https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/survive-mars

Free course starts on Monday.

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/survive-mars

Free course starts on Monday.

Sounds like something Careers Australia would have offered…

poikilotherm said:

ChrispenEvan said:

https://www.futurelearn.com/courses/survive-mars

Free course starts on Monday.

Sounds like something Careers Australia would have offered…

Well, we are expected to use our initiative and all start our own businesses. Even if we are dead, get up off the bed and work.

When is Schiaparelli landing on Mars. Some time today. Has it already landed?
When?

mollwollfumble said:

When is Schiaparelli landing on Mars. Some time today. Has it already landed?
When?

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/722606/Schiaparelli-live-watch-mars-esa-european-space-agency

http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival

mollwollfumble said:

When is Schiaparelli landing on Mars. Some time today. Has it already landed?
When?

Found it, sort of. Live footage of the landing starts in 5 hrs 30 min.

http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival

http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival

Is active right now.

mollwollfumble said:

http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival

Is active right now.

The TGO has completed its orbit insertion manoeuvre, and appeared from behind Mars at the correct time.

mollwollfumble said:

http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival

Is active right now.

The TGO has completed its orbit insertion manoeuvre, and appeared from behind Mars at the correct time.

The EDM (Exomars Descent Module) has deployed its parachute. We won’t have final conformation of safe landing until two hours from now.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival

Is active right now.

The TGO has completed its orbit insertion manoeuvre, and appeared from behind Mars at the correct time.

The EDM (Exomars Descent Module) has deployed its parachute. We won’t have final conformation of safe landing until two hours from now.

The first part of the live interviews, videos and announcements of what is happening at Mars has just finished. We’re back to a view of the control room. Next round of interviews, videos and announcements will start at 18:25 UTC, in 1 hour 16 minutes from now. goodnight at 5:09 AM, Melbourne time. Goodnight.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival

Is active right now.

The TGO has completed its orbit insertion manoeuvre, and appeared from behind Mars at the correct time.

The EDM (Exomars Descent Module) has deployed its parachute. We won’t have final conformation of safe landing until two hours from now.

Replay of landing on now. TGO in its 4 day orbit. Within a few percent of planned.
Radio telescope in India saw descent phase – signal stopped unexpectedly.
Mars Express same – signal stopped unexpectedly before landing. Not a good sign.

More processing required to find out what has happened. Press conference 10 am CEST.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

http://livestream.com/ESA/marsarrival

Is active right now.

The TGO has completed its orbit insertion manoeuvre, and appeared from behind Mars at the correct time.

The EDM (Exomars Descent Module) has deployed its parachute. We won’t have final conformation of safe landing until two hours from now.

Replay of landing on now. TGO in its 4 day orbit. Within a few percent of planned.
Radio telescope in India saw descent phase – signal stopped unexpectedly.
Mars Express same – signal stopped unexpectedly before landing. Not a good sign.

More processing required to find out what has happened. Press conference 10 am CEST.

Thanks Moll, watched all that.
TGO good, lander crashed and burnt probably.

Deja vu, Beagle 2.

Divine Angel said:

Deja vu, Beagle 2.

Seems that way

maybe the Americans zapped it

delay tactics

maybe ESA should land things on Earth properly before landing on mars

CrazyNeutrino said:

maybe ESA should land things on Earth properly before landing on mars

2 attempts now and failed

Did they perform a decent test on Earth ?

maybe they should do that

ExoMars Mission: What happened to the Schiaparelli lander?

Schiaparelli, the lander craft that forms part of the ExoMars mission to find life on Mars, is missing.

More…

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

maybe ESA should land things on Earth properly before landing on mars

2 attempts now and failed

Did they perform a decent test on Earth ?

maybe they should do that

Martian conditions are very different from Earth.

I wouldn’t be too hard on ESA. Their recent Rosetta mission counts as one of the great space missions so far.

Hopefully they’ll learn enough from this Mars fail to ensure that their Mars rover succeeds.

Bubblecar said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

maybe ESA should land things on Earth properly before landing on mars

2 attempts now and failed

Did they perform a decent test on Earth ?

maybe they should do that

Martian conditions are very different from Earth.

I realize that

Opportunity was close to where the ESA lander was coming in, it had it’s cameras pointed in that direction so it may have pics.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/lost-skier-survived-on-mars-bar-and-snow-1574207.html

CrazyNeutrino said:

ExoMars Mission: What happened to the Schiaparelli lander?

Schiaparelli, the lander craft that forms part of the ExoMars mission to find life on Mars, is missing.

More…

unfortunate

CrazyNeutrino said:

ExoMars Mission: What happened to the Schiaparelli lander?

Schiaparelli, the lander craft that forms part of the ExoMars mission to find life on Mars, is missing.

More…

Probably been dragged below the surface, where they’re trying to attach their latest anal probe as we speak.

On original topic “how to survive on Mars” have had three thoughts.

1. Greenhouses ought to work perfectly on Mars, even better on Mars than on Earth because of lower heat loss due to atmospheric convection.

2. No reason why we can’t eat lichen on Mars. Reindeer eat lichen. Lichen provides nutrition from both plant matter and mushroom-like matter. Some lichens grow faster than others.

3. Most batteries fail both when they’re too cold and when they’re too hot. But I see no reason why a battery couldn’t be designed to fail at ambient Earth temperatures but work at low temperature like the ambient temperature on Mars. Many organic solvents have melting points below the temperature of Mars night (-73 Celsius). Such as acetone, acetaldehyde, CFCs, ethanethiol, etc.

On Schiaparelli,
I’d have two questions.

1) was there a dust storm at the time of descent and if so did they measure the atmospheric electrification?

2) was there any attempt to view the descent from either an orbiting spacecraft or from the nearby Opportunity Rover?

mollwollfumble said:

On Schiaparelli,
I’d have two questions.

1) was there a dust storm at the time of descent and if so did they measure the atmospheric electrification?

2) was there any attempt to view the descent from either an orbiting spacecraft or from the nearby Opportunity Rover?

2) See post ID: 970677

Telemetry analysed so far indicates that the parachute was jettisoned too early, and the landing rockets fired for too short a time. The ESA is still trying to contact it, hoping that it’s more-or-less intact.

And so it is that after more than 50 years of Mars exploration, NASA remains the only agency to have a successful surface mission on Mars.

dv said:

And so it is that after more than 50 years of Mars exploration, NASA remains the only agency to have a successful surface mission on Mars.

It’s getting a bit ridiculous.

How to survive on Mars?

Go to the loo before you leave. There are no toilets on Mars.

Woodie said:

How to survive on Mars?

Go to the loo before you leave. There are no toilets on Mars.

Sound advice. If you just “go outside” on Mars, it will immediately turn into vapour and fog up your space helmet.

dv said:

And so it is that after more than 50 years of Mars exploration, NASA remains the only agency to have a successful surface mission on Mars.

funny that. hmmmm?

:-)

Bubblecar said:

dv said:

And so it is that after more than 50 years of Mars exploration, NASA remains the only agency to have a successful surface mission on Mars.

It’s getting a bit ridiculous.

they should have tested its decent on Earth before resetting it and deploying it to mars

they say the parachute detached too early and the rockets fired for too short a duration

which would mean a heavy to very heavy landing

ChrispenEvan said:

dv said:

And so it is that after more than 50 years of Mars exploration, NASA remains the only agency to have a successful surface mission on Mars.

funny that. hmmmm?

:-)

They are zapping spacecraft as they come down

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

On Schiaparelli,
I’d have two questions.

1) was there a dust storm at the time of descent and if so did they measure the atmospheric electrification?

2) was there any attempt to view the descent from either an orbiting spacecraft or from the nearby Opportunity Rover?

2) See post ID: 970677

Um, how do I do that?

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

On Schiaparelli,
I’d have two questions.

1) was there a dust storm at the time of descent and if so did they measure the atmospheric electrification?

2) was there any attempt to view the descent from either an orbiting spacecraft or from the nearby Opportunity Rover?

2) See post ID: 970677

Um, how do I do that?

Trying tokyo3.org/forums/holiday/posts/970677/
“Opportunity was close to where the ESA lander was coming in, it had it’s cameras pointed in that direction so it may have pics.”

Ta.

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

On Schiaparelli,
I’d have two questions.

1) was there a dust storm at the time of descent and if so did they measure the atmospheric electrification?

2) was there any attempt to view the descent from either an orbiting spacecraft or from the nearby Opportunity Rover?

2) See post ID: 970677

Um, how do I do that?

——
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 970677
Subject: re: How to survive on Mars
Opportunity was close to where the ESA lander was coming in, it had it’s cameras pointed in that direction so it may have pics.

tauto said:

mollwollfumble said:

Peak Warming Man said:

2) See post ID: 970677

Um, how do I do that?

——
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 970677
Subject: re: How to survive on Mars
Opportunity was close to where the ESA lander was coming in, it had it’s cameras pointed in that direction so it may have pics.

Maybe ESA should makes things that work after a crash?

Tough things

CrazyNeutrino said:

tauto said:

mollwollfumble said:

Um, how do I do that?

——
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 970677
Subject: re: How to survive on Mars
Opportunity was close to where the ESA lander was coming in, it had it’s cameras pointed in that direction so it may have pics.

Maybe ESA should makes things that work after a crash?

Tough things

I don’t see the point of bashing around sensitive instruments

Make them tough!

What speed was it traveling at when it hit ground?

Beagle 1 crashed

now this crash

were they the ones that built that satellite that bounced a a kilometer off and then crashed on that asteroid?

I would first send down a smaller craft that sends its telemetry to an orbiting spacecraft

then after its telemetry has been verified, then send down the main craft.

CrazyNeutrino said:

I would first send down a smaller craft that sends its telemetry to an orbiting spacecraft

then after its telemetry has been verified, then send down the main craft.

a smaller craft could follow the main craft a bit further back, its purpose would be to verify positions and rate of decent etc

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I would first send down a smaller craft that sends its telemetry to an orbiting spacecraft

then after its telemetry has been verified, then send down the main craft.

a smaller craft could follow the main craft a bit further back, its purpose would be to verify positions and rate of decent etc

and what would that achieve?

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

I would first send down a smaller craft that sends its telemetry to an orbiting spacecraft

then after its telemetry has been verified, then send down the main craft.

a smaller craft could follow the main craft a bit further back, its purpose would be to verify positions and rate of decent etc

and what would that achieve?

first craft would send its telemetry to the orbiting spacecraft

once confirmed, by scientists on Earth better estimates would be programed into the main craft

a third following craft would confirm positions, it would also confirm parachute deployment and length of parachute deployment

this would aid in better estimates for the duration of the the fire for the front firing rocket which would also have front radar to adjust the burn time

the third craft would aid the main craft to land by providing better estimates of burn burning time for the front rocket

three positions Orbiter, Main craft, and following craft would provide better calculations for accuracy

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

a smaller craft could follow the main craft a bit further back, its purpose would be to verify positions and rate of decent etc

and what would that achieve?

first craft would send its telemetry to the orbiting spacecraft

once confirmed, by scientists on Earth better estimates would be programed into the main craft

a third following craft would confirm positions, it would also confirm parachute deployment and length of parachute deployment

this would aid in better estimates for the duration of the the fire for the front firing rocket which would also have front radar to adjust the burn time

the third craft would aid the main craft to land by providing better estimates of burn burning time for the front rocket

three positions Orbiter, Main craft, and following craft would provide better calculations for accuracy

There would be a better system for sure,

there is no radio communication with a space craft on entry to an atmosphere due to the ionization of the air due to the heat induced plasma. so no radar. also it really over-complicates the mission to have three craft. much more to go wrong.

ChrispenEvan said:

there is no radio communication with a space craft on entry to an atmosphere due to the ionization of the air due to the heat induced plasma. so no radar. also it really over-complicates the mission to have three craft. much more to go wrong.

this is why the third craft follows the main craft

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

there is no radio communication with a space craft on entry to an atmosphere due to the ionization of the air due to the heat induced plasma. so no radar. also it really over-complicates the mission to have three craft. much more to go wrong.

this is why the third craft follows the main craft

for what reason? it can’t do anything apart from relay either success or failure. unless you mean build two craft the same in case the first fails. then the cost of getting them there goes up cos you need more fuel and a bigger rocket to get them off earth.

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

there is no radio communication with a space craft on entry to an atmosphere due to the ionization of the air due to the heat induced plasma. so no radar. also it really over-complicates the mission to have three craft. much more to go wrong.

this is why the third craft follows the main craft

the radar is used once the craft of out of the plasma field

the following craft would be virtually right behind it

twenty meters or so

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

there is no radio communication with a space craft on entry to an atmosphere due to the ionization of the air due to the heat induced plasma. so no radar. also it really over-complicates the mission to have three craft. much more to go wrong.

this is why the third craft follows the main craft

for what reason? it can’t do anything apart from relay either success or failure. unless you mean build two craft the same in case the first fails. then the cost of getting them there goes up cos you need more fuel and a bigger rocket to get them off earth.

to validate calculations

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

this is why the third craft follows the main craft

for what reason? it can’t do anything apart from relay either success or failure. unless you mean build two craft the same in case the first fails. then the cost of getting them there goes up cos you need more fuel and a bigger rocket to get them off earth.

to validate calculations

what calculations? they’ve probably got a pretty good grip on newtonian physics. this failure looks like a hardware failure. mars is really difficult to land on due to its thin atmosphere.

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

for what reason? it can’t do anything apart from relay either success or failure. unless you mean build two craft the same in case the first fails. then the cost of getting them there goes up cos you need more fuel and a bigger rocket to get them off earth.

to validate calculations

what calculations? they’ve probably got a pretty good grip on newtonian physics. this failure looks like a hardware failure. mars is really difficult to land on due to its thin atmosphere.

why keep sending test crash craft to mars?

then you can test crash them here

cheaper too

CrazyNeutrino said:

why keep sending test crash craft to mars?

then you can test crash them here

cheaper too

Successfully landing on Earth is no indicator of a successful landing on Mars.

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

to validate calculations

what calculations? they’ve probably got a pretty good grip on newtonian physics. this failure looks like a hardware failure. mars is really difficult to land on due to its thin atmosphere.

why keep sending test crash craft to mars?

then you can test crash them here

cheaper too

i have told you why landing on mars is difficult.

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

why keep sending test crash craft to mars?

then you can test crash them here

cheaper too

Successfully landing on Earth is no indicator of a successful landing on Mars.

testing those systems to deploy successfully first should be a first mission target

working out telemetry of a descending spacecraft should not be guesswork it needs to be done in real time

calculations should allow for weather conditions, decent speed, angle, surface position, ongoing position of main craft, etc

in this case, the parachute deployed for a short duration, so the front rocket should have fired for longer

I see the second craft as providing information for validation, it can be a much smaller craft

ChrispenEvan said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

ChrispenEvan said:

what calculations? they’ve probably got a pretty good grip on newtonian physics. this failure looks like a hardware failure. mars is really difficult to land on due to its thin atmosphere.

why keep sending test crash craft to mars?

then you can test crash them here

cheaper too

i have told you why landing on mars is difficult.

Yes it has different conditions

you land for those conditions

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

why keep sending test crash craft to mars?

then you can test crash them here

cheaper too

Successfully landing on Earth is no indicator of a successful landing on Mars.

testing those systems to deploy successfully first should be a first mission target

working out telemetry of a descending spacecraft should not be guesswork it needs to be done in real time

calculations should allow for weather conditions, decent speed, angle, surface position, ongoing position of main craft, etc

in this case, the parachute deployed for a short duration, so the front rocket should have fired for longer

I see the second craft as providing information for validation, it can be a much smaller craft

You need to write a letter to NASA putting your case forward for a position as head of the department for the bleeding obvious.

AwesomeO said:

CrazyNeutrino said:

Witty Rejoinder said:

Successfully landing on Earth is no indicator of a successful landing on Mars.

testing those systems to deploy successfully first should be a first mission target

working out telemetry of a descending spacecraft should not be guesswork it needs to be done in real time

calculations should allow for weather conditions, decent speed, angle, surface position, ongoing position of main craft, etc

in this case, the parachute deployed for a short duration, so the front rocket should have fired for longer

I see the second craft as providing information for validation, it can be a much smaller craft

You need to write a letter to NASA putting your case forward for a position as head of the department for the bleeding obvious.

NASA have already worked out how to land on Mars

Its ESA that needs to learn

after two attempts and failure

A bit of validation would not hurt

I wonder how the third attempt will go?

Ill be sitting on the edge of my seat

if the parachute deployed for too short a duration

and the front firing rocket fired a only a few seconds instead of a minute

then someones algorithms must need looking at

CrazyNeutrino said:

if the parachute deployed for too short a duration

and the front firing rocket fired a only a few seconds instead of a minute

then someones algorithms must need looking at

is that what the problem was? the programming? and you know this how?

I know that people think that Beagle was an ESA failure. But strictly speaking it wasn’t. At least three countries in Europe (Britain, Germany and Italy) have space agencies that are separate from the ESA. The Beagle was a specifically British project, without design and construction input from the rest of Europe.

Photo of the crash site. I think that the location of the Opportunity Rover may be shown in the same frame. That looks like Endeavour crater, but I can’t figure out which direction is North.

No. It’s a crater that I’m not familiar with.

Did Opportunity get any pics of the lander coming in?
It did have it’s cameras pointed in that direction on the off chance of some pictures.

mollwollfumble said:

No. It’s a crater that I’m not familiar with.

“The main image covers an area about 4 kilometres wide, at about 2 degrees south latitude, 354 degrees east longitude, in the Meridiani Planum region of Mars. The scale bars are in metres. North is up.”

Well, “2 degrees south latitude, 354 degrees east longitude” is where it was supposed to land. But there’s no crater that size at that location. Imaging quality in that region is awful, so it could be within half a degree, or it could have crashed outside its planned landing ellipse.

mollwollfumble said:

I know that people think that Beagle was an ESA failure. But strictly speaking it wasn’t. At least three countries in Europe (Britain, Germany and Italy) have space agencies that are separate from the ESA. The Beagle was a specifically British project, without design and construction input from the rest of Europe.

Done on the cheap by a couple of universities from memory.

Peak Warming Man said:

Did Opportunity get any pics of the lander coming in?
It did have it’s cameras pointed in that direction on the off chance of some pictures.

Brief update: Opportunity’s attempt to image Schiaparelli unsuccessful

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know that people think that Beagle was an ESA failure. But strictly speaking it wasn’t. At least three countries in Europe (Britain, Germany and Italy) have space agencies that are separate from the ESA. The Beagle was a specifically British project, without design and construction input from the rest of Europe.

Done on the cheap by a couple of universities from memory.

Very foreign universities at that. There was a rumour going around that at some of them the kings english wasn’t the language of choice.

Better luck next time!

Peak Warming Man said:

mollwollfumble said:

I know that people think that Beagle was an ESA failure. But strictly speaking it wasn’t. At least three countries in Europe (Britain, Germany and Italy) have space agencies that are separate from the ESA. The Beagle was a specifically British project, without design and construction input from the rest of Europe.

Done on the cheap by a couple of universities from memory.

An absolute marvel of miniaturisation. It fit more high quality instruments in that tiny package than most landers would in something ten times that mass. As beautiful as a pocket watch, and designed in much the same way.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Did Opportunity get any pics of the lander coming in?
It did have it’s cameras pointed in that direction on the off chance of some pictures.

Brief update: Opportunity’s attempt to image Schiaparelli unsuccessful

That Corby girl does get around.

Of course this gives the US more time to find the location of valuable resources, before other countries do.

CrazyNeutrino said:

Peak Warming Man said:

Did Opportunity get any pics of the lander coming in?
It did have it’s cameras pointed in that direction on the off chance of some pictures.

Brief update: Opportunity’s attempt to image Schiaparelli unsuccessful

“Opportunity imaging was designed to catch Schiaparelli about 10 seconds after parachute deployment, continuing for about 50 seconds. The imaging was designed to see Schiaparelli on its parachute, just after deployment; it was considered possible but unlikely to see backshell separation. However, because of the ridge to Opportunity’s north, the imaging would only have succeeded if Schiaparelli had “gone long” on landing.”

I knew of the ridge, and was worried that Schiaparelli would have been too close to the horizon as to be behind the ridge. Good try, though, especially in view of the expected dust storm. I’m still not sure if Schiaparelli crashed outside its designated landing ellipse.

Giving up on trying to find this crater. It’s about the same size as Victoria crater, but that’s not it. It’s about the same size and shape as a crater just north of the centre of the landing ellipse, but the orientation is wrong. There’s another crater about the same size in the landing ellipse at the far opposite end to the Opportunity Rover, but the satellite imagery isn’t good enough for a direct comparison.

mollwollfumble said:

Photo of the crash site.

mollwollfumble said:

Giving up on trying to find this crater. It’s about the same size as Victoria crater, but that’s not it. It’s about the same size and shape as a crater just north of the centre of the landing ellipse, but the orientation is wrong. There’s another crater about the same size in the landing ellipse at the far opposite end to the Opportunity Rover, but the satellite imagery isn’t good enough for a direct comparison.

mollwollfumble said:

Photo of the crash site.

!http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2016/10/mars_reconnaissance_orbiter_view_of_schiaparelli_landing_site/16194915-1-eng-GB/Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter_view_of_Schiaparelli_landing_site_large.gif

Can you write an algorithm using that image of the crater?

CrazyNeutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

Giving up on trying to find this crater. It’s about the same size as Victoria crater, but that’s not it. It’s about the same size and shape as a crater just north of the centre of the landing ellipse, but the orientation is wrong. There’s another crater about the same size in the landing ellipse at the far opposite end to the Opportunity Rover, but the satellite imagery isn’t good enough for a direct comparison.

mollwollfumble said:

Photo of the crash site.

!http://www.esa.int/var/esa/storage/images/esa_multimedia/images/2016/10/mars_reconnaissance_orbiter_view_of_schiaparelli_landing_site/16194915-1-eng-GB/Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter_view_of_Schiaparelli_landing_site_large.gif

Can you write an algorithm using that image of the crater?

using that image to find the same image using reverse searching?

CrazyNeutrino said:

mollwollfumble said:

Giving up on trying to find this crater. It’s about the same size as Victoria crater, but that’s not it. It’s about the same size and shape as a crater just north of the centre of the landing ellipse, but the orientation is wrong. There’s another crater about the same size in the landing ellipse at the far opposite end to the Opportunity Rover, but the satellite imagery isn’t good enough for a direct comparison.

Can you write an algorithm using that image of the crater?

using that image to find the same image using reverse searching?

Here’s the problem so far, perhaps you can take it from here.
There is no large-scale web image of Schiaparelli’s landing ellipse. But from the small scale one available it is virtually identical to Opportunity’s landing ellipse.
The most detailed web image of Opportunity’s landing ellipse is:
http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/24/MER_B_Ellipse_25m.gif
North is up. Endeavour Crater, where Opportunity now is, is the quadeant at the tower right edge of this image.

I was looking for a crater about 700 * 800 metres diameter within or near that landing ellipse. Victoria Crater, visited by Opportunity, is the right size but the wrong shape. It’s the most clearly defined crater NW of the centre of Endeavour Crater a little below the lower right edge of the landing ellipse. So I was looking for other craters of similar size to Victoria Crater. Perhaps you can find some on that image. The main problem is that image quality is very inconsistent. Poor image quality makes the sharp edges of the crater look more blurred, like dimples. It’s bad enough on the image above. It’s even worse on Google Mars.

Starts today. excited.

ChrispenEvan said:

Starts today. excited.

Yay.

Schiaparelli may have crashed due to computer glitch

The European Space Agency and Roscosmos’s ExoMars lander may have crashed due to a computer glitch.

More…

2nd week done. was on energy production. last week was water. some good discussions. everybody seems very sensible.

ChrispenEvan said:

2nd week done. was on energy production. last week was water. some good discussions. everybody seems very sensible.

—-

pfft, how to get to mars without enough radiation to give you cancer early, would be my main concern.

• pfft, how to get to mars without enough radiation to give you cancer early, would be my main concern.

Would it help if they put a magnetic field around the craft? Can they do that without screwing up onboard electronics?

furious said:

• pfft, how to get to mars without enough radiation to give you cancer early, would be my main concern.

Would it help if they put a magnetic field around the craft? Can they do that without screwing up onboard electronics?

would need to be pretty strong and then you’d need to power it. best are probably plastics and/or water.

Bump.

may come in handy.

3rd week: Oxygen.

ChrispenEvan said:

Bump.

may come in handy.

3rd week: Oxygen.

No need. Mars has come to earth today.. Better start storing oxygen.