|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
No, not from the budget axe or the usual suspects, but from a far more
pernicious foe: the TooMuchNewStuffAtOnceists. I sent the president's space commission an email suggesting they ensure a 'moon first, then Mars' testing regimen for the entire initiative, not just human missions, because of the momentum stalling nature of a billion dollar failure. The mission that worries me most in this regard is the 2009 Mars Laboratory Rover. The current NASA thinking on this rover has it costing over a billion as a single rover, testing a brand new landing method (somewhat like an Acme Rocket Flying Trapeze with a landing radar) and on a larger scale than any other rover past. This leaves the potential for a '92 Mars Observer sized embarrassment. While I applaud the increasing size & power systems for the 2009 rover, the dual success of the current rovers can be easily contrasted against both the '92 Mars Observer and the 2001 Mars failures. We should consider testing the trickier parts of the 2009 mission on an earlier (2007 or early 2008) lunar rover that would try out the Flying Trapeze landing method before we end up smashing a billion dollars of RTG warmed earth microbes into the Martian subsurface. Obviously for monetary and political reasons it does not make sense to rush to send an RTG powered heavy rover to the moon. But a smaller, solar powered rover with the capability of sleeping through a lunar night would be a long term, continuing asset for NASA. In addition, the landing method for the 2009 Mars rover could be tested on this moon rover with less risk due to a shorter dormant cruise time and constant monitoring of the process from earth. Lighter gravity of the moon, along with the smaller weight of a solar rover, should adequately compensate for the lack of atmospheric slowing that a lunar lander gets. Most importantly, any problems or pitfalls with the new landing process could be discovered with plenty of time to correct the problems before the 2009 Mars Rover(s) ever leaves earth. That's a way to smartly leverage goals AND new technologies. comments? Tom Merkle Tom Merkle |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
In article ,
Tom Merkle wrote: Obviously for monetary and political reasons it does not make sense to rush to send an RTG powered heavy rover to the moon. But a smaller, solar powered rover with the capability of sleeping through a lunar night would be a long term, continuing asset for NASA... Unfortunately, a solar-powered rover capable of surviving the lunar night is a whole lot easier said than done. RTGs are needed just as badly there. Lighter gravity of the moon, along with the smaller weight of a solar rover, should adequately compensate for the lack of atmospheric slowing... A solar-powered rover isn't necessarily lighter than an RTG-powered one. It could easily end up heavier. -- MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. | |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
As I understand
it, they intend to demonstrate the trapeze method on Earth, which is much closer to Martian conditions than is the moon. Brian trapeze? Will McLean |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
Henry Spencer wrote:
In article , Tom Merkle wrote: Obviously for monetary and political reasons it does not make sense to rush to send an RTG powered heavy rover to the moon. But a smaller, solar powered rover with the capability of sleeping through a lunar night would be a long term, continuing asset for NASA... Unfortunately, a solar-powered rover capable of surviving the lunar night is a whole lot easier said than done. RTGs are needed just as badly there. Even RHUs would help a lot. Insulating and trying to add thermal capacity get very hard when you'r talking about something relatively small that has to stay warm for over a million seconds. A few dozen watts of heat in the right place might make all the difference. Mars is comparatively benign thermally, compared to the moon. About all the moon has going for it is that it's a true vacuum, so MLI works there. Random thought. If a little garage, with insulation and a little bit of RHU were put on the moon, how much work would be needed to be done on Spirit/Opportunity type rovers to make them work? Is thermal control it? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
Henry Spencer wrote:
Unfortunately, a solar-powered rover capable of surviving the lunar night is a whole lot easier said than done. RTGs are needed just as badly there. Laser power beaming? Paul |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
Brian Thorn writes:
I've forgotten the name for the concept, but the MSL will come down on a parachute. A few hundred feet up, the backshell will release the chute and fire up descent engines. Closer to the ground, the backshell will winch out the lander on a cable until the MSL touches down. The backshell will steer a safe distance away and crash. Theoretically, this gives the lander the ability to pick and choose its landing site, avoiding big boulders, etc. What is the advantage of this compared to a Viking style lander? Will McLean |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .
In article , McLean1382 wrote:
Brian Thorn writes: I've forgotten the name for the concept, but the MSL will come down on a parachute. A few hundred feet up, the backshell will release the chute and fire up descent engines. Closer to the ground, the backshell will winch out the lander on a cable until the MSL touches down. The backshell will steer a safe distance away and crash. Theoretically, this gives the lander the ability to pick and choose its landing site, avoiding big boulders, etc. What is the advantage of this compared to a Viking style lander? You get to pick and choose the landing site, avoiding big boulders, etc... ;-) As a quick thought experiment, visualise the way a Viking-style lander comes down... engine firing, legs touch, kill engine. Sits there on the sand with a foot of clearance. Now visualise a nice, solid, reasonably unsmooth 18" rock underneath it... as if it were coming down on top of one of the boulders you see in the Pathfinder pictures. Much wailing and gnashing of teeth, tearing of hair, tearing of descent engine, that sort of thing... It lets you avoid that; it's pure luck we haven't hit any (probably; we can't be too sure about some of the failure modes for the failed ones...) -- -Andrew Gray |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Japan admits its Mars probe is failing | JimO | Policy | 16 | December 6th 03 02:23 PM |
Delta-Like Fan On Mars Suggests Ancient Rivers Were Persistent | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 13th 03 09:06 PM |
NASA Testing K9 Rover In Granite Quarry For Future Missions | Ron Baalke | Technology | 0 | October 31st 03 04:45 PM |
If You Thought That Was a Close View of Mars, Just Wait (Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | September 23rd 03 10:25 PM |
NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 4th 03 10:48 PM |