Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

24 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 Rob+Riggs · · Score: 5, Funny

      Come on guys, was this not checked, double-checked, and tested?

      The simulations all ran successfully on "Lunar Lander".

      --
      the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
    2. Re:So it appears . . . by ScentCone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Someone should go to jail for a very long time as soon as we figure out exactly what was screwed up.

      Really. Criminal conviction, huh? Programmer in prison? Are you even listening to yourself?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    3. Re:So it appears . . . by idji · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I suspect something happened to the parachute just before jettisoning - e.g. rope breaking/twisting, chute tearing/burning that caused the lander to tumble, and so the rockets switched off as they weren't pointing against the forces on the lander that the accelerometers were reading.
      Look at JPL's Mars parachute test in 2014 that ripped the parachute https://www.youtube.com/watch?....

    4. Re:So it appears . . . by The+Raven · · Score: 4, Funny

      I wonder if the burn was shorter than planned because the ground came up and interrupted it... a likely possibility if the parachute released too early and snapped off. I've seen this happen before... in KSP.

      --
      "I will trust Google to 'do no evil' until the founders no longer run it." Hello Alphabet.
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. Re:So it appears . . . by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Someone should go to jail for a very long time as soon as we figure out exactly what was screwed up.

      Really. Criminal conviction, huh? Programmer in prison? Are you even listening to yourself?

      Would it be the Programmer? Or the Tester? Or the Project Manager that signed off on it? Or should it be the entire team?

      Hillary Clinton. Trump says we should blame her for everything that has gone wrong - ever. :-)

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    8. Re:So it appears . . . by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      That's what she said.

    9. Re:So it appears . . . by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Quite possibly none of the above; from the description, I think that it's more likely some sort of sensor issue. It used a doppler radar altimeter/velocimeter to estimate its position, with 1 antenna is dedicated to range (points straight down, direct measurement) and 3 to X/Y/Z velocity (angled outward, used to estimate how the landscape is moving with respect to the craft). There's also accelerometers onboard. I'm not sure what sort of priority is given to what data.

      A program is only as good as the inputs it receives. It seems to me that it thought it was going "low and slow". I mean, technically it could be a software issue, there could be some sort of "unit conversion" bug or some sort of mistaken sequence specifications or the like. But if I had to guess, I'd go with a sensor data problem rather than software.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    10. Re:So it appears . . . by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting
      The burn cut off 19 seconds before loss of signal, so the probe was in freefall for at least 19 seconds. From TFA:

      Not only is the chute jettisoned earlier than called for in the predicted timeline, but the retrorockets that were due to switch on immediately afterwards are seen to fire for just three or four seconds. They were expected to fire for a good 30 seconds.

      In the downlinked telemetry, Schiaparelli then continues transmitting a radio signal for 19 seconds after the apparent thruster shutoff. The eventual loss of signal occurs 50 seconds before Schiaparelli was supposed to be on the surface.

      That last sentence, if you assume loss of signal corresponds to impact with the ground, suggests de-orbit velocity relative to the ground was much higher than expected. The early parachute release may have been the culprit. Or the probe entered the atmosphere at too steep an angle (which could also explain the early parachute release - the probe would've entered higher density atmosphere more quickly thus increasing aerodynamic load on the chute to the point at which it failed). The burn probably began at a higher velocity than it was designed for.

      If we're speculating, my guess would be the higher velocity when the retro-rockets were fired caused greater instability - aerodynamic forces caused the probe to rock more than expected. The parachute's purpose isn't just to slow the craft down; it also keeps the craft's orientation stable during this period of higher aerodynamic forces. Without it, drag on tiny asymmetries on the front of the craft can result in large turning moments. With a parachute attached, these moments are countered by the righting moment the parachute imparts on the rear of the craft every time it deviates from the proper orientation. Without the parachute, the craft can experience large oscillations or even flip due to these drag-induced turning moments. The large amplitude and higher frequency of the resulting oscillations could've exceeded what the rocket control software was designed to handle, and it shut off prematurely when it exceeded some threshold programmed into the software.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

  2. Kerbal Space Program by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yeah, I do this all the time in Kerbal Space Program. From my experience, they just need to make sure the parachute icons aren't red or yellow when they deploy them. It always sucks to go through a whole mission only to mess up your landing and waste everything. I suggest they revert to launch and try again.

  3. Repeating itself by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't this essentially what happened to Mars Polar Lander? Incorrect sensory interpretation leading to the computer taking the wrong actions, thinking it was on the ground when it wasn't?

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. Re:I hate it when that happens. by rudy_wayne · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, everyone "jettisons too early" once in a while.

  5. Grow up by sjbe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Billions of dollars spent on hardware, and some fuckup software dude sends the whole thing crashing to the ground

    The proximal cause of failure is unknown at this time. There are people smarter and harder working than you working on it.

    This pisses me off.

    Oh well then I'm sure they'll care more now that you are "pissed off".

    Someone should go to jail for a very long time as soon as we figure out exactly what was screwed up.

    Ok asshole... For what crime exactly? What law was broken that justifies jail time? How about you tell that to them in person Mr. Anonymous Coward. Actually never mind since you aren't brave enough to put your name to your idiotic rant. Grow up you pathetic twit.

  6. Disappointed with the Press Conference by idji · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was very disappointed and angry at the ESA Press Conference this morning. Last night when they suspected (knew) [There is no way this landing was designed to not return a success signal immediately] the Lander had crashed they silenced everyone and announced a press conference at 10 AM the next morning.
    At the Press Conference they emphasised the success of the orbiter and mentioned NOTHING at all about data from the lander. They left that all to questions from the Press. Basically all questions from the Press were about the lander and the data (and they were good questions - no stupid questions came), and they drip fed a piece of info at a time to the journalists.
    I believe the suits at ESA were in damage control because they are scared about losing funding for the 2020 lander so they mentioned NOTHING about the crashed lander, so that when politicians check on the press releases/conferences in months to come there is NO info on the crash, but in a few days the world will know anyway, especially if NASA gets a photo of the impact and debris.
    They did not make any statements at all (e.g. yes we got data from the Lander, the rockets fired for only 3-4 seconds, something went wrong with the parachute and we suspect a very hard landing) in a controlled and orderly way, they forced the journalists to extract it from them relunctantly.
    I was super disappointed about scientists playing politics and covering up what they obviously knew the audience wanted to know. It was sickening.
    And, yes, I live in Europe and yes, I want my tax Euros to fund the 2020 Lander, but I'm angry at scientists playing politics and ignoring the audience who wanted to know what happened last night and they deliberately said nothing.

    1. Re:Disappointed with the Press Conference by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 3

      It is possible that they wanted to have completed some kind of analysis to determine exactly what happened before they started talking about it.

      --
      "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
    2. Re:Disappointed with the Press Conference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've only been part of 30 or so aircraft mishap investigations, but I'm sure that in the space world, where you only have telemetry, none of that confusing physical evidence, that you can perform an accurate mishap analysis in 45 minutes. Seriously, all the rest of that time is just bullshit to cover people's asses, right? I mean, we already know all of the possible failure modes, and deliberately didn't design around them, so it's just a matter of pasting a few hundred megabytes of data still getting transmitted into an excel spreadsheet and VLOOKUP will tell you which failure mode occurred.

      You're as fucking stupid as the "prosecute the programmers" poster above.

    3. Re:Disappointed with the Press Conference by Rei · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Indeed. I live in Europe, but I find little that's admirable about ESA in comparison to NASA. They're not nearly as open with the public, nor nearly as successful. NASA has its faults, but I'd take a European version of NASA over the ESA any day.

      The openness issues don't just stem to press conferences. They also embargo mission data a lot more and have more strict licenses on reuse of ESA products. It's.... let's just say "unfortunate". And it needs to change.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
  7. Real engineering is expensive by sjbe · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Real engineers go to jail when they fuck up.

    People who pretend to be engineers go to jail. Did you actually read your link? It's nothing but people with forged documents and other fraudulent acts. Nothing about sending people to jail for honest errors where nobody died.

    Maybe a little accountability for you "coding is an art" folks would be a good thing?

    If someone is willing to pay for the proper quality control structures then fine. Most software engineering quality control is severely budget limited. There are folks out there who know how to write incredibly robust software but doing that isn't cheap and it isn't merely a matter of throwing money at the problem either. It's not a secret how to do it but it isn't cheap and it isn't easy. If you want people to do a better job then you need to give them the resources and organizational structure necessary to make it happen.

    Answer this. Would you do a job where you could go to jail for making a error in a calculation? Especially if no one was injured?

  8. Re:Crazy "Curiosity" Landing worked.. Schiaparelli by Octorian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Only thing crazier, would be to put balloons around a lander and let it bounce to a landing. Could you even imaging such a thing?

    Ahh yes, Pathfinder, Spirit, and Opportunity :-)

  9. Lithobraking by dmaul99 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So the emergency lithobraking maneuver didn't do the trick then. This sucks. Really.