Share Email Print
cover

Proceedings Paper

In-flight performance of MESSENGER's Mercury Dual Imaging System
Author(s): S. Edward Hawkins III; Scott L. Murchie; Kris J. Becker; Christina M. Selby; F. Scott Turner; Matthew W. Noble; Nancy L. Chabot; Teck H. Choo; Edward H. Darlington; Brett W. Denevi; Deborah L. Domingue; Carolyn M. Ernst; Gregory M. Holsclaw; Nori R. Laslo; William E. McClintock; Louise M. Prockter; Mark S. Robinson; Sean C. Solomon; Raymond E. Sterner II
Format Member Price Non-Member Price
PDF $17.00 $21.00

Paper Abstract

The MErcury Surface, Space ENvironment, GEochemistry, and Ranging (MESSENGER) spacecraft, launched in August 2004 and planned for insertion into orbit around Mercury in 2011, has already completed two flybys of the innermost planet. The Mercury Dual Imaging System (MDIS) acquired nearly 2500 images from the first two flybys and viewed portions of Mercury's surface not viewed by Mariner 10 in 1974-1975. Mercury's proximity to the Sun and its slow rotation present challenges to the thermal design for a camera on an orbital mission around Mercury. In addition, strict limitations on spacecraft pointing and the highly elliptical orbit create challenges in attaining coverage at desired geometries and relatively uniform spatial resolution. The instrument designed to meet these challenges consists of dual imagers, a monochrome narrow-angle camera (NAC) with a 1.5° field of view (FOV) and a multispectral wide-angle camera (WAC) with a 10.5° FOV, co-aligned on a pivoting platform. The focal-plane electronics of each camera are identical and use a 1024×1024 charge-coupled device detector. The cameras are passively cooled but use diode heat pipes and phase-change-material thermal reservoirs to maintain the thermal configuration during the hot portions of the orbit. Here we present an overview of the instrument design and how the design meets its technical challenges. We also review results from the first two flybys, discuss the quality of MDIS data from the initial periods of data acquisition and how that compares with requirements, and summarize how in-flight tests are being used to improve the quality of the instrument calibration.

Paper Details

Date Published: 3 September 2009
PDF: 12 pages
Proc. SPIE 7441, Instruments and Methods for Astrobiology and Planetary Missions XII, 74410Z (3 September 2009); doi: 10.1117/12.826370
Show Author Affiliations
S. Edward Hawkins III, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Scott L. Murchie, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Kris J. Becker, U.S. Geological Survey (United States)
Christina M. Selby, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
F. Scott Turner, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Matthew W. Noble, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Nancy L. Chabot, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Teck H. Choo, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Edward H. Darlington, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Brett W. Denevi, Arizona State Univ. (United States)
Deborah L. Domingue, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Carolyn M. Ernst, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Gregory M. Holsclaw, Univ. of Colorado (United States)
Nori R. Laslo, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
William E. McClintock, Univ. of Colorado (United States)
Louise M. Prockter, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)
Mark S. Robinson, Arizona State Univ. (United States)
Sean C. Solomon, Carnegie Institution of Washington (United States)
Raymond E. Sterner II, The Johns Hopkins Univ. (United States)


Published in SPIE Proceedings Vol. 7441:
Instruments and Methods for Astrobiology and Planetary Missions XII
Kurt D. Retherford; Richard B. Hoover; Gilbert V. Levin; Alexei Yu. Rozanov, Editor(s)

© SPIE. Terms of Use
Back to Top
PREMIUM CONTENT
Sign in to read the full article
Create a free SPIE account to get access to
premium articles and original research
Forgot your username?
close_icon_gray