How hard is it to land on mars?

[RayneCloud]

!

[Cthulufaic]

It might actually be easier if we aerobrake twice. The first will be at a shallower angle, slow down enough to be significantly slower than escape velocity, shoot back

out of the atmosphere, wait in space for a while, drop back into the atmosphere at a steeper angle, THEN deploy the parachute and do the skycrane thing.

It may just work.

[popeter123]

you have to take in to acount that nerly all mars lander had no popultion system to slow them down in space

[Candre]

Solution: add more boosters parachutes!

Chulufaic\'s idea has some promise, but I usually over-engineer my rockets enough so that I don\'t have to worry about fuel.

[RayneCloud]

It might actually be easier if we aerobrake twice. The first will be at a shallower angle, slow down enough to be significantly slower than escape velocity, shoot back

out of the atmosphere, wait in space for a while, drop back into the atmosphere at a steeper angle, THEN deploy the parachute and do the skycrane thing.

It may just work.

I didn\'t know you were a NASA Engineer?

[colmo]

It might actually be easier if we aerobrake twice. The first will be at a shallower angle, slow down enough to be significantly slower than escape velocity, shoot back

out of the atmosphere, wait in space for a while, drop back into the atmosphere at a steeper angle, THEN deploy the parachute and do the skycrane thing.

It may just work.

It would also increase margin of error for the landing site - given they have an exact spot in mind, not desirable to miss it.

[Cruisix]

The problem that rises first before we, read the world, try out mars landings on a more periodic scale is the time we take to get there. Let\'s sort that out first and then worry about landings. Pretty much rinse and repeat the moon landings but focus on propulsion towards Mars first before anything else.

Just my humble opinion ofcourse.. I want to see more Mars as any other space enthousiast.

[MaverickSawyer]

How hard is it to land on Mars?

Short answer: VERY.

Long Answer: We just don\'t have enough experience to declare a technique to be 'successful'. Airbags have been used three times with success, once (at least) without success. Rocket propelled descents have been used three times with good results, once with unknown results.

The 'skycrane' is new, unusual, and very risky. But if it works, (and I hope to :probe: it does), it will open up all sorts of options.

[Kryten]

Rocket propelled descents have been used three times with good results, once with unknown results.

Four times. Don\'t forget Mars 2 3.

[colmo]

Pretty much rinse and repeat the moon landings but focus on propulsion towards Mars first before anything else.

Untrue - crucially, Mars has an atmosphere. The video about Curiosity covers this - to paraphrase 'there\'s just enough atmosphere that we can\'t ignore it or it would destroy the ship, but there isn\'t enough to \'get the job done\''

That\'s why they need a heat-shielded module, parachutes (to deal with and make use of the atmosphere) and the skycrane (because it\'s very thin, can\'t slow the craft enough to land). The Moon could probably be done with just the skycrane.

In KSP, a Marsesque planet would be a devilish landing (especially when they introduce atmospheric entry heat) for these reasons.

[Cthulufaic]

I didn\'t know you were a NASA Engineer?

I got the idea from Red Mars, although in the book they were putting a giant 100 crew station into orbit, complete with landers and such.

It would also increase margin of error for the landing site - given they have an exact spot in mind, not desirable to miss it.

Well too bad, they want to land on Mars? Fine. They want to land on Mars in a fashionable spot that is found in large sections of the planet? Good luck with that NASA (Or the ESA)

[colmo]

I got the idea from Red Mars, although in the book they were putting a giant 100 crew station into orbit, complete with landers and such.

That was a great trilogy, though there was some trippy weird religious stuff in it.

Well too bad, they want to land on Mars? Fine. They want to land on Mars in a fashionable spot that is found in large sections of the planet? Good luck with that NASA (Or the ESA)

Mars\' surface is not homogenous. I recently did an assignment (Open University) arguing why the Eberswalde Crater would be a good target for a rover mission (it has a fossilised river delta!!!), complete with landing site and suggested route. Miss your target by even a few kms, and you\'ve just added maybe a year to the mission.

This article explains why the Gale Crater was chosen for Curiosity.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110623/full/news.2011.380.html

This documentary shows just how important it is for the rovers to end up in the right place:

http://video.nationalgeographic.com/video/national-geographic-channel/all-videos/av-11190-11390/ngc-death-of-a-mars-rover/

[Blizzy]

what happens to the crane itself... does it just 'crash' somewhere?

[Cthulufaic]

what happens to the crane itself... does it just 'crash' somewhere?

It does, exploding a quite a few millions of dollars in the process.

[colmo]

It does, exploding a quite a few millions of dollars in the process.

To be fair, millions of dollars that have done their job and is never likely to be useful again. The important thing is it doesn\'t crash on the rover!

[Spearka]

i suggest land it...LIKE A PLANE

[LukeTim]

i suggest land it...LIKE A PLANE

Surely with an atmosphere as thin as Mars\' you\'d need absolutely massive wings in order to generate any net lift.

[Kryten]

You\'d also need to land in an area not covered in boulders, which are not exactly common on Mars.

[PeriapsisPrograde]

It\'s hard enough if you assume that everything will work. If we have learned anything from previous flights, Murphy likes to hitch a ride on spacecraft.