video of new mars rover released

[Jerry_111]

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000988/

no more bouncing airbags!

 

[<RJMC>]

but bouncing airbags ruelz mothafricker!

 

[dream431ca]

Last time they tried something like a rocket landing on mars they lost the thing they were trying to land.

Use the bouncing bags. It works.

 

[hungryduck]

awwww, those bouncing airbags were cool

 

[Griz]

Oooh, it has lasers that can vaporise rock!!

 

[kattmat]

Last time they tried something like a rocket landing on mars they lost the thing they were trying to land.

Use the bouncing bags. It works.

Unfortunately, they can't. That system is unable to safely land such a heavy rover. And this isn't really the same old rocket system that were used for the last stationary lander, but an (almost) new concept called skycrane.

 

[Robbo]

Thats so damm cool, looks kinda lonely they should send two so I feel better.

 

[StardogChampion]

Is this an American thingy?

 

[DEATH eVADER]

http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000988/

no more bouncing airbags!

It still looks breakable

 

[dream431ca]

Unfortunately, they can't. That system is unable to safely land such a heavy rover. And this isn't really the same old rocket system that were used for the last stationary lander, but an (almost) new concept called skycrane.

Then this mission failed before it even was conceived.

 

[theotherguy]

Then this mission failed before it even was conceived.

Don't be so pessimistic. The last rocket-landing mission failed becase Nasa contracted a European firm for the navigation system. The European firm used metric units in the navigation system, so when Nasa passed on an orbit distance in miles, the craft decided it was in kilometers, and burned up in the atmosphere. The one before that was unrelated to the rocket boosters, the landing gear they used opened too early, which shut off the rocket and caused it to crash.

I think after those terrible failures Nasa has learned a little more about landing designs, and are much more cautious.This design looks like a fairly good idea, as long as the craft is oriented correctley and chooses a good landing site it shouldn't be too difficult to land it. (After all, the last craft used basically the same system, it just released the rover much earlier, at which point it used airbags)

If they fail this then there is really nothing more NASA could do to decrease their public image any further. We can only hope the beauracratic system hasn't resulted in a machine that doesn't work with its own parts, as the last ones did.

 

[Jerry_111]

Last time they tried something like a rocket landing on mars they lost the thing they were trying to land.

Use the bouncing bags. It works.

I'm assuming that there's too much fragile equipment on this one to use the bouncing bags.

 

[Gray Fox]

Would rather have it they used the money to research more advanced engines. It would be kick ass if we archived warp 1 before I die.
+ it would really open up our solar system and maybe even more.

 

[kattmat]

Don't be so pessimistic. The last rocket-landing mission failed becase Nasa contracted a European firm for the navigation system. The European firm used metric units in the navigation system, so when Nasa passed on an orbit distance in miles, the craft decided it was in kilometers, and burned up in the atmosphere. The one before that was unrelated to the rocket boosters, the landing gear they used opened too early, which shut off the rocket and caused it to crash.

I think after those terrible failures Nasa has learned a little more about landing designs, and are much more cautious.This design looks like a fairly good idea, as long as the craft is oriented correctley and chooses a good landing site it shouldn't be too difficult to land it. (After all, the last craft used basically the same system, it just released the rover much earlier, at which point it used airbags)

If they fail this then there is really nothing more NASA could do to decrease their public image any further. We can only hope the beauracratic system hasn't resulted in a machine that doesn't work with its own parts, as the last ones did.

Actually, that was an entirely different thing. MCO (Mars Climate Orbiter) was lost due to the navigation error you described. Remember, that was not any lander, but an orbiter. The rocket-powered lander that crashed on mars was MPL, and that one went down due to a software error (as you said).

I don't understand why you are so negative, dream. Rocket-landings have worked excellent over the past 50 years, and only one Nasa Mars-lander with rockets have failed, and that because of a software error. Remember Beagle 2? It had airbags, yet it crashed. Landing on Mars is always risky, but I trust Nasa with doing it right since they have been quite successful.