Jump to content


Photo

pne crazy set of manoveurs


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,373 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 30 July 2012 - 08:45

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.

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.


Advertisement

#2 Spoofski

Spoofski
  • Member

  • 262 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 10:12

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

Truly audacious and ingenious: I will have my fingers crossed....
....which takes me back to 1976 and bunking off school to watch the first fully successful Mars landers, the Vikings. In their way as risky as MSL, probably more-so since the surface and atmosphere of Mars was almost entirely unknown back-then. These things performed a fully automatic rocket-landing using '70s computing tech then continued to work for years thereafter. Still beats me that such things are possible: the accuracy alone being beyond incredible.
http://en.wikipedia..../Viking_program

#3 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: October 10

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.


And who knew the Irish government even had a Space Shuttle. That's what a visionary he was.


#4 Tony Matthews

Tony Matthews
  • Member

  • 17,499 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 30 July 2012 - 22:38

Let alone one powered by a flux capacitor.

#5 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 30 July 2012 - 23:48

Don't mean to be knocking Chapman in any way. There have been few true geniuses in the biz and he must be one of them. Just noting that like a lot of people, he was complicated.

#6 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 779 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 02 August 2012 - 07:39

This might work. But they had better have Lady Luck riding that device all the way down :eek:

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?

#7 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,513 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 02 August 2012 - 23:47

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?

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.

#8 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 621 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 03 August 2012 - 01:36

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.

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?

#9 Greg Locock

Greg Locock
  • Member

  • 4,513 posts
  • Joined: March 03

Posted 03 August 2012 - 04:25

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?

http://en.wikipedia....Curiosity_rover see landing, is a good place to start

#10 mariner

mariner
  • Member

  • 1,373 posts
  • Joined: January 07

Posted 03 August 2012 - 14:29

Thanks, Greg .

complex isn't the word for it!

Funny to see they are like F1 in one respect- they obsess on cutting weight then add ballast for handling!

Given the rover weight is about 900 kg and the all up weight is 3,900 kg it is a bit like putting a a mini car onto a recovery truck, firing the whole thing about 200 million miles into space then finding the parking lot and unloading the minicar in the right place in the parking lot - EASY

#11 CSquared

CSquared
  • Member

  • 621 posts
  • Joined: December 09

Posted 03 August 2012 - 21:20

http://en.wikipedia....Curiosity_rover see landing, is a good place to start

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.

#12 gruntguru

gruntguru
  • Member

  • 5,281 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 05 August 2012 - 04:29

http://en.wikipedia....Curiosity_rover see landing, is a good place to start

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.

#13 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 779 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 August 2012 - 00:48

Funny to see they are like F1 in one respect- they obsess on cutting weight then add ballast for handling!

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.

... not long to go now, everybody cross your fingers ...

#14 GreenMachine

GreenMachine
  • Member

  • 779 posts
  • Joined: March 04

Posted 06 August 2012 - 05:34

Wow! It worked!! :wave: :clap: ... and pictures too! :up:

#15 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 August 2012 - 13:01

Wow! It worked!! :wave: :clap: ... and pictures too! :up:


yes, nothing confounds the critics so much as watching the damn thing work. :up:

#16 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 August 2012 - 13:22

Oh, and the Curiosity Rover has a twitter feed with twitpics:


https://twitter.com/MarsCuriosity

#17 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,988 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 06 August 2012 - 13:26

People that find space exploration pointless or a waste of resources are pointless and a waste of resources.

#18 Magoo

Magoo
  • Member

  • 2,482 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 06 August 2012 - 13:40

Posted Image



#19 desmo

desmo
  • Tech Forum Host

  • 12,988 posts
  • Joined: January 00

Posted 06 August 2012 - 14:52

Clever, cropping out the illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator.

Advertisement

#20 JacnGille

JacnGille
  • Member

  • 1,600 posts
  • Joined: July 02

Posted 07 August 2012 - 00:44

Clever, cropping out the illudium Q-36 explosive space modulator.

:up: