"Operating on the planet's surface would also be a first for Russia’s space agency, Roscosmos, which is a partner in the mission — and which plans to partake in future joint Europe–Russia missions, including a 2020 rover landing on Mars. The Soviet Union came close to success in 1971 with the Mars 3 probe, which failed just 20 seconds after landing on the surface."
First I was excited to become aware of a new human artifact landing on Mars today - but now I'm even more fascinated by how things could've turned out if the Russians had managed to boogie around in an rc car on Mars three decades ahead of NASA...
What would be even more interesting is if USSR managed to make a rover that worked (long enough) on Venus. The longest that we've got was from a stationary lander probe, and it was less than 1 hour - and that was back in 1984.
Would be more amazing if they did the same with Europa. It is by far the most fascinating place in our solar system with the most potential for life outside earth.
The data was not encrypted. It was often the case that the west had access to the data before the Soviets, due to a better network of radio telescopes.
"The carrier signal from Schiaparelli was received by an Indian radio telescope array up until a point late in the the probe's descent sequence, apparently some time after it deployed its parachute.
"We were tracking the signal traced to near the arrivial on the surface of Mars," the mission director said. "We expected it to continue, but clearly it did not. I think we have to recognize this was an experimental setup."
Engineers were not sure the direct radio link from Schiaparelli to Earth would be stable, so ESA's Mars Express and Trace Gas Orbiter spacecraft were recording the carrier signal and detailed telemetry, respectively.
ESA says it will take about 90 minutes for that information to be relayed to Earth and analyzed.
"Let's not jump to conclusions," the mission director said. "We need to look at it, and we need to wait for the next step to get additional data from one of the relay stations... Let's wait for the next step to look at the more complete dataset."
A pet-peeve of mine. While NASA made everyone holding their breath with overpriced RC rovers that scratched a few rocks, ESA had launched a boring orbiter that "just" gave a map of the water concentration on Mars ( http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RrgXNFu0ocA/Sg_ldzogLlI/AAAAAAAAAE... ) <- I had to dig through a PPT to find that map on slide 20.
ESA needs to learn a thing or two from NASA about public relations.
And then choose whether or not to practise these teachings based on space/weight constraints and the type of mission (scientific, in this case).
I'm sure they did think about it for a minute, but I have the feeling that the European public opinion doesn't have a "picture or it didn't happen" attitude.
Maybe the public opinion doesn't need pictures to feel proud of this scientific/engineering feat, but I think policy makers (here: ESA mission managers) should consider the inspiring impact images have on people, especially the youngest.
When I can show a pic to my nephews and say "look, this is from another planet!" their eyes shine. And some of those excited kids could one day do science themselves, and advance our knowledge. I think it's an investment one should consider making, beyond the mere going there and collect rocks (which, of course, is the essential part).
Plus most instruments on ESA nmissions are sponsored by their implementing institutions e.g. Universities, not ESA.
If no sponsor saw scientific benefit in a camera then no camera goes . They also own the data from their instruments, so ESA is restricted in what material it can release during a mission.
> Plus most instruments on ESA nmissions are sponsored by their implementing institutions e.g. Universities, not ESA.
This is true. Regrettably. The instruments are often built using public money and the platforms they sit on are almost always launched using public money, but the affiliated universities get to restrict everyone else's access to the data for years.
I personally know people working at ESA who were denied the right to publish their work and whose conference talks (in the area of interplanetary navigation) were censored by their managers because it was feared that they would reveal too much information which could conceivably be used by scientists from unaffiliated institutions in their research.
Open access is not big in ESA at all. This is a complete opposite of NASA's commitment to keep all data acquired with public money open to the public.
>but I have the feeling that the European public opinion doesn't have a "picture or it didn't happen" attitude
It's more that these things are funded up the EU chain, people deciding it don't even need to get elected (and EU representatives get elected on a different issues) so they probably don't give a shit what the public thinks about them spending their money.
>Also for the European Commissioners are appointed by the elected governments of member states.
Who campaign and are elected on issues totally unrelated to things like this. Basically the public probably doesn't even know it's paying for this until it's reported in the news. At least stuff like this gets debated in the US.
For example if I walked around in my office among 20 people (with higher education and into tech) and ask them what ESA is I doubt 5 would know what it stands for and even less that they are paying for it. Everyone knows what NASA is.
> Who campaign and are elected on issues totally unrelated
Should politicians refuse to do anything that was not in their campaign leaflets?
> For example if I walked around in my office among 20 ...
Try it out.
In my opinion, this is a very unlikely hypothetical. I'm from a country that is not a member of the ESA - never met a person yet that doesn't know what it is, or stands for.
Rosetta in particular caused a lot of excitement, it was on the news a lot, people were following ESA and the lander's accounts on Twitter etc.
>Should politicians refuse to do anything that was not in their campaign leaflets?
No - my point is there is no pressure to improve PR because it's not a voting issue for the people deciding it's funding in EU.
>In my opinion, this is a very unlikely hypothetical.
Just asked 4 next to my desk - only one knew what "ESA" stands for, expected since he's in to that kind of thing - don't feel like disturbing more people :)
>Should politicians refuse to do anything that was not in their campaign leaflets?
It would be great, yes.
They could also ask the public anew when such a thing emerges...
>In my opinion, this is a very unlikely hypothetical. I'm from a country that is not a member of the ESA - never met a person yet that doesn't know what it is, or stands for.
For real? Where did you ask, inside the ESA headquarters?
The average EU citizen has absolutely no idea what ESA is or does.
>Source? a good percentage of the people I know from Europe does.
Well, I don't just know people from Europe, I am from Europe.
Me too. My "Source?" question is still standing.
Computer programmers and geeky types are not representative of the general population.
That's not the people I referred to when talking of who knows about ESA.
>They should refuse to do anything that was against (or far from what was in) their program. Leaflets hardly reflect all of a candidate's program.
Maybe they should though? Why allow for non approved/requested by the public policy changes that they come up on their own?
Leaflets are small pieces of information that are supposed to be simple and direct. Do you expect details on NASA funding in an A5 piece of papers that barely contains a face and a slogan (and perhaps a few phone numbers and a Twitter handle)?
Even better, ask in a direct democratic way for anything not in the program (yeah, within reason -- they could do trivial things and directing).
Ask any political scientist why this is not a good idea.
What source exactly do you ask for? Some official poll giving the relative recognizability of European organizations and agencies?
Yes. That would give a more accurate figure than my or your limited people network.
Your source was having talked to some people from Europe. My experience is the direct opposite, by the facts that:...
Your people network and my network, again, are not representative and should not be taken as fact but is just anecdotal. The other three facts only show that ESA is less known than NASA to the average European. Your claim was stronger, and I quote you: "The average EU citizen has absolutely no idea what ESA is or does."
Funding decisions are made by the EU and by member states [0]. Given the executive and legislative structure of the EU and of its states, budget does involve decisions made by elected people.
Decisions in administrative sense maybe, but my point is that it's not a topic that comes up in the election at all - unlike NASA in the US - so there is 0 incentive to sell it to the public.
Does NASA come up in presidential elections, mid-term elections, or state governor elections?
Given that the US is a federation and the EU is a union, I would not expect European elections (which are parliamentary) to mention that, as each country selects its MPs for representation in the EU parliament.
Besides, I didn't hear NASA mentioned in the Clinton/Trump debate so far, though I didn't follow it closely.
Although the lander does not have a camera, the rover, due to launch in 2020 as part of the ExoMars mission, does have a panoramic camera system. (It also has other imaging devices.) [1]
Do people really believe moon landing was faked? Serious question by the way, I thought it was a conspiracy for tin foil hats and not a serious theory.
I'm pretty dismayed to re-visit this comment a few days later and realize people didn't get my sarcasm. I always forget the tinfoil _also_ blocks sarcasm.
Considering the publication in Nature, you'd think there would be a greater scientific aspect to this mission. Instead it's a proof of concept test of a landing system, and that's about all.
So, it isn't responding. There is one thing I never understood. Why first step to anywhere is not a communication satellite. Why do we have to directly talk to anything in Solar System. We have probes to Jupiter and we talk to them with dishes from the ground on Earth.
Same goes for launching everything from Earth, but there I assume, things are a little bit more complex.
Anyhow, there should be satellites around Moon and Mars at least, that act as relay stations. In case of landings on Mars, let us watch live (with delay) landings. I guess until Musk and Bezos start doing things, emphasis on first one, we will not have good space program.
First I was excited to become aware of a new human artifact landing on Mars today - but now I'm even more fascinated by how things could've turned out if the Russians had managed to boogie around in an rc car on Mars three decades ahead of NASA...