Posted on 07/07/2006 10:53:34 PM PDT by NormsRevenge
NASA needs to rethink its Mars exploration plans after 2010 given new understandings about the red planet and likely funding levels in the coming years, according to a report just out from a panel of outside experts.
By adding to a reworked mix of future missions-for example, a geophysical/meteorological network as well as a sample return mission-the space agency would garner a greater scientific impact at Mars, the panel concludes. Moreover, the space agency must fortify its ability to analyze the data streaming in from Mars. That research can help flesh out a safe and scientifically productive role for humans on Mars.
NASA's funding of technologies to enable a robust and scientifically rewarding Mars agenda, however, remains a chronic problem, the experts say.
The 15-person ad hoc Mars Architecture Assessment Committee was set up by the Space Studies Board, a research arm of the National Academies. The group's nearly 50-page appraisal of NASA's Mars Architecture 2007-2016, requested by the space agency, was released today.
Set of recommendations
In a June 30 cover letter attachment to Mary Cleave, Associate Administrator of the Science Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters, the chair of the assessment, Reta Beebe of New Mexico State University, offered a set of recommendations to NASA, including:
Add a Mars Long-Lived Lander Network in the mix of options for launch in 2016; Consider delaying the launch of the Astrobiology Field Laboratory until 2018; Devise a strategy to implement the Mars Sample Return mission; Ensure that the primary role of the Mars Science and Telecommunications Orbiter (MSTO) is to address science questions, and not simply to serve as a telecommunications relay; and Move forward on 'Mid Rovers,' wheeled robots more capable than Spirit and Opportunity but less complicated, not as expensive, and not as heavy as the Mars Science Laboratory to be launched in 2009.
The assessment committee, Beebe wrote to NASA's Cleave, found the space agency's future exploration plans as a whole 'not optimized,' with more work needed to shore up the architecture's scientific impact.
Cost and technical readiness
In the review, future robotic missions are spotlighted.
In particular, NASA was advised to immediately initiate appropriate technology development activities to support Mars missions in the 2013-2016 time slot as well as support the Mars Sample Return mission as soon as possible thereafter.
A robotic sample return mission has the potential to yield samples uniquely capable of tackling a host of scientific objectives, the committee explained. Still, there are issues of cost and technical readiness. That being the case, robotic return to Earth of Mars samples will fall beyond the horizon of the coming decade, the study group said.
'Nevertheless, the committee reaffirms the importance of a mission to return samples of Mars to Earth for study and strongly argues that there is an immediate need for developing relevant technologies and infrastructure to enable the implementation of this mission as soon as possible after 2016.'
Grid of science stations
Advocated by the assessment team was a Mars Long-Lived Lander Network (ML3N) - a grid of science stations that will make coordinated measurements around Mars's globe for at least one martian year. This network would use passive seismometers to explore the structure and activity of Mars.
The review group also flagged 'the extraordinary resilience' of the Spirit and Opportunity rovers still at work on the red planet. Success of that Mars machinery 'strongly suggests that a prudent, risk-reduction strategy is to use their design as a basis for the proposed Mid Rovers,' the committee stated.
Mid Rovers would be geological explorers, dispatched to evaluate the geological context of specific sites and search for organic compounds at targets identified by prior missions. As currently envisaged NASA's goal is to fly two rovers for a cost approximately equal to that of the Mars Science Laboratory mission-now priced at $1.5 billion.
Also in the rover realm, the assessment group suggested delaying the launch of the Astrobiology Field Laboratory until 2018. Doing so would permit time to digest results from the Mars Science Laboratory and other prior missions.
Seamless relationship
An important component of NASA's Mars architecture is the Mars Scout program. The first of this class NASA mission is the Phoenix Mars lander now being readied for a 2007 sendoff. Balloons, airplanes, and other Mars craft are being advocated under the Scout rubric.
The low-cost, science-focused Scouts are characterized as 'wild cards' by the study group. These competitively selected missions have the potential to fill in needs. 'However, it must be kept in mind that Scouts must be proposed as 'complete missions' and not as architectural elements.'
In looking at NASA's sweeping Vision of Exploration (VSE)-replanting astronauts back on the Moon and dispatching humans to Mars and beyond-the assessment committee noted that a strong, independent architecture will stand alone on its scientific merit and will also contribute significantly to that vision.
'Both the utility of the Mars mission architecture and its value within the VSE and NASA's strategic plan would be strengthened by the addition of a network of meteorological/seismic stations and a sample return mission.'
There is desire to create a 'seamless relationship' between the robotic science missions and human exploration, but to do so without adversely affecting either program element, the review group observed.
fyi
ARRRRRRRRRRRGH!
I really wish the space program had something intelligent between the extremes of probe exploration and "glorious vanity of great-leap manned tourism propaganda epics"
something like, oh... build a fleet of earth-to-moon ferrys/taxis... get a moon-base up and running... make that moon-base dedicated to cranking out more ships for longer-range manned EXPLOITATION...
THEN talk about going to Mars, in STYLE and in FORCE.
I vote for terraforming. It's as safe as anything else I can think of, and easily the most productive.
If you live in western Montana you can see a mother ship right now just to the lower right of the northern cross. Happened to be outside at 3AM and noticed this BIG satellite moving slowly. Oh, that must be the ISS. Then it STOPPED, been sitting there for about an hour, a magnitude brighter than deneb. If you were here right now you'd be a BELIEVER.
"I vote for terraforming. It's as safe as anything else I can think of, and easily the most productive."
All we have to do is find the secret alien base and deploy the air makers. In the meantime free air for everyone!!!
I have met her. She was one of the astronauts that launched the Magellan.
I would add....... prepare a joint venture with Japan.
We don't understand many of the mechanisms of our own environment. Terraforming, although an interesting proposition, is still safely in the realm of SiFi right alongside the Dyson Sphere.
I would suggest that we continue the robotic probes. So far, since the Apollo days, the best bang we have had for the buck. Alongside of those, we need to concentrate on developing (AND COMPLETE IT THIS TIME!) a reliable SSTO vehicle, drop this man-in-the-can idea we are reviving, and turn the ISS over to the Russians. It is in a lousy orbit anyway.
After that, we should then set our goals on sending humans where we find deficiencies in the robotic explorations due to a non-human presence.
Just my two cents.
That will come out of NASA about the same time you find yourelf picking apples off a tomato vine.
There are just too many ways to screw up SSTO (and the whole reason for doing it in the first place) for NASA to ever have the institutional discipline to successfully build one.
Any NASA space program that extends beyond four years is seriously doomed. NASA needs to do only what can be done in four years or less. Future cancellations such as Apollo are definitely on the agendum. Building an infrastructure in space would make too much longterm sense and be an easy target for every politician who needs an issue to run on.
There are a few ideas, but as a serious project it lacks in every environment there is including climatology and law.
The shuttle has been around as a program for more than thirty years. The station is what, twenty years in the making? Of course, the shuttle was sabotaged before it ever got off the ground by a republican administration, and the space station by a democrat administration.
They survived, but by the time the politicians finished changing the recipe it was no longer edible.
NASA needs to do only what can be done in four years or less.
NASA can't even decide what to do in four years, much less accomplish anything.
Future cancellations such as Apollo are definitely on the agendum. Building an infrastructure in space would make too much longterm sense and be an easy target for every politician who needs an issue to run on.
I imagine most of the real infrastructure that allows us to move out of low earth orbit and back to the moon and on to Mars will have to come from the private sector. NASA has too many bureaucratic requirements that make what is really needed (SSTO selling points type of vehicle) impossible a priori.
That's correct. Congress decides what NASA is to do, and year by year. Two years of continuity is achievable, four is barely possible, and six is about the limit. Small, long duration programs such as robot ships to outer planets may survive unnoticed from inception to launch, and then to at least primary goals.
The 15-person ad hoc Mars Architecture Assessment Committee was set up by the Space Studies Board, a research arm of the National Academies.Thanks for comin', drive home safely.
Terraforming, although an interesting proposition, is still safely in the realm of SiFi right alongside the Dyson Sphere.I agree.
I would suggest that we continue the robotic probes. So far, since the Apollo days, the best bang we have had for the buck.I wholeheartedly agree.
we need to concentrate on developing (AND COMPLETE IT THIS TIME!) a reliable SSTO vehicleIMHO we need a reliable, cheaper way to orbit, and that means man-in-the-can. Reusability is more expensive and partly mythical. The one thing that makes me think that SSTO is possible is that a Russian rocket guy said (circa 1990) that SSTO isn't possible. Reminds me of the way Korolev dismissed Von Braun's proposed 100 per cent cryofueled upper stages for Apollo, saying that the technical problems couldn't be solved.
turn the ISS over to the RussiansMostly agree. Looks like we almost have already. It was a kumbaya special olympics can't we all just get along idea in the first place, a negation of the Space Station Freedom proposal from President Reagan.
After that, we should then set our goals on sending humans where we find deficiencies in the robotic explorations due to a non-human presence.Missions to the Moon should have some kind of scientific purpose (by definition they have a political one, regardless of other things), and setting up a far-side radio observatory (or more than one) seems like a good idea (supposed to be really quiet over there, shielded from artificial radio sources from Earth), provided the far side is then off limits to a permanent human presence.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.