The Search For Beagle 2

Technical Contributors

Stuart Hurst, Colin Pillinger, Jim Clemmet, Lutz Richter, Dave Northey, Lester Waugh,

Image Analysis by Guy Rennie

Mars Images Courtesy Mike Malin

All Rights Reserved Beagle 2

area shown in slide 7

Main Crater

Has The Beagle Landed?

Beagle 2 Landing Site Falls within Predicted Pre & Post Ejection Landing Ellipse

Pre Ejection Ellipse

Post Ejection Ellipse

Now You See it… And You Still Do!

To further strengthen the case for a Beagle 2 landing site, image anomalies can be discounted in a number of ways.Perhaps most convincingly by the fact that the ‘objects’ are visible in both the 1.5m resolution and 0.5m resolutionimages taken several weeks apart. The 0.5m resolution on the right being the most recent and on which the basisof this image analysis report is based.

1.5m/pixel resolution 0.5m/pixel resolution

Unique Evidence of a Landing Site over entire Landing EllipseComparison ‘Control Crater’

Area approximately 0.5 km²

The ‘control’ cratertypifies craters in the region of our Beagle candidate site. Dustfilled and featureless.

Our candidate site crateras can be seen from themain image is unique, withkey features such as impactejecta and the symmetricalarrangement of objects inthe centre of the bowl.

Despite an exhaustive detailedmanual grid based imageinterpretation these features have not been seen anywhere else in the landing ellipse, Some 141 km².

In the main image the dust channels built up around the SW side of the main crater (out of view) are clearly visible.The proximity of our candidate crater (already formed prior to Beagle’s ‘possible’ impact) to the channels, would resultin deep deposits of dust within the crater, cushioning the impact of a delayed chute deployment and providing the ejecta material clearly visible around the impact point and breaking over the NNW edge of the crater rim.

Control

Candidate

Main Dust Channels

Ejecta traces breaking out over the rim of crater

Impact point into the outer sloping side of existing crater wall

Objects in centre of crater bowl do have symmetrical arrangement at time of image.

Beagle 2 Landing Site?_ Crater impact and objects in symmetry

Circular lightcoloured orreflective object in centre ofimpact point

Ejecta visibly projectsover 6.5m beyondcrater rim

Highlighted area indicates deeper areas and channelsof dust, built up around the base of the main crater slope by prevailing wind

Beagle candidate

crater

Small duneridges Main

Crater

Prevailing

wind

Local TopographyInverted image for clarity

Beagle 2 Landing Site?_ Crater impact and objects in symmetry_inverted image light = dark

Ejecta traces

Possible collapsed main chute.

FIRST IMPACT

Apparent circularobject at centre ofImpact.

Ejecta spread extending up & around crater rim

Disturbed top surface.Potential causes:• secondary direct impact• bounce from first impact

Circular depressions and/ordisturbed top surface.Possible final stage in craterbounces

Degraded crater wall, dust infillStrong indicators of structuresin symmetrical layout plausiblewith Beagle 2 componentsIncluding:• Separated gasbag segments x 3• Lander, unopened or partially opened.• Backcover/heatshield

Objects are casting shadow according to sun angle (therefore they are not image artefacts). Object at 9 o’clock position in cluster indicates a concave circular top or circular object with raised rim.

Virtual Analytics Ltd

Beagle 2 Landing Site?_ Object dimensions_inverted image light = dark

Virtual Analytics Ltd

19.5m

18.5 m

a

bc

d

ef

g

h

i

Existing crater is approximately 18.5 x 19.5 meters

Object sizes as follows:

a = circular object/feature within first impact point ~1m diameter

ax= Primary impact area 8m x 4m

ay= Ejecta range = 6.5m beyond crater rim

b = Possible gas bag aprox. <1.5m x 1m

c = Possible gas bag aprox. <1m x 1m

d = Possible gas bag aprox. <1.25m x 0.75m

e,f,g,h, = Possible Beagle lander & unfolded solar panels sizes all approximately <1m in diameter

i = Possible semi deployed/deployed chute <7m x 4m

c’ = This object indicates 3 non-natural options.Object appears circular in cross section Appears to have either a concave top or ridge aroundcircumference suggesting the following:

1. Semi deflated gas bag segment2. Inside of aeroshell or backcover3. Unopened/partially opened Beagle Lander

c’

ax

ay

Beagle? Gas Bags?

The photograph below illustrates how the gasbag ‘ball’ will separate into 3 separate segments, dropping the lander (held centrally) to the ground.

Following separation these will deflate and deformover time presenting different shapes as a result of movement around the crater, rest position (relativeto structural seams) and potential damage from Impact.

In the crater image above we see structuresvery indicative of separated & deformed gas bag segments with the lander. Is the scene on the right repeated on Mars above?

Virtual Analytics Ltd All rights reserved Beagle 2

Virtual Analytics Ltd

Beagle 2 Landing Site. Object viability against image artefacts or rocks_inverted image light = dark

• Surface around crater is predominantly flat, smooth and clear of rocks.

• Image noise/artefacts consistent outside of the crater but not present inside crater.

• Crater basin is generally smooth and will be dust filled due to proximity of dust channels.

• Object characteristics in crater centre are unique having not been seen repeated in thousands of manually screened craters throughout MOC and cProto imagery

• Objects have shadows consistent with sun angle

• When viewed in false stereo impression of genuine 3D structure is strengthened

• Fresh impact point at upper wall of crater producing ejecta. This is consistent with MER-A front shield impact in Bonneville crater.

• Neighbouring ‘control’ craters present no similarities further confirming unique characteristics of this site.

• Objects are not consistent with regions rocks, nor consistent with crater wall rockslide

1. Beagle makes vertical decent within lateral air mass movement. I.e. DescendingVertically but moving laterally with air mass 2. Beagle within gas bag ball makes first contact with Martian

surface (A), landing is near vertical with a lateral component, landingis into sloping crater wall dissipating impact, force still potentiallysignificant to cause gas bag damage or failure, results in significantejecta and surface disturbance

3. Gas bag cluster makes lateral acceleration out of first impact, potentially damaged or failed gasbag/s results in increased loads as it makes second impact (B).

4. Still maintaining lateral speed now with a spin component the cluster makes a short spin ricochet along crater wall before‘ejecting’ out across crater from angled ‘corner’ in crater wall (C)

5. High risk of partial to complete gas bag failure/deflation out of last bounce, trajectory across crater having gained height out of last impact, could be with little to no effectivegas bags protection

6. Downward spinning impact onto deflated segment/s produces another short distance spin ricochet into finalcontact with crater wall (D-E)

AB

C

7. Final bounce into crater wall (E) ontodeflated/or causing deflation of gas bagsegment, speed is lost and cluster rollsdown into crater bowl (F)

D

E

F

Beagle 2 Evidential Landing ScenarioInverted for clarity

8. Partial programmed sequence executes successfully, gas bag segments separate dropping lander to ground. Severity of in-craterbounces damages lander, it does not deploy.

Virtual Analytics Ltd

Among many thousands of craters and hundreds of square miles of Beagle 2’slanding ellipse, no other candidate site has come close to providing such compelling evidence of Beagle’s landing.

We have an impact ejecta similar to the one produced by MER-A’s frontshield in the Bonneville crater and a cluster of symmetrically arranged objectsthat match a successful gas bag segment separation, dropping the lander tothe ground. Supporting this we have detailed evaluations of multiple scenarios that fit the evidence available within the imagery.

It is fitting that on the 2nd anniversary of Beagle’s last sighting during ejection fromMars Express, that we can announce we have very strong credible evidence of itspartially successful landing on Mars. Evidence that possibly due to extraordinary fateBeagle landed into the wall of a crater, sustaining critical damage.

Our objective now is to verify this evidence in higher resolution imagery in a dedicatedsortie. NASA (R.Zurek) has promised to use MRO and its HiRise camera (20cm/pixel) to imagepotential Beagle impact sites after arrival in orbit Nov. 2006

Verification of this evidence and subsequent evaluation of what went wrong is vitalto the understanding and success of future missions.

Conclusion