NASA and ESA Establish a Mars Exploration Joint Initiative Options

[briv1016]

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/mars/new...s-20090708.html

WASHINGTON -- The following joint statement was issued today by NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA):

On June 29 and 30 the NASA Associate Administrator for Science (Ed Weiler) and ESA Director of Science and Robotic Exploration (David Southwood) met in Plymouth, England, to establish a way for a progressive program for exploration of the Red Planet. The outcome of the bilateral meeting was an agreement to create a Mars Exploration Joint Initiative (MEJI) that will provide a framework for the two agencies to define and implement their scientific, programmatic and technological goals at Mars.

Discussions between NASA and ESA began in December 2008, driven by the ESA Ministerial Council's recommendation to seek international cooperation to complete the ExoMars mission and to prepare further Mars robotic exploration missions. At the same time, NASA was reassessing its Mars Exploration Program portfolio after the launch of its Mars Science Laboratory was delayed from 2009 to 2011. This provided NASA and ESA with an opportunity to increase cooperation and expand collective capabilities. To investigate the options in depth, a joint NASA/ESA engineering working group was established, along with a joint executive board to steer the efforts and develop final recommendations on how to proceed.

At the bilateral meeting in Plymouth, the executive board recommended NASA and ESA establish MEJI, spanning launch opportunities in 2016, 2018 and 2020, with landers and orbiters conducting astrobiological, geological, geophysical and other high-priority investigations, and leading to the return of samples from Mars in the 2020's. The director and associate administrator agreed, in principle, to establish the Initiative and continue studies to determine the most viable joint mission architectures.

NASA and ESA also agreed to establish a joint architecture review team to assist the agencies in planning the mission portfolio. As plans develop, they will be reviewed by ESA member states for approval and by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. This unique collaboration of missions and technologies will pave the way for exciting discoveries at Mars.

[Marz]

At the bilateral meeting in Plymouth, the executive board recommended NASA and ESA establish MEJI, spanning launch opportunities in 2016, 2018 and 2020, with landers and orbiters conducting astrobiological, geological, geophysical and other high-priority investigations, and leading to the return of samples from Mars in the 2020's.

While I'm glad to see some collaboration going on, I have to admit I'm very impatient. I'd like to see sample returns by 2020 at the latest, but I suppose everyone is waiting on the Ares V to be the new workhorse (note to self: be there for that historic 1st launch!).

[ugordan]

I suppose everyone is waiting on the Ares V to be the new workhorse (note to self: be there for that historic 1st launch!).

Yeah, that isn't going to happen.

[Ian R]

As a proud Plymothian (check my profile), it's a pity I couldn't make it to the event, but I am proud that the same city historically associated with the Pilgrim Fathers has hosted this joint exhibition between NASA and ESA.

Here's the online version of the article in my local paper covering the meeting:

http://www.thisisplymouth.co.uk/news/Plymo...il/article.html

[Guest_Zvezdichko_*]

Is this always good news? It could be the end of live-images and daily data we are getting from missions. Same thing happened with Chandrayaan-1 - we were getting few information from US-instruments because "there are more negotiations that have to take place for everything that is being released".

This is why I'm not a fan of international missions.

[ugordan]

This is why I'm not a fan of international missions.

Cassini-Huygens is an international mission. Huygens in particular was an ESA probe with a U.S.-built imager and the raw images were released immediately. You cannot generalize statements like "international cooperation is bad". Also, the very fact ESA participated in Cassini helped save the mission from Congress axing the whole thing in early '90s IIRC. There are two sides to a coin.

[Guest_Zvezdichko_*]

Oh, thanks... Now I feel more relaxed. You see - I was disappointed by a particular mission.

I of course will support complicated missions, international sample return, international manned missions to the Moon and Mars if it's the proper (only) way to do the job.

[mcaplinger]

You cannot generalize statements like "international cooperation is bad". Also, the very fact ESA participated in Cassini helped save the mission from Congress axing the whole thing in early '90s IIRC.

Neither can you say that it's good as a blanket statement. Cassini is an excellent example of the significant technical risks: look at the communications bug that almost resulted in a total failure of Huygens, and the miscommanding of the recorder commands that caused fully half of its dataset to be lost. While I'm not saying that those things couldn't have happened on an all-US mission, I think they're less likely.

I'm somewhat skeptical that ESA had a lot to do with the non-cancellation of Cassini but I'd need to do some research to recall the particulars.

The cost savings are also very hard to quantify. Interfaces, particularly, are much more expensive. I can still remember having to puzzle over poorly-translated Alcatel documents for the relay on MO/MGS.

From my admittedly biased perspective as a US instrument provider, instruments on joint missions are sometimes not selected competitively. I'm happy to propose in a free and open competition, but having payload elements be guaranteed to an international partner prevents that (of course, I have no idea if this agreement says anything about that.)

And finally, these sorts of agreements sound good, but talk is cheap, and these don't always result in actual missions. I think this is the third or fourth NASA-ESA agreement on MSR over the past 15 years.

[djellison]

I'm somewhat skeptical that ESA had a lot to do with the non-cancellation of Cassini but I'd need to do some research to recall the particulars.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Titans-Saturn-Lead...s/dp/1904879411
"The Titans of Saturn: Leadership and Performance Lessons from the Cassini - Huygens Mission"

This covers that very issue well, and makes a compelling case for the cooperation saving the mission.

[ugordan]

Neither can you say that it's good as a blanket statement.

That's why I said there are two sides to a coin.

Cassini is an excellent example of the significant technical risks: look at the communications bug that almost resulted in a total failure of Huygens, and the miscommanding of the recorder commands that caused fully half of its dataset to be lost. While I'm not saying that those things couldn't have happened on an all-US mission, I think they're less likely.

I forget now, but weren't the reasons for this fumble brought about by ITAR issues? Forced separation of any interfaces between Cassini hardware and the Italian-built antenna hardware?

Mind you, that wasn't the only commanding error that affected Cassini, though it was arguably the most critical. IIRC, during the T7 flyby half the data was lost because one partition of the solid state recorder had a software flag set to "write protect". I doubt that was ESA's failing that time - anyone can (and does) make errors.

[climber]

... Interfaces, particularly, are much more expensive.

A bit OT but not totaly in the context...this remind me Michael Collins' explanation of the word "Interface" to journalists (a bit sarcastic about new words used by Nasa then).
Do you know what's the interface between earth and ocean?
You and me call it... a beach.

[Guest_PhilCo126_*]

NASA & CNES collaboration = 'Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution' mission

[mps]

do you mean SWEA instrument on MAVEN?

[briv1016]

Nasa and Esa sign Mars agreement