The Beagle 2, a European Space Agency (ESA) mission to Mars, is described in this paper. The author presents a detailed account of the limitations of the instruments used in other missions, specifically of the combined gas chromatograph mass spectrometer (GCMS) used by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the improvements in Beagle 2. The author also describes the basis for the belief that better quality data will be collected on this mission.

DiGregorio has established that data from the Viking mission was not of good quality because of the limited range of its instruments and tools. The Beagle 2 is equipped with highly sophisticated instrumentation and tools, including deep rock digging, drilling, and grinding tools, an optical microscope, and an X-ray and Moss-Bauer spectrometer. The author claims that this instrumentation kit will be used for the first time on this mission, and that rock samples obtained from the deep rock drilling will better reveal the chemical, mineralogical, and other life signatures inside the rocks.

Overall, this paper represents high quality work; the author has pointed out some real issues with the data obtained by previous Mars missions. I believe that the author did a good job of compiling the technical and engineering details of the Beagle 2 probe, and that it has established a more technically sophisticated, reliable, and complete data gathering system. I strongly agree with the author that the enhanced instrumentation and better designed engineering system would give us more reliability and credibility in the assessment of life signatures on Mars. Therefore, if the Beagle 2 mission finds a life signature on Mars, then ESA deserves the full credit for being the first to find it. However, if no life clues are found, it would be a credible finding, and would be further confirmation of the decision made by NASA 26 years ago.