Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Space Science Technology

Still No Contact from Beagle 2 637

Many of you have submitted this, so this will be a condensing of the relevant information. WebfishUK writes: "The BBC has just released this story which announces the failure of the latest and possibly best chance to contact the British built Mars probe, Beagle 2. Given that Mars Express was designed to communicate with Beagle (unlike the earlier attempts with NASA's Mars Odyssey), this may indicate that something catastrophic has happened to Beagle 2." From Bromrrrrr: "[The] ESA is reporting that the Mars Express, which everybody was hoping would be able to get through to the poor lost puppy, has failed its first attempt. 'We have not lost hope yet to contact Beagle 2, but we also know that it has landed on an unforgiving planet,' said David Southwood, ESA's Director of Science." and I-R-Baboon adds: "The Mars Express mothership from the EU passed 350 km over the intended landing site of the Beagle 2 hearing only silence. Although nothing was heard, hope has not been given up yet, as scientists will keep trying until February, with more passovers of the Beagle 2's landing site on January 8th, 9th, 10th, 12th, and 14th." Additional updates can be obtained from the Beagle 2 homepage as well as from the ESA's homepage for the Mars Express. Here's hoping that the lander is only down, and not out.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Still No Contact from Beagle 2

Comments Filter:
  • by ActionPlant ( 721843 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:07PM (#7907793) Homepage
    So do they just give up, or hope Spirit can eventually find it and give it a doggie biscuit?

    Damon,
    • Re:Calling it quits? (Score:5, Informative)

      by TehHustler ( 709893 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:10PM (#7907840) Homepage
      They're in completely different places, and each MER can move at 0.02 MPH, top ;) So, not a chance :(
      • But hey, the U.S. is big on mercy missions. Maybe if they just point it in the right direction and wait a few years...that's what we do with most of our probes anyway, right? What's the difference?

        Damon,
        • Re:Calling it quits? (Score:3, Informative)

          by snake_dad ( 311844 )
          Just in case you (or someone else) don't know: the solar panels degrade over time because of dust build up. So at some point it will just run out of juice...
          • by ActionPlant ( 721843 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:51PM (#7908335) Homepage
            Maybe they should have installed wipers...

            • by Jboy_24 ( 88864 )
              I second the motion, how stupid was it to provide no means of "dusting" the solar panels?

              Since it folded up its solar panels for flight is it possible to re fold them up and knock some dust off?

              • Perhaps NASA was counting on the wind to keep it reasonably clean for an extended period of time.

                But I'm asking because I really don't know. Was this thing built to withstand a dust storm?

                Damon,
                • Sounds to me like Martian wind is more likely to blow dust onto the solar panels, killing them prematurely, rather than blowing them off and saving them.

                  Besides, windshield wipers would have been infeasible; where on Mars would they buy Wiper fluid from when they run out? ;)
              • by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @09:26PM (#7909093) Homepage Journal
                You're calling the people who built, launched and sent a semi-autonomous probe through space and landed it on another planet stupid?

                What is your definition of smart, then?

                Oh, and I'll give kudos to the scientists... they clearly deserve it. But I can't rehire them. I'd like to know what politicians funded this so I can make sure they get hired again (or at least cast my vote). Anybody know?

                --
                Evan

                • by Eccles ( 932 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @10:06PM (#7909419) Journal
                  You're calling the people who built, launched and sent a semi-autonomous probe through space and landed it on another planet stupid?

                  Hey, it's not rocket sci -- er, um, never mind.
                • You're calling the people who built, launched and sent a semi-autonomous probe through space and landed it on another planet stupid?

                  On the surface, they would appear to be equally as smart as the people who built, launched, and sent a semi-autonomous probe through space, but failed to get it into orbit around Mars because of a mid-flight command error that most people would call stupid. I don't believe either team is stupid, but both teams are equally prone to honest mistakes. There are sometimes gla
                  • by JabberWokky ( 19442 ) <slashdot.com@timewarp.org> on Thursday January 08, 2004 @04:39AM (#7912761) Homepage Journal
                    There are sometimes glaring design optimizations that could have been made, but somehow just were not thought about for whatever reason.

                    Ask 'em. Most people at NASA are happy to talk about their work. It's not generally classified, and there's no NDA. When the really obvious or cool stuff is prefaced with "Why didn't you..." the response is almost always "We thought about that, but we didn't have the -foo- budget". Where foo is time, money, materials, weight or space. Often there are lots of cool ideas and the end result is much more simple and less featureful... but the remaining features are rock solid and tested 20 times to Sunday.

                    Some features are also dropped because a team (sometimes in an outside company) couldn't deliver their package on deadline and fully tested. Each payload tends to have a couple dozen little projects each provided by some university. Sometimes when one project is trimmed, for structural or other reasons, a perfectly good project is also cut.

                    So there's lots of thought into these probes. An amazing amount. Pretty much anything that you think is stupid has been done for a reason, and the ultimate reason is "we didn't want the whole probe to fail, so we simplified it". It's a very expensive shot, and if the solar panels don't deploy because the mechanism was over-engineered and got brittle in space (cold + radiation), the whole project is dead.

                    Depending on where you live, NASA and JPL has a pretty good lecture circuit going, and they have speakers that really know their stuff... even the astronauts. They are incredibly conservative engineers, and it seems to me that they should be - even with very conservative engineering, keeping everything as simple and as tested as possible, they run into problems. On a shakedown cruise of a new battleship, they can dock back again if there's a problem... or just fix it at sea. NASA is using up massively complex systems that have to work the first time they are tested. And then the design is thrown away because tech (materials, computer and science knowledge) has advanced by the next time they shoot. Plus they are an open organization that works with hundreds of companies and universities and has to QA everything.

                    If it sounds like I'm awestruck by them, it's for a simple reason. Everytime I have ever talked to somebody from NASA or JPL about the details of space I have always been totally impressed by their operation.

                    --
                    Evan

              • The panels did fold up, but they were held by pyrotechnic fasteners. When the rover unfolds, the pyros blow and the panels drop by gravity. There's no way to fold them up again.
              • by flewp ( 458359 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @11:14PM (#7909911)
                Erm, if someone on Slashdot (or any normal person) thought of this idea, do you really think they DIDN'T consider it?

                I mean for the love of god, as someone already said, how can you call people who sent a semi-autonomous robot through space to land on another planet stupid? (Which might I add, entails strapping a machine with sensitive equipment onto a massive, giant, firework. It then has to survive extremely violent vibrations during launch, which involves igniting thousands and thousands of pounds of propellant. Then it needs to survive radation and other nasties out in space. Then it has to go through an atmosphere (a weaker one than ours, but an atmosphere nonetheless) and survive extreme heat buildup, only to have a parachute be released which produces a short burst of extreme G's (or whatever you'd get from a quick, violent slowdown, and I could be wrong, I just assume it would be pretty violent), and then, on top of all that, it could bounce on inflated airbags for miles until it finally comes to a rest near, if not on the target zone, unfolds, and then sends pictures and other data back to Earth? Yeah, they're stupid allright.)

                Perhaps wipers would have scratched dust or the equivelant of sand across the solar panels worse than just the wind. Or maybe the wind is enough to keep them operating until other parts of the machine fail.
              • It's not a matter of the cleanliness of the panels, but of the damage the dust causes them. IF it was merely about the presence of the dust, then the first gust of wind would fix the problem. The problem is that the dust scratches the panels when it blows across them.
            • Re:Calling it quits? (Score:3, Interesting)

              by uberdave ( 526529 )
              I've always thought that they should use a roll of cellophane, like you'd find on an overhead projector. Once the cellophane is dusty, you just roll out a fresh section.
  • martians! (Score:3, Funny)

    by XO ( 250276 ) <blade.ericNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:07PM (#7907795) Homepage Journal
    Damn, those martians shot down another one of our probes!

    They have much better aim than, say, Saddam Hussein's SCUD missle launchers!

    Hey, maybe Saddam hid his better weapons of mass destruction ON MARS!!!!!!!!!!!

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Unless you want Bush to invade mars, I suggest you keep quiet.
    • Vyger (Score:3, Funny)

      by zCyl ( 14362 )
      Damn, those martians shot down another one of our probes!

      Perhaps someday a martian will stumble across it, fix it, make it intelligent, and Bagel will come back to us searching for its Creator.
  • next time (Score:5, Insightful)

    by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:07PM (#7907801)
    why dont they include some sort of near-indestructible beacon that will send a signal in case of crash, so that orbiting probes can locate and photograph the crash site??
    • You've basically described the entire purpose of the lander probe itself. Land while avoiding destruction, transmit signal.
    • by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:30PM (#7908086) Journal
      I mean, do you think they intentionally build the signalling system to self-destruct on a crash landing, or what ?

      There's a 73 Kg limit (including all the airbags, entry heat-shield, and the actual payload) for the entire mission, and you want to put in armoured (read: heavy) modules for when it all goes wrong ?

      What purpose would this serve ? So we can now get a photo where the 6 white pixels (and I'm being *very* generous with the resolving power of the orbital cameras) are the lander. Whoosh. What now ? And to do that, we leave out the gas spectrometer, perhaps ?

      I'm sure you're a clever individual, but there are also very clever people at mission control. They will have forgotten more about sending probes on a journey through the Solar System than you or I will ever know, and I really was a rocket scientist, albeit only for a few years (it doesn't pay well...) Engage brain before fingers...

      Simon.

    • Re:next time (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:36PM (#7908175) Journal
      NASA's Spirit actually sent telemetry tones back to the Odyssey orbiter as it started decending through the martian atmosphere. They meant things like:

      - "I have entered atmosphere and everything seems to be in order"
      - "I have started to bounce on the martian surface"
      - "I have stopped bouncing on the surface and is still alive"
      etc...

      It might still not be able to easily pinpoint where it crashed if it had done so, but it would at least work like a primitive "black box" doing the best it can to tell what went wrong. Since this is obviously also good to know to learn from mistakes. :-)

      Read more here [nasa.gov].
      • Re:next time (Score:5, Interesting)

        by snake_dad ( 311844 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @08:01PM (#7908443) Homepage Journal
        Colin Pillinger was asked that very question: "WHY didn't you include such a device?". The answer was clear: to do that within the very limited weight restrictions (that already had been halved) it would have meant giving up more science. 5 kilograms worth of science. That's about 15% of the lander weight (without heat shield and such).

        It all boils down to: you build the best spacecraft that you can within budget and weight restraints, and hope for the best. Even if you build in a lot of redundancy, there is still chance of failure. At some point you need to decide what to do: take a chance, or lose science. I guess in the end different people will come to different conclusions on how much of a chance you're willing to take.

    • by Rorschach1 ( 174480 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:38PM (#7908198) Homepage
      That's kind of like asking why they don't make the whole airplane the way they make the black box.

      How heavily armored do you think that radio would have to be to survive hitting the surface at 10,000 mph? Or even 500 mph, for that matter? Flight data recorders aren't designed to keep functioning after a crash - they're designed to preserve the recording.

      Here's a better idea for a cheap 'beacon' - fill a bladder with a bunch of flourescent dye, then when it disappears you look for the big splat.
      • radioactive material (Score:3, Interesting)

        by BlueboyX ( 322884 )
        While the dye you mention is probably a joke, having a radioactive liquid that would spill on a catastrophic crash would be released. The dye would obviously not be visible at all, but we do have the technology to track radiation from quite a ways away...
    • by Sloppy ( 14984 ) * on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @08:27PM (#7908664) Homepage Journal
      Clearly, these rocket scientists are stupider than a typical Slashdotter. Next time, they ought to just Ask Slashdot before sending a probe, so that smart people like you can come up with ideas that they never would have thought of.
  • Correction (Score:3, Informative)

    by FrostedWheat ( 172733 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:08PM (#7907804)
    unlike the earlier attempts with NASA's Opportunity

    That would be the Mars Odyssey, not Opportunity.
  • Alas (Score:4, Funny)

    by Jailbrekr ( 73837 ) <jailbrekr@digitaladdiction.net> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:08PM (#7907805) Homepage
    Their rover turned out to be a dog.....
  • I'm European (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jawtheshark ( 198669 ) * <slashdot@[ ]theshark.com ['jaw' in gap]> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:08PM (#7907809) Homepage Journal
    ...and I'm sad it is down...

    But it's down... and won't get up again. Let's just rejoice over the spirit pictures.... It is something, even if it wans't funded by our tax euros.

    • Re:I'm European (Score:3, Informative)

      by Jugalator ( 259273 )
      I thought Beagle 2 was funded by the ESA once, but actually they only funded a minor part of it. Major funding came from the UK alone and private funders. Mars Express was basically funded solely by the ESA and it was a success, so there's where your euros went. :-) They just took the opportunity to piggy-back the Beagle with the Mars Express, and this unique method was also shown to work flawlessly.
    • by CaptBubba ( 696284 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @08:29PM (#7908686)
      Hey, you should be proud. England's scientists and engineers have joined the exclusive club of people able to point at a hole on another planet and say "I did that."

      Just think about it, to get to Mars they had to get a spacecraft going faster than a bullet in just the right direction so that a few months in the future it would hit something that is little more than a red speck in the night sky.

  • by Raul654 ( 453029 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:09PM (#7907822) Homepage
    Retrieving the black box is going to be a *bitch* :)
  • What about the US? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Alan ( 347 ) <arcterex @ u f i e s.org> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:09PM (#7907823) Homepage
    How far away is the US probe from the beagle landing site? Could they send their own little explorer over to check out what happened?
    • by Raleel ( 30913 )
      IIRC, from the pictures I saw, they are like 1/4 of the way around the planet from the beagle. Check the nasa mars site, they show the landing locations
    • by ceejayoz ( 567949 ) <cj@ceejayoz.com> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:12PM (#7907857) Homepage Journal
      1000 years at top speed, according to a site I read.

      Guess not, eh?
    • by zulux ( 112259 )
      How far away is the US probe from the beagle landing site? Could they send their own little explorer over to check out what happened?



      At the rate that the US probe can travel - it would take *YEARS* to get the the Beagle 2's remains. (this is assuming that Mars is flat - it isen't, it has huge valleys and mountains.)

      Even then, it would be of no use - if the Beagle can't open itself, Sprit's arm woulden't have enought torque to help out. And beagle would be probably covered in dust.

      Plus! We don't even
      • Even then, it would be of no use - if the Beagle can't open itself, Sprit's arm woulden't have enought torque to help out. And beagle would be probably covered in dust.

        Sure, but it could take close photographs, and NASA could send them to ESA, so that they would better understand what went wrong.

        But then again, as you said, It would probably be faster to send a manned mission to discover it...
    • by mroch ( 715318 )
      Spirit is definitely too far away, but I wonder if they could alter Opportunity's course and put it down somewhere nearby. I'm sure NASA could even learn something about how to build better landing equipment looking at the (supposed) Beagle wreckage, to make it worth their while.
      • Spirit is definitely too far away, but I wonder if they could alter Opportunity's course and put it down somewhere nearby. I'm sure NASA could even learn something about how to build better landing equipment looking at the (supposed) Beagle wreckage, to make it worth their while.

        I think they can do that just fine by dropping probes back here on Earth. I'm pretty sure that NASA is much more interested in examining terrain that hasn't been disturbed and contaminated.
      • by mijok ( 603178 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:37PM (#7908196)
        Not a chance. I followed the rover web pages long before the launch and they spent years deciding where to land them and the final locations were decided six months before the launch. It was a tricky balance between on the one hand finding spots of maximum research value and on the other hand being reasonably safe to land on. So they won't change it just like that. In addition to that - the speed with which the rovers move is so slow that even if they sent it to land at the same spot where Beagle 2 was supposed to the precision would be so bad that they could spend their entire 90 day mission searching the area without ever finding the probe. And even though it might be interesting to find out what happended to Beagle 2 there isn't much scientific value in trying to investigate what happened to an object sent from earth compared to surveying the planet itself. And the only investigation the rover could do is to take pictures since it's equipped to drill holes in rocks and analyse them. Not pick up pieces of a probe.
    • The robots of Spirit and Opportunity (The 2nd Mars expedition of NASA on the way to Mars) are only capable of moving 40m a Mars-day (24.6 hours earth time)

      according to NASA they shall be kept operational for at least 90 days ..
      thus minus the first 10 days without planned movement gives them a radius of about
      3,2 km ...

      no chance buddy ;)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:09PM (#7907825)
    The 'Beagle 2' finally sent the first pictures and an explaination why it didn't sent earlier click here [bysoft.se].
  • Nudging flipping? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by JanMark ( 547992 )
    Maybe the Rover can track the Beagle. Would it be able to do things like nudging or flipping the Beagle? Maybe it landed upside down, or on a slope.
    The solarpanels might generate energy after some handeling. But can the Rover do that?
    • You have the choice between:

      (1) landing all the probes at the same location because of a slim chance that they can help each other, or
      (2) land them all across the planet so you can learn more.

      JanMark from slashdot would like (1), but it looks like the rockets scientists chose (2).
    • The currently landed rover is probably way too far from the Beagle. It can only move for around 100 m / day and has 90 days of expected life time. In time, enough dust will get on its solar panels so it can't get enough power from the sun.

      And B2 doesn't need to be just flipped over. Maybe the airbags didn't work properly and it's still very well encapsulated in loads of airbags that never deflated? Maybe it just formed a small crater on Mars?

      Too many maybe's for NASA to even think about trying to rescue i
  • "we also know that it has landed on an unforgiving planet,' said David Southwood, ESA's Director of Science"

    Damnit, didn't he see Red Planet [imdb.com] in time?!
  • McCoy... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Kunta Kinte ( 323399 )

    He's dead, Jim!

  • by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:15PM (#7907906) Journal
    Huge ambition packed into such a small volume (73kg) and the only test-landing failed miserably.

    Well, you never learn until you've tried and failed. Perhaps next time.

    What I do find disappointing is the first post above though. I'm obviously disappointed for us Brits that our first Mars probe has died a death, but I'm elated the US managed to get theirs to work perfectly. Pity the feelings aren't reciprocal :-( We are all in this together, remember ? Anyone still there ?

    Simon.

    • Gaaah well now that post has been moderated down. Perhaps there's some sympathy out there after all... It was the 'chalk one up to US spirit' (or something like that :-)

      [Grin] And given my nick, I find it amusing that /. says 'slow down Cowboy' when you post too quickly - or does it just take the last word in your name ?

      Simon
    • Pity the feelings aren't reciprocal
      We fight hubris with hubris.
    • by Jugalator ( 259273 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:56PM (#7908390) Journal
      I can only agree. I'm feeling a great joy over the Spirit and was personally in the IRC chat with various JPL guys for the coming thriller with the Spirit touchdown. It was great. Now, what did I see afterwards? "Yeah, we did it!" "Woohoo, I can't wait for the images?"

      Noo, some americans can't do that. Many went:

      "USA 1 - ESA 0" (even if ESA barely funded Beagle, relatively speaking), "Take that, Beagle!", etc...

      I must say I left the channel with a bitter aftertaste. I wasn't really angry, but sad how we had such a great time before and how happy I were for the USA, and then get this thrown in my face. And now, yet again, by certain immature Slashdot visitors. I'm still amazed that USA has landed a vehicle on another world (even if it has happened before), but I just can't find words for the feelings some people have against the ESA and can't really understand why. Does everything have to be a competition? This isn't the cold war, NASA guys has personally expressed their concerns about the Beagle and tried to contact it, the B2 funders are friendly people struggling hard to rescue it... It just makes me sad that some people feel so strongly against other parts of the world.
      • by gangien ( 151940 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @08:35PM (#7908739) Homepage
        since I made this comment [slashdot.org] that got modded to hell and flamed and whatever else, lemme repond.

        Every article on /. or much of anyplce i seem to go online, seems to be have a very anti-US flavo(u)r to it. Here we have a very good example of what the US does well. We have 2 of these things going to Mars, 1 has suceeded, one is due there later, we have that probe or whatever its called collect comet dust, then we have the ESA we a failed mission to Mars. So basically, we're not allowed to point out what we do well, even though everyone can point out all our failings?

        And also, what's wrong with competition? I like any type of game/sport whatever thats clean(where the rules are followed) and competitive. I think it's fun and I think the results are much better. Who do you play harder against, some stranger you've never met and will never see again, or your best friend whom will probably try and improve and beat you? Your best friend of course, because of competition, even if afterwards you go have a beer together and hardly think about it again. Personally, I'd love to see another space race minus the 10ks Nukes aimed at each other. Even though I'm sure every nuclear country has figured out how to nuke every other country.

        So my response, and I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, is more in retaliation against all the anti-us stuff than being anti-europe.
        • ... it is only that you guys take it to fanatical extremes.

          Excesses are generally bad on my book.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          Fair enough. The world as a whole is in a bit of a snit about America these days, it is true.

          We're all feeling like George W. and his cronies want to make us their bitch, and nobody wants to bend down to get their soap just at the moment. People are in a pissy mood.

          That being said, many Americans are spectacularly oversensitive about criticism. Listen man, if I say I don't like the current US stance towards the UN, or on Kyoto, or whatever, that doesn't mean I hate America. Sheesh, people need to g

      • by BTWR ( 540147 ) <americangibor3.yahoo@com> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @10:13PM (#7909480) Homepage Journal
        As an American who is hugely against what I precieve is enourmous anti-American sentiment in Europe today (which I feel is 95% scapegoat, 5% legitimate criticism), Jugalator, I am embarrassed by any fellow Americans who made such comments. Did Europeans make immature "Metric" jokes with Mars Climate Orbiter crashed? You bet - for 5 straight years. But it shows class when you don't stoop to youre antagonizer's level as well.

        Jugulator, although to be fair, you did take a crack at NASA with a Metric joke here [slashdot.org]. Hmmm... then again I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were simply (correctly) pointing out that it was an embarrasing mistake, and not some blane us-bashing like we're too stupid or something.
        • I only made that comment since I thought the parent made such an arrogant post. I must also say that I do believe using wrong units were a bit, well, sloppy, but that's not saying Europe hasn't had a similar problem. If you look further, I comment in another post about the idiocy of Europeans uploading the Ariane 4 software to the Ariane 5, causing the rocket to just become a damn expensive firework. :-)
  • Good show. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jabberjaw ( 683624 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:16PM (#7907912)
    Although beagle failed, I would like to commend the ESA for attempting the mission on a shoe-string budget. Landing on Mars is no easy task as we have found through a few, shall we say mishaps. Also, let us not forget that Beagle 2 was only part of the mission. I do believe that Mars Express is operating as expected. So all and all, for a first mission on a tight budget and small timeframe, I think the ESA put on a good show and encourage them in their efforts to explore the universe.
  • The US will launch a nuclear missile to destroy everything in the area to keep the Beagle from falling into enemy hands.
  • Maybe he just ran in circles chasing until he was so dizzy that he just fell of Mars
  • by Dark Paladin ( 116525 ) * <jhummel@john h u m m e l . n et> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:20PM (#7907971) Homepage
    Time for the rescue mission. This is the perfect opportunity to launch mankind's first Mission to Mars.

    I mean, who wants to be the one responsible for leaving a beagle on Mars? Can you just imagine the commercials?

    "Lost: Puppy on Red Planet. Will accept offers to build a multi-billion dollar spacecraft to retrieve him. Answers to the name Beagle. Please help him come home with your donation."

    I'm telling you, if people fall for Nigerian and Viagra schemes, we can get them to finance this thing within 10 years. Maybe less, if we also target the people who buy penis enhancement pills.
  • by Stradenko ( 160417 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:21PM (#7907982) Homepage
    I'd be real pissed at you earthlings dumping all your cruddy robots on my planet.

    Mars is *not* a landfill!
    Ruining our ecosystem with your trash!

    Death to earth!
    Where's the ka-boom?
  • by JUSTONEMORELATTE ( 584508 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:21PM (#7907988) Homepage
    ...but we also know that it has landed on an unforgiving planet
    Well now there's the problem -- next time we should just go to a forgiving planet instead. What were we thinking?

  • First of all, I am also sad to hear these news. Although the Beagle 2 wasn't primarly an ESA project, so the ESA itself should hopefully not be hurt too much, it is still a very unfortunate loss with all the high tech equipment on the B2, and a loss hurting particulary much for the UK. If successful, it could have broken new ground as the by far most advanced spacecraft launched, being partially privately funded.

    However, the lesson I think should be learnt is that in space, one often needs to be lucky for
  • Nasa Rover Missions : 400 Million a Piece
    1 succesfully landed
    2nd in route
    Beagle / Mars Express : 345 Million
    1 beagle missing In Action
    Mars Express working and in orbit


    Guess Research and Development Costs is actualy WORTHWHILE
  • UGh! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by coloclone ( 552113 ) <clifford_ireland AT yahoo DOT com> on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:31PM (#7908107)
    What's with you people and your Beagle jokes. Why haven't people realized yet (After we've been talking about this for weeks) that the MER landing sites are very far away from Beagle and that nothing would be gained anyway from visiting the "crash" site. I still see /.ers think Beagle was a US venture or don't realize that MER is an international effort (Although NASA paid for most of it.)

    I thought ./ posters were informed... but I guess I am new here.
  • Beagle 3 (Score:4, Informative)

    by anzha ( 138288 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:31PM (#7908108) Homepage Journal

    Beyond Beagle

    Meanwhile, UK science minister, Lord Sainsbury, who was at a Beagle news conference in North London on Monday, gave the strongest indication yet that the British Government would help fund the European Space Agency's (Esa) Aurora programme.

    "We need to be working with Esa to ensure that, in some form, there is a Beagle 3 that takes forward this technology. I very much hope that the Aurora programme which is currently being developed by Esa will take forward this kind of exploration."

    The Aurora programme is Esa's bold vision to land probes, and perhaps eventually, astronauts on the Red Planet.

    From here [bbc.co.uk].

  • by rufey ( 683902 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:51PM (#7908334)
    When Mars Express released Beagle-2 back on December 19th, Beagle-2 had no means of attitude control to make any course corrections nor ensure it entered the Mars atmosphere with its heat sheild pointed in the right direction and at an acceptable angle, and no means for contacting Earth until it landed and opened up. Mars Express provided all of this up until the release.

    Beagle-2 then was in free-flight, from December 19th til December 25th. Thats 6 days of free flight with no way to really track Beagle-2 nor do anything about it if it were found to be off-course.

    Usually a space probe is tracked via the radio signals that are sent to Earth. Speed and location are usually derived from measuring the Doppler effect on the radio singls. I haven't read anything to date about any methods the ESA was able to use after December 19th to verify that Beagle-2 was in the correct position for landing and all. I kept reading stuff saying that "Beagle-2 and Mars Express are now XXX kilometers away from each other", but I'm not sure how they deduced this other than calculating it based on the path and inclination that Beagle-2 *should have* been on. What if it started in an unexpected slow spin after release? What if its angle of attack was over the engineering limit?

    Feel free to correct my knowledge if I am off-base here. I'm interested to know if/how ESA was able to contact Beagle-2 between Dec 19th and Dec 25th when it was in free flight.

    • by Uma Thurman ( 623807 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @11:19PM (#7909948) Homepage Journal
      There is indeed a way to track the orientation of the spacecraft. The lander is ejected by the SUEM (spin-up eject mechanism) which, as you might guess, spins the lander. Spin stabilization is tried and true.

      If the spacecraft were tumbling, the strength of the signal would have varied in a regular way, and they would have detected that.

      Also, they were able to contact the lander while in free flight. The Earthside antennas that they used to try to get the signal on the 25th would also have been used to communicate with the spacecraft in free flight.
  • Lost Dog (Score:3, Funny)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @07:55PM (#7908379) Homepage Journal
    ...but we also know that it has landed on an unforgiving planet...

    And by landed on we mean crashed into.

  • by theCat ( 36907 ) on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @08:21PM (#7908610) Journal
    ...while playing a round of golf. Or hiking in a crater. Or retrieving a poorly aimed frisbee. Pausing, they'll see some badly eroded pile of something shiny, walk over to look at it closer, recall a paragraph from their early astrophysics lessons, and radio back to the colony base "Hey Rosco, wasn't it somewhere around here that Beagle2 was lost? Back in '03? Well it's not lost anymore."

    Yes, I'm talking about humans on Mars, being casual and knocking about the place, kicking over rocks on a lazy day, sometime in my lifetime. It could be my son or daughter grown up. Or your own, or even yourself if you are young now. Keep that in mind today, it helps to take the edge off this sort of temporary setback.
  • by zeux ( 129034 ) * on Wednesday January 07, 2004 @08:32PM (#7908707)
    Beagle2 was only 'the lander' of Mars Express.

    On the website [esa.int] we can read:

    The Mars Express Orbiter will:
    image the entire surface at high resolution (10 m/pixel) and selected areas at super resolution (2 m/pixel)
    produce a map of the mineral composition of the surface at 100 m resolution
    map the composition of the atmosphere and determine its global circulation
    determine the structure of the sub-surface to a depth of a few kilometres
    determine the effect of the atmosphere on the surface
    determine the interaction of the atmosphere with the solar wind


    All of that sounds really cool.
  • by Zog The Undeniable ( 632031 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @04:35AM (#7912733)
    We've done at least as well as the Roswell aliens did:

    Bravely navigate the endless black depths of space to a new and strange planet. Then crash.

  • by Tom ( 822 ) on Thursday January 08, 2004 @05:09AM (#7912896) Homepage Journal
    Looks like they found the problem:

    crash image [lemuria.org]

fortune: cpu time/usefulness ratio too high -- core dumped.

Working...