Slashdot Mirror


Simulations May Explain Loss of Beagle 2 Mars Probe

chrb writes "Researchers at Queensland University have used computer simulations to calculate that the loss of the US$80 million British Beagle 2 Mars probe was due to a bad choice of spin rate during atmospheric entry, resulting in the craft burning up within seconds. The chosen spin rate was calculated by using a bridging function to estimate the transitional forces between the upper and lower atmosphere, while the new research relies on simulation models. Beagle 2 team leader Professor Colin Pillinger has responded saying that the figures are far from conclusive, while another chief Beagle engineer has said 'We still think we got it right.'"

98 comments

  1. How weird by Roland+Piquepaille · · Score: 0

    another chief Beagle engineer has said 'We still think we got it right.'

    They got it right, yet the mission failed. What sort of weird mental block do these people have?

    1. Re:How weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      another chief Beagle engineer has said 'We still think we got it right.'

      They got it right, yet the mission failed. What sort of weird mental block do these people have?

      Something else might have gone wrong even tho the choice of spin rate was the correct one.

    2. Re:How weird by davester666 · · Score: 5, Funny

      In Doctor's terms: The operation was a success, but the patient died.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re:How weird by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, perplexingly, there exists the possibility that they selected the correct entry spin rate but the mission failed for another reason. It's one of those perverse physics concepts like things falling down and cats and dogs not living together. Frankly, if it turns out that their own spin-rate calculations were valid and correctly computed, yet they caused the mission to fail, we'll have learned something very important for future missions. They could just throw their hands up and say "yes, our spin rate calculations were guff" to satisfy you that they do not have a "weird mental block" but that's not how it works in grown-up land.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    4. Re:How weird by Sockatume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Furthermore, their choice of spin-rate may have been made with the best possible available knowledge and approximation, and still been fatal. In which case we will have learned something - perhaps something really important, given how many Mars missions go awry - about successfully landing probes on planets.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    5. Re:How weird by exley · · Score: 1

      Knowing even just a small bit about how people can behave, explain to me how this is "weird".

      Something or other went wrong, and they're all defensive about it. Sounds normal to me.

    6. Re:How weird by andy_t_roo · · Score: 3, Informative

      well according to the current score, the game is about a 20 all tie -- although this doesn't count any points scored this year

      http://www.bio.aps.anl.gov/~dgore/fun/PSL/marsscorecard.html

    7. Re:How weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on, use some simple logic.

      They COULD use "it" to refer to the entire mission. In that case, the statement is idiotic. Clearly they didn't get it right if the mission failed. That would make this engineer a retard.

      Or they could use "it" to refer to the spin rate. In that case, the statement makes perfect sense -- he's suggesting he thinks the problem that caused the mission to fail lies elsewhere.

      Clearly somebody in this situation is a retard. I know who my money is on.

      Seriously, are pronouns that confusing for you?

    8. Re:How weird by edittard · · Score: 3, Funny

      Seriously, are pronouns that confusing for you?

      Are you talking to me?

      --
      At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
    9. Re:How weird by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      What I'm wondering is why they only send out one probe. Why not two or three and have some kind of redundancy? For something so mission critical, well... you'd think they would have more than one of them up there.

    10. Re:How weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Those things are a bit expensive, so rather than have 3 of those probes burn up one after the other due to a design fault or cosmic rays; they send one, check the results, and only *then* think about sending another.

    11. Re:How weird by jamesh · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the spin rates were off afterall, then they could have lost two or three probes instead of one. It's always a gamble, and if a mistake with big consequences has been made, sending more probes might not give you more chance of success...

    12. Re:How weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      For something so mission critical, well... you'd think they would have more than one of them up there.

      Beagle 2 was not mission critical - it was an underfunded bolt-on to Mars Express, which is doing quite nicely, thank you.

    13. Re:How weird by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I've worked with people like this. Most engineers are 25% about themselves and 75% about the task when they're working, and regress to 50%/50% when playing with gadgets at home or showing off their phones in the pub.

      The likes of Pillinger are never less than 50% about themselves, no matter how urgent a crisis is or how obviously wrong they are.

      They always screw up, but they've worked so hard to bolster their image and gain crdibility among their peers that, at least in their own world, they never really feel the failure at all.

    14. Re:How weird by Tuna_Shooter · · Score: 0

      I thought the spin rate telemetry data was relayed back just after re-entry -- or some where near or before...kinda link like pulling and saying i didn't really cum....

      God dammit Jim ima doctor not and engineer....

      --
      *--- Sometimes a majority only means that all the fools are on the same side. ---*
    15. Re:How weird by Hurricane78 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's no different than the "dark matter/energy" concept of
      "Damn, your calculations are totally wrong, and your model is a piece of shit."
      "Nooo... The universe lies to us! There is some dark stuff that we can't see, or measure, or anything ever, that has just the effect to fix our model, and nothing else!"
      "How convenient!"

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    16. Re:How weird by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Beagle 2 was not mission critical - it was an underfunded bolt-on to Mars Express

      The Brits made the same mistake the Soviets kept making: making the probe too complicated before you have experience landing. They should have made Beager lighter and simpler for the budget they had. Maybe some cameras and ONE good soil experiment.

      Some of the Soviet Mars landers had a little rover on a tether. It was a clever idea, but too much for a first mission. (It could be argued that the Vikings were too bold also. But they were well-funded and well-tested and fricken expensive as a result.)
               

    17. Re:How weird by laddiebuck · · Score: 1

      That has some odd things. For instance, MGS is counted as a success. Also, Beagle is not mentioned anywhere. I don't think that "score-card" can be considered very accurate.

    18. Re:How weird by zaivala · · Score: 1

      We all know the Martians shot it down. They're just trying to cover the facts up.

    19. Re:How weird by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Yes it is:

      Mars Express fired its main thrusters on December 25 and successfully entered Mars orbit. The Beagle 2 lander, however, has not been heard from.

      And why shouldn't the Mars Global Surveyor be counted as a success? The site looks accurate to me.

    20. Re:How weird by uncoveror · · Score: 1

      They hate being called martians. Their proper name is the Zhti Ti Kofft. http://www.uncoveror.com/zhtitikofft.htm http://www.uncoveror.com/icegeysers.htm

      --
      The Uncoveror: It's the real news.
  2. from expensive fireworks department by savuporo · · Score: 1

    this could have been cool to watch. poof, nothing.

    --
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
  3. Oh sure. by mr_josh · · Score: 1

    Everyone always blames the bridging function...

  4. Hah! They're just trying to hide the fact... by master811 · · Score: 4, Funny

    .... that The Transformers got it.

  5. They where told to report it as a complete loss by Scoldog · · Score: 3, Funny

    In fact, it broadcast 13 seconds of footage. It can be viewed here. http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=wFvUdt9BQhU

    --
    This space for rent
  6. Re:Come on, it's british by knutkracker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Name a one thing British ever made right.

    Canada.

  7. Crazy talk by Hobadee · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now, this may be crazy talk, but shouldn't you do the computer simulations BEFORE sending the $80m craft on it's way?

    --
    ...Had this been an actual emergency, we would have fled in terror, and you would not have been informed.
    1. Re:Crazy talk by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Funny

      but shouldn't you do the computer simulations BEFORE sending the $80m craft on it's way?

      LOL, that's so BDUF, are you still in the 1980s?

      The landing wasn't a failure, just the first iteration using an agile methodology. They'll get there in the next scrimmage. Or something.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:Crazy talk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now, this may be crazy talk, but shouldn't you do the computer simulations BEFORE sending the $80m craft on it's way?

      you have obviously never written a aero simulation. your model is only as good as the assumptions you make, but your assumptions can get a lot better with experimental data.

  8. Re:Come on, it's british by Timmmm · · Score: 1

    Cider

  9. Re:Come on, it's british by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rugby, Cricket, Football.

  10. Ummmmm..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 2, Funny

    "Beagle 2 team leader Professor Colin Pillinger has responded saying that the figures are far from conclusive, while another chief Beagle engineer has said 'We still think we got it right.'"

    -So they really *did* intend to burn the craft up on re-entry? If they did, what's all the hubbub about?

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Ummmmm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can do everything right, and still fail. Duh.

  11. Aliens! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why does nobody think about the aliens?!
    It was them i tells ye.
    Those aliens wanted to keep the secret between them and NASA only, so they blew that thing outta the skies.

    The human race isn't ready yet.

  12. Whomever named him was pure genius! by rts008 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    This has to be the coolest name for a scientist I have ever encountered!:
    Dr. Madhat Abdel-Jawad...Madhat FTW!!!

    Or, maybe I have watched too many 1950's-1960's grade B (or some/most less than 'B') 'mad scientist' movies for my own good.
    It could also be Lewis Carroll's fault for "Alice in Wonderland" having the 'MadHatter'....I just don't know anymore...

    Oh yeah, have pink flamingo, will travel...BTW, WHO are you, again?. (Don Ameche's character as the senile father)
    Worth watching, a very funny but family safe movie- I give it a 'two thumbs up' rating.

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    1. Re:Whomever named him was pure genius! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go back to Digg.

  13. Explanation? by Schiphol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is something wrong but interesting about the idea that a computer simulation can explain what happened in a real-life incident. In the normal usage of "explain", only causally-related events can explain other events.

    There is undoubtedly something to the contention that a computer simulation does some explanatory work, but it must be in a roundabout way. Maybe this: the computer simulation provides evidence to the effect that some prior event was able to cause the known outcome; but then it is the prior event (the bad choice of spin rate in this case) that explains the loss of the Beagle 2, not the computer simulation.

    1. Re:Explanation? by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      I think your idea of normal usage of "explain" may be slightly at odds with the entire rest of the English speaking world.

      You seem to be thinking of the "That explains it!" context (being the explanation), rather than the "Bob explains it to Alice" (Providing the explanation) context.
      I don't think you could say that one is more normal usage than the other, and I don't think anyone else had much trouble picking the correct context from the headline, even though headlines are often fairly impenetrable.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    2. Re:Explanation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me see if I can explain it to you...

    3. Re:Explanation? by Eaque · · Score: 1

      +1 !

    4. Re:Explanation? by Schiphol · · Score: 1

      I think you are right, and I made my point in a careless way. I stand corrected.

      It is nevertheless still the case that scientists tend to think these days that computer simulations do explanatory work of the other kind. It is still an interesting question: do computer simulations provide evidence at all that some events in the real world have turned out one way or another?

    5. Re:Explanation? by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is something wrong but interesting about the idea that a computer simulation can explain what happened in a real-life incident. In the normal usage of "explain", only causally-related events can explain other events.

      Huh? The dictionary definition of explain pretty much matches how I've used it and seen it used all my life - and bears no relation to your "definition".

  14. Re:Come on, it's british by ijakings · · Score: 1

    Pomp and circumstance

  15. Come on, Cider... by Herve5 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Come on, Cider is french :-D

    --
    Herve S.
    1. Re:Come on, Cider... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should come and visit my Cidernetics labs down in Grenobles. They are impressive and very well stocked. Santé!

  16. Re:Come on, it's british by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    The second world war.

  17. Re:Come on, it's british by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Rugby, Football.

    Fixed it for you.

  18. Bridging function? by gzipped_tar · · Score: 1

    So what is a "bridging function"? Definitely not something about Ethernet bridging... but what is it?

    --
    Colorless green Cthulhu waits dreaming furiously.
    1. Re:Bridging function? by zbharucha · · Score: 2, Funny
    2. Re:Bridging function? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So what is a "bridging function"? Definitely not something about Ethernet bridging... but what is it?

      From the context, I would imagine that it is a function that interpolates between the behavior of and forces on the craft in orbit (well studied by previous orbiters) and the behavior expected in the lower atmosphere (well studied by previous probes). The intervening region is probably not that well covered by available data, so some sort of function must be guessed to fill-in the gap between the two datasets. There may be features in the upper Martian atmosphere that were not present in the bridging function that they used to model the probe landing.

    3. Re:Bridging function? by Tablizer · · Score: 2, Funny

      [What is a bridging function?] The intervening region [of atmosphere] is probably not that well covered by available data, so some sort of function must be guessed to fill-in the gap


          b = guess(a)

       

    4. Re:Bridging function? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      is that the beginning of Newton's algorithm for finding a square root? ;)

  19. Re:Come on, it's british by edittard · · Score: 2, Funny

    Name a one thing british ever made right.

    Dji Ingliti langwij and haw it iz speld.

    --
    At the bottom of the /. main page it says 'Yesterday's News'. Well they got that right.
  20. European Space Agency assessment found other flaws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    There has been a very detailed assessment of this failure by the European Space Agency at the time, and the guys were quite competent being the ones that built the (successful) Huygens probe to Titan embarked on Cassini.
    ESA found many issues, mostly due to way too severe cost constraints (a "british-only" program...).

    Among them IIRC, the main parachute that was changed in extremis (when the unpaid earlier maker announced they wouldn't go up to offer the flight model too) resulted in a drag coefficient that was smaller than the drag of the front shield, this big "bottom" device that you drop immediately after the peak entry aerothermal flux. Having such a drag ratio means the front shield could perfectly have slammed back onto the descent module upon release, or just inside the parachute itself with the consequence you can imagine (all of this happens at around Mach 1).

    And that one was just an issue among others...

    I'm searching for that ESA document but I just can't track it back right now :(

  21. Re:Come on, it's british by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Name a one thing british ever made right.

    Beer.

  22. Re:Come on, it's british by xaxa · · Score: 4, Informative

    Name a one thing british ever made right.

    Railways. Television. Electric motor. Flushing toilet. Steam engine & locomotive. Computer. Seed drill. Tank. Custard. Cat flap. Jet engine. World wide web. Penicillin.

  23. Yeah! Right! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought it was because they used MS Excel 2007 to work out the spin rate!

  24. Some Background by Catmeat · · Score: 4, Informative
    Beagle 2 always was an underfunded project with zero margin for error. For background, see this 2005, 2-part article by respected space historian and author, Dwayne Day.

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/330/1

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/347/1

    As for Colin Pillinger, note that the (initially secret) ESA report on the Beagle failure put much of the blame on project management failings and he's not been put in charge of any large project since.

    1. Re:Some Background by zrq · · Score: 2, Informative

      As for Colin Pillinger .... he's not been put in charge of any large project since.

      According to Wikipedia, he was diagnosed with progressive multiple sclerosis in 2005. So he might not feel up to spending the next few years fighting the inevitable political and administrative battles a project like this would involve.

  25. Re:Come on, it's british by ciderVisor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Name a one thing british ever made right.

    Scotch Whisky.
    Rolls Royce cars.
    Aston Martin cars.
    TVR cars.
    Lotus cars.
    Triumph motorbikes and cars (and bras and knickers...)
    Marshall amps.
    Trace Elliot amps.
    Orange amps.
    Vox amps, guitars and organs.
    The AVOmeter.
    Harrier V/STOL aircraft.
    The Hillman Imp.


    No, wait...

    --
    Squirrel!
  26. Re:Come on, it's british by owlnation · · Score: 1

    Railways. Television. Electric motor. Flushing toilet. Steam engine & locomotive. Computer. Seed drill. Tank. Custard. Cat flap. Jet engine. World wide web. Penicillin.

    Some of these had minor British contributions, but are not by any stretch of the imagination British successes in their entirety. For example, penicillin was near worthless without contributions from US scientists at Pfizer. (Fleming's contribution is vastly overrated). And lets not even start on Logie Baird.

    One thing the British seem to be inventing very well though is SURVEILLANCE SOCIETY.

    They also invented Pop/American/etc Idol too. Something someone should be nuked for.

  27. Re:Come on, it's british by Mostly+a+lurker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Best troll for a long time, but I cannot resist biting ... how about Monty Python?

  28. Re:Come on, it's british by hool5400 · · Score: 1

    A billion Indians disagree.

    --

    Remember, it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to pull the trigger of a sniper rifle.
  29. Calculate This by DynaSoar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How many different independent forces could have influenced Beagle? Represent each with a variable. Calculate how many emergent properties could have influenced the craft (those arising from interactions between main variables). Assign these a variable. Estimate the range of values for each variable. Calculate the dynamics of each variable (ie. linear, logarithmic, hyperbolic, etc., including estimation of those whose behavior does not fit a simple function, instead requiring complex functions). For each variable, estimate a reasonable granularity (they may be analog, but the resulting computation would include infinities, so digitizing is necessary). Calculate the matrix necessary to represent all the possible results. Determine whether the calculations could be completed in polynomial time. Almost certainly not, so estimate how many variables (and their dynamics) must be retained and drop the rest. Calculate the solutions matrix for this reduced set. Check for polynomial time solution. If no, reduce yet again. With each reduction estimate the error range introduced, and whether any of them are unacceptable and the prior value retained.

    Estimate the amount of computational power/time necessary to complete the solutions matrix, including the cost of buying/building/renting/etc. and your available resources. Calculate how many orders of magnitude there are between what's necessary to solve the problem and what you have to work with. From that estimate how much you have to reduce the solutions matrix in order to be able to arrive at some solutions, as well as how inaccurate any results will be.

    Once you have the calculation of the solution set down to polynomial time and within your budget, look at how inaccurate your results will be. If the accuracy is found to be acceptable, and the calculation therefore worth doing, chances are you've made a mistake in your estimations. Almost certainly the inaccuracy will become too great before your reductions result in a solvable problem. Also note that the minimal matrix dimension will probably not be an integer. Choosing the best number of variables would be trivial, as you simply choose the next highest integer. However just because the solution here is between N and N+1 does not mean that there is only one variable with a fractional influence; estimate how many and which variables are best characterized as non-integers and select the best set of variables to use in the model. Calculate how far back into non-polynomial time your solution estimate has drifted, or at best how far over your resource budget the calculations will require.

    Take a dose of analgesic of your choice sufficient to eliminate your headache. Begin building a model using the minimum number of (integer) variables necessary to arrive at a variable/value set that produces a result matching the behavior of the phenomenon you wish to model. Ignore the probability calculations that would indicate how likely it is you're wrong, and how many such wrong solutions you'll arrive at before you happen on a possibly right solution. Instead of using probability estimates to calculate statistical significance of any calculated solution, use the fact that a solution can be found that results in the same behavior as the one to be modeled, and wrongly call that accidental similarity 'practical significance'. Publish a factually unsupportable assertion that your model describes what happened based only on the fact that your model achieves the same result and count on the fact that nobody else on your research team, or anyone for that matter, is capable of accomplishing the necessary calculations described here to conclusively state you're wrong, or at best that you can't say you're right.

    Estimate the positive influence the number of publications, regardless of validity, has on the probability of receiving future funding and amount thereof. Conclude that minimal-guess "modeling" provides you with the ability to say something that sounds reasonable whereas attempting to achieve real validity would take too

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:Calculate This by sleeponthemic · · Score: 4, Informative

      I pasted your post into windows calculator as requested.

      The answer was 55378008.

      I suspect the polarity was reversed during the process, though. You should probably view it from a vertically inverted vantage point.

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
    2. Re:Calculate This by MythMoth · · Score: 1

      Quite. Those who tagged this article with "moron" are the sort of invertebrates who give developers a bad name.

      --
      --- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
    3. Re:Calculate This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever modded the parent post as "Informative" is probably to be going senile!

    4. Re:Calculate This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      7 is the answer

    5. Re:Calculate This by labnet · · Score: 1

      Hah! You're really a climate change scientist!

      --
      46137
    6. Re:Calculate This by sleeponthemic · · Score: 1

      Whoever modded the parent post as "Informative" is probably to be going senile!

      Whoever posted that probably doesn't have the ability to discern tongue-in-cheek moderation.

      --
      I record my sleeptalking
  30. Re:Come on, it's british by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    A billion Indians disagree.

    About what? That the poms are okay at rugby and football, or bad at Cricket? C'mon it can't be the cricket.

  31. The Sycorax Destroyed The Probe, no? by wolverine1999 · · Score: 1

    At least I thought the Sycorax destroyed it..

  32. Richard Hoagland would say... by Teresita · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...that the spin rate screwup is the official story, but what really happened is that a laser from NASA's Mars Odyessy probe took it out before the European probe took pictures of faces and canals and crystal cities that would have been outside the control of the Majestic 12 group.

  33. Re:Come on, it's british by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Name a one thing british ever made right.

    Australia.

  34. Re:Come on, it's british by hool5400 · · Score: 1

    Cricket was something good that the English invented.

    I think we can agree that the English cricket team is another story.

    --

    Remember, it takes 42 muscles to frown and only 4 to pull the trigger of a sniper rifle.
  35. Re:Come on, it's british by dvh.tosomja · · Score: 0

    This morning, I had karma "positive". Now my karma changed to "bad". Damn it, karma.

  36. I hate to break it to you, but... by Mr.+Underbridge · · Score: 3, Insightful

    but that's not how it works in grown-up land.

    ...slashdot's not grown-up land.

  37. It's The Name by BB128 · · Score: 2, Funny

    This is clearly a matter of an unfortunate choice of names. Naming it "beagle" was clearly asking it to wander off and get lost. Any beagle owner will be able to attest to this.

    1. Re:It's The Name by crowne · · Score: 1, Informative

      I thought that it was named after the HMS Beagle upon which Darwin made his first observations that led to his theory of natural selection / evolution.

      --
      RTFM is not a radio station.
  38. Re:Come on, it's british by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's OK, you can keep Simon Cowell - just don't bother to send him back. Merry Christmas.

  39. HELP! by Eevee · · Score: 1

    British you see, useless. If I had a Luger, eh? Think of it, scientists properly equipped. The answer's with you, the voters.

  40. Re:Come on, it's british by El+Yanqui · · Score: 5, Funny

    Railways. Television. Electric motor. Flushing toilet. Steam engine & locomotive. Computer. Seed drill. Tank. Custard. Cat flap. Jet engine. World wide web. Penicillin.

    Okay, okay. Besides railways, television, the electric motor, the flushing toilet, steam engines, computers, seed drills, tanks, custards, cat flaps, jet engines, world wide web and penicillin; what have the British ever done for us?

    How could you leave off Monty Python?

    --
    Well, thanks to the Internet, I'm now bored with sex.
  41. $80M... by heatseeker_around · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    How much did it really cost ? how much money did these engineers kept for other projects or for themselves ?

  42. Re:Come on, it's british by aquatone282 · · Score: 1
    --
    What?
  43. Re:Come on, it's british by Sethumme · · Score: 1

    Name a one thing british ever made right.

    Railways. Television. Electric motor. Flushing toilet. Steam engine & locomotive. Computer. Seed drill. Tank. Custard. Cat flap. Jet engine. World wide web. Penicillin.

    Many of these are a surprise to me. I would be interested in hearing more about those contributions.

  44. Re:Come on, it's british by xaxa · · Score: 1

    For most of them I just looked at Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:British_inventions (most are in the English inventions subcategory).

    I didn't really mean to be taken seriously, I was just replying to post that had been marked Flamebait.

  45. Aliens by Mercano · · Score: 1

    I thought it was swallowed up by the Sycorax on Christmas two years ago.

    (Yes, I know that The Christmas Invasion aired three years ago, but there was that one year time loss early in the first season of Doctor Who, between Rose and Aliens of London that hasn't really been accounted for since. Should actually put Torchwood ahead a year, too.)

    --
    #include <signature.h>
  46. Re:Come on, it's british by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You post was timed just before everyone went down the pub on the last Friday before Christmas. It would have been much worse if it had been a couple of hours later!

    It gave me a laugh anyway. I mean, who'd have thought "custard"?

  47. Re:Come on, it's british by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because it sucks?

  48. It's not lost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It just hasn't finished indexing the contents of Mars yet.

  49. Re:Come on, it's british by ModernGeek · · Score: 1

    He only asked for one thing, gosh!

    --
    Sig: I stole this sig.
  50. It's fine, there's no evidence somethings off... by Tatarize · · Score: 1

    It's only a flesh wound!

    --

    It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
  51. Re:Come on, it's british by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

    America? ;)

  52. Re:Come on, it's british by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Out of all British colonies you pick the one that makes Alabama look advanced.

    What about: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, etc.

    All of these were re-built from the ground up using the British system. Taking a stretch you could have at least said India and Pakistan, but Australia?

    No offense, I'm Australian, however this is the only country I have lived in where a 1GB internet cap is not only accepted however also defended by common people. I understand why we are capped (low demand and very low supply).

    However explain to me than why:
    1. We dump 50b into the new next-gen internet network.
    2. We are still going to be capped at the low numbers (1GB to 10GB).
    3. Only benefit we will receive is that we can clean through the cap in under a hand full of minutes.

    Keep in mind that Big Pond was built/executed by the government. This is Big Pond 2. Why not just invest the 50b into buying up the underwater lines or covering the operating costs for all the users so that at least for a year or two we can surf like the rest of the world.

    Welcome to Austra ... [credit limit reached]

  53. Re:Come on, it's british by Randym · · Score: 1

    Railways. Television. Electric motor. Flushing toilet. Steam engine & locomotive. Computer. Seed drill. Tank. Custard. Cat flap. Jet engine. World wide web. Penicillin.

    You forgot parliamentary democracy. And ready chopped suet.

    Yes, I know the Icelandic *invented* it. The British made it *right*. Er, I meant 'parliamentary democracy', not ready chopped suet. But that was first made in Britain too: http://www.dooyoo.co.uk/food/atora-shredded-suet/1166349/

    "Gabriel Hugon watched his wife trying to finely chop a large piece of suet and thought that he may make many housewives lives easier by selling ready chopped suet. He sold his engraving business and in 1893 he opened The Atora Suet factory in Openshaw, Manchester."

    Christmas puddings have never been the same -- thankfully.

    --
    DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.