Slashdot Mirror
Beagle 2 Probe Lands; No Signal Received Yet
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."
Reuters isn't the only one jumping the gun. Yahoo is headlining this story as "lost in space".
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?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
all these bad jokes about martians etc... yawn Remember, people, the first contact through Odyssey was considered a bit of a long shot... it should have been successful but it wasn't a sure thing. there are 6 more communications attempts programmed into Beagle 2, and Mars Express (the orbiter) was successful. the next communications attempt is in a bit under 7 hours. it's VERY possible that Beagle 2 is just at a funny angle or still charging from the solar panels in order to communicate. Let's not jump straight to 'major failure' etc.
It might even have been better to not make the attempt.
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.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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.
make world, not war
Your comment about the thin atmosphere carrying little force is accurate however you're not really thinking properly about what the real effect on the lander would be.
:-)
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.