India's Mars probe (MOM), Development, launch, and cruise to Mars |
India's Mars probe (MOM), Development, launch, and cruise to Mars |
Aug 31 2009, 08:10 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
according to the Chinese Xinhua press agency an Indian Mars probe may be launched in 2013 or 2015, after Chandrayaan-2
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-08/...nt_11972334.htm |
|
|
Jan 9 2012, 10:18 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
finally, some info on the proposed Indian Mars mission
http://www.asianscientist.com/topnews/isro...ed-planet-2013/ 2013 is probably too early, 2016 or 2018 may be more realistic. and Chandrayaan was not that successful, after all... |
|
|
Aug 11 2012, 09:38 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 149 Joined: 18-June 08 Member No.: 4216 |
While no-one was watching (or had their eyes on Curiosity)
the Indian government approved a national mission to Mars: http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2...mission-in-2013 Vital statistics: Launch on PSLV-XL in Nov 2013 500kg, 25kg payload to "..study the planet's geology and climate.." Highly elliptical orbit around Mars Good stuff. Tolis. |
|
|
Aug 11 2012, 11:50 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 316 Joined: 1-October 06 Member No.: 1206 |
Hmmm, any way to get an Electra comms package onboard?
P |
|
|
Sep 9 2012, 04:50 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 149 Joined: 18-June 08 Member No.: 4216 |
Some new info regarding the Indian Mars Probe
From the following article http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.co...methane-mystery one can infer that one of the science objectives is to look for methane and its sources. From this http://www.deccanchronicle.com/channels/sc...genous-isro-217 we learn that no foreign involvement (instruments etc) is foreseen. There is also a reference to the probe as "Mangalyaan" which makes sense I guess ("Mangala" is one of the words for "Mars" in Sanskrit?). Tolis. |
|
|
Sep 9 2012, 05:06 PM
Post
#6
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 276 Joined: 11-December 07 From: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Member No.: 3978 |
From that last article, they hint at the possibility of still having a 2013 launch though there may not be one until 2016.
I'm surprised ISRO has already declared it to be an 'indigneous' mission. They could have solicited a foreign surface package for a light-weight lander to maximise science return. -------------------- |
|
|
Sep 10 2012, 07:01 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
|
|
|
Sep 18 2012, 06:59 AM
Post
#8
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
this is interesting http://www.firstpost.com/tech/indias-mars-...013-459232.html
QUOTE “As in the case of Chandrayaan-1, we will have to take the spacecraft first into the earth’s orbit from 22,000 km to 200,000 km in stages using the propulsion system and fire the rocket’s liquid apogee motor to push it into the Martian orbit after cruising about 300 days” this looks like the mission profile of the Soviet Fobos missions, of Mars 96 and Fobos-Grunt |
|
|
Sep 18 2012, 03:24 PM
Post
#9
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 149 Joined: 18-June 08 Member No.: 4216 |
this is interesting http://www.firstpost.com/tech/indias-mars-...013-459232.html this looks like the mission profile of the Soviet Fobos missions, of Mars 96 and Fobos-Grunt ..as well as Chang'e 1. When your propulsion system is not very powerful or very accurate, it is preferable to split large burns into segments (when possible). This prevents large "gravity losses" (for long burns) and gives the mission time to measure and correct any under/over burns. In a nutshell: it saves fuel, when there is not much to spare. Tolis. |
|
|
Sep 19 2012, 08:58 PM
Post
#10
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 613 Joined: 23-February 07 From: Occasionally in Columbia, MD Member No.: 1764 |
When your propulsion system is not very powerful or very accurate, it is preferable to split large burns into segments (when possible). This prevents large "gravity losses" (for long burns) and gives the mission time to measure and correct any under/over burns. I suppose it also makes you more resilient to any pressurization issues, as in when your nominally regulated system starts operating in blowdown mode, as Akatsuki did (in effect) |
|
|
Sep 26 2012, 02:40 PM
Post
#11
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 149 Joined: 18-June 08 Member No.: 4216 |
Indians are cutting (and joining) metal for their orbiter:
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/...orbiter-376942/ |
|
|
Sep 30 2012, 08:08 PM
Post
#12
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 149 Joined: 18-June 08 Member No.: 4216 |
A nice summing up of the current state of india's Mars orbiter project by Emily Lakdawalla:
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakda...aan-update.html For what it's worth, I think that, although the mission development timeframe does seem awfully short, there are also some reasons to be optimistic: 1. There are indications, eg the delivery of the spacecraft structure, that work on the project began long before the formal announcement of the mission. 2. Such a fast schedule is not unheard of. The Mariner 9 mission, the US's first Mars orbiter, was launched in May 1971, 2.5 yr after the formal project start in November 1968. One could argue that, with a Moon orbiter under its belt, India is in a similar stage in its planetary programme. 3. The technical complexity of the mission, although formidable in absolute terms (it is, after all, a mission to Mars) is actually quite modest as planetary missions go. The goal is to attain a highly elliptical orbit around Mars and conduct observations of the planet from this orbit. The one critical maneuvre of the mission (assuming that is is dispatched from Earth without problems) is a well-timed engine burn near closest approach to the planet on the first pass. There is no probe to land, no major orbit changes, rendezvous with either one of the moons or sample return. This is no Phobos-Grunt, more like a Mars Express sans Beagle 2. So, I would say that there is better than a 50-50 chance of it getting to where it wants to go. Of course, in the real world it is impossible to fly, say, 10,000 identical missions to see what the actual probability of success is (that's why we have bayesian statistics, by the way ) but I remain cautiously optimistic about this one. Tolis. |
|
|
Sep 30 2012, 09:43 PM
Post
#13
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
2. Such a fast schedule is not unheard of. The Mariner 9 mission, the US's first Mars orbiter, was launched in May 1971, 2.5 yr after the formal project start in November 1968. There's rather a large difference between 2.5 years and 1.3 years, though it's not clear when Mangalyaan actually started. Also, Mariner Mars 1971 was a direct follow-on to the Mariner 6-7 flyby missions with a lot of heritage, see http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4212/ch6.html I wish them the best, but it's just not a lot of time. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Oct 1 2012, 05:10 AM
Post
#14
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1729 Joined: 3-August 06 From: 43° 35' 53" N 1° 26' 35" E Member No.: 1004 |
|
|
|
Oct 1 2012, 05:43 AM
Post
#15
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
To be fair, the Moon's is a much more challenging thermal environment than Mars'. I think.
-------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 26th September 2024 - 04:46 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |