It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Beagle 2 might be in a crater

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 08:47 AM
link   
news.bbc.co.uk...

If the Beagle was in the 1 km wide crater then it could not talk back to earth.

I personally just think this may be a cop out for the real reason they don't want to give. "We just don't know what happened to the Beagle".




posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 08:54 AM
link   
The only thing wrong with this situation is the waste of money. They may still get a signal. My guess would be that they dont though. Why? Because they used a "shoe-string budget" to accomplish a high budget job. In other words they didn't do the best that they could. So instead of waiting for appropriate funding, they jumped the gun and WASTED the money that they got.

Just a total waste of money and resources. Do the job right the first time....



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 08:56 AM
link   
why are there so many probes that never make it to mars or something happens to them when they get there?



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 09:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by razorbackhater
why are there so many probes that never make it to mars or something happens to them when they get there?


My theory on the matter is basically that Mars may have fluctuating Gravity. I outlined the theory in this theard.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 09:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by razorbackhater
why are there so many probes that never make it to mars or something happens to them when they get there?


I would argue that sending an object into space is completely different from landing it on another planet. Mars isnt the moon either. Thats far away...and the gravity on the surface would be completely different. Many variables would need to be considered.

That being said, I am not a NASA Scientist. All I can say is that there have been successful missions to mars before. Not all of them are failures. So with that knowledge (that its possible), and the knowledge that it is extremely difficult, I think its foolish to make an attempt like this one. It was expensive...even at a cut budget. So they just wasted money and time.

msnbc.msn.com...

(The following is from that website above)

1964 U.S. launches Mariner 3, which fails after liftoff.

1964 U.S. launches Mariner 4. First successful Mars fly-by in July 1965. The craft returns the first pictures of the Martian surface.

1964 Soviets launch Zond 2. Mars fly-by. Contact lost in May 1965.

1969 U.S. launches Mariner 6 and 7. The two spacecraft fly by Mars in July and August 1969 and send back images and data.

1971 Soviets launch Mars 2. Orbiter and lander reach Mars in November 1971. Lander crashes but orbiter sends back images and data.

1971 U.S. launches Mariner 8, which fails during liftoff.

1971 U.S. launches Mariner 9. Orbiter reaches Mars in November 1971, provides global mapping of Martian surface and studies atmosphere.

1973 Soviets launch Mars 5. Orbiter reaches Mars in February 1974 and collects data.

1975 U.S. launches Viking 1 and Viking 2. The two orbiter/lander sets reach Mars in 1976. Orbiters image Martian surface. Landers send back images and take surface samples.

1992 U.S. launches Mars Observer. Contact lost with orbiter in August 1993, three days before scheduled insertion into Martian orbit.

1996 U.S. launches Mars Global Surveyor. Orbiter reaches Mars in September 1997 and maps the planet. Still in operation.

1996 Soviets launch Mars 96, which fails after launch and falls back into Earth's atmosphere.

1996 U.S. launches Mars Pathfinder. Lander and rover arrive on Mars in July 1997, in the most-watched space event ever. Lander sends back thousands of images, and Sojourner rover roams the surface, sending back 550 images.

1998 Japan launches Nozomi. Orbiter suffers glitch in December 1998, forcing circuitous course correction. Mission fails in 2003.

1998 U.S. launches Mars Climate Orbiter. Spacecraft destroyed while entering Martian orbit in September 1999.

1999 U.S. launches Mars Polar Lander. Contact lost with lander during descent in December 1999. Two microprobes "hitchhiking" on lander also fail.

2001 U.S. launches Mars Odyssey. Orbiter reaches Mars in October 2001 to detect water and shallow buried ice and study the environment. It can also act as a communications relay for future Mars landers.

2003 European Space Agency launches Mars Express. Orbiter and lander to arrive at Mars in December 2003.

2003 U.S. launches Mars Expedition Rovers. Spirit and Opportunity rovers due to land on Mars in January 2004.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 09:31 AM
link   
Ever think that maybe they have made it to Mars and they do not want to tell us because of what they might be finding. I find it extremely odd that the first rover that the US sent to mars landed just fine and did its job, but since then, all craft have been doomed. I think this is a possible coverup for what they are really finding there and do not want the mass public knowing about because of possible religious reasons or just the knowledge of ET lifeforms..

[Edited on 30-12-2003 by Dravenn]

[Edited on 30-12-2003 by Dravenn]



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 09:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dravenn
Ever think that maybe they have made it to Mars and they do not want to tell us because of what they might be finding. I find it extremely odd that the first rover that the US sent to mars landed just fine and did its job, but since then, all craft have been doomed. I think this is a possible coverup for what they are really finding there and do not want the mass public knowing about because of possible religious reasons or just the knowledge of ET lifeforms..

[Edited on 30-12-2003 by Dravenn]

[Edited on 30-12-2003 by Dravenn]


Well Viking 1 and 2 both landed and returned a combined 50,000 pictures. Mars Pathfinder landed and returned very good information and I also beleive that Mars 6 & 7 (USSR Missions) also landed successfully.

I truly beleive that the real reason for the high failure rate is the distance involved and the possible fluctuating gravity of Mars. I do not beleive there to be any ET interference.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 09:53 AM
link   
I am not saying there at ET interference, I am just saying they are finding proof of life on mars and they do not want the mass public to know what is being found because it would go against everything we are taught and are drilled with in religion. I think they are landing just find, maybe not, who knows. Just throwing out another possibility of what might be happening.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dravenn
I am not saying there at ET interference, I am just saying they are finding proof of life on mars and they do not want the mass public to know what is being found because it would go against everything we are taught and are drilled with in religion. I think they are landing just find, maybe not, who knows. Just throwing out another possibility of what might be happening.


What would be the reason for hiding that? Religion would be acceptable only if it was a driving force in government. I know that some people would say that it is. I'll tell you for sure that it is not (i guess it is opinion). The only argument for that would be our values in american society being based in modern christianity. Now, like you said...it is definitely a possibility that a conspiracy exists. I am just arguing that it is unlikely.

If they find proof of life on Mars, I think they would tell us. (personal opinion) The only possible reason I can come up with for hiding it would be bio-warefare development. Even at that, the premise would be hiding this information from other countries. That information would leak to intelligence agencies of other countries (maybe not the process but the fact that it is our intention to develop these types of weapons). Other countries would make significant attempts to get there and study the organisms for themselves. So it really wouldnt be hidden anyway.

I dont see any reason whatsoever for them to hide this information. The only reasons I see are from conspiracy theorists who speculate and expand on already unproven and outrageous conspiracy theories. In other words, they prove it to me with nonsense.

Why cant people accept the fact that things are as simple as they are. I know that there are many possiblities. It could have burned up in the atmosphere. It could have crashed and broke on the surface. It may have landed in some weird magentic field that somehow blocks the transmissions. Aliens could have walked up to it and turned it off. The government could be keeping secrets.

To me, it seems like it is too easy of a problem to underfund something and rush it into space. I think people tend to look at the more "glamorous" possibilities rather than the likely ones. This goes for just about everything. Conspiracy theories pop up all the time when there are simple answers to questions. The problem seems to be that it cant be that simple to conspiracy theorists.

My question to the conspiracy theorists is......why not?



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 10:26 AM
link   
No,it was captured by the martians.



posted on Dec, 30 2003 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I totally respect your opinion on this too, but you say you think they would tell us if they found life on Mars, then just curious why they have not told us about the Alien lifeforms that they have already found, ufo's, blaa blaa. To reveal the truth about life on mars, would basically show everyone in the world that the UFO's that they have been told do not exist, most likely do. This would cause panic and hysteria just because of human nature thinking the worse. We have been told all our life that we are the only life in this universe, they deny the existance that UFO's exist, and so on.... So why would they then turn around and say, guess what, we found life on Mars. Just wanted to put my opinion out too =)



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join