5 ms·

What a shame. The only consolation, if any, is that they are not the first ones to crash on Mars. If I remember correctly the historic chances of landing succes

What a shame. The only consolation, if any, is that they are not the first ones to crash on Mars. If I remember correctly the historic chances of landing successfully on Mars is about 50/50.

jackmott 10y ago
It was a trial run lander, the real one comes later. The primary purpose of the mission was the orbiter which is functioning, and lander testing, which failed but hopefully they get useful data from the failure.
skrap 10y ago
Just about! For lots of fun info, check out the interplanetary Expensive Hardware Lob League: https://www.strudel.org.uk/lob/ https://www.strudel.org.uk/lob/
- dwightgunning 10y ago
  Ha! This deserves some credit. The tone of the writing makes me think of Starship Troopers. Very tongue in cheek and very funny.
- erjjones 10y ago
  This deserves its own thread entirely! Awesome.
jcoffland 10y ago
The chances of landing are 100%.
- analogmemory 10y ago
  But not successfully...
- njharman 10y ago
  I believe rocket scientists make a distinction between landing and impacting.
  - Cthulhu_ 10y ago
    Different intensities of lithobraking.
  - mSparks 10y ago
    rapid unschedualed disassembly event.
- pmontra 10y ago
  Some landers failed to reach Mars and crash land. Check the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
  - dwidget 10y ago
    He means that whether it crashes or not, it's a landing. However there are projects that completely miss their target and just float in space, so even then it's not 100%.
    - pmontra 10y ago
      That was my point, better worded :-)
nicholasjon 10y ago
Reminds of the "Seven Minutes of Terror" video that NASA put out ahead of the Curiosity landing explaining how they intended to make it safely to the surface. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s (Note: I get goosebumps every time I watch this, absolutely amazing problem solving.)
- Ma8ee 10y ago
  I'm still amazed that it succeeded. I was prepared to bet quite a bit of money that at least one of the many quite complicated stages of the landing would fail. I'm happy I was wrong.
  - pmoriarty 10y ago
    To me, the air bags[1] used to land the Spirit and Opportunity rovers seemed like a saner way to go than trying to deposit them gently directly on to the surface using a sky crane. The reported reason the sky crane was used for Curiosity is that it was too heavy for the air bag approach. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCIzZHpFtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCIzZHpFtY
    - danbruc 10y ago
      It's 185 kg vs 899 kg. I am already a bit surprised that it worked to land Spirit and Opportunity, but the lower gravity probably helps.
    - Sharlin 10y ago
      But the Spirit and Opportunity EDL also involved retrorockets in addition to a heatshield, a drogue chute, a parachute and the airbags - it's just that the retrorocket part didn't have to be as precise as with Curiosity.
- Coincoin 10y ago
  I actually laughed the first time I saw it because it looked so much like a Goldberg machine... But it cost 500M$... And they only got one try.

What a shame. The only consolation, if any, is that they are not the first ones to crash on Mars. If I remember correctly the historic chances of landing successfully on Mars is about 50/50.

jackmott 10y ago

It was a trial run lander, the real one comes later. The primary purpose of the mission was the orbiter which is functioning, and lander testing, which failed but hopefully they get useful data from the failure.

skrap 10y ago

Just about! For lots of fun info, check out the interplanetary Expensive Hardware Lob League: https://www.strudel.org.uk/lob/ https://www.strudel.org.uk/lob/

dwightgunning 10y ago
Ha! This deserves some credit. The tone of the writing makes me think of Starship Troopers. Very tongue in cheek and very funny.
erjjones 10y ago
This deserves its own thread entirely! Awesome.

jcoffland 10y ago

The chances of landing are 100%.

analogmemory 10y ago
But not successfully...
njharman 10y ago
I believe rocket scientists make a distinction between landing and impacting.
- Cthulhu_ 10y ago
  Different intensities of lithobraking.
- mSparks 10y ago
  rapid unschedualed disassembly event.
pmontra 10y ago
Some landers failed to reach Mars and crash land. Check the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
- dwidget 10y ago
  He means that whether it crashes or not, it's a landing. However there are projects that completely miss their target and just float in space, so even then it's not 100%.
  - pmontra 10y ago
    That was my point, better worded :-)

nicholasjon 10y ago

Reminds of the "Seven Minutes of Terror" video that NASA put out ahead of the Curiosity landing explaining how they intended to make it safely to the surface. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ki_Af_o9Q9s (Note: I get goosebumps every time I watch this, absolutely amazing problem solving.)

Ma8ee 10y ago
I'm still amazed that it succeeded. I was prepared to bet quite a bit of money that at least one of the many quite complicated stages of the landing would fail. I'm happy I was wrong.
- pmoriarty 10y ago
  To me, the air bags[1] used to land the Spirit and Opportunity rovers seemed like a saner way to go than trying to deposit them gently directly on to the surface using a sky crane. The reported reason the sky crane was used for Curiosity is that it was too heavy for the air bag approach. [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCIzZHpFtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRCIzZHpFtY
  - danbruc 10y ago
    It's 185 kg vs 899 kg. I am already a bit surprised that it worked to land Spirit and Opportunity, but the lower gravity probably helps.
  - Sharlin 10y ago
    But the Spirit and Opportunity EDL also involved retrorockets in addition to a heatshield, a drogue chute, a parachute and the airbags - it's just that the retrorocket part didn't have to be as precise as with Curiosity.
Coincoin 10y ago
I actually laughed the first time I saw it because it looked so much like a Goldberg machine... But it cost 500M$... And they only got one try.