NASA’s Key to Efficient Mars Landings: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle

By Guest Blogger | September 5, 2012 11:27 am

Amy Shira Teitel is a freelance space writer whose work appears regularly on Discovery News Space and Motherboard among many others. She blogs, mainly about the history of spaceflight, at Vintage Space, and tweets at @astVintageSpace.

Last week, NASA announced its next planetary mission. In 2016 the agency is going back to the surface of Mars with a spacecraft called InSight. The mission’s selection irked some who were hoping to see approval for one of the other, more ambitious missions up for funding: either a hopping probe sent to a comet or a sailing probe sent to the methane seas of Saturn’s moon Titan. Others were irked by NASA’s ambiguity over the mission’s cost during the press announcement.

An artist’s rendition of InSight deploying its seismometer and heat-flow experiments on Mars.

InSight is part of NASA’s Discovery program, a series of low-cost missions each designed to answer one specific question. For InSight, that question is why Mars evolved into such a different terrestrial planet than the Earth, a mystery it will investigate by probing a few meters into the Martian surface. The agency says InSight’s selection was based on its low cost—currently capped at $425 million excluding launch costs—and relatively low risk. It has, in short, fewer known unknowns than the other proposals.

But while InSight costs less than half a billion itself, the total value of the mission by the time it launches will be closer to $2 billion. How can NASA get that much zoom for so few bucks? By harnessing technologies developed for and proven on previous missions. The research, development, and testing that has gone into every previous lander take a lot of guesswork out of this mission, helping it fly for (relatively) cheap.

Aside from the Moon, Mars is the only body in the solar system that NASA has landed on more than once. With every mission, the agency learns a little more, and by recycling the technology and methods that work, it’s able to limit expensive test programs. This has played no small part in NASA’s success on the Red Planet thus far. When it comes to the vital task of getting landers safely to the surface, NASA has been reusing the same method for decades. It has its roots way back in the Apollo days.

A mosaic of Mars’ Chryse Planitia created from images taken by Viking 1.

NASA first demonstrated how to make effective Mars landings with the Viking missions, a pair of twin landers that reached the surface in 1976. Each was sent to Mars with an elaborate, three-stage system for slowing the craft down for a gentle landing. The first stage was an aeroshell, a case designed to create enough drag to slow the lander’s descent without building up too much heat from atmospheric friction that it melted the instruments inside. For the second braking mechanism, NASA took advantage of the fact that Mars, unlike the Moon, has an atmosphere—they used a parachute. And the final descent was made with the help of retrorockets, which fire opposite a lander’s direction of travel. They slowed the landers to a gentle touchdown, at which point a sensor in the leg shut the rockets down.

This approach seemed sound, but it required a lot of real-world testing to make sure it would work. One particular challenge was that Mars’ thin atmosphere meant that the lander would still be falling faster than the speed of sound when the chute needs to deploy. To test parachutes in a hypersonic, low-atmosphere environment, engineers put plentiful Apollo-era funding to good use. They ran a series of tests that sent a payload into Earth’s thin upper atmosphere with a balloon, accelerated it past the speed of sound, then deployed the parachute. It was an expensive test NASA hasn’t repeated since 1968, but it worked and did offer a good stand in for the Martian environment.

The whole system worked. Both Vikings landed safely, eventually exceeding their expected lifetime on the surface.

NASA ported much of what worked in the Viking missions right over to the Mars Polar Lander, launched in 1999. Unfortunately, this mission failed when the leg sensor registered a false signal during the descent, causing the retros to shut down early. The Polar lander slammed into the surface at about 50 miles per hour, 100 times faster than it was designed to land. In 2005, NASA’s Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft found the crash site; it shows up in black-and-white pictures as nothing more than a dark smudge against a gray landscape.

The Mars Polar Lander crash sites.
D shows the spacecraft’s parachute;
E is the lander itself.

The Polar lander’s failure forced NASA to scrap its planned 2001 Mars Surveyor lander, a near-identical copy. The unused hardware was moved to a clean room at contractor Lockheed Martin’s facilities until the mid-2000s when it was brought out and reborn, fittingly, as the Phoenix lander. The recycled craft used the Viking and Polar landing method, modified to include the lessons learned from the crash. The fixes worked: Phoenix landed safe and sound, working for 155 sols (Martian days) before falling silent.

This is the heritage behind InSight’s landing: $1 billion spent developing the Viking mission, $457 million for Phoenix, $120 million for the Polar lander. All the mission details aren’t out yet, but if InSight’s “virtually identical” landing means the same aeroshell, parachute, radar, retros, and landing sensors, it’s unlikely NASA will have to spend significant money extensively testing all these systems. Instead, it can focus on the mission’s science, developing the instruments and making sure they will work in the Martian environment.

Recycling technology when landing on Mars works because, luckily for engineers, physics doesn’t change. A parachute that worked on one mission can work on the next, and an aeroshell design that protected one lander will protect another. Of course, this doesn’t guarantee success since anomalies in engineering are common (see: Polar Lander), and it certainly doesn’t mean there will be no pre-launch testing. But it does mean engineers bring better data set to every new mission.

From the Recycling is good, even when you’re landing on Mars.



CATEGORIZED UNDER: Technology, Top Posts
  • John Berenberg

    “Aside from the Moon, Mars is the only body in the solar system that NASA has landed on more than once.”

    Not quite true. There is a third such body, and NASA has landed on it more times than on all the others combined.

  • Pingback: Reducing, Recycling, and Reusing on Mars | Amy Shira Teitel()

  • templerman

    Why is it that NASA builds a new satellite package from scratch for every mission? It seems wasteful and repetitive. The cost of unmanned space missions has always caused me to suspect NASA has drifted away from its founding principles. One might begin to suspect that NASA is attempting to pad the bill to keep all its workers busy. Essentially, NASA tries to reinventing the wheel each time they launch a new mission. NASA should have a basic set of chassis that can be augmented with off the shelf instruments and technology.

  • Daniel Pike

    I’d just like to point out that the report that the crash site of Mars Polar Lander had been found was later found to be erroneous. The features interpreted as the parachute, backshell and lander disappeared when seen in a better image. See here

    I love your stuff. Keep it up.

  • Haul it Louisville Guy

    I like the idea that NASA continues to go to Mars and I hope that the funding continues. Frankly, I would rather NASA take a shot at exploring Saturn’s moon Titan but there may be some pretty good reasons for selecting another Mars landing. They have the technology and equipment to land on Mars without having to invent everything which could be the case with going to Titan.

  • amphiox

    Why is it that NASA builds a new satellite package from scratch for every mission? It seems wasteful and repetitive.

    Is not NASA’s mandate the advancement of all aspects of aerospace science and technology? That would include engineering. Designing new, cutting edge hardware for every mission is part of its exploration mandate – exploration of the boundaries of design.

    Also, the time it takes to test and harden the hardware designs for space travel mean that by the time of the next mission, technology has advanced a great deal on earth, and it makes sense to try and take advantage of the new capabilities in the new missions.

    (One could readily imagine, though, that one day a private company would design a all-purpose platform which they could market to scientists for space exploration and science purposes)

  • Pingback: On The Cost of Curiosity « Possibly Nonsense()


The Crux

A collection of bright and big ideas about timely and important science from a community of experts.

See More


Discover's Newsletter

Sign up to get the latest science news delivered weekly right to your inbox!

Collapse bottom bar