Conclusion

Mars has always been the compelling prize in exploration for most space enthu­siasts. For many involved in the space program, from von Braun’s time to today, the dream that has galvanized them has been that of landing human beings on the Red Planet. Fulfilling that dream lies ahead. The reality that has marked the space program profoundly to date has been robotic exploration. Robotic exploration of Mars has been one of the great achievements of the space age. It has not been easy. If Apollo was a one-decade dash, characterized by Kennedy’s singular decision to go to the Moon, Mars exploration has been a multidecade marathon, marked by a host of smaller—albeit important—decisions, usually at the NASA level.

Today, the United States and other nations are gradually extending human senses over the millions of miles to Mars, building a permanent infrastructure for exploration with orbiters, landers, rovers, and communication links. The ro­botic program has been sustained mainly by the quest to determine whether life exists or has ever existed on Mars, and also by the need to send robotic precur­sors if human beings were ever to go there. There are other rationales that have applied—including international competition and, conversely, international co – operation—but life has been the most influential driver for Mars exploration over the years. In 1976, when it was thought that there was no life on Mars, the program suffered, and it was not until the early 1990s that flight resumed. The

Mars meteorite claims of the mid-1990s were a catalyst for reemphasizing the life rationale in the years that ensued.

This association of Mars with life in the human psyche has made this fabled planet the planetary magnet for the public as well as scientists. It is close enough to visit every 26 months, but still so far away that spaceflight to it, much less landing on it, remains daunting. Over the decades, more flights sent by spacefar – ing nations have failed than succeeded. The United States has been relatively successful, especially in recent years. But it has also suffered hugely disappoint­ing losses among the victories, losses that have wasted years of effort, cost hun­dreds of millions of dollars, and adversely affected the space program and those associated with it. With each setback, however, there has been the struggle to respond and the reality of recovery. Mars has been a continuing challenge to the United States and its agency, NASA. For the most part, NASA and the nation have responded to daunting failure with spectacular success. The Mars Science Laboratory landing of 2012 exemplified such remarkable technical achievement.

This study penetrates behind the technical quest for Mars exploration to the agency responsible for it. It looks at the advocates driving the organization politically. The Mars advocacy coalition seeks to make the Red Planet a fund­ing priority for NASA and the nation. For the most part, the influence of this loosely coupled, often changing group of individuals and entities inside and outside NASA has enabled Mars scientists and engineers to achieve their techni­cal goals. It has moved the agency to establish a long-term program and see it carried out successfully. However, when the advocacy coalition has lacked influ­ence in relation to opponents, that fact has inhibited Mars progress. Moreover, even when influential, there have been times when advocates pursued a flawed scientific or political strategy that had a deleterious effect on the evolution of the Mars program.

Mars advocates succeed to the degree they make NASA the institutional em­bodiment of their quest. NASA is a base for resource acquisition and program action. The advocacy coalition has pushed most effectively for Mars when cer­tain conditions have existed. One is having senior administrators of NASA in the coalition to actively provide passion and power behind the drive for Mars. A second is for the advocates to gain the support of NASA’s political masters, thereby neutralizing rivals and helping in dealing with the Office of Manage­ment and Budget. A third is maintaining a common front in scientific and politi­cal strategy. Absent any of these conditions, the Mars advocacy coalition loses clout.