Britain Says It Learned from Mars Probe Flop

(Reuters) ^ | 1 hour, 19 minutes ago | (Reuters)

[BenLurkin]

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain and the European Space Agency said Monday they had learned from the failure of the Beagle 2 mission to seek out life on Mars, but kept a report on the high-profile flop tightly under wrap.

The Beagle 2, named after the ship Charles Darwin sailed in when he formulated his theory of evolution, was built by British scientists for about $89.46 million and hitched a flight to Mars aboard the European Space Agency's orbiter Mars Express.

Beagle was due to crash into Mars in a bouncing ball of airbags and begin looking for signs of life on Christmas Day. But the lander lost contact with earth once it separated from the space ship in mid-December.

The European Space Agency and British government, which jointly commissioned an inquiry into what went wrong, said nobody was to blame for the risky mission's failure.

"No single event led to failure and no single individual made a bad decision," ESA Science Director David Southwood told a news conference called to unveil the inquiry's recommendations without divulging its findings.

"Beagle 2 was a wonderful thing. It captured the public's imagination," he said. "Nobody has gone to Mars the first time successfully."

But the decision not to publish the inquiry's report is likely to add to a public perception the mission was botched by scientists given too little time, too little money and too little oversight from space agency engineers.

Southwood acknowledged that he had tried to kill the Beagle program when he took over as science director at ESA in 2001. He said he was persuaded to let it go ahead after some management changes, but always saw it as a risky venture.

The lander was built by an outside team of scientists from universities, rather than treated as an integral part of the space agency's Mars Express mission.

In its recommendations made public Monday, the inquiry said "any future complex instrument or lander must be built under the same management process as the mission spacecraft."

[BenLurkin]

"the European Space Agency said Monday they had learned from the failure of the Beagle 2 mission ....... but kept a report on the high-profile flop tightly under wrap. "

[Red Badger]

Mybe it was God's way of saying "Darwin was wrong.".......

[Izzy Dunne]

but always saw it as a risky venture.

It always was a risky venture.
The orbiter was always the main event, the lander was tacked on as a low-budget (relatively speaking) afterthought.

The orbiter is working fine, last I heard.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

From the laboratory of Dr. Joseph Lucas...

[Lokibob]

It always has to be pointed out that the $90 million did not go up in space, it was spent on the ground.

Sure, it is a shame that the Beagle didn't work, but the money spent went to the education of the builders, manufacturers, and the corporation, university designers.

[The_Royal_Navy]

Ture,...

not only that, but it was by-and-large an almost 'non' government project, and where witch the government only stepped in to cover the cost of lack of funds raised...(witch the government prity much ended up paying for the 'Lions' share)

Some people have criticized it, poking fun at the guy (a farmer) who's idea it was, but this is unfair,...

NASA have had many failers to the red planet and indeed on other projects, there is allways risk, no mater how much you spend.

And if it had suceded, then these people would have been pating him on the back, not trying to make fun of him. And with it having been a very low budget affair, i think it calls for Britain to place MORE not less effort in the direction of space exploration, and I don't only mean in way of going thru ESA,.. but for Britain to reastablish it's launch sites witch were abandoned in the 1950's...

Brittan should work with ESA but not rely 'solely' on ESA, and should take a more active role in the 'LANUCH' stage, as well as being an atractive alternative to reliying on ESA for other company's to maybe consider using us for launches, as well as to work with them on there projects.

In ESA today, the level of work that is given to it's member states is awarded on the basis of 'WHO PAYS THE MOST' towards ESA and theses projects, and 'NOT' instead to whom may or may 'not' be best to do the work it self... Witch is aggain 'unfair'.
And there are many who are interested in this side of science, and who like myself, thinks the Government should increase it's budget towards the "British-Space-Agency"(or what ever it's called these days), and so be able to be far more independent from the ESA as well as investing more to work 'with them'.

Britain 'is' considering or starting to invest more in this side of science, but since the end of the 50's, we seem to have taken a 'BACK SEAT' as far as Our own Launches and the like are consurned...,
But with a 'Privet' company soon to have a 3 maned space Vehicle launched in to what is considered to be space only 100 km up,.. then surly are government is more than capable of funding such things if a privet company can achieve it on what is effectively a 'Shoe String'.