European Mars Lander Crashed On Impact

Tyler Durden's picture

Two days ago, thrusters intended to slow a European lander as it neared Mars fired for less time than expected before contact with the vehicle was lost, leaving scientists uncertain whether it touched down safely or broke apart; it also left Eurosceptics bemused by what might be the latest symbolic failure of a European craft to escape the graviational hold of the imploding artificial union.

The Schiaparelli probe, which some have pronounced as "Scraparalli", part of a broader mission to search for evidence of life (ideally of the pro-bail out variety) on the Red Planet, was to test technologies during the descent and on the surface for a rover scientists hope to send to Mars in 2020. Its descent marked only the second European attempt to land a craft on Mars, but it has shown no signs of life since it stopped transmitting around 50 seconds before Wednesday's planned touchdown.

"We've had two overflights (by Mars orbiters) and there was no signal," the European Space Agency's (ESA) Spacecraft Operations Manager Andrea Accomazzo told journalists on Thursday.

This is what the Schiaparelli would have looked like... had it not crashed.

And while there was no signal, there was at least hope. Alas, that too died overnight when according to new data, the Schiaparelli probe was destroyed, crashing on impact. The European Space Agency (ESA) has confirmed the Schiaparelli spacecraft, which was expected to land on Mars on Wednesday, was lost.

The ESA craft fell to the Mars surface from a height of 2 to 4 kilometers (1.2 to 2.5 miles), the agency said on Friday. The disc-shaped spacecraft, which weighed 577 kilos (1,272 lb) was destroyed on impact. During a press conference on Thursday, scientists said that Schiaparelli stopped transmitting around 50 seconds before the expected landing.

The agency suspected something went wrong when the parachute was jettisoned: "The ejection itself appears to have occurred earlier than expected, but analysis is not yet complete," it said in a statement.

Yes, "jettisoning" your parachute when landing on a planet usually does not have a happy ending.

Then again, perhaps the probe was just carrying a little extra debt as Europe was quietly hoping to ship its trillions in excess leverage to a different planet?

ESA's Director General, Jan Wörner, said Schiaparelli's primary role was to test whether they could successfully land a probe on Mars. "Recording the data during the descent was part of that, and it is important we can learn what happened, in order to prepare for the future," Wörner said

Earlier today, the NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter identified new markings on the surface of the Red Planet that are believed to be related to ESA’s ExoMars Schiaparelli entry, descent and landing technology demonstrator module.

Schiaparelli entered the martian atmosphere at 14:42 GMT on 19 October for its 6-minute descent to the surface, but contact was lost shortly before expected touchdown. Data recorded by its mothership, the Trace Gas Orbiter, are currently being analysed to understand what happened during the descent sequence.

The low-resolution CTX camera on-board the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) took pictures of the expected touchdown site in Meridiani Planum on 20 October as part of a planned imaging campaign. The image released today has a resolution of 6 metres per pixel and shows two new features on the surface when compared to an image from the same camera taken in May this year.

This being Europe, the crash was quickly spun as a positive. David Parker, ESA's Director of Human Spaceflight and Robotic Exploration said it's what they wanted from a test. "We have data coming back that allows us to fully understand the steps that did occur, and why the soft landing did not occur," he said.

Yes, a crash is precisely what Europe wanted from a working probe: clearly Jean-Claude Juncker's diplomatic skills have spread far.

In typical European fashion, earlier this week, the ESA declared its ExoMars 2016 mission a success, despite losing contact with Schiaparelli just before its expected landing time. It has ended up being a total failure.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
hedgeless_horseman's picture



I will concede the fact that they got it up into Earth orbit.  Sure.  There were plenty of eye witnesses at Cape Kennedy.

But down to the moon's surface, landing soft enough to not injure or kill the astronauts, and then back up into lunar orbit?  Come on!  What was Kennedy thinking?  There is no atmosphere on the moon to brake against.  That requires a lot of fuel.  No?  The little toy-sized Mars Rovers supposedly bounced along forever even with an atmosphere, parachute, and retro rockets.

So Close's picture

Ugh.. That sucks.  I am sure there are many people in despair after all their hard work.  Condolences.  Don't give up.

Looney's picture


Did it belong to the Malaysian Airlines?   ;-)


maskone909's picture

The European Space Agency just announced that the crash was due to 37 refugee castaways hidden inside the spacecraft.

Looney's picture


I guess them Martians are gonna get raped pretty soon!   ;-)


Ghost of Porky's picture

Tim Cook wants to crash into Uranus.

Harlequin001's picture

Does anybody else see any similarities between this and the EU?

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

You are up against America's greatest ever propaganda accomplishment, hedgeless.

I don't even argue about Apollo any more, despite there being enough evidence of 'funny business' to convince any one that not all was 'as it seemed'.   The top of the list being of course that no agency other than NASA has (allegedly) landed a man on the Moon.  Not before or since.  And NASA itself is not capable of doing it TODAY.  While the reasons given will be that the MONEY required isn't in NASA's budget, in fact, the technological capability to replicate the Apollo Program does not currently exist (no heavy lift launcher or manned lunar lander exist at this time).

Instead, I focus on what the American government was very much trying to cover up at the time.  Which would be the atmosphere of political murder (JFK, RFK, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X, etc), needless war (Vietnam) atrocities (Battle of Hue City, My Lai Massacre/'incident', Agent Orange, officers getting fragged, and corpses used to smuggle drugs), and shortly thereafter, the 'closing of the Gold Window'!

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

edit: Nixon closed the 'Gold Window' 8 days after 'Apollo 15' concluded!  That would be the first mission featuring the Lunar Rover!  The same Lunar Rover that doesn't leave any tracks in some photos...  Just the times that they used the crane to lower it into position, though.

And of course, Farouk El-Baz, who most Apollo researchers (critics and... the less skeptical) are familiar with, was appointed by... Richard Nixon's brother,Ed Nixon (head of personnel at Bellcom at that time, conveniently enough, not mentioned on Wikipedia either).

"From 1967 to 1972, El-Baz participated in the Apollo Program as Supervisor of Lunar Science Planning at Bellcomm Inc., a division of AT&T that conducted systems analysis for NASA. During these six years, he was Secretary of the Landing Site Selection Committee for the Apollo lunar landing missions, Principal Investigator of Visual Observations and Photography, and Chairman of the Astronaut Training Group. In addition to the being the scientist who played a key role in helping NASA decide on the ideal moon landing site for the Apollo 11 mission in 1969, El-Baz also served on the Apollo 15 rover mission in 1971. Throughout his time in the Apollo program, El-Baz joined NASA officials in briefing members of the press on the results of the lunar missions. His ability to simplify scientific jargon made his remarks on the program's scientific accomplishments often quoted by the media."

As we all know, all 'manned' Moon landings somehow occurred during President Nixon's reign.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Most convincing piece of evidence of hoax moon landing is evidence of moon landing. To explain, NASA is use video and photograph to "prove" landing as primary evidence. Somehow, NASA is catalog for Apollo 11 over 1,100 medium format still, 90 minute of 8mm film, and many other photograph. In breathable atmostphere without suit or restriction of movement, that is take one man 18 hour to shoot at one frame per minute of high precision bracketed exposure. Lunar mission is only 18 hour long. Shutter time is not include over 100 film cartridge change of Hassleblad.

But hey, what is Boris know, maybe Amerikansky astronaut is bring magic camera on magic spaceship on magic mission… that in 47 years NO ONE is ever repeat…

Seeing Red's picture

If only NASA had made multiple trips, to different sites, documented them, perhaps with updated equipment on later missions (like maybe a rover).  And brought back samples.

If only ....

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Sample, yes? But how would even most sophisticated science detect authenticity of sample? Because sample composition is match… match first sample of retrieval? But if first trip is hoax, then what is baseline? Because is not same as any sample on earth? Because is match with… similar… sample… on earth? You can see problem. Boris can dig up moon rock in many place on earth, but who is qualify to validate? Buzz Aldrin? Sure, if you are want black eye and bar room brawl in Bangkok.

Seeing Red's picture

How does Boris validate authenticity of vodka?  Is frequent sample-testing involved?

The Saint's picture
The Saint (not verified) Seeing Red Oct 21, 2016 4:02 PM

Can't wait until Musk tries to send real people to Mars.  I doubt any of them will even get into Mars orbit alive. I might be willing to go, though, just to get out of what will become 'Hell Hole Earth.'


Seeing Red's picture

We should send a loving, caring, well-adjusted couple that would enjoy the publicity.  How about Bill and Hillary?

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Boris is give up arrow for smart funny coming back! You are validate Boris' point, what is good sample without rigorous test, retest, retest… until rehab:)

Seeing Red's picture

It's hard work, but definitely an important quality assurance method.  Try a bottle of Finlandia sometime for another ... data point.

Lumberjack's picture

Boris. Man is land on moon using slide rule much like Russia is still make greatest aircraft using slide rule.

Nowadays, the us and eu is use computer with voting software that can't convert metric to avordupois.

0b1knob's picture

There are only two types of countries on the earth.

The one that has landed men on the moon and rovers on Mars.

And the ones that use the metric system.

feanor's picture

after NASA overshot a satellite due to some units confusion, it went metric some years ago.

Yukon Cornholius's picture

Here's a question I like to ask people during moon landing discussions...

With all the movies that have been made about space, and the love American movie producers have of boasting about the USAs grand achievements, why are there a grand total of ZERO movies/tv shows/miniseries/documentary recreations of the moon landings?

Give me a reasonable answer for that and I'll consider men on the moon.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

In two years, a report will be released in the Netherlands, based on social media images and video provided by, which will blame Putin personally for this crash.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Doh! Gravity is suck! But Euro Space Program is learn much and someday is maybe put man on moon.

44magnum's picture

Or a couple of feet into it.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

If that is not requirement, maybe North Korea is first to put man (read disloyal or screwup general or uncle of Dear Kim) on moon… after successful lift from launch pad.

maskone909's picture

When conditions are right, you can view the rapings with a powerful enough telescope.

Shemp 4 Victory's picture

European Central Bank is now looking to hire a few rocket scientists...

Dormouse's picture

The whole multi year mission cost $1.4 Billion, this probe was just a small potion of that cost. Absolute fraud. Like a ZuckerMusk rocket exploding on the launch pad or Kim West being bound and gagged for 10 Million bucks worth of jewelry. This is outright theft and insurance scheming. This probe never existed as described. The intention was always to fake a crash landing.

Leopold B. Scotch's picture


What it might have done more sustaiinabily to an economy if not plundered from everyone.

Akzed's picture

NASA is a total fraud, we can't even get thru the Van Allen Belt as admitted by a NASA engineer.

All the billions have gone into black ops and somebody's pockets.

Dormouse's picture

I was hesitant to proclaim all of NASA a black budget fraud in this forum.
Personally, I find Allen Bean to be the funniest and least credible Apollo member. I also enjoy reading about the history of the space program, particularly the friendship between Jack Parsons, L. Ron Hubbard, and Aleister Crowley (Barbara Bush's alleged illegitimate father) and who and how NASA was created.

Herd Redirection Committee's picture

Did you know... The shape of the pentagram is fundamental, in the development of solid fuel rockets? Specifically, a 5 pointed star is CUT OUT of the center of a cylinder-shaped solid fuel block, called a "5 point finocyl"?

And this 'secret' to getting the greatest (avg.) thrust from solid fuel rockets was discovered by occultists...  Namely Jack Parsons.

Scientology is basically government/intelligence agency-financed religion.

Dormouse's picture

I am now! I'm aware that the ritual preformed by the school children in Satasota was lead by their Eastern Star Witch teacher..."kite, plane, steel...etc" or what have you. Two towers or candles(3 fell) lit on fire and a pentagram burned that day.

Seeing Red's picture

Bullshit.  Exposure is product of intensity and time.  Passing through belts (like Apollo did) is not fatal.  The Orion shielding issue (which this guy didn't describe quite right) pertains to long space missions, and potentially ANY mission with modern electronics, which are easier to damage in many cases than the crude stuff Apollo used.  This has been discussed by others on ZH -- old news.

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

One time, during shopping trip in San Francisco, while is shore leave from submarine, Boris is visit NASA Aimes on Shoreline and carefully examine lunar orbital module next to wind simulator. This is not museum exhibit, is real thing. Lift thrust problem aside, Boris would not send fat lazy nephew outside of atmosphere in such flimsy deteriorating "space" craft. Maybe is fool Amerikansky (and Soviet too) on movie set with degraded video signal, but up close, hoax is obvious.

Seeing Red's picture

LOL -- a submarine??  Um, OK <collecting wits> ... the lander was indeed very flimsy to save weight.  It was rumored the aluminum was so thin an astronaut could put his foot through it if he tried hard enough.

Boris, can you share any adentures from your time serving on subs?  What did you do -- I bet a smart guy like you was in charge of the reactor (full of amazing-but-secret Soviet [or alien] technology).  What can you tell us?  Did anything glow that wasn't supposed to?

Boris Alatovkrap's picture

Boris is not see lunar LANDER, but orbital module. On submarine, Boris was custodial specialist and did work around reactor.

max2205's picture

now we are trashing other planets  EPA?   didn't think so

PT's picture

The year is 2016.  WTF with the black and white photos?  I don't care what bullshit "excuse" they serve up.  Use COLOUR you stupid fuckers.

Vageling's picture

And use higher resolution too! Would have loved to see that Martian standing next to it giving us the finger. You ain't taking my planet you silly Earthlings.

BabaLooey's picture

No word on whether Jean Claude JUNCKER was at the controls - from his home

Kirk2NCC1701's picture

It was a joint ESA-Russian project.  The Rockets were Russian.

Bad for ESA-Russian relationship.  As intended.

Somewhere in Yisrael and 'Merica certain people are high fiving it.

Chuck Norris's picture

What did the Mars Lander know about Hillary Clinton to deserve this!?

Shlomo Schwartzman's picture
Shlomo Schwartzman (not verified) hedgeless_horseman Oct 21, 2016 1:21 PM

Exactly.  When a rocket takes off, its thrust pushes against earth.  In flight it pushes off the AIR behind it.  If space is (supposedly) a vacuum, wtf does a thruster push against in space?

Billy the Poet's picture

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Lack of atmospheric drag would increase rocket performance in space.