A hypothesis on the failure of Mars 3

[Maria Sirona]

So. For context, Mars 3 was a soviet spaceprobe that was launched in the same launch window with Mariner 9. It was the first human spacecraft (nlt Viking 1, it only landed in june 16th 1976, as opposed to Mars 3's 3.12.1971) to land on the surface of Mars, completely functional- although it lost contact ~20 seconds after touchdown- which brings us to my hypothesis.

Could Mars 3 have lost contact due to being buried by a sandstorm, as its landing just so happened to be during the largest ever sandstorm on Mars?

[kerbiloid]

It worked from batteries.

Among the versions there is a corona discharge from the dust static electricity.

[darthgently]

In all my electronics hacking around I can easily imagine damage on impact that would have a 20 second delay until failure as it could have taken time for something to overheat after a short circuit or similar from impact.   Battery damage could definitely cause a pattern like this; like an internal short.  How many times have you smelled something burning electrically in a car or other for many seconds but all seemed to be functioning fine for quite some time?  But who knows?  It could have been a sandstorm, but 20 seconds seems too fast for getting buried in sand in my view

[Maria Sirona]

17 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

It worked from batteries

I mean it would've been buried deep enough that the signal couldn't have gotten through, or maybe the sand broke the antennas. 

 

1 minute ago, darthgently said:

  It could have been a sandstorm, but 20 seconds seems too fast for getting buried in sand in my view

That martian sandstorm engulfed the entire planet. The martian sandstorms are just crazy!

[DDE]

39 minutes ago, Maria Sirona said:

it would've been buried deep enough

Quite unlikely.

[Maria Sirona]

Just now, DDE said:

Quite unlikely.

 

Wind blowing the dust off afterwards?

[kerbiloid]

Spoiler

 

[magnemoe]

3 hours ago, darthgently said:

In all my electronics hacking around I can easily imagine damage on impact that would have a 20 second delay until failure as it could have taken time for something to overheat after a short circuit or similar from impact.   Battery damage could definitely cause a pattern like this; like an internal short.  How many times have you smelled something burning electrically in a car or other for many seconds but all seemed to be functioning fine for quite some time?  But who knows?  It could have been a sandstorm, but 20 seconds seems too fast for getting buried in sand in my view

Agree, some damage or short circuit who let it work for an short time before failing, Seen that many times. 

[kerbiloid]

Twenty seconds... Just twenty...

That's how much does it take on Mars to get your parked car gone.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Twenty seconds... Just twenty...

That's how much does it take on Mars to get your parked car gone.

Mars, not Moscow; where even the police will steal your car.

On Mars they just strip it for parts.

[Maria Sirona]

Also, it is worthy of mention that the 20 seconds is not a definitive number. I may be unintentionally exaggerating, but according to different sources the time Mars 3 functioned on Mars' surface varies between 14 and 30 seconds.

[darthgently]

4 hours ago, Maria Sirona said:

That martian sandstorm engulfed the entire planet. The martian sandstorms are just crazy!

Oh yeah, getting covered is easy to imagine.  Getting covered in 20 seconds is harder for me to imagine.  And considering the craft just smacked into the ground it just seems like the more salient factor to me.  Maybe someday we will have actual people collecting it and taking it back to a Mars Research Station for failure analysis.  That would be so very cool

[Maria Sirona]

3 minutes ago, darthgently said:

back to a Mars Research Station for failure analysis.  That would be so very cool

Yep

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

5 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Oh yeah, getting covered is easy to imagine.  Getting covered in 20 seconds is harder for me to imagine.  And considering the craft just smacked into the ground it just seems like the more salient factor to me.  Maybe someday we will have actual people collecting it and taking it back to a Mars Research Station for failure analysis.  That would be so very cool

I don't think Martian Sandstorms can cover something like that in any short time.  While epic, planetary covering storms have been talked about, they should be kept in context; the atmosphere is so thin that it really can't carry haboob levels of sand/dust sufficient to cover much.

Edited March 30, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Maria Sirona]

34 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

can't carry haboob levels of sand/dust sufficient to cover much.

Well, the Mars 3 landing module was 1,2 meters in diameter.

[kerbiloid]

It had four long antennas.

Edited March 30, 2022 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

13 minutes ago, Maria Sirona said:

Well, the Mars 3 landing module was 1,2 meters in diameter.

Given the time since landing, I could believe it might be covered if in a dune forming region.  However, given the atmosphere and literal volume of dust... unlikely, even in a year, unless landed in one of the natural places where dust  or sand forms dunes.

Otherwise, it would likely have been repeatedly deposited then scrubbed from around the base of the lander.

dune | National Geographic Society

Edited March 30, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[kerbiloid]

The first life evidence to be found on Mars is numerous bones of Martian camels, whose caravans were buried by the Martian dust storms.

[Hannu2]

It is not possible to be buried in Martian sandstorm. Air density on Mars is very low and mass of dust is negligible. Later probes have been there through several sandstorm seasons and suffered only with some decrease in solar power production. Few micrometers of fine dust can cause that.

Landing damage is much more plausible reason.

[kerbiloid]

1 minute ago, Hannu2 said:

It is not possible to be buried in Martian sandstorm. Air density on Mars is very low and mass of dust is negligible.

If the Martian air was enough dense to let the Martian camels breath, the Martian sandstorms were definitely able to bury them in the dunes.

[Hannu2]

3 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

If the Martian air was enough dense to let the Martian camels breath, the Martian sandstorms were definitely able to bury them in the dunes.

I am sure that Martian camels have evolved to float over sand dunes during millions of years they have lived on planet. Or maybe they have learned to burrow tunnels and live underground. It may explain why they are so rarely seen in orbiter's photos.

 

[kerbiloid]

1 hour ago, Hannu2 said:

I am sure that Martian camels have evolved to float over sand dunes during millions of years they have lived on planet. Or maybe they have learned to burrow tunnels and live underground. It may explain why they are so rarely seen in orbiter's photos.

 

There were Martian lakes, it's proven.

Some of them were oases.

[Gargamel]

Ahem

 

[StrandedonEarth]

Did the probe have to deploy anything after landing? Maybe a wire snagged and got pulled loose or broken…. Yes, ground testing should have shown a problem, but launch and landing can shake things around…

Failure analysis would be interesting, for sure. 

I wonder if there’s enough left of the other crashed probes to find the fault, although I think most causes are already understood. It would be nice to verify, though

Edited March 31, 2022 by StrandedonEarth
What, me proofread before posting? Nah…

[kerbiloid]

56 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

Did the probe have to deploy anything after landing?

It fully opened like a flower and spat out a mini-rover.