NASA and Mars: Retreat or Advance?
NASA’s retreat from Mars, Opinion, USA Today
“While the Obama administration is the one lowering the priority of Mars exploration, presidents going back to Richard Nixon have all reduced their funding of NASA, relative to other federal programs.”
Letter: NASA’s Mars program remains strong, John Gunsfled, USA Today
“While we have great respect for Marc Kaufman’s expertise as a space journalist, his Wednesday Forum piece, “NASA’s retreat from Mars” leaves a false impression. … Far from retreating, we’re advancing our best talents toward exploring the Red Planet with Curiosity and forging the path for future human Mars exploration.”
Until there is a viable space transportation system in place, forget about going to Mars. Mars will not be done with rockets and capsules.
It’s not so much a limit to technology as it is a limit on humanity’s collective ambition/will to reach for Mars.
Well, the thrust of these articles all depends on your definition of “retreat”. One could say a retreat is a total reversal or surrender from a certain path. As in retreating from a battle. I suppose we are not doing that. Another could say a retreat is just a rest or break on the path forward. Perhaps this may be what’s happening, along with a reevaluation of how to alter the path forward. Maybe it’s too early to tell. I guess we’ll have to see what missions are part of the current round of Mars mission concepts to really know. But, can we reasonably expect to come up with sufficiently advanced, but still successful Mars missions for less money, using the code word “restructuring”? Haven’t we tried something like this before with Faster, Better, Cheaper–and Mars Polar Lander? Is OMB or OSTP truly aware of that past? What bothers me is why planetary exploration, and Mars in particular, were focused on for what is really a pittance in savings, when we consider the billions we were spending on the Iraq war per month, well into the Obama presidency? Take away from a successful program, citing it as too successful, to just say you’re trying to cure the deficit, when that’s a drop in the bucket? Is Obama just trying to score points with people? I’d say the same if a Republican proposed this. Shouldn’t this administration at least have waited until the success or failure of MSL to decide what to do? What if MSL finds considerable evidence for past habitability on Mars? Are the current proposed cuts still justified? Perhaps we could realign some Mars science goals with future human exploration of Mars, but how could this cost less money? My personal feeling is that some in OMB, or wherever this really came from, really don’t understand Mars or what’s going on with it. Hey, some in the public think humans have been to Mars, and some think we bring spacecraft back from Mars. Some hear “millions” and “billions” and add that to “I don’t really see the point of Mars” and conclude “let’s cut!”. The problem is this sets a precedent. Can we really trust that just because they are part of White House staff that they really understand the importance of planetary science? Not everyone in a political office or political position is that knowledgeable about the universe, in either party. I hope more knowledgeable minds will prevail on this one.
What if MSL finds considerable evidence for past habitability on Mars?
Ok, what if. Lets take this hypothetical to the next level. What if it finds, without any shadow of a doubt fossilized life.
How, in your opinion, would our Mars program change and would this justify a large increase in expenditures for Mars at the expense of other priorities?
Does this justify sample return?
Does this justify a Manned mission now to the exclusion of developing the necessary infrastructure and technologies for sustained Mars development?
Does this discovery preclude Martian settlement?
I believe the looney left would cry that humanity can not land there anymore because our bacteria could kill off that life. The radical right would say that the life there will kill off humanity if anything from mars is returned.
Most people in the middle would say ..lets suit up and go.
Mars may already be contaminated.. no one still has not been able to determine if the Soviet Mars landers that crashed or went silent very early were sterilized to the satisfaction of the “Looney Left”.
Then again, who knows if the US and ESA landers qualify for satisfaction, and Soviet probably means no satisfaction by default to the LL.
Mars and Earth have been exchanging materials with impact shards reimpacting the other for millions of years.
It is likely life could have co-evolved on both, which might explain prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Which is not to mean we shouldn’t sterilize return vehicles coming and going … so we can minimize the impact of sample contamination as professionalism in science. Not as world protector shibboleth.
Compared to our nearest neighbor, Mars has been receiving too much attention anyway over past decades, and it’s not going anywhere.
>>
What if MSL finds considerable evidence for past habitability on Mars? Ok, what if. Lets take this hypothetical to the next level. What if it finds, without any shadow of a doubt fossilized life. How, in your opinion, would our Mars program change and would this justify a large increase in expenditures for Mars at the expense of other priorities? >>This stoked my curiosity, so here’s my long-winded answer…RESPONSE: I think our Mars program would change, at least a modest increase in funding a certain set of missions. If we found the holy grail of planetary science on Mars from MSL data (imagine just the philosophical and religious ramifications), of course Mars should receive increased expenditure, increasing its priority. At the expense of other priorities? Well the universe will still be there. Mars, Europa, Enceldaus, Titan, etc will all still be there. So I’m not saying abandon everything else and go for Mars only. However refocusing Mars missions onto serious astrobiology, to send more specialized instrumentation to study those fossiles, ultimately to attempt to bring back samples of those fossils, would be the way to go. We’d be fools not to suggest more focused funding if such a find were made. Strategically I think it would make sense to capitalize on the finding, as it would soon become old news. Now we would know exactly where to send people on Mars, and at least begin a national/international discussion on when to send them.Does this justify sample return?RESPONSE: If anything would justify sample return, why wouldn’t this? The goal would not be just a sample of rock from a region orbital imagery suggests had water, revealing only past climate and geology and the potential for habitability — still with no answer to the main question: what type of life? We would know exactly which geological feature to extract rocks from. How soon to return a sample? Well, that would have to be evaluated. At least it should reinvigorate planning for a sample return mission, and secure funding of some sort. Go it alone or go international? It would at least reignite that discussion.Does this justify a Manned mission now to the exclusion of developing the necessary infrastructure and technologies for sustained Mars development?RESPONSE: What WOULD justify a manned mission? Not colonization. We don’t need to colonize Mars yet (until Earth’s climate really starts to complain and we begin to have a serious lack of resources). Would it be great to colonize? Yes. But that’s probably hundreds of years away. Whenever the first crewed Mars mission happens, wouldn’t we justify it with a search for life? Not simply for exploration, unless there was a political contest to win. Robots can do a certain level of exploration. To the exclusion of Mars infrastructure? Well, what type/level of infrastructure? We can’t wait for battlestar galactica to go to Mars. More orbital assets for reconnaissance and communications? Construction rovers? Exploration/science rovers? Habitats? Efficient propulsion modules? An efficient transporation system? Low-cost, reliable launch vehicles? Necessary life support? It seems like so much would be needed to begin with to even send the first crewed mission to Mars. At the very least, such a discovery should provide the rationale for investing funds into development of technology and bare bones infrastructure specifically to send people to Mars. It would not be wise to rush a manned mission to Mars, increasing risk for an already risky venture. Even with a fossil discovery,I don’t think we would want to waste the opportunity on a premature mission. However, actually commit to establishing a crewed research base? Why not? Send a scouting crew first? Why not? But even with a fossil find, I don’t believe Mars will be the next retirement destination. We should start off with a basic mission that is evolvable and that can be built upon.Does this discovery preclude Martian settlement?RESPONSE: That is a real tricky question. Maybe some regions of Mars should be kept free of people. We’d really have to know which regions, of course, which would require more science missions. We would have to understand the Martian biosphere better, before rushing to settle. Then again, life has spread on Earth, life maybe spread throughout space, why shouldn’t Earth life expand beyond Earth? I don’t think it should preclude establishment of a small research base — with the necessary planetary protection controls. Let the science tell us first what Mars’ biosphere, past or present, is like, and if that life was/is DNA based, before we just let people colonize it. Not that we really have to worry about people seriously attempting to colonize Mars.
Can you reformat this to something that resembles paragraphs?
This is a very sciency response and there are much greater issues involved. I am currently reading the NSF Antarctic report and the expenditures there are about 9 to 1 logistics over science. It will probably by 100 to 1 for Mars.
Mars must be about more than science to justify the expenditure of funds that your presentation implies.
Disqus got rid of my paragraphs separations for some funky reason. Probably too many words. Who knows?
Since the question was justification of sample return/crewed Mars missions, and MSL’s hypothetical discovery of a fossil, my main point was just that planetary science should receive some type of funding priority as a result. I still think a crewed Mars mission would initially be justified by science, with technology development as a spin-off, and hopefully international cooperation for diplomacy as a driver. Could national prestige be a reason? Sure. Could winning a competition of ideologies be a reason (say with China), as in the Cold War? Sure. Could simple exploration? Yeah. But absent that kind of political push, I don’t think we have a main justification right now other than science, and perhaps inspiration of the next generation. I mean one reason to explore space is colonization someday, but for most of human history we’ve asked questions about the night sky and wondered if there really is life elsewhere. I’d hope some nation or company would have sent people to Mars on a small scale by the time colonization became the rationale.
As far as operations are concerned, I don’t doubt the logitistics, delivery/return of cargo, maintenance, etc would be the main cost driver of a Mars base. But as far as I know, US Antarctic bases are still funded by the National Science Foundation. We’re there studying the environment and ice cores, which is science, in addition to learning how to live there. Infrastructure and maintenance just go with the territory. Maybe sending people to Mars should be justified by more than science. But I’m just talking about the study of hypothetical Martian life, by robots and people. Colonization is a whole different can of worms and would have to be justified by more than science — probably survival.
But I’m just talking about the study of hypothetical Martian life, by robots and people.
I would submit that you are talking about the rational for the further funding of Mars exploration as a priority above that of other space funding.
The fundamental problem is that we now have 40 years worth of experience that shows that our political leaders are not going to fund Mars exploration at the level that is desired, and especially human exploration based upon science or inspiration or prestige. We need to admit that to ourselves and not continue to pine away for the next NASA administrator, president, or congress that “gets it”. The latest round of retrenching/naval lint gathering is emblematic of this issue and it is going to get worse, not better as our national finances continues to deteriorate.
Thus we must come up with the ways and means to develop interim goals based upon other motivations such as economic development, and interim locations, such as cislunar space and the Moon as a means to build up infrastructure and capabilities within the Earth’s gravitational sphere.
This will lower the cost of Mars exploration, science, and or development, and make it more politically supportable. Success breeds success and the more infrastructure we have the better it is for continued development. Apollo died for exactly the reason that Von Braun prophesized in 1962, the lack of infrastructure to enable continued exploitation at a lower cost.
We cannot make that mistake again but it seems that we are hell bent on doing so within the government.
I do think Mars would/should receive a funding boost if MSL found fossilized life (microbes). Not enough for colonization (I still think that’s hundreds of years in the future), maybe more focus on mission planning for a crewed mission and perhaps even a date commitment — still a 1.5-2 decades into the future.
If SETI discovered a radio signal indicating intelligence from some distant solar system, I’m sure NASA astrophysics and SETI would get funding boosts to more thoroughly study that solar system. I don’t think it’s bad for things to be discovery driven or rewarded for discovery.
I agree that we can’t wait until a President or Congress “gets it” to give the desired funding boost for Mars or Moon exploration. We could go Zubrin’s route, but I don’t know that current NASA leadership and Congress believe him. Their main contribution is “commercial to ISS”. Imporant but not as inspiring as venturing beyond LEO.
Planetary science has made excellent discoveries and progress in its 40 years of existence. I really don’t think it needs to be reformulated, unless there were something seriously wrong with it (failure after failure, lack of discoveries, consistent and excessive cost overruns etc.).
I think we are slowly building infrastructure and experience at Mars. Maybe not what most of us would want. I really hope this Mars “reformulation” doesn’t amount to a slow down though.I really don’t know how we cancreate economic development in regards to Mars or Moon exploration. Commercial companies won’t do science for profit. In my view they only go as far as building systems and instruments, still using government funding, perhaps after investing their own funds into certain technologies to win the contract. There should be a government/private partnership for cis-lunar infrastructure, but there has to be a cis-lunar program or some cash incentive for that to happen.
(I still think that’s hundreds of years in the future), maybe more focus on mission planning for a crewed mission and perhaps even a date commitment — still a 1.5-2 decades into the future.
Any mission and or schedule of this type that does not include interim infrastructure built in cis-lunar space will be an enormous waste of resources. The NASA community has pushed this version of planning since 1970 and has gotten no where. In an era of Honey Boo Boo and looming baby boomer retirement you simply are not going to get the money for this big of a science project.
It boggles the mind that we even continue to think that way.
There’s Mars “funding” (occasional probes) and then there’s Mars “FUNDING” (HSF missions). Only the first is not a fantasy.
But FUNDING for anything HSF BEO isn’t going to be real. It is too easy to hijack into absurdly spent single use mission architectures, simply because that serves to pass as “NASA doing something” to average people.
Why Mars “funding” works, and continues to work when ramped down (or up), is that enough of a science product keeps alive the larger fantasy of HSF in any form.
What works against improved economic utilization of space, is the embedded cynicism of spaceflight practice, both in terms of status quo expectations for mission execution/planning … and the industry that caters to it.
Both seek to keep a lid on technology development that might improve the economics.
Scepticism is fine for prop depots, ISRU, RLV, … but we don’t have to bet the farm on them as the only bet. So you develop and demonstrate them to get baseline numbers on yield for credible capability analysis. As a routine percentage of total budget. Which was part of FY2011 that got pilloried and ignored in the SLS battle.
A credible next step for HSF after ISS is the Exploration Gateway Platform. If it is used to employ some of these elements to incrementally scale up capabilities that make HSF and unmanned spacecraft missions logistical path into an integrated strategy that handles govt and industry needs because it is the most effective way, not because it is the legislated way,
add:
Am agnostic on ways to “make it better”, just that they are effectively explored.
Having spoken with Musk, get the sense that reusability for him is all about being able to afford to reuse the same tech on Mars, long before the existance of a technology industrial base on Mars. His motivations for RLV are different thus than large RLV (Shuttle: bootstrapping economics) or small RLV (payload streaming of consumables).
Note that “arsenal space” is antagonistic to “commercially viable manned spaceflight”. Because it undercuts thier revenue model of “continued government subsidies”.
Even if they play “commercial”. Which is why ATK … is contemptable. Like Congress, for same.
“Scepticism is fine for prop depots, ISRU, RLV, … but we don’t have to bet the farm on them as the only bet.”
Agreed, except for RLVs. We really do need those if we want commercially viable manned spaceflight that is independent of continuing government subsidies.
So, according to Grunsfeld, the current Administration is “advancing” our Mars program because a rover approved during the Clinton Administration is still operating 8 years after landing, and another one funded and partly built under Bush is about to arrive on Mars? That’s like saying we’re “advancing” our transportation infrastructure because the Brooklyn Bridge is still in use.
Talk to us about future program decisions made by this administration, John. Sure, whatever is announced will by definition be an “advance” on doing nothing at all — so would having Hubble snap a single picture. Compared to plans as of 2009 or to MEPAG recommendations, please explain why we should be happy about how “advanced” or “strengthened” the current program is over what you started with?
There should be life on Mars. That’s our job 🙂