The most recent Aviation Week and Space Technology (9/8) has the following tidbit in a piece on NASA schedule delays:
"On the robotoic front, the testing schedule for a critical instrument for the Mars Science Laboratory -- dubbed SAM for Sample Analysis at Mars -- may delay launch of the advanced rover from its 2009 planetary window into 2011."
Oh crap, please say it's not true.
I read that same tidbit. It'll be interesting to see if anything is said about it at next week's MSL Landing Site Workshop. It's a little hard to believe NASA would spend something like 100 million dollars extra to delay launch two years for the sake of one instrument. Maybe a somewhat degraded version of SAM could be readied sooner.
Science magazine just published an article on the implications of a possible two year delay to MSL that is being considered. Some highlights:
"Faced with a dramatically higher price tag, NASA managers will decide next month whether to postpone the launch of a sophisticated Mars rover for 2 years... In addition to worrying about the unbudgeted overtime, Weiler is concerned that engineers may be rushing their inspection of the rover's complicated systems... The latest technical problems affecting the MSL budget include the tardy delivery of hardware used in the sample acquisition and handling portion of the laboratory. NASA Planetary Science Division Director Jim Green said in June that the total overrun for MSL in 2008 and 2009 was $190 million. Most of that money--some $115 million--will come from other Mars-related projects... A new $300 million overrun, says a NASA official familiar with MSL, could force the agency to cancel the $485 million 2013 Scout mission announced just last week to probe the planet's atmosphere or the 2016 Mars mission."
"The 2016 Mars effort now under consideration likely would be a smaller rover that could include some sample-gathering technology designed to test systems for an eventual sample-return mission from Mars to Earth. The projected $1.4 billion cost of such a rover would fall between MSL and the current Spirit and Opportunity rovers now on the surface."
"...static budgets, spacecraft overruns, and the need to conduct other missions make that [a Mars sample return] increasingly unrealistic, say agency managers and academic researchers. Weiler notes that a sample-return mission would cost many billions of dollars and that NASA is planning first to launch a mission to either Jupiter or Saturn late in the next decade... "Plans for a sample return were smoke and mirrors," says Mustard. "It's a good idea--but where's the money?""
Given the ongoing series of reported delays and setbacks/redesigning they have had with MSL, I would sincerely -hope- they bump it to 2011. Everyone might recall Steve Squyres talking about how the development schedule for the MER rovers was right up against the limit, and as well caused considerable emotional stress/damaged personal relationships, etc.. and that any new projects should never be developed under such time pressure. Well, one can look at the development schedule for MSL by comparison and you don't have to be a rocket scientist to see the red warning lights. What I fear the most is that the project managers will just keep sitting down in meetings and talking themselves into believing they can hit the target dates because they refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room, that being the fear of 'missing' a launch slot to Mars. I certainly hate to see a missed launch window but doing so is far better than having a project the size of MSL fail due to being rushed out. It is also another good reason for JPL to develop some 'back pocket' project that could be energized and brought up to speed on short notice to fill a slot in the event of another project being delayed. Something simple, like a spare MER that is cheap and proven and they have lots of experience with and support already in place for.
If MSL launch is in fact delayed until 2011, there is a small consolation that 2011 window is a better window than 2009 (that is IIRC). While this doesn't change the launch vehicle (I think it is going to be an Atlas V), it may allow for few extra kilograms of payload. If the EDL system has some margin, it might reduce the pressure on the engineering team to trim down the weight. If not, it may let them drop couple of solids and save few million $.
If a delay to 2011 allows to address the issues with low temperatures that put a question mark on some landing locations, an added benefit to the heavier payload could be possibly higher scientific return...
(We would be too busy looking at Endeavour in 2009 to notice that MSL isn't there yet, anyway. And I'm secretly hoping that Phoenix will survive.)
According to this new report in Aviation Week on Oct 3, the outlook for MSL may be bleak and MSL may be cancelled
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=space&id=news/Balloon100308.xml&headline=Mars%20Science%20Lab%20In%20Doubt
Mars Science Lab In Doubt
Oct 3, 2008
By Frank Morring, Jr. and Jefferson Morris/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
Top NASA managers will decide next week the fate of the Mars Science Laboratory, a nuclear-powered astrobiology rover that already has cost $1.5 billion and is likely to hit the 30-percent overrun ceiling that could trigger cancellation ......
Ouch. I really, really hope they can finish building it. Most of the money's already been spent! Congress, please...
I have heard that $1.7 billion has already been spent on MSL. The two MER rovers cost $800 million total. For the cost of the MSL, we could have sent 4 MERs to Mars. I should add that this cost estimate is conservative given that much of the $800 million spent on MER was for technology development. With a new fleet of MERs, we could have spent the money simply cranking out clones of the original design. I suspect through economy of scale, we could have sent six MER clones to Mars for the money expended on MSL. In addition, multiple MERs stacked under one Atlas V launch faring could have been sent to Mars rather than single MERs individually launched on Delta-IIs as was done with MER A and B.
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/spotlight/images/MSL_20080512.jpg
Yes, time to move on! And which one would you prefer having in the Gale crater or somewhere else on Mars when it's assumed that we can drive many years around?!
But to be honest, with that current economic mess it's more and more harder to make uncommercial basic research for the near future, I guess. Only if could be find one of those rich guys/gals who still benefited.
I agree with Doug that simply buying more MERs instead of MSL would not have been a wise choice. MER's landing technology severely limited landing sites and the next key questions are not about water but about carbon. MER's instruments are unsuited to that latter question.
What the MSL budget problems do highlight, however, are the inherent problems of technology development. NASA's key missions do push technology, in part because NASA is an engineering R&D organization and in part because the next level of questions in so many areas require new engineering capabilities. Unfortunately, NASA's Mars program is not budgeted for this kind of effort. (And this really brings into question the affordability of Mars Sample Return, but that is for another forum.)
I expect that MSL will fly at the expense of either the MAVEN scout mission or a 2016 mission. After that, NASA will be faced with a hard choice of continuing to do missions that push the engineering envelope (which probably means doing missions infrequently if the budget remains the same) or doing missions that reuse technology. The astrobiology lander/rover that has been discussed in previous roadmaps or Mars sample return would be examples of the former.
The proposed Mars Science Orbiter, is an example of the latter. A series of rover missions based on the proposed 2016 mission concept would be a mixture of the two. The initial rover would reuse much of the design knowledge of the previous rover missions (e.g., the skycrane landing system) but also would require new engineering to fit as much capability into a smaller, cheaper rover. Subsequent missions, however, would reuse that design heritage.
The scary thing about the 'smaller cheaper rover' was that the latest estimates I read (in Av Week or Science, can't remember which) put the cost around 1.4 billion. I never know if any given cost statement is in current year dollars, or estimated out across the relevant budget years, but in any case that 1.4 billion wasn't a heck of a lot cheaper than MSL.
All of this makes me worry that Congress is going to look at future rover projects with skepticism.
I think the Mars Exploration Program is hitting the same problem that the Discovery program ran into. The low hanging Martian fruit has been picked.... worthwhile scientific targets are going to get tougher and more expensive as time moves on.
Whilst it's clear that neither MER or MSL are it, I do think that a standard, reusable rover architecture which could be adapted for many different missions (different science payloads, locations, etc) has considerable intuitive appeal to the interested lay-person. The ratio of development to operational costs of one-shot missions is so high, and the risk of budget and schedule overruns with an entirely new platform appears to be so great, that questions like gallen_53's will come up again and and again. (Unless it goes on the banned topic list of course ) In a parallel universe where such a vehicle had been developed and flown in 2004 or 2006, we'd be much less likely to have empty launch slots in the next decade.
I do understand that landing site latitude and elevation make a huge difference to EDL and power engineering, and that those are fundamental drivers of mission architecture; but is it really impractical from an engineering perspective to think about a reusable architecture? (Setting aside issues with specific technology choices.)
Couldn't a flexible and adaptable base system that gave launch, cruise, EDL, and a functional power management, comms and other housekeeping, plus roving, drastically reduce the cost of developing a new science mission? Are there really no instruments left to be flown that could fit onto such a platform which could tell us something new about Mars? If that's the case, then no wonder there are empty launch slots; there's nothing left to do, until a sample return. Is that really the case?
There's http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=2570, so suffice to say there are many significant engineering and planning issues, and that it would very expensive... and that life is going to seem very dull over the next ten-fifteen years for Mars exploration enthusiasts anyway. If MSL is cancelled (or fails), it's looking pretty barren so far as surface operations go anyway. In that scenario, the question of what science targets are "worthwhile" is somewhat moot.
I confess that this is partly an argument from selfish self-interest, in that I (an ill-informed barbarian lurking up in the peanut gallery) would rather see a new set of cool pictures and some incremental science every two years, than a huge but risky technological leap, with the eggs of the entire mission cost riding in one vehicle/basket every six or eight years with nothing in between.
We are starting to tread into that circular discussion that Doug has asked us to get away from. This topic is about MSL and its timetable and future prospects.
If you have a reliable committment to fly a rover mission every 'n' years, it does make sense to design a standard rover "bus" that can be mass-produced.
Things that can easily be standardized and identical on any rover mission you'll want to fly over the next 20 years would include:
- suspension, wheels, motors, and the standardized data connections for the engineering functions of steering, moving the wheels, etc.
- power generation and distribution.
- descent stage / EDL technology.
- standardized data paths to all engineering controls.
This gives you a rover with (after MSL flies) a proven EDL architecture, a demonstrated ability to deliver and provide power to a given instrument suite, and a design lifetime, range and landing site accessibility around which individual missions can be structured.
Every PI bidding for the next rover mission would simply need to design an instrument suite that connects into the existing power supply and that is capable of operating the standardized engineering controls used to drive and manage the rover. Your computer power and control architecture, which would be part of each individual mission proposal, can be upgraded on every mission to keep up with current technology.
So, for example, if the MSL team had been given the task of creating a decent and well-defined hardware interface between the science/control functions and the main engineering functions, they could have built a dozen of the standardized pieces in about the same amount of time it's taken to build one.
But if you're going to spend the money to build all that hardware, you have to be sure it's going to work the way it's designed, and you have to be sure you'll have the money to fly the follow-on missions. Make no mistake, designing the rovers the way I describe *would* be more expensive than it has been to build a single MSL, we might have spent more than $2 billion by now, with more to come. The only way to justify the extra expense is if you know you'll be able to amortize these costs over a series of missions. Without the firm committment to fly as many missions as the number of rovers you build, it gets really hard to justify the expense.
-the other Doug
What's the point in talking about flying 'n' anything, when at this stage, we are uncertain about flying one? We need MSL to go up, succeed and prove itself before discussing build to print.
My initial comments about MSL were intended to focus on that program, and whether NASA was being clear-headed in determining a timetable for a successful mission. My lamentations about the possible empty slot in 2009 were not intended to distract from that topic and I'm sorry if they did.
The worst possible scenario would be to launch in 2009 and have a mission failure that traces back to some subsystem or component that was rushed or not fully tested.
2nd worst would be to cancel the program and at this point I think the media is just playing the "1/2 empty glass" angle to make the news more 'newsworthy'. I would hope and expect that they get MSL to Mars.
Yes, some of the bloom is off and that is partly due to the MER's phenomenal success - there now exists the very real possibility that one or more of the MER's could end up with an operating lifetime on Mars longer than MSL. Back when NASA went to congress for funding things looked nice and orderly - $800m for a couple of rovers designed for at least 90 days and $1.5bn for a nuclear rover to last perhaps 5 years. From here on out, anytime NASA goes to congress with a budget for land assets on Mars that are anything but solar powered they're gonna get grilled on why and the -perception- that any other approach is a boondoggle will be hard to shoot down.
I remember that one of the reason the MERs flew and were finished in time was ...because they were two and tested in parrallel.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/science/story/53487.html
This looks a bit more serious then earlier media reports. Not sure about the veracity of the particular media source, but the reporter is quoting NASA personnel:
some snippets:
""Our problem is enormous," said Jim Green, director of the space agency's Planetary Science Division, as project costs soar up to 40 percent above budget."
"NASA Administrator Michael Griffin is to decide whether to cancel, delay or go ahead with the troubled mission on Friday."
""A lot of serious mistakes were made, McCuistion (Douglas McCuistion, director of NASA's Mars Exploration Program) said. "Mars (the program) is out of money. We're laying people off.""
"Technological problems include the failure of a contractor to deliver dozens of complex parts on time, and concern that a hurry-up schedule could lead to human errors"
I did more research on the enhanced ExoMars, and with the larger vehicle and budget, the payload seems reasonable. However, I have no way of assessing how technically risky it is, although MSL's problems are not encouraging.
Here is a link to a much longer Aviation Week article on the Italian funding issues: http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw100608p2.xml&headline=Expanded%20ExoMars%20Lander%20Mission%20Is%20Under%20Fire%20from%20Italy
http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/overview/
All very depressing stuff. I get the sense the US Mars program will have a big gap opening up in front of it soon. Maybe as big as the gap between the launch of Viking and the launch of the unsuccessful Mars Observer. We may be approaching the end of the second 'golden age of Mars'; Mars Pathfinder to MAVEN. The first age being Mariner 4 to Viking.
My reading of the tea leaves is the whole Mars Program is in serious trouble. JPL tried to do too big of a technological jump from MER to MSL and hit a brick wall. My impression is that we will be shifting away from Mars and focusing more on Venus probes (I am NOT happy about this). Both planets are extremely interesting. If anything MER showed Mars to be more interesting than we realized.
Venus exploration had previously not received the same attention as Mars. This was mainly due to the short life expectancy of anything reaching the Venusian surface (3 hours tops). It's politically difficult to justify the expense of sending something to another world that only survives for a couple hours (same problem with atmospheric probes to gas giants). That sort of argument was one of the reasons why MER was such an excellent concept, i.e. provides good science and political returns at a reasonable cost. Venus exploration has an additional political advantage in that it can be leverage against Global Warming concerns, i.e. the Venusian climate was ruined by a CO2 thermal runaway. Also Venusian EDL (Entry, Descent and Landing) tends to be easier than Martian EDL due to the denser atmosphere of Venus. The obvious downside with Venus is the horrific conditions on the Venusian surface, i.e. once you're below 50 km altitiude, it's raining sulfuric acid and you have to worry about supercritical CO2. I'm hoping we can get a Venus program up-and-running before the Mars program turns into a complete train wreck. We need to have some planetary program running in order to maintain our engineering expertise.
I think it's worth reminding people of the strict no politics rule for UMSF. The 'c' word has been used a few times. Yes - it's pedantic to take a rule that far - but no politics means no politics. Anyone thinking "How can we talk about something without mentioning politics" - then perhaps you shouldn't be using UMSF to talk about whatever it is you're unable to discuss without politics.
Also - a Venus vs Mars vs whatever debate - sounds about as constructive as a manned v unmanned debate - i.e. pointless, inevitably leading to heated argument and smashed opinions. Thats not what UMSF is for.
Doug
You've quoted what I've said - but you've clearly not read it.
If you can't discuss something without wandering into the fringes of politics - then don't discuss it here.
(for those who have not figured it out - the 'c' word is 'congress')
Doug
OK - a post explicitly calling for a specific person to be fired has been deleted. Seriously - this isn't the place for comments like that.
There are a number of mainstream media outlets carrying the doom and gloom story but it appears to just be syndication of the original story by the same author. No independent reports that I have seen as yet.
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/714171.html
http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/828185.html
If NASA personnel are saying these things, I would think that CNN and others would have their own reports and quotes out by now.
I imagine that someone at NASA has thought of this, but perhaps the best way to handle MSL's "situation" would be to delay its launch until 2010. This extra year would allow the Assembly and Test of MSL to proceed at a safe pace.
You are right if you noticed that there is no Mars launch window in 2010. To get around this, MSL would be launched into a Solar Holding Orbit that would return it to Earth 1 year after launch. This Earth flyby would occur in the 2011 Mars window and the flyby would inject MSL into a trans-Mars trajectory.
This procedure was used by the Rosetta and Messenger spacecraft when they experienced launch delays. To avoid flying too close to the Sun in this holding orbit, the spacecraft's solar orbit incorporates an appropriate inclination to the Ecliptic. When the spacecraft returns to Earth after 1 year, the flyby takes out that inclination and transfers that orbital energy into a change in perihelion or aphelion.
The advantage of launching early and waiting a year in solar orbit comes down to cost. Rosetta's launch delay, of about 1 year, added about $100 million dollars to that project's cost. Another year's delay would have added another $100 million to the cost.
Therefore, let's remove the danger of speeding through Assembly and Test for MSL and target its launch for 2010. It should save a good amount of money over the alternative of waiting until 2011, assuming that MSL is ready to launch in 2010.
Another Phil
I dont know how much money can be saved by launching 1 year early and parking in a solar orbit - though it will probably be less likely that a mission is canceled after launch . Would an Earth flyby and its free delta-v allow for the use of a cheaper launch vehicle? My hinge is that it does not, otherwise that might have been the original mission design anyway. And increasing the payload has its downside for the landing on Mars.
I want to add a "couple" of considerations to the discussion:
- most of the people at JPL working on MSL worked on MER as well, and this includes management; I've read many harsh comments (not necessarily on this site) about mismanagement of the project and I think they are somewhat unfair: they imply either incompetence or malice and do not reflect the technical complexity of the mission, and how hard is to correctly cost a mission such as this years in advance
- the MERs went through the same kind of difficulties both technical and financial; I clearly remember people working their long hours in the testbed and in ATLO wondering if one or two of the rover would not have flown; or if they would have a job in the next few months; some of these young engineers later became the "stars" of the surface mission and now work on MSL; so I sincerely hope everyone working on MSL can keep their spirit up, and work the long hours necessary to make this project unsuccessful.
I do understand the concern that this overrun will reflect necessarily on other projects, and I will disappointed as any of you if that happens.
Good points. Both MER and Phoenix show what rovers and Scout missions can deliver, and Mars has this strange property of providing more scientific surprises than were expected. It could be reasoned that, if MERs didn't last so long and Phoenix didn't find perchlorates and carbonates, additional effort would have been needed anyway to produce that outcome. They aren't just returning high-brow science --they are rewriting high school textbooks.
space.com http://www.space.com/news/ap-081007-marsrover-woes.html on the MSL "issues".
My guess is that MSL flies eventually, just because there is absolutely no guarantee that money saved by cancelling it would be directed into other Mars program activities. If I were the budgeteer handling this I suck every penny and dime from the rest of the program into the MSL account and make a pitch for the difference using that good faith demonstration. That means cancelling all work on MSR, cancelling MAVEN, cancelling the 2016 lander in favor of a cheaper orbiter (perhaps delayed until 2018), and cancelling MER continuing operations (at least Spirit). I'd also recommend pushing MSL to 2011 to make sure this thing flies right since there won't be a "next mission" coming down the pipe for a long time.
Oops, bordering on political there, better be careful.
Indeed - the rest of your post has been deleted - the no politics rule is not there to play with - Admin
MEDIA ADVISORY: M08-200
NASA TO PROVIDE MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY LAUNCH UPDATE
WASHINGTON -- NASA will host a media teleconference at 3 p.m. EDT,
Friday, Oct. 10, to brief reporters after a meeting held by the
agency's administrator concerning the Mars Science Laboratory, or
MSL. The meeting is to discuss technical and budget issues.
The briefing participants are:
- James Green, director of the Planetary Division in the Science
Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington
- Doug McCuistion, director of the Mars Exploration Program at NASA
Headquarters
- Michael Meyer, Mars Program lead scientist at NASA Headquarters
I would say that the Title already state that MSL will not be cancelled...
I'd agree with that... whilst keeping my fingers crossed.
On a serious note here, whatever the bad news is later - and it is going to be bad news, of some sort - I know we are all desperate to see this mission fly, and are going to hate the thought of any delay, so the temptation will be to get all angry and indignant, but I really hope that - whatever the rights or wrongs of the process that has led MSL to this point - we as a forum will try to be supportive of the mission and the people behind it, some of whom I know read what we post here. It will be a dark day for them, with decisions being made Higher Up that will affect their careers possibly, and we don't need to make it worse for them, do we?
Everyone please bear in mind the "No Politics" rule when the news breaks, and just, well, try to be respectful and supportive, that's all I'm suggesting.
I fully agree Stu. You say the right worlds. May be you remember this topic: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=3765&hl= when I met the whole EDL team at LA airport. They are very motivated people and I guess, not only EDL people.
NASA TV doesn't seem to be carrying the press conference... I hope that's a good sign. *fingers crossed*
Edit: live streaming audio here, allegedly, though it's not working for me:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html
Very short statement. Decision is to continue unabated with launch as planned in 2009, despite delays in deliveries of both hardware and software. Now it's Q and A time. Not authorized to talk about budget numbers.
--Emily
"The descent stage, otherwise known as the sky crane."
!!!???
Grrrr, the promised streaming http://www.nasa.gov/newsaudio is not working.
You're not missing much. It's not too informative. On the most important question -- how much is this going to cost, and where is the money coming from -- they are being silent, because they haven't resolved where the money is going to come from yet.
--Emily
I can't get on either... Never mind, not the hand grenade we were expecting. Thanks for passing on the news, Emily.
The biggest thing causing both budget and schedule pressure is the actuators (motors), which still have not been delivered. These include motors for the arm, for the sample handling mechanism, and the wheels, both rotators and wrists. At present they expect their delivery in late November.
--Emily
Phew, that's a rare bit of good news. (I hope it's not bad news for other missions, of course.) Would anyone care to offer (informed?) speculation on what features of these actuators could be unusual enough, engineering-wise, to cause unexpected delivery delays?
Woohoo! Here's hoping everything is still looking good in January...when NASA takes a look at the mission's progress again
The weight of MSL is the main problem. One specific issue they cited is that titanium gears couldn't bear the stress -- they had to switch to stainless steel. Also, early on in MSL's development, they had planned to have actuators that used a dry lubricant. But the development of the dry lubricant failed, so they had to redesign to have actuators that used a wet lubricant, which also means they have to be heated. The actuators have been an unending headache on this mission.
--Emily
"Among the major hardware problems: the actuators, or motors, on the robot. McCuistion said that there were more than 600 parts in some assemblies. Key areas were at the 'complicated' shoulder and wrist joints, he explained. The actuators are made by Aeroflex, a New York company. McCuistion characterized the company as providing "excellent" work and said that actuator problems were a reflection of the complexity of the robot's construction." http://www.examiner.com/x-504-Space-News-Examiner
( <snip!> lengthy ramble about the need for flawlessness in s/c, by analogy to information security (http://www.merit.edu/mail.archives/nanog/msg12119.html puts it much better than I can, anyway...) )
Thank-you both, that was exactly the info I was wondering about. I didn't mean to trivialise the complexity or difficulty of the endeavour - if it was easy, everyone would be doing it! I was just curious about the details.
Fantastic piece of writing Emily!
Regarding the news, I just hope that the pressure put over the people working with their hands on MiSheLle won't lead to errors that can endanger any stage of this mission, being it the launch or operations already on Mars.
Stay focused and do what you do best guys!
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/pss/presentations/200810/greenMSL.pdf
From yahoo news.
No Delay from Nasa regarding MSL:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_sc/mars_science_lab
Yes.....it's go !...for now.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/ap_on_sc/mars_science_lab;_ylt=AhfbWN_8pdfy6arJH6_85Wis0NUE
Alan Stern's thoughts on the MSL budget problems have been posted at http://futureplanets.blogspot.com/
Powered by Invision Power Board (http://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (http://www.invisionpower.com)