"BllFs6" schrieb im Newsbeitrag ...
Of course, if ESA had landed Beagle II safely, we (and I) would all be
saying they were geniuses for doing it for 1/10 the cost of the NASA
rovers.

Okay....this has finally bugged me enough...

The Beagle probe alone cost 80 million for just one probe....

We got TWO rovers for 800 million (PLUS the orbiter)...

So the cost advantage already is down to 4 to 1....

And lets face it....the rovers are SOOOO much more capable .......
They analyze rocks and make pictures, right? It's still a lottery
whether they landed in an area where interesting stuff is not
more than 500m away.


In my opinion the rovers give you so much more science bang for the buck that
there is no comparsion....
They do different science. I think the drill was worth it. (But I also think it was worth
being done properly.)


So, the beagle is NOT a cost effective science miracle (assuming it had even
worked)......its only a miracle that anything at all could have been done for
only 80 million....
Right. And if it had worked it would *still* have worked only by chance and not
because of the marvellous engineering and foresight.

I found that express stuff a bit like all those balloon earth circumnavigations. Everyone
tries it, one finally manages it and suddenly it's not because he was the lucky one but
because he was the best one.


Lots of Greetings!
Volker