|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Huygens shortlived?
Is it true that Huygens ceased transmission less than 2 hours after
touchdown? Whilst it was a magnificent achievement to travel so far and land perfectly, it seems a great shame that the probe was so short lived. I'm suprised the designers didnt make it rugged enough and powered enough to survive several days. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
In article . com,
dexx wrote: Is it true that Huygens ceased transmission less than 2 hours after touchdown? Exact numbers aren't on hand, but that's generally right. Bear in mind that Cassini went below Huygens's horizon around that time, so no further data relaying was possible anyway. The primary mission was complete three *minutes* after touchdown. Huygens was mostly an atmosphere probe; the surface imaging and instruments were an extra. ...it seems a great shame that the probe was so short lived. I'm suprised the designers didnt make it rugged enough and powered enough to survive several days. It would have greatly increased the cost and complexity, unfortunately, because it would almost certainly have required an RTG. Moreover, several days is not enough -- it'll be a month or two (I forget exactly) before Cassini goes past Titan again. You can't really do a long-lived Titan surface mission without better communications support, that is, either a Titan orbiter or a lander that's big enough and heavy enough to carry its own high-power transmitter and steerable high-gain antenna (plus the power source needed to run them). -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Henry Spencer wrote:
[snip] It would have greatly increased the cost and complexity, unfortunately, because it would almost certainly have required an RTG. Moreover, several days is not enough -- it'll be a month or two (I forget exactly) before Cassini goes past Titan again. You can't really do a long-lived Titan surface mission without better communications support, that is, either a Titan orbiter or a lander that's big enough and heavy enough to carry its own high-power transmitter and steerable high-gain antenna (plus the power source needed to run them). To be fair, an RTG powered lander might very well have had enough power to send data directly back to Earth. At low bit rate certainly, but probably fast enough to be workable. Galileo was able to operate at pitiful data rates, with spectacular results, for example. However, the surface science capabilities of the probe didn't justify massive expenditures to increase the return for that portion of the mission. A new probe with different instruments and a different design, perhaps, but not Huygens. Also, I believe that it would have been enormously difficult to design Huygens and provide a large enough RTG to keep it operating in the event of a landing in liquid hydrocarbons, which was, and still is, a substantial possibility for a Titan lander. Considering how long ago Huygens was built, and that it was the first foray into a virtually unknown world, I think it did spectacularly well. We can do better next time, but partly that's because of the extraordinarily valuable data Huygens has provided. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Christopher M. Jones wrote:
Also, I believe that it would have been enormously difficult to design Huygens and provide a large enough RTG to keep it operating in the event of a landing in liquid hydrocarbons, which was, and still is, a substantial possibility for a Titan lander. My understanding is Huygens was designed to survive such a landing and continue to function while floating in hydrocarbons. I could be mistaken however. Steve |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Pope wrote:
Christopher M. Jones wrote: Also, I believe that it would have been enormously difficult to design Huygens and provide a large enough RTG to keep it operating in the event of a landing in liquid hydrocarbons, which was, and still is, a substantial possibility for a Titan lander. My understanding is Huygens was designed to survive such a landing and continue to function while floating in hydrocarbons. I could be mistaken however. I think the better phrasing would be that it was designed with some thought that they'd like to to survive landing, and that they were aware that it might land on land or a liquid ocean, but that it wasn't really a huge design priority. If it had landed on very very solid strong material, it would probably have broken. Same for on a loose soil, but on top of a big enough rock. If it landed in a liquid with enough sideways velocity or tilt, I think it would have tipped over (and then probably have sunk). It had moderate dynamic stability afloat in likely liquid sea materials for Titan; nothing like what you'd want to see for a real long term surface probe. They had a tight weight budget and dollar budget, and did what they could to keep it survivable on the surface, not knowing what that surface was going to be. -george william herbert |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
George William Herbert wrote: Steve Pope wrote: Christopher M. Jones wrote: Also, I believe that it would have been enormously difficult to design Huygens and provide a large enough RTG to keep it operating in the event of a landing in liquid hydrocarbons, which was, and still is, a substantial possibility for a Titan lander. My understanding is Huygens was designed to survive such a landing and continue to function while floating in hydrocarbons. I could be mistaken however. I think the better phrasing would be that it was designed with some thought that they'd like to to survive landing, and that they were aware that it might land on land or a liquid ocean, but that it wasn't really a huge design priority. They planned for the contingecy of a liquid landing. One of the UK experiments was a densometer for analysing the liquid. Dave |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
George William Herbert wrote:
They had a tight weight budget and dollar budget, and did what they could to keep it survivable on the surface, not knowing what that surface was going to be. Maybe next time they try to aim for an ocean. Much easier to land on. Lots of Greetings! Volker |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
George William Herbert wrote: If it had landed on very very solid strong material, it would probably have broken... If it landed in a liquid with enough sideways velocity or tilt, I think it would have tipped over... Add to this: if it had landed intact but tipped up at a substantial tilt, nothing dire would have happened to it... but Cassini wouldn't have been able to hear it. The antenna wasn't fully omnidirectional: it put most of the transmitter output out nearly horizontally. -- "Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer -- George Herbert | |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Pope wrote:
Christopher M. Jones wrote: Also, I believe that it would have been enormously difficult to design Huygens and provide a large enough RTG to keep it operating in the event of a landing in liquid hydrocarbons, which was, and still is, a substantial possibility for a Titan lander. My understanding is Huygens was designed to survive such a landing and continue to function while floating in hydrocarbons. Yes. For three minutes. Greetings! Volker |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Steve Pope wrote:
My understanding is Huygens was designed to survive such a landing and continue to function while floating in hydrocarbons. I could be mistaken however. It was designed to have the maximum possible survival rate in the event of a landing in liquid that the designers could give it, within the design constraints. However, this chance was not much. A pool of liquid hydrocarbons at near liquid Nitrogen temperatures makes an awfully efficient coolant. So much so that had Huygens landed in liquid methane it would have ended its operational life very quickly thereafter. The crux of the issue is that Huygens' design is fundamentally incompatable with long duration, or even medium duration, surface science, let alone on Titan. It needs not only greater longevity in general but also different instruments and different overall design. I think the inflatable wheeled rover / aerobot* is probably the best design for this sort of thing available at the moment. It would use 3 separate Helium filled balloons as wheels in a rover. These would enable the craft to operate as an aerobot during and after descent (it could also take the place of parachutes), which would permit it to perform extensive surveys of the atmosphere and surface. Later the balloons can be partially deflated to approach or touch down on the surface, for higher resolution imagery or surface science. Finally, while on the surface the Helium could be replaced with ambient atmosphere, transforming the vehicle to an amphibious rover. It looks to be an enormously capable design, with quite a lot of potential. (*) http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/out...1/pdf/4023.pdf http://www2.jpl.nasa.gov/adv_tech/rovers/summary.htm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Huygens shortlived? | dexx | Astronomy Misc | 45 | January 25th 05 02:00 AM |
Huygens shortlived? | dexx | Policy | 69 | January 25th 05 02:00 AM |
Huygens landed! | Victor | SETI | 1 | January 14th 05 11:17 PM |
Huygens Sets Off With Correct Spin and Speed | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 11th 05 06:59 PM |
ESA's Huygens Probe Set to Detach From Cassini Orbiter | [email protected] | Astronomy Misc | 0 | December 22nd 04 12:41 AM |