Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- List of acronyms and abbreviations
- PART I Engineering issues specific to entry probes, landers or penetrators
- PART II Previous atmosphere/surface vehicles and their payloads
- PART III Case studies
- 21 Surveyor landers
- 22 Galileo probe
- 23 Huygens
- 24 Mars Pathfinder and Sojourner
- 25 Deep Space 2 Mars Microprobes
- 26 Rosetta lander Philae
- 27 Mars Exploration Rovers: Spirit and Opportunity
- Appendix Some key parameters for bodies in the Solar System
- Bibliography
- References
- Index
23 - Huygens
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 August 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- List of acronyms and abbreviations
- PART I Engineering issues specific to entry probes, landers or penetrators
- PART II Previous atmosphere/surface vehicles and their payloads
- PART III Case studies
- 21 Surveyor landers
- 22 Galileo probe
- 23 Huygens
- 24 Mars Pathfinder and Sojourner
- 25 Deep Space 2 Mars Microprobes
- 26 Rosetta lander Philae
- 27 Mars Exploration Rovers: Spirit and Opportunity
- Appendix Some key parameters for bodies in the Solar System
- Bibliography
- References
- Index
Summary
Among many early concepts for a Titan probe (e.g. Murphy et al., 1981b) it is not surprising that a Galileo-like architecture was envisaged. As initially proposed in 1982, the concept of the Cassini–Huygens mission was to be a joint effort between NASA and ESA, and NASA was to supply the Galileo flight spare probe, and ESA would provide an orbiter delivery vehicle. However, in many respects the Titan probe grew in scope and complexity, in part because of the international nature of the mission.
As the joint study progressed, the roles were reversed, and ESA studied designs for an entry and descent probe (Scoon, 1985). These studies led to some quite novel ideas (e.g. Sainct and Clausen, 1993), which in all probability would not have been explored had the probe development remained in the USA.
The probe changed from an initially spherical shell (the shape adopted by the Galileo probe) to a flatter design. This also opened up novel heat shield architectures, with options such as a beryllium nose cap and a jetisonnable carbon– carbon decelerator (although in the end, neither of these concepts was adopted and a more technologically conservative heat-shield design was used – a prudent measure given the novelty of this mission for ESA).
The mass budget (Table 23.1) deserves some brief comment. In broad terms the mass breakdown is typical (e.g. with 15% of the mass devoted to power systems), although the front shield is rather conservative.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Planetary Landers and Entry Probes , pp. 273 - 283Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2007