Is the Mars rover program a scam?

In article ,
says...

On Monday, October 12, 2015 at 11:19:24 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:

I would think that sterilizing the entire final assembled unit isn't the only solution. I'm incredulous that they can't sterilize the components before assembly and put them together in a sterile environment, and put them into sterile containment in the transport vehicle.

Is it going to get any less difficult with future missions?

Even if done on components, you're still risking damage to the
electronics and the like due to the sterilization process. Plus you're
driving up the cost of assembly because that would then have to be done
in a completely sterile environment.


Well there you have it, it's impossible to ever determine if there's life on Mars.


No one has said that. We're just pointing out that its harder than it
seems if part of the requirements is a *completely* sterile
lander/rover.

Remember the story of Surveyor 3 parts brought back from the moon by the
Apollo 12 mission which had bacteria on them which supposedly survived
the trip to the moon and back despite being exposed to vacuum,
radiation, temperature extremes, and etc? That drove a lot of the hype
that *any* little bit of any probe not sterilized could contaminate
another planet, moon, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveyor_3

But, that finding was challenged. The challengers say it's far more
likely that someone working on the parts after they were brought back
didn't follow the right protocols after using the toilet. In other
words, the fears of interplanetary contamination by a probe that's been
sterilized, to the best of our ability (which we know may not be 100%),
are being over-hyped.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer