Nasa eyeball Beagle 2

Nuttzz

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/20/beagle_spotted/

More insight into what happened

Ron DMC

The register is nothing more than an electronic rag, I wouldn't be so quick to believe anything they say.

Nuttzz

AP broke the story, others have picked it up, the register is just a reprint of the AP stroy tbh

slade_x

Nuttzz wrote:

AP broke the story, others have picked it up, the register is just a reprint of the AP stroy tbh

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn8494

mickmackey1

Wow! They've found it...

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-30784886

irishgeo

cant they send a rover off for a look?

josip

irishgeo wrote: »

cant they send a rover off for a look?

[PEDANT]
http://www.wral.com/could-curiosity-help-save-beagle-2-/14367032/
[/PEDANT]

irishgeo

josip wrote: »

[PEDANT]
http://www.wral.com/could-curiosity-help-save-beagle-2-/14367032/
[/PEDANT]

i knew it was out of the question but fun to read on how long it would take.

After looking at that map, how comes no lander on the north or south pole where its pretty clear frozen water exists?

nokia69

irishgeo wrote: »

i knew it was out of the question but fun to read on how long it would take.

After looking at that map, how comes no lander on the north or south pole where its pretty clear frozen water exists?

on that map its not frozen water, its carbon dioxide (dry ice) frost

but you are right Mars has plenty of water frozen below the surface

some time in the next ten years I expect someone will collect beagle 2 and figure out what went wrong

Captain Chaos

nokia69 wrote: »

some time in the next ten years I expect someone will collect beagle 2 and figure out what went wrong

I'd say 25 years and that's being optimistic. We can get to Mars in 10 years but it will be a one way trip unless we allow nuclear power back in space.

nokia69

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I'd say 25 years and that's being optimistic. We can get to Mars in 10 years but it will be a one way trip unless we allow nuclear power back in space.

spaceX have started work on their BFR Mars rocket, Musk says it will take about 6 years for the first flights, he said he will release more details at the end of the year

irishgeo

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I'd say 25 years and that's being optimistic. We can get to Mars in 10 years but it will be a one way trip unless we allow nuclear power back in space.

when was it banned and why?

nokia69

irishgeo wrote: »

when was it banned and why?

I don't think it was banned, they did plenty of work on it back in the 60s and it worked fine in the ground tests, but if someone wants to start use Nuclear rockets it won't be long before people start claiming its unsafe

in any case it looks like methane will power future Mars missions with maybe some forum of solar electric propulsion

irishgeo

nokia69 wrote: »

I don't think it was banned, they did plenty of work on it back in the 60s and it worked fine in the ground tests, but if someone wants to start use Nuclear rockets it won't be long before people start claiming its unsafe

in any case it looks like methane will power future Mars missions with maybe some forum of solar electric propulsion

Dont voyager use a nuclear engine?

nokia69

irishgeo wrote: »

Dont voyager use a nuclear engine?

no, it uses an RTG for electrical power

for propulsion it used standard rockets

Capt'n Midnight

Captain Chaos wrote: »

I'd say 25 years and that's being optimistic. We can get to Mars in 10 years but it will be a one way trip unless we allow nuclear power back in space.

what use would nuclear power be ?

Using something like NERVA is just crazy. All it can do is get stuff into orbit by using lots of heat and hydrogen as working fluid. Considering that Indian spent $24m on the first stage for their newest rocket there's no way it could be cost effective. BTW if you strap 4 boosters on the Indian GSLV you can get up to 15 tonnes into LEO. Russian , China , Japan , ESA and the private US companies all have similar capabilities. In short there is no way to justify the billions it would cost to develop. ( NASA are throwing $7Bn at SLS and they already had most of the bits lying around. )



In orbit NERVA would offer higher delta V's but still not as good as Hall Effect Thrusters which are pretty much the gold standard. Hundreds flow, decades of use and zero failures. Juno is using solar power at Jupiter's orbit so you don't need nuclear to power the thruster.

The one area where high thrust would be useful is during gravity assist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect But that would mean carrying a storable propellant rather than hydrogen.

Capt'n Midnight

irishgeo wrote: »

when was it banned and why?

also stuff like this happened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosmos_954

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

what use would nuclear power be ?

Using something like NERVA is just crazy. All it can do is get stuff into orbit by using lots of heat and hydrogen as working fluid. Considering that Indian spent $24m on the first stage for their newest rocket there's no way it could be cost effective. BTW if you strap 4 boosters on the Indian GSLV you can get up to 15 tonnes into LEO. Russian , China , Japan , ESA and the private US companies all have similar capabilities. In short there is no way to justify the billions it would cost to develop. ( NASA are throwing $7Bn at SLS and they already had most of the bits lying around. )

the theory is with something like NERVA you can send more payload to LEO per launch

its hard to do a Moon mission with a 15 ton to LEO rocket

bigger better rockets makes everything easier

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

the theory is with something like NERVA you can send more payload to LEO per launch

its hard to do a Moon mission with a 15 ton to LEO rocket

bigger better rockets makes everything easier

It's hard to do a manned Moon or Mars mission on just 15 tons. For probes you can get away with much smaller launchers.

I can't imagine how NERVA (test bed) could ever be cheaper than Energia (100 ton to LEO. Twice.)

And what happens to the unwanted core ? You can't leave it in LEO. This means you can't use it for LEO use like the ISS unless you waste a lot of delta V sending about half your mass onwards and upwards. So you have a luncher that's really only useful for higher orbits. And any economy of scale go out the window.

JupiterKid

Wow! So close and yet so far. So it looks like Beagle 2 made it to the surface of Mars intact but then failed to deploy fully.

The MRO is a remarkable vehicle in terms of the level of detail it can see on Mars. Poor Professor Pillinger - Beagle 2 was his baby and he was broken hearted.:(

Capt'n Midnight

JupiterKid wrote: »

Wow! So close and yet so far. (

Talk to the Russians about camera lens covers.