Slashdot Mirror
Probe Crash Due to Misdesigned Deceleration Sensor
squirrelhack writes "Seems as though the Genesis spacecraft was able to launch from earth, travel through space, avoid aliens, and cruise back into the atmosphere to be caught by stunt pilots waiting patiently with their helicopters. Alas, the brakes didn't work because a sensor was designed upside down.
Look on the bright side. The craft was not a complete loss, and it was the first probe to successfully test the Interplanetary Superhighway. (Article with pictures) Now that we know the IPSHwy works, we have the capability to launch cargo ANYWHERE in the solar system.
The primary limitation is the maximum weight we can get to the Earth/Moon Lagrange points. Once at the L-points, the cargo pretty much travels one gravity slingshot to the next with nearly no fuel expenditure. This could be a massive boon for sending Interplanetary mission cargo, especially when staging manned missions!
The only down side is that the IPSHwy is simply too slow for manned travel. Not too bad of a tradeoff, however, when you consider the amount of mass that can be more easily staged at Mars in advance! It's certainly reasonable that we could have a complete microsat network at Mars before a human ever sets foot there. Services that could be provided include:
- Mars GPS system
- Deep Space Network Uplink
- Satellite Radio Communicators for landing teams
- Detailed mapping and emergency surveillance of problem areas
In short, we could have a complete technological infrastructure on Mars before we risk anyone's life going there. It wouldn't have to be like the moon mission. We could go to stay.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I wish POLITICIANS would stop judging accidents with NASA and spaceflight in general as "wastes".
It's NOT a waste. Research REQUIRES failure. SUCESS requires failure.
One step at a time, my fellow scientists and engineers. One step at a time.
Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate. Ex-O'Reilly/MIT employee, now a full-time Google employee.
The scientists got their samples and the public got a cool crash video
But it takes a rocket scientist to really screw things up.
Haven't we had enough stories about sensorship today?
KHAAAAANNNNN!!!!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Jonah Hex
Horror & SciFi Erotic Nudes
Seriously. Correct me if I'm wrong, but THEY're the ones who:
Thought we still use Imperial for SPACE WORK (Mars Climate Orbiter IIRC?)
Recently dropped a sat because it wasn't bolted down when they moved it.
Now this.
Can I get like a billion dollars to fail repeatedly? PLEASE?
-- IANAEG - I am not an elder god.
Because no matter how much money you spend you can't buy perfect humans, and to err is human.
To correct error is engineering.
Once upon a time some 'wires' in my brain got crossed and I actually picked up a hot soldering iron from the wrong end. Have you ever had that experience where you realize you're about to do something terribly, terribly wrong, but the impulse has already been sent and you can't stop it?
I hate when that happens.
But I only did that once. Pain is a great teacher. One might almost come to the conclusion that that's what it's there for.
So the next probe will have the sensor absolutely correct and working. They'll have to come up with brand new ways to mess things up.
Just like I do.
KFG
Sheeeeezzzz...
These kind of mistakes make me wonder. WHY does NASA *HAVE* to re-design every freakin' thing on every freakin' mission from the ground up every freakin' time?
We're flying alpha-test spacecraft.
Re-usable modules anybody?? Heard of those? Standard designs? Sure, some parts are going to be different, namely the actual scientific instruments, but fer ghodssake an accelerometer?! WhyTF do we need to redesign that (its a weight, a spring and a switch, fer the love of pete) ?!!
-sigh-
-- -- The Dragon De Monsyne
I didn't realize that up and down were different in metric than the imperial system.
Just like you should never write that code that cannot be tested (in the perfect world, every line would be executed during testing), you should never design a subassembly that cannot be tested.
It's a organizational attitude adjustment that's needed to put this into effect.
I remember reading about an Apollo moon car issue where a core-sample clamp would not work because it was installed upside down. It ended up wasting about an hour of astronaut time. Parts designers should avoid symmetrical designs where things fit, or semi-fit, if misoriented. Design them with things sticking out so that it would not fit *at all* if put in wrong.
Table-ized A.I.
I hope not. As the article says, the board was Broken As Designed -- the sensor was installed exactly as specified, but the specification was wrong.
Mind the Gap