Beagle 2 Probe Spotted on Mars

evilduckie writes "According to this BBC article photos taken by the Mars Global Surveyor show the European Beagle 2 probe which was lost after it apparently crash-landed on Mars."

How would it search?

[Mattygfunk1]

The robotic laboratory was designed to search Mars for signs of past or present life.

Anyone know how it was to go about this? I assume that it may analyse soil samples, but what else from there?

__
Funny Adult Video Clips [laughdaily.com] - updated 3 times daily.

The other way around

[Izmir Stinger]

I wonder how much different life would be today if the HMS Beagle had shipwrecked in the Galapagos and <i>Origin of the Species</i> had never been published.

Re:Why??

[NeoThermic]

Of course. Images are (excuse the pun) only part of the full picture. Combined with sensor readings (that they should have up to a point), and other various information factors, they should be able to work out what happend with a decent degree of accuracy.

The images will generally show how it crashed, from which you can work out how it came to crash like that, which is generally the information you want.

NeoThermic

Re:Why??

[fremsley471]

The lander's weakest point was the descent system. 3 months before the delivery date they discovered that the parachutes were too small and had to chop more vital kilos off the science mission. They were already aiming for one of the lowest parts of Mars, i.e. longest path and highest atmospheric density. Before Beagle landed, a colleague reported that in a lecture the previous summer, Prof. Pillinger said that the parachute's size wasn't critical as it 'collects air' which helps slow the lander down...

Prof. Pillinger is, understandably, clutching at straws. The science (and academic PR) aspects of Beagle were first class. The engineering (i.e. the expensive bit), was totally underfunded and was eventually overwhelmed. If he can prove that the concept was fine and dandy, but something small went wrong, then he can (with much greater authority) go and ask for money for a new one. However, it's unlikely after ESA's board of inquiry, that Prof. Pillinger will ever be involved at such a senior level again. http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMLKAHHZTD_index_0.html [esa.int]

Crash site misidentified before

[amightywind]

Given that the Mars Polar lander crash site [newscientist.com] has been misidentified using better imagery, the chances that this is Beagle II are low. The image shown in the article is not compelling. There is the stench of politics surrounding the result. Very nearly worked? Uh Huh.

Mars Rover to the rescue?

[jebilbrey]

OK, let's just assume for the sake of argument that this is the Beagle...

Is this site anywhere near one of the Mars Rovers? Could they possibly drive there and examine it?

How cool would that be!?!?!

Re:Why??

[0123456]

"Before Beagle landed, a colleague reported that in a lecture the previous summer, Prof. Pillinger said that the parachute's size wasn't critical as it 'collects air' which helps slow the lander down..."

But in a sense that's true: provided it's big enough to slow the lander to the correct terminal velocity before the landing, the size doesn't matter... make it ten times bigger and you'll just be floating down for longer under the parachute.

On the other hand, if it's 10% too small, you're probably screwed.

Re:Fix what problems? We already did that or no?

[karolo]

Well, at least it landed on Mars. Remember when NASA lost a probe because they mixed up imperial and metric units?

Re:Fix what problems? We already did that or no?

[Somegeek]

"I don't see why they didn't just ask the US how we landed two probes successfully."

Because the guy in charge of the project, Professor Pillinger, was too busy bragging about how his probe was so superior to NASA designs.

This was not designed as a cooperative test of differing landing systems. The Beagle 2 project was seriously underfunded and just too short on time to properly test all of their systems.

Re:Fix what problems? We already did that or no?

[Somegeek]

posted by Anne Thwacks:

As I understand it, if the Europeans sent 1,000 probes, it would still cost less than the US sending one.

Either you are seriously misinformed or your math skills need some work.

The cost of the Beagle 2 mission is believed to be somewhere around 70-80 million dollars. Once it went over budget they stopped talking about how much it actually cost. It failed. This is not counting its free launch and ride to Mars.

The cost of the NASA twin rovers mission was something like 600 million dollars, or 300 million each. That includes the costs of building the rocketship to get them to Mars. The rovers are still doing science on Mars.

I think NASA got the better deal.