MTO Cancelled Options

[djellison]

Just listening to the MRO conference. Highlights included...

1) 5.4 Mbits is the highest MRO data rate (not the 4 I thought)
2) An extra 50-ish KG of fuel puts it's low-altitude orbit life thru to the next decade.
3) MTO HAS BEEN CANCELLED

What the HELL!

They say that MSL can still do its mission with just MRO as it's relay capacity will suffice.

But that means less science data during an MRO extension

Seems a bit short sighted.

Doug

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Yeah, but at what cost compared to the serious science of all sorts -- or serious useful endeavors of other sorts -- we'd get from spending the hundreds of billions of $ we'll need for this elsewhere? Lunar geology, dammit, is LUNAR GEOLOGY; unless and until we conclude that mining the Moon might be useful in alleviating earth's need for non-fossil fuel energy (and we are a very long way from establishing that), it amounts to just spending $200 billion or so for the amusement of a (very) small clique of geologists -- period.

As for a manned Mars trip, remember that Catch-22 I talked about -- certainly a lot of Mars scientists have been mentioning it for several years now. The one thing that, scientifically, could conceivably justify the staggering cost of a manned Mars expedition (I'm still estimating about $300 billion for the very first expedition) would be the discovery of present or fossil life on Mars -- but the moment a manned lander touches down to investigate such evidence, it will very seriously contaminate it at its landing site, and maybe end up contaminating the whole planet. The one way around this dilemma would be to limit humans to orbiting Mars and running surface robots and sample-retrieval vehicles by remote control -- but, once again, we're talking several hundred billion $. And the Administration proposes to start spending money on this endeavor BEFORE WE EVEN KNOW IF THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON MARS. Any move whatsoever toward a manned Mars expedition can damn well wait until we know whether there is any reason to spend money on it.

I mean, the government -- both the White House and Congress -- isn't even seriously pretending anymore that the manned space program has any real justification other than continuing to feed the Aerospace/Industrial Complex. One wonders how much support for it there would be if the state of Florida hadn't decided the last two presidential elections (and is likely to decide all close ones for some time to come, thanks to the cretinous way the Electoral College is set up).

[MiniTES]

Yeah, but at what cost compared to the serious science of all sorts -- or serious useful endeavors of other sorts -- we'd get from spending the hundreds of billions of $ we'll need for this elsewhere?...(I'm still estimating about $300 billion for the very first expedition)

Again this isn't really a fair comparison. The only manned initiative with a price range in the hundreds of billions was SEI, and the current plan on the table certainly isn't going to cost that. The NASA Mars Reference Mission 3.0 - a manned mission - is only costed at $55 billion, and that's by the same group who did the jaw-dropping $450 billion SEI analysis. The Planetary Society did a detailed report (with Mike Griffin) showing the total cost of a manned Mars program over 30 years to be between $119 and $129 billion. A lot, but not ridiculous over so long a time period. The main issue is the up-front non-recurring investment in hardware. Once you do that, the cost of each individual mission shouldn't be much more than a sample return mission (and we'd certainly get way more samples, better picked, studied, and from deeper drill points than we'd get with a robotic MSR). Why do you estimate $300 billion? Over how long a time period would that be spent? - surely NASA's budget is not going to be increased by that proportion. (If it were, it could only help the unmanned missions).

As for a manned Mars trip, remember that Catch-22 I talked about -- certainly a lot of Mars scientists have been mentioning it for several years now.  The one thing that, scientifically, could conceivably justify the staggering cost of a manned Mars expedition (I'm still estimating about $300 billion for the very first expedition) would be the discovery of present or fossil life on Mars -- but the moment a manned lander touches down to investigate such evidence, it will very seriously contaminate it at its landing site, and maybe end up contaminating the whole planet.  The one way around this dilemma would be to limit humans to orbiting Mars and running surface robots and sample-retrieval vehicles by remote control -- but, once again, we're talking several hundred billion $.  And the Administration proposes to start spending money on this endeavor BEFORE WE EVEN KNOW IF THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OF LIFE ON MARS.  Any move whatsoever toward a manned Mars expedition can damn well wait until we know whether there is any reason to spend money on it.

If there are any real fossils, like stromatolites, I don't think the contamination issue is a problem. The problem with contamination is what it might do to studies of extant life. This is, of course, a problem that must be dealt with somehow. However, any extant life is likely to be in underground liquid water and therefore could probably be separated from direct human contact (which is not to say forward contamination should not be examined closely). But I think humans would be so much more effective at finding fossils than robots that they should be sent to search for fossils, not just to study what robots have already found. No robotic missions currently being funded could find unambiguous evidence of fossil life (certainly not extant life) without really enormous stromatolite-like structures.

I mean, the government -- both the White House and Congress -- isn't even seriously pretending anymore that the manned space program has any real justification other than continuing to feed the Aerospace/Industrial Complex.

What do you mean by this? Was there some specific action or statement by someone?