Achieving orbit is an accomplishment. Intending to achieve orbit and failing is a mission failure. If you want to cheer-lead for the Soviets, that's your choice. If you want to claim they were the first to shoot a piece of metal at Mars, you would be correct. If you want to claim sending a "probe" to Mars, that's not quite true. A probe collects data. An expensive paperweight does not.
I see truth hurts ... The record: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_1 Only in 1964 an American probe got so close to Mars. And Mariner 4 [US] has been the first probe to make a proper fly by above Mars. P.S. I'm not cheer-leading for the Soviets, I don't stand who distort reality for I cannot understand which reason.
On 21 March 1963, when the spacecraft was at a distance of 106,760,000 km (66,340,000 mi) from Earth on its way to Mars, communications ceased, probably due to failure of the spacecraft's antenna orientation system.[1][2] Mars 1 closest approach to Mars occurred on June 19, 1963 at a distance of approximately 193,000 km (120,000 mi), after which the spacecraft entered an orbit around the Sun.[2] Then why are you trying to make it appear the Soviets were the first to successfully put a probe on or around Mars?
Nah, they heard a rumor our rovers found a liberal brain cell, they just wanted to check it out in person.
Because I follow a historical attitude, not a patriotic feeling ... To be clear: was a US probe near to Mars when the Soviet probe was passing at "a distance of approximately 193,000 km" from Mars in 1963? No, there was no US probe in the nearby. End of historical discussion.
Back to OP. India ISRO has spent a very little money to get this achievement [for more information: http://www.forbes.com/sites/saritha...-launched-its-mars-mission-at-cut-rate-costs/]. I would wonder why Western space agencies need billions of US$ or € to do the same ... May be our space agencies should focus of efficiency and not on "greatness". Historical deeds can be achieved without wasting billions of euros ... [or dollars].
Neither am I, but I suspect your are trying to make a purse out of a sow's ear. Do svidaniya tovarich!
Well, my good friend Vladimir Vladimirovic Putin [he says to be a good friend of Italians] could agree with such a pro-Russian attitude ... But no, I'm not particularly interested in underlining that Russians, spending well less than Americans and with an inferior technology, were able to get astonishing achievements, recording notable deeds in the history of space exploration ... showing more pioneer attitude than Americans ... I'm not particularly interested in doing this ... Not to add, that again from a historical perspective, the Russians won the run to the space [launching the first human being to the space], because they accepted absolutely low security standards, endangering Gagarin's life well more than it was licit [this is substantially why the US were on late, technicians weren't that sure to have the suitable tech to grant, with an acceptably high probability, the survival of a man in an orbital capsule].
May be it could be time to begin a concrete cooperation in the perspective of human exploration of Mars. Now that there are several space agencies active in the field and others with a good potential [the Japanese one, the British one, the Italian one, the French one], at international level they should start shared plans to get more considerable achievements.
Who cares if he dies? He will die anyway on Earth from one cause or another so he might as well die doing something useful. Put the guy in the spaceship with the required items to land on Mars in one piece and possibly survive for a while. You will learn more from doing that than you will from trying to make it perfect the first time.
Yes, the Soviets put up the first satellite and the first astronaut. No question about that. They also sent up a dog and left it there. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2367681.stm
Send them some money if you're that concerned. http://www.wateraid.org/uk/donate/forwater?#/regular-donation/GBP/
India has money to go to Mars, they've got money to provide clean water to their citizens. It's a matter of priorities.
"Hey," they're looking for water on Mars So, where you live you get your water from a private company? No municipal water available? Wow, maybe you live to far out in the sticks?? I don't have a problem with India going to Mars.
A fascinating conversation to me since it's the Liberals who killed off the Apollo space program and have hamstrung NASA ever since and it is the Conservatives who point out the benefits of Space R&D to those here on Earth. With the R&D on Apollo, we wouldn't have integrated circuits, freeze-dried foods and velcro!
Here that the expert in space exploration history Mike Thomas (USA) writes. "time to tell to Russians thanks. Thank them that they kept the international space station "afloat" while "shuttles" break to small pieces in NASA "service". More than two years they delivered there astronauts, supplies and took out garbage. Without them we would need to flood ISS at the ocean or to roll up fuel tanks of "shuttles" an adhesive tape and to hope for the best. The matter is that the Russian space program is safer and reliable, than ours. Since "Colombia" burned down in the atmosphere, Russians successfully delivered five crews to ISS. Russians act by the principle: all ingenious is simple. They for the first time started the ship "Union" in 1967. At it the parachute refused and the astronaut was lost. Three more astronauts were lost in 1971 when during descent there was a cabin depressurization. But after that all piloted flights in the USSR and Russia did without victims. "Shuttles" became a grave for 14 astronauts.
Thomas should have also thanked the Democrats in the US for killing our space program. Apparently the higher priority was handouts and entitlements, not working toward a better future.
I was talking about the age of rockets, the age of shuttles and space stations is a different matter. The incidents [lethal incidents] recorded during the Shuttle Program were a result of the incredible growth of the business [and the bureaucracy] surrounding NASA. The first incident [when the Shuttle exploded during the launch phase] was due to a banal defect of a gasket caused by low temperatures [! Imagine!]. The security controls were incredibly complicated, but that incredibly simple detail was not noted [again: !!!!]. The second incident saw a lack of decision capability by NASA authority. The doubt that the wing of the Shuttle had damaged with real risks during the phase of reentry in the atmosphere was present, but who had the authority to decide something left the things go on following the program of the mission [there were very expensive alternatives, but they existed]. If I have to define the main problem of NASA is an excess of trust in its technology and in its organization.
While I agree that is a result, I think the main problem was an ambitious national political agenda with too little money to support it. You know, like when Bill Clinton came into office, slashed the military budget in half then turned it into the "World Police" by sending it to Bosnia, Haiti and other (*)(*)(*)(*)holes on a shoestring.
The reductions of NASA budget have been considerable during the years and actually the Shuttle program, with aging vehicles [very expensive aging vehicles] needed more money. Sure we cannot wait that NASA kept the budget of the 60's while the Agency was conquering the Moon [even above the 4% of Fed Budget in 1965-1966], but after 1969, last year when NASA budget was above 2% of Fed Budget, the Agency has seen its global budget decreasing year after year. A little inversion happened around 1990, but anyway within the range of he 1%. In 2012 the NASA budget was only the 0.48% of Fed Budget. In absolute numbers we are still talking about a great amount of money [about 17 billions of US$], but the Agency has distributed it in a very wide number of projects, activities, structures ... the first step to do is to reduce what NASA does, concentrating its activities on great projects. In absolute value term [calculating inflation], NASA today spends a bit more than in the years 1971 - 1974, but in those years NASA was sending humans to the Moon.
