If Beagle 2 had been successful, then American engineers would be forced into considering the design paradigm of why Beagle-2 was successful, instead of why it failed.

Bean counters have thier own science that is just as valid as any "rocket" science.

The bean counters are accounting for the same pile of money that engineers are so involved in spending. If you as an engineer don't expect a bean counter to understand the testing involved in certifying a rocket engine, why should a bean counter expect you as an engineer to understand what's exactly involved in spending $25.5 million dollars?

What I read from the Beagle 2 report mostly is that the bean counters never had the money when the engineers needed to spend it.

Both groups were screwed. There was a launch date that was paramount, couldn't be changed, and was so much in the public eye that not making the launch delivery date was the same as delaying the project 2 years - something neither group was willing to blame on the other.

So they launched with what the had.

And each group got exactly what they paid for.