Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
Mars lander or Mars crasher? — Parallax Forums

Mars lander or Mars crasher?

Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
edited 2012-06-25 05:00 in General Discussion
Hubris? Fantasy? Or just mind-bogglingly gutsy engineering? Whatever, it will be a nail-biter:

-Phil
«1

Comments

  • FranklinFranklin Posts: 4,747
    edited 2012-06-22 22:36
    Hope the're using a Propeller MCU
  • tobdectobdec Posts: 267
    edited 2012-06-22 22:47
    Franklin wrote: »
    Hope the're using a Propeller MCU
    With 500,000 lines of code? That's one hell of an EEPROM lol
  • Beau SchwabeBeau Schwabe Posts: 6,568
    edited 2012-06-22 23:00
    Hmmm. wonder if this inspired the design ... drawn in 1906 ....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Correa-Martians_vs._Thunder_Child.jpg

    Correa-Martians_vs._Thunder_Child.jpg



    Don't you know what NASA uses for memory these days? ... MARTIAN spelled backwards ...(<-- ahem... discovered in 1951)

    Nano
    Artificial
    Intelligence
    Tube
    Random
    Access
    Memory

    Pronounced NAT-RAM ... the I is silent
    Correa-Martians_vs._Thunder_Child.jpg
    526 x 400 - 40K
  • sylvie369sylvie369 Posts: 1,622
    edited 2012-06-23 05:12
    I do some work with the mission's geologist. You should have seen her face when they showed the animation of the landing - she couldn't even look at the screen. I'd be nervous too. If they can pull this off, it'll be one of the all-time great feats.
  • skylightskylight Posts: 1,915
    edited 2012-06-23 06:04
    Is the payload so different from the viking missions that such a complicated landing is being used? Is the tried and tested landing of the viking craft not suitable in this case? Is this vehicle bigger, heavier than the vikings?
  • localrogerlocalroger Posts: 3,452
    edited 2012-06-23 07:04
    They worry that the dust cloud kicked up by the landing would contaminate the rover's sensors and instruments.
  • Cluso99Cluso99 Posts: 18,069
    edited 2012-06-23 07:17
    I hope they fixed that bug in line 456,123 !
  • $WMc%$WMc% Posts: 1,884
    edited 2012-06-23 07:30
    Great video Phil--
    '
    500,000 lines of code!
    '
    They like to type a lot more than I do.
    '
    I wonder how many GOTO's are in there?
    '
    Ha !!!!!
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2012-06-23 07:43
    localroger wrote: »
    They worry that the dust cloud kicked up by the landing would contaminate the rover's sensors and instruments.

    Is the instrument package necessarily so heavy that they couldn't use the old airbag system and simply drive away from the landing site? Or the terrain is too crazy for airbags in the crater? I thought that airbag system was brilliant.

    Considering how Mars eats spacecraft, this complex system seems to be out on a limb.
  • localrogerlocalroger Posts: 3,452
    edited 2012-06-23 12:22
    The rover is far too heavy for the airbag system; Spirit and Odyssey were at about at the high end of what that could do. In fact, this highlights a concern that has been floating around for several years, that we really don't have a good system for landing humans on Mars; it has just enough atmosphere to screw things up, and not enough to be really helpful.
  • rod1963rod1963 Posts: 752
    edited 2012-06-23 15:08
    Curiosity uses a RAD750 - a radiation hardened SBC based on IBM's 750PPC doing 400 MIPS and runs Vxworks. It has on board 256 KB of EEPROM, 256 MB of DRAM, and 2 GB of flash memory. It also has a identical backup. Board uses 10 watts.

    You can buy one for $200k.

    Not the fastest processor out there but again they have to be able to handle radiation and extreme temperature changes.
  • sylvie369sylvie369 Posts: 1,622
    edited 2012-06-23 16:05
    ElectricAye wrote: »
    Is the instrument package necessarily so heavy that they couldn't use the old airbag system and simply drive away from the landing site? Or the terrain is too crazy for airbags in the crater? I thought that airbag system was brilliant.

    Considering how Mars eats spacecraft, this complex system seems to be out on a limb.

    I asked the engineers this very question, and yes, it's too heavy. They described it as roughly "the size of a Mini Cooper", which is considerably more than the Spirit and Opportunity rovers.
  • lardomlardom Posts: 1,659
    edited 2012-06-23 21:55
    Wow. When did it launch? My question about the airbag was answered. I'm also wondering if politics would be the main reason why this wouldn't first be tried on the moon?
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2012-06-23 22:24
    It wouldn't work on the moon, since there's a parachute involved. Plus, the reduced gravitational acceleration would yield different dynamics.

    -Phil
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2012-06-23 22:49
    Powered descent is required for the Moon since it has no atmosphere. Whatever dust is kicked up tends to keep going rather than swirling around and landing back on the vehicle.
  • Cluso99Cluso99 Posts: 18,069
    edited 2012-06-24 00:40
    Certainly Mars does have a healthy appetite for spacecraft. I do hope this is not too complex for Mars to claim another victim.
  • lardomlardom Posts: 1,659
    edited 2012-06-24 07:01
    The second engineer says it will take seven minutes from top of the Martian atmosphere until the landing and fourteen minutes for earth to recieve the signal which means that by the time we get that first signal "Curiosity" will have been dead or alive for seven minutes. Six vehical configurations have to be perfect. The engineers have to be losing sleep.
    I'm by far not the smartest person here but I love geeky thoughts and I am among friends. Understanding that we wouldn't have enough fuel for a return from Mars why couldn't we launch from the moon? There are some advantages especially if the MSL could be fueled on the moon.
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,259
    edited 2012-06-24 08:09
    Actually, 21 seconds into the video, it says "500,000 LINES OF COD3".

    I think their COD3 may contain 3RRORS. Or is it just M3?
  • lardomlardom Posts: 1,659
    edited 2012-06-24 09:12
    Good eye erco. Dyslexic typo?
  • ercoerco Posts: 20,259
    edited 2012-06-24 10:21
    Legally, NASA is required to hire programmers without discrimination WRT dyslexia, spelling accuracy or coding ability. Why should all the jobs go to the good programmers?
  • mindrobotsmindrobots Posts: 6,506
    edited 2012-06-24 10:50
    "K3wl, Sir Hackalot, we got into JPL! All those mad skilz from years of paying Lunr Landr will pay off now. "
  • skylightskylight Posts: 1,915
    edited 2012-06-24 12:13
    Perhaps 300,000 lines are used by the hidden easter egg? A Space Invaders game or flight simulator? :smile:
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2012-06-24 12:15
    lardom wrote: »
    Understanding that we wouldn't have enough fuel for a return from Mars why couldn't we launch from the moon? There are some advantages especially if the MSL could be fueled on the moon.

    Nearly all of the fuel required to get to Mars or the Moon is spent getting off the Earth.

    Launching from the Moon would be far more efficient but we would still have to get everything to the Moon in order to launch from there. Can't escape the fact that we need to escape Earth's gravity first.
  • Dave HeinDave Hein Posts: 6,347
    edited 2012-06-24 13:14
    "Once you get to earth orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system." Robert A. Heinlein
  • Mike4421Mike4421 Posts: 131
    edited 2012-06-24 14:21
    Hovering?!?!.... what happens if it swings in the process........boom?

    The airbag solution was good, why change it? why not make one where it actually crashes into Mars... have enough filler (there plenty of scrap around on earth) and a crunching mechanism to take on the 5G's +-, then drive away (auto makers have lots of experiment on that)... :) keep it simple...
  • Mike4421Mike4421 Posts: 131
    edited 2012-06-24 14:33
    just kidding about the above post.... but Hovering?... a glider or plane/jet wings system type with an automonous system can be done better...
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2012-06-24 14:38
    Mike4421 wrote:
    a glider or plane/jet wings system type with an automonous system can be done better...

    Don't forget that the atmosphere on Mars is extremely thin. An effective wing for that kind of load would have to be huge.

    -Phil
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2012-06-24 14:52
    If I remember correctly, the atmosphere on the surface of Mars is roughly equivalent to the the Earth's atmosphere at 100,000ft. That is three times the altitude that commercial jets fly, twice as high as private jets can fly and about 30,000ft higher than the U2 could fly.

    Saying that the wings would have to be huge to be able to land on Mars is an understatement.

    If wings could work, so could parachutes.
  • Mike4421Mike4421 Posts: 131
    edited 2012-06-24 15:14
    wow, this is tricky......

    1, you need enough fuel to slow down after the parachute stage, and then just enough to keep it hovering and stabalized to lower the rover down safely, then send it away to a safe location........ that can be quite a bit of fuel....

    2. have a large wingspan made out of a thing light foldable material to glide safely

    or

    3. prototype on Neptune's ,and Uranous's drill crash landing system to drill ice layer.....with out drill system for Mars mission; just enough to crashland to keep system on surface and able to drive away from site....

    this can be a hard problem to solve....
  • tobdectobdec Posts: 267
    edited 2012-06-24 15:21
    Let's start the first ever Parallax forumist mars rover mission! Now we just need about 800 mill*Cough*ion dollars....
Sign In or Register to comment.