Friday 16th January
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jan/12/beagle-2-mars-lander-remains-red-planet?CMP=share_btn_tw
Well spotted xflare. How did the Guardian find that? (I suspect an inside job.) It's always nice when the media are well connected science wise.
I am feeling extremely grouchy about the fact that the Guardian seems to have received a press release that I haven't. Either that, or they got something under embargo and broke the embargo. (I don't get embargoed press releases.) Has anybody seen the original press release online?
A tad more info from a Leicester article:
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Beagle-2-University-Leicester-calls-media/story-25842553-detail/story.html
Thanks so much Xflare and Explorer1 for those much interesting news !
A found Beagle 2 Lander on Mars would be a much-deserved tribute given post mortem to Dr Pillinger.
He fought all he could to raise finance, test equipments, be on schedule, etc... and was not helped much by ESA which had to cope on its side with its own strict budgetary and management rules : see the official report issued by the House of Commons on November 2004 (here below) and especially the statement on its page 25, item # 49 : "According to the Chief Engineer of Beagle 2, Dr Clemmet, “The technical assistance received from ESA was quite restricted”. The Astrium project manager for Beagle 2, Mr Kirk, said that whilst those at ESA with whom he dealt were helpful and enthusiastic, “senior managers with one exception were always reticent. Their life would have been much easier if Beagle 2 had disappeared from MEx [Mars Express] much earlier than it did”."
Beagle2_Government_support_2005_711.pdf ( 840.75K )
: 33739
Thanks so much Dr. Pillinger for your enthusiasm for space exploration. We miss you !
Yes, as exciting as this news may be, I still feel a tinge of sadness that Dr. Pillinger didn't live to set eyes on Beagle again (intact or otherwise)
I will be shocked if it looks fully deployed.
Let's see the evidence fist. I'll be sorely disappointed if this is just another
interesting collection of pixels like the previous "finds":
http://www.newscientist.com/articleimages/dn8494/2-wreckage-of-beagle-2-found-on-mars.html
I would expect to see more than that to clinch the case.
Tolis.
The HiRISE people would not be involved if that's all it is.
Phil
Anyone have a link for the press conference?
Images now on BBC News website http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-30784886?ns_mchannel=social&ns_campaign=bbc_breaking&ns_source=twitter&ns_linkname=news_central:
Landed successfully, but only partially deployed, in which case the antenna probably wasn't uncovered. So close...
UK Space Agency press announcement.
The images of Beagle, parachute and shell are in the video, which also shows animated images taken at different times, showing sun glint on metal.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-led-beagle-2-lander-found-on-mars
There is additional photo analysis on the BBC News site at the moment.
And the HiRISE release http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_039308_1915
In case anybody can do anything good with them, I made a stereo HiRISE digital terrain model of the possible Beagle 2 site.
Snapshot (with candidate locations marked):
From the tiny images released today (16 Jan 2015) it does appear that only two of the solar panels deployed. The UHF antenna was a strip antenna and mounted on the underside of the s/c lid. If the last two solar panels panels did not deploy, then antenna would be totally covered. The info graphic I posted shows solar cells on the lid itself, which is not correct.
Here are a couple more Beagle2 photos showing the UHF antenna (yellow square)
Long before UMSF, there was a Beagle 2 Yahoo group I formed - just as a clearing house for info about a mission that was to be controlled just a few miles from where I lived at the time.
Frankly - MER was barely on my radar. When we never heard from Beagle...I was so disappointed - gutted beyond words. I'd even popped a good luck Christmas card under the door of Mission Control the night of landing.
To now know that it made it all the way to the ground is just astonishing. I was skeptical it had made it that far - especially with the absence of a parachute in MOC imagery ( turns out a MOC image in '04 was right over that spot...but the downlink got corrupted )
Without Beagle - there would have been no UMSF, and I wouldn't have ended up where I am today.
Wherever you are, Prof Pillinger..... thank you. You can be damned proud of what Britain did back in 2003.
Very well said, Doug.
I would just like to express my mix of emotions, here. Extreme wonder and pride that the little Beagle that could, actually did. Intense frustration that a single petal deploy failure led to loss of mission. And deep and profound sadness that Dr. Pillinger did not live to see this day.
At least one thing that has changed my life came of it, even if the mission failed -- that it led to Doug creating this wonderful home-away-from-home for myself and all of my good friends here at UMSF.
Godspeed, Beagle 2.
-the other Doug
Deeply gratifying to see it on the surface. Also, of course, important beyond words for the future to see what worked and what didn't; that's how we learn and move forward.
Well done, Beagle 2 team, and well done, HiRISE team!!!
I wasn't involved in Beagle 2, but I was doing my PhD in the UK at the time, and watched my friend lose their job on Christmas day. So for that, and many other reasons, today has been good.
So, I've always wondered if this trick could actually be useful for anything...I think that the left-most object might fall in an overlap between HiRISE CCDs. Could the overlap be used for anything? Noise reduction? As an extra image for super-resolution (so 4 instead of 3)?
My (badly-calibrated, hence checker-board effect) non map-projected rush job of RED1 and RED2 of http://www.uahirise.org/ESP_037145_1915 as an example. The individual CCD images are in the http://hirise-pds.lpl.arizona.edu/PDS/EDR/ESP/ORB_037100_037199/ESP_037145_1915/products page.
So if we've got it on R1 and R2 from 037145, one red from another observation, plus the three colors ( IR, R and bG ) from the color catch... we sort of have 6 images of it.
I don't think so.... if the Google Earth MOC layer is exhaustive and the ASU Global data search is similar exhaustive - it's definitely a no. http://viewer.mars.asu.edu/planetview/inst/moc/R1300632#P=R1300632&T=2 got close - but http://viewer.mars.asu.edu/planetview/inst/moc/R2100301#P=R2100301&T=2 is the only MOC NA image over the site - that that's corrupt and 9 months post landing
There is also a white spot above the location of Beagle 2...any thoughts on what that might have been?
I was wondering about that, too. It's only really visible in the most recent image.
Also, my eye wants me to believe that there's something flapping around near the location of the backshell. I'm curious to hear others' opinions.
does anyone have the Mars long/lat of Beagle2?
I want to get HiView up and running tonight when I get home
Thanks
That'll be the drogue chute flapping about - something like 1.5m across
Lat long - 90.4295E 11.5265N
Though definitely bittersweet, I consider this more of a triumph than a loss: of the MRO team for finding it, and most of all of Beagle 2 just making it to the surface. When you think of the dire alternatives, that it made it down in one piece is nothing less than remarkable. Thanks to everyone who was involved.
Absolute triumph to see, thanks Prof. Pillinger and the team who must feel so proud...
Doug: Beagle 2 location ---- Lat long - 90.4295E 11.5265N
try Long Lat - 90.4295E 11.5265N instead. You don't want to end up at 90.4 degrees north.
(well, he does add E and N... it's just the order I'm noting)
Phil
Looking at the details. The landing site is about 5 km from the middle of the post-landing tracking ellipse, but about 30 km from the middle of the pre-landing target ellipse. Some reports confuse the two. It was not 5 km off target.
Phil
Here is a 1st attempt at the color '39308' HiRise image, it is 3x. (The others are 30908 and 37145)
I have yet to collapse them all into one image, but that is a chore for another night.
The bright object to the north is most likely an airbag?
The three gas bags protecting Beagle were supposed to be 'ejected' away from Beagle after landing
Where are the other two? (covered in dirty dust and looking like surrounding ground? )
I am a little disappointed by the greenish tinges, but my program did the best it could (it's optimized for grayscales)
The 'parachute' is in this image at the southwest. The backshell may the one of the dark objects to the west or south of the 'parachute'? EDIT: the backshell was ejected with the dogue chute .. which remains to be imaged??
These objects are really small.
Congratulations to the Beagle Team for what looks like a good EDL and the MRO team for a great observatory in orbit around another planet (wow)
.... more later ...
Beagle 2 came down on two parachutes the drogue that did the initial slowdown and ejected the backshell and then the main chute that brought it down to the ground and then was cut away on landing. So the main chute should be 'near' the lander, and the drogue further away. After looking at this image I would like to postulate the position of the 'main' chute and the bounding, rolling path of Beagle 2. (of course ... as my wife reminds me almost weekly... I could be wrong...)
Communication was lost after Beagle separated, but it may have actually landed softly enough and deployed solar panels. Could that mean it took in some data? If it landed intact, and some day we got a robot or astronaut to recover the vessel, would it be possible to retrieve any such data from its hard drive or flash drive? Granted, the harsh conditions would degrade anything sitting around for years and years but it's interesting to consider...
In general once our robotic craft lose energy and conk out, could their hard drives or flash drives theoretically be retrieved like black boxes on earthly aircraft?
"I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Since there was no communication with the orbiter after release, the nav ellipse must have been predicted at that time. I would think that the target ellipse was the plan before encountering Mars, maybe even before launch.
-Tim."
You're right about both ellipses. The pre-landing target was the pre-launch target, as you say. But the final navigation solution leads to a much smaller ellipse when all the numbers are in (post-landing), giving you a smaller area to search with orbital cameras. The final version of the target ellipse was 174 by 106 km (Bridges et al. paper in 2003). The navigation solution was an ellipse 57 by 7.6 km across (Sims, 2004, Beagle 2 Mission Report).
The University of Leicester and the UK Space Agency both said this correctly. The BBC report is the one which says it was 5 km from the middle of the target ellipse - that's what I'm suggesting is misleading.
Phil
My animation is NOT accurate. It was made as a student project 15 years ago, long before the Beagle 2 design was finalized.
busy busy week ...wish I had more time to work on this ...
MCGYVER: inspecting just one HiRise image at a scale of 1.0 is exhausting ( ~1 to 2 billion pixels )
Beagle was in only 3 of 28 of images (and only 2 until a few weeks ago in December 2014)
Just one second of distraction and you miss it. Forget the other 25 images that Beagle is not in frame.
The people who found it are amazing. And Beagle is small !!
Here is a little update on the color Beagle frame.
The drogue pulls the back-shell away (not sure about the heat-shield ejection.. but from MSL we know it can 'frisbee' away)
The main chute comes out and a 'bridle' lowers Beagle and the air bags deploy around Beagle
On touch-down the main chute is cut, and the airbags roll off until they stop. Beagle then deploys.
Here is what I postulate as the back-shell ( the drogue is too small and old (12 years) to see)
Emily's recent Blog demonstrates how the main chute is a gossamer of thin material,and how hard it be to would see, especially with the ground it sits upon (and never mind the 12 years of dust on top of both the main and the smaller dogue chute)
There are also a few more heat-shield candidates within a few hundred meters of Beagle (example: one about 60 meters to the southwest of what identify as the back-shell). The 'official' heat-shield may be might be too far away (who knows...)
I also did a quick inventory of 'rocks and boulders' within 300 meters of Beagle, and what I call the back-shield stands out ( the immediate area is rock/boulder poor)
The initially identified thing as a 'parachute' is too big and too bright to be the the 'drogue' and too far away from Beagle to the the main chute. I suspect it is a rock ?
As always...your mileage may vary.
I'm afriad you're somehwat off on the main chute...and you've missed the backshell and drogue chute to the south. I wouldn't use the recent color image when feature hunting - I've personally found ESP_037145_1915 to be about the best.
Here's my best estimation... the bright feature to the north could be either the heatshield interior or maybe the clamp band, I would not expect airbags to exhibit specularity as that feature does. I also wouldn't expect any hint of boucne marks. Try finding them at Gusev or Meridiani after 11 years.
The backshell and drogue chute, the main chute, and Beagle 2 itself are pretty much no-brainers at this point.
With the evident partial deployment of its solar panels, would Beagle II have lacked sufficient power even to communicate locally with MEX or one of the other two orbiters?
It is very painful to consider that perhaps there was absolutely nothing else wrong with it. Maybe no more than a badly-placed stone blocking the unfolding process...
It's not a power issue - it's the UHF antenna being obscured by one or more of the solar panels. The UHF antenna was under all 4 panels. Without them deploying.....the UHF antenna can't 'see' the sky - and a carbon composite solar panel covered in silicon and wires is a very good way to block UHF signals.
It's approx -3748m according to Google Earth.
The 3rd HiRISE image is now out
http://hirise.lpl.arizona.edu/ESP_039308_1915
Tantalizing. There seems to be ALMOST enough resolution to get data enough to constrain possible failure modes. Does anyone know if the UK space agency is trying to do such 'forensics'?
One thing I'd like to know is whether Beagle 2 could theoretically still be functional. With a partial deployment there would be some electrical power available I'd assume, so isn't it possible in theory that its still humming along, keeping warm with its heaters? Admittedly it has already spent a long time on the surface, much longer than its intended mission lifetime. It also depends on exactly how the thermal control is implemented and how much electrical power is actually available in the state it is. Without a way to communicate with the probe it isn't like it matters either, it's simply a matter of curiosity.
Entirely academic.... without UHF comms, the definition of 'functional' isn't really of merit.
Yes, as I said, it doesn't really matter with no way to communicate with it. But do you know if there is anything wrong with my logic? For example, the heaters might not even have been turned on depending on how the thermal control on Beagle 2 was set up. I haven't found anything that is specific enough to tell.
(edit)
Actually while viewing a presentation about Rosetta I happened about a mention by Ian Wright where he says that it is being looked into if the mission could be "resurrected". Who knows what he means by that though, maybe he's hoping that a rover with a suitable arm lands nearby to give it a helping hand? Here's a link either way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=itDI4bD7ThA#t=300
I have managed to find the Beagle 2 Lander in Google Earth. It took half an hour because the lander was... smaller than I expected, no wonder it took so long to find it!
Here is an overlay of the HiRISE image with the lander's location.
Beagle_2_Location.kmz ( 2.98K )
: 1520
A new study has been released about what happened to Beagle II :-
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-37940445
A paper by the Beagle 2 team:
https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.170785
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)