Navigation Challenges of the Mars Phoenix Lander Mission

Portock, Brian; Kruizinga, Gerhard; Bonfiglio, Eugene; Raofi, Behzad; Ryne, Mark

doi:10.2514/6.2008-7214

Cited by 12 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As each maneuver date approached, the navigation team estimated the error associated with the calculated target entry state [3]. These navigation errors, along with a host of many other uncertainties (e.g., aerodynamic, atmosphere, mass properties, etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landing-Site Dispersion Analysis and Statistical Assessment for the Mars Phoenix Lander

Bonfiglio

Adams

Craig

et al. 2011

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landing-Site Dispersion Analysis and Statistical Assessment for the Mars Phoenix Lander

Bonfiglio

Adams

Craig

et al. 2011

Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…As each maneuver date approached, the navigation team estimated the error associated with their calculated entry state 3 . These navigation errors, along with aerodynamic uncertainties were used in a Monte Carlo analysis of the EDL trajectory to calculate the landing dispersion on the ground.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Landing Site Dispersion Analysis and Statistical Assessment for the Mars Phoenix Lander

Bonfiglio

Adams

Craig

et al. 2008

AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Mars Phoenix Lander launched on August 4, 2007 and successfully landed on Mars 10 months later on May 25, 2008. Landing ellipse predicts and hazard maps were key in selecting safe surface targets for Phoenix. Hazard maps were based on terrain slopes, geomorphology maps and automated rock counts of MRO's High Resolution Imaging Science Experiment (HiRISE) images. The expected landing dispersion which led to the selection of Phoenix's surface target is discussed as well as the actual landing dispersion predicts determined during operations in the weeks, days, and hours before landing. A statistical assessment of these dispersions is performed, comparing the actual landing-safety probabilities to criteria levied by the project. Also discussed are applications for this statistical analysis which were used by the Phoenix project. These include using the statistical analysis used to verify the effectiveness of a pre-planned maneuver menu and calculating the probability of future maneuvers.

show abstract

“…3,4 The nominal design values at entry interface (radius of 3522.2 km corresponding to a 125 km radial altitude) for the inertial entry velocity and inertial flight-path angle for Phoenix were 5.6 km/s and -13.0°, respectively. At entry (E) minus 6.5 min, the 3-axis controlled capsule performed a turn-toentry maneuver to attain the desired nominal zero degree angle of attack attitude at entry interface (E-0 s).…”

Section: He Mars Phoenix Lander Successfully Landed On Mars On May 25mentioning

confidence: 99%

Entry, Descent, and Landing Performance of the Mars Phoenix Lander

Desai

Prince

Wueen

et al. 2008

AIAA/AAS Astrodynamics Specialist Conference and Exhibit

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

On May 25, 2008, the Mars Phoenix Lander successfully landed on the northern arctic plains of Mars. An overview of a preliminary reconstruction analysis performed on each entry, descent, and landing phase to assess the performance of Phoenix as it descended is presented and a comparison to pre-entry predictions is provided. The landing occurred 21 km further downrange than the predicted landing location. Analysis of the flight data revealed that the primary cause of Phoenix's downrange landing was a higher trim total angle of attack during the hypersonic phase of the entry, which resulted in Phoenix flying a slightly lifting trajectory. The cause of this higher trim attitude is not known at this time. Parachute deployment was 6.4 s later than prediction. This later deployment time was within the variations expected and is consistent with a lifting trajectory. The parachute deployment and inflation process occurred as expected with no anomalies identified. The subsequent parachute descent and powered terminal landing also behaved as expected. A preliminary reconstruction of the landing day atmospheric density profile was found to be lower than the best apriori prediction, ranging from a few percent less to a maximum of 8%. A comparison of the flight reconstructed trajectory parameters shows that the actual Phoenix entry, descent, and landing was close to pre-entry predictions. This reconstruction investigation is currently ongoing and the results to date are in the process of being refined.

show abstract

Navigation Challenges of the Mars Phoenix Lander Mission

Cited by 12 publications

References 3 publications

Landing-Site Dispersion Analysis and Statistical Assessment for the Mars Phoenix Lander

Landing-Site Dispersion Analysis and Statistical Assessment for the Mars Phoenix Lander

Landing Site Dispersion Analysis and Statistical Assessment for the Mars Phoenix Lander

Entry, Descent, and Landing Performance of the Mars Phoenix Lander

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About