A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

About landing on the moon or mars



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 18th 04, 08:36 PM
[Starline]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default About landing on the moon or mars

I want to start from this statement:
On 1966 the US succesfully landed on the moon with a Surveyor class probe.
This family of probe, if compared to today's technology, were almost
"primitive"
(they were the state of the art in those years), but in 3 years US
succesfully reached the goal of
a soft moon landing 5 time on 7 attemps. What I am asking is why, with a
probe that used a '60 technology,
the US had a better success/failure ration than on mars today. Also the
Viking mars lander reached a 2/2 success ratio
using an end '70 technology (and a lot of money).

Now I am assuming that:

Positive point about a MOON landing mission:
+Less gravity than mars
+Less relative velocity between the probe and the target (moon) than with a
mars mission (I am guessing that, but I think that this statement is
correct)
+Less time to reach the moon than mars so less time exposed to the outer
space environment

Negative point about a MOON landing mission:
-You can't use a parachute (no atmosphere)
-You had to use retrorockets to slow down the lander, it's for sure a more
complicated device than a paracute+airbag


Positive point about a MARS landing mission:
+You can use the atmosphere to slow down the lander
+You can use a parachute or a series of parachutes to slow down the lander
+You can use airbags for the last part of the slowdown

Negative point about a MARS landing mission:
-6/7 months esxposed to the space environment
-Greater gravity of mars

So looking at this brief personal analisys it seems simpler to land on mars
than on the moon, if we don't consider the travel phase,
'cause you can land using a simpler and probably safer series of device:
parachute+airbags VS retrorockets, but although
this the first attemp to land on another body (moon) were done with a more
complicated technology (and in the '60) with an higher success/failure ratio
than
recent mars missions that use, from my point of view, a simpler and safer
technology (see the failure of mars polar lander that used retro).

Thanks in advance for your opinion

Alessandro Z. aka [Starline]


  #2  
Old January 18th 04, 11:18 PM
Terrell Miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"[Starline]" wrote in message
. ..

I want to start from this statement:
On 1966 the US succesfully landed on the moon with a Surveyor class probe.
This family of probe, if compared to today's technology, were almost
"primitive"
(they were the state of the art in those years), but in 3 years US
succesfully reached the goal of
a soft moon landing 5 time on 7 attemps. What I am asking is why, with a
probe that used a '60 technology,
the US had a better success/failure ration than on mars today. Also the
Viking mars lander reached a 2/2 success ratio
using an end '70 technology (and a lot of money).


Alessandro, most of the things you list as "advantages" are really
disadvantages, and vice-versa.

Now I am assuming that:

Positive point about a MOON landing mission:
+Less gravity than mars


this one you got right, but lower gravity creates its own problems as we'll
see in a moment.

+Less relative velocity between the probe and the target (moon) than with

a
mars mission (I am guessing that, but I think that this statement is
correct)


not sure what you were trying to say, maybe some of the NASA types can parse
it better than I

+Less time to reach the moon than mars so less time exposed to the outer
space environment


the only real threat to a Mars-bound spacecraft, aboive and beyond a lunar
mission, is from debris strikes or solar flare radiation IIRC. I don't
recall a Mars probe evern being lost to either, though there is that risk.
But sending an unmanned probe to Mars isn't all that more hazardous than
sending one to the moon.

Negative point about a MOON landing mission:
-You can't use a parachute (no atmosphere)


Positive point about a MARS landing mission:
+You can use the atmosphere to slow down the lander
+You can use a parachute or a series of parachutes to slow down the lander
+You can use airbags for the last part of the slowdown


that's an *advantage* to a lunar landing, not a *dis*advantage.

Deorbiting through an atmosphere creates *friction*, i.e. a hell of a lot of
heat around the spacecraft. (Go see "Apollo 13" for a discussion of that
point if you haven't already). Unless the spacecraft's trajecory is inside a
very small path it burns up in the upper atmosphere.

It's much easier to land on an airless body that one with an atmosphere,
which is why the skin of the Apollo lunar module was in some places only as
thick as tinfoil. Landing on the moon is *easier* than on Mars.

-You had to use retrorockets to slow down the lander, it's for sure a more
complicated device than a paracute+airbag


The parachute is there just to slow you down *after* you have deorbited
through the atmosphere. You still have to fire retrorockets to get to the
stage where you can use your 'chutes, so parachutes *add* complexity to the
mission, they don't make things simpler.

Negative point about a MARS landing mission:
-6/7 months esxposed to the space environment
-Greater gravity of mars


but for a manned mission the extra gravity of Mars over the moon is an
*advantage*, since human beings lose bone density in reduced gravity.
Walking on Mars would probably help reduce the bone loss.

So looking at this brief personal analisys it seems simpler to land on

mars
than on the moon,


little friendly advice, Allesandro: you need to carefully review the data
first, *then* draw your conclusions. You seem to be falling into a very
common trap, which is to take the limited knowledge you already possess and
try to shape your analysis around what you already "know".

--
Terrell Miller


"It's one thing to burn down the **** house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke


  #3  
Old January 19th 04, 04:32 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
[Starline] wrote:
[Surveyor] succesfully reached the goal of
a soft moon landing 5 time on 7 attemps. What I am asking is why, with a
probe that used a '60 technology,
the US had a better success/failure ration than on mars today.


You should be asking *whether* that's the case. If we discount the Deep
Space 2 penetrators, which were experimental at best, the US has succeeded
in 2 out of 3 of its recent landing attempts (with one more imminent).
That is essentially the same success rate -- 67% vs. 71% is too small a
difference to be reliably distinguished with so few data points.

+Less relative velocity between the probe and the target (moon) than with a
mars mission (I am guessing that, but I think that this statement is
correct)


It is, although the inability to do atmospheric braking at the Moon
largely cancels this advantage.

Negative point about a MOON landing mission ...
-You had to use retrorockets to slow down the lander, it's for sure a more
complicated device than a paracute+airbag


Note that all US airbag landers to date have also used braking rockets.
The airbag system was *supposed* to be simple; it actually turned out to
be more complicated than rocket landing. The MERs, indeed, have steerable
braking-rocket thrust, because they have to be able to cancel out
wind-induced side motion to give the airbags a reasonable chance.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |
 




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
Is the Moon Hollow? Sleuths? Imperishable Stars Misc 46 October 8th 04 04:08 PM
Space Calendar - June 25, 2004 Ron Misc 0 June 25th 04 04:37 PM
Space Calendar - November 26, 2003 Ron Baalke History 2 November 28th 03 10:21 AM
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 Ron Baalke History 0 October 24th 03 04:38 PM
Space Calendar - October 24, 2003 Ron Baalke Astronomy Misc 0 October 24th 03 04:38 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM.


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.