RIP Beagle 2?

JB has just finished its sweep and nothing, no UHF carrier wave.

It was a brave effort but given the number of possible single point
failures along the line and the lack of in depth pre-flight testing on the
descent system then perhaps we should not be surprised.
It seems the gerat Martian Ghoul has gobbled another meal. Lets just hope
its diverted its attention away from Spirit and Opportunity!


Well done to Prof. Pillanger and the team on a brave effort, but Mars
clearly takes no prisoners.

Celebrate at least the success of Mars Express in MOI!


pj

I also agree that it is not time to write off Beagle 2 just yet. Mars
Express was intended to be its means of communication not Odyssey or Jodrell
Bank. Moreover, Mars Express was not necessarily going to be in position to
take a signal on day one. I'd hold fire to see if Odyssey gets hold of it
later today, if not, we still have days of windows yet. Bear in mind that
the UK team have not had access to Odyssey's communications matrix, and so
trying to get anythin to work first time would be unlikely.

Either way, I think this probe is a success- to the sheer hard work of the
team behind the probe- not the UK Government, who waste enough money each
year for two Beagle 2 probes on light pollution from road lighting alone.
If the Government had taken the chance to fund the probe properly then
things might have been different, shame on them.

Jolly good show to Pillinger, the Open University and the University of
Leicester (the latter of which has almost been forgotten by the media). Good
for you, University of Leicester!

Marti(a)n Taylor
Yes, another one...

"Martin Taylor" wrote in message
...
I also agree that it is not time to write off Beagle 2 just yet. Mars
Express was intended to be its means of communication not Odyssey or
Jodrell
Bank. Moreover, Mars Express was not necessarily going to be in position
to
take a signal on day one. I'd hold fire to see if Odyssey gets hold of it
later today, if not, we still have days of windows yet. Bear in mind that
the UK team have not had access to Odyssey's communications matrix, and so
trying to get anythin to work first time would be unlikely.

Either way, I think this probe is a success- to the sheer hard work of the
team behind the probe- not the UK Government, who waste enough money each
year for two Beagle 2 probes on light pollution from road lighting alone.
If the Government had taken the chance to fund the probe properly then
things might have been different, shame on them.

Jolly good show to Pillinger, the Open University and the University of
Leicester (the latter of which has almost been forgotten by the media).
Good
for you, University of Leicester!

Marti(a)n Taylor
Yes, another one...

I think there does have to be a question though over the methods they are
using to land on Mars. Both Vikings were successful and used a more
conventional approach. This idea of simply letting the thing bounce around
and hopefully find a reasonably open place to come to rest does appear to be
rather chancy. I know it helps keep the cost down, but it would be a real
shame if all that hard work has failed simply because either the airbags
burst on impact or that somehow Beagle has ended up wedged in a hole
somewhere.

I think we will probably have to wait and see how the American probes get on
as they are using this parachute & airbag system as well. I agree though
that Beagle 2 is a success in that we showed that we are capable of
producing a practical vehicle for real cheap money.

Martin

"Martin Taylor" wrote:

I also agree that it is not time to write off Beagle 2 just yet....

Marti(a)n Taylor
Yes, another one...

Global surveyor produced this image of Beagle's landing ground on
Christmas Eve. Let's hope it's just a difficult birth...

Yes another nother one..

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

"Martin Taylor" wrote in message
...
I also agree that it is not time to write off Beagle 2 just yet. Mars
Express was intended to be its means of communication not Odyssey or
Jodrell
Bank. Moreover, Mars Express was not necessarily going to be in position
to
take a signal on day one. I'd hold fire to see if Odyssey gets hold of it
later today, if not, we still have days of windows yet. Bear in mind that
the UK team have not had access to Odyssey's communications matrix, and so
trying to get anythin to work first time would be unlikely.

Either way, I think this probe is a success- to the sheer hard work of the
team behind the probe- not the UK Government, who waste enough money each
year for two Beagle 2 probes on light pollution from road lighting alone.
If the Government had taken the chance to fund the probe properly then
things might have been different, shame on them.

Isn't one of the problems though, with these relatively low-cost probes,
that when they fail, as more often than not, they will, we have no way of
knowing what happened to them. So we cannot learn from their failure and
concentrate on the weak points for the next design.

Maybe some form of telemetry could be arranged during the descent to the
orbiting module. At least that would give the team some indication as to
where in the sequence the failure had occurred. Or even better, a crash
proof "black box" which transmits the telemetry until its battery expires.

- Michael

"Martin Taylor" wrote:

I also agree that it is not time to write off Beagle 2 just yet. Mars
Express was intended to be its means of communication not Odyssey or Jodrell
Bank. Moreover, Mars Express was not necessarily going to be in position to
take a signal on day one. I'd hold fire to see if Odyssey gets hold of it
later today, if not, we still have days of windows yet. Bear in mind that
the UK team have not had access to Odyssey's communications matrix, and so
trying to get anythin to work first time would be unlikely.

Could you elaborate on that last sentence??
Wouldn't NASA let ESA have it?
And for the uninitiated, what is really coms 'matrix'?
What has been going on in this matter?

Regards,
Bjørn Sørheim






--------------------------------------------------------
Anti-spam: Replace 'geo' with 'online' for direct e-mail
--------------------------------------------------------

"MichaelJP" wrote in message
...

"Martin Taylor" wrote in message
...
I also agree that it is not time to write off Beagle 2 just yet. Mars
Express was intended to be its means of communication not Odyssey or
Jodrell
Bank. Moreover, Mars Express was not necessarily going to be in position
to
take a signal on day one. I'd hold fire to see if Odyssey gets hold of
it
later today, if not, we still have days of windows yet. Bear in mind
that
the UK team have not had access to Odyssey's communications matrix, and
so
trying to get anythin to work first time would be unlikely.

Either way, I think this probe is a success- to the sheer hard work of
the
team behind the probe- not the UK Government, who waste enough money
each
year for two Beagle 2 probes on light pollution from road lighting
alone.
If the Government had taken the chance to fund the probe properly then
things might have been different, shame on them.

Isn't one of the problems though, with these relatively low-cost probes,
that when they fail, as more often than not, they will, we have no way of
knowing what happened to them. So we cannot learn from their failure and
concentrate on the weak points for the next design.

Maybe some form of telemetry could be arranged during the descent to the
orbiting module. At least that would give the team some indication as to
where in the sequence the failure had occurred. Or even better, a crash
proof "black box" which transmits the telemetry until its battery expires.

- Michael

The problem is that I think that requires more weight with more equipment.
The most successful landers were the big Viking ones. You are right though
that for all we know, Beagle may have landed successfully, but simply ended
up wedged in a hole somewhere. And we may well never know, well at least not
until someone goes and finds it!!!

Of course in terms of cash the lossof Beagle is peanuts. If it is gone lets
hope the American landers have more luck, but I'm not so sure as they are
using the same system.

Be a real shame though if Beagle was lying right next to a bunch of little
green men tucking into their Xmas turkey!!!!!

Martin

There is an awful lot of Martins in this thread - I think we should be told :-)

Come on Beagle - Come on Boy!

Kevin M Smith :-)

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 18:45:28 +0000 (UTC), "MichaelJP"
wrote:
-

Isn't one of the problems though, with these relatively low-cost probes,
that when they fail, as more often than not, they will, we have no way of
knowing what happened to them. So we cannot learn from their failure and
concentrate on the weak points for the next design.

Maybe some form of telemetry could be arranged during the descent to the
orbiting module. At least that would give the team some indication as to
where in the sequence the failure had occurred. Or even better, a crash
proof "black box" which transmits the telemetry until its battery expires.

This, and a number of other suggestions in this thread are very good
ideas but AIUI the total mass they have available is 35Kg - and that
was reduced very late in the design process.

Adding things such as redundant crash recorders, comms during descent,
more sophistiated landing methods would all add significant amounts of
mass - and we would end up with something that could do nothing
useful.

What we need is a way to get significantly more mass into orbit.

Chris

MichaelJP wrote:
Isn't one of the problems though, with these relatively low-cost probes,
that when they fail, as more often than not, they will, we have no way of
knowing what happened to them. So we cannot learn from their failure and
concentrate on the weak points for the next design.

Yes and no. Humans are rather curious creatures so what usually happens
is that millions more are spent running computer simulations, dropping
things, running tests, etc., until someone finds a significant failure
mode. The irony is, of course, that if this were done ahead of time
with the same vigor the mission would be far more likely to succeed.

I think one of the reasons that Mars is such a probe eater is the 2-year
launch opportunities. You simply can't have your ambitious schedule
slip for more testing! If you don't make the launch date you will have
to wait another two years and that puts you way over budget. Not only
that, but the same rocket may not get as much cargo there two years
later, so weight may have to be "jettisoned." If we humans could simply
say, "it's ready now, let's launch it" we'd probably be more successful.

Clear skies,
Greg

--
Greg Crinklaw
Astronomical Software Developer
Cloudcroft, New Mexico, USA (33N, 106W, 2700m)

SkyTools Software for the Observer:
http://www.skyhound.com/cs.html

Skyhound Observing Pages:
http://www.skyhound.com/sh/skyhound.html