Lesson 2 of 4 · Two outcomes in one mission
Two outcomes in one mission
6 minute lesson · 3 checks along the way
Your goal for this lessonDistinguish orbiter performance, landing performance and surface evidence in the Mars 2 and Mars 3 missions.
In this lesson 3 sections · 3 checks
Using archive links & definitions
Follow a linked name to explore its archive card. “Back to your lesson” brings you to the same part of the reading.
Read & understand
Separate before arrival
Mars 2 and Mars 3 launched in May 1971, each carrying a lander alongside an orbital spacecraft. At arrival, the parts had different tasks: a lander had to enter the atmosphere and survive reaching the surface, while the orbital spacecraft had to change its velocity enough to remain around Mars. One mission name therefore covered more than one vehicle outcome.
In an original checklist, give the orbital branch its own trajectory, observation and communication requirements. Give the surface branch entry, descent, landing and measurement requirements. The branches interact, including through communications, but a successful orbit insertion cannot by itself prove a successful landing.
Check 1 of 3
10 pointsUse the reading above. You can try again without losing points.
Read & understand
A landing milestone with a short signal
The Mars 2 lander crashed after entering too steeply in November 1971. Mars 3 reached the surface on December 2 and transmitted only briefly. Its signal did not provide a usable view of the terrain. The lander model in the photograph makes the intended arrangement easier to examine, while its caption prevents confusing the exhibit with returned surface imagery.
The Mars 3 orbital spacecraft also entered a much more elongated orbit than intended. That was a different problem from the lander’s short transmission. The Soviet orbiters continued observations despite limitations, while the planet-wide dust storm hindered surface imaging. An accurate account can recognize the landing milestone, useful orbital work and missed objectives at the same time.
Mars 3 lander museum model at VDNKh, photographed by Alexxx1979 in 2019 (CC BY-SA 4.0). This is not a photograph from the Martian surface. Full frame retained; display copy resized and compressed.
Look closely
Why does the museum setting matter to the interpretation?
See what to notice
It identifies this as a later hardware representation. The original Mars 3 transmission did not return a usable terrain panorama.
Check 2 of 3
10 pointsUse the reading above. You can try again without losing points.
Read & understand
Keep a proposed cause separate from an observation
Perminov describes the abrupt end of the lander signal and offers an electrical-discharge explanation associated with the dust storm as a possibility. NASA’s lander account also treats the cause as uncertain. The existence of a dust storm is not, by itself, proof of the mechanism that ended the transmission.
In an original investigation table, put “signal stopped” under observation, “dust-related electrical effect” under hypothesis and the measurements needed to distinguish competing explanations under further evidence. This keeps the story understandable without turning a plausible explanation into a demonstrated diagnosis. A short record may never resolve every question.
Check 3 of 3
10 pointsUse the reading above. You can try again without losing points.
Put it together
Your lesson progress
Each check connects to a part of the story. Complete all 3 to earn your 25-point lesson bonus.
Explore further · Optional
Go to the source
Explore the evidence behind this lesson. These optional readings and videos open in a new tab.