Gut feeling... |
Gut feeling... |
May 22 2008, 08:15 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 8-February 04 From: Arabia Terra Member No.: 12 |
Something I have not posted online before...
Back in 2003, as four spacecraft approached Mars, I wrote down on a piece of paper my guess (based on nothing more than public information & gut feeling) at what each craft's chance of success (either at landing or orbital insertion) might be. My guesses were: Nozomi: 15% Beagle 2: 20% MER A: 60% MER B: 60% Mars Express: 85% In 2005 I guessed that MRO had a 90% chance of success Now, in 2008, I'm going to put a figure on Phoenix. That figure is: 55% What do you think? Too low? Too high? |
|
|
Guest_Zvezdichko_* |
May 24 2008, 11:06 AM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
Beagle 2 - I gave about 30%
MER A or MER B - 85%, I was quite sure they will succeed As for Phoenix I give 70%, because the powered descent adds some risk. And finally for MSL - 40%, the skycrane might or might not work. |
|
|
May 24 2008, 11:15 AM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 276 Joined: 11-December 07 From: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Member No.: 3978 |
As for Phoenix I give 70%, because the powered descent adds some risk. I share your anxiety Zvezdichko. I tend to find powered descent very unreliable. Atleast the engineers have learned from MPL by programming the spacecraft to deploy its legs while attached to the back shell. So i'ld give Phoenix a resonable 75-80% chance of succeding. This brings up a curious (or rather silly) question from me; why did many landers in the past fail. Is it because of the MPL error or what? -------------------- |
|
|
May 24 2008, 11:32 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 340 Joined: 11-April 08 From: Sydney, Australia Member No.: 4093 |
This brings up a curious (or rather silly) question from me; why did many landers in the past fail. Is it because of the MPL error or what? Whilst I share the 'fear' that the landing may go wrong, I dont see how recent history should contribute to the fear. Unless I miss something major, only one landing of US spacecraft post the Vikings went wrong: MPL. The record is quite good once you get to Entry Interface. Mars Observer and Mars Climate Orbiter didnt attempt to land, though the cause for the demise of Mars Observer (fuel pressurization) is yet to come for Phoenix. I dont know how comparable the technology / systems / economics were for Beagle 2. Daniel -------------------- |
|
|
May 24 2008, 11:50 AM
Post
#5
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 276 Joined: 11-December 07 From: Dar es Salaam, Tanzania Member No.: 3978 |
I dont know how comparable the technology / systems / economics were for Beagle 2. Daniel From what I know, Beagle 2 had a lot of problems economically speaking as well as problems in management. But how they managed to cram so many instruments int a 78kg cylinder is beyond me That achievement merits a hats off. We can thank ESA for that -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th June 2024 - 05:46 AM |
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. |