ESA Lander's Signal Cut Out Just Before It Was Supposed To Land on Mars (arstechnica.com) 244
An anonymous reader shares an ArsTechnica report: On Wednesday, the European Space Agency sought to become the second entity to successfully land a spacecraft on Mars with its Schiaparelli lander. And everything seemed to be going swimmingly right up until the point that Schiaparelli was to touch down. The European scientists had been tracking the descent of Schiaparelli through an array of radio telescopes near Pune, India and were able to record the moment when the vehicle exited a plasma blackout. The scientists also received a signal that indicated parachute deployment. But during the critical final moments, when nine hydrazine-powered thrusters were supposed to fire to arrest Schiaparelli's descent, the signal disappeared. At that point, the European Space Agency's webcast went silent for several minutes before one of the flight directors could be heard to say, "We expected the signal to continue, but clearly it did not. We don't want to jump to conclusions."
Really? (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously? This is a joke... I mean, who thought sending a mission to Mars would be this hard?
Re: (Score:3)
should work with live people
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Live people are much better with dealing with things when they go off script.
Re: (Score:2)
"Commander, the braking thrusters have failed and we have 12 seconds to impact!"
"Hand me a box of paperclips, quickly... Dammit! Why did you seal the box with ductape! I'll never get it op..."
Signal Lost
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Live people also have a more profound self-preservation instinct than many of the machines we send out into the galaxy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
With live people, those live people will be able to make live decisions, on the spot. There will be much more of a dynamic operation with live people, whereas currently, they're setting most things up to statically unfold.
Are you by chance one of Obama's science advisors?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your arguing a per-programmed landing sequence with known physics is worse than a live astronaut controlling the landing when the time from initial problem to dead is literally 2-6 seconds. Most Humans couldn't even perceive the problem, develop a solution and react in that time frame.
Landing on Mars is hard, you've got a gravity well that's about 8/10ths of the Earth with about 1/100th the atmosphere to slow you down. Terminal velocity is VERY fast and the timeframe to react and burn for a slowdown is seco
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer. Could a live pilot have executed no, not with the equipment they sent, the fuel use and tolerances for error were far to small.
I believe on Apollo 11 a human had to take over on the landing [space.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, you may want to ask Neil Armstrong what those 1201 and 1202 alarms were all about.
And ask about those big rocks.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer. Could a live pilot have executed no, not with the equipment they sent, the fuel use and tolerances for error were far to small.
Nice story. Now here's what really happened: http://www.space.com/26593-apo... [space.com]
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all well and good. Now explain how it would have prevented a thruster failure. Or a metric-english conversion error on the entry trajectory calculation. Or a failed parachute. Or a launch vehicle failure. Or virtually any of the common ways that unmanned probes have actually failed. You might be able to salvage ~20% of them with humans aboard. Might. Meanwhile, humans are a massive added source of additional risk to a mission; they dramatically increase spacecraft size, complexity / part count, consumables, and just in general make things far more difficult. And you can build and launch numerous unmanned missions for the cost of one manned mission.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed, we humans have all these annoying requirements like breathing oxygen 24/7, eating, drinking, pooping, peeing, even just staying occupied. Machines just want a little juice to keep them happy.
Re:Really? (Score:4, Funny)
I know the only personal item I would take with me on the Mars journey would be an axe. You just can't trust everybody. I mean I know I wouldn't go insane. Someone else might go insane however. Then I'd have an axe. I'd name him Axey, and he'd be my best friend... Sometimes he tells me to... no I shouldn't talk about that, he doesn't like it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ding!
Could see this coming from far away! LOL
Re: (Score:2)
You might be able to salvage ~20% of them with humans aboard. Might. Meanwhile, humans are a massive added source of additional risk to a mission; they dramatically increase spacecraft size, complexity / part count, consumables, and just in general make things far more difficult.
Having people on board cause their own problems, you wouldn't have to improvise CO2 filters on Apollo 13 if there was no one that needed oxygen so they might cause aborts too not just salvage them. Having humans on board will also limit your alternatives and lead to its own time constraints because you have to keep the crew alive. And most importantly, humans are not expendable and unmanned probes couldn't have any realistic return plan even if you wanted to so in most cases they still wouldn't be an option
Re: (Score:2)
" Now explain how it would have prevented a thruster failure. Or a metric-english conversion error on the entry trajectory calculation. Or a failed parachute. Or a launch vehicle failure. "
Useless things to bring up because those weren't issues during that mission. Especially the metric-*IMPERIAL* (not English, the fucking CHINESE made the system) one.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure why I would have to explain that, since I didn't claim any of that. The OP claimed that a human could not possibly land a moon lander. That's BS - humans _did_ in fact land a moon lander, on the first attempt, succesfully, while the computer was busy crashing. That same human decided he didn't want to land in a field of boulders and veered of course to another landing spot. So far that hasn't been achieved by computers either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Really? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, no. Niel Armstrong really did fly the lunar lander. He really did run it almost totally out of fuel, because he had to avoid a huge rock. If he hadn't done that, the vehicle would have gone splat.
By the way, the computer was completely spazzing out during the landing and was not giving good data. Fortunately it was written in a way that kept the important stuff going regardless.
http://space.stackexchange.com... [stackexchange.com]
also
http://www.dickgordon.com/Apol... [dickgordon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
The computer was working acceptably well. What it was doing was alarming out a condition where it was dropping some tasks (rendezvous radar angle processing) due to a switch misconfiguration.
The other parts of the code were running fine and caused no issues aside from the distraction of the alarms. Note also that he didn't nearly run out of fuel, although he did run relatively close to the mandatory abort limit. There was plenty of fuel to land, if they had ignored the abort limit. The
Re:Really? (Score:5, Informative)
40 seconds of fuel left, according to post-mission analysis.
He flew the LEM for a longer period than any simulation. The 1201/1202 errors were caused by Armstrong leaving docking radar on during descent, thinking it would save time if they had to abort. Not tested in simulation, probably because it was a checklist item.
Given the state of the art at the time, a human pilot was essential. Today we would expect an automated landing to succeed, given the massively improved capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
The 1201/1202 errors were caused by Armstrong leaving docking radar on during descent, thinking it would save time if they had to abort. Not tested in simulation, probably because it was a checklist item.
That's a hell of time to make a decision to push a button that you never bothered to test.
Re: Really? (Score:3)
Piloting the lander wasn't human error, the program was leading them into rough terrain. They overshot the intended site, which Armstrong recognized early on. His switching on the docking radar was indeed an 'off - checklist' action.
But he may have been taken off flight status due to his celebrity.
Moon cows are not spherical [Re:Really?] (Score:2)
As I understand it, the unexpected fuel usage was a combination of avoiding the boulder field (more than one rock), AND the fact NASA miscalculated the shape of the moon. (Scientifically, that very boulder field later produced some of their best rock samples.)
The size calculations were calibrated based on the gravity of the moon, but the moon is gravitationally lopsided compared to the location of its surface. If you spun
Because flat (Score:3)
That's because it'll be in medium light grey text on a light medium grey background.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, so when Neil Armstrong completely changed the landing site and trajectory because he was looking out the window and saw a field of house-sized boulders, he did that with the computer rather than with the hand controllers that were controlling attitude thrusters and descent engine throttle?
This revisionist history brought to you by someone who is completely and utterly wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
"Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer. Could a live pilot have executed no, not with the equipment they sent, the fuel use and tolerances for error were far to small"
Your signature is pretty fucking ironic, given what you've just proven - you refuse to read despite having the right.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Historically, Mars probes have had a very high failure rate. NASA techs have made jokes about "The Great Galactic Ghoul" being responsible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. I could totally see the European Space Agency doing that.
Re: (Score:2)
I worked on MGS, and can tell you that to be successful with most missions, you have to have a much higher level of quality compared to normal.
Oddly, if ESA, Russia, CHina, etc wanted to really test this, they would send a duplicate around the moon and then land it on earth.
That would test just about every subsystems in similar ways.
Re: (Score:2)
everybody that has worked on mars missions.
I worked on MGS, and can tell you that to be successful with most missions, you have to have a much higher level of quality compared to normal.
Oddly, if ESA, Russia, CHina, etc wanted to really test this, they would send a duplicate around the moon and then land it on earth.
That would test just about every subsystems in similar ways.
Since you worked on MGS, you probably know people at Nasa that would tell you that landing on earth is totally different than landing on mars (mainly because of the atmospheric density).
Re: Really? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
F*cking aliens (Score:2)
Can't the aliens leave our spacecraft alone?
Re:F*cking aliens (Score:5, Funny)
Can't the aliens leave our spacecraft alone?
Another bold victory for the Mars defense force! Despite recent setbacks, we were able to repel the invaders. Let this be a message to the Terran aggressors: you just got luck last time.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm still waiting for word from our Supreme Leader, K'Breel!!!
O Tackhead, where art thou?
Re: (Score:2)
K'Breel was deposed and executed after his repeated failures in repelling the Terran aggressor. We don't speak of him. All hail mighty G'Ranee, Supreme Leader for Life!
Late-Breaking News from the Council: WTF G'RANEE? (Score:3)
LATE-BREAKING NEWS FROM THE COUNCIL: VICTORY! The Council of Elders has confirmed the blueworlders' resumption of aggression upon our noble red sands. K'Breel, Speaker for the Council of Elders, addressed the planet thusly: OKAY. Okay, so I'm K'Breel (even though anyone on Slashdot can assume the mantle merely by declaring themselves
Re: (Score:2)
This is a whole new meaning for the term "redneck".
Martians (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
The only question is whether it was J'onn or Marvin.
Re: (Score:2)
Second? (Score:4, Informative)
USA/NASA has had many successful landers and the Soviets [wikipedia.org] had a lander survive for 14.5 seconds after touch down. That's not great, but considering the ESA lander lost contact after firing the retro rockets before touch down, I wouldn't celebrate just yet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
NASA uses metric.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
1998
Re: (Score:2)
Read the article. That happened because NASA uses metric and Lockheed used Imperial. Far from forgetting, that event is the very reason that I know NASA uses metric.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I'll grant you that NASA sometimes uses imperial if you will grant that technically they aren't supposed to be and the whole thing is a clusterthingy.
Proof positive that being consistent in your useage of units isn't necessarily superior.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you talking about the Mars Climate Orbiter [wikipedia.org]?
No need to worry! (Score:5, Funny)
After a lengthy discussion with the ESA, I've been assured that the lander has definitely landed! On a side note, no word as to if it was a soft type landing or the usual hypersonic-impact-crater-forming type. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it chose the wrong place [xkcd.com] to land, but we may never know...
Re: (Score:2)
The question is more accurately phrased this way:
Was it a powered descent as planned, or did it employ the secondary landing procedure that involves lithobraking and a rapid unplanned disassembly?
Re: (Score:2)
And Jeb skidded to a stop after rolling down a hill, unharmed!
ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS. . . . (Score:2)
. . . Except Mars, apparently.
Comment (Score:2)
All your Mars base are belong to us?
space agency cooperation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Mars seems very difficult. NASA has had its failures there too, but on the balance, NASA seems to have a far better track record at doing complex things on Mars than anybody else out there.
Which leads to the question: does NASA not share its magic recipes with the ESA? They have done shitloads of research into how to successfully land craft on other planets, and even run rovers. It's very hard from an engineering perspective. Do they not share the fruits of that research and labor with agencies like the ESA, so to improve everybody's odds?
Re:space agency cooperation? (Score:4)
Of course NASA passed on decades of hard-won experience. They're not psychopaths.
It went something like this:
Dear ESA:
Hire only the best and the brightest, keep the group challenged and engaged for decade upon decade, with frequent launch opportunities pushing the boundary of the possible at each and every iteration.
N.B.: Sorry, there's no silver bullet.
Re: (Score:3)
Which leads to the question: does NASA not share its magic recipes with the ESA?
You have to look back at the history of the ExoMars program to answer that.
Originally, NASA was a partner and was going to supply a sky-crane decent module and Atlas rockets for payload launch to the program.
Then 2012 budget cuts forced NASA to withdraw from the program. Undaunted, the ESA then brought on Russia as a partner to supply those critical elements of the program and of course the USA and Russia are on such good terms about exchanging technology...
I hope that clarifies the situation...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to check the current price of palm-grease.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, what they really care about is if it works after it gets sent to a war zone. That can get really tricky, as there's all sorts of ways to get that wrong. A German WWII veteran told me that the MG34 (standard machine gun at the beginning of the war) was an excellent machine gun and a joy to fire provided it was kept scrupulously clean and away from dust and dirt and blood and things lik
Beagle 2 2.0? (Score:2)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Beagle 2 from 2003 the last attempt by ESA to land an orbiter on Mars? This one seems to have suffered a similar fate in landing. Hopefully not, but if it did then this probably doesn't bode well for public confidence in the ESA.
Re: (Score:3)
Sorry, I mean to land a lander. Obviously the orbiter should orbit. Maybe this was their mistake? ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know whether this is about the new one or the old one. Given the intelligence of the editturds it's a 50-50 call.
I suppose I could read the article, but some traditions are worth respecting.
Live people can act autonomously at landing. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Live people can act autonomously at landing.
That all depends on how fast you land them...
Oh the lander landed... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Mars Polar Lander (Score:2)
Mars Polar Lander [wikipedia.org]
Communications probably cut by Ecuador (Score:4, Funny)
Is that so strange? (Score:3)
I think it just want some alone time. I know I do after doing a long journey...
Conversion problem (Score:3)
Watney tore it apart ... (Score:2)
... looking for his potato shipment.
No, not feet. Meters. METERS! (Score:2)
Re:Signal Aquired (Score:5, Informative)
That's the orbiter.
The lander is what is in question, and there's been no sign that it has been successfully acquired by the orbiter or anybody else.
Re: (Score:3)
darn, read it wrong in my excitement, still fingers crossed the lander is OK too
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Successful? Maybe it did, but we don't know that it did--unless you define "success" as to include crash landings. I don't think that's what they meant. It may have landed with no other damage than to the radio or antenna, but since they want to communicate with it after all trouble of building it and launching it, I still would not call it success. They'd better hurry--the only power source they have is a battery that is not projected to last more than 8 martian days.
As we've seen, Mars is a hard desti
Re: (Score:2)
Well, "success" is really more of a continuum than a point.
nine hydrazine-powered thrusters arrest its descent to a few meters per second. A crushable structure will absorb the impact force at the planet's surface.
The primary role of Schiaparelli will be to demonstrate this landing technology so that a planned follow-up mission in 2020, complete with a rover, can also safely reach the Martian surface.
So, we've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that we're pretty sure that the crushable structure was crushed as intended.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Usual suspect list (Score:4, Funny)
You're missing Space Nazis from the list. Space Nazis are the most likely answer.
Re: (Score:2)
And my all-time favorite, cosmic-rays.
Cosmic, man!
Re:Usual suspect list - Cosmic Rays (Score:2)
Yes, and that is also why the all time favorite solution is deflectors.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget reversing the polarity.
Anything can be fixed by reversing the polarity.
Re:Money well spent! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
. . .especially if an ESA Mars Lander crashes onto them. . .
Re: (Score:2)