As far as I am aware, ESA has not achieved a successful martian landing yet. Why is it still a good idea to try with full-scale rover, weighting more than Opportunity and Spirit (though less than Curiosity, which indeed had huge landing experience to build on - unlike Rosalind Franklin).
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
9
-
$\begingroup$ I'm voting to close this as opinion based, it's also very broad. All I will say is if you don't try, you don't succeed, where would space exploration be if we quit after a couple of tries? $\endgroup$– GdDFeb 8, 2019 at 15:09
-
1$\begingroup$ Edited the Q to make it less opinion-based, I hope this is better now $\endgroup$– zabopFeb 8, 2019 at 15:26
-
2$\begingroup$ @zabop the edit helps a bit. Hint for the future; asking a little bit differently can result in a better received question and more thorough answers. For example, if you asked "What lessons were learned and steps taken by ESA following the Schiaparelli landing failure to improve the chances of Rosalind Franklin's successful landing?" or "Was there any pressure for ESA to delay ExoMars because..." These questions would not involve opinion-based answers. $\endgroup$– uhohFeb 8, 2019 at 20:56
-
1$\begingroup$ Good points raised, will try to follow them. $\endgroup$– zabopFeb 8, 2019 at 21:11
-
2$\begingroup$ ESA successfully landed Beagle II. Unfortunately it failed to deploy. $\endgroup$– user20636Feb 8, 2019 at 21:59
|
Show 4 more comments
1 Answer
$\begingroup$
$\endgroup$
0
Schiaparelli was a test mission. During its descent, it recorded and sent lots of data which was analyzed and gave ESA the information it needed to proceed with the Rosalind Franklin mission.
