Images reveal crashed Schiaparelli Mars lander

We knew as time passed that Schiaparelli had failed in its mission to become ESA's first working lab on mars , now the efforts of ESA to locate their missing lander have provided the proof that Schiaparelli crashed on Mars , as suggested by the data returned before the event.


If at first you don't succeed ......
www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: gortex

Maybe it wasn't an accident. Maybe we are not allowed to be there. Remember HAL.

a reply to: gortex

Looks like an impact crater to me.

Mars succès rate is all told about 50%?

originally posted by: gortexthe efforts of ESA to locate their missing lander have provided the proof that Schiaparelli crashed on Mars

R.I.P Schiaparelli, you never even got a chance to reveal some of the secrets of Mars.

Okay, we're on a conspiracy site, i'll say it...

a reply to: intrptr

Looks like an impact crater to me.

Schiaparelli's impact.

NASA have a good success rate landing on Mars probably due to them being well funded , in comparison ESA don't seem to have all of their ducks in a line to be able to take the next step.
Shame really as we are going looking for life where NASA seems content to look for the conditions that would have allowed life to start.

Well, at least they got it all the way there and know what happened to it. Now it will be there for a billion years or so.

originally posted by: gortex

NASA have a good success rate landing on Mars probably due to them being well funded ,
Shame really as we are going looking for life where NASA seems content to look for the conditions that would have allowed life to start.

Nasa does have a good success rate, Curiosity's wacky landing putting the cream on the cake, since it obviously worked.

Ihave to say though it's kind of weird that there were two failed events. The chute, then the rocket in the next sequence one aiding the other sort of, (I'm assuming that the rockets would have fired in a controlled fashion but then cut off prematurely)

why is that most of ESAs landing probes get somehow malfunctioned when nasa' s mostly "survive" compared to ESA?

originally posted by: Viperion
why is that most of ESAs landing probes get somehow malfunctioned when nasa' s mostly "survive" compared to ESA?

Simply put...
Because NASA is better...

Well, it was better...until Obama dismantled it

-Chris

a reply to: Viperion

I think it's down to funding , ESA receives a budget of about a third of the size of NASA's and has far fewer scientists and engineers , I think it likely there are too many chiefs and not enough Indians at ESA HQ.

originally posted by: Christosterone

originally posted by: Viperion
why is that most of ESAs landing probes get somehow malfunctioned when nasa' s mostly "survive" compared to ESA?

Simply put...
Because NASA is better...

Well, it was better...until Obama dismantled it

-Chris

Can you enlarge on that, it's six years since Obama's initiative to put men on Mars by 2030, no doubt there is hand wringing about not enough money from some, and no doubt political wrangling too, since it was difficult for Obama to get anything done...even though he did.

a reply to: gortex

Mars has no electromagnetic field to protect it from constant radiation bombardment from the Sun. There is water ice but little to no liquid water because its so cold. The barometric pressure is minimal, not much in the atmosphere, except dust.

Life would be a very long shot, even in the past. But I get the need to justify funding. Maybe even mine a nugget or two to bring back. Do you realize how big the bragging rights would be to have the first Mars gold or platinum nugget on your desk?

Why, the bidding would be out of this world.

I listened to a science programme on BBC Radio 4 yesterday and the guy they spoke to made the point that they managed to do the difficult bit - getting a spacecraft in orbit and launching a probe from that towards the surface. He also pointed out that the probe was a rehearsal and they gained a large amount of data from it.

As he said, pity they couldn't just manage that last little bit!

From the bbc article gortex linked above:

The images, gathered by Nasa, could provide important new clues about what went wrong.

(My emphasis)

I guess this must grate a little on some professional pride somwhere at ESA...

BT

originally posted by: beetee
From the bbc article gortex linked above:

The images, gathered by Nasa, could provide important new clues about what went wrong.

(My emphasis)

I guess this must grate a little on some professional pride somwhere at ESA...

BT

I wouldn't say that. To get images of equal resolution, ESA would have to launch an orbiting telescope like the MRO, but that would be redundant, since MRO is already up there and doing a mighty fine job. ESA lets us see much wider views of Mars with Mars Express Orbiter.

a reply to: wildespace

Yes, I see the rationality of it. And I am sure everybody is acting professionally and so forth, and the images will be helpful in learning what went wrong... But I know it would have rankled me just a tiny bit that we could not do what NASA has done repeatedly, and now we get to see it in beautiful detail from NASA.

Maybe its just me, and the ESA crowd is cool as cucumbers about it...

I wish they were better funded, though.. Strange that the EU don't think space exploration is a priority as much as some other nations seem to..

BT

a reply to: intrptr

Life would be a very long shot, even in the past. But I get the need to justify funding.

Mars was very much like Earth in its early days , in fact it's believed Mars had a more oxygen rich atmosphere than Earth's making it a better place for life to start.
Recent studies suggest life on Earth started within a billion years of the planets formation , Mars was habitable for a couple of billion years so I think it highly likely life did start there , it may have even transferred here from there.

Funding space exploration is the most important thing we can do , to ensure our survival we must look to the stars.

a reply to: gortex

Mars was very much like Earth in its early days , in fact it's believed Mars had a more oxygen rich atmosphere than Earth's making it a better place for life to start.

Not without an electromagnetic field generated by a molten core dynamo to deflect the suns radiation. Mars is too small to have a molten core, ergo no magnetic field, ergo no atmosphere.

Has always been impossible under the same circumstances.

"Believe" it or not.

a reply to: intrptr

Mars had a molten core and to some extent still does today , just not enough to generate the field to shield it.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: gortex
Not without an electromagnetic field generated by a molten core dynamo to deflect the suns radiation.

Mars did have an em field at the beginning, but the core cooled down eventually. Atmosphere on Mars was thick enough to allow liquid water on the surface; it had rivers, lakes, and a sea.

~~~

P.S. Hey, I know how ESA can achieve 100% success rate for its Mars missions - make them impacting missions. We can learn a lot from impacts too.