Slashdot Mirror
NASA Looks To Volcanic Rocks As Target For Next Mars Rover
sciencehabit (1205606) writes "At a 3-day workshop, planetary scientists advocated for igneous rock–bearing landing sites as high-priority targets for NASA's next Mars rover mission, scheduled to launch in 2020. The $1.5 billion rover, a near-copy of the Curiosity rover, will collect about 30 samples of rock and soil for eventual return to Earth. Mineralized fracture zones at such sties may have been home at one time hydrothermal systems, with hot, fluid-filled fractures. Hydrothermal sites on Earth harbor ecosystems with extremophilic microbes."
What will they do once a base is established that a rover can't do?
Robotic exploration is several orders of magnitude cheaper and easier. It's also much quicker.
Well, your post does deserve a counter-argument, if not a down-vote, and not for the misused vocabulary, either.
First of all, I can't really get very upset over 1.5 billions, because the US government is spending a lot more on things I like a lot less. But we do have a set of laws that govern how money is collected, allocated and spent, and if there's a country that does better by me on all three, I'm not aware of it.
Second, I actually personally know two different groups of people who hope to hitch their projects on this horse. One of their projects has immediate applications to alleviating the frequency shortage that the US is experiencing, and the other may end up with some interesting applications for jet engines, which may eventually trickle down to civilian aviation. So just because the rover is a near copy, there's no reason to expect that there are not a number of significant improvements along for the ride (or on the ground)
Third, space exploration has had unexpected benefits, and the thing about unexpected benefits is that you can't tell what they are before hand. This goes for all branches of research, and if we had anyone who does not like a specific 'useless' project stop it, you'd be probably arguing that urine is perfectly fine for tanning hides, thank you.
And fourth, the people who are going to get those 1.5 billions are scientists/engineers/technicians in the existing facilities of entities which already have their claws deep inside the hide of the US government. This money will go on buying votes and influence, one way or another - best politicians money can buy, and all that. So it may as well go to Boeing/JPL for a flight to Mars, rather to be spent of 'clean' coal and pushing corn into everything you can think of.
No good deed goes unpunished...
Cheaper? Yep. Easier. Probably.
Quicker? Doubt it. The robot can't do much beyond what it was designed to do. And when you run into something interesting beyond its design parameters, all you can do is build another robot and send it along in a few years.
A man on the scene, presuming he's not a complete idiot, should be much more versatile than any robot.
Note, by the by, that I am opposed to any base on Mars (or anywhere else) unless it is intended to be a PERMANENT presence. Send twelve to the moon and never go back? Waste of time. Establish a permanent, expanding presence on the moon? All for it. Ditto Mars. And Jupiter's moons.
Oh, and terraform Venus while we're at it....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I think that the current MSL rover is doing the right thing, searching for lake-bottom sediments and not rusing to the base of Mt. Sharp like the non-scientists in the Media seem so keen on. Searching for extremophiles is fine, but not at the expense of more missions to study water-borne sediments. Vallis Mawrth and other sites beckon.
No, NASA is run by ex-pilot and astronauts,alas. I wish it was run by geologists, or at least some scientist. So what's the obsession with Mt. Sharp? They have found plenty of good stuff en-route including clays and mudstones. It would be insane to by-pass such deposits just to satisfy the pop-Press. And don't you think that JPL would test the drill against volcanic rocks if that is where the mission is going to?
Sure, it would be awesome and in useful, in many ways, to have a semi-permanent base on Mars. It probably should be a long term goal, but not a current focus.
Terraforming itself is unrealistic even as an extremely long term goal. Who knows what the technology will render possible, but Mars isn’t a great candidate for terraforming. Its gravitational field is weak and it has little or no magnetosphere to name a few things; both of these factors greatly degrade its capacity to maintain a substantial atmosphere. Even if Mars were a near perfect candidate, the cost, required will, and logistical/technological challenges would be staggering. We can barely make a positive dent in Earth’s biosphere (many would argue we've only had a negative impact despite the fact that our lives depend on it); and we only have vague ideas about how to begin building any kind of atmosphere on Mars, much less an atmosphere conducive to Earth-like biodiversity. An Earth-like atmosphere is just one facet...and so on. It would only be a realistic endeavor for a vastly more technologically advanced humanity, not to mention one that otherwise had its shit together.
I've always held we are more likely to visualize ourselves before we terraform another planet.
I'm all in favor of spending money on space exploration, but the way I see it, Mars represents a point of diminishing returns. In the true spirit of exploration, we should begin looking at other interesting environments, such as drilling into Europa or Enceladus. This obsessive focus on Mars is a boon for Mars experts, but it has a real cost in terms delayed progress towards understanding other solar system and deep space targets.
Space exploration missions will inspire audiences and yield side-benefits no matter where they go. Why not spread what little wealth there is and look towards bolder, more exciting targets?
Here's another well-argued perspective on my point:
http://www.theonion.com/articl...