Did European tax-subsidized Astrium WANT its lean-budgeted Beagle 2 Mars mission to fail?

NASAWatch.INFO ^ | Dec. 25th, 2003 | NASAWatch.INFO

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Bureaucrats and their pet contractors often claim that a government program's failure is "proof" that it was underfunded. Did Astrium (the monopolistic manufacturer of the U.K.'s $50 million dollar Beagle 2 Mars project) actually WANT that lean-budgeted mission to fail this week? Some in Europe have complained that the socialist European Space Agency has anointed basically one contractor monopoly, Astrium. We already know that similarly socialist NASA has anointed its own for Mars as well: Lockheed Martin. LockMart subsequently profited from its 1999 Mars mission failures. Was Astrium's goal a funding increase in the wake of this awareness-enhancing Mars failure?

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Don't worry, European taxpayers. If what's above is accurate then you nevertheless didn't get "had" any more than U.S. taxpayers regularly do by their own bureaucratic space program. Is there a way around these kinds of problems in the future though?

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Is anyone in the mood to try and tear apart what unfortunately seems to be a rather credible conspiracy theory? Let's begin with a quote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3344693.stm

"Mike Healey from Beagle 2's constructor Astrium UK said [Beagle 2] really should have been able to communicate with [NASA's] Odyssey this morning."

Now then, the question is: did Astrium actually WANT the lean-budgeted Beagle 2 to fail this week?

The European Space Agency is almost as socialist as NASA. Some in Europe have complained that socialist ESA has anointed basically one contractor monopoly, Astrium, while we already know that NASA has anointed its own for Mars as well: Lockheed Martin. LockMart and Astrium are basically NOT competitors for government contracts, and neither is particularly commercial where space is concerned either. Anyhow, even though Astrium built Beagle 2, it apparently stands to profit disproportionately if embarrassment from it should result in political demands for better funding for ESA-sponsored interplanetary probes. How much support was there in Europe for interplanetary missions BEFORE this "unintentional" embarrassment emanating from Europe's first attempt? Not nearly as much, right?

Do you remember what happened when Lockheed's 1999 Mars missions failed miserably? LockMart and tax-leeching bureaucrats involved with Mars missions got MORE money for future NASA missions to Mars. Although LockMart got its feather$ ruffled a bit in the process, did it not come out ahead financially because of the 1999 "failures"? And weren't the causes of those Mars failures rather silly (if not intentional), as is documented at:

http://www.SpaceProjects.com/Mars ?

It wasn't enough that orbiters had successfully made it to Mars: the public wanted photo-ops of the surface.

Here's the most annoying part: since then, Lockheed has worked against the emergence of pro-entrepreneurial, NASA-funded COMPETITIVE prizes:

http://www.SpaceProjects.com/prizes

Lockheed consequently maintains its monopolistic stronghold over NASA's Mars endeavors. Now then, is it unsurprising that we've not heard of monopolist Astrium's supporting competitive prizes' emergence in Europe, either? It was a competitive prize, NOT a government contract, that lured Charles Lindberg's historic entrepreneurial flight from the USA to Europe. Nevertheless, the socialists in Europe's space agency now seem to prefer to overlook this awkward detail, just like the socialists corruptly dominating NASA do. Isn't it time to get the bureaucrats and their pet contractors out of humanity's way so that we can finally bring life to space, and space to life?

[Quix]

iT'S REAL EASY TO SPECULATE THAT

if the ET's on or around Mars didn't scuttle things . . .

then perhaps

it's all a ruse to get more money to siphon off to very black projects.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Can we expect anything better from tax-leeching, monopolistic contractors whose socialist bureaucrat allies crave more funds for their "good government programs"?

[Dont Mention the War]

Spaceflight Now has been saying since before landing that there was no guarantee they were going to hear from Beagle 2 on the first pass. The next chance to make contact is around 5:45-6:00 pm EST this afternoon.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Don't the tax-leeches deserve an incentive to try hard enough to rescue Beagle 2 while they still can, despite the prospects of getting far more European tax dollars later if they fail? Public scrutiny's more significant than ever, thanks to cyberspace.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Or at the very least, it's a scheme to part taxpayers from their money.

[Quix]

For sure.

And there's plenty eagerness on the part of Shrillery et al to dream up more ways to do so.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Doesn't the "competitive prizes" offering that Newt Gingrich espouses seem like a viable way to get around such bureaucratic & monopolistic contractor opportunism?

http://www.SpaceProjects.com/prizes

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

NASA's lucky Newt Gingrich wasn't in office when the Shuttle blew up earlier this year.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Do you remember the media hype surrounding the repeated attempts to contact LockMart's failed Mars Polar Lander 4 years ago this month? Few companies pour more money into the media than Lockheed Martin. LockMart's banners are all over http://www.WashingtonPost.com, for example. Anyhow, with the profits that LockMart made regarding Mars after the resulting drive to better fund NASA's Mars endeavors, such banners nationwide yield a great return on invesment. It's a shame more in the U.S. space media don't rise above such complicity, though. Not ONCE did we see ANY of the ones which accept LockMart's sponsorship call for NASA to offer competitive prizes like the one that Lindberg won.

[Quix]

Probably so!

Thanks for the link. Hadn't heard about the competative prize thing.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

"The people have the government that they deserve."

-Ben Franklin

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Isn't it great to see how well our tax dollars work for us?

[Quix]

Sure has appeared that way over the years.

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

At least before the internet made noble endeavors like the California Recall more feasible...

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

So much could begin to be possible if only we could get beyond the monopolistic corruption that still pervades our space programs:

[Central Scrutiniser]

Can we expect anything better from tax-leeching, monopolistic contractors whose socialist bureaucrat allies crave more funds for their "good government programs"?

Not too much of a leading question eh? You could ask if I stopped beating my wife as well...

[Analyzing Inconsistencies]

Do you disagree with the contention of this overall thread? If so then I'd be interested to know in what your disagreement is grounded.

[Central Scrutiniser]

Its hard to cut through the miles of hyperbole to get to your argument. It would be nice if there were privately funded expeditions, this one wasn't, but I still am looking forward to the scientific data that will be gleaned from this mission. Bitching and moaning about it on a message board ain't gonna do anything but make you feel better.

Your arguments would be more compelling if you didn't sound so hyperbolic and hyperactive in your method of argumentation.