|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Landers (was: Pope given word...)
In article ,
Corbell5571 wrote: [trimming followups, and diverting to ssh] I'm just playing with words, but serious it does start to look funny if we can't seem to land on Mars. We did once way back when or was it twice? Three times, actually - four if you count a Soviet probe that fell silent about 20 seconds after landing. People do tend to conflate the two Viking landers. WRT the Mars 3 lander, there seems to be some debate - I've seen claims that the transmission was faked so the USSR could claim first landing. Jim? Plus six (I think) successful orbiters. That's out of 35 or so attempts. MOST Mars missions had failed in the past. Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, Viking 1 & 2, Mariner 8. Five. But every recent mission has flopped all pretty much during an attempted landing. The most recent flop prior to Beagle 2 was Nozomi. It failed to enter Mars orbit. Prior to that, there was the Mars Polar Lander failure - which people remember - and the Mars Climate Orbiter failure, which may well have involved actually landing unintentionally ;-) People often forget Mars Odyssey, too, which came after MPL/MCO but never got as much press; it's still functioning excellently. -- -Andrew Gray |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Landers
Andrew Gray wrote:
Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, Viking 1 & 2, Mariner 8. Five. I believe you meant Mariner 9 since Mariner 8 was lost during launch. -- Alex R. Blackwell University of Hawaii |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Landers (was: Pope given word...)
"Andrew Gray" wrote in message . .. In article , Corbell5571 wrote: Plus six (I think) successful orbiters. That's out of 35 or so attempts. MOST Mars missions had failed in the past. Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, Viking 1 & 2, Mariner 8. Five. Plus three Soviet orbiters which were produced data: Mars 5 in 1971 - several months - another couple of years later and Phobos 2 in 1989. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Landers
In article , Alex R.
Blackwell wrote: Andrew Gray wrote: Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, Viking 1 & 2, Mariner 8. Five. I believe you meant Mariner 9 since Mariner 8 was lost during launch. If I wasn't so tired, I'd put a reply here saying how that mistake somehow showed the excellent results of flying identical-pair probes. But as I am, I invite you all to imagine there was a wittily incisive remark here that didn't managed to get a one-digit number *printed on a page in front of the author* wrong. Gah... ;-) -- -Andrew Gray |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Landers
In sci.space.policy Andrew Gray wrote:
People do tend to conflate the two Viking landers. WRT the Mars 3 lander, there seems to be some debate - I've seen claims that the transmission was faked so the USSR could claim first landing. Jim? Would that be a precedent? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Landers
In article , Brian Sandle wrote:
In sci.space.policy Andrew Gray wrote: People do tend to conflate the two Viking landers. WRT the Mars 3 lander, there seems to be some debate - I've seen claims that the transmission was faked so the USSR could claim first landing. Jim? Would that be a precedent? If you're asking what I think you're asking, Mars 3 managed to do very little of any real use in 1971... (I don't think they did make an unsubstantiated claim - they'd have done it more creatively, if they did - I was just wanting to know what the resident expert had heard muttered on the issue...) -- -Andrew Gray |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Landers
Andrew Gray wrote:
In article , Brian Sandle wrote: In sci.space.policy Andrew Gray wrote: People do tend to conflate the two Viking landers. WRT the Mars 3 lander, there seems to be some debate - I've seen claims that the transmission was faked so the USSR could claim first landing. Jim? Would that be a precedent? If you're asking what I think you're asking, Mars 3 managed to do very little of any real use in 1971... (I don't think they did make an unsubstantiated claim - they'd have done it more creatively, if they did - I was just wanting to know what the resident expert had heard muttered on the issue...) Who would claim a fake and why would they claim a fake? It might seem that fake claims are part of the free-for-all accepted by the side which was `fake' this time. Or is it, `We would never fake anything for prowess, but we know you would.'? -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =----- |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Mars Landers (was: Pope given word...)
Andrew Gray wrote in message ...
Plus six (I think) successful orbiters. That's out of 35 or so attempts. MOST Mars missions had failed in the past. Mars Odyssey, Mars Global Surveyor, Viking 1 & 2, Mariner 8. Five. Ahem, plus the Soviet orbiters, maybe. Plus Mars *Express*, *ahem*, *ahem*. (and that's Mariner 9, but you already know that.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Japan admits its Mars probe is failing | JimO | Policy | 16 | December 6th 03 02:23 PM |
Mars Landers Create Opportunity For Web-Linked Sundials Around The World | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 20th 03 06:23 PM |
Delta-Like Fan On Mars Suggests Ancient Rivers Were Persistent | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | November 13th 03 09:06 PM |
If You Thought That Was a Close View of Mars, Just Wait (Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter) | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | September 23rd 03 10:25 PM |
NASA Selects UA 'Phoenix' Mission To Mars | Ron Baalke | Science | 0 | August 4th 03 10:48 PM |