|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
What happened?
Altimeter failure. The instrument indicates a much lower altitude than
the real one. So, thinking they are much lower, software ejects the parachutes, then when the rockets are turned on, the altimeter tells that they have landed and software shuts down the rockets. Then it goes from there till the crash at 300Km/h with no parachute and no rockets... Single point failure. All mission relies on the altimeter. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
What happened?
jacob navia wrote:
Altimeter failure. The instrument indicates a much lower altitude than the real one. So, thinking they are much lower, software ejects the parachutes, then when the rockets are turned on, the altimeter tells that they have landed and software shuts down the rockets. Then it goes from there till the crash at 300Km/h with no parachute and no rockets... Single point failure. All mission relies on the altimeter. Is this your personal guess or the first outcome of the investigations? Boeing made that mistake as well... Turkish Airlines 1951 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
What happened?
Le 22/10/2016 à 23:11, Rob a écrit :
Boeing made that mistake as well... Turkish Airlines 1951 Yeah, a bug can happen to anyone. Fortunately there wasn't anybody on board of the esa probe. Another advantage of the "toasters". Nobody was killed. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
What happened?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
What happened?
Le 23/10/2016 à 15:40, Jeff Findley a écrit :
Seems awfully silly. All bugs are that: stupid mistakes. ESA was able to land on Titan, and now they are unable to land on Mars. Why not copy the opportunity/spirit design? It was robust and very simple. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
What happened?
jacob navia wrote:
Le 23/10/2016 Ã* 15:40, Jeff Findley a écrit : Seems awfully silly. All bugs are that: stupid mistakes. ESA was able to land on Titan, and now they are unable to land on Mars. Why not copy the opportunity/spirit design? It was robust and very simple. It looks like this was an attempt to land a device with much higher mass. It seems like this one was very heavy for what it was intended to do on the surface, they wanted to experiment for the next mission which intends to land a much larger rover. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What happened?
Le 23/10/2016 à 15:40, Jeff Findley a écrit :
Sounds like a possibly. But designing the thing to have a single point of failure like this? Seems awfully silly. If you look he http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/i...images/2016/02 /exomars_2016_schiaparelli_descent_sequence_16_9/15826994-1-eng-GB/ExoMars_2016_Schiaparelli_descent_sequence_16_9.jp g you see that radar turns on after the heat shield separates. If that radar sent a wrong altitude to the software... mission was doomed to failure. P.S. CAREFUL with the URL being cutted in pieces by the old USENET system. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
What happened?
Le 22/10/2016 Ã* 22:54, jacob navia a écrit :
Altimeter failure. The instrument indicates a much lower altitude than the real one. So, thinking they are much lower, software ejects the parachutes, then when the rockets are turned on, the altimeter tells that they have landed and software shuts down the rockets. Then it goes from there till the crash at 300Km/h with no parachute and no rockets... Single point failure. All mission relies on the altimeter. This is being confirmed by the french journal "liberation" today. The inertial altimetre that took the relay from the radar altimetre got "saturated" and stayed at its maximum value for a second. That led to the crash. The computer received a negatiuve measure (it thought it was under the soil) and started the soil sequence at 3 Km over the real martian soil. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
What happened?
On Sunday, October 23, 2016 at 9:54:03 AM UTC+13, jacob navia wrote:
Altimeter failure. The instrument indicates a much lower altitude than the real one. So, thinking they are much lower, software ejects the parachutes, then when the rockets are turned on, the altimeter tells that they have landed and software shuts down the rockets. Then it goes from there till the crash at 300Km/h with no parachute and no rockets... Single point failure. All mission relies on the altimeter. That's why airliners have multiple altimeters on board. http://www.pmflight.co.uk/wp-content...deck_panel.jpg The pilot and co-pilot have separate altimeters and rate of climb indicators. The digital flight system has two separate radar based altimeter and rate of climb indicators on the CRTs, and the guidance computer has a separate altitude readout that can also be set to show vertical speed at the press of a button. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What's happened here? | Tom Royer[_2_] | Amateur Astronomy | 10 | September 30th 08 06:01 AM |
What Happened to the MMU? | Jim | History | 46 | February 6th 07 02:14 PM |
Whatever happened to MCS? | David Findlay | History | 49 | November 14th 06 09:33 AM |
what happened in here? | Misc | 1 | April 2nd 06 05:22 PM | |
what happened in here? | http://peaceinspace.com | Misc | 3 | April 2nd 06 05:00 PM |