Given my earlier pessimistic predictions about Beagle 2, I need to shake off this impression of being a Cassandra. I am both confident and optimistic about success for the Mars Exploration Rover missions (MER). I played a minor role in the heat shield development for MER and was very impressed with the care and professionalism shown during MER's development. I think it's a sure bet that there will be nominal telemetry all the way down to the Martian surface (the basic EDL is a proven technology). I am confident that one or both landers will survive impact and be able to open up and return images from the Martian surface. The last but most important issue is whether MER's rover can disentangle itself from the lander and airbags. This issue is in the "lap of the gods". The engineers have done the very best they can. However if MER is perched sideways off of a boulder then getting it off and on its wheels will be tricky.

Concerning Beagle 2: What confirmed me as a Beagle 2 sceptic was an American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) talk given by the engineer who did the CFD (Computational Fluid Dynamics) for Beagle 2's atmospheric entry. The talk was riddled with fundamental technical errors. I sat in the back of the room during the talk. Back there, sort of a "peanut gallery" formed of muttering, increasingly sceptical engineers as we heard one blunder after another. When the talk concluded, I asked a "screw question" about the appropriateness of using air based CFD data for a carbon dioxide atmosphere. The speaker sort of waved his arms and said he knew the data was bogus but was told to do this because the contract required it. After hearing that I knew the project was doomed (naked emperor syndrome).

Gary