Slashdot Mirror
Beagle 2 Failure Analyzed
InsomniaCity writes "An inquiry into the loss of the Beagle 2 Mars probe in December will criticize the management of the project and the testing of the lander, says the BBC. Following the loss, the European Space Agency (Esa) and the British National Space Centre established a Commission of Inquiry, that are now recommending 19 things we need to remember for the future, from project management and fund raising, to high altitude testing of the parachute system. The commission, however, did not pinpoint any particular technical failure."
The cost of Beagle 2 varies (depending on who you ask) between 25 and 35 million pounds. Let's take an average of 30 million. The cost of the US Mars Rovers was 800 million for 2 (with savings on each because there were 2 of them). Right there is why Beagle 2 failed. Any failures in management are going to be mere perturbations on a delta-function graph - they had the best available technology, science, and equipment for the costs they could afford.
It's interesting to note that Manchester United paid 30 million for Rio Ferdinand from Leeds United (this is English Premier League Football, for those not UK based) which sort of sums up the UK attitude to space travel. We pay roughly equivalent amounts to move a footballer about 65 miles as we do to send a robot explorer to a different planet in search of life....
I think it all starts at a very early age. Sport is instinctively popular amongst kids and remains popular amongst adults. Science for kids is boring and dull (apart from Chemistry where once in a blue moon you get to blow something up). There are tables to learn, maths equations to solve, rules and laws to learn by rote. None of this is fun.
As kids become adults, they keep their inhibitions about science
The case for the prosecution of "boring science at school" rests, M'lud.
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
I agree.
A few weeks before the launch, there was a doumentary on the BBC about the probe. It was basically a one-man struggle to get the thing there, despite tight deadlines. I also noticed that some of the critical equiptment, I think including the parachute that they used, remained untested. (The one they tested broke during testing!) It was amazing that it even got into space, but there were definately worries about wether it would work or not before it was launched.
the rolls royce engines are some of the best plus they have lots of other things.
I wonder, actually, does anybody know if there are some standarts followed in such projects?
As for example in software development, the CMM is quite common nowadays, I know it's roots are somewhere deep in the defence/aerospace industry... So knowing it, I is hard to imagine, that organisation following even harder guidelines (I hope) and employing well educated (I presume) and motivated (of course) people, can overlook issues as properly testing the parachutes, and other mission critical elements...
Of course, the human factor is never to be underestimated, but this is why we have created and adher to these standarts...
Any ideas?
The speed at which new technologies are rushed from design through to market is a concern.
Admittedly technology that may have fatal consequences (like aircraft, flying machines and drugs)is usually subject to more regimented testing before release, but there is no shortage of products without such controls.
How many of us end-users should have been called beta-testers instead (cough...mobile phones...operating systems etc.)?
Unfortunately the rush to get the product to market before competition meant there wasn't enough time (or interest) in testing it. Was that the problem here, with the Mars Rover on the way at the same time as the Beagle?
Do you or your partner snore? - Visit www.snoring.com.au
it would never meet the deadlines because of all the new features being put into it constantly.
The software was actually built by LogicaCMG. At work we received a christmas card from them (i.e. before it was known that the probe had failed), saying this:
"LogicaCMG delivered the mission-critical software that controls Beagle 2 during the hazardous ride through the Martian atmosphere, releasing the heat shield and deploying parachutes and gas-filled air bags, slowing Beagle 2 down from its 14,000 mph/22,530 kph approach velocity to a safe landing on the surface of Mars"
Or maybe not - but thanks for the card anyway ;-)
Yes, I saw that, and feared the worst. The project was simply under-funded, which is why things did not get done. It was not due to any lack of technical competence. I have seen projects like this before, not necessarily involving space exploration, where those who control the cash supply something less than the absolute minimum necessary to to the job, with the inevitable result. Partly it happens because, especially in the UK, those who control the money usually have no scientific or technical ability whatsoever, and they imagine that there is always some way of making economies, when in matters of hard fact such as equipment design, there usually is not.
I saw one of the beagle-2 flight spares last week. It was displayed and discussed at the university department where I work.
One suggestion for the loss of the craft was that the barometric altimeter, which was to deploy the parachute, was fooled by an unseasonal sand storm in the Martian atmosphere. The altimeter had to trigger the chute quite late in the descent, and the low pressure associated with the storm may have inhibited the deployment until the craft hit the ground.
Since Beagle had no engines, it couldn't go into parking orbit until the storm went away.
If they had thought of testing the parachute before they would have considered the idea that it might fail, and planed for time to build one that works. There is no point in doing a test if you can't make use of the results. They wasted time and money pretending to test the system.
Yes I understand there were time pressures. I don't know what they could have done differently to make it work.