I especially liked this sentence:
> the module had successfully completed most steps of its 6-minute descent through the martian atmosphere
Completing "most steps" in a landing, but not the last one (I.e. Safe touchdown) is equal to a crash.
Completing "most steps" in a landing, but not the last one (I.e. Safe touchdown) is equal to a crash.
LEO That nine out of ten criterion that the DOD lays down for success in these tests were met.
BARTLET The tenth being?
LEO They missed the target.
BARTLET [with sarcasm] Damn!
LEO Sir!
BARTLET So close.
LEO Mr. President.
BARTLET That tenth one! See, if there were just nine...
Schiaparelli was never a science mission. It was a technology demonstrator to see whether the landing system worked. Even if it had landed intact, it had a tiny set of science instruments and would only have lasted a few hours.
Well, we now know that there are a few bugs --- but we also know that most of the landing system works, including hibernation, terminal guidance, reentry, heatshield deployment, the parachute... all of which is hugely valuable data. Knowing that the last few stages didn't work is even more valuable, particularly as it's returned telemetry on what happened.
Focusing only on the fact that the last couple of steps failed and it crashed is doing the mission a huge disservice. Schiaparelli did precisely the job it was designed for.
Schiaparelli is expected to survive on the surface of Mars for a short time by using the excess energy capacity of its batteries.
It's just the way life is. Not every setback is a disaster, but it's so much better if things work smoothly. Nothing succeeds like success.
The objective was to demonstrate an ability to land in a useful condition so the next probe could land with experiments using this technology. Everything else is an in-process metric. The probe crashed and didn't land.