Slashdot Mirror
NASA's Phoenix Mars Lander Killed By Ice
coondoggie writes "NASA officially ended its Phoenix Mars Lander operation today after a new image of the machine showed severe ice damage to its solar panels, and repeated attempts to contact the spacecraft had failed. 'Apparent changes in the shadows cast by the lander are consistent with predictions of how Phoenix could be damaged by harsh winter conditions. It was anticipated that the weight of a carbon-dioxide ice buildup could bend or break the lander's solar panels. [Michael Mellon of the University of Colorado] calculated hundreds of pounds of ice probably coated the lander in mid-winter.'"
Destroying one of our rovers is a hostile act!
mods, ice this troll
Remember that the lander was not meant to last through the Martian winter, and in fact was only tasked with a three month long mission. It lasted five months, which was longer than expected. The newer rovers are supposed to be able to survive for much longer, but this mission accomplished all that it was supposed to.
Filming was set to begin on another James Cameron movie and they had to clear out the Mars studio. Failure of the lander was the plausible story concocted to allow for the timely cessation of the project.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
A. It wasn't a rover.
B. They knew that this would happen.
C. The only reason they didn't use RTGs was because of cost and the nut cases that would protest the launch.
I know why they used solar. It was good enough for this mission.
But it would have been really interesting if they where given the budget to use an RTG and had kept gathering data over the winter.
So no knuckle head I was not criticizing their skills. Just lamenting that the mission was so limited in scope.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Perhaps "Phoenix" was not the best name for this project.
Proverbs 21:19
The Illustrious Council of Elders has declared today a day of celebration. K'breel, Speaker for the Council, spake thus:
"Despite the propaganda reports to the contrary, what we killed a year ago remains dead and frozen, crushed beneath a mountain of toxic dihydrogen monoxide. The perverse pendulosity of its plumb bob waves no more!
Some say this war will end in fire, others in ice.
Reporters' gelsacs know my ire;
they are those who went with fire.
We now confirm this blue death twice,
Our gelsacs engorged with delight,
We say that for destruction ice,
Not only might,
But did, suffice!"
When the Martian Poet Laureate reported a striking similarity between the recent press release and an ancient transmission from the blue world, K'Breel had the Poet Laureate's gelsacs bobbed, frosted, and then bitten.
Of course, an RTG would mass much more than solar power so every part of the system would have to be beefed up. Launcher, cruise stage, aerobraking. Before you know it you are paying for two missions when one at that location was all you needed.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
The sun was down too far on the horizon to generate any useful power (or absorb heat directly) during winter.
Mars has axial tilt of 25 degrees; Earth's is 23.5 degrees or so. So there's an equivalent Arctic Circle zone where the sun's below the horizon during the worst of winter. Earth's Arctic Circle is at 66 degrees north; with slightly greater tilt, Mars' Arctic Circle will be even lower. The landing site was around 67 degrees north on Mars.
The sun would have been down long enough that no reasonable amount of batteries could have kept it warm overwinter. A RTG could - as discussed - or little RHU units (Radioactive Heater Unit - it's like a mini-RTG heat source module, with the protection but no power generation units, just designed to keep parts warm). But there was a decision made that the lander was unlikely to survive with all the overwinter issues, so they didn't bother.