Britains Reaction to NASA's success

[Elysium Fossa]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2F01%2F11%2Fwm
ars11.xml&sSheet=%2Fnews%2F2004%2F01%2F11%2Fixworl d.html

I wonder, if Beagle had succeeded the reaction would have been different, or
perhaps it's just more anti-American crap in the British press.

"While saluting Nasa's success in managing to keep their probe intact, Prof
Pillinger could not help but observe ruefully: "For the price of one of
their launches, we could have put seven Beagle 2s on Mars."

...........but how many of the 7 would have worked? I watched the
documentaries on Beagles construction and testing. It's not nice to admit,
but after they had finished they left we with little faith in the project
succeeding.

[Martin Frey]

"Elysium Fossa" <elysiumfossa@netscape.net> wrote:


I don't see this as anti US - Pillinger is doing a good job of
containing his emotions in the face of real personal tragedy: his
"baby" was always underweight and undernourished (with cash: not with
ingenuity) and it (probably...) died.

I share your view of the difficulty in maintaining faith: after the
airbag failure, more than one test success would be needed to build
confidence.

I have posted before on the iron nerves of these guys. Having seen the
documentaries I was like a jelly when I thought about the probable
outcome - and its got nowt to do with me.

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

[Elysium Fossa]

>

I thought the journalists tone and style of writing was more anti-US,
rather than what Colin Pillinger was supposed to have said.

The article mentions some the failures NASA has had recently, but fails to
mention the succeses - of which there are dozens. Also many NASA craft are
multi-national missions. I believe 3 of Spirits science instruments are
European.

[Jack Harrison]

"Elysium Fossa" <elysiumfossa@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:mZwMb.1839$YV1.999@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2F01%2F11%2Fwm
or

Hold on a second.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking that the British media is
anti-American. It is not and nor are ordinary British people. But we are
certainly vehemently anti-Bush. The media and the public detest Bush.
However, we Brits must accept some of the blame for this - he's called
deputy fuehrer Blair. (Or the lap dog)

Jack

[Martin Frey]

"Elysium Fossa" <elysiumfossa@netscape.net> wrote:


Mea culpa - too idle to read the Telegraph article. (Usually idle
anyway, but even the word Telegraph makes my idleness discover new
depths or perhaps heights)

--
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 02 E 0 47

[Doctor J. Frink]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 13:47:09 -0000, Elysium Fossa
<elysiumfossa@netscape.net> wrote:

The Mossbauer spectrometer is by the MIMOS group at Mainz Uni, Germany
and is practically the same as used on Beagle. And the X-ray
spectrometer is also a German-led instrument.

There has also been much cooperation between the NASA and Beagle teams
(not just in the use of Odyssey as a relay). There is healthy rivalry
but some teams have worked on both missions (some simultaneously), both
on instruments and the supporting science needed to work on Mars.

I have always felt that we were all in it together, and whilst it would
have felt good to show the 'damn yankees' a thing or two it wasn't to be
on the day. ;0) MER and Beagle would have complemented each other;
neither mission can do as much science as both together could have done,
and that's what's important.

Frink

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse

[MichaelJP]

"Martin" <mpsXXX137@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:btuaip$r8m$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...2F01%2F11%2Fwm
different, or

Do you think so? I got the impression that most of the UK media would have
loved Beagle to be a success, especially as Pillinger has been seen as a
real "character".

- Michael

[Doctor J. Frink]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 15:09:38 -0000, MichaelJP <MJP@nospam.com> wrote:

I listened to a debate on Radio 2, which had some pontificating, pompous
toff saying it had all been a complete waste of time and money[1] and it
should have gone into genetics "which we're already very strong in"
apparently, and that we were merely trying to play second fiddle to the
more expensive NASA rovers (ignoring the fact that the two missions
could do some quite different things). I wonder if he would have said
the same if Beagle had been beaming back data by then...

The idea of trying to be very strong in a new area doesn't seem to be
useful according to him. Stick at what you're good at! Never try
anything new! No wonder GB has gone downhill if prats like that have any
influence.

There are always a few who like to jump in and make themselves sound
very important by predicting doom *after* the event. Didn't hear many of
these people saying it was all a waste of time and money *before* it
landed...

Frink

[1] Despite the fact that even though Beagle has disappeared it has
generated a lot of equipment, technology and knowledge which can be used
in future missions and terrestrial science, not to mention generated
enormous public enthusiasm in science. This makes it a success and a
good use of resources in my book.

--
Doctor J. Frink : 'Rampant Ribald Ringtail'
See his mind here : http://www.cmp.liv.ac.uk/frink/
Annoy his mind here : pjf at cmp dot liv dot ack dot ook
"No sir, I didn't like it!" - Mr Horse

[Ethan Trewhitt]

According to Elysium Fossa <elysiumfossa@netscape.net>:

I find it offensive that they call Hubble a "fiasco."

--
eth'nT
http://www.hydrous.net
aim: courtarro

[Michael Anthony]

"Martin" <mpsXXX137@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:btuaip$r8m$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

I remember a similarly negative piece in the BBC prior to the mission to fix
the Hubble ST. They stated that in the aftermath of the loss of Space
Shuttle Challenger, NASA's reputation was now "on the line" in the face of
increasing schepticism about its relevance, and so on, and so on. They
seemed to be at pains to avoid saying something positive, which leads me to
believe that they just don't understand the relevance and necessity of space
exploration and research. Could this be evidence of a more fundamental
cultural difference? I've heard it suggested that the British are simply
less inclined to take risks, as a symptom of a more stagnant culture. (And
this is from a Brit.)

The Beagle 2 team, on the other hand, posted good-luck messages to NASA on
their website. The sneering most definitely did not emanate from them.

It's also possible that NASA is a victim of its own success. In captaining
so many successful missions in their short history, they make the difficult
appear mundane. The public got bored of shuttle missions, for example, but
everyone who truly paid attention knew that the shuttle was still dangerous
to fly. For a critic to spout a list of NASA's "costly failures" is
therefore to overlook the fact that when risk is high, failures are part of
the business.

With regards to Spirit and Opportunity being labelled repeats, let me ask
this : if we had only discovered the means to get to Antarctica in 1960, and
sent three scientific missions over the course of three decades, would it be
entirely a repeat to send a fourth or could we claim that we had learned
everything there is to know about the place?

--
Michael Anthony