Beagle 2 in HiRISE, Possible Targets |
Beagle 2 in HiRISE, Possible Targets |
Feb 14 2007, 05:04 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Administrator Group: Admin Posts: 5172 Joined: 4-August 05 From: Pasadena, CA, USA, Earth Member No.: 454 |
EDIT: Moved these posts from the Feb 14 HiRISE Release thread to here to collect all Beagle 2 search related stuff in one place.
I'm downloading them now too -- guess I can't blog about them until I've examined them very carefully! For a bit of history on the search, Here's a blog entry I wrote about this spot a while ago Here's the MOC team's take on that spot And here's the BBC page with the Beagle 2 team's take on it EDIT: and here's my updated blog entry with links to the Beagle 2 landing ellipse images split up into 40-MB chunks. --Emily -------------------- My website - My Patreon - @elakdawalla on Twitter - Please support unmannedspaceflight.com by donating here.
|
|
|
Dec 17 2008, 09:16 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Two things have always put an entry-phase burn-up top of my list of Beagle 2 failure modes. Firstly, the lack of any parachute visible in MOC imagery (which would be very very visible) - and secondly - the fact that the B2 shape was Huygens like rather than Viking like.
Doug |
|
|
Dec 18 2008, 02:19 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 613 Joined: 23-February 07 From: Occasionally in Columbia, MD Member No.: 1764 |
Two things have always put an entry-phase burn-up top of my list of Beagle 2 failure modes. Firstly, the lack of any parachute visible in MOC imagery (which would be very very visible) - and secondly - the fact that the B2 shape was Huygens like rather than Viking like. Eh? Huygens worked - not sure I follow. Havent read this new australian paper yet ; I always liked the ammonia-leaked-out theory |
|
|
Dec 18 2008, 04:51 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
|
|
|
Dec 18 2008, 05:52 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3648 Joined: 1-October 05 From: Croatia Member No.: 523 |
In all fairness, you can't compare surface conditions to entry conditions both probes experienced. Huygens entered at what, 6 km/s and isn't that a typical Mars entry velocity, too?
The bigger difference could have been entry angle, but even then if you had two identical probes on the outside and their centers of mass were located differently, they could behave entirely differently. A Huygens-lookalike probably isn't a bad thing by itself. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 24th September 2024 - 09:27 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |