Schiapparelli is kill

[Anonymous No.8424937]

>The data have been partially analysed and confirm that the entry and descent stages occurred as expected, with events diverging from what was expected after the ejection of the back heat shield and parachute. This ejection itself appears to have occurred earlier than expected, but analysis is not yet complete.

>The thrusters were confirmed to have been briefly activated although it seems likely that they switched off sooner than expected, at an altitude that is still to be determined.

http://esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/ExoMars/Schiaparelli_descent_data_decoding_underway

[Anonymous No.8424947]

Schiapparelli? More like shrapnelli.

[Anonymous No.8424948]

>>8424937
Ah well. Better luck next time

[Anonymous No.8424952]

>>8424937
Geniune question : Why is it so hard for them to monitor the probe's descend ? Seems like they need a whole week just to know if it landed on Mars. In comparaison the Curiosity sequence seemed nearly instant.

[Anonymous No.8424955]

>landing thrusters fuck up, again.

Seriously, what? Same thing just happened with Philae. Whoever keeps building these for ESA deserves to go out of business.

[Anonymous No.8424958]

>>8424952
Because its surround by a corona of plasma that completely annihilates all radio signals

[Anonymous No.8424966]

>>8424952
>Why is it so hard for them to monitor the probe's descend ?

https://youtu.be/Ki_Af_o9Q9s

> Curiosity sequence seemed nearly instant.

Because JPL and NASA are really, really fucking good at their jobs and make almost impossible things look easy and routine.

[Anonymous No.8424969]

>trying to land euro crap on american mars
probably got shot down by curiosities secret SAM launcher

[Anonymous No.8424976]

more like Splashpparelli

[Anonymous No.8424989]

>>8424947
>schfphreli

[Anonymous No.8425006]

>>8424969
>not soviet mars

[Anonymous No.8425057]

I bet Martin Shkreli did this

[Anonymous No.8425064]

It seems that the call from Schiaparelli is no longer expected. It may have been into freefall a kilometre or two above the surface.

[Anonymous No.8425068]

More details emerging

[Anonymous No.8425089]

>>8424937
>The thrusters were confirmed to have been briefly activated although it seems likely that they switched off sooner than expected, at an altitude that is still to be determined.

Called it.

[Anonymous No.8425092]

>>8425068

A hard landing then? Again?


That sucks.

They should be worried , as I think their 2020 Rover will be even more delicate.

Does anyone know what type of landing the will attempt in 2020?

If ESA is having trouble with this lander the sky crane maneuver might be too much.

[Anonymous No.8425094]

>>8425089
I remember this post. The rockets were Italian made, right?

[Anonymous No.8425099]

>>8425094
Yes. The whole lander was made by Alenia IIRC.

[Anonymous No.8425105]

Is it any surprise that the Euroshits fucked another landing?

[Anonymous No.8425106]

>>8425092

Never mind, I see that the ESA 2020 Rover will be more than 4 times lighter in weight than the NASA 2020 Rover.

[Anonymous No.8425107]

>>8425105

Just because JPL and NASA make it look easy it doesn't mean it is.

Even the Russians with all their expertise have always had huge problems with Mars.

[Anonymous No.8425113]

First Beagle 2 now this, Jesus get it together ESA. Mars is the ESA Bermuda triangle.

[Anonymous No.8425115]

>>8425092
Meanwhile SpaceX will be attempting supersonic retropropulsion in 2018.

Capitalism: 1
Socialist science: 0

[Anonymous No.8425118]

>>8425099

Seems like a very ambitious Skycrane facsimile, for a shoestring budget relative to Curiosity and Mars 2020. Huygens was easier because of the thicker atmosphere and weaker gravity.

I actually really sad that this didn't work out, ESA does so few planetary missions and I can see the exomars rover being cancelled now. 2016 has been a tough year for Europe.

[Anonymous No.8425121]

http://www.esa.int/spaceinvideos/Videos/2016/10/ExoMars_press_briefing_20_October

In the press conference they seem convinced that pretty much everything went well and that the landing, though probably unsuccessfull, has given them enough data to go through with the 2020 mission. Will be interesting to see how true that is and if they will continue to get funding to do it.

[Anonymous No.8425122]

>>8425107
They couldn't even engineer and design the Rosetta lander correctly, they should give up.

[Anonymous No.8425132]

>>8425118
Is there still a point in sending new rovers to Mars? It's not entirely impossible we'll have people on Mars in 1-2 decades.
Any new Mars missions should be focused with that in mind.

I'd rather we focus on Europa, titan and Venus.

[Anonymous No.8425135]

>>8425132
Another Titan lander/rover/boat would be amazin.

[Anonymous No.8425136]

>>8425122
> 15th century
> Well guys, those two boats we sent out to explore that new world didn't come back. We'd better give up trying to explore this world.
You wouldn't even exist if people used that kind of mentality back then.

[Anonymous No.8425140]

>>8425136
Europe doesn't exist right now due to their appeasement of shitskins and feminists. Maybe they should focus on purging their nations of non-whites instead of failing to land on other bodies in space.

[Anonymous No.8425142]

>>8425132

Cost of rover: 1 or 2 billion
Cost of manned mission : 100+ billion

[Anonymous No.8425153]

>>8425132
people on mars is possible for at least two decades. its just about the budget that you want to waste on it.
but you are right. i would rather have another look at titan or europe than a rover on mars.

[Anonymous No.8425161]

>>8425142
But humans can do the science of 100 rovers. And that in a single mission, not 100 missions with 10 years in between.

Also that cost is only to get humans to Mars. The difference in cost between sending 1 human and 100 humans is small.

Doing things

[Anonymous No.8425172]

>>8425161
no humans cant.
instruments and Tools can do it.
Humans are extremely inefficient for space exploration. and his >>8425142 estimation can be called "mild". a human mission should be atleast 1000 times more expensive than another rover mission. and have much higher risk for a small gain knowledge.

The only reason for humans on the moon was propaganda.
Even the iss is quite ineffiecent when just look at the "science per euro" part.

[Anonymous No.8425184]

>>8425172
You can't compare a manned Mars mission to ISS. The ISS is basically the same as an Earth lab but in a low g environment.

Humans are much more versatile than a rover. There is also the fact that it takes 10 minutes to communicate with your rover.

Also it wont cost 1000 times as much. It doesn't even need to be Musks overly ambitious project. It can be done way cheaper, NASA has their own plans.

[Anonymous No.8425187]

>>8425172
>a human mission should be atleast 1000 times more expensive than another rover mission.

absolutely fucking delusional & incorrect dumbass

The ONLY thing that makes a manned mission more expensive is a higher minimum size/payload involved, and the need to have a return vehicle

Otherwise its all the same. Really the only stopping point is very high launch costs, which could have been solved decades ago if anyone gave a fuck.

[Anonymous No.8425191]

>>8425172
>believing this meme

You can drop 100 curiosities into Colorado and they won't find a single dinosaur fossil. Humans are far more flexible, pragmatic and resourceful than a robot ever will be.

Putting people on other planets is not just propaganda, the Apollo program inspired and continues to inspire a generation of scientists and investment in science. In the world today, there is no greater adventure than human space travel.

You're also missing the end game of Mars exploration, which is colonisation. Societies grow when they challenge themselves, and fall when they begin to look inward and worry over conserving the dwindling resources they have, rather than finding new land.

[Anonymous No.8425198]

>THIS DOEST NOT FOOKIN CRASH

[Anonymous No.8425199]

>>8425187
>fucking delusional
>only add the higher payload and return vehicle
kek learn some math, and have some fun with numbers and see how that will turn out. Also add some higher safety standards, and my 1000 times might look too optimisitc.

>>8425184
there is a reason why we arent on the mars already. Hell nobody even was on the moon for decades. And now everybody wants to go to mars? Why not start with a _little_ apollo mission first.
>Humans are much more versatile
sure they are. but this advantage isnt worth the price and risk.

[Anonymous No.8425202]

>>8425199
Yea sure and then add the 50,000 union workers & subcontractors who all get salaries for 10 years while they produce this boondoggle of a project.

Thats where you get your big numbers.
In reality a manned footprints & flags mission to mars would not be a massive cost.
Though it would be pointless.

Thats why Musk has his eyes on full & rapid reusability.

[Anonymous No.8425203]

>>8425191
Apollo was just propaganda. The propaganda inspired tons of people. And yes space travel should be promoted. but your "science is awesome" attitude..
>colonisation
jesus, please go back and watch """science""" documentaries on tv or kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.8425364]

>>8424966
>make almost impossible things look easy and routine.

It is easy as shit, only ESA is all thumbs made up of grant chasers. They literally don't give a shit if it works so long as they keep getting paychecks. I mean look at this shit. It is like they want it to fail.

[Anonymous No.8425368]

>>8425364

[Anonymous No.8425370]

>>8425364
>>8425368
That's ESA.

This is NASA.

[Anonymous No.8425371]

>Europoor's can't even get parachutes to work properly
>USA has landed 3 rovers just chilling out thousands of days beyond their operating schedule

get cucked you fucking refugee loving faggots kek

[Anonymous No.8425382]

For the budget involved, it did fine. Hell, ESA managed to land philae on a comet and noone else has even come close even with 5 times the budget. Unless some company manages to monopolise space travel by somehow covering the costs and making profit, this is the future of space exploration considering NASA is dying.

[Anonymous No.8425394]

http://www.space.com/16496-mars-landing-missions-timeline.html

[Anonymous No.8425402]

>>8425382
>For the budget involved, it did fine.

Sure, if total mission failure is the goal.

>>8425370
Sojourner and Pathfinder had similar style landings as that I think. The Viking project for 2 landers cost about $4+ billion in today's money (1 billion in 1975).

It's been over 40 years since Viking 1 and 2 landed.

[Anonymous No.8425420]

>>8425382
Deep Impact cost $330million and Rosseta cost $1.8billion; both to comets. NEAR Shoemaker cost 224 million, but was on an asteroid, not a comet.

Philae was a failure, it landed in shadow, and could not perform its scientific missions. Yet, another waste of money and resources.

ESA is filled with fuds.
NASA is a meritocracy and only hires competent people with proven track records to work directly on and plan its missions.

[Anonymous No.8425424]

>>8425402
not trying to 'damage control' here, but Schiaparelli was mostly a demonstrator for future descent vehicles. ESA still obtained lots of useful data about the heat flux associated with Mars atmospheric entry etc

The Trace Gas Orbiter (TGO) which carried Schiaparelli has now successfully entered a stable orbit, and is where some real science will be done for years to come.

[Anonymous No.8425430]

>>8424955
Philae didn't have landing thrusters, it had harpoons

[Anonymous No.8425434]

>>8425424
The same thing can be done on Earth for far less money and time.

[Anonymous No.8425502]

>>8425420
>Philae was a failure ... and could not perform its scientific missions
How can you be this full of shit and still breathe?

[Anonymous No.8425505]

>>8425434
now that you talk about it, are there re-entry tests on earth? not just with suborbit or LEO, but bigger scale tests with GTO?

[Anonymous No.8425517]

>>8425368
This one actually had a soft landing, it just never deployed properly

[Anonymous No.8425532]

>>8425140

[Anonymous No.8425588]

they can try again in 2018.

[Anonymous No.8425622]

>>8425424
>Schiaparelli was mostly a demonstrator for future descent vehicles

>Eurocucks actually believe this

Funny how you try and defend your shit agency so hard you actually believe your own shit excuses

Instad of trying space exploration, try to develop cheap biats for your believe refugees that will fucking your wife

[Anonymous No.8425630]

>>8425622
>Instead of trying space exploration, try to develop cheap boats for your beloved refugees that will be fucking your wife when they get in your socialist shithole

[Anonymous No.8425803]

>>8425502
>Philae landed oddly, in the shadow of a nearby cliff[89] and canted at an angle of around 30 degrees. This made it unable to adequately collect solar power, and it lost contact with Rosetta when its batteries ran out after two days, well before much of the planned science objectives could be attempted.[14] Contact was briefly and intermittently reestablished several months later at various times between 13 June and 9 July, before contact was lost once again. There was no communication afterwards,[90] and the transmitter to communicate with Philae was switched off in July 2016 to reduce power consumption of the probe.[91] The precise location of the lander was discovered in September 2016 when Rosetta came closer to the comet and took high-resolution pictures of its surface.[89] Knowing its exact location provides information needed to put Philae's two days of science into proper context.[89]

f-f-f-FAILURE

[Anonymous No.8425805]

>>8425630
>>8425622
Say no to space and say no to refugees. Both are complete wastes of human resources and money.

[Anonymous No.8425808]

>>8425630
>>8425622
Too bad their boat building skills aren't as shit as their probe building skills.

[Anonymous No.8425867]

Thanks Merkel!

[Anonymous No.8425898]

>>8425803
>Philae’s primary mission was always designed to last around 60 hours on its initial battery charge.
SUCCESS

[Anonymous No.8425913]

I wish I was an American.

[Anonymous No.8425914]

>>8425898

[Anonymous No.8425918]

>>8425914
>could not perform its scientific missions
vs
>mission was always designed to last around 60 hours on its initial battery charge

(You)

[Anonymous No.8425975]

>>8425914
Philae landed safely and did all the science it was intended to do

Mission success

[Anonymous No.8426001]

>>8425898
>The primary battery was designed to power the instruments for about 60 hours.[47] ESA expected that a secondary rechargeable battery would be partially filled by the solar panels attached to the outside of the lander, but the limited sunlight (90 minutes per 12.4-hour comet day[48]) at the actual landing site is inadequate to maintain Philae's activities, at least in this phase of the comet's orbit.[49][50]

What you posted is from popsci news, which is of course incorrect.

[Anonymous No.8426003]

>>8425975
>did all the science it was intended to do

Not at all.

[Anonymous No.8426006]

>>8426003
80% of it, my mistake

[Anonymous No.8426014]

>>8426006
Mission plan duration: 1 to 6 weeks (168 to 1008 hours).
Actual Mission time: Slightly over 24 hours.

That's 2.3% to 14% of its mission complete.

[Anonymous No.8426017]

>>8426014
And I was wrong again. It achieved more than 80% of its science, it did all but one of the experiments it was supposed to do

[Anonymous No.8426028]

>>8426017
It started those experiments, it didn't finish them.

[Anonymous No.8426029]

>>8426017
That's not how mission success is measured. Just because you start to dig a trench to drain a pond doesn't mean your mission was a success when you only put the shovel in the ground 80% of the way.

[Anonymous No.8426044]

>>8426028
Which ones were not finished?

>>8426029
You measure success by how many of your goals were fully achieved. Philae fully achieved pretty much all of them

[Anonymous No.8426051]

>>8424937
>first contact with alien civilization visiting earth
>spacecraft crashes because ayyliens are too autistic to build functional thrusters

[Anonymous No.8426053]

>>8425898
>>8425918
>>8425975
>>8426006
>>8426017
>>8426044
Sure thing, kid.

[Anonymous No.8426055]

>>8426044
>Which ones were not finished?

All of them.

[Anonymous No.8426077]

>>8426029
If you're trying to dig a 100ft trench and you dig an 80ft trench that sounds like 80% to me

[Anonymous No.8426095]

>>8426077
No, you only put the shovel in 80% of the way into the ground because you only started 80% of the experiments.

You really are fucking terrible at this you know that right?

[Anonymous No.8426132]

Just adding that this Billion Euro mission was headed by an Italian woman - leading a team of mostly italian and french women.

That is all.

http://exploration.esa.int/mars/57222-an-interview-with-francesca-ferri-principal-investigator-of-amelia/

http://exploration.esa.int/mars/48898-edm-science-payload/#dreams

[Anonymous No.8426134]

>>8425532
The level of denial you must force yourself to exude every day must weigh a lot on you. I'm sorry that you force yourself to believe that Europe isn't overrun with subhumans and liberals that fuck up missions like this.

[Anonymous No.8426144]

>>8424969

As a reminder Curiosity is American. Not Soviet Russian.

[Anonymous No.8426164]

>>8425135
Agreed. I'm still sad that Titan Mare Explorer lost to InSight.


>>8425107
Honestly at this point I'm half convinced that the CIA has paid off the Great Galactic Ghoul to prevent anyone but the US from landing on Mars.

[Anonymous No.8426181]

>>8426164
>CIA DID IT
>Great Galactic Ghoul hates us
no lad, you have a space program devoid of white males. start your search for the cause there.

[Anonymous No.8426215]

>>8426181
>Implying the CIA isn't also behind that

[Anonymous No.8426360]

>>8426215
In times past, when explorers or generals made MAJOR fuck ups they faced consequences, that usually involved them groveling for their lives before the King. You have incompetent people in charge of your exploration program who answer to nobody and have no incentive to not fuck up. This should change - or the entire program should be scrapped.

INSTEAD, what we both know is going to happen, is this DAGO cunt >>8426132
is going to still be in charge when the next mission rolls around and she is going to fuck that up too.

[Anonymous No.8426393]

>>8426360
Only white men should be involved in these missions, anyone else is detrimental.

[Anonymous No.8426460]

>>8425115
>Meanwhile SpaceX will be attempting supersonic retropropulsion in 2018.

They already have done it mate.

[Anonymous No.8426499]

>/sci/ thread about a Mars lander
>Nothing but /pol/ shitposting.
When the fuck are the mods going to do their actual jobs?

[Anonymous No.8426781]

>>8426499
Someone apparently doesn't like reality, deal with it. The ESA is a trash organization due to the fact that they allow women to run missions.

[Anonymous No.8426797]

>>8426781
and italians
italians are worse than women

[Anonymous No.8426798]

>>8426499
>for free

[Anonymous No.8426826]

>>8426797
MAMMA
MY LANDA KAPUTTA

[Anonymous No.8426959]

>>8426132
That woman was just in charge of one of the experiments on Schiaparelli. The retro rockets were made by a contractor, Alenia Aeronautica.

[Anonymous No.8427002]

>>8426959
>trusting a wop to do anything correctly

[Anonymous No.8427027]

>>8426826
Kaputt it's german you failure.

[Anonymous No.8428209]

Porcodio this is what happens when you put Italy in charge of engineering anything. Leave that to the germans and the scandinavians.

[Anonymous No.8428226]

Anyway Europe is now in the interplanetary missile business.

[Anonymous No.8428278]

FREUDE SCHONER GOTTERFUNKEN

[Anonymous No.8428328]

>>8426132
>was headed by an Italian woman

I know you're trolling but I must point out %25 of the people who worked on the NASA pluto mission were female , including the mission operation manager.

Nasa has had its share of fuckups including loosing a planetary mission for the dumbest reason ever.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Climate_Orbiter

[Anonymous No.8428342]

>>8428328

Yeah but NASA was smart enough to live the real science to men and put those 25% in shitty areas like "management" and PR

[Anonymous No.8428392]

>>8428209
>this is what happens when you put Italy in charge of engineering anything
A big chunk of the pressurised living space on the ISS is Italian made.

[Anonymous No.8429666]

>>8428278
fuck

[Anonymous No.8429672]

better image of the crash site.

[Anonymous No.8429684]

>>8426499
>Weehhh wehhh
>Please be nice to my failing space agency
ESA is a fucking joke, so please stop your pathetic crying. Accept reality and don't try to censor it by calling for help from the mods.

[Anonymous No.8429708]

>>8428209
Why is the whole shuttle made up of small blocks

[Anonymous No.8429897]

[Anonymous No.8429905]

>tfw flying air france
>tfw the pilot likely won't be able to land because europeans can't land anything

[Anonymous No.8429909]

>>8429708
it's made of big leggos

[Anonymous No.8430178]

>>8429708
becaues it was covered of HAND MADE tiles, each of which had to be perfectly replaced and repainted by hand, 10 FUCKING TIMES, EACH TIME THE SHUTTLE FLEW

if one of em was even half a millimiter out of its place the shuttle would explode...


and they still say americans arend the dumbers people everythings

[Anonymous No.8430252]

>>8424937
Schiapparelli is killerino

wah

[Anonymous No.8430308]

>>8425140

Typical argument that has nothing to do with the conversation and deviates entirely from the point.

This is how brainwashed poltards are.

[Anonymous No.8430519]

>>8425187
think about nutrution that you need to transport. depending on how long the trip will take (and it will take long) you'll have to pack quite a bit.

[Anonymous No.8430643]

>>8430178
Wasn't this only the case after the Colombia disintegration?

[Anonymous No.8430655]

>>8428209
Goddamn the shuttle was cool. This photo was taken with an 8.5" reflector.

[Anonymous No.8430746]

>>8426132
Virgin detected

[Anonymous No.8430810]

>>8430643
No, the only thing that changed after Columbia was that they would take time to check the tiles in space before reentry. They'd been doing a whole bunch of tile inspection and repair on the ground from day one.

[Anonymous No.8431116]

>>8424955
It's the Italians

[Anonymous No.8431130]

>>8424955
>landing thrusters fuck up, again.
>Seriously, what? Same thing just happened with Philae
Given the double failure, I highly doubt it was the thrusters that failed. If I was going to bet, I'd guess it was a sensor issue.

[Anonymous No.8431251]

>>8431130
All sings point to altimeter, or alternatively just not knowing how far away the ground was. Rockets fired when they where suppose to in regards to the sequence of stages.

They don't talk about the rover sending any more data past the rockets terminating.

[Anonymous No.8431640]

>>8425364
Why don't more landers use the airbag approach?
>>8425370

Are the airbags that expensive? Who cares about hitting your target exactly? They're not trying to land it near a gorge or on top of a mountain. How far could it really roll?

[Anonymous No.8431649]

>>8430655
Nice shot

[Anonymous No.8431737]

>>8431251
Isn't there a dust storm brewing on Mars around now? Maybe whatever altimeter sensor they'd been using was affected by the dust.

The parachute deployed early, and then the thrusters only fired for 4 seconds instead of the expected 30. Maybe Schiaparelli was going too fast when the thrusters fired, which caused them to fail in some way. This would explain why Schiaparelli stopped talking even before it hit the surface.

[Anonymous No.8431740]

>>8428209
wasn't this in Interstellar?

[Anonymous No.8431813]

>>8425132
Venus is kinda useless as it is right now... the hottest planet in the Solar System with a ton of sulfuric acid in the atmosphere.
Mars is our best bet for now. Titan is also interesting, but -179 °C... fugg.

[Anonymous No.8431888]

>>8431813
>Titan is also interesting, but -179 °C... fugg.
Titan is really interesting, but the climate's not the major problem. The problem is the immense dV and large amount of time needed for Earth->Saturn->Earth travel.

[Anonymous No.8431910]

>>8431888
delta-v ain't so much of a problem, just means more fuel needed.
Titan has an atmosphere to aerobrake at which is like 90% of the issue in getting places.

It's certainly a lot easier to travel to than jupiter's moons

[Anonymous No.8432260]

>>8431640
Airbags only work up to a certain weight i think. Above that, you will need something like the Skycrane-thingy that NASA used last time.
Since ESA is planing on landing a big-ass rover soon, they wanted to use this as a chance to test retro-rocket/skycrane tech. Which went about as well as a Greek economic meeting

[Anonymous No.8432415]

There is never an integrated test of the whole system. Its a coin flip.

[Anonymous No.8432449]

>>8432260
Airbags also only work below a certain speed. You still need to use a parachute and retro rockets to slow down. Even if Schiapparelli has used airbags, the early release of the chute and the retrorockets cutting early would have left it going to fast for the airbags to do anything.