it...

I just canna stand the hypocracy of 'em people in space agencies:
I mean only 3 out of 30 missions are NOT failures to the Red Planet... Now 90, 90% failure rate just streches the limit of credebility. With the success rate of close to 90% in all other interplanetary missions, AM I to believe that 27 of 30 missions to Mars failed due to purely technical problems? Do I look like an idiot?!

...eh, sorry guys . I just feel very strongly on the matter of those "failures". European technology is notorious for its safety AND reliability. Although sabotage is dead easy against would be Mars lander, I also realize that even the best space tech is only about 90% reliable (which makes Apollo 11-17 glitch free (xcept for 13's explosion) runs nothing short of miraculous). And therefore technical failure AND only technical failure is probable if unlikely.

I wager that at least some of the Landers that are due to reach the Red Planet in a month or so will be at least partial failures.

Has anyone got any plausable explanations for the high failure rate of interplanetary probes to Mars?

[Updated on: Sun, 28 December 2003 17:37]

Report message to a moderator

alexdstewart wrote on Sun, 28 December 2003 22:33

Has anyone got any plausable explanations for the high failure rate of interplanetary probes to Mars?

Plausable as in something other than the martians shooting them down with their Anti-matter pulverisers ?

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

staz69uk wrote on Sun, 28 December 2003 18:16

Plausable as in something other than the martians shooting them down with their Anti-matter pulverisers ?

Railguns loaded with Uranium slugs are a bit more plausable.

Besides, 'em guys always try to put as much new experemental stuff in as possible in EVERY mission. Partial failure rates are something like 20-30% which is still too low to explain the observed Martian probe failures.

Sabotage is possibe, in fact very likely. It only takes one puncture in the airbag to wreck the probe. One loose screw can jam the antenae, one misplaced symbol in the programming to debilitate the spacecraft. All of these are checked for before the launch (I would hope). There is considerable experience in this regard in all major space agencies.

It is either the aliens with the railguns or internal sabotage.
Guess which one I am leaning towards?

Report message to a moderator

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

Report message to a moderator

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

Report message to a moderator

EDog wrote on Mon, 29 December 2003 11:05

Better. Cheaper. Faster.

Pick two
From Fortune.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

donjon wrote on Mon, 29 December 2003 15:41

EDog wrote on Mon, 29 December 2003 11:05 Better. Cheaper. Faster. Pick two From Fortune.

That makes for a good sign at the ticket line.

Attention: Amerispace Flightpad offers three types of service---
Good, Cheap and Fast
You may choose any two.
A good cheap flight is not fast.
A good fast flight is not cheap.
And a cheap fast flight is not good.

Report message to a moderator

staz69uk wrote on Mon, 29 December 2003 16:52

Quote: The space shuttle showed that orbital flights can be made relatively inexpensively In what way is 500 million USD per flight "inexpensive" ?

Well, as long as the US dollar keeps shrinking, foreigners will be able to fly cheaper and cheaper.

Report message to a moderator

donjon wrote on Tue, 30 December 2003 10:41

EDog wrote on Mon, 29 December 2003 11:05 Better. Cheaper. Faster. Pick two From Fortune.

Like the programmers creed for custom software.

Reliable, Cheap, Efficient. Pick any two.

PapaBear
(Supplying Content Free Postings since 1989)

Report message to a moderator

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

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

I havent looking into NASA's recent missions because, frankly, it is nothing very exciting, so I am just shooting from the hip here.

I do remember that one of their missions (I believe a polar lander) failed because the great minds forgot to take into account that the parts made in Europe and Canada would be made in meters (cm, mm, etc.) and the parts made in the US would be made in feet (in, etc.)

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see why that would present a problem (perhaps that isn't the best phrase to use considering that the people at NASA ARE rocket scientists)

Report message to a moderator

The fact that they shelved the Pluto-Kupier Express is a big blow to space exploration. We know next to nothing about Pluto/Cheron and transplutonic planets. We won't have the opportunity to send a similar mission for quite some time, perhaps not before radically novel systems of propulsion are introduced as windows of opportunity are scarce for chemical rocket propulsion into that region of space.

I still don't buy the explanation of Imperial/Metric system conversion. I might think NASA is corrupt to the core, but I also have an undying belief that NO-ONE CAN BE THIS STUPID? Or can they? To call it an embarrassment is a total understatement. Uni students don't make mistakes of THIS magnitude. NASA employs some of the best minds in the world- some 100 000+ direct support personnel if my memory is correct. What in THE WORLD WERE THEY THINKING?

[Updated on: Tue, 30 December 2003 22:51]

Report message to a moderator

alexdstewart wrote on Tue, 30 December 2003 22:49

What in THE WORLD WERE THEY THINKING?

I believe the problem was, that they weren't.

Report message to a moderator

I think that NASA is just being complacent right now. The race to the moon was political in nature, and I think it will take another political motive to make the next big advance. China is working on sending astronauts to the moon, and when they do, they will probably begin a space race to mars with the USA (where I live). With this competition, the government will fund NASA better to prevent the US from loosing its stranglehold on space technology. Just my two cents.

Report message to a moderator

Report message to a moderator

Good News at last!

The spirit has landed and George Bush Jn has announced a new plan to get to Mars- one of hundreds I must add. Some things to cheer about. However there is a flipside (threre always is )

Even though I am a rocket engeneer (ain't no such thing as rocket scientist) I would urge people to resist the new proposed plan of space exploration by Bush Jn.

Here is why: I know a guy (name is not imroptant here) who is a rocket scientist and a fine one at that. So anyway, he designs this rocket plane to get from New York to Tokyo in 2 hrs at 10 times the cost of now retired Concord trip. His fellow engeneers think that the concept can work and there would be enough commercial interest in this new service. So the guy as bright as he is goes to his boss in Boing or Lockheed I can't remember now (the companies that have near monopoly on goverment contracts for space and military aviation projects) and shows him the plan.

The reaction of the boss? Well he says: "Sorry Mr X but our company makes TITANS, not cheap space transportation. We would go bankrupt if we adopt this plan"

What is the moral of the story? Do not and I repeat DO NOT support any space transportation system that is more expensive than 100 $/kg delivered in Low Earth Orbit. To do otherwise is to waste you money.

Report message to a moderator