Post by thread:[OT]: Beagle2

Well since we all seem to be a little OT today on rovers, How do they KNOW Beagle2 landed safetly ? I followed the Beagle2 landing pretty closly and did not see anything indicating they had any contact once it seperated from Mars Express. Except that it did seperate safely. I did not see anything like the pictures the US rovers sent as they were attempting to land, although they my have sent these after the landed. Just curious. Thanks, Kevin -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList spam_OUTpiclist-unsubscribe-requestTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

Kevin wrote: > > Well since we all seem to be a little OT today on rovers, > How do they KNOW Beagle2 landed safetly ? I followed > the Beagle2 landing pretty closly and did not see > anything indicating they had any contact once it seperated > from Mars Express. Except that it did seperate safely. > I did not see anything like the pictures the US rovers > sent as they were attempting to land, although they my > have sent these after the landed. > Just curious. > Thanks, > Kevin I heard it had landed safely, but not seen ant pics myself apart from one report that a mouse was found on mars! I thought no, they're winding us up until I saw the pic http://www.42.dropbear.id.au/mouseonmars.html Brian. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList .....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspam@spam@mitvma.mit.edu

Given that it had no means to escape Mars gravity, it is irrefutable physics that is 'landed'. Safely is another matter. Mars Polar Orbiter MPO also landed, with a spectacular thud due to a mix-up between metric and english thrust units. Maybe the way to reliably get to mars is to have a few dozen layers of air bags that can dissipate energy as they burst. KISS seems to be working the best on Mars. R kbenKILLspamDCA.NET wrote: {Quote hidden}> > Well since we all seem to be a little OT today on rovers, > How do they KNOW Beagle2 landed safetly ? I followed > the Beagle2 landing pretty closly and did not see > anything indicating they had any contact once it seperated > from Mars Express. Except that it did seperate safely. > I did not see anything like the pictures the US rovers > sent as they were attempting to land, although they my > have sent these after the landed. > Just curious. > Thanks, > Kevin -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList .....piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspam.....mitvma.mit.edu

Robert, On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 12:44:47 -0700, Robert Rolf wrote: > Maybe the way to reliably get to mars is to have a few dozen layers of air > bags that can dissipate energy as they burst. That's exactly what Beagle 2 used! There's no evidence that the airbags idea failed, of course, but *something* went wrong... > KISS seems to be working the best on Mars. Well we seem to have a 33% failure rate at the moment... Incidentally, why are there so many Mars missions arriving there all at once? Is there some astronomical-geometry that favours it? Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList EraseMEpiclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu

mars was the closest its been for 40 000 years or so this year. but that would really make little difference. Mainly its just a coincidence I think. > {Original Message removed}

> >Incidentally, why are there so many Mars missions arriving there all at >once? Is there some >astronomical-geometry that favours it? Recently, mars was about 30% (IIRC) closer than normal. Closer than it had been in a LONNG time. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList piclist-unsubscribe-requestspam_OUTmitvma.mit.edu

<Regarding why so many missions to Mars are happening at the same time, Jake Anderson commented> > Mars was the closest its been for 40 000 years or so this year. > but that would really make little difference. > Mainly its just a coincidence I think. Could be also be a secondary effect of economic and political conditions at the time of launching. Countries had the money and this use was politically attractive. After all, space exploration takes a lot of money so it is subject to political and economic realities as well as the laws of physics. Look at Mr. Bush trying to put a person on the moon when his country is in rotten economic shape -- or the space exploration the Chinese gerontocracy is undertaking. Could be that both feel the undertaking will build national pride and help preserve the current regime. Win Wiencke -- http://www.piclist.com hint: To leave the PICList @spam@piclist-unsubscribe-requestKILLspammitvma.mit.edu

The part that puzzles me is why they didn't launch 9 months earlier so that they could have been landing when Mars was at it's closest (8 light minutes instead of twenty). I imagine is probably has something to do with differential velocity management. It's probably easier to 'catch up' with Mars, than it is to time an accurate 'shot across the bow' And think about it. Mars is 20 LIGHT MINUTES away at the moment, yet they were able to land within their 40 x 3 mi target. Utterly amazing navigation. Robert Jake Anderson wrote: > > mars was the closest its been for 40 000 years or so this year. > but that would really make little difference. > Mainly its just a coincidence I think. > > > {Original Message removed}

its the most efficent in terms of fuel required to get there. effectivley what was done was a "shot across the bow" they lobbed the probes out and mars came along and smacked them. If you are interested check out "hoffman transfer orbit". > {Original Message removed}

>> Maybe the way to reliably get to mars is to have a few dozen >> layers of air bags that can dissipate energy as they burst. > >That's exactly what Beagle 2 used! There's no evidence that the >airbags idea failed, of course, but *something* went wrong... However I believe the current suspicion is that the airbags did fail. The rumour that I get within the lab is that the original design of airbags failed in the test drop, and so another airbag was designed, but never tested. also as a result of the extra weight incurred in the redesigned airbags, some 3kg had to be lost else where on Beagle2. >> KISS seems to be working the best on Mars. > >Well we seem to have a 33% failure rate at the moment... > >Incidentally, why are there so many Mars missions arriving there >all at once? Is there some astronomical-geometry that favours it? Probably because mars has been the closest to earth for some 28,000 years, so the travel time is shortest, and there is probably an advantage in signal strengths as well. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

> >Incidentally, why are there so many Mars missions arriving there > >all at once? Is there some astronomical-geometry that favours it? > > Probably because mars has been the closest to earth for some 28,000 years, > so the travel time is shortest, and there is probably an advantage in signal > strengths as well. The minimum energy path between two bodies in Keplerian circular orbits is named a Hohman transfer. It is an ellipse which is tangential to both orbits where it touches the source and target. This alignment with earth and mars occurs variably. The present closest approach for yonks condition probably makes it especially attractive. Good explanation of Hohman transfer here (note the server ! :-) ) http://web.mit.edu/12.000/www/teams/9/trajectory/hohman.html Named afaik for a NASA scientist who first thought of it. RM -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

Alan, On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 09:16:35 -0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote: > The > rumour that I get within the lab is that the original design of airbags > failed in the test drop, and so another airbag was designed, but never > tested. also as a result of the extra weight incurred in the redesigned > airbags, some 3kg had to be lost else where on Beagle2. Right - I saw this on the television programme following the project. Everyone said there was no way to lose 3kg without losing a whole instrument, but I believe they found a way by little reductions all over the craft. What a tragedy that all that work seems to have been in vain! I was rather surprised that they got a long way into the project before they tested the airbags - I'd have thought they would have calculated the strength needed first, so the test would have been just a confirmation, not likely to produce a catastrophic failure. The impression was that they did a "build it and see", but I could be wrong. As for "never testing" the new airbags, I'm amazed if that's what happened. The chances of failure in use, given the originals' failure, should have been sounding alarm bells along the lines of "don't go", but I suppose time and the availability of a launch meant that they had to go, even at the risk of losing the craft. A great shame, anyway. I wonder if there are any orbiting craft that can photograph the landing site with enough resolution to find it? I see you're at Rutherford Appleton - was anyone there involved? Cheers, Howard Winter St.Albans, England -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

>I was rather surprised that they got a long way into the >project before they tested the airbags - I'd have thought >they would have calculated the strength needed first, so >the test would have been just a confirmation, not likely >to produce a catastrophic failure. That is the way it should happen. however with the current "build it faster better cheaper" thinking, then things are done in a much more parallel way than in the past, and often such testing does not get done until far too late into the program to do a sensible design change. >the impression was that they did a "build it and see", but I >could be wrong. As for "never testing" the new airbags, I'm >amazed if that's what happened. The chances of failure in use, >given the originals' failure, should have been sounding alarm >bells along the lines of "don't go", but I suppose time and >the availability of a launch meant that they had to go, even >at the risk of losing the craft. A great shame, anyway. I do not know how much beating the Americans to the planet was part of this, but the launch window must have been fairly small anyway because of the orientation between the planets. As to the "never testing the fix", well that is just what I heard by the by. If true then it certainly should have been causing concern. >I wonder if there are any orbiting craft that can photograph >the landing site with enough resolution to find it? I had pondered this as well, but judging from the pictures from the newest American one, the marks it would make on the planet are minimal. remember that Beagle2 is only about a metre diameter anyway, and assuming that the first hit was enough to burst an airbag so it did not bounce, it would still have been falling relatively slowly on a parachute before the 'chute was released for the last bit of freefall and bounce, so the 'chute does not get caught up in it as it bounces. Hence it would not hit too hard, but probably hard enough to jam the thing from opening, or possibly it did fall into a cleft they have since identified. >I see you're at Rutherford Appleton - was anyone there involved? I was not personally involved, but various guys were involved in the thermal analysis and environmental testing. We have a 3 metre diameter by 9 meter long chamber that was used for doing the Lander tests. Required having the chamber filled with CO2 at about 0.1 atmospheres IIRC, and a fan to produce suitable winds of something like 10mph while it went through operational tests. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 16:02:12 -0000, Alan B. Pearce wrote on Re: [OT]: Beagle2: >>I see you're at Rutherford Appleton - was anyone there involved? > AB: >I was not personally involved, but various guys were involved in the thermal >analysis and environmental testing. We have a 3 metre diameter by 9 meter >long chamber that was used for doing the Lander tests. Required having the >chamber filled with CO2 at about 0.1 atmospheres IIRC, and a fan to produce >suitable winds of something like 10mph while it went through operational >tests. I am with EADS-ST and we made the shield 8-( * KILLspamXrobert.soubieKILLspamfree.frX (veuillez supprimer les "X") * http://www.astrosurf.com/soubie * Au royaume des aveugles, les borgnes sont mal vus... - P.Dac -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads

The latest orbiter imaging technique is to increase the resolution of an acquired image in one direction by 'scanning' as the satellite orbits. They've been able to interpret and 'find' previous and current landers on mars using this method, but only because they previously knew the location and knew what to look for. They indicated that they doubt they could find the beagle since they don't have a good idea of its final location, and since the planet hasn't been entirely imaged at this new resolution before it would be difficult to detect changes in order to locate the beagle. But, IIRC, they are still trying. If they find it, they have some chance of reviving it if the problem is not enough radio power. -Adam Howard Winter wrote: {Quote hidden}>I wonder if there are any orbiting craft that can photograph the landing site with enough resolution to find >it? > >I see you're at Rutherford Appleton - was anyone there involved? > >Cheers, > >Howard Winter >St.Albans, England > >-- >http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: >[PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads > > > > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: PICList Posts must start with ONE topic: [PIC]:,[SX]:,[AVR]: ->uP ONLY! [EE]:,[OT]: ->Other [BUY]:,[AD]: ->Ads . Return-Path: <> Received: from mitvma.mit.edu ([18.92.0.3]) by tomts41-srv.bellnexxia.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.05 201-253-122-130-105-20030824) with ESMTP id <RemoveME20040128150852.TLWU29681.tomts41-srv.bellnexxia.netTakeThisOuTmitvma.mit.edu>> for <spamBeGonepiclist_errorsspamBeGoneSYMPATICO.CA>; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:08:52 -0500 Received: by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via spool with SMTP id 6732 ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:08:48 EST Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 4225; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:08:49 -0500 Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:08:49 -0500 From: "L-Soft list server at MITVMA.MIT.EDU (1.8e)" <TakeThisOuTLISTSERVEraseMEspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Subject: PICLIST: error report from NT.MASSMIND.ORG To: RemoveMElistsjoshTakeThisOuT3MTMP.COM, "For BlackholeeclipseEraseME.....Earthlink.Net" <EraseMEpiclist_errorsSYMPATICO.CA> Message-ID: <LISTSERV%RemoveME2004012810084889EraseMEEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU> X-LSV-ListID: None The enclosed message has been identified as a delivery error for the PICLIST list because it was sent to 'RemoveMEowner-piclistspam_OUTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU'. ------------------------------ Message in error ------------------------------- Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 4223; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:08:49 -0500 Received: from nt.massmind.org [66.13.172.18] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with SMTP ; Wed, 28 Jan 2004 10:08:48 EST X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by nt.massmind.org To: RemoveMEowner-piclistTakeThisOuTspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU From: Mail Administrator<EraseMEPostmasterspamspamBeGonent.massmind.org> Reply-To: Mail Administrator<RemoveMEPostmasterKILLspamnt.massmind.org> Subject: Mail System Error - Returned Mail Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2004 06:54:56 -0800 Message-ID: <20040128145456259.AAG388STOPspamspam_OUTnt.massmind.org>> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; Boundary="===========================_ _= 6546630(388)" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT --===========================_ _= 6546630(388) Content-Type: text/plain This Message was undeliverable due to the following reason: This message passed through a number of mail servers greater than the maximum number specified in the Maximum MTA Hops field. This probably indicates that there are accounts on separate machines that forward mail to each other. There may also be a problem with the host address or Domain Name System records. Maximum Hops: 15 Please reply to spamBeGonePostmasterSTOPspamEraseMEnt.massmind.org if you feel this message to be in error. --===========================_ _= 6546630(388) Content-Type: message/rfc822 Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com ([209.119.0.109]) by nt.massmind.org (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with ESMTP id org for <KILLspamarchivespamBeGonePICLIST.ORG>; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 06:41:57 -0800 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <EraseME19.00CB2CD3EraseMEcherry.ease.lsoft.com>; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 9:44:11 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 6374 for @spam@PICLIST@spam@spam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:43:50 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 7770; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:42:34 -0500 Received: from audiomind.dk [213.237.88.238] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with ESMTP ; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 09:42:33 EST Received: from winbox.Audiomind.local (192.168.2.3:8166) by audiomind.dk with [XMail 1.16 (Linux/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id <SD783> for <spamBeGonePICLISTKILLspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU> from <.....PICLISTspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU>; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:26:44 +0100 Received: from mail pickup service by winbox.Audiomind.local with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Fri, 23 Jan 2004 15:25:31 +0100 Received: from audiomind.dk ([192.168.2.6]) by winbox.intra.audiomind.dk with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 20 Jan 2004 13:26:34 +0100 Received: from cherry.ease.lsoft.com (209.119.0.109:4042) by audiomind.dk with [XMail 1.16 (Linux/Ix86) ESMTP Server] id <SCF03> for <TakeThisOuTsoren.....TakeThisOuTAUDIOMIND.DK> from <TakeThisOuTowner-piclistKILLspamspamMITVMA.MIT.EDU>; Mon, 19 Jan 2004 00:49:20 +0100 Received: from PEAR.EASE.LSOFT.COM (209.119.0.19) by cherry.ease.lsoft.com (LSMTP for Digital Unix v1.1b) with SMTP id <.....10.00CAA786RemoveMEcherry.ease.lsoft.com>; 18 Jan 2004 18:49:14 -0500 Received: from MITVMA.MIT.EDU by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 1.8e) with spool id 9547 for RemoveMEPICLISTspamBeGoneMITVMA.MIT.EDU; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:49:09 -0500 Received: from MITVMA (NJE origin SMTP@MITVMA) by MITVMA.MIT.EDU (LMail V1.2d/1.8d) with BSMTP id 0880; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:47:58 -0500 Received: from extsmtp1.localnet.com [207.251.201.54] by mitvma.mit.edu (IBM VM SMTP Level 430) via TCP with SMTP ; Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:47:58 EST Received: (qmail 24065 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 23:16:27 -0000 Received: from drballew.localnet.sys (HELO smtp2.localnet.com) (10.0.7.15) by extsmtp1.localnet.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 23:16:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 26629 invoked from network); 18 Jan 2004 23:47:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO kmp) (66.153.67.173) by mail1.localnet.com with SMTP; 18 Jan 2004 23:47:59 -0000 X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by audiomind.dk X-Comment: mitvma.mit.edu: Mail was sent by extsmtp1.localnet.com X-AV-Scanned: yes b937596bedb6751ab157c0c9f76bdd07 X-AV-Scanned: yes 1b1088e075bda434093a951f8b8eb8e3 X-Deliver-To: spamBeGonesoren@spam@spam_OUTaudiomind.dk MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Importance: Normal Precedence: list X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Jan 2004 12:26:34.0395 (UTC) FILETIME=[A4557EB0:01C3DF50] Message-ID: <TakeThisOuTKHEAKGMGPPBIPOHGAOODCEAMCMAA.no_spamspamlocalnet.com>> Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:48:07 -0500 Reply-To: pic microcontroller discussion list <PICLISTEraseMEMITVMA.MIT.EDU> Sender: pic microcontroller discussion list <RemoveMEPICLISTEraseMEspam_OUTMITVMA.MIT.EDU> From: Ken Pergola <@spam@no_spamRemoveMEEraseMELOCALNET.COM> Subject: Re: [PIC:] Free older PICmicros to a good home To: EraseMEPICLIST@spam@MITVMA.MIT.EDU In-Reply-To: <@spam@400B168D.90201spam_OUT.....yahoo.ca> Paul Anderson wrote: > I'd be extremely interested. Hi Paul, I have three people that have already responded, but if you want to send me (spamBeGonenospamEraseMElocalnet.com) your private e-mail address to me, I'll contact you if there are any left. TO ALL: Looks like I have enough people interested in taking the older chips, so "hold your calls we have a winner". Thanks, Ken Pergola -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics --===========================_ _= 6546630(388)-- .

Hi- I saw a show on TV where they showed both testing the airbags, and the parachute. The tough part of the airbag was making it shear resistant. They did this by having two layers and letting the outside slide. Even if it ripped the inside layer would survive. The parachute had problems opening, but they tweaked it. This show was about the second US shot, and they had to change the parachute design because of stronger cross winds at the second landing site. David Alan B. Pearce wrote: {Quote hidden}>>I was rather surprised that they got a long way into the >>project before they tested the airbags - I'd have thought >>they would have calculated the strength needed first, so >>the test would have been just a confirmation, not likely >>to produce a catastrophic failure. >> >> > >That is the way it should happen. however with the current "build it faster >better cheaper" thinking, then things are done in a much more parallel way >than in the past, and often such testing does not get done until far too >late into the program to do a sensible design change. > > > >>the impression was that they did a "build it and see", but I >>could be wrong. As for "never testing" the new airbags, I'm >>amazed if that's what happened. The chances of failure in use, >>given the originals' failure, should have been sounding alarm >>bells along the lines of "don't go", but I suppose time and >>the availability of a launch meant that they had to go, even >>at the risk of losing the craft. A great shame, anyway. >> >> > > -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics (like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics .

>I saw a show on TV where they showed both testing the airbags, and the >parachute. The tough part of the airbag was making it shear resistant. >They did this by having two layers and letting the outside slide. Even >if it ripped the inside layer would survive. The parachute had problems >opening, but they tweaked it. This show was about the second US shot, >and they had to change the parachute design because of stronger cross >winds at the second landing site. I take it that this was for the two American shots. AFAIK beagle2 does not use the same airbags and parachute as the American ones. -- http://www.piclist.com hint: The PICList is archived three different ways. See http://www.piclist.com/#archives for details. .