Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mars Lander Faces Slow Death

Posted by Soulskill on from the this-lander-will-self-destruct-in-five-months dept.

Riding with Robots writes "It's the beginning of the end for the Phoenix Mars Lander. As winter approaches in the Martian arctic, NASA says it's in a 'race against time and the elements' in its efforts to prolong the robotic spacecraft's life. Starting today, mission managers will begin to gradually shut the lander's systems down, hoping to conserve dwindling solar power and thereby extend the remaining systems' useful life. 'Originally scheduled to last 90 days, Phoenix has completed a fifth month of exploration in the Martian arctic. As expected, with the Martian northern hemisphere shifting from summer to fall, the lander is generating less power due to shorter days and fewer hours of sunlight reaching its solar panels. At the same time, the spacecraft requires more power to run several survival heaters that allow it to operate even as temperatures decline.'"

67 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. NASA by Sasayaki · · Score: 5, Funny

    Honestly, as an Australian, it's great to see NASA in the news for something which can't be summarised as: "It blew up".

    Needs more funding IMHO.

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    1. Re:NASA by Pikiwedia.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      NASA have been far more successful with the mars rovers and Phoenix than ESA's Beagle, which probably made it to the martian surface (in burning pieces).

    2. Re:NASA by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 4, Funny

      NASA may have a better record with robots, but ESA has never lost a single astronaut. Admittedly that is through lack of trying...

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:NASA by that+IT+girl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not to go all crazy-patriot on you, but at least the US is trying. It's not easy, you know. ;)

      --
      10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
      20 DRINK COFFEE
      30 GOTO 10
    4. Re:NASA by cdrudge · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pfft. Anyone with security clearance over Top Secret knows that Beagle made it successfully and recorded 13 seconds of video before being destroyed. Has NASA's probes ever found aliens? I think not.

    5. Re:NASA by SimonGhent · · Score: 3, Funny

      If we're going to name the seasons after their properties

      We're taking this approach as of 2009 in the UK.

      The new seasons will be "Cold and Wet", "Wet and Windy", "Wet" and "Wet and Dark".

      Doesn't really matter how they map to the current seasons.

      --
      simon
    6. Re:NASA by SenseiLeNoir · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a Brit, obviously i "was" disappointed at the time with the loss of Beagle 2. But the success of NASA's wonderful landers have more than made up for it. The huge contribution to science and learning, in this time when all other news is about the Credit Crunch and global meltdown.

      As a kid at school, I always admired America, specifically NASA, watching the space shuttles, Rockets, Apollo, etc. When Challenger exploded, it was at the time a horrific and sad sight for a young child to watch. IT was sad to see the loss of lives, and the loss of a beautiful craft.

      Later on, when Columbia disintegrated on re-entry, it hit me personally for ever since I started my love of space I have seen "The old faithful" launch, do its mission, and land safety bringing back the astronauts. I always expect it would be around for ever, and when retired housed, in a museum somewhere. The loss of the craft was as sad as the huge loss of the human life.

      I hated the idiots who actually celebrated.

      But the fact is, NASA is usually more successful than not in their missions, and this particular mission far exceed most peoples expectations. 5 years, for a 90 day lander is impressive, and has achieved a lot of scientific goals.

      Well Done NASA!

      MISSION ACCOMPLISHED! (+5, Inspirational)

      --
      Have a nice day!
    7. Re:NASA by Speare · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...at least the US is trying.

      As another USian, I have to say that in many ways, the US is very trying.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    8. Re:NASA by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Funny

      Of course they haven't. Unless they run into another lander, they can only encounter natives.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  2. Well, it's been a great track record lately... by BTWR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ever since the two loses in 2000, NASA has had amazing success with Mars. We now have a fleet of spacecraft orbiting and on the surface of Mars. But the biggest kudos have to go to an all-around amazing guy, and my favorite professor during my undergrad education, Steve Squyres, who's "90 day" rovers are now toddlers on Mars.

    1. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by BTWR · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hmmm, I wrote "who's" instead of "whose." Well, there's a reason I wasn't an English major as an undergrad I guess...

      I still remember the day he came into class and told us about the rovers. He had literally just gotten off the plane from JPL, and asked if there were any reporters in the room (for the school paper or otherwise). He then told us that since there wouldn't be a public announcement of the MERs for another month or so, that everything he told us was "off the record." it was so cool to learn that and all the other insider-info.

    2. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by savuporo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, Mars they are doing. But do you remember when the last lunar soft landing happened ?
      1976, Luna-24, a successful sample return probe sent by USSR.

      There is a likelyhood that the next one to land will be a Google Lunar X-Prize participant ..

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    3. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, Mars they are doing. But do you remember when the last lunar soft landing happened ? 1976, Luna-24, a successful sample return probe sent by USSR.

      To be fair here, Luna 24 returned 170.1g of regolith. NASA on the other hand landed six 14.7 tonne probes on the Moon in the late sixties to early seventies. They deployed a total of twelve autonomous intelligent versatile exploration units, traversing a total of 97km of lunar surface, and gathered some 381.7kg of samples and returned them to Earth.

      To follow that spectacular accomplishment with a few petty robot landers seems... pointless.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    4. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by Cyberax · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But much cheaper.

    5. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by savuporo · · Score: 5, Interesting

      So you are saying that sending robots to Shackleton crater to search for water ice, or sending prototype plants to test out ISRU technologies like cooking oxygen out of lunar regolith would be rather pointless, just because a bunch of astronauts already made some footprints there ?

      I am not disputing the accomplishments of Apollo, but to say that lunar robots are pointless is naive.

      By the way, looking at the launch calendars, it looks like Indo-Russian joint mission Chandrayaan II might beat GLXP to the lunar surface.

      Its been sad that our closest neighbour has been basically forgotten for so long, and now with Chinese, Indians and Japanese entering the lunar exploration, things are looking up.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    6. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by Ihmhi · · Score: 2, Funny

      Unfortunately, the Russians were unable to allocate gyros and other mechanisms for the golf-swinging arm of the robot in their design, so their funding was heavily slashed.

      --
      Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
    7. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by kungfugleek · · Score: 2, Funny

      We now have a fleet of spacecraft orbiting and on the surface of Mars...

      Makes me wonder if anyone on Mars has welcomed their new robotic earthling overlords...

    8. Re:Well, it's been a great track record lately... by wren337 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The secret to exceeding expectations is to set them very low. In this case, they built rovers that might last several years, then slapped a "90 day warranty" sticker on them.

  3. Why heaters? by Richard+W.M.+Jones · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So honest question for all you rocket scientists out there: Why are heaters needed? Which parts of the spacecraft (electronics?) need to be above a certain temperature to operate? Is it possible to let the lander "freeze" and then revive it, or if not what components are sensitive to this?

    Rich.

    --
    libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
    1. Re:Why heaters? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      So honest question for all you rocket scientists out there: Why are heaters needed? Which parts of the spacecraft (electronics?) need to be above a certain temperature to operate? Is it possible to let the lander "freeze" and then revive it, or if not what components are sensitive to this?

      Rich.

      One issue is that solder joints between components can break if they are cooled down too much. Batteries and capacitors can fail if liquids inside them freeze and crystalise. While I think there is a chance that the lander will come back up next summer but the likelyhood of this is pretty slim IMHO.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:Why heaters? by jm1234567890 · · Score: 5, Informative
      From the article

      The heaters serve the purpose of keeping the electronics within tested survivable limits.

    3. Re:Why heaters? by danhuby · · Score: 4, Funny

      The heaters serve the purpose of keeping the electronics within tested survivable limits.

      IANARS, I just RTFA

    4. Re:Why heaters? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I don't think they use oil... in the past they used WS2 (tungstendissulfide), It is a powder that sticks to metal. but hey... IANARS

    5. Re:Why heaters? by camperdave · · Score: 3, Informative

      No, the electronics are kept warm during transit.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    6. Re:Why heaters? by sa1lnr · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can't speak for this exactly but a friend of mine has a vapo-chill unit on one of his PC's and he managed to get the temps so low on the cpu that it stopped working.

    7. Re:Why heaters? by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's the mechanical moving parts as well as the batteries and other delicate systems. Problem is these parts are larger than the rovers that simply use hot radiation pellets of plutonium dioxide to do the heating for them.

      They CAN shut it all down, park the moving parts and let it sit dormant for all winter, but when you shut a system down there is a good chance that when you fire it up in the spring that it will not fire up. Blown dust cakes into an armature hinge point and now it can no longer move.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Why heaters? by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Informative

      It's pretty cold in space....

      Well that really depends on how near you are to a source of heat... in fact overheating is a problem in the solar system as it's difficult to get rid of the heat from the sun.

    9. Re:Why heaters? by LWATCDR · · Score: 2, Informative

      Batteries are number one.
      Capacitors would be number two.
      Solder joints from uneven contraction.
      We are talking about cold here. I mean a cold that makes Antarctica look warm.
      Too bad they didn't use an RTG. The colder they get the more power they make.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    10. Re:Why heaters? by Radio_active_cgb · · Score: 3, Informative
      The temperature extremes experienced in spacecraft (the Antarctic and Artic here on Earth) are such that considerable thermal expansion and contraction occurs. Because materials have different thermal expansion coefficients, everything is expanding and contracting at different rates, leading to mechanical stress. Such stresses cause hardening of materials - rather than flexing with the stress as when they were new, they break, and there-in lies the problem. (Remember bending wire coat hangers until they break? Even after a few bends, you would have problems straightening the now hardened wire.)

      The break can take many forms - a solder joint fails, a bearing seizes or breaks, a screw snaps, or a structural weld breaks. Each of these can result in a failure that renders the device inoperative.

      The heaters (often common power resisters) limit the cold extremes, and allows some predictability as to when failures can begin. In electrical systems, such heaters are used when the electronics can not keep themselves warm through continuous operation, or the electronics are shut down (you do want them to come back up, don't you?)

      In any case, power consumption tends to be fairly constant whatever the operating mode is.

  4. When the lander dies on Mars... by dotancohen · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...can we then assume that since something _died_ on Mars that there was once something _living_ on Mars?

    --
    It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  5. what I do not understand. by apodyopsis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    here's what I do not understand.

    so no sunlight = no power. the lander dies.

    but in the next season, assuming it has not been buried in dust it will then get power again from the solar array, so what then? surely some basic SW should be functional as the power rises over a certain point. and it does not need a huge amount of power to transmit basic telemetry like temperature, light, perhaps the odd photo in low res broadcast at low power.

    with all the research and development that went into the thing, I do not see why one season should kill it.

    however, I recognize I am not an expert and the people who write the articles presumably are, so what have I missed?

    corrosion in the environment?
    batteries that cannot survive being fully discharged?
    lander cannot run on solar alone?

    anyhow, kudos to NASA for lasting well beyond the tables life span in the first place.

    1. Re:what I do not understand. by u38cg · · Score: 4, Informative

      Metal parts can potentially crack, any components with liquids in them (batteries, capacitors, etc) can freeze and split. Certainly they will be keeping their fingers crossed that it might come back to life next year, but the odds are low.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:what I do not understand. by timmarhy · · Score: 5, Funny
      see this is why NASA is putting robots on mars and you aren't. try freezing your dick to minus -225 and see if it's still functional next season.

      ok sorry i'm being a little harsh there it's been a long day. solder will crack and oils will freeze and expand busting caps etc. that's why the lander might not make it through the winter.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    3. Re:what I do not understand. by OriginalArlen · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've got it. Firstly the batteries will be destroyed by the prolonged cold. The other thing is that the entire site will be cloaked in a couple of meters of CO2 ice over winter; as it accumulates on the solar panels, the weight is expected to physically snap them off.

      --

      Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
    4. Re:what I do not understand. by Dr.M0rph3us · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What I'd like to see is the development of cold-resistant electronics. Can we use solid capacitors and batteries for that purpose?

      Then the power-draining heaters won't be needed anymore and the power can be routed to more useful instruments (or the probes can be lighter, with lower launch costs).

    5. Re:what I do not understand. by phillous · · Score: 2, Funny

      you must be new here?

    6. Re:what I do not understand. by vbraga · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Metal parts, solder joints must also be taken in account.

      I think it's actually possible to build a spacecraft resistant to this temperature. But testing over a wider temperature range and getting it build to this spec would be expensive as hell.

      (I'm not a native English speaker, so, be kind pointing mistakes =))

      --
      English is not my first language. Corrections and suggestions are welcome.
    7. Re:what I do not understand. by CFBMoo1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You've got it. Firstly the batteries will be destroyed by the prolonged cold. The other thing is that the entire site will be cloaked in a couple of meters of CO2 ice over winter; as it accumulates on the solar panels, the weight is expected to physically snap them off.

      It would be neat if they could watch the entire process of this happening. I really wish they could build a probe that could monitor this on the ground.

      --
      ~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
    8. Re:what I do not understand. by Peeteriz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But testing over a wider temperature range and getting it build to this spec would be expensive as hell.

      On the other hand, 'expensive as hell' is not that much when compared to the cost of getting a pound of stuff from Earth to Mars - so if it allows us to use the rover twice as long, then it may be cheap enough to do, as sending a ten times more expensive rover would be much cheaper than sending two current rovers, just due to the high cost of transport.

    9. Re:what I do not understand. by Sobrique · · Score: 3, Informative
      Actually, that's practically impossible on a living person - you're effectively putting something 250+ degrees hotter into the liquid nitrogen, and you're circulating nice hot blood around it continuously - you'll thus be flash-boiling the nitrogen, which has quite a low specific heat capacity, and the bubbles as the nitrogen boils off forms quite an effective insulator. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leidenfrost_effect

      It's therefore possible to immerse parts of the anatomy in liquid nitrogen for a fairly substantial amount of time before it will freeze to 'shatter on a table' temperature. Of course, getting frostbite is somewhat faster, and not recommended, so don't try this at home :)

    10. Re:what I do not understand. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or even better, do the "rose in the liquid nitrogen" trick and slap it on the table - THAT will impress the coeds.

      Idiot Geek. You GIVE the rose TO the coed (intact, NOT frozen). You go somewhere else and play with the liquid nitrogen.

      No wonder you folks never get laid.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  6. Pyrotechnic unit? by omuls+are+tasty · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It has a "pyrotechnic initiation unit"? What is that used for? Were they planning some fireworks to celebrate? Do Martians like fireworks? :)

    1. Re:Pyrotechnic unit? by Gordonjcp · · Score: 4, Informative

      Lots of space hardware uses a small pyro charge to deploy antennas and things. On a lot of microsats, the antennas are rolled up like steel tape measures, and when the pyro blows they unroll and stick out.

    2. Re:Pyrotechnic unit? by Isao · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Some amateur satellites actually USE steel tape-measure as antennas. Here's a shot of PC-SAT. (Full site article)

  7. Oblig. by cosmocain · · Score: 4, Funny

    I, for one, mourn our dead robotic overloads.

  8. and finally after the cameras fail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    the native martians will appear and take it into their homes for the winter and nurse it back to health...

  9. Happy to help a fellow geek by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny
    ...with Melbourne conversation starters.
    • Don't you just hate rugby?
    • Funny October we are having. Almost as hot as February.
    • Washed your car lately? Of course not (water restrictions)
    • Sorry you are missing the Melbourne Cup? Do you like boozing up in the Flemington car park?
    • What did you think of the Grand Final? Sorry that bunch of wankers from Hawthorn won it. Thought we had seen the last of them.

    Should be enough to get going. No boobytraps there. I promise.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
    1. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Funny

      You sure she's not a Kiwi who lives in Melbourne? There's a lot of them here. :D

    2. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by aproposofwhat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Netball's like basketball, but tougher - most netball players I've known had thighs that could crack walnuts.

      Good luck - and wear wrist / ear protectors if you get past first base :o)

      --
      One swallow does not a fellatrix make
    3. Re:Happy to help a fellow geek by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      she also talked a lot about "netball."

      Thats basketball for girls. Always played in skimpy outfits. Better defined rules and absolutely no body contact. I spent many a saturday afternoon when I was single glued to the TV watching netball games.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
  10. Nuclear batteries by joshv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why the hell aren't we putting nuclear batteries on these things?

    1. Re:Nuclear batteries by Carbon016 · · Score: 2, Informative

      They might on the successor.

    2. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The word nuclear scares the public. More specifically I live by the cape, when they launch nuclear powered missions like New Horizons Pluto mission local schools are required to keep children indoor and close their windows. This is a precaution. If the launch vehicle blows up nuclear fallout could be spread around by winds. So generally only missions where it is required because there isn't any sun light like a mission to Pluto do they use nuclear reactors.

    3. Re:Nuclear batteries by Tweenk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Those are not nuclear reactors, but radioisotope thermoelectric generators (RTGs). Rather than harnessing the energy from steam heated by the fission of heavy nuclei, they get the power directly from the heat of natural decay of radioactive isotopes using thermocouples. Link.

      Current nuclear reactor designs, even the compact ones used on ships and submarines, are too large and too heavy to be sent into space.

      --
      Those who would give up liberty to obtain working drivers, deserve neither liberty nor working drivers.
    4. Re:Nuclear batteries by hysonmb · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree that nuclear batteries would be a great idea in theory. I'm not a NASA employee, or scientist, but I would venture a guess that the risk is not worth the reward just yet. Imagine the first time one of those suckers breaks apart on liftoff.... "We're sorry ladies and gentlemen, Florida is now closed. We hope you enjoyed your stay and we look forward to seeing you when we reopen in 30 years. Thank you and goodbye."

    5. Re:Nuclear batteries by Catmeat · · Score: 5, Informative
      In this case, they aren't necessary as the lander has done all the science it was planned. What's the point of keeping it alive over the winter of all it's going to do in the spring is repeat the measurements it's already taken?

      RTG's and RHU's are a massive, expensive, pain in the ass and are best avoided unless absolutely necessary.

      Basically -

      • They're heavy. They are must be designed to wishstand re-entry intact and not disperse Pu238 fuel everywhere if the rocket explodes during launch. Extra weight on the lander means there will be science instruments that have to be taken off.
      • They're on 24/7 and they're only about 5% efficient so they produce about 20W of heat for every W of electricity. This is a huge problem when the spacecraft is buttoned up in it's Mars-entry aeroshell during the 9 month trip to Mars. Hundreds of W of waste heat must be dumped somehow or your lander will cook.

        This may well use some kind of fluid cooling loop that circulates through radiators on the crusie stage. This now gives you added problems of a pump (which must not fail or you'll lose the mission, so add a back-up pump) and how to disconnect the coolant pipes with absolute reliability when the time comes to ditch the cruise stage and enter the Martian atmosphere. More problems, cost and weight.

      • Pu238 is on every terrorist's Christmas wish-list. You have the added problems and of turning the spacecraft assembly facilities into highly secure spacecraft assembly facilities. Assembling a Mars lander is already hard and expensive. You really don't want to add to this the cost and disruption of post-9/11 anti-terrorist, security paranoia. Donna Shirley discusses this in her book on the Mars Sojurner rover, and that was put together back in 96.
    6. Re:Nuclear batteries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Pu238 is on every terrorist's Christmas wish-list.

      Even the Islamic ones? Or don't they count?

    7. Re:Nuclear batteries by Reapman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm pretty confidentent that even a catostrophic failure wouldn't create a nuclear meltdown even remotely like that. I could see the nuclear material falling to the ground and needing a cleanup crew to take care of it as a worst case, but I can't see something like this creating a new Cherynobyl (spelling probably off missing my coffee this morning) unless someone REALLY screws up.. but if your worried about that you should probably be more worried about them wanting to install new nuclear powerplants then some "nuclear battery"

    8. Re:Nuclear batteries by Spotticus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not entirely true, there have been several missions (not recently) where full blown nuclear reactors have flown. Between 1971 and 1988 the Soviets flew 31 RORSAT missions using the BES-5 nuclear reactor. The US launched one mission in 1965 carrying the SNAP-10A reactor. Both types used liquid sodium cooling and were extremely compact and lightweight. The advantage of not requiring shielding

    9. Re:Nuclear batteries by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny

      "We're sorry ladies and gentlemen, Florida is now closed.

      That would be a feature, not a bug.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  11. any breakthrough finally ? by ti-coune · · Score: 2

    Maybe it's not the right place to post this:

    But I remember i was pretty excited in the days after the probe landed, checking the website everyday to see the news. I still check it once in a while.

    But what was the major finding finally ?

    I know they were not expectig to find life. But any indirect evidence of it would have been cool. They did find water ice, (and found it many times apparently ;-)

    just a bit disappointed I guess

  12. Re:Oooh aaahhh by that+IT+girl · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...Who licked the red off your candy this morning? Geez...

    --
    10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
    20 DRINK COFFEE
    30 GOTO 10
  13. To Boldly Go by rossdee · · Score: 2, Funny

    "And we stopped being a "colony" as of Federation... 1901"

    Australia is part of the Federation?
    Cool
    Do they have Warp Drive?

    1. Re:To Boldly Go by flappinbooger · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No, but they do have Holden.

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  14. How to make it last another year by heroine · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obama could make it run for another year.

  15. Re:Why is it less likely to survive than the rover by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

    Spirit and Opportunity are both close enough to the equator to get solar power every day. Phoenix is north of the arctic circle and will go without any power at all for most of an Earth year.

    Phoenix will freeze stone cold dead, but the rovers always have power for their heaters.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  16. Re:From another Australian by Sasayaki · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Very well.

    The war in Iraq has cost America, at the time of writing, approximately 566 billion dollars.

    The entire Apollo project, $25.4 Billion in 1969 dollars (or approximately $135 Billion in 2005 dollars.) Sources = (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_program, http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home)

    So what I'm saying is, for the cost of the War in Iraq, America could have over four complete moon programs. Not moon missions, mind, four complete *programs*- built entirely from scratch.

    Let's say NASA take one moon mission to *actually* return to the moon properly- with return trips, flybys, dozens of manned and unmanned missions, reuse of the hardware for other projects, etc. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Apollo_missions for what this one single "mission" is buying, and remember that still leaves three whole other missions and change to do other things.

    Let's spend two missions on doing all of the above, but for Mars. That means multiple manned missions, return journeys, the works. Give Mars the full lunar "One small step for man" treatment and assume it costs twice as much (and takes a lot longer).

    We still have one mission left. Let's do something crazy with it- and I'm open to suggestions here. Permanent lunar settlement? Completely and utterly explore our planet's oceans (which we know less about than space, BTW...)? Solar-system wide Internet? (Aliens need lolcats too..) ... the possibilities here are truly staggering. And don't forget your change.

    This is what I meant by more funding. I mean to say that NASA, which has endured endless budget cuts since the 60's (which, I'll concede, have forged a more efficient government agency), deserves far, far, far more of America's money. America's money which is being horrifically misspent.

    Essentially, what I'm trying to say is... yes, it's inefficient. Horribly so. So? Throw money at it. I'll say it again- THROW MONEY AT IT. The capslock shows I'm serious. NASA is one of the few (read- the only) organisation I'll say this about, but... throw money at it. Seriously. For the cost of the Iraq war, we could have had so much.

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8