Louis Friedman, executive director of The Planetary Society, published an essay on the TPS web site earlier this week condemning NASA plans to curtail some of its planned long-term robotic exploration of Mars. Citing a front-page article in last week’s edition of Space News, Friedman wrote, “NASA has not only eliminated work on a sample return from Mars, but now plans no more rovers after 2009. All that remains are one small lander and a communications orbiter.”
Well, that’s not entirely accurate. After the Mars Science Lab (MSL) rover mission in 2009, there is a Mars Scout-class mission (which could be, but does not necessarily have to be, a lander) in 2011 and a telecom orbiter—presumably similar to one planned for 2009 but cancelled last year—for 2013. However, there are still tentative plans for another rover mission, the Astrobiology Field Laboratory, circa 2016. Given the RTG-powered MSL should be able to operate on the Martian surface for several years, assuming it makes it there successfully (look at the track record of Spirit and Opportunity), it suggests that the fate of Mars exploration isn’t nearly as dire as Friedman suggests.
I agree with Jeff’s analysis. I would also add that it would be extremely short-sighted to give up a human return to, and detailed exploration of, Earth’s moon, in order to fund an infinite series of automated rovers to Mars. Once we know enough about Mars to safely send humans there, it’s time to set our sights back to getting scientists first to the moon and then to Mars.
— Donald
I just read in Space Daily that NASA may be giving up on ESAS because “the architecture for returning men to the Moon laid out in the famous ESAS report is declared to be totally unworkable.”
Let me get this right. It is “totally unworkable” to duplicate a slightly improved version of the Apollo architecture, what we’ve already done?
This is absurd. What has our country come to?
— Donald
Well, it’s totally unworkable within the budget they have. So much for Apollo on Steroids. Time for a new approach.
Indeed, Friedman’s post is alarmist, even hysterical. Scout 2011, Telecom, and Rover 2016 is hardly a downgrading of Mars science considering that the MER should be working through this year, and MSL will probably last well into 2015/2016.
The always informative Bruce Moomaw’s posts over at UnmannedSpaceflight.com also reveal that current Mars science planning may be to eliminate the Astrobiology Field Laboratory and/or Deep Drill Platform entirely and head straight for a sample return around 2018, if MSL finds interesting chemistry right out of the gates.
I would be disinclined to fund a Mars Sample Return if it cost more than, say, a couple of billion dollars or happened more than a decade or so in the future. If we’re developing the human spaceflight capability anyway, we should save our pennies and do it right with a higher-probability-of-success human crew obtaining a large sample with months worth of contextual information.
— Donald
I always thought that one very good reason for a Mars Sample Return mission was to demonstrate and PROVE the key technology of ISRU generation of Methane on Mars (ala Zubrin), and then to prove the operational capability by returning those samples to Earth using that Methane technology.
Call it a two-fer. This would link the MSR mission directly, and strategically, with the objective of a permanent human settlement on Mars.
But NASA cancelled the Methane ISRU technology part of the MSR mission some time ago. I have not heard anything about this decision being reversed. But it should be. As such, this “strategic technology demostration” would justify the spending of a couple billion dollars, since it then would be directly part of the VSE.
Do this, and put Methane back into the baseline of the CEV, and the VSE will look a good deal better than it does today.
– Al
Al, I agree with you re. methane.
We don’t need to do the expensive-to-accomplish and difficult-to-automate job of returning to Earth to demonstrate useful methane production. Launch a tank with your experimental methane factory and store the output in place on Mars at a likely location for the later human expedition. You get a demonstration while also storeing a useful resource for the real exploratory mission you send later on.
The same strategy should be attempted on Earth’s moon. If we insist on sending an automated lander before the first human mission, have it contain an experimental oxygen mine and factory. In this case, storage is probably not practical, but at least you would get your demonstration. . . .
— Donald
Donald, can you send me an e-mail? The link off your website just bounced back to me.
lunarplatinum@aol.com
Bill White
With a credible SSTO/RLV/space colonization program, utilizing our existing assets to leverage new launch vehicle and ISS designs, we could easily put a complete manned sample analysis laboratory on Phobos. All a sample return mission has to do is get the sample into Mars orbit, or preferably, onto the surface of Phobos. Let them sit until we can get to them. Instruments are evolving at a very fast pace, we should be able to do most of the work in situ.
All of VSE and ESAS is fundamentally flawed.
While this Democrat disagrees with your final statement, Thomas, and believe that SSTO / RLV is wasted money until their is a market in place for them to serve, you raised a very interesting idea. I’ll bet there is already Martian material on Photos, splashed up in impacts. This material, while probably fairly difficult to find and identify, would otherwise be far more easily obtained than material from the Martian surface. Realistically, finding such material would almost certainly require human explorers on site, but there are lots of other reasons to visit a small body, and Photos is one of the easiest to reach.
— Donald
While this Democrat disagrees with your final statement, Thomas, and believe that SSTO / RLV is wasted money until their is a market in place for them to serve, you raised a very interesting idea. I’ll bet there is already Martian material on Photos, splashed up in impacts. This material, while probably fairly difficult to find and identify, would otherwise be far more easily obtained than material from the Martian surface. Realistically, finding such material would almost certainly require human explorers on site, but there are lots of other reasons to visit a small body, and Photos is one of the easiest to reach.
— Donald
It’s time to move beyond yet more orbiters and rovers to human missions. The current Mars exploration program stretches out to 2013 (MSL extended mission and Scout 2011) A sample return mission is estimated to cost at least $2 billion plus yet it would be accomplished as a side effect with the return of every human mission and the samples would be far far better. Let’s get on with it!
Let’s get on with it!
Sure, in a tin can, on a mission that last two years, into a gravity well nearly as deep as Earth’s. So lets just go back to the moon, first, just in case we got something fundamentally wrong with the Mars in a tin can thing, but only with two guys, to the equator, for 100 billion dollars, using heavy lift launchers that won’t work. Ok, I think I got your so very astute point. Thanks!
Let me reiterate : landing a couple of guys on Mars is quite insane. By simple logical deduction, VSE and ESAS are insane. Do you understand the meaning of insane, or do I have to explain it to you.
There are much better ways to go about doing science on our nearest and most earthlike planet. There are also much better ways of colonizing space, so that Mars landings will eventually be feasible.
However, it appears to be a wasted effort trying to explain rationality to an insane constituency, represented by an insane administration.