麻豆传媒

KICKING and screaming, the UK government and European Space Agency have been forced to publish the results of their inquiry into the failed Mars lander Beagle 2. It is a sad reflection on these organisations that 麻豆传媒 had to invoke the UK鈥檚 new Freedom of Information Act to force the release. All other requests for publication 鈥� from MPs, taxpayers and even from Beagle鈥檚 own scientists and engineers 鈥� had been flatly rejected.

It is now clear why. The report is highly embarrassing, showing the project to have been beset by misjudgements from start to finish (see 鈥淏eagle 2 doomed from the start鈥�). Some of these were already known, such as the fact that the spacecraft鈥檚 parachute had to be replaced at the last minute. But the scale of incompetence is surprising. The possible benefit of the new parachute was minuscule and it introduced new hazards. So replacing the old one was probably not worth the trouble, the report concludes.

Beagle鈥檚 basic problem was lack of funding, and here the blame lies squarely with the UK government. ESA provided the spacecraft to deliver Beagle 2 to Mars, but the lander was the UK鈥檚 responsibility. Beagle needed 拢24 million paid in full in 1998. Instead, the government voiced support for the project while hoping someone else, a sponsor perhaps, would pick up the bill. Beagle ended up being drip-fed its money, which meant there was no proper planning and testing was delayed, making failure more likely. This cannot be allowed to happen again. Governments must understand by now that good science requires proper funding. In the case of space science, that means financial commitment from the start.

ESA, too, comes out badly. It ignored its own rules designed to stop projects that were not properly funded. In 1997 it decided that Beagle should be halted if it was not fully funded by October 1998. But the project鈥檚 scientific goals seem somehow to have won it over. This triumph of amateurish enthusiasm over scientific professionalism turned a financial misjudgement into an interplanetary fiasco.

By coincidence, an identical funding crisis has arisen with BepiColombo, a Euro-Japanese mission to orbit Mercury. Again, ESA is paying for the spacecraft, but the government agencies that are supposed to find the money for the mission鈥檚 scientific instruments have not yet done so. In November this year, ESA must decide which instruments to carry and which to kill. The Beagle findings should make that decision easy: only those with sufficient funding should stay. In the meantime, the national agencies responsible for the other instruments should take a long hard look at how they do business.