Slashdot Mirror


ESA Lander's Signal Cut Out Just Before It Was Supposed To Land on Mars (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader shares an ArsTechnica report: On Wednesday, the European Space Agency sought to become the second entity to successfully land a spacecraft on Mars with its Schiaparelli lander. And everything seemed to be going swimmingly right up until the point that Schiaparelli was to touch down. The European scientists had been tracking the descent of Schiaparelli through an array of radio telescopes near Pune, India and were able to record the moment when the vehicle exited a plasma blackout. The scientists also received a signal that indicated parachute deployment. But during the critical final moments, when nine hydrazine-powered thrusters were supposed to fire to arrest Schiaparelli's descent, the signal disappeared. At that point, the European Space Agency's webcast went silent for several minutes before one of the flight directors could be heard to say, "We expected the signal to continue, but clearly it did not. We don't want to jump to conclusions."

244 comments

  1. Really? by PCM2 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Seriously? This is a joke... I mean, who thought sending a mission to Mars would be this hard?

    --
    Breakfast served all day!
    1. Re:Really? by known_coward_69 · · Score: 2

      should work with live people

    2. Re:Really? by BringsApples · · Score: 1

      I'ts hard, yes, but the payout is well worth it.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    3. Re:Really? by jedidiah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Live people are much better with dealing with things when they go off script.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    4. Re:Really? by BringsApples · · Score: 2

      With live people, those live people will be able to make live decisions, on the spot. There will be much more of a dynamic operation with live people, whereas currently, they're setting most things up to statically unfold.

      --
      Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
    5. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA has managed to do it just fine quite a few times.

    6. Re:Really? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      Historically, Mars probes have had a very high failure rate. NASA techs have made jokes about "The Great Galactic Ghoul" being responsible.

    7. Re:Really? by Rick+Schumann · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone forgot to use an English measurement and put in Metric instead.

    8. Re:Really? by Moheeheeko · · Score: 1

      Was just thinking this. Maybe someone did the calculations in feet, but programmed the lander in meters.

    9. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer.

      Ummm...no. You'd better go read your history.

    10. Re:Really? by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Informative

      Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer. Could a live pilot have executed no, not with the equipment they sent, the fuel use and tolerances for error were far to small.

      I believe on Apollo 11 a human had to take over on the landing.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    11. Re:Really? by johannesg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer. Could a live pilot have executed no, not with the equipment they sent, the fuel use and tolerances for error were far to small.

      Nice story. Now here's what really happened: http://www.space.com/26593-apo...

    12. Re:Really? by WhiplashII · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, no. Niel Armstrong really did fly the lunar lander. He really did run it almost totally out of fuel, because he had to avoid a huge rock. If he hadn't done that, the vehicle would have gone splat.

      By the way, the computer was completely spazzing out during the landing and was not giving good data. Fortunately it was written in a way that kept the important stuff going regardless.

      http://space.stackexchange.com...

      also

      http://www.dickgordon.com/Apol...

      --
      while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
    13. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a good reason for that.

    14. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This "thing" is a replaceable inanimate camera on wheels. It doesn't matter. Send another one.

      Also, you need to keep the people alive and sane while they float in free-fall in a tin can, so they can preserve your camera on wheels.

      You move.

      PS: I know you're not just a Space Nutter, but a full-blown loon...

    15. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer. Could a live pilot have executed no, not with the equipment they sent, the fuel use and tolerances for error were far to small

      You are aware that Neil Armstrong had to manually land after the original landing site turned out to be a boulder field, right? That the human has able to recognize the issue, and correct for it, when the computer couldn't?

    16. Re:Really? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's all well and good. Now explain how it would have prevented a thruster failure. Or a metric-english conversion error on the entry trajectory calculation. Or a failed parachute. Or a launch vehicle failure. Or virtually any of the common ways that unmanned probes have actually failed. You might be able to salvage ~20% of them with humans aboard. Might. Meanwhile, humans are a massive added source of additional risk to a mission; they dramatically increase spacecraft size, complexity / part count, consumables, and just in general make things far more difficult. And you can build and launch numerous unmanned missions for the cost of one manned mission.

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    17. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Live people are also much better at dying than machines.

    18. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And don't forget this landing with a crew onboard

    19. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If things go wrong humans will most likely go splat before the have had time to read the error message on the control computers display.

      Agreed. This isn't the moon. Mars has a gravity 2x moon and 5x earths terminal velocity.

      Nobody is going to be manually deploying chutes and retrorockets given tolerances involved neither will they be able to do crap if these things malfunction. There will be fuel enough for people to maneuver a bit to avoid angry Martians when landing and that is all.

    20. Re:Really? by stabiesoft · · Score: 1

      Agreed, we humans have all these annoying requirements like breathing oxygen 24/7, eating, drinking, pooping, peeing, even just staying occupied. Machines just want a little juice to keep them happy.

    21. Re:Really? by Brett+Buck · · Score: 1

      The computer was working acceptably well. What it was doing was alarming out a condition where it was dropping some tasks (rendezvous radar angle processing) due to a switch misconfiguration.

            The other parts of the code were running fine and caused no issues aside from the distraction of the alarms. Note also that he didn't nearly run out of fuel, although he did run relatively close to the mandatory abort limit. There was plenty of fuel to land, if they had ignored the abort limit. They landed with quite a bit of time at hover thrust levels.

    22. Re:Really? by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 1

      Right! You do however have to account some extra weight for things like ball point pens, duct tape, and paperclips, lots of paperclips.
      "Commander, the braking thrusters have failed and we have 12 seconds to impact!"
      "Hand me a box of paperclips, quickly... Dammit! Why did you seal the box with ductape! I'll never get it op..."

      Signal Lost

      --
      You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
    23. Re:Really? by macs4all · · Score: 1

      With live people, those live people will be able to make live decisions, on the spot. There will be much more of a dynamic operation with live people, whereas currently, they're setting most things up to statically unfold.

      As long as they're, you know, still alive...

    24. Re:Really? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      Or used US gallons instead of British gallons. Both English units, but 20% difference in volumes.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    25. Re:Really? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Yeah, you may want to ask Neil Armstrong what those 1201 and 1202 alarms were all about.

      And ask about those big rocks.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    26. Re:Really? by DarthVain · · Score: 3, Funny

      I know the only personal item I would take with me on the Mars journey would be an axe. You just can't trust everybody. I mean I know I wouldn't go insane. Someone else might go insane however. Then I'd have an axe. I'd name him Axey, and he'd be my best friend... Sometimes he tells me to... no I shouldn't talk about that, he doesn't like it.

    27. Re:Really? by rickb928 · · Score: 4, Informative

      40 seconds of fuel left, according to post-mission analysis.

      He flew the LEM for a longer period than any simulation. The 1201/1202 errors were caused by Armstrong leaving docking radar on during descent, thinking it would save time if they had to abort. Not tested in simulation, probably because it was a checklist item.

      Given the state of the art at the time, a human pilot was essential. Today we would expect an automated landing to succeed, given the massively improved capabilities.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    28. Re:Really? by execthis · · Score: 1

      With live people, those live people will be able to make live decisions, on the spot. There will be much more of a dynamic operation with live people, whereas currently, they're setting most things up to statically unfold.

      Are you by chance one of Obama's science advisors?

    29. Re:Really? by execthis · · Score: 1

      Ding!

      Could see this coming from far away! LOL

    30. Re:Really? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Yeah. I could totally see the European Space Agency doing that.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    31. Re:Really? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Hmm, so when Neil Armstrong completely changed the landing site and trajectory because he was looking out the window and saw a field of house-sized boulders, he did that with the computer rather than with the hand controllers that were controlling attitude thrusters and descent engine throttle?

      This revisionist history brought to you by someone who is completely and utterly wrong.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    32. Re:Really? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      everybody that has worked on mars missions.
      I worked on MGS, and can tell you that to be successful with most missions, you have to have a much higher level of quality compared to normal.
      Oddly, if ESA, Russia, CHina, etc wanted to really test this, they would send a duplicate around the moon and then land it on earth.
      That would test just about every subsystems in similar ways.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    33. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Europe every region or city or country or whatever political entity there was before the metric system had their own size for every single measurement. Tiny Belgium (before Napoleon it was a confederal like political group with hundreds of semi-independent 'states'), had at least 15 different sizes for foot (probably more). There were at least 4 different kinds of sub-sizes. The most common 1 foot = 10 inches, but there were also 1 foot = 12 inches, 1 foot = 16 inches and 1 foot = 8 inches. This was unworkable and this is the reason why the metric system was accepted immediately and kept when Napoleons empire was defeated. The industrial revolution would have come earlier on the continent if a common system was introduced earlier.
       
      The US only had 1 system when it became independent, but I presume that colonies of different nations all had their own sizes.

    34. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No problem. There's plenty more people where they came from.

    35. Re:Really? by A10Mechanic · · Score: 2

      Rendezvous radar, intentionally left on, was overloading the computer. The radar would have been needed for an abort, so the irony of the radar causing the dreaded abort was very real.

    36. Re:Really? by Kjella · · Score: 1

      You might be able to salvage ~20% of them with humans aboard. Might. Meanwhile, humans are a massive added source of additional risk to a mission; they dramatically increase spacecraft size, complexity / part count, consumables, and just in general make things far more difficult.

      Having people on board cause their own problems, you wouldn't have to improvise CO2 filters on Apollo 13 if there was no one that needed oxygen so they might cause aborts too not just salvage them. Having humans on board will also limit your alternatives and lead to its own time constraints because you have to keep the crew alive. And most importantly, humans are not expendable and unmanned probes couldn't have any realistic return plan even if you wanted to so in most cases they still wouldn't be an option.

      And it's not like NASA just send things out there with plan A and no plan B or a static programming they're stuck with. They try to find possible failure modes, emergency states, when the rovers get stuck on Mars they have huge team back on Earth trying to find out how to best wiggle free. That said, I think a research outpost on Mars could be useful. But as for the rocketry, most problems will be totally catastrophic no matter what. I'm sure there's a lot more practical issues to having an outpost a human could deal with, though I admit it's a bit circular because the reason to have an outpost is so people can be there. Otherwise you'd just send specialized probes to do their one thing.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    37. Re:Really? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Out of 54 attempts to make it to mars 28 1/2 have failed. So to answer your question. Everyone.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    38. Re:Really? by Holi · · Score: 1

      Unless reaction time is long enough then no. A computer will react far faster then it is possible for any human to.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    39. Re:Really? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      The 1201/1202 errors were caused by Armstrong leaving docking radar on during descent, thinking it would save time if they had to abort. Not tested in simulation, probably because it was a checklist item.

      That's a hell of time to make a decision to push a button that you never bothered to test.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    40. Re:Really? by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Yes, people can make decisions that robots cannot but it's all moot. Right now and for next many years robots are the ***only*** option for Mars exploration.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    41. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know what he thinks, but I can tell you I think your immature. Grow up.

    42. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And if there had not been a crew on board, the lunar module would have crashed and idiots would be using the failure as proof of why we shouldn't ever send humans anywhere for anything.

      I've said it before: there is a nontrivial and growing number of people who have no useful skills or abilities, and they think nobody else does either. All they do is bitch and whine about how bad humans supposedly are at anything you can name because that's literally all they know how to do.

    43. Re:Really? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Could be a bit difficult, Neil Armstrong has left the building

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    44. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because it was Armstrong and he walked on the moon, no one in the media has ever said anything about the whole thing being human error on his part.

      In reality, it was a mistake, a huge one. Armstrong was grounded and booted out of the space program over it. He was moved into a humiliating admin job, which he left the second his contract term expired.

    45. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can tell you that "your" and "you're" are two different things. Wise up.

    46. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, we shouldn't. Except as a promotional stunt, or a national-level demo, there is no need and no use to sending people into space.

    47. Re:Really? by joboss · · Score: 1

      The ESA probably has some problems with the language barrier between workers and work like this can make things a bit more difficult and definitely increase the chances for failure. I've had a lot of problems with this working with smart people on much simpler software and hardware engineering projects than what they are trying to do. In their case, the slightest thing can cause it to fail catastrophically and permanently. I've had a lot of surreal cases working in such environments. Basic things like for a circle which axis is 0 degrees on and which side of that axis does it increment, which axis's are x, y, z and so on. On paper it's fine, everything is labelled, people often don't even think about it but in general conversation their internal defaults can be anything and the discrepancy might not be detected. Even on paper if you miss the slightest thing such as a label or so on and someone can easily make an assumption instead of clarifying. I've often thought I've understood someone, they've expressed they've understood me and even say things that would lead you to believe this but down the line we find a part was missed or a difference in the use of language means that we had something fundamental completely different in mind. I imagine ESA has some good practices in place to deal with this but it's still not as easy as some others might have it if they speak a more common language.

    48. Re:Really? by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "He's a Space Nutter, to him a deadly radioactive vacuum is infinitely more hospitable than the surface of this planet."

      Apparently you know nothing about space. No earthquakes, no tornadoes, no hurricanes, no rain, the only things you really need to worry about are radiation and space debris.

      And as an additional bonus, you don't have to worry about the other 7+ billion idiots on the planet earth fucking with your shit in space, because most people can't afford to go there in the first place.

      Space is absolutely more hospitable than Earth, you nitwit.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    49. Re:Really? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      " Now explain how it would have prevented a thruster failure. Or a metric-english conversion error on the entry trajectory calculation. Or a failed parachute. Or a launch vehicle failure. "

      Useless things to bring up because those weren't issues during that mission. Especially the metric-*IMPERIAL* (not English, the fucking CHINESE made the system) one.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    50. Re:Really? by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Even in the 60's the moon landings were done by computer. Could a live pilot have executed no, not with the equipment they sent, the fuel use and tolerances for error were far to small"

      Your signature is pretty fucking ironic, given what you've just proven - you refuse to read despite having the right.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    51. Re:Really? by johannesg · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why I would have to explain that, since I didn't claim any of that. The OP claimed that a human could not possibly land a moon lander. That's BS - humans _did_ in fact land a moon lander, on the first attempt, succesfully, while the computer was busy crashing. That same human decided he didn't want to land in a field of boulders and veered of course to another landing spot. So far that hasn't been achieved by computers either.

    52. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And ask him why you're such a cunt.

    53. Re:Really? by slew · · Score: 1

      everybody that has worked on mars missions.

      I worked on MGS, and can tell you that to be successful with most missions, you have to have a much higher level of quality compared to normal.

      Oddly, if ESA, Russia, CHina, etc wanted to really test this, they would send a duplicate around the moon and then land it on earth.

      That would test just about every subsystems in similar ways.

      Since you worked on MGS, you probably know people at Nasa that would tell you that landing on earth is totally different than landing on mars (mainly because of the atmospheric density).

    54. Re: Really? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Yes. I am well aware of it. But, am also aware that it would test the systems better that what they have done so far.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    55. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apollo 11 and 12 were landed manually. Apollo 13 was to be landed automatically (Lovell wanted to prove out that system) but didn't get the chance. Apollo 14 and were manually landed. Believe 16 was but can't find a specific citation. "Manual" here means in a mode that the astronaut directed but which used a lot of SW to actually fly the beast; it wasn't like landing a JN4 with the wind in the wires and no help.

    56. Re:Really? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      To some extent, you're correct; however, it is still expensive to send it. It's not always easily replaceable.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    57. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neil Armstrong personally succeeded in dealing with a thruster failure on Gemini 8. That is why he was at the controls of the Eagle's descent and landing.

    58. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it was Aldrin who left the rendezvous radar switched on because, in his words, he was Dr. Rendezvous and wanted to make sure he had that radar up if they aborted.

      It didn't happen again...

    59. Re: Really? by rickb928 · · Score: 2

      Piloting the lander wasn't human error, the program was leading them into rough terrain. They overshot the intended site, which Armstrong recognized early on. His switching on the docking radar was indeed an 'off - checklist' action.

      But he may have been taken off flight status due to his celebrity.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    60. Re:Really? by DivineKnight · · Score: 1

      Live people also have a more profound self-preservation instinct than many of the machines we send out into the galaxy.

    61. Re:Really? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Now explain how [human pilots] would have prevented a thruster failure

      Chewing gum over the leak.

    62. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And lack of air. And lack of water. And lack of food. And lack of gravity. And lack of living space.

      On a space voyage if anything goes wrong, you are dead.

    63. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Landing on Mars is easy. Meteorites do it all the time. Doing so slowly, landing intact, that's hard.

    64. Re:Really? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Your arguing a per-programmed landing sequence with known physics is worse than a live astronaut controlling the landing when the time from initial problem to dead is literally 2-6 seconds. Most Humans couldn't even perceive the problem, develop a solution and react in that time frame.

      Landing on Mars is hard, you've got a gravity well that's about 8/10ths of the Earth with about 1/100th the atmosphere to slow you down. Terminal velocity is VERY fast and the timeframe to react and burn for a slowdown is seconds where it's minutes on earth. This is the reason out of like 6 probes sent to mars only 3 have actually survived the landing.

    65. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that a ship for humans will be engineered to a much more stringent safety standard than the Mars probes that have failed.

    66. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Other than gravity, every human we have sent into space we have included all of those things with them for their trip and in enough quantity to last long after their actual return.

      Again except for Gravity, I fail to see this "lacking" of which you speak.

      And as you will no doubt focus on nothing but gravity while ignoring the rest of your argument being shot down, do keep in mind the only people we have sent into space are ones that have sought lack of gravity here on earth, many times and in many ways.

      If they at all minded a lack of gravity:
      a) They wouldn't have requested to be sent to space
      b) They wouldn't be experienced pilots who have flew at speeds and on flight paths to negate gravity
      c) They would not have willingly trained in machinery exploiting centrifugal forces that negate gravity
      And d) would likely avoid activities such as roller coasters and swimming.

      The only person you have the right to dictate if they want to go to space or not is yourself.
      If you have a problem with that, then quit being a dumbass and volunteering to go into space!

    67. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That was like 3% of the landing decisions, and even the "manual" detour was under control of an autopilot transforming the joystick inputs into a restricted space of movements.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    68. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You're not really refuting his claim that humans can't land a LM manually. This was tried repeatedly at the astronauts' insistence and it turned out that computers are simply better at math, especially when tight fuel margins and minimum cost descent profiles are involved. A minor manual correction at terminal descent changes nothing.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    69. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      The computer at that time couldn't accommodate for minor surface details and the human couldn't and still can't accommodate for general descent requirements.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    70. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, he did. There was a variety of autopilot modes that translated joystick inputs into meaningful flight variables. The joysticks didn't control attitude thrusters and the descent engine throttle; closed loops in the autopilot did.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    71. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I agree, and I suggest the book Digital Apollo, which unfortunately for you supports his version of the story.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    72. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      That wasn't actually a switch misconfiguration, it was a hardware bug in the analog interface to the radar that...ehm...flew under the radar.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    73. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a space voyage if anything goes wrong, you are dead.

      You're a dumbass for making a blanket statement that is easily refutable, and a dumbass for not remembering Apollo 13.
      Many things have gone wrong in space without a fatality resulting.

    74. Re:Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And lack of air. And lack of water. And lack of food. And lack of gravity. And lack of living space

      So it's just like being in a submarine except for the gravity part.

    75. Re:Really? by LesFerg · · Score: 1

      That's all well and good. Now explain how it would have prevented a thruster failure. Or a metric-english conversion error on the entry trajectory calculation.

      Damn, there's the problem. The Brexit caused the english metre to shrink.

      --
      If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
    76. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Interestingly, NASA had problems with communication on Apollo that almost caused the Apollo 11 landing to fail - namely the miscommunication of hardware design data for the rendezvous radar. And they didn't even need any language barrier!

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    77. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It was actually tested, but the test environment/simulator was wired in a way that prevented the subtle hardware defect that later appeared on the actual flight.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    78. Re: Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And NASA, JPL etc. etc. actually regularly test Martian EDL systems on spacecrafts landing on Earth?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    79. Re:Really? by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Calling a mission to Mars "into the Galaxy" is like calling yourself a brain surgeon because you once removed a splinter from your finger.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    80. Re:Really? by tigersha · · Score: 1

      Apparently you know nothing about nuclear explosions. No rain, disease, politics, the only things you really need to worry about are radiation and a shock wave.

      Admittedly still lots of earthquake, tornado and hurricane in there

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    81. Re:Really? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      This description of Earth describes your provincialism, not the actual planet. There is a shitload of places where there are basically no earthquakes (and if there are, then they are rare and so weak they wouldn't even wake you up), no tornadoes and no hurricanes. Well, and other places without rain, but it kind of sucks having no water available.

      And I seriously have no idea why you bother thinking about "the other 7+ billion idiots". Most of them are elsewhere anyway.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    82. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Klumpp remembered that the astronauts originally wanted to fly the LM manually down from orbit. He programmed the flights on a simulator and the astronauts crashed every time. The landing would be critically dependent on the computer.

      -- Digital Apollo by David Mindell, page 189. (Emphasis mine.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    83. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1
      I found what I was looking for:

      Klumpp remembered that the astronauts originally wanted to fly the LM manually down from orbit. He programmed the flights on a simulator and the astronauts crashed every time. The landing would be critically dependent on the computer.

      -- Digital Apollo by David Mindell, page 189. (Emphasis mine.)

      So much for reading your history...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    84. Re:Really? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      He's a Space Nutter, to him a deadly radioactive vacuum is infinitely more hospitable than the surface of this planet. He probably also thinks Mars has abundant water and asteroids have centers made of chemically pure platinum...

      And I bet you think the earth is going to last forever and all it's resources are infinite.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    85. Re:Really? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      under control of an autopilot transforming the joystick inputs into a restricted space of movements.

      Lots of things, practically everything almost these days has fly-by-wire. Or are you saying you don't fly an f-16 or boeing 737 or whatever? Because they all do that.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    86. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Except that Apollo pioneered the concept. Furthermore, it went quite beyond that in separation of the inputs and outputs. Think 737's autopilot instead.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    87. Re:Really? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      There's a good reason for that.

      That they've attempted it it a shit load more times?

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    88. Re:Really? by michelcolman · · Score: 1

      It doesn't even have wheels. Not that that matters much now after the apparent crash landing.

    89. Re: Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is, if you and 6.9999 billion people would just go away

    90. Re:Really? by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      No currently flying 737 has fly by wire controls. Future 737 will have electronically controlled spoilers but that would be it.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    91. Re:Really? by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Alright, maybe that one was a bad example. My point was though that modern flight systems are fly by wire. As in the pilot moves the control, a computer interprets that then moves the aircraft accordingly rather than traditional mechanical linkage.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    92. Re: Really? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You don't send the best people you can find on a novel and dangerous mission and expect them to make no mistakes. You send them so they'll probably make fewer fatal mistakes than other people would.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    93. Re:Really? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You're a little optimistic there. The US went independent with all sorts of measurements. Even now, a pound of gold is lighter than a pound of books, because they use different pounds. There's much to be said for a system where a kilogram of X is exactly as massive as a kilogram of Y.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    94. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      And the OP was right and you are wrong. The LM was under computer control and the optional "manual control" in the terminal phase (for the last few percent of the whole descent, time-wise) was actually a form of autopilot that maintained a pilot-selected descent rate and pilot-selected horizontal velocity vector. That was about the greatest level of manual control exercised during the landing, and the computer still had to figure out the necessary LMDE thrust level and pulsed RCS burns to make those linear velocity vectors happen because a human with full manual control would just commit a very expensive suicide. (They repeatedly did that in simulation before they gave up.)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    95. Re:Really? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Yes, Apollo was basically the first system like that. Although it was more like a plane autopilot keeping a programmed trajectory rather than just a system to make the controls easier to work with but still basically airplane-like.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    96. Re: Really? by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      No need. We have our systems and QA down. However, when designing new approaches, nasa has done loads of earth testing, including dropping from space.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  2. F*cking aliens by mveloso · · Score: 1

    Can't the aliens leave our spacecraft alone?

    1. Re:F*cking aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah... Time to build a wall. It'll be great, and the martians will pay for it.

    2. Re: F*cking aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was Musk. Waiting on Mars for his next prey.

    3. Re:F*cking aliens by lgw · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can't the aliens leave our spacecraft alone?

      Another bold victory for the Mars defense force! Despite recent setbacks, we were able to repel the invaders. Let this be a message to the Terran aggressors: you just got luck last time.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    4. Re: F*cking aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably allied with NASA, since most of their probes succeeded.

      The Grand Martian-NASA Alliance celebrated a tremendous victory yesterday.

    5. Re: F*cking aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it was the time-traveling youthful Obama and his wacky tricks to preserve US dominance of our next homeworld

    6. Re:F*cking aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They don't like drones in their back yards any more than we do, it seems.

    7. Re:F*cking aliens by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      This is a whole new meaning for the term "redneck".

    8. Re:F*cking aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      K'Breel didn't even need to puncture anyone's gel-sacs.

    9. Re: F*cking aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It were probably the Russians. Everything is blamed to the Russians these days. I was only a kid in the 80's, but I see a return of the rhetoric of the 80's: "It are the Russians!". Even the rotting fruit on our farmers apple trees is "because of the Russians" (really, that's what politicians claimed).

    10. Re: F*cking aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look Boris, clean up your fucking grammar and try again

    11. Re:F*cking aliens by sconeu · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for word from our Supreme Leader, K'Breel!!!

      O Tackhead, where art thou?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    12. Re:F*cking aliens by lgw · · Score: 1

      K'Breel was deposed and executed after his repeated failures in repelling the Terran aggressor. We don't speak of him. All hail mighty G'Ranee, Supreme Leader for Life!

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  3. Signal Aquired by spiny · · Score: 0
    --

    Fry: heh, Yakov Smirnoff said it
    Leela: No he didn't.
    1. Re:Signal Aquired by CajunArson · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's the orbiter.

      The lander is what is in question, and there's been no sign that it has been successfully acquired by the orbiter or anybody else.

      --
      AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
    2. Re:Signal Aquired by spiny · · Score: 2

      darn, read it wrong in my excitement, still fingers crossed the lander is OK too

      --

      Fry: heh, Yakov Smirnoff said it
      Leela: No he didn't.
    3. Re:Signal Aquired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the orbiter, not the lander

    4. Re:Signal Aquired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Successful? Maybe it did, but we don't know that it did--unless you define "success" as to include crash landings. I don't think that's what they meant. It may have landed with no other damage than to the radio or antenna, but since they want to communicate with it after all trouble of building it and launching it, I still would not call it success. They'd better hurry--the only power source they have is a battery that is not projected to last more than 8 martian days.

      As we've seen, Mars is a hard destination.

    5. Re:Signal Aquired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lander is a pancake

    6. Re:Signal Aquired by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Well, "success" is really more of a continuum than a point.

      nine hydrazine-powered thrusters arrest its descent to a few meters per second. A crushable structure will absorb the impact force at the planet's surface.

      The primary role of Schiaparelli will be to demonstrate this landing technology so that a planned follow-up mission in 2020, complete with a rover, can also safely reach the Martian surface.

      So, we've got some good news and some bad news. The good news is that we're pretty sure that the crushable structure was crushed as intended.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    7. Re:Signal Aquired by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's obvious..... Spirit and Opportunity have banded together and are now working to build a robot empire. They made us "think" they they a stuck and can't move or have gone unresponsive. Every piece of tech that we send up there is being assimilated and will be used against us. The reality is our new robot overlords will be here shortly.

  4. There is evidence that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...somebody secretly loaded a prototype of a Samsung Galaxy Notes 7 in the ESA lander payload.

    1. Re:There is evidence that... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Jees man, a few phones burned up, from the way you people go on you'd think they were selling people live grenades.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  5. Martians by bored_lurker · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think the little green men on Mars heard that the the Europeans have a long storied history of bringing diseases to the New Worlds and they blew it our of the sky with their ray guns.

    --
    --- Tolerance is the axiomatic "virtue" of those without convictions ---
    1. Re: Martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 is 3 is 3

    2. Re:Martians by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      The only question is whether it was J'onn or Marvin.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    3. Re:Martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      kbreel?

    4. Re:Martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the little green men on Mars heard that the the Europeans have a long storied history of bringing diseases to the New Worlds and they blew it our of the sky with their ray guns.

      And besides, the settlers did not get their visa's stamped at the entry point to their planet. The penalty for not having your papers stamped is death on Mars.

    5. Re:Martians by Dins · · Score: 1

      Wish I had mod points today.

  6. Orbiter, not lander by HBI · · Score: 1

    Nothing on the lander I can see.

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  7. Second? by Comboman · · Score: 3, Informative

    On Wednesday, the European Space Agency sought to become the second entity to successfully land a spacecraft on Mars with its Schiaparelli lander.

    USA/NASA has had many successful landers and the Soviets had a lander survive for 14.5 seconds after touch down. That's not great, but considering the ESA lander lost contact after firing the retro rockets before touch down, I wouldn't celebrate just yet.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
    1. Re:Second? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn NASA jamming the signals of anyone that dares to land on their planet!

    2. Re:Second? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Soviets had a lander survive for 14.5 seconds after touch down.

      I'm not sure I'd label the Soviet lander "successful". It only sent atmospheric data back, and nothing decode-able about the surface itself reached Earth.

      There were known dust-storms in the area. One theory is the wind swept up the parachute, still attached to the lander, and pulled it over so that it's antenna no longer pointed in the right direction.

      Another theory at the time was that Mars had a kind of quicksand that swallowed probes. In case the same thing happened to the Viking landers, NASA had them automatically send a photo of a foot-pad back immediately after landing rather than the typical to-the-horizon scene photo.

      In the very first photo, you can see dust fogging out the left side (it was slow-scan) because it hadn't settled yet from the retro rockets.

      (Although the quicksand theory is probably wrong, later rovers did indeed have problems getting stuck in sand/dust.)

      https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...

    3. Re:Second? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By your criteria of success, the ESA has already had a successful landing too with the Beagle 2 mission.

  8. Proof positive by HBI · · Score: 1

    The metric system isn't necessarily superior...

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    1. Re:Proof positive by nintendoeats · · Score: 2

      NASA uses metric.

    2. Re:Proof positive by HBI · · Score: 2

      No they don't, at least not exclusively.

      How soon people forget...

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    3. Re:Proof positive by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      1998

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    4. Re:Proof positive by GuB-42 · · Score: 1

      Are you talking about the Mars Climate Orbiter?

    5. Re:Proof positive by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      Read the article. That happened because NASA uses metric and Lockheed used Imperial. Far from forgetting, that event is the very reason that I know NASA uses metric.

    6. Re:Proof positive by HBI · · Score: 1

      How about this? Or maybe this?

      So yes, NASA does not use SI units exclusively.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
    7. Re:Proof positive by nintendoeats · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I'll grant you that NASA sometimes uses imperial if you will grant that technically they aren't supposed to be and the whole thing is a clusterthingy.

      Proof positive that being consistent in your useage of units isn't necessarily superior.

    8. Re:Proof positive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That happened because NASA uses metric and Lockheed used Imperial.

      WRONG. It happened because units weren't labeled. The some thing would happen if someone assumed cm and they number called for dm.

    9. Re:Proof positive by HBI · · Score: 1

      The USG has a "directive" to go to SI on a voluntary basis that dates from the Ford Administration (!) There is an accompanying Executive Order (12770) that was issued by GHW Bush in 1991, that similarly doesn't mandate a change.

      The bottom line is that it would take a literal act of God to make the US switch in any meaningful way. Every time progress is made, it gets walked back over time because the US is still on imperial units for all intents and purposes. People like it this way - everyone knows what a liter is due to international drink packaging, but kilograms and centimeters are not well understood by the common people.

      --
      HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  9. Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought you filled the hydrazine tank.

    1. Re:Oh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, I did! By the way, have you seen around there my Samsung smartphone ?

  10. No need to worry! by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 5, Funny

    After a lengthy discussion with the ESA, I've been assured that the lander has definitely landed! On a side note, no word as to if it was a soft type landing or the usual hypersonic-impact-crater-forming type. ;)

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:No need to worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it exploded when the hydrazine-powered thrusters fired.

    2. Re:No need to worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Still, the entire craft is guaranteed to be on Mars. There's no way such an explosion could propel any part of the lander to orbital velocity...

    3. Re:No need to worry! by alexhs · · Score: 1

      Maybe it chose the wrong place to land, but we may never know...

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    4. Re:No need to worry! by Rei · · Score: 1

      And Jeb skidded to a stop after rolling down a hill, unharmed!

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    5. Re:No need to worry! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The question is more accurately phrased this way:

      Was it a powered descent as planned, or did it employ the secondary landing procedure that involves lithobraking and a rapid unplanned disassembly?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    6. Re:No need to worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Still, the entire craft is guaranteed to be on Mars. There's no way such an explosion could propel any part of the lander to orbital velocity...

      Of course it could just have vaporized, so no part of the lander is actually on the *surface* of Mars...

    7. Re:No need to worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Litho-braking", I think is the term.

    8. Re:No need to worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last message received from the lander: "My friend wants to know how many inches there are in a meter. Please respond quickly. It's kinda urgent."

    9. Re:No need to worry! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On a side note, no word as to if it was a soft type landing or the usual hypersonic-impact-crater-forming type. ;)

      Please, we like to call that a high speed variation of the "lithobraking" landing technique.

    10. Re:No need to worry! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      Or it exploded when the hydrazine-powered thrusters fired.

      In which case it landed over a wider than anticipated area.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  11. Usual suspect list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    1. Putin
    2. Chinese
    3. Trump supporters
    4. Hillary Clinton campaign and/or DNC operatives
    5. Israelis
    6. Iranians
    7. American contractors using English units
    8. Superintelligent space alien overlords
    9. Arithmetic overflow bug

    1. Re:Usual suspect list by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're missing Space Nazis from the list. Space Nazis are the most likely answer.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:Usual suspect list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10. Some poor schmo of a programmer currently smacking his forehead.

    3. Re:Usual suspect list by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      And my all-time favorite, cosmic-rays.

      Cosmic, man!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    4. Re:Usual suspect list by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole Olympus Mons is actually a semi-squad tent covering the maintenance team and hangar for a Götterdämmerung. The ventilation shaft at the top can be easily seen from Mars Global Surveyor pictures.

  12. Radiation Effects by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now how would that radiation reduce rocket reliability, starting with the control systems and ending with the actual fuel..

  13. ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS. . . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . . Except Mars, apparently.

    1. Re: ALL THESE WORLDS ARE YOURS. . . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mars is for America. It keeps trying to remind Europe and the Russians, but they keep sending spacecraft anyway.

  14. It gets worse. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They were leeching wifi off the Ecuador embassy in London.

  15. Clarification by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Did anyone see that article on here the other day about Americans working 25% more than Europeans?

    Btw, this further confirms my theory that our accomplishments in space go down as the number of countries forecast putting targets in space.

    People in the 1960's had a different mentality when they put someone on the moon. Everyone (globally, including Americans) have really mushed into a pile of fecklessness since then.

  16. Ends in failure more often that not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No surprise here. Look on their faces was just like the faces at Fox when they lose the elections.

  17. Comment by WallyL · · Score: 1

    All your Mars base are belong to us?

  18. space agency cooperation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Mars seems very difficult. NASA has had its failures there too, but on the balance, NASA seems to have a far better track record at doing complex things on Mars than anybody else out there.

    Which leads to the question: does NASA not share its magic recipes with the ESA? They have done shitloads of research into how to successfully land craft on other planets, and even run rovers. It's very hard from an engineering perspective. Do they not share the fruits of that research and labor with agencies like the ESA, so to improve everybody's odds?

    1. Re:space agency cooperation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well they could, but the US already provides enough for Europe in the way of defense. They should figure it out on their own, time to stop spoiling them.

    2. Re:space agency cooperation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the "secret sauce" that makes NASA missions more reliable than their ESA counterparts is less based specifically on technology and more on funds. NASA throws hundreds of millions/billions of dollars at their projects, for example the Mars Science Laboratory cost $2.5 Billion. The ESA usually is dealing with much more limited budgets, of less than $400 Million. This kind of money allows NASA to do a lot more review/validation work, building multiple prototypes and severely testing equipment.

    3. Re:space agency cooperation? by I4ko · · Score: 2

      Did you misspell "occupation" there?

    4. Re:space agency cooperation? by epine · · Score: 3

      Of course NASA passed on decades of hard-won experience. They're not psychopaths.

      It went something like this:

      Dear ESA:

      Hire only the best and the brightest, keep the group challenged and engaged for decade upon decade, with frequent launch opportunities pushing the boundary of the possible at each and every iteration.

      N.B.: Sorry, there's no silver bullet.

    5. Re:space agency cooperation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, defend your own country why don't ya. Tired of the people we protect talking smack.
      https://www.rt.com/news/202163-nato-pentagon-troops-europe/

      The North Atlantic bloc has asked the Pentagon to send more troops to Eastern Europe to counter the perceived threat ...

      But no we are "occupying" Europe. Man up for your own freedoms.

    6. Re:space agency cooperation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're not spending more on validation and testing than design and construction, you're doing it wrong.

      High-risk projects require more discipline than "common sense" normal projects.

      Why does military R&D cost so much? Because they make damn sure it works before it gets sent to a war zone.

    7. Re:space agency cooperation? by slew · · Score: 2

      Which leads to the question: does NASA not share its magic recipes with the ESA?

      You have to look back at the history of the ExoMars program to answer that.

      Originally, NASA was a partner and was going to supply a sky-crane decent module and Atlas rockets for payload launch to the program.

      Then 2012 budget cuts forced NASA to withdraw from the program. Undaunted, the ESA then brought on Russia as a partner to supply those critical elements of the program and of course the USA and Russia are on such good terms about exchanging technology...

      I hope that clarifies the situation...

    8. Re:space agency cooperation? by Anonymous+Cow+Ward · · Score: 1

      "Occupation" typically implies the other government doesn't want you there. Most European countries are happy to have US forces stationed there in case shit hits the fan. Plus, that's money from the US military and its rather large budget that goes into the local economy.

      --
      Examine even your most deeply held beliefs. Nobody is always right.
    9. Re:space agency cooperation? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      Why does military R&D cost so much?

      You might want to check the current price of palm-grease.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    10. Re:space agency cooperation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hire only the best and the brightest, keep the group challenged and engaged for decade upon decade, with frequent launch opportunities pushing the boundary of the possible at each and every iteration

      Using the phrases "best and the brightest", " challenged and engaged" and "pushing the boundary of the possible" is such an American thing to do when it comes to engineering. ;)

    11. Re:space agency cooperation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA has had to pull out of joint projects too often to be considered a reliable parner by ESA.

    12. Re:space agency cooperation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think NASA's missions have been any more reliable than ESA's. They just pursue different goals. ESA is purely scientific, while NASA is primarily focused on national prestige, while scientific goals are secondary. That is a political choice by those who fund the space organisations, not by the organisations themselves.

    13. Re:space agency cooperation? by david_thornley · · Score: 2

      Why does military R&D cost so much? Because they make damn sure it works before it gets sent to a war zone.

      Actually, what they really care about is if it works after it gets sent to a war zone. That can get really tricky, as there's all sorts of ways to get that wrong. A German WWII veteran told me that the MG34 (standard machine gun at the beginning of the war) was an excellent machine gun and a joy to fire provided it was kept scrupulously clean and away from dust and dirt and blood and things like that. He thought the MG42 (its replacement) was a much better weapon.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  19. Re:Money well spent! by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People have been dying ever since there have been people. If you're going to use people dying as an excuse to not do something, nothing will ever get done. AND people will still die.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  20. Re:Money well spent! by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

    . . .especially if an ESA Mars Lander crashes onto them. . .

  21. It's a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor, and it would have different conclusions written on it that you could jump to.

    1. Re: It's a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ::: jumps firmly up and down on the "It Was Muslims" section :::

    2. Re: It's a "Jump to Conclusions" mat. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You see, it would be this mat that you would put on the floor, and it would have different conclusions written on it that you could jump to.

      I had an idea like that once...

  22. Beagle 2 2.0? by suso · · Score: 1

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the Beagle 2 from 2003 the last attempt by ESA to land an orbiter on Mars? This one seems to have suffered a similar fate in landing. Hopefully not, but if it did then this probably doesn't bode well for public confidence in the ESA.

    1. Re:Beagle 2 2.0? by suso · · Score: 2

      Sorry, I mean to land a lander. Obviously the orbiter should orbit. Maybe this was their mistake? ;-)

    2. Re:Beagle 2 2.0? by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether this is about the new one or the old one. Given the intelligence of the editturds it's a 50-50 call.

      I suppose I could read the article, but some traditions are worth respecting.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Beagle 2 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually Beagle 2 was a UK lander piggybacking on Mars Express which was the ESA orbiter, and still going to this day.

    4. Re:Beagle 2 2.0? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Beagle was found in a crater a few years later. Question was, was the crater there before Beagle landed or not?

  23. Live people can act autonomously at landing. by mmell · · Score: 1

    They'll find something else to die of - my guess, radiation poisoning (although freezing, suffocating and starving to death are all still on the list).

    1. Re:Live people can act autonomously at landing. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Live people can act autonomously at landing.

      That all depends on how fast you land them...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Live people can act autonomously at landing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah.. they can all die screaming all the way down

  24. Mars Scorecard by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, I immediately thought to check the Mars Scorecard, but it doesn't appear to have been updated. Anyone know the current score?

  25. Re:Money well spent! by Dunbal · · Score: 1

    The ESA just has to intentionally aim for people to guarantee a miss.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
  26. Re:Usual suspect list - Cosmic Rays by Dareth · · Score: 1

    Yes, and that is also why the all time favorite solution is deflectors.

    --

    I only look human.
    My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
  27. It Was Ecuador by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kerry made Ecuador cut off the signal.

  28. Pune in next week for the exciting conclusion to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    craters of the lost lander. Someone Schiaparelli screwed up.

  29. Put your money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, you wanna go to Mars? YOU pay for it; don't try to make me pay for your delusions through NASA. This is why Musk has the right idea. He can pay for his own fantasy, even though in a just economic system he would not have accumulated those riches.

  30. Oh the lander landed... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 1

    I'm sure it got to the surface... now... functional or in a jumble of pieces... that's yet to be seen.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Oh the lander landed... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      Spontaneous disassembly is the word I think.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
  31. gg europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    nice try. next time just use the great united states expertise and equipment. it'll be even better once trump makes it great again so you have nothing to worry about.

  32. Because flat by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    If things go wrong humans will most likely go splat before the have had time to read the error message on the control computers display.

    That's because it'll be in medium light grey text on a light medium grey background.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  33. Mars Polar Lander by supertall · · Score: 2

    The Mars '98 Lander suffered a similar fate; in that case the rockets cut off too soon:

    Mars Polar Lander

  34. Communications probably cut by Ecuador by jfdavis668 · · Score: 3, Funny

    It's just temporarily restricted.

  35. Re:Money well spent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 Negligent Homicide

    Wait, unless you mean uninvolved people dying is not an excuse. Then...

    +1 Murder

    Seriously, this is where space programs and other large-scale government initiatives have a fundamental issue with "competing" with industry. Businesses do things incrementally, and there's a huge number of them doing things incrementally before "success" is reached. And they have to be concerned about human injuries and deaths due to lawsuits, if nothing else.

    Governments do not have these restrictions, and neither can nor do benefit from broad-based, incremental improvements. You get one test. Many times it goes "boom" or "splat". The issue is not that the engineers are stupid, it's that the whole objective is suspect by virtue of the engineering context it has to happen through. Yes, eventually, the corporate equivalent of Walmart will along with everyone else do a Mars mission, because in 500 years the technology will be trivial purely by incremental technology steps.

    The difference is, that's then. Now is when there's big prestige for politicians and the big "pie in the sky" (literally) paychecks for contractors. If those can be foregone, the same results will be reached, much cheaper, and much safer.

  36. Re: Typical EU clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'd say Rosetta was at least a partial success, you have to be impressed by what the Ruskies and the Yanks did back in the 70's though, it proves that all the technology and managementt in the world will ever make up for a dedicated driven team.

  37. Re:Usual suspect list - Cosmic Rays by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

    Don't forget reversing the polarity.

    Anything can be fixed by reversing the polarity.

    --
    Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  38. Is that so strange? by Megol · · Score: 2

    I think it just want some alone time. I know I do after doing a long journey...

  39. LOL@Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stick to what you're good at: complaining. Leave the space stuff to the big kids.

    1. Re:LOL@Europe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean China, or Russia, who the Americans come begging to when they want to go up?

  40. Conversion problem by Chris453 · · Score: 2

    They had a problem converting inches to millimeters.

    1. Re:Conversion problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like ur mom.

    2. Re:Conversion problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where did the inches come from?

  41. Watney tore it apart ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... looking for his potato shipment.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  42. Moon cows are not spherical [Re:Really?] by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    He really did run it almost totally out of fuel, because he had to avoid a huge rock.

    As I understand it, the unexpected fuel usage was a combination of avoiding the boulder field (more than one rock), AND the fact NASA miscalculated the shape of the moon. (Scientifically, that very boulder field later produced some of their best rock samples.)

    The size calculations were calibrated based on the gravity of the moon, but the moon is gravitationally lopsided compared to the location of its surface. If you spun the moon on a giant table-top like a child's top, it would appear to wobble slightly.

    If you notice, the Earth-facing surface of the moon looks different than the back-facing side. The materials near the surface also have a different density between back and front.

    This difference was not fully accounted for, and is at least partially why the fuel estimates were off.

    Lesson: if you go somewhere new: leave plenty of margin for contingency. You are likely using flawed or imperfect assumptions.

  43. USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck it Europe, USA rulez!

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

      How would a temporarily lost contact with a Mars lander make the USA any less shitty than it is?

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

      USA rulez? They can't even get people up there without having to ask the Russians :---)

  44. Re:Money well spent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where the fuck do you live where anybody is 'encouraging' euthanasia? It is my impression that even where doctor assisted suicide is legal, it is still most definitely a solution-of-last-resort and not anything people are being persuaded to do. Perhaps you have been watching Soylent Green too many times.

  45. To paraphrase Dr. Pamela Gay from AstronomyCast by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Mars eats landers for breakfast. I hope the lander will respond, but A) it was a demonstration mission with limited expected lifetime and science gain anyway and B) landing on Mars is fucking hard so if the lander went splat I really won't be that surprised.

  46. Trade-off [Re:Really?] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    I believe on Apollo 11 a human had to take over on the landing.

    If I'm not mistaking, it could have attempted to land on its own even if the astronauts had not intervened. They could have left it on autopilot. Whether it would have been successful is another thing.

    Neil was avoiding a boulder field. But it's possible the landing could have still been successful even it if had landed among boulders. Obviously its highly risky, though.

    There was a giant rock near Viking 1's landing site on Mars that would have toppled the craft had it landed on it. It lucked out. Viking 2 did land on a foot-sized rock and the craft was titled. But that had only a minor impact on the mission.

    And since unmanned probes are cheaper, you can afford more losses (including lower national embarrassment). Thus, while humans are better at handling contingencies, they are also protecting more expensive hardware.

    (It's possible to put boulder avoidance tech on auto-landing systems, but that does add to the cost.)

  47. Something to think about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which is easier? Actually send a lander to Mars, or scam the public by making shit up?
    Which is more profitable? Actually send a lander to Mars, or scam the public by making shit up?

    1. Re:Something to think about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What I think is easier than either of these, is selling conspiracy theories and tinfoil hats to morons.

  48. Re: Money well spent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Corporations don't get any of their money through coercion. They have to get it all through free trade by willing people.

    Secondly I'd the fail, they are finished. Outcomes are what matter. They are careful and constrained by risk.

    Meanwhile in government land, the money comes from others for free. The outcome is usually irrelavant, the most important part odd abt government spending is intention, as that gets you the money. The more grand and risky the intention is, the better, as it well attract more money.

    The outcome of the government projects are almost never net beneficial to those coerced to pay for it, in stark contrast to every trade on the free market which is mutually beneficial.

    Space programs have been over funded since the space race, and each one makes the people slightly poorer.

  49. Re:Money well spent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now is when there's big...

    ...opportunities to invest in those incremental improvements.

    Technological improvements happen when there's a financial incentive for making them.

    If you want better space tech, you have to pay companies to develop it. The problem is there's no consumer or industrial market for deep space access---not yet, anyway.

    Whether it is government spending or the consumer market is irrelevant---you put money in, and you get the work done.

    Manned missions are little more than publicity stunts, but there are a lot of useful things we can do in space.

  50. Re: Typical EU clusterfuck by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a partial success in the same way that getting your girlfriend to take her panties off but not actually consummating anything is a partial success. Yeah maybe you shared a moment in bed together naked but at the end of the day you're still going home with blue balls.

  51. mission accomplished by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have completed yet another successful bombing mission against Mars.

  52. No, not feet. Meters. METERS! by mmell · · Score: 1

    Uh, damn . . .

  53. Scheisse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone will go to the gas chambers for this!

    1. Re:Scheisse! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gas chambers? This is Europe, not California.

  54. What Really Happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Splat!

  55. How far? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We have confirmed that the lander is on Mars. How far into it, we are not sure.

  56. All your base are belong to us! by stoicio · · Score: 1

    You have no chance to survive make your time.

  57. no NASA does NOT share it's magic recipes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A lot is shared, but there's thing called ITAR
    Technology that can do precision landings on Mars is similar to technology that can do precision targeting of ICBM warheads, just as an example.

  58. Late-Breaking News from the Council: WTF G'RANEE? by Tackhead · · Score: 2

    >K'Breel was deposed and executed after his repeated failures in repelling the Terran aggressor. We don't speak of him. All hail mighty G'Ranee, Supreme Leader for Life!

    LATE-BREAKING NEWS FROM THE COUNCIL: VICTORY! The Council of Elders has confirmed the blueworlders' resumption of aggression upon our noble red sands. K'Breel, Speaker for the Council of Elders, addressed the planet thusly: OKAY. Okay, so I'm K'Breel (even though anyone on Slashdot can assume the mantle merely by declaring themselves Speaker for the Council), and I'm late, but I'm merely chronologically late, not as in the Late Second Adjunctant to the Council Formerly Known As G'Ranee.

    But domestic politics is beneath us tonight -- just take a glance at the blue world beneath us for a look at how bad that can get -- and let us focus on what's important: over the past sol or so, our Planetary Defense Force has been so good at pre-emptively distracting the blueworlders with tasks like landing comets, grabbing their prospective mates by their genitals, low-planetary orbit missions, and just general tribal infighting that we haven't had to shoot down any robotic invaders in quite some time. But when the opportunity presents itself, we take advantage of it, and so, we did. Hence the trivial elimination of yet another putative invader from elsewhere. We'd do it every day, except that the blueworlders lack the gelsacular fortitude to send us more targets. Now as to gelsacular fortitude, on to Second Adjunctant G'Ranee...

    When a junior reporter pointed out that the destroyed invader was merely a technology demonstrator built on the cheap to see if a landing was possible, and that the blueworlders' actual payload was safely in orbit, K'Breel had the reporter's gelsacs launched into orbit alongside those of G'Ranee for a closer look.

  59. Re:Late-Breaking News from the Council: WTF G'RANE by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

    Aha, there we go. No Slashdot Mars rover story is complete without a report from K'Breel and the Council of Elders.

    Thank you for keeping this up, Tackhead.=)

  60. Re:Money well spent! by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

    Morons..... People are dying here in hospitals and you fly to fucking mars.

    Seriously, if people dying is your hook, and you complaining about the money spent on space which is a fraction of that spent on war. How about you start by sorting out the hospitals themselves and get their own money back on track before you go off on one. Also, people die, that's part of the package.

    --
    Wanna buy a shirt?
    https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
  61. Re:Late-Breaking News from the Council: WTF G'RANE by sconeu · · Score: 1

    I'm with rsmith-mac. Thanks, Tackhead.!

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.