NASA Rolls Out Mars Mission Plans

An Anonymous Coward writes: "MSNBC is reporting NASA's plan for the next Mars mission: either a single rover or a team of two rovers to be sent to the red planet in 2003. I'm glad to see that the government hasn't lost faith in NASA despite the recent setbacks with their Mars program."

Comments

Going metric?

[L41N14L]

capable of traveling 100 yards (meters) per day

Isn't this the kind of thinking that got them in trouble before?

Shaping the future

[grahamsz]

The agency reportedly was operating under a self-imposed deadline of Aug. 1 for determining the shape of the 2003 probe.

They current favourite within nasa is rumoured to be a 8 inch clear plastic cube with shiny bits inside. The metallicity of it gives it the edge over the previous revision which resembled a blue amorphous blob.

A nasa spokeswoman commented "We want to make the probe as ergonomic and easy to use as possible. It really will be as simple as plugging it in and pressing the launch button"

In an attempt to steal nasa's glory, microsoft today announced they would revive their own space program.. cancelled in the early nineties after their inability to run a craft for more than two hours without a catastrophic crash.

Two Very Interesting Things

[Catmeat]

• They're going back to the airbag style of landing that worked so well with Pathfinder in 97

• They're thinking of sending two. In the old days, planetry missions always went in pairs, Viking 1, Viking 2, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11 etc etc. Perhaps they now view sending a single craft as excessive overconfidence. Plus you get to look at two landing sites and as you only need to do the design work once, two can fly for roughly 1.5x the cost of one.

But, so SLOOOWWW...

[Sir_Winston]

I'm glad we're hurling more objects at Mars and all, but I'm amazed at the slowness with which we're exploring everyone's favourite big red bouncy ball. After all, it's been nearly a third of a century since we first put men on the moon, and yet that's as far as we've sent humans and, what's worse, we haven't even hurled very many probes out to our planetary neighbours. What's the total number? Not many...

It honestly makes me wish there were still a space race going on; at least then we'd still be actively involved in space exploration. Instead of space exploration NASA spends most of its time trying to convince pointy-headed bureaucrats and politicians to give it enough money to survive. Despite recent successes--and failures--it really seems like NASA is suffering a slow and excruciating death by underfunding; a sad state of affairs for a space exploration program which built up such momentum way back in the Kennedy administration.

Think of how many pivotal moments NASA has given us in the twentieth century. Nipping at the heels of the Soviets with our first man in space, and totally outdoing them with the moon landing (my grandparents shot a Polaroid of the television screen the moment Armstrong set foot on the moon); the gripping drama and ultimate redemption of Apollo 13; the public amazement when the Space Shuttles, like the spacefaring planes of science fiction, flew for the first time; the emotional Challenger disaster and the ensuing investigation; the colorful Pathfinder images that captivated the public for weeks. Just about every American can remember at least one of these things, and see it as an important event we'll always remember. Personally, I'll never forget my elementary school teacher hearing about it on her radio and taking the whole class to the school library to watch the live coverage following the Challenger disaster.

But instead of great moments like these, we can look forward to much smaller events and less publicly enthralling ones. Quite sad, when our government spends $3 *T*rillion a year, that we "don't have the money" to explore space as vigorously as we did in the first decades of the space program. I'm beginning to think that we'll never see a manned mission to Mars in my lifetime, at this rateand before anyone complains about high expenditures for small returns, remember that there's always been more to the space program (til recently) than just scientific data. There's been national pride for Americans, and more general pride in the accomplishments of mankind; there's been old-fashioned adventure, space really being the final frontier, the last place man hasn't set foot; space *travel*, actual exploration by humans, is what fascinated us, not data from a probe. The budget of the NSA alone would probably be enough to keep sending men further into space for some time, maybe even enough to start planning a lengthy manned Mars mission. But instead we spend it on Echelon and corporate espionage. It's disappointing to say the least. I don't think, short of provably finding extraterrestrial microbes with one of its landers, there's anything NASA can do to captivate the public interest and spark public excitement any more. Nothing that can be done with a mere probe can top the Pathfinder images, except for finding Martian or Ionian or Europan life. But, here's hoping...

Re:Mars is the stepping stone to the Solar System

[boing boing]

"It depends on how long the journey takes really. Even today we've had men in space for a year and no more protection than our Mars ship would have. But still, a manned craft would have more shielding, they're not going to want to have people die from radiation sickness half way there are they? :) "

By those men in space for more than a year, you mean Mir, right?

Mir's orbit because of geomagnetic shielding provides more shielding than we could provide through shielding of material directly. On the way to Mars and at Mars, there will be little to no Geomagnetic shielding...the problem of radiation will be much worse.

....Random calculating below......
I believe to have a manned spacecraft with enough shielding would be too heavy.

So with some quick calculations...
100 Mev Proton has a range of 1.44 ft in Aluminum, so lets assume that we our ship to be a 10 ft radius sphere (simplified to make math easier) with a 1 ft Al wall to shield from radiation...that gives us a mass for just the shell (no contents) of...calculating... ~55742 lbs. If we make that 20 ft radius, we get ~2.5 million lbs.

My guess is for a mission to Mars we would need the 20 foot radius size...so we are talking about really big launch costs here and possibly having to assemble the ship in orbit.

..........End of calculating........

I just don't see it happening anytime soon. I think it would be very interesting and exciting, but I think we have a long way to go.

Besides, I would rather NASA get funded for this than some of the other stuff they are doing.

Now that is just a quick guesstimate, but I think it will tough for us to carry everything we want there and back with protection for the mission at

Science Online: Gov Has Little Faith in NASA

[hbo]

According to Science, the administration has been fighting NASA's desire to send two landers:

NASA and the White House are locked in a quiet but intense struggle over the future scale of Mars exploration. NASA wants to send two landers to Mars in 2003, but the Administration is wary of the additional cost. The issue led to the cancellation this week of an announcement about Mars missions, and it might spur a budgetary gamble on NASA's part, Science reports in the 28 July issue.

The news item notes that NASA wants to send two landers to reduce the risk of mission failure, but is facing resistance from the White House:

Doubling up means a heftier price tag, however, and the White House is loath to ask Congress for more Mars money in 2001 and future years. "It's big bucks," says one Administration manager. The White House may still approve two landers--but on the condition that NASA cut current programs to pay for an expanded Mars effort. That would be bitter medicine for an overall space science effort already strapped for cash.

And it's not just the White House. Congress is taking a dim view of NASA's budgets as well:

NASA chiefs must move quickly. The larger program would require more planning, and NASA had already set a 1 August decision deadline to ensure that it could meet the 2003 launch date. Yet NASA won't know its 2001 budget--which is still stalled in Congress--until fall, while the 2002 budget request won't be released until next year. So if the agency wants two landers, it may have to gamble that there will be money to do it. Says one Administration manager: "We're playing a high-stakes game."

This is obviously why NASA announced they are considering "one or two" landers.

So write your congress critters. Tell them what you think about their budget priorities in an age of government tax surpluses. Tell them you want to vacation on Mars, and you'll send them straight to Io if they don't help you get there!

"Even if you are on the right track, you'll
get run over if you just sit there." Will Rogers