Slashdot Mirror


ESA Lander's Signal Cut Out Just Before It Was Supposed To Land on Mars (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader shares an ArsTechnica report: On Wednesday, the European Space Agency sought to become the second entity to successfully land a spacecraft on Mars with its Schiaparelli lander. And everything seemed to be going swimmingly right up until the point that Schiaparelli was to touch down. The European scientists had been tracking the descent of Schiaparelli through an array of radio telescopes near Pune, India and were able to record the moment when the vehicle exited a plasma blackout. The scientists also received a signal that indicated parachute deployment. But during the critical final moments, when nine hydrazine-powered thrusters were supposed to fire to arrest Schiaparelli's descent, the signal disappeared. At that point, the European Space Agency's webcast went silent for several minutes before one of the flight directors could be heard to say, "We expected the signal to continue, but clearly it did not. We don't want to jump to conclusions."

12 of 244 comments (clear)

  1. Really? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seriously? This is a joke... I mean, who thought sending a mission to Mars would be this hard?

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Really? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Live people are much better with dealing with things when they go off script.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Really? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer. Could a live pilot have executed no, not with the equipment they sent, the fuel use and tolerances for error were far to small.

      I believe on Apollo 11 a human had to take over on the landing.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Really? by johannesg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer. Could a live pilot have executed no, not with the equipment they sent, the fuel use and tolerances for error were far to small.

      Nice story. Now here's what really happened: http://www.space.com/26593-apo...

    4. Re:Really? by WhiplashII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, no. Niel Armstrong really did fly the lunar lander. He really did run it almost totally out of fuel, because he had to avoid a huge rock. If he hadn't done that, the vehicle would have gone splat.

      By the way, the computer was completely spazzing out during the landing and was not giving good data. Fortunately it was written in a way that kept the important stuff going regardless.

      http://space.stackexchange.com...

      also

      http://www.dickgordon.com/Apol...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    5. Re:Really? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's all well and good. Now explain how it would have prevented a thruster failure. Or a metric-english conversion error on the entry trajectory calculation. Or a failed parachute. Or a launch vehicle failure. Or virtually any of the common ways that unmanned probes have actually failed. You might be able to salvage ~20% of them with humans aboard. Might. Meanwhile, humans are a massive added source of additional risk to a mission; they dramatically increase spacecraft size, complexity / part count, consumables, and just in general make things far more difficult. And you can build and launch numerous unmanned missions for the cost of one manned mission.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    6. Re:Really? by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Informative

      40 seconds of fuel left, according to post-mission analysis.

      He flew the LEM for a longer period than any simulation. The 1201/1202 errors were caused by Armstrong leaving docking radar on during descent, thinking it would save time if they had to abort. Not tested in simulation, probably because it was a checklist item.

      Given the state of the art at the time, a human pilot was essential. Today we would expect an automated landing to succeed, given the massively improved capabilities.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  2. Re:Signal Aquired by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Informative

    That's the orbiter.

    The lander is what is in question, and there's been no sign that it has been successfully acquired by the orbiter or anybody else.

    --
    AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
  3. Martians by bored_lurker · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think the little green men on Mars heard that the the Europeans have a long storied history of bringing diseases to the New Worlds and they blew it our of the sky with their ray guns.

    --
    --- Tolerance is the axiomatic "virtue" of those without convictions ---
  4. No need to worry! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Funny

    After a lengthy discussion with the ESA, I've been assured that the lander has definitely landed! On a side note, no word as to if it was a soft type landing or the usual hypersonic-impact-crater-forming type. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  5. Re:F*cking aliens by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can't the aliens leave our spacecraft alone?

    Another bold victory for the Mars defense force! Despite recent setbacks, we were able to repel the invaders. Let this be a message to the Terran aggressors: you just got luck last time.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  6. Re:Money well spent! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People have been dying ever since there have been people. If you're going to use people dying as an excuse to not do something, nothing will ever get done. AND people will still die.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.