Poor Beagle.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-12-29 12:03am

Anyone else dissappointed that Beagle 2 is probably a broken heap on the surface of Mars? I hope the next two probes make it down.

I did not realize that 20 out of 36 missions to Mars have failed. Wow, that is an impressive failure rate. I think it illustrates how much of challenge it would really be for us to send a human to Mars.

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2003-12-29 12:07am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:I did not realize that 20 out of 36 missions to Mars have failed. Wow, that is an impressive failure rate. I think it illustrates how much of challenge it would really be for us to send a human to Mars.

That total includes all missions to Mars, not just American, but Russian too. And those aren't surface missions.

Montcalm · Post by **Montcalm** » 2003-12-29 12:13am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:I did not realize that 20 out of 36 missions to Mars have failed. Wow, that is an impressive failure rate. I think it illustrates how much of challenge it would really be for us to send a human to Mars.

Maybe that means the companies who made the probes that made a successful landing on Mars were competant.

TrailerParkJawa · Post by **TrailerParkJawa** » 2003-12-29 12:16am

Crayz9000 wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:I did not realize that 20 out of 36 missions to Mars have failed. Wow, that is an impressive failure rate. I think it illustrates how much of challenge it would really be for us to send a human to Mars.
That total includes all missions to Mars, not just American, but Russian too. And those aren't surface missions.

I realize that it is a composite of all missions. That does nothing to take away from the reality that a manned mission to Mars would require us to make a tremendous leap in success rates in order to avoid a disaster.

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-12-29 12:44am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:
Crayz9000 wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:I did not realize that 20 out of 36 missions to Mars have failed. Wow, that is an impressive failure rate. I think it illustrates how much of challenge it would really be for us to send a human to Mars.
That total includes all missions to Mars, not just American, but Russian too. And those aren't surface missions.
I realize that it is a composite of all missions. That does nothing to take away from the reality that a manned mission to Mars would require us to make a tremendous leap in success rates in order to avoid a disaster.

Funily enough back in the day some people were wondering wether the Martians were shooting them down

!

Lord Poe · Post by **Lord Poe** » 2003-12-29 12:55am

There seems to be a Bermuda Triangle around Mars!

CaptainChewbacca · Post by **CaptainChewbacca** » 2003-12-29 02:27am

Actually, manned missions have a much lower failiure rate BECAUSE they are manned. Most errors and glitches on those missions could be fixed with a push of a button or a turn of a wrench. They fail because if ANYTHING goes wrong it can't be fixed, which lowers our margin of error.

Manned spaceflight has a very high success rate.

Exonerate · Post by **Exonerate** » 2003-12-29 02:49am

CaptainChewbacca wrote:Actually, manned missions have a much lower failiure rate BECAUSE they are manned. Most errors and glitches on those missions could be fixed with a push of a button or a turn of a wrench. They fail because if ANYTHING goes wrong it can't be fixed, which lowers our margin of error.

Manned spaceflight has a very high success rate.

But if you send them to Mars, you need to get them back somehow, which increases the risk somewhat...

Unless you can get volunteers to go on a one-way mission to Mars

Faram · Post by **Faram** » 2003-12-29 03:46am

Exonerate wrote:Unless you can get volunteers to go on a one-way mission to Mars

I would volunteer for sutch a mission, no question about it.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-12-29 04:21am

Exonerate wrote:
CaptainChewbacca wrote:Actually, manned missions have a much lower failiure rate BECAUSE they are manned. Most errors and glitches on those missions could be fixed with a push of a button or a turn of a wrench. They fail because if ANYTHING goes wrong it can't be fixed, which lowers our margin of error.

Manned spaceflight has a very high success rate.
But if you send them to Mars, you need to get them back somehow, which increases the risk somewhat...

Unless you can get volunteers to go on a one-way mission to Mars

Actualy finding volunteers for a one way trip to Mars would be easy. A lot of people inlcuding myself would love the glory of being there despite paying the ultimate price.

Traveling to and from Mars is at the very limits of todays technology. We can barely do it with todays spacecraft. It would be better to wait for the development of crucial technologies like nuclear fusion and ion propulsion paving the way for a new generation of spacecraft.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2003-12-29 04:23am

TrailerParkJawa wrote:Anyone else dissappointed that Beagle 2 is probably a broken heap on the surface of Mars? I hope the next two probes make it down.

I did not realize that 20 out of 36 missions to Mars have failed. Wow, that is an impressive failure rate. I think it illustrates how much of challenge it would really be for us to send a human to Mars.

Has Russia sent stuff to Mars? If so, I demand the the stats be reformulated to account for Russian craftsmanship.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-12-29 05:11am

StormTrooperTR889 wrote:
TrailerParkJawa wrote:Anyone else dissappointed that Beagle 2 is probably a broken heap on the surface of Mars? I hope the next two probes make it down.

I did not realize that 20 out of 36 missions to Mars have failed. Wow, that is an impressive failure rate. I think it illustrates how much of challenge it would really be for us to send a human to Mars.
Has Russia sent stuff to Mars? If so, I demand the the stats be reformulated to account for Russian craftsmanship.

They sent several Mars missions including some with landers and two probes to Mar's moons. Most failed outright and none were complete success.

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2003-12-29 05:35am

evilcat4000 wrote:Actualy finding volunteers for a one way trip to Mars would be easy. A lot of people inlcuding myself would love the glory of being there despite paying the ultimate price.

Traveling to and from Mars is at the very limits of todays technology. We can barely do it with todays spacecraft. It would be better to wait for the development of crucial technologies like nuclear fusion and ion propulsion paving the way for a new generation of spacecraft.

Wouldn't the cause best be served by creating habitats in space and perhaps returning to the moon? From my understanding a lot of the technologies that were used to get to the moon have been forgotten, so a lot of this stuff has to be relearnt anyway. (I'm not sure where I read/heard that so I could be wrong)

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-12-29 05:42am

We have yet to solve the basic problem of economicaly getting to space. Untill that is done everyother space program will remain a pipe dream.

As for the technologies used in Moon missions they are over 30 years old and very expensive as well as inefficient. It would be better to scrap the shuttle program and work on a viable space plane.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2003-12-29 05:44am

evilcat4000 wrote: They sent several Mars missions including some with landers and two probes to Mar's moons. Most failed outright and none were complete success.

They blew billions of dollars on that, a entire series of failed mars probes
in an attempt to land on mars before Viking 1/2 landed back in the 70s,
and completely devastated their unmanned exploration program's budget
for that failed prestige attempt

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-12-29 07:13am

Well, wasn't NASA the one who lost a probe due to the minor problem of converting inches to centimeters not correctly?

Was funny as hell...

salm · Post by **salm** » 2003-12-29 07:38am

i heard some scientist say that even if the beagle is lost the mission was still a success because of the probe that orbits mars.

Sarevok · Post by **Sarevok** » 2003-12-29 07:52am

The Beagle 2 was the most important part of the mission as this would be the first time Eurepeans landed something on another planet. With its failure the mission is nothing more than what is already being done with NASA orbiters.

Zac Naloen · Post by **Zac Naloen** » 2003-12-29 08:21am

we can still hope though... we have till next monday before all hope is lost

Crown · Post by **Crown** » 2003-12-29 09:54am

BLATANT SELF - PROMOTION

Actually ... I wrote my thesis on a manned mission to Mars ...

Post by **The Yosemite Bear** » 2003-12-29 10:18am

Dammit you have to stop sending things over there, my terraforming project is just getting started and no one is supposed to know about that base I have in the Canal Region.....

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-12-29 10:57am

awwwww, isn't that cute! The Europeans want to play spaceships with the US and Russia.

*the surly American and Russian kids knock over the European kid's chess board.

[Nelson Muntz] HA-HA We're better at astrophysics than you are! [/Nelson Muntz]

Admiral Valdemar · Post by **Admiral Valdemar** » 2003-12-29 01:02pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:awwwww, isn't that cute! The Europeans want to play spaceships with the US and Russia.

*the surly American and Russian kids knock over the European kid's chess board.

[Nelson Muntz] HA-HA We're better at astrophysics than you are! [/Nelson Muntz]

"Hmm, comrade, better not tell that American pigdog that his engineers and scientists work in different measurement units."

I hope this is just a glitch with the array orientation, the God of War has been very unforgiving this year what with the Japanese probe dying too and now this. A 50% success rate still isn't all that good it seems, maybe because these modern probes can scout around and are more advanced than ther Viking ones, the Martians are using heat rays to shoot them down!

Dahak · Post by **Dahak** » 2003-12-29 01:04pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:awwwww, isn't that cute! The Europeans want to play spaceships with the US and Russia.

*the surly American and Russian kids knock over the European kid's chess board.

[Nelson Muntz] HA-HA We're better at astrophysics than you are! [/Nelson Muntz]

We don't want to forget that a good deal of the American rocket program was done with the help of former German (i.e. European) scientists, like von Braun...

Rye · Post by **Rye** » 2003-12-29 01:39pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:awwwww, isn't that cute! The Europeans want to play spaceships with the US and Russia.

*the surly American and Russian kids knock over the European kid's chess board.

[Nelson Muntz] HA-HA We're better at astrophysics than you are! [/Nelson Muntz]

Didn't your shuttle explode a few months ago?

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Poor Beagle.

Poor Beagle.

Re: Poor Beagle.

Re: Poor Beagle.

Re: Poor Beagle.

Re: Poor Beagle.