Frida Space

ExoMars 2016: on its way to Mars!

266 posts in this topic

44 minutes ago, Excalibur said:

High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) camera on NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter

A repurposed martian satellite with new adopted missions: Find and explain the surface remains of European and Russian spacecraft. :cool:

Mission completed. Beagle 2           - critical solar panel failed to deploy - to examine the effects of incomplete deployment on the final state of a spacecraft landed on mars - mission success. We now know that incompletely deploying a solar panel can now explain critical non-communication.

Mission completed. ExoMars 2016. - repurposed mission - to examine the effects of smashing a spacecraft into Mars at 150 m/s to determine if the hyperglolic tank will explode. - mission success - we now know that a hyperglolic explosion on contact can create 50cm impact crater virtually disintregating the spacecraft. Not a failure (at least according to ESA) as we now know that smashing at 150 m/sec is so inferior a method compared to having a smashing with a hot fuel tank on board.

Notice how there is actually no way to fail a mission to Mars, its simply an unplanned mission repurposing engaging international causality cooperation for unmanned spacecraft observation.

6 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry but this is repurposed bovine waste.

The whole purpose of the lander was to test a landing technique. TESTING!

And yes if you test something it can go wrong. Actualy it is a lot better if something go wrong becaues now you have data on how to avoid said mistake in the future. That's a lot more helpful than to skip the mistake this time and than loose your multi-million euro rover to it.

So yes this was a sucessfull mission. Landing this thing sucessfully by skiping the failuremode by luck would actualy have been a failed mission.

Edited by hms_warrior

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

repurpose of this topic: detect and analyse people'brain which still need speed unit conversion lessons, apparently their Mechjeb is still bugged, maybe related to the bug #123: Iwanashowabig3r1

Edited by Skalou

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about we try not to get ourselves too tangled in this conversation here.

First off, I don't see how tasking MRO to find probes, crashed or otherwise, counts as re-purposing, as I'm sure (without looking it up) that it's one of the many purposes of MRO.

Second, much as I'm sure everyone at ESA is trying to find a silver lining to their probe crashing, we don't really need to over-analysis whether that part of the mission was a success or failure. The purpose, as a simple question, was 'Can they land a probe on Mars?' which even the data from the TGO would have told them, 'No, ' So, arguably a success in that they have an answer. This is as opposed to something like Beagle 2, where there wasn't even an answer to that simple question until the probe was re-discovered.

Although, whether you call it a success or failure, it's rather cold comfort to ESA, which is now committed to landing a rover on Mars while only having checked off only one of the large number of failure modes that can occur when sending a probe to Mars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, 55delta said:

How about we try not to get ourselves too tangled in this conversation here.

First off, I don't see how tasking MRO to find probes, crashed or otherwise, counts as re-purposing, as I'm sure (without looking it up) that it's one of the many purposes of MRO.

Second, much as I'm sure everyone at ESA is trying to find a silver lining to their probe crashing, we don't really need to over-analysis whether that part of the mission was a success or failure. The purpose, as a simple question, was 'Can they land a probe on Mars?' which even the data from the TGO would have told them, 'No, ' So, arguably a success in that they have an answer. This is as opposed to something like Beagle 2, where there wasn't even an answer to that simple question until the probe was re-discovered.

Although, whether you call it a success or failure, it's rather cold comfort to ESA, which is now committed to landing a rover on Mars while only having checked off only one of the large number of failure modes that can occur when sending a probe to Mars.

Airbags. It worked for Pathfinder, it will work for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to say they probably pulled off too much. NASA's hovering was even a "terror" - there's some inherent probability that an event is "lucky" or "unlucky".

Ball of airbags, however, would almost always works, least in higher confidence than a hovering crane, even more by landing in a storm.

 

EDIT : Also, considering the video, then NASA has pulled this off 6 times in increasing difficulty before Curiosity.

Edited by YNM
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know this, but I am pretty sure that the heavier the probe, the bigger the airbags need to be to safely protect the probe, and that it would not be a linear increase but a square or even cube increase. So by the time you are landing something as big as Curiosity, the bags would need to be vastly larger than it! At some point it simply becomes impractical.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, softweir said:

I don't know this, but I am pretty sure that the heavier the probe, the bigger the airbags need to be to safely protect the probe, and that it would not be a linear increase but a square or even cube increase. So by the time you are landing something as big as Curiosity, the bags would need to be vastly larger than it! At some point it simply becomes impractical.


AIUI the problem isn't so much the size of the airbags as the physical strength of the material.  The heavier the payload, the higher the stress on the first impact-and-bounce.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On October 24, 2016 at 1:23 AM, Mitchz95 said:

If that's true, that's both hilarious and sad. All that work... :(

At least it won't happen again!*

* probably

 

Since it's a lander it's more likely to be similar to the failure of the Mars Polar Lander whose descent engines also cut off prematurely:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Polar_Lander

 

  Bob Clark

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A whale and a bowl of petunias come to my mind ...

Edited by Green Baron
3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schiaparelli crash investigation concluded:

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_landing_investigation_completed

Here is the final report of the investigation:

http://exploration.esa.int/mars/59176-exomars-2016-schiaparelli-anomaly-inquiry/#that

Basically it says that unespected oscillation during parachute deployment caused a saturation of the inertial guidance unit that led to an error on estimated attitude calculations (In other words the lander was thinking it was flipped upside down!). That and insufficient software robusteness caused the propulsion system to shut down just after 3 seconds from ignition.

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now