4 ms·
Would it be easier to have it land in any old position, with a mechanism to push itself into upright posture when needed?
by dsjoerg 3y ago
Would it be easier to have it land in any old position, with a mechanism to push itself into upright posture when needed?
- Tagbert 3y agoI saw a diagram of a lander, maybe just a prototype, that was constructed like a truncated tetrahedron. It would end up on either the bottom, or one of three sides. Once it landed the three sides would open up. no matter which orientation, that would push it to an upright position.
- lpribis 3y agoMaybe thinking of Spirit and Opportunity rovers which had a truncated tetrahedron shape of airbags (kinda) and unfolded to the upright position? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover
- Tagbert 3y agoyes, that is it. I wonder why they are not using that now? Maybe was too much extra mass and they thought that they could do a proper landing now?
- lpribis 3y agoIt was because of weight constraints. Spirit and Opportunity weighed 185 kg, while Curiosity and Preseverance both weighed around 1000kg. At that weight airbags large enough to cushion down the payload sufficiently would weigh too much. Just look at how large the spirit airbags were to support a rover that was only 1.5m square. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_crane_(landing_system)#/media/File%3APathfinder_Air_Bags_-_GPN-2000-000484.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sky_crane_(landing_system)#/...
- 0_____0 3y agoThat's how the earlier Mars rovers arrived, totally valid concept. But it's expensive to get mass to the Moon, and if you think you can likely land upright with thrusters, why bother with something more complex/massive?
- nyokodo 3y ago[flagged]
- JumbledHeap 3y agoThis is pretty much how the earliest Soviet lunar landers worked: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_9 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luna_9