back to article NASA rethinking InSight probe mission after dust storm predicted for Mars

It's highly likely that Mars is going to suffer one of its periodical planet-wide dust storms this year – and NASA is concerned the event could disrupt its operations on the Red Planet. When the American agency's Mariner 9 spacecraft became the first probe to orbit another world – specifically, Mars – in November 1971, …

  1. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I'm wondering why they can't just park the satellite in orbit until such time as the storm has passed. Surely if it's has a pre-programmed set of instructions, they can upload a new set of commands simply:

    ie

    arrive at Mars

    achieve stable orbit

    wait until storm passes

    continue

    They can then start the de-orbit procedure and let the probe land as planned.

    1. Vulch

      Mostly because it is designed for direct entry from interplanetary cruise. It never enters Mars orbit.

      1. Rattus Rattus

        Re: direct entry from interplanetary cruise

        Just like my Kerbal missions. Atmospheres make everything so much easier!

    2. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

      Fuel. Entering a stable orbit, and then having to brake from that to land is expensive in fuel. And fuel carried is precious mass that could be better used for more instruments.

      Cubesats, being small and light, are much easier to move around.

      1. mr.K

        Any orbit should do

        I get that to enter a stable nice circular orbit by burning fuel instead of using the atmosphere amounts to more fuel spent. However I don't understand why entering a large elliptic parking orbit should cost that much fuel. As I understand it they first have to leave the Earth's gravity well, then climb a bit out of the sun's and then fall into the gravity well of Mars. If you just barely have the velocity to pass the hill between the sun and Mars then you only need a small burn to not fall out on the other side. Okay, the velocity is probably a little larger to get there in a reasonable time, but it can't be that much.

        So, they have to plan for this, and figure out a whole lot of orbital mechanics, but from what I hear they are quite good at that. Or am I missing something?

        1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge

          Re: Any orbit should do

          There is a pretty much set overall mass for your payload, given that your launch rocket has a payload limit.

          Every extra kilo of fuel you carry is one less sensor package on your probe. Or less shielding / backup battery capacity / whatever.

          If you want to decelerate the whole package to get into some sort of Martian orbit - then you've got to carry quite a few kilos of extra fuel. That means you do less science because either your probe doesn't last as long, or your probe has fewer instruments.

          Worse, it costs even more fuel to get out of orbit - because you have to reduce your velocity quite a lot.

          Basically it's a waste. And with our limited technology for getting out of the gravity well, we just can't afford waste in space missions. At the moment SpaceX charge $60m-odd to launch a rocket that's only burning about $300,000 worth of fuel. And that's because they're still pricing on throwing away the rest of the rocket.

          Remember, it still costs $10k-$20k to get 1kg to low earth orbit - and in that total mass you still have to budget for all the lovely fuel to get you to Earth escape velocity, do a few course corrections and slow you down enough at Mars to make aerobraking workable in a very thin atmosphere.

          On the other hand, the mass of a cubesat is very low compared to the whole payload. So even carrying the cubesat's entire mass again in extra fuel probably isn't an insurmountable cost - and whereas that fuel doesn't get you very far boosting the whole payload, it might take your cubesat quite a long way. And of course it's required (not a luxury) as you have to put your cubesat in orbit - putting your probe in orbit is an expensive luxury. Much cheaper to keep it in storage, in a nice clean-room on Earth, and send it after the dust has settled.

      2. Destroy All Monsters Silver badge

        Cubesats, being small and light, are much easier to move around.

        Why? They carry proportionately less fuel/motor and one communicate with them all that well (because "small and light"). To me. this means they are harder to move around.

  2. lglethal Silver badge
    Unhappy

    =(

    As an ex-member of the InSight team all i can say is NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Bangem

    Bleeding obvious...

    Who said that the dust storms are "highly likely" and what proof do they have? Does ole Reg wanna tell us their source for this article?

    If this really is the case, just don't launch in May,

    NASA is a public organisation, project delay is what public organisations do!. Just push back the launch til the next launch window.

    In the meantime, make damn sure Opportunity stays safe. Maybe get the little guy to dig a hole or something!

    1. lglethal Silver badge
      Go

      Re: Bleeding obvious...

      Well part of the problem is that you have a limited launch window for Mars before it moves further from Earth such that you need a bigger rocket. That's what forced the 2 year delay from when it was due to launch last time - there was a failure of an instrument shortly before launch which was not able to be repaired in sufficient time to meet that launch window.

      Keeping the project alive for another 2 years from the last window cost a fair bit of money and even with the majority of people off the project already, another delay of 2 years would more then likely kill the program entirely. Just remember in 2 years time, the majority of InSight people will be working on other projects (which wouldnt be happy with giving them up to go back to the old project) and probably a vast number wont even be working for the same companies anymore. Restarting a mothballed project with new people, you better hope all of the documentation is in order... So delay is not that easy...

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Prediction?

    I'm wondering upon what NASA's prediction of a planet-wide dust storm occurring on Mars, in ten months time, is based?

    It would seem that global dust storms are more likely at perihelion (closest to Sol), which is fair enough, and that observations show that the probability of a dust storm in any one Martian year is one in three, but that's no basis for a prediction.

    1. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: Prediction?

      The guarantee of a dust storm is from elReg, some NASA scientists are merely hoping for one.

      Source

      "It would not be a surprise to see a global dust storm this year, and we would love that opportunity," said MAVEN Principal Investigator Bruce Jakosky of CU Boulder.

      "It would be great to have a global dust storm we could observe with all the assets now at Mars, and that could happen this year," said David Kass of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. He is a co-author of the new report and deputy principal investigator for the instrument that is the main source of data for it, MRO's Mars Climate Sounder.

      and

      Decades of Mars observations document a pattern of multiple regional dust storms arising during the northern spring and summer. In most Martian years, which are nearly twice as long as Earth years, all the regional storms dissipate and none swells into a global dust storm. But such expansion happened in 1977, 1982, 1994, 2001 and 2007. The next Martian dust storm season is expected to begin this summer and last into early 2019.

      Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-01-storms-linked-gas-martian-atmosphere.html#jCp

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dust storms weren't a complete surprise to Mariner 9

    Storms had been observed on Mars ever since the early 19th Century, although the 1971 storm was especially large. What was significant about Mariner 9 was that it was the first orbiter to successfully reach Mars and could wait out the storm. Earlier missions had been simple fly-bys and had they arrived at the wrong time - well not much fun for the scientists.

    The storm *was* a problem for the Soviet Union's Mars 2 and Mars 3 which arrived at Mars two weeks after Mariner 9, each of which carried a heavy lander that had to be jettisoned before entering orbit. The landers both failed, Mars 2 during descent, Mars 3 successfully touched down but stopped transmission just 20 seconds later during the transmission of an image.

    The two orbiters did enter orbit over Mars, but used up almost all of their imaging resources taking photos of the dust storm. However, they did return useful information about the Martian atmosphere, gravitational anomalies and the absence of a planetary magnetic field.

  6. John Mangan

    Does anyone know....

    26 metres/sec is arounf 60mph. Given that Mars' atmosphere is a lot thinner than Earth's presumably this would feel more like a brisk breeze than the hurricane force winds shown in 'The Martian'?

    Also, although the winds carry 'huge amounts of dust' - they cover the planet after all - does anyone know what the visibility would be like for someone on the planet - are we talking a bit misty or full-on pea-souper?

    Thanks.

    1. I ain't Spartacus Gold badge
      Happy

      Re: Does anyone know....

      Pea souper?

      No thanks sarge. I've already eaten.

  7. ravenviz Silver badge

    any dust that lands on the panels would reduce their long-term performance

    Can it have little R2D2's that go and clear that stuff off?

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like