Beagle ... alas

Perhaps there's a clue to Beagle 2's fate in the picture taken as it
departed from Mars Express?

You'll recall that the Beagle is captured at the very left edge of the
picture, rather than being centred in the frame.

I wonder if that means it was ejected slightly faster than planned? At the
distance from Mars where separation occurred even a very small increase in
velocity could mean a very different trajectory and a very different landing
site from that planned.

In article gcMGb.820687$6C4.737135@pd7tw1no,
Canonbie Guy wrote:
I wonder if that means it was ejected slightly faster than planned? At the
distance from Mars where separation occurred even a very small increase in
velocity could mean a very different trajectory and a very different landing
site from that planned.

Unfortunately, Jodrell Bank would have heard it had it been anywhere on
the correct side of Mars, so even a very large location error is now
pretty much precluded. It's not looking good.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

(joshua) wrote in message . com...
*If* Beagle2 remains silent, then it would mean that two of the three
spacecraft in the current Mars wave (Kozumi, Beagle2, Mars Express
orbiter) failed. This is in line with the failure rate of Mars
Missions (roughly two-thirds).

And there are those who are serious about sending manned missions to
Mars.

I'm all for doing it when the technology is reliable but one for three
would be looking pretty grim with a graveyard in solar orbit. Out of
the six Apollo missions that made it to the lunar surface, wanna give
odds that we would have continued if twelve astros had died in the
process?

First return to the Moon, THEN Mars.

In message , Mark
Herring writes
(joshua) wrote in message
.com...
*If* Beagle2 remains silent, then it would mean that two of the three
spacecraft in the current Mars wave (Kozumi, Beagle2, Mars Express
orbiter) failed. This is in line with the failure rate of Mars
Missions (roughly two-thirds).

And there are those who are serious about sending manned missions to
Mars.

I'm all for doing it when the technology is reliable but one for three
would be looking pretty grim with a graveyard in solar orbit. Out of
the six Apollo missions that made it to the lunar surface, wanna give
odds that we would have continued if twelve astros had died in the
process?

First return to the Moon, THEN Mars.

Isn't the usual argument that you have a much greater chance of success
with a human at the controls, rather than a timer and a radar altimeter?
In retrospect, the US was probably lucky to achieve 5 out of 7
successful Surveyor landings on the Moon, and a $2000 million budget
(1984 values - don't ask me why) probably helped.
--
Rabbit arithmetic - 1 plus 1 equals 10
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Mark Herring" wrote in message
om...
(joshua) wrote in message
. com...
*If* Beagle2 remains silent, then it would mean that two of the three
spacecraft in the current Mars wave (Kozumi, Beagle2, Mars Express
orbiter) failed. This is in line with the failure rate of Mars
Missions (roughly two-thirds).

And there are those who are serious about sending manned missions to
Mars.

I'm all for doing it when the technology is reliable but one for three
would be looking pretty grim with a graveyard in solar orbit. Out of
the six Apollo missions that made it to the lunar surface, wanna give
odds that we would have continued if twelve astros had died in the
process?

First return to the Moon, THEN Mars.

.... if anything like Apollo 13 happens on a Mars mission ......... no happy
Hollywood ending.

On 25 Dec 2003 22:05:34 -0800, (Mark Herring)
wrote:

And there are those who are serious about sending manned missions to
Mars.

I'm all for doing it when the technology is reliable but one for three
would be looking pretty grim with a graveyard in solar orbit. Out of
the six Apollo missions that made it to the lunar surface, wanna give
odds that we would have continued if twelve astros had died in the
process?

First return to the Moon, THEN Mars.


I agree -- use Mars as the proving ground for spacecrafts habitats.
Remember, a crew that goes to mars just can't hop in its ship and
return like Apollo did, but has to wait for the planets to reallign --
30 to 100 days for a "short duration" mission (although this requires
a massive course correction either going out or comming back, so
that's where you see talk about a flyby of Venus on the return, to get
a gravity assist), 500 days for a "long duration" mission. Also have
the crew stocked with spair parts and a couple of crew members who are
dedicated flight enigneers -- they fix what's broke.

Michael Gallagher wrote:

Also have
the crew stocked with spair parts and a couple of crew members who are
dedicated flight enigneers -- they fix what's broke.

Maintaining a ship in flight is *far* more complex than that.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 17:10:37 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

Maintaining a ship in flight is *far* more complex than that.


Way I figure it, it'd be a lot more complex if you don't have members
of the crew dedicated to doing just that, esepcaily given you'd be
months/years from getting back to Earth for repairs.