2009 Or 2011 ?, 1 or 2 ? Options

[Marcel]

Does anybody know when and how many MSL will go, or when the decision on this will be made ?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

During the November COMPLEX meeting, the NASA spokespeople were still swearing on their sainted mothers' graves (assuming any of them have sainted mothers) that MSL will fly in its full form in 2009 -- and that, in fact, they were bleeding money out of the rest of the Mars program to make sure this happens. The new cuts in the Mars program are HUGE -- they amount to over $2 billion over the next 5 years -- but they all involve cancellation of the Telesat Orbiter and Bush's proposed "Human Precursor" missions (whose rationale was always extremely shaky), and the delay of sample return into the mid-2020s.

We are also never again going to see two US Mars missions -- however small one of them may be -- launched in the same window, except perhaps for the pair of scaled-down "Midrovers" being considered for the 2016 opportunity if they don't go for a single bigger MSL follow-up instead. (That means that the current plan calls for only one more Mars Scout after 2011, in the 2018 window.)

[gpurcell]

We are also never again going to see two US Mars missions -- however small one of them may be -- launched in the same window, except perhaps for the pair of scaled-down "Midrovers" being considered for the 2016 opportunity if they don't go for a single bigger MSL follow-up instead. (That means that the current plan calls for only one more Mars Scout after 2011, in the 2018 window.)

The story quoted above is from May 2005.

Bruce, the Earth-side logisitics for handling TWO MSLs at the same time would be amazing. JPL was really stretched with the two MER rovers; MSL will be much more demanding (simply because it can do so much more).

Beyond 2011, who can really say what will happen. A great deal will rest on the new Administration and the priorities they place in the budget.

[mcaplinger]

Bruce, the Earth-side logisitics for handling TWO MSLs at the same time would be amazing.

Oh, I don't know. It depends on what you're trying to do, and how you're doing it (level of automation, etc.) The JPL way has always seemed a bit labor-intensive to me.

That said, they don't enough money for two MSLs, so that's not going to happen regardless of anything else.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Oh, I don't know. It depends on what you're trying to do, and how you're doing it (level of automation, etc.) The JPL way has always seemed a bit labor-intensive to me.

In my opinion, the operational constraint for the MERs requiring a separation between the two landing sites of at least 37 degrees of of surface arc undoubtedly complicated the issue by requiring two control teams operating in alternating shifts, resulting in hurried science planning, tired people operating on "Mars time," etc. Note the "37 degrees" constraint was driven primarily by telecom relay from Mars Odyssey since the orbiter can only relay data to and from one rover at a time. In order to optimize orbital relay telecom, the landing sites had to separated enough so that the orbiter "saw" only one rover on any given pass.

I imagine the near-term telecom infrastructure might be able to support simulataneous operations and, as you note, automation could alleviate the load. Of course, increased automation could lead to a decrease in jobs at JPL, which might not go over too well with the workforce.