7

The NASA News item NASA's Perseverance Mars Rover Gets Balanced says:

Just as an auto mechanic places small weights on a car tire's rim to bring it into balance, the Perseverance team analyzed the data and then added 13.8 pounds (6.27 kilograms) to the rover's chassis.

6+ kg of ballast out of 1025 kg according to the article is only 0.6 % and doesn't sound like much until once considers strict weight budgets; perhaps some scientific instrument like a methane detector or enhanced selfie cam or a next generation sundial or some other capability could have been added or enhanced instead of dead weight.

Question: Why did they just add dead weight (assuming that's what happened) rather than just slightly "move stuff around a little"? I'm thinking slotted mounting holes and/or spacers or risers for the RTG or other heavy components.

uhoh
  • 148,791
  • 53
  • 476
  • 1,473
  • 1
    I'll add the "Slotted mounting holes would be poor engineering practice" comment before anyone else does; but an answer that expands on that and explains why would be great! – uhoh Apr 27 '20 at 23:28
  • 1
    Other references to dead weight added to spacecraft: this answer to Is there any money in space? and answers to Where are all those blocks of steel and concrete now? – uhoh Apr 27 '20 at 23:37
  • 2
    Shuttle had ballast as well "Lead ballast in the nose wheel well and on the X o 378 bulkhead provides weight and center-of-gravity control. The nose wheel well will accommodate 1,350 pounds of ballast, and the X o 378 bulkhead will accommodate a maximum of 2,660 pounds." https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/sts_coord.html – Organic Marble Apr 27 '20 at 23:50
  • 1
    @OrganicMarble Was the Space Shuttle balanced experimentally before flight? – uhoh Apr 28 '20 at 00:08
  • 1
    @OrganicMarble: But was that accommodation for lead ballast for spaceflight, or rather for transport on the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft? – DrSheldon Apr 28 '20 at 01:49
  • 1
    @DrSheldon spaceflight. – Organic Marble Apr 28 '20 at 01:49
  • 1
    @DrSheldon here's a shot from a shuttle weight report https://archive.org/details/nasa_techdoc_19830069020/page/n8/mode/1up/search/ballast showing that three early flights had a small ballast. https://imgur.com/nwFqPKa – Organic Marble Apr 28 '20 at 02:13
  • 2
    Also "Columbia typically carried 1000 pounds of ballast or more within boxes in the aft compartment, but during orbiter processing for STS-93 both the ballast and the ballast boxes were removed." https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/07/sts-93-at-twenty-years-planning-to-launch-chandra/2/ – Organic Marble Apr 28 '20 at 02:17
  • How can you move around components that are soldered or sit in compartments ? – Cornelis Apr 28 '20 at 11:37
  • @Cornelisinspace I mentioned "slotted mounting holes" to suggest that things that were screwed on might be able to have their positions adjusted slightly. The RTG is quite large and heavy and hot, I don't think that it is soldered on for example. – uhoh Apr 28 '20 at 11:39
  • 1
    Yes, the RTG looks like the most suitable component, and the mounting looks rather delicate. So the problem would be to make a 3 dimensions adjustable one. – Cornelis Apr 28 '20 at 13:39
  • 1
    I thing the main concerns for redesign of the rover or its instruments are schedule and finansial budget. So if after adding of 6 kg ballast the mass is still within margin - it's the simplest and maybe the only possible solution at this late stage of development. – Heopps Apr 29 '20 at 12:15
  • 1
    @Heopps: I'm disappointed they didn't add 6kg of batteries rather than 6kg of ballast. – Joshua Sep 20 '20 at 22:45
  • 1
    @Joshua - I think it depends where exactly the mass have been added. Probably at edge of the rover. Lithium batteries on Mars surface require thermal conditioning. So adding them would require redesign of the thermal balance, I guess. Maybe electric lines redesign also. The actual batteries of Perseverance rover have mass 26.5 kg and capacity 96 amper-hours. But usually litium batteries are used with big margin and do not discharge more than 50% at nominal operations. The purpose is to reduce capacity degradation. – Heopps Sep 21 '20 at 05:31
  • 2
    not to mention the 300 kg wasted in balance mass (300 kg in MSL, don't know about Percy): "On MSL, the 300 kg of ejected inert mass comprised two 75-kg Cruise Ballast Mass Devices (CBMDs) that were ejected at the end of the cruise phase immediately prior to entry, and six 25-kg Entry Ballast Mass Devices (EBMDs) that were ejected after atmospheric entry prior to landing. " – jumpjack Mar 23 '21 at 11:59
  • 1
    of course he by "moving" he didn't mean "moving after assembly" but "moving during design"... – jumpjack Mar 23 '21 at 12:01
  • @jumpjack ya I recently [realized that](Mar 8 at 22:06) as well :-) – uhoh Mar 23 '21 at 18:43
  • @jumpjack looks like NASA had aspirations for that too! – BrendanLuke15 Mar 08 '22 at 00:40

1 Answers1

8

Unfortunateley no direct answer for the Mass Rover, but for space craft overall by using the Rosetta Lander (Philae) as an example:

I was listening to a presentation of the Rosetta Lander Mechanical Engineering Team Leader some years ago. He spoke about "dead mass" on the Lander. So as far Philae is concerned. It was not like they have been happy about having to add balancing mass.

The mass became necessary because of last minute mass changes of some instruments. Some teams could not meet the masses they hoped they could achieve. Some other projects failed so they had to use replacements having different masses. In the end, they HAD to use balancing mass. But nobody wanted, the mass margins for the whole lander had to be fit.

On the other side you cannot move around instruments onboard. Every Instrument place is tested for thermal and electromagnetic disturbances. So they all have a spot and they know, the heat and the waves coming from the instruments do not affect other instruments. They even had magnets on bord to change the magnetic fields. (Source for all of this is the Philae presentation, too). Moving around instruments would actually result in redesigning the whole space craft and you do not have the time at some point of the development.

So in the end you are forced to put some dead V2A onboard.

Cornelis
  • 7,535
  • 2
  • 26
  • 77
CallMeTom
  • 3,298
  • 9
  • 25
  • 2
    Can you add a link to that presentation of the team leader of the Rosetta lander ? – Cornelis Apr 28 '20 at 09:20
  • 2
    Sry, I saw the Presentation years ago live. I do not have nor found it after a quick Google Research. – CallMeTom Apr 28 '20 at 09:27
  • Personally, I think it would be best to have a 'backup list' of assorted simple, undemanding experiments/instruments/devices (I bet lots of universities would kill to get a slot!) and install them where required if balancing mass is needed. Stuff like a container of various material samples, to determine how they fare exposed to Mars atmosphere, simple passive single-use dosimeters in various containers (to be read out using the robotic arm camera) to determine radiation shielding efficiency, small mirrors to drop as the rover goes to observe how dust accumulation varies with location etc. – SF. Jul 27 '20 at 13:25
  • 1
    @SF. and jet, you have not only to assure, the correct mass, but also you are not allow to change the electromagnetic field and power consumption. You cannot simply connect to the computer nor to the power-grid. – CallMeTom Jul 27 '20 at 14:49
  • 1
    @CallMeTom All my examples would use flat zero electricity, no computers etc. The only electricity used would be by the robotic arm to point the camera at the needle of the dosimeter or dispense a mirror. – SF. Jul 27 '20 at 15:19
  • "Dead V2A"? If mass, (m/s)^2 * m/s^2? If chemistry, vanadium something something (at least that's pretty dense)? – Camille Goudeseune Mar 08 '21 at 23:13