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.'"

Comments

Re:How weird

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Come on, it's british

[Tony Hoyle]

Name a one thing british ever made right.

Australia.

Re:How weird

[Hurricane78]

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!"