Editorial: Reasons for failures in space aren’t clear

Friday, Dec. 10, 1999 | 8:49 a.m.

A series of mission failures is prompting a reassessment of NASA's Mars program. In September the $125 million Mars Climate Orbiter was lost because English measurement units weren't converted to metric, causing a navigation error. Then this past week the $165 million Mars Polar Lander mission was lost. NASA hasn't been able to contact the spacecraft, so no one knows yet what happened.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House committee that has oversight of NASA, said it is NASA's management -- not funding -- that is to blame. Others aren't so sure. John Pike, a space policy expert for the Federation of American Scientists, told the New York Times that the Mars program was lacking in time, personnel and funds, pushing the agency to the breaking point. "Anybody who has tried to do too much work without enough people immediately recognizes the symptoms," Pike said. "Stuff doesn't get done. Things fail."

The reality likely resides somewhere in the middle, with both funding and decision-making playing key roles in these failures. An independent assessment of the Mars Climate Orbiter's failure in September attributed its loss to inexperienced and overworked employees and inadequate oversight by management. NASA is doing the right thing, then, by ordering another independent review of this separate catastrophe involving the Mars Polar Lander mission.

These journeys often are taken for granted, almost as if they're nothing more than crossing the street. Frequently forgotten is that traveling 157 million miles through space, and then maneuvering a spacecraft so it can land safely on Mars' rugged terrain, is no small feat. Space exploration is fraught with danger, but the scientific rewards are well worth the risk. The key now is to assess whether the frugality philosophy -- "faster, better, cheaper" -- advocated by NASA, and encouraged by Congress, is paying off.

archive