But it is possible to build a statically aimed phased array-- and this is what most patch antennas are in practice.

Important Question (4, Interesting)

illuminatedwax (537131) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958256)

The important question is, what is the frequency of the transmissions being sent back to Earth, and can we figure out how to interpret the data being sent? We don't want any sort of NASA cover-up of the Martians, now do we?

--Stephen

On Technocrat Slashdot..... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7958664)

Somebody set us up the rover! We get signal. All your Mars mission are belong to us.

Re:Important Question (4, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958999)


First the moon landing, now this [photopile.com] . When is NASA going to come clean?

Re:Important Question (0, Troll)

wardomon (213812) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959527)

Mod this up. This is important.

Re:Important Question (2, Funny)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959061)

Dunno the frequency, but I'm not sure I'd want it posted on /. anyway. If it were, about 90% of the geeks seeing it would:
1) immediately have orgasms -- this stuff is SO leet, ya know?;
2) reverse-engineer the thing so that they could drive the Rover;
3) using the results from step 2, play Martian Quake, or Planetary Doom 3, and probably run over lots of shit, including (quite likely, since there's bugger all down here) the only intelligent forms of life in the known universe. Luckily, those life forms would have a LOT of Mars->Earth->Mars delay time, but I'm not sure I'd want the stuff in the sweaty hands of 13-year old geeks who haven't yet gotten terrestrial drivers' licenses.

Re:Important Question (5, Interesting)

Johnny Mnemonic (176043) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959209)


2) reverse-engineer the thing so that they could drive the Rover

That's funny, but do they actually bother with encryption/authorization stuff? I would think that the lander/rover already has such a limited bandwidth that they wouldn't want to waste any of it with hash or authorization codes--on the other hand, you don't want a 14 year old taking control of a $400M rover either. Do they just keep the frequency secret? Does the control apparatus require NSF type gear? Even at that, how do you keep the Russians from sabotaging a lunar landing to maintain nationalistic prestige?

Re:Important Question (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7959722)

I think this is a case of security through obscurity working. We don't know the frequency, encoding, commands, not to mention having to get your hands on the proper equipment with out knowing the prior information.

Re:Important Question (1)

hyperstation (185147) | more than 10 years ago | (#7978099)

all of you had better shut up...

loose lips sink ships, and could really fuck with a glorified RC car on mars, too.

so shhh... :)

Re:Important Question (1)

elrond1999 (88166) | more than 10 years ago | (#7960929)

I don't think they need encryption for the transmissions to the rover. First you need the right frequency, then you have to know exactly where (and when) to aim the signal, then figure out the exact command codes and finaly get your hands on a couple of BIG dishes with megawatt transmission powers like the Deep Space Network.

Re:Important Question (3, Funny)

decepty (662114) | more than 10 years ago | (#7964852)

oh c'mon, what self respecting geek doen't have access to that kind of stuff...

Re:Important Question (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 10 years ago | (#8014570)

hehehe. A WHAT kind of geek?

Re:Important Question (1)

Eosha (242724) | more than 10 years ago | (#8040562)

As the British now know, sometimes you DON'T keep the russians from hacking a mission. This whole "we haven't heard from it, we'll keep looking" thing is just a cover story. The CIA knows that a couple of 1337 h4x0r kiddies in Moscow are using the probe to play tic-tac-toe in the Martian dust as we speak.

Re:Important Question (1)

sarabob (544622) | more than 10 years ago | (#7961100)

13 year old geeks with dial-up should be able to handle that sort of lag easily :-)

Re:Important Question (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7959304)

Suppose you knew that the frequency was 8.123456GHz, the encoding was QPSK, the protocol was CCCSP, the error correction was Reed-Solomon, etc. Now all you need to interpret data coming down from the lander is a big freakin' huge 34m dish.

Re:Important Question (1)

pontifier (601767) | more than 10 years ago | (#7960607)

If it's this tough for someone out of the loop to get mars rover data. I think the chances of seti discovering a usable alien signal are next to nothing.

Re:Important Question (1)

JohnFluxx (413620) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963462)

yeah, we rely on the aliens having way better technology than us, and wanting to be seen.

Re:Important Question (1)

Carnildo (712617) | more than 10 years ago | (#7965137)

If it's this tough for someone out of the loop to get mars rover data. I think the chances of seti discovering a usable alien signal are next to nothing.

There's a major difference between the two: SETI is just looking for the existence of a signal. With the Mars rovers, you'd be trying to interpret the signal as well. SETI would have no trouble finding the signal from Spirit and recognizing it as being sent from an intelligent source, if it looked in the right place at the right time.

Well, it is mars (3, Insightful)

Descartes (124922) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958282)

I'm not a radio expert so I don't really know what design they use, but you need to take into account two major points.

1. The rover is operating outside of FCC restrictions. So it can use as much bandwidth as it wants. Also, because there are few other sources of radio signals on mars there is likely no trouble with interference.

2. Because mars has a drastically different atmosphere than earth, the way the signals travel, etc will be different. From what I understand, much of earth based radio communication relies on bouncing signals off of the upper atmosphere and other "tricks". And of course if the atmosphere is thinner it will offer less resistance to the signal.

Re:Well, it is mars (3, Funny)

NanoGator (522640) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958323)

"1. The rover is operating outside of FCC restrictions."

They still have to watch out for the DMCA, tho.

Re:Well, it is mars (1)

Molina the Bofh (99621) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959455)

DMCA ?

Oh, crap. I can kiss goodbye my copy of "The Greatest Hits from Mars Rovers - Live from Mars". This will certainly be copy-protected.

Re:Well, it is mars (3, Interesting)

muonzoo (106581) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958375)

... From what I understand, much of earth based radio communication relies on bouncing signals off of the upper atmosphere and other "tricks". ...

Ionospheric refraction (or bounce) is really only applicable to longer wavelengths. The MER radios are operating in the X-band region, therefore there would be little ionospheric interaction in this region. Moreover, I don't think Mars has an ionosphere. Earth's ionosphere won't be an issue since the signal's angle of incidence will be arbitrarily large at a point in time over the reception window.

Re:Well, it is mars (1)

Y2 (733949) | more than 10 years ago | (#7965677)

Moreover, I don't think Mars has an ionosphere.
Of course it does. You get an ionosphere from having your atmosphere hit by solar radiation. Mars, at 1.5 AU from the sun, gets almost half as much radiation (to a given area) as the earth does. More information [google.com] .

Re:Well, it is mars (1)

dbirchall (191839) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958440)

Maybe that manned Mars mission can include the "Can you hear me now? Good." guy from the Verizon ads.

I sure hope so (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959151)

I sure hope so. It had better be one way, and skimp on the oxygen. Might as well send that Sprint guy in the trenchcoat with him.

We'll see if they are so smug once that meet Val Kilmer's robot dog.

Re:Well, it is mars (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959285)

yes but the signal still has to get back here. It can't interfere with OUR signals when it gets here (or rather, they don't want our signals interfering with it) and it has to make it through OUR atmosphere.

I know some of the signals are being relayed when it 's on the "dark side" of mars, but I wouldn't have thought they'd bother to mention that if ALL of the signals were being relayed the same way.

Re:Well, it is mars (0)

afidel (530433) | more than 10 years ago | (#7960850)

Actually they wouldn't HAVE to reach earth, they could be collected by the deep space network. As for the dark side they can probably relay through any number of probes in orbit including the ones that went at the same time as the landers.

Where do you think the Deep Space Network... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7963663)

dishes are? On the moon?

You got it right in the first sentence, but... (4, Interesting)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959368)

you should have stopped there.

Yes, the rover is operating outside the jurisdiction of the FCC (though not outside of international treaties regulating interference between space probes). Yes, the rover can use as much bandwidth "as it wants". But how much is that?

The answer is, not much. The problem is that you're trying to get a tiny signal across a very large distance back to Earth, and even though Earth is listening with dishes up to 70 meters across you still have serious limits. That squeak of signal coming in has to compete against the rush of thermal noise coming from everything, including the receiver itself. (The first stages of the receivers are cryogenically cooled to reduce thermal noise.) The amount of noise you have to listen to is more or less proportional to the width of the channel you're demodulating (the noise power spectrum varies with frequency, but it's a thermal curve that varies slowly across small frequency ranges). The more bandwidth you use, the wider your receiver filters have to be set, and the more noise comes in with your signal. Once you get to -1.7 dB signal/noise ratio, in principle your ability to tell signal from noise disappears (in practice we don't use encodings which give such a sharp cutoff, so your error rate starts heading up well above that).

Using more bandwidth is pointless unless you have more power to push a signal. On a platform as power-limited as Spirit, ten KHz or so is about all that they appear to be able to use productively over the interplanetary link.

Re:You got it right in the first sentence, but... (1)

Descartes (124922) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963664)

Sorry, as I said I'm not a radio expert.

Anyway, if bandwidth isn't the limiting factor, you can choose signal strength or whatever. I assume the regulations regarding interference between space probes are somewhat more relaxed than FCC regulations.

What I mean is they can pick whatever part of the radio spectrum best fits their atmospheric needs and just use that, although that is just conjecture.

Also I was under the impression that they were relaying the signal from the rover through a satellite in orbit.

FCC (4, Interesting)

Detritus (11846) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959911)

NASA gets its frequency allocations through the same process as other government agencies. The ITU makes international allocations. The FCC (civilian) and NTIA (military/government) make domestic allocations. The FCC and NTIA have to cooperate with each other on spectrum policy.

Re:Well, it is mars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7965356)

the FCC has all the jurisdiction it needs since NASA belongs to the US Gov, and ALL gov things have to comply with the FCC.

this is not to say that the FCC doesn't give preferential treatment to gov things ;)

From the Nasa website... (0, Redundant)

Daniel Wood (531906) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958334)

<B> Taken from: http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/mission/spacecraft_rove r_antennas.html </B>
The rover has both a low-gain and high-gain antenna that serve as both its "voice" and its "ears". They are located on the rover equipment deck (its "back").

The low-gain antenna sends and receives information in every direction; that is, it is "omni-directional." The antenna transmits radio waves at a low rate to the Deep Space Network (DSN) antennas on Earth. The high-gain antenna can send a "beam" of information in a specific direction and it is steerable, so the antenna can move to point itself directly to any antenna on Earth. The benefit of having a steerable antenna is that the entire rover doesn&#180;t necessarily have to change positions to talk to Earth. Like turning your neck to talk to someone beside you rather than turning your entire body, the rover can save energy by moving only the antenna.

Not only can the rovers send messages directly to Earth, but they can uplink information to other spacecraft orbiting Mars, utilizing the 2001 Mars Odyssey and Mars Global Surveyor orbiters as messengers who can pass along news to Earth for the rovers. The orbiters can also send messages to the rovers.

The benefits of using the orbiting spacecraft are that the orbiters are closer to the rovers than the Deep Space Network antennas on Earth and the orbiters have Earth in their field of view for much longer time periods than the rovers on the ground.

The radio waves to and from the rover are sent through the orbiters using UHF antennas, which are close-range antennas which are like walky-talkies compared to the long range of the low-gain and high-gain antennas. One UHF antenna is on the rover and one is on the petal of the lander to aid in gaining information during the critical landing event. The Mars Global Surveyor will be in the appropriate location above Mars to track the landing process. (2001 Mars Odyssey will not be in the vicinity.)

<B>Also of note is the data rates and methods used for transmitting pictures back to Earth: </B>

The data rate direct-to-Earth varies from about 12,000 bits per second to 3,500 bits per second (roughly a third as fast as a standard home modem). The data rate to the orbiters is a constant 128,000 bits per second (4 times faster than a home modem). An orbiter passes over the rover and is in the vicinity of the sky to communicate with the rovers for about eight minutes at a time, per sol. In that time, about 60 megabits of data (about 1/100 of a CD) can be transmitted to an orbiter. That same 60 megabits would take between 1.5 and 5 hours to transmit direct to Earth. The rovers can only transmit direct-to-Earth for at most three hours a day due to power and thermal limitations, even though Earth may be in view much longer.

Mars is rotating on its own axis so Mars often "turns its back" to Earth, taking the rover with it. The rover is turned out of the field of view of Earth and goes "dark", just like nighttime on Earth, when the sun goes out of the field of view of Earth at a certain location when the Earth turns its "back" to the sun. The orbiters can see Earth for about 2/3 of each orbit, or about 16 hours a day. They can send much more data direct-to-Earth than the rovers, not only because they can see Earth longer, but because they can operate their radio for much longer since their solar panels get light most of the time, and they have bigger antennas than the rovers.

Re:From the Nasa website... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#7958547)

Good attempt to karma-whore; that link is one click in from the one posted in the question, and doesn't actually say anything about the design of the high-gain antennas. Design? Gain? Directional characteristics? Nothing remotely useful here..

Re:From the Nasa website... (1)

shaitand (626655) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959305)

A "typical" home modem is 56kbit, not 28.8k

Re:From the Nasa website... (1)

b96miata (620163) | more than 10 years ago | (#7963377)

Most people who are still on dialup, are thus because they are too far out from CO/headend to get broadband. If they're that far out, chances are quite bad they're connecting at 56k.

My parents' house was such a house, too far from the central office. Luckily now we have cable, but our phone lines were such that I spent my days at 26.4 kbit. Others I know had similar experiences. So, I don't see anything wrong with NASA calling the typical home modem 32k, a more accurate representation of what people are actually getting these days.

It's the same kind used in mind control... (1)

stienman (51024) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958374)

I suspect that it's simply a patch antenna. For the size and weight, it's hard to beat the gain of a patch antenna.

Here [geocities.com] is an example for 802.11b of which the author notes, "What's nice about the patch antenna over the "cantenna" is its broad beamwidth. The cantenna has to be pointed very precisely at the AP to get anything at that range, but the patch can be tilted several degrees and still get a signal." The Spirit's antenna was estimated to be 2 degrees off aim at the initial connect attempt, but they said they should still get good data at up to 4 degrees off, and beyond that they would still get carrier.

While the frequency is different, you'll find that these people [hyperlinktech.com] sell patch antennas which compare favorably in signal strength with their parabolic antennas, but with a wider beam spread.

But we all know they're [nasa.gov] simply using the technology they've [dod.gov] been using for years to practice mind control [datafilter.com] on us [stopabductions.com] .

-Adam

Cluing you in... (1)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959191)

The best "patch" antenna on that page [hyperlinktech.com] has 14 dB of gain over isotropic (which almost nobody bothers to make because isotropic antennas are not generally useful on Earth; a much more realistic assessment is gain over a dipole). That same page lists 24 dB "grid" (non-solid parabolic reflector) and 20 dB "panel" (apparently flat-panel phased array) antennas.

Energy is conserved; you are not going to get a stronger signal across one part of the sphere without taking signal away from some other part. Beam width is always traded off against gain. Indeed, beamwidth is a pretty good function of gain.

Re:Cluing you in... (2, Informative)

fwc (168330) | more than 10 years ago | (#7960391)

> The best "patch" antenna on that page has 14 > dB of gain over isotropic (which almost nobody > bothers to make because isotropic antennas are > not generally useful on Earth; a much more realistic assessment is gain over a dipole)

The reason why almost all non-ham-radio antennas are specified in dBi's (decibels over isotropic) instead of dBd's (decibels over a dipole) is that you use dBi's when computing a link margin instead of dBd's. If you use dBd's you will be off by at least 2dB per end or 4dB on a total link - or over half (or double if you look at it the other way) of your power.

A isotropic antenna is basically a perfect omni. Imagine a perfectly round balloon (sphere shaped, not balloon shaped) A dipole (or any other antenna with gain) "squeezes" the balloon to make it "fatter" (higher gain) in the direction what the antenna is pointed. In the case of a dipole, the gain is increased by just over 2dB, making the "sphere" look like you had pushed in on opposite sides of the sphere (think sticking fingers in opposite sides of a balloon till they touch) causing the balloon/sphere to grow in diameter the other direction.

Re:It's the same kind used in mind control... (2, Informative)

dougmc (70836) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959545)

What's nice about the patch antenna over the "cantenna" is its broad beamwidth.
Just for the record, `broad beamwidth' is just another way of saying `low gain'.

One attains `high gain' by having a narrow beamwidth. That's all `gain' means when referring to an antenna -- the narrower the beam, the higher the gain.

You can't get something for nothing... (1)

raytracer (51035) | more than 10 years ago | (#7965273)

While the frequency is different, you'll find that these people sell patch antennas which compare favorably in signal strength with their parabolic antennas, but with a wider beam spread.

You can't have it both ways. If you want high gain, you have to have narrow beamwidths. If you want wide beamwidths, you can't have high gain. It's a conservation of energy thing.

Replacable modules (2, Funny)

jdawg (21639) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958683)

I just hope the AE-35 doesn't blow.

Pringles on Mars (3, Funny)

kmahan (80459) | more than 10 years ago | (#7958894)

What NASA doesn't show you is the guy who takes Pringles cans, paints over 'em (after eating all the chips), and declares it "space ready" (for only $500k/unit!)

Micro passive phased array antenna (4, Informative)

Tau Zero (75868) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959006)

Claimer: I am an electrical engineer, I have studied wave mechanics, and I have seen devices like this antenna built into devices such as aircraft weather radars.

The rover antenna appears to be an example of a flat-plate phased array antenna, which is a generalization of the "slot antenna". The basics are that you have a feedpoint where energy is coupled to/from a cable which goes to your transceiver. This feedpoint is coupled, either through transmission line divider/combiner networks of the appropriate impedance or the equivalent in waveguides, to each individual radiating element. In this case the radiating elements are segments of the surface of the disc, which happen to be connected electrically (which is not of great consequence). So long as each slot is at least a half-wavelength long, applying an RF voltage across its center lets it radiate just like a dipole perpendicular to the slot. Connecting a large number of slots via feedlines or waveguides so that they are all driven in phase gives you a nice, flat wavefront, which is also what you get from the reflection of a spherical wave off a parabola. The details differ, the result is more or less the same.

None of this would have been strange to a techno-geek of fifty years ago, because geeks of that time were into ham radio instead of computers.

Re:Micro passive phased array antenna (3, Informative)

kentborg (12732) | more than 10 years ago | (#7961989)

Yes, I think that is correct, but let me add something that might be confused here.

Just because this appears to be a phased array does not mean it is an electrically steered phased array (as other postings have suggested). Look at a picture of the rover [http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/mission/images/rover1_ detail_500.jpg]. The high gain antenna looks quite steerable. It is possible that it is also electrically steered to fine tune the aim, but it doesn't look like a high enough gain antenna to need that. Might as well make the mechanics a bit more precise and aim it with motors. Throw in some feedback on signal strength and even if the mechanics are knocked slightly out of alignment a precise aim should be possible.

-kb, the Kent who decided to reply to a single smart post instead of deciding which nonsense post to correct.

Re:Micro passive phased array antenna (2, Interesting)

On Alien Cinema (687448) | more than 10 years ago | (#7964923)

And some of those geeks are still radio hams, and some are indeed listening to the Mars effort. They've been tracking Mars Express into orbit, and are now planning their own ham radio mission to the red planet - AMSAT Phase 5A - which will be an independently built communications and science spacecraft to go into orbit sometime towards the end of the decade. Now that's what I call ham radio. More -- including helpful hints as to how you too can pick up signals from Mars (g'wan, admit it, it beats beaming WiFi to your pal across the road) -- at http://www.amsat-dl.org/p5a/

phased array (4, Informative)

mercuryresearch (680293) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959520)

As others have pointed out, it's most likely a flat phased array antenna.

There's a couple attributes that would make it attractive for a extraterrestrial application. They're very compact for the gain they provide, and within the limits of the design they can be electronically steered (that is, no moving parts). I would imagine they probably have a mechanical coarse steering mechanism and electronic fine steering.

Sadly I can't seem to find any confirmation of this, just a few mentions of other spacecraft such as MESSENGER using phased array antennas.

If you're really a radio newbie you should know that gain is how well the antenna concentrates the signal. An isotropic radiator basically receives/transmits signals in a perfectly spherical manner. By sacrificing the directional coverage you can increase the gain. A great example is a flashlight bulb -- uncovered it radiates almost everywhere; with a parabolic reflector it radiates a beam. When they talk about using the low gain and high gain antennas they're basically talking about the radiation pattern.

You generally use low gain antennas for signal acquisition when you don't have control over where the antennas are going to be pointed. Once you know where everything is, you can point the high-gain antenna at the target. With more gain you have a better signal-to-noise ratio and can then crank up the data rates.

Phased array antennas work essentially by combining a large number (an array) of simple low-gain antennas such that they add their signals together (in phase) in a particular direction. In other directions the signals don't add the same way and there's much less gain. At microwave frequencies like X-band (about 8 GHz), a simple dipole antenna is only about an inch long, so it's easy to put a bunch of dipole-equivalents in a small space to make an array.

Public R&D (1)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 10 years ago | (#7959754)

Not only that it's also a bit of public funded R&D, remember all the neat stuff we kids grew up with that were offshoots of technology to get those lucky guys to the moon to drive around crater rims and hit golf balls. :-D

But let's think of it from Bush's perspective, he's almost finished feeding those military supp...er contractors with the search for a war or something.. Now he needs to payb... er get america's tech industry going by landing some more guys all the way on Mars.

It's not that I don't like the idea of Mars or doing what's right for the country, I just have reservations on how honest it all is.

ansible / fatline? (1)

rantrover (669101) | more than 10 years ago | (#7975436)

How close are humans to implementing Orson Scott Card's ansible or Dan Simmons's fatline? Will it emerge from the space, military or telecommunications industry?
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>