ExoMars and Schiaparelli
Discussion
From ESA's website -
"The detailed telemetry recorded by the Trace Gas Orbiter was needed to better understand the situation. At the same time as Schiaparelli's descent, the orbiter was performing a crucial 'Mars Orbit Insertion' manoeuvre – which it completed successfully. This important data were recorded from Schiaparelli and beamed back to Earth in the early hours of Thursday morning.
The data have been partially analysed and confirm that the entry and descent stages occurred as expected, with events diverging from what was expected after the ejection of the back heat shield and parachute. This ejection itself appears to have occurred earlier than expected, but analysis is not yet complete".
"The detailed telemetry recorded by the Trace Gas Orbiter was needed to better understand the situation. At the same time as Schiaparelli's descent, the orbiter was performing a crucial 'Mars Orbit Insertion' manoeuvre – which it completed successfully. This important data were recorded from Schiaparelli and beamed back to Earth in the early hours of Thursday morning.
The data have been partially analysed and confirm that the entry and descent stages occurred as expected, with events diverging from what was expected after the ejection of the back heat shield and parachute. This ejection itself appears to have occurred earlier than expected, but analysis is not yet complete".
Eric Mc said:
I'm wondering how much intensive testing ESA have been doing on their landers. I get the feeling it just hasn't been as rigorous as the testing NASA have done on theirs.
I get that feeling as well Eric. My optimism from yesterday unfounded.Even the representation of the landing sequence from ESA looks rather Micky Mouse compared to ones from NASA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-3767...
Eric Mc said:
As for copying Viking - this lander was not intended to emulate Viking. It was a "proof of technology" device which would only do very limited science.
It proved the technology doesn't work. Why not use technology that DOES work, then you can get on with doing something useful and progressive - like looking for life. I'm getting tired of all these 'hi-tech' software-packed projects that fail because somebody forgot to check something, or divided by 10 instead of 100, or used km instead of miles. It's frankly pathetic.You seem to think that getting to land something on Mars is easy. It's not. The fact that the Vikings worked 40 years ago was a combination of luck and money. The Vikings cost billions back in the early to mid 1970s. Something like Exo Mars is a shoestring operation in comparison. All that testing costs a lot. I think ESA has just underestimated how hard this stuff is.
Their orbiters, on the other hand, work quite well.
Their orbiters, on the other hand, work quite well.
Eric Mc said:
You seem to think that getting to land something on Mars is easy. It's not. The fact that the Vikings worked 40 years ago was a combination of luck and money. The Vikings cost billions back in the early to mid 1970s. Something like Exo Mars is a shoestring operation in comparison.
1970s tech must cost pennies now, pick it up on eBay... No point reinventing the wheel, especially if its replacement is square and breaks easily. But the sad fact is that a generation ago we could do these things, and now we can't. We had the technology but we lost it. Maybe we need a Mars app.Yes we can do those things. Since the two Vikings landed in 1976, we've had 6 additional successful landers/rovers, one static (and five rovers) -
1997 - Pathfinder/Sojourner
2004 - Spirit
2004 - Opportunity (still operating)
2008 - Mars Phoenix Lander
2012 - Curiosity (still operating)
What is noteworthy is that all the successes have been from NASA. The other attempts at landing have been made by the Soviets/Russians and the ESA - and they have all failed.
NASA must be doing something right that the others aren't.
1997 - Pathfinder/Sojourner
2004 - Spirit
2004 - Opportunity (still operating)
2008 - Mars Phoenix Lander
2012 - Curiosity (still operating)
What is noteworthy is that all the successes have been from NASA. The other attempts at landing have been made by the Soviets/Russians and the ESA - and they have all failed.
NASA must be doing something right that the others aren't.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 20th October 16:20
Simpo Two said:
1970s tech must cost pennies now, pick it up on eBay... No point reinventing the wheel, especially if its replacement is square and breaks easily. But the sad fact is that a generation ago we could do these things, and now we can't. We had the technology but we lost it. Maybe we need a Mars app.
ESA did a great job with the Rosetta mission and with Mars it seems around 50% of the missions fail so in someways its shouldn't be a surprise when a landing goes squiffy. Hopefully they will learn what happened and the next mission works. Eric Mc said:
Why not indeed. I'm sure there are some ESA folk who read PH.At the same time, I'm trying to work out what your comment has to do with our chat here.
I respond to your comment on this thread I am sure thats how chat works. Anyway given the 50/50 nature of a successful landing ESA has done a good job, it would be great to see if the lander does wake up or if a photo of the landing site can be obtained. I am sure the team will work long and hard interpreting the Data they have which will hopefully provide more information for successful future missions.
Absolutely they will.
Although Rosetta was overall a very suucessful mission, the one bit that did NOT work the way it should was the Philae lander ( I can see a pattern here). Again, elements of the landing sequence did not do what they were supposed to do
The one outstanding success they have had with a lander was Huygens on Titan.
Although Rosetta was overall a very suucessful mission, the one bit that did NOT work the way it should was the Philae lander ( I can see a pattern here). Again, elements of the landing sequence did not do what they were supposed to do
The one outstanding success they have had with a lander was Huygens on Titan.
Eric Mc said:
Yes we can do those things. Since the two Vikings landed in 1976, we've had 6 additional successful landers/rovers, one static (and five rovers) -
1997 - Pathfinder/Sojourner
2004 - Spirit
2004 - Opportunity (still operating)
2008 - Mars Phoenix Lander
2012 - Curiosity (still operating)
What is noteworthy is that all the successes have been from NASA. The other attempts at landing have been made by the Soviets/Russians and the ESA - and they have all failed.
NASA must be doing something right that the others aren't.
Beagle 2 landed successfully, but failed to deploy it's solar panels correctly blocking it's antenna1997 - Pathfinder/Sojourner
2004 - Spirit
2004 - Opportunity (still operating)
2008 - Mars Phoenix Lander
2012 - Curiosity (still operating)
What is noteworthy is that all the successes have been from NASA. The other attempts at landing have been made by the Soviets/Russians and the ESA - and they have all failed.
NASA must be doing something right that the others aren't.
Edited by Eric Mc on Thursday 20th October 16:20
So it failed because something didn't work right as part of the landing sequence.
When they try to get stuff down onto the surface of planetary bodies they have problems. At the moment it stands at one success and three failures.
Maybe they should practice with our moon - like NASA did with their Surveyor series in the 60s.
When they try to get stuff down onto the surface of planetary bodies they have problems. At the moment it stands at one success and three failures.
Maybe they should practice with our moon - like NASA did with their Surveyor series in the 60s.
Eric Mc said:
Absolutely they will.
Although Rosetta was overall a very suucessful mission, the one bit that did NOT work the way it should was the Philae lander ( I can see a pattern here). Again, elements of the landing sequence did not do what they were supposed to do .
Not sure its a pattern Eric Philea did land and bounced, it was the anchor that didn't hold the craft. Schiaparelli wasn't relying on an anchor and Philea send pictures and Data back so in may ways mission accomplishedAlthough Rosetta was overall a very suucessful mission, the one bit that did NOT work the way it should was the Philae lander ( I can see a pattern here). Again, elements of the landing sequence did not do what they were supposed to do .
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff