Space/Science » in reply to NASA monopolistically RESISTS cost-cutting; the Beagle 2 team does NOT.

The whole thread (20 posts)

• Beagle 2 - Raoul - 12/20/2002 12:42:39 PM
  • Beagle 2 costs $48 million u.s.d. Shouldn't NASA be nervous? - SpaceProjects.com - 12/20/2002 4:35:54 PM
    • Yeap Apples Make Bad Oranges - Mark Eby - 12/20/2002 4:48:39 PM
      • Re: Yeap Apples Make Bad Oranges - Chris Vancil - 12/21/2002 9:39:33 AM
        • Re: Yeap Apples Make Bad Oranges - Chris Vancil - 12/21/2002 5:05:04 PM
        • I was talking about his comments ion the MO N/T (n/t) - Mark Eby - 12/21/2002 3:36:48 PM
          • Re: I was talking about his comments ion the MO - Chris Vancil - 12/21/2002 5:26:00 PM
      • NASA's Mars landers ALSO cost multiples more than Beagle 2 - SpaceProjects.com - 12/20/2002 6:18:07 PM
        • Comparison & Caution - Mark Eby - 12/21/2002 5:09:13 PM
          • NASA monopolistically RESISTS cost-cutting; the Beagle 2 team does NOT. - SpaceProjects.com - 12/21/2002 6:28:47 PM
            • Mars Polar Lander/Orbiter - Mark Eby - 12/21/2002 7:10:51 PM
              • Re: Mars Polar Lander/Orbiter - SpaceProjects.com - 12/21/2002 5:21:51 PM
                • We'll See - Mark Eby - 12/21/2002 5:48:52 PM
        • 2 Rovers vs One Stationary Lander - Mark Eby - 12/21/2002 4:01:08 PM
  • why the pessimism? (N/T) (n/t) - delbert - 12/20/2002 1:29:04 PM
    • A flawed design - Gary - 12/20/2002 6:18:21 PM
      • Re: Yes - Raoul - 12/21/2002 10:55:03 AM
      • What if NASA simply funded Mars prizes and let the competitors decide on designs, though? - SpaceProjects.com - 12/20/2002 6:45:28 PM
      • You might be right, but I still wish them luck. (n/t) (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 12/20/2002 6:29:50 PM
    • I wondered that, too. n/t (n/t) - Bowser - 12/20/2002 2:17:57 PM