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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by msmash on Friday October 21, 2016 @08:10AM 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.

74 of 112 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Uh oh by Dunbal · 2016-10-21 08:11 · 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 __aaclcg7560 · 2016-10-21 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  Especially with ISIS claiming responsibility.
2. Re:Uh oh by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 08:37 · 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.
3. Re:Uh oh by erapert · 2016-10-21 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  Actually Samsung claimed this one. The FBI confirmed it by finding traces of electronics at the site.
4. Re:Uh oh by Gr8Apes · 2016-10-21 09:22 · 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.
5. Re:Uh oh by whathappenedtomonday · 2016-10-21 10:22 · Score: 1
  
  That's why we sent Shrapnelli!
  
  --
  I hope I didn't brain my damage.
6. Re:Uh oh by ChrisMaple · 2016-10-21 10:33 · Score: 1
  
  You Martians can't even count. I've seen 4 of them running for President.
  
  --
  Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
7. Re:Uh oh by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-10-21 11:26 · 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.
8. Re:Uh oh by the_Bionic_lemming · 2016-10-21 15:40 · 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!
9. Re:Uh oh by zwarte+piet · 2016-10-22 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  Don't run! We're your friends!
Russians! by DriveDog · 2016-10-21 08:14 · Score: 1

SA-11s were spotted in transit to Mars...
1.3 billion euro whoops by Moheeheeko · 2016-10-21 08:14 · 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 · 2016-10-21 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Does the ESA typically work with imperial units?
2. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 08:38 · 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
3. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 08:53 · Score: 1
  
  History lesson: In 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter was lost because of unlabeled units.
  Fixed that for you.
4. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-10-21 12:52 · Score: 1
  
  No they do not.
  Have they landed on Mars? No they have not.
  See a connection?
5. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by ArmoredDragon · 2016-10-21 14:04 · 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.
6. Re:1.3 billion euro whoops by rtb61 · 2016-10-21 15:56 · 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
7. Re: 1.3 billion euro whoops by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 23:38 · Score: 1
  
  They ran out of fingers?
Protecting Mars by waveclaw · 2016-10-21 08:15 · 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."
Where is Monty Python when you need him... by DidgetMaster · 2016-10-21 08:21 · 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.
Incredible opportunity by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 08:22 · 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 · 2016-10-21 09:02 · 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 · 2016-10-21 09:08 · 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 · 2016-10-21 10:49 · 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 · 2016-10-21 10:52 · 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 amicusNYCL · 2016-10-24 07:36 · 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
Apparently Samsung had the lander COMMS contract by heavyion · 2016-10-21 08:22 · Score: 1

!
Re:poor Martians by HumanWiki · 2016-10-21 08:25 · Score: 1

Leo Wong unavailable for comment.
He's probably still being held by those pesky Feministas (bumps hands together)
Thankfully NASA took the pictures by chispito · 2016-10-21 08:27 · 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 · 2016-10-21 13:01 · 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 · 2016-10-22 00:58 · 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 · 2016-10-25 07:22 · 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!
Late-Breaking News from the Council [REPOST] by psergiu · 2016-10-21 08:30 · 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.
Im not trying to be that guy.. by coolmoe2 · 2016-10-21 08:39 · 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 · 2016-10-21 08:50 · 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.
2. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by caffeinated_bunsen · 2016-10-21 08:53 · 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!
3. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by dgatwood · 2016-10-21 08:56 · 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.
4. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by cyn1c77 · 2016-10-21 08:59 · 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.
5. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by Dunbal · 2016-10-21 09:18 · 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.
6. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by slew · 2016-10-21 10:58 · 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.
7. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by drew_kime · 2016-10-21 12:41 · Score: 1
  
  Ignore those other two. I gotchya. /golfclap
  
  --
  Nope, no sig
8. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by rahvin112 · 2016-10-21 13:45 · 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.
9. Re:Im not trying to be that guy.. by Trapezium+Artist · 2016-10-22 01:08 · 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
Last heard transmission: by Chris+Mattern · 2016-10-21 08:44 · 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!"
Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2016-10-21 08:54 · 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
Re:US lander vs EU and Russian Lander by Anonymous Coward · 2016-10-21 09:17 · 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.
Mars is difficult by The+Grim+Reefer · 2016-10-21 09:19 · 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 · 2016-10-21 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  The US landed first try in 1976 (Viking 1).
2. Re: Mars is difficult by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-21 11:07 · 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
Huh? by argStyopa · 2016-10-21 09:27 · 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
ESA Schiaparelli Press Conference by CanEHdian · 2016-10-21 09:31 · 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.
This takes me back by GeekWithAKnife · 2016-10-21 09:36 · 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.
Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by Sperbels · 2016-10-21 09:55 · Score: 2

We've always been a petty and small-minded people, thank you very much.
And then it exploded? by Daetrin · 2016-10-21 10:08 · Score: 1

But did it turn inside-out first?

--
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by istartedi · 2016-10-21 10:36 · 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"?
Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-21 10:41 · 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
Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-21 10:45 · 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
Re:So? by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-21 10:52 · 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
Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by slew · 2016-10-21 11:02 · 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...
This shit is hard by MpVpRb · 2016-10-21 11:34 · 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
Two large chunks escaped by MichaelSmith · 2016-10-21 11:40 · 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
Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by MichaelSmith · 2016-10-21 11:42 · Score: 1

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

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:So? by MichaelSmith · 2016-10-21 11:43 · Score: 2

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

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by Gavagai80 · 2016-10-21 12:04 · 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
Re:Sad to see anti-European sentiment from America by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-10-21 13:00 · Score: 1

Too soon.
Re:US lander vs EU and Russian Lander by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-10-21 13:12 · 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
A rose by any other name... by waynemcdougall · 2016-10-21 16:02 · 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
Any chance something useful comes out of this? by blackprint · 2016-10-21 18:12 · 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?
Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by hackertourist · 2016-10-21 19:09 · Score: 1

"not that far" is several hundred km. Curiosity has covered 14 km in 4 years.
Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by hackertourist · 2016-10-22 03:50 · Score: 1

Scratch that, it's 40-50 km. Still, that would take 12 years.
Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by istartedi · 2016-10-22 09:55 · 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"?
Like a lost wallet. by Snufu · 2016-10-22 12:57 · Score: 1

We were just returning the cylinders they lost here in War of the Worlds. C.O.D.
Re:There is still a way to get science out of this by amicusNYCL · 2016-10-24 07:11 · 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