Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Schiaparelli Mars Probe's Parachute 'Jettisoned Too Early', Whereabouts Still Unknown (bbc.com)

Posted by msmash on from the too-early dept.

An anonymous reader writes: Europe's Schiaparelli lander did not behave as expected as it headed down to the surface of Mars on Wednesday. Telemetry data recovered from the probe during its descent indicates that its parachute was jettisoned too early. The rockets it was supposed to use to bring itself to a standstill just above the ground also appeared to fire for too short a time. The European Space Agency (Esa) has not yet conceded that the lander crashed but the mood is not positive. Experts will continue to analyse the data and they may also try to call out to Schiaparelli in the blind hope that it is actually sitting on the Red Planet intact. In addition, the Americans will use one of their satellites at Mars to image the targeted landing zone to see if they can detect any hardware. Although, the chances are slim because the probe is small. For the moment, all Esa has to work with is the relatively large volume of engineering data Schiaparelli managed to transmit back to the "mothership" that dropped it off at Mars - the Trace Gas Orbiter.

5 of 185 comments (clear)

  1. So it appears . . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Informative

    . . .there were two failures: the parachute release and the burn length. But both were likely set in the software on the lander, so I suspect parameters got borked somehow.

    Additionally, if the burn was shorter than planned, that would put significantly more fuel on board when the catastropic 'landing' occured. Which, depending on the propellant, could have caused an explosion at the crash site. That would likely scatter the remains, but should leave a notable mark on the soil. . .

    1. Re:So it appears . . . by rudy_wayne · · Score: 3, Informative

      Because of the highly successful Mars Rover missions, many people have forgotten (or don't know) that about 60% of all missions to Mars have failed.

    2. Re:So it appears . . . by CodeArtisan · · Score: 4, Informative

      Because of the highly successful Mars Rover missions, many people have forgotten (or don't know) that about 60% of all missions to Mars have failed.

      Not only that, but this specific probe's landing was an experiment in preparation for a future mission in 2020. The main thrust (no pun intended) of the mission was to position the mothership which will be gathering most of the data. It's disappointing the probe failed, but the information gathered and the root cause analysis of the experiment should provide good data for the next mission.

    3. Re: So it appears . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      Gee, you'd think some engineer mght have thought about there being no oxygen on Mars before sending rocket thrusters there that burn. They should come up with a two part propellant that provides its own oxidizer. And make it so it ignites automatically when the two parts mix - no flame required. And they should call it hydrazine.

      Your license to comment is hereby revoked.

    4. Re:So it appears . . . by slew · · Score: 3, Informative

      Well, unlike Mars, there is no reason to set up a permanent colony in Antarctica.

      Oh, wait... maybe a permanent settlement on Mars is pointless as well? :) Apart from the whole "backup location for humanity, in case Earth gets creamed by an asteroid no one saw coming" thing. That has some far-fetched merit of sorts. However, due to the extremely hostile environment there, chances are that a Martian colony has a much higher probability of failing than civilisation on Earth in the first place, at least for centuries to come. So even in the most optimistic scenarios, it will be the thought that counts w/r to Martian settlement.

      FWIW, Early European settlements in North America not only had a high probability of failure, they did fail, prolifically.

      Here are a few well known examples...
      1526 San Miguel de Gualdape (Georgia) - failed due to food shortages, disease, native attacks
      1527 Jungle Prada (Florida) - abandoned after native attacks
      1541 Cap-Rouge (Quebec City) - failed due to harsh winter, scurvy, native attacks
      1562 Charlesfort (South Carolina) - abandoned due to fire destroyed supplies
      1565 St Augustine (Florida) - survived!
      1566 Fort San Juan (North Carolina) - failed, burned by natives
      1570 Ajacan Jesuit Mission (Virginia) - all killed by native attack
      1585 Roanoke (Virginia) - abandoned for some unknown reason ("lost colony of Roanoke")
      1599 Tadoussac (Quebec) - failed due to harsh winter, scurvy
      1607 Popham (Maine) - failed due to harsh winter, fire destroyed supplies
      1607 Jamestown (Virginia) - survived!

      I expect a few spectacular failures in the early attempts to colonize Mars. In a way, these new-world colonies were about as isolated as Mars (difficulties in financing voyages meant that colonies could be unsupplied and on their own for 2-3 years at a time). Although there won't be any natives attacking on Mars (or *are* there natives?), the things that undermined many colonies were disease, fires, and the environment which will be all real problems in any Martian colony.