5
$\begingroup$

The video of the Perseverance landing showed the rover descending into a cloud of dust kicked up by the landing rockets. This is not surprising, but I always had the understanding that one of the reasons for the sky crane approach was to avoid precisely that. I realize there were other reasons. This Wikipedia entry gives a good overview, and this news article actually doesn't even mention the dust issue as a main reason.

So, I'm curious - was there more dust than expected? And was avoiding dust spray (say, avoiding even worse dust than they got) a significant engineering consideration?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Avoiding plume/surface interaction was a definite concern; a meteorological sensor on MSL was damaged by debris thrown up from the surface bbc.com/news/science-environment-19338870 $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 28, 2021 at 1:31
  • $\begingroup$ I think this is a question that can really only be answered by someone with access to information about what they expected unfortunately (that doesn't make it a bad question, although it may make it hard to answer). Certainly making the landing survivable was a significant consideration. $\endgroup$
    – user21103
    Commented Feb 28, 2021 at 11:16
  • $\begingroup$ I think the goal was to avoid damage be big debris. Dust should not have been too big a concern (except for navigation cameras on the crane) for the rover as it's not solar powered. It seems, that the goal of "no damage by debris" was not 100% successfull tough. $\endgroup$
    – TrySCE2AUX
    Commented Jul 14, 2022 at 4:47

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.