Register to reply

Got doubts about Curiosity surviving Mars landing

by jackmell
Tags: curiosity, doubts, landing, mars, surviving
Share this thread:
jackmell
#1
Aug4-12, 10:12 AM
P: 1,666
That landing manouever sounds too complicated, too susciptable to errors. But surely they know more than me and feel it's the best way. Still, I think it will fail. That's my prediction. Wasn't there a less error-prone way of setting down on the surface? Maybe though it was a budget issue.
Phys.Org News Partner Astronomy news on Phys.org
Transiting exoplanet with longest known year
Mysterious dance of dwarfs may force a cosmic rethink
Study shows oceans vital for possibility for alien life
marcus
#2
Aug4-12, 10:16 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,083
Did you watch the YouTube "Seven minutes of terror" ? It's great.
Of course there is a substantial chance of failure.

I could be wrong but personally I think you are mistaken about the landing method being chosen for budget reasons when there was some obviously better way.

The way I see it there is no obviously better way. They wanted to land a 1 ton vehicle on a layer of dusty soil in rather strong gravity (considerably stronger than Moon surface gravity).
Landing with rockets all the way to ground would have raised a lot of dust and made craters in the surface you are trying to land on.

Maybe they could have encased the vehicle in a shell to protect against dust and flying debris, and landed it in the shell, sort of like a big egg with rockets and legs. And then once the egg had landed open the belly bay door and lower the vehicle to ground.

But that, to me, seems inelegant compared with what they are doing. It is innovative but UNTRIED. If it succeeds it may turn out to be the method of choice in future. If it fails, well it fails and we've learned something. New technologies often look risky and impractical. You have to try them and allow for some chance of failure.

That's just how I see it and I may be wrong, of course.
jackmell
#3
Aug4-12, 10:26 AM
P: 1,666
I've seen it. I belive the cabling suspending the rover right before landing will get caught up in the rocket exhaust causing the rover to get entangled in the cabling and causing a bad landing.

marcus
#4
Aug4-12, 10:55 AM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,083
Got doubts about Curiosity surviving Mars landing

So you've seen the YouTube. Great! Let's share the URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s

I'd like to hear what other people estimate the odds of success are.

I think the probability of successful landing is better than 60%.
It's risky and without being at all expert or knowledgeable I'd put it at 70%.

Anybody else have a guess?
jackmell
#5
Aug4-12, 11:28 AM
P: 1,666
Quote Quote by marcus View Post
So you've seen the YouTube. Great! Let's share the URL:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s

I'd like to hear what other people estimate the odds of success are.

I think the probability of successful landing is better than 60%.
It's risky and without being at all expert or knowledgeable I'd put it at 70%.

Anybody else have a guess?
70% ! Maybe then I don't understand. Personally I'd give it 1 out of 10 and that's only because I have great respect for Carl Sagan and would not have wanted him thinking poorly of me. Surely though the mission crew have worked out the success probability very precisely. Does anyone know what their figures are? They may not want to admit it but I suspect they are privately thinking one out of three.

Oh yeah, I predict it will land but the first picture will be mountians in the background and in the foreground, a broken wheel entangled with a bunch of cabling.
Chronos
#6
Aug4-12, 12:20 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,359
I'm unreasonably confident the landing will be successful. NASA has a great track record and I doubt they allowed for a 30% chance of landing failure in mission planning.
marcus
#7
Aug4-12, 01:30 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,083
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
I'm unreasonably confident the landing will be successful. NASA has a great track record and I doubt they allowed for a 30% chance of landing failure in mission planning.
So you estimate the odds as BETTER than 70% chance of success. Great! Glad to hear it!
I'm really curious to know what probabilities of success other people reckon for the mission, at this point.
marcus
#8
Aug4-12, 01:48 PM
Astronomy
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
marcus's Avatar
P: 23,083
Chronos, I guess that means if we were betting you would put up $7 against Jack's $3.
It would be a fair bet because you could expect to gain $2.1 (.7 times 3) at a risk of $2.1 (.3 times 7).
Actually that would seem an advantageous bet because you judge the probability of success to be more than .7, so your expected gain is more than $2.1 and your risk is less than that.

I've been listening to Jim Hartle's concept of generalized quantum mechanics in which he reformulates QM in terms of betting odds based on "consistent histories" partitions of the different paths the world could take. He does away with the classical outside observer and boils it down to dividing the possible histories up according to what we care about and feel the need to bet on.
RichZitola
#9
Aug4-12, 02:09 PM
P: 1
I don't have a good guess on the probability of success, but the biggest risk in my mind is the dynamics of the lander/rover two-body system. After watching the full scale drop test, you can see there is a bounce and oscillation:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=YasCQRAWRwU

How will the lander handle that?!? Without feedback from the rover, the lander might end up amplifying that oscillation. I think the mass of the rover is comparable to that of the lander, so the possibility of uncontrolled oscillations seems obvious. Although cable entanglement seems very unlikely, I could envision the rover going through wild swings in orientation that might be enough to capsize it on touchdown.

Part of me says, well, of *course* they must have thought of that, and programmed the lander to dampen those oscillations, but that's got to be a really tough problem to solve.

If the landing goes badly, my nickel is on this scenario.... just imagine the rover on the surface, intact, but inverted... wheels to the sky!! oops!

Fingers crossed... :)
Drakkith
#10
Aug4-12, 03:15 PM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,479
My confidence level is over 9000!
CosmicEye
#11
Aug4-12, 04:38 PM
P: 63
It does look complicated enough with the influence of how dramatic they were saying it.
Waterfox
#12
Aug4-12, 07:28 PM
P: 33
Nearly every online article and video I see talking about EDL have comments from people who are uncertain about the complexity of the landing. You are definitely not alone.
Check out the previous "Six Minutes of Terror" of video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZRXwRybb1I
Back then many people were unsure it would work, but it work flawlessly twice!

I feel confident in the MSL landing.
drrail
#13
Aug5-12, 12:07 AM
P: 5
How can we give odds on an untested system? We can only speculate on certain aspects of the plan as parts of that plan. Break it down into the most probable failure points, and weigh those points against known facts.

The weight of the rover should aid in the success of the crane system, however depending on how the cables are 'rolled up' in their casing, that will determine the likely hood of the cables getting caught up or entangled on themselves inside the casing. One cable getting ‘caught up’ would more than likely cause complete failure. I've seen the test of the crane lowering the rover, but I'm not sure of the internal engineering with regards to the specifics of the crane cable housing mechanism.

http://www.quora.com/Did-NASA-do-a-d...-here-on-earth

Another failure point of importance to mention would be the parachute deployment. If the rover is unlucky enough to get into a spin or roll on entry, the parachute would have the chance of entangling itself around the rover/craft and dropping like a lead balloon. Then the Crane really doesn’t matter.
jackmell
#14
Aug5-12, 07:50 AM
P: 1,666
Quote Quote by Chronos View Post
I'm unreasonably confident the landing will be successful. NASA has a great track record and I doubt they allowed for a 30% chance of landing failure in mission planning.
Unless their budget was cut which is sometimes the case. I suspect they would have preferred an apollo-type landing but because of budget constraints, elected to dangle precariously the rover from the business end of powerful rocket engines. Not unreasonable to suspect it was "either we do it this dangerous way within budget or we don't have a mission," and then just accept the high probability of failure and then don't really admit it to the public.
Drakkith
#15
Aug5-12, 08:23 AM
Mentor
Drakkith's Avatar
P: 11,479
Quote Quote by jackmell View Post
Unless their budget was cut which is sometimes the case. I suspect they would have preferred an apollo-type landing but because of budget constraints, elected to dangle precariously the rover from the business end of powerful rocket engines.
An apollo type landing is not a good option.

Not unreasonable to suspect it was "either we do it this dangerous way within budget or we don't have a mission," and then just accept the high probability of failure and then don't really admit it to the public.
Oh please, go spread this BS somewhere else. It is 100% unreasonable to suspect something like this. NASA isn't going to waste millions of dollars on a mission with a high risk of failure just because they couldn't afford the "good" way of doing it. They either find a way of doing it within budget and with a reasonable chance of success or they don't do it at all. (Or they end up overrunning their budget and getting the money anyways by cutting other programs)
jackmell
#16
Aug5-12, 09:28 AM
P: 1,666
Quote Quote by Drakkith View Post
NASA isn't going to waste millions of dollars on a mission with a high risk of failure just because they couldn't afford the "good" way of doing it.
I disagree with that. It's always a matter of money and practicality. And please don't provoke the mentors into locking my thread until at least I've been given the opportunity, in the unlikely event this succeeds, of admitting I was wrong.

Can you explain why the apollo-type landing is unreasonable?
256bits
#17
Aug5-12, 10:35 AM
P: 1,406
Quote Quote by jackmell View Post
I disagree with that. It's always a matter of money and practicality. And please don't provoke the mentors into locking my thread until at least I've been given the opportunity, in the unlikely event this succeeds, of admitting I was wrong.

Can you explain why the apollo-type landing is unreasonable?
Well, if you accept the fact that they did not want rocket engines to kick up dust from the surface, then the tether system was judged by them to be the way to do it.

For the Apollo landings on the moon, the command module was set into orbit around the moon. To slow the curiosity mission to an orbit around Mars would require more fuel to be brought along. Sending down Curiosity to the surface from Martian orbit with rockets would also require more fuel. To do it the apollo way would then entail a larger initial spacecraft right from get go at the launch pad on earth.

Then the question is whether or not that type of landing ( Apollo style ) has actually a greater chance of success than the tether system. Since Martian landing missions have a success rate of around 30-40% , would have substituting one complex expensive system for another complex sytem, have inreased the odds to 100% suuceesful mission. No.

I think the heat shield, parachute, tether system looks quite promising will be successful.
joema
#18
Aug5-12, 11:28 AM
P: 101
Quote Quote by jackmell View Post
...Can you explain why the apollo-type landing is unreasonable?
If by "Apollo-style landing", you mean a single-body, legged lander using powered descent to the surface, it's not unreasonable. In fact Viking landers 1 and 2 did this in 1976, and they weighed about 600 kg, vs Curiosity's 900 kg. So they were in the same approximate mass range. It was technically feasible to do this for Curiosity.

However, Viking landers were fixed and non-mobile. This facilitated a combined lander and descent stage. When landing a wheeled rover/lander, it's different. Regardless of whether you use a two-body "Skycrane" method, or a single-body Viking method, the wheeled lander and descent stage must eventually separate.

The options are:

(1) Use airbags for final descent. This works for small landers, but for heavy landers like Curiosity the airbag system is just too heavy.

(2) Put the a legged descent stage under the wheeled lander, land as a single body, deploy ramps and let it drive off. This necessitates tricky engine cutoff procedures, redundant landing gear (legs plus rover wheels) and entails risk of blocked ramps due to terrain. A blocked ramp nearly prevented deploying the rover on Mars Pathfinder.

(3) Suspend it from cables (Skycrane method). This avoids redundant landing gear, avoids covering the lander with dust, avoids tricky engine cutoff and touchdown sensing, and allows very gentle powered landing. The tradeoff is added complexity of the Skycrane system, but no matter how landing is done it entails a lot of pyrotechnics and sequencers working perfectly. The Skycrane system incrementally adds complexity to gain certain benefits, but an "Apollo/Viking"-style landing is not free of complexity or perils.

For a detailed historical review of landing options, see "The Challenges of Landing on Mars": http://www.engineeringchallenges.org/cms/7126/7622.aspx


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Projectile, finding landing distance - given landing angle Introductory Physics Homework 2
What factors make landing on Mars easier than on the Earth? Harder? Astronomy & Astrophysics 7
Belaying Doubts of Moon Landing General Discussion 8
Phoenix craft to dig under Mars ice (landing planned 25 May) Astronomy & Astrophysics 53
Mars Landing Astronomy & Astrophysics 11