Why Mars May Be Difficult
An anonymous reader writes with a link to this "dramatic article leading up to the three Mars probes for December/January at NASA's JPL (also hosted at Ames) on Mars risks: Two out of three missions to the red planet have failed. After 300 million miles of deep space, 'One colleague describes the entry, descent and landing as six minutes of terror,' says Dr. Firouz Naderi, manager of the Mars Program Office.
Descending at 1,000 miles per hour, with only 100 seconds left at the altitude that a commercial airliner typically flies -- things need to happen in a hurry. Doesn't mention solar flares, electronics shielding, signal snags or budget tightening. The previous account listed the top 10 reasons Mars was hard in 1976."
After reading that, and seeing conceptual pictures of how these "landings" occur, I think that what makes Mars "hard" is our solutions to landing problems, and maybe even transportation. I don't know what we could do about transportation, but the landings are obviously way to stressful for delicate equipment. There has to be a better way to do it, because a landing like the one described would destroy almost anything! I don't think, therefore, that Mars itself is hard. I think it's how we access Mars that's "hard"!
10. "Damn cell phone won't work up here!"
9. Mars needs women. Stay home, Joe.
8. It's the Red Planet. Capitalist running-dog lackey not welcome.
7. Ever since I saw that awful movie that had Arnold with the bug-eyes, I just can't look at the place again.
6. The hassle of Martian businesses having to change 24/7 on their promotional material to 25/7.
5. Disney owns it already, why bother.
4. When you get a hole in the housing module, you can't go to Wal-Mart for ductape.
3. SCC got their first, just in case a mars mission tried to use Linux.
2. They don't take American Express.
1. Val Kilmer's rabid robot dog is still running loose, last time I heard.
0. "Angry Red Planet"? Forget it, I have too much stress already.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Space travel is a cruel mistress. There are so many factors in complicated missions like these that any success is closer to a statistical anomaly than achievement, figuratively speaking. During launch, the payload can be stressed to a breaking point, and many satellites have died this way. Even though there are measures in place to minimize these, there is still a probability that in the long run, something may become disabled as a result. Furthermore, there is a tremendous amount of radiation outside of our comfort zone, not to mention stray particles roaming empty space. When traveling at those speeds, in excess of 10,000 MPH, even a grain of sand can spell doom or at least have damaging effects. Then comes the delicate process of landing the thing, which further pounds the payload with extreme G forces, heat, and vibration. Couple this with a 20 minutes latency of communication, and you end up with an expensive toy at the mercy of computers and sensors.
:D
And it doesn't help if idiots on Earth submit values in Imperial when the craft needs Metric, or vice versa.
A blog like any other.
Maybe thats what NASA has been doing wrong
Beagle 2 weighs 33.2 Kg
Time will tell...
Choose your allies carefully, it is highly unlikely you will be held accountable for the actions of your enemies
...is those Martian "evil-doers" that keep shooting down our spacecraft. It's time to assemble another Coalition of the Willing(tm)!
My "7 inch schlong" sounds so much more manly than my "14.5 centemeter prick".
Agreed...
especially since 14.5 cm is less than 6 inches.
- nic
Be faithful to your obsessions. Identify them and be faithful to them, let them guide you like a sleepwalker. JG Ballard