b3ta.com board
You are not logged in. Login or Signup
Home » Messageboard » XXX » Message 2581955 (Thread)

# well, what were you hoping for
it only cost $820,000,000.00
there was nothing in the budget for aesthetics.
(rednc, Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:29, archived)
# isn't that like
many many times more than beagle cost?
(I helped save b3ta! lemony, Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:32, archived)
# Yes.
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.
(rednc, Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:35, archived)
# however we must also consider the fact
that it was shit and didn't work.
(I helped save b3ta! dipdapdop, Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:37, archived)
# yeah. but it didn't blow up
which is something in the way of progress by shuttle standards.
(rednc, Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:39, archived)
# to be honest i don't care
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
(I helped save b3ta! lemony, Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:39, archived)
# yep
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.
(I helped save b3ta! dipdapdop, Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:41, archived)
# some of the ESA's projects have been quite successful
their satellite launch record, for instance, is very good. and see my note about the budget discrepancy above...
(rednc, Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:43, archived)
# well...true
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.
(rednc, Tue 6 Jan 2004, 1:41, archived)