A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Science
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Huygens' Titan Descent



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 16th 05, 02:27 AM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Tim Killian wrote:
Was the lack of an RTG on Huygens a political decision, or a true
engineering limitation?


Yes. :-) Within the priorities, mass limits, and cost constraints of the
project, there was definitely no engineering possibility of an RTG. (The
"priorities" part is that Huygens was mainly an atmosphere mission with
only a secondary role as a lander, as witness its primary mission being
153 minutes -- 150 minutes of descent, 3 minutes on the surface.)

The priorities, mass limits, and cost constraints were ultimately mostly
political decisions at one level or another. I don't believe there was an
explicit political "no RTG" decision -- Huygens did have a whole bunch of
RHUs (plutonium heater capsules) -- but the mission as defined couldn't
really afford one (in dollars, mass, or engineering complications) and
didn't really need one.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #12  
Old January 16th 05, 10:43 PM
Raven
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"muldar" skrev i en meddelelse
...

it still is one HUGE success. Monumental, really. Just too bad the major
news networks didnt even mention it or show a photo tonight.
This sorry state of socially irresponsible affairs in the USA must end
soon.


You think this sorry state of affairs is confined to the USA? Since I
don't have cable or sat dish, I can take only the two TV channels that are
carried on airwave here in Denmark. One is the old national TV channel that
was the monopoly station in the old days. On this channel there was heavy
coverage on the new opera house that was inaugurated in Copenhagen on the
same day as the Huygens landing, both in the regular news and as a special,
hours-long program. There was nothing about the Huygens landing. The other
channel did have something, but not much. And also heavy coverage of the
new opera house.
Thank heavens for the Web. :-) (I'll check it later when there isn't so
much run on the relevant sites.)

Jon Lennart Beck.

  #13  
Old January 17th 05, 02:47 PM
Rodrigo Nuno Bragança da Cunha
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Probably both, but mostly engineering.

RTGs generate a LOT of heat, witch would be difficult to deal with
inside the closed reentry shell of that small probe.

For instance, an RTG generating 200W eletric power generates 2000W heat
power.

It's also heavy, generates radiation, witch is bad for the
instruments... etc.

Tim Killian wrote:
Was the lack of an RTG on Huygens a political decision, or a true
engineering limitation?



Scott M. Kozel wrote:



The Huygens spacecraft could not utilize an RTG or solar power, so it
was limited to un-rechargable batteries, and given the number of
instruments on board, battery capacity was limited to a matter of hours.


  #14  
Old January 18th 05, 02:38 AM
Andromeda et Julie
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

A lifetime of weeks would have required nuclear heaters at least, and
perhaps a nuclear thermal electric source as well. That means more
mass, probably more then anyone wanted to pay to send.


not to forget that try landing heavier probe somewhere quite unknown
would probably lead to assured failure

it s good to get back something !



  #15  
Old January 18th 05, 05:20 AM
Marc 182
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , says...
In article ,
Tim Killian wrote:
Was the lack of an RTG on Huygens a political decision, or a true
engineering limitation?


Yes. :-) Within the priorities, mass limits, and cost constraints of the
project, there was definitely no engineering possibility of an RTG. (The
"priorities" part is that Huygens was mainly an atmosphere mission with
only a secondary role as a lander, as witness its primary mission being
153 minutes -- 150 minutes of descent, 3 minutes on the surface.)

The priorities, mass limits, and cost constraints were ultimately mostly
political decisions at one level or another. I don't believe there was an
explicit political "no RTG" decision -- Huygens did have a whole bunch of
RHUs (plutonium heater capsules) -- but the mission as defined couldn't
really afford one (in dollars, mass, or engineering complications) and
didn't really need one.


So an RTG wasn't practical for several reasons on this mission; however,
it's been reported that the batteries were rated for 7 hours. If that's
true, what if they had included a programmable timer in the probe? Just
before release the timer could have been programmed with the expected
times when Cassini would be in a position to again receive data.
Between data windows the probe would mostly power down, just running low
current instruments like temperature and air pressure, recording data,
conserving batteries, and keeping warm with it's RHUs. If need be,
Huygens could have powered down completely between passes, but only
getting current data during a pass would be much less interesting. When
Cassini was again in the sky Huygens would again wake up and transmit
the collected data and take a new snapshot. They might have gotten 4 or
5 more passes out of the thing.

Of course for any of that to work several other things would have to be
true, not the least of which is that the RHUs would be enough to keep
the inside of the probe warm during weeks of near or complete power down
on that cold cold moon.

Marc

  #16  
Old January 18th 05, 12:39 PM
Rupert Goodwins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:20:32 -0700, Marc 182
wrote:

In article , says...
In article ,
Tim Killian wrote:
Was the lack of an RTG on Huygens a political decision, or a true
engineering limitation?


Yes. :-) Within the priorities, mass limits, and cost constraints of the
project, there was definitely no engineering possibility of an RTG. (The
"priorities" part is that Huygens was mainly an atmosphere mission with
only a secondary role as a lander, as witness its primary mission being
153 minutes -- 150 minutes of descent, 3 minutes on the surface.)

The priorities, mass limits, and cost constraints were ultimately mostly
political decisions at one level or another. I don't believe there was an
explicit political "no RTG" decision -- Huygens did have a whole bunch of
RHUs (plutonium heater capsules) -- but the mission as defined couldn't
really afford one (in dollars, mass, or engineering complications) and
didn't really need one.


So an RTG wasn't practical for several reasons on this mission; however,
it's been reported that the batteries were rated for 7 hours. If that's
true, what if they had included a programmable timer in the probe? Just
before release the timer could have been programmed with the expected
times when Cassini would be in a position to again receive data.
Between data windows the probe would mostly power down, just running low
current instruments like temperature and air pressure, recording data,
conserving batteries, and keeping warm with it's RHUs. If need be,
Huygens could have powered down completely between passes, but only
getting current data during a pass would be much less interesting. When
Cassini was again in the sky Huygens would again wake up and transmit
the collected data and take a new snapshot. They might have gotten 4 or
5 more passes out of the thing.

Of course for any of that to work several other things would have to be
true, not the least of which is that the RHUs would be enough to keep
the inside of the probe warm during weeks of near or complete power down
on that cold cold moon.


The RTUs are fine - they've got a half-life of around a hundred years,
so aren't going to run down any time soon.

Huygens was limited by three things - in order of importance, they
were cost, mass and the unknown. The biggest one was cost, which has a
direct correlation on complexity. Even adding something entirely in
software costs a lot, because of the testing (Logica, who wrote the
Huygens software, spent eight times as long and wrote eight times as
much code on the testing side of it as they did on the actual flight
code). The same goes for Cassini: every manoeuvre has a price, and
it's quite complex getting stuff back from Huygens.

And nobody knew what to expect. What would people be saying now if
Huygens came down into a snowdrift during a thunderstorm, and returned
nothing? It's easy in hindsight to say what would have been a
worthwhile tradeoff, now the thing's sitting in an interesting
landscape, but it could have been very different.

We're just going to have to go back!

R



Marc

  #17  
Old January 18th 05, 05:09 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Marc 182 wrote:
Of course for any of that to work several other things would have to be
true, not the least of which is that the RHUs would be enough to keep
the inside of the probe warm during weeks of near or complete power down
on that cold cold moon.


Exactly. Unfortunately, there was also a requirement that the RHUs not
roast the inside of the probe before launch and while in space, including
quite a while spent relatively near the Sun. So in practice, they
couldn't do the whole job, and a noticeable fraction of Huygens's power
consumption was for heaters.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
  #18  
Old January 19th 05, 10:43 AM
Marc 182
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , says...
In article ,
Marc 182 wrote:
Of course for any of that to work several other things would have to be
true, not the least of which is that the RHUs would be enough to keep
the inside of the probe warm during weeks of near or complete power down
on that cold cold moon.


Exactly. Unfortunately, there was also a requirement that the RHUs not
roast the inside of the probe before launch and while in space, including
quite a while spent relatively near the Sun. So in practice, they
couldn't do the whole job, and a noticeable fraction of Huygens's power
consumption was for heaters.


I checked the public Huygens engineering webpage. It had about 35 watts
of RHU heat available. In a foam-wrapped package, essentially an ice
chest with a small heater in it, it seems like it could have made it
through. But then again, that bitterly cold and dense atmosphere would
be so much better at conducting/convecting heat away than space is that
I can see at least upgraded insulation being required. You might keep
the weight the same with super materials like areogels, but not the
cost.

Still, the instruments I was thinking of continuing to run don't need
much heat, if any, atmospheric pressure and temperature. You definitely
don't want to heat your temp sensor! Now that I think about it, you'd
want to run your microphone too, you can hear rain. Mix data from those
with remote optical sensing of clouds from Cassini and ground based
telescopes and you've got a pretty good weather station going. Then
you've just got to keep your radio, computer, electronics, and batteries
warm, which I suspect the RHUs were positioned to do anyway.

So long as I'm dreaming here, and discarding everything else I've said,
it would have been nice if they had just programmed the gas
chromatograph to make one more run starting at the end of the nominal
mission, 180 seconds after landing. That hot spacecraft ("hot" being a
very relative term here) was probably boiling all kinds of interesting
stuff off of the surface and a GC is great at unambiguous identification
of organics.

But, of course, they never expected it to live for any length of time on
the surface... or did they? I wonder what the thinking was when they
slipped in the big batteries. Anyway, I'm glad they did. ESA did an
awesome job and I'm thrilled!

Marc
  #19  
Old January 19th 05, 11:17 AM
Marc 182
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
says...
On Mon, 17 Jan 2005 21:20:32 -0700, Marc 182
wrote:

In article ,
says...
In article ,
Tim Killian wrote:
Was the lack of an RTG on Huygens a political decision, or a true
engineering limitation?

Yes. :-) Within the priorities, mass limits, and cost constraints of the
project, there was definitely no engineering possibility of an RTG. (The
"priorities" part is that Huygens was mainly an atmosphere mission with
only a secondary role as a lander, as witness its primary mission being
153 minutes -- 150 minutes of descent, 3 minutes on the surface.)

The priorities, mass limits, and cost constraints were ultimately mostly
political decisions at one level or another. I don't believe there was an
explicit political "no RTG" decision -- Huygens did have a whole bunch of
RHUs (plutonium heater capsules) -- but the mission as defined couldn't
really afford one (in dollars, mass, or engineering complications) and
didn't really need one.


So an RTG wasn't practical for several reasons on this mission; however,
it's been reported that the batteries were rated for 7 hours. If that's
true, what if they had included a programmable timer in the probe? Just
before release the timer could have been programmed with the expected
times when Cassini would be in a position to again receive data.
Between data windows the probe would mostly power down, just running low
current instruments like temperature and air pressure, recording data,
conserving batteries, and keeping warm with it's RHUs. If need be,
Huygens could have powered down completely between passes, but only
getting current data during a pass would be much less interesting. When
Cassini was again in the sky Huygens would again wake up and transmit
the collected data and take a new snapshot. They might have gotten 4 or
5 more passes out of the thing.

Of course for any of that to work several other things would have to be
true, not the least of which is that the RHUs would be enough to keep
the inside of the probe warm during weeks of near or complete power down
on that cold cold moon.


The RTUs are fine - they've got a half-life of around a hundred years,
so aren't going to run down any time soon.

Huygens was limited by three things - in order of importance, they
were cost, mass and the unknown. The biggest one was cost, which has a
direct correlation on complexity. Even adding something entirely in
software costs a lot, because of the testing (Logica, who wrote the
Huygens software, spent eight times as long and wrote eight times as
much code on the testing side of it as they did on the actual flight
code). The same goes for Cassini: every manoeuvre has a price, and
it's quite complex getting stuff back from Huygens.

And nobody knew what to expect. What would people be saying now if
Huygens came down into a snowdrift during a thunderstorm, and returned
nothing? It's easy in hindsight to say what would have been a
worthwhile tradeoff, now the thing's sitting in an interesting
landscape, but it could have been very different.

We're just going to have to go back!


I don't disagree with you, and I don't want to second guess ESA and what
they did, which was pull off a wonderful success. What I was thinking
about is, what can you do in the initial phases of your planning to
provide maximum benefit should your probe exceed nominal mission life?
Lots and lots of probes live longer than expected, and maybe you should
plan to deal with that event. It seems like space probes die in three
ways, abruptly when something goes badly wrong, in a long fade as power
dwindles or distance increases, or with a smack as someone directs it
into a gas giant. No one wants to turn off the switch.

So for the Huygens probe, which lasted for hours after the 180 second
nominal post touchdown mission, I'm wondering what could have been done
early to take advantage of that extra time should it come to happen.
Maybe a small post nominal mission team, with greatly relaxed testing
requirements, could have had something ready to go should the probe live
long enough to execute it. Planned for early, requiring no significant
hardware changes, and executing only after nominal mission, such a team
might have returned quite a bit of bonus data.

Marc
  #20  
Old January 19th 05, 11:08 PM
Volker Hetzer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Marc 182 wrote:

I don't disagree with you, and I don't want to second guess ESA and what
they did, which was pull off a wonderful success. What I was thinking
about is, what can you do in the initial phases of your planning to
provide maximum benefit should your probe exceed nominal mission life?


In case they had done so and huygens had failed everybody would have
bashed them for bothering about "post mission" stuff instead of ensuring
that the mission itself gets done properly.

Beagle2 was such an afterthought. It was tacked onto mars express
because someone figured out there could be a few more kilos on the
orbiter.

Gladly it didn't cause mars express to fail but the pr desaster was
big enough nevertheless.

I don't know whether ESA or NASA overdesign with your thoughts in the
backs of their minds but if they were they sure wouldn't let on. Much
better to cash in (pr wise) on a surprisingly long mission than to get
bashed for a surprisingly short one.

Lots of Greetings!
Volker
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Parachuting to Titan [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 December 31st 04 12:31 AM
ESA's Huygens Probe Set to Detach From Cassini Orbiter [email protected] Astronomy Misc 0 December 22nd 04 01:41 AM
UA's Cassini Scientists Ready for First Close Titan Flyby er Amateur Astronomy 0 October 26th 04 07:14 AM
UA's Cassini Scientists Ready for First Close Titan Flyby Ron Astronomy Misc 0 October 25th 04 08:35 PM
New Detailed Images of Titan Ron Astronomy Misc 0 April 1st 04 08:05 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.