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? |
 |
 
|
|
May 22 2008, 08:23 PM
Post
#2
|
|
 Member Group: Members Posts: 696 Joined: 3-December 04 From: Boulder, Colorado, USA Member No.: 117 |
Too low according to my gut, which reports in at about 82%...
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 08:26 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 8-February 04 From: Arabia Terra Member No.: 12 |
QUOTE (john_s @ May 22 2008, 09:23 PM)  Too low according to my gut, which reports in at about 82%... Good to know that planetary pros are more optimistic! 
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 08:54 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14431 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I've been trying to figure this out for myself. I decided that Phoenix has a better chance than Lewis Hamilton has of not winning the Monaco Grand Prix.
67% is the figure I've come up with. 2/3rds - which, by chance, is the ratio of powered decent landings on Mars. Doug |
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 09:03 PM
Post
#5
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Admin Posts: 4763 Joined: 15-March 05 From: Glendale, AZ Member No.: 197 |
I'll say 83% which is the ratio of successful U.S. Mars landing attempts (5 of 6).
-------------------- If Occam had heard my theory, things would be very different now.
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 09:04 PM
Post
#6
|
|
 Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4404 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
With all the MPL discussion and the fact that we haven't found it, I am left wondering about something. MARDI on Phoenix was turned off because of fear that it would interfere with the EDL sequence and cause the mission to crash. I wonder if that is what did MPL in? If the generally accepted failure mode is wrong, this would be a favorite of mine (in terms of preference, not necessarily likelihood), because Phoenix has already worked around it.
-------------------- |
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 09:08 PM
Post
#7
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
My greatest paranoia, when it comes to Mars landers, is landing on rocks, tipping over craters or other rough terrain features. It's the one thing you can't (just yet) control and it in the end depends upon luck. I can't really quantify my gut feeling of Phoenix' chance of successful landing, but I'm sure glad they picked a really flat target area.
Ted, my wondering about MPL led me to think it could have in fact been the terrain that got to MPL in the end. As opposed to Phoenix site, some of that terrain is dreadful (although low illumination angle brings this effect up). -------------------- |
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 09:22 PM
Post
#8
|
|
 Special Cookie Group: Members Posts: 2168 Joined: 6-April 05 From: Sintra | Portugal Member No.: 228 |
My gut feeling...having into account the previous uncharted abysses to be (not encouragin isn't it?)...:
100%! Let us have faith...in what faith can help us...  I am really trustful about Phoenix...trustful about a mission marking a new ground... -------------------- "Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe |
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 09:23 PM
Post
#9
|
|
 Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2173 Joined: 28-December 04 From: Florida, USA Member No.: 132 |
QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ May 22 2008, 05:03 PM) I'll say 83% which is the ratio of successful U.S. Mars landing attempts (5 of 6). I'd say 90%... I think they're getting better. |
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 09:30 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Junior Member Group: Members Posts: 89 Joined: 27-August 05 From: Eccentric Mars orbit Member No.: 477 |
Around 90%. I have seen many movies and animations of this thing working, and none of it not, so I'm conditioned to think it will work.
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 09:42 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 813 Joined: 8-February 04 From: Arabia Terra Member No.: 12 |
QUOTE (ElkGroveDan @ May 22 2008, 10:03 PM) I'll say 83% which is the ratio of successful U.S. Mars landing attempts (5 of 6). Unless you count the two DS2 probes as landers, which would make it 5/8 |
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 09:43 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2507 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
QUOTE (tedstryk @ May 22 2008, 01:04 PM) With all the MPL discussion and the fact that we haven't found it, I am left wondering about something. MARDI on Phoenix was turned off because of fear that it would interfere with the EDL sequence and cause the mission to crash. I wonder if that is what did MPL in? The probability that the software bug with the leg deployment on MPL caused its failure is something greater than 50%. The probability that the MARDI/PACI issue caused it is a very small number (1:100000 would be my off-the-cuff guess). So I'm going with the software bug (which has also already been addressed for PHX.) -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
|
|
May 22 2008, 10:53 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 279 Joined: 19-August 07 Member No.: 3299 |
I have high trust about the Phoenix's EDL plan which is much better prepared than any previous Mars landing spacecraft.
However, there is one thing that cannot control the safe landing is the condition of the terrain which Phoenix will land on Green Valley in spite of the fact that the terrain is believed to be very smooth in "General Terms". After combining the three factors, I am puting that the success factor in landing safely on Mars is about 80%. |
|
|
|
|
May 23 2008, 02:20 AM
Post
#14
|
|
 Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8783 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
Gotta go with 90% or greater. They've learned a LOAD of lessons, have the best weather recon in place ever, and hardware keeps getting more & more reliable. It's all evolutionary.
-------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
|
|
May 23 2008, 02:23 AM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2173 Joined: 28-December 04 From: Florida, USA Member No.: 132 |
QUOTE (nprev @ May 22 2008, 09:20 PM) Gotta go with 90% or greater. They've learned a LOAD of lessons... Right. I don't see why you would use the overall average for success, which includes the steepest part of the learning curve. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 16th April 2024 - 12:35 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. |
|
