|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
David Thanks On TV it seemed they were trying a new type landing. I can
think of many ways for gentle landings. I can drop an egg of a 500 ft building and you would be able to serve it sunny side up. Bert |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
beavith wrote in message . ..
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 09:44:03 -0400 (EDT), (G=EMC^2 Glazier) wrote: Well since we had a good landing on Mars years ago. Why don't we stick to doing it the proven way? Bert because the Viking landing method ( aeroshell, parachutes and landing thrusters) are very mechanically complex and timing sensitive, not to mention wasteful with mass. the balloon concept for robot probes is so stupidly simple, well, its obvious. seriously, it has its own engineering hurdles (mounting, shock sensitivity, righting the machine, timing issues, etc.), so its not THAT simple. in this case the engineering labs are subscribing to the KISS principle. I usually don't bother with Bert the nut threads...but you are wrong beavith. Airbags take precise timing of events as well. The reason we are currently using that system is it was successfully with Pathfinder. If Mars Polar Lander(MPL) had not failed in some way we would have used the hydrazine thrusters (Viking Heritage) for the two rovers. It gives you a smaller and better positioned landing ellipses. The new scout mission Phoenix Lander set for 07 could be called the sister ship to MPL and it will land on thrusters hopefully putting this "problem" to rest. --Chris Vancil |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
snip
in this case the engineering labs are subscribing to the KISS principle. I usually don't bother with Bert the nut threads...but you are wrong beavith. hehe. me neither... Airbags take precise timing of events as well. that was the one of the timing issues that i mentioned and the fact that it isn't THAT simple. however they get there, its still an engineering marvel, undoubtedly. The reason we are currently using that system is it was successfully with Pathfinder. If Mars Polar Lander(MPL) had not failed in some way we would have used the hydrazine thrusters (Viking Heritage) for the two rovers. It gives you a smaller and better positioned landing ellipses. i was under the impression, possibly mistaken, that this mission was to "pick up the slack" caused by the failure of MPL. The new scout mission Phoenix Lander set for 07 could be called the sister ship to MPL and it will land on thrusters hopefully putting this "problem" to rest. it can't come soon enough... --Chris Vancil |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Space Calendar - February 27, 2004 | Ron | Astronomy Misc | 1 | February 27th 04 08:18 PM |
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 | Ron Baalke | History | 0 | October 24th 03 04:38 PM |
Incontrovertible Evidence | Cash | Astronomy Misc | 1 | August 24th 03 07:22 PM |
Farewell to the Earth and the Moon - ESA's Mars Express Successfully Tests Its Instruments | Ron Baalke | Misc | 0 | July 17th 03 04:08 PM |