DOCSLIB.ORG

Curiosity Lands on Mars

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Curiosity Lands on Mars Curiosity lands on Mars Early Monday morning (August 6, 2012), the Mars rover named Curiosity successfully landed on the surface of Mars. The rover launched on November 26th, 2011 and traveled for 8 ½ months to arrive on Mars. We Earthlings have been trying to reach Mars since 1960. Some of the spacecraft sent were intended to fly past Mars and take photos. Some were meant to orbit Mars, and some had landers that were intended to reach the surface. But all of these attempts weren’t successful1. So, the scientists at NASA were ecstatic when Curiosity landed successfully. Mission type Total attempts Success Partial success Flyby 11 5 Orbiter 22 9 2 Lander 10 3 Rover 6 4 1 Sample return 1 Total 50 21 3 1. What percent of our attempts to reach Mars were totally successful? 2. What percent of our attempts to reach Mars were totally or partially successful? It is a long way to Mars2 (This trip was 352 million miles long) and it took Curiosity 8 and ½ months to get there. That is a long time for the NASA scientists to hold their breaths. 3. How fast must the Curiosity rocket have been going to get to Mars in 8.5 months? When Curiosity landed it took NASA about 14 minutes to receive the radio transmission from Curiosity that it had landed. Radio transmission through space travel at the speed of light = 300,000 kilometers per second or 186,000 miles per second. 4. Show how the scientists must have calculated that it would take about 14 minutes for the radio transmission to travel from Mars to Earth. (At the time of landing Mars was only 154 million miles (247,800,000 kilometers) away from Earth.) Deceleration The way that this rover was brought down to the surface of Mars was a totally new method of landing. They called it a “sky crane” landing. You can see in the animation of its landing at Yummymath.com. Amazingly, the spacecraft was slowed from 13,200 miles per hour (21,243 kilometers per hour) to about 1.7 miles per hour (0.75 m/sec) in 7 minutes. That seemed like very fast deceleration to me. I wondered how deceleration is measured and how Curiosity’s deceleration compared with deceleration that I’ve experienced … like a car stopping. I found that to measure deceleration you divided the change of speed by the amount of time that it took to change that speed. Example: An airplane might change its speed from 300 mph to 60 mph in 30 seconds, before it touched down on the runway. To figure out the deceleration rate of my airplane landing, I need to change all of these measurements to the same units. So, I need to change miles per hour to feet per second. 1 mile is the same as 5,280 feet and 1 hour is the same as 3,600 seconds. 1 mile 5,280 feet = ≈ 1.47 So, to convert from miles per hour to feet per second I should 1 hour 3,600 seconds simply multiply my miles per hour rate by 1.47. 300 miles per hour x 1.47 should give me the feet per second equivalent to 300 miles per hour. € 5. 300 miles per hour = how many feet per second? 6. 60 miles per hour = how many feet per second? Again, to calculate deceleration you need to divide the change in speed by the time that the change requires. Deceleration is measured in feet per second divided by seconds. The unit for deceleration is feet per second per second or feet per second squared. As an example I’ve calculated the deceleration required to slow my Toyota Camry from 60 mph to 0 mph in 15 seconds. 60 miles per hour = 60 x 1.47 = 88.2 feet per second. 0 miles per hour = 0 feet per second The speed reduction is 88.2 -- 0 = 88.2 feet per second. So, the rate of deceleration is 88.2 feet per second /15 seconds = 5.88 feet per second per second. Online I found that my Toyota Camry could brake at 24.2 feet per second per second. So, I guess I could stop my car faster than in 15 seconds if I tried. Boy, that would be scary. 7. What was the deceleration rate of the airplane landing mentioned in problems 5 and 6? Curiosity slowed from 13,200 miles/hour to 1.7 miles per hour (0.75 m/sec) during its seven minute descent. 8. What was the deceleration rate of Curiosity? 1 Mission Launch Termination Elements Result Mars 1M No.1 10 October 1960 10 October 1960 Flyby Launch failure Mars 1M No.2 14 October 1960 14 October 1960 Flyby Launch failure Mars 2MV-4 No.1 24 October 1962 24 October 1962 Flyby Broke up shortly after launch Some data collected, but lost Mars 1 1 November 1962 21 March 1963 Flyby contact before reaching Mars, flyby at approx. 193,000 km Mars 2MV-3 No.1 4 November 1962 19 January 1963 Lander Failed to leave Earth's orbit Failure during launch ruined Mariner 3 5 November 1964 5 November 1964 Flyby trajectory Mariner 4 28 November 1964 21 December 1967 Flyby Success (21 images returned) Communication lost three months Zond 2 30 November 1964 May 1965 Flyby before reaching Mars Mariner 6 25 February 1969 August 1969 Flyby Success Mariner 7 27 March 1969 August 1969 Flyby Success Mars 2M No.521 27 March 1969 27 March 1969 Orbiter Launch failure Mars 2M No.522 2 April 1969 2 April 1969 Orbiter Launch failure Mariner 8 8 May 1971 8 May 1971 Orbiter Launch failure Kosmos 419 10 May 1971 12 May 1971 Orbiter Launch failure Mariner 9 30 May 1971 27 October 1972 Orbiter Success (first successful orbit) 22 August 1972 Orbiter Success Mars 2 19 May 1971 27 November 1971 Lander, rover Crashed on surface of Mars 22 August 1972 Orbiter Success Partial success. First successful 2 December 1971 Lander, rover landing; landed softly but ceased transmission within 15 seconds Could not enter orbit, made a close Mars 4 21 July 1973 10 February 1974 Orbiter flyby Partial success. Entered orbit and Mars 5 25 July 1973 21 February 1974 Orbiter returned data, but failed within 9 days Partial success. Data returned Mars 6 5 August 1973 12 March 1974 Lander during descent but not after landing on Mars Landing probe separated Mars 7 9 August 1973 9 March 1974 Lander prematurely; entered heliocentric orbit 17 August 1980 Orbiter Success Viking 1 20 August 1975 13 November 1982 Lander Success 25 July 1978 Orbiter Success Viking 2 9 September 1975 11 April 1980 Lander Success 2 September 1988 Orbiter Contact lost while en route to Mars Phobos 1 7 July 1988 Lander Not deployed Partial success: entered orbit and 27 March 1989 Orbiter returned some data. Contact lost Phobos 2 12 July 1988 just before deployment of landers Landers Not deployed Mars Observer 25 September 1992 21 August 1993 Orbiter Lost contact just before arrival Mars Global 7 November 1996 5 November 2006 Orbiter Success Surveyor Orbiter, Mars 96 16 November 1996 17 November 1996 lander, Launch failure penetrator Mars Pathfinder 4 December 1996 27 September 1997 Lander, rover Success Nozomi (Planet- Complications while en route; 3 July 1998 9 December 2003 Orbiter B) Never entered orbit Mars Climate Crashed on surface due to metric- 11 December 1998 23 September 1999 Orbiter Orbiter imperial mix-up Mars Polar Lander Crash-landed on surface due to Lander 3 January 1999 3 December 1999 improper hardware testing Deep Space 2 Hard landers 2001 Mars Currently 7 April 2001 Orbiter Success Odyssey operational Currently Mars Express Orbiter Success 2 June 2003 operational Beagle 2 6 February 2004 Lander, rover Landing failure; fate unknown. MER-A Spirit 10 June 2003 22 March 2011 Rover Success MER-B Currently 7 July 2003 Rover Success Opportunity operational Gravity assist en route to Currently comet Rosetta 2 March 2004 Success operational 67P/Churyum ov- Gerasimenko Mars Currently Reconnaissance 12 August 2005 Orbiter Success operational Orbiter Phoenix 4 August 2007 10 November 2008 Lander Success Currently Gravity assist Dawn 27 September 2007 Success operational to Vesta Phobos Fobos-Grunt 8 November 2011 lander, Failed to leave Earth orbit. Rescue 8 November 2011 sample return attempts unsuccessful Yinghuo-1 8 November 2011 Orbiter Currently MSL Curiosity 26 November 2011 Rover Success operational 2The distance to Mars varies since both planets have elliptical orbits and they do not require the same amount of time to orbit the Sun. So, Mars is closest to Earth at about 36 million miles (56 million km) and furthest from Earth at about 250 million miles (401 million kilometers). Source: http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/curiosity-is-set-to-land-on-mars/ http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-mars-exploration-pictures-20120803,0,5704041.photogallery http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars Brought to you by Yummymath.com .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Navigation Strategy for the Exomars Schiaparelli EDM Lander Mission
    Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Navigation Strategy for the ExoMars Schiaparelli EDM Lander Mission Premkumar R. Menon Sean V. Wagner, David C. Jefferson, Eric J. Graat, Kyong J. Lee, and William B. Schulze AAS/AIAA Astrodynamics Specialist Conference San Antonio, Texas February 5–9, 2017 AAS Paper 17-337 © 2017 California Institute of Technology. Government Sponsorship Acknowledged. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter Project Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (Mission, Spacecraft and PSO) The Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter mission launched in August 2005 from the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station arriving at Mars in March 2006 started science operations in November 2006. MRO has completed 10 years since launch (50,000 orbits by Mar 2017) and to date has returned nearly 300 Terabytes of data. MRO Primary Science Orbit (PSO): • Sun-synchronous orbit ascending node at 3:00 PM ± 15 minutes Local Mean Solar Time (LMST) (daylight equatorial crossing) • Periapsis is frozen about the Mars South Pole • Near-repeat ground track walk (GTW) every 17-day, 211 orbit (short-term repeat) MRO targeting cycle, exact repeat after 4602 orbits. The nominal GTW is 32.45811 km West each 211 orbit cycle (maintained with periodic maneuvers). MRO Spacecraft: • Spacecraft Bus: 3-axis stabilized ACS system; 3-meter diameter High Gain Antenna; hydrazine propulsion system • Instrument Suite: HiRISE Camera, CRISM Imaging spectrometer, Mars Climate Sounder, Mars Color Imager, Context Camera, Shallow Subsurface Radar, Electra engineering payload (among other instrument payloads) 2/07/17 MRO support of ExoMars Schiaparelli Lander Overflight Relay PRM-3 4. MRO shall have good overflight pass geometry within the first 2 Sols after landing.
    [Show full text]
  • Exomars Schiaparelli Direct-To-Earth Observation Using GMRT
    TECHNICAL ExoMars Schiaparelli Direct-to-Earth Observation REPORTS: METHODS 10.1029/2018RS006707 using GMRT S. Esterhuizen1, S. W. Asmar1 ,K.De2, Y. Gupta3, S. N. Katore3, and B. Ajithkumar3 Key Point: • During ExoMars Landing, GMRT 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, 2Cahill Center for Astrophysics, observed UHF transmissions and California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA, USA, 3National Centre for Radio Astrophysics, Pune, India Doppler shift used to identify key events as only real-time aliveness indicator Abstract During the ExoMars Schiaparelli separation event on 16 October 2016 and Entry, Descent, and Landing (EDL) events 3 days later, the Giant Metrewave Radio Telescope (GMRT) near Pune, India, Correspondence to: S. W. Asmar, was used to directly observe UHF transmissions from the Schiaparelli lander as they arrive at Earth. The [email protected] Doppler shift of the carrier frequency was measured and used as a diagnostic to identify key events during EDL. This signal detection at GMRT was the only real-time aliveness indicator to European Space Agency Citation: mission operations during the critical EDL stage of the mission. Esterhuizen, S., Asmar, S. W., De, K., Gupta, Y., Katore, S. N., & Plain Language Summary When planetary missions, such as landers on the surface of Mars, Ajithkumar, B. (2019). ExoMars undergo critical and risky events, communications to ground controllers is very important as close to real Schiaparelli Direct-to-Earth observation using GMRT. time as possible. The Schiaparelli spacecraft attempted landing in 2016 was supported in an innovative way. Radio Science, 54, 314–325. A large radio telescope on Earth was able to eavesdrop on information being sent from the lander to other https://doi.org/10.1029/2018RS006707 spacecraft in orbit around Mars.
    [Show full text]
  • Selection of the Insight Landing Site M. Golombek1, D. Kipp1, N
    Manuscript Click here to download Manuscript InSight Landing Site Paper v9 Rev.docx Click here to view linked References Selection of the InSight Landing Site M. Golombek1, D. Kipp1, N. Warner1,2, I. J. Daubar1, R. Fergason3, R. Kirk3, R. Beyer4, A. Huertas1, S. Piqueux1, N. E. Putzig5, B. A. Campbell6, G. A. Morgan6, C. Charalambous7, W. T. Pike7, K. Gwinner8, F. Calef1, D. Kass1, M. Mischna1, J. Ashley1, C. Bloom1,9, N. Wigton1,10, T. Hare3, C. Schwartz1, H. Gengl1, L. Redmond1,11, M. Trautman1,12, J. Sweeney2, C. Grima11, I. B. Smith5, E. Sklyanskiy1, M. Lisano1, J. Benardino1, S. Smrekar1, P. Lognonné13, W. B. Banerdt1 1Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 91109 2State University of New York at Geneseo, Department of Geological Sciences, 1 College Circle, Geneseo, NY 14454 3Astrogeology Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, 2255 N. Gemini Dr., Flagstaff, AZ 86001 4Sagan Center at the SETI Institute and NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA 94035 5Southwest Research Institute, Boulder, CO 80302; Now at Planetary Science Institute, Lakewood, CO 80401 6Smithsonian Institution, NASM CEPS, 6th at Independence SW, Washington, DC, 20560 7Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, South Kensington Campus, London 8German Aerospace Center (DLR), Institute of Planetary Research, 12489 Berlin, Germany 9Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA; Now at Central Washington University, Ellensburg, WA 98926 10Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996 11Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas, Austin, TX 78712 12MS GIS Program, University of Redlands, 1200 E. Colton Ave., Redlands, CA 92373-0999 13Institut Physique du Globe de Paris, Paris Cité, Université Paris Sorbonne, France Diderot Submitted to Space Science Reviews, Special InSight Issue v.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Do We Explore?
    Why Do We Explore? Lesson Six Why Do We Explore? About This Lesson Students will work in small teams, each of which will be given a different reason why humans explore. Each team will become the expert on their one reason and will add a letter and summary sentence to an EXPLORE poster using their reason for exploration. With all the reasons on the poster, the word EXPLORE will be complete. Students will be using the skills of working in cooperative learning teams, reading, summarizing, paraphrasing, and creating a sentence that will best represent their reason for exploration. Students will also be illustrating and copying other teams sentences so that each student will have a small copy of the large class- room poster for reference or extension purposes. The teacher will lead a discussion that relates the reasons humans explore to the planned and possible future missions to Mars. Objectives Students will: v review the seven traditional reasons why people explore v write a summary of their reason why humans explore v illustrate their exploration summaries v relate the reasons for exploration to the missions to Mars Background Students do not always realize that the steps in future exploration are built on a tradition of Why Do We Explore? exploration that is as old as humans. This lesson is intended to introduce the concept of exploration through the seven traditional reasons that express why humans have always been explorers. Social scientists know that everyone, no matter how young or old, is constantly exploring the world and how it works. Space exploration, including the possible missions to Mars, has opened up a whole new world for us to explore.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Exploration: an Overview of Indian and International Mars Missions Nayamavalsa Scariah1, Dr
    Taurian Innovative Journal/Volume 1/ Issue 1 Mars exploration: An overview of Indian and International Mars Missions NayamaValsa Scariah1, Dr. Mili Ghosh2, Dr.A.P.Krishna3 Birla Institute of Technology, Mesra, Ranchi Abstract- Mars is the fourth planet from the sun. It is 1. Introduction also known as red planet because of its iron oxide content. There are lots of missions have been launched to Mars is also known as red planet, because of the mars for better understanding of our neighboring planet. reddish iron oxide prevalent on its surface gives it a There are lots of unmanned spacecraft including reddish appearance. It is the fourth planet from sun. orbiters, landers and rovers have been launched into mars since early 1960. Sputnik was the first satellite The term sol is used to define duration of solar day on launched in 1957 by Soviet Union. After seven failure Mars. A mean Martian solar day or sol is 24 hours 39 missions to Mars, Mariner 4 was the first satellite which minutes and 34.244 seconds. Many space missions to reached the Martian orbiter successfully. The Viking 1 Mars have been planned and launched for Mars was the first lander reached on Mars on 1975. India exploration (Table:1) but most of them failed without successfully launched a spacecraft, Mangalyan (Mars completing the task specially in early attempts th Orbiter Mission) on 5 November, 2013, with five whereas some NASA missions were very payloads to Mars. India was the first nation to successful(such as the twin Mars Exploration Rovers, successfully reach Mars on its first attempt.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix 1: Venus Missions
    Appendix 1: Venus Missions Sputnik 7 (USSR) Launch 02/04/1961 First attempted Venus atmosphere craft; upper stage failed to leave Earth orbit Venera 1 (USSR) Launch 02/12/1961 First attempted flyby; contact lost en route Mariner 1 (US) Launch 07/22/1961 Attempted flyby; launch failure Sputnik 19 (USSR) Launch 08/25/1962 Attempted flyby, stranded in Earth orbit Mariner 2 (US) Launch 08/27/1962 First successful Venus flyby Sputnik 20 (USSR) Launch 09/01/1962 Attempted flyby, upper stage failure Sputnik 21 (USSR) Launch 09/12/1962 Attempted flyby, upper stage failure Cosmos 21 (USSR) Launch 11/11/1963 Possible Venera engineering test flight or attempted flyby Venera 1964A (USSR) Launch 02/19/1964 Attempted flyby, launch failure Venera 1964B (USSR) Launch 03/01/1964 Attempted flyby, launch failure Cosmos 27 (USSR) Launch 03/27/1964 Attempted flyby, upper stage failure Zond 1 (USSR) Launch 04/02/1964 Venus flyby, contact lost May 14; flyby July 14 Venera 2 (USSR) Launch 11/12/1965 Venus flyby, contact lost en route Venera 3 (USSR) Launch 11/16/1965 Venus lander, contact lost en route, first Venus impact March 1, 1966 Cosmos 96 (USSR) Launch 11/23/1965 Possible attempted landing, craft fragmented in Earth orbit Venera 1965A (USSR) Launch 11/23/1965 Flyby attempt (launch failure) Venera 4 (USSR) Launch 06/12/1967 Successful atmospheric probe, arrived at Venus 10/18/1967 Mariner 5 (US) Launch 06/14/1967 Successful flyby 10/19/1967 Cosmos 167 (USSR) Launch 06/17/1967 Attempted atmospheric probe, stranded in Earth orbit Venera 5 (USSR) Launch 01/05/1969 Returned atmospheric data for 53 min on 05/16/1969 M.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars 2020 Radiological Contingency Planning
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Mars 2020 Radiological Contingency Planning NASA plans to launch the Mars 2020 rover, produce the rover’s onboard power and to Perseverance, in summer 2020 on a mission warm its internal systems during the frigid to seek signs of habitable conditions in Mars’ Martian night. ancient past and search for signs of past microbial life. The mission will lift off from Cape NASA prepares contingency response plans Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida aboard a for every launch that it conducts. Ensuring the United Launch Alliance Atlas V launch vehicle safety of launch-site workers and the public in between mid-July and August 2020. the communities surrounding the launch area is the primary consideration in this planning. The Mars 2020 rover design is based on NASA’s Curiosity rover, which landed on Mars in 2012 This contingency planning task takes on an and greatly increased our knowledge of the added dimension when the payload being Red Planet. The Mars 2020 rover is equipped launched into space contains nuclear material. to study its landing site in detail and collect and The primary goal of radiological contingency store the most promising samples of rock and planning is to enable an efficient response in soil on the surface of Mars. the event of an accident. This planning is based on the fundamental principles of advance The system that provides electrical power for preparation (including rehearsals of simulated Mars 2020 and its scientific equipment is the launch accident responses), the timely availability same as for the Curiosity rover: a Multi- of technically accurate and reliable information, Mission Radioisotope Thermoelectric Generator and prompt external communication with the (MMRTG).
    [Show full text]
  • Mariner to Mercury, Venus and Mars
    NASA Facts National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory California Institute of Technology Pasadena, CA 91109 Mariner to Mercury, Venus and Mars Between 1962 and late 1973, NASA’s Jet carry a host of scientific instruments. Some of the Propulsion Laboratory designed and built 10 space- instruments, such as cameras, would need to be point- craft named Mariner to explore the inner solar system ed at the target body it was studying. Other instru- -- visiting the planets Venus, Mars and Mercury for ments were non-directional and studied phenomena the first time, and returning to Venus and Mars for such as magnetic fields and charged particles. JPL additional close observations. The final mission in the engineers proposed to make the Mariners “three-axis- series, Mariner 10, flew past Venus before going on to stabilized,” meaning that unlike other space probes encounter Mercury, after which it returned to Mercury they would not spin. for a total of three flybys. The next-to-last, Mariner Each of the Mariner projects was designed to have 9, became the first ever to orbit another planet when two spacecraft launched on separate rockets, in case it rached Mars for about a year of mapping and mea- of difficulties with the nearly untried launch vehicles. surement. Mariner 1, Mariner 3, and Mariner 8 were in fact lost The Mariners were all relatively small robotic during launch, but their backups were successful. No explorers, each launched on an Atlas rocket with Mariners were lost in later flight to their destination either an Agena or Centaur upper-stage booster, and planets or before completing their scientific missions.
    [Show full text]
  • Mars Science Laboratory: Curiosity Rover Curiosity’S Mission: Was Mars Ever Habitable? Acquires Rock, Soil, and Air Samples for Onboard Analysis
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration Mars Science Laboratory: Curiosity Rover www.nasa.gov Curiosity’s Mission: Was Mars Ever Habitable? acquires rock, soil, and air samples for onboard analysis. Quick Facts Curiosity is about the size of a small car and about as Part of NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory mission, Launch — Nov. 26, 2011 from Cape Canaveral, tall as a basketball player. Its large size allows the rover Curiosity is the largest and most capable rover ever Florida, on an Atlas V-541 to carry an advanced kit of 10 science instruments. sent to Mars. Curiosity’s mission is to answer the Arrival — Aug. 6, 2012 (UTC) Among Curiosity’s tools are 17 cameras, a laser to question: did Mars ever have the right environmental Prime Mission — One Mars year, or about 687 Earth zap rocks, and a drill to collect rock samples. These all conditions to support small life forms called microbes? days (~98 weeks) help in the hunt for special rocks that formed in water Taking the next steps to understand Mars as a possible and/or have signs of organics. The rover also has Main Objectives place for life, Curiosity builds on an earlier “follow the three communications antennas. • Search for organics and determine if this area of Mars was water” strategy that guided Mars missions in NASA’s ever habitable for microbial life Mars Exploration Program. Besides looking for signs of • Characterize the chemical and mineral composition of Ultra-High-Frequency wet climate conditions and for rocks and minerals that ChemCam Antenna rocks and soil formed in water, Curiosity also seeks signs of carbon- Mastcam MMRTG • Study the role of water and changes in the Martian climate over time based molecules called organics.
    [Show full text]
  • Exploration of Mars by the European Space Agency 1
    Exploration of Mars by the European Space Agency Alejandro Cardesín ESA Science Operations Mars Express, ExoMars 2016 IAC Winter School, November 20161 Credit: MEX/HRSC History of Missions to Mars Mars Exploration nowadays… 2000‐2010 2011 2013/14 2016 2018 2020 future … Mars Express MAVEN (ESA) TGO Future ESA (ESA- Studies… RUSSIA) Odyssey MRO Mars Phobos- Sample Grunt Return? (RUSSIA) MOM Schiaparelli ExoMars 2020 Phoenix (ESA-RUSSIA) Opportunity MSL Curiosity Mars Insight 2020 Spirit The data/information contained herein has been reviewed and approved for release by JPL Export Administration on the basis that this document contains no export‐controlled information. Mars Express 2003-2016 … First European Mission to orbit another Planet! First mission of the “Rosetta family” Up and running since 2003 Credit: MEX/HRSC First European Mission to orbit another Planet First European attempt to land on another Planet Original mission concept Credit: MEX/HRSC December 2003: Mars Express Lander Release and Orbit Insertion Collission trajectory Bye bye Beagle 2! Last picture Lander after release, release taken by VMC camera Insertion 19/12/2003 8:33 trajectory Credit: MEX/HRSC Beagle 2 was found in January 2015 ! Only 6km away from landing site OK Open petals indicate soft landing OK Antenna remained covered Lessons learned: comms at all time! Credit: MEX/HRSC Mars Express: so many missions at once Mars Mission Phobos Mission Relay Mission Credit: MEX/HRSC Mars Express science investigations Martian Moons: Phobos & Deimos: Ionosphere, surface,
    [Show full text]
  • 2012.07.1.4X12239 Page 1 of 16 GLEX
    GLEX-2012.07.1.4x12239 Mars—On the Path or In the Way? Brent Sherwood Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, USA, [email protected] Explore Mars may not be the highest and best use of government-funded human space flight. However, Explore Mars is pervasively accepted as the ultimate goal for human space flight. This meme has become refractory within the human space flight community despite dramatic contextual changes since Apollo: human space flight is no longer central to commonly-held national priorities, NASA’s fraction of the federal budget has diminished 8 fold, over 60 enabling technology challenges have been identified, and the stunning achievements of robotic Mars exploration have accelerated. The Explore Mars vision has not kept pace with these changes. An unprecedented budgetary commitment would have to be sustained for an unprecedented number of decades to achieve the Explore Mars goal. Further, the goal’s justification as uniquely able to definitively determine Mars habitability is brittle, and not driving current planning in any case; yet NASA owns the choice of this goal and has authority to change it. Three alternative goals for government investment in human space flight meet NASA’s own expressed rationale at least as well as Explore Mars, some with far greater capacity to regain the cultural centrality of human space flight and to grow by attracting private capital. At a minimum the human space flight advocacy community should address the pragmatics of choosing such a vulnerable goal. I. INTRODUCTION1 Mars by explorers using ever-better robots, who are Explore Mars is a refractory meme, but is it a vision or a now directly investigating the planet’s habitability.
    [Show full text]
  • Determination of Optimal Earth-Mars Trajectories to Target the Moons Of
    The Pennsylvania State University The Graduate School Department of Aerospace Engineering DETERMINATION OF OPTIMAL EARTH-MARS TRAJECTORIES TO TARGET THE MOONS OF MARS A Thesis in Aerospace Engineering by Davide Conte 2014 Davide Conte Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science May 2014 ii The thesis of Davide Conte was reviewed and approved* by the following: David B. Spencer Professor of Aerospace Engineering Thesis Advisor Robert G. Melton Professor of Aerospace Engineering Director of Undergraduate Studies George A. Lesieutre Professor of Aerospace Engineering Head of the Department of Aerospace Engineering *Signatures are on file in the Graduate School iii ABSTRACT The focus of this thesis is to analyze interplanetary transfer maneuvers from Earth to Mars in order to target the Martian moons, Phobos and Deimos. Such analysis is done by solving Lambert’s Problem and investigating the necessary targeting upon Mars arrival. Additionally, the orbital parameters of the arrival trajectory as well as the relative required ΔVs and times of flights were determined in order to define the optimal departure and arrival windows for a given range of date. The first step in solving Lambert’s Problem consists in finding the positions and velocities of the departure (Earth) and arrival (Mars) planets for a given range of dates. Then, by solving Lambert’s problem for various combinations of departure and arrival dates, porkchop plots can be created and examined. Some of the key parameters that are plotted on porkchop plots and used to investigate possible transfer orbits are the departure characteristic energy, C3, and the arrival v∞.
    [Show full text]