QUOTE (MahFL @ Dec 13 2021, 08:58 PM)
We had years of brush talks with the MER rovers, basically the timeline of the panels is designed for the timeline of the primary mission.
Apollo experience on attempting to brush off dust from the LRV radiators shows that even with human vision and dexterity, it isnt easy to
get dust off anyway....
Ironically, the timeline of the MER primary mission was determined by the expectation of dust on the panels.... :-)
As my paper in ASR on distance requirements on rover missions notes
'The preliminary design of the rover option by JPL engineer
Mark Adler carried the Athena payload package
(assembled by Steve Squyres, originally selected for a small
rover (‘Marie Curie’) on the 2001 lander.) As Squyres
(2005) records ‘‘Applying what he thought was prudent
margin, Mark had been willing to sign up to only 30 sols
of operations at first.” (The Sojourner solar array experience
implied that the daily energy available would degrade
by 10% over this period).
Conway (2015, pp. 221–222) observes ‘‘at the
”shootout‘‘ meeting in the Pasadena Hilton in July 2000,
Mars program chief scientist Jim Garvin told Squyres that
the 30-sol mission life was putting them at a competitive
disadvantage. They had to at least do better than the
Sojourner rover’s 86 day life. Pete Theisinger and Rob
Manning then had a conversation in the hallway about
what they could sign up to. The short study they’d had performed
showed a positive power margin at sol 91, so they
decided they could accept a 90-day mission.” Squyres
(2005) observes: ‘‘So ninety sols was it. It became one of
our Level One Requirements”. In this instance, then (as
in many others), the capability became the requirement.'