Jump to content

ExoMars 2016: on its way to Mars!

Frida Space

By Frida Space
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

Kryten

Kryten

Posted
Posted

Aside from the points above, the basic premise of the 'rumour' is simply wrong. The lander fired for two or three seconds, out of a nominal burn of thirty seconds, so would get about a tenth of the impulse, not a third. Somebody's trying to start an urban legend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Damien_The_Unbeliever

Damien_The_Unbeliever

Posted
Posted

I'd just like to resurrect my original comments from post 4 on this topic:

On 01/12/2015 at 1:48 PM, Scotius said:

I'm kinda bummed about Schiaparelli probe. It seems pointless to haul a piece of equipment, drop it into the atmosphere, then let it die after couple of hours. It's not like Mars is so saturated with science equipment, that another full-fledged probe sitting on the surface would be excessive. Eh, it's all about money i suspect. Also, Russians have a bit of a bad track record with Mars exploration - hopefully this time everything will go as planned :)

 

On 02/12/2015 at 0:37 PM, Damien_The_Unbeliever said:

Yes, but when the whole point is to ask the question "does this landing technique work?", if the answer is no, you've not got a lot of people crying about lost equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Skalou

Skalou

Posted
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, UnionPacific1983WP said:

When I said "the EXACT same problem", I merely meant using the wrong system of measurement. In case anyone was confused.

what is your source?

hey, apparently the same gun who shot mr Kennedy is the one that blown the spaceX rocket on the pad!

Edited by Skalou
Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, UnionPacific1983WP said:

My source is the quote I posted previously, about ft/s being used instead of m/s.

That's not a source. A source is a name. Who said it, and where.

Some "random guy on the internet said, ..."? Random guys on the internet say the moon landing was faked too.

Edited by tater
Link to comment
Share on other sites
YNM

YNM

Posted
Posted (edited)
Spoiler
On 10/24/2016 at 6:40 AM, UnionPacific1983WP said:

Rumor is that it ran into the EXACT same problem the Mars Climate Orbiter did. As quoted from someone else (not on this forum):

Oh really. State your source.

Alright, that all aside...

USA - 7

Rest of the World - 0

Edited by YNM
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tullius

Tullius

Posted
Posted (edited)

The German news site Spiegel.com just posted an article (http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/weltall/exomars-softwarepanne-liess-schiaparelli-abstuerzen-a-1118370.html):

Schiaparelli crashed due to a software problem: An error in the communication between the landing radar and the navigationnal computer caused the computer to think that it has already landed, while it was still 2-4 km up. They are still investigating what the exact cause of the error was.

Edited by Tullius
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KAL 9000

KAL 9000

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, tater said:

First "soft" landing. The probe failed 15 seconds later (which makes you wonder how soft the landing was).

Well, there was a huge dust storm, dry lightning or storm interference may have interfered with the probe's functioning or communications. We did get 1 black-and-white image back from it, although nothing identifiable is in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
tater

tater

Posted
Posted

The probe was a failure, though it might well have landed softly. Had the first Apollo CM smashed down, and the crew died within 15 seconds of landing, that would have been called a failure, too.

Soviet photo:

Mars_3_Image.png

 

First US image from Mars:

pia00381.jpg?itok=hLEqQqDp

Link to comment
Share on other sites
KAL 9000

KAL 9000

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, tater said:

The probe was a failure, though it might well have landed softly. Had the first Apollo CM smashed down, and the crew died within 15 seconds of landing, that would have been called a failure, too.

Soviet photo:

Mars_3_Image.png

 

First US image from Mars:

pia00381.jpg?itok=hLEqQqDp

I just said it might not necessarily have been a hard touchdown. At least its orbiter worked... 

USA - 7 (Viking 1, Viking 2, Pathfinder/Sojourner, Spirit, Opportunity, Phoenix, Curiosity) 

USSR/Russia - 0.5 (landing success, contact lost after 15 seconds, reason unknown) (Mars 3)

ESA - 0.5 (landing success, solar panels did not deploy, antenna could not deploy, lost power after a few days with no science return) (Beagle 2)

Rest of the World - 0

Edited by KAL 9000
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Kryten

Kryten

Posted
Posted

Beagle 2 wasn't really an ESA project, though it was tacked onto an ESA mission; it was all-British. It was essentially treated as an instrument, which are typically provided by single nations for ESA missions, rather than an ESA spacecraft. The resulting lack of oversight was thought to be one of the factors behind the failure, and it's unlikely to happen again anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Diche Bach

Diche Bach

Posted
Posted (edited)

Oh these past couple pages had me smiling! :)

A little bit of "nationalistic competitiveness" can be a _good_ thing eh? Promotes excellence and what-not??

2 hours ago, tater said:

The probe was a failure, though it might well have landed softly. Had the first Apollo CM smashed down, and the crew died within 15 seconds of landing, that would have been called a failure, too.

Soviet photo:

Mars_3_Image.png

 

First US image from Mars:

pia00381.jpg?itok=hLEqQqDp

:D

Anyway . . . it is sad when these things fail but at lest no one died and "space stuff" has not been doomed. We shall carry on!

 

Edited by Diche Bach
typo
Link to comment
Share on other sites
KAL 9000

KAL 9000

Posted
Posted
25 minutes ago, tater said:

The Soviets pwn Venus, however. We all have our "kite eating trees" I suppose.

pwn... Oh, own, got it :wink:. Pioneer Venus Multiprobe, anyone? Anyway, here's a list of USSR/Russia Venus landers:

Venera 3: Actually a flyby probe, it went off course and crashed on the surface of Venus. First artificial object to impact another planet.

Venera 4: Took measurements from the Venusian atmosphere, battery died during descent.

Venera 5 and 6: Took measurements from the Venusian atmosphere, crushed by pressure 18km up.

Venera 7: First successful landing. Last transmission recieved 23 minutes after landing, probably fried or crushed. 

Venera 8: Successful landing, last transmission recieved 50 minutes after landing, probably fried or crushed. 

Venera 9: First photos from Venus' surface. 

Venera 10: Similar mission to Venera 9. 

Venera 11: Science recieved, color camera failure.

Venera 12: Science recieved, color camera failure.

Venera 13: First color photos, science 

Venera 14: Science, more color photos 

Vega 1: Much science

Vega 2: Much science

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PB666

PB666

Posted
Posted
44 minutes ago, Excalibur said:

Update from NASA on Schiaparelli...

 

http://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/further-clues-to-fate-of-mars-lander-seen-from-orbit

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...