MSL Heads Toward a Risky Landing on Mars (Update)
For NASA’s Huge Mars Rover, Stakes High for Landing Success, Space.com
“There’s no doubt that the MSL rover is a high-stakes Mars mission. As one high-ranking NASA Mars mission leader recently said: “We know it will land … but the only question is how fast will it be going?”
NASA MSL Teleconference
“NASA will host a media teleconference at noon EDT, June 11, to provide a status update on the Aug. 5, 2012, landing of the most advanced rover ever to be sent to Mars.”
Keith’s note: MSL has been in the development pipeline for a long time. Indeed it was supposed to have flown 2 years ago but cost overruns/delays forced a postponemnt. In other words, NASA Has had a lot of time to think ahead beyond MSL – and what to do if something goes wrong. When I asked NASA SMD a few months back if they had a plan for what to do if MSL does not make a sucessful landing, the answer was “there is no plan”. No back up. No Plan B.
Keith’s update: Contrary to what SMD has told me before, Dave Lavery says that a contingency plan is being put in place for a variety of scenarios that MSL might have to encounter- including mission failure. PAO says that they will try and release some of that plan. It a little odd that they are still working on this plan will MSL is en route to Mars given how close they were to launching MSL several years ago. Also, Michael Meyer said that if MSL is lost that “certainly a second MSL (maybe not identical) should be built an flown since having a mobile laboratory on the surface of Mars is very important” to future missions including sample return.
– NASA’s Out of Date Search for Life on Mars, earlier post
– MSL Was Launched WIth Incomplete and Flawed Software, earlier post
– JPL’s Overruns and Gutting Mars Exploration, earlier post
Keith – what type of a backup or plan B did you have in mind?
You pick up the pieces (figuratively), get over it, and move on.
To paraphrase an old Apollo era saying: if your PI is sleeping well at night, then you’re not trying hard enough.
According to NASA they do not even have a plan on how to pick up the pieces. Never did.
The last bit is redundant. If they ever did have one, then they most certainly would have it now, wouldn’t they?
But I ask again, since I’m having a generally good Monday morning and this thread doesn’t fit in:
What type of a backup or plan B did you have in mind?
What type of a backup or plan B did you have in mind?
Crossing fingers?
I will be asking NASA SMD about this in 13 minutes.
So, (listening to the audio conference) the plan is to try to figure out anything that could go wrong during the trip and landing and try to find ways to mitigate the risks through alternate procedures, training, and etc. If MSL splatters on Mars then the backup plan is to try and launch a new one.
Not an exciting plan but one we could have all guessed.
Launch a new Mars Rover that can pick up one of the wheels from MSL and haul it over to Spirit and get her going again… Then continue with 3 operational rovers 🙂
Backup plans for a failed landing, I would say, could only involve operating those MSL components which survived the landing, even if the unit as a whole remained stationary. In other words, get what you still can, if anything. If the telemetry survives and the on-board software is capable of accepting new commands to control any surviving hardware, then there may still be limited possibilities for the mission. It all comes down to what, if anything, does survive.
However, this sort of “backup” has to be planned for and accommodated right from the start of the design process; you can’t really make it happen after the fact (except by dumb luck). If there was a backup or contingency plan for a failed landing, it would have been in place since early on. If they don’t have one, then it would be foolish, in my opinion, to simply send another identical MSL. Success and failure have one thing in common — only if you plan for them do they go well.
Steve
“what type of a backup or plan B did you have in mind?”
He was probably thinking they’d bring forward the launch of the second one.
You know, the second of the rovers in the MSL program…
The ones that they built for $2.5 billion…
Obviously no one in their right mind would spend that much and throw away the tooling and experience without building more than one…
They… built more than one… right?…
Right?!
Oh god! What have they done… what have they done?
Deleted be author
Plan B: Launch a Nuke at the Galactic Ghoul that lives just beyond Mars. The darn critter has been gobbling up probes since the 60’s.
Part of the problem is landing a one ton vehicle on Mars and still maintain unit integrity. Thus, the Rube Goldberg contraption that will lower it to the ground from a hovering rocket platform. I am one nervous space fan.
I try to tell people how difficult it is to land large (and still functioning) payoads on Mars and it just goes right by them. Eventually, we want to land large multi-ton payloads on Mars, accurately and precisely. That will take some practice. And oh, BTW, not too many organizations can do it. It’s kind of an exclusive club right now.
Ralphy,
Every new method tried is more data and more knowledge gained. No one with a clue really thinks it’s easy, but continuing to try (and retry) various methods is the only way to learn.
Steve
Currently, the only successful ways to land things on other planets is parachute, powered descent, and bouncing with balls. This would be a new and good way to land heavy equipment on another planet.
That makes it worth doing in my book.
Wish them lots of luck too.
What weight payload do you think a dragon can land on mars.
No clue here hoping to learn.
Also is there a plus to putting a mars lander in orbit first if you used your sheild and aero breaked to orbit???
What is the different from mars orbital velocity and the velocity of directly coming in from earth.
Is Earp breaking much of a plus or not? And about how much.
I think what they are trying to do is incredible and like Paul. I so not understand why they didn’t build several with all that money spent on tooling.
And I’m wondering if the dragon approach is better or not. Anyway if you know the answers to any of my questions sure would appresiate learning any of the above.
Thanks
It’s payload launch capability in total that counts. The present Falcon 9 configuration that recently launched IIRC, has a LEO payload cap. at about 10 tons. What it would be for a BEO to Mars, I don’t know. Maybe somebody with a highr grade point average than me can answer? I do know the payload cap. must include the landing aparatus for Mars so that’s not net payload we’re talking about.
Wish them lots of luck too.
What weight payload do you think a dragon can land on mars?
No clue here hoping to learn.
Also is there a plus to putting a mars lander in orbit first if you used your sheild and aerobrake to orbit??? to reduce your speed to increase payload to the surface to have a simpler design than MSL
What is the difference from mars orbital velocity and the velocity of directly coming in from earth?
Is aero braking much of a plus or not? And about how much?
I think what they are trying to do is incredible and like Paul, I so do not understand why they didn’t build several with all that money spent on tooling.
And I’m wondering if the dragon approach is better or not. Anyway if you know the answers to any of my questions sure would appreciate learning any of the above.
I have suggested using a dragon with a fall away heat shield and a floor hatch to deliver a rover as big as dragons weight and shielding area could possible deliver. I would let the dragon landed then lower the vehicle I think. Is that a credible idea?
Another idea is to have wheels on a dragon once landed and use it as a mobile factory letting it be the rover.
Thanks
Isn’t this exactly the type of bold, full-commitment thinking that people (including this site) frequently demand of NASA?
Sometimes there’s only one chance to get it right, and the only way to accomplish your goal is to commit and “don’t look down”.
Some things just don’t allow for a safety net (often the most impressive things), and in those moments the increased risk can steel your resolve and push you to amazing performances.
“Failure is not an option” sounds like a great slogan until you realize that it sometimes seems to mean that NASA doesn’t consider the possibility of failure.
That being said, I go along with others who wonder what sort of “Plan B” you want? Whatever it is, it’s going to require money that NASA doesn’t currently have.
It’s way too late now. The time to develop a Plan B was after the test program for the brand-new landing system. Except, oops, this landing system has never been tested: the Mars attempt will be the first full-up test of it. Good luck with that.
I would really appreciate hearing more opinions from engineers about this. On the one hand the EDL sequence sounds risky to the point of crazy. On the other hand, so did the EDLs for the MERS, and they worked perfectly.
I was thinking about the MERS when I started reading your part about being crazy. To think you would have an expensive lander bouncing around inside a bunch of rubber balls. Crazy talk!
I like it from the aspect that they’re thinking outside the box. Like SpaceX with their LAS, I wish MSL well! Both risky and untried, but if they work, they will be a big gain in experience.
The full-up landing system was never tested on Earth. Sending it to Mars with a $2 billion mission depending upon it was insanity. But gosh, we saved millions by not testing it; just like with Hubble.
This business about MSL being “untested” is just dumb, and naive. We tested what we thought we could, and didn’t do the tests that would not have been relevant to Mars. Know how much it would have cost to do a fullup test in 0.4G and Mars atmospheric presure? Yeah, we could pump out the VAB and put it in a semi-parabolic trajectory.
For landings on other worlds, we don’t EVER do “full-up” tests. Get used to it. Got any shots of the Apollo LEM doing a “full-up” landing? Thought not.
Thanks for the correction. Where are the films of the test article slowing itself under rocket power from freefall to a hover, and then winching its half-tonne payload to the ground?
As Hobart and others ahve said, how would you do that? It’s designed to work under .4G. where on Earth can you do that? It _can’t_ work at 1G, it isn’t powerful/strong enough. THere isn’t that much margin and there can’t be if it is to be mass efficient getting to Mars. It scares the bejeezuzs out of me as a spacecraft mechanisms engineer, but there is _no_ way to test it.
Paul
Gosh. They’re out at the 0.4G evacuated 1 km high test stand. Where did you think they’d be? Pay attention!
Let me elaborate. For Mars, and end-to-end EDL test is not possible on Earth. As a result, a lot of sims are used in the validation and verification process. These sims have to be properly grounded in the results of past flight projects. As Paul says, that’s just what you HAVE TO DO. Yes, it’s scary, but that’s what good engineering is about.
The analogy to Hubble is flat out wrong. Hubble *was* tested, but the tests were done incorrectly. The testing error was verified after the mirror figure problem was identified. Did you want to take Hubble out and look at a star in the parking lot? Because of atmospheric turbulence, that kind of test really wouldn’t have clearly identified the problem it had.
End-to-end tests are for those with enormously deep pockets, and a lack of trust in skilled engineering.
Hubble *was* tested, but the tests were done incorrectly.
Actually, according to the HST failure report, the tests were performed correctly, but engineers reviewing the data failed to understand the significance of the test data.
http://www.ssl.berkeley.edu…
End-to-end tests are for those with enormously deep pockets, and a lack of trust in skilled engineering.
It is not a question of trust. People make mistakes.
Although an end-to-end system level test for HST was cost prohibitive, there were some simpler gross tests that would have caught the problem before lauch. Unfortunately, due to schedule and budget pressures, these were deemed unnecessary since the previous tests were judged acceptable, which was in error.
“The error in the HST’s mirror occurred because the optical test used in this process was not set up correctly; thus the surface was polished into the wrong shape.”
Allen Report
Executive Summary
Well, here are some tests and reviews I found in a minute-
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
http://www.youtube.com/watc…
http://www.universetoday.co…
The last one has the payload dropping down for you. Sorry no rocket powered tests (see other comments).
“certainly a second MSL (maybe not identical) should be built and flown…”
Does anyone think JPL will will get a chance to crash and burn another multi-billion rover with this sky crane contraption if it fails? No.
There is nothing so special that JPL does that could not be moved to another NASA center. That’s probably the realistic Plan B.
No other NASA
No other center, no other agency, no other Space-X wet dream has ever landed on the surface of Mars. That doesn’t mean JPL would get a second chance, but they are the undisputed experts at doing this.
And I do believe that there is something oh so special about landing something on Mars.
Yes – and JPL crashed two spacecraft in a row into Mars in 1999 – one of them was not even a lander. Experts indeed.
In all fairness, I think that can really be blamed on the faster, better, cheaper mantra handed down to them from a certain Administrator, not the team themselves. They were not happy about this interference in their work.
Steve
If I recall, there is no more Plutonium for another generator available. Besides, do you want to take a chance on sending a second generator to potentially crash and burn? Between the lax early Soviet launches (that crashed) and even our own (which left generators), I daresay we have contaminated Mars enough, both radiologically and organically.
I just can’t believe that NASA would launch MSL with an untested landing system. It appears its a suicide mission where where all the “dices” have been rolled. This was done at taxpayers expense. During all the delays and cost overruns, you’d think that testing out the system would be one of the main tasks before launching it. If this fails, then heads will roll.
Bobby,
Apparently you didn’t read the article, which points out the obvious — there is no way to test this completed landing system on Earth, or anywhere else but Mars. All of the individual components/systems of the landing system were tested separately on Earth; the most that could be done was done. No suicides, no rolling heads.
Steve
…no rolling heads.
Although JPL probably did as much as possible to test the system, I don’t think the politicians in Congress will want to hear excuses if the thing fails badly. Blood will need to be spilled.
The plates at some other NASA centers aren’t very full, and it is not unimaginable that future Mars missions, if there are any, would shift there regardless of their technical expertise or lack thereof.
“Blood will need to be spilled.“
I disagree very strongly. Congress people are not competent to judge the science and engineering, and rely on the experts at NASA and the aerospace companies to do the specialist work. Any politician who would insist on “blood”, or any other punishment is a fool and part of a sick system. You sound like you almost accept this sort of thinking as normal. There was no negligence or other dereliction of duty, just hard-working people making the first-ever attempt to do something very difficult — land that much delicate mass autonomously without damage on another planet. It is a challenge that will have to be met with success, if not this time then in the future, and it’s still a learning process. Do you think anyone in Congress would try to deny these facts, in effect calling the JPL engineers liars?
As for moving planetary science programs to other NASA centers, I can see it being discussed, even proposed, but I would hate to see it happen, and I doubt that it will. Anybody who took the time to examine JPL/CalTech’s planetary science record over the last 40 years and compare it to the records of the other NASA centers (or anyone else on the planet) will see the obvious, that their successful accomplishments and dedication to their work with planetary science programs are unmatched. And a basic rule of success is that you always go with your strengths.
And besides, if MSL lands intact all of these comments are going to look silly.
Steve
Gonzo,
“Blood will need to be spilled.“
I disagree very strongly. Congress people are not competent to judge the science and engineering, and rely on the experts at NASA and the aerospace companies to do the specialist work. Any politician who would insist on “blood”, or any other punishment is a fool and part of a sick system. You sound like you almost accept this sort of thinking as normal. There was no negligence or other dereliction of duty, just hard-working people making the first-ever attempt to do something very difficult — land that much delicate mass autonomously without damage on another planet. It is a challenge that will have to be met with success, if not this time then in the future, and it’s still a learning process. Do you think anyone in Congress would try to deny these facts, in effect calling the JPL engineers liars?
As for moving planetary science programs to other NASA centers, I can see it being discussed, even proposed, but I would hate to see it happen, and I doubt that it will. Anybody who took the time to examine JPL/CalTech’s planetary science record over the last 40 years and compare it to the records of the other NASA centers (or anyone else on the planet) will see the obvious, that their successful accomplishments and dedication to their work with planetary science programs are unmatched.
And besides, if MSL lands intact all of these comments are going to look silly.
Steve
Ah the MSL. Another NASA vanity project that never should have happened.
Getting a second MSL if this one is lost? Is Dr. Meyer for real? It’s the funniest thing I’ve heard all month. Thanks to the Vanity Project Trinity of Doom – the SLS, the JWST and the MSL – there isn’t money to put anything else on the surface of Mars for another decade. But apparently if HIS robot crashes and burns, well… that’s different. In this case, an exception can be made, right?
I said it in the other thread. The problem at NASA is the people. Dr. Meyer, if god forbid the MSL crashes and burns, the correct solution is to economically modernize and launch another set of MERs. How you justified one nuclear power rover with an untested landing system at one site over three or four evolved versions of a rover that that has worked for years at three or four different sites is beyond me. To get a full picture of Martian geology and history, you’d need to cast a wide net. That means lots of Rovers lots of place. Instead, we’re really getting a robotic expedition to a single crater.
And the best part is, despite its array of cutely named tools, it doesn’t have a drill that can bore down a meter or two… you know, the one tool that might be actually useful on a nuclear powered mobile research laboratory. No… that’s being saved for some mission years in the future… for some reason.
NASA makes it so easy to be cynical about what they do with programs like this. It’s almost like the Mars Exploration Office is intentionally dragging out doing the obvious thing so that there is always “a next mission”.
But one day I’d love to get a straight answer as to why one nuclear powered rover with unproven technology at once site makes more sense than 3-4 upgraded versions of the proven MER at 3-4 sites, for the same cost. Because I suppose that the MSL’s successor is going to be an entirely new one-off rover as well, rather than saving costs and time by improving upon a platform with a track record.
I preferred reflying the MER’s too at the time, in order to widen the sample base to more sites. But in no way was that cheap either – the team for that wasn’t kept together, nor the technology base. Like it or not, Mars rovers are “one offs”.
The question is, how big does it need to scale … to become ideal for its purpose. There’s a good argument to be made that the MERs aren’t effective enough due to scale and power planning. Note that the “cleaning” events are chaotic in nature, so how much can you depend on them?
Oh, and the rover “back up” … anyone remember MAX-C?
add:
Paul – Just because modern NASA keeps choosing that path, doesn’t mean Mars rovers must be “one offs
Not just that – we learn a lot too that forces revision … like thermal management and weight distribution (CG and traction). Sometimes design needs to evolve.
My issue was that solar and battery technology was a better choice for longer miles than nuclear (as consituted). Remember that from the time you assemble an RTG/other, decay rate starts. So if you don’t fly for 2+ more years, you lose that power – too costly to “recharge” before flight.
The advantage with nuclear may be being able to drive at night or without having to plan against insolation. SO you can be busier. We’ll see. I’m also wary of the choice of nuclear being effective on a lander – more modern uses of nuclear energy with less/no flight history could be 10x better.
It’s just the current management philosophy at JPL and NASA in general.
No discounting that. And politics.
Incremental development …
Preaching to the choir here. You also forgot the part about using off the shelf / consumer tech too.
To be fair, much was learned too about how to build a “frame” on MER’s. You might also want to have more than one concept that you concurrently develop, and “compete” – this means that if one advances and another falls back, you change flight order or scale down launcher – you are more adaptable.
Problem with selling adaptability in this political environment is it makes you a target. That’s truely you’re root issue here.
And if you have a proven design, you can add experimental bits (like a panel tilting mechanism, to enhance natural cleaning, as well as improve winter-over)
Nice that you’re thinking about it. The dust issue is more about static charge and film chemestry then mechanical. Tilting on a slope means no mechanism to be jammed. Wintering over required data from wintering over to feed back into thermal management.
But it’s likely that the next rover/lander, whenever it happens, will have so little in common with MSL that almost no learning can be carried across.
That’s what is feared when you lose planetary programs like have happened.
At some point you learn enough that you can have substaintial reuse/repurpose. On non-lander planetary missions this is more common. When that happens, you need to “change mode” to a persistant team that become experts. I think that’s what you’re after as an answer to your post here.
“I preferred reflying the MER’s too at the time, in order to widen the sample base to more sites. But in no way was that cheap either – the team for that wasn’t kept together, nor the technology base.”
While I realise that you can’t now reuse the MER design (hell it’s probably too late to reuse the MSL design), without recreating the entire original R&D effort, it doesn’t mean we couldn’t have, nor that we shouldn’t have. Just because modern NASA keeps choosing that path, doesn’t mean Mars rovers must be “one offs”. I don’t believe it’s some magical property of planetary exploration that prevents design reuse, nor is it due to funding limits. It’s just the current management philosophy at JPL and NASA in general.
“There’s a good argument to be made that the MERs aren’t effective enough due to scale and power planning.”
Incremental development means you occasionally upgrade the “frame”, with the first being fitted with flight proven equipment from the previous models. Then you improve the equipment to better take advantage of the new frame. Once you’ve matured both, you move up again. Rinse, repeat. And if you have a proven design, you can add experimental bits (like a panel tilting mechanism, to enhance natural cleaning, as well as improve winter-over) without risking THE rover. Once you prove it, you add it to the standard design. (I’m sure there were ideas that were never included on MSL because they were seen as too risky to displace another, safer, design.)
You don’t build a couple of go-carts. Disband the team, suppliers, etc. Then bring in a new team and tell them to build a truck, in one go, without testing preliminary designs, and without any chance of building on from their first designs.
(MSL had multiple problems, some of which were never resolved. That knowledge would have already resulted in a better MSL-2. But it’s likely that the next rover/lander, whenever it happens, will have so little in common with MSL that almost no learning can be carried across.)
“Preaching to the choir here.”
I have to. The congregation keeps throwing things at me.
“You also forgot the part about using off the shelf / consumer tech too.”
I’m not overly obsessed with this. Consumer tech won’t always work in space. Although, given the cost it’s worth buying a few of each brand and trying them before you spend $millions reinventing the wheel. It’s always worth putting options on the shelf.
You have to test the landing system at some point. Dropping a MINI Cooper sized rover on airbags probably wouldn’t turn out that well. Air bags were a good start.
Depends on what happens.
Very likely base situation – you get EDL to the point of hover. Everything up to that point is just a scaled up version of what they’ve done before.
Scenarios following:
1. rappel
2. stability during rappel
3. tether cut
There are contingencies.
Mars is a hard place for all spacecraft. This is a challenging, risky mission.
Mr. C,
Every planetary mission is a challenging, risky mission to one degree or another, but we must keep going forward.
People,
Understanding and minimizing the risks is part of what makes the science and engineering of these programs so complex and expensive. In the end, if you don’t take your best shot, you get nothing.
I’m quite surprised to see so many negative comments in this thread. It’s like the heat in the kitchen, if you can’t stand the unavoidable risks and unknowns of space programs, find another hobby. The MSL team did everything they could to test the landing system; how about giving them a hand and a thank you instead of armchair nit-picking, especially those of you who didn’t even bother to read the facts in the article before criticizing.
Steve
The main lesson from previous failures was to provide as much telemetry during descent as possible. I believe they will be transmitting pictures during descent and landing. Trying difficult and risky things is what NASA is for, but if you fail you need to know why so you don’t repeat the same mistake.
Mars Science Laboratory has two major flaws that NASA is trying to resolveClick here for latest MSL Solar Threat Teflon, a lovely polymer of carbon and flourineOnly two things wrong with MSL – it is contaminated with carbon (fluorocarbon) and it may not be able to communicate a successful landing for hours or even days. Mars blogby Rick Eyerdam NASA and Jet Propulsion Laboratory held a telephone press conference today to declare that all is well with the Mars Science Laboratory except its primary communication link from Mars is not operating at this time. And its primary instrument to detect complex organic chemicals – those that are dense with carbon – has been contaminated with Teflon. The drills that will deliver emulsified samples of Mars rock to the SAM science instrument were not sufficiently decontaminated before they were installed. Then it was too expensive to remove them, clean them and replace them. Instead NASA has spent $2 million building Teflon detecting experiments and labs to prepared alternative ways of de-selecting the false positives that will inevitably come when SAM ingests Mars rock and Teflon. The problem with Teflon is that it is Polytetrafluoroethylenem, a synthetic fluoropolymer of tetrafluoroethylene that is a fluorocarbon solid -Yes fluorocarbon – that has a high-molecular-weight and is a compound consisting wholly of carbon and fluorine. You may remember Viking went to Mars looking for exobiology that acted like well-behaved germs on earth. The two landers also had an agenda to confirm scientific certainty that Mars was covered with organic debris and complex carbon compounds. You guessed it. The life they found on Mars seemed a lot like complex chemistry, which is the definition of microbial life. And the GCMS was not sufficiently tuned to discover tiny amounts of carbon, dead or alive. So it said there was no carbon on Mars. I was properly accredited to ask questions at the MLS phone-in press conference but I was not one of the questioners selected. That was kind of aggravating since several questions were just plain stupid and or demonstrated inattention to the earlier discussion or available research. An opportunity was offered for us to send in our questions to be answered at some time in the near future. I sent them these: In hours of research and questioning of NASA files and personnel I have not been able to find one documentation of analysis or preparation for a direct hit by a Coronal Mass Ejection — this because the mission was planned for 2009 before the increase in solar activity. I did find this in a discussion of potential risks to space craft and satellites in general: Solar Proton Effects When high velocity ions plough through semiconductor devices they produce a large number of electrons and holes that carry currents within these devices. Large numbers of electron-hole pairs introduced into sensitive regions like memory cells can alter information and result in phantom commands. Effects can be devastating if ion impacts occur in control systems or decision-making circuits. In addition, these impacts degrade semiconductor lifetimes. 1. Can you tell me if MLS was “hardened” in any way for the possibility of CME impact or have we rolled the dice. 2. Harkening back to my days covering the Viking program, I was wondering if the engineers have designed a way to heat the sample arms so that they work in a wide range of temperatures. Viking’s sample return arms would only operate dependably in sunlight, which skewed the data. 3. Is there a separate designated message transmitted that indicates to JPL that the pyrotechnics have fired cutting the cable completely so that the Curiosity lander is no longer hanging from the sky crane? Such a signal would at least acknowledge promptly that the rover is on the surface and separated from its sky crane, it seems to me. This third question came up as a result of the NASA executives warning that the Mars orbiter that they count on to transfer signals immediately to the earth from Curiosity is not working while the other two can only store signals and resend them to earth after a significant delay. And that would extend the worry period for successful landing by hours or even days. I will let you know when I hear from them.
Teflon – nuisance level fantasy issue. Chlorofluorocarbons combust at extremely high temperatures. When they do, they release the most reactive light substance known to man. The impact is to reduce the sensitivity of a given sample, and they wear off in use, so the effect would be as a slope offset if even measurable. Doesn’t affect experiments.
The contamination fear was an issue with seals being breached during pad processing. More of a “chicken egg” dilemma given protocol.
Radiation – there is an active measurement of radiation on this flight, within the spacecraft. Same one will be used on surface. Neat part of MSL is that we’ll get a actual profile of what a manned Mars mission needs to put up with – its one of the experiments I’m watching.
Viking – lots of issues different than then, mostly because a better idea of soil / atmosphere / aerosol differences between Mars and Earth, so experiment design is vastly better. Viking’s big problems were that it had too much riding on “earth life or not?”, and then got back a resounding “?”
Chief problem for all science is too few chances to go to Mars/other – you try to do too much because you want to definitively get answers for the people paying the bills. Doing too much makes things more risky, because too much is premised upon “ass”umptions – that make an “ass” of you and me. Unavoidable.
Considering your continued rambling text and unclear question format, I think it was a sensible choice of the MSL people not to let you online.
[But it really makes you wonder how accreditation works. US is vulnerable to squeeze and/or rule by hierarchy instead of competence, perhaps?]
Some identifiable issues:
– Teflon. The carbon content will be on the order of what they want to detect. The survey shows that they can work around this.
It may not be ideal. But it is hard to find good wearable surfaces, so no surprise that it happens now and then.
– Actual possible biological contamination from breech of protocol. May be more serious if they didn’t check levels after cleanroom work, fingerprints from most anywhere are transferable (fatty oils) and hard to get rid of, but is only one out of three drill sets. Plenty of science done before using it.
– Mars Orbiter reset. Happens all the time, already declared as recoverable.
– CMEs. Happens all the time, and that is one reason why probes reset I believe.
Yes, electronics are selected best of breed (best in individual circuit accelerated failure tests) and otherwise hardened and shielded. No, they can’t survive all cosmic rays and CME hits (see MESSENGER, I believe) but will at least require a reset and in any case degrade over time.
– … extended laundry list of other problems. Every mission has them, few missions fails to deliver on science, sometimes spectacularly more than expected.
Aren’t all landings on Mars risky? I don’t remember seeing anything involving a full test of the MER backshell retro rocket and tether drop combo, but that worked fine twice! There’s something to be said for simulating, since you can do all kinds of monte carlo analysis where as a drop test is just one test case.
We should know within a few months whether or not it makes it. I certainly hopes it makes it ok – it has my name on that chip! If it doesn’t make it, I hope for the Red Dragon proposal between AMES and SpaceX will happen.
I really hope MSL has a successful landing. Regardless of what folks think about JPL, NASA could use a high-visibility success story.
As far as JPL goes, they’ve played a very risky game with MSL and have paid dearly for it. This mission has cost them significant reputation points for breaking the bank and being way behind schedule. Even if MSL is a success, JPL has to be hurting for future projects and funding. There are no flag-ship missions on tap, or none in sight, which have been JPL’s bread-and-butter for sustaining a substantial engineering base that can do one-off, large-scale, high-risk projects. The trend now is toward smaller missions and JPL has not historically been able to compete in that domain.
If we do a MER rover again.
Why would we want to deliver it on a bouncing system??? We wouldn’t.
Don’t we Need to learn to land dragons on Mars so we can be ready for the next step???
Mar-One???
Trying to fly dragon to mars and it crashing as a test would be progress because they are building a team and the tech/lessons learned will not be wasted.
We need to support the Mars-One model right away in my mind and start designing for it and quite fooling around!!!!
I’m looking at cars all around me and thinking with lessons learned from MER and lessons soon to be learned from MSL when it safely lands, that we can’t design a mars rover platform that’s cheap reusable and sustainable?? Of course we can!
I just don’t get it I guess !!!!!
Joe world citizen
Looks like the EDL folks are JPL have been looking at Dragon. 7g supersonic retro maneuver, yikes!
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/mee…
Actually the real failure in the hubble mirror came from using an advanced tester with null corrector to test the curvature. One engineer designed the test stand, and after a long delay, another engineer assembled it. When a part of the fixture did not fit correctly the engineer shimmed it – DOH!
Then they ground the mirror using the (now flawed) optical system.
When they finished grinding the mirror they brought in a “old-fart” with an “old-school” null corrector that was far less accurate than the “fancy” one.That equipment told them they had a spherical aberration, but since it was an old crappy unit, they essentially threw away the results.
So another lesson learned from Aerospace: “If you plan on ignoring the results from a test, then why do the test?”
Sorry, this was intended to be a response to Gonzo_Skeptic way down in the thread.
So you can bill your time and materials for it of course! 🙂
Please keep in mind that the flight software governing EDL is not the rover software.
Also, remember that the MER’s rover software was constantly upgraded, had numerous issues that required interesting work.
Pay more attention to the mechanical and dynamics issues.
My primary interest in this is the astrobiology and secondary the planetary science. With that in mind, I can respond to some issues:
– “if MSL does not make a sucessful landing, the answer was “there is no plan”.”
Already at the time the MSL was put into development, or just about, there were no longer enough money to make a companion rover as was done with the MERs.
The primary goal is to look for organics as a means to assess extant or extinct habitability after the MERs found evidence of (extinct) liquid water. This is not an easy target, and this is why MSL is a one off chance whether it lands or not. Not much sense to have a backup plan unless society is willing to pay for a continuation.
The putative “backup plan” would most likely be to reassess the problems, risks and economy, and put up a new mission proposal, which then will likely happen far into the future.
However, in actual fact if the MAVEN mission launches 2013 it may make observations on extant organic volatiles and if the ExoMars orbiters and rovers launches 2016 respectively 2018 they are excellent backups for MSL/MAVEN and will provide info on future science targets. EU is running a, once again one off, science backup.
– “Except, oops, this landing system has never been tested: the Mars attempt will be the first full-up test of it.”
This is precisely how current EDL system were developed such as the original Mars design transsonic parachutes, the Viking retrorockets, the MER balloon bags: extensive testing on Earth followed by a first introduction.
The new system is required for masses beyond MER but below ~ 1 000 kg, and it has kept the legacy systems of chutes and retros with minimal changes.
The next system up may be the Dragon type of transsonic retros firing subsonically within the slipstream. According to NASA preliminary tests on the Red Dargon concept it can land ~ 5 000 kg (with ~ 1000 kg or more payload) ~ 1km below the geode in say, the northern plains. But that is still to be tested.
The skycrane is an ingenious, able and well tested relative low risk EDL technology that suits this and the ExoMars mission. But no martian EDL will ever be absolute low risk – too much of too thin atmosphere.
I can’t wait to see the MARDI HD decent video!