London

Funding for Beagle 2, which was later lost on Mars, is still regarded by some as a ‘loan’. Credit: EPA/PA

Britain's failed Mars lander, Beagle 2, has ignited a row over money — €16 million (US$20 million) that the European Space Agency (ESA) provided four years ago to keep the project going.

Disagreement about the conditions under which the money was handed over — and whether Britain is to repay it — has surfaced at senior levels in the space agency. David Southwood, ESA's scientific director, says it is unlikely that the agency will again allocate so much cash to a project on such an informal basis.

The transfer was agreed by ESA's Science Programme Committee, which allocates funds for agency projects, at two meetings in October and November 2000. The committee decided that ESA should allot €24 million to the Beagle probe, a late addition to the agency's Mars mission. The probe subsequently went missing while attempting to land on Mars on 19 December 2003.

One-third of the money went to preparing ESA's Mars Express spacecraft to carry the probe. But two-thirds of it was described at the meetings as a “loan”, senior scientists tell Nature.

“The word ‘loan’ was used,” said Risto Pellinen in an interview. Pellinen, an atmospheric physicist at the Finnish Meteorological Institute in Helsinki, was on the committee at the time and now chairs it. But he says the money was not in fact a loan, and was not meant to be paid back as cash. The word was used, he says, “because we are not native English speakers — we can't fine-tune our language”.

The minutes of the October meeting state that “the science programme would be reimbursed the sum of €16 million” by Britain. The committee members, and Southwood, say that the wording was meant to imply that Britain would repay the contribution by providing goods and services to that value for future ESA missions.

The meetings discussed the possibility of a UK contribution towards Gaia, a proposed star-mapping mission due for launch some time after 2010. But four years after the agreement, there is no indication of what Britain is planning to do. “What leaves a funny taste is this attitude that no one speaks about it any more,” complains one senior space scientist who is knowledgeable about the arrangement but declined to be identified. He suggests that everyone would be happier if Britain repaid the money in cash: “A cheque for €16 million would be best.”

Southwood says that David Sainsbury, the UK science minister, wrote to the committee at the time promising to do his best to recompense ESA. But Southwood insists that no one expected it to be paid back in cash: “It was a gentleman's agreement. You can't really call it a loan, it was a quid pro quo.”

He concedes that it is unlikely that ESA will ever again grant so much money on such a basis. “I'm not convinced people are gentlemen any more,” he adds ruefully.

Britain has no firm plan for how it will reimburse the space agency, says David Leadbeater, deputy director-general of the British National Space Centre. “There's nothing that says this must be sorted out in the context of a particular mission,” he says, adding that he expects that the money will be repaid through contributions in kind to future projects. “There is still a commitment to resolve this to the satisfaction of all ESA members,” insists Leadbeater.

Pellinen defends the arrangement. “In my opinion, this was the only way to get things done in the available time,” he says. But he thinks negotiations about recompense are pointless until Gaia is ready for development in late 2005 — after the end of his chairmanship. “This matter will not be forgotten,” he promises.