Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Mars Rovers On Final Approach 204

Posted by timothy from the watch-for-m&m-helices dept.
leapis writes "In the wake of the possible loss of the Beagle 2 Mars probe, let us not forget that the Mars Rovers are scheduled for arrival in orbit this weekend. As noted in this article at Space.com, the fourth and final course correction has been made, and Spirit, the first of two spacecraft, will touch down around 22:34 on 3 Jan 2004. More information and a countdown to the landing can be found here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Mars Rovers On Final Approach More

Mars Rovers On Final Approach

Comments Filter:

  • Question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sklivvz ( 167003 ) * <marco@cecconi.gmail@com> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @04:46AM (#7833609) Homepage Journal
    The article says the rover's trajectory has been updated. Is it because they were afraid it would land in a crater like beagle2 [cnn.com]?

    I do hope at least one probe lands right. It is one of the advantages of having NASA, ESA and other space agencies competing, when did it happen before this that we had so many probes heading on the same planet?

    Does anyone know the different purposes they have?

    • I for one.. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Channard ( 693317 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @04:50AM (#7833618) Journal
      .. am deeply disappointed by the lack of dog puns.. 'Beagle 2 fails to bark'... 'Down, Rover'.. 'Beagle 2 Space Probe has Ruff Landing'.. so much potential unfulfilled.
      • Maybe the reason it failed was more simple than we think.

        "Okay, get the beagle ready for launch and fire it off."
        "But sir..."
        "Don't ask questions! This is a great day for mars exploration, old chap! I'm off for tea and crumpets."
        "Okay sir. Here boy! Walkies!"
      • 1. Beagle Scratched
        2. Dog Whistle Inaudible
        3. No Word from Deep Space K-Nine
        4. After Two Dog Days and Three Dog Nights: Dog Gone?
        5. Crater possibility: Did Dog Land in Reservoir?
        6. Mars, 15; Puppy, Love.
      • > .. am deeply disappointed by the lack of dog puns.. 'Beagle 2 fails to bark'...
        > 'Down, Rover'.. 'Beagle 2 Space Probe has Ruff Landing'.. so much potential unfulfilled

        British scientists announce "That dog wont hunt!"
      • well, it was built by the british.
        Ever own a british car? (Rover, Jag, etc)

        Well known for crappy and unreliable electrical systems.
      • The Beagle has landed. Poorly. rj
    • Maybe they were afraid it would land on the beagle? Or any of those other countless, expensive probes that failed? There must be a pretty big pile there now.

      The expeditions all have very similar purposes, scientific analysis, usually analysing chemicals in the atmosphere and soil/rocks, searching for water, or life.

      It would be really neat if they did find life. That would increase a lot of the space exploration budget, I think.
    • ...when did it happen before this that we had so many probes heading on the same planet?


      Never?

      (Moon is technically err.. moon?)

      • Re:Question (Score:5, Interesting)

        by SegFault ( 547 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:49AM (#7833747)
        In 1971 five different Mars-bound spacecraft were launched by the US and the USSR. Of the five, only Mariner 9 returned much useful data, to the tune of 7,329 pictures. The USSR "Mars 3" returned a few pictures and some data before it died. The other three craft failed.
    • when did it happen before this that we had so many probes heading on the same planet?

      It's getting to the point where we start sending more probes, just to find out what happened to the first ones... Perhaps if we attach Pringles cans, we can hear them better?

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)

      by Aggrajag ( 716041 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:30AM (#7833706)
      RTFA. It appears that updating trajectory is a normal procedure when a probe approaches a planet.

      "It was the fourth and possibly last time the course has been adjusted for the six-wheeled robot. Such adjustments become necessary as the craft gets closer to its destination."

      And they actually trying to land it in a crater.

      "Spirit is being sent to Gusev Crater, a depression the size of Connecticut that scientists believe once held a lake. It is set to land Saturday."
      • "Spirit is being sent to Gusev Crater, a depression the size of Connecticut that scientists believe once held a lake. It is set to land Saturday."

        January 3, 11:35pm EST 8:35pm PST in the US, january 4, 4:35am GMT 5:35am CET in Europe for those planning to slashdot the website waiting for news of the landing :)

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)

      by snake_dad ( 311844 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:30AM (#7833708) Homepage Journal
      Does anyone know the different purposes they have?

      Quick list, by no means meant to be complete, just to give an impression of the differences between the missions:

      Beagle 2 [beagle2.com]: Lander, search for signs of past or present life on the planet surface
      Mars Express [esa.int]: Orbiter, study atmosphere and surface with radar and spectrometers
      Mars Rovers [nasa.gov]: 2 Landers, search for signs of past or present water (NASA's Follow The Water strategy)
      Nozomi [isas.ac.jp]: Orbiter, study atmoshpere and interaction with solar wind. Mission failed.

    • Re:Question (Score:5, Informative)

      by SegFault ( 547 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:34AM (#7833715)
      Beagle2 landed at Isidis. MER-A Spirit is landing at Gusev crater. So we did a trajectory corection maneuver in order to land in a crater :)

      Seriously, this is the fourth trajectory correction maneuver. We planned for up to six, but we had a pretty good initial insertion from the Delta rocket. The trajectory correction maneuvers are neccessary due to the precise angle at which we must enter the atmosphere of Mars. Too shallow and we bounce off, too steep and we make our own crater. Its like throwing a dart from Earth and having it hit a bullseye on Mars. We can't throw a dart that accurately so we control the dart on the way.

      The Beagle2 and MER rovers have similar science instruments and goals. Both have several spectrometers, a mechanical arm, a rock grinder (to grind a fresh surface on the rock) and stereoscopic cameras amongst other things. Their goals are the same: Look for life or evidence that life once existed. They're also looking for evidence that liquid water was once present on the surface of Mars. The main difference is that the US built craft are mobile on the surface.

      BTW, the first time 3 probes were sent to Mars (MER-A, MER-B, and Mars Express. Nozomi doesn't count since it was launched in 98) was in 1964 when the Russians sent Zond 2 and NASA sent Mariner 3 and 4. Only Mariner 4 returned useful data. Zond2 suffered a failed radio and Mariner 3 suffered a mechanical failure. (In 1962 the Russians sent 3 probes but 2 failed to reach space and the last died en route). The first successful lander was Russian, but if I remember correctly it landed in a sand storm and died before useful data could be returned.

      Well, I've got to get some sleep. Got to get back to work early tomorrow to monitor the spacecraft.

      --
      I speak for myself. JPL and NASA can speak for themselves.

      • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

        by nathanh ( 1214 )
        This is what I love about Slashdot. You can hear straight from the people that make the news. No journalists. No misinterpretation. No censorship.

        • Re:Question (Score:3, Funny)

          by MyHair ( 589485 )
          I agree, but it's somewhat disturbing that the person's name is "Segfault". :-)
      • How do you know Zond2 suffered a failed radio? I'm not familiar with it at all...

        It just seems like I could be incinerated in a pool of lava and you are saying I had a heart attack. Maybe I did, but the truth is that i really just got incinerated and you have no clue!

    • Re:Question (Score:3, Insightful)

      by thanasakis ( 225405 )
      I was under the impression that there are so many probes this time because Earth and Mars came very very close last summer. Their relative position was probably favorable for plotting an easy trajectory to mars.

      I could be wrong though. Could someone plz verufy this?

    • Re:Question (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Ianoo ( 711633 )
      when did it happen before this that we had so many probes heading on the same planet?
      Despite the failure rate, it's a sign that unmanned flight to the red planet is becoming routine. Any nation can do it, even if they don't have a great deal of spacefairing experience (e.g. Britain, the ESA). Hence countries seeking a challenge might want to go further to avoid the "yet another Mars probe" view the public is developing. Hopefully a manned mission isn't too far away.

  • I propose... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Scoria ( 264473 ) <`slashmail' `at' `initialized.org'> on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @04:47AM (#7833611) Homepage
    ... that, instead of quarreling about the legitimacy of robotic space exploration, we dedicate this thread to the inevitable development of a Mars probe drinking game!

    Gallons, not liters, please...
    • And I propose that we abolish the phrase "in the wake of". Is it really so hard to just say "after"?
      • And I propose that we abolish the phrase "in the wake of". Is it really so hard to just say "after"?

        .. that it's an attempt to imply the preceding event .. sorry, event before, was so significant as to create a wake that affected all around it.

        • Yeah, I guess I can see how it means a bit more than just "after." But I still think it's become a terrible cliche.
        • create a wake that affected all around it.

          They flew in near-vacuum. Beagle 2 didn't create a wake and it's still too soon to hold one for the poor dog. Beagle 2 can not affect the Mars Rovers in any way.

          Unless, of course, Spirit decides to hit Beagle 2 on the nose. That would really lend a new meaning to the phrase "Reach out and touch someone".

          "I'll put Spirit in the corner pocket, sinking Beagle 2 on the way"

      • "wake" is appropriate considering Beagle2 is likely dead.

    • Chug once.... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Channard ( 693317 )
      .. every time a probe/rover takes a shot of a supposedly manufactured phenomenon on Mars - the face, the canals, etc, revealing them to tbe natural, and those who claimed the structure was alien-made miraculously manage to find another artifical feature before tea-time.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @04:49AM (#7833616)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:What gives us the right? (Score:5, Funny)

      by sopuli ( 459663 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:07AM (#7833654)
      Just wondering... Suppose there *is* life on Mars, what gives us the right to drop all sorts of space junk on their planet?

      We'll just say they have weapons of mass destruction.

      • But... (Score:3, Funny)

        by Channard ( 693317 )
        We'll just say they have weapons of mass destruction.

        Yep, but we have better weapons of mass destruction *sniffles*. Hmm.. I can feel a cold coming on.

      • What if it turns out that Martians do have weapons of mass destruction unlike certain other desert regimes I could mention?;)

    • Re:What gives us the right? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Deraj DeZine ( 726641 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:09AM (#7833655)
      I would have personally brought up the whole Roswell incident as evidence of just how crazy people get over crashed alien craft.

      I mean, the whole incident was probably just some teenage alien coming back from one of those underage Martian drinking parties you hear about so much and crashing his space ship. I never really saw the point in destroying the poor alien's reputation over that one little mistake. I mean, we've had him locked away in the Area 51 supermax prison for how long? It's ridiculous.

      Perhaps the Martians are just holding Beagle 2 until we return that poor kid? It's about time those aliens stood up for their rights.

    • Re:What gives us the right? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      if alien probes were to crash on Earth, everyone would be up in arms...

      No they wouldn't. See, it goes like this: Meteor, weather balloon, swamp gas, light reflection, hallucination, meteor, meteor, weather balloon. Not a UFO in the bunch. :)

    • Re:What gives us the right? (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Up in arms? People would be fighting over the debris and hawking it on eBay. We'd line up by the thousands just to peer into the craters and buy the zany "Probe This" t-shirts. If there were cameras attached to them, unruly mobs would jostle to flash gang signs, middle fingers, tits and various religious icons in thier field of view. Roswell, New Mexico has made an industry out of a crashed alien craft and theirs is only make-believe.
      • Anyone else read that as 'Selling Steven Hawking on E-Bay'? 'Genius for sale, good cond, comes with Phd, batteries not included.'
    • habit?
    • that reproduce like weeds and leave shit where ever we go.

      Truth is, our need to expand will trump any chance of primitive life on mars developing.

      Do we have the right? I suppose if you take the really long view, then no; otherwise its survival of the fittest!

      • Do we have the right? I suppose if you take the really long view, then no

        How does taking a really long view at things take away our right to expand? Although I can't state this as fact I would assume that life have been around, birthed, destroyed, expanding, collapsed, exploded, imploded, and frozen/burnt eons before humans ever thought to themselves, "Hey, living in the dirt sucks. Let's make air conditioning and gameboys while flinging voyeuristic webcams into Martian's showers."

        I guess it all comes d
        • Not trolling at all. Actually poking fun at us really. The length of time thing really was there to dig out part of what you believe. Being really short sighted makes some things easier to consider, or not, for me anyway.

          Take mars, if there is some simple primitive life --it does not know any better, so we have done no harm. Taking the really long Douglas Adams scale view of things means we humans just retarded the most advanced beings to have ever lived. The universe got a bit brighter just from a fe
    • Just wondering... Suppose there *is* life on Mars, what gives us the right to drop all sorts of space junk on their planet? Let's face it, if alien probes were to crash on Earth, everyone would be up in arms...

      We have flags. Hey, it worked for the Europeans in the New World.

    • I think, it is the same right, that lets us domesticate and/or eat various fauna and flora on Earth. Some people don't think, we don't have such a right, but most think, we do.

  • In Other News... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Space Junk is reaching alarming levels. The UN has established a special committee to investiagte the problem and to issue littering fines where appropiate.

  • We know darn well martians don't like probes (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Yet we continue dumping cute little robots on their ground.
    How long do you think it will take for this one to be found and death-rayed, just like the rest?

    Earthlings go home!
  • Little green men on a far-away planet eat their first interplanetary delicacy - "Beagles & Rovers".

  • will touch down around 22:34 on 3 Jan 2004

    Is that local time?

  • Celestia add-on? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:16AM (#7833673)
    Does anyone know if it's possible to get accurate data from these recent Mars Probes into the Celestia [shatters.net] 3d space simulator?

    I would love to watch with my son as these craft approach and land on Mars in real time! Currently, we enjoy doing fly-bys between Mars' and moons, the ISS and Hubble, and the stars, but this would be more memorable than watching videobites after the fact on CNN. TIA.

    • Re:Celestia add-on? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Normal folks can't get their hands on the detailed data. Only NASA has access to that.... for national security reasons, yeah, that's the ticket. Actually, I can't think of a good reason why they wouldn't release the data so it has to be available if you know who to ask.

    • Re:Celestia add-on? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      that program makes some great pictures [shatters.net]

    • Re:Celestia add-on? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      What you are looking for is here [nasa.gov]

    • Re:Celestia add-on? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tim C ( 15259 )
      There's a page on the Nasa site here [nasa.gov] that contains links to some downloads. I've not tried any of it yet, though, as I'm at work at the moment...
  • I am sad to see the possible demise of the Beagle II. However, I have to temper that with my watching an animation of what they were attempting to accomplish and saying to myself: It will never work. It is too complex. I hope I am proven wrong in the long run.

    Also, considering the millions of miles involved, The USA could not beat them by a lousy ten days? (A little humor, folks!)

    My main point is that if you want durable aerospace vehicles that can survive the (Groan) impact. The Russians need to be the
    • And let's not forget that the Beagle 2 was really a last minute 'add on' to the main mission - the orbiter. Poor Mars Express seems to be lost in the media coverage of the of the Beagle. Done on the cheap and quickly, the real surprise would have been if it landed successfully. Kudos to the ESA for trying something as ambitious as this in their relatively early days of solar system exploration and lets hope we get great science from Express and the US landers.
      • Absolutely right. But you have to blame ESA for focussing their public relations mainly on Beagle. Now everyone is believing the whole mission failed, whereas in reality, the main scientific gain would have stemmed from the orbiter measurements anyhow. The European mission is by no means failed. If anything can get us data about possible water on mars, then it is the penetrating radar of the orbiter.

    • Re:A couple of comments (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SegFault ( 547 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:59AM (#7833760)
      Mars Scorecard:

      USA: 8/14 (so far, not counting MER-A and MER-B)

      USSR/Russia: 4/16 (two of the four returned very little data)

      Japan: 0/1

      Europe .5/1 (so far, maybe the Beagle will bark)

      Source: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/log/

  • Names (Score:5, Funny)

    by EuroChild ( 523969 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:34AM (#7833714)
    Now see, I can tell simply by the names of these probes that they will fail. By giving them these "uplifting" or "inspirational" (eg: spirit) names they are jinxing themselves. Therefore I suggest that the next probes are named things like: "dismal faliure" or "flaming wreck"...

  • Updated graphics (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rxke ( 644923 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:43AM (#7833734) Homepage
    Every 10 minutes another picture of the forthcoming landing:
    http://mars1.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/realtime/mera1.jpg
    and http://mars1.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/realtime/mera3.jpg
    • Note that's simulated, not an actual transmitted image.
      • Simulated or computer-DSP-processed? I mean, is it based on signals received from the crafts?
    • Wow, that must be the mother of webcams! I mean, we have one in our cafeteria to show us when the crowd is smallest, but this really *is* better (even though less useful?).

      Seriously though, I am really excited about this mission. As a European, I am a bit ashamed of the dismal achievement of Beagle 2. But seeing the pictures from Spirit really lifts one's .. spirit up.
      • it's not really a webcam, just some software generated imagery, but still nice enough for me... And, i wouldn't call Beagle a dismall achievement. The fact that it got built is a tremendous achievment. Landing is tough, esp. for a first time (as European probe) I keep hoping, maybe against all odds, that Mars Express (100% successful, BTW) will be able to contact Beagle 2
      • That was what -- your first Mars mission? Take a look at some history to see how many tries it took to get our first photos of Mars. The first attempts failed even worse than Beagle 2 did.

  • When Rover lands (Score:4, Funny)

    by maroberts ( 15852 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:46AM (#7833740) Homepage Journal
    Maybe it could sidle up to Beagle 2 and give it a push out of whatever ditch [bbc.co.uk] it has managed to land in!

    Does Rover carry any jump leads?

  • One of them's BOUND to make it! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @05:49AM (#7833748) Homepage Journal
    The Martians are going to run out of missiles sooner or later!
  • Knowing the (lack of) success of all the previous ESA/NASA/RSA missions to Mars - we will still be looking at Viking 1 photos in press and media releases.

    Yeah yeah ok - maybe not Viking 1, maybe even from the MGS - but only if we pester NASA enough...

    (Note - this isn't a troll. I'm just to fscking tired at 4:00 to come up with something more coherent ok?)

  • Better chances (Score:5, Informative)

    by Naomi_the_butterfly ( 707218 ) on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @06:14AM (#7833789)
    The two mars rovers probably have a better chance of success than the (possibly) failed Beagle 2. Let's consider why:
    Beagle 2 was built on a shoestring budget. Many aspects weren't tested to the extent the NASA rovers were. Example: the Beagle 2 parachute was designed in 8 weeks (as I recall; I may be a bit off here) after the original was revealed to be seriously flawed in the late planning stages. because of time constraints, the parachute was not extensively tested. It was similar with the protective balloons. On the other hand, the NASA rovers (which are virtually identical) were tested for years, every aspect tested again and again, as you can see by listening to the wonderful project scientist interviews at http://www.planetary.org/radio/ (a great group of space related radio shows.... gooooooood good stuff). The extensive testing in the NASA Mars Rover missions wasn't cheap, but there is no major flaw that engineers are 'hoping won't screw us up', unlike (possibly) Beagle 2. With enough luck (we need it, because let's face it, Mars is far away), thse 2 missions will do great. And hey, even if one fails, that's why we've got two!
    • they simply lack instruments for answer to the most interesting question about Mars: Is (Was) there life on the Red Planet?

    • Re:Better chances (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Lispy ( 136512 )
      I was always wondering why, if beagle2 was so cheap they didnt put two or more up on it. I know weight is an issue, but if you can triple your chance of success by adding just 120kilos more weight Id say thats a bargain. I am not as well up to date with the rovers as I am with beagle2 but the overall design looked far more complex than little beagle2. I would love to see them become a success but I cant help the feeling that there are too many things that can break. Lets keep fingers crossed Im wrong. Its t
      • well that's simple (the why, not the stupid beetle jokes).
        the beagle 2 was attached to the Mars Express craft, on which it piggybacked to mars. We didn't need 2 of that. It was designed to go with Mars Express, so a second rover would have been a complete redesign. Why piggyback? it's cheaper.
        as for the testing on the NASA rovers, it was EXTREMELY extensive, far more than any orevious craft ever launched by Earth.
    • The two mars rovers probably have a better chance of success than the (possibly) failed Beagle 2. Let's consider why:

      please don't forget though, space and mars are dangerous places. It is possible for a mission to fail even though nothing went wrong with the probe. A lot of people seem to suggest that beagle failed because it was cheap. I'm not sure that's correct.

  • Yeah... (Score:1, Funny)

    by dupper ( 470576 )
    Have at you, Red Planet! *crash* Take that! *crash* And that! *crash* And THAT! *crash*

    That'll learn 'em to be all, fourth planet from the sun, and stuff.

  • the first of two spacecraft, will touch down around 22:34 on 3 Jan 2004.

    Touch down?
    And not -splash-all-over-the-area-?
    Let's hope so :)

  • Obvious (Score:2, Funny)

    by ByteSlicer ( 735276 )
    They found a big crater right in the middle where Beagle 2 was supposed to land...
    Maybe the parachute just didn't open?

  • They won't be in ORBIT at all. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by An Ominous Cow Erred ( 28892 ) * on Tuesday December 30, 2003 @06:46AM (#7833852)
    ...let us not forget that the Mars Rovers are scheduled for arrival in orbit this weekend.
    Erm, they aren't going to arrive in ORBIT at all. They're simply going to smash straight into Mars's atmosphere without trying to orbit first. Why spend the energy (and thus propellant mass) firing engines to orbit the planet when you actually just want to GET ON THE PLANET? Mars has a thin-but-functional atmosphere that you can use to slow yourself down so you drop for a nice landing. ^_^

  • Singe Point of Failure (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It strikes me that sending a single machine millions of miles through space and then asking it to land on its own on a planet surface you can't see is asking a bit much. The chances for an "oops" are pretty high.

    Why not seed the orbit of the planet you're exploring with a half dozen relay stations, then send thousands of miniature crawlers to the planet as landers, ensuring that clumps of them land in as many different locations as possible? Equip each crawler with a radio transmitter and sensors and hav
  • The free market has provided a better solution than what government proposes (as it always has). It is called insurance.

    If you drive faster than you should, you may notice your insurance rates go way up (or entirely lose insurance). This is what protects the general public from crazed drivers overall -- fear of long term problems if they should crash too often and see their rates go up.

    Fast driving isn't the problem, it is fast driving in circumstances that warrant caution. Law will never be the soluti
  • > Logging on to Beagle2 > Connection openend at 33Kbps > Login: beagle > Password: ... >Wrong password! > Password: ... > Wrong password! > Password: ... > Wrong password, please remove jumper 121 to reset password, system halted
  • "It's not good enough to succeed. Everyone else must fail" Words of wisdom from Larry Ellison and the reason why, when Beagle 2 crashed and desintegrated in a miserable flaming disaster we celebrated Christmas.

Slashdot Top Deals

Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.

Close