Funding problems led to Beagle failure
A new report into the failure of the Beagle mission to Mars has concluded that the failure can be linked to the Government’s failure to commit money early enough.
The Commons Science and Technology Committee Report argues that the lack of guaranteed funding early on in the project led to it being run by an “amateurish ‘gentleman’s agreement” which hampered efforts to secure funding, and allowed a key backer to pull out without penalty.
Though they acknowledge the Government’s “moral support” it argues that the decision not to guarantee the project at an early stage, or secure European Space Agency (ESA) funding, left the scientists desperately searching for commercial sponsorship, a search which undermined the project’s credibility.
However, the MPs do conclude that the eventual £25 million of state funding was worthwhile, considering the space expertise gained by British scientists, but call for the lessons of Beagle to be learnt and future missions to be integrated with the ESA and properly funded.
It also points to the wider benefits of Beagle in inspiring public interest in science.
Committee chairman, Dr Ian Gibson, said: “Was this £25 million well spent? I think the answer is yes, if the successes of Beagle are built upon. This project was cutting edge science no matter what happened on Mars: the Beagle scientists proved that the UK is a real player in space exploration and developed technologies with huge potential medical and other benefits.
“ESA and the UK wanted a Mars lander on the cheap. The DTI should have been on the pitch getting involved, rather than cheering from the touchline and coming on as a second half substitute when things went wrong. As a result, the scientists had to go chasing celebrities for sponsorship when they might have been testing rockets.”
The Beagle project was an ambitious attempt to land a craft upon the surface of Mars on Christmas Day 2003. However, the lander never remade contact with Earth, and despite a number of searches, no evidence of the wreckage has ever been found.
The lander was designed, and funded, by a British team, whilst the ship that carried the probe to the planet was the responsibility of the EPA. This division of responsibilities was criticised by the MPs, who argue that it reduced the scope for effective management, and led to a strained relationship.
They have called for all future missions to be “managed by ESA, with strong UK participation”.
Both ESA and the UK government are also strongly criticised for their failure to publish in full the results of their own enquiries into the failure of Beagle. This decision is categorised as an “affront to accountability”, with MPs suggesting that political embarrassment rather than genuine commercial or legal objections is the real reason.
