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.

“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

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)

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.

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.

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