This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Space & Planetary Science

Mars 2020 Rover Effort Begins

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 20, 2012
Filed under , , ,

NASA Solicitation: Science Definition Team for the 2020 Mars Rover
“The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) invites scientists, technologists, and other qualified and interested individuals at U.S. institutions and elsewhere to apply for membership on the Science Definition Team (SDT) for the 2020 Mars science rover mission (hereafter Mars-2020). Mars-2020 is a strategic mission sponsored by NASA’s Planetary Science Division, through the Mars Exploration Program, all of which are part of the Science Mission Directorate (SMD).”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

4 responses to “Mars 2020 Rover Effort Begins”

  1. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    Given JPL’s past performance on MSL, how long before they need to call it the “Mars 2022 Rover”?

    • Paul451 says:
      0
      0

      Surely you mean “Adventure” or “Courage” or “Jubilation” right?

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Gonzo,

      Everything considered, and compared to earlier Mars programs, I think that the MSL team have done a very respectable job.  Yes, there were delays and cost drifts, but when we look at their overall performance compared to other, much less ambitious planetary programs, the surprises were fewer and more readily fixed.

      I think a lot of time not originally planned for was actually spent in two justifiable areas: 1) greater than usual design and testing pertaining to “new,” demanding technologies (hard things that hadn’t been done before); and 2) an almost fanatic testing program of the rover’s maneuverability and tool performance in an Earth-analog Martian environment.

      This latter continues while they’re on Mars.  MSL doesn’t move, or do much else, until every next step has been thoroughly rehearsed (with troubleshooting and investigating alternatives) in a “sand box” on Earth.  This all takes a lot of time, but it also makes a lot of sense.

      Some design and test activities went on a lot longer than anyone could reasonably have guessed. For example, the parachute testing took many months, even though parachutes on Mars were not a new technology. Part of the problem was the huge size of the parachute, but in the end it turned out that their test method was a problem. With the on-Earth testing there was a vertical thrust component (gravity) that messed up parachute deployment in a horizontal wind tunnel. After buying and setting up some high speed cameras they figured this out. (In actual use, the only force is down, with no cross forces worth noting, whereas in the wind tunnel they had forces on two axes, which was sometimes turning the chute partially inside out.)

      All in all, if we look past the cost overrun, I think they’ve performed admirably.

      Steve

      • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
        0
        0

        Steve,

        The real issue here is time and money and consequences.

        When you miss your once-every-two-years launch window and end up costing an extra $400 million, you have to wonder about the ability of JPL management to run things.  Unfortunately, JPL and NASA management in general have demonstrated a lack of talent and discipline in these areas.  You can always make things better if you spend more money and time.  That’s not really being a good manager.

        Their failures in these areas have ended up seriously impacting other unrelated space programs because NASA only has so much budget to go around.  But since nothing seems to change at JPL or NASA, and the same clowns are still running the circus, I expect more of the same performance in the future.