When I was in Washington a couple of weeks ago for ICCC6,
I took the family to the National Air and Space Museum on the mall. While everyone was gazing at rockets and other bus-sized hardware of glory days past, off in the corner I noticed this, roped off, without a placard even:
What was it? A full sized mockup of the new Mars Science Lab explorer known as Curiosity. Apparently, it would serve as a backdrop to this announcement I found out later.
About the size of a Jeep, it looked ready to rumble on the red planet. I figured they would use the air bag bouncy deployment system that worked so well for Spirit and Opportunity, just super-sized.
But after learning a bit more about how Curiosity will be landed, and watching a video from NASA JPL on the mission sequencing, I was surprised to learn they weren’t using that method, but rather a series of mechanical, dangling drops by wire, and rocket maneuvers, that look more than a bit worrying due to the complex synchronization that must occur. Watch this video:
This artist’s concept animation depicts key events of NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory mission, which will launch in late 2011 and land a rover, Curiosity, on Mars in August 2012.
My view: there’s a lot more that can go wrong. One thruster rocket failure, or a tangled drop wire, is all it would take to doom the mission. Mars is known for eating missions, with an over 50% failure rate, so adding to the complexity during landing, especially that dangling rover under a hovering rocket, looks mighty failure-prone.
More on the mission here at NASA JPL.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
And how are they planning to get all those whooshing and sputting and popping sounds in the vacuum of space?
It’ll never work, I tell ya.
It’s basically the same way Phoenix probe has already successfully used for landing – but Phoenix was not mobile so all the balast in empty tanks and no longer useful thrusters did not matter. For a rover it’s better if they are detached for further operation.
Sound-effects in space really get under my skin!
As an engineer I am constantly amazed at how my fellows take a perfectly good system, proven to work, and “improve” it.
Rube Goldberg works for NASA now?
You are assuming they actually mean to implement the Curiosity mission. I’ll believe it when I see it. The way things are now, I wouldn’t be surprised if the exhibit were not just an imaginative display, done to soothe starry-eyed visitors and keep the public from realizing just how far they are going to be pulling in their horns, with regard to further space adventures. Or maybe they will do it, but subconsciously want it to fail, and so make awkward plans as you point out — it is hard to tell, with their mental state looking so lame, and their reason for being having been suborned to the latest political cash-cow (“global warming”). Obama is presiding over a third-class mindset of haplessness, social injustice and perennial victimhood of most “folks” (as he calls us, not realizing in his cluelessness that the “f” word begins to resemble the “n” word, with both now meaning “victims”, to those who don’t remember “ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country”).
Curiosity is five times the mass of Spirit or Opportunity. Plutonium is heavy. That’s why the airbag thing will not work for this mission. They cannot be scaled up to match the size of curiosity and still fit in the launcher.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-19514_3-20013105-239.html
Jems tPL have certainly forgotten KISS– Keep It Simple Stupid.
Too many inherant problems to cause failure. Another $5B lost.
Looks as though they are test-bedding tech for a manned landing as well as putting the probe down. Too many targets on one mission?
Let’s hope Walowitz isn’t driving it.
Heath Robinson would be proud.
Seems like a long way to fly for muslim outreach. Has NASA lost its way?
The Great Galactic Ghoul (http://www.authorsabroad.com/uploads/images/GG%20Front%20Cover%20lo%20res.jpg) is generally credited with the loss of so many Mars missions.
I share your concern about the sky crane, especially with no way to test it in a realistic Martian gravity scenario. “Works first time” is not a plan. I wish Curiosity the best, but I’m also glad that Opportunity is still roving and is within weeks of stealing Curiosity’s thunder by finding the first phyllosilicates on Mars, at Endeavour Crater.
Just getting it there in the first place… what’s a little tight- wire act at the end?
But really, the big deal is- just think of all of the carbon pollution from planning- to- launch. We continue to exploit the atmosphere, but think of the poor developing nations which should be receiving the money, instead. Why is NASA still reaching into space? Isn’t their mission to reach out to the developing Muslim world, instead?
How dare they?!
/
Is Curiosity a ‘shovel ready project’?
With the NASA confusion over FPS and MKS expect it to land at a few meters per second rather than feet per second – then they won’t need any shovels.
Mr. Murphy will have the final say on this project.
Sadly, some folks can’t have a serious discussion of a NASA mission, of ANY type, without dredging up pointless canards like “muslim outreach”.
This program was under development long before the current administration and is scheduled for launch this Fall. I believe it is currently going through launch vehicle integration and testing.
I agree with those who feel the complexity of the launch sequence is worrisome, but as Symon notes this is a much larger vehicle. I’m hoping the engineers dotted their i’s and crossed their t’s.
Re: the sounds in space. Most Americans have no idea how laughable this is, and would probably complain about “no sound!” during most of the video. NASA is trying, I guess, to do a better job of PR to the masses, so “sounds in space” is what we get…
Now that NASA has adopted the metric system, what could go wrong?
“NASA lost a 125 million Mars orbiter because one engineering team used metric units while another used English units for a key spacecraft operation…”
Assessment of NASA’s Use of the Metric Systemhttp://oig.nasa.gov/old/inspections_assessments/g-00-021.pdf
Oh wait…
“NASA criticised for sticking to imperial units”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17350-nasa-criticised-for-sticking-to-imperial-units.html
They want to reduce the weight of the rover by jettisoning the rocket assembly. They have traded the complexity of the bouncing balloon for the cable descent. Not sure the cable descent is inherently more complex.
Mr. Goldberg would be proud.
It seems to me unlikely to be funded, but if it ever is, they should re-think the landing: too much risk of a (very expensive) crash and burn.
>Sound-effects in space really get under my skin!<
Because 2001: A Space Odyssey was so technically accurate? A movie that showed a moon bus cruising laterally over the surface, rather than making parabolic hops? A movie that showed fill light in the shadows a Discovery out in deep space? A movie that showed the suspended animation beds in the accelerated living area, rather than the free-fall area of the ship, which would wear less on the sleepers?
If you scream in space, does anyone hear your screams?
at least you will know when it contacts the surface of Mars.
…because the transmissions will stop.
[Snip. Use of the d-word is not tolerated here. Read the site Policy. ~dbs, mod.]