[3] After the loss of Mars Observer and the onset of the rising costs associated with the future International Space Station, NASA began seeking less expensive, smaller probes for scientific interplanetary missions.

[4] In 1995, a new Mars Surveyor program began as a set of missions designed with limited objectives, low costs, and frequent launches.

The internal structure was largely constructed with graphite composite/aluminum honeycomb supports, a design found in many commercial airplanes.

With the exception of the scientific instruments, battery and main engine, the spacecraft included dual redundancy on the most important systems.

To perform the Mars orbital insertion maneuver, the spacecraft also included a LEROS 1B main engine rocket,[8] providing 640 N (140 lbf) of thrust by burning hydrazine fuel with nitrogen tetroxide (NTO) oxidizer.

It also included a two-way UHF radio frequency system to relay communications with Mars Polar Lander upon an expected landing on December 3, 1999.

The batteries were intended to be recharged when the solar array received sunlight and power the spacecraft as it passed into the shadow of Mars.

The flash memory was intended to be used for highly important data, including triplicate copies of the flight system software.

[6] The Pressure Modulated Infrared Radiometer (PMIRR) uses narrow-band radiometric channels and two pressure modulation cells to measure atmospheric and surface emissions in the thermal infrared and a visible channel to measure dust particles and condensates in the atmosphere and on the surface at varying longitudes and seasons.

On November 10, 1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter Mishap Investigation Board released a Phase I report, detailing the suspected issues encountered with the loss of the spacecraft.

80 km (50 miles) was the minimum altitude that Mars Climate Orbiter was thought to be capable of surviving during this maneuver.

During insertion, the orbiter was intended to skim through Mars' upper atmosphere, gradually aerobraking for weeks, but post-failure calculations showed that the spacecraft's trajectory would have taken it within 57 km (35 miles) of the surface.

The trajectory calculation software then used these results – expected to be in newton-seconds (incorrect by a factor of 4.45)[2] – to update the predicted position of the spacecraft.