Beagle II - inquiry

GraemeSkinner · 2004-05-24 07:06:29

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2969218]Scotsman article A few items interested me from this article......

Investigators were unable to pin the blame unambiguously on a single failure or shortcoming, a news conference at the Department of Trade and Industry was told today.
But they said organisational failures had made the mission more risky and recommended ways in which a future attempt to land a spacecraft on Mars should be handled differently.

The report was controversially kept confidential to protect sensitive commercial interests and ensure no one was afraid to come forward with evidence.
Asked afterwards if he agreed on the secrecy, Prof Pillinger said: “I don’t need to answer that question.”
He understood there were only four copies of the report and he had not seen it.

I don't see why the report had to be kept confidential, and I don't see why Pillinger could not see a copy of the report. How can they expect people to develop future probes if they don't release the facts on the failure of BII.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/natu … 89.stm]BBC article Some of the comments in this article are pretty damming...

Professor Southwood stated.
"The bottom line for me is that no single event led to failure and no single individual made a bad decision.
"However, failure was institutional. We were working in a system which wasn't right, where the organisational structures weren't right and people didn't have the right level of empowerment, authority or resources."

"We were working in a system which wasn't right..." It's time it was made right then in my view.

Pillinger made the following comment that I have to agree with...

He also said it was time the UK had a proper space agency to direct its off-planet efforts.

Graeme

Palomar · 2004-05-24 15:51:16

"We were working in a system which wasn't right..." It's time it was made right then in my view.
Pillinger made the following comment that I have to agree with...
He also said it was time the UK had a proper space agency to direct its off-planet efforts.
Graeme

*Looks like it's a free-for-all in the ol' "Cover Your Arse" game. How sad.

I checked the Scotsman article and just now read http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04052300 … .html]this item from spacedaily.com.

It is so irritating!! Like that to-Mars U.S. probe in the '90s with a mix of metric and standard, which totally goofed it up and sent it sailing right PAST Mars. :-\

Can't have "the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing" when it comes to this stuff (taxpayers get p.o.'d very quickly, and "as if" there's just so many space-advocates out there to begin with).

Just want to be sure I'm reading you right, Graeme: You seem to indicate you'd like the UK to pull out of the ESA and get your own (exclusive) agency? Sorry if that seems like an obvious question, but I don't care to assume.

--Cindy

GraemeSkinner · 2004-05-24 23:59:35

Just want to be sure I'm reading you right, Graeme: You seem to indicate you'd like the UK to pull out of the ESA and get your own (exclusive) agency? Sorry if that seems like an obvious question, but I don't care to assume.

No, I don't think the UK should withdraw totally from the ESA, but we do need our own space agency. I'd think it would be better for each country that has an interest in space to have their own agency (this could be anything from observational or theoretical studies to full blown manned missions), the ESA could still be a working organisation that pulls the member states together for missions/projects that would require experts or finance that one country alone could not provide.

Graeme

Stephen · 2004-06-02 02:49:50

No, I don't think the UK should withdraw totally from the ESA, but we do need our own space agency. I'd think it would be better for each country that has an interest in space to have their own agency (this could be anything from observational or theoretical studies to full blown manned missions), the ESA could still be a working organisation that pulls the member states together for missions/projects that would require experts or finance that one country alone could not provide.

Having your own space agency is all very well, but how will that help unless the British government is not prepared to fund it properly and for the long-term?

Certainly "full blown manned missions" would require the expenditure of the sort of serious money Britain does not seem to want to spend on space (judging from the amount it was prepared to spend on Beagle 2).

If all such an agency mainly ends up does end up doing is participating in ESA projects and a funding a handful of low-cost studies and talk-shops then sooner or later somebody out to save a buck is going to ask why Britain needs its own separate space agency at all.

atomoid · 2004-09-22 14:40:56

not to beat a dead horse, but i just noticed this http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/200 … x.html]The MGS MOC Search for Beagle 2

Note that this picture is NOT the "Beagle impact crater":

then why did i link it? i dont know, it had me fooled until i read the story!

Shaun Barrett · 2004-09-22 17:08:32

Thanks, Atomoid.
A nice update on the Beagle 2 crash mystery. I didn't even know they were still looking for the wreckage and I don't suppose we'll ever know for sure what happened.
Ah well ... here's to Beagle 3 (one day).

djellison · 2004-10-01 09:00:30

I've had a good look at the MOC imagery mentioned - and I cant find anything either.

Now - seing as we can see the MER hardware so very very clearly - ever at default 1.5m x 1.5m non cProto res - it surely stands to reason that we should see airbags if B2 got that far - if not, a parachute, and if not a chute then an impact crater.

As we can see none of the above - is it fair to make the bold assumption that actually - the little bugger didnt even make it thru entry?

Doug

RobS · 2004-10-02 14:54:57

Or it landed outside the imaged area, which is 70% of the eastern half of the ellipse and less than half of the entire ellipse.

-- RobS

atomoid · 2004-10-03 19:30:47

Beagle was cheap like Mars Polar Lander, and probably wasnt able to send data during touchdown.? Similarly, MPL was never found and neither were the two impactor probes it flew with, even though they searched and it should be showing up about as clear as the MERs do. If we only knew exactly where to look, then we might be able to see all the other failed mars missions over the last several decades lying in shiny heaps at the bottom of small impact craters. They did find http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/04/]Viking1 and pathfinder since they had some good data on where to look.

It could also have landed softly but had some other fatal problem, so there might not be any large sitzmark and its just sitting there without any power or <enter your BeagleII failure scenario here>.

It could take many many targeting cycles for MOC to chance upon the precise spot it might be, and we just havent combed enough square mileage to find it yet. http://www.msss.com/mars_images/moc/2004/01/04/]The article describes the method for finding landers from orbit and says it would take about 60 years to comb the entire landing ellipse to find MPL... ug, now that tries my patience...! One can only wonder how long it would take to find BeagleII, though i assume we have better data on its location than we had with MPL...

Ad Astra · 2004-10-04 23:08:23

They never confirmed finding the Mars Polar Lander, but a team from the National Imagery and Mappin Agency looked over the Mars Global Surveyor data in early 2001 and thye think they've found it. I don't know if the MGS people ever went back to take a closer look.

As for poor Beagle, it fell victim to the "faster, better, cheaper" mentality that doomed MPL and Mars Climate Orbiter. It's been demonstated that if you take the "FBC" approach, you can only accomplish two of the three.

I guess a new Beagle could be re-flown in the future, but if you can get it a dedicated launch (rather than hitch-hiking on the Mars Express,) you can build a better probe that has a much better chance of success.

GCNRevenger · 2004-10-05 04:45:07

They never confirmed finding the Mars Polar Lander, but a team from the National Imagery and Mappin Agency looked over the Mars Global Surveyor data in early 2001 and thye think they've found it. I don't know if the MGS people ever went back to take a closer look.
As for poor Beagle, it fell victim to the "faster, better, cheaper" mentality that doomed MPL and Mars Climate Orbiter. It's been demonstated that if you take the "FBC" approach, you can only accomplish two of the three.
I guess a new Beagle could be re-flown in the future, but if you can get it a dedicated launch (rather than hitch-hiking on the Mars Express,) you can build a better probe that has a much better chance of success.

If you do that though, the ultra-super-cheap probe just got a lot less super-cheap.

Beagle-II was under-engineered before it even left the drawing board... thats why it failed. A little too "FBC"

djellison · 2004-10-05 05:07:33

It wasnt 'under engineered' - it was engineerd to just about the very best it could be given the volume, mass, time and financial budgets - all of which were chronically limiting.

It was under budgeted.

It was over-engineered in terms of publicity suggesting it would work.

Doug

SpaceNut · 2004-10-05 05:51:33

I do not feel that "faster, better, cheaper" mentality that doomed any of the vehicles where the really reason for why they did not make it to Mars, but rather the fact that all were made from fresh designs, hardware had not been trial by fire tested and software was mishmash between groups that had worked independently.

Faster just meant that less time was used to error check hardware or software and Better as well as cheaper were meant to be use what is on the shelf.

djellison · 2004-10-06 01:37:20

But - given more money and/or more time - the bugs could have quite easily been ironed out of those missions that failed

Doug

atomoid · 2004-10-06 03:32:27

Doug-
yep, it often seems to take failure to insure success, the MPL failure gave NASA the excuse to really put a lot of care (money) for the design and testing into making sure the MERs would work since they couldnt afford another PR fiasco. I believe thats the main empetus behind NASA's descision to fund two MERs, for redundancy, otherwise we'd have only one poking around there now.

Ad Astra-
Im assuming NASA never looked again after getting the NIMA report that they had ostensibly found the MPL. Apparently, they do hope to eventually check again using the MRO. Here's a http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ma … rprisingly recent article on the matter although i still havent found any of those NIMA-processed images even though they are apparently "unclassified".

djellison · 2004-10-06 03:54:48

Yeah - I'm fairly confident MRO will find evidence of MPL, B2, and almost certainly all the hardware from MPF ( backshell - heatshield - still not spotted from orbit ) Viking 1 & 2 ( ditto ) - and even resolve MER tracks from one grey line - into two dark lines against a rusty brown of martian soil.

Doug

Ad Astra · 2004-10-06 15:03:23

I'm highly disappointed that NASA commissioned the NIMA report, then rejected its findings because they contradicted those of NASA. Why not hire a group of yes men to tell NASA bosses what they want to hear?

I've never liked the "MPL was lost because the shock of leg deployment cut off the engine" theory. I publicly wonder if the two penetrators had anything to do with MPL's loss. If the probes did not separate (and we have no signal they did,) the mass of the spacecraft would be greater and the rocket may not have been able to compensate. That's just my theory, and if there's something blatantly wrong with it I would like somebody to tell me.

djellison · 2004-10-06 15:59:59

Well - it was a considered option if you go look at the investigation report - but the chance of DS2 probes not deploying was very VERY small - a highly unlikely turn of events.

Whereas - the lander leg issue was found to be not only likely - but almost certain to have caused a failure before landing

NASA didnt comission a report from NIMA - they simply invited them to have a look at the MOC imagery. The only report about MPL is the investigation that took the entire project apart to find a root cause.

NIMA never found obvious evidence of MPL. All the MOC images are out there if you want to go have a look. All they found was something that might have been a bit like something that possibly might have looked a bit like the lander. Maybe.

Doug

atomoid · 2004-10-07 04:10:48

...
Whereas - the lander leg issue was found to be not only likely - but almost certain to have caused a failure before landing
...
Doug

As i recall, the http://mpfwww.jpl.nasa.gov/2001/lander/ … .html]2001 lander mission team fixed the problem with their duplicate platform so the same problem would not occur.

This made me wonder why NASA completely cancelled it when it seemed that the problem was fixed and the general lander platform design itself had a chance to be exonerated and science to go forward at http://www.msss.com/2001/ms01_2/index.htm]one of the propposed landing sites. but they cancelled it and it seemed like such a waste, after while i forgave NASA for the twin MPL/MCO fiascos but this just looked like NASA trying to just cover its butt. i remember signing an ineffective petition to try to convince NASA to launch it in 2003. it cast NASA as sort of hypocritical not being bold enough to go forward with the mission... :rant:

at least it sort of reincarnated as http://phoenix.lpl.arizona.edu/summary.php]Phoenix, but i digress, im still waiting for a Mars Microphone...

djellison · 2004-10-07 09:50:59

It was fiscal reasons that held the '01 lander from being reflown quickly. The money was dumped over to Odyssey and MER to ensure they were both succesfull.

If MRO and MPL taught us anything - it's that rushing, and doing things without enough cash - is just madness.

As far as I see it - the '01 lander is being flown at the earliest available opportunity - '07.

Unfortuantely, I think other, more scientifically bold and interesting scout finalists were barged out simply because Phoenix 'closes the book' - on the '01 hardware.

Doug

Josh Cryer · 2004-10-07 10:58:09

MPL had sucked up an inordinate amount of cash though, didn't it? It was a very mismanaged project if I recall correctly. They were throwing money away like it was air.

Palomar · 2004-11-02 12:28:56

http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish … 12004]Lack of money doomed Beagle 2

*New article.

--Cindy

SpaceNut · 2004-11-02 13:23:37

Yes check and double check of electronics and of design features cost money but why would anyone need to do that function more than once? Can you spell incompetent if this where genisis it would read lockheed but I am sure there are others attached to other projects that could join that list...

John Creighton · 2004-11-02 13:32:18

Yes check and double check of electronics and of design features cost money but why would anyone need to do that faunction more than once?

No human is perfect. It is a tradeoff between cost and reliability. That’s the way the bagel crumbles.

Rxke · 2004-11-02 14:17:18

Wow, John, that was a painful pun...

They say lack of money, but didn't find the fault... It could've been component XYZ, the most reliable, or so they thought, tht failed, because there was something wrong with it that only became apparent when too late (in space..)

What if BeagleII was successful? What would've been the 'cause' of success then?

The report says nothing, tpical 20/20 hindsight conclusion, IMO...

Or rather... It's a *political* statement, saying: government did'nt back the science sufficiently, look what happens when they act in that way...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-05-24 07:06:29

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#2 2004-05-24 15:51:16

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#3 2004-05-24 23:59:35

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#4 2004-06-02 02:49:50

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#5 2004-09-22 14:40:56

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#6 2004-09-22 17:08:32

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#7 2004-10-01 09:00:30

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#8 2004-10-02 14:54:57

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#9 2004-10-03 19:30:47

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#10 2004-10-04 23:08:23

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#11 2004-10-05 04:45:07

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#12 2004-10-05 05:07:33

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#13 2004-10-05 05:51:33

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#14 2004-10-06 01:37:20

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#15 2004-10-06 03:32:27

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#16 2004-10-06 03:54:48

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#17 2004-10-06 15:03:23

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#18 2004-10-06 15:59:59

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#19 2004-10-07 04:10:48

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#20 2004-10-07 09:50:59

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#21 2004-10-07 10:58:09

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#22 2004-11-02 12:28:56

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#23 2004-11-02 13:23:37

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#24 2004-11-02 13:32:18

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

#25 2004-11-02 14:17:18

Re: Beagle II - inquiry

Board footer