Nasa announces new rover mission to Mars in 2020 Options

[Mongo]

NASA plans Mars rover remake for 2020

NASA today announced a $1.5 billion plan to build another Mars rover based on the design of its current Curiosity rover, with the intention of sending it to the Red Planet in 2020 and perhaps storing up samples for later return to Earth.

The move comes less than a year after the space agency said it couldn't afford to contribute $1.4 billion to the European-led Exomars missions, and it seems likely to stir new debate within the planetary science community. Hoped-for missions to other interplanetary destinations, such as the Jovian moon Europa, could conceivably be impacted further by the revised plans for Mars exploration.

John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for science at NASA Headquarters, insisted that the budget could handle the new commitment. "This mission concept fits within the current and projected Mars exploration budget, builds on the exciting discoveries of Curiosity, and takes advantage of a favorable launch opportunity," he said in a NASA news release.

He said the future rover would be built on the same basic design used for the Curiosity rover, which landed on Mars in August, and thus capitalize on the design work that was done during Curiosity's development for its $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory mission. Like Curiosity, the new rover would be nuclear-powered, thanks to a spare radioisotope thermoelectric generator, Grunsfeld said.

Grunsfeld announced the plan during a town-hall session at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco. Based on Twitter updates from the meeting, reaction was deeply mixed. "NASA town meeting audience is very quiet," Lindy Elkins-Tanton of the Carnegie Institution of Washington tweeted. "I think we are all in shock."

Projected budget cuts have cast a pall of uncertainty over future plans for interplanetary probes, but the idea of bringing samples back from Mars for study on Earth is on top of planetary scientists' priority list for the next decade. Grunsfeld told his AGU audience that the rover could have the capability to gather and store samples for later return, depending on how its science mission is defined.

NASA said a science definition team would be selected to outline the mission's objectives, and that the selection of science and instruments for the mission would then be openly competed. The mission would also help lay the groundwork for eventual human exploration of Mars, the agency said.

"The Obama administration is committed to a robust Mars exploration program," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in today's statement. "With this next mission, we're ensuring America remains the world leader in the exploration of the Red Planet, while taking another significant step toward sending humans there in the 2030s."

Two rovers are currently in operation on Mars — Curiosity and Opportunity. Meanwhile, three working spacecraft are orbiting the Red Planet: the European Space Agency's Mars Express as well as NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey orbiter. Next year, NASA is due to launch the $500 million MAVEN orbiter to study Mars' upper atmosphere. In 2016, NASA plans to send a $425 million lander called InSight to delve into Mars' depths.

NASA also plans to participate in the European Space Agency's Exomars program by contributing radios for an orbiter and lander due for launch in 2016, as well as scientific apparatus for a 2018 rover. But the space agency had to trim back its commitment to Exomars early this year, in large part due to the need to cover cost overruns on the James Webb Space Telescope. The Russian Space Agency is filling the gap left by NASA's pullback.

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who has been critical of past cutbacks in NASA's planetary science program, applauded the plan announced today.

"In its few short months on Mars, Curiosity has broadened our understanding of our planetary neighbor, and the findings announced thus far point to even greater discoveries as Curiosity continues to explore Gale Crater and Mount Sharp," Schiff said in a written statement. "An upgraded rover with additional instrumentation and capabilities is a logical next step that builds upon now-proven landing and surface operations systems."

However, Schiff said he favored launching the rover in 2018 — when the alignment of Earth and Mars is more favorable, permitting the launch of a heavier payload. "I will be working with NASA, the White House and my colleagues in Congress to see whether advancing the launch date is possible, and what it would entail," he said.

[elakdawalla]

Of interest to this forum: Science News journalist Alex Witze just tweeted: "I asked Cameron if he would fly his zoom camera (taken off MSL at last minute) on the new MSL. A: Yes I'll start pushing right away."

[Explorer1]

Another chance for the sky-crane too! It's gonna be like Phoenix all over again, with the recycling of legacy stuff?
And another chance for the PS microphones if they don't get on InSight....

[JRehling]

It's a necessary evil from time to time, and I'm speaking largely of Mars exploration, because that's the place that gets follow-up missions, that commitments are made to Mission #K+1 when science from Mission #K has not been gathered / studied.

This always makes an implicit bet on what the findings would be. If the intent is to gather samples for a later return, then the possibility remains that Curiosity will hit the jackpot and find the materials we would most want to return. But Curiosity has no sample cache, so we would either need another rover, after the 2018/2020 one, to gather samples in Gale, or to send the 2018/2020 rover back to the same spot.

The 2018/2020 landing site can be chosen after MSL's main mission will have ended, so it seems more likely that this rover will be sent to a site that is complementary to Gale (maybe an MSL backup, like Eberswalde) and then for any sample return, the choice will be made between Gale and the other site. That will require changes in the architecture depending on whether it will be the pre-cached samples at the other site, or a new roving mission will cover Curiosity's tracks to pick up samples at Gale.

[SFJCody]

To me it sounds like a splicing of the MAX-C and AFL concepts. I quite like it, although I have some reservations. Provided it really does have a caching capability and end up becoming the first element of a sample return it should provide a decent amount of science per buck. Using the existing reserves of expertise and spare materials from MSL (which would otherwise disperse and become outdated, respectively) could be seen as amortizing MSL's hefty development costs.

[Explorer1]

What exactly is meant by 'caching ability'? If we mean just storing samples on a rover, than Curiosity already has that ability in SAM's sample cups and other systems, right? Would this new rover just store them in a more easily removable area on its body without a followup mission doing serious interplanetary surgery?
Because if MSL finds something worth taking back to Earth, the latter could allow skipping a middleman mission.
I'm just throwing hypotheticals out there, so please excuse my idle (and years too early!) layman's speculation.

[djellison]

What exactly is meant by 'caching ability'? If we mean just storing samples on a rover, than Curiosity already has that ability in SAM's sample cups and other systems, right?

No - specifically - cache samples for later collection for return to earth. SAM can't do that.

[ollopa]

Does anyone know what 3D picture John Grunsfeld was referring to at the beginning of his press briefing after the Town Hall? He talked about a 3D picture he could view on his iPad and could pan and tilt to look around.

[dombili]

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreie...in-context.html

Does anyone know what 3D picture John Grunsfeld was referring to at the beginning of his press briefing after the Town Hall?

I didn't watch the briefing, but judging your comment he was probably talking about the app called Spacecraft 3D (link goes to iTunes).

[Drkskywxlt]

Very surprised this was announced yesterday. Michael Meyer addressed the MAVEN workshop on Sunday and said the discussion was still ongoing and the future plan would be announced in a couple MONTHS...not days.

[dvandorn]

What exactly is meant by 'caching ability'? If we mean just storing samples on a rover, than Curiosity already has that ability in SAM's sample cups and other systems, right? Would this new rover just store them in a more easily removable area on its body without a followup mission doing serious interplanetary surgery?

The idea of caching samples on a rover for a sample return mission (Mars Sample Return, or MSR) is that the rover would be the mobile part of the operation, picking up samples and inserting them into a cache that is designed to be transferred into the MSR Earth return capsule. The cache unit and transfer mechanism to place the cache unit into the MSR capsule are not yet designed. Of course, neither is the MSR return capsule.

The MSR lander, with its ascent stage and Earth return capsule, is going to be heavy, likely the heaviest thing we will try landing on Mars up to that time. The caching and transfer systems will almost definitely have to be landed separately, as part of the rover that collects the samples.

However the design evolves, it will definitely be more involved and complex than dropping rocks on the rover deck and trundling them up to the MSR lander. I envision an encapsulating system on the rover and a simple transfer of sample cans into well-fitting receptacles in the Earth return capsule. That will all have to be designed and implemented. So, no way either of the active rovers on Mars right now would be able to support MSR sample caching.

-the other Doug

[djellison]

The cache unit and transfer mechanism to place the cache unit into the MSR capsule are not yet designed. Of course, neither is the MSR return capsule.

Just a cursory google or NASA tech reports search will show that actually, sealed caching mechanisms and a return capsule have all had significant design work and are far more mature than you're suggesting.

The MSR lander, with its ascent stage and Earth return capsule, is going to be heavy

The earth return capsule will not be part of the ascent stage - it would be carried by the orbiter that will rendezvous with the ascent stage in orbit.

[dvandorn]

...the possibility remains that Curiosity will hit the jackpot and find the materials we would most want to return. But Curiosity has no sample cache, so we would either need another rover, after the 2018/2020 one, to gather samples in Gale, or to send the 2018/2020 rover back to the same spot.

Well, yes-but. See, one of the big things that is happening in the Mars Exploration Program is that we're developing a recognition of "signatures" from orbital data to identify the kinds of rocks and soils we would see on the surface. The landers are providing ground truth for these initial attempts at identifying these signatures and interpreting them correctly.

What I would more expect than a revisit to Gale or Meridiani would be the identification, based on ground-truth-refined signatures seen from orbital data, of other locations that not only offer "jackpot" samples (as defined by correlations between MER/MSL data and orbital data) but also samples of other materials that are tempting but for which we have not yet achieved ground-truth correlations.

I think this is going to play out differently from "OK, Curiosity found our samples, let's land another MSL there to gather 'em up." I'd bet we will find another location where our jackpot signatures are strong but which also features evidence of even other fascinating sample options, and send an MSL with a caching system to that location.

-the other Doug

[JRehling]

I think you're right, other Doug, but the snag I had in mind was that there would be, I think, a respectable chance that once we've seen Gale and the other location, X, there's roughly a 50% probability that we would prefer to get samples from Gale returned rather than from X. Then the reaction to that would have to be either to create a new mission to go back to Gale, or say "Too bad!" and return the samples from X anyway.

To get more nuanced on that "50%", we might expect that because we're getting to know Mars better, that X will be a smarter decision than Gale. On the other hand, it may be that Gale is the best possible location to return from and X will be by definition the backup. I think most would agree that this is what happened with the MERs, that given two rovers, one landing site was correctly viewed as the favorite, and Gusev ended up being a poor alternative which was, perhaps coincidentally interesting for reasons (the Columbia Hills) other than why it was chosen (the inflow site of Ma'adim Vallis).

Mind you, I'm not finding fault with the approach: It's a matter of trade-offs. The possibility of that hiccough, a risk that we will need to send a "collector" to Gale, may be a better approach than, say, waiting to design the next mission until much later, or sending an exact MSL clone to X and guaranteeing that we'll need a collector later.

[Fran Ontanaya]

I wonder if it will still use the same lubricant or they'll try again to use dry one.

[djellison]

To be honest, I think Curiosity's system is doing so well ( and requiring so little heating ) that they probably will not ( and ought not to ) bother.

[dvandorn]

Since there was more hydrazine left in the descent stage tanks on Curiosity than expected, is it possible that the 2020 rover could be upgraded somewhat in weight? Or do the other EDL phases constrain the total mass for this landing system such that we'll need to end up with a rover pretty much the same weight as Curiosity?

-the other Doug

[Explorer1]

If the EDL can be modified to avoid kicking up so much dust and debris, that would be good news as well (for the REMS team at least!).

[mcaplinger]

If the EDL can be modified to avoid kicking up so much dust and debris, that would be good news as well (for the REMS team at least!).

The instruments will be recompeted and while it would be nice if the landing environment were more benign, I expect that proposed instruments will be expected to prove their robustness to landing debris.

[stevesliva]

Since there was more hydrazine left in the descent stage tanks on Curiosity than expected, is it possible that the 2020 rover could be upgraded somewhat in weight?

Gale's low elevation provided some margin there, right?

[djellison]

Correct - although I think margin could be found elsewhere as well - The requirement was to be able to land 1000kg - which the system could easily have handled.

[Explorer1]

Scott Anderson's portable geochronometer would be a nice payload option, finally giving absolute dates for samples.
This article details it, but doesn't mention how heavy the finished instrument will be, other than 'light enough' for deep space.

http://www.nature.com/news/planetary-scien...machine-1.11049

[PaulM]

Of interest to this forum: Science News journalist Alex Witze just tweeted: "I asked Cameron if he would fly his zoom camera (taken off MSL at last minute) on the new MSL. A: Yes I'll start pushing right away."

I would like Cameron's camera to be flown on insight mission although I realise that there would be a considerable cost involved in integrating the camera and processing the data. However, the camera would do a great job of filming dust devils.

[Phil Stooke]

No, the imaging part of that mission will be brief, and it and will use copies of MER Hazcam and Navcam. The design is basically done, don't expect any changes. If you want a fancy new camera you have to wait for the new rover.

Phil

[Mars Attack]

What would really excite me is including on the 2020 rover the most up to date and sophisticated life detection instruments available or under development. Viking provided inconclusive evidence of possible life thirty some years ago. Since then we have learned much more about Mars and we will learn even more in the coming years. John G.mentioned that the new rover could land in places that even MSL couldn't have, opening up the most likely places to detect life. He also said that there are new life detection instruments that are being considered for the 2018 lander from Europe and Russia that could be used. I can't think of anything more exciting for the world then to have a rover looking for life and possible finding hard, conclusive evidence of it. You just never know until you actually try!

[mcaplinger]

The design is basically done, don't expect any changes.

If they haven't had their Critical Design Review yet, then the design is not "done". I don't think they've even had PDR.

There's no technical or schedule reason we couldn't have better imaging on InSight. As to cost, how much is it worth?

[elakdawalla]

If they are to stick to the $1.5B number I think they will have to stay very close to the MSL blueprint in terms of EDL, mobility system, etc. Instruments are, at least according to NASA's public statement, wide open. There was a Q and A about instruments at the announcement. Someone pointed out that congressman Schiff had issued a release pushing for a 2018 launch date; Grunsfeld replied that instruments couldn't be ready by 2018 and that 2020 would be a tight schedule.

It would be cool to get to take advantage of the guided entry capability to go to some place that was totally inaccessible to previous landers. Gale was pretty benign as far as the entry phase goes, because of its low elevation.

[Drkskywxlt]

Also, to be responsive to the Decadal Survey, this rover MUST cache samples. If it doesn't cache, then the Decadal was clear that this type of mission is lower priority relative to Europa, etc...

[vjkane]

I think that the key unknown for MSL-2020 is the instrument budget. The march of technology since the instrument selection for MSL-2012 allows some new of instruments such as geochronology dating instruments and contact instruments that can measure composition at the scale of individual grains. However, developing flight versions, I suspect, may be expensive. I also suspect that creating a flight ready version of a sample cache system may require substantial investment.

As I recall the $1.5B estimate for the caching rover included only next-generation contact instruments and the cache sample system. That might mean that the budget for new internal instruments may be limited.

One option may be to update Curiosity's instruments and also to refly some of the ExoMars rover instruments. I'd like to see MSL-2020 carry a copy of the ExoMars deep drill.

[elakdawalla]

On a visit to Honeybee Robotics last year I saw a pretty sweet sample acquisition and caching system. They had a coring drill with a really neat design that had a window they could use to inspect the sample before it was stored; their cache had a goodly number of slots for cores and soil samples.

[Drkskywxlt]

Emily, I think the caching technology is reasonably well-advanced. I'm not sure about the TRL of the system, but I'm disconcerted that caching wasn't explicitly included in the announcement. A caching "instrument" shouldn't have to compete with other instruments on this mission. Plain and simple, if the rover doesn't cache, it shouldn't fly.

[vjkane]

Do you know the technology readiness level?

[pospa]

Do you know the technology readiness level?

Not sure how far they are these days but in June 2010 A Sample Handling, Encapsulation, and Containerization Subsystem Concept for Mars Sample Caching Missions looked like this:
http://www.planetaryprobe.eu/IPPW7/proceed...ion7A/pr502.pdf

[mcaplinger]

Plain and simple, if the rover doesn't cache, it shouldn't fly.

I am just a lowly engineer and I build what scientists tell me they need, but I don't see how this follows. It's not like the Decadal Survey has to be inviolate. We all have to adapt to fiscal and political realities.

I have yet to see a science rationale for what returned samples will be used for and how they should be selected with enough detail to inform engineering. Caching without return is clearly a waste.

[Drkskywxlt]

I am just a lowly engineer and I build what scientists tell me they need, but I don't see how this follows. It's not like the Decadal Survey has to be inviolate. We all have to adapt to fiscal and political realities.

You're right, the government has no obligation to follow the Decadal Survey. But, the scientific community was very clear. There are guidelines in the Decadal on their recommendations would be adapted to different budget situations. And in this case, if someone on high is unwilling to commit to sample return, then Europa is the next priority. The Europa folks have done their homework to develop a compelling scientific mission for ~$2B.

I have yet to see a science rationale for what returned samples will be used for and how they should be selected with enough detail to inform engineering. Caching without return is clearly a waste.

As far as can be understood, the samples can be cached on Mars' surface waiting for a MAV/ERV indefinitely. The scientific rationale for sample return is spelled out in the Decadal and a variety of MEPAG documents. I'm not saying Mars isn't scientifically compelling unless we do sample return, but I am saying it's less scientifically compelling relative to any of the other recommended flagship missions in this budget environment.

[MahFL]

There's no technical or schedule reason we couldn't have better imaging on InSight. As to cost, how much is it worth?

My understanding was the small team was not setup to do a lot of imaging, the system will record the earthquakes, if any, and send the data to Earth once every month or so. They only need a Navcam mosaic to record the local area, and help deploy the 2 experiments.

[vjkane]

You're right, the government has no obligation to follow the Decadal Survey.

Without naming branches of government, the Surveys are chartered by the government with the expectation that they will be followed. They were set up to avoid the previous situation where groups of scientists lobbied for their favorite mission.

[djellison]

A caching "instrument" shouldn't have to compete with other instruments on this mission. Plain and simple, if the rover doesn't cache, it shouldn't fly.

The planetary science community produced the Decedal survey

The planetary science community will choose the 2020 payload

If the motivation to do caching was in the Decadal, it should end up on the rover by the same means. Peer review and community consensus opinion.

I see no reason in griping about a payload that hasn't even had an AO released yet.

[nprev]

MOD NOTE: Please keep rule 1.2 in mind during this discussion.

[Phil Stooke]

I think all this concern is very premature. NASA has simply announced a flight opportunity. The definition of rover goals and equipment is still to come, and it's not NASA's role to decide them in advance. The science team has that role and will almost certainly be guided by the Decadal Survey. Chances are they will request input from the community and get an earful about the Decadal in the process.

Phil

[machi]

Many possible instruments for future rover(s) can be found in International Workshop on Instrumentation for Planetary Missions (IPM 2012) abstracts.
Some of them are capable of detecting heavy organics and even radiometric dating - 1152.pdf and
are feasible in 2018-2022 time frame.

[dmg]

Many concepts and lab experience/testing of prototypes for sample handling and caching were presented at the Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration workshop held at the LPI in June. I watched a number of the presentations and the sessions are all still available on Ustream. I don't remember and have not taken the time to look for exactly which session & which elapsed time are about sample handling & preservation for caching, but they are there if people want to find them. All would require substantial development & testing, but lots of seemingly promising ideas. See: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/

For what it's worth, though, I agree with those who believe that the complexity is very high for the decisions of responding to the current fiscal and political climate vis a vis following the Decadal Survey's preference for caching & MSR vs. doing an interesting but not MSR-enabling mission [at lowest cost with as many spare parts and proven hardware as possible]. I want ALL of the planetary missions to occur (and physics like eLISA, etc.) -- but almost all of the outer planets missions might return data after I'm dead (I'll be 75 - 80+) anyway which is a very sobering thought. It takes a long time to get to outer planets and the radiation environment at Europa is a huge & costly problem. Anything can be done with enough money, but...... the prospect for THAT is currently low and the future is hard to judge. Mars is reachable every two years; we know how to land highly capable platforms, and like it or not it does engage the public (c.f. the flap over "earthshaking results").

So I say give Dr. Grunsfeld & his crew (and MPPG) some credit for trying to do the best in a very tough situation.

[Drkskywxlt]

I'm not griping about a hypothetical payload, I'm griping that this is a mission that has no declared science goal. The way to operate is define the science that needs to be collected and design a mission around it. This is a mission that is having the science designed around a rover. It's backwards.

[mcaplinger]

This is a mission that is having the science designed around a rover. It's backwards.

I can appreciate the sentiment, but the idea that the science comes first in a mission is, in my experience, somewhat idealized. You can't sensibly design a mission without any engineering constraints. Usually there is a mission concept with total cost, rough LV selection and spacecraft total mass, then a science definition team, and then an instrument AO. This doesn't seem a lot different from that.

At any rate, I didn't think that criticizing mission selections was what this forum was about.

[Drkskywxlt]

I can appreciate the sentiment, but the idea that the science comes first in a mission is, in my experience, somewhat idealized. You can't sensibly design a mission without any engineering constraints. Usually there is a mission concept with total cost, rough LV selection and spacecraft total mass, then a science definition team, and then an instrument AO. This doesn't seem a lot different from that.

It is a bit idealized, but look back at previous missions and there is a general driving science goal, e.g., MER was about finding surface evidence of water-altered geology, MSL is about characterizing habitability of past environments. A science traceability matrix is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for "the 2020 rover will determine suitable samples and cache them for return to Earth on a future mission".

[djellison]

MSL is about characterizing habitability of past environments.

And the payload was competitively bid after the mission was selected. And MER was entirely focused on fitting in Pathfinder EDL and fitting what science they could within it. You're using very rose tinted programmatic glasses.

The payload will do what the mars science community want it to do. They will want it to do what the Decadal asked. You will get what you are 'looking for' - but not yet. Is it an ideal situation? No. Is it the best we can hope for given the Mars program budget profile - arguably, yes. Given the funding profile - it's simply not OK for HQ to flat out state this is step one of MSR. The payload has to be competed - the science community must decide what it's for. HQ are giving them the blank canvas that they can fill in how they see fit. If sample return is really what they want - then this vehicle can do it. If this were the other way around - we would see people complaining about HQ dictating the science goals of a mission rather than letting it be determined by the community's suite of available instrumentation competed for the ride.

Note - this decision doesn't come arbitrarily - it comes after the report that followed the summer long process of looking at the Mars program (engineering and science) with invited contributions from the full spectrum of the Mars science community.

This mission is an absolutely perfect enabler for MSR phase 1. The science community simply have to make it so.

[centsworth_II]

...I'm griping that this is a mission that has no declared science goal....

Or... there is an "off the shelf" science goal available.

There was talk of building two MSL rovers just as two MERs were built (look how well that turned out), and the choice between the last two MSL landing sites was hotly debated.

As I see it, an identical rover to MSL could be built and sent to the site that lost out to Gale and worthwhile science objectives that have already been thoroughly vetted could be realized. If a better payload is designed and a better site is selected, so much the better.

[Drkskywxlt]

Centsworth...that's certainly true, but such a mission is lower priority than a Europa mission (or any other flagship) per the Decadal Survey.

I think the reality is probably what Doug has suggested. There are programmatic (and the other "p" word) reasons why the announcement didn't say caching and it will be up to the SDT to declare it a caching mission.

[djellison]

The point regarding Europa is moot.

I explained why earlier in this thread and even linked to Casey's amazing article that explains it so very well
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreie...in-context.html

[Drkskywxlt]

Doug, I see your and Casey's point, that this is Mars program money and isn't pulling funds from somewhere else. I grant that point, however it's a bit of a technicality. The Decadal Survey essentially said there should be no Mars program if it isn't doing sample return. There is only money in the budget for 1 flagship. This rover is a flagship mission.

[Don1]

I really don't understand what the scientific community is complaining about. They just got more rover for less money than the MAX-C proposal. This new rover has enough payload to keep everyone happy. The price that has to be paid is that existing hardware designs will have to be reused, which means no messing with the EDL or rover chassis. Those elements are working very well, so I don't see any problem there.

MSL has about 80kg of instruments, and something like an additional 30kg of drilling and sample processing hardware on a 67kg arm. The design for a core drill, arm and sample handling system for MAX-C worked out to weigh 24kg. There is no way to stop them from putting sample caching capability on the next rover. The space is there. Either the 40kg SAM instrument will be descoped and redesigned to be lighter, or the existing drilling and sample processing hardware will be redesigned and simplified. Neither option strikes me as difficult.

By the way, the payload for a MER class rover is about 20kg, but really only 8kg if you consider a mast and a pancam essential for rover operation. The desired core drilling and sample handling hardware simply won't fit. The requirement for core drilling kills that option stone dead.

The MAX-C study looked at a solar powered rover about twice the mass of MER and one third the mass of MSL, but that option worked out to cost over $2 billion. It turns out that reusing an existing design saves a lot of money.

[vjkane]

NASA appears to have made a strategic decision to put the bulk of is planetary funding towards Mars. I think there are good reasons for doing so (see my blog). However, there were other alternatives they could have pursued such as a ~70% down payment on a Europa mission or to fly a New Frontiers and a Discovery mission. Casey's post shows how the MSL-2020 announcement follows from the budget proposed last February and Emily's post describes why this is not an obvious evolution from the Decadal Survey's recommendations.

[djellison]

However, there were other alternatives they could have pursued such as a ~70% down payment on a Europa mission or to fly a New Frontiers and a Discovery mission.

No - this money was - at the presedential level - assigned to the Mars program. You cite Casey's article - but you've not understood it. The cost of the 2020 mission could not have been spent on a Europa or Discovery or NF mission.

NASA COULD NOT... let me repeat that - COULD NOT have spent this money on anything other than Mars.

The budget may not be flexible enough to respond to the Decedal - but this mission does the best it can to speak to the Decedal, for Mars, within the budget assigned.

[JRehling]

It will be interesting to see what opportunities there are for payload refinement based on Curiosity's results. Maybe some test that we couldn't yet foresee will become of burning interest. Maybe after Curiosity has ground truthed its instruments against the same martian samples dozens of times, one of them will prove redundant, at least in terms of the mission goals. And then the payload could include a new instrument in the freed-up slot.

I wonder about the value of a higher resolution microscope. Curiosity's MAHLI resolution is 14 microns per pixel, which is about a 2X improvement on MER. I suppose it depends on the objective.

[centsworth_II]

I wonder about the value of a higher resolution microscope.... I suppose it depends on the objective.

Shhhhh....

Already mentioned, but I'll put in my vote for a geochronometer. It's been very frustrating to have little idea how old the various layers the rovers have been studying are.

[JRehling]

A geochronometer is an excellent example of a kind of instrument where flying it just once on the right rover could do a lot of good. Dating, eg, the Hesperian-Amazonian transition in one location would anchor the absolute time of the transition anywhere on the planet, even if there are local variations.

The Urey mission was an early proposal to do dating in situ on Mars. Gale would have been an excellent place to have it happen, maybe the best of the MSL candidate sites. Maybe Athabasca, Holden, or Eberswalde will get such an instrument.

[Eyesonmars]

On the way to the surface MSL ejected about 300kg of dead weights of various masses. This, as i understand it, was required to give us a margin of safety for precision landing functionality. This compares to ~80kg of science instruments. It will be interesting to see if our engineers, after reviewing all the EDL data from MSL, can improve on this ratio. It is probably not this simple but would a 30kg reduction in rejected mass requirement be available for 30kg in additional scientific payload ?

[JRehling]

It would surely require redesign to buy payload at the cost of fuel. Also, note that instruments require power, and add to the complexity of the information processing system, not only mass.

Most of all, be mindful that Curiosity's wide margins aren't all slack for next time. There is still a bit of mystery to how Mars's atmospheric profiles vary with time, so the approach that just barely works perfectly in one instance might lead to failure in the same location and time of sol due to weather. And, as others have noted, higher altitude will cut the margins as well.

[djellison]

On the way to the surface MSL ejected about 300kg of dead weights of various masses. This, as i understand it, was required to give us a margin of safety for precision landing functionality. T

Margin? No. It fundamentally enabled the guided entry that allowed MSL to have a small landing ellipse.

You could add approx 100kg to the mass of MSL within the current architecture - but it's not coming from the ballast.

[centsworth_II]

Apparently another possibility for increasing payload size would be to move the launch date to 2018.


CNET News

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) endorsed the new rover mission, saying in a statement that "an upgraded rover with additional instrumentation and capabilities is a logical next step that builds upon now proven landing and surface operations systems."

But he wants NASA to move up the launch date to 2018.

"While a 2020 launch would be favorable due to the alignment of Earth and Mars, a launch in 2018 would be even more advantageous as it would allow for an even greater payload to be launched to Mars," he said. "I will be working with NASA, the White House and my colleagues in Congress to see whether advancing the launch date is possible and what it would entail."

I'm pleasantly surprised to see a congressman take such an interest, but I fear this is too optimistic. We should probably be more concerned with what effect a slip to 2022 would have.

[fredk]

He says "a 2020 launch would be favorable", but he doesn't say with respect to what. That's the crucial question. The 2018/20 opportunities should be compared with the 2010 2011 flight.

[centsworth_II]

...The 2018/20 opportunities should be compared with the 2010 flight.

That would be an interesting comparison, but the payload of a future rover is dependent only on the 2018 vs 2020 dates.

From the same article I linked in my previous post:
John Grunsfeld, NASA's science chief... however, cautioned that "2020 is ambitious, and a lot of it has to do with the science instrument development. ... It might be possible to do it in 2018, but it would be a push. What it might do is exclude certain science investigations that might be possible if we had the extra two years. That's something downstream."

I don't know what use extra payload would be at the expense of "certain science investigations", especially if a geochronometer is a possibility in 2020 but not in 2018.

[mcaplinger]

You could add approx 100kg to the mass of MSL within the current architecture - but it's not coming from the ballast.

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstre...2011_216988.pdf is an interesting study of potential improvements to MSL; one of the options discusssed is replacing the entry balance masses with an actively-controlled trim tab. Of course it's not clear how many changes to the MSL architecture are going to be possible for cost and schedule reasons.

[JRehling]

The distance between Earth and Mars will reach a local minimum in the 2018 opposition, and will grow in each successive opposition through 2027 then decrease again before reaching the next local minimum in 2035.

2020, however, is only slightly farther than 2018. Then there's a steep climb with each successive opposition.

The Earth-Mars opposition distance isn't quite the same thing as trajectory energy for the launch opportunity, but I think they correlate very well.

[mcaplinger]

2020, however, is only slightly farther than 2018.

Here's the C3 in km2/sec2 for the opportunities from 2009 to 2022. You can clearly see that 2020 is much higher (worse) than 2018.
Source: table 2 in Interplanetary Mission Design Handbook: Earth-to-Mars Mission Opportunities and Mars-to-Earth Return Opportunities 2009–2024, NASA/TM—1998–208533.

2009: 10.27
2011: 8.95
2013: 8.78
2016: 7.99
2018: 7.74
2020: 13.17
2022: 13.79

[centsworth_II]

At least it's good to see that a mission planned for 2020 won't be much affected by a launch in 2022. On the other hand, a mission design based on a 2018 launch could run into big trouble with a slip of launch date.

[JRehling]

I certainly stand corrected. It looks like there's a phase shift in the relationship between opposition distance and energy with the shift being about one launch opportunity.

[djellison]

one of the options discusssed is replacing the entry balance masses with an actively-controlled trim tab.

Yeah - that (and others) were even looked at earlier in MSL development (my favorite was using tanks of mercury that could be pumped around the backshell) - but they were dumped just to keep the architecture simple. Mass wasn't a problem - complexity, reliability and schedule were - so they went with the simplest option.

To be honest, I'd expect them to do the same this time around.

[fredk]

2009: 10.27
2011: 8.95
2013: 8.78
2016: 7.99
2018: 7.74
2020: 13.17
2022: 13.79

So getting back to my question, this shows that 2020 is worse than 2011 in terms of delta v^2, so all else being the same a 2020 MSL2 could carry less payload than the current MSL. How easily can this delta v^2 difference be translated into a payload mass difference?

2018, on the other hand, is a bit better than 2011.

[mcaplinger]

So getting back to my question, this shows that 2020 is worse than 2011 in terms of delta v^2, so all else being the same a 2020 MSL2 could carry less payload than the current MSL.

Not a foregone conclusion, since MSL probably wasn't using all of the C3 available.

In general I think C3 scales as the square of injected mass, but I haven't seen a detailed analysis of the 2020 opportunity. For 2018 there is a detailed breakdown in http://www.nap.edu/reports/13117/App%20G%2...gy-Explorer.pdf

[brianc]

http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/bitstre...2011_216988.pdf is an interesting study of potential improvements to MSL; one of the options discusssed is replacing the entry balance masses with an actively-controlled trim tab. Of course it's not clear how many changes to the MSL architecture are going to be possible for cost and schedule reasons.

Why not replace the entry balance masses with something useful such as Penetrators or Micro-probes

http://www.planetaryprobe.eu/IPPW7/proceed...ion7B/pr401.pdf

[mcaplinger]

Why not replace the entry balance masses with something useful such as Penetrators or Micro-probes

The usual reasons: cost, complexity, increased mission risk.

Volumetrically it's impossible to get a microprobe to weigh as much as a piece of tungsten. At some point it just wouldn't fit in the available space.

[Explorer1]

And they wouldn't be balanced very well either, which is the whole point of a ballast mass. Penetrators and others would need a dedicated mission of their own.

[stevesliva]

It would be neat happenstance if there happened to be a seismometer relatively near the impacts of those ballast masses.

[MahFL]

It would be neat happenstance if there happened to be a seismometer relatively near the impacts of those ballast masses.

The ones they have now don't need to be anywhere near the impact.

[djellison]

The rover is only about 1/4 of the launch mass of the MSL payload. Trimming science payload doesn't get you very far at all

Page 2-107 of - http://www.scribd.com/doc/16924557/Lockhee...-Planners-Guide is where Atlas V C3 spec's are listed.

MSL's launch mass was 3,893kg

On the Atlas V 541 is used - the max theoretical C3 was approx 22 km^2/s^2 - mcaplinger is right - the MSL launch was not using it's total performance envelope. A similar massed vehicle could make any of those launch opportunities with the same rocket. To put it another way - there was about a 25% mass margin on LV performance for MSL.

[jsheff]

Does anyone have possible launch and arrival dates for the 2020 window?

- John in Cambridge

[mcaplinger]

Does anyone have possible launch and arrival dates for the 2020 window?

The reference I quoted upthread has the launch in July 2020 and arrival in January of 2021, but that may have been with a different set of constraints.

[Explorer1]

Solicitation beginning, any takers?

http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=42921

[vjkane]

Solicitation beginning, any takers?

My input: fly the caching hardware and cut a deal with ESA to fly a copy of their ExoMars deep drill.

Actually, it would be interesting to see what the collective wisdom of this board would be on what should fly versus what the science team recommends.

[Explorer1]

I mentioned the portable rock dater being developed earlier in the thread, and I still think it should be seriously considered. Relative dating has served us well so far, but absolute needs to eventually happened (we can only rely on meteorites so often!)
Of course, the landing site selection is just going to get even more intense. Good thing it can be left for last.

[ngunn]

Since opinions are invited I'd say take the technology to Mars rather than the reverse, so the dater wins over the cacher for me.

[jamescanvin]

Does anyone have possible launch and arrival dates for the 2020 window?

Allen Chen tweeted this yesterday:

Launch in ~late July/early August 2020 and arrive in ~March of 2021.

https://twitter.com/icancallubetty/status/281827909415620608

[machi]

I think that MSL sized rover can do both things - sample caching + dating.
This instrument suite with multiple spectrometers weights with cameras ~35 kg.
I don't how heavy is caching device, but I suppose that it can be done at weight less than 45 kg.

[Floyd]

Solicitation beginning, any takers?
http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=42921

I hope all of you followed the link. It is fascinating how NASA projects are put together. The link above is a request for qualified people to send in a two page letter of application to be part of a 12-15 person Science Definition Team for the 2020 Mars Science Rover Mission (Mars - 2020). NASA will pick 12-15 people and a chairman. The committee will come up the Science Objectives (that several of you were prematurely complaining were missing) that will go into the Announcement of Opportunity---request for mission proposals.

More specifically from the link:

The members of the Mars-2020 SDT will provide NASA with scientific assistance and direction during preliminary concept definition (Pre-Phase A) activities. Near-term activities of the SDT will include the establishment of baseline mission science objectives and a realistic scientific concept of surface operations; development of a strawman payload/instrument suite as proof of concept; and suggestions for threshold science objectives/measurements for a preferred mission viable within resource constraints provided by NASA Headquarters. The products developed by the SDT will be used to develop the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Announcement of Opportunity (AO) that will outline the primary science objectives of the baseline mission and the character of the payload-based investigations solicited under open competition via the AO. The SDT will be formed in January 2013, and disbanded after the work is complete approximately four months later. All reports and output materials of the Mars-2020 SDT will be publicly available, and the SDT will be disbanded prior to any future Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for participation in the Mars-2020 mission, including provision of instrumentation and investigation support. Participation in the Mars-2020 SDT is open to all qualified and interested individuals.

[TheAnt]

I like the idea of a drill as vjkane suggested, and ESA have put a quite some work into the design so that addition would come at a bargain prize relatively speaking ofc.
With such subsurface work I think it would be a good idea to have one other Russian DAN instrument or a replica.
And there has been work on one lightweight mini sensor experiment called BOLD (Biological Oxidant and Life Detection) that might be added to such a drill or perhaps in any testing package for the second MSL.
If the rover are supposed to cache samples, it is my strongest recommendation that BOLD or a similar experiment is included.
This for a multiple of reasons, none the least that we need a measurement of organics since we even with good precautions may have return samples handled and contaminated by Earth organics - ruining the results of the very expensive return mission.

Dating rocks are also of interest, but forgive me for thinking that it is less needed if the rover would also serve the role as a cacher for one subsequent sample return mission. In that case such work could be done much more thoroughly on Earth. So IMO those are one either/or addition.

[centsworth_II]

Dating rocks are also of interest, but forgive me for thinking that it is less needed if the rover would also serve the role as a cacher for one subsequent sample return mission. In that case such work could be done much more thoroughly on Earth. So IMO those are one either/or addition.

Analysis by any instrument sent to Mars could be more thoroughly done on Earth, however some on site analysis is required in deciding which samples to cache. This would ideally include dating. Also, many more sites and specimens could be tested on Mars than could be sampled for return to Earth.

[TheAnt]

Oh yes, that might be a valid point.

Yet it does not change my view that organic contamination is more of a concern that might ruin science results, so even sensors like SAM could tell us how much organics there were in the original sample so we would know what amount to expect in the lab at Earth, even if we do not have the exact composition. (So if there turn out to be more, then we would know to be cautious for a possible contaminated sample - or try again with the next that was brought back.)

Even so looking for organics beforehand might be a more critical need compared to rock dating which are less sensitive to contamination what I know of.
In addition the APX, CheMin and other instruments, even the cameras could give good hints of what kind of rocks or material that is sampled, yet those instruments are of less help for any characterization if there only be trace amounts of organics.
And if we happen on any such it would be of paramount importance to keep those as pure as possible if we ever are to find out if it originated on Mars or have been transported by one asteroid or comet.

Then again the question of possible organics might be to close to home for me since it is related to my field of study so I might be a bit biased on the idea of having more focus on organics here.
(& Merry Christmas to all on this forum!!)

[nprev]

One thing to keep firmly in mind when thinking about organics on Mars is that it is overwhelmingly likely that most if not all of such we'll detect--and, eventually, we will-- came from carbonaceous meteorites.

We've seen an inordinate number of iron-nickel meteorites on Mars already at Meridiani from Opportunity, probably because they are much easier to identify from appearance & location alone. Stony ones are quite a bit harder to identify esp. because the ubiquitous ocher dust covers everything in very short order, but they obviously must be present as well. Extremely carbon-rich soft objects like the Murchison fall in Canada a couple of years ago probably don't last too long on the surface even by Martian standards & get mixed into the soil sooner rather than later.

Not trying to be a huge downer here, but it will be most prudent to temper our expectations from the eventual detection of organics.

[TheAnt]

Not trying to be a huge downer here, but it will be most prudent to temper our expectations from the eventual detection of organics.

Not at all!
If organics are detected, then it is part of the Martian environment today. Regardless of where it got started.
Now if something is found the second step will then to find out where that material originated. So bring that 'stuff' back to me please!

The Viking experiments did hint that very little organics were present at those landing sites at least, a surprising find for the very reason that you pointed out - even the small amount transported by carbonaceous meteorites would have added enough to be detected by the Viking landers.
The Phoenix lander results with perchlorates and a soluble chemistry added a new spin to the question of what the Martian soils might contain.

Yet I do agree that little to no organic compounds are expected near the surface, but if we drill down as deep as the ESA type drill is supposed to be capable of, the result might turn out to be different. So if a drill is included it might be the most interesting mission so far... from my perspective and interest.

[jsheff]

I hope all of you followed the link. It is fascinating how NASA projects are put together. The link above is a request for qualified people to send in a two page letter of application to be part of a 12-15 person Science Definition Team for the 2020 Mars Science Rover Mission (Mars - 2020). NASA will pick 12-15 people and a chairman. The committee will come up the Science Objectives (that several of you were prematurely complaining were missing) that will go into the Announcement of Opportunity---request for mission proposals.

More specifically from the link:

The members of the Mars-2020 SDT will provide NASA with scientific assistance and direction during preliminary concept definition (Pre-Phase A) activities. Near-term activities of the SDT will include the establishment of baseline mission science objectives and a realistic scientific concept of surface operations; development of a strawman payload/instrument suite as proof of concept; and suggestions for threshold science objectives/measurements for a preferred mission viable within resource constraints provided by NASA Headquarters. The products developed by the SDT will be used to develop the NASA Science Mission Directorate (SMD) Announcement of Opportunity (AO) that will outline the primary science objectives of the baseline mission and the character of the payload-based investigations solicited under open competition via the AO. The SDT will be formed in January 2013, and disbanded after the work is complete approximately four months later. All reports and output materials of the Mars-2020 SDT will be publicly available, and the SDT will be disbanded prior to any future Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for participation in the Mars-2020 mission, including provision of instrumentation and investigation support. Participation in the Mars-2020 SDT is open to all qualified and interested individuals.

And so they've announced the SDT for the 2020 mission:

http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/m2020/mission/missionteam/sdt/

- John Sheff
Cambridge, MA

[Explorer1]

Your link is broken; it's http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/m2020/mission/missionteam/sdt/

Some well-known names!

[stone]

Only one from GB, not really an european, and noone from ESA gives an impression of what NASA thinks a future cooperation. Very sad to read that list in that respect.

The persons I read are all more than qualified to do the job, they will do the right thing fast enough so lets wait for their report.

[mcaplinger]

Only one from GB, not really an european, and noone from ESA gives an impression of what NASA thinks a future cooperation. Very sad to read that list in that respect.

The 2020 mission is not a joint NASA/ESA mission. If you look at missions that have been, you'll see that the SDT has been jointly selected by NASA and ESA.

Future cooperation is all well and good (this isn't the appropriate forum to discuss the pros and cons of that), but this particular mission is 100% funded by NASA AFAIK. I'm not certain of the mechanics but I don't think NASA will pay the expenses of a foreign national, and since ESA wouldn't in this case, participation would have had to be self-funded (partly speculation on my part because I couldn't find the solicitation online any more, but I think likely.)

[vjkane]

I believe that NASA has said that it is open to foreign instrument contributions for the mission that fit with the science goals that this science team will define

[stone]

To reduce costs for NASA a lot of the instruments will be delivered from somewhere else. The insight mission is a good example for this all the big instruments are coming from europe.

To invite an scientis from ESA has nothing to do who will pay for the mission or that ESA has to pay for the travel it is a sign of cooperation and respect, this is missing in the decision.

[mcaplinger]

To reduce costs for NASA a lot of the instruments will be delivered from somewhere else. The insight mission is a good example for this all the big instruments are coming from europe.

The funding dynamics for a Discovery mission are considerably different than those for a mission where the instruments are selected in an open competition.

A more comparable situation would be the SHARAD instrument on MRO, which was funded by ASI rather than ESA. I'm not sure if ESA has a program similar to the NASA Mission of Opportunity, which provides funding for US instruments to fly on other nations' missions. I don't recall for sure, but I think that SHARAD was selected by a process outside of the general AO for MRO. DAN and REMS are similar situations on MSL.

It will be interesting to see what the 2020 AO actually says on the topic of non-US instruments, and whether ESA or the European national space agencies make funding available for European instruments.

[stone]

I never heard of an ESA funded instrument so far. They are always funded by the national agencies. So the Exomars rover will cost 1.2 GEuro but this does not include the instruments because they are funded by the national agencies.

Insight my impression was insight was cheaper because it uses spare parts of Phoenix and the instruments come from abroad making it an appealing mission in a time of low budget because an increase in the price for the system is unlikely and a rise in the costs for the instruments is payed by somebody else.

[vjkane]

One low hanging opportunity would be to use some of the ExoMars instruments in the 2020 rover. MOMA would be one opportunity, especially since NASA is contributing to its development. Some redesign would be needed for the ExoMars instruments to physically fit in the 2020 rover, interface with the sample delivery mechanism, talk with the 2020 rover computer, etc, but it should still be much lower cost than developing a flight instrument from a bread board design.

[stone]

ExoMars instruments either from the Pateur-Payload or from the no longer existing Humboldt-Payload (geophysics and weather) are cheap for NASA with the exceptions of Urey and MOMA, both have some or all money from NASA. After a lot of instruments had to be left away from ExoMars there is a bunch of well developed instruments out there.

The work to make MOMA 2020 ready are easier in one part, because MOMA is using a lot of the technology developed for SAM (the same people at Goddard work on the hardware for the MS and the main electronics).

More interesting will be what the rover will become: Search for organics, geology or geophysics rover. The instrument selection comes well after this decision.

A PanCam is the only thing which is not left away.