ExoMars and Schiaparelli

[AshVX220]

Eric Mc said:

Would like to know what the white spot is that also appears (below what appear to be rocks, again below the black smudge).

[MartG]

AshVX220 said:

Eric Mc said:

Would like to know what the white spot is that also appears (below what appear to be rocks, again below the black smudge).

Parachute/backshell

[CrutyRammers]

Toaster said:

Luck does not come in to it, the orbiter was there. had the capability to take low re images these were processed and the area found where the objects are and will at a later date have a Hi res image taken and processed. Had it taken the images a day later is that 'bad luck'?

So in essence thats not luck thats Science, was it luck or science there is a MRO in orbit anyway? Was it luck or science ESA knew where the lander entered the atmosphere and shared it with NASA (NASA wouldn't have known exactly where it was it still had to be found) .

Next you will be telling us that the MRO controller had a lucky rabbits foot and thats why they spotted it so quickly

Is there anything you won't argue about?

[Toaster]

AshVX220 said:

Would like to know what the white spot is that also appears (below what appear to be rocks, again below the black smudge).

"The bright spot near the lower edge of the enlargement is interpreted as likely to be the lander's parachute, which was deployed and then released during the descent through the Martian atmosphere." said NASA

[Toaster]

CrutyRammers said:

Is there anything you won't argue about?

Nope, its a discussion forum therefore its good to discuss multiple points of view perspectives and alternative thoughts Luck as in this case is not a Scientific process.....so why would anyone take umbrage

Here is a positive view on outcome of the Test Lander https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2016/10/schiaparel...

You know what I would rather see a number of failure's so the scientists and engineers do get it right not just for unmanned but manned missions even Space X needs and will benefit this type of R&D

[Eric Mc]

Do we know when the high resolution images of the crash site will be available?

[MartG]

Article about the crash - says software may be to blame

http://www.nature.com/news/computing-glitch-may-ha...

[annodomini2]

MartG said:

Article about the crash - says software may be to blame

http://www.nature.com/news/computing-glitch-may-ha...

It'll be the usual, HW blames the SW team, SW team blames the HW team.

[Eric Mc]

I was reading the other day on what happened the NASA Mars Polar Express probe - which crashed when attempting to land. The accelerometer on board the craft mistook the jolt of the heatshield jettisoning or the parachute release as being "the landing" and therefore switched off the landing rockets when it was still a few thousand feet up.

Schiaparelli may have suffered a similar fate.

[MartG]

Eric Mc said:

I was reading the other day on what happened the NASA Mars Polar Express probe - which crashed when attempting to land. The accelerometer on board the craft mistook the jolt of the heatshield jettisoning or the parachute release as being "the landing" and therefore switched off the landing rockets when it was still a few thousand feet up.

Schiaparelli may have suffered a similar fate.

Sounds plausible - jolt from rockets firing mistakenly interpreted as touchdown

[TankRizzo]

Eric Mc said:

I was reading the other day on what happened the NASA Mars Polar Express probe - which crashed when attempting to land. The accelerometer on board the craft mistook the jolt of the heatshield jettisoning or the parachute release as being "the landing" and therefore switched off the landing rockets when it was still a few thousand feet up.

Schiaparelli may have suffered a similar fate.

Wasn't the entry plan though to switch off the rockets when it was a couple of metres off the ground and "fall" the rest of the way? Would have relied on an altimeter then and not an accelerometer...?

[Eric Mc]

Maybe. I don't know.

The jolt could have caused damage anyway - which stopped the rockets from working.

[MartG]

Eric Mc said:

Do we know when the high resolution images of the crash site will be available?

Now

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id...

[Eric Mc]

Thank you.

I think the technical term for that is a"splat".

[MartG]

Yup

[Eric Mc]

And now in glorious technicolour -



Those bright objects they weren't sure about in the black and white image definitely seem to be real and not "noise" as originally thought. They are probably bits of the casing or insulation blasted away when the lander exploded on impact.

[MartG]

New information on what went wrong

http://gizmodo.com/a-crazy-miscalculation-doomed-t...

[Eric Mc]

Begs the question - if they can replicate this scenario NOW using their simulators - why didn't they pick this up in simulations runs BEFORE they attempted to land for real?

As I said earlier, this will probably have been down to insufficient testing.

[davepoth]

Eric Mc said:

Begs the question - if they can replicate this scenario NOW using their simulators - why didn't they pick this up in simulations runs BEFORE they attempted to land for real?

As I said earlier, this will probably have been down to insufficient testing.

So the root cause would appear to be hubris then?

[Eric Mc]

More like insufficient funds allocated for testing and running extensive simulations.