NASA

A sobering planetary exploration plan

The good news: planetary scientists have come up with a fascinating list of missions they have identified as their top priorities for the coming decade. The bad news: there may not be any money for the most ambitious of those proposed missions.

Late Monday the National Research Council released the Planetary Science Decadal Survey, a study identifying the highest priority missions for the study of the solar system during the 2013-2022. The missions are divided into various classes based on their cost, with flagship missions as the most expensive. The survey picked the Mars Astrobiology Explorer Cacher (MAX-C), a rover designed to collect samples for return to Earth on a later mission, as the top priority flagship mission. It was closely followed by the Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO), a mission to study the icy Jovian moon Europa. Following JEO is a Uranus Orbiter and Probe mission, and then concepts for a Venus Climate Mission and an orbiter to Saturn’s moon Enceladus.

Those recommendations, though, are not without significant caveats. Noting the cost growth experienced by many NASA missions in past years, this survey tapped the Aerospace Corporation to perform independent cost analyses. Thus, its recommendation for MAX-C is only valid if the mission is “dramatically descoped,” in the words of Steve Squyres, chair of the survey committee, during a presentation Monday night at the Lunar and Planetary Sciences Conference in Houston. The survey recommends MAX-C only if $1 billion can be cut from the independent estimate of $3.5 billion. Likewise, JEO is recommended only if it is “substantially descoped”, according to Squyres, as its cost estimate is $4.7 billion.

Exacerbating the problem is the projected NASA budget for planetary science. When the survey was putting together its plan over the last year, it was working off budget projections from the FY2011 NASA budget proposal, which showed modest growth for planetary science programs through 2015: from $1.49 billion in the FY11 proposal to $1.65 billion by FY15. The FY12 proposal, though, is very different: while the outyears projections are “notional”, they show declining budgets: from $1.54 billion in FY12 to less than $1.26 billion by FY16.

“If that budget were actually implemented,” Squyres said of the FY12 proposal, “it would mean the end of flagship-class science at NASA in the planetary program.” Squyres had previously explained that the committee had put in “decision rules” into their report if funding fell below their earlier projections, with flagship missions the first to be cut in order to protect smaller, more frequent missions under the Discovery and New Frontiers programs. “If we get into a program where the only missions we are flying are flagships that return data in 10 years or 15 years, or get samples back in 20 years, that leads to an unacceptable stagnation of our program,” he explained. “We must preserve Discovery, we must preserve New Frontiers, so the first thing to go after are the flagships.”

Squyres, though, was unwilling to concede the loss of those flagship missions, calling on planetary scientists and other advocates to contact their members of Congress. “Those of us who care about planetary exploration have not just the right but I believe the obligation to speak to our congressional representatives about the planetary budget and to make it very clear what program we would like to see,” he said. He added he briefed staffers on the House and Senate appropriations committees last week about the survey. “One message that I got from them loud and clear is that they do support planetary exploration and see this as one of the great things this nation can do… But the question that they asked me is, ‘where is your community?'”

“That has to change,” Squyres said.

56 comments to A sobering planetary exploration plan

  • amightywind

    Mars Astrobiology Explorer Cacher (MAX-C)

    Sounds like another MSL pink Cadillac to me. Squyres presides over the single most successful, cost effective planetary exploration project in history. It is shocking that we followed up with a dozen similar rovers on Mars surface by now. The discontinuity and technical risk of grandiose missions like MAX-C call into question NASA’s approach to mission architecture. Build improved Mars Rovers, launch them every 2 years for 10 years and enjoy a golden age of Mars geology.

    it would mean the end of flagship-class science at NASA in the planetary program……flagships that return data in 10 years or 15 years…

    That is all they are currently doing. The last flagship was Cassini, launched in the early ’90s. This is non-news. The program is getting by just fine without them.

    But the question that they asked me is, ‘where is your community?’

    NASA outreach for space sciences is truly miserable.

  • I have a planetary exploration plan. Let’s build a starship with warp drive and go visit the Vulcans.

    I’m sure Congress will fund it.

    (End sarcasm mode.)

    All this dreaming of human or robotic space flight is a waste of time unless someone can come up with a compelling reason that convinces Congress to fund it. It’s been over 40 years since Apollo, and no one has yet to find that compelling argument.

    Apollo was a fluke, a one-time convergence of politics and space that’s unlikely to happen again. The members of Congress have no interest in space beyond the jobs it brings to their districts. That was even true during Apollo; the only reason the Manned Spacecraft Center (now Johnson Space Center) is in Houston is because Houston Rep. Albert Thomas headed the House Appropriations Committee that controlled the NASA purse, and made it real clear to JFK that if he wanted to fund Apollo that astronaut training center better be in his district.

    Planetary science, robotic and satellite explorations are a much cheaper way to go than human space flight, but even then robots can’t be told to show up at a Congresscritter’s open house to do P.R.

    Space is a sad lot in the U.S. today, and it’s because the American public doesn’t care enough about space to demand their elected representatives spend more on space. That’s the reality of the situation, and those of us who advocate space exploration need to address that fundamental fact if we expect the government to pay for our fantasies.

  • Aremis Asling

    OMG! The budget gets cut and science takes the most draconian hit!?!?! I’m shocked! Absolutely shocked! This is unpreceidented!

    You know, except for every other time we’ve cut the budget. Or when we needed to pay for a new vehicle. Or when the administrator changed. Or because it was Tuesday in May and one of the appropriators saw a bad omen on the way to the office.

    I remember in high school writing a paper about one of the missions planned for NASA. There was a nice web page with all of the missions on tap and whether they were proposed, planned, scheduled or cancelled. I think maybe 3 out of almost 15 missions flew largely as designed (The MER rovers and Cassini included). Perhaps another handful flew in one form or another. The rest, a clear majority, were cancelled. The wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Solar_System_probes is littered with them, and I know for a fact its missing a laundry list of proposed missions that never left the coctail napkin.

    Now if we actually funded our science programs (not just NASA, any of them), THAT would be news.

  • Aremis Asling

    Actually, what I do like about this is that they are making some effort to get outside estimates. That benefits the whole NASA budget by putting clearer definitions on what we fly so that we don’t spend $4 billion on something that get’s cancelled because it’ll cost another $4 billion to make it work.

  • Aremis Asling

    re:prior post

    unpreceidented => unprecidented

    sorry for the spelling fail.

  • CharlesHouston

    Sadly, this is no surprise. What surprises me is when some science mission is proposed and the science fans out here, with the NASA managers, start planning for the celebration of it’s launch. And then it is shortly cut. Now, I am the world’s biggest science mission fan but the record shows that few of them survive gestation. :-(

  • Tom D

    It’s good to have ambitious plans, but I think we can take our time accomplishing these missions. It’s not like the planets are going anywhere :-). Forecasting $4.7b for one of these missions suggests that either they want some pretty exotic hardware or plan to employ a lot of people for many years or, more likely, both. I for one could handle some de-scoping.

    I sure wish that NASA could actually get some economies of scale on something. It seems like nearly every probe is custom built. Why can’t we just mass produce a few dozen basic orbiters and then launch them from time to time all over the solar system? I know this isn’t a new idea. Why doesn’t it ever get followed through?

  • Write to Congress. Real letters. Just one letter can make a different. Squyures said that Congress subscribes to the “cockroach” model. For every letter from a concerned constituent that they receive, they assume that there are hundreds more that they cannot see. (To them a large number of letter is something like 5…)

  • NASA Fan

    Tom D wrote :”..seems like nearly every probe is custom built”

    Indeed, for the most part they are. Because everything is designed around meeting the science goals of the mission. This leads to uniqueness and specialization of hardware systems. What NASA should do is go the Walmart route: i.e. buy 20 Falcon 9’s, or whatever LV isn’t landing in the ocean these days, by 20 spacecraft bus’s from some vendor, and cap the mission costs and schedule (which is the case for Discovery and New Frontiers, but not flagship missions) then force science to figure out how to get their science. This will surely restrict the science, but the economies of scale will drive the costs down and maybe, maybe, you’ll fly three or four of these planetary decadal missions in a decades time period.

    One only has to look over at Earth Science to see that lack of budgets is impacting their march through their decadal missions; expect 2 of the 12 to be launched within 10 years of their decadal report publication.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 11:48 am

    “Write to Congress. Real letters. Just one letter can make a different. Squyures said that Congress subscribes to the “cockroach” model. For every letter from a concerned constituent that they receive, they assume that there are hundreds more that they cannot see.”

    ones milage may vary but the experience I have is that you are wrong.

    A classmate (who Rich and Mark Whittington have met) was the Chief of Staff for a US Senator from Texas (who has since retired)…As Gunner (my friends nickname) said about letters “we at least read the ones from our constituents but that’s about it”.

    Letters which need “constituent” services usually do get somewhere…but ones on the this and that of policy almost get nowhere (at least according to my friend) and I believe him.

    Congressman Olin Teague (who my friends father held the same job with) was even more blunt on the occasion of speaking to some of us at a “leadership dinner” when I was “younger”. that they do not affect policy much…particularly major policy.

    What does affect policy is the “town hall meetings” or in the case of Teague…the breakfast he had every Saturday around the district…that way they get a measure of who they are talking to…and who is kind of just shilling for something and someone who really believes it.

    When I was on the school board…I made it known that every Saturday I ate breakfast at the Black Eye Pea (not a really great place but had large seating) at such and such a time. They were nice enough to give me one of the “bigger rooms” and you really could get the “off line” measure of folks.

    Robert G. Oler

  • E.P. Grondine

    Good morning, SCS –

    “All this dreaming of human or robotic space flight is a waste of time unless someone can come up with a compelling reason that convinces Congress to fund it. It’s been over 40 years since Apollo, and no one has yet to find that compelling argument.”

    Within the impact community it is generally thought that a compelling argument will find us, sooner or later. The hope is that it is small, not too many people die, and that there is enough left afterwards to address the next argument.

    Yes, the longing for the late 50’s, early 60’s is apparent among many people. That was probably the height of US economic power. That longing plays a large role in the operation of the Mars cults.

  • Since the end of Apollo, it has been a tremendous era for planetary science for NASA: landing probes and rovers on Mars, sending probes past Mercury, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune and their moons and even past a few asteroids. And now we’ll soon have a NASA probe orbiting Mercury.

    However, now I believe our unmanned space program over the next ten years should be focused on things that are critical to human survival and eventual human expansion into the solar system.

    1. We need to send robotic rovers to the lunar poles to determine the amounts of hydrogen, carbon, and nitrogen resources that are there that could help us to dramatically reduce the cost of setting up permanent facilities on the surface of the Moon and could be a source of mass shielding for manned interplanetary missions.

    2. We need to send dozens of probes to a variety of NEO asteroids to determine what we have to deal with as far as potential danger to the Earth and also to determine if we can exploit the natural resources of these asteroids for the benefit of the Earth

    3. We need place rovers on the surface of the Martian moons Phobos and Deimos to determine what kind of water and carbon resources are there which could help to reduce the cost of eventual human missions to the surface of Mars. If we used light sails, water from Phobos and Deimos could theoretically be transported back to the Earth-Moon Lagrange points much cheaper than water from the lunar poles.

    After 2020, we could restart our unmanned exploration of the rest of the solar system by using our new HLV capability to land rovers on the surface of Mars in preparation for manned landings by the year 2030, plus landing unmanned rovers on Mercury, Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, and the moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.

  • Brian Paine

    If space exploration is to increase it needs more funds and more participants. The greatest contribution so far to our knowlege of the solar system via space exploration has come from one source, and to quantify that in $ they are USA $. The rest of us watch with eager anticipation…
    It is high time that the finances were spread a little more evenly. A simple example would be Australia funding a major planetary mission.
    NASA financial management asside for the moment, where in God’s name is the “space politic imagination?” We have everything we need to make a future in space work except for that and it needs to be found in places like right here on this blog.

  • Brian Paine wrote:

    A simple example would be Australia funding a major planetary mission.

    What is the financial incentive for the Australian Parliament that justifies the cost? What justification will satisfy the typical Australian taxpayer who wonders why his taxes are being spent on “a major planetary mission”?

    where in God’s name is the “space politic imagination?”

    Again, what is the financial incentive that will convince Congress in an era of trillion-dollar deficits to spend more on space exploration, crewed or uncrewed?

    Even JFK’s people privately admitted there was no financially measurable benefit to space exploration. It was only for international prestige.

    You have to be able to answer the question, “What’s in it for me?” That’s what motivates most people. And that’s why most people don’t care about space.

  • Robert:

    Your will hear different things from different people, but most congressmen tend to totally ignore email because it is free and comparatively effortless. Petitions are also of marginal value.

    What they pay the most attention to are original letters (not form letters) from constituents. This is the advice that Mike Griffin gave me when we ran the save-Constellation effort, which was not entirely unsuccessful (Orion+HLV).

    That is also the advice offered by Steven Squyres and members of DPS.

    It may sound too old-fashioned to you, but whenever anyone writes a personal letter (not junk mail) in this day and age it tends to get noticed.

  • … And considering how much time and effort you guys put into internet forums, imagine the real impact that your efforts could have if you managed to even partially persuade those who are the real decision-makers!

  • Having been a part-time political consultant for many years, I can tell you that the only sure-fire way to get a Congresscritter’s attention is to make a sizeable donation to his re-election campaign.

    It’s cute to think that a well-reasoned letter will make a difference. On very rare occasions, it does. But most Congresscritters spend much of their time raising money for re-election.

    I guarantee you that one $5,000 check to his re-election campaign will go a lot farther than a letter. That’s why the Congresscritters in space center districts are fighting tooth-and-nail to preserve the status quo. Their campaigns are receiving financial contributions from space worker unions and major NASA contractors.

    That’s why the members of the Senate Science Committee took it upon themselves to design the next heavy-lift rocket — to placate the people subsidizing their re-election campaigns.

  • common sense

    @ Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    “… And considering how much time and effort you guys put into internet forums, imagine the real impact that your efforts could have if you managed to even partially persuade those who are the real decision-makers!”

    Who said we don’t? And if we don’t why do you post? What’s the point?

  • Too bad all the money going into heavy lift couldn’t be spread around into other projects like these. I have written my Congress-woman to that effect, but she’s not usually interested in NASA.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    well who knows what actually cranks the yank…but I dont think that the letter writing campaign was the break point or really had any influence in “saving Orion” such as its been saved or the HLV such as it has been saved (and in my view its not all that alive).

    Personal letters are better then form letters which are even better then email…so that order is correct…the issues on this however are just to big for really any influence.

    I had the pleasure of beating Pete O up (TX 22) in a town hall (rhetoric wise) while I was home…personal attention matters

    Robert G. Oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    Nelson Bridwell wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 2:35 pm

    … “And considering how much time and effort you guys put into internet forums, imagine the real impact that your efforts could have if you managed to even partially persuade those who are the real decision-makers!”

    I would add this…the question is “how to persuade” and “persuade to what”.

    I have not heard a good argument yet for HLV or Orion.

    Robert G. oler

  • Robert G. Oler

    amightywind wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 8:34 am

    ….oh dear…as Dr. Smith on Lost in Space (Judy was hot wasnt she!) use to say “oh the pain”…I am in (gasp) agreement with just about you’re entire post.

    Oh dear. (almost as painful as praising LorI Garver sigh).

    A mars sample and return is in my view a great waste of money and scientific aim. It is hard to imagine the “thing” working for under 5 billion dollars and all we would get would be “a pittance” of Mars rock, from one place…and failure would lurk just about everywhere along the way.

    Even if it worked the money spent on that “little piece” could have better been spent on more remote sensing or improving the data collection assets (like TDRS equivalents )

    perhaps we can make this a one of event and all feel better!!!

    Robert G. Oler

  • Marcel has it right. The only way forward is a systems approach.

    We need the moon for materials, staging, safety, gravity, and the economy.
    We cant do the rest of the exploration and manufacturing build up without it.
    Need it to have astronauts to have at least a bit of gravity as we build and spin up the first habs too. Too expensive to bring em home every 4 weeks.
    Can also use AlOxy rockets for ALL on orbit uses, except LEO to HEO.
    And we can 3-d print everything on those rockets except nozzles, nav computers and optics, and maybe wire directly from sifted lunar regolith.

    If we had a depot and a tug, the rest is simple and cheap.
    Next would be on orbit construction of sails and bags/mylar structures.

    Fund Quicklaunch !!!!!!!!

    The way to sell this is the green angle. We are using up all easily available resources on this planet, and poisoning the ecosphere along the way.
    If we want to stop mountaintop mining, and clean up all the mining wastes, NEA mining is the way. By learning how to process in sequence to get all the available resources from the rocks, we learn how to use catalysts, different heating methods, gases, laser deposition, plasma sputtering, laser tuning, etc,etc. Then we can come back and redo all the slag heaps down here, and quit diluting ag and mining wastes with more clean water, just to get to less toxic levels.

    How can we not do this for our children, after what we have done TO them. We are leaving them in a poisoned well, with despots and tyrannys running the playground. Shame on us.

  • Aberwys

    Does it matter to the decision makers that Europa is filled with water–much more water than could ever be found on our moon or on Mars? It’s a veritable Antarctica above and an ocean below. The ocean has a potential for LIFE.

    Seriously, fund MAX-C? MAX-C sends a rover, to get a box of rocks. Places the box with the rocks for the next generation to do the work of going to get them.

    I think someone’s trying to get their old dreams funded before they pass away. Mars is so yesterday. Let Elon Musk get there with SpaceX. That’s what he’s planning long-term anyway…

  • red

    Marcel: “However, now I believe our unmanned space program over the next ten years should be focused on things that are critical to human survival and eventual human expansion into the solar system.”

    Your items 1, 2, and 3 are what NASA’s robotic precursor missions like LRO/LCROSS and the robotic precursor mission line proposed for FY2011 were for.

    The funding for that type of mission has basically been wiped out to fund SLS/MPCV. I would not expect to see them again as long as SLS/MPCV are there.

  • Alex

    On the “bright side,” we haven’t actually launched a “Flagship” mission since 1997. So it’s not like we’ll miss them; we’ll only miss the idea of them.

    Also, why is MAX-C so expensive? Is it just the rover, or does it include a vehicle that launches the samples to Mars Orbit, and then back to Earth?

  • Doug Lassiter

    “However, now I believe our unmanned space program over the next ten years should be focused on things that are critical to human survival and eventual human expansion into the solar system. ”

    I guess the trouble for you is that Congress and the Administration don’t believe it. In fact, there is absolutely nothing in the history of federal space policy that bears on human survival (well, except perhaps NEO mitigation) and colonization of the solar system. So, um, what’s going to happen to us in the next decade that should make us take a near-term focus on such things? What makes these things “critical”? Given our present fiscal woes, it’s got to be pretty critical, and a major looming threat. It’s not.

    Our robotic space program is curiosity driven, and curiosity is a good thing, especially when it exercises, and shows off technological talents. That’s what Apollo was, and in many respects, that’s what ISS is too. The goals of those major human space flight programs had nothing to do with species survival.

    I will say that the choice of Max-C as the highest priority flagship mission is a bit eyebrow raising. This is a mission that, in itself, won’t do anything. It’ll produce a pile of interesting rocks that will wait for something to take them back. Maybe not for a decade or more. No major discoveries will come out of the success of Max-C alone. Max-C is unaffordable enough, but the return mission(s) won’t be any more affordable. I think the whole mission suite is tremendously exciting, in principle, but it really may be more ambitious than what we can realistically commit ourselves to.

    I guess Max-C could do onsite inspection and analysis of the rocks it collects, but Squyres was adamant that another rover, if it didn’t return rocks, was unjustified. Well, Max-C doesn’t return them.

  • DCSCA

    Squyres best get his head out of the clouds and get a fix on the very down-to-earth realities facing Americans in general and the space program in particular as the country and the world moves into the Age of Austerity. He’s pondering probes and science missions with a mind set for planning from an era long gone. Explain to granny why her SS COLA isn’t rising and education budgets are slashed but he wants to fund moe probes to Mars. What a waste. We are in the Age of Austerity and there is zero rationale to expend increasingly dwindling resources on planetary probes which satisfy the curiosity of an elite few with the costs passed on to the many, who benefit nothing from it in their daily lives. A point increasingly clear as more Americans struggle to make ends meet as the United States government has to borrowing 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Since when is planetary exploration the unique province of America and their taxpayer base. If Steve Squyres is going to play the role of Carl Sagan for a while, he best start sourcing joint international missions with multiple partners- public and private- from several nations to reduce costs. Let Europe, Chinese and the Russians carry the burden for a few decades.

  • G Clark

    @Alex: The major cost driver is modifications to the Skycrane. It would need to be significantly enlarged to handle both ExoMars and MAX-C. It would then have to be re-certified, etc. $$$

    @Doug Lassiter: Essentially yes. MAX-C is the first step in MSR. It analyses rocks and caches them for later pickup – as much as 20 years later. He did say during the presentation that it should only proceed if it can be de-scoped and still make sense in that context. Otherwise, it should be delayed or canceled.

  • I have had the pleasure to talk to Squires. He is a very bright guy..
    Yes, MAC-C does not sound overly exciting, but I trust his judgment 100%.

    What is interesting is his emphasis on the need for a substantial internal technology development program within the NASA science program. I wonder if that is a political ploy for surrogate WS support, considering that Bobby Braun may be getting zero dollars for toys, if the Senate has it’s way.

  • Typo:

    I wonder if that is a political ploy for surrogate WH support, considering that Bobby Braun, Mr Technologist, may be getting zero dollars for toys, if the Senate has it’s way.

    By the way, I wonder if Bobby Braun is related to Don Herbert?

  • NASA Fan

    These decadal roadmaps are self written by the communities who will benefit. There is lots of political horsetrading that goes on between factions within the community. So the end results are the results of political sausage making and won’t make much sense to the outsider point of view; hence MAX C will do nothing new really but spend lots of money and keep folks at JPL employed. All in IMHO

  • Doug Lassiter

    “Squyres best get his head out of the clouds and get a fix on the very down-to-earth realities facing Americans in general and the space program in particular as the country and the world moves into the Age of Austerity.”

    The only thing that distinguishes this rant about planetary science from human space flight is the name Squyres. Frankly, human space flight isn’t going to reassure granny that much either, and even the first steps in the NASA plan are going to cost vastly more. It is clear to this Decadal, and to SMD in particular, that no multi-billion dollar mission is likely ever to be done by ourselves anymore. Max-C is going to be one of two rovers, the other from ESA, that would collect samples. The internationals already carry a lot of burdens. Much of lunar exploration is being done by India and China right now. The last major large planet mission, Cassini, was developed jointly by NASA and ESA. The other space agencies would be a bit surprised to hear that planetary exploration was our “unique province”.

    Head in clouds? If you bend down, you’ll be able to see more clearly.

    Re Max-C as the first step in MSR. I understand that. But what’s being costed for the Decadal — Max-C — isn’t MSR, but, shall we say, MSP (Mars sample piling). I just find it exasperating that a much larger mission suite is hiding behind this one mission that is being sold for MSR, which it simply will not do.

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    DCSCA wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    Yeh right! You advising Steve Squyres. He’s got a solid record of achievement in his industry and for sure doesn’t need the advice of someone who can’t get past 42 cents et al. His MER mission was destined for 90 days and it’s still going after what 6 years or so.
    That said, even with his success, he still wants to see boot prints in the Rover tracks on Mars (ref: Roving Mars by Steve Squyres).

  • A way to jump start an advanced space initiative may take shape.

    The formation of NUCROC CORP this corporation or society would be international and a Quid Pro Quo type organization governments and businesses worldwide would be free to join.

    Pass a DEMOCRATIZATION OF SPACE ACT.
    -creation of a NucRocket Corp.
    -create private recovery/emergency procedures based on Int’l nuke movement or recovery standards.
    -create post an assistant secretary of state for Space Nuke & Nonproliferation.
    -create a nuke NASA division
    -create financial and logistical provisions for International participation in this Space Nuke Club.
    -all patents are transparent and property of patent holders consistent with intellectual property and commercial property rights.
    -all international taxpayers get guaranteed return on investment on venture @ initiation later a +.0001% yearly exponential margin .
    -all space non-profit society hardware launched for free
    -all academic hardware launched for free
    -all financially challenged inventors & entrepreneurs launch for free
    -all environmental earth monitoring equipment launched for free

  • Space Cadet

    On sample return vs. in-situ analysis, from the survey report:

    “Returning samples allows for the analysis of elemental, mineralogic, petrologic, isotopic, and textural information using state-of-the-art instrumentation in multiple laboratories. In addition, it allows for the application of different analytical approaches using technologies that advance over a decade or more, and, most importantly, the opportunity to conduct follow-up experiments that are essential to validate and corroborate the results. On an in situ mission, only an extremely limited set of experiments can be performed because of the difficulty of miniaturizing state-of-the-art analytical tools within the limited payload capacity of a lander or rover. In addition, these discrete experiments must be selected years in advance of the mission’s launch. Finally, calibrating and validating the results of sophisticated experiments can be challenging in a lab, and will be significantly more difficult when done remotely. … searching for evidence of extant life at Mars with a limited suite of experiments, compounded by the uncertainty regarding the nature of possible martian life and issues of terrestrial contamination, would be difficult and carries very high scientific risk.”

  • Beancounter from Downunder

    DCSCA wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 8:02 pm

    You’re also a great one for this Age of Austerity bit. The last look at economic jobs data out of the U.S. showed and increase of some 190,000 jobs. Although the national debt level is still humongous, the economy does seem to be slowly turning around. Remains to be seen what the impact of the latest oil price surge will be however.
    Further pertinent numbers (ref: U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics):

    Consumer Price Index (CPI):
    +0.4% in Jan 2011
    Unemployment Rate:
    8.9% in Feb 2011
    Payroll Employment:
    +192,000(p) in Feb 2011
    Average Hourly Earnings:
    +$0.01(p) in Feb 2011
    Producer Price Index (PPI):
    +0.8%(p) in Jan 2011
    Employment Cost Index (ECI):
    +0.4% in 4th Qtr of 2010
    Productivity:
    +2.6% in 4th Qtr of 2010
    U.S. Import Price Index:
    +1.5% in Jan 2011
    U.S. Export Price Index:
    +1.2% in Jan 2011

  • Robert G. Oler

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 6:52 pm

    “I will say that the choice of Max-C as the highest priority flagship mission is a bit eyebrow raising. ”

    the entire notion seems a bit half baked…any mission whose goal is to do something that “maybe” something else can come along and finish 10-20 years from now seems just on the face of that statement…goofy

    Lets say the rover goes out and struggles along to pick up all the rocks and eventually dies so its just sitting there with all the rocks it has collected and 10-20 years later something else comes along.

    What says that the folks a decade or two latter still find value in the same rocks? Technology and on scene analysis is bound to get better so the next vehicle goes up there takes a “snif” and says “useless”…

    I dont know how to interpret this entire notion…either the planetary folks ahve been taken over by a Mars return uberallis group or they have run out of things to study and are stuck on that.

    Or they are not being very innovative.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Let Europe, Chinese and the Russians carry the burden for a few decades.

    I think it’s a hoot folks use the Russians as boogeymen to prime the pork-pump. The Russian space program is a shell of what it once was and they can’t launch squat without NASA. The Phobos-Grunt probe is their first probe launched since the 1980s and half of that financed by the Chinese (who partnered in the project).

    The Russians are just launch contractors for NASA and that is by treaty, which holds the force of Constitutional law. That’s why the Congress-critters don’t mind paying the Russians until what-ever SD-HLV/Orion gets built by 2020/21. The rest is just bulls#!t political rhetoric for the plebes.

    And Stephen C. Smith nails it perfectly.

  • NASA Fan

    I was talking to my Granny today; I asked her “Granny, do you want to know if life exists now on Mars, or if it ever existed?”

    She said: “Sonny, this dang universe is infinite. Its so big that I know life is out there. So I don’t need NASA to tell me something I already know”. “Now yo go tell them NASA people to stop wasting my money on all this Mars stuff”

    Since she was in the mood, I asked her “Granny, do you think humans should set up a base, a laboratory on the moon, to explore the possibilities of utilizing the moon’s resources for the benefit of folks back here on Earth?”

    She said: “Sonny, we don’t need to go to the moon neither. What fer?! We need to learn how to live differently on this planet first so we don’t make it impossible for us to live on it, or else we’ll just chew up and spit out the moon like we’ve chewed up and spit out the Earth”

    (My Granny is a tobacco chewing kind of Granny)

    Finally, I asked her: “Granny, should NASA be in the business of using government funds to develop a Heavy Lift Launch vehicle, Shuttle derived or not, or Granny do you think private companies should invest their own money in developing a Heavy Lift Vehicle”

    She said: “Sonny, the only heavy lift vehicle I need is one that can get your Granny pappy’s butt out of his stinking barker lounger so hes can mow the dang lawn!. ”

    There you have it bloggers, my Granny has spoken.

  • G Clark

    @Robert Oler: FWIW, I agree w/you. ISTM that the Mars folks want the whole enchilada or nothing at all. Kinda puzzling, really.

  • Space Cadet

    @ Mr. Oler
    The three-part design for MSR is only thing that makes it possible at all. An all in one mission would have an impossible budget profile and too much technical risk. A triangular budget profile would require a large increase in planetary science budget for the peak years of the project. An all-in-one mission would string together too many unprecedented technical achievements that all have to go right to get any result. With three elements, if any one element fails, it is possible to repeat just that element instead of the entire thing.

  • Dennis Berube

    Wow you supposed space advocates, are just against everything. Dont want manned spaceflight, dont want Mars probes, and I hope no one listens to Nasa fans granny, she dont know squat. Progress is measured in steps. You dont attempt to do it all at once. Im certainly for Manned spaceflight and the Package Congress now has in place, will build the HLV. Everyone says it has no destination or use. It will if we expect to move out into deep space. It does appear that an Orion derived vehicle will also reach completion. In a few years I expect China and Russia will push outward. We should not sit back and only watch. We must push out with them, or they will leave us behind. I say work together, this is good, but if we cant go it alone. A sample return mission from Mars is a logical step to take. Granny doesnt want to know if there are Martians, shame on her…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Space Cadet wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 8:45 am

    @ Mr. Oler
    The three-part design for MSR is only thing that makes it possible at all………

    well I dont diagree with the points you raise, I just disagree with the notion that the three part design makes “it possible” or perhaps even “reasonable”.

    One of the reasons (but not the only one) that I oppossed Cx is that I think it is goofy to make decisions “today” which are still trying to be carried out two or three decades from now…with technology and equipment that will be almost half a century “old”.

    I think a three part Mars Sample return is probably the only way to do the MSR…but I see no value in that effort particularly as it stretches out over decades.

    At the rate “automation” and remote sampling is improving the technology that we put into a Mars collector will be almost childish by the time that a sample return probe comes…so the samples that were collected will have been done based on the technology of another time. that alone makes (in my view) the notion absurd.

    Second I guess I am not just not willing to sacrifice the entire planetary effort to a few rocks from Mars. sure one of them might contain some wonderful fossil but the odds are against it…and its a 5-10 billion dollar effort when those dollars would probably get more bang for some buck somewhere else.

    Robert G. Oler

  • Doug Lassiter

    “The three-part design for MSR is only thing that makes it possible at all.”

    Yes, that’s certainly the case. Let me be very clear. Mars sample return will have enormous science payback. But what is new is the idea that a priority from one Decadal Survey should basically hijack the next one or two. Sort of like if the Astronomy Decadal Survey resolved to spend a large amount of money lofting a bunch of large mirrors, such that the next Decadal would be counted on to assign a high priority to an expensive mission to assemble them into a telescope that would actually do something.

    What the Decadal Surveys do is focus on science that is current and timely. That’s what they establish. Not just what missions to do, but what questions are most important to answer. What’s current and timely changes! Not to say that Mars sample return won’t always be interesting, but what if next decade we learn something pretty amazing about, say, Europa? Something that even more strongly drives a mission concept than what we know now. Then it’s, well, we’d sure like to do Europa but, er, there’s this pile of rocks on Mars that we spent $3B making …

  • Martijn Meijering

    This is the advice that Mike Griffin gave me when we ran the save-Constellation effort, which was not entirely unsuccessful (Orion+HLV).

    Ah, one shill admits having an ulterior motive.

  • Paul D.

    The US can no longer afford exercises in national vanity. The space program, manned or unmanned, is a relic of a time now gone. Kiss it goodbye and get to work on stuff we can sell to other countries.

  • Robert G. Oler

    Doug Lassiter wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 10:21 am

    the post you wrote was far better in its presentation then mine. I concur in everything you wrote Robert G. Oler

  • Dennis Berube

    Mr. Oler, I do agree with your idea that while a sample return mission was in progress, with tech. advances, we would be making the mission with old standards. However what of the idea, of a few dreamers, to build a probe to the stars? It may take 100 years for it to reach its destination, and certainly our generations would gain nothing from it, other than info it gathers enroute. Should it still be in the planning for the future. If we wait for tech. and dont try, we will continually be waiting. Personally I think if there are fossils to be found on Mars, we will have to dig deeper than any programs in the present planning stages call for. Rather than say a sample return mission, with just a few near surface stones being gathered, Id rather see a real deep drilling rig put on Mars surface. That is the only way we can get down and dirty.

  • vulture

    Dr. Squyres is one of the truly inspiring figures of the space program; I met him first 30 years ago, and he has not lost his vision. I think that planetary exploration can be justified even without a direct dollar payoff as long as it is efficient. However I think it’s unlikely we can fund a Mars sample return, and should concentrate on launching more rovers (which can be done with existing launch vehicles) and just upgrade the software over time to make them more autonomous. Sample return from asteroids and small comets is much less expensive and just as informative. Similarly I think the Webb telescope was poorly conceived; the next step after Hubble should have been a telescope with a monolithic mirror of about 4m which could have been launched fully assembled on an existing ELV.

  • Doug Lassiter

    vulture wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    The decision of the Planetary Decadal Survey committee (no scientific slouches there) was that more rovers for the sake of roving were not scientifically justifiable. You “just upgrade the software over time to make them more autonomous”, you say? To do WHAT exactly? To drive around and look at more rocks? Hmmm. Spirit and Opportunity have done great work in their mission, which lasted far longer then they were even supposed to. It’s fairly cheap to keep them driving around looking at more rocks, but the big science questions aren’t going to be answered by just taking pictures of more rocks. If MSR is really unaffordable, the big question is going to be what in situ analysis one can actually afford on a rover, and whether that capability offers science value. It’s unfortunate that the Decadal Survey didn’t consider that.

    That sample return from asteroids and small comets is “just as informative” is a bit puzzling. It may be informative, but it isn’t going to inform anyone about Mars.

    As to JWST being poorly conceived, you may have a point. Though the gain of a factor of 1.7 in primary mirror diameter that you’d get from a 4-meter telescope is no great shakes in terms of enabling new science. Until we learn how to deploy and or assemble large optical quality surfaces, that kind of space astronomy is simply going to have to go on hold.

    Dennis Berube wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 4:18 pm
    “However what of the idea, of a few dreamers, to build a probe to the stars?”

    Again, to do what, exactly? To answer what question? While the idea can be considered romantic, serendipitous discovery isn’t what the taxpayers pay for, especially when that discovery probably isn’t even for our generation.

    That “certainly our generations would gain nothing from it, other than info it gathers enroute” is a marketing spiel that deserves at least a smile.

  • Das Boese

    Foolish, foolish.

    News from Cassini:
    Cassini Finds Saturn’s Moon Enceladus Is a Powerhouse

    We’re missing out on incredible discoveries and real exploration for a BEO HSF program with dim chances of ever fulfilling any of its goals.

    The money wasted on Ares I alone could have paid for a sample return mission to Mars, more robotic exploration of the moon or an asteroid probe, all of which would be more relevant to potential human exploration of these places than the entire Constellation program.

  • DCSCA

    @vulture wrote @ March 9th, 2011 at 6:48 pm
    “I think that planetary exploration can be justified even without a direct dollar payoff as long as it is efficient.” Not in the Age of Austerity. It’s a luxury in an era when neccessities need attention. There’s zero justification for satisfying the curiosity of an elite few on the fiscal backs of the many– the many whose government must borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends.

  • @Beancounter from Downunder

    Those economic stats are lame-stream media pumping up gov’t perception:

    unemployment: @ 17%
    CPI: 5% inflation
    M3: -2

    http://www.shadowstats.com/

    (please don’t censor comments)

  • Space Cadet

    @ Mr. Oler

    “I think a three part Mars Sample return is probably the only way to do the MSR…but I see no value in that effort particularly as it stretches out over decades. At the rate “automation” and remote sampling is improving the technology that we put into a Mars collector will be almost childish by the time that a sample return probe comes…so the samples that were collected will have been done based on the technology of another time. that alone makes (in my view) the notion absurd.”

    What’s the hurry? The rocks will be fine. Some of the folks who worked on earlier stages of the project will no longer be around, but the rocks will be fine.

    “Second I guess I am not just not willing to sacrifice the entire planetary effort to a few rocks from Mars. sure one of them might contain some wonderful fossil but the odds are against it…and its a 5-10 billion dollar effort when those dollars would probably get more bang for some buck somewhere else.”

    The Survey advises very clearly against this, putting research, technology, small and medium missions all at a higher priority than Flagships. The report advises if the budget is lower than projected, the Flagships should be the first thing to cut, so nothing else in the program gets cut to fund MAX-C, rather the other way around – MAX-C would be the first mission cut, precisely to preserve the rest of the program.

    Robert G. Oler

  • DCSCA

    @Beancounter from Downunder wrote @ March 8th, 2011 at 10:12 pm
    “[Steve Squyres has] got a solid record of achievement in his industry and for sure doesn’t need the advice of someone who can’t get past 42 cents et al.”

    Bold talk from ‘downunder’ which doesn’t have to foot the bills for the U.S. government, which has to borrow 42 cents of every dollar it spends. Put your money where your mouth is– help ay the freight– Uncle Sam will accept a check in Aussie dollars. As to “industry”… Squyres has spent his entire professional life in the insulated world of academia, the realm of grants and government funded projects.

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>