Mission to Mars: Beagle 1 Fails to Respond!

Thoughts, comments on this one?.. personally I find it very strange that this would happen. Given the level of technology the space programs have today. Its quite a shock actually.

martians really don't want us selling them bikini wax and cigarettes... isn't it obvious

I will say this much about (at least) the US space program. Way back in 1969, we sent men to the moon in craft with less sophisticated computers than the average passenger car today. With the exception of Apollo 13, everyone went out, landed, and safely returned, and in the case of Apollo 13, the crew returned alive.

Now, in the present, we have lost 2 shuttle orbiters, which are considered (arguably) the most complex spacecraft built by man. These shuttles never ventured further than low Earth orbit, and in both cases, people died because others failed to take previous near catastrophies seriously. NASA knew about the O-rings and ice hitting shuttle wings before people died, but didn't take the danger seriously.

My point is that NASA has gone from a robust organization with a decent budget to a cut-rate operation whose budget is probably a line item thing in some pork filled bill. The culture inside NASA changed, and (to me) it seems like they really lack a major goal.

Uhm, I don't want to interrupt your NASA bashing, but Mars Express / Beagle 2 has very little to do with NASA :)

It's an ESA project.

Yep it is British. The project has a very low budget compaired to other space projects

What I find strange is that in the '60s, Apollo 1 caught fire January 27th killing three people. Later in the '80s, Challenger exploded on liftoff January 28th. And in the early 20th century, Columbia burned up on re-entry February 1st.

The only three fatal NASA space program disasters happened between January 27th and February 1st. Its funny that the dates are a coincidence. Or are they?

Ok, as the younger, less literate say, my bad.

I failed to state my point in a much clearer way. My point was that in the past, more was accomplished with less. Man went to the moon and returned alive in craft that by today's standards are crude. Today, pretty much every active space program has had more than its share of lost probes, satellites and in NASA's case, lives. Keep in mind that the hardware of today is supposed to be much more advanced than late 60's hardware. How is it that with a wealth of knowledge gathered since the late 50's today's probes fail so often?

Now, before someone accuses me of being against space exploration, I would like to state that I'm very much for it. Unfortunately, at the rate we are going, those big cities on the Moon and Mars will come along long after I'm dead, if ever.

What I think is odd, is that the probes sent to Mars lately to find out if there is or was life there have disappeared. And the ones just sent to do maps of the surface or there to relay info from the probes have worked fine.

<insert twilight zone music here>

As a Planetary Society member, I've heard that sometimes equitment gets fried on entry, especially in light craft (to cut down on weight oftentimes engineers don't shield it as much). A lot of the time this equitment comes back online in a matter of days.

Probably true Darwin, lighter and cheaper usually doesn't mean better.

True that, that case does happen. However they know this and they have the technology to prevent it. Why won't they take the steps to do so? If they want a successful landing, they gotta do a whole lot better.

You can sum the reason why in one word Einsman "Bureaucracy"

Well, let's hope NASA's two landers (hope and faith I think they're called) hold up better and talk to us as soon as they land.

Einsman - in this case everything was pared to the bone and beyond due to wieght and funding limitations. Mars Express (who the Beagle team had no control over) dropped their weight allowance multiple times, causing them to have to pack things exceedingly tightly, both in a space and weight sense. For example, in order to stop circuitry freezing in the Martian night, most stuff has dedicated heater systems - Beagle design was forced to be such that the circuitry itself generates enough heat to keep things functional.
Mind-boggling that they managed to make something that even had the potential to work.

Besides - the possibilities aren't exhausted yet. There's plenty of connection opportunities left for the mo.

Darwin's a Planetary Society member? w00t So was I! (Until I decided to cut back on spending awhile back.) I was a National Space Society "member" too...although all it really means in both cases is that we donate some money to them...lol. Can't wait until I get a good enough income to join back up with those groups...sigh.

Maybe those folks living on mars haven't had their textures loaded yet? I mean, c'mon, what kind of ISP can you get up there? ^.^

Or, maybe they're INVISIBLE to the human eye!

*grabs his 3d glasses*

Ahh...this heat is getting to me.

You're panicing too soon. What's happened is that the Jordell Bank radio telescope didn't pick up the Beagle's signal on its first attempt. The intended means of communication is for the Mars Express orbiter to relay the signal from the Beagle, and if for whatever reason Mars Express isn't in the right place, there are a number of other orbiters that could be used for relay. I wouldn't start worrying until all of the orbiters, and several radio telescopes on Earth, have failed repeatedly.

Beagle 2 was NOT designed to communicate with Mars oddesy (see web site ) It was tossed in after the probe left earth. Its Real means is Mars Express in Janurary. Not The oddesy and not the ground stations. So chill.