Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Curiosity
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Brian Gaff
Apr 30, 2012, 9:42:41 AM4/30/12
to
So the news item says 100 days to the landing of a SUV sized rover on Mars.
One assumes that the eventual aim is to send men there, but in the meantime,
I've been reading about the weird way this is supposed to land. It may be
just me, but considering the track record of lannding on the planet in
general, it does seem prone to failures escpecially near the actual
landing.
I hope not, but I wonder what odds the bookies would put on it working.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
One assumes that the eventual aim is to send men there, but in the meantime,
I've been reading about the weird way this is supposed to land. It may be
just me, but considering the track record of lannding on the planet in
general, it does seem prone to failures escpecially near the actual
landing.
I hope not, but I wonder what odds the bookies would put on it working.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
Hg
Apr 30, 2012, 10:24:15 AM4/30/12
to
On 30/04/2012 18:42, Brian Gaff wrote:
> So the news item says 100 days to the landing of a SUV sized rover on Mars.
> One assumes that the eventual aim is to send men there, but in the meantime,
> I've been reading about the weird way this is supposed to land. It may be
> just me, but considering the track record of lannding on the planet in
> general, it does seem prone to failures escpecially near the actual
> landing.
>
> I hope not, but I wonder what odds the bookies would put on it working.
> Brian
>
Scientifically, the odds increase with every successful landing, as
> So the news item says 100 days to the landing of a SUV sized rover on Mars.
> One assumes that the eventual aim is to send men there, but in the meantime,
> I've been reading about the weird way this is supposed to land. It may be
> just me, but considering the track record of lannding on the planet in
> general, it does seem prone to failures escpecially near the actual
> landing.
>
> I hope not, but I wonder what odds the bookies would put on it working.
> Brian
>
more atmospheric landing data is sent back and gives us more info
about the atmosphere of Mars. So, hopefully Entry,Descent & Landing
in following missions becomes safer.
Actually, I'm guessing the landing on this mission will be the
safest of any mission yet - as it's powered & controlled. Hazards,
such as large boulders or small shallow craters would have killed
the landing of the air-bag missions - that's what a landing engineer
said at JPL.
Can't remember how well the hazard avoidance mechanism worked on
the Phoenix lander though.
Anyway, 100 days?! Bring it on, a Mars landing always gets my
blood racing with excitement.
--
T
Greg (Strider) Moore
Apr 30, 2012, 10:35:02 AM4/30/12
to
"Brian Gaff" wrote in message news:jnm4sh$h8u$1...@dont-email.me...
There's been a lot of discussion here in the past on the complexity of the
"sky-crane" plan.
It is a bit daunting, but honestly, trying to land something that big on
Mars in one piece w/o the benefit of a nice think atmosphere is going to be
daunting no matter what you do.
Personally, I'd give it better than 50/50 odds.
>
>So the news item says 100 days to the landing of a SUV sized rover on Mars.
>One assumes that the eventual aim is to send men there, but in the
>meantime, I've been reading about the weird way this is supposed to land.
>It may be just me, but considering the track record of lannding on the
>planet in general, it does seem prone to failures escpecially near the
>actual landing.
>
>I hope not, but I wonder what odds the bookies would put on it working.
> Brian
>
--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
There's been a lot of discussion here in the past on the complexity of the
"sky-crane" plan.
It is a bit daunting, but honestly, trying to land something that big on
Mars in one piece w/o the benefit of a nice think atmosphere is going to be
daunting no matter what you do.
Personally, I'd give it better than 50/50 odds.
>
>So the news item says 100 days to the landing of a SUV sized rover on Mars.
>One assumes that the eventual aim is to send men there, but in the
>meantime, I've been reading about the weird way this is supposed to land.
>It may be just me, but considering the track record of lannding on the
>planet in general, it does seem prone to failures escpecially near the
>actual landing.
>
>I hope not, but I wonder what odds the bookies would put on it working.
> Brian
>
--
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net
Brian Gaff
May 1, 2012, 12:46:12 AM5/1/12
to
Yes, well I remember the European Beagle 2 fiasco, and the Polar lander, but
in thos cases I think they basically know what and why things went wrong,
though seem to have never found any sign of either of them.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Hg" <H...@Hg.Hg> wrote in message news:jnm7ah$mq8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
in thos cases I think they basically know what and why things went wrong,
though seem to have never found any sign of either of them.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
"Hg" <H...@Hg.Hg> wrote in message news:jnm7ah$mq8$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Brian Thorn
May 1, 2012, 11:33:14 AM5/1/12
to
On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:12 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes, well I remember the European Beagle 2 fiasco, and the Polar lander, but
>in thos cases I think they basically know what and why things went wrong,
>though seem to have never found any sign of either of them.
I don't think they ever narrowed it down to which of the myriad
<Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Yes, well I remember the European Beagle 2 fiasco, and the Polar lander, but
>in thos cases I think they basically know what and why things went wrong,
>though seem to have never found any sign of either of them.
possible things actually killed Beagle 2.
bob haller
May 2, 2012, 5:13:13 PM5/2/12
to
On May 1, 11:33 am, Brian Thorn <bthor...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:12 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
>
> On Tue, 1 May 2012 05:46:12 +0100, "Brian Gaff"
>
> <Bria...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >Yes, well I remember the European Beagle 2 fiasco, and the Polar lander, but
> >in thos cases I think they basically know what and why things went wrong,
> >though seem to have never found any sign of either of them.
>
> I don't think they ever narrowed it down to which of the myriad
> possible things actually killed Beagle 2.
I think the sky crane s overly complex and going to be a big pricey
> >Yes, well I remember the European Beagle 2 fiasco, and the Polar lander, but
> >in thos cases I think they basically know what and why things went wrong,
> >though seem to have never found any sign of either of them.
>
> I don't think they ever narrowed it down to which of the myriad
> possible things actually killed Beagle 2.
failure:(
Jeff Findley
May 3, 2012, 8:40:17 AM5/3/12
to
In article <dce9f021-c6ef-4045-8fa8-
ee0e60...@d8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
Unfortunately, landing on Mars isn't as easy as one would think. The
thin atmosphere is as much of a hindrance as it is helpful. It's just
not thick enough that you can safely land on parachutes alone.
Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
ee0e60...@d8g2000vbw.googlegroups.com>, hal...@aol.com says...
thin atmosphere is as much of a hindrance as it is helpful. It's just
not thick enough that you can safely land on parachutes alone.
Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. ;) "
- tinker
0 new messages