NASA Announces Revised Mars Program

1. If now they could only shut down SLS and boost the Mars program by a factor of 5…

   They’ve got FH coming online is 1-2 years.  It does most of what SLS would do, cheaper per kg, and it’s already paid for.

   Just unbelievable.

2.  ESA will not be too thrilled about this after NASA abandoned the ExoMars project and it’s part in the twin Jupiter probe project.

   1. That was my first thought, too.  Of  course, in the next 8 years, anything could happen; or nothing…

3. I’m confused.  Does this mean the US is back in ExoMars now?  I thought that NASA had completely withdrawn.

   1.  NASA is supporting the 2016 Orbiter with a Electra communication module and the 2018 Rover with a good share of the MOMA instrument. This will be provided by Goddard.

4. Keith,

   On the question of actually searching for life, or signs of life: from your biology experience, is there currently a way to do this?  I mean a machine-controlled experiment set that would fit into a package that we could get to Mars, intact, which would provide “evidence” or measurements that you personally would consider valid indicators of life?

   I don’t see how it can be approached inductively; there’s no way to absolutely prove that there isn’t life anywhere on Mars, so we’re stuck “proving” that there is.  But, do we actually have the technology to do this now?

   Thanks.

   1. There’s certainly nothing right now to do that, unless you count one of MSL’s cameras spying a Maritian crawling across the field of view.  As things stand, we can only detect things that might be required for life, as we know it, to develop.

      A return sample might offer that opportunity in the form of finding fossilized life or maybe even the chance of discovering live organisms, but I’d wager those are very remote possibilities.

      The reality is that we’re only sampling small areas and gathering data that might tell use where it would be best to look for life. Might.

      1. Robin,

         Is it realistic that we could preserve live organisms alive on the return trip of a sample-return mission?  I wouldn’t have thought so.  Just satisfying the energy requirements to maintain the environment would be tough.

         I can see other, similar challenges.  I’m wondering if anyone has actually worked out all of the details, because when I search both NASA and ESA web sites they never mention it.  Lots of sample-return talk, but the words live and living never show up.

         Every proposed Mars sample-return program to date got canceled before getting very far, and maybe this was one of the stumbling blocks.  Even the new proposal for a Curiosity clone in 2020 talks only about storing “samples” for return, with no mention of live samples that I can find.

         Steve

   2. Its not only about technology – which we certainly have – but IDEAS! The Mars Viking Mission scientists of the life detection experiments had good ideas (3 seperate/stand alone life detection experiments) but got heavily confused by conflicting and possibly false data. For instance the Viking GCMS none detection of organics made it difficult to explain the positive life detection results – we now know that the Viking GCMS has been compromised by small quantities of perchlorate in the Martian soil which makes its data questionable regarding (no-) organics on Mars.

      One of the Viking biology experimenters is still alive: Dr. Levin of the only Viking life detection experiment which got a full positive result for extant microbial life on Mars back in the 70ies – maybe NASA should ask him for some serious attempts of finding life on Mars (he still got good ideas).

      Also this guys got ideas (even including Levins approach): http://autonomy.caltech.edu…

      1. Hans,

         Thanks for the response.  With due respect to Dr. Levin, because the Viking data has been called ambiguous for so long, realistically I think we have to continue to label it as such.  What I’m looking for is a method that today’s specialists would agree on using new samples.  I was also interested in Keith’s opinion because of his background at NASA.

         Everything I’ve managed to find is still only for ways of showing the possibility of the conditions necessary for life (more often past than present), which is a very different thing from finding (proving) life itself.  Even the fluorescent stain approach is not conclusive (to me), since: 1) it involves assumptions (that Martian life is similar to Earth life, in particular the use of DNA); and 2) the problem of identifying biological organisms among inorganic bodies of the same size remains.

         I also have never seen a game plan for determining where to sample.  In every Mars mission so far, there has been a tendency for people to try drawing conclusions based on small samples.  For example, the perchlorate that you mentioned – obviously one sample area doesn’t tell us about the rest of the planet.  There have been a lot of bits and pieces discussed, for and against, like peroxide and methane, but they are all inferential at best.

         So my question remains, is there currently a conclusive experiment set for Mars sample-return (and hardware for it that could survive to Mars, on Mars, and back) which would be conclusive to all the experts as proving life on Mars if it found life there?  (For now, I’m happy to defer the question of where to test.)

         Thanks,

         Steve

         1. Steve,

            actually I does not like the dogmatic approach of getting a sample from Mars as the only way of checking for exctant/extinct life on Mars – exactly because of the problems you mention above and all the back and forward contamination risks. I think there is no way around conducting experiments in the native environment on Mars with as much planetary protection efforts as possible (Grunsfeld) to detect indigenous life on Mars. In my opinion the approach of scanning for the effects of life on its environment rather than trying to look for it by microscope (which will always be ambitious at best – see Phoenix OM moving microbe size objects) was a brilliant idea of the Viking era.

            Also the assumption that putative (microscopic-) life on Mars may be not that much different to life on Earth – given that both planets are not totally isolated environments trough space and time (exchange of material trough meteorites etc) is reasonable to start with. Life that we don’t know is realistically not detectable by even the best technology – this should be left for human explorers with a great dose of curiosity and intuition to discover I guess.

            All in all it would be desirable to start with looking for life and its effects (metabolism – respiration/photo- or chemosynthesis – carbon fixation) as we know it.

            The BOLD life detection Mission to Mars for instance is based on a swarm concept using miniaturization to address the limited sampling area problem while at the same time keeping costs in check – huge sampling area trough multiple redundant small probes without the need for complex rover technology. It also follows up the successful parts of a previous attempt to check for life on Mars. I really like it! Imagine the chiral version of the labeled release experiment would be positive only for a certain chirality – detection of life on Mars could not be any clearer than this with current technology! 🙂

            Sorry for the rather long answer but I really wish the issue of life on Mars or at least the open Viking questions will be answered trough my remaining life time.

            1. Thanks Hans.

               I’ve had similar thoughts to some of yours.  In the matter of multiple small probes (which I think of as divide and conquer) I kept getting stumped on the moving problem.  Even with something as large as MSL every move has to be planned and rehearsed on Earth before attempting a move, so that they don’t get stuck.

               It seems to me that the smaller and less massive a “probe” is, the more difficulty we would have in moving it from place to place.  It perhaps indicates the need for a different concept than “roving.”  But what?Steve

            2. In my opinion the only way of making “roving” really effective would be a manned mothership in orbit to control rovers on the Martian surface in real time – a manned outpost on Phobos would do the trick also. Unfortunately I don’t see such things happen during our remaining life times so it will stay science fiction that is.

               My secret hopes are for the private sector to give Mars exploration the real push beyond (safe-) academic purposes as is now. 😉
               I also hope the ExoMars missions will be conducted as the ESA seems to not shy away to tackle the important questions – and European scientists seems to be far more curios in the question for life on Mars (lots of personal conversation) than their US colleagues.

               Actually I would even donate for the BOLD mission or a similar concept to take place using private sector resources…

            3. Replying to Hans:

               Hans,

               Wouldn’t an orbital outpost be much better?  At Phobos’ orbital altitude you’d lose line of sight too quickly, so you’d need more relay satellites and more accurate real-time tracking (there’s no ionosphere for over the horizon communications).

               Steve

   3.  Good thoughts. I think we should also ask- if there is life, then what are the chances of us detecting it with our current life detection instrument? We should probably get that high enough to be useful and significant before sending something like that.

5. If the goal really is to find life in the solar system, I’d put my bet on Europa – far more likely than Mars. Yet another mission to Mars where “water!” or “organics!” will be announced every few weeks. Yawn. 

   1. > I’d put my bet on Europa

      I prefer a Europa spacecraft myself. Cynthia Phillips of SETI has many interesting discussions about such a mission. It is difficult to design and implement but imagine a spacecraft landing on Europa. A probe burrows down into the ice and launches a submarine which takes photos or video of the little fishes swimming about. There is liquid water below, no idea if there is life (pH levels?). I asked Cynthia if ice thick enough to shield intense radiation about Jupiter, she said it is.

      PS: comment of the little fishes are mine, not Cynthia’s. But then a concept of a Europa submarine sure does spark the imagination.

      1. No – you cannot possibly just go land on Europa right now – let alone burrow through the 20 km of ice – we first need a mission that finds a practical and scientifically interesting landing site. Plus an imaging spectrometer that works out what the brown gunk is that covers the surface (looks like it comes from below through cracks) – is it organics or just dirt?  That’s what a ~$2B multiple-flyby mission could do. Then we will be in a position to “scratch and sniff” the surface. But I am pretty sure that whatever we end up doing at Europa really will be changing the textbooks – rather than announcing that when you grind up basaltic rocks you get basaltic sand.

         p.s. re-pH levels – what about the black smokers of the mid-ocean ridges?  Some argue that’s where life started on Earth.

      2.  Cool 🙂 thanks for sharing

   2. lanegab,

      I agree; there are more likely, and more interesting, places in our solar system to hope to find life.  But, given our current technology, and the major lack of funding, I suspect both NASA and ESA will continue going after the low hanging fruit.  Hopefully we’ll learn things with Mars that will make it easier for us to go to the other places when the time comes.

      Steve

      1. No! We will not learn about how to do a Europa mission from going to Mars. These are very different systems. There are very feasible missions that have been designed via years and years of studies. The recent version (see JPL website) “the clipper” is on the order of $2B – and with much greater fidelity than the proposed Mars mission (so how come it ended up being so much cheaper all of a sudden?!).  What we are dealing with is with an absurd obsession with Mars (Grunsfeld fancies being first astronaut on Mars?) or the martian mafia who want job security building endless cost-overrunning missions to Mars because they do not have the imagination to do something more interesting or fruitful.

         1. lanegab,

            In all fairness, dealing with Mars is not “an absurd obsession.”  It has long been agreed by the experts that Mars, as a first stop, makes the most sense because it is the most accessible place to study and it is the place most like Earth.  Realistically, doing a Mars rover stretches out current technology capabilities to their limits and takes many years to prepare (before launch).  It also involves the shortest turn-around time for communication, which is a significant factor.  Going further afield now is simply too ambitious.

            Also consider that there are a lot of considerations besides the characteristics of a particular planet to deal with.  So, I have to disagree with you on the learning aspect.  Every planetary mission to anywhere teaches us new things which may be applicable to missions to other destinations.  Each new Mars mission so far has taught us new things and shown us new possibilities, so Mar is not a done deal by any means.

            Steve

6. Hmm.. and my first thought was “waitaminute… I thought Curiosity used the last RTG (or the last fuel for a)?  How will said new rover be powered?

   1. They’ll buy more from the Rodina…….(when you want some meat, you’ve got to go to the smokehouse” the late Paul Powell, Secretary of State of Illinois).

      1.  There is also work going on to restart one of our “factories”

7. Aoy!  What about the water on Mercury?

8. So mission to Titan/Europe/Enceladus just got shafted. Great.

9. I wonder if it’s time for the people in charge of strategic NASA planning to have a change of guard. Not just the same ol’ JPL science mindset. Don’t get me wrong, I love the JPL missions and they are very important, but in my opinion and at this time in our space exploration history it is time for less tail wagging the dog stuff and more let’s get out there to live. I know this will be controversial but science concerns cannot be the pre-eminent driving force for these missions anymore. If anyone else has been witness to the NASA planning sessions as I have then maybe you’d understand. There needs to be a little more attention paid to doing things because they are needed for future human expansion. I’m not saying get rid of science altogether, or at all really. Just that at the table dominated by JPL type scientists looking for “interesting” stuff (to them), there desperately needs some balance from folks with human based vision and concerns.

   1. Dr. Brian,

      When you say, “the people in charge of strategic NASA planning,” who do you mean?  (I’m looking for the organization/group, not people’s names.)  I’m still wading through various people’s statements trying to understand who actually does the strategic planning (that is actually used), and who approves these plans.

      Thanks,

      Steve

      1. Mars Program Planning Group is here…
         http://www.nasa.gov/offices…

         But they take inputs from all over the place, and are heavily connected with the science community (as they should be). Various workshops and conferences feed into their recommendations.

         1. Dr. Brian,

            Thank you for specifying the Mars Planning Group as “the people in charge of strategic NASA planning” who you referred to in your previous post.  Why did I ask this question?  Well, I’ve been finding that here is a lot of miscommunication in NASA Watch threads, and elsewhere, because we don’t tend to be specific enough with our labels.  For example, in this case you said, “strategic NASA planning,” but what you specifically meant was “strategic Mars Programs Management planning at NASA.”  Even though the context of the thread is Mars, and your comments centered on JPL, I originally mistook the reference to mean the NASA HQ people at the top, based on the label you used (i.e., strategic NASA planning).

            I think confusion and miscommunication come about, at least for me, when discussing strategic planning (or perhaps any planning topic) because it is not a single group or function.  Strategic planning goes on at NASA (or any big entity) on many different levels.  NASA’s strategic planning happens in the White House (with and without NASA involvement) and it also happens (ideally and in theory) at every level from the NASA Administrator’s office right down to the level of the assembly technicians, and at every level in between.  At the level of the upper echelons strategic planning is more goal-oriented, and the further down you move through the various NASA levels, the more implementation-related and detailed strategic planning becomes.  Each group has it’s own interdependencies and (hopefully) resources that affect its planning activities, different from those at other levels.

            Anyhow, I think we get many cases of disagreement among posters that result from miscommunication rather than actual disagreement about ideas.  That being the case, I think we all have a responsibility to try being precise with our labels and, in the case of uncertainty or possible ambiguity, asking for clarification.  I have found that there are some posters who don’t deem it necessary to provide clarification when asked, but I still think we should ask when not clear.

            So, if we now go back to your original post and your comment, “I wonder if it’s time for the people in charge of strategic NASA planning to have a change of guard,” if we’re talking specifically about the Mars Planning Group, then you may have a good point.  But, even if you could insert more appropriate people and attitudes at that level, I wonder how much effect it would have if nothing else in the chain of command was changed.  From an engineering perspective, you design from the top down and test from the bottom up.  If we replace “design” and “test” with “goals” and “implementation,” respectively, in the strategic planning chain, then that suggests to me that we need to see the “change of guard” (change in thinking) originate at the top and then ripple down through NASA (of course, some of the information used to decide changes, at any level, must percolate up from below).

            I absolutely agree with you that “There needs to be a little more attention paid to doing things because they are needed for future human expansion.”  But I think the initial decision to have strategic planning (at any/every level) move in this direction has to come from on high.  People at the senior levels may have this idea implanted in their minds from those below, but the decision must come from the top, or else we’ve got your “tail wagging the dog,” which accomplishes nothing except to annoy the dog.  Just my thoughts on the matter.

            Steve

            1.  Nice post Steve and I agree in the main on your points. Making sure we are talking about the same thing is important. I would argue that, strictly in this Mars centered discussion, the MPPG is for all intents and purposes the policy making body for NASA. The output from their workshops are what is used to present to Congress and the president. Of course it gets massaged at the upper levels a bit, but this is the group that collates/edits policy desires and turns them into policy requests to the gov’t. And my experience with that group leads me to believe they are top heavy with the pure science concerns.

10. Noah,

    I’m going to assume this is a serious question.  Even if you could somehow glue an “eye” with a “brain” to the “eyepiece,” there’s an intelligence requirement involved — when and where do you use the “microscope”?  It can’t be continuous or you’d never move.  How long would you look at a microscopic site?

    And then surface vs. subsurface “tests” would be two difference sets of requirements/procedures.

    But on top of all that kind of thing, what exactly would you be looking for with a microscope?  Just movement?  Then you’d likely miss anything that was hybernating or estivating if they were essentially still or moving only very slowly.

    Also, do we assume that any/all Martian “life” behaves the same as Earth life?  Different conditions require different solutions.

    If any microscopic life is subsurface, we probably couldn’t get to it without destroying it.  We may, at best find signs of “food” disappearing and “wastes” that move toward the surface, or something equally suggestive only.

    I think doing something conclusive is going to be a tough job, if it is doable at all.

    Steve

    1. > Even if you could somehow glue an “eye” with a “brain” to the “eyepiece,” . . . intelligence requirement involved

       If only there was some kind of eye that we could ship to Mars that would be able to send back pictures, perhaps via some sort of interplanetary signaling. And a way for intelligence on the ground on Earth to signal back with instructions!

       1. Joe,

          We’re always going to have the long communication delay; right now it’s about 15 seconds, I think.  So, we send a man (or a woman) and his eye, or else we create a system that doesn’t require real-time interaction, if that can be done reliably.

          Steve

11. I think the general public is growing weary of announcements like “Ooooh, we found some more  perchlorate!!!” or “That’s a very interesting rock!!!”

    Mars is very likely a sterile world and always was.

    If NASA wants to keep the Mars program alive, it’s time to think about actually detecting whether or not there is currently life on Mars.  Otherwise,considering the limited resources available, NASA should move on with science missions to the other planets.

Comments are closed.