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

"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

"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

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

Interestingly, this just out today: "Bush to Announce Ventures to Mars and
the Moon, Officials Say"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/sc...09SPAC.html?hp

OK, it may come to nothing, but maybe glimmers of a new focus for NASA?

- Michael

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
...
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

Interestingly, this just out today: "Bush to Announce Ventures to Mars and
the Moon, Officials Say"

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/09/sc...09SPAC.html?hp

OK, it may come to nothing, but maybe glimmers of a new focus for NASA?

- Michael

But where will the money come from? At present NASA is spending a major lump
of its budget on two projects. The ISS & the Shuttle. It has still to get
the rescue vehicle for the ISS up and running. I agree that the Moon is a
real prospect for a return visit, but the cost of going ot Mars is just
beyond any one nation, even the USA. I have even heard that NASA is
considering buying rockets from Russia rather than develop its own manned
rockets.

The only thing that would change that in my opinion would be if they found
absolute proof of life on Mars, either now or in the past. That may provide
the spur, but otherwise I think nothing will come of it. Apollo only went
ahead for political reasons and a Mars mission would also be political, but
given that no politician thinks further ahead than their next election, its
a non starter.

Martin

Dr Paul J Henney wrote:

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

pj

bugger

dh

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