The Beagle 2 missions to mars was done "on the cheap", according to a committee of MPs.

A report released on Tuesday by the Commons science and technology committee laid bare a series of project failings and doubts about the viability of the scheme, which cost taxpayers £25 million.

The MPs said that the project's failures could partly be traced to the government's unwillingness to commit funding early enough.

And ministers and the European Space Agency (ESA) failed to monitor the project sufficiently closely, they added.

There was also stinging criticism of the "amateurish" management of the project based on what one witness described as a "gentleman's agreement" between key players.

The committee also said it was clear that senior figures at the ESA thought the Beagle 2 project had little chance of success, but did not make these doubts clear until after the mission had failed.

And the report criticises the ESA and the UK government for refusing to publish in full the findings of their own inquiry into the failures.

The move is an "affront to accountability" designed to spare political embarrassment, it says.

"ESA and the UK wanted a Mars lander on the cheap," said committee chairman Dr Ian Gibson.

"The DTI should have been on the pitch getting involved, rather than cheering from the touchline and coming on as a second half substitute when things went wrong.

"As a result, the scientists had to go chasing celebrities for sponsorship when they might have been testing rockets."

However, he added that Britain now has the expertise to take a leading role in European space exploration.

"Was this £25 million well spent? I think the answer is yes, if the successes of Beagle are built upon," Gibson added.

"This project was cutting edge science no matter what happened on Mars: the Beagle scientists proved that the UK is a real player in space exploration and developed technologies with huge potential medical and other benefits."

Project history

The report had some harsh words as well as praise for the way in which the project was managed by Professor Colin Pillinger.

"We commend Professor Pillinger and his team for the enthusiasm with which they conceived and pursued the project," said the report.

"For the sake of future space programmes, however, they should also learn the management lessons laid bare by Beagle 2."

The MPs said that the professor "saw an opportunity for an exciting scientific project and he and his colleagues pursued it with great enthusiasm".

"ESA saw the lander as a means of enlivening an otherwise unambitious mission to Mars but was not prepared to adjust the mission to give the lander the high priority that its science and profile might have merited, had it been part of an ESA mission from the start," added the report.

"The UK government provided moral and financial support to the project, but not quickly enough.

"It also tried to convince ESA to contribute more and then was left to bail out the project when it was faced with financial difficulties.

"There were management failings and unrealistic cost estimates during the project,for which all parties involved must shoulder some responsibility."

The report accepted that "on another day" the mission may have been successful.

"It would be easy with the benefit of hindsight to criticise the government for supporting a project which,in the eyes of the watching public at least,was a spectacular failure," added the MPs.

"We believe that, once committed,the government was right not to withdraw funding, but instead to try to find ways of improving the chances of success.

"The costs of withdrawing in 2001 would have been high, not only in purely financial terms but in terms of the reputation of UK science within ESA and beyond."