Slashdot Mirror
"Splat" of Schiaparelli Mars Lander Likely Found (spaceflightnow.com)
Long-time Slashdot reader Tablizer quotes Space Flight Now:
Views from NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter released Friday show the crash site where Europe's experimental Schiaparelli lander fell to the red planet's surface from a height of several miles, leaving a distinct dark patch on the Martian landscape...The image from MRO's context camera shows two new features attributed to the Schiaparelli spacecraft, including a large dark scar spanning an estimated 50 feet (15 meters) by 130 feet (40 meters). Schiaparelli's ground team believes it is from the high-speed impact of the lander's main body... A little more than a half-mile (1 kilometer) to the south, a bright spot appears in the image, likely the 39-foot-diameter (12-meter) supersonic parachute and part of Schiaparelli's heat shield, which released from the lander just before ESA lost contact."
on Mars today
Splat is reserved for the sound of meatbags smearing across the surface.
How much did all of this mission cost? Does anyone realize how much food that money could have provided to those in need ON THIS PLANET?! We have no business looking off-planet until we learn to live in harmony with THIS planet.. and with each other.
Cleanup and harmony on this planet is furthered by our activity in space. It greatly furthered the development of solar power generation, it provides a lot of data regarding climate change, it provides some of the greatest examples of international cooperation. Space exploration has paid back its costs many times over, creating the economic activity that helps pay for so many earthbound efforts.
They got within 5 miles of the intended target. From here to mars that is a bulls eye. They should get points for that.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Oh go blow it out your ass.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
Kaboom. There's always a Kaboom.
On a more serious note, what's with all the anti-science prats showing up on Slashdot recently ?
At one time, the community here used to be the one championing new experiments as a positive learning curve even if the immediate experiment ended in failure.
Seems like there's a bunch of prats around here who don't realise that all the things they take for granted these days came about as the result of many experiments, including the failed experiments.
It should be called the Shrapnelli lander.
"Cleanup and harmony on this planet is furthered by our activity in space." ...what? Ca you substantiate this with facts or is it just your faith?
Stop the orbital bombardment of Mars! White cis-gendered males are attempting to continue their colonial exploitation of indigenous peoples! They're trying to buy Olympus Mons for a handful of beads! #martianlivesmatter
Oh go blow it out your ass.
If you would be so kind as to pack it up my ass for me, I would then be able to comply. You see, my ass is like a muzzle-loading firearm and it has to be reloaded for each firing. If you can't be bothered to neatly pack it up my ass, well then I suppose rudely jamming it up my ass instead would be acceptable, as long as you do it with love.
How much did all of this mission cost? Does anyone realize how much food that money could have provided to those in need ON THIS PLANET?! We have no business looking off-planet until we learn to live in harmony with THIS planet.. and with each other.
If you take the budget of ESA and divide that number by the GDP of the EU (a slightly misleading calculation, but not grossly so) you find that the EU spends less than 0.04% of its GDP on space.
You also have to keep in mine that the European economy has a tremendous amount of over-capacity in terms of unemployed people and under-utilised infrastructure and machinery. Europe would not be able to increase its production of food and other goods by anywhere near 0.004% if we stopped spending money on space. We'd just have more unemployed scientists, engineers and factory workers.
Sorry, that should read "Europe would not be able to increase its production of food and other goods by anywhere near 0.04% if we stopped spending money on space."
My typo where I wrote 0.004% might also be true, but that's hard to say.
Space exploration brought you GPS, satellite imagery, satellite communications and better weather prediction/analysis, for starters. It's hard to argue that these things are not positive for humanity.
You also need to consider that space exploration is supported by a massive technical and industrial infrastructure, parts of which were purpose built for it. It drives multiple parts of the world economy, creating jobs and stimulating the economy.
As for the cost/benefit? That's all relative isn't it? If we're talking about the cost compared to eating a sandwich, yep, it was costly (and wasteful... you can't eat rockets, I believe).
But compared to the cost of your average bank bailout? Or a war? Not even close. You could probably launch a "space mission" every month for a year and it would still be more profitable in the long run.
In the neighborhood of $1.3 billion.
$1.3B would buy in the timezone of 300 million big macs. Which would be enough for every poor FAMILY in the world to get a Big Mac. Hardly a significant impact on world hunger.
Note that if ALL the money ever spent on space were spent on food instead, we'd be worse off. The weather satellites alone paid for the entire world's space exploration budgets in better harvests as a result of better weather prediction....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Humans aren't happy with just littering Earth. Now doing it with Mars.
There used to be some guys who didn't care about a space program. They just wanted to chase chicks and eat. Then one day, a rock came out of the sky and obliterated them and everybody related to them. That was 65 million years ago.
(||) Nehmo (||)
Production of food is not the problem. The problem is getting it to where it's needed. Often the worst famines have nothing to do with not enough but with inadequate distribution, often due to war. Many times food that is delivered by charities is taken over by warlords who then profit on it.
Let's write some new sci-fi.
Mimicking the successful propagation of seeds by birds on Earth, fertile droppings were deposited on Mars this week. Using quadrature catalysts feed by the solar wind and the Martian tundra, new robotic explorers will soon be growing from the landscape.
Will they be part Beagle?
I don't like you and I don't want to live in harmony with you.
You say food I say sterilization. We don't need more people, we need less
Money? I've got a 100-euro note here which says this fine genius posted the above from his smartphone.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
First of all, I don't see much mention that they still have a new satellite in orbit around Mars so the mission is at least partly successful.
But with a string of failures to land on Mars from the ESA, and a string of successes from NASA you have to start to wonder - what is it that is lacking in the ESA program that is not able to get landings right? Is it just different approaches to the problems of landing that are not panning out over a few attempts? Is it some kind of engineering process failure that they just are not accounting for some possibilities? I was wondering if anyone had any insight.
I wish the ESA the best of luck and really want to se them succeed, as the more craft studying mars the better (though they are all a handful of beans in comparison to the first human to land and study there).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Cleanup and harmony on this planet is furthered by our activity in space." ...what? Ca you substantiate this with facts or is it just your faith?
You read the two sentences that came after that one? Do solar panels and earth monitoring satellites confuse you? Do the Apollo-Soyuz and International Space Station missions confuse you?
There used to be some guys who didn't care about a space program. They just wanted to chase chicks and eat. Then one day, a rock came out of the sky and obliterated them and everybody related to them. That was 65 million years ago.
About 50 thousand years ago a rock fell from the sky in Arizona and immediately killed everything for a radius of 20km. Beyond that there were massive fires that caused further death.
The current estimate is that a city killer falls from the sky about every ten thousand years.
They would have totally landed fine if it hadn't been for those meddling kids.
Except that argument is such a bad one. The space program is not the best way to preserve the human race. Repeat, if you are worried about preserving the human race, space is not the way to do it.
It's probably, because ESA uses the metric system.
Production of food is not the problem. The problem is getting it to where it's needed. Often the worst famines have nothing to do with not enough but with inadequate distribution, often due to war. Many times food that is delivered by charities is taken over by warlords who then profit on it.
Yeah, but there is something to be said for sending food when there is a drought or some other disaster that has caused an actual shortage of food.
Some of the food that we send will end up in the hands of the people after the government officials have stolen their share of the food and the local warlord has taken his toll and what not.
Standard units of measure developed over time because they were useful and relatable. When you measure in a system that matches your intuition then it's easier to notice mistakes.
The metric system was dreamt up by some godless heathen murderous French peasants who wanted to please their god and father, Satan, the devil, God of this earth. It has no relation to anything of common experience, with the exception of Demoncraps' unrepentantly wicked deviances. Certainly, this system is useless outside of certain occult ceremonies which demand its use.
In conclusion, you can't just eat stinky cheese, obsess over variously spoiled juices and malts and allow unwashed Mooslims to sodomize all your women all the time. Take some time to learn something useful, perhaps by reading a book, learn God's one true system of measure and give yourself over to Christ.
Jill Stein 2016.
You add a group of " independent contractors" to the convoy with instructions stating "You film drop off of X tons of supplies to %location" by %date% you get %payment% if the shipment is complete. If you have to defend the convoy you get %bounty% per head (with %bonus% if its a known warlord)."
then the shipments will arrive intact and early
Oh OK, it's your childish faith, complete with misanthropy and doomsday scenario.
I wonder what you think a camera on wheels can do against your feared Death Asteroid?
If you want to preserve the human race, chase chicks and eat seems like a plan...
God's one true system of measure - cubits?
In this situation they were originally going to use NASA's landing system, and worked with NASA for a few years on it, but then had to develop their own from scratch after a diplomatic pissing contest led to NASA's support being withdrawn. Even worse they couldn't use any good ideas they had picked up from NASA for I.P. reasons.
Their new system didn't work first time. It's not a matter of fucking up on attempt three after two good landings but a fuckup first time on a new system.
Telling the diplomats to fuck off will help both NASA and ESA.
I appreciate the explanation, but isn't it more that the new system was added in rush (to replace the old ones) as opposed to it being the first time used? It seems like the NASA successes were first time uses of those landing systems also, from what I remember.
Also, I really don't understand how IP applies since these are not products for commercial sale nor used for commercial purposes. I don't see where NASA could even bring a suit.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Even if only NASA buys a specific component from Boeing (for example) it's still a commercial product. While NASA has I.P. sharing arrangements with it's suppliers the diplomatic pissing contest excluded the ESA from that.
The ESA did it quickly, got Russian help and thought it would work but it was still the first of it's kind. NASA was building on stuff going way back to Viking and before.
It also turns out that parachutes are not as simple to get right as we would think, especially when the air is not very dense. It took a few splats of test rigs before the Apollo parachutes were ready.
It is all the fault of those Brits. They were in charge of the landing part of the operation. They made the calculations in inches, and King John's foot size.
Export controls, my friends - the same technologies used to land on Mars are used to guide a nuclear warhead to its ultimate destination - as such they are subject to export controls.
One can and does get export licenses to transfer the technology from the US to the EU, but that license is for a specific use, for specific people (each person with access is listed on the license), etc.
Entry Descent and Landing (EDL) is a very, very closely held expertise - and even if the US provided it to EU (e.g. for the original Exomars), it's likely that the software (which we all know is the key) would not be transferred - the US would provide the executable images, test procedures and so forth, but not the source code or documentation. We would just send *people* who are EDL subject matter experts to provide support and help run the tests - practically speaking, there's probably only about a dozen of them in the US.
How about you spend all of your own money first on food for those in need on this planet.
If you don't even care to feed the homeless, why should the rest of us?
Considering that this is basically the same landing system used by the NASA Viking landers (parachute, then rockets) on Mars in 1976, how many years did ESA need to work on this? This wasn't some exotic skycrane or airbag system. And the Viking landers worked on the first attempt.
Notice what I said about I.P. - they couldn't use the same landing system used by the NASA Viking landers either but had to have some key differences - stupid isn't it?
Except that argument is such a bad one. The space program is not the best way to preserve the human race. Repeat, if you are worried about preserving the human race, space is not the way to do it.
How would you deflect an errant asteroid without a space program?
(||) Nehmo (||)
How much did all of this mission cost? Does anyone realize how much food that money could have provided to those in need ON THIS PLANET?! We have no business looking off-planet until we learn to live in harmony with THIS planet.. and with each other.
Why are you posting on the internet when you could be using your resources to help those in need on this planet.
Wait, i just realized that you never said what planet you were posting from? Are you on Mars?!?!
Look a bit further. Like your smartphone? Thank NASA. Or the fact that virtually ALL our most advanced medical scanning devices were first built by NASA. Want to get rid of industrial pollution? Without returning to the 13th century? Then help move them to lunar orbit, were it can't hurt anything else. Or, well you could go hug a tree until Brother Bear eats you alive.
NASA picked up a lot of experience putting landers on the moon. The Soviets also sent a lot of moon landers, but never really ironed out the bugs (had a lot of failures). Those problems followed them to Mars where they went 0 for 6 (well, 1 for 6 but the single success ceased communicating after 14.5 seconds with no useful data received).
There wasn't a 'string' of failures.
The first lander wasn't an ESA lander, though ESA did contribute funds to it. ESA called it a payload because they had no confidence that it would work. It was done on a ridiculously small budget by a completely different group from the latest one on a ridiculous time scale. Almost nobody expected it to work - it was a best efforts project. An opportunity to Mars was available and they took it - would have been crazy to not ignore it.
The second lander is an experiment to try out new technologies. Just because it used some of the same technologies as Beagles 2, does not mean there are any commonality in design. It only had batteries on board. I guess the idea was - test the landing tech and, if it made it to the surface, use that opportunity to get some surface science done. This would have simplified the design from something with solar panels, chargers, etc or RTGs.
Keep in mind that EVERY lander ever sent to Mars was a one off. Sure, Spirit and Opportunity were more or less identical, but they were launced at the same time, so no chance of feeding what you've learned into the next design. There have been no mission so far where lessons learned could be fed into an evolutionary upgrade - something along the lines of what Spacex wants to do with Red Dragon. So there have been no vehicle design that could reach maturity.
They start with a virtual blank sheet every time.
That is the nature of things at the moment - I don't mean this as criticism. What NASA is achieving wrt unmanned missions is genius.
Viking came after apollo, and most likely learned a lot from the automatic powered descent of the LM. Europe doesn't have the same background in aerospace.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Outstanding answer.
His ignorance covered the whole earth like a blanket, and there was hardly a hole in it anywhere. - Mark Twain
Take a selfie with a duckface so the Killer Asteroid will go "screw those guys, I'm going home" and change trajectory?
... what is it that is lacking in the ESA program that is not able to get landings right?
One of the contributing factors is probably that there is less redundancy; I think ESA are trying to pack as much science as possible into a limited budget. I think also, the lander part of the program wasn't necessarily the main ambition, although it would have been very, very nice to our own vehicle down there. I think everybody agrees that space missions are unsustainably expensive, so we really do need to find (safe) ways to reduce the costs a lot; this is no doubt another important part of ESA's space mission designs.
Oh OK, it's your childish faith, complete with misanthropy and doomsday scenario. I wonder what you think a camera on wheels can do against your feared Death Asteroid?
In fifty years we went from flying airplanes that were little more than kites with engines attached to landing on the moon and returning safely. You don't think in one or two centuries we could have an effective detection and remediation program? Hint: The math is already worked out. Given sufficient warning (recall the detection capability from a sentence ago) we can place a mass behind the asteroid to slow it down through gravitational attraction (again, detection yielding time to deal with it) and turn a hit into a near miss.
I call it the Jebediah school of landing
NASA has has 6 failures on mars missions.
The ESA has had 1.5. The most recent of which was not one. Remember what this mission was called? "ExoMars Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO)" and the "Schiaparelli EDM lander"
The key word there being Orbiter. The orbiter is working just fine. The other key part is in the acronym EDM "Entry, Descent and Landing Demonstrator Module" The key word there is being Demonstrator. Schiaparelli wasn't on any major science mission.
The only purpose of the lander was to test and provide data on how to land on mars for the 2020 ExoMars Rover. Unless the Rover crashes then so far this mission has been a success.
On a more serious note, what's with all the anti-science prats showing up on Slashdot recently ?
Just trolls mostly. Nothing new and they've always been here. We only notice them because the traffic on Slashdot isn't what it used to be.
I think we have a couple of ULA shills posting frequently here. The ULA (Lockheed and Boeing) are cutting jobs, since their comfy monopoly on space launches involving minimal R&D costs has been broken up by SpaceX.
Sigh... It's a long time tradition here on slashdot to call anyone with a different opinion a "shill". As if paid representatives of those companies have the time to give a shit about a minor technical discussion forum like slashdot. It's an idiotic argument because what is really happening is one of two things. A) someone has a genuine difference of opinion or B) they are a troll and you shouldn't feed the trolls. The folks at ULA could not possibly care less about the opinions of some random poster here on slashdot. Anyone who thinks otherwise has an unjustifiably over inflated sense of their own importance and/or the importance of this website.
That guy with the binary username is the main one I've seen. He talks about "space nutters" a lot.
He's just an idiot. If he has a sponsored agenda he's doing a good job of hiding it under all his stupid arguments.
The space program is not the best way to preserve the human race. Repeat, if you are worried about preserving the human race, space is not the way to do it.
Hah! Ok Mr. Smart Guy. Enlighten us with your inspiring message of what you think is the best way to preserve the human race. Bear in mind that your solution has to include a solution for large rocks falling on Earth from space as well as all other threats to the Earth's ecosystem which keep it compatible with human life.
Want to get rid of industrial pollution? Without returning to the 13th century? Then help move them to lunar orbit, were it can't hurt anything else.
That is not likely to be a realistic solution to industrial pollution. You are going to generate VAST amounts of pollution and extra cost just getting to/from orbit with products even if you had a space elevator. With chemical rockets it's just not even worth considering. Even if it were technically feasible withing a reasonable time frame (it isn't) it makes no sense economically. That's not to say a space program couldn't help us hugely with the problem. It just won't come from that vector. Building stuff in space only really makes sense for a space based economy thanks to the costs of dealing with gravity wells. We're not going to build a bridge or even an iPhone in space and transport it back to Earth any time soon. But we can use technology developed for space to help with terrestrial problems. Heck the information from satellites alone is invaluable not to mention all the spin off technologies.
I strongly suspect that climate control and life support technologies developed for space travel and space based manufacturing would have immediate and valuable applications to pollution control here on Earth. Totally worth doing but we're not going to move industrial production into space in any sort of meaningful scale for a long time. Not that it isn't worth doing but just that our technology is far too primitive to consider it realistic. Maybe in a few hundred years.
It turns out the previous ESA lander mossion, Beagle 2, actually landed just fine. The spacecraft failed to unfold the solar arrays and deploy the antenna, so was never heard from. But it landed perfectly. Schiaparelli was a technology demonstrator. The lander really wasnt' intended to do much on the surface. It was designed to gather data during descent and test techniques for a future rover mission. So long as that data made it back to Earth, the lander really was a success. Even if it crashed.
How much did all of this mission cost? Does anyone realize how much food that money could have provided to those in need ON THIS PLANET?! We have no business looking off-planet until we learn to live in harmony with THIS planet.. and with each other.
If you take the budget of ESA and divide that number by the GDP of the EU (a slightly misleading calculation, but not grossly so) you find that the EU spends less than 0.04% of its GDP on space.
You also have to keep in mine that the European economy has a tremendous amount of over-capacity in terms of unemployed people and under-utilised infrastructure and machinery. Europe would not be able to increase its production of food and other goods by anywhere near 0.004% if we stopped spending money on space. We'd just have more unemployed scientists, engineers and factory workers.
The USA military budget given to NASA, would probably developed so many new technologies that it would have payed for itself. Also we probably might have colonies on the Moon and Mars.
And who the fuck are you to make that assumption, when much brighter ppl than you, such as Hawkins and musk, say otherwise?
I get tired of you dumb fucks declaring such things.
QA is the problem. They refuse to do majorly expensive testing on earth to check all subsystems. They really need to fire a 'mars test' system into space and test it landing here. In general, the same system that will land on Mars will land on earth, though not the other way around. Btw, this is exactly what America nasa and new space does. Prior to sending red dragon, they will make it land on earth first from helicopters, then aircrafts, finally a test space shot.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Huh? Are you sure that nasa would not share our landing system with ESA? That just sounds off.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
That's nonsense. There's no "I.P." in the sense that you refer to. Anyone can read about what Vikings did and do the same thing. There's no patent or any other protection afforded to that system - it'd be long expired, and the only thing a copyright would protect is copying of nonessential aspects of the design.
We don't really know that. It may have had a semi-hard landing that gave it partial damage.
Table-ized A.I.
How would you deflect an asteroid WITH a "space program"? How do you expect GPS and weather satellites to help with that? ...and why are you worried about such a remote possibility? You sound like a religious doomsday nutter.
Great answer. I need to remember that little detail for others who disparage our space program
The throw away tests appear expensive in the short term, but perhaps long term that is the cheaper way to go. Kinda like software.
It's not software.
Initially NASA did. Then others outside of NASA stepped in. There has been a bit about it but a recent BBC world service radio program summed things up better than others I've read/heard. It was in the last week so probably available for download.
No doubt it is expensive. BUT, once you have everything down, then you have working systems, which makes it affordable.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
that really sux. I would think that ESA is close enough for us to share some of our tech without fools jumping all over it. It is a very sad waste of money and time to not have this rover.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
You mean people like Hawkins with a vested interest in providing more funding to his buddies in academia??? Hawking does not know any more than the rest of us about this subject. The facts are simple. It is basic probability and risk versus reward, and Hawking's fearmongering is complete bullshit, just like half the other stuff that comes out of his retarded voice box.
I mean "Hawking", not "Hawkins". Typo.
So that's when the sharing stopped. I can't find the bit where they had to give up on all NASA derived work, it was somewhere else on the internet three or four years ago.
Scanning through article titles quickly, I first read this as (Martin) Shkreli going splat -- presumably after someone decided to wipe that smug off his face, permanently.
That would have been a much happier ending.
AFAIK the lander is Russian built: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
(Schiaparelli being the test/demonstrator version)