I can count Mars 5 though, which was down on Mars almost a year and a half before the Viking probes. Also, Mars 3 might well have been more successful if it hadn't landed in the dust-storm.
Mars 5 was an orbiter (and several years late compared to the US Mariner 9, or for that matter the orbiter portions of Mars 2 or Mars 3). Mars 6 was a lander, but it crashed during landing, kinda like, say, the Mars Polar Lander (or for that matter Mars 2).
The fact that Mars 3 had to land during the dust storm, and in a preprogrammed position, was a significant factor in its failure, yes. It is also a significant example of how the Russians screwed up their designs compared to the Americans (eg., the Vikings were perfectly capable of standing off and waiting--indeed, Viking 1 did when the original landing site looked bad). Using that as an excuse for their poor performance is...novel, to say the least.
Apollo 1?
Um, what does that have to do with anything? I didn't say the US was universally successful, did I? That was the point where the US was starting to get a bit like the Russians, running for their goal, and they paid for it. Better to have been slower.
Actually, my exact words were:
"and the whole programme cost, with inflation figured in, not much more than the current budget (2005 dollars)"
Perhaps I should have made it more clear that I was extending the budget comparison over the same period.
Well yes, because it was not clear at all that you meant a multi-year summation of NASA's budget, rather than a single year of said budget.