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."

Comments

Question

[Sklivvz]

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?

Re:Question

[obeythefist]

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.

Re:Question

[Aggrajag]

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."

Re:Question

[snake_dad]

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.

Re:Question

[SegFault]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re:Question

[SegFault]

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.

Re:Question

[nathanh]

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

Re:Question

[Glock27]

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.

Re:Question

[thanasakis]

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

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

Re:Question

[Ianoo]

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.

Re:Question

[MyHair]

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

Re:Question

[Aglassis]

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.

I propose...

[Scoria]

... 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...

What gives us the right?

[scsirob]

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...

Re:What gives us the right?

[sopuli]

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.

Re:What gives us the right?

[Deraj DeZine]

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

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

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

Re:What gives us the right?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

I for one..

[Channard]

.. 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.

Re:I for one..

[wildsurf]

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.

Re:It's morning in the US

[transient]

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

Chug once....

[Channard]

.. 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.

But...

[Channard]

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.

Celestia add-on?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Celestia add-on?

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are looking for is here

Re:Celestia add-on?

[Tim C]

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...

We are simply uncouth bastards

[PotatoHead]

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!

Re:We are simply uncouth bastards

[Niadh]

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.

Names

[EuroChild]

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"...

Re:As with other airlines...

[SegFault]

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

Updated graphics

[Rxke]

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

Re:Updated graphics

[Naomi_the_butterfly]

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

Re:Updated graphics

[haggar]

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.

When Rover lands

[maroberts]

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?

One of them's BOUND to make it!

[Greyfox]

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

Re:A couple of comments

[skimitar]

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.

Re:A couple of comments

[SegFault]

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/

Better chances

[Naomi_the_butterfly]

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!

Re:Better chances

[Lispy]

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

Re:Better chances

[Naomi_the_butterfly]

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.

Obvious

[ByteSlicer]

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

Re:Obvious

[Naomi_the_butterfly]

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

They won't be in ORBIT at all.

[An Ominous Cow Erred]

...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. ^_^

Sadly Rovers cannot substitute for Beagle

[kyknos.org]

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

Re:Sadly Rovers cannot substitute for Beagle

[Naomi_the_butterfly]

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.

Re:A couple of comments

[Dr. GeneMachine]

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

Re:A couple of comments

[man_ls]

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.

Singe Point of Failure

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Why not seed the orbit of the planet you're exploring with a half dozen relay stations, then send thousands of miniature crawlers to the planet as landers, ensuring that clumps of them land in as many different locations as possible? Equip each crawler with a radio transmitter and sensors and 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.

Re:It's morning in the US

[weeboo0104]

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)

Updating the software during the trip to Mars

[ssassen]

> 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