Home » General Chat » Circular File » The "Beagle" has landed, NOT!
| |
Re: The "Beagle" has landed, NOT! |
Sun, 28 December 2003 18:20 |
|
|
My real guess is that it is pure over-ambition. They try and pack too much science in; Apollo (as far as I know) used brute force - bigger rockets and low tech. The Mars missions try and get clever with parachutes & bouncing air-bags.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: The "Beagle" has landed, NOT! |
Mon, 29 December 2003 06:07 |
|
|
alexdstewart wrote on Sun, 28 December 2003 17:45 | It is either the aliens with the railguns or internal sabotage.
Guess which one I am leaning towards?
|
I don't buy, the "more advanced alien race" explanation.
If they were more advanced, the "success rate" would not be 10%.
There are other factors, a trip to Mars is not a walk around the block. A trip to the moon could be considered such. And, along the way you are entering the periphery of a very large and unpredicatable asteroid belt. Lots of room for the unpredicatable, both in terms of time and encounters.
[Updated on: Mon, 29 December 2003 06:08] Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: The "Beagle" has landed, NOT! |
Mon, 29 December 2003 09:01 |
|
|
I still think that landing on a planet with a useful science package is at least an order of magnitude more difficult than most other missions.
I hadn't thought of sabotage though. Are you thinking of a co-ordinated effort, or just a few isolated disgruntled engineers ?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
Re: The "Beagle" has landed, NOT! |
Mon, 29 December 2003 12:05 |
|
EDog | | Lt. Junior Grade | Messages: 417
Registered: November 2002 Location: Denver, Colorado, USA | |
|
alexdstewart wrote on Sun, 28 December 2003 15:33 |
Has anyone got any plausable explanations for the high failure rate of interplanetary probes to Mars?
|
Better. Cheaper. Faster. I believe that has been NASA's motto over the past decade. Because the US Congress isn't willing to give NASA more than a fraction of budgetary concern, they are forced to do everything via the lowest bidder. It's the Wal-Mart philosophy. Why pay $50 for a hammer when you can get one for $.20, and who cares if it breaks, because it was so cheap you can go out and buy a hundred more?
On the other hand, if the $50 hammer is a much more reliable creation, with more built-in failsafes (although it's beyond my technical expertise to imagine failsafes in a hammer...), perhaps it's a better investment after all...
The simple truth is that we've lost our desire to explore, to blaze new frontiers yada yada yada. It's really a pity, because our country (America) was founded by explorers (Yes, I know the Native Americans were here first, but I'm not trying to start another political diatribe - I'm trying to make a point). America was the last "frontier" on earth. Now that we've conquered it, we are slowly eating ourselves from within.
In biology, a life form that doesn't grow and reproduce is dying. As a race, we are dying, because we aren't growing beyond the boundaries of our own world. Every once in awhile something happens that gives me a glimmer of hope - the International Space Station, while mostly a political hot potato, has shown that man can live and work in space. The space shuttle showed that orbital flights can be made relatively inexpensively (never mind the two disasters, the low overall failure rate was impressive). Private citizens can buy trips into space on Russian rockets, showing that there is still a demand and an interest in what lies beyond our fragile envelope of atmosphere. Undersea exploration and arctic bases show that we can survive in environments inhospital to our lives. Nuclear
...
http://ianthealy.com
Born, grew up, became an adventurer
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Re: The "Beagle" has landed, NOT! |
Mon, 29 December 2003 17:52 |
|
|
Quote: | The space shuttle showed that orbital flights can be made relatively inexpensively
|
In what way is 500 million USD per flight "inexpensive" ?
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | |
Re: The "Beagle" has landed, NOT! |
Tue, 30 December 2003 05:01 |
|
alexdstewart | | Chief Warrant Officer 2 | Messages: 164
Registered: July 2003 Location: Brisbane, QLD. | |
|
EDog wrote on Mon, 29 December 2003 12:05 |
The simple truth is that we've lost our desire to explore, to blaze new frontiers yada yada yada. Now that we've conquered it, we are slowly eating ourselves from within.
In biology, a life form that doesn't grow and reproduce is dying. As a race, we are dying, because we aren't growing beyond the boundaries of our own world. Every once in awhile something happens that gives me a glimmer of hope - the International Space Station, while mostly a political hot potato, has shown that man can live and work in space. Private citizens can buy trips into space on Russian rockets, showing that there is still a demand and an interest in what lies beyond our fragile envelope of atmosphere. Undersea exploration and arctic bases show that we can survive in environments inhospital to our lives. Nuclear submarines prove that men can live for extended periods of time in an enclosed space in close quarters without going crazy. Private organizations can build and launch their own satellites, showing that competition for resources can continue beyond the confines of the earth.
All the ingredients are there - it's just a matter of them coming together. I believe that the first manned mission to Mars will occur during my lifetime (I'm almost 32) and that I will live to see colonies on the Moon and on Mars. I have optimistic hopes for the future of mankind and our place in the Universe, and I'm going to try to live as long as I can so I can see it happen.
EDog, Visionary of Future Things
|
I take may hat off for that, Amen...
Down to Earth-
I. Beagle is British made- i. e. Europen, I can tell you from experience that Europens spare no res to build the most reliable and safe tech- I never ever seen a european prototype fail at its first try.
II. Paraphrasing someone: "Space Shuttle is the most efficient machine for destroying dollar bills"- twice as expensive as any other expendable launcer in use.
Makes me sad how American People are forced to pay for demented space tech- mainly because of corporate culture or someone behind the scenes. Ask any rocket scientist- I am one of 'em- and privatly they all think that someone is "STALLING" the space exploration in America. All the other space agencies are just plainly incompetent or underfunded. There is no shortage of new ideas and concepts, but the progress is slow at best. Someone is not interested in cheap space transportation.
I'll give you an example: currently the most adv hypersonic wind tunnel is in some backwater Australian Brisbane in UQ uni, it can achieve Mach 8 max. Now, I know that Americans had a working plan for the windtunnel Mach 13 10 YEARS AGO. They still haven't build it yet, despite the fact that without it, no'une will be able to build a decent scramjet shuttle. I can also mention that the exhaust tubes of many amreican rockets are coated with gold- THERE IS SIMPLY NO USE FOR THEM THERE!!! The shuttle flight are not expensive- they are still about as expensive as the launch costs in 1970's were, BUT BEUROCRACY IS. There is simply no need for all those support personel that are now employed. Each shuttle was designed to go up in space every 6 weeks- way high above of what it is now. Somebody is not pushing them shuttles to the limit. Who cares about the two failures- the chemical rocket technology is still only 10% reliable- other 10% result in catostrophic failures for LO2/LH2 mix. 98% reliability rate is an icredible safety record for the space tech involved.
Also, I maintain that Mars space probe failure record is extrimely anomalious, there are outer planetary missions that are just as complex and trasverse the same regions of space and more yet their failure rates are MUCH lower.
Let's face it, calculations error in conversion from Imperial to Metric system that resulted in catastrophic failure of of last NASA Mars probe is a LAME excuse. And should insult any thinking person. Failure of joint USSR/US Mars probe Phobos (1 or 2?) due to misplaced coma in machine code is also a lame excuse as the software is rigously tested in virtual reality mode before the launch.
I mean, I can accept one failure, even two, but not 3,4,5,6,7,8 failures in succession! Space is dangerous but not THIS dangerous.
In the Future there is only WAR...
Therefore our extinction is assured, it is just a matter of where and when.Report message to a moderator
|
|
| | | | | |
Re: The "Beagle" has landed, NOT! |
Wed, 14 January 2004 03:30 |
|
Shadow Whist | | Chief Warrant Officer 2 | Messages: 167
Registered: August 2003 Location: Vancouver, WA | |
|
Quote: | The simple truth is that we've lost our desire to explore, to blaze new frontiers yada yada yada. ... America was the last "frontier" on earth. Now that we've conquered it, we are slowly eating ourselves from within... -EDog, Visionary of Future Things
|
I totally agree. A major reason that I am a believer in a strong space program/presence etc. is the very concept of humanity needing a new "frontier" as Edog and alexdstewart mentioned. Reasons also include: separation of self from others, idealistic ventures to create new societal models, exploration, a focus for society on the unknown, a relief valve for persecuted minority groups, and a healthy fear of the unknown to keep wayward governments in line...
Balancing against space advocates are those who believe society should remedy the ills on earth before taking them to the heavens... There is truth here, maybe those historical minority groups should have stayed and attempted to change society for the better. The Gandhi's and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s of the world have certainly made things better for Humanity. Those SciFi novels describing how humanity needs to grow before reaching for the stars is certainly something to consider...
Looking at the current nature of space infrastructure development, including the statistics mentioned earlier, one can see that something is not right. We should be a lot farther ahead then we are. Is it too paranoid to wonder if the reasons given are fallacies and diversions... I wonder...
_____________________________________________
Earth VS Space: I want Earth (its nicer) but I want the choice!
Report message to a moderator
|
|
| |
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Sun Jun 09 14:29:37 EDT 2024
|