Beagle 2 mission should never have got off the ground, concludes inquiry

February 8, 2005

Brussels, 07 Feb 2005 The go-ahead to develop the ill-fated Beagle 2 lander should never have been granted, according to the full report of the Commission of Inquiry set up to examine the reasons for the mission's failure.

A summary of the commission's findings was first released in May 2003, after the European Space Agency (ESA) and the British government, which set up the inquiry, decided not to publish the full report for reasons of commercial confidentiality.

That decision has since been reversed, however, and the full findings were published in full on 3 February, reports the BBC. They reveal that the ESA peer review committee that first approved Beagle 2 did so only on the understanding that the mission was fully funded from the start, which it was not.

Thus: 'The Commission's view is that [ESA] should not have confirmed the selection of Beagle 2, given the failure of the project to comply with the recommendations of the [peer review committee which originally examined the lander proposal],' states the report.

'The lack of guaranteed funding for Beagle 2 during its early stages seriously hindered the orderly build-up of the project engineering team, with the consequence that the design and development activities were delayed, exacerbating an already critical schedule,' it continues.

The report identifies further key errors that undermined the mission from the outset. As well as the lack of structured financing, the report cites the treatment of Beagle 2 as a 'scientific instrument', rather than a spacecraft in its own right, as a fundamental error that led to 'many subsequent problems'.

The report also concludes that the task of managing such a mission was probably too big for the Open University team from the UK that developed the lander. 'Beagle 2 should have been recognised as a complex, innovative spacecraft requiring management by an organisation with relevant experience - this was likely to be beyond the capability of a university-led group.'

Finally, the report also criticises ESA and the British government for not managing expectations surrounding the mission more realistically. 'It should have been made clear to all stakeholders, including the public, that the risk of failure was significantly higher than had been anticipated,' it concludes.

For further information about Beagle 2, please consult the following web address:

CORDIS RTD-NEWS / © European Communities
Item source: http:/// ALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN= EN_RCN_ID:23318

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October


Featured jobs

Occupational Health Manager

University Of The West Of Scotland

Senior Veterinary Epidemiologist

Scotland's Rural College (sruc)

Architecture Manager

University Of Leeds

Research Associate

Kings College London