# Why are space probes so unreliable? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 27, 2003, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210 "2003-12-27T02:58:25Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 19\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/21 "2003-12-27T18:21:46Z")
[This commentary](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3761450/) has some interesting observations about the failures of NASA’s Mars missions. It points out that during the 60’s and 70’s 8 of 8 Mars missions were successfull (excepting two others whose launch vehicles failed). > [@](#): > > …NASA is playing down its own responsibility for numerous past failures. Analysis shows that what went wrong with Mars probes was always been back on Earth — in the minds and management styles of the space team, not Mars itself. ---
**Author:** ![yawndave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/43a26b/32.png) [@yawndave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yawndave)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/22 "2003-12-27T19:25:48Z")
The explanation that I like best of Beagle’s silence is that The Martians have gotten wise to us, and don’t want earthlings spying on them anymore. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 27, 2003, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/23 "2003-12-27T22:39:01Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by Lumpy_ > You’d think that before they spend years and millions of dollars, someone would test these probes to see if they will actually respond to remote commands. Would that include cold-soaking it at near absolute zero temperatures for six months, bombarding it with blasts of cosmic radiation, hitting the atmosphere of a planet millions of miles away, landing on unknown terrain, and then righting itself and deploying an antenna? The problem with Mars lander missions is that there are so many unknowns that you can’t control. The thing could simply have rolled into a fissure or wound up under a rock outcropping or something, and it’s done. There are only so many things you can prepare for, and for the rest you cross your fingers and hope. Like the old quote about the dancing bear - the amzing thing isn’t how well the bear dances, but that it can dance at all. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/24 "2003-12-28T00:34:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yawndave \* > \*\*The explanation that I like best of Beagle’s silence is that The Martians have gotten wise to us, and don’t want earthlings spying on them anymore. \*\* Apparently Jodrell Bank has just received a signal from Beagle, which goes as follows: > [@](#): > > Ack ack, ackackack **ack**! Ack _ack_ ack, ackackack _ack_ ackack. **Ack _ack_!** Scientists are mystified. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/25 "2003-12-28T00:56:25Z")
> [@](#): > > 28-Dec-2003 > 00:20 GMT > > No signal received by the Jodrell Bank Observatory [http://www.beagle2.com/index.htm](http://www.beagle2.com/index.htm) ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/26 "2003-12-28T01:35:36Z")
Ale: I am deeply offended by your comment. > [@](#): > > And for the glitches ruining entire missions I have never ruined a mission! ---
**Author:** ![sibyl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b9e5f3/32.png) [@sibyl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sibyl)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/27 "2003-12-28T02:20:14Z")
From the simulations they’ve shown, any number of things could have gone wrong. From landing on a rock, or in the shadow of a rock, or in a ditch. That is if it even made it through the searing heat of the atmosphere. Keep in mind that the space shuttle, something that we’ve used repeatedly, still succumbed to the atmosphere of Earth. Frankly, I’m more surprised 1/3 of the missions succeeded than that 2/3 of them failed. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/28 "2003-12-28T04:26:08Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Glitch \* > \*\*Ale: I am deeply offended by your comment. > > I have never ruined a mission! \*\* I don´t have proves yet… but I´ll be watching you. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/29 "2003-12-28T04:34:54Z")
Did I say “proves”? _Assumes intimidating pose_ No I didn´t, I said “proofs” ---
**Author:** ![Glitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/0ea827/32.png) [@Glitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Glitch)\ **Post date:** [December 28, 2003, 6:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/30 "2003-12-28T06:44:33Z")
I suppose next you’ll be blaming me as the glitch in your post. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![chuckster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9bd4f/32.png) [@chuckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chuckster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/31 "2003-12-29T04:43:08Z")
I’ll accept that launching probes to Mars is very complex. However, there is one thing that bothers me. We successfully sent two Viking probes to land on Mars in the 1970’s. Why don’t we just send more probes with the exact same designs (with a few improvements such as software upgrades etc.). We know that design works. ---
**Author:** ![chuckster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b9bd4f/32.png) [@chuckster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chuckster)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/32 "2003-12-29T04:48:45Z")
You know, there’s another possibility. Perhaps the Martians are destroying our probes before they land so as to avoid being discovered. They let probes that are headed for areas with no trace of Martian civilization land, such as Viking, the Mars Rover etc., but sabatage the ones that are landing near cities, highways, and other areas that show signs of habitation. As soon as that giant carving of Elvis’s face was discovered they had to work quickly re-carving it to look just like a natural rock formation before our scientists could have time to get a more enhanced photograph! ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/33 "2003-12-29T04:57:01Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chuckster \* > Why don’t we just send more probes with the exact same designs (with a few improvements such as software upgrades etc.). We know that design works. Two words: **[Faster, Better, Cheaper](http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/business/spear_report_000313.html)**. ---
**Author:** ![Declan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ecae2f/32.png) [@Declan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Declan)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 7:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/34 "2003-12-29T07:52:29Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by yawndave \* > \*\*The explanation that I like best of Beagle’s silence is that The Martians have gotten wise to us, and don’t want earthlings spying on them anymore. \*\* Yup They shot the beagle down , with a 1920’s style death ray PM Blair is meeting in cabinet , to discuss launching a Starstrike on the suspected martian terrorists, RAF to lead the way. :)this is what happens when you post at 3 in the morning Declan ---
**Author:** ![Uzi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/91b2a8/32.png) [@Uzi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Uzi)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/35 "2003-12-29T12:16:41Z")
If you really wanted to screw with the Earthlings, you’d dress someone like this and have them run past the camera in a similar manner: [Martian](http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dtrapp/bigfoot.htm) I’d sell my soul to be able to pull a prank like that off! ---
**Author:** ![scr4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/59ef9b/32.png) [@scr4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scr4)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/36 "2003-12-29T14:32:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by chuckster \* > \*\*We successfully sent two Viking probes to land on Mars in the 1970’s. Why don’t we just send more probes with the exact same designs (with a few improvements such as software upgrades etc.). We know that design works. \*\* Here are some of the reasons: [ul] [li]You can’t just pull out a 30-year old blueprint and use it. The components are no longer available, and there’s no guarantee that modern equivalents work exactly the same way. Unless the design and manufacturing process is kept alive by continuous improvements, the design dies.[/li][li]We don’t _want_ an exact replica of the Viking lander, we want better ones with different capabilities. The Viking lander is not designed to carry a rover, for example.[/li][li]The Viking lander was _huge_, about 600kg mass for the lander alone. It takes a very large, expensive launcher to send something like that to Mars. In comparison, the Mars Pathfinder lander was about 360 kg, and the Beagle II was about 60 kg.[/li][li]The exchange of information between different teams isn’t as smooth as you might imagine. Most components are built by private sub-contractors, and fabrication techniques aren’t public information. (NASA engineers only need to know who makes good components, not how.) And recently the US government has been extremely paranoid about space technology leaking out, even to friendly countries. [/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![scotandrsn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a4c791/32.png) [@scotandrsn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/scotandrsn)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/37 "2003-12-29T16:37:53Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by scr4 \* > \*\*Here are some of the reasons: > [ul] > [li]You can’t just pull out a 30-year old blueprint and use it. The components are no longer available, and there’s no guarantee that modern equivalents work exactly the same way. Unless the design and manufacturing process is kept alive by continuous improvements, the design dies.[/li][li]We don’t _want_ an exact replica of the Viking lander, we want better ones with different capabilities. The Viking lander is not designed to carry a rover, for example.[/li][li]The Viking lander was _huge_, about 600kg mass for the lander alone. It takes a very large, expensive launcher to send something like that to Mars. In comparison, the Mars Pathfinder lander was about 360 kg, and the Beagle II was about 60 kg.[/li][li]The exchange of information between different teams isn’t as smooth as you might imagine. Most components are built by private sub-contractors, and fabrication techniques aren’t public information. (NASA engineers only need to know who makes good components, not how.) And recently the US government has been extremely paranoid about space technology leaking out, even to friendly countries. [/li][/ul] \*\* [ul] [li] Quite visible in the photos from Viking is a rather large boulder, capable of obliterating the probe on impact, that it missed during descent through sheer dumb luck. Hence the alternate “balloon” landing mechanism used on Pathfinder and MER[/li][/ul] ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [December 29, 2003, 10:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/38 "2003-12-29T22:20:52Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by +MDI \* > **The mass spectrometer on board it was built in an engineer’s bedroom.** Well, that’s the problem, then. It’s all sticky. ---
**Author:** ![Tuckerfan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/eada6e/32.png) [@Tuckerfan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tuckerfan)\ **Post date:** [December 30, 2003, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210/39 "2003-12-30T00:18:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by jshore \* > \*\*Bob Park of the American Physical Society put this in a nice perspective in his weekly “What’s New” column today (which will presumably appear at [this](http://www.aps.org/WN/WN03/wn122603.html) link once his web lackeys get on the ball…At this time, it is only available in an e-mail that I alas have only at work). Basically, he pointed out that the high failure rate for unmanned missions shows: > > (1) How difficult it will be to accomplish such things with manned missions where things become incredibly more complex and expensive, especially given that people are less willing to throw some money down the drain than some lives down the drain. > > (2) That despite the fairly high failure rate (apparently like 1 in 3) on these sorts of missions, the amount and importance of the science getting accomplished is still much more than what is getting accomplished on each shuttle flight and at a smaller expense. \*\* Ah yes, Bob Parks, the man seems to have a fetish about blasting NASA and manned space programs in general. The high failure rate for unmanned missions shows _nothing_ of the kind. First of all, most folks don’t even understand what NASA _does_. (Not even Mr. Parks, apparently.) IIRC, the _bulk_ of NASA’s money **does not** go to the manned space program. IAC, NASA spends a good chunk of money on such things like improving aircraft design and helping with various military projects like the Predator RPVs (or UMAV’s or whatever hell damned acronym the military’s using for them). Most people think NASA launches shuttles. (Wonder why people pay more attention to a _manned_ program when there’s only a couple of launches a year at best? Maybe it’s because there’s _people_ on them who say things like, “Look at the view!” and not some mindless robot that’s only going to send back pictures and make “beep beep” noises.) As for the cost of manned missions, [well, that’s a bit of a “chicken and the egg” problem.](http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html) One **benefit** of having people on a mission is that if something does go wrong, you’ve got people on site to try and fix the problem. Admittedly it could be an Apollo 13 problem, where they’re just trying to survive and make it home, but _every_ Apollo mission that landed on the Moon had some kind of glitch that had to be worked through by the astronauts. Had those been unmanned missions, many of the experiments would have simply had to have been abandoned. As for his second point about an unmanned mission to another planet accomplishing more than a shuttle mission, well, duh. It’s apples and oranges here, folks. The shuttle goes to Earth orbit, all they have to play with there is what they bring with them. An unmanned mission to the Moon or Mars is exploring another planet! Last time I checked, planets were _huge_, shuttles **not** so huge. A random sample and grab mission to _anything_ off-Earth, done by human or robot is going to yeild more information than almost _anything_ we could do in Earth orbit. Comparing the shuttle missions to planetary missions is like comparing trying to find out about the world from inside my house (without looking out the windows, using the TV, internet or phone) and Magellan’s voyage around the world. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-space-probes-so-unreliable/221210.md?page=1)