5 ms·

I especially liked this sentence: > the module had successfully completed most steps of its 6-minute descent through the martian atmosphere Completing "most st

I especially liked this sentence: > the module had successfully completed most steps of its 6-minute descent through the martian atmosphere Completing "most steps" in a landing, but not the last one (I.e. Safe touchdown) is equal to a crash.

cmg 10y ago
Reminds me of a classic The West Wing scene, when a missile test misses its target by 137 miles. Yes, every step is important, but 6/7 is still not a success. LEO That nine out of ten criterion that the DOD lays down for success in these tests were met. BARTLET The tenth being? LEO They missed the target. BARTLET [with sarcasm] Damn! LEO Sir! BARTLET So close. LEO Mr. President. BARTLET That tenth one! See, if there were just nine...
api 10y ago
I think it's almost a tongue in cheek thing in aerospace. There's stuff like "RUD" which stands for "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly" and means the rocket exploded, etc.
- raverbashing 10y ago
  Well according to SpaceX it was an anomaly ;)
fernandopj 10y ago
In that same spirit, one could even say there was just a slight deviation from the expected lithobreaking landing phase - so all steps were indeed performed, just not to spec
david-given 10y ago
That's unfair. Schiaparelli was never a science mission. It was a technology demonstrator to see whether the landing system worked. Even if it had landed intact, it had a tiny set of science instruments and would only have lasted a few hours. Well, we now know that there are a few bugs --- but we also know that most of the landing system works, including hibernation, terminal guidance, reentry, heatshield deployment, the parachute... all of which is hugely valuable data. Knowing that the last few stages didn't work is even more valuable, particularly as it's returned telemetry on what happened. Focusing only on the fact that the last couple of steps failed and it crashed is doing the mission a huge disservice. Schiaparelli did precisely the job it was designed for.
- forketta 10y ago
  Schiaparelli, the ExoMars Entry, descent and landing Demonstrator Module (EDM) will provide Europe with the technology for landing on the surface of Mars with a controlled landing orientation and touchdown velocity. The design of Schiaparelli maximises the use of technologies already in development within the ExoMars programme. These technologies include: special material for thermal protection, a parachute system, a radar Doppler altimeter system, and a final braking system controlled by liquid propulsion. Schiaparelli is expected to survive on the surface of Mars for a short time by using the excess energy capacity of its batteries. http://exploration.esa.int/mars/46124-mission-overview/ http://exploration.esa.int/mars/46124-mission-overview/
- rm445 10y ago
  Come on. All the people who worked on those features designed them with the intention that they would work. All of them would have been happier, and better regarded by the rest of the world, if everything had worked first time. It's just the way life is. Not every setback is a disaster, but it's so much better if things work smoothly. Nothing succeeds like success.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sfifs 10y ago
  It's important in science to not sugar coat scientific conclusions as you might sugar coat PR communications (ie. how can we present this in the best light to get funding for the next trip) The objective was to demonstrate an ability to land in a useful condition so the next probe could land with experiments using this technology. Everything else is an in-process metric. The probe crashed and didn't land.

cmg 10y ago

Reminds me of a classic The West Wing scene, when a missile test misses its target by 137 miles. Yes, every step is important, but 6/7 is still not a success. LEO That nine out of ten criterion that the DOD lays down for success in these tests were met. BARTLET The tenth being? LEO They missed the target. BARTLET [with sarcasm] Damn! LEO Sir! BARTLET So close. LEO Mr. President. BARTLET That tenth one! See, if there were just nine...

api 10y ago

I think it's almost a tongue in cheek thing in aerospace. There's stuff like "RUD" which stands for "Rapid Unscheduled Disassembly" and means the rocket exploded, etc.

raverbashing 10y ago
Well according to SpaceX it was an anomaly ;)

fernandopj 10y ago

In that same spirit, one could even say there was just a slight deviation from the expected lithobreaking landing phase - so all steps were indeed performed, just not to spec

david-given 10y ago

That's unfair. Schiaparelli was never a science mission. It was a technology demonstrator to see whether the landing system worked. Even if it had landed intact, it had a tiny set of science instruments and would only have lasted a few hours. Well, we now know that there are a few bugs --- but we also know that most of the landing system works, including hibernation, terminal guidance, reentry, heatshield deployment, the parachute... all of which is hugely valuable data. Knowing that the last few stages didn't work is even more valuable, particularly as it's returned telemetry on what happened. Focusing only on the fact that the last couple of steps failed and it crashed is doing the mission a huge disservice. Schiaparelli did precisely the job it was designed for.

forketta 10y ago
Schiaparelli, the ExoMars Entry, descent and landing Demonstrator Module (EDM) will provide Europe with the technology for landing on the surface of Mars with a controlled landing orientation and touchdown velocity. The design of Schiaparelli maximises the use of technologies already in development within the ExoMars programme. These technologies include: special material for thermal protection, a parachute system, a radar Doppler altimeter system, and a final braking system controlled by liquid propulsion. Schiaparelli is expected to survive on the surface of Mars for a short time by using the excess energy capacity of its batteries. http://exploration.esa.int/mars/46124-mission-overview/ http://exploration.esa.int/mars/46124-mission-overview/
rm445 10y ago
Come on. All the people who worked on those features designed them with the intention that they would work. All of them would have been happier, and better regarded by the rest of the world, if everything had worked first time. It's just the way life is. Not every setback is a disaster, but it's so much better if things work smoothly. Nothing succeeds like success.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sfifs 10y ago
It's important in science to not sugar coat scientific conclusions as you might sugar coat PR communications (ie. how can we present this in the best light to get funding for the next trip) The objective was to demonstrate an ability to land in a useful condition so the next probe could land with experiments using this technology. Everything else is an in-process metric. The probe crashed and didn't land.