** The Official Space Flight Thread - The Space Station and Beyond **
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
Looks like it's gone pete tong
Nooo, is there a live stream or this from twitter or?
Associate
- Joined
- 25 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 1,932
Another epic fail - nasa should stick to landing on the moon .
Soldato
Congrats tracertong. You win Fail Post Of The Day™!
Meanwhile, for the adults in the thread - there's going to be a briefing at 9am BST tomorrow, hopefully there'll be some answers then.
Meanwhile, for the adults in the thread - there's going to be a briefing at 9am BST tomorrow, hopefully there'll be some answers then.
Last edited:
Update on the Juno mission to Jupiter:
The Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) is in an elliptical orbit around Mars but the the Entry, Descent & Landing Demonstrator Module (EDM), Schiaparelli has lost contact and may have been destryed on landing.
More:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/S...rs_orbit_while_EDM_situation_under_assessment
There will be a mission staus update here at 09:00 BST:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Watch_ExoMars_arrival_and_landing
More:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/S...rs_orbit_while_EDM_situation_under_assessment
There will be a mission staus update here at 09:00 BST:
http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Watch_ExoMars_arrival_and_landing
TGO has been a success, all the science can be done in the future. The mission team is still processing data to understand what happened in the last seconds before Schiaparelli landed but the heat shield has worked and there is a lot data from the lander before it stopped communication. Unfortunately at this point in time we don't know whether the lander has been destroyed or sent a signal from the surface.
That's good. Though what part did the lander play in it's overall mission?
I'm assuming it wasn't just a test for the new landing method
Why would we not know if it's sent a signal from the surface? If we got data from the last few seconds before landing, we would have data from the seconds after landing wouldn't we? If there was any
It's looking like something has gone wrong, bummer
It is a demonstrator for the technologies required for landing with sensors monitoring the various technologies at play. The results will be used for planning future missions. It did have some limited scientific capability to be used on the surface but that was an "added extra" as its batteries were only designed to last for a few days.
More:
http://exploration.esa.int/mars/47852-entry-descent-and-landing-demonstrator-module/
You can read about the whole mission from those pages.
From last night at the Royal Albert Hall:
Tim Peake and Tim Kopra talked about living and working on the International Space Station. The complete cycle from Baikonur and back was covered. There was a Q&A session at the end and the event was hosted by Dallas Campbell. It was a marvellous evening!
Tim Peake and Tim Kopra talked about living and working on the International Space Station. The complete cycle from Baikonur and back was covered. There was a Q&A session at the end and the event was hosted by Dallas Campbell. It was a marvellous evening!
Associate
A bit more on what possibly might have gone wrong from a BBC article here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37715202
This shows that everything was fine as the probe entered the atmosphere. Its heatshield appeared to do the job of slowing the craft, and the parachute opened as expected to further decelerate the robot.
But it is at the end of this parachute phase that the data indicates unusual behaviour. 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, fire for just three or four seconds. They were expected to fire for a good 30 seconds
Sounds like it hit the ground hard, a shame but hopefully it will mean that they get it right for ExoMars assuming it gets funding.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37715202
This shows that everything was fine as the probe entered the atmosphere. Its heatshield appeared to do the job of slowing the craft, and the parachute opened as expected to further decelerate the robot.
But it is at the end of this parachute phase that the data indicates unusual behaviour. 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, fire for just three or four seconds. They were expected to fire for a good 30 seconds
Sounds like it hit the ground hard, a shame but hopefully it will mean that they get it right for ExoMars assuming it gets funding.
Expedition 49-50 Crew docks to the station:
Expedition 49/50 Soyuz Commander Sergey Ryzhikov, Flight Engineer Andrey Borisenko of Roscosmos and Flight Engineer Shane Kimbrough of NASA, opened the hatch of their Soyuz MS-02 spacecraft and were greeted by station Commander Anatoly Ivanishin of Roscosmos, Flight Engineers Kate Rubins of NASA and Takuya Onishi of the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency:
Soldato
- Joined
- 31 May 2009
- Posts
- 21,257
How can it go so badly wrong?
Are the rockets preprogrmamed to fire, or are they sensor based, so they adjust due to their own feedback?
3 seconds instead of 30 seems terribly like someone missed a 'zero'.
I doubt it'll be as simple as that, but all well until chute kicked off early and retros had a lazy day, so mission ruined, for all their talk of success, the overall mission is an utter disaster.
One they can learn from obviously, but if people were aboard, or a billion dollar scientific apparatus, then utter disaster.
One would want to demonstrate an entirely successful mission, then send your billion dollar missions. It isn't great. Shame.
Are the rockets preprogrmamed to fire, or are they sensor based, so they adjust due to their own feedback?
3 seconds instead of 30 seems terribly like someone missed a 'zero'.
I doubt it'll be as simple as that, but all well until chute kicked off early and retros had a lazy day, so mission ruined, for all their talk of success, the overall mission is an utter disaster.
One they can learn from obviously, but if people were aboard, or a billion dollar scientific apparatus, then utter disaster.
One would want to demonstrate an entirely successful mission, then send your billion dollar missions. It isn't great. Shame.
sensor based, as you cant know how far to the ground in advance.
one of the nasa probes did something similar. when it deployed the landing legs, there was enough of a jolt that the sensors thought that it had landed and turned the rockets off.
but that's why there wasn't anything onboard, it as a European demonstration craft, to do exactly what it did try to land and learn about the landing sequence. Landing on mars is hard almost 50% haven't survived landing. Only nasa has a good success rate.
just have to wait and see what the issue with this one is, sounds software related to me.
They're now saying it hit at over 186mph.
also unlikely but perhaps when the upper stage breeze m exploded it damaged the craft. I say unlikely as any damage would usually be found when they test systems, so that a very unlikely cause.
don't think all are upto date but
ESA is now 2 missions - 2 partial success
Russia 19 missions- 16 failures, 1 partial success and 2 success
NAsa 21 missions - 6 failures , 15 success
Inda 1 mission - 1 success
Japan 1 mission - 1 failure
China 1 mission - 1 failure
one of the nasa probes did something similar. when it deployed the landing legs, there was enough of a jolt that the sensors thought that it had landed and turned the rockets off.
but that's why there wasn't anything onboard, it as a European demonstration craft, to do exactly what it did try to land and learn about the landing sequence. Landing on mars is hard almost 50% haven't survived landing. Only nasa has a good success rate.
just have to wait and see what the issue with this one is, sounds software related to me.
They're now saying it hit at over 186mph.
also unlikely but perhaps when the upper stage breeze m exploded it damaged the craft. I say unlikely as any damage would usually be found when they test systems, so that a very unlikely cause.
don't think all are upto date but
ESA is now 2 missions - 2 partial success
Russia 19 missions- 16 failures, 1 partial success and 2 success
NAsa 21 missions - 6 failures , 15 success
Inda 1 mission - 1 success
Japan 1 mission - 1 failure
China 1 mission - 1 failure
Last edited:
This week:
more confirmation of its fate, there are now two Schiaparelli craters on mars.
http://www.universetoday.com/131611...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
http://www.universetoday.com/131611...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer
Was this televised?