Britain's "Bridget" rover hopes to explore Mars

Even though we were pretty sure that the whole "life on Mars" issue had already been settled, scientists are still hell-bent on sending robots to scope out the Red Planet to look for tiny Martians, with the British unveiling a new rover today that promises to school hometown favorites Spirit and Opportunity at that very task. "Bridget," as the six-wheeled bot is known, can supposedly cover in just six months the same 6.2-mile stretch that's taken the American rovers over two years, thanks to a guidance system that allows for greater autonomy and requires less terrestrial control. Designed to compete for a spot on the European Space Agency's planned 2011 ExoMars mission, Bridget sports a two-meter drill, a so-called "life marker chip," and a micro seismometer, among other toots, to help enable the Agency's long-term goal of safely sending humans to our neighbor planet. And because half the battle is just getting there, engineers equipped the new bot with sensors that will let on-board airbags and parachutes guide it to a safer, more controlled landing -- ensuring that Bridget doesn't go MIA like the Beagle 2 rover in 2003, .

[Joel @ Jun 12th 2006 3:23PM]

Hell-bent seems to be a pretty acurate observation. Can I be shiny mars robot, can I, please, pretty please?

[gio @ Jun 12th 2006 3:26PM]

Why Why Why? Let NASA do thier job.

[Gil @ Jun 12th 2006 3:39PM]

Actually the issue of life on Mars is hotter than ever. Evidence is pointing that there IS life there and we were dumb enough to miss it.

gio: What on earth do you mean? NASA is the american space angency and it's not exactly "good enough to trust" if you're another superpower with your own space program.

[trev @ Jun 12th 2006 3:44PM]

gio:

Fair do's in my opinon, space exploration is not NASA's sole responsibility,

[Dorioo @ Jun 12th 2006 4:04PM]

Competition is almost always a beneficial quality for any industry (including space). While my loyalty is to NASA, advancements in space exploration could be stifled if they were the only ones doing it.

Great job U.K.

pEace.

[furtim @ Jun 12th 2006 4:29PM]

The more people doing science, the more results we get. That's just how it goes.

Besides, it's not like the Brit space bot is equipped with a wedge or diamond-blade saws to demolish Spirit and Opportunity BattleBots-style. Although...

[gio @ Jun 12th 2006 4:31PM]

Well here is my theory on life on other planets: In order to have life on other planets you need a certain amount elements that make a lifeform. 1.)water or air 2.)The Sun 3.)A Moon. Yes 1 moon to balance gravity on that planet to create a cycle and balance of life. I believe that there is such a similiar planet like earth with 1 moon in another galaxy.

[Adam @ Jun 12th 2006 4:38PM]

Gah! I hate the UK space program, they don't fund human spaceflight so they don't get astronauts, so if I have the slightest hope of becoming an astronaut I'll probably have to move to America

[dudeInAmerica @ Jun 12th 2006 5:14PM]

Wheels on rovers are so....1990. Wheres the bi-pedal climbing bots.

[Neil T. @ Jun 12th 2006 5:42PM]

Notice how NASA chooses names like 'Spirit' and 'Opportunity' to its probes, whereas the Brits choose 'Bridget' and 'Beagle 2'. I'm sure it says something about British eccentricity.

[Kenno @ Jun 12th 2006 7:52PM]

I can't believe they called it Bridget and no one made "Giant Underpants" jokes. Do you people ever get out? Go to a movie? Watch anything not from Hollywood? Oaky, here goes...

Dispite it's sizable airbags, Bridget also sports giantic underpants to keep any life on Mars from becoming attracted to it.

[Ben @ Jun 12th 2006 10:26PM]

Well here is my theory on life on other planets: In order to have life on other planets you need a certain amount elements that make a life form. 1.)water or air 2.)The Sun 3.)A Moon. Yes 1 moon to balance gravity on that planet to create a cycle and balance of life. I believe that there is such a similar planet like earth with 1 moon in another galaxy.

First of all, Air has nothing to do with life. There are Hundreds of Thousands of species On Earth that are Anaerobic and would absolutely Die if exposed to "air". In fact... Oxygen is inherently Unstable on its own and was Not part of the original makeup of our atmosphere.

That means that the first life forms on earth thrived in Carbon Dioxide.

Secondly... As you well know a plethora of life has been discovered in the deepest bowels of the earth and In fact, most of the species on earth live in a Low-Zero light habitat (Under Water) and so a "Sun" (or any other star) would not really Have to be present. In fact, we have an example of Exactly that In our solar system.

Look to Europa. It is Far outside the "green zone" of our sun and yet all evidence points to the existence of liquid water under the surface ice. "How in the world can there be liquid water if it is Sooo far away from the Sun you ask?" the answer seems to lay in the Tidal Forces exerted by Jupiter. The aggressive warp created by those forces excite geothermal heat and thus raise the temp of the moon.


Thirdly... Tidal forces also have little to do with life on earth since Most of earths species live Underwater and at depths where those tidal forces exerted by our unremarkable moon are not felt (or at least to not any meaningful degree that we can measure. Again the only way Tidal Forces would come into play would be ocean currents or provide an alternative source of heat for the celestial body.

Perhaps a more accurate "list of ingredients" would be "an atmosphere" (of any sort). Substantial Organic Material (mostly Carbon). Semi Stable weather patterns, being Past the "Impact phase" of the solar system and last but not least.. Time.

Just a slightly more in depth theory. (No bashing intended)

-Ben

[TheGuyNextDoor @ Jun 13th 2006 4:51AM]

It's about time the world addressed the exploration of space as a Global Interest, not just the US's N.A.S.A.. America does not, and never will have the monopoly on Outer-Space.

Of course, N.A.S.A. would have been set back for years had it not been for a certain German WWII engineer of oppression: Dr Wernher von Braun - the brains behind the V1 and V2 rockets.

The Hubble Space Telescope could not have been completed and launched had it not been for assistance from the European Space Agency (E.S.A.).

Due to the unique way that Europe is made up, many of the member countries have their own space agencies as well, all contributing to the cause. If you add up ESA's own funding and combine it with the funding of the member countries' own projects, it more than doubles NASA funding.

At the end of the day, NASA is a military institution. Projects such as the GPRS satellite tracking system are owned and operated by the US Military, and could, at any time, be de-activated, plunging countless millions of people who rely on it around the world into disarray. ESA however is launching a non-military and more advanced counterpart called Galileo.

Japan, China, India and Russia all also maitain well-funded space programs.

I'm sure if everyone pooled together we'd get a lot more done, and it is only in very recent years that some of the beaurocratic walls preventing this have started to crumble. An example of this is that Hubble's replacement, the JWST (James Webb Space Telescope) is a joint project between NASA and ESA and is due for launch in 2013.

So good-on Britain for continuing to exercise it's intellect and vast engineering expertise to come up with some of the important gubbins that goes into large multi-national space projects.

Long live peaceful co-operation!

[Don't believe it @ Jun 13th 2006 5:16AM]

Trust NASA? No way. Until they stop airbrushing and doctoring photos I wouldn't trust them further than I can throw a little green alien guy.

[David @ Jun 13th 2006 9:50AM]

Beagle 2 is/was a clam shell lander, and not a rover. Think two hub-caps with a connecting hinge on the side. It was a real shame that the probe was lost as the science package it carried was an amazing peice of engineering.