The problem, mentioned in this article, is systematic one, not specific for this particular mission. Nowadays NASA operates in a mode, where failure is not an option. Any mission should be successful, which leads to costs explosion.
But this wasn't always the case. Earlier failure rate was high and thus missions were duplicated, just in case if one vehicle crashes/malfunctions. A good example for this were Viking landers and 2004 rovers.
Many proposals on sending people to Mars seem to (deliberately?) sidestep the question of coming back. Often they quietly assume that they simply won't come back.
Sounds like a reasonable assumption given the length and danger of the trip. I’d assume the first colonists to sail across the Atlantic operated under a similar set of assumptions.
You are totally missing the part about rocks from Mars reaching Earth all the time. If it were an issue, it is already too late. Plus, we have already brought back samples from other bodies with out bothering with such precautions. Also, nothing in scientific findings (nor in the popular press articles you cited as "science") suggests that this is anything other than mineral traces of life that has been dead for millions (more likely billions) of years.
Finally, you may want to drop the ranting tone if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
It's not quite the same. Any Mars rock that reaches us naturally has likely spent millions of years in the vacuum of space and then been heated to very high temperatures as it falls through the atmosphere.
The problem, mentioned in this article, is systematic one, not specific for this particular mission. Nowadays NASA operates in a mode, where failure is not an option. Any mission should be successful, which leads to costs explosion. But this wasn't always the case. Earlier failure rate was high and thus missions were duplicated, just in case if one vehicle crashes/malfunctions. A good example for this were Viking landers and 2004 rovers.
Sometimes a post makes a much bigger point than its immediate context:
If there is any serious question about how to get samples back from Mars, there can be no serious plan to send people to Mars.
This article seems serious...
Many proposals on sending people to Mars seem to (deliberately?) sidestep the question of coming back. Often they quietly assume that they simply won't come back.
Sounds like a reasonable assumption given the length and danger of the trip. I’d assume the first colonists to sail across the Atlantic operated under a similar set of assumptions.
Yes.
Expect downvotes for claiming that we can't realistically get to Mars on any realistic schedule.
Just logged in to downvote this anti-scientific garbage. Who allows this garbage to propagate via feeds?
Ignore the OP, pay attention to actual science, and why safety measures matter:
https://www.reuters.com/science/nasa-rover-finds-potential-s...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/09/10/life-on...
You are totally missing the part about rocks from Mars reaching Earth all the time. If it were an issue, it is already too late. Plus, we have already brought back samples from other bodies with out bothering with such precautions. Also, nothing in scientific findings (nor in the popular press articles you cited as "science") suggests that this is anything other than mineral traces of life that has been dead for millions (more likely billions) of years.
Finally, you may want to drop the ranting tone if you expect anyone to take you seriously.
It's not quite the same. Any Mars rock that reaches us naturally has likely spent millions of years in the vacuum of space and then been heated to very high temperatures as it falls through the atmosphere.
Obviously we don't want ancient Mars viruses or whatever killing us all. But we also don't want to contaminate the samples with Earth-stuff.