Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mars Crater Theory Tries To Explain Missing Beagle

Posted by simoniker on from the put-face-on-mars'-eye-out dept.

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."

13 of 362 comments (clear)

  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. 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!"
  3. 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?
  4. 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 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

    2. 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

  5. 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 /.
  6. 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.

  7. 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 /.
  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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'.
  11. 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...