Slashdot Mirror


Mars Crater Theory Tries To Explain Missing Beagle

JayBonci writes "CNN is running a piece regarding the failure of the Beagle Mars probe being possibly attributed to a crater landing. It's an interesting story about the variety of forensics being used to try and pick up on the lost craft."

362 comments

  1. Oops by GuyinVA · · Score: 5, Funny

    [homer] D'oh [/homer]

    1. Re:Oops by F34nor · · Score: 1

      That should be a European D'oh e.g Le Dough or Bloody D'oh

    2. Re:Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's another theory....IT'S BROKEN.

    3. Re:Oops by operagost · · Score: 2, Funny

      [snoopy]The accursed Red Baron strikes again![/snoopy]

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Oops by beebware · · Score: 1

      I can see "Mission Control" (the National Space Center here in Leicester) from my window, and I can assure you that we're saying "D'oh" quite a bit (we do speak English here you know: just a little posher than you yankies! ;) )

    5. Re:Oops by The+Dobber · · Score: 2, Funny


      Thank god we weren't aiming for Uranus. Hear that planet is just full of cracks and crevices.

    6. Re:Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "All of your Beagles are belonging to Us!"

    7. Re:Oops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, if you'd said it was a gas giant, you'd have been just as funny with the added bonus of being largely correct.

    8. Re:Oops by mo^ · · Score: 1

      hehehehe (sorry, got no mod points... youll have to settle for the healthy glow from knowing you made my dreary morning a little brighter)

      Just proves that even the lamest meme can be given new life

      --
      bah!*@%!
    9. Re:Oops by neafevoc · · Score: 1

      Thank god we weren't aiming for Uranus.

      Since you mentioned it... ob. Futurama reference :)

      Fry: "Hey, as long as you don't make me smell Uranus." *laughs*
      Leela: "I don't get it."
      Professor: "I'm sorry, Fry, but astronomers renamed Uranus in 2620 to end that stupid joke once and for all."
      Fry: "Oh. What's it called now?"
      Professor: "Urectum. Here, let me locate it for you."
      Fry: "Hehe, no, no, I think I'll just smell around a bit over here."

  2. It's dead, Jim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Kiss it goodbye, wait for the next one.

    Manhours are better spent in the future, rather than the past.

    1. Re:It's dead, Jim. by October_30th · · Score: 1
      Indeed.

      Fortunately it was a cheap probe.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    2. Re:It's dead, Jim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For a second, I thought this was a BSD article. Good thing I'm a moron.

    3. Re:It's dead, Jim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, lets practice reviving something unmaned, because some day we might need to make contact with a maned craft, and it would be nice to have practice before that.

    4. Re:It's dead, Jim. by ChickenAintDone · · Score: 1

      If something is hard, it obviously isn't worth doing.

    5. Re:It's dead, Jim. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Manhours are better spent in the future, rather than the past."

      Ignore the past, and all those manhours spent on the future will be made a futile excercise.

      This is exactly the road we're traveling, unfortunately.

      What good will the knowledge gained from mars ultimately do for humanity when we continualy fail to learn from the most basic lessons of the past here on earth?

      Great, we'll be able to someday possibly have as corrupt and suffering a life on mars ( probably worse ), as we currently have now and in the future on earth.

      We are children with big fancy toys, being parented by bullies (governments) and charlatans (religions) ... all are blind and refuse to admit it.

      The past is the very foundation of the future - and we are on seriously shaky ground.

    6. Re:It's dead, Jim. by shlashdot · · Score: 1

      35m pounds.

      --
      Additional plugins are required to display all the media on this page.
    7. Re:It's dead, Jim. by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1

      When you misplace your car keys, do you just buy a new car?

      Probably not, and there's no reason why they shouldn't continue the search for Beagle 2, Mars Express hasn't even begun trying to talk to it yet (and that's a lot more suited to the task than Odyssey, or the Earth based observatories that were always a long-shot), and B2 automatically cycles through a few more modes allowing it to accept blind commands before they will write this one off.

      The mission hasn't gone as planned to date, but the problems they're experiencing are ones they prepared for... To say their are "failsafes" against this would be wrong, but they still have a chance. Giving up before Mars Express even begins its search would be incredibly wasteful.

  3. Interesting... by yomimono · · Score: 1

    ...that scientists wouldn't carefully scrutinize possible landing points for this craft. Or do the distances involved in space travel not allow for this? If so, I'm surprised we haven't lost more spacecrafts to big craters, gorges, rocks, etc.

    1. Re:Interesting... by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Did you read the article? The target area is 70km long by 45km wide. I don't think there's any area on Mars that big that doesn't have at least one large crater.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    2. Re:Interesting... by October_30th · · Score: 3, Insightful
      The crater is said to be 1 km wide.

      Assuming a circular crater, the cross-section of hitting this crater would be 2%.

      Bad, bad luck.

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:Interesting... by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      A large number of the spacecrafts we put up stay up in space, therefore skipping the need to land, and most things that do land tend to land on Earth which we know a little more about.

      Seems like we've got a 50% failure rate for landing on Mars.

    4. Re:Interesting... by BlewScreen · · Score: 5, Informative
      Interesting indeed...

      From this article:

      [The crater] was only revealed by close-up pictures of the site taken by another NASA orbiter, Mars Global Surveyor, minutes after the British probe was supposed to have landed last Thursday.

      "minutes after" ????

      here's a mapthat shows a couple (from really far away).

      Isidis Planitia is at the equator, 1/4 in from the right - there's a big crater under the "a", but you can see others...

      and here's a close-up

      The gray circular area on the right, in the middle, is the area in question - the crater you can see under the letter "a" in the previous map is the one that's just barely cut off on the right in this one... I think the one they think the probe is in is the one slightly north and about an inch to the west of that one.

      I'm not sure when these were taken, but I was looking at them back in the spring, so they've been up for a while, i.e., not since only "minutes after" the probe disappeared...

      AND, as you can see, it's very easy to tell that there are craters there - and I'm not even a scientist, nor do I have access to ALL the pix of mars...

      -bs

      --
      That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
    5. Re:Interesting... by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Maybe you just have access to more pics of Mars than the European space people....

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    6. Re:Interesting... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Mars Global surveyor passed over the landing site 20mins after the Beagle2 landed, the picture of the landing site is here here

    7. Re:Interesting... by stoops · · Score: 1

      why is this interesting/insightful?

      first of all, what does "Assuming a circular crater, the cross-section of hitting this crater would be 2%" mean?

      nothing. but assuming he means there's a 2% chance of hitting the crater where all spots in the "70km long by 45km wide" area are equally likely, he's wrong. there's a 0.025% chance of hitting a crater that size (area of crater/total area = pi*(0.5)^2/(70*45)).

    8. Re:Interesting... by jdray · · Score: 1

      Sorry if I'm sounding dense, but could you explain the math on that? If the landing area is 70 x 45 km, that's 3150 sq. km. A 1 km dia. crater has an area of (roughly) 0.8 sq. km, which is .025 percent of the overall area. Assuming that the (for illustration, point-sized) probe had an equal chance of hitting any point in the target area, I would say the chance of hitting a 1 km crater is one fortieth of one percent.

      I say all this with the full disclaimer that I've been very wrong on this sort of thing before. That's why I asked for an explanation of your method.

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    9. Re:Interesting... by barakn · · Score: 1

      Pure crap. A 1 km. crater isn't even going to show up on the highest res map you linked.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    10. Re:Interesting... by Wavicle · · Score: 3, Informative

      One not so obvious fact is that the "target area" is approximately oval in shape. The landing area is pi*a*b where a and b are the major and minor radii of the oval. Thus the total area is approximately 3.141 * 35 * 22.5 = 2474 km^2.

      The 1km dia crater has an area of 3.141 * .5^2 = .785 km^2

      So .785 km^2 / 2474 km^2 = .000317 or .03%

      So yeah, 2% doesn't look quite right on its face...

      However, the target area is a probability distribution. The vehicle is not equally likely to touch down at all points within it. It's probably a 3-sigma target area distribution meaning you are something like 99.7% sure that the vehicle will impact within the target area, but points within 1-sigma of the target center are far more likely to be the touchdown points.

      So, without knowing where the crater is in relation to the center of the touchdown spot, it is somewhat hard to say what proportion of the probability landing distribution it occupies. 2% could be an accurate probability if it is sufficiently close to the center of the target area.

      --
      Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
      Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
    11. Re:Interesting... by atam · · Score: 1

      I think the CNN article said that the target area is 70 x 10 km and the crater is close to the center of this area. So it is possible that it could have a higher probability than the uniform distribution.

    12. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Ok, taking a look, if you take a look at the center, just to the left and up are two circular objects. Now, to the left of the smaller one is a small black dot.

      I just scaled it up and there are two funny things about it. The first is that it's very obviously Beagle II, or rather the debris of it. Focus in on the fragment to the lower-left of that dot (you need to scale it up quite radically) and you can clearly see an EU flag (the dark gray square with the white spots in a sort of circle?)

      The other is that, and this has to just be an amazing coincidence, it looks like all the fragments have been arranged (I said it looks like, not that it has been) to form a human face.

      I'm going to blow up a few more of the dots and see what else I can find.

    13. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, this post is just crying out for a goatse.cx link.

    14. Re:Interesting... by barakn · · Score: 1

      Isidis Planitia is ~1500 km in diameter, your "close-up" shows it roughly 300 pixels wide, and so the scale is ~ 5 km/pixel. The crater in question is only 1 km. wide, so don't try to convince us it's visible.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    15. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange, I used fractal enlargement and it looks like a goatse formation.

    16. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what happened, you see. I Crater! Darn, didn't think that would matter...

    17. Re:Interesting... by Craig3010 · · Score: 0

      Shit dude! You didn't have to go there!

      Math....baaaaaaaaaaad

    18. Re:Interesting... by BlewScreen · · Score: 1
      I wasn't really trying to convince anyone - unfortunately, I stupidly convinced myself...

      Regardless, I was replying to the observation that scientists didn't seem to have scrutinized their choice of landing sites all that well. From simply looking at the pix I attached, I noticed that there is an abundance of craters visible in that area. As you point out, the ones you can see are very big.

      If they assumed they wouldn't run into a crater in the area they selected because they couldn't see too many on a picture with a scale similar to the one I linked to above, that still seems like a pretty dumb assumption..

      But you are correct that I was badly mistaken. When I first read about this, I failed to notice that they had picked an area w/in Isidis Planitia. I thought the size of the area they stated (70 x 45 km or whatever) was the size of IP, not just a section w/in.

      Again, my mistake was unintentional... I'll try to get my brain to pay more attention in the future :)

      -bs

      --
      That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
    19. Re:Interesting... by barakn · · Score: 1

      Well, you had a valid point in there somewhere. It is rather amazing that they had the equipment in orbit with the capability of taking high-res photos, but only did so for the landing site after the landing.

      --
      "I'm so moist I'm sticking to the leather." -Kermit the Frog on The Late Late Show
    20. Re:Interesting... by Aumaden · · Score: 1

      The question is:

      Was the crater there before Beagle arrived?

  4. We will find out in 200 years by g-san · · Score: 0, Redundant

    WE used to sail ships manned with real pirates back in my day and this sort of thing didn't happen.

  5. They need to just tell us the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    It was aliens. We know they don't want us poking around their planet and are shooting down our probes. Time to take a hint. I think the Venusians are less hostile anyway.

    1. Re:They need to just tell us the truth by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      It was aliens. We know they don't want us poking around their planet and are shooting down our probes. Time to take a hint. I think the Venusians are less hostile anyway.

      Think again! Every probe we've ever sent to the surface of Venus has been melted and crushed within about two hours or less! Obviously, the Venusians are turning their hideous death rays on our craft each time.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:They need to just tell us the truth by YOU+LIKEWISE+FAIL+IT · · Score: 2, Funny

      All These Worlds Are Yours - Except Europa^H^H^H^H^H^HMars. Attempt No Landings There.

      ( Shamelessly stolen from Fark )
      --
      One god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
    3. Re: They need to just tell us the truth by gidds · · Score: 3, Funny
      Don't be silly, I'm sure nothing like th--

      Hey, anyone see that flare? Spurting out from Mars - bright green, drawing a green mist behind it. It's beautiful, but somehow disturbing...

      --

      Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

    4. Re:They need to just tell us the truth by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      and Mars is the God of war after all. Best not mess with him.

    5. Re:They need to just tell us the truth by waynemcdougall · · Score: 1
      That's why we need to change our approach.

      First as the probe comes in, we should broasdcast something like:

      We the people of Earth greet you in a spirit of peace and humility

      Follow that up with a little Vivalid rather than that Bleargh (which would be the main cause of the conflict).

      Then follow up with a Mars-shattering antimatter kaboom!

      Walk. Don't run. We come in peace.

      --
      Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
    6. Re:They need to just tell us the truth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vivaldi is the inventor of elevator music. Put some Sibelius in there!

    7. Re:They need to just tell us the truth by kyknos.org · · Score: 1

      It was great mistake of ESA to let Beagle communicate with American Oddyssey. Americans have found SOMETHING (aliens???) on Mars and wont let anybody to see it. It is classified. So Oddyssey reprogrammed Beagle to remain silent. Its tru, believe me. It is the reason American landers has no known instruments toi detect or analyze life.

      --

      SHE does throw dice.
    8. Re:They need to just tell us the truth by Chelloveck · · Score: 1

      Damn! I knew we should have been sending probes to Venus!

      --
      Chelloveck
      I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
  6. Think.. by Shky · · Score: 5, Funny

    No no, see he did it.

    --
    CC Licensed Serialized Story and Podcast: Ingenioustries
    1. Re:Think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    2. Re:Think.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. Zauis?

  7. This crater... by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 5, Interesting
    is a 1km diameter crater in the middle of a 70 by 10km square. That means there's about a 1 in 700 chance that Beagle actually landed in it. There's probably, a say, 1 in 10 chance that the landing bags blew up on landing.

    I don't think that's the way to bet somehow.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    1. Re:This crater... by Rimbo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why not consider all possibilities?

      In all likelihood, the Beagle 2's landing made the crater. ;)

    2. Re:This crater... by SkArcher · · Score: 3, Insightful

      by 'blew up' do you mean 'inflated' or 'exploded'? Your sentence changes meaning depending on which it is read as...

      That said, We don't really have any option but to do high risk probes. If we were only willing to accept a 95% success probability we would never send a probe in the first place.

      With our current level of technology, it is the hard way or not at all.

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    3. Re:This crater... by aheath · · Score: 4, Informative

      The BBC News web site has a story with a picture of the crater.

    4. Re:This crater... by BWJones · · Score: 1

      That means there's about a 1 in 700 chance that Beagle actually landed in it. There's probably, a say, 1 in 10 chance that the landing bags blew up on landing.

      Or......a 1 in say.....20 chance that the aliens got this one too. They are starting to build quite the collection. :-)

      --
      Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
    5. Re:This crater... by Otter · · Score: 2, Informative
      This crater...is a 1km diameter crater in the middle of a 70 by 10km square. That means there's about a 1 in 700 chance that Beagle actually landed in it.

      I agree with your thesis, but to nitpick: you're assuming equal probability that the probe lands anywhere in the target area. If the crater is really "in the middle", that might significantly elevate the probability of hitting it. (And as long as I'm complaining, 700/(.5^2 * pi) = 892.)

      Agreed on the landing bags, though.

    6. Re:This crater... by beebware · · Score: 1

      That's my personal "best guess theory" by the way. After all, it appears nobody knew about this crater BEFORE Beagle2 "landed/crashed", yet afterwards there's this great big crater where Beagle2 should have been....

    7. Re:This crater... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > in the middle of a 70 by 10km square
      Reply:
      > I agree with your thesis, but to nitpick:
      > [snip]

      If I were going to nitpick, I would start by stating that 70 by 10 km squares are very rare indeed...

    8. Re:This crater... by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Nor would we have ever landed on the moon, nor entered orbit, nor broken the sound barrier. Space is a risky business, and you have to admire the guts of the guys and gals who sit on top of tens of thousands of tons of high explosives, all in the name of science. Risky probes don't even compare.

      The only thing we risk with probes is cash and time. While I don't want to see it wasted, I agree that we have to be willing to take some serious chances when it comes to space exploration with probes if we ever expect to gain any significant benefits.

      In the US, we have a little check box on our yearly tax forms that allows us to give $1 (or more) to a fund for political candidates who stay within spending restrictions (yawn). I bet if we had a seperate check box to give $1 (or more) for space exploration, you would see many little checked boxes every year. We are more likely to get results with NASA having an extra $1 than any political candidate.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    9. Re:This crater... by Nate+B. · · Score: 1

      Ummmm, they're not aliens. They are the natives of Mars that would rightly percieve our probes as being of an alien nature that must be destroyed!

      --

      "Insanity is doing the same thing over again expecting a different result."
    10. Re:This crater... by niom · · Score: 1
      And as long as I'm complaining, 700/(.5^2 * pi) = 892.

      And don't forget to complain about that 70 by 10 "square" ;)

      --
      -- Repeat with me: "There is no right to profits".
    11. Re:This crater... by Krapangor · · Score: 1
      by 'blew up' do you mean 'inflated' or 'exploded'? Your sentence changes meaning depending on which it is read as...

      Do you think that Beagle 2 is a RealProbe (tm) ?

      --
      Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    12. Re:This crater... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be a rectangle...

    13. Re:This crater... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      And don't forget to complain about that 70 by 10 "square" ;)

      No kidding, everyone knows craters are round. ;)

    14. Re:This crater... by homer_ca · · Score: 1

      Blow up might not be the best description of the failure mode. Sharp rocks can rip the airbags, causing them to deflate.

    15. Re:This crater... by IM6100 · · Score: 1

      Naw. If NASA got more money, they'd just buy new filing cabinets. That, and the cost of the Unionized labor to move out the old and install the new filing cabinets, and they'd probably end up having LESS money for space exploration.

      --
      A Good Intro to NetBS
    16. Re:This crater... by Cujo · · Score: 1

      I like this idea, but it would have to be a bit more than $1 to make much of a difference. Me, I'd put in 2 orders of magnitue more if I thought it would go straight into high ROI projects.

      --

      Helium balloons want to be free.

  8. Yeah, that makes sense. by Limburgher · · Score: 5, Funny

    I mean, if it landed hard enough to make a crater, I'm sure it probably stopped working entirely! ;)

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Yeah, that makes sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Landing in a crater" and "Lading as a crater" are pretty close word wise.

    2. Re:Yeah, that makes sense. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      if it landed hard enough to make a crater

      They can name it Denial Crater.

  9. Re:neato by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yay! Nice picture, Daddy.

    Now draw me a cow.

    A big moocow with horns on the head.

  10. Money. by readpunk · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think all space related failures should be blamed on the lack of funding NASA receives. Soldiers don't need guns. They need to be sent out weapon less and that extra money should go to the space program.

    I am not trolling I really believe this. Huzzah!

    --

    ./revolution
    1. Re:Money. by milgr · · Score: 1

      I didn't think NASA spent any money on this mission. It was funded by the UK (or the EU).

      --
      Where law ends, tyranny begins -- William Pitt
    2. Re:Money. by myowntrueself · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Too right!

      I don't trust *anyone* with guns. Not even the police and military...

      Make that *especially* not the police or military!

      --
      In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
    3. Re:Money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm guessing you think Nasa funds the European Space Agency. Yes?

    4. Re:Money. by Uma+Thurman · · Score: 2, Informative

      The Beagle 2 spacecraft was a European effort. NASA didn't build it.

      On the other hand, NASA has two spacecraft on the way to Mars right now. The first one will land on January 3rd.

      Cross your fingers.

      --
      This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
    5. Re:Money. by Tackhead · · Score: 2, Funny
      > On the other hand, NASA has two spacecraft on the way to Mars right now. The first one will land on January 3rd.

      No, it will land on a crater. *tadabump*.

    6. Re:Money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that they both receive sub-rosa funding from the Trilateral Commission. These are not scientific missions, they are launching our precious bodily fluids off to the Martians to keep them from using their earthquake-ray. It's vile extortion, but what else would you expect from aliens?

    7. Re:Money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you really feel this way dosn't mean your not trolling...

      freak!

    8. Re:Money. by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 2, Funny
      On the other hand, NASA has two spacecraft on the way to Mars right now. The first one will land on January 3rd.
      Now if NASA started a gambling departement, they could take bets on where the probe would land and in how many pieces. They might be able to fund their missions with it.
    9. Re:Money. by readpunk · · Score: 1

      Did you actually believe my statement, considering it's content, would be topical?

      --

      ./revolution
  11. Cool! by rune.w · · Score: 5, Funny

    Would that make it the longest hole-in-one in History?

    R.
    1. Re:Cool! by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      What was the par for that hole? Did the Beagle make an eagle?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    2. Re:Cool! by vsprintf · · Score: 1

      Would that make it the longest hole-in-one in History?

      Now that I've stopped laughing, is there a Slashdot award for best cruel joke of the year?

    3. Re:Cool! by Major+Wedgie · · Score: 1

      Congrats... I just spilled coffee on myself because of this comment... :) (Note to self, put down hot beverages while reading /.)

  12. useless by pooman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Why are we spending money to send things to mars? Do we really care if there is bacterial life on mars any way?

    1. Re:useless by Pumpernickle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, because bacteria and other life forms that develop in extreme conditions can offer interesting information on how life develops. (As well as more practical uses in medicine, as they probably have some unique and hopefully applicable properties.)

    2. Re:useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bacteria that may very well eat cancerous tissue for lunch perhaps?

    3. Re:useless by kclittle · · Score: 1
      Maybe even bacteria that eat Beagles for lunch?

      --
      Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    4. Re:useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      g chxgmdx

    5. Re:useless by Rimbo · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Do we really care if there is bacterial life on mars any way?


      Short answer: Yes.

      Long answer:

      It is highly likely that human beings as a species will outgrow the Earth's resources. At that point we can either enact draconian measures to limit reproduction, or more realistically, we can begin to reach out to other worlds. One added benefit of reaching out to other worlds is that it prevents the old "all your eggs in one basket" problem: If an asteroid takes out Earth or something, humanity gets wiped out. I'd like to keep the species going... I like humans.

      With fava beans and a nice chianti.

      Anyway, knowing more about the universe outside of this globe makes us better able to move beyond. For my money, the sooner, the better.

      Ultimately space exploration is for the same cause as environmentalism to me: It's about our continued survival and growth as a species.
    6. Re:useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At that point we can either enact draconian measures to limit reproduction, or more realistically, we can begin to reach out to other worlds.

      According to Paul Ehlrich's 1968 book "The Population Bomb" we would of been eating each other by now for lack of food.

    7. Re:useless by kclittle · · Score: 1
      I think this is Martian for "needs more salt".

      --
      Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
    8. Re:useless by Rimbo · · Score: 4, Informative
      According to Paul Ehlrich's 1968 book "The Population Bomb" we would of been eating each other by now for lack of food.


      What happened was twofold.

      1. Food production technology continued to improve.
      2. Several billion people were never born.

      And what's really happening is that we're getting better at distributing and producing food faster than we are at making babies. What's more, countries like China and India that have imposed reproduction limitations are, combined with a desire to have male children, going to see their populations plummet if the measures remain effective.

      Which is why I think the more effective argument isn't the population growth as much as the "all eggs in one basket" issue. Sure, the probability of getting hit by a large enough asteroid is small, but it only takes one...
    9. Re:useless by You+Been+Rob-ed! · · Score: 1

      China and India may have imposed reproduction limits, but that's not even necessarily required. Europeans are hardly reproducing themselves at all anymore. In Italy for example, couples have on average 1.4 children, a sure formula for population decline. Almost all of Europe's population growth is in immigration. So the real answer to overpopulation is the "good life"!

      --
      For fun, calculate how much DDT would be lethal for you!
  13. The BBC has a report as well by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Funny

    It says it was a "recently discovered crater". I trust it wasn't caused by the impact from Beagle2 crash-landing.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3354271.stm

    1. Re:The BBC has a report as well by SkArcher · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The crater is about 1Km across. Beagle2 is the size of a dinner plate. The crater Beagle2 would have caused at terminal martial velocity would be much smaller than 1Km - and that is before you consider mass loss due to air friction on the heat shield.

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    2. Re:The BBC has a report as well by Fr33z0r · · Score: 1
      The crater is about 1Km across. Beagle2 is the size of a dinner plate.
      Actually, it's a bit bigger than that... From the Beagle 2 FAQ - "Once Beagle 2 disposes of its outer shell and heat shields and only the lander remains, it is about 660mm (26 inches) - the size of an average bicycle wheel - in diameter and 119mm (5 inches) deep at the centre."

      How big a crater could Beagle 2 have made if it impacted at full-speed (i.e. if all the stuff it was due to do to slow itself down had failed)? My guess is "pretty big", maybe it couldn't make a 1km crater, but it wouldn't really surprise me if it had.
  14. My theory is better: by Eberlin · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comic Theory:
    Marvin the Martian just got a new barbecue grill for Christmas.

    Conspiracy Theory:
    World governments chipped in to send the barbecue grill to Marvin so as to appease the martian and prevent a loud Earth-shattering Kaboom!

    Solution:
    Get Duck Dodgers to get our grill back.

    1. Re:My theory is better: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can we wait until the 24 and a half century though?

  15. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Still better than killing people in a crapy shuttle.

  16. forensics need evidence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They don't even know if Beagle survived the descent or landing so forensics is a misnomer.

    How about CYA or an all out assgrab bullshit session to save funding and find another project.

    Not flaming, just pointing out that ALL is conjecture til they spot the thing with the orbiter.

  17. This way, there is always time for another probe.. by Soulfarmer · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It takes that much time to lose one of those Mars probes, I mean from earth to mars it still does take more than overnight trip to get to, that people will have time to build new ones before they even know they lost the latest probe...

    --
    -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
  18. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    well, in the case of beagle it was 35 million quid which as had often been said is less than your average hollywood blockbuster. Difference is you can't download beagle 2 off kazaa.

  19. Summary by Cee · · Score: 2, Informative

    From the article:
    While they cannot make out the ship itself, the image shows a 1 km (0.62 mile) wide crater at the center of the 70 by 10 km (43.5 by 6 mile) target area near the Martian equator, Pillinger said. It is possible, although unlikely, that the Beagle may be unable to communicate because it landed in the crater, he said.
    "This would be an incredibly unlucky situation," he said.


    So, according to the theory, the probe didn't make a crater, it landed in one. Just to make things clear.

    1. Re:Summary by SkArcher · · Score: 1

      Surely you aren't suggesting that someone might *gasp* post on /. without having read the article first, are you. I am deeply shocked, surely such a thing could never happen!

      --

      An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of /.
    2. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So... why were they trying to land it in an area with a crater in the first place? I thought they would have actually done some work in selecting a landing area first?

      Or is it a case of "we're so cool, we will do this without the americans' help" that it became "we don't know what we're doing, but act like we do so the americans won't get wind of it".

    3. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are such a tard. Have you ever seen a shot of Mars with no crater in it?

    4. Re:Summary by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "So, according to the theory, the probe didn't make a crater, it landed in one. Just to make things clear."

      You just know somebody at NASA shouted "nothin but net!"

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    5. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You just know somebody at NASA shouted "nothin but net!"

      Not even close to funny.

  20. A creater is one possibility... by Arrawa · · Score: 1

    But it could have crashed too.

    "It is possible, although unlikely, that the Beagle may be unable to communicate because it landed in the crater, he said."

    Speculations, speculations...

  21. Re:how about by BigBir3d · · Score: 1

    #include <nasty_disease.h>

    ("preview wha...?")

  22. Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1, Interesting



    1) Fell into a crater?! Come on! The landing area was intentionally selected to be free of any obstructions.. It's a goddamn flood plane. An area near the equator specifically selected to be as flat, and as crater-free as possible! The lander is about as likely to be sitting in the bottom of a crater as Michael Jackson's shoulder is likely to be dislocated. Zero.

    2) You get what you pay for. British engineering jokes aside (*cough*)fighterplanesmadeoutofwood(*cough), the airbags they were originally going to use on the lander failed. Their last-minute replacement wasn't even tested.

    --
    Bowie J. Poag

    1. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by elFarto+the+2nd · · Score: 1

      The crater moved at the last moment, HONEST!!

      Regards
      elFarto
    2. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Never let the facts get in the way of a good troll. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3354271.stm. Note the "recently discovered" and the bit about last Sunday.

      2) "You get what you pay for". This is slashdot. I don't need to make the obvious MS/Linux point.

    3. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, at least their main accomplishment in life isn't making swirly patterns in the gimp.

    4. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Mac+Degger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      *cough*basicsofmaterialscience*cough*usebestmateri alsforjob*cough*

      Although you're spot on about the airbags. Hell, the original pair blew up during pressure testing too!

      But don't overestimate our geographical knowledge of Mars, or underestimate Mars' irregularity. Landing something in an unfamiliar, hostile atmosphere without complete knowlede of the landing zone is difficult. Just have a look at where the Mars Rover was meant to go and where it actually landed for a good idea of the uncertainties involved.

      --
      -- Waht? Tehr's a preveiw buottn?
    5. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Troll,

      My main accomplishment in life is not "making swirly patterns in gimp". However, it should be noted that none of my "swirly patterns" ever went tits-up due to bad engineering. Infact, they worked so well that trolls like you remember them, and apparently still use them.

      I just find it awful that rather than be true scientists, these schmucks are trying to spin the living hell out of this situation to save face. The right thing to say would be that the Beagle 2 died from bad engineering, not bad luck. It's engineering shortcomings have been known and debated publically for months.

      What you need to understand is that Newtonian physics will get ANY probe 99.999% of the way there. Thats leaves 0.001% of the work up to engineering. If they can't get the remaining 0.001% down, they should go back to designing things like shoes and lollipops. 1950's technology put us on the Moon. 1960's technology put us on Venus and Mars. These people want you to believe that 90's technology put us in a crater.

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    6. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by vudufixit · · Score: 1

      You cite British planes made of wood, but American aircraft carrier decks were made of wood, too - how silly.

      The Brits had proper armored decks for their carriers.

    7. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Nivag353 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, we British did make a twin engined fighter (named the Mosquito) out of wood. The Germans hated the Mosquito, it flew too high and too fast for them to shoot it down. Also, when they did managed to hit one, it generally survived to get back to base.

      Back on topic:
      The budget for the Beagle was very small, and to be honest I think it was way too small to give the probe a decent chance. However, I know of another country with huge budgets for space who often fail too.

      My personal opinion is that the airbags failed. Having airtight material closely folded and kept that way for months in a vacuum at very low temperatures, seems asking for trouble.

      I sometimes despair at my Government, when it comes to space exploration. I find it amazing that they will fund anything for space, so I shouldn't be so surprised at such a small budget.

      It will be interesting to see when the Chinese begin to send probes to Mars, and how successful, or otherwise, they will be.

      -Nivag

    8. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, and you acuse other ppl of trolling. They're still investigating what happened - making suppositions and then seeing if the evidence supports them - this is called "science". So what if Beagle 2 wents tits up - at least we can investigate how to make Beagle 3 better.

    9. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True scientists? Which tenant of the scientic method are they not upholding?

      Bad engineering? What is 'bad' about their engineering? Please, give exact details. Methinks you don't know very much about either science or engineering, and even less about at the design of probes sent to Mars.

      As an aside, what exactly is your "main accomplishment in life?" I certainly can't think of anything noteworthy.

    10. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, by no means is it an exact science. But part of the mistake the Beagle 2 team made was in designing the lander to match what they expected to find. While sure, it's great if everything goes as planned....but if it doesn't, you're stuck with the equivalent of a one-legged man in the asskicking contest. Good luck.

      A simple example--Suppose the rover had to disembark from the lander on its own, without human guidance. The lander is wedged up against a rock that wont allow the petals to fully open. Guess what. With the current design, that would have been impossible. At the end of the day, you'll have exactly the same thing you had at the start--a multi-million dollar hunk of metal wedged up against a rock with no hope of escape.

      Solution: A retractable rod that can be positioned by the lander, and used as a cane to "shove" itself off of nearby objects it gets hung up on. How about stronger motors in the petals? Or better yet, software to control the petals in such a way as to allow the lander itself to "crawl around" before deploying the rover? Hell, wind up a bigass coiled steel spring and mount it underneath the lander prior to launch. Tell the lander, "If you end up in a crater and don't hear anything from Earth, trigger the spring." Boing. No matter where it ends up coming to rest, at least you've got another chance at contacting it, versus no chance in hell.

      I could build the equivalent of those with $50 worth of parts from Ace Hardware. Why couldn't they?

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    11. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      what's the difference between bad engineering and bad luck in this case?

      what exactly? that you didn't engineer it well enough to combat every hazard possible? that you didn't know beforehand that it was going to fail?

      hell, they _knew_ beforehand that it could very well fail due to 'bad luck'(due to their inability to make it perfect in every sense of the word, having to stay on schedule and on budget). they knew that there were risk factors, wether it mattered or not was up to just luck.

      it was bad luck that it wasn't engineered for what happened to it(which is unknown).

      what you need to understand is that the following is just made up shit: "What you need to understand is that Newtonian physics will get ANY probe 99.999% of the way there. Thats leaves 0.001% of the work up to engineering. If they can't get the remaining 0.001% down, they should go back to designing things like shoes and lollipops. 1950's technology put us on the Moon. 1960's technology put us on Venus and Mars. These people want you to believe that 90's technology put us in a crater.
      " with made up numbers and very little relevance to anything(they did get it there, they didn't get it down there safely, and this has been a problem with previous mars probes just as well).
      -

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    12. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Lispy · · Score: 1

      1. Weight.
      2. It would break. It only "survived" the landing with the airbags. without them it would break if it bounces. This is not a thoughbook, well, it should have been. ;-)

    13. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by smitty45 · · Score: 0, Troll

      You deserve all the shit and disrespect you receive here. Isn't it clear to you yet that your opinion isn't worth crap here ?

      No, you're probably too busy trying to make goofy aqua crap that no one will use, making 4th grade anime jokes, whining about outsourcing, sobbing about RedHat and pretending to be Jakob Nielsen to notice that.

      My mistake. Go back to crying and whining.

    14. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by jabberjaw · · Score: 1

      (*cough*)fighterplanesmadeoutofwood(*cough)
      Ok, i'll bite. I am assuming you are referring to the DH98 de Havilland Mosquito which was crafted of wood and glue. This little wooden wonder could carry the same payload as the American B-17 (with a crew numbering four as apposed to eleven) using less petrol and delivering the payload much quicker. In additon to this, once the payload was dropped the Mosquito could actually outrun many German fighters. Find out more here

    15. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1


      1) Weight Horsepower.. Most of the stuff being tossed at Mars as of late is comparably underpowered and flimsy compared to what we were sending back in the 70's. None of this "air bag" crap. Burning retros on the way down is the way to go.

      2) Roll-cage. And besides, even if you lose some instrumentation in the "bounce", thats a helluvalot better than losing EVERYTHING, sitting, wedged up against a rock you wont ever be able to get away from.

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    16. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by r00tdenied · · Score: 1

      Burning retros on the way down is the way to go.



      This show how ignorant you are. . .the Polar lander in '99 used retros and it still crashed. Get a clue.

      --
      Platinum Networks Hosting www.platinum-networks.com
    17. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Bowie+J.+Poag · · Score: 1

      Judging from your posting history, you seem to have an abnormal fascination with me. Infact, judging from that link, it seems you make it a point to follow me practically on a daily basis.

      Here's a hint, troll. If you're going to ride someones coattails, wipe your feet first. Otherwise...step off.

      --
      Bowie J. Poag

    18. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      A simple example--Suppose the rover had to disembark from the lander on its own, without human guidance. The lander is wedged up against a rock that wont allow the petals to fully open. Guess what. With the current design, that would have been impossible. At the end of the day, you'll have exactly the same thing you had at the start--a multi-million dollar hunk of metal wedged up against a rock with no hope of escape.

      Rover? What rover?

      Are you reading Mars Pathfinder pages by accident?

      I could build the equivalent of those with $50 worth of parts from Ace Hardware. Why couldn't they?

      Well, you'd have to test these new features. Redesign the power subsystems so they'll cope with the additional current drain (oops, the batteries need to be heavier!) Rewrite the software. Build the new hardware so it can survive the launch, six months of huge temperature fluctuations and hard vacuum, an incredibly violent reentry, being slammed into a dusty plain at tens of kilometers per hour and finally a near-vacuum with more big temperature fluctuations. And finally, make sure these additions don't weigh too much - there was a tiny mass budget for Beagle 2, and they only just made it as it was.

      Easy, huh?

    19. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "1) Fell into a crater?! Come on! The landing area was intentionally selected to be free of any obstructions.. It's a goddamn flood plane."

      You understand it wasn't a human at the controls, right? It had to be pre-programmed in order to get to that state. I'm not the least bit surprised that a.) It missed its target or b.) we weren't aware there was a crater there.

      Get a clue, we're talking about Mars here, not Neverland Ranch.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    20. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) Weight Horsepower.. Most of the stuff being tossed at Mars as of late is comparably underpowered and flimsy compared to what we were sending back in the 70's. None of this "air bag" crap. Burning retros on the way down is the way to go.

      Viking landers 1 and 2 had a fundamental design flaw - if they landed with one leg on a rock, they would have tipped over and been destroyed. One lander was surrounded by the things - it was sheer luck that it landed on a clear patch of ground.

      Contrast this with the airbag route, where it'll bounce straight off a rock. The airbags give some space around the lander when they deflate, and the lander's motors are fairly chunky, giving it a fighting chance against any smaller rocks it might be up against.

      Retro-rockets add complexity, which add even more avenues for failure. Look at the Mars Polar Lander. Sadly, it appears that Beagle 2 wasn't up to scratch either - but let's wait for the people who built the damn thing to decide what went wrong.

    21. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Yes, we British did make a twin engined fighter (named the Mosquito) out of wood. The Germans hated the Mosquito, it flew too high and too fast for them to shoot it down. Also, when they did managed to hit one, it generally survived to get back to base."

      Here's a picture of the plane that survived being shot down a few times.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    22. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by smitty45 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Don't flatter yourself. Take a look at your own posting history and replies to them...I wasn't aware of how much a wiseass curmudgeon you were until someone else pointed it out to me. Ironically, I seem to remember it being in a thread where you accuse some other jamoke for "following" you. Apparently there's a trend.

      Get over yourself. If you're gonna post idiotic statements, you're gonna get flamed, simple as that. The fix: post something that has some sort of intelligent fact, not self-centered diatribe.

    23. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Mossie was a nice plane, but you are wrong in some of your facts. The Mosquito could carry 1,500 lbs (2,000 for the torpedo variant). The most popular B-17 (G) could carry 9,600 pounds. Even the first massed produced model (E) could carry 4,000 pounds.

    24. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Infact, they worked so well that trolls like you remember them, and apparently still use them."

      Psst, your home page is linked right under your username. It's not that he remembered, he just spotted it. It doesn't make him any less of a troll, but it does deflate the "well it's so well engineered everybody remember sit" argument.

      As for his trolling, you did dismiss a lot of data for a not-so-solid reason.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    25. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by w42w42 · · Score: 1

      Re #1: My first though also was that there was a lot of spin on this story, and it was getting a bit out there. As long as the possibility does exist though that it can still be salvaged, perhaps it is just well placed optimism.

      Re #2: Someone being able to make do with what they have and still build what they need would be a sign of good engineering, in my mind. The British Hawker Huricane I believe was made out of wood, probably a more important (numerically at least) fighter than the spitfire. Considering the comment was on wood, how about this German creation, arguably better than anything the allies had - and constructed out of wood.

    26. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just reading your recent comment history demonstrates to me that you're a net kook. You can point the finger at anyone you want, but when people come across your posts it's going to be you that's labeled the kook. It's not by accident.

    27. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      And that's not even getting into the subject of range.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    28. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by frostman · · Score: 1

      So you admit the Martians are hostile!!

      *cough* *marsattacks* *cough* *waroftheworlds* *cough* *marvin* *cough*

      --

      This Like That - fun with words!

    29. Re:Yes, yes, blame it on a crater... Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe all these options have been considered during the design process... those people are suppose to be smarter than we are...

  23. Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by placeclicker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    IANAE(ngineer), but if the Beagle cannot send or receive any data, is it programmed it to keep working, e.g. collect soil samples, even if it is cut off from communication, or will it simply sit dead if cannot send or receive signals?

    And if this cost millions(?) of dollars to create, just to get stuck in a hole, how hard would it have been to program it to move around, and try to get somewhere where its communications would work?

    --

    Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
    1. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Soulfarmer · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... if Beagle's communications are dead for good, who would benefit from those soil samples and so on? I mean... Beagle is on the darn planet, it has all the soil it will ever need, no purpose there, and if Earth cannot get any info about those samples... why bother.

      --
      -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
    2. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by placeclicker · · Score: 1

      Well yes, but thats kind of where the second question came up ;p. It seems kind of foolish that it would essentially be dead if its communications fail temporarily..

      --

      Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
    3. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 4, Funny

      who would benefit from those soil samples and so on?

      For soil samples, I suggest collecting them on the flight director's chair, as soon as he stops staring widly at the screen and goes take a break.

      --
      "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    4. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was designed to be lightweight. Adding motorised wheels or legs or whatever would have rendered it useless. You pays your money, you makes your choices.

    5. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by swright · · Score: 1

      no link to back this up, but the guy with the beard who was running the project said on TV the other day that Beagle could function on its own for 20 days with no communication.

      I think then it needed to be told to recharge its batteries (i.e. it wouldn't do that automatically and would then die from lack of juice)

    6. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Lispy · · Score: 3, Informative

      You seem as you are really unaware so let me explain:
      1. No, it won't start the experiments on it's own afaik. But it will fall into an emergency mode where it sends continously in case it's clock is broken. This might be Mars Express (the ESA-Orbiter) chance to pick up the signal and reset Beagle2.

      2. Beagle was a cheapo mission therefore making it move would have cost a lot of money (even if it only was for the extraweight). It was already cheap and even if it cost millions it was very inexpensive compared to the Pathfinder or the incoming M2K4-Landers from Nasa.

      3. Moving around Mars is hard, even harder when you are an autonomous robot. The biggest "moves" we made up there was the Marsrover wich was basically a small remote controlled car that went as far as 10 meters away from it's landing site (that's my assumption, not sure on the exact distance).

      cu,
      Lispy

    7. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANAE(ngineer), but if the Beagle cannot send or receive any data, is it programmed it to keep working, e.g. collect soil samples, even if it is cut off from communication, or will it simply sit dead if cannot send or receive signals?

      It'll continue to try to establish communications, but it won't move on to execute any scientific tasks. It's better to save the batteries for further attempts to establish communications than to waste them on stuff that noone would get to know about anyway.

      And if this cost millions(?) of dollars to create, just to get stuck in a hole, how hard would it have been to program it to move around, and try to get somewhere where its communications would work?

      It can't move around, it only has a probe that can reach a few feets away. If it has landed in a bad place then, unfortunately, it's stuck there.

    8. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Soil samples, not soiled samples.

    9. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      The best information I've come up with from news reports is that the Beagle needed an active signal in order to start charging it's battery.
      I assume this means it would need to have been told where to point the solar panel or something like that. But the news articles I read made it not sound silly, like some control-freak designed it and chose not to use an automatic system. I know it cannot be that simple. But it seems to me, this sort of failure ought to be planned for from the beginning, and the lander should be able to do something useful (anything), rather than just become a piece of pollution.

      Maybe they didn't decontaminate it either. In a few billion years there will be life on Mars which has evolved from our microbes :-)

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    10. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure about that, Beagle is able to sense when it's daylight and charge it's batteries whenever it spots it's light enough to do so.

      At some point over the next few days it's programmed to check whether it's received any communciations from Mars Odyssey etc and if not to begin transmitting a constant signal whenever it has enough to do so, I would guess it would need specific instructions to start doing it's surveying of rocks etc so right now it's just sitting there recharging it's batteries and waiting for someone to talk to it.

    11. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      The question is: Does Mars have poop'n'scoop laws? Do we have to pick up after that Beagle?

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    12. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      I assume this means it would need to have been told where to point the solar panel or something like that. But the news articles I read made it not sound silly, like some control-freak designed it and chose not to use an automatic system. I know it cannot be that simple.
      My guess is that it can't communicate or perform usefull tasks while it's recharging. And perhaps they want to be able to control when it's not active.
      Another guess would be that an automatic system would be too expensive in cost and weight.
    13. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cu,

      Not if I see you first.

    14. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought the soil sample would be found spinning in the office fan:

      Striker: "The oil pressure, I forgot to check the oil pressure. When Kramer hears about this, the shit's gonna hit the fan" ( We see shit hitting a fan )

    15. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by wass · · Score: 4, Insightful
      It was already cheap and even if it cost millions it was very inexpensive compared to the Pathfinder or the incoming M2K4-Landers from Nasa.

      I just want to chime in here a bit.

      People have been saying NASA missions are much more costly than Beagle 2, and therefore NASA is wasteful (this was implied by BBC and later removed from articles after they couldn't contact the craft).

      Pathfinder was a Discovery class mission, and had a budget of $250 million. This is about 4x Beagle's budget of $60 million.

      If anybody wants to say NASA is wasteful by looking at those numbers, they must realize the following

      • Beagle 2 made use of the parachute/airbag landing system that was tested and demonstrated by the Pathfinder team
      • Pathfinder had an autonomous (ie, not controlled realtime by a human) rover while Beagle 2 has a robotic arm.
      • Pathfinder (IIRC) had a high-gain antenna which could communicate w/ Earth while Beagle 2 only has low-gain antenna to communicate with Mars orbiting craft with small hopes of Earth receiver arrays of detecting the craft.
      Beagle 2 may have been cheaper but that doesn't mean it was necessarily more efficiently planned. Pathfinder had more complicated tasks to conduct, and also had more rigorous testing, and thus cost more.

      It's just annoying to see BBC showing nationalistic bias and taking jabs at NASA when we should all really be working together in the exploration process. Especially in areas of science where nationalistic bias shouldn't exist at all.

      Just my two cents.

      --

      make world, not war

    16. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The BBC is a jingoistic laughing stock. "Journalism" indeed.

    17. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by swright · · Score: 1

      I thought it was a bit strange too - kinda why it stuck in my head. I'll try to find out (in case its just my head making it up...)

    18. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by chadm1967 · · Score: 0

      Perfect! Couldn't have said it any better myself!

    19. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by frostman · · Score: 1

      OK, you seem a lot better informed than I, so:

      Why exactly is the clock an expected point of failure?

      It seems to me that a super-sturdy clock is the smallest of challenges in a mission like this. I'm glad they considered the possibility of its failure, but can you or someone please clue me in as to why the clock of all things is so fragile?

      Unless it auto-timezones to Martian time and finds itself in the year 2038...

      --

      This Like That - fun with words!

    20. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course Beagle wasn't more efficient. Pathfinder *worked*.

    21. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      People have been saying NASA missions are much more costly than Beagle 2, and therefore NASA is wasteful (this was implied by BBC and later removed from articles after they couldn't contact the craft).

      It would be interesting to see archives of such articles. Anybody keep any?

    22. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by wass · · Score: 1
      It would be interesting to see archives of such articles. Anybody keep any?

      I quoted part of a BBC article in one of my previous comments from a few days ago. But I didn't have a link to the article, unfortunately.

      --

      make world, not war

    23. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Lispy · · Score: 1

      Okok..You have a point. But still mine remains valid, I believe. Both missions are different approaches. I never said NASA wastes money, but today money IS an issue with spacetravel, especially in Europe, and therefore Beagle2 HAD to be cheap. Thats no excuse. I would love to see governments spend more money to Spaceexploration, but as it is, Beagle2 was the best you could get for the money. Seems to turn out it wasnt enough, sadly...

    24. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Lispy · · Score: 1

      Not too sure about that either. I heard it might be because of the temperature rise during athmosperic impact. I could imagine that radiation can disturb it too. Once again, Beagle2 is rather a cheap mission. Actually it wasnt even part of the original mission concept but added later when they found they had spare room on the rocket.

    25. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I call bullshit. You don't quote anything from the BBC that remotely backs up your claims but you do make the same accusation again:
      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.
      And that's after criticising the BBC for, accurately, reporting:
      Despite more than 30 missions launched to the Red Planet since the 1960s, only three landers have ever reached the Martian surface successfully.
      ...because it wasn't making the point you wanted them to make (namely, the BBC was talking about the lack of landings on Mars despite a heavy Mars visitation programme and you wanted them to be talking about the lander/landing success ratio.)

      I suspect you're being honest, but I think it's more likely you need a few exercises in reading comprehension. In the real world, not every comment is addressing an area you want it to visit, you shouldn't be looking for unfounded criticisms where clearly none are intended.

    26. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by aunitt · · Score: 1

      Pathfinder had more complicated tasks to conduct? Ha ha.... it was a glorified remote controlled car whose only reason to be was to get pretty pictures on US TV so NASA had a chance of getting more funding.

      Beagle 2 was intended to do serious science and was a serious achievement just to get the thing built.</rant>

    27. Re:Is it pre-programmed to do anything? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I agree with him that the "30 missions" quote is misleading on BBC's part, although they may not have done it intentionally.

      What I was really interested in seeing quotes of was criticism of NASA's *costs* for the missions, not necessarily success rate.

  24. testing by (TK2)Max · · Score: 0

    Space exploration is a good thing.

  25. Deep in a Crater... by ackthpt · · Score: 0, Troll

    Deep in a Crater of it's own making, got the pounds and kilograms mixed up. D'oh!

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  26. Ya right uh uh by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

    This is the big boy way of saying "my dog ate my homework"

  27. nested craters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Heh.

    I'm betting on a 1 km wide crater, containing a much smaller beagle-sized crater.

    Either that or there's a Martian museum somewhere on the planet with all our spacecraft in it.

  28. crater theory by silma · · Score: 0

    Well, beagle 2 is probably in a crater NOW...

    --
    English is not my native language !
  29. Mars: "It's not a crater!" by ShortedOut · · Score: 1

    It's a dimple you insensitive clod!

    1. Re:Mars: "It's not a crater!" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Beagle landed safely in a deep crater, but unlike the Millenium Falcon, it was unable to fire up engines and get the hell out before the Space Slug woke up...

  30. What do you expect - it's Europe crappy spacecraft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They didnt test the spacecraft carefully enough. Have they ever thought that spending less and cut corner would actually make the Beagle work? Maybe if they spend the resource and time to test the Beagle it wouldnt be yet another Earth trash on Mars.

    Who knows - maybe it lands upside down

  31. We should double up on these probes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first can be used to tell us what the hell happens to the second one. Not knowing kills you.

  32. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    spending more money to feed the homeless?

    Speaking as a man who is regularly accosted by homeless people, why would we want to contribute to their survival? Let em all die.

  33. Dog days on Mars by Gavin+Scott · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is an exciting time for Mars exporation with two rovers and a Beagle arriving over the period of a month or so.

    Unfortunately the Beagle 2 seems to have followed the Simplified Planetary Local Approach Trajectory that has been so popular with recent Mars landers.

    This is quite depressing, but Beagle 2 was a bit of a shoestring mission from the beginning. There's a reasonable chance that one of the NASA rovers will survive, though this is by no means a sure thing.

    Even ignoring the technical challenge of having everything work perfectly, the landscape of Mars is quite capable of swallowing up one of these landers without a trace. A poorly placed pile of rocks or a deep gully and you're history.

    I think that eventually we will have to send people to Mars, not because of the scientific reasons but just to satisfy our curiosity about what actually happened to all these lost landers.

    G.

    1. Re:Dog days on Mars by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think that eventually we will have to send people to Mars, not because of the scientific reasons but just to satisfy our curiosity about what actually happened to all these lost landers.

      I don't think it would be cheaper to send people to find lost landers. Besides, it might start a domino effect where we have to send yet more people to find out what happened to the first group of people.

      I think that probes need to send more telemetry as they are in the process of landing. I think the new rovers have done this to some extent because of the Polar Lander problems.

      The telemetry could include altitude (from altimeter) and craft status (parachute opened, bag pressure, etc). True, that adds to the expense of the mission, but if the failure rate is high, it is worth it.

    2. Re:Dog days on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I think that probes need to send more telemetry as they are in the process of landing.

      Not trolling, genuine question: is there not a comms problem during landing - like you have a comms blackout as the shuttle re-enters the atmosphere?

    3. Re:Dog days on Mars by leonardluen · · Score: 2, Informative

      that isn't really the real problem on mars.
      the real problem on mars is that it is somewhere between 30 light seconds (on its closest aproach) and 16+ light minutes (on its furthest) away...meaning that it is not possible to communicate in realtime with the lander. the lander is on its own, we can moniter anything it sends us, but by the time we see something go wrong it is probably too late for us to do anything about it.

    4. Re:Dog days on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I think that probes need to send more telemetry as they are in the process of landing. I think the new rovers have done this to some extent because of the Polar Lander problems.

      Information here...

    5. Re:Dog days on Mars by cavebear42 · · Score: 1

      I'm with ya here. We need to send a manned mission to pick up all of the junk we have put there. Clearly the Martians are getting more annoyed my the minute. I read Bradbury.

    6. Re:Dog days on Mars by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      there not a comms problem during landing - like you have a comms blackout as the shuttle re-enters the atmosphere?

      There is a period when the craft is encountering lots of atmosphere friction which may indeed block out signals. Still, there are many other steps where this condition is not present.

    7. Re:Dog days on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are forgetting all the satellites around mars....

    8. Re:Dog days on Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...not to mention Mars's excellent GSM mobile phone network. Coverage everywhere, it's absolutely first class. (Well, ok, I had problems getting a signal on the top of Olympus Mons though it's not exactly easy to operate a Nokia 2150 when you're in a full spacesuit.)

  34. Space crater theory eh? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 3, Insightful

    or more likely, something went wrong during whatever sequence of actions the probe was supposed to follow, and the only theory involved is Murphy's law.

    It sounds to me like these guys are trying to shift the blame away from the probe, and therefore from them. But really, why should they not admit it's a cockup? there's nothing wrong in admitting a Mars probe failed, it's already quite an achievement to send man-made things there, and it's understood that there are risks involved, and that there's a very real probability that the mission will fail. There's no shame in that.

    These guys tried their best and it didn't work. It's not like they tried to hide their failure of clipping their toenails or something ...

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:Space crater theory eh? by tipiyano · · Score: 3, Insightful
      more likely, something went wrong during whatever sequence of actions the probe was supposed to follow, and the only theory involved is Murphy's law.

      More likely? definately. Worth assuming? Definately not.

      I have watched their recent press conference (26th, 27th, 29th Dec). They started out clearly saying that although it is more than likely that the lander crashed, they are only considering the problems that they can actually do something about .

      I think that is the smart way of handling the situation. Imagine, what if the clock had actually went out of sync during landing. It would have been really stupid if they lost the probe to that just because they thought it crashed and nobody even bothered imagining other less probable reasons for communication failures and fix it.

    2. Re:Space crater theory eh? by khallow · · Score: 1
      I have watched their recent press conference (26th, 27th, 29th Dec). They started out clearly saying that although it is more than likely that the lander crashed, they are only considering the problems that they can actually do something about.

      I agree. This isn't the time to assign blame, but to recover what you can from the mission. They probably figured out many of the possible recoverable error modes long ago (prior to launch of the Mars Express mission).

  35. You have to love the quote... by mfender9 · · Score: 1
    ...from Colin Pillinger:

    "We'd have to be incredibly unlucky that it went right down this crater"

    You just know it's down there now. Even if it wasn't already, you just know it started tumbling down there the very moment those words left his lips...

  36. Maybe boulders? by LS · · Score: 1

    For that matter, how do these guys know that the probe didn't just land on a group of boulders and end up tilted on the side, or flipped over, or stuck in a crevace between two boulders? I thought perhaps they did surveys of the landing site, but after this story, if they didn't even know within miles of where it was landing, I don't know how they could deal with smaller details like rock outcroppings...

    LS

    --
    There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    1. Re:Maybe boulders? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative
  37. Curse you, Red Planet! by The+I+Shing · · Score: 1

    Curse you, Red Planet!
    Curse you and your kind!
    Curse the evil that causes this unhappiness!

    --
    You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
    1. Re:Curse you, Red Planet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gee, it rimes even ...

    2. Re:Curse you, Red Planet! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I find your ideas interesting, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter,

  38. Software failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's sitting there displaying this message:

    Press any key to continue...

  39. N.eed A.nother S.even A.stronauts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    and at the bargain price of a couple of 747's can afford to send a mission every year, hell even the ex leader of the dow jones got 180million $ for just doing his job , he could buy one mission a year just on the interest, as for BillG .....

    44million is chump change so who cares it failed, imagine if it had of worked !

  40. look at the picture by theMerovingian · · Score: 1

    Those airbag things look pitiful.

    Why not combine the airbags with some parachutes? Parachutes work fine to land living humans in the Soyuz capsules. Is there something about the Martian atmosphere that would prevent this?

    --
    "If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
    1. Re:look at the picture by swright · · Score: 1

      Ok you're probably trolling but I'll bite...

      According to the TV news the other day here (UK), Beagle 2 was the first craft to actually use a parachute on a Mars descent (the idea was to slow it down for an impact on the surface at 40mph or so).

    2. Re:look at the picture by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 1

      >> Is there something about the Martian atmosphere that would prevent this?

      Mars has 1/100th the atmosphere of Earth, yet 38% of it's gravity.

    3. Re:look at the picture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      According to the TV news the other day here (UK), Beagle 2 was the first craft to actually use a parachute on a Mars descent (the idea was to slow it down for an impact on the surface at 40mph or so).

      I think most, if not all previous Mars landers have used parachutes as part of the landing process, but they had some form of retro-rockets as well - Beagle 2 had none.

      Mars does has an atmosphere, and though it's thick enough for parachutes to be used to dump most of the kinetic energy remaining after the heat-shield's been jettisoned, it's still too thin for a nice, gentle touchdown without a huge parachute.

      Beagle 2 must have been small and light enough to warrant the use of no rockets at all; ~70kg versus ~800kg for one of the upcoming Nasa rovers must make a big difference. Simpler may be better, but sadly it still sounds like something went wrong...

      Viking landing
      Pathfinder landing
      Beagle 2 landing

    4. Re:look at the picture by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      They did have parachutes. The problem is that there isn't much air on Mars for the parachutes to make use of.

  41. British Engineering ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yah. Yah. Same thing happened with the TR-7

    "Well, we lost the engine .... so ... we must have run over a crater."

    Phreaking Monarchists. We should cut off their supply of atom bombs. Make 'em sweat a little.

  42. haha by schapman · · Score: 1

    I think what they meant to say, is it hit THE CREATOR... It's gods way of telling us to stay on the damn planet he made for us :)

    --
    Wouldnt you like to be a pepper too?
  43. and now a word from our sponsor... by slittle · · Score: 1

    So does Taco Bell owe me a freebie now?

    --
    Opportunity knocks. Karma hunts you down.
  44. Beagle2: fragged. by sheetsda · · Score: 5, Funny

    So what they're telling us is essentially:
    Beagle2 is sent into orbit by EU.
    Beagle2 rides EU's rocket.
    Beagle2 cratered.
    Beagle2 disconnected.
    EU: anyone there?

    1. Re:Beagle2: fragged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mhy ghod thaht whas phunnie

    2. Re:Beagle2: fragged. by mobby_6kl · · Score: 0

      shouldn't that be:
      Beagle2 left a small crater?

    3. Re:Beagle2: fragged. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've got one thing to say: "Oh Yeah!"

  45. Line of sight? by switcha · · Score: 5, Insightful
    It is possible, although unlikely, that the Beagle may be unable to communicate because it landed in the crater, he said.

    Now, my knowledge of astronomy and all related things extends about as far as "Look. The moon!", but if you can get shots of the crater like this, then how can the probe be "buried" in the crater so far as to not be able to communicate? We're lookin' right into it, there.

    Was that photo from Earth? Was that photo from another probe? Do we never see that view from Earth?

    Seems like the damn thing just broke. Admit it.

    --
    You know what? ... A little club soda *did* get that out!
    1. Re:Line of sight? by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      If its in the crater, notice the bottom of the crater is in shadow. No way to recharge its batteries (which it does automatically for up to 20 days) if there is no sunlight.

    2. Re:Line of sight? by kindbud · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you had RTFA that you linked to (thanks!), you'd have seen:

      A rough landing on the sides of the crater - which could be as much as 700 metres deep - could have damaged the lander. A crater might also cast a shadow that would make it nearly impossible for Beagle to "power up" using its solar panels.

      And:

      Malin Space Science Systems, which operates the camera aboard Mars Global Surveyor, identified it (the crater) and sent the picture to the Beagle team late on Sunday.

      Lastly, the crater walls might obstruct the line of sight to Earth at the times the lander is programmed to make attempts to establish contact.

      --
      Edith Keeler Must Die
    3. Re:Line of sight? by Lispy · · Score: 1

      That shouldn't be an issue sine mars is moving around sun and therefore there could be some light at least to feed the batteries. But what I guess is that the crater shields off radiocommunication. It might be alive and sending, but we can't hear it, at least not with the radiotelescopes or Mars Odyssey, wich btw was damaged during a sunstorm lately. My hopes are still high when they are trying to use Mars Express Orbiter to look for Beagle2. I keep my fingeers crossed...

  46. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And this is what happens when you leave it to those idiots in America.

    Russia has, by far, the best record in space.

  47. Bad game plan by El · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Isn't the fact that they selected the landing site BEFORE noticing a 1km large crater an indication that they've got the cart before the horse? Perhaps they should try thouroughly mapping the planet from low orbit before landing on it!

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

    1. Re:Bad game plan by Nimey · · Score: 1

      Boy, it's a good thing you weren't the project manager for the Viking landings.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  48. What? by skebe · · Score: 0

    They didn't pay the $699 Darl Tax?

  49. Why can't they see it? by bitsformoney · · Score: 1

    I'm curious as to what the resolution of all those cameras currently orbiting Mars is. Since the CIA can read my license plate from space by now, they must be able to spot a 1m object?

    --
    This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
    1. Re:Why can't they see it? by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think they can manage around 1.5 - 2 Metres per pixel, I'm not sure how big the Beagle is but I don't think it's much more than a metre diameter so it may not be big enough to show up at all.

  50. Spock's discovery by strapon · · Score: 0

    What did Spock find on Mars?

    --


    Number one I order you to take a number two!
    1. Re:Spock's discovery by strapon · · Score: 0

      The same thing he found in the toilet, the Captain's log! :)

      --


      Number one I order you to take a number two!
  51. It Landed in Water! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Or, you know, the aliens raped it.

  52. Your all Wrong by TheKidWho · · Score: 0, Troll

    They converted from metric to metric incorrectly... Lets see... Guy at ESA: "were approaching at 2000km/h" Other Guy at ESA "In M/S you idiot!" Guy at ESA "hrmm lets see, you divide by 1001" Other Guy at ESA "damnit we crashed"

  53. Damn Fine Troll! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    keep up the good work.

  54. Missing Beagle? take responsibility people! by commodoresloat · · Score: 3, Funny

    Jeez, somebody loses their dog and they blame a crater on Mars.

  55. how long will the probe survive? by real_matrix709 · · Score: 1

    I mean, in say 300 years, when people are living on mars, will they be able to find old probes intact? and laugh at crap we sent up there Just a thought

    1. Re:how long will the probe survive? by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 1
      There is virtually no atmosphere and arguably no water, so it probably won't degrade much physically. There is, however, a ton of dust and all kinds of wind, so it will probably be 30 feet down by the time human feet ever hit Mars.

      It makes me wish I could be there when future archaeologists in the year 4003, living on Mars, find this metallic probe buried X meters down and engage in a firestorm of debate over where it came from. Considering how little we know about the advanced societies from our past, it's the kind of thing that could actually happen.

      --

      -
      Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    2. Re:how long will the probe survive? by applemasker · · Score: 2, Informative

      Viking I and II lasted from 6/76 and 8/76 to 11/82 and 4/80, respectively. Depends on how long the solar cells can grab a charge and aren't covered by dust and maybe on the batteries.

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
    3. Re:how long will the probe survive? by BobTheLawyer · · Score: 1

      we're pretty good at dating and identifying historic and prehistoric finds - why do you think our descendents in a thousand years time will be less good?

  56. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too bad their record on Earth isn't so great. Chernobyl anyone?

  57. No, it's not dead.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was hit by a meteor during descent, what are the odds of that? Oooh, I know, maybe there was an unforseen thermal gradient that tore apart the cushioning balloons. Or maybe it just happened to land on top of a miniature black hole that only sucks in radio waves.

    ANYTHING could have happened other than the probe broke. That's just not a reasonable theoretical explanation for the probe not communicating. ;)

  58. Beagle found! by guacamolefoo · · Score: 0, Troll

    News flash! The Beagle has been found!

    GF.

  59. On the cheap is perhaps not so good by theolein · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I have wondered for a while on the logic and wisdom behind the Beagle mission. I found the idea of sending a 60kg lander without any guidance boosters or rockets, no matter how small, an incredibly bad idea. The probe seperated 3 million kilometers away from the planet and then carried on to mars and atmostpheric entry without any possibility of attitude or course correction. Just think about it, 3 million kilometers and even the smallest of deviations of attitude could have meant the probe arriving in the atmosphere on its side or even upside down.

    I somehow think that it probably arrived with an incorrect entry attitude and then burnt up on entry.

    Perhaps the next time around they'll add a few kilograms to the package for small attitude coreectional motors.

    1. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by applemasker · · Score: 2, Informative
      The same type of entry is planned for the Hugynes probe en route to Titan courtesy of the Cassini orbiter.

      The other alternative used in the Viking mission is to have the entire spacecraft enter orbit and then separate and de-orbit the lander. Given the entry design, I don't see any real advantage to this for Beagle. In fact, it would just add complexity in the form of additional retrorockets and propellents.

      We have enough experience with direct-descent entries (all lunar returns were this way, as was Mars Pathfinder, probably others) that if the mission has suffered a catastrophic failure, it's probably not because of missing an entry corridor (which, since Mars' atmosphere is so thin, is far wider than it would be for Earth).

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
    2. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe they'll employ you since you are obviously smarter than all those rocket scientists.

    3. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by beebware · · Score: 1

      Or, at least, some feedback system. Even it it's just a "bleep" from the lander every second to say "I'm alive" it'll be better than nothing because then they'll be able to say exactly when they "lost" it: if it could also send back basic telemetry (such as altitude and speed of descent and status of parachutes/air bags etc) it'll be better, sending back analysis of atmospheric gases would be perfect! Probably add a bit of weight to it though...

    4. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beeagle 2 is a bad idea for a scientific probe but not for a marketing probe. The fact is that everybody is speaking about it when the important is the Mars Express. Believe me, I know the english.I am european but not from England (as you can note by my grammar and vocabulary).
      They love this kind of stuff, they are able of driving in contrary direction only for get the people speaking about them. So, crash a probe is not a so big price..

      For my english mates: It was only a joke... Regards from Spain.

    5. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by fermion · · Score: 1
      My understanding is that this is a pretty common way to explore planets. We shot probes at rocks, let them impact, and hope they survive. It is how we explored the moon. We just kept shooting hardware at it until one of them survived.

      Of course due to the limitiations on travel to mars we cannot just launch a new probe every month. And this is the problem we have with the current program. Our probes are minimilist and fragile, and mars is a much more complex enviroment that a completely dead moon.

      I wouldn't say guidence systems were the issue, but how about some old fashion redundancy.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    6. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      We have enough experience with direct-descent entries (all lunar returns were this way, as was Mars Pathfinder, probably others)

      Minor nit, there were six lunar returns that were not direct-descent, namely Apollos 11, 12, and 14 through 17. Of course, they weren't automated....

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    7. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by applemasker · · Score: 1

      Really? I always thought the lunar returns never bothered going back into earth orbit, but just plunged back into the atmosphere... any websites with info on this?

      --
      Bush Lies On the Record.
    8. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by crawling_chaos · · Score: 1
      Um, are you sure you understand what direct descent means? None of those craft entered a parking orbit prior to entering the Earth's atmosphere. They did orbit the Moon, but once they started the TEI burn, they were on the same return course as Apollo 13, with the same parameters. The only real difference is that they had a stable platform and an engine actually designed for corrections.

      What the previous poster is referring to is the idea of parking the lander in Martian orbit for a few spins before landing. All of the manned lunar landings were handled this way, but their returns weren't.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    9. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that this is a pretty common way to explore planets. We shot probes at rocks, let them impact, and hope they survive. It is how we explored the moon. We just kept shooting hardware at it until one of them survived.

      I don't think so. Ranger Series probes did a purposeful crash landing to get a progressively closer look, but noboby expected them to survive, and none did. But Surveyer's were purposely designed to land on the moon, and did a pretty good job at. I think the Soviets used more trial-and-error, however. They launched a larger quantity of probes in the hopes that by shear chance some would work. Whether this is "good" or not is a complex cost-benefit calculation. For one, operators will have nothing to do if a probe croaks, so the quantity approach may better serve earth labor issues. But, it requires more launches, and rockets are expensive.

    10. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the parent poster still has a point, though. While the two drop probes that NASA put on the Polar Lander didn't make it, what if we had 5, 10, or even 50 miniprobes packed onto a single spacecraft bus? (A sorta MIRV of science, heheheheh.) While it'd be more expensive (weight and cost-wise) than sending one cheap probe to ride on the orbiter, you could cover a wider area and not waste as much time launching a Mars mission every 2 years or so and hoping everything works out.

    11. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Well, I agree that perhaps the science instruments could be split up and two smaller probes land instead of 1 big probe. I had the impression that large but "shoddy" probes were being recommended by that person. I don't think that is the proper route because the launch cost per weight is still constant.

      However, the problem with dividing the science instruments is that you don't get full coverage of a single site. You generally get better science when you can look at a single rock under different tools than different rocks with different tools because you are dealing with less variables.

      But then again the JPL staffing levels would have to go way up and down if they put all their eggs in one basket.

      Needless to say, it is a tricky balancing act. I am sure NASA has considered all these but cannot test the proper approach without using some trial-and-error. The Polar Lander seemed to be too far to the "cheap" side and they have since moved to a middle ground between Viking and Polar.

    12. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by HeghmoH · · Score: 1

      I obviously forgot about the other end of things. I was only thinking about the Moon end of the whole operation. My apologies.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    13. Re:On the cheap is perhaps not so good by khallow · · Score: 1
      You mean add a few hundred million pounds. That's because you're really talking about raising the lowering the overall risk to a more expensive level. It wouldn't be enough to add a "few kilograms" for a course correction rocket. After all, there are many other ways the risk of the mission could be mitigated. This adds up. They chose to accept a certain level of risk in the mission. I find the tradeoff acceptible.

      Also, those boosters are another failure mode. I suspect that they realized that the likelihood of a correctible error in course was so small that it wasn't worth carrying a dangerous device like a booster. Then you toss in the additional expense of the booster.

      Given that historically Mars missions have a 2/3 failure rate, why spend a lot of money on the thing? It would have been much better to send half a dozen of the craft instead and get a bulk discount on manufacture and launch costs.

  60. Another theory by LuckyPhil · · Score: 0, Troll

    Perhaps the crater was caused by the beagle crash landing??

    1. Re:Another theory by kervel · · Score: 2, Funny

      the crater was there before landing: http://www.beagle2.com/resources/down-crater3.htm

  61. Ruh-Roh! by FrostedWheat · · Score: 1

    Beagle2 where are you!

  62. This is a dupe, I'm confused by shuz · · Score: 1

    I am really confused! I saw this same article on slashdot at 8am CST mon. 29th with the link being to Space.com and not CNN or BBC. Naturally I read the article at 8am. Well nothing has changed in 8 hours and now the work day is done. Can anyone confirm the dupe and deletion of the other article?

    --
    There is or can be built a machine that can simulate any physical object. -Church-Turing principle
  63. Photos of landing site by flug · · Score: 4, Informative

    This page has several photos of the landing site, showing the weather the day of the landing (it was fine) and also the famous "crater" within the landing zone: Beagle2 landing site photos

    1. Re:Photos of landing site by Badboy+Recovered · · Score: 1

      after looking at those airbags, i think thats where the problem is!

  64. Incompetent European Theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only theory you need is the most obvious one available:

    Europeans are incompetent.

  65. That's not a troll by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Crapflooding is crapflooding - it's not trolling.

    Fucking amateur gutter-trolls. You youngsters don't even know what real trolling is.

  66. I can see it now... by Frennzy · · Score: 1

    (Martian with a shotgun:) "aluhgt!" (xlation: Pull!)

    (a few minutes later, back in the UK,ESA launch director:) "Launch!"

    (several days later, surface of Mars:) KA-BLAM! (xlation: KA-BLAM!)

    (Beagle pieces gently drift down toward the Martian surface...)

  67. I'm just glad it's Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Imagine reading the headlines if it was Uranus.

  68. Re:This is just sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Soon all the passengers will be required to carry guns too!

    That would put a quick end to the transatlantic flights then. We can't, FORTUNATELY, buy a gun unless we need it in our job (=cop, soldier, security).

  69. SImplest explanation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its british, and they had a brilliant designed that was significantly under-engineered.

    I said this last week and got flamed, and I said I hoped it wouldn't happen, but it would.

    And now it happened.

    Maybe the British need to get the russians involved? Their designs are horrible, but they're built like a russian peasant woman.

  70. it landed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... on the wreckage of Mars Polar Lander.

    Something to do with the new infinite improbability drive they were both using, I believe.

  71. Not true... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they make the finest bureaucracy known to man.

  72. Simpler explanation by El · · Score: 1

    "Hey, you fucked up... you trusted us!" -- Animal House

    --

    "Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney

  73. One word: by soulsteal · · Score: 5, Funny

    KAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHN!

  74. And the Spanish all hang out at bullfights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for that stream of stereotypes

    1. Re:And the Spanish all hang out at bullfights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some stereotypes are accurate.

      People from northern europe has lighter skin. Oooh! A Stereotype!

      The Italians make great pasta!

      German like fast cars!

      The Americans are fat!

      Canadians are...uh...who cares!

      Swedish people are blonde!

      All stereotypes. All dead accurate. Or did you think stereotypes sprang up from think air?

    2. Re:And the Spanish all hang out at bullfights by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except the sterotypes mentioned were blatantly sexist, racist, and wrong

  75. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Speaking as a man who is regularly accosted by homeless people, why would we want to contribute to their survival? Let em all die."

    The problem with that approach is that they generally become increasingly desperate and last quite a while before they actually die.

    You think they annoy you now, "accosting" you. Make them just a little more desperate and they will stop letting you live. Make them much more desperate and you'll have a cultural revolution on your hands, where you and your kind (anyone who thinks he knows where his next meal is coming from) will suffer.

  76. It's the Mysterons!!! by mightymik2 · · Score: 1

    Quick...contact Captain Scarlet!

  77. Little help? by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    My feeling is that the thing landed upside down (maybe rolled down the crater wall?) and it doesn't have an antennae pointing up at the sky.

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Little help? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That should not be possible: the beagle is like a dish, and whichever side is on top, when opening will fold sideways. So both halves will have their innerts look to the sky - download the animations, and look at them - you'll understand!

  78. mars rover? by Suppafly · · Score: 1

    Why can't they just buddy up to NASA and have them send the mars rover out looking for it?

    1. Re:mars rover? by otisgusting · · Score: 1

      US reply: "Mars is not a 'petrol' station for wayward probes. We don't want to encourage martian tourism."

    2. Re:mars rover? by Suppafly · · Score: 1

      US reply: "Mars is not a 'petrol' station for wayward probes. We don't want to encourage martian tourism."

      ROFL

  79. Time & Money by CmdrGravy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sadly the Beagle team didn't have access to bottomless pits of money and didn't have any choice about the launch date.

    They had a hard enough time raising the money ( themselves ) as it was. I am sure they tested the probe as thoroughly as they possibly could before it was launched.

    That being the case it was a case of either give it a go with what they had or not give it a go at all.

    Maybe with a high profile person such as yourself ( anonymous coward ) in charge this the whole thing would have been a roaring success, I guess we'll never know will we ?

  80. The Beagle must have had an almanac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As the FBI has warned us, so the Martians must have thought it was hijacked and about to crash into something.

  81. I found it - by operagost · · Score: 1

    It's right next to Tim Robbins' dessicated corpse ...

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  82. Marvin finally got pissed off by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Stop tossing your junk onto my planet! Oh it makes me so very angry!"

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
  83. Or perhaps "cratered" would be more appropriate by waferhead · · Score: 2, Funny

    IIRC if the airbags didn't deploy, it would have hit the ground at ~60 MPH.

    If the chute didn't... ??? 600mph?

    Cratered.

    I think that was the first assumption...

  84. Taking a page from the american indians by Papa+Legba · · Score: 4, Funny

    The martians aren't stupid. They know what the europeans did to the american indians. They are not about to let ANYTHING with a flag, or possibility of a flag, land on their planet.

    Europeans have this anoying habit of showing up, sticking a flag in something, and proclaiming that they have discovered it. This of course iritates the people already there as they felt that maybe they discovered it first. Where upon the europeans point out that they do not have a flag and that they are disqualified on that technicality. Then they shot them. Martians are just doing what the indians should have done to columbuss. Thats not a crater, thats a barbecue pit and the martians are about to have beagle fricassee.

    --
    Papa Legba come and open the gate
    1. Re:Taking a page from the american indians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Viking 1 & 2 Used a US Flag on itself to orient the camera lens for contrasts in colors.

    2. Re:Taking a page from the american indians by sehryan · · Score: 1

      Eddie Izzard - Dressed to Kill

      If you are going to use someone else's jokes, at least give some props.

      --
      The world moves for love. It kneels before it in awe.
  85. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice retort, but in recent years, you seem to have given up on space exploration.

    Pretty much visiting the moon was just to blow one in the face of the Russians. If that was the pretext for going there, then you should be ashamed of your spacefaring feats, because they amount to 'me first' mentalities and nothing more.

    Try landing people on Mars, and try doing it for the sake of science, not because you barf at the thought of China getting there first...

  86. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You clearly don't understand how many cosmanaunts have died. You dishonor every Russian.

  87. Re:Predictable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    At least we have a shuttle.

    An old POS that explodes on the way up (or breaks up on the way down) every now and then, killing a bunch of people every time. Soon you'll run out of both shuttles and people to send up in them.

  88. Not to second guess... by KoshClassic · · Score: 1
    To quote the BBC article:

    Scientists have now set up a "tiger team" of top experts to work through all possible reasons for the silence.

    Isn't it easily predictable that the probe might not "phone home". Why do they wait until after it happens to figure out why this might be? Why not deal with likely scenarious ahead of time to minimize their risk of happening?

    To me, this was exactly the problem with one of NASA's earlier Mars missions, where the prevailing post-failure theory was that the descent rocket shut down prematurely due to a software glitch. I just cannot understand why NASA, in this case, did not more thoroughly investigate possible scenarios where there was no post-landing communication with the proble and discover the software flaw before hand.

    I know that its easy to second guess the engineers, and that figuring out why a problem might happen in advance of it happening is not easy, but these are rocket scientists and the time for their questions is before a failure occurs, not after it.

    --
    Understanding is a three edged sword. - Ambassador Kosh Naranek, Babylon 5
    1. Re:Not to second guess... by CmdrGravy · · Score: 1

      In this case it's not NASA involved but even ESA and the Beagle team haven't managed to employ any psychics so far as I am aware.

      It's perfectly predictable that the probe might not phone home and that's why there are dozens of options available for contacting the probe and trying to get some communication from it. Clearly they have considered this, and probably many other, forms of failure.

      The fact of life is though that however much you plan in advance you can never see into the future and plan for everything.

  89. They probably just need... by Sevn · · Score: 1

    to call some animal shelters. I'm sure he'll turn up or wander home in a few days.

    --
    For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
  90. Re:This is just sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Okay, so it'll make it harder for you to hijack a plane. Stop your whining, you terrorist asshole!

    Seriously, are you THAT afraid of guns? If you're on a plane being hijacked, wouldn't you want trained agents armed with low-velocity firearms to protect your sorry ass? Or are you the type who pisses his pants at the very sight of a gun?

    Go ahead and fly. You won't know who has the guns or even if there is a gun on your particular flight. Or, just stop flying. Driving to Europe should be interesting.

    Fucking wimp!!

  91. Where by RedHat_Linux_Man · · Score: 1

    O where O where has my little dog gone? O where O where can he be?...

  92. Need a lift? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps one of NASA's rovers which is due to land this saturday can help the little beagle out.

  93. Admission of error by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    But really, why should they not admit it's a cockup? there's nothing wrong in admitting a Mars probe failed, it's already quite an achievement to send man-made things there, and it's understood that there are risks involved, and that there's a very real probability that the mission will fail.

    I suspect a lot of people in power (Democrat and Republican) view NASA as an incredible waste of money that could be better spent buying useless new weapons systems, or funding another impingement on the US Constitution. IMO, the only reasons NASA still has funding at all are the economic spinoffs to the areospace sector, and the fact that it serves as a distraction to divert the public eye from far more wasteful and incompetent government agencies.

    Any open admission of a "cockup" would be handing NASA's enemies another nail in its coffin, an excuse for more funding cutbacks resulting in more failure-prone shoestring missions, thus continuing the cycle until NASA is nothing but a guy who goes around to schools telling the kids how great space used to be.

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
    1. Re:Admission of error by RealSurreal · · Score: 1

      Would that make more sense if NASA had anything to do with the ESA-launched and UK-funded Beagle 2 probe?

  94. Murphy's Law of Space Exploration by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Sounds like what happened to the Russian Venus lander:

    The Soviets used the diamond as a front glass to protect the lens ... once the spacecraft had landed, the lens cap was thrown off ... Each spacecraft also had an experiment called the "Dynamic Penetrometer". The Penetrometer was a spring-loaded arm with a point on the end of it. The point would penetrate deep into soft ground ... but the photographs from Venera 14 show that the point of the penetrometer landed exactly on the lens cap. This is proof that Murphy's Law is a universal law.

  95. Well, obviously by HermanZA · · Score: 1

    when impacting at hundreds of thousands of meters per second, it would be at the bottom of a steep crater and it most probably won't work anymore...

  96. The moral of the story is.... by (0d0 · · Score: 1

    Test your landing equipment better. Or at least once.

    According to a previous /. story, the airbags were a major risk for this project.

    If anything goes wrong the engineers suspect it will be [the air bags]. They failed their first tests and had to be designed and built without a full testing regime.

    Now scientists are claiming that this "recently discovered" crater is near the center of the landing elipse. Either someone did not do their homework or they made a BIG mistake.

    Scientists also say that they have ruled out hardware problems. Does that include landing equipment? Parachute failure: Beagle2 would have been travelling to fast for the airbags to deploy in time/protect it from impact. Airbag failure: failure to deploy would leave the craft unprotected on impact; failure to detach could cripple the craft. Pathfinder had an issue where an airbag partially obstructed the deployment of the ramp for the Sojouner.

    This may have been the cheapest mission of this sort, but it also may be as big a catastrophe as the Polar Lander. If we (people in general) are going to continue spending vast sums of money to send probes and rovers to the planets, comets, and far reaches of the solar system, I for one would like it if we actually got some tangible return on our investment. Galileo, and Voyager, and Pathfinder are/were examples of missions were of incredible worth. That is space exploration as it should be. Take the time. Test your systems individually and together. Ensure that all calculations are correct. Check and re-check everything. As Yoda would say "Do or do not. There is no try." So should it be with any bit of space exploration

  97. Junk. by Oliver+Defacszio · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Is anyone else struck by the amount of junk that is jettisoned onto Mars by this project? Check out the animations on this page.

    From these animations, it appears that Mars is now littered with:

    1) the heat-shield from its entry.
    2) the first parachute and associated hardware.
    3) the second, larger parachute and associated hardware.
    4) the "cushioning bags".
    5) some metal pieces as the machine opens.

    I have no idea if Mars' atmosphere is thick enough to thoroughly burn up the myriad other parts that were disengaged during its descent, so that may be a whole raft of other crap in addition to what I have mentioned. Can't we spoil only one planet at a time?

    --

    -
    Inventor of the term 'pardon my French'.
    1. Re:Junk. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is mars any worse off if it has a parachute or two strewn about its lifeless body?

  98. SC2 by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    Damn, they blew up the lander. I hope I have enough RU's to build a new one!

    Well, sorry folks. I tried to work a Star Control 2 funny in here, but I'm just out of steam.

    --
    "Derp de derp."
  99. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I bet I can deal with them faster than they can deal with me. As much as I hate SUVs, an old Suburban could mow 'em down by the dozens.

    We all have our crosses to bear and I'll be damned if I'm going to be intimidated into "saving" someone who figured that heroin was a great idea to try... just this once. I already pay too much to support the 17 year old mothers of four out there.

  100. Anything Sent To Mars Needs To Be... by reallocate · · Score: 1
    ...smart enough not to land in a crater, but able to stand up and walk out it it did.

    Gee, where could we find something like that??

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  101. Missing Beagle? Sing this little ditty... by anactofgod · · Score: 1

    Snoooopy, Snoooopy,
    Why-oh-why did you roam? (come home come home)
    Snoooopy, Snoooopy,
    Come home, Snoopy come home. (come home come home)
    Snoooopy, Snoooopy,
    Where'd you run away to? (come home come home)
    Snoooopy, Snoooopy,
    Everything's wrong without you.
    You split the scene, and nothing is right.
    Good grief, why did you get so uptight?
    Why did you go? We're in a fog.
    Don't you know you're our favorite dog?
    Snoopy come home, Snoopy come home,
    Come home Snoopy, Snoopy come home, come home.
    Snoooopy, Snoooopy,
    Why-oh-why did you roam? (Come home come home)
    Snoooopy, Snoooopy,
    Come home, Snoopy come home.

    ---anactofgod---

    --

    ---anactofgod---

    "Equal opportunity swindling - *that* is the true test of a sustainable democracy."
  102. Its okay, I speak Indian by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Let me be clear: I am not an American indian, but I do speak their language. In fact, most cannot tell me from a native speaker:

    OOOh Boo Boo Boo OOOH Boo Boo Boo Boo.
    Ugh. Heap big metal bird fly many moons.
    Falling to the groud, and breaking
    Ugh. White man does not know the way of martian nature.
    OOOH. Boo Boo Boo. OOOh Boo Boo Boo Boo.

  103. Where she stops... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..or maybe it landed in a crater, the airbags did not fail, and the poor thing is still just rolling around and around the rim because it hasn't slowed enough to roll to a stop yet.

  104. The last message recieved was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Curse you Red Baron!"

  105. Done as 'Stewie' from Family Guy: by forcei · · Score: 1

    "This would be an incredibly unlucky situation," he said.

    Luck had nothing to do with it.

    Ahahaha! Victory is mine!

  106. Well... by herrvinny · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The only way that Beagle 2 can achieve its mass goals is by having no redundancy in its electronics whilst relying on a robust and failure-tolerant design.

    (From http://www.beagle2.com/technology/command.htm)

    That's not good. Anything electronic failed, forget it...

  107. On Mars... by gordgekko · · Score: 1

    On Mars, craters crashland you!

    --
    You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
  108. Mars Needs Women? by KaeloDest · · Score: 1

    First Mars needs Women, Then Mars needs Guitars, NOW Mars Needs sattelites... Y'know if Mars needed enriched uranium or fast-breeder reactors we could get the marines there on the cheap-
    Well with 'Beagle 2' and 'Hope/Nozumi' down, It almost puts NASA in a good light

    --
    --Shaddup and support your local PBS station Plan for it
  109. Grammar nazi says ... by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    ... that the phrase blew up on landing means exactly that, on landing, not before landing. If you confuse yourself by thinking inflating instead of exploding, same result, because they were supposed to inflate before landing.

  110. Re:This is just sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think you're right, because obviously having lots of guns around makes everything safer.

  111. Re:Missing Beagle? take responsibility people! by vsprintf · · Score: 1

    Jeez, somebody loses their dog and they blame a crater on Mars.

    If they knew anything about Mars, they would know that a banth got it. Bad luck, old boys.

  112. You know you're a Martian redneck when . . . by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

    . . . you have probes up on cinderblocks scattered across your lawn.

    --
    It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    1. Re:You know you're a Martian redneck when . . . by WeblionX · · Score: 1

      Where'd they get the cinder from?

      --
      (\(\
      (=_=) Bani!
      (")")
    2. Re:You know you're a Martian redneck when . . . by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Home Depot or Lowe's

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
  113. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT by thelizman · · Score: 0, Troll

    Slashdot. News for people who can't get the point. Stuff that doesn't matter.

    Are we going to have to put up with repetitive regurgitative stories about Beagle 2 on into the new year as well? NOBODY FUCKING CARES!

  114. Re:This is just sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even well-known gun grabber Chuckie Schumer said that guns on international flights was a good idea and we should have been doing it over a year ago.

  115. Colonization by Jonathan+Platt · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If we ever colonize this planet, we will have to clean our crap up from all over the place.

    --


    VENI, VIDI, VICI, DIXI
  116. snopes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.snopes.com/humor/jokes/moonshot.htm

    An urban legend takes on a new form.

  117. Re:attitude dosen't matter by deglr6328 · · Score: 2, Informative

    That would have made no difference. The critical issue with atmospheric entry is WHERE in the atmosphere it enters, this was controlled very very accurately by pointing Beagle2 before it was released by Mars Express. Once thats done Bagle simply follows newtons laws to its entry point. Beagle 2 was "spun up" before it left Mars express to stabilize its attitude so it would enter the atmosphere with the correct side down but even if this failed it wouldn't really matter all that much. Attude of Beagle on initial entry dosen't matter because as soon as it starts to hit the top of the atmosphere it will right itself so the heat shield is pointed down; the same way that a pencil dropped from a tall building will always land point down.

    --
    - "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
  118. Me = dumbass by No+Such+Agency · · Score: 1

    Haha, I'm an idiot. Just goes to show that even if you RTFA, your ideas can get the best of you sometimes...

    --
    Freedom: "I won't!"
  119. We won't run out of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " Soon you'll run out of both shuttles and people to send up in them."

    If you'll notice, Americans are not abject cowards like you people.

  120. The question is by mc6809e · · Score: 1


    Was the crater there before the attempted landing?

  121. Who are the Aliens? by frostman · · Score: 1

    Sorry, but we're talking about Mars here. We are the Aliens, the Martians are not.

    If the Martians come down here chanting "Don't run, we are your friends!" and shooting everyone in sight, well, then they are the Aliens.

    Don't get all xenophobic when you are the xeno.

    --

    This Like That - fun with words!

  122. Junkyard Wars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The next season to be filmed on Mars.

  123. Medium Answer by frostman · · Score: 1

    Medium Answer: Pick one or more.

    A) In our interplanetary explorations, at least until the shit hits the fan, we desire to be like doctors, and First do no harm.

    B) We would like to know about any Mars Bacteria and get some nice samples so we can eliminate it before the shit hits the fan and we start colonizing, because you never know what it might do to us otherwise.

    C) Given the realistic timeframe for manned Mars trips, even with China-US competition, we are worried about the higher life forms that might evolve from said bacteria before we actually send anyone up. There is reason for concern.

    D) Cowboy Neal on Mars.

    --

    This Like That - fun with words!

  124. Battlebots by Pizaz · · Score: 1

    Let's get the people who build battlebots to build our next generation of rovers. Those things can take a beating and keep on ticking.

    Instead of Beagle 2 we'd have Diesector!
    http://www.battlebots.com/meet_the_rob ots3/meet_ro bot_specs.asp?id=2

    Now that thing aint gonna be stifled by a crater!

    1. Re:Battlebots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if there really are any green men destroying our rovers, at least Diesector or 'Angriff' could take out a few martians in hand to hand combat! :)

      http://www.battlebots.com/meet_the_robots3/meet_ ro bot_specs.asp?id=896

  125. Fried b Solar Flare event? by chris_sawtell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, could Beagle2 have been fried in the same solar flare event which finally did in the Japanese probe?

    Was it possible to test Beagle2 for this while it was still attached to the ESA's Mars Express?

    I have not seen any remarks about this in the mainstream media.

    1. Re:Fried b Solar Flare event? by WhiteDragon · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting possibility. I would imagine that there would be some communication between Mars Express and Beagle 2 prior to launch, (article says ME "spun up" Beagle 2 successfully, but no mention of whether it also did a system status check).

      --
      Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
  126. Blame.. by Mad_Chocobo · · Score: 0

    Canada!

  127. Forensics? by sanqui · · Score: 1

    Forensic Fo*ren"sic, a. L. forensis, fr. forum a public place, market place. See Forum.

    Belonging to courts of judicature or to public discussion and debate; used in legal proceedings, or in public discussions; argumentative; rhetorical; as, forensic eloquence or disputes.


    Yes, I know everyone uses the word "forensic" to refer to all sorts of sleuthing, but it just means "law-related". Oh, please, no need to thank me.
  128. beagale 2 by anetic · · Score: 1

    Looking at todays Astronomy Picture of the Day Dec 30 2003 http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/astropix.html it seems more likely that the beagle fell into or got stuck or wedged in a crevice maybe getting caught after a bounce or two and therefore was unable to open properly

  129. Re:Missing Beagle? take responsibility people! by wh00dini · · Score: 0

    i'll take my chances if she is up there

  130. Mar Probe Failure Rates. by sbaker · · Score: 2, Insightful
    This (and several other) articles have said: Of 34 unmanned American, Soviet and Russian missions to Mars since 1960, two-thirds have ended in failure. Beagle 2 would be only the fourth successful Mars landing if all goes well.

    Am I just being dense?

    If two-thirds of 34 missions ended in failure, wouldn't that mean there were 11 successful missions? How come Beagle 2 would only be the fourth successful one?

    It must be that the first statistic is talking about all kinds of missions (including simple orbiters with no landing component) whilst the second is talking only about landers.

    That being the case, only three out of the eleven successful missions included landers in the first place. I don't believe that as many as nine or ten landers have ever been sent to Mars. This suggests that the failure rate of the landers is not noticably different than the failure rate of relatively simple orbiters.

    What that says to me that the problem is not so much the rigours of descent as of the difficulty of getting electronics and batteries to last throughout launch and the long trip to Mars. I'm betting that these failed landers were dead before they even hit the atmosphere.

    --
    www.sjbaker.org
  131. The real reason for the crash - it was British by dr3vil · · Score: 1

    Not a troll. Wonderful bit of self-deprecation in a Grauniad article. "If there's one thing the British know how to snatch it is defeat and, unerringly, they know where to snatch it from." Watch out for the sneaky bit of optimism that made its way in at the end though.

  132. They *can* see it by bitsformoney · · Score: 1

    Just saw something metioned on the Spiegel Online web site that the mothership, Mars Express, actually has a stereo camera that should be able to pick it up as soon as it's in proper orbit.

    --
    This comment is printed on 100% recycled electrons.
  133. Re:This is just sick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's not the guns, it's the whole "explosive decompression" bit that happens when you puncture the hull of a commercial jet at high altitude. You might as well just give the security agents a button on their armrest that detonates the airplane. I'd feel a whole lot safer knowing that I'll be killed by federal agents instead of terrorists. Great fuckin' idea. Hey, and as a bonus, if they know who the agents are, terrorists can grab a gun while they're on the plane and skip that whole security deal!

    Low-velocity firearms? Anything low-velocity enough not to fuck up the airplane wouldn't be too much use against people either: "Settle down, Habib, or I'm gonna give you *such* a welt!"

  134. Re:Taking a page from the americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not that that I have anything against the American people, but it seems this post (troll?) needs a more balanced perception of the world:

    Whereas Americans have this anoying habit of showing up, sticking a flag in something, and proclaiming that they have liberated it. This of course iritates the people already there as they felt that maybe things were not so bad in the first place. Where upon the Americans point out that they do not have Freedom and Democracy and that they are disqualified on that technicality. Then they shot them.

  135. curiously by penguin7of9 · · Score: 1

    the crater wasn't there before Beagle landed.

  136. Obligatory Monty Python Quote by ZerroDefex · · Score: 1

    "And this is the machine that goes *PING* to let you know that your baby is still alive."

  137. It hit a puddle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It fell in a puddle of water and shorted out...

  138. Much better idea! by DrMorpheus · · Score: 1
    Ranger Series probes did a purposeful crash landing to get a progressively closer look, but noboby expected them to survive, and none did.
    Obviously we need to send the Transformers to Mars instead!
    --
    Debunking the "59 Deceits"
  139. Beagle 2 by Evil+Corvine · · Score: 1

    Of cource the Beagle 2 found life: it was eaten :-)