But you’re right, tbh I’ve read a lot about these missions and they seem to have little or no ‘‘trial or error’’ experiments. Millions are spent knowing that the mission may fail but I guess the human’s need for exploration is greater
No no, there is a bigger conspiracy here. The science and engineering is same and similar, so why all the space agencies had much greater success in non-martian related missions. Almost all the moon missions, orbital and flyby misisons to different planets, not to mention the most successful Voyager missions - they all went great. Why things always go wrong with the Mars missions, I always wonder
Talking about conspiracies...have you heard of the ''Planet X'' theory? I didn't know whether to take it seriously or not :/
That is what I am saying. Jupiter is farther away than Mars, not to mention Voyager missions that flew by so many planets, successfully and i think they are still in operation.
Planet X, as in the 10th (now 9th) possible planet?
Well, we haven't landed on any other planet yet and that really is the most difficult part.
Plus apparently there are lot of unpredictable fluctuations in the Martian atmosphere that make it tough on entering
Our luck is improving however. The earlier missions were more of a failure than more recent attempts.
At the end up the day, its hard to mitigate any malfunctions when you're not physically present there.
^ I get that. But considering the level of complexity involved, the question is - is 40% success ratio in line or way lower than other comparable projects. I guess the answer is the latter?
Well that's a tough one to answer since I don't have any figures handy plus it really depends on the kind of mission we're talking about.
In general though, most satellite, shuttle and other missions have upwards of three-quarters of the missions succeeding. Probably even higher.
Therefore, in comparison the Mars missions are piss poor.
Not really but relatively speaking.