>If you're asking why they don't add them I've provided some speculative reasoning based on my experience in adjacent industries. See, I don't see it that way.

>If you're asking why they don't add them I've provided some speculative reasoning based on my experience in adjacent industries. See, I don't see it that way. You didn't state it as "here are some possible reasons". You formed your argument as "this is why what you are proposing is wrong". Without actually being an authority on it and knowing if that's true. Neither am I. But we should be able to discuss hypotheticals and come up with ideas as to possible solutions and their drawbacks. I'm sure there are very good reasons why they don't include them. But, having worked in the aerospace industry although nothing to do with NASA or spaceprobes, I find arguments about budget or building just to the mission unsatisfactory. I'm pretty sure there is an engineering challenge that makes it unworkable or unpractical and you and I are just ignorant to it. There are obvious benefits to the ability to clean solar panels on Mars. And Space probes tend to be more over engineered than people give them credit for. Yes they are built to extreme margins to optimize capability for low weight. But that capability is great. We are talking about the same engineers who replaced the perfectly workable airbag solution for the skycrane which was far more complicated a solution because it promised to land the vehicle softer and give it a better chance of making it to surface unbroken. So I can only conclude that there is some kind of engineering problem that prevents it. Maybe Mars dust is more like Moon dust that dirt on Earth and its akin to tiny razors? Brushing it off could damage the solar panels. That's just me spitballing.