Beagle 2: A Fortunate Failure

Beagle 2: A Fortunate Failure
by Jeffrey F. Bell
Honolulu - January 13, 2004
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beagle2-04a.html

--


Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii

"Alex R. Blackwell" wrote in message
...
Beagle 2: A Fortunate Failure
by Jeffrey F. Bell
Honolulu - January 13, 2004
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beagle2-04a.html

--


Alex R. Blackwell
University of Hawaii


And that guy is supposed to be a professor? Of what? Americanism? He may as
well have just said "Only America knows how to do anything with
technology... All you other countries just go back to building mud huts."
What a sarcastic ass.

"The Plankmeister" wrote ...

"Alex R. Blackwell" wrote in message
...
Beagle 2: A Fortunate Failure
by Jeffrey F. Bell
Honolulu - January 13, 2004
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beagle2-04a.html

And that guy is supposed to be a professor? Of what? Americanism? He may as
well have just said "Only America knows how to do anything with
technology... All you other countries just go back to building mud huts."
What a sarcastic ass.

Well we all know that a mission that fails that 1/4 the cost of a mission that succeeds
is bad. But is a mission with a 50% chance of success at 1/4 the cost of a mission
that succeeds bad?

So the coin flipped the wrong way this time - but I wonder just how low can you
push a spacecraft's reliability and excuse it on the basis that it's real cheap.

"Paul Blay" wrote in message
...
"The Plankmeister" wrote ...

"Alex R. Blackwell" wrote in message
...
Beagle 2: A Fortunate Failure
by Jeffrey F. Bell
Honolulu - January 13, 2004
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beagle2-04a.html

And that guy is supposed to be a professor? Of what? Americanism? He may
as
well have just said "Only America knows how to do anything with
technology... All you other countries just go back to building mud
huts."
What a sarcastic ass.

Well we all know that a mission that fails that 1/4 the cost of a mission
that succeeds
is bad. But is a mission with a 50% chance of success at 1/4 the cost of
a mission
that succeeds bad?

So the coin flipped the wrong way this time - but I wonder just how low
can you
push a spacecraft's reliability and excuse it on the basis that it's real
cheap.

Yeah I totally agree that it is possible to make a mission suffer through a
tight budget, but I think the way the guy expressed his opinions was just
wrong. I think the Beagle 2 mission was a very big disappointment, but
game-on to them for actually getting the mission off the ground in the first
place. Not many people can say they've realised their ideas into an actual
mission to another planet... I think what Colin Pillinger showed is that
it's not just NASA that can get missions off the ground... Anyone with
enough enthusiasm (which Colin Pillinger has in abundance) can get a mission
off the ground... And I think that is important.

I think the idea of 'cheaper, faster, better' missions is still in its
infancy. I think it's inevitable that there will be more 'cheaper, faster,
better' missions in the future... Technology advances, ideas mature,
complicated manufacturing processes become cheaper... I think Beagle 2 was a
bit of a trail blazer in this respect. People will realize that it IS
possible to get a mission off the ground fairly cheaply and more people will
give input to such projects which inevitably leads to more reliability and a
better chance of success.

So I say: Well done Beagle 2 team for showing the world that spaceflight
isn't just for $multi-billion backed organisations.

Plankmeister.

"The Plankmeister" wrote in message
. ..

"Paul Blay" wrote in message
...
"The Plankmeister" wrote ...

"Alex R. Blackwell" wrote in message
...
Beagle 2: A Fortunate Failure
by Jeffrey F. Bell
Honolulu - January 13, 2004
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/beagle2-04a.html

And that guy is supposed to be a professor? Of what? Americanism? He
may
as
well have just said "Only America knows how to do anything with
technology... All you other countries just go back to building mud
huts."
What a sarcastic ass.
....

Yeah I totally agree that it is possible to make a mission suffer through
a
tight budget, but I think the way the guy expressed his opinions was just
wrong.

And the fact that he put it in a gratuitous scoff at the authorship of
Shakespeare (the literary history equivalent of a UFO cult) doesn't do
anything to burnish his credibility...

"Carey Sublette" wrote in
news
And the fact that he put it in a gratuitous scoff at the authorship of
Shakespeare (the literary history equivalent of a UFO cult) doesn't do
anything to burnish his credibility...

I share John Savard's suspicion that the whole article was intended to be
deadpan satire, with the Shakespeare scoff thrown in as a tip-off.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"The Plankmeister" wrote in message
. ..
I think the idea of 'cheaper, faster, better' missions is
still in its infancy. I think it's inevitable that there will
be more 'cheaper, faster, better' missions in the future...

I agree that a successful cheap mission could lead to cost saving on future
missions. Certainly the diversity of different countries building missions
to different scales is healthy.


"Alex R. Blackwell" wrote in message
...

I sincerely hope ESA and the UK will fund another Beagle (which
is almost certain) and that it can carry out its mission succesfully.

I am concerned that having failed in their first attempt, the British
government decides that missions of this type contain too much risk. Beagle
does not seem to be part of a systematic long term plan of space
exploration. It was a tentative initial step at best, and judging by the
involvement of Blur and others, a faddish exercise at worst. The overriding
and as yet unanswered question for me is: are they truly serious about long
term space exploration?

--
Michael Anthony

"The Plankmeister" wrote
I think Beagle 2 was a
bit of a trail blazer in this respect. People will realize that it IS
possible to get a mission off the ground fairly cheaply and more people
will
give input to such projects which inevitably leads to more reliability and
a
better chance of success.

One difference between the MER cost and that of Beagle is that the latter
hitched a ride, while the MER total includes the cost of the launch?

The Plankmeister wrote:

And that guy is supposed to be a professor? Of what? Americanism? He may as
well have just said "Only America knows how to do anything with
technology... All you other countries just go back to building mud huts."
What a sarcastic ass.


It seems we have here a tale of two Meterorite/Asteroid scientists.

Essentially, one decided one day he wanted to send a spacecraft to
Mars AND DID IT.

The other sat in his office and wrote a ****ey article that, had it been
posted here, would have been considered trolling and got the author
killfiled.

Ladies and Gentlemen, who do you think deserves more respect?

--
================================================= =============
Michael Morton | Need a job!
School of Information | (pretty please)
Systems, University | http://www.sys.uea.ac.uk/~mtm/work
of East Anglia, Norwich |
================================================= =============

wrote:


The Plankmeister wrote:

And that guy is supposed to be a professor? Of what? Americanism? He may as
well have just said "Only America knows how to do anything with
technology... All you other countries just go back to building mud huts."
What a sarcastic ass.



It seems we have here a tale of two Meterorite/Asteroid scientists.

Essentially, one decided one day he wanted to send a spacecraft to
Mars AND DID IT.

The other sat in his office and wrote a ****ey article that, had it been
posted here, would have been considered trolling and got the author
killfiled.

Ladies and Gentlemen, who do you think deserves more respect?


The guy from UH, of course. My trolls never get published like this.

Corry

--
It Came From C. L. Smith's Unclaimed Mysteries.
http://www.unclaimedmysteries.net