The sky crane maneuver (as JPL called it) was necessary because if they descended propulsively to the surface, it could kick up a huge dust cloud. That dust could land on the rover and damage the instruments. See this awesome video: https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/video/details.php?id=1090
I like to think some manager saw the army drop a humvee from a blackhawk and asked "why can't we do this, but on Mars?" and nobody came up with a good enough answer so they did it.
I was standing next to one of the engineers who wrote the software for the landing while we were watching on the big screen at Twitter. A few moments after it landed he announced that his code worked and was being deleted to make room for surface operations code.
That's one of those cool things that never gets thought about outside the people directly involved. "Why keep the code required for landing readily available permanently, since it'll never ever need it again." That's one of the aspects that I enjoy about programming Arduino devices. I'm so spoiled to essentially unlimited memory on desktop/laptops (in comparison) that writing code to fit into extremely limited finite amounts of memory becomes challenging in a fun way.
I think it's because Curiosity was a rover and Insight is only a lander. A lander can have rockets on the bottom that slow its descent, but a rover can't, as then the wheels won't work. So the "helicopter drop" puts the rockets on a platform far above the rover (so the exhaust won't damage it) and then it flies away once the rover is on the surface.
Spirit/Opportunity were both wheeled rovers, and both landed with something under them; they had ramps that unfolded after landing, and the rover then proceeded to drive off the ramp onto the surface. So I don't think putting things under the wheels is necessarily a non-starter.
(But those rovers, IIRC, did a bounce-and-roll-to-a-stop style landing.)
The difference is that those rovers are a small fraction of the size and weight of Curiosity - the latter probably couldn't have survived a bounce-and-roll.
As I recall there was also something about the complexity of having the rover drive off the landing platform which was to be avoided. It would have been several feet of the ground and needed to get down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bGD_YF64Nwk - live coverage of InSight landing on the NASA JPL channel, started November 26, 2018 at 19:00 UTC, touchdown at around 20:00 UTC
When I was a kid I remember watching on PBS as they covered pictures of Jupiter getting transmitted from Voyager 1 as it flew by. It was really exciting. The pictures didn't come that quickly but it felt really exciting to watch a TV program with the scientists from NASA.
This is a pretty interesting poster. It shows just how similar the surface of these alien worlds look. The image of Earth is the obvious "one of these things is not like the others".
This reminds me of when Curiosity landed years ago. It was a really cool event and I remember watching it on my Xbox. I think there was a special app to use to watch the event at NASA live. It was one of the tensest things I'd ever seen. I hope kids of all ages over the world get to experience something like this if you're interested in science.
I had the fortune of watching the landing broadcast live (from JPL, that is, not from Mars of course) at NASA Ames. That was really exciting, to see something like this with other people who cared just as much.
I vividly remember a sense of total awe watching it, thinking here we are, watching a broadcast from inside the JPL - as it happens! - of a craft in a totally new, complex method of landing after travelling and being guided millions of kilometres.
What struck me in particular was the sense of wonder at being able to see that first image of the wheel - transmitted across the globe live as they received it.
A privilege for us. For my boy landing on Mars and rockets that can be reused are as normal as the bus being on time. Is it any wonder that older politicians struggle to serve young constituents?
And all of the above are JPL projects! The only thing you left off the list is the USSR's Mars landers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_program (Proud JPLer here, although I haven't worked on any Mars stuff.)
I didn't include the Soviet Mars landers because the most successful of the bunch only worked for 20 seconds on the Mars surface. They had better luck with Venus.
This is not correct. I believe there have been eight successful Mars landings: Viking 1 and 2, Mars Pathfinder, the two Mars Exploration Rovers (Spirit and Opportunity), Phoenix, the Mars Science Laboratory (Curiosity), and now this one (InSight).
Failures include (going off of a list on Wikipedia) 2MV-3 (Soviet probe that never left Earth orbit; not sure if you want to count this or not since it didn’t fail during landing), Mars 2, Mars 3 (landed successfully but failed within minutes), Mars 6, Mars 7, Mars Polar Lander, Beagle 2 (landed but solar panels failed to deploy), and Schiaparelli.
So I think there have been eight successes and eight failures, if you only count probes intended to land. Notably, all eight successful landers so far have been launched by the United States.
To elaborate slightly on (4), Mars 2020, which is scheduled for launch in summer 2020, will have the ability to gather 20 samples into a sample cache, and drop the cache container off, for a possible future return pick-up. So, it's getting closer.
I wanted to know a little more detail about why the broad equatorial plain Elysium Planitia was chosen as the landing place. Found this article but just curious if there is any more detail about the location or selection process?
--
Elysium Planitia, a flat-smooth plain just north of the equator makes for the perfect location from which to study the deep Martian interior.
Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport, or InSight, is designed to study the deep interior of Mars. The mission seeks the fingerprints of the processes that formed the rocky planets of the solar system.
Its landing site, Elysium Planitia, was picked from 22 candidates, and is centered at about 4.5 degrees north latitude and 135.9 degrees east longitude; about 373 miles (600 kilometers) from Curiosity’s landing site, Gale Crater. The locations of other Mars landers and rovers are labeled.
InSight's scientific success and safe landing depends on landing in a relatively flat area, with an elevation low enough to have sufficient atmosphere above the site for a safe landing. It also depends on landing in an area where rocks are few in number. Elysium Planitia has just the right surface for the instruments to be able to probe the deep interior, and its proximity to the equator ensures that the solar-powered lander is exposed to plenty of sunlight.
In July 1997, I was temporarily unemployed and in the unemployed doldrums. I remember watching the day by day updates on Mars Pathfinder. Matt Golombek was the Pathfinder lead and face on TV (CSPAN?). He's a bit presuming but he quickly became my geek hero. Good to see that he's a lead on InSight, twenty years later.
49 comments
[ 5.4 ms ] story [ 77.6 ms ] threadListening for quakes is not an activity which will be impacted by the surface being gunked up.
Edit: Why is this comment unacceptable?
(But those rovers, IIRC, did a bounce-and-roll-to-a-stop style landing.)
Insight doesn't need it, so no reason to spend the money on it.
What struck me in particular was the sense of wonder at being able to see that first image of the wheel - transmitted across the globe live as they received it.
Such a privilege and accomplishment.
1. How long did the trip take ?
2. How many times have "we" (the world) tried and failed?
3. How many times have "we" successfully landed ?
4. Is this "ship" able to return to earth.
Thanks!
2. This is the fifth success, out of thirteen attempts, over sixty years.
3. There have been five successful landings.
4. No.
Viking 1
Viking 2
Mars Pathfinder
Spirit
Opportunity
Phoenix
Curiosity
InSight
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_3#Entry,_descent,_landing...
Failures include (going off of a list on Wikipedia) 2MV-3 (Soviet probe that never left Earth orbit; not sure if you want to count this or not since it didn’t fail during landing), Mars 2, Mars 3 (landed successfully but failed within minutes), Mars 6, Mars 7, Mars Polar Lander, Beagle 2 (landed but solar panels failed to deploy), and Schiaparelli.
So I think there have been eight successes and eight failures, if you only count probes intended to land. Notably, all eight successful landers so far have been launched by the United States.
2. Out of ~50 missions, about 20 have failed. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_missions_to_Mars
3. About 8 successful landings https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_landing Curiousity was by far the 'coolest' and still astonishes me that we pulled it off. https://youtu.be/h2I8AoB1xgU
4. No.
To elaborate slightly on (4), Mars 2020, which is scheduled for launch in summer 2020, will have the ability to gather 20 samples into a sample cache, and drop the cache container off, for a possible future return pick-up. So, it's getting closer.
--
Elysium Planitia, a flat-smooth plain just north of the equator makes for the perfect location from which to study the deep Martian interior.
Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy and Heat Transport, or InSight, is designed to study the deep interior of Mars. The mission seeks the fingerprints of the processes that formed the rocky planets of the solar system.
Its landing site, Elysium Planitia, was picked from 22 candidates, and is centered at about 4.5 degrees north latitude and 135.9 degrees east longitude; about 373 miles (600 kilometers) from Curiosity’s landing site, Gale Crater. The locations of other Mars landers and rovers are labeled.
InSight's scientific success and safe landing depends on landing in a relatively flat area, with an elevation low enough to have sufficient atmosphere above the site for a safe landing. It also depends on landing in an area where rocks are few in number. Elysium Planitia has just the right surface for the instruments to be able to probe the deep interior, and its proximity to the equator ensures that the solar-powered lander is exposed to plenty of sunlight.
--
https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/jpl/pia22232/insight-s-la...
Table 3 on page 20 of the PDF is a good summary; their main constraints were latitude, elevation, slope (flatness) and rock abundance.