This video shows that NASA's risk taking and innovation is not dead
http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-18933037
Wht a crazy plan - hope it works
Edited by mariner, 30 July 2012 - 14:00.
Posted 30 July 2012 - 08:45
Edited by mariner, 30 July 2012 - 14:00.
Advertisement
Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:12
Truly audacious and ingenious: I will have my fingers crossed....when the Louts 88 was finally banned Colin Chapman issued a press release saying he was very frustrated at innovation being banned in F1 and he was of to watch the Space Shutle launch to renew his enthusiasm.
This video shows that NASA's risk taking and innovation is not dead
http://www.bbc.co.uk...onment-18933037
Wht a crazy plan - hope it works
Posted 30 July 2012 - 20:50
when the Lotus 88 was finally banned Colin Chapman issued a press release saying he was very frustrated at innovation being banned in F1 and he was of to watch the Space Shuttle launch to renew his enthusiasm.
Posted 30 July 2012 - 22:38
Posted 30 July 2012 - 23:48
Posted 02 August 2012 - 07:39
Posted 02 August 2012 - 23:47
Yes, but almost certainly far more expensive. I don't know what the curve of probability of failure vs mission cost for NASA is these days, but it is quite different to Apollo.I shudder to think of all the failure modes available during descent, and I would love to have been a fly on the wall when they were discussing the risks and how to handle them - surely there were simpler and safer options?
Posted 03 August 2012 - 01:36
The part I don't get is why the whole thing doesn't just land like the Apollo landers. The part where it hovers, lowers the rover on cables, then takes off again (to crash) is the part that seems like unnecessary complication. But what do I know?Yes, but almost certainly far more expensive. I don't know what the curve of probability of failure vs mission cost for NASA is these days, but it is quite different to Apollo.
Posted 03 August 2012 - 04:25
http://en.wikipedia....Curiosity_rover see landing, is a good place to startThe part I don't get is why the whole thing doesn't just land like the Apollo landers. The part where it hovers, lowers the rover on cables, then takes off again (to crash) is the part that seems like unnecessary complication. But what do I know?
Posted 03 August 2012 - 14:29
Posted 03 August 2012 - 21:20
On a radio show today some guys involved in the project said they don't know what the surface at the landing site will be like and that it might be too rocky for a lander, hence the sky crane.http://en.wikipedia....Curiosity_rover see landing, is a good place to start
Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:29
They didn't mention one obvious advantage. A "crane" system permits direct control of the critical variable - distance from the ground. The alternative system - rocket thrusters - is controlling acceleration which is the second derivative of displacement (distance). I know there are rocket thrusters involved but they are supporting the "crane" which is somewhat heavier than the rover.http://en.wikipedia....Curiosity_rover see landing, is a good place to start
Posted 06 August 2012 - 00:48
Yes, I had a laugh when I saw that too, exactly the same comparison sprang to mind 300kg is not insignificant, particularly when you factor in the energy cost in getting that dead weight out there.Funny to see they are like F1 in one respect- they obsess on cutting weight then add ballast for handling!
Posted 06 August 2012 - 05:34
Posted 06 August 2012 - 13:01
Wow! It worked!! ... and pictures too!
Posted 06 August 2012 - 13:22
Posted 06 August 2012 - 13:26
Posted 06 August 2012 - 14:52
Advertisement
Posted 07 August 2012 - 00:44
Clever, cropping out the illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator.