Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Beagle 2 Lander's Destiny

  1. Nov 27, 2003 #1
    Correspondence with those “In The Know”)

    I thought I’d initiate a discussion about the experiment aboard Beagle 2 Lander. I have reproduced a selection of correspondence I have had with others below. I have censored various questions (due to the sensitive nature of the information) as well as the individuals’ concerned e-mail addresses out of respect for their privacy.

    My e-mail to Dr Helmut Rosenbauer, dated 22 September 2003;
    (The first 3 questions related to the Phobos 2 Russian mission – CENSORED)
    “(4) Do you consider that Beagle 2 will find life on Mars when it lands on Christmas Day 2003?”

    Reply from Dr Helmut Rosenbauer, dated 26 September 2003;
    “The answer to your fourth question is:
    I regard it more likely that there is life on Mars than not. But I think it is unlikely that such a detection will be made on a rather restricted area as the one accessible to Beagle 2 (nevertheless, I hope for interesting results because I’m involved in the Beagle 2 science team).

    Best regards,

    H. Rosenbauer
    Dr. Helmut Rosenbauer
    Direktor am Max-Planck-Institut fur Aeronomie”
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 27, 2003 #2
    My e-mail to Dr Farouk El-Baz, dated 9 September 2003;
    (The first 3 questions related to Lunar anomalies – CENSORED)
    “(4) I’m wondering whether you have any data of Remote Sensing carried out on Mars? Obviously, I assume water has been found in a liquid state. Can you point me in the right direction to obtain data on the above?
    (5) Do you think Beagle, landing on Christmas Day 2003, will “find” life on Mars?”

    Reply from Dr Farouk El-Baz, dated 11 September 2003;
    “(4) JPL (NASA center in CA) web site
    (5) Most likely not
    Farouk El-Baz”

    My e-mail to Dr James Hurtak, dated 3 October 2003;
    “(1) Can you remember approximately what date it was that you first saw the famous Mariner image of the “Pyramids of Elysium” on Mars?
    (2) Did you have any input into potential landing site selections for Viking Lander 2?
    (3) If so, do you know why in 1973, potential landing site 16 (Cydonia) was selected as the B-1 Viking 2 Landing Site after the Mariner 9 images of that particular landing site were studied in detail?
    (4) Did the images you saw of Mars influence your decision to enter the field of Remote Sensing?
    (5) Do you think Beagle 2 will find life on Mars?”

    Reply from Kathleen Donaldson (on behalf of Dr James Hurtak);
    “Dr. Hurtak passed on the following infor for your interest—
    (1) Dr Hurtak published in a small magazine an article on THE PYRAMIDS OF MARS in 1973.
    (2) No.
    (3) N/A
    (4) Yes – but not exclusively, it involved scientists who had mutual interests in both – (please note that Remote Sensing is satellite imagery from space) not remote viewing.
    (5) Dr Hurtak thinks there is life on Mars – bacteria life, that is. Whether we find it and can confirm it from such a distance is the question. You may recall that there were three VIKING experiments searching for life and two were “inconclusive” – so who knows what scientists assume is “conclusive” at this time – although the timing would be right for a positive affirmation and planetary scientists seem to be building in that direction.”

    Personally, I believe that the British probe (that should immediately set “alarm bells ringing – British?”) will “sniff out the truffles”, so to speak.

    In the interests of data being publically available, please note that;
    The frequency at which the Beagle 2 Lander will broadcast its findings to the three DSN stations (Parkes is right next door to me, heh, heh), is;

    8.4GHz
     
  4. Nov 27, 2003 #3
    Data Acquisition

    I’ve heard that perforated aluminium sheet surfaces (DOUBLES signal power acquisition) when applied to small dishes. Does anybody know what array configuration’s work?
     
  5. Jan 26, 2004 #4
    Woo-Hoo!

    Woo-Hoo!
    Duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-duh-dud-duh...
    Woo-Hoo!

    Wake up and smell the truffles!
    Beagle awakens...
     
  6. Jan 26, 2004 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Re: Woo-Hoo!

    Huh?
     
  7. Jan 27, 2004 #6

    LURCH

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    No, liquid water has not been found on the surface of mars. However, water ice at the southern polar cap has been definately confirmed.

    I think it highly unlikely Beagle 2 will report finding any life.
     
  8. Jan 28, 2004 #7
    Song No.9

    So has anybody else intercepted Beagle yet?
    A couple of amateur Germans reckon they are using a horn, low-noise downconverter to 1270 MHz and a Yaesu FT736R radio with power meters to receive data.

    Here’s some hints from a UK amateur hoaxter. Not a bad effort…;
    http://www.eham.net/articles/7188

    Signals are definitely being received from Mars.
    Try using (40 dB Hz ~ 6 dB s/n at 2.4 kHz bandwidth) 8.4 GHz signal to capture signal through Mars Express.

    Read the interview with Stewart Hall (what a froot-loop!);
    http://www.dailywireless.org/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1984
     
  9. Jan 30, 2004 #8
    What are you trying to get at? That Beagle is alive and well on Mars and the British are hiding it? Well sorry to burst your bubble but I don't think that's what is happening. All evidence points to it being either splattered on the rocks or just not working and laying there. My guess is the latter. At least the ESA isn't having problems with Mars Express.
     
  10. Feb 3, 2004 #9
    SSMM Hijacking?

    Please note that these are the personal (and outrageous) thoughts of me.

    Question: Can a SSMM be hijacked? Or, can data be diverted (or encrypted) by using a backdoor
    written into the Beagle 2 Lander’s program? Can errors generated be evidence of data interception and diversion?

    Inflight some “temporary anomalies” were noted within Mars Express’ and Beagle 2 Lander’s SSMM;
    http://www.martiansoil.com/archives/000495.php
    http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/beagle2_check_030623.html
    http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=33446

    Question: Wasn’t there tests done/back-up systems in place?
    “COMMON ELECTRONICS
    The common electronics provides the lander with power management and conditioning, power converters, the central processor, descent electronics, pyrotechnic supplies, motor drives, data handling and experiment interfaces.
    The command and data management systems are based around a 32-bit processor. The electronics are robust and failure-tolerant as there is no redundancy in the system due to mass-restrictions.”
    http://www.space-technology.com/projects/beagle/

    Question: Which agency has the capability to enact such a procedure?

    “When is the arrival at Mars expected? When is the Beagle 2 landing? How we will know that Beagle has successfully landed?
    One or two days after the landing, Beagle will start making observations. During the first 10 days, when Mars Express and Beagle cannot ‘see’ each other, NASA’s Mars Odyssey will pick up the data and send them to Earth. Then Mars Express will take over and downlink the Beagle transmissions to the Lander Operations Centre in the UK.”

    “What does Mars Express add to the flotilla of other international missions to Mars? Is ESA in competition with NASA?
    Mars Express is complementary to all other mission to Mars. We have established a deep collaboration with the Japanese Naomi mission. We also help NASA with the transmission of data and NASA helps us. ESA is not competing with NASA.”
    http://www.esa.int/export/SPECIALS/Mars_Express/SEMJBQXLDMD_2.html

    Question: Why would data be censored/diverted?
    “The data which Beagle - or the NASA rovers - are to collect may reveal not only whether there is life on Mars but how life started on Earth. "It will the first step to knowing that we are not alone in the universe," Pillinger told the Herald. "To believe that we are the pinnacle of evolution is totally arrogant. If we find life on Mars, we will ... know more about why and how life originated on Earth."
    http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/02/1072908912402.html

    “Working in tandem, the Beagle and Mars Express are meant to look for signs of past or present life on Mars.”
    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/12/28/1072546398421.html

    And to finish, a nice little quote, from late December 2003;
    "I still have a little bit of hesitation to say we have no signal," McKay said at the control center in Darmstadt, south of Frankfurt. "I'm sure the Beagle is down there. I'm sure it's trying to communicate with something."
    Perhaps, Mars Odyssey may be the “hijacking” vehicle?
     
  11. Feb 3, 2004 #10
    Yes those are very outrageous and more than crazy claims. If Spirit or Opportunity would have not confirmed a landing, NASA scientists for days would be in a state of denial, trying everything they could have to figuring out what happening and staying upbeat as possible. The Beagle would have radioed back on its own within an hour of its landing if it was ok. That would have been before a spacecraft had a chance to get to it. And remember, Odyssey can only listen for a signal, not talk to it (totally different communications packages). That was one thing that worried ESA was that Odyssey wouldn't have been compatible enough to hear what was there anyhow. There would be no reason to censor data. If they would have found life on Mars (past or living and this goes for NASA too) the budget increase would be good for both ESA and NASA and probably Japan's space program too. I don't think someone could take over a space probe. You need nice large dishes and exact position plus working knowledge of the spacecraft's communications and computer systems (they would be encrypted of course; it's not like every computer can talk to every other in the world just because). I believe that the landing just went awry. But think about the landing they had to do. This is the first British attempt to land a Mars probe plus do it with airbags and a heave impact like that. Plus they had like a 10th of the budget NASA had for their rovers, PLUS NASA has already used the airbag method before and knew what worked. So the ESA doesn't luck out on this on. They are on their way to working on Beagle's replacement and they'll do what they need to modify and improve so that they get it right the next time. Stop being paranoid.
     
  12. Feb 4, 2004 #11
    You are correct about the Airbags! The timscale that Beagle team were trying to meet dealt one major blow to the construction and testing of the Parashute deployment. I n the preceding year of launch, the manufacture's went along to NASA'S huge Vacuum Chamber to test shute deployment in a 'Mars Atmosphere' enviroment.

    The shute Exploded into shreds in a fraction of a second. It is well known that the shute and Airbag manufacture's deadlines meant there was no room for any retesting due to the launch date fast approaching. The problem of Shute survive-ability was taken on trust only, they hastely had to make changes to the shute's construction, but could not get another test in the NASA vacuum chamber.

    There was great expectations that the most dangerous part of the mission, entry and shute deployment was actually the LEAST? Tested of the craft by its component manufacture's due to the Unforseen shute disaster at NASA vacuum test centre.

    Of course there is also the Fact that Nasa's own survive-ability was fast appraoching a crucial phase due to the shuttle disaster and conspirators would have to make a connection of why NASA's vacuum chamber test of their competitor's most crucial component (shute) predated the shuttle disaster by some months.

    The great thing conspiracy theorists have is a BBC documentary team have been filming the whole of Beagle's progress (including the Vacuum chamber incedent). I do not hold to such theories, but having re-examined the documentary. I do contend that the NASA technicians at the test facility were doing a good job at keeping the shute technicians as far away from the Vacuum Control Console as possible!

    Was there diliberation and Sabotage at this Facility?..who knows, its a 'big wheel' though and Nature always wins, some say that for every bad deed there is a corresponding moment somwhere in the future of those who intentionally interject such bad deeds, some conspiritors would say that Nature has an 'EYE FOR AN EYE', and the Shuttle problem on re-entry mirrored the 'Beagle's' failiure to enter Mars atmosphere due to some intentional interjection by parties Unknown?
     
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2004
  13. Feb 4, 2004 #12
    Well lets not go so far to say that Nature has an "eye for an eye" attitude. The fact is, reentry is hard; here on earth, on Mars, and I KNOW for the Huygens probe expected to land on Titan early next year. You have to deal with a lot of factors like heat, g-forces, and stress to components. Before the Rovers even launched, NASA did their own testing (using the same airbag setup as Pathfinder) and found that their shute shredded and their airbags popped under the weight of the Rover (more weight of Rover and landing craft than in Pathfinder). They had to strenghen the shute AND the airbags to handle the load...and this was proven technology. Now imagine ESA trying to build an airbag delivery system from scratch using their own specifications and design. They basically threw the die and took their chances. All landing systems have their risks. You can see that with the Mars Polar Lander that made fireworks on Mars after shutting off its reentry engines early due to faulty height detection hardware. ESA is in a steep learning curve with landings. NASA has had some experiense in the past. ESA will eventually get it right.

    P.S If you were a technician at NASA's Vacuum Chamber, would you want a bunch of nervous, jittery scientists and engineers standing over your equipment controls? Hell no! I would let the technicians do their jobs and let ESA's experts look but not touch. It's not like they would know what do push.
     
  14. Feb 4, 2004 #13
    I agree 100%, not wanting to jump the gun for what happened to Beagle, but I am assuming the Shute failed, and Beagle came crashing down, its as simple as that,IMHO.

    Nasa's two missions currently ongoing, will hopefully keep those of us who are dissapointed by Beagle failings, on the edge of our seats, and I hope these missions are a complete success.
     
  15. Feb 4, 2004 #14
  16. Feb 4, 2004 #15
    To intercept terrorist cell calls ok. But to highjack a Mars probe? There is no theatening nature to a Mars probe. To waste resources on messing with a probe would be unfounded as are your claims. If I really wanted to sabotage the Mars Express/Beagle 2 probe, I would have had both of them fail as in slam into Mars. NASA has no reason to, neither does the ESA. All those scientists wanted all three probes to land successfully because it was massive fact finding mission between the US and Europe. Hell, the Mars Express is working with Sprit to study atmospheric effects. You're just grasping at straws, and taking away from the mission at hand. Out of five probes headed to Mars, two failed. It was bound to happen give the statistics of the past. Two-thirds of all missions failed in one way or another.

    There is always a nutter out there that is paranoid enough to believe in his own lies.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 4, 2004
  17. Feb 5, 2004 #16
    To Protect The High Ground

    Mars Odyssey Orbiter & Beagle 2 Lander (the potential for uplink and hijacking);
    “Pillinger said his team would ask NASA to send a command from its Mars Odyssey orbiter on Tuesday to tell Beagle 2 to switch off its own computer and reload its software. “We are now working on the basis that this is a corrupt system and the only way we might resurrect it is to send such a command and completely reload the software, if it’s still alive,” Pillinger said at a news conference in London.
    “Of course, that is a very dangerous command to send, because if the thing is AWOL, or even if it’s there, it may never respond to it, so it’s pretty much a last resort,” he added.”
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4063699/

    US Spy agencies and Mars (yes, they have been involved);
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3783663/

    Similar anomalies to what happened to Beagle 2 Lander’s SSMM inflight?
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4032243/

    “Possible software glitch
    Among the possible causes: a corruption of its software or computer memory. If the software is awry, NASA can fix it from Earth by beaming patches across more than 100 million miles of space or by rebooting the rover’s computer. But if the problem lies with the rover’s hardware, the situation would be far more grave — perhaps beyond repair.”
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4037528/

    Finding life;
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3077657/

    The name of the documentary about the mission is “Beagle 2 – A Mission To Mars”;
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/05_may/27/beagle2.shtml
    I guess everybody remembers the name and plot of that NASA sponsored movie “Mission To Mars”. Hmmmmm…
    Compare the plot of the Hollywood movie to the quote from Colin Pillinger regarding the purpose of the Beagle 2 Lander mission.
    “The data which Beagle - or the NASA rovers - are to collect may reveal not only whether there is life on Mars but how life started on Earth. "It will the first step to knowing that we are not alone in the universe," Pillinger told the Herald. "To believe that we are the pinnacle of evolution is totally arrogant. If we find life on Mars, we will ... know more about why and how life originated on Earth."
    How similar is that?

    Mars Express and imaging of “The Face”;
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3287135.stm

    Prediction; Mars Express will not return a single image of “The Face”.
     
  18. Feb 5, 2004 #17
    I still don't know what you're getting at. Scientists want to see proof of life on Mars. To cover that up would be stupid. Also, you seem to have put together a list of stories that don't have much connection to each other. So what that NASA asked for a spy agencies help for looking at photos. They have the experience looking down on us. Second, **** happens. Spirit was lucky that it was just a memory glitch and not a hardware problem. But guess what? It's back up and running perfectly! Thirdly, when the command was sent to Beagle (the last hopeless attempt to get ANYTHING from it), it was a last ditch effort. They wanted to send a command for hopes that if Beagle was just twiddling its fingers with its thumb up its ass, that maybe this would help. Success for that working? Almost zero. They are done trying to contact it and the mission was deemed a failure. Even the scientist for the project were not that hopeful. Like I said, you're grasping at straws. Make sure to wear your tin foil hat so NASA doesn't hijack you.

    Also, 10 to 1 odds that Mars Express indeed DOES send back a photo of the "face". We all know it isn't given NASA's Odyssey photos of it showing a weathered messa. God I hate conspiracy kooks. You should have more to do, like HELP the world, not confuse it more.
     
  19. Feb 5, 2004 #18
    Conspiracy?

    Posted by Neutroncount;
    "Also, 10 to 1 odds that Mars Express indeed DOES send back a photo of the "face".
    Mate, I will take those ODDS any day. I bet 100-1 Mars Express never releases a picture of the Face to the public.

    Posted by Neutroncount;
    "We all know it isn't given NASA's Odyssey photos of it showing a weathered messa."
    Geez, I'm glad you know so much more than all the RESPECTED SCIENTISTS and philosophers who claim there to be Martian Artifacts all over the Red Planet (eg. Hoagland, Clarke, Carlotto, Quark (3) etc.).

    Also, just because you consider me a conspiracy theorist (and a dickhead), doesn't mean everybody does.
    If my theories are so "out there", I wonder why I attract so much attention from leaders in various fields. Further to that, I wonder how I've managed to communicate with these experts (who I consider friends - we talk about more than "conspiracies")?

    I've just been asked to expand on the SSMM Hijacking probability by a member of a team intimately involved in the Mars' missions (I won't name which one).
    He seems to think it warrants more investigation.

    So I won't worry about your petty name-calling. Anyway, what did you contribute, besides regurgitating used news-headlines? Genius.
     
    Last edited: Feb 5, 2004
  20. Feb 5, 2004 #19
    Re: Conspiracy?

    You'll still fail.

    So there are more loons like you that look too much into things...

    You're lying through you teeth and you know it.

    That's what YOU have been doing...the latest batch from MSNBC I recall? And of course is just a bunch of **** I've already read and STILL don't see a conspiracy. The Beagle 2 is dead. It's in pieces and you can't accept that. Well boo hoo hoo. Go make your own ****ing probe and see how easy it is.

    Stop criticizing the folks that make the missions come true, weather they fail or not. ESA and NASA work hard.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 5, 2004
  21. Feb 8, 2004 #20
    I'm Lying?????

    Listen mate, you’re quite simply wrong about so many things. You’re way out of your league. Its obvious you have no idea or even a basic grasp of the concepts I’m trying to get across. Let’s go back to your first post on the subject, shall we? You said (I quote).
    neutroncount posted;
    “And remember, Odyssey can only listen for a signal, not talk to it (totally different communications packages). That was one thing that worried ESA was that Odyssey wouldn’t have been compatible enough to hear what was there anyhow.”

    100% WRONG. Aren’t you?
    Refer previous link;
    http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4063699/
    “Pillinger said his team would ask NASA to send a command from its Mars Odyssey orbiter on Tuesday to tell Beagle 2 to switch off its own computer and reload its software.”
    Notice the words “NASA”, “send” and “Mars Odyssey” mate? I know the headline says “Last Resort”, but it PROVES Odyssey had the capability, doesn’t it?

    neutroncount posted;
    “I don’t think someone could take over a space probe.”
    I think I’ve clearly established that it is, in fact, quite easy to do with the right “information” and a relatively cost-effective set-up (even amateurs and criminal organisations have the capability). For an Agency with unlimited assets at it’s disposal. Hell, it’s a breeze…

    A further point about “ABANDONED” satellites or probes, such as Beagle 2 Lander. Think about it people, its like an abandoned car in the middle of a highway. Even a common “crim”, with a basic knowledge of cars, can commandeer a vehicle that is “forgotten” or “stolen”. Often, one does not even need a “key” (eg. “hotwiring”).

    “You can see that with the Mars Polar Lander that made fireworks on Mars after shutting off its reentry engines early due to faulty height detection hardware.”
    Where did you pull this tripe from?

    You are certainly one of the leading specimens of the former class in your quote, printed at the base of your Posts. Well done. Do you want me to keep pointing out your errors?????
    Stop wasting mine (and everybody else’s) time…
    You are the LIAR mate! I think everybody can see that...
    How many times can the same excuse be used? Come on…
    http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/space/astronomy/marspolarlander/991204.html
    “Phantom bleeps” are evidence of “something very funny occurring”;
    http://www.flatoday.com/space/explore/stories/2000a/012800mars.htm
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Beagle 2 Lander's Destiny
  1. Beagle 2 Mars (Replies: 9)

  2. 2 questions (Replies: 4)

  3. 2 bodies (Replies: 3)

  4. Time 2 (Replies: 6)

Loading...