Japanese Mars Probe Failing 242
Anonymous Coward writes "After months of silence and a week of hopeful half-truths, Japanese space officials have finally confirmed that their Mars-bound Nozomi probe is teetering on the brink of failure in its five-year quest to explore the Red Planet. The Nozomi orbiter is one of four spacecraft that are due to converge on Mars in the next two months. The other three probes -- the European Space Agency's Mars Express and NASA's two Mars Exploration Rovers -- are still on track and in good working order, according to the latest status reports. Mars Express is due to enter Martian orbit on Christmas Day and send a British-built Beagle 2 lander to the surface, while the NASA rovers should arrive on Jan. 3 and Jan. 24."
the question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the question is... (Score:2)
Interesting (Score:5, Funny)
Re:the question is... (Score:5, Funny)
Of course, I'm not sure who will be the "second". Perhaps one of the other satellites or the Martians can finish the thing off...
Re:the question is... (Score:2, Informative)
Not to mention that page you linked to gets it entirely wrong calling the blade used a kozuka - that's a small knife a few inches long. Good luck cutting yourself open with something like that. The blade actually used is a wakizashi.
Re:the question is... (Score:2)
Seppuku is honorable suicide. The rituals are different for men and women. Men commit seppuku by hara-kiri ("belly cutting") with a wakizashi. Women commit seppuku by cutting their throats with a kozuka. (I don't know if there's a separate term for this act.) Hara-kiri is a fairly crude term, kind of like "kicking the bucket" in English, so if you want to be respectful to a man who's killing himself, you talk about him committing seppuku rather than hara-kiri.
What's the point? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's the point? (Score:2)
Real contamination risk would be small (Score:5, Interesting)
Friday's JAXA statement denied one Tokyo press report that probe was doomed to impact Mars and possibly contaminate the planet. Such a scenario would violate an international "space quarantine" treaty.
I know we've had a lot of cool reports that microbes have survived exposure to hard vacuum for extended periods, but do we really have to worry about "contaminating" Mars? The craft was probably sterilized pretty well before being launched. Then, a year and a half ago, it got hit with a solar flare strong enough to make it miss Mars the first time... that should have baked any hitchiking bugs pretty well. And then, there's the latest round of Solar hiccups to take into account.
Finally, if the craft does hit Mars, it's going to do it in a totally uncontrolled manner -- 'cause if they get any control, they'll steer it away. That implies a high velocity, which even in the thin Martian atmosphere should melt the craft into slag.
Extremophile bacteria at molten sulfur vents is one thing, but hitchiking in a blob of ablating steel?
And as far as that "space quarantine" treaty... what exactly is the punishment for sneezing in space?
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:4, Insightful)
So they are worried about a man made meteor seeding the planet but sending rovers to the surface is somehow alright???
hey, if we do "contaminate" the surface, that will save genetic engineers a lot of trouble if we ever try to terraform. "space quarantine treaty", now there's a treaty we've got to get rid of.
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:5, Informative)
By Jove i think you've got it! Not.
The japanese probe was never intended to touch down so was never decontaminated.
The laders were intended to reach the surface, and so were decontaminated appropriately.
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:2)
The japanese probe was never intended to touch down so was never decontaminated. The landers were intended to reach the surface, and so were decontaminated appropriately.
Folks, pile some mod points on the anonymous coward parent posting (quoted above). This is exactly the point.
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:2)
Right, why not get it over with? There's plenty of planets to try and discover life on (though most will take hundreds of years to get to). What's more important is we (humans) need another place to call home just in case we get nailed with some global catastrophy. But I suppose we'll have to battle with the dilemma of truth vs. survival for some time longer.
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:2)
I don't know, these guys [slashdot.org] seemed to do okay... and they're probably a lot more delicate than some bacteria.
Contamination risk would be real (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone sterilized the bird with something like chlorine monoxide it's a different matter, but I've seen nothing about this and an orbiter wouldn't normally need to be sterilized like a lander. That's why Galileo met its fiery end.
Re:Contamination risk would be real (Score:2, Informative)
Columbia was a controlled reentry; it suffered a heat-shield failure, not a tradgectory failure.
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:5, Interesting)
About the reentry, I'm not sure it will burn up completely. Meteorites crashing on Earth are said to be warm, not scalding hot. Could some rocket scientist jump in and give his view on the reentry? Metal vs stone, Earth vs Mars atmosphere? (Hmm.. re-entry sounds wrong. It's going to enter the Mars atmosphere for the first time)
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:2)
Hmmm... you actually triggered a memory that would have made me write a rather different posting. A quick Google found this page [jas.org.jo] dealing with a meteorite that was seen over Jordan. What appeared to be an area where a meteor fell out of the sky and scorched the land turned out to be the remnants of an unrelated brushfire.
And it's pointed out several times that the hot bits get p
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:3, Interesting)
At first glance, satellites, being somewhat rounded and made mostly of metal, seem to fit the bill. However, they have voids in them which lower their overall density. Furthermore, if the outer layer of the satellite is breached, then the interior
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:2)
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't forget in this case there is no real atmosphere to slow it down. The escape velocity for Mars is a bit over 5,000 metres per second. So it should impact at about that speed. I'm not saying bacteria wouldn't survive ... but the impact is bound to cause a lot of frictional heating of the debris, and bugs like radiodurans or even extremophiles may not be able to handle it. Anyway, there's not a lot that can be done from here anyway.
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:3, Interesting)
Nature sure doesn't worry, and man is definitely a product of nature. Life spreads by 'contamination', that's what makes it life! Heck, how do we know that all life on earth didn't start by a passing visitor from Alphi Centauri landing, taking a whizz on some rock, declare the place uninhabitable and take off? Those who would stop exploration by complaining about 'human contamination' should get off their high moral horse, put aside their cosmic guilt
Re:Real contamination risk would be small (Score:2)
Yes and No (Score:3, Informative)
2. I don't know about Japanese orbital policy, but NASA policy requires that probes be launched on an orbit that will cause it to slightly miss it's target.... then when it's almost at the planet the orbital bias is removed so that orbital insertion takes place. So if this were a NASA mission there wouldn't be contaimination if the probe died... it'd just happily whizz on
Hard lines (Score:3, Funny)
Pity - the more craft we send there, the more we'll all learn.
Simon.
Re:Hard lines (Score:2)
Simon
I see (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I see (Score:5, Funny)
Do you have any idea how much of the great british public's tax money went on the research required to get water boil correctly in those kind of inhospitable conditions...
Not to mention the whole earl grey vs english breakfast fiasco!
Re:I see (Score:2)
These people have no idea.............
if its (Score:2, Funny)
Re:if its (Score:2)
Tactic #923874: Make the enemy think you suck.
I'm sure the Martians are using some primitive weapon to shoot them down. This is done in order to confuse the humans and make them think the Martians suck... YOU, my dear human, have fallen for their tricks
Sivaram Velauthapillai
Its all gone!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Contamination? (Score:5, Interesting)
I keep thinking about those fish that live in caves that we believed were blind from birth, but were actually blinded by our observations, which required orders of magnitude of light more than they were ever accustomed to. Who knows how much Earth biology survives in these probes when they crash land?
Maybe we should put a halt to sending out any more of these things for now and work more on passive observation techniques.
Re:Contamination? (Score:2)
Re:Contamination? (Score:2)
Re:Contamination? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even if there is contamination from Earth, it should be easily identifiable, because it would consist of microbes that humans encounter on a daily basis. And it's highly likely that life from an
Re:Contamination? (Score:3, Funny)
Probe Redundancy (Score:4, Insightful)
The martian probe success rate is so bad that maybe space agencies should launch multiple smaller ones with the expectancy that some will fail to reach their destination than put all their hopes on one larger probe.
When? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:When? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:When? (Score:2)
Still fingers crossed for Mars Express (Score:5, Interesting)
If Mars Express fails to shoot Beagle 2 into space, the retro-engine will not have enough thrust to brake Mars Express into Martian orbit. Both probes would then fly past the planet and into solar orbit.
Beagle 2 then travels through space for six days before hitting the Martian atmosphere at interplanetary velocity. Beagle 2's onboard transmitter will not come to life until the probe impacts the surface, so you can imagine that those six days will be pretty tense for the ESA teams.
All being well, Beagle 2 and Mars Express should arrive at their destinations safe and well in the small hours of Christmas morning. By the time we're opening our presents here in the UK, they should have received a signal from the Martian surface.
So, here's hoping!
Best wishes,
Mike.
Moderators suck. (Score:2, Insightful)
At one time parent post (the one +5 now) was "0, Troll". It would signify some of its informations are purposedly false. So I asked if someone could point out what is false - if anything is, because I would like to know whether I can depend on that info or just someone who shouldn't, became a moderator. And now I still don't know whether that post is true or false, only that some people here definitely feel bad about investigating the truth and are ready to waste their mod points in
c'mon guys... (Score:2, Funny)
[off to the brain surgery forum... "c'mon guys...it's not like this is rocket science!"]
Reliability (Score:2)
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
Well at least they do when they hit over 130k miles. I know from experience.
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
Yes it has a lot of miles and I should cut the car some slack but when a car costs more to maintain then its worth, its time to toss it. At 134k I assumed it had another 60k miles out of it.
Of course I put a shitload of miles and abuse it on a daily basis.
Well, got to go get my brakes checked. They are now leaking brake fluid, just 2 months after I h
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
I recently purchased a 1979 Bronco 4x4 - it needs quite a bit of work on it, but nothing really serious (mainly seals between engine/tranny/transfer case). The engine was rebuilt before I bought it, and the rest of it is damn sound (rides better than my 94 Ranger). I have n
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
Re:Reliability (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Reliability (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not sure if you're trolling here or you're just misguided...
1) Light year is an unit of distance, not time, so no "last longer than" but "go further than".
2) It's helluva much too - distance it takes one year for light to travel. There's 3 light seconds from Earth to Moon, 7 light minutes to the Sun, about one light hour to Neptune, four light years to Proxima Centauri, nearest star. Mars is at worst several light minutes away from Earth - when
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
The earth/moon are less than 2 light seconds apart (about a quarter million miles, light being 186,000 mi/sec)
The sun is (on average) 9 minutes
Jupiter is about an hour, neptune around 2 or 2.5 hours out
Good point about the micrometeorites... man, that's gonna mess up the paint...
Re:Reliability (Score:2)
Reliability? (Score:2)
That's why it's called "rocket science". Because this is not easy.
Solar flares (Score:2)
Strange but seemingly consistent (Score:4, Interesting)
Does anyone have any hard data on the statistics of spacecraft survival for all known Mars missions? Am I incorrect?
Re:Strange but seemingly consistent (Score:5, Funny)
Yes. It's called human engineering.
Battle On! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Battle On! (Score:2)
Those who ignore the past (future?)... (Score:2, Funny)
Marty McFly: What do you mean, Doc? All the best stuff is made in Japan.
Doc: Unbelievable.
Doesn't matter to me... (Score:4, Funny)
It's true (Score:3, Funny)
Isn't it obvious? (Score:2)
Damned Barsoomians! (Score:2)
Stupid calots.
solution to contamination? (Score:3, Insightful)
But do we need any solution? After all, any manned expedition will surely affect Mars more than any probe before. Exploring Mars and fear of contamination are contradictory. There is a saying in Russia, if you are affraid of wolves, then dont explore the forest, meaning that if you want to explore something, you have to overcome your trivial fears.
Re:solution to contamination? (Score:2)
Re:solution to contamination? (Score:2)
The E-Bomb article mentioned earlier (Score:3, Interesting)
Five-year quest? (Score:2, Funny)
how hard can it be? (Score:2, Funny)
Japanese Deception (Score:3, Interesting)
Recently there have been serious problems with radioactive leakage at nuclear reactors and the japanese companies responsible did initially lie to the public (and the government) about the real situation.
The japanese economy is going through a serious recession and one of the problems is the false statements made from the financial organizations.
Statistics about social trends and problems are dubituous, not to say manipulated. e.g., AIDS statistics.
Discrimination and human rights violations are common, yet the reality is covered by the local news and authorities.
Double standard and unclear laws, even for the japanese themselves, are quite common.
Due to things like these and some others, I have been loosing respect and trust for the japanese, both at a personal and professional level.
Re:Japanese Deception (Score:2)
All those bad things you wrote about? They refer to America, you fool.
Re:Japanese Deception (Score:2)
Yeah, the Ibaraki reactor leak was insane -- the threat of radiation wasn't that scary, but the constant 'there is nothing wrong... the atom is your freind... this is someone else's fault... stay indoors and look happy or die...' announcements were terrifying.
Ruri... (Score:2)
Hmmm... (Score:2)
I can see it now. Robot Wars on Mars!
Call bullshit (Score:2, Informative)
Ignore the conspiracy theory nutjobs blaming aliens for damaging the Japanese probe. There probably is something wrong (as in intentionally untrue) about this story but there is a simpler and more human explanation for it. If JAXA's version of events is correct, this is the third space vehicle they've had die recently because of solar flares. (See http://www.spacedaily.com/2003/031031090646.2kxsn 1 mx.html).
They lost Midori-2 and Kodama in October, both supposedly due to solar flares. According
Solar flares? (Score:2)
Does decontamination matter? (Score:2)
I understand erring on the side of caution, but how likely is it that these saft
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:2)
Possibly?
Oh, and you DO listen to Art Bell too much, if this is the result of it.
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe Mars is a long way away and it's really hard to build a machine that can be expected to work for months on end whilst being baked and simultaneously frozen after being placed in a vacuum and bombarded with radiation. Then to put this complicated device on top of hundreds of tonnes of high explosive so that you can get it moving fifteen times faster than a rifle bullet with the objective of placing it somewhere near a body only slightly larger than the Moon?
Best wishes,
Mike.
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:2)
But [astronomynow.com] the [cnn.com] units [wired.com] matter [slashdot.org].
Is it just me, or does anyone else detect a sloppiness in our current program that didn't exist before? Maybe it's a symptom of the "Me! Now!" generation-X (and now gen-Y) attitude (disclaimer: I'm not even 30 yet).
except.. (Score:2)
Yeah if we had limitless funds, we could build great probes that would work 5 times past their expected lifetimes.
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:2)
It used to be about innovation, pride, and accomplishment.
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:2, Interesting)
Which leads me to think that it's a good thing we're not trying very hard to mount any manned missions to Mars in the near future. If mankind has so much difficulty getting a relatively small, unmanned probe into Martian orbit/onto Martian soil, think about how much harder it would
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:2)
Re:Voyager anyone? (Score:2)
You're forgetting something - well two things actually. The missions to Venus by the Soviets and the Americans were also beset with repeated failures. The Pioneer probes very nearly didn't survive their encounters with Jupiter's radiation belt, Voyager was nearly crippled by a ring particle when it passed Saturn, Galileo had repeated failures...
But why did the big probes survive? Because they were EXPENSIVE,
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:4, Funny)
1. If you even know who Art Bell is, then you listen too much.
2. Mars is a very long way away. A Very, Very long way away. It's moving, too, at a good clip. This distance allows more to go wrong on the way than going somewhere closer, like the moon, by an exponential factor.
(One more reason why Mars is no place to raise a kid. Ooooo, I'm channeling Shatner!)
m-
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:2)
1) Well, if there's no proof that X (doesn't matter what X is) is false, than it's clearly true!
2) X (the gov't, nasa, authority-of-choice) denied it, so you know it must be true!
I feel bad for the occasional decent scientist who comes on the show, and who gets blindsided by some weird question like:
(while explaining that we just got missed (1 million miles) by some big
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:2)
Re:Conspiracy theory anyone? (Score:2)
Re:You may be right (Score:2)
As for nukes, I've read proposals that include nuking one or both poles for some quick, cheap heat and atmosphere. sounds pretty cool to me.
Re:OT semantics (Score:2)
Well, while I'm not disputing the enormity of what took place, at the end of the day it was "only" two buildings that was destroyed; I'm not sure that qualifies as "mass destruction".
By the same token, I'm not convinced that biological or chemical weapons count as being "destructive", as they (presumably) only kill animals. I personally don't like thinking of killing as "destruction"; it s
Re:how much do they cost? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:how much do they cost? (Score:2)
Warranty work (Score:2)
Re:YOU POMPOUS ASS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Will it crash???? (Score:2)