look, i was looking forward to seeing the beagle2 land. i was particular interested in the chirality tests that it would have performed; the presence of enantiomers would without a doubt have proven that there was/is life on mars.
you say "If beagle was capable of landing with the parachutes..." but that is a BIG "if"; no one knows if that would have worked or not, since it is a new line of landing strategy. afterall, who knows, maybe having such a high horizontal velocity upon impact increases the chances of it getting wedged between two rocks or some other terrain: maybe the best thing is to try and set it down vertically? in any case, how much more money would it have cost to throw some retros on there? i would think that it would be worth the extra measley million to take the "tried and true-viking/pathfinder" method.
umm, that was never the point of contention, rather the raising of the solar panels and other such chores is what we have been discussing. obviously the air bag deployment, parachute, etc. has to be done in realtime within millisecond precision. thanks for you valueable input (right).
you seem to be a little upset. what can i say...you baited, i accepted. the line snapped and i ran away with your lure.
if thats your best response, that "a couple of retro rockets" "had nothing to do with heat breaking" well...obviously it made some kind of difference.
you really shouldnt feel too bad, the batting average for landing on mars isnt too good. dont take it out on me.
go back and read the pathfinder and viking protocols, compare that with those of beagle2 and then YOU tell ME which scenario you think would realistically have a CHANCE of landing on mars. i understand that your budget may not have allowed for the massive "overengineering" that the aforementioned missions allowed, but hey im just telling it like it is.
the Pathfinder mission also used retrorockets to slow the decent, which the Beagle did not use. they felt that they could push the limits of heat braking and impact...on what basis????
why take a chance when this is your first "real" mission and the whole world is watching???
the Mars Pathfinder was in constant transmission during its entry and landing. From the source:
"A single-frequency carrier wave signal will be transmitted during entry and landing, and after some of the key entry events, a weak semaphore signal will be sent. The one-way travel time for the signal to reach Earth is 10 minutes 35 seconds."
you can read this all for yourself at:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marsentry.htm l
NOTHING was done until images of its landing position were sent, so that it would be known before hand if it had landed in an awkward position.
what you have described may infact be the very reason we have not heard from the pooch as of yet (either that or it crashed). they may have done better to have copied the Pathfinder mission and employ retrorockets rather than this unproven method that they tried on a whim.
oh? and is this automatic landing sequence connected with signals from the orbiter overhead? afterall, the whole point of having batteries charged before hands is that the thing may wind up onto of a rock and you dont want to deploy the solar panels...this is a CONTROLLED ASPECT of the landing sequence.
so whats your answer, eh? dont know do u
not sure what your point is, i've read all that already. all that proves is that it uses batteries powered by solar panels. yay.
who in their right mind would put all this effort into fancy scientific gear (most of which DOES look state-of-the-art) and then go and design a half-assed re-entry method that is unproven, without any type of backup. NOTE that this bouncy-ball method may not work for NASA either.
i understand the whole "shoestring budget" explanation but come on now, were not talking about something trivial here, we're talking about going to the "death planet" where overengineering is a REQUIREMENT to survive landing!
what were they thinking???!?!
altho the ESA is trying desperately to downplay the situation keep in mind that _every observatory in the world_ is looking for the Beagle 2 right now in their spare time
chances are slim. but they shouldnt feel too bad...mars is a graveyard for spacecraft
whoever said it is "sitting on Mars, unresponsive"???? noone knows if it actually landed or not. it most likely crashed dude.
you cant trust the british to engineer anything but garbage. who else would make it receive an order _before_ recharging its batteries?!?! had they given the project to the germans things may have turned out differently
Slashdot Mirror
look, i was looking forward to seeing the beagle2 land. i was particular interested in the chirality tests that it would have performed; the presence of enantiomers would without a doubt have proven that there was/is life on mars. you say "If beagle was capable of landing with the parachutes..." but that is a BIG "if"; no one knows if that would have worked or not, since it is a new line of landing strategy. afterall, who knows, maybe having such a high horizontal velocity upon impact increases the chances of it getting wedged between two rocks or some other terrain: maybe the best thing is to try and set it down vertically? in any case, how much more money would it have cost to throw some retros on there? i would think that it would be worth the extra measley million to take the "tried and true-viking/pathfinder" method.
umm, that was never the point of contention, rather the raising of the solar panels and other such chores is what we have been discussing. obviously the air bag deployment, parachute, etc. has to be done in realtime within millisecond precision. thanks for you valueable input (right).
you seem to be a little upset. what can i say...you baited, i accepted. the line snapped and i ran away with your lure. if thats your best response, that "a couple of retro rockets" "had nothing to do with heat breaking" well...obviously it made some kind of difference. you really shouldnt feel too bad, the batting average for landing on mars isnt too good. dont take it out on me. go back and read the pathfinder and viking protocols, compare that with those of beagle2 and then YOU tell ME which scenario you think would realistically have a CHANCE of landing on mars. i understand that your budget may not have allowed for the massive "overengineering" that the aforementioned missions allowed, but hey im just telling it like it is.
the Pathfinder mission also used retrorockets to slow the decent, which the Beagle did not use. they felt that they could push the limits of heat braking and impact...on what basis???? why take a chance when this is your first "real" mission and the whole world is watching???
the Mars Pathfinder was in constant transmission during its entry and landing. From the source: "A single-frequency carrier wave signal will be transmitted during entry and landing, and after some of the key entry events, a weak semaphore signal will be sent. The one-way travel time for the signal to reach Earth is 10 minutes 35 seconds." you can read this all for yourself at: http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/marsentry.htm l
NOTHING was done until images of its landing position were sent, so that it would be known before hand if it had landed in an awkward position.
what you have described may infact be the very reason we have not heard from the pooch as of yet (either that or it crashed). they may have done better to have copied the Pathfinder mission and employ retrorockets rather than this unproven method that they tried on a whim.
oh? and is this automatic landing sequence connected with signals from the orbiter overhead? afterall, the whole point of having batteries charged before hands is that the thing may wind up onto of a rock and you dont want to deploy the solar panels...this is a CONTROLLED ASPECT of the landing sequence. so whats your answer, eh? dont know do u
not sure what your point is, i've read all that already. all that proves is that it uses batteries powered by solar panels. yay. who in their right mind would put all this effort into fancy scientific gear (most of which DOES look state-of-the-art) and then go and design a half-assed re-entry method that is unproven, without any type of backup. NOTE that this bouncy-ball method may not work for NASA either. i understand the whole "shoestring budget" explanation but come on now, were not talking about something trivial here, we're talking about going to the "death planet" where overengineering is a REQUIREMENT to survive landing! what were they thinking???!?!
altho the ESA is trying desperately to downplay the situation keep in mind that _every observatory in the world_ is looking for the Beagle 2 right now in their spare time chances are slim. but they shouldnt feel too bad...mars is a graveyard for spacecraft
can you back this up? because every news article that i have read has said that remote commands were required to initiate this.
whoever said it is "sitting on Mars, unresponsive"???? noone knows if it actually landed or not. it most likely crashed dude.
you cant trust the british to engineer anything but garbage. who else would make it receive an order _before_ recharging its batteries?!?! had they given the project to the germans things may have turned out differently
if an inverse did not exist then it would not be a group.
technically, commutitivity is tested whether or not (x)(y)(inv(x))(inv(y)) = 1