Why NASA should keep spending money on Mars missions after the recent failures?
Space missions are still not routine. There is a lot of risk involved. In fact, one of the riskiest things about Mars Lander missions is that the spacecraft can’t see where it’s landing! It could land on a rock and tip over, or land on a steep hill and tumble down. This is because we can’t see landing sites very well from Earth (or even from Mars orbit), and it’s hard to land a spacecraft exactly where we want anyway. Mission planners are lucky to get within several miles of their intended landing spot! These risks are understood by NASA and by the committees that decide to spend money on a given mission. There are other risks as well. The rocket could explode on liftoff, the solar panels could fail to deploy in space, etc. What NASA strives for is to minimize risk while knowing that every now and then something will go wrong. Unfortunately *two* recent missions to Mars failed spectacularly, and although this is within the risk expectation, the public may perceive this as a failure. Yo
Related Questions
- Mars Express has been operated in conjunction with NASA missions to Mars. Is there any plan for such co-operation at Venus, with NASA or other space agencies?
- What does Mars Express add to the flotilla of other international missions to Mars? Is ESA in competition with NASA?
- Did Viking Probes Miss Life on Mars?
