Scientific Advisory System

Scientific Advisory System

Author: Great Britain. Parliament. House of Commons. Select Committee on Science and Technology

Publisher:

Published: 2001

Total Pages: 19

ISBN-13: 9780215000583

DOWNLOAD EBOOK


Science and Technology Committee Annual Report 2005

Science and Technology Committee Annual Report 2005

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Lords: Science and Technology Committee

Publisher: The Stationery Office

Published: 2006-02-27

Total Pages: 20

ISBN-13: 9780104008225

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

This is the first Annual Report of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee. Its aims are: make available the principles that guide its work and a summary of its activities; review the impact of its work; and comment on other matters relevant to its work such as the quality and timelines of the responses from Government.


Government Support for Beagle 2,Twelfth Report of Session 2003-04,Report,Together with Formal Minutes,Oral and Written Evidence

Government Support for Beagle 2,Twelfth Report of Session 2003-04,Report,Together with Formal Minutes,Oral and Written Evidence

Author: Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Science and Technology Committee

Publisher: The Stationery Office

Published: 2004

Total Pages: 164

ISBN-13: 9780215020024

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

The focus of this inquiry, by the Science and Technology Committee, was the support by the UK Government for the Beagle 2 project developed as part of the European Space Agency's (ESA) Mars Express mission. The Committee found the Government showed enthusiasm for this project, but was unable to provide a guaranteed financial backing for the development of a lander, resulting in a failure to secure sufficient sponsorship income, which was subsequently seen to have a detrimental impact on the project's success. The Committee feels, that Government needs to put in place a system that can deal with major financial commitments at short notice. In hindsight, the development of the lander and orbiter separately is seen as wrong, impeding the flexible co-ordination of the mission, leading to tensions between the Beagle 2 consortium, ESA and other contractors. Further, there was a lack of co-ordinated oversight between these three groups, and therefore a failure to identify important weaknesses in the mission. Despite the failure of Beagle, the Committee does see some positive potential for future projects, both in scientific and educational benefits, but that the costs of such projects would benefit from greater participation by other organizations.