So, Phoenix is now resting safely on Mars. With that, the lander tally stands like this (years based on launch, and only including landers that actually departed earth (or earth orbit). Mars-6 is the only failed lander that transmitted from the atmosphere during decent but never sent a signal from the surface.
1971 Mars-2 (failed)
Mars-3 (failed 90 seconds after touchdown)
1973 Mars 6 (failed, but sent back atmospheric data on the way down).
Mars 7 (failed - missed)
1975 Viking 1
Viking 2
1996 Pathfinder/Sojourner
1998 Mars Polar Lander/Two DS-2 Probes (failed)
Present
2003 Spirit
Opportunity
Beagle 2 (failed)
2007 Phoenix
Future - I am only listing firmly scheduled projects. The Metnet lander passed its drop tests. The precursor mission will fly on a stand-alone mission in 2011. It will only carry one lander, instead of the hoped-for two or three, so that it can launch on a SeaLaunch converted ICBM.
2009 Mars Science Laboratory
2011 Metnet Precursor
2013 Exomars
If these missions succeed, the next few years could bring us some fascinating Mars science.
Full Version: Future plans
I've just been reading this:
Murray, B. C., Davies, M. E. and Eckman, P. K., 1967. Planetary Contamination II: Soviet and U.S. Practices and Policies. Science, v. 155. no. 3769, pp. 1505-1511, 24 March 1967.
They suggest that if, as seems likely, Zond 2 made a trajectory correction in its first 11 weeks of flight, then it probably impacted on Mars. The carrier spacecraft was not sterilized, which is the main subject of the article. They cite a JPL report which I haven't seen yet, JPL TM-33-336.
Phil
Murray, B. C., Davies, M. E. and Eckman, P. K., 1967. Planetary Contamination II: Soviet and U.S. Practices and Policies. Science, v. 155. no. 3769, pp. 1505-1511, 24 March 1967.
They suggest that if, as seems likely, Zond 2 made a trajectory correction in its first 11 weeks of flight, then it probably impacted on Mars. The carrier spacecraft was not sterilized, which is the main subject of the article. They cite a JPL report which I haven't seen yet, JPL TM-33-336.
Phil
QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Jun 5 2008, 05:43 AM) 
I've just been reading this:
Murray, B. C., Davies, M. E. and Eckman, P. K., 1967. Planetary Contamination II: Soviet and U.S. Practices and Policies. Science, v. 155. no. 3769, pp. 1505-1511, 24 March 1967.
They suggest that if, as seems likely, Zond 2 made a trajectory correction in its first 11 weeks of flight, then it probably impacted on Mars. The carrier spacecraft was not sterilized, which is the main subject of the article. They cite a JPL report which I haven't seen yet, JPL TM-33-336.
Phil
Murray, B. C., Davies, M. E. and Eckman, P. K., 1967. Planetary Contamination II: Soviet and U.S. Practices and Policies. Science, v. 155. no. 3769, pp. 1505-1511, 24 March 1967.
They suggest that if, as seems likely, Zond 2 made a trajectory correction in its first 11 weeks of flight, then it probably impacted on Mars. The carrier spacecraft was not sterilized, which is the main subject of the article. They cite a JPL report which I haven't seen yet, JPL TM-33-336.
Phil
I have always seen that figure given as a 1500 km flyby.
Was there any bio-contamination potential with the Mars Climate Observer?
Tedstryk, where did you find information about MetNet precursor's launch? The official web site at Finnish Meteorological Institute only states that "The launch of the MetNet MMPM Mars Mission will be in 2009 or 2011".
"I have always seen that figure given as a 1500 km flyby."
Yes, but why? Because the Soviets said that was the plan. But this paper suggests that would be the plan after the carrier had deployed its probe on an entry trajectory, and then made a burn to avoid hitting the planet. If the spacecraft fails before probe deployment, there's no burn, the whole vehicle hits the planet.
Phil
Yes, but why? Because the Soviets said that was the plan. But this paper suggests that would be the plan after the carrier had deployed its probe on an entry trajectory, and then made a burn to avoid hitting the planet. If the spacecraft fails before probe deployment, there's no burn, the whole vehicle hits the planet.
Phil
AW&ST june 2nd "Carrying the Fire" by Craig Covault.
In the introduction, Craig reports words of Ed Weiler saying that MSL will be followed by a Martian atmospheric mission in 2013 and another major lander in 2016.
Well, this kinda surprised me but
Anybody ever heard about this "major lander in 2016" ?
In the introduction, Craig reports words of Ed Weiler saying that MSL will be followed by a Martian atmospheric mission in 2013 and another major lander in 2016.
Well, this kinda surprised me but
Anybody ever heard about this "major lander in 2016" ?
Is Phobos-Grunt still planned to be launch next year 2009 ?
QUOTE (climber @ Jun 5 2008, 10:05 AM)
Anybody ever heard about this "major lander in 2016" ?
This could be AFL, but... is there by then any plutonium left for another RTG?
The fact that they settled on the Volna launcher instead of piggybacking on Phobos-Grunt is from correspondence. Here is the most up-to-date document I have seen, reflecting the one-lander precursor.
http://www.space.fmi.fi/metnet-portal/post...et_poster_2.pdf
With regard to Zond-2, I thought that trajectory was based on Jodrell Bank's tracking of the probe until a little while after mid course correction when communications failed.
http://www.space.fmi.fi/metnet-portal/post...et_poster_2.pdf
With regard to Zond-2, I thought that trajectory was based on Jodrell Bank's tracking of the probe until a little while after mid course correction when communications failed.
My bet would be one or two mid-sized rovers or possibly stationary deep drillers, with real sample caching capability for mid next decade. Solar powered.
"With regard to Zond-2, I thought that trajectory was based on Jodrell Bank's tracking of the probe until a little while after mid course correction when communications failed."
That's why the Science paper is so interesting. Jodrell Bank asked the Soviets if it would impact, as their tracking suggested. The reply was - no, it would miss by 1500 km. But the paper argues that this was only going to happen after the impact avoidance burn - it actually was on a collision course. The Zond 2 trajectory was apparently chosen to minimize arrival velocity, rather than to minimize travel time, suggesting it was an atmospheric entry mission. All very interesting - well worth a read. The main point of the paper, that Mars was contaminated, would explain why the Soviets have not promoted this as the first contact.
Phil
That's why the Science paper is so interesting. Jodrell Bank asked the Soviets if it would impact, as their tracking suggested. The reply was - no, it would miss by 1500 km. But the paper argues that this was only going to happen after the impact avoidance burn - it actually was on a collision course. The Zond 2 trajectory was apparently chosen to minimize arrival velocity, rather than to minimize travel time, suggesting it was an atmospheric entry mission. All very interesting - well worth a read. The main point of the paper, that Mars was contaminated, would explain why the Soviets have not promoted this as the first contact.
Phil
Does this mean we can relax about all the planetary protection hysteria? ::ducks::
Well...as my junior-high school biology teacher once said after the Viking landings, "If there wasn't life on Mars before, there is now."
I basically agree with the PPPs, but of course nothing's 100%.
I basically agree with the PPPs, but of course nothing's 100%.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.