Figueroa Rules Out Another NASA Mars Rover Before 2020, Space News
“Figueroa reiterated previous statements that his team will consider only missions that contribute in some way to an eventual Mars sample-return mission, which is the U.S. planetary science community’s top priority for flagship-class Mars exploration endeavors.”
Keith’s note: This is a mindset ripe with old thinking. Even without the budget cuts, the costs for a Mars sample return mission have steadily increased over the decades that NASA has planned for it. NASA needs to head down a new path (or series of paths) wherein basic questions regarding the presence of current or previous life on Mars are addressed through more advanced and focused technologies – ones that can be used in situ. Instead, Figueroa et al are simply tied to old ways of thinking that make answering these questions move further into the future rather than making them move closer – all because the sample return mantra is etched into their brains from decades of repeating it among themselves.
It has been nearly 40 years since the twin Viking landers were sent to Mars. This is the last time NASA tried to do in situ testing for the presence of life on Mars. It is rather embarassing that NASA has not tried to do this again in the ensuing four decades or that it apparently won’t try to do in the coming decade.
Lets all hope Curiosity is successful. But imagine the mood in Congress were NASA to ask for more money after MSL made a new impact crater on Mars? NASA should be thinking of a fault-tolerant strategy that both survives an MSL failure as well as one that is boosted by its success. If you ask NASA for a copy of their contingency plan for a post-MSL failure their answer is simple: there is none. I have asked.
Recall what NASA did after it crashed Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Observer into Mars. It retrenched, came up with smaller, redundant, overlapping approaches that were not single-point failures but rather, could sustain failures and still advance science. Ironically this was done under Figueroa’s management. Figueroa – and NASA – have forgotten those hard-learned lessons. And now they only want to launch missions that support a single future mission – one that may never fly – and one that will be ripe with opportunities for single point failures.
Oh by the way: Opportunity says “hello” from Mars. Imagine what could have been done if NASA had simply made more of these rovers.
The best way to thoroughly explore Mars is to establish a permanent human outpost on the surface of Mars. The simplest, safest, and fastest way to achieve this is by first establishing a permanent human presence in Mars orbit using resources from the moons of Mars to sustain such facilities. A small real time mission control could then be established in Mars orbit for safer manned and unmanned landings on the Martian surface.
Future unmanned missions to Mars over the next ten years should focus on retrieving material from Deimos and Phobos and returning it to one of the Earth-Moon Lagrange points around the time when the SLS/MPCV will be operational and able to reach the Earth-Moon Lagrange points. We need to find out what percentage of water resources is contained in the regolith of these Martian moons so that they can be exploited for drinking, washing, growing food and the production of air for Mars orbiting space stations and the production of fuel for single stage Martian landing vehicles.
The export of water from the Martian moons back to cis-lunar space might also be economically competitive with water exported from the lunar poles and with water from meteoroids imported into cis-lunar space.
Marcel F. Williams
Marcel:
“The export of water from the Martian moons back to cis-lunar space might
also be economically competitive with water exported from the lunar
poles and with water from meteoroids imported into cis-lunar space.”
Maybe even more economically compeditive. You could use water on Mars to get water from Mars to orbit by breaking it down to it’s component parts and using it for fuel. Mars has lots of water, The Moon? Maybe not so much. Also Phobos could be used as a staging base to package the cargo for shipment to cis-lunar space. Once you start regular shipments, you essentially have a pipeline, a predictable source, a sellable commodity. Even if you used ion drives that take years to travel to your destination, if you launched every three days, say, once the first cargo arrived, you’ll be in business.
tinker
Mars has plenty of water. And so does the Earth. But both planets suffer the disadvantage of having water resources within large gravity wells. The Moon, however, has a very low gravity well and probably over a billion tonnes of water ice within the regolith at its poles.
Marcel F. Williams
Agree. Also Mars could be a good source of methane.
There is reasonable concern that humans will contaminate the environment. I’m pretty sure humans cannot survive the decontamination treatment that rovers must go through.
Having said that, I can see a sample return mission also serving as an unmanned prototype for a Mars Direct type mission to validate the approach.
(I’m personally for sending humans. I’d go with a one-way ticket)
And we’ll all be elderly before NASA gets around to asking the important questions – unless China or India gets there and asks the questions first.
Find the methane sources? I’d like to know. It’s been shown to be more than through expected natural processes.
That’s definitely a worthy goal, though I’m not sure where we would even start trying to do that. I don’t remember hearing a proposal for a mission to find the source of the methane. It may be coming from deep under the surface, and there’s no practical way to go down and see if it’s really coming from down there other than to send a very large, complex drilling rig.
We could watch the surface more closely. I think all we know now is that there are hot spots and seasonal changes. I’m not sure what kind of resolution they are getting from Mars Global Surveyor’s Thermal Emission Spectrometer. Maybe we can get a tighter image on the hot spots with something purpose built? I think this would take another orbiting probe. But beyond that, yeah we’d have to drill or something.
http://www.universetoday.co…
I agree wholeheartedly with your last comment. We should have launched at least 1 more “Opportunity” class rover every launch window. Yes, you may have had different scientific instruments included. Yes you could have possibly improved the robotic arm. How about adding a tiny compressor (you know, like you plug into your car lighter) and light weight tank to compress atmospheric CO2 and then have a nozzle on the robotic arm so it can blow the dust off the solar panels instead of praying to the martian weather gods for a breeze?
But what’s the fun in that? Lets spend multi-billion dollars designing new rovers. Plus new untried landing techniques.
This reminds me of the Prometheus debacle. One of their prime problems was that the system was so heavy that its ion propulsion system would take it 2.5 years just to escape Earth orbit. This would have resulted in a larger radiation dose in Earth orbit than at Jupiter. When I mentioned that our solar electric tug that we were working on with Langley would get it out of Earth orbit in less than a year and give it a boost half way to Mars for a fraction of the cost of their other solutions, it was completely ignored.
Where is Prometheus now?
The same thing is true with sample return. A SEP would shave about 50% off the cost cost of a sample return mission, but it has not even been considered….
The Planetary Science Decadal Survey said that the next Mars Flagship should start the sample return sequence. If the planetary scientists consensus is sample return next then we should all accept that.
Why should we just accept that? The people who participated in the Decadal survey have a vested interest in perpetuating the status quo. Big expensive missions mean lots of jobs – for a long time. Shorter, smaller, more focused missions that get results faster do not keep a lot of people employed – so they do not get as much support. Besides, the last time anyone actually tried to detect life on Mars was in the 1970s – more than 40 years ago. The fact that NASA (and the community that writes these Decadal reports) has been unable to improve on the twin Viking missions in all that time is ample evidence that they don’t have all the answers. New ideas and approaches are needed – now more than ever.
Who else should set priorities then? Congress, POTUS ? How well has that worked for human spaceflight?
The system isn’t perfect but it works. And the Decadal did give higher priorities to small (Discovery class) and medium (New Horizon class) missions with a flagship to be attempted if money was available.
I obviously disagree. NASA can be much more creative than this. If the current advisors cannot understand the state of the art in terms of biotech sensors and hardware design then they are not the right people to have as advisors.
Instead of scientists, in space mission priorities engineers should have much more say in what gets flown. A few skilled PR people and bean counters wouldn’t hurt either.
“Who else should set priorities then? Congress, POTUS ?”
We can all participate in setting the priorities. We can discuss it here. We can call our elected representatives. We can take it upon ourselves to learn and analyze for ourselves, then advocate for our conclusions, not just blindly accept the choices of one particular panel.
Chris,
This is the way that things would work in an ideal republic for sure, but that requires that enough people have enough understanding of the issues and capabilities involved, and that nobody is either biased or prejudiced in their decision making.
The actual reality, I think, is that the best people to make these kinds of decisions don’t all belong to any one organization. I truly believe that NASA has, or at least has access to, a better collection of “experts” in these matters than any other organization. But even assuming that to be true, you would still have to pick the appropriate people to assign to an evaluation and decision group — appropriate in the sense of thoroughly understanding the problems and goals involved, not people who will push a preconceived idea. It requires the minds and experience of experts, not high-power generalists who belong top a half-dozen different organizations. This is not, of course, a case of democracy in action, but I’m sure it would give us far more sensible and usable answers. It would most likely require “borrowing” people from NASA programs and other agencies and companies, or even hiring some people full time on a contract basis, but if that’s the way to get the best people for the job, then that’s what I feel should be done. These decisions are far too important, and too expensive, to be left to either any part of the government or simply the best readily available people. Even more important than doing programs well is doing the right programs.
Steve
True. Planners had better start thinking outside the box because their box is getting smaller daily, and soon they will be either crushed, or pop right out of it. It is time to stop thinking in terms of massive one-off missions and spacecraft and adopt a more general purpose approach. We could learn more faster and more cost effectively, and the risk at launch or landing would be much reduced. More eggs, more baskets, all smaller.
Bang on! sir.
Get the right planners to think in new ways, then you’ll get the right people executing the right plans. Make more and smaller programs, which build on one another in a planned way. Betting the farm on mega-plans foolishly assumes that you know all the answers before you start, which is nonsense. We want new results and new capabilities from our space program, not trophies.
Steve
Absolutely:
“Oh by the way: Opportunity says “hello” from Mars. Imagine what could have been done if NASA had simply made more of these rovers.”
I’ve always wondered why NASA feels the need to build an entirely new system for every mission. Why not take the MER, maybe update/replace a sensor or two, and send a couple more up to different locations?
When ever NASA PAO is asked about the Soyuz safety record they point to a long history and proven design …why can’t NASA do that with landers and, as you rightly suggest, change out payloads from one mission to the next and use a proven delivery system. You do not need especially large launch vehicles or, in the case of MSL, absurdly complex and risk landing systems.
A proven delivery system that starts designing our mars man lander now. Sure sounds like a dragon modified to drop into Mars atmosphere. Doing the robot first humans next. Using robots to test future human design. So we have a Mars landing standard that gets better and better with each robot mars mission. Set a rover standard that is simple and robust that can be modified and upgraded over future missions. Use fuel production on some robot missions to develop that capability soon.
Sounds like red dragon program to me!!!
Let’s get on with it and develop that human Mars landing capability. Now!!!!!!
Didn’t NASA do work on a methane engine for mars already?
Let’s help Spacex go to mars!
He’s going anyway with or without NASA
Get red dragon into the mars lander rover business now and gets save a buck while developing. Human mars landing capablity
DTARS,
If I’ve got it straight, then I agree completely with your concept in general principle, but I just don’t see the Dragon (red or any other color) as a staring point for it. As far as I know, the terms “robot” and “lander,” in the context of this blog item, refer to a surface rover being put down on a planetary surface. The requirements for landing a rover are different from those for landing humans. But there are actually three delivery situations — robot (rover), humans and cargo, each with its own requirements and tolerances.
What SpaceX has done with Dragon (please correct me if I’m wrong) is to design a cargo carrier that was planned from day one to be later upgraded to a human carrier, which was a great move. Adding surface robot delivery capability means they would have to replace wholesale systems that are already designed and built, and add in new (and more) hardware to accommodate handling the robot lander, even to the extent of redesigning the outer shell, which would require passing a whole new set of tests, and inevitably it would add weight and reduce payload mass capability. And I don’t know if the Dragon structure would be strong enough to maintain the stresses of something that massive being added on. Even maintaining the center of mass would be a problem. And I’ll venture to say that a Dragon used this way would necessarily be a single-use item. The Apollo rovers were essentially strapped to one side and lower down on a much heavier total payload when launched from Earth, and their mass was counter-balanced in that much more massive total payload. I can’t foresee any way to do that with a Dragon, even fully loaded, but I could be wrong. The Apollo CSM used a second design starting with Apollo 15, (to accommodate its rover.
I would have to say that a robot lander is a whole different ball game; one in which SpaceX has not participated so far, and to the best of my limited knowledge they have not expressed any interest in doing so. I’m sure SpaceX would be happy to launch anybody’s robot lander for them, but not to build such as lander themselves. Remember, having expertise and success in one area doesn’t mean they will have them in any other areas. They are already in a very good position with Falcon and Dragon, and diversifying at this point or in the near future I would see as a major, unwarranted risk, not a plus. They would be smart to just stick with their demonstrated strengths for as long as there’s a market for them.
The big issue here, in my mind, is that additional capability of that nature simply can’t be added on to an existing cargo/human design; it’s something that has to be planned for and accommodated from day one. This is all just my opinion, of course. Others who know more than I may be more optimistic.
Steve
Let Mars get its act together, but in the meantime, it’s time to go to Europa.
http://futureplanets.blogsp…
Steve
Don’t think making fall away shield and floor rover hatch and larger parachutes. is to major.
For standard price small rover delivery vehicle.
Once Spacex finishes developing dragon so that it can rocket thrust to earth with cargo or crew on board. What changes would have to be made if you wanted the same vehicle to land on mars with a similar, or smaller cargo mass than seven humans.
Has I understand it which is largely a guess. You may need a larger shield surface area because of thinner atmosphere depending on the vehicle mass, which could be done with some foldout shielding.
To me getting a test dragon that can land on mars soon and later land humans on mars is almost as important as the science. All mars robot missions should be prototype mars direct missions in my mind.
Couldn’t a dragon carry a rover about the size of opportunity to Mars with little trouble and few modifications???
Wouldn’t all you need to do is make the heat shield drop off before landing and cut a hatch in the bottom if you wanted to be able to lower an opportunity size rover out from underneath once landing???? That doesn’t sound like major modifications to me.
If what I’m saying is near correct I suggest that you consider using dragon to take all one way robot missions to mars medium to small so that you have a standard delivery vehicle plus shakeout your mars human lander sooner not later.
What would be needed to make a dragon that can land on mars and make it back to mars orbit???
Could you land a test dragon on mars make fuel and fly it back to mars orbit?????
Dragon or no dragon once we have falcon heavy which should give us lots of mission payload margin I suggest that we design with mars direct in mind and standardize to minimize cost.
Seems to me that a medium size delivery system that you use over and over even for under size payload missions would be cheaper.
And I’m guessing dragon with it’s side mounted thrusters and parachute system may be a pretty good standard size/system to use for all kinds of science missions.
Steve with Elon planning to land dragon on earth, using atmosphere drag/cushion and rocket thrust landing he already is in the lander business. And you know he wants dragon or dragon 2 to be a mars lander. So shouldn’t NASA be designing missions to help that R and D now?????
What if a mega big mission and a cheap single purpose mission used the same inexpensive delivery system?
Steve I do agree with you that for Spacex to get into the rover delivery business or the rover business may not be a wise risk now, they do have a pretty full plate.
But they do want to be in the mars lander business. And tesla’s are roving vehicles so I wouldn’t be surprised to see Spacex one day turn key a whole mars lander rover mission should they have too or want too. Their mars lander/rover tool box is nearly half full now!
What if you designed a complete human mars direct mission but it was at a quarter scale to carry back a few rocks. Couldn’t that be done with dragons?