Question: What's your verdict on the Mars Lander project?

Lord Sainsbury: I think you have to start from the fact that space exploration is always a high risk activity and this is certainly high risk. But I think a huge amount has gone into the testing of the lander and there's been some clever engineering.

But you must always realise you don't do good science, you don't do great engineering without taking some risks. You must accept there are risks on this and that's what drives the innovation and the creativity. You don't get it by taking lots of soft options.

Question: What are the implications of the project? Where do we go from here?

Lord Sainsbury: This is really about one part of one of our main objectives with space which is the science exploration rather than the commercial or environmental objectives.

I think this could be very influential in influencing how scientific space exploration will take place in the future. I think for the next couple of decades the obvious route is through robotic exploration rather than manned exploration.

If you start manned exploration there are real problems but also huge costs involved. When you see the clever technology being deployed here, you don't add much to that, if anything by having manned exploration. So I think this could be quite influential.

Question: Is this a chance for Britain to carve a niche in the space market?

Lord Sainsbury: I think this will make us one of the leaders in robotic exploration. That would be very exciting because there's a major European programme called Aurora coming up and I think it's very important that it's on the basis of robotic engineering not a manned mission. This could be quite important in influencing that.

I think we should build on success and say 'we're really doing an outstanding job here', build on it and provide leadership in this area.

Question: British technology down the years - such as supersonic aircraft technology - has been at the forefront but other countries have been the ones to benefit and make money. How do we stop that happening here?

Lord Sainsbury: What is very interesting about this programme here is that sometimes in the past we've invented great things but they haven't been massively well-connected to the market. And also we've quite often done things where we didn't have the resources to really back it up and exploit it. In this case the creativity has come from solving a problem; how do you do this kind of exploration. And it's within our capabilities to do this.

One of the things is that you've got to do this within the financial capabilities you have. When we had great launcher programmes we embarked on projects without the financial commitment and the resources to see them through. In this case we've taken a very specific area to build up competence and I think on that basis we can see it through.

Question: Is the funding going to remain available?

Lord Sainsbury: I think this is a case of building on success. Build on the things we have in space. We've avoided some of the mistaken areas. We're not trying to do space launches, we're not in the international space station. We're carving out our expertise in clearly defined areas like micro satellites where we're one of the world leaders. I think robotics could be another area where we carve out a strong position of excellence.

Question: You've got a background in commerce. How do persuade banks and business to get involved in something that is high risk and doesn't guarantee a return?

Lord Sainsbury: Space exploration is something that requires government money because there may be spin-offs - as there may be with a mass spectrometer - but that isn't sufficient to make any commercial company come into this. At this stage the commercial possibilities are rather remote. There are huge commercial opportunities in space but its not about exploration; global positioning, telecommunications satellites and environmental monitoring.

Question: How do you get the public more interested in science?

Lord Sainsbury:Beagle Two gives you the answer to that. It's always been said that it's always manned space missions that capture the imagination. I think this demonstrates that's not right. If you have an exciting project like this one with a brilliant communicator like Colin Pillinger then you're bound to get interest. I can't believe anyone is not excited by this project.

Question: Back in the early days of space research there were personalities like Yuri Gagarin and Neil Armstrong. But we've swapped astronauts for Astroturf: young people are only interested in David Beckham. Isn't that a problem?

Lord Sainsbury: I think there is a real issue here. Particularly in the engineering field where there are hugely exciting things happening. Nanotechnology, global positioning systems, satellite communications, bioengineering and mobile phones. We're not communicating to young people that this is engineering and incredibly exciting.

I think young people understand that biology and IT are exciting subjects but, you know, this is engineering and it's wonderfully interesting. We've got to convey that.

Question: Isn't there an irony that Beckham endorses mobile phones?

Lord Sainsbury: Yes. There's a problem here which is to some extent that if people think it's exciting people say 'well it's not engineering'. But that's what communicating has to be about.

That's why I want to keep emphasising that this is brilliant engineering. And we do things well in so many areas; aerospace, we build most of the Formula 1 cars. It's because we are very clever at this kind of inventive engineering.

Question: Most of the interest is going to be on whether there is life on Mars. Are you going to be disappointed if it isn't full of little green men?

Lord Sainsbury: The exciting question is 'is there or isn't there?' Both are interesting answers because it's an interesting question. I guess it's marginally more exciting if there is.