
theirs looks like something off robot wars
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:27,
archived)

it only cost $820,000,000.00
there was nothing in the budget for aesthetics.
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:29,
archived)
there was nothing in the budget for aesthetics.

the Beagle budget could probably fit in a shoe-box in 1-quid coins. so good for them, because the Americans always spend way more, and generally get less bang for their buck.
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:35,
archived)

that it was shit and didn't work.
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:37,
archived)

which is something in the way of progress by shuttle standards.
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:39,
archived)

i think anything that gets people interested in science and technology and encourages research is good... and i think elegance is a good thing in scientfic endeavor
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:39,
archived)

otherwise it's guaranteed to go wrong..
but exciting little robots that work are the things that get people excited, not rock analysers that fail.
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:41,
archived)
but exciting little robots that work are the things that get people excited, not rock analysers that fail.

their satellite launch record, for instance, is very good. and see my note about the budget discrepancy above...
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:43,
archived)

but the thing is, space research is actually a very bad way to spend research funding. it's low-return, especially manned flights. i've no particular opposition to the automated stuff, and of course satellites are very useful. continuing manned exploration is rather pointless.
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:41,
archived)

disagrees. but i may* be in the minority.
*almost certainly am
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:31,
archived)
*almost certainly am

aren't proper americans.and therefore traitors.
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:33,
archived)

am i to be shot in the morning then? or are they just going to ship me to Guantanamo?
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:35,
archived)

oh, no i don't, this is Dubya's America, never mind.
( ,
Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:40,
archived)