Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Schiaparelli Mars Lander May Have Exploded On Impact, European Agency Says (npr.org)

Posted by msmash on from the sad-news dept.

Instead of drifting gently onto Mars' surface, the Schiaparelli Mars lander hit the planet hard -- and possibly exploded, the European Space Agency said today. NPR adds: The NASA images, taken on Oct. 20, show two recent changes to the landscape on Mars' surface -- one dark blotch, and one white speck -- which are being interpreted as Schiaparelli's parachute and its crash site. With the warning that analysis is still ongoing, here are the details the ESA is sharing Friday: "Estimates are that Schiaparelli dropped from a height of between 2 and 4 kilometers, therefore impacting at a considerable speed, greater than 300 km/h [186 mph]. The relatively large size of the feature would then arise from disturbed surface material. It is also possible that the lander exploded on impact, as its thruster propellant tanks were likely still full." That sequence of events followed the lander's largely trouble-free approach to the Martian surface, a trip that was being widely watched on Wednesday, when the craft lost contact with the ESA and its Mars mothership, the Trace Gas Orbiter, just before its touchdown.

112 comments

  1. Uh oh by Dunbal · · Score: 5, Funny

    It's going to be hard convincing the Martians that "we come in peace" after this...

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's that earth (or Mars) shattering kaboom you were looking for.

    2. Re:Uh oh by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 2

      Especially with ISIS claiming responsibility.

    3. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      k'brill and the Council ordered the Earth probe be destroyed because it was attempting to land too near our training facilities. As the temperatures on Mars have fallen over the millennia, our females have become increasingly barren. But the temperatures on Earth have been rising during this time period. Because of this, over the past 100 years we have taken females from Earth or our species would perish. We did not like this, but thought it was our only option.

      We later tried becoming a part of the Earth population and using intellect and kindness to mate with the Earth women, but that has not produced enough offspring to save our species. Over the last 10 years we have learned that Earth women are most eager to mate with males that play the guitar, sing into a microphone, ride a motorcycle, or move a ball on a playing field. Our Earth Trainees now learn these skills at this facility and are then sent to Earth to mate. The Earth women eagerly open their legs when meeting someone with these skills. Also, their is no expectation that this type of male remain with the female, so he is free to impregnate many other women. And their governments will pay all expenses for raising these children.

      It remains to be seen what will happen when these half ape and half reptilian children meet and reproduce and if they will have any special abilities. One of our species has entered the USA presidential contest in an attempt to gain power that will allow more of us to colonize Earth.

    4. Re:Uh oh by erapert · · Score: 1

      Actually Samsung claimed this one. The FBI confirmed it by finding traces of electronics at the site.

    5. Re:Uh oh by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      It's going to be hard convincing the Martians that "we come in peace" after this...

      It's obvious we come in pieces!

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    6. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A shadu la ilaha illa great galactic ghoul.

    7. Re:Uh oh by whathappenedtomonday · · Score: 1

      That's why we sent Shrapnelli!

      --
      I hope I didn't brain my damage.
    8. Re:Uh oh by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      You Martians can't even count. I've seen 4 of them running for President.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:Uh oh by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      "It remains to be seen what will happen when these half ape and half reptilian children meet and reproduce and if they will have any special abilities."

      In line with terrestrial cultural values they have accumulated much fame and the gold that goes with it, but as recent events in Paris have shown, they need special training in Earth security.

    10. Re: Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Schiarapnelli" is the correct italian spelling.

    11. Re:Uh oh by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      I patented the Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator so if they use it we can sue.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
    12. Re:Uh oh by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      Don't run! We're your friends!

  2. Russians! by DriveDog · · Score: 1

    SA-11s were spotted in transit to Mars...

  3. 1.3 billion euro whoops by Moheeheeko · · Score: 3, Funny

    "I did the calculations in feet....but I programmed the lander in meters..."

    1. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by irrational_design · · Score: 1

      Does the ESA typically work with imperial units?

    2. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No.
      I think that was intended to be funny.
      (What with Poe's law and all, it's often hard to tell.)

    3. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does the ESA typically work with imperial units?

      History lesson: In 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter was lost because of a mix-up between imperial units and metric units. See

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

    4. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      History lesson: In 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter was lost because of unlabeled units.

      Fixed that for you.

    5. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the parent post is correct. There was a mix-up between imperial units and metric units. According to the article linked in the parent post:

      The primary cause of this discrepancy was that one piece of ground software supplied by Lockheed Martin produced results in a United States customary unit, contrary to its Software Interface Specification (SIS), while a second system, supplied by NASA, expected those results to be in SI units, in accordance with the SIS.

      So, contrary to your claim, the problem was not "unlabeled units". The problem was that the contract specified the label to be in Systeme International units (specifically, newton-seconds), but the contractor used US customary units (specifically, pound-seconds).

      Your so-called "fix" is really an obfuscation.

    6. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nooo - I think this was more of a 'left-hand-thread, right-hand-thread'-kind of thing.

    7. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      No they do not.

      Have they landed on Mars? No they have not.

      See a connection?

    8. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the ESA should just outsource these projects to NASA since they never seem to have any success at safely landing anything on Mars, meanwhile NASA has either met or exceeded its goals in 6 out of 7 ground based Mars missions.

    9. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Dude, maths blunder, you did the calculation in metres and programmed in feet. Doing it the other way means the lander would miss the entire planet by kilometres ;).

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    10. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would someone do any calculation in feet?

    11. Re: 1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They ran out of fingers?

    12. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the parent post is correct. There was a mix-up between imperial units and metric units.

      WRONG. The units weren't labeled. That's why there was mixup.

    13. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WRONG. The units weren't labeled. That's why there was mixup.

      So now you're admitting that there was a mix-up! This means that my original claim was correct: "the Mars Climate Orbiter was lost because of a mix-up between imperial units and metric units."

      But I think that you want me to save face, and to say that this happened because the units were "unlabeled". Unfortunately, I will not save face in this case, because I suspect that you fundamentally misunderstand how computers work. My suspicion is that you're remembering high school science class, where your teacher deducted points if you forgot to write units immediately next to any number. I suspect that you are imagining the spacecraft engineers passing around pieces of paper with numbers on them, and that the engineers forgot to write the units on these pieces of paper. In high school science class, that would be considered a serious mistake! But the numbers in this case weren't being passed around by people on pieces of paper. Instead, they were sequences of bits being passed around by computers. It would be absurd to insist that the computer producing the data should append the string "pound-seconds" (in ASCII, for example) to the end of every output--it's a waste of bits, since the string will be the same for every output. Instead, the computer just gives a raw number for output. The source code that produces this output should be labeled with a comment stating the units, and there should be interface documentation that specifies the units. Producing this documentation is the computer-science equivalent of "labeling your units". But in this case, the units were "labeled". That is, there was interface documentation (the so-called "SIS") that stated the units for the output. Unfortunately, the actual units being used were not the same as the units in the interface documentation. That's the mix-up. It's not that the data was unlabeled , the problem was that it was mislabeled . The data was labeled as newton-seconds, when it was really pound-seconds.

  4. Protecting Mars by waveclaw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The space departments clean these landers quite well. But exploding on impact was either effective at sterilizing the craft in a final way or spread the contamination over the maximal area.

    In both cases Mars maintains a reputation as the place that robots go to die.

    --

    "You cannot have a General Will unless you have shared experiences. You cannot be fair to people you don't know."
    1. Re:Protecting Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this should be a lesson that, unless we're very diligent, methodical and careful about manned missions, it may be the place where astronauts go to die.

      I'm not against a manned mission to Mars, but these fools who claim we have the tech to do it in 5, 10 or even 20 years are just delusional.

  5. Great Work ESA/Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I do believe they have proven Mars' gravity is just as deadly as we all feared. #science

    1. Re: Great Work ESA/Russia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cave Johnson, is that you?

  6. There is still a way to get science out of this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're making a business out of blowing holes in asteroids, but look at this! A freshly-made crater on the surface of Mars! If I was working on the Opportunity mission I'd be submitting a proposal to go for broke and book it to the new excavation.

  7. It was a tech demonstration mission to dig into th by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it worked well. Sometimes low tech is the best tech.

  8. poor Martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there's going to be a bunch of pissed of Martians, blowing crap in their backyards.

    1. Re:poor Martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leo Wong unavailable for comment.

    2. Re:poor Martians by HumanWiki · · Score: 1

      Leo Wong unavailable for comment.

      He's probably still being held by those pesky Feministas (bumps hands together)

    3. Re:poor Martians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bet he'll scrap it...

  9. Where is Monty Python when you need him... by DidgetMaster · · Score: 1

    I am not dead yet...or...It's just a flesh wound. The scene from Groundhog Day when the truck falls a few hundred feet and then explodes is good too.

  10. Incredible opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, this could be very interesting. This lander was targeted to land very close to the Opportunity rover. Now, it has blasted a big fresh crater in the surface.

    If it would be possible to move Opportunity to that crater, unbelievable amounts of data could be potentially found.

    1. Re:Incredible opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Define "very close". Opportunity has moved a total of about 27 miles in its entire 10 plus year mission. It travels at a blistering 0.11 MPH, assuming that the crash site was 50 miles away and the rover could sustain driving flat out 8 hours a day (optimal solar power limitations I would imagine) it would take nearly 2 months to traverse the distance. But chances are the crash site is considerably further than 50 miles and the rovers wheels/motors/solar panels/batteries would never survive the trip.

    2. Re:Incredible opportunity by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 5, Funny

      NASA contacted Matt Damon for help with this yesterday. They're plan is to "science the shit out of it."

    3. Re:Incredible opportunity by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Opportunity has moved a total of about 27 miles in its entire 10 plus year mission.

      That's because the goal has been to look at everything it can, not move to a particular place far away.

      But chances are the crash site is considerably further than 50 miles and the rovers wheels/motors/solar panels/batteries would never survive the trip.

      Yeah, the odds of failure have really beat up on Opportunity, haven't they? How about a 6-month trip that is more leisurely and would still provide time to look around a little on the way?

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    4. Re:Incredible opportunity by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Just make sure it's an on-site investigation. After that I don't really see a bad outcome either way.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Incredible opportunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps you forgot about the other identical rover that failed (partly from mechanical issues, partly due to rough terrain) around six years ago after several of its wheels failed. Perhaps you haven't heard about Opportunities failed wheel, its memory issues, its frozen joint? Don't get me wrong, they've both done wonderful work and lasted far longer than they were designed to, but unless the impact point of Schiaparelli is exceptionally close to it expecting said rover to traverse a distance several times its entire already vastly extended mission profile is like expecting a tire rated for 20,000 miles under optimal circumstances to traverse 400,000 miles. Sure its possible, but its so wildly unlikely that you're better off doing practically anything else instead.

    6. Re:Incredible opportunity by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you forgot about the other identical rover that failed (partly from mechanical issues, partly due to rough terrain) around six years ago after several of its wheels failed.

      No, I didn't. Only one wheel had failed by the time it got stuck, the other wheel failed while trying to free it (possibly because the very fine soil entered the wheel area). The fact that Opportunity has not become stuck should be an indication that it is possible to reach the landing site. It's a worthy goal to shoot for, anyway - the first on-site images of a spacecraft landing site taken from a different spacecraft.

      expecting said rover to traverse a distance several times its entire already vastly extended mission profile is like expecting a tire rated for 20,000 miles under optimal circumstances to traverse 400,000 miles.

      Many people expected Opportunity to last for 90 days.

      Both rovers have already gone so above and beyond what they were designed to do that it's ridiculous. Might as well give the little guy one more shot at another first on Mars. It would be truly amazing if it made it there, and if it didn't then no one would really be surprised. It would still be able to take more pictures along the way.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  11. Apparently Samsung had the lander COMMS contract by heavyion · · Score: 1

    !

  12. Negative by sucko · · Score: 0

    http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/...

    --

    -linux... they can't *give* that shit away.

  13. Thankfully NASA took the pictures by chispito · · Score: 4, Informative

    Thankfully NASA took the pictures, so the ESA can't sit on them for a few days/weeks before suggesting the all-but-inevitable (the lander crashed). The ESA really needs to learn to be more open with their operations.

    --
    The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    1. Re:Thankfully NASA took the pictures by Solandri · · Score: 1

      NASA was much the same before the Challenger accident. The PR people had way too much power - enough to force a launch to proceed when the engineers were saying it wasn't safe.

      I'm willing to cut the ESA a little slack here. Nobody was really hurt by trying to de-emphasize the lander's failure, and the bulk of the instruments are in the orbiter (which will also serve as a communications relay station for future missions). So while the mass media obviously was focused on the lander's failure, from a scientific standpoint the orbiter's success was the bigger story.

    2. Re:Thankfully NASA took the pictures by Trapezium+Artist · · Score: 1

      Speaking from the ESA team that co-published those MRO CTX pictures yesterday, your assertions are nonsense and need correcting.

      There was a fully coordinated operation in place to track the lander during its descent, using the GMRT in Pune, India, our own Mars Express spacecraft, NASA's MRO, and the ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter itself, while data came down through our ESTRACK network and NASA's DSN. The Opportunity rover also in Meridiani Planum took images during the descent, but it was known that that would only possibly work if the lander came down at the long end of the landing ellipse: in the event, the targetting was fine, and it came down within ~5km of the centre of the ellipse.

      All agencies and partners cooperated fully, as we always do when it comes to Mars (and other solar system) operations, and all data were released as soon as they were available and analysed, including from our own assets. Nobody has been withholding anything beyond the reasonable time needed to analyse the data: we're less than 3 days past the Schiaparelli entry and descent, and a lot of information is already available. The various teams involved are working day and night to understand the complex data.

      The MRO CTX images were pre-planned, regardless of a successful landing or not, and were made available by NASA to the ExoMars project team as soon as possible. A number of meetings and joint telecons were held yesterday to analyse and agree on their content to the extent possible (CTX is fairly low resolution: much better information will come via HiRISE when it targets the site next week), and to agree on a time to release them.

      Indeed, at ESA, we were working very hard yesterday to publish them jointly as soon as possible, in order to make them available to the European media for last night's news. Due to the timezone different to California, it was challenging for NASA to get the images and accompanying text approved by then, but we're very grateful that they worked hard to make that possible.

      Finally, remember that we deliberately sent Schiaparelli there as a test demonstrator. We successfully carried out the hypersonic entry and supersonic parachute deployment phases, prior to the apparent failure during the thruster phase, and telemetry during the whole descent down to the surface were recorded and are back on Earth. Yes, we're obviously very disappointed that we didn't manage the final phase, but we will learn from the data. We also successfully put the main scientific mission, the Trace Gas Orbiter, into orbit around Mars.

      We have not withheld information: we've been as open as possible throughout. I'm sure that the truth of the matter won't dissuade you of your "NASA great, ESA bad" opinion, but sometimes it's important to lay out the real story for others to judge.

      Bottom line is that Mars was, is, and will always remain hard.

    3. Re:Thankfully NASA took the pictures by chispito · · Score: 1

      I'm no expert, I was just trying to comment on the openness of NASA vs ESA. Operationally, I'm sure there is very much to commend about you and your team.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
  14. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was a camera on wheels, with a parachute. Privately fund a 3D printed one and send it again.

    1. Re:So? by amicusNYCL · · Score: 3, Funny

      It wasn't on wheels, it was on a "crushable structure" designed to cushion the landing. It was a stationary lander, not a rover. Preliminary indications are that the structure did actually crush, and that it is in fact stationary.

      --
      "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
    2. Re:So? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      Preliminary indications are that the structure did actually crush, and that it is in fact stationary.

      Success!

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  15. Late-Breaking News from the Council [REPOST] by psergiu · · Score: 5, Funny

    https://science.slashdot.org/c...

    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.

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
  16. Im not trying to be that guy.. by coolmoe2 · · Score: 1

    but how does something blow up in a atmosphere with no oxygen? Would it not just slam into the ground at high speed and leak propellant into the thin CO2 atmosphere?

    1. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ya, have we tried lighting a match on mars to see what happens?

    2. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A rocket wouldn't work very well in a vacuum or thin CO2 atmosphere if it didn't have fuel and oxidizer on board.

    3. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by caffeinated_bunsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      When the propellants are two reactive liquids that ignite on contact with each other, a kaboom is a perfectly reasonable consequence of a sudden, severe rearrangement of the tankage.

      --

      Bugrit! Millenium hand and shrimp!
    4. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is it an earth shattering kaboom?

    5. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by dgatwood · · Score: 2

      Assuming it isn't a solid rocket, it must contain an oxidizer tank in addition to the fuel tank or else it wouldn't be a very effective rocket. When the fuel combines with the oxidizer, it produces an exothermic reaction.

      ... unless, of course, somebody forgot to fill the oxidizer tank, in which case that's probably why there's a giant probe-shaped crater on the surface of Mars now.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    6. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by cyn1c77 · · Score: 2

      The lander used hydrazine as its fuel.

      Hydrazine is a monopropellant, so it will react on its own. No oxidizer needed.

      Ideally, it will react in a controlled fashion using a catalyst.

      But since it is a monopropellant, it's a molecule that is only in a semi-stable state. So if enough energy is put into it (though say a high impact crash), it will burn or detonate by itself.

    7. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      they had rockets, with propellant tanks still almost full, which means both fuel and oxidizer. If it's hydrazine based, it likely means hypergolic fuel, so any contact between fuel and oxidizer triggers spontaneous combustion.

    8. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Probably not, but that's just because the atmosphere is so thin it's hard to work up any real overpressure...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But is it an earth shattering kaboom?

      mars shattering baboom

    10. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by slew · · Score: 2

      A rocket wouldn't work very well in a vacuum or thin CO2 atmosphere if it didn't have fuel and oxidizer on board.

      FYI A rocket engine by definition has fuel and oxidizer on board. A jet engine is the one that doesn't have the oxidizer on board.

    11. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by drew_kime · · Score: 1

      Ignore those other two. I gotchya. /golfclap

      --
      Nope, no sig
    12. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      All good rocket fuels, particularly monopropellents are explosive under the right conditions and the right conditions is slamming into the ground at 186km/hr which will generate enough kinetic energy transfer to ignite the entire tank at once, often called explosions.

    13. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by Trapezium+Artist · · Score: 1

      No, hydrazine does not need an oxidiser: it's a monopropellant.

      Schiaparelli had three 17.5 litre tanks, each filled with 15kg of hydrazine. There was also a 15.6 litre tank of high-pressure helium used to keep the hydrazine under pressure during firing.

      Would it hurt people to occasionally do some research before contributing to the general drivel that Slashdot has become?

      Schiaparelli's fuel tanks are filled

      Hydrazine as a rocket fuel

  17. We have a new Schiaparelli Crater.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....

  18. Last heard transmission: by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

    "This is the captain. We have a little problem with our entry sequence, so we may experience some slight turbulence and then explode"
    "We're gonna explode!? I don't wanna explode!"

    1. Re:Last heard transmission: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha!

      Now that they've exploded, I guess that means retirement and giving up their life of crime.

  19. US lander vs EU and Russian Lander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the US is the only country to land a rover successfully on Mars? How hard is the technology to develop?

    1. Re:US lander vs EU and Russian Lander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe it is because Mars halted adoption of the metric system. So far all of the countries that have successfully landed a probe on Mars use imperial.

    2. Re:US lander vs EU and Russian Lander by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We simply have a head start sending stuff. We lost plenty in the past. Eventually some stuff ought to make it.

    3. Re:US lander vs EU and Russian Lander by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think we've been pretty successful in landing.

      Successes:

      1. Viking 1
      2. Viking 2
      3. Pathfinder
      4. Spirit
      5. Opportunity
      6. Curiosity

      Failures:

      1. Mars Polar Lander
  20. Backwards sensor? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone didn't install a G-sensor backwards again did they?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_(spacecraft)#Mishap_Investigation_Board_.28MIB.29

  21. Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    and all the gloating and ridiculing in this and related threads. You certainly have become a petty and small-minded people.

    Some Europeans apparently are too thin-skinned and can't take a joke.

    If an American craft blows up, we make jokes about that too. Heck, were you not reading Slashdot a few weeks ago when Musk's rocket blew up?

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  22. Re: Sad to see anti-European sentiment from Americ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We Europeans are Aryan ubermensch, it is not conceivable that our National Socialist Master Race science can fail. It must be a jewish plot. Arrest and deport!

  23. Mars is difficult by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 3, Informative

    It's not easy to have a successful mission to Mars. Of the 44 missions to Mars 18 have been successful, 23 failures and 3 made Mars orbit but the landers were not successful. Currently India is the only country to have a successful mission to Mars on the first try. This is the second time the ESA successfully got into orbit but lost the lander.

    1. Re: Mars is difficult by joh · · Score: 1

      The US landed first try in 1976 (Viking 1).

    2. Re: Mars is difficult by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

      He claimed "mission to Mars", not just a lander. Excluding flybys, the first US mission to Mars was Mariner 8, which had a failure of the launch vehicle and crashed into the Atlantic (you can decide for yourself whether failure to leave the Earth constitutes a failed mission to Mars or not). Mariner 9 was the second attempt at an orbiter, which succeeded, and was the first spacecraft to orbit another planet. Mariner 9 beat the Soviet craft Mars 2 to orbit by 13 days, and Mars 3 arrived less than a week after Mars 2. Both Mars 2 and Mars 3 had landers, the one for Mars 2 crashed but was the first spacecraft to reach the surface of another planet, and the Mars 3 lander operated for 110 seconds on the surface. Several years later Viking 1 returned the first images from the surface.

      India's first (and only) mission was a success, and you could also consider the first EU mission a success, even though the Beagle 2 lander failed.

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

      You are right, this is an interesting science opportunity, for Opportunity. Examining a crashed probe on another world, how does it get any better and would be a fantastic accomplishment. If you are right and Opportunity is close enough this has to be a boon for science to examine the Martian surface when a lot of energy has been applied to it, who knows what has been uncovered?

      As you say, a few years trip time is reasonable and as a bonus it is a chance to examine how something we have built behaves when burned up in an alien atmosphere. That sort of information might be valuable for spacecraft engineering. What a thing to fall into NASA's lap, and kind of exciting as well.

      I can't imagine a better mission for Opportunity, I hope more people mod your comments up and I hope NASA does it.

  24. Huh? by argStyopa · · Score: 2

    "That sequence of events followed the lander's largely trouble-free approach to the Martian surface..."

    Er, not to split hairs here but it was a largely trouble free approach to MARS.
    After it arrived at Mars and after the bit following orbital insertion and correction, the next steps would be:
    - separation
    - descent ...and then all the OTHER steps of a fairly complex landing sequence went spectacularly wrong.

    So it's a heck of a stretch to say anything but a trivial portion of its "approach to the Martian surface" wasn't a complete botch...?

    --
    -Styopa
  25. ESA Schiaparelli Press Conference by CanEHdian · · Score: 2

    From the ESA Schiaparelli Impact Event Investigation Press Conference

    (...)
    [Michel Denis, ESA] We can also confirm that the parachutes were released earlier than the intended 1.3 kilometers above the surface.
    [ESA Engineer, UK] Miles. 1.3 miles.
    [Michel Denis, ESA] ?!?!!

    --
    When the copyright term is "forever minus a day", live every day like it's the last.
  26. This takes me back by GeekWithAKnife · · Score: 1


    ...to the film Chronicles of Riddick when the ship's computer says "Angle of approach, good." a couple of times and then says "Angle of approach, not good."

    I wonder if next time will include some probes before the lander. A two-part vehicle. One that keeps orbit and another that goes to the surface with the added twist of a couple of probes to send down to the intended landing location to see if that probe is functioning as expected AND THEN send the lander.

    But I'm sure all those clever space folk wouldn't make elementary mistakes so they won't need our input. Actually, on second thought...

    --
    A 'singular oddity' is an event that cannot be explained and only happens when you are alone.
  27. Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, yeah, maybe, but: WE invented the 'surround-it-with-balloons bouncy-method of landing' and offered it to them for free. But did they consider it? No.
    wikipedia photo

    So, then, it does something more like C3P0 and R2D2 drilling-into Tattooine in their escape pod... _I_ think that's funny.

  28. Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by Sperbels · · Score: 2

    We've always been a petty and small-minded people, thank you very much.

  29. And then it exploded? by Daetrin · · Score: 1

    But did it turn inside-out first?

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  30. an opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    how long would it take opportunity to go take a look? they're in the same zip code, relatively speaking. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

  31. Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by istartedi · · Score: 1

    It's an interesting idea; but even without googling I'm willing to bet the impact zone is too far from any active rover. Why? Because the impact zone is probably close to the planned landing, and they probably didn't plan to land too close to a rover. Why? Because they want to explore diverse areas, and because even a well controlled landing might hit a rover.

    I'm willing to wager... uhhh... stupid Internet points that the impact zone is 1000 (one thousand) km or more from any active rover.

    AFAIK, the rovers can't get that far in a reasonable time. The zone will be covered with dust again, and/or the rover will fail. They can't "book it", at least not yet. They drive these things like Cameron's father's car. They're orders of magnitude more precious.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  32. Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    They aren't even that far from each other, relatively. They tried to put Opportunity onto a position to image the descent and landing, although apparently it didn't actually see it. Still, the place where it crashed is not that far from Opportunity, although the little guy can't move very quickly. It might take years before it shows up to get some pictures. I think they should re-designate their mission targets.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  33. Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by amicusNYCL · · Score: 2

    Here's an update from the Opportunity team:

    http://www.planetary.org/blogs...

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  34. Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by slew · · Score: 1

    See my previous post...
    Actually, Nasa originally offered them a *sky-crane* (not a balloon landing), but congress decided we couldn't afford to participate in this mission...

  35. This shit is hard by MpVpRb · · Score: 2

    Even really smart people fail

    This is a project where it's impossible to test your creation until it's used

    Simulations are getting better, but without testing, all designs are a gamble

  36. Two large chunks escaped by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Informative

    If the parachute is behind the lander (in the direction of travel) then the two smaller dark spots above the large dark spot are where chunks of the lander would bounce after impact. The chunks are in the 12 and 2 o'clock positions. Also the parachute is more than 1km from the impact site, which seems a lot given the altitude of separation. But it makes sense if the lander retained its horizontal velocity at separation, while the parachute braked in the atmosphere.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  37. Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    That landing method still uses braking rockets, which didn't work in this case.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  38. Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by Gavagai80 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Well, you've lost all your internet points. Hopefully that teaches you to stop making things up without googling. The landing area is the same as Opportunity's landing area, and Opportunity even attempted to image the landing: http://www.planetary.org/blogs...

    --
    This space intentionally left blank
  39. I'm not saying it's aliens by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but it's the aliens!

  40. Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

    Too soon.

  41. A rose by any other name... by waynemcdougall · · Score: 1

    If my mother was named Trace Gas orbiter, I'd try to bury my head in the sand too.

    --
    Recycle PCs and build a wireless community network www.hillsborough.org.nz
  42. Any chance something useful comes out of this? by blackprint · · Score: 1

    Is there any chance that the impact & explosion could give us a view that we haven't seen before, a la the Spirit rover?

  43. USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am proud of American and our ability to land craft on Mars when no one else can. I expect in time it will be like all things and the USA will fade in their excellence in this area as well. Before long we will be paying India and China to carry our payloads to Mars as we will no longer have the capability or will to continue.

  44. Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    "not that far" is several hundred km. Curiosity has covered 14 km in 4 years.

  45. Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by hackertourist · · Score: 1

    Scratch that, it's 40-50 km. Still, that would take 12 years.

  46. Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by istartedi · · Score: 1

    Mods, kill me! here's a map, BTW.

    --
    For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
  47. Like a lost wallet. by Snufu · · Score: 1

    We were just returning the cylinders they lost here in War of the Worlds. C.O.D.

  48. Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by amicusNYCL · · Score: 1

    Only if they wanted to look at everything along the way (i.e., how the rover has been used so far). If they set that point as a target to reach they *could* get there in a couple months, but they would probably want to go a little slower to take a few pictures along the way and make sure they get enough time to recharge the batteries.

    Opportunity is pretty slow, but it's not 4km per year slow. They've just been stopping anywhere and everywhere to look at that rock over there.

    --
    "Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
  49. Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...aaand we'll remember how petty and small-minded we are the NEXT time germany decides it doesn't like the shape of its borders.
    ('fool US(A) once, shame on you; fool US(A) twice, shame on US(A)').