Beagle dead?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3376343.stm

pj

"Dr Paul J Henney" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3376343.stm

pj



I have just been watching the newscast. (www.beagle2 .com) Although CP has
not completely given up hope, reasoning that this might be his last chance
with the worlds press present, he made his pitch to be given the oportunity
to have another go. His view was that a specific lander mission with the
same objective should be made in 2007 in preference to another orbiter
mission. I wish him good luck!

Robin

"Robin Leadbeater" wrote in message
...

"Dr Paul J Henney" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3376343.stm


I have just been watching the newscast. (www.beagle2 .com) Although CP has
not completely given up hope, reasoning that this might be his last chance
with the worlds press present, he made his pitch to be given the
oportunity
to have another go. His view was that a specific lander mission with the
same objective should be made in 2007 in preference to another orbiter
mission. I wish him good luck!

Robin

I think if the current NASA landers are successful, the next mission to
really capture the public imagination will be to take an aircraft to Mars. I
believe a lot of work has been done on these "Mars Flyers" and they will be
able to explore areas that will always be too risky to attempt to drop a
lander near.

I think this is also a possibility for the NASA Mars Scout 2007 mission so
maybe Pillinger could try and get in there first again!

- Michael

Dr Paul J Henney wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3376343.stm

pj

bugger

dh

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
...
"Robin Leadbeater" wrote in message
...

"Dr Paul J Henney" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3376343.stm


I have just been watching the newscast. (www.beagle2 .com) Although CP
has
not completely given up hope, reasoning that this might be his last
chance
with the worlds press present, he made his pitch to be given the
oportunity
to have another go. His view was that a specific lander mission with the
same objective should be made in 2007 in preference to another orbiter
mission. I wish him good luck!

Robin

I think if the current NASA landers are successful, the next mission to
really capture the public imagination will be to take an aircraft to Mars.
I
believe a lot of work has been done on these "Mars Flyers" and they will
be
able to explore areas that will always be too risky to attempt to drop a
lander near.

I think this is also a possibility for the NASA Mars Scout 2007 mission so
maybe Pillinger could try and get in there first again!

- Michael



I think the decision should be based on the likliehood of finding evidence
of life. Personally A Rover sent to one of the poles would be one of my
choices. I'm not too sure what one of the flyers could actually achieve,
especially with the high quality imaging available from an orbiter?

The ultimate has to be a plan to send humans to Mars, if only NASA wasn't
being bled dry by the totally pointless ISS, they could have got the US,
Russia, Europe & Japan to work on a joint mission. That would be the
ultimate and I suspect the only way we will ever know for sure if life does
or did exist on Mars. Personally because of the lack of money and the
necessary technology to do it in a reasonably safe way I don't see it
happening within the next 50 years, not unless there is a major change in
the attitude to manned spaceflight. And I suspect that if we do send men
back beyond the orbit of Earth it will be back to the moon first.

Martin

"Martin" wrote in message
...

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
...
"Robin Leadbeater" wrote in message
...

"Dr Paul J Henney" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3376343.stm


I have just been watching the newscast. (www.beagle2 .com) Although CP
has
not completely given up hope, reasoning that this might be his last
chance
with the worlds press present, he made his pitch to be given the
oportunity
to have another go. His view was that a specific lander mission with
the
same objective should be made in 2007 in preference to another orbiter
mission. I wish him good luck!

Robin

I think if the current NASA landers are successful, the next mission to
really capture the public imagination will be to take an aircraft to
Mars.
I
believe a lot of work has been done on these "Mars Flyers" and they will
be
able to explore areas that will always be too risky to attempt to drop a
lander near.

I think this is also a possibility for the NASA Mars Scout 2007 mission
so
maybe Pillinger could try and get in there first again!

- Michael

I think the decision should be based on the likliehood of finding evidence
of life. Personally A Rover sent to one of the poles would be one of my
choices. I'm not too sure what one of the flyers could actually achieve,
especially with the high quality imaging available from an orbiter?

The ultimate has to be a plan to send humans to Mars, if only NASA wasn't
being bled dry by the totally pointless ISS, they could have got the US,
Russia, Europe & Japan to work on a joint mission. That would be the
ultimate and I suspect the only way we will ever know for sure if life
does
or did exist on Mars. Personally because of the lack of money and the
necessary technology to do it in a reasonably safe way I don't see it
happening within the next 50 years, not unless there is a major change in
the attitude to manned spaceflight. And I suspect that if we do send men
back beyond the orbit of Earth it will be back to the moon first.

I'm sure it could be done in 15 years if there was the will. Like you, I'm
not sure if there will be for a very long time. The driving force that got
men on the moon was created under pretty unique circumstances.

- Michael

David Harris wrote:

bugger

dh

D Min tells me that that is what the film director said when the techy
dropped Beagle 2 on his foot in a shed in Chorley Wood just before
filming was due to begin.

Actually the Beagle 2 hoax has actually cost more than double what it
would have cost to send a real one to Mars, when you count in the cost
of painting the rocks red.

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
...

"Martin" wrote in message
...

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
...
"Robin Leadbeater" wrote in message
...

"Dr Paul J Henney" wrote in message
...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3376343.stm


I have just been watching the newscast. (www.beagle2 .com) Although
CP
has
not completely given up hope, reasoning that this might be his last
chance
with the worlds press present, he made his pitch to be given the
oportunity
to have another go. His view was that a specific lander mission with
the
same objective should be made in 2007 in preference to another
orbiter
mission. I wish him good luck!

Robin

I think if the current NASA landers are successful, the next mission
to
really capture the public imagination will be to take an aircraft to
Mars.
I
believe a lot of work has been done on these "Mars Flyers" and they
will
be
able to explore areas that will always be too risky to attempt to drop
a
lander near.

I think this is also a possibility for the NASA Mars Scout 2007
mission
so
maybe Pillinger could try and get in there first again!

- Michael

I think the decision should be based on the likliehood of finding
evidence
of life. Personally A Rover sent to one of the poles would be one of my
choices. I'm not too sure what one of the flyers could actually achieve,
especially with the high quality imaging available from an orbiter?

The ultimate has to be a plan to send humans to Mars, if only NASA
wasn't
being bled dry by the totally pointless ISS, they could have got the US,
Russia, Europe & Japan to work on a joint mission. That would be the
ultimate and I suspect the only way we will ever know for sure if life
does
or did exist on Mars. Personally because of the lack of money and the
necessary technology to do it in a reasonably safe way I don't see it
happening within the next 50 years, not unless there is a major change
in
the attitude to manned spaceflight. And I suspect that if we do send men
back beyond the orbit of Earth it will be back to the moon first.

I'm sure it could be done in 15 years if there was the will. Like you, I'm
not sure if there will be for a very long time. The driving force that got
men on the moon was created under pretty unique circumstances.

- Michael

Yes, Apollo was before its time. Rather like the jet engine and the atom
bomb. Somehow technology speeds up with war and we've had plenty of that
over the last 100 years. I can't remember who said it but someone famous
said that people won't realise what an achievement Apollo was until thy try
and go back to the moon. As for Mars, unless the Chinese decide to go there
on their own, I can't see there being any motivation by the west to put men
there.

Lets be honest, they haven't even solved the problem of long term space
travel yet, not to mention a reliable and efficient propulsion system,
radiation shielding, food supply, astronauts getting on each others nerves,
medical emergencies, just for starters.

And to be honest a rover like Spirit gives more bang per buck than human
space flight. For a fraction of the cost of the ISS could they not have
built a probe to go to Europa? Anyone else think the ISS is the US
equivalent of the Dome?

Martin

In message , Martin
writes

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
t...

I'm sure it could be done in 15 years if there was the will. Like you, I'm
not sure if there will be for a very long time. The driving force that got
men on the moon was created under pretty unique circumstances.

- Michael

Yes, Apollo was before its time. Rather like the jet engine and the atom
bomb.

Just to take this even further from the original topic, neither of those
is good examples. The atomic bomb was very much a product of its time -
all the major powers were doing nuclear research and any one of them
could have been first. In particular, the US was very worried by signs
of nuclear research in Japan and went to some lengths to destroy it,
such as smashing their cyclotron and dropping the bits into Tokyo Bay
(the germ warfare research, which was superior to the US and battle
tested, was quietly shipped back to the homeland)
Obviously, the effort to make the bomb was very much a big wartime
project and only possible in war, but it was only one of several.
And jet engines were being developed in both the UK and Germany in the
1930s. I don't know much about pre-WW 2 efforts in other countries.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Martin" wrote in message
...

I'm sure it could be done in 15 years if there was the will. Like you,
I'm
not sure if there will be for a very long time. The driving force that
got
men on the moon was created under pretty unique circumstances.

- Michael

Yes, Apollo was before its time. Rather like the jet engine and the atom
bomb. Somehow technology speeds up with war and we've had plenty of that
over the last 100 years. I can't remember who said it but someone famous
said that people won't realise what an achievement Apollo was until thy
try
and go back to the moon. As for Mars, unless the Chinese decide to go
there
on their own, I can't see there being any motivation by the west to put
men
there.

Lets be honest, they haven't even solved the problem of long term space
travel yet, not to mention a reliable and efficient propulsion system,
radiation shielding, food supply, astronauts getting on each others
nerves,
medical emergencies, just for starters.

But aren't all those problems almost the same for the ISS? Astronauts spend
months at a time there with only the usual zero-g medical problems.

ISTR Von Braun had quite advanced plans for a Mars manned mission to follow
the Apollo missions, using a booster even bigger than the Saturn V!

And to be honest a rover like Spirit gives more bang per buck than human
space flight. For a fraction of the cost of the ISS could they not have
built a probe to go to Europa? Anyone else think the ISS is the US
equivalent of the Dome?

I'd rather have seen the ISS money go on interplanetary missions but there
is so much politics involved - it's not like NASA gets a huge budget then
decide what to spend it on. At least the ISS is there for research into
long-term habitation in space.

- Michael