Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rovers On Final Approach

leapis writes "In the wake of the possible loss of the Beagle 2 Mars probe, let us not forget that the Mars Rovers are scheduled for arrival in orbit this weekend. As noted in this article at Space.com, the fourth and final course correction has been made, and Spirit, the first of two spacecraft, will touch down around 22:34 on 3 Jan 2004. More information and a countdown to the landing can be found here."

204 comments

  1. Question by Sklivvz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The article says the rover's trajectory has been updated. Is it because they were afraid it would land in a crater like beagle2?

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

    Does anyone know the different purposes they have?

    1. Re:Question by obeythefist · · Score: 2

      Maybe they were afraid it would land on the beagle? Or any of those other countless, expensive probes that failed? There must be a pretty big pile there now.

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

      It would be really neat if they did find life. That would increase a lot of the space exploration budget, I think.

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    2. Re:Question by Fizzl · · Score: 1
      ...when did it happen before this that we had so many probes heading on the same planet?


      Never?

      (Moon is technically err.. moon?)
    3. Re:Question by wildsurf · · Score: 1

      when did it happen before this that we had so many probes heading on the same planet?

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

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    4. Re:Question by Aggrajag · · Score: 5, Informative

      RTFA. It appears that updating trajectory is a normal procedure when a probe approaches a planet.

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

      And they actually trying to land it in a crater.

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

    5. Re:Question by snake_dad · · Score: 4, Informative
      Does anyone know the different purposes they have?

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

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

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    6. Re:Question by SegFault · · Score: 5, Informative

      Beagle2 landed at Isidis. MER-A Spirit is landing at Gusev crater. So we did a trajectory corection maneuver in order to land in a crater :)

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

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

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

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

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

    7. Re:Question by snake_dad · · Score: 1
      "Spirit is being sent to Gusev Crater, a depression the size of Connecticut that scientists believe once held a lake. It is set to land Saturday."

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

      --
      karma capped .sig seeking available Slashdot poster for long-term relationship.
    8. Re:Question by SegFault · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In 1971 five different Mars-bound spacecraft were launched by the US and the USSR. Of the five, only Mariner 9 returned much useful data, to the tune of 7,329 pictures. The USSR "Mars 3" returned a few pictures and some data before it died. The other three craft failed.

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

      Excuse me, but who can confirm that Beagle did really made it to Mars? Perhaps Beagle never landed and neither crashed, but missed the red planet completely. Has anyone considered this?

      As a European, I really want those Rovers to succeed. Best of luck you yanks!

    10. Re:Question by ByteSlicer · · Score: 1

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

    11. Re:Question by nathanh · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    12. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could ask him why the landing area for the Beagle has a crater right in the middle of it.

    13. Re:Question by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Informative
      You could ask him why the landing area for the Beagle has a crater right in the middle of it.

      IANANS (I Am Not A NASA Scientist), but it seemed pretty clear from the article I read. To quote:

      " Scientists picked the site -- a flat, low-lying basin that's 700 square kilometres (270 square miles) in area -- to minimise natural hazards.

      But, not surprisingly for a pockmarked planet, the area has a crater one kilometer (1,100 yards) wide at its center, and possibly hundreds of meters (feet) deep.

      It 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."

      It does seem that they would have been better off waiting for the MGS imagery before actually landing... ;-)

      Sometimes even the most obvious things are only clear with hindsight.

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    14. Re:Question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >It does seem that they would have been better off waiting for the MGS imagery
      >before actually landing... ;-)

      Yes, check to see if there are no problems with the proposed landing site, and THEN try to land.

      >Sometimes even the most obvious things are only clear with hindsight.

      Oh come on, that's not hindsight! That could be part of a script for the Simpsons!

      "Homer - your planned landing site has a crater in the middle of it"
      "Ok Mr Perfect - YOU find it somewhere to land. You'll be telling me I shouldn't have parked my car under that building which had a sign reading `danger - due for demolition` on.... DOH!

    15. Re:Question by thanasakis · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

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

    16. Re:Question by Ianoo · · Score: 2, Interesting
      when did it happen before this that we had so many probes heading on the same planet?
      Despite the failure rate, it's a sign that unmanned flight to the red planet is becoming routine. Any nation can do it, even if they don't have a great deal of spacefairing experience (e.g. Britain, the ESA). Hence countries seeking a challenge might want to go further to avoid the "yet another Mars probe" view the public is developing. Hopefully a manned mission isn't too far away.
    17. Re:Question by MicroBerto · · Score: 1
      How do you know Zond2 suffered a failed radio? I'm not familiar with it at all...

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

      --
      Berto
    18. Re:Question by red+elk · · Score: 1

      Thank You because Space.com is one of the most confusing sites ever!

    19. Re:Question by MyHair · · Score: 3, Funny

      I agree, but it's somewhat disturbing that the person's name is "Segfault". :-)

    20. Re:Question by Aglassis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You said "It does seem that they would have been better off waiting for the MGS imagery before actually landing... ;-)

      Sometimes even the most obvious things are only clear with hindsight.
      "

      This may not have been possible. Three points:
      1) Mars Express was designed before the Beagle 2 was agreed to be attached. Since it had to do a correction after entering orbit to make its orbit a polar orbit, it probably wouldn't have had enough fuel to do so with the Beagle 2 still attached.
      2) Since the landing area is an ellipse with the major axis parallel to the direction the craft is moving, a polar insertion would probably be unacceptable for the landing area.
      3) Additional fuel would be required to decelerate the Beagle 2 out of polar orbit

      Obviously since the Beagle was a late 100 kg addition, the idea of adding additional fuel is impossible due to the weight constraints. You can always wait for additional information before you attempt to land your spacecraft, but by then it might be year 3000 and the argument would be over whether the new 1 mm resolution camera is accurate enough to land a spacecraft.

      --
      Suddenly, the hairy finger of a familiar monkey tapped me on the shoulder. It was time.--G. T.
  2. Re:It's morning in the US by Channard · · Score: 1
    If this site could get any more U.S.-patriotic, they'd have to fly the Stars and Stripes.

    Funny you should mention that (points to top of page).

  3. I propose... by Scoria · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... that, instead of quarreling about the legitimacy of robotic space exploration, we dedicate this thread to the inevitable development of a Mars probe drinking game!

    Gallons, not liters, please...

    --
    Do you like German cars?
    1. Re:I propose... by transient · · Score: 1

      And I propose that we abolish the phrase "in the wake of". Is it really so hard to just say "after"?

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    2. Re:I propose... by SegFault · · Score: 1

      "wake" is appropriate considering Beagle2 is likely dead.

    3. Re:I propose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wake n.
      1 A watch; a vigil.
      2 A watch over the body of a deceased person before burial, sometimes accompanied by festivity. Also called viewing.

    4. Re:I propose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, here's the Mars probe drinking game:

      Take a drink when one of your buddies mentions "Mars."

      Take two drinks when one of your buddies mentions a "Mars probe."

      Take three drinks (at least) when one of your buddies mentions "probe" without "Mars" in the same sentence. Make them doubles if he looks at you weird when he says "probe."

      Take four drinks when one of your buddies says "I have a red planet in my pants."

      Finish off the bottle when one of your buddies says "Beagle 2? Hell, I have something that will fit much better into any crater."

    5. Re:I propose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, often after a death you hold a wake... so someone was just trying to be punny.

    6. Re:I propose... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm assuming the rules would be: Drink 1 if it makes it, person next to you drinks one if it crashes.

      I'm sorry, but how is one supposed to get properly drunk that way?

      "There's no way I'm gonna score with this girl. This game is gonna take 50 years to get her drunk."

  4. Re:It's morning in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Saw it. Just checking to see if anyone else was noticing. :-)

  5. What gives us the right? by scsirob · · Score: 3, Funny

    Just wondering... Suppose there *is* life on Mars, what gives us the right to drop all sorts of space junk on their planet? Let's face it, if alien probes were to crash on Earth, everyone would be up in arms...

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:What gives us the right? by sopuli · · Score: 5, Funny
      Just wondering... Suppose there *is* life on Mars, what gives us the right to drop all sorts of space junk on their planet?

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

    2. Re:What gives us the right? by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would have personally brought up the whole Roswell incident as evidence of just how crazy people get over crashed alien craft.

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

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

      --
      True story.
    3. Re:What gives us the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Uh...In case you haven't noticed the martians haven't exactly kept it up over the years. Face it, those Martians are slobs.

    4. Re:What gives us the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      if alien probes were to crash on Earth, everyone would be up in arms...

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

    5. Re:What gives us the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Up in arms? People would be fighting over the debris and hawking it on eBay. We'd line up by the thousands just to peer into the craters and buy the zany "Probe This" t-shirts. If there were cameras attached to them, unruly mobs would jostle to flash gang signs, middle fingers, tits and various religious icons in thier field of view. Roswell, New Mexico has made an industry out of a crashed alien craft and theirs is only make-believe.

    6. Re:What gives us the right? by zr · · Score: 1, Funny

      habit?

    7. Re:What gives us the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what gives us the right to drop all sorts of space junk on their planet?

      Same thing that gives you the right to whine about it on /.

    8. Re:What gives us the right? by Detritus · · Score: 1, Funny
      Just wondering... Suppose there *is* life on Mars, what gives us the right to drop all sorts of space junk on their planet? Let's face it, if alien probes were to crash on Earth, everyone would be up in arms...

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

      --
      Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
    9. Re:What gives us the right? by blane.bramble · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, but you don't have a King or Queen to rule that the land you have discovered is uninhabited (natives don't count you see), and therefore available to be claimed. I suggest the American people quickly choose a royal family, to legitimise this colonisation effort.

    10. Re:What gives us the right? by Cragen · · Score: 1
      And we would do what about that, exactly? (I, for one, would hold my breath until I pass out!)

      "Come down here & fight like a man, ya scurvy dog!" might not be a good idea... :)

      *cragen

    11. Re:What gives us the right? by ObiWanKenblowme · · Score: 1

      No, we'll just declare any alien life we find as an "enemy non-combatant" and remove them that way.

      --
      Obvious exits are NORTH, SOUTH, and DENNIS.
    12. Re:What gives us the right? by mi · · Score: 1

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

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    13. Re:What gives us the right? by mi · · Score: 1
      Sorry, there is a double negative there. Should be, of course:
      Some people don't think, we have such a right, but most think, we do.
      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    14. Re:What gives us the right? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have too many commas in that sentance. The way it reads you're claiming that we have a right not to think. It should read: Some people don't think we have such a right, but most think that we do.

  6. I for one.. by Channard · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. am deeply disappointed by the lack of dog puns.. 'Beagle 2 fails to bark'... 'Down, Rover'.. 'Beagle 2 Space Probe has Ruff Landing'.. so much potential unfulfilled.

    1. Re:I for one.. by obeythefist · · Score: 1

      Maybe the reason it failed was more simple than we think.

      "Okay, get the beagle ready for launch and fire it off."
      "But sir..."
      "Don't ask questions! This is a great day for mars exploration, old chap! I'm off for tea and crumpets."
      "Okay sir. Here boy! Walkies!"

      --
      I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
    2. Re:I for one.. by wildsurf · · Score: 2, Funny

      1. Beagle Scratched
      2. Dog Whistle Inaudible
      3. No Word from Deep Space K-Nine
      4. After Two Dog Days and Three Dog Nights: Dog Gone?
      5. Crater possibility: Did Dog Land in Reservoir?
      6. Mars, 15; Puppy, Love.

      --
      Weeks of coding saves hours of planning.
    3. Re:I for one.. by deathcow · · Score: 1, Funny

      > .. am deeply disappointed by the lack of dog puns.. 'Beagle 2 fails to bark'...
      > 'Down, Rover'.. 'Beagle 2 Space Probe has Ruff Landing'.. so much potential unfulfilled

      British scientists announce "That dog wont hunt!"

    4. Re:I for one.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention all of the missing Snoopy jokes.

      The ultimate expression of this would be a re-write of the lyrics to Snoopy vs. the Red Baron into Snoopy vs. the Red Planet.

    5. Re:I for one.. by Anonymous+Shepard · · Score: 1

      Just wait until they send a lander to Pluto...

      --
      I have a life. I really do. I've just chosen to ignore it.
    6. Re:I for one.. by MyHair · · Score: 1

      You can't teach a new dog old tricks.

      I suddenly got a mental image of a beagle sitting on the barren wasteland surface of Mars...maybe they should've named the probe Spike.

    7. Re:I for one.. by jafac · · Score: 1

      well, it was built by the british.
      Ever own a british car? (Rover, Jag, etc)

      Well known for crappy and unreliable electrical systems.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    8. Re:I for one.. by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      The Beagle has landed. Poorly. rj

  7. In Other News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

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

    1. Re:In Other News... by Craig3010 · · Score: 0

      NASA would be fucked if that was true...

    2. Re:In Other News... by Kenate · · Score: 1

      Riiiight... cuz the UN has proven their efficacy in enforcing UN resolutions in the past. Until the UN enforces its laws, upon the entire world community, I don't see how they can extend their bounds to space.

      After all, it is called the United Nations, not the United Planets or United Spaces.

    3. Re:In Other News... by GrassyNoel · · Score: 1

      Well, NASA was fined $400 for dumping Skylab on Australia. There's no life in Australia, so the fine for Mars should be a bit higher.

      --
      Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.
    4. Re:In Other News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out-of-state tickets ? Ha! That'll be easy to collect! :)

  8. I suppose.. by Channard · · Score: 1
    And I propose that we abolish the phrase "in the wake of". Is it really so hard to just say "after"?

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

    1. Re:I suppose.. by transient · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I guess I can see how it means a bit more than just "after." But I still think it's become a terrible cliche.

      --

      irb(main):001:0>
    2. Re:I suppose.. by richie2000 · · Score: 1
      create a wake that affected all around it.

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

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

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

      --
      Money for nothing, pix for free
  9. Re:It's morning in the US by transient · · Score: 2, Informative

    Good Lord, they can't even get the US flag right. The top stripe is red.

    --

    irb(main):001:0>
  10. Chug once.... by Channard · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

  11. Re:It's morning in the US by xsfo · · Score: 1

    The top stripe is red. The flag is just cropped very badly.

  12. We know darn well martians don't like probes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

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

    Earthlings go home!

    1. Re:We know darn well martians don't like probes by AmericanKleptocracy · · Score: 0, Funny

      How is it exactly that you know Martians don't like probes?

    2. Re:We know darn well martians don't like probes by Drakin · · Score: 1

      Two thirds of all probes to mars have failed.

      That's one hell of a record. Either the folks down here are real fuck ups, or the martians are lending a helping hand... and no human wants to take the blame...

    3. Re:We know darn well martians don't like probes by bdeclerc · · Score: 1

      Or maybe landing on another planet 100 million miles away is just bloody difficult. Most other spacecraft have been orbiters, or even just fly-by's, not easy by any means, but considerably easier than landing something onto a planet...

      Remember the spectacular successes too : Viking 1&2, Mars Pathfinder, Mars Global Surveyor...

      Bart

  13. Re:It's morning in the US by Deraj+DeZine · · Score: 1

    I was about to doublecheck this (just for confirmation) until I realized that I didn't care.

    --
    True story.
  14. And in other news.... by TheDarkener · · Score: 1, Funny

    Little green men on a far-away planet eat their first interplanetary delicacy - "Beagles & Rovers".

    --
    It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    1. Re:And in other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmm, yum, Fido burgers.

  15. But... by Channard · · Score: 2, Funny
    We'll just say they have weapons of mass destruction.

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

  16. As with other airlines... by mog007 · · Score: 1

    will touch down around 22:34 on 3 Jan 2004

    Is that local time?

    1. Re:As with other airlines... by SegFault · · Score: 3, Informative

      04:35 Jan. 4, 2004, Universal Time
      8:35 p.m. Jan. 3, Pacific Standard Time

    2. Re:As with other airlines... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      will touch down around 22:34 on 3 Jan 2004

      Is that local time?

      If you ever learn anything at NASA, it's that when someone outside your center arranges for a telecon and gives you a time it's almost always CST because those fuckers at Marshall and Johnson think they own the world.

  17. Celestia add-on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Does anyone know if it's possible to get accurate data from these recent Mars Probes into the Celestia 3d space simulator?

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

    1. Re:Celestia add-on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

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

    2. Re:Celestia add-on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      that program makes some great pictures

    3. Re:Celestia add-on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      What you are looking for is here

    4. Re:Celestia add-on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well damn that's not very convenient. What am I supposed to download? All hundreds of files? the textures are in higher directories.

    5. Re:Celestia add-on? by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

      There's a page on the Nasa site here that contains links to some downloads. I've not tried any of it yet, though, as I'm at work at the moment...

    6. Re:Celestia add-on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't expect it will be that hard to find out "who to ask." What you'll get will be a price list. You won't be happy with the prices though.

    7. Re:Celestia add-on? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wget -r http://exp.arc.nasa.gov/downloads/celestia/data/

  18. We are simply uncouth bastards by PotatoHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

    that reproduce like weeds and leave shit where ever we go.

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

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

    1. Re:We are simply uncouth bastards by Niadh · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

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

      I guess it all comes down to what you believe. If you believe in some God/Gods/Omnipotent Force then you just have to ask yourself what was his/her/it's point for us during creation? I would say it was for us to learn. Then what was the point of other life? Well, maybe it was just other tries that didn't work out, or it could be meant for fuel. God did make us so we had to eat something and other life seems to be it.

      If you believe that life is just a fluke in an infinite universe then there is no set point and thus no restriction of right, unless you count your moral values as universal law. In which case you would be imposing your morals on others just like they where doing to the non-human life form.

      Maybe you where just trolling? I never can tell for sure.

    2. Re:We are simply uncouth bastards by PotatoHead · · Score: 1

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

      Take mars, if there is some simple primitive life --it does not know any better, so we have done no harm. Taking the really long Douglas Adams scale view of things means we humans just retarded the most advanced beings to have ever lived. The universe got a bit brighter just from a few of them walking around.

      The right does not change in either case, but the worldview is the difference between doing what you feel like because you really don't care much, or doing nothing because anything at all great could (or could not) happen based on even a twitch.

      Just making a bit of fun with us and those coupla ideas....

  19. A couple of comments by Matrix2110 · · Score: 1

    I am sad to see the possible demise of the Beagle II. However, I have to temper that with my watching an animation of what they were attempting to accomplish and saying to myself: It will never work. It is too complex. I hope I am proven wrong in the long run.

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

    My main point is that if you want durable aerospace vehicles that can survive the (Groan) impact. The Russians need to be the designers.

    Those later model Mig's are a shining example.

    1. Re:A couple of comments by skimitar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And let's not forget that the Beagle 2 was really a last minute 'add on' to the main mission - the orbiter. Poor Mars Express seems to be lost in the media coverage of the of the Beagle. Done on the cheap and quickly, the real surprise would have been if it landed successfully. Kudos to the ESA for trying something as ambitious as this in their relatively early days of solar system exploration and lets hope we get great science from Express and the US landers.

    2. Re:A couple of comments by SegFault · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Mars Scorecard:

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

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

      Japan: 0/1

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

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

    3. Re:A couple of comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Indeed. The real prize is the Mars Express' orbital radar unit. This is the first damn time that radar has made its way to Mars, if you can believe that! Conspiracy theorists will tell you the reason for the lateness of this valuable instrument is because government spooks wanted to hide the existence of ancient underground Martian city ruins, which this surface penetrating radar would obviously reveal. I don't buy that, if you couldn't guess; no, I'm more interested in seeing further evidence of riverbeds buried by sandstorms!

      note: We used this same radar tech in Earth orbit to discover ancient Roman roads covered by sand. I can't wait to see what geologic stories Mars has to tell!

    4. Re:A couple of comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, IIRC, the reason a radar package was not sent in the past is because it sucks way too much power. No grand conspiracy here.

    5. Re:A couple of comments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If radar uses so much energy then explain to me why we have no problem with it in earth orbit? The solar arrays appear to be large enough to power it and Mars isnt that much farther away from the sun.

      logic my dear boy. logic.

    6. Re:A couple of comments by Dr.+GeneMachine · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Absolutely right. But you have to blame ESA for focussing their public relations mainly on Beagle. Now everyone is believing the whole mission failed, whereas in reality, the main scientific gain would have stemmed from the orbiter measurements anyhow. The European mission is by no means failed. If anything can get us data about possible water on mars, then it is the penetrating radar of the orbiter.

      --
      This comment does not exist.
    7. Re:A couple of comments by bwy · · Score: 1

      Wait until you see what Scaled Composites has in store after they launch Space Ship One into a suborbital flight in 2004.

      In the usual fashion, they've been working on Mars Ship One but won't go public until they're ready to do a major test flight.

    8. Re:A couple of comments by man_ls · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Radiated energy decreases with the square of the radius.

      It might not be "much farther" away from the sun, but it receives much less energy from it. Hence - bigger solar arrays, or smaller power loads.

    9. Re:A couple of comments by CrazyTalk · · Score: 1

      Hey, if you count the Viking landers the US beat them by almost 30 years!

  20. Brain flip... by Channard · · Score: 1, Funny

    Anyone else read that as 'Selling Steven Hawking on E-Bay'? 'Genius for sale, good cond, comes with Phd, batteries not included.'

  21. Names by EuroChild · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now see, I can tell simply by the names of these probes that they will fail. By giving them these "uplifting" or "inspirational" (eg: spirit) names they are jinxing themselves. Therefore I suggest that the next probes are named things like: "dismal faliure" or "flaming wreck"...

    --
    Does this make my brain look big?
    1. Re:Names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Therefore I suggest that the next probes are named things like: "dismal faliure" or "flaming wreck"...
      Well if we name the next one PATRIOT (Planetary Adventure Tamed by Realistic Interplanetary Objective Trajectory), it's sure to succeed! And if it fails, we can just blame the TERRestrial ORbital Infidel Space Thugs (TERRORISTs).

      --
      Rate Naked People at FuckMeter (not work-safe)
    2. Re:Names by Craig3010 · · Score: 0

      How about Mir II, Mir III, Mir IV, etc. etc.?

    3. Re:Names by sharkey · · Score: 0
      named things like: ... "flaming wreck"

      "Michael Jackson"

      --

      --
      "Outlook not so good." That magic 8-ball knows everything! I'll ask about Exchange Server next.
    4. Re:Names by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Howard Dean.

  22. Updated graphics by Rxke · · Score: 4, Informative
    Every 10 minutes another picture of the forthcoming landing:
    http://mars1.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/realtime/mera1.jpg
    and http://mars1.jpl.nasa.gov/mgs/realtime/mera3.jpg
    1. Re:Updated graphics by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 3, Informative

      Note that's simulated, not an actual transmitted image.

    2. Re:Updated graphics by haggar · · Score: 1

      Wow, that must be the mother of webcams! I mean, we have one in our cafeteria to show us when the crowd is smallest, but this really *is* better (even though less useful?).

      Seriously though, I am really excited about this mission. As a European, I am a bit ashamed of the dismal achievement of Beagle 2. But seeing the pictures from Spirit really lifts one's .. spirit up.

      --
      Sigged!
    3. Re:Updated graphics by haggar · · Score: 1

      Simulated or computer-DSP-processed? I mean, is it based on signals received from the crafts?

      --
      Sigged!
    4. Re:Updated graphics by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 1

      Looks to be perceived based on the expected location of the craft. Don't hold me to that, though. I think it looked like that 'Celestia' thing.

    5. Re:Updated graphics by Rxke · · Score: 1

      it's not really a webcam, just some software generated imagery, but still nice enough for me... And, i wouldn't call Beagle a dismall achievement. The fact that it got built is a tremendous achievment. Landing is tough, esp. for a first time (as European probe) I keep hoping, maybe against all odds, that Mars Express (100% successful, BTW) will be able to contact Beagle 2

    6. Re:Updated graphics by haggar · · Score: 1

      Thanks. I still hope they have some sort of camera on the crafts. I mean, these things cost a lot fo taxpayer money You gotta give these taxpayers a little bit of inspiration, a little something to involve the simple man into the whole space research thing, and not just keep it for the scientific elite.

      Didn't mean to rant, sry.

      --
      Sigged!
    7. Re:Updated graphics by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 1

      ummmmmmmm.... you wouldn't be able to see anything without an EXPENSIVE camera, which adds weight (another $50000 a pound), and so forth.
      as for attracting our interest, have you been paying any attention? The Mars Sundial, for one, is very public friendly. there are so many cool things on this mission.
      You wouldn't see a thing with a camera. Space is black, remember? the stars would need a HIGH resolution camera. the lens would burn up on entry (ever notice how the shuttle cams turn to static?) and could knock around, causing problems. In short, your idea != good.

    8. Re:Updated graphics by Uma+Thurman · · Score: 1

      That was what -- your first Mars mission? Take a look at some history to see how many tries it took to get our first photos of Mars. The first attempts failed even worse than Beagle 2 did.

      --
      This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
    9. Re:Updated graphics by haggar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not the specifics of my idea that matter. What really matters is involving the people. Make the simple man your ally, not an outsider. It's that simple man that creates the wealth that, in the end,is behind space exploration. That wealth can increase dramatically if there's exccitement and enthusiasm. I use this simple technique in my management activities: make people your allies by explaining them their part in the big picture, making them feel involved. (My other technique is discipline ;o))

      I have not heard of the Mars Sundial, my bad. That doesn't necessarily change the point I was trying to make.

      --
      Sigged!
    10. Re:Updated graphics by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 1

      the point is, this entire mission is filled with doodads that you'll see once the mission enters it's active phase. ALOT of effort went into making it interesting, not just scientific.

    11. Re:Updated graphics by haggar · · Score: 1

      That's really nice.

      --
      Sigged!
    12. Re:Updated graphics by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 1

      I try ;P
      anyway, this mission is packed chock-full of fun science. Go to http://www.planetary.org/audio/pr20030623.html and listen in on the Sundial, which is alot of fun, especially as an elementary school project.
      There's lots of stuff for the adult, too.

  23. When Rover lands by maroberts · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe it could sidle up to Beagle 2 and give it a push out of whatever ditch it has managed to land in!

    Does Rover carry any jump leads?

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

    1. Re:When Rover lands by Craig3010 · · Score: 0, Funny

      "Damnit! I'm a space probe, not a mechanic!"

  24. One of them's BOUND to make it! by Greyfox · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Martians are going to run out of missiles sooner or later!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:One of them's BOUND to make it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Yeah, they sky must look like a big game of Missile Command to them right now.

      "Whew, we took that sucka down. Omigod! Here comes another one shaped like a UFO! Fire!...Got it. Oh no! Two MORE!!!"

      If four probes entered the Earth atmosphere in quick succession, we'd be freakin'.

  25. Don't hold your breath... :-( by 0x1337 · · Score: 1

    Knowing the (lack of) success of all the previous ESA/NASA/RSA missions to Mars - we will still be looking at Viking 1 photos in press and media releases.

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

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

    1. Re:Don't hold your breath... :-( by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could at least us the pictures from the sojurner(sp?) rover that was succesful.

    2. Re:Don't hold your breath... :-( by Krapangor · · Score: 1

      We are not looking on Viking photos.
      Most of the "Mars" photos we see is made up stuff: the resolution of the Viking probes cameras was too low to give good PR photos. NASA used first old style fakery, but it shifting to CG these days.
      And before you start whining: it doesn't matter. Real Mars photos don't look interesting at all, it's basically just a endless, boring red desert. Even a waste dump looks better. So NASA isn't doing anything particular bad there. We must keep the public interest with cheap PR - unfortunately it's nearly impossible to get people interested in real scientific goals like acceleration free space travel and sub-Newtonian dynamics.

      --
      Owner of a Mensa membership card.
    3. Re:Don't hold your breath... :-( by 0x1337 · · Score: 1

      Fair enough - and frankly, I don't really care much for pictures, so it does't really bother me. Here's hoping for a successful mission to Mars in 2004...

  26. Better chances by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 5, Informative

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

    1. Re:Better chances by Lispy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was always wondering why, if beagle2 was so cheap they didnt put two or more up on it. I know weight is an issue, but if you can triple your chance of success by adding just 120kilos more weight Id say thats a bargain. I am not as well up to date with the rovers as I am with beagle2 but the overall design looked far more complex than little beagle2. I would love to see them become a success but I cant help the feeling that there are too many things that can break. Lets keep fingers crossed Im wrong. Its the same as with a car with too many extras. Id prefer to send a beetle to mars rather than a BMW 7.
      I honestly hope they tested their stuff as much as you say: they might need it.

      Lispy

    2. Re:Better chances by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 2, Informative

      well that's simple (the why, not the stupid beetle jokes).
      the beagle 2 was attached to the Mars Express craft, on which it piggybacked to mars. We didn't need 2 of that. It was designed to go with Mars Express, so a second rover would have been a complete redesign. Why piggyback? it's cheaper.
      as for the testing on the NASA rovers, it was EXTREMELY extensive, far more than any orevious craft ever launched by Earth.

    3. Re:Better chances by oni · · Score: 1

      The two mars rovers probably have a better chance of success than the (possibly) failed Beagle 2. Let's consider why:

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

  27. Yeah... by dupper · · Score: 1, Funny
    Have at you, Red Planet! *crash* Take that! *crash* And that! *crash* And THAT! *crash*

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

  28. Americans killed Beagle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    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.

    1. Re:Americans killed Beagle by oni · · Score: 1

      except for the pesky little fact that if NASA (or anybody) actually did find life somewhere the public would be demanding a manned mission and their budget would skyrocket.

      So, you are suggesting that NASA doesn't want more money??

    2. Re:Americans killed Beagle by FenderGeek · · Score: 1

      Don't you get it?! They know that it was actually Martians that killed JFK as part of a CIA plot, so they're covering it up!!

      Yeah, better adjust the tinfoil on you hat there, sparky...

      --
      One only needs two tools in life: WD-40 to make things go, and duck tape to make them stop. ~G.M. Weilacher
  29. Touch down? by SharpFang · · Score: 1

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

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

    --
    45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  30. too many participants too many rivalries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What I don't understand yet is WHY don't the NASA, the ESA and the Japanese (and why not the Chinese) joint their efforts and do something BIG for ONCE.

    Space Conquest(let's be sincere we want to colonize the whole universe) must be a global mission now, led by the USA (being European this hurts, but I don't want this thing in the hands of the Burocrats at Stratsburg, not led but the incompetency of the ONU). Petty rivalities will only lead to more failures and eventually powers that be will lose interest in anything non comercial or military.

    1. Re:too many participants too many rivalries by Craig3010 · · Score: 0

      WHY don't the NASA, the ESA and the Japanese (and why not the Chinese) joint their efforts

      Please, if they all got together and toked a few we might have world peace. And God knows the republicans can't have that!

    2. Re:too many participants too many rivalries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Please, if they all got together and toked a few we might have world peace. And God knows the republicans can't have that!

      ROFL. A slightly over-simplified world view, wouldn't you say?

      I don't suppose it'd help to point out that the word "assassin" came from hashish-smoking killers that were, in a way, the original suicide murderers?

      The only hope for world peace is through massive worldwide education, and a deep respect for ethics. That looks to be a long ways off.

      Further, who in America today seems more interested in ethics? Left or right? Granted, the right is heavily entrenched in Christian ethos, but there are certainly worse out there...

      Sorry to bother you with those pesky facts. ;)

    3. Re:too many participants too many rivalries by BitHerder · · Score: 1

      Yeah, good idea. Instead of one individual country's success, we could have a spectacular failure that the whole world could share.

      Come to think of it, you've pretty much described the International Socialism mission statement.

    4. Re:too many participants too many rivalries by Guppy06 · · Score: 1

      "What I don't understand yet is WHY don't the NASA, the ESA and the Japanese (and why not the Chinese) joint their efforts and do something BIG for ONCE."

      Yeah! And they can call it the International Space Station!

  31. Mars Vehicles by Knunov · · Score: 0, Funny

    I was reading this article, then clicked a few links to other articles, then spent a good hour or so looking at actual photos and artist renditions of the landing vehicles, successful, unsuccessful, and those en route.

    You know what ALL of them are missing?

    BLING-BLING

    If our governments are spending billions on these phat rides, shouldn't they at least throw a set of 20" Enkeis w/ low profile Pirelli P-Zeros on 'em? Then drop those bitches 'til they scrapin' the Martian surface, makin' dem green hoes flock. Shit man, ain't nothing even chromed up on 'em.

    But for the billions spent, what we got on the detailin' side? Nothin'. Not even a wax job and a pair of fuzzy fuckin' dice.

    Knunov

    --
    Why do users with IDs under 100,000 or over 700,000 usually have the most worthwhile comments?
    1. Re:Mars Vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why would a scientist want to waste time, money, and MASS on such superficial, macho, decoration? It's a space probe for christ sake, not a symbol of your wonderful penis that all the chicks "dig."

      Stupid ricer, you're not funny.

    2. Re:Mars Vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I bet you have a computer case mod, too, you hypocrite geek. If I caught you making fun of my wheelz I'd kick your scrawny ass. for real, yo! dont be a playah hater!

    3. Re:Mars Vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're god damn right I'm a "player hater!"

      I hate assholes that think that just because they have some shiny material posessions that may or may not cost a lot of money that the female will find them a valuable mate. bunch of phony fuckers. i've got no wind at all, i really dont. phonies.

    4. Re:Mars Vehicles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His penis cant be all that "wonderful", or he would not need any of the superficial, macho decorations that chicks 'dig'

  32. Obvious by ByteSlicer · · Score: 2, Funny

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

    1. Re:Obvious by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 2, Interesting

      yes, a 45kg umbrella sized probe certainly can make a mile wide crater *HEAVY SARCASM*

  33. They won't be in ORBIT at all. by An+Ominous+Cow+Erred · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...let us not forget that the Mars Rovers are scheduled for arrival in orbit this weekend.
    Erm, they aren't going to arrive in ORBIT at all. They're simply going to smash straight into Mars's atmosphere without trying to orbit first. Why spend the energy (and thus propellant mass) firing engines to orbit the planet when you actually just want to GET ON THE PLANET? Mars has a thin-but-functional atmosphere that you can use to slow yourself down so you drop for a nice landing. ^_^
  34. Simple answer by Krapangor · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    8==(''')===D ~o ~O>

    --
    Owner of a Mensa membership card.
  35. Sadly Rovers cannot substitute for Beagle by kyknos.org · · Score: 2, Insightful

    they simply lack instruments for answer to the most interesting question about Mars: Is (Was) there life on the Red Planet?

    --

    SHE does throw dice.
    1. Re:Sadly Rovers cannot substitute for Beagle by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 1

      Well......
      I dissagree. NASA is looking for the right spots for future missions. That's what the project scientists are saying anyway, and I tend to believe them.

    2. Re:Sadly Rovers cannot substitute for Beagle by kyknos.org · · Score: 1

      for future missions may be. but that will give us Answer in the far future. Beagle has (or had?) chance to tell us tomorrow.

      --

      SHE does throw dice.
    3. Re:Sadly Rovers cannot substitute for Beagle by Naomi_the_butterfly · · Score: 2, Insightful

      well, it had a CHANCE. Don't be so impatient. whether it's next week or in 3 years or in 20 years, we'll probably know n our lifetimes. You know, once we know there's life, we can't imagine so much anymore. I'd love to know, but I'm not in a hige hurry to lose that.

    4. Re:Sadly Rovers cannot substitute for Beagle by kyknos.org · · Score: 1

      but I have not much time anymore :o(

      --

      SHE does throw dice.
  36. As long as NASA remembers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that 1 meter != 1 foot then all should be go for Mars Rover.

  37. Inaccurate information by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again inaccurate info. The rovers do not go into orbit around Mars, they land directly. Also only Spirit is arriving this weekend, not both rovers as suggested by the article.

  38. Well they could, but.... by FatSean · · Score: 1, Funny

    Then the scientists would have to go to work without breakfast and wear old, ill-fiting clothing because all the budget was spent on rims and designer space suits.

    --
    Blar.
  39. Re:WE IN EUROPE KNOW WHAT HAPPENED by kyknos.org · · Score: 0

    it is not funny, may be it is true. just because you are paranoid...

    --

    SHE does throw dice.
  40. Mars Exploration going to the Dogs? by anubi · · Score: 1
    So it looks like the fun stuff is to be done by Rovers and Beagles.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

  41. Re:It's morning in the US by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
    I was about to doublecheck this (just for confirmation) until I realized that I didn't care.

    Well, the flag should also have 13 stripes, not 12. I second the "cropped very badly" conclusion.

  42. won-eyed girl rumoured to be alien LIEform? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    she/it is not a paid up member of robbIE's gnu dating service, & maybe not real at all? rumours. sheesh.

  43. The real crater of Beagle2 by HomerJayS · · Score: 0, Flamebait
    The article says the rover's trajectory has been updated. Is it because they were afraid it would land in a crater like beagle2?

    The only crater Beagle2 landed in was the one it created when it's airbags failed. The ESA is still in denial over this.

  44. Hey Scrooge! by HomerJayS · · Score: 1
    How dare you presume to rob the Martian culture of the Joy of the Christmas season.

    Imagine the elation that one lucky Martian child experienced when s/he found the nice, new, solar powered RC car land under the tree on Christmas morning.

    I for one think that we should shower more gifts upon these needy Martian children.

  45. "Michael Jackson" by maroberts · · Score: 1

    ...would fail to undock when told to!

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  46. United States vs Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, like we didn't see this coming.

    European statism has ruined any ability for them to engage in high technology. Although the US has its share of problems( 30% marginal tax rate on average ), it is much more economically free to develop the minds of its citizens, and allow them to excel beyond the Eurofags' ability to do nothing more than whine about worker exploitation and how their pension plans won't buy them a yacht.

  47. Re:It's morning in the US by Regul8or · · Score: 1

    Well, yeah. What else are we supposed to do? We gotta do something when we previously crashed a lander on Mars because of a metric/english conversion mishap.

  48. I say.... by ShadowRage · · Score: 1

    if this happens again, just send orbiting probes above mars, and if those disappear, obviously, we're not wanted there, or we're not meant to be there.

    at least get the ISS finished up first and work on that moonbase or the earth-to-space elevator thing.

    nasa and other agencies are so disorganised.. it's like they're now just throwing darts on a 3rd grade level space map.

    1. Re:I say.... by pmpeterson · · Score: 1

      We wish for success with the Beagle signal recovery. Any success by another nation will spur the competetive spirits of America. Americans need to be challenged. NASA needs a goad. We humans must go up, or we will go down. "Mars - A livelier place if we were there" park@sonx.com

  49. Singe Point of Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

    Why not seed the orbit of the planet you're exploring with a half dozen relay stations, then send thousands of miniature crawlers to the planet as landers, ensuring that clumps of them land in as many different locations as possible? Equip each crawler with a radio transmitter and sensors and have them relay information back to orbit and from there back to earth. Even if a few hundred dozen of the mini-bots die, the entire mission doesn't fall into jeopardy.

    The current norm of sending a single lander and praying that something doesn't go wrong seems a bit like sending a single three year year old unassisted off to the mall to fetch a carton of milk. Send a whole bus load, and sure, some won't come back, but chances are at least one will.

    1. Re:Singe Point of Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stay the hell away from my kids!

    2. Re:Singe Point of Failure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, in other words you want to send a zerg of rovers to mars ?

      There are smart ideas ... then there is yours ...

    3. Re:Singe Point of Failure by ravy · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly the premise (or rather one of them) of the documentary film Fast, Cheap and Out of Control.

  50. Plasma Cannons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...one to be found and death-rayed...

    Soon, very soon they will learn that switching from Plasma Cannons to Death Ray was a mistake.

    MOO2++

  51. Re:It's morning in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    [metric/english conversion mishap]

    I know it's easy to blame the engineers because it sounds so simple: One group used metric, the other did not. But it really wasn't that simple.

    Everybody was making their parts with metric measurements. The problem was that some of them were using tools that were calibrated using non-metric params. This caused a problem of accuracy, not precision. So even though the people making the parts were doing the right thing, and even though their tools were capable of the tolerances required, the calibration was not close enough, due to the imprecise metric to english conversion.

    It could have happened with Base-16 to Decimal floating point conversion, and you wouldn't feel so high-and-mighty about it, I think.

  52. Dog puns? by weeboo0104 · · Score: 1

    How about after it lands.

    "Spirit Rover has a leg up on Beagle2"

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  53. Re:It's morning in the US by weeboo0104 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Old man: WHAT...is the velocity of an unladen Mars probe?

    Arthur: What do you mean? American or European?

    Old man: Huh? I don't know...AAAGGHGGHHH (falls into a Mars crater)

    --
    It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
  54. The free market has a better solution! by dada21 · · Score: 1

    The free market has provided a better solution than what government proposes (as it always has). It is called insurance.

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

    Fast driving isn't the problem, it is fast driving in circumstances that warrant caution. Law will never be the solution -- and in many cases the speed law is only there to provide incentives to the friends of government, not to protect the overall public. Speeding laws came out of mercantilism; capitalism provides for a much better solution.

  55. Finding of life will be inconclusive, unless... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...it's significantly different from anything known here. How do we know any microbes found won't be ones brought there by the probe (or a previous probe...and have "grown"). Without a completely sterile probe arriving on Mars, I'm not sure we can get any conclusive results on the micro-level. Our only hope of a conclusive find is if there is *big* martian life.

  56. Updating the software during the trip to Mars by ssassen · · Score: 2, Funny

    > Logging on to Beagle2 > Connection openend at 33Kbps > Login: beagle > Password: ... >Wrong password! > Password: ... > Wrong password! > Password: ... > Wrong password, please remove jumper 121 to reset password, system halted

  57. More Worryingly by LPetrazickis · · Score: 1

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

    --
    Is this a sigs-optional kind of place? 'Cause I am totally down with that if you know what I mean.
  58. A hole in one! by sicapo27 · · Score: 1

    Boy! Those british guys are really good at golf...

    --
    This sig is better than nothing!
  59. They found it first. by SchroedingersCat · · Score: 1

    "... which was supposed to touch down on the distant planet on Christmas Day to begin its search for Martian life".

    It is all big conspiracy. It was no crater. "Martian life" found it first...

  60. Re:Mars ownership by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US already owns Mars ... now come one, we are they only ones who have actually landed anything there so far.

    I am sure we shot down that silly Beagle. (Mainly becuase the name is really ghey)

  61. Everyone else must fail. by heroine · · Score: 1

    "It's not good enough to succeed. Everyone else must fail" Words of wisdom from Larry Ellison and the reason why, when Beagle 2 crashed and desintegrated in a miserable flaming disaster we celebrated Christmas.

  62. Re:Mars ownership by BitHerder · · Score: 1

    And IIRC, the Russians called dibs on Venus.

  63. Re:It's morning in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Old man: WHAT...is the velocity of an unladen Mars probe?


    Absolute zero.

  64. Europe: 7/8 : 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Beagle2 was 1 of the 8 instruments of the mission. The other 7 are into mars express around mars.

  65. Beagle 2 and Charles Darwin by Helvidius · · Score: 1

    We know thta Beagle 2 was named after the ship that took Charles Darwin out to those remote places where he got the inspiration for the evolution of species. Beagle 2 helps to prove the theory of evolution--it just was not the fittest and did not survive. :-)

    --
    "Care about people's opinions and you will be their prisoner." ~~Tao Te Ching~~
  66. I find it disturbing... by leonbrooks · · Score: 1

    ...that Segfault's number is 547. That speaks of a man with a lot of time on his hands... (-:

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  67. Send Decoys, Dammit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These guys have got to learn to overwhelm the defence! Send a fleet of baloon decoys on similar orbits, fergudness'sake! Or, since they prefer that bashing about using a pointy "ball" as an excuse for football, at least set up a running block and scrimmage? Right? :)

  68. Irish Rovers perhaps? by HiggsBison · · Score: 1
    ...instead of quarreling... , we dedicate this thread to the inevitable development of a ... drinking game!

    So that song about "Green alligators" and such is perfectly on topic with the current "Green..." poll.

    Do you suppose the Mars Rovers can carry a tune?

    Does this mean there'll be Martian Whiskey?

    --
    My other car is a 1984 Nark Avenger.