scenarios for Jan 4 success for Beagle bark

What are the plausible models that prevent Beagle-2 comm via NASA orbiters
and direct to Jodrell, but which STILL allow a 'live' (but confused) Beagle
that CAN be contacted from Mars Express on Jan 4? What can break, that would
cause the current comm outage, but still allows comm to be established when
the special gear on ME becomes available?

jim O

www.jamesoberg.com

It's in a bloody deep hole somehow.
or,
The landing bags have fouled the antennae,
or,
half a dozen other things I have guessed. It's too early to rule out that it
never made it INTO the mars atmosphere intact, and from there, there are
innumerable failure modes possible, I should think...

It's called the Have Only Part-time Experts or HOPE model, and it's is
based on shoestring technology and tea bags :

The Beagle team publically admit that *no* testing has been done on
the Odyssey orbiter communication link (or the airbag system for that
matter). Direct reception of the signal by Jodrell would depend on the
antenna orientation, so there is an ad hoc explanation of why no
signal has been received so far. They HOPE that the Mars Express link
(which has been tested) will function when it overflies the presumed
landing site January 4 and because of its very much closer range
(300+kms) that it will detect the weak signal.

Beagle, the only Mars lander built for less than the cost of a NASA
animation.

JimO wrote:
What are the plausible models that prevent Beagle-2 comm via NASA orbiters
and direct to Jodrell, but which STILL allow a 'live' (but confused) Beagle
that CAN be contacted from Mars Express on Jan 4? What can break, that would
cause the current comm outage, but still allows comm to be established when
the special gear on ME becomes available?

jim O

www.jamesoberg.com

Zzed wrote: -
based on shoestring technology and tea bags :
Surely something that the British astro community can be proud of. Even if
it does turn out to be a non-starter, the project has not cost a great deal
(relative to most space explorations) and the technical challenges of
getting so much science into such a small payload has been great but has
been conquered.

Beagle, the only Mars lander built for less than the cost of a NASA
animation.
Again something to be proud of.

Do I detect that you are from the *good ol'* US of A ZZed?
Your sarcastic tone would confirm such.

(MSu1049321) wrote in message
It's in a bloody deep hole somehow.
or, The landing bags have fouled the antennae,

I don't think you understood his questions. How would any of those
failures still allow Mars Express to talk to it and nothing else?

On 28 Dec 2003 06:06:17 GMT, (MSu1049321) wrote:

It's in a bloody deep hole somehow.
or,
The landing bags have fouled the antennae,
or,
half a dozen other things I have guessed. It's too early to rule out that it
never made it INTO the mars atmosphere intact, and from there, there are
innumerable failure modes possible, I should think...

My father says that Beagle landed on the edge of a big rock and was
tipped over. IF it's lost we'll never really know till we have
people-preferably British-walk up to it and have a look themselves.



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

"Andy Dix" wrote in message ...
Zzed wrote: -
based on shoestring technology and tea bags :
Surely something that the British astro community can be proud of. Even if
it does turn out to be a non-starter, the project has not cost a great deal
(relative to most space explorations) and the technical challenges of
getting so much science into such a small payload has been great but has
been conquered.
Science is not something you put into a payload, it's what you do and
discover using that payload. If the payload fails then there is no
science. Period.

Please explain how any community can be proud of a total failure
(writing as of this moment, hopefully the mission will be recovered)
and inadequate engineering? For example Beagle was not designed to
transmit *any* telemetry until after landing, so there is no data on
what went wrong.

FYI the majority of the Principle Investigators expecting to do
science with Beagle are not Brits; as for your other nationalistic
comment, i shall politely ignore that.

Do I detect that you are from the *good ol'* US of A ZZed?
Your sarcastic tone would confirm such.

So sarcasm is purely and American trait? I find it quite useful upon occasion.
I'm suprised you think only Americans use it.

One theory that no one has mentioned is that their could be a sharply pointed
Martian rock pointing upward the the Beagle's air bags immediately impaled
itself on.

Perhaps the Beagle bounced on the base of a cliff causing a land slide to bury
it.

Perhaps it bounced a few times and then rolled into a cave.

Tom

In article , JimO wrote:
What are the plausible models that prevent Beagle-2 comm via NASA orbiters
and direct to Jodrell, but which STILL allow a 'live' (but confused) Beagle
that CAN be contacted from Mars Express on Jan 4? What can break, that would
cause the current comm outage, but still allows comm to be established when
the special gear on ME becomes available?

Hmm. V. low signal power, just on the threshold for ME but below that
for ground reciept / out of alignment for MO?

This could possibly be caused by the airbags failing to separate
cleanly, or becoming fouled slightly, and covering or shading (some of)
the solar panels.

Very unlikely, mind you, and I'm not sure if that first premise could
exist. My bet is she's dead, Jim...

--
-Andrew Gray

Beagle, the only Mars lander built for less than the cost of a NASA
animation.

You know, that's not only very funny, but profound, which may be WHY it's
funny...