Construction Begins on Beagle 2 171
Bonker writes "CNN reports that Beagle 2, a lander that's part of ESA's next Mars mission, is beginning construction in England. The lander will be constructed in clean-room conditions to avoid being contaminated with any kind of terrestrial life so that it can more accurately determine if there is or was any kind of martian life once it arrives."
Darwin (Score:1, Informative)
Gutenbeerg project
ftp.knowledge.com/pub/mirrors/gutenberg/
Re:Contamination (Score:2, Informative)
Website (Score:5, Informative)
-Karl
Dr Karl Mitchell
Planetary Science Research Group
Environmental Science Dept.
Lancaster University, UK
Clean room launch... (Score:2, Informative)
Surely there is a risk of contamination at lots of these phases ? Especially shifting it from the lab, into transport and transport into rocket.
I'm sure they can do it to a high degree of probability, but how can they do it with even 99.999% certainty
Re:Its hard to know what to say. (Score:3, Informative)
I fully agree with this. The original poster (excluding a troll) may be mistaking this mission with the whole man-in-space mumbo-jumbo (I'm all for colonizing space, but not the ISS-billion-government-dollar way). However:
We excel in rocket science. Serious. The Ariane 5 can launch 6 tons in GTO, and the next version due this fall can do 8. Proton cannot do that AFAIK and using the horrendously exepnsive Shuttle to save money would be ludicrous at best. The next Atlas 5 and Delta 4 will match this kind of performance and are possibly easier to scale up, but are not there yet.
Re:Implying Bacteria found weren't Martian? (Score:2, Informative)
Secondly, it didn't contain bacteria, but what is claimed to be fossilised evidence of bacteria.
Thirdly, the evidence is merely suggestive, but far from incontravertable, of alien life.
clickable link (Score:1, Informative)
French illusions (Score:3, Informative)
Ok, let's kill this particular French wet dream in the bud. It might make for a great sheep-counting alternative at night, but is far from based on reality.
CNES figures on a horrible chart:
http://www.cnes.fr/cnes/moyens/en/budget_
ESA figures:
http://esapub.esrin.esa.it/annuals/annu
Roughly half? Hmm...
Re:Correction please (Score:2, Informative)
Great Britain = England + Scotland + Wales (+ Isle of Man and some other islands I think). Again, not a real country. Mostly used for historical/patriotic reasons.
A bit of a nightmare, I know. Personally I'd prefer it to be simpler. When we travel to the US we have to put "UK" or "United Kingdom" on our entry cards as our country of origin or we get turned away. Apparently Great Britain, England, Scotland, Wales, etc., don't count as countries, even though the UK is not actually a country.
-Karl (from England, GB, UK, EU, Earth, etc.)