re: What Will Barry DiGregorio's Response To A Beagle 2 Failure Be?
Good points!
See also my reply to an earlier post, subject "taking risks vs taking shortcuts".
The point being that there is some logic behind sending a large number of proven but cheaply produced systems on risky mission profiles (e.g., tougher terrain). But that only comes after you've validated the design itself.
There is not much logic behind launching 10 different prototypes which have all been inadequately tested and which do not provide enough telemetry to let you determine a failure mode. At the end of the day, you haven't learned anything from them.