Here’s one (OF MANY) reasons, why I believe this whole debacle has occurred;
From;
www.spacedaily.com...
“The lander's Gas Analysis Package, or GAP, was central to its mission to discover signs of past or present life on Mars. The only previous
life-detection experiments on Mars were carried out by NASA's Viking 1 and 2 landers in 1976. "It wasn't that Viking didn't find life," said
Beagle 2 Chief Scientist, Professor Colin Pillinger, "it was that they thought the conditions were just so horrid, so harsh, nobody anticipated that
life could exist there."
"The Beagle 2 project was based on martian meteorite studies," said Pillinger. "I think the real thing that is driving us back to wanting to look
at whether there is life on Mars is something that Viking did that nobody anticipated, nobody planned. It was that they were able to show that we have
martian meteorites on Earth."
"The discovery of water in martian meteorites was made just after Viking. Of course, we didn't know then they were martian meteorites," said
Pillinger. "But we found evidence of water trickling through martian meteorites, we found carbonates in martian meteorites that was definitely
indigenous. And we found organic matter. I believe that the organic matter is there in an amount that can't just be explained by contamination.
However, I can't prove it. And if I can't prove something, I just simply say, right, what are we going to do next? Go find another experiment."”
And, from the same interview, (“A METHANE TEASER…”)
See my previous links to METHANE DETECTION ON MARS SINCE VIKING 2 LANDER;
“As for the future, the Beagle 2 team is already considering what might be possible with a Beagle 3 mission. "Viking did a very noble job," said
Pillinger. "They had three experiments, which were configured to see whether there were any actively metabolizing organisms on the planet. [Beagle 2]
was not doing a metabolism experiment. The thing which is crucial as far as I'm concerned is we need to see whether we can detect any organic
[biologically produced] matter.
Beagle 2 Lander Inquiry "Derailed And CENSORED", page 1
privacy
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 3-6-2004 @ 07:31 PM by Ixataar
From;
www.esa.int...
“2. The Inquiry Commission was set up jointly between ESA and BNSC and was chaired by the ESA Inspector General. The Commission included senior managers and experts from Europe and also from NASA and Russia. Its remit was to:
· assess the available data/documentation acquired during development, integration and testing of the Beagle 2 lander on Earth and that pertaining to the cruise phase operations prior to release of the spacecraft to Mars;
· analyse the programmatic environment (i.e. decision processes, funding level and resources, management and responsibilities, interactions between the various entities) throughout the project;
· identify possible issues and shortcomings, both programmatic and technical, in the above and in the approach used, which might have contributed to the loss of the mission.
All members of the Commission have signed a non-disclosure agreement.”
Regarding (The Potential for “Hijacking” Beagle 2 Lander, and it’s subsequent Cover-up).
From the same link, regarding SSMM “Hijacking Potential”;
“Recommendation 12
For future planetary entry missions, a more robust communications system should be used, allowing direct commanding of the lander for essential actuations and resets without software involvement – enabling recoveries in catastrophic situations.”
And;
Regarding (The Potential for “Air-Bag Failure/Suss Tests by USA” on Beagle 2 Lander);
“Recommendation 19
Adequate competencies in air bag and parachute technology must be available for future European planetary missions, making best use of existing expertise e.g. in USA and Russia.”
Nice, but Tests WERE carried out by the USA scientists.
And (A PATHETIC ATTEMPT) to cover-up the MARSIS “Knobbling”;
“Recommendation 14
Adequate and realistic deployment tests should be performed, and sufficient time and resources must be available in the development of a new planetary mission.”
AGAIN, Tests WERE carried out (by the USA company)!;
And (still), from the same link (COVER-UP!);
“The Commission of Inquiry, which included senior managers and experts from within Europe and also NASA and Russia, held several meetings in the UK and in ESA, interviewing the key actors, directors, managers, scientists, and engineers, who participated in the development of Beagle 2. The report has been submitted to the UK Minister for Science and Innovation and the Director General of ESA and accepted. No single technical failure or shortcoming was unambiguously identified but a few credible causes for Beagle 2's loss were highlighted. More importantly, the Board made it clear that there were programmatic and organisational reasons that led to a significantly higher risk of Beagle 2 failure, than otherwise might have been the case.
The scope of the Inquiry covered a wide range of important issues of concern to the UK, ESA and other Member States in ESA. Some of these matters are necessarily confidential between governments and the Agency and cannot be released.
Furthermore, the development of Beagle 2 entailed close working relations between many firms in the UK. Many of those firms invested their own funds in the project and formed relations which remain commercially sensitive.
Although deciding that the Report should remain confidential, we believe it is important that the full set of Recommendations is published together with our appreciation of lessons learnt.”
But perhaps the most telling comments, are Pillinger’s final words…;
“"We gave Beagle the very best shot we could within the constraints that were placed upon us," he said.”
[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Ixataar]
www.esa.int...
“2. The Inquiry Commission was set up jointly between ESA and BNSC and was chaired by the ESA Inspector General. The Commission included senior managers and experts from Europe and also from NASA and Russia. Its remit was to:
· assess the available data/documentation acquired during development, integration and testing of the Beagle 2 lander on Earth and that pertaining to the cruise phase operations prior to release of the spacecraft to Mars;
· analyse the programmatic environment (i.e. decision processes, funding level and resources, management and responsibilities, interactions between the various entities) throughout the project;
· identify possible issues and shortcomings, both programmatic and technical, in the above and in the approach used, which might have contributed to the loss of the mission.
All members of the Commission have signed a non-disclosure agreement.”
Regarding (The Potential for “Hijacking” Beagle 2 Lander, and it’s subsequent Cover-up).
From the same link, regarding SSMM “Hijacking Potential”;
“Recommendation 12
For future planetary entry missions, a more robust communications system should be used, allowing direct commanding of the lander for essential actuations and resets without software involvement – enabling recoveries in catastrophic situations.”
And;
Regarding (The Potential for “Air-Bag Failure/Suss Tests by USA” on Beagle 2 Lander);
“Recommendation 19
Adequate competencies in air bag and parachute technology must be available for future European planetary missions, making best use of existing expertise e.g. in USA and Russia.”
Nice, but Tests WERE carried out by the USA scientists.
And (A PATHETIC ATTEMPT) to cover-up the MARSIS “Knobbling”;
“Recommendation 14
Adequate and realistic deployment tests should be performed, and sufficient time and resources must be available in the development of a new planetary mission.”
AGAIN, Tests WERE carried out (by the USA company)!;
And (still), from the same link (COVER-UP!);
“The Commission of Inquiry, which included senior managers and experts from within Europe and also NASA and Russia, held several meetings in the UK and in ESA, interviewing the key actors, directors, managers, scientists, and engineers, who participated in the development of Beagle 2. The report has been submitted to the UK Minister for Science and Innovation and the Director General of ESA and accepted. No single technical failure or shortcoming was unambiguously identified but a few credible causes for Beagle 2's loss were highlighted. More importantly, the Board made it clear that there were programmatic and organisational reasons that led to a significantly higher risk of Beagle 2 failure, than otherwise might have been the case.
The scope of the Inquiry covered a wide range of important issues of concern to the UK, ESA and other Member States in ESA. Some of these matters are necessarily confidential between governments and the Agency and cannot be released.
Furthermore, the development of Beagle 2 entailed close working relations between many firms in the UK. Many of those firms invested their own funds in the project and formed relations which remain commercially sensitive.
Although deciding that the Report should remain confidential, we believe it is important that the full set of Recommendations is published together with our appreciation of lessons learnt.”
But perhaps the most telling comments, are Pillinger’s final words…;
“"We gave Beagle the very best shot we could within the constraints that were placed upon us," he said.”
[Edited on 3-6-2004 by Ixataar]
Pages: ^^TOP^^
Mysterious Signal From Outer Space - Is Someone Trying To Contact Us?
Posted 13 days ago with 29 member flags
Posted 13 days ago with 29 member flags
The Above Top Secret Web sites are a
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.075 seconds
wholly owned social content community of
The Above Network, LLC.
This content community relies on
user-generated content from our member contributors.
The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership
who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides
a collaborative venue for free expression.
ATS Server: www2.theabovenetwork.com
Header data: 0.003 seconds
Page processed in: 0.075 seconds
