"Having spent those tens of millions, the causes for the loss of half the data need to be identified and corrected."

No one is denying that - but Jim makes a very very valid point. We didnt get NO pictures - we got HUNDREDS of them - which will result in an enormous data set - 3d reconstructions of the terrain, mapping of the local area etc. etc. Almost all the data was duplicated on the two channels - it is only further imagery that is lost and that data can essentially be synthesized by interpolating from what we have anyway

Technically - if you want to get fiscal about it - the loss of that channel equates to the loss of half the data from one instrument - and, I'd say half the value of the Doppler experiment (which can be reconstructed using earth based obs)

Now - if you consider the cost to the European tax payer of $500m for Huygens - and that half of two of the 6 experiments are lost - that's 1/6th of the total data set - thus $83.3m You can not put the launch vehicle costs into the equation - that was paid for by Nasa - and would have been incured if Huygens had never existed.

But Jim is very very right - the actual scientific loss is quite small. We can learn 95%+ as much from 300 pictures as we can with another couple of hundred slotted in between the ones we have.

You attitude stinks of finding any excuse to slam the mission - why, I do not know - despite it being both an amazing engineering achievment ( the value of which can not be underestimated ) and brilliant scientific return. To suggest the money would have been better spent on NEO observations is obscure and stupid.

Doug