Beagle 2 Probe Lands; No Signal Received Yet 364
securitas writes "The BBC reports that Europe's Beagle 2 Mars lander has failed to broadcast its landing confirmation signal. While project leaders are trying to put a brave face on it, the failure is seen as a major setback. The Beagle is out of broadcast range but another contact attempt will be made later today, when they hope a signal will be detected. Another failed Mars mission will solidify Mars' reputation as a spacecraft graveyard. More at icWales and News24."
Tough Christmas (Score:2, Funny)
Not much information is available on the net about more details on the landing. I guess the current Mars satellites don't have enough resolution for them to photograph the expected landing site
Re:Tough Christmas (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Tough Christmas (Score:3, Informative)
It's so weird.. (Score:5, Funny)
nm.
Nothing bad in failures IMHO (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Nothing bad in failures IMHO (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nothing bad in failures IMHO (Score:2)
I wonder... (Score:2)
(tig)
Re:Nothing bad in failures IMHO (Score:4, Insightful)
He was landing our first space capable vehicle, by flying skills alone, long before the "dumb chimp in a bullet" mode of spaceflight was developed.
And do I need to point out that automated landing systems are superior to manned controls ONLY WHERE THERE ARE NO UNKNOWN VARIABLES?
If it's a weird, strange environment, send a Aerospace force pilot. If it's a Weird, Strange and possibly hostile environment, send in a Navy carrier pilot.
Re:Nothing bad in failures IMHO (Score:2)
what is does show is the danger that would be involved in some kind of retarded manned flight where the crew had no control over the spacecraft and were attemping to crash into Mars with airbags rather than the successful Moon method of going into orbit first and using a lander.
Re:Nothing bad in failures IMHO (Score:2)
Right. Good thing we sent all these probes to the moon so we could realize it wasn't safe to send men there
People are adaptable, robots aren't (Score:2)
Even Apollo 11 had problems landing that were not foreseen (priority inversion causing the lander's computer to be overloaded). It took flying by hand (also to avoid a ground hazard) to get the thing down.
If people can get past the hazards of interplanetery space (think of soemthing with lots of fairly dense hydrogen to act
Aliens got it (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Aliens got it (Score:4, Funny)
Do you have a shipping number we can track?
Maybe not a failure (Score:2, Redundant)
It could be the greatest discovery of all time instead, actually : the discovery of life on the planet Mars.
I mean, think about it, if you lived there and were regularly showered by huge retro-rockety or bouncy things from the monkeys on the planet next door, wouldn't you tear the probes apart with rage ?
Re:Maybe not a failure (Score:2)
Probably. I'd probably also let them know what was happening and why; at the very least, I'd make it apparent that their attentions were not wanted.
Otherwise, there's no guarantee that those pesky, inquisitive monkeys won't just keep on and on sending ever-larger and tougher probes.
Oh, I get it.... (Score:3, Funny)
*rolls eyes*
Re:Oh, I get it.... (Score:3, Funny)
No, the problem is that none of the European countries have the only real accurate measurement reference in the world, which is the Library of Congress.
Re:Oh, I get it.... (Score:3, Funny)
Jeroen
Hmmm... (Score:2)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
The proper comparison is either how many of the 30 met mission goals, or how many of the lander attempts were successful. The success rate under either standard is much higher than the BBC quote would indicate.
What, the countries of the world working together? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course we could make a serious effort. First put a string of sattelites around mars so that we actually know what is going on there 24/7 and don't have to have blackouts in the communication. Then send some heavy probes the size of those russian capsules. You know the ones that routinly land safely on solid ground with fragile humans inside? No messing about with little parachutes and bouncing. Make it big make it heavy make it a bloody tank.
And put a bloody nuclear reactor inside. Sm
BBC is somewhat misleading (Score:5, Insightful)
This is kind of misleading. Of the 30 total missions to Mars, only nine were attempted landers. THis gives a lander failulre rate of 1/3 instead of 1/10, which BBC implies. The other 21 craft were orbiters and the like.
On a further note, I felt BBC did indulge in nationalistic bias as of yesterday, which people in Slashdot previously praised them of not doing with this story. Firstly, there's the misleading lander success rate above. They also compared to the successful US missions, calling them costly and implying wasteful. Although now that they cannot get a signal from the craft they took this bit out of the story.
This is misleading because the two Viking landers were built decades ago using even older technology. The more recent Mars Pathfinder event was, however, on a cheaper budget, part of a Nasa Discovery Mission, which built/tested the craft for 150 million. This approach included researching the parachute/airbag landing, which the Beagle 2 was able to imitate. ALso, comparing the cost of building a rover (Pathfinder) vs. a robot arm (Beagle) isnt' fair as a rover is much more complex.
On a different note, all hope is not lost yet. There are still banks of receiver antennas in case the Beagle's antenna is pointing the wrong way such that NASA's Mars Odyssey craft couldn't pick it up.
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Premature Assessment, Plus Sloppy Journalism (Score:5, Insightful)
It's premature to call the failure to hear the initial signal as a "major setback". For Reuters to do so without attributed that assessment to anyone is sloopy journalism. Why would anyone care what Reuters thinks?
Re:Premature Assessment, Plus Sloppy Journalism (Score:4, Insightful)
See the probes are lost because if they work on their secondary or tertiary attempts then they suddenly become "rescued!" or "alive!" and now the little lost probe is a hero! GO PROBE!
Like it or not our journalism ratchets up the drama at every single opportunity, unfortunately for many they can't see through the fear tactics and live in a state where they believe the world is getting worse and even more dangerous every day. Both of those assumptions are quite wrong.
Re:Premature Assessment, Plus Sloppy Journalism (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Premature Assessment, Plus Sloppy Journalism (Score:2)
Did You Read Anythig? This Isn't About BBC! (Score:3, Insightful)
Look, the point is that the Reuters report used, without attribution, the phrase "major failure". In other words, it is Reuters itself calling this a "major setback". Reuters lacks the credentials to make that judgement. That's why it's sloppy journalism. If someone with credentials said it and Reuters omitted the attribution, that's one kind of sloppy journal
Spacecraft Land Better With a Pilot (Score:3, Informative)
Come to think of it, odds are the Apollo 11 lander would have crashed if pilots had not been onboard. If memory serves, the designated landing spot wasn't appropriate, so Armstrong flew the thing manually to another spot.
Mars Missions (Score:5, Informative)
Major Mars missions, 1964 to 2004:
1964 U.S. launches Mariner 3, which fails after liftoff.
1964 U.S. launches Mariner 4. First successful Mars fly-by in July 1965. The craft returns the first pictures of the Martian surface.
1964 Soviets launch Zond 2. Mars fly-by. Contact lost in May 1965.
1969 U.S. launches Mariner 6 and 7. The two spacecraft fly by Mars in July and August 1969 and send back images and data.
1971 Soviets launch Mars 2. Orbiter and lander reach Mars in November 1971. Lander crashes but orbiter sends back images and data.
1971 U.S. launches Mariner 8, which fails during liftoff.
1971 U.S. launches Mariner 9. Orbiter reaches Mars in November 1971, provides global mapping of Martian surface and studies atmosphere.
1973 Soviets launch Mars 5. Orbiter reaches Mars in February 1974 and collects data.
1975 U.S. launches Viking 1 and Viking 2. The two orbiter/lander sets reach Mars in 1976. Orbiters image Martian surface. Landers send back images and take surface samples.
1992 U.S. launches Mars Observer. Contact lost with orbiter in August 1993, three days before scheduled insertion into Martian orbit.
1996 U.S. launches Mars Global Surveyor. Orbiter reaches Mars in September 1997 and maps the planet. Still in operation.
1996 Soviets launch Mars 96, which fails after launch and falls back into Earth's atmosphere.
1996 U.S. launches Mars Pathfinder. Lander and rover arrive on Mars in July 1997, in the most-watched space event ever. Lander sends back thousands of images, and Sojourner rover roams the surface, sending back 550 images.
1998 Japan launches Nozomi. Orbiter suffers glitch in December 1998, forcing circuitous course correction. Mission fails in 2003.
1998 U.S. launches Mars Climate Orbiter. Spacecraft destroyed while entering Martian orbit in September 1999.
1999 U.S. launches Mars Polar Lander. Contact lost with lander during descent in December 1999. Two microprobes "hitchhiking" on lander also fail.
2001 U.S. launches Mars Odyssey. Orbiter reaches Mars in October 2001 to detect water and shallow buried ice and study the environment. It can also act as a communications relay for future Mars landers.
2003 European Space Agency launches Mars Express. Orbiter and lander to arrive at Mars in December 2003.
2003 U.S. launches Mars Expedition Rovers. Spirit and Opportunity rovers due to land on Mars in January 2004.
Re:Mars Missions (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.space.com/sciencefiction/phenomena/fobo s_mystery_000630.html
The second one disappeared after recording mile-wide oval objects in space ;-)
Re:Mars Missions (Score:3, Informative)
Here is a link to The Strange case of Fobos-2 [space.com]
Re:Mars Missions (Score:3, Funny)
Reminds me of the episode of Gilligan's Island where a Mars probe lands on the island, and JPL thinks its on Mars. That same day the castaways were collectiong feathers to make Lovee's dress and also accidently left the fire on under a brew of glue used to repair the shattered probe lens. The glue pot exploded, taking the feathers with it and landing and sticking on the castaways. JPL thought they were looking a
Waiting for more data... (Score:2, Insightful)
There are already 2 functional spacecrafts - Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey in orbit. And Mars Express, Spirit, and Opportunity will be arriving soon.
Surely 5 spacecrafts will be able to pick any signal the Beagle may be broadcasting, or otherwise find signs of the wrecks.
Ironically my pc was playing Joy to the World when I read this... the downside of scheduling this kind of things around this time. WinAmp was promptly shut down.
This is all . . . (Score:3, Funny)
* The Soviet Union used metric units, and all of their probes failed except one. So did the '96 Russian mission.
* The Customary-using U.S.'s Mariner 4, 6, 7, and 9 worked, as did Viking 1 and 2, and Mars Observer; only Mariner 3 of the Mars missions failed.
* The U.S. Federal Government most far-reaching metrification laws went into effect after Observer was launched, and things have been 50-50 since, reflecting the semi-converted state of the U.S.
Obviously, there is a direct correlation between societal use of metric units and failure of Mars missions! If we are to explore the Red Planet, we must de-metrify now!
Re:This is all . . . (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This is all . . . (Score:2, Funny)
Argh.
They don't know if Beagle 2 landed (Score:4, Funny)
michael [slashdot.org], not to nitpick on the slightly altered headline, but the "Beagle 2 Probe Lands" is little inaccurate. They just don't know if it landed - that's why they are hoping to receve the landing confirmation signal.
From the article:
Well, I suppose that could be considered a landing of sorts. :)
Re:They don't know if Beagle 2 landed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:They don't know if Beagle 2 landed (Score:2)
Re:They don't know if Beagle 2 landed (Score:2)
Control Room Webcast (Score:3, Informative)
And, find out here what options they have to communicate with beagle [beagle2.com]
Misinformed press... (Score:2)
The orbiters are slightly more advanced than a mere rocket. I wish the press would stop dumbing things down, I would think the majority of their audience graduated grade school.
It's broken but can we exchange without receipt? (Score:2)
More Information (Score:5, Informative)
Beagle 2's official [beagle2.com] site.
Space.com's Mars Rover [space.com] section.
European Space Agency's Mars Express [esa.int] website.
Live feeds from esa (Score:2, Informative)
http://esa.capcave.com/esa/marsexpress/
go download the latest Real codec from here
http://www1.mplayerhq.hu/MPlayer/releases/codec
and use Xine to play them back.
Did i mention that RealOne/linux is a POS?
Viking Lander (Score:5, Interesting)
The thing which stands out about these old birds (this was the mid-1970s, mind you) is that they were very rugged, and very simple electronically, by our standards. Most of the electronics were analog, and the electronic technologies used were huge, robust, massive pieces of silicon - by today's standards. The components were all tested beyond all reason, the modules were tested just as hard, and the final assemblies were tested more so. It cost a fortune - but it did work when it got there.
Mars is a hard target. We know that now, and it has become apparent that the statistics speak against getting there on the cheap.
Faster, better, cheaper - which two did you want?
Faster, Cheaper, Better? (Score:2)
However, as written up on the BBC and previsouly discussed on
Faster, Better, Cheaper -- Pick Two.
Just because NASA claimed they could do all three in the 1990's (promptly losing a Mars Mission), doesn't mean it's true.
If Beagle 2 turns out to be a fialure, I think Faster and Cheaper will turn out to be culprits.
Is BBC news down? (Score:2)
Surely not
lost? - not yet (Score:2)
However, they weren't necessarily expecting a signal today. publically they say they aren't that worried -perhaps it needs more time to unpack itself... because of its low power capacity, it can only do one thing at a time.
However, it nothing has been recieved tomorrow - boxing day - then hopes start to fade.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/3347055.stm
Not over yet (Score:5, Insightful)
Shipping with sev 1 defects (Score:5, Interesting)
Pardon we while I dissent with the group claiming that this failure (if it indeed it gets confirmed to be a failure) is one that is part and parcel of a complex engineering endeavour. From one of the links in an earlier /. story :
The consequence of such a failure? Loss of spacecraft. Workaround? None mentioned. How can one trust the weather on Mars when the weather on earth isnt that predictable either? More stuff :
Consequence of this problem : loss of spacecraft. Workaround : none mentioned.
I come from the software world, and we call this as shipping with severity 1 defects. That is - there exists a defect in a product that can compromise its mission and there exists no work around for the defect. If you spend x dollars on a widget and a sev 1 defect is triggered, your $x is gone to that mystical money bucket in the sky.
I'm not assigning blame to any one particular group - they all contributed. Undoubtedly, sev 1 problems could have been addressed had a bigger budget been available. So in that sense, it is a problem that originated in the funding and management channels. On the other hand, the engineers who ship with sev 1 defects also have a responsibility to make sure that the funders understand that the existence of sev 1 defects can lead to a total waste of time and money. It might even have been better to not make the attempt.
Re:Shipping with sev 1 defects (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't lose sight of the point of this mission - which is to gather data from the sruface of Mars. I understand what you're saying, but if you don't even make the attempt, then you've definitely failed to accomplish your primary goal. At least by trying, even with such serious defects, you stand some chance.
Also, don't forget the way in which government funding works sometimes, ie use it or lose it. This may have been a one-off chance, use the money now, or don't, and have no guarantee of getting any more in the future.
I was at university when a rocket exploded shortly after lift off, destroying a European probe a few years ago (this would've been mid-90s). Our department's astro group had designed and created one of the experiments that was on board, and our then head of department was also the head of that group. It happened the day before a department meeting at which he was supposed to give a speech; he was too upset to attend. My point being that the scientists have a hell of a lot invested in this sort of thing; they wouldn't go ahead with something if they didn't think that they had at least a fighting chance of it working.
Re:Shipping with sev 1 defects (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Shipping with sev 1 defects (Score:2)
I think you are missing the point. If you combine all the choices you have to make and in the end you still end up with sev 1 issues, then you should consider the fact that your mission is impossible to achieve and abort in the planning / design stage.
PS. I should have made the headline read "Shipping with known sev 1 defects". sev 1 defects are not preventable. But its the ones that are known to you when you design / plan that I'm talking about.
Re:Shipping with sev 1 defects (Score:3, Insightful)
If blowing up on launch was a problem that was known to you, then yes. Blowing up because of unforseen conditions isnt what I'm talking about. For example, the Columbia disaster - the breaking up of the foam which lead to the tragedy was not something that was forseeable - atleast to the degree that would make it a factor in planning. If on the other hand, your design constraints force you to say design something that can die in bad weather and if you have no control over whether it will encounter bad weath
Re:Shipping with sev 1 defects (Score:2)
The solution may be to make ultra-cheap landers and then launch one of them every week during the window, and do this once or twice a year until one makes it through. You could even target different places on the surface for each one so that if one does land the additional ones in trail go to other interesting places.
On the other hand, if the cost of fuel, par
Beagle 2 damaged by dust storm? (Score:5, Interesting)
I think what may have happened to Beagle 2 was that it may have been damaged by the dust storms that are occurring on the planet right now.
Does anyone remember the Mars 3 probe the Soviets launched in the early 1970's? It had the unfortunate experience of trying to put a lander on Mars in a completely automated manner right in the middle of one of the worst planet-wide dust storms to hit the planet and the probe never functioned properly after landing. We were very fortunate that the two Viking landers and Mars Pathfinder landed on Mars during periods of benign weather on the planet.
Because these dust storms can last for three to five months, I do have major concerns that the two upcoming NASA landers may suffer the same fate as Beagle 2--trying to land in a major dust storm. =(
(By the way, one of reasons why the two Viking landers succeeded was that they stay attached to the Viking orbiter until after orbit insertion. That allowed NASA engineers to carefully look at landing sites with the orbiter cameras to find a safe landing spot. If Mars Express had been designed this way they probably would have not allowed Beagle 2 to land until the dust storms on the planet subsided.)
Re:Beagle 2 damaged by dust storm? (Score:3, Informative)
Here's my Christmas Negativity (Score:2)
Battery Required to Unfold Solar Array? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Battery Required to Unfold Solar Array? (Score:3, Informative)
Density? Nope.
Yes the wind speed on Mars can be huge... but the air is so vapid that it really can't impart much energy to anything.
If you've seen the designs of the Mars drone airplanes, you'll notice they share a lot of design features in common with the U2 spyplane... because both fly in atmospheres where the air is so sparse that the planes need huge wing areas and huge airspeeds just to get a modicum of lift.
Correction... (Score:2)
Jodrell Bank (I believe Britain's largest radio telescope) should be able to pick it up if it is out
HELLO! Euro Beagle depends on US relay ... (Score:2, Funny)
The one hope is that Jodrell picks up something
Love a good conspiracy.
Exactly what I expected... (Score:2)
I hate to spoil your romantic ideas about ... (Score:2, Insightful)
I have worked in some fields of science and the tech industry, too, it's like Dilbert in many ways, and I don't see why jerks like that shouldn't build our space probes, too.
Just think of the Ariane 5 maiden flight failure that cost a billion bucks or so and how you'd have to be a complete jerk to fuck up the thing the way they did, I'll dig out the story if someone i
Re:I hate to spoil your romantic ideas about ... (Score:2)
You are right, people are people and they are extremely fallible. But even so, they have, as teams, been able to do some pretty amazing things.
Project management, science, documented technology, (amphasis on documented!): all these are the tools that fallible no-good lazy dumb people use to get people to the moon, keep flying big airplanes reliably, and design operating systems. You are right, in other words, but the cool part of technology and project planning i
Here's the link ... (Score:3, Informative)
Mars Express is still alive (Score:4, Informative)
And even if the most spectacular experiments were to be conducted by Beagle 2, Mars Express carries numerous instruments :
A sub-surface sounding radar which could be used to find ice under the surface,
a high resolution stereo camera to analyse further the topology of Mars,
visible, infrared and ultraviolet spectrometers to analyse the composition of the surface and the atmosphere,
and an "Energetic Neutral Atoms Analyser" to quantify the interactions between solar winds and martian atmosphere.
Rejoice ! We and scientists will still get our christmas present !
Sounds like more shopping opportunities on eBay (Score:4, Funny)
Contents of story is wrong (Score:5, Informative)
likely BBC exagerate or the story poster did.
Beagle has entered the atmossphere
Thats what we know.
So. The plan is that Mars Express, the mothership of Beagel, will make contact to Beagle TODAY -- not 20 hours before!! -- around 22:40 GMT. After 22:40 GMT we will know if Beagle touched down successfully.
For more information look at: www.esa.int, and follow the link to the web stream http://esa.capcave.com/esa/marsexpress/
However, making contact to Beagle is not the primary goal right now. Mars express is supposed to perform two important manouvers first: Appogee reduction(currently we are in a 10 day orbit), to get the orbit more circular instead of a high ellipse, and second: an orbit inclination change manouver to get the currently equatorial orbit inot a polar orbit.
Its well possible(I dont know the orbit data) that after the orbit is polar it will take several days until Mars Express is in an orbit position to pick up Beagels signals.
After the craft is in polar orbit, it will do about 9 further manouvers to reduce its 100,000 km orbit into a 11,000 km orbit. Then
angel'o'sphere
My favorite theory (non-conspiracy) (Score:2, Interesting)
This is more related to SETI and extraterrestrial life, but please read on...
We are, simply put, the FIRST ONES. We are the FIRST race to achieve intelligence and space travel. We are the race which those after us will call with the name: "The Ancients".
That's my favorite theory. Until proven otherwise, I wish we'd live up to that theory, by showing a good example for those who come after us.
Re:My favorite theory (non-conspiracy) (Score:2)
That is my favorite theory too. I like the ideal of being the First Ones.
Re:My favorite theory (non-conspiracy) (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My favorite theory (non-conspiracy) (Score:3, Funny)
Re:My favorite theory (non-conspiracy) (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Conspiracy Theroy anyone? (Score:5, Interesting)
Different technologies though, different times, unlimited budgets... the 70s and 80s were a whole other world when it came to space
Re:Conspiracy Theroy anyone? (Score:2)
Given that we're getting dust storms on the planet right now I wouldn't be surprised if Beagle 2 was damaged beyond repair due to the dust storms. This do
Speed & Thermals (Score:5, Informative)
1) The delta-V to get to Venus is much less than to go to Mars. Results is less acceleration load on the probes, also Venus has a much denser atmosphere so that aerodynamic drag devices (drogue chutes, main chutes) are much more effective in controlling touchdown velocity.
2) The thermal cycle of daily heating/cooling is less extreme on Venus than on Mars. Yes, you do have pressure to worry about on Venus... but the thermal cycle is what beats the hell out of electrical connections.
(Note that two of the three successful Mars landers used retrorockets (Viking I & Viking II)... so Beagle was really treadding a very recently blazed trail by using Pathfinder's airbag landing.)
Re:Speed & Thermals (Score:2)
And the fact that you don't get much sunlight under the coulds.
Mars should be a LOT easier to keep a probe on. In theory Venus is easier to land on, but you'll never see a proble last more than a few hours there.
Re:Speed & Thermals (Score:3, Insightful)
The acceleration to get into earth orbit is the same wherever you're going, and that's the massive 8 or more g's you see astronauts training for in centrifuges. Then you can boost at low accleration, for as long as your fuel allows, to get the required delta v. Or do a gravitational boost, which creates no acceleration stress, if orbits and time allow. 2) The thermal cycle of daily heating/cool
Re:Speed & Thermals (Score:5, Informative)
2) The thermal cycle of daily heating/cooling is less extreme
I doubt that
On teh sunny sie Venus has about 400 degrees centigrade ground temperature
With Venus having a night temperature of
Google a bit or take this two links as reference
http://stardate.org/resources/ssguide/venus.
and http://www-k12.atmos.washington.edu/k12/resources
Regards,
angel'o'sphere
Re:Speed & Thermals (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah... and if you start having electronics problems on Venus, you can just grab a cup of solder from that river, over there, and use it to make repairs.....
Dust storms: no problem (Score:5, Informative)
Martian dust storms are not the big deal many people imagine they are. We're used to hurricanes, able to generate winds so strong that people are literally blown off their feet. And a few months ago we heard soldiers describe sandstorms in Iraq, where grains of sand are whipped against your skin so hard that it stings like hell.
On Mars however, the atmosphere is so thin [netscape.com] that storm effects are quite different. The dust raised by these storms consists of tiny talcum-powder-sized particles. These thin winds would never have the "oomph" to pick up a grain of sand.
And a "raging" 150 mph wind on Mars would not be able to knock a person on his or her butt. It would only carry as much force as a relatively gentle 18 mph Earth wind.
The only possible ill-effect from a dust storm, is that a thin layer of dust might coat the lander's solar panel and reduce its efficiency by a few percent. (Not enough to prevent the lander from phoning home, though.)
Re:Dust storms: no problem (Score:5, Insightful)
A landing probe would be sitting underneath a parachute tens of metres in diameter for approximately 2 to 3 minutes while drifting downwards. Although the force of this theoretical 150mph wind is low, thereby giving a low acceleration, given enough time the force acting on this huge surface area WILL accelerate the craft to 150 mph. That would be seriously bad news as an impact with the ground at that speed would destroy any lander, no matter what type of airbags it was using.
P.S. I am also an Aerospace engineer and work for the company that was responsible for the aerodynamics, heat shield sizing and trajectory of Beagle2. So I bloody well hope it's OK. I blame the airbags personally.
Re:Conspiracy Theroy anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Here's the photo of the alleged spacecraft (Score:3, Informative)
The article mentioned above [demon.co.uk], about strange theories behind the disappearance of the Russian Phobos 2 probe, mentions a "highly secret" photo that was the last image taken by this probe. The article speculates it's a shot of the spacecraft that destroyed the probe. I found the picture they're talking about [homestead.com].
If this is a spacecraft it would be about 20 km long, like a Culture GSV in the Iain Banks novels. More likely it's just a streak in an ima
Re:Conspiracy Theroy anyone? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Conspiracy Theroy anyone? (Score:2, Funny)
So if Mars is only slightly larger than the moon, then I suppose I'm only slightly larger than a 20-pound, 3-foot toddler.
But I see your point.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Conspiracy Theroy anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
The few that were allowed to land were carefully directed to desolate areas, well away from the Martian civilization.
Especially when you consider... (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd think that spacecraft designed with 1990s tech would be more reliable than the Vikings.
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Especially when you consider... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Especially when you consider... (Score:3, Insightful)
Um, no. They don't "go forever". You have to have a goodly supply of duct tape and hammers becuase those old monstrosities break down every five or six hundred miles. Neverminding safety improvements,
Re: Theroy (Score:5, Funny)
But "the Roy" [google.com] gets me 66,100, and the first is a great artist with a really lousy web site.
"Art Bell" [google.com] returns only 56,600.
Could take a while to read them all, theroetically [google.com].
Re:Conspiracy Theroy anyone? (Score:3, Funny)
Well the probe is dead isn't it? It must have been running BSD then...
Was front page news? (Score:4, Informative)
It seems to have been pushed off the front page into the science/nature page by explosions in Pakistan and China. The UK has historic links with India/Pakistan (and a number of UK'ians have family links in Paikistan) so this was perhaps deemed more pressing. I know the Beagle probe means more to you and me, but not everyone is a nerd.
Re:Don't give up yet! (Score:2, Insightful)
Probably a combination of budgetary constraints and a poor understanding of the engineer challenges necessary to land a probe on the planet.