After MSL?, Astrobiology Field Laboratory? Options

[Guest_Geographer_*]

NASA's website has a vague description of an Astrobiology Field Laboratory launching around 2016, three years after ESA's rover. Would this use the philosophy of the Beagle 2, direct detection of organisms? Or would it be part of the future sample return mission, collecting interesting rocks?

[Mariner9]

Am I the only person who has strong doubts about the whole Mid-Rover idea? I agree that there must be a middle ground between a full up AFL and the original MER, but I'm not so sure that you could do two Mid-Rovers for the price of a single AFL.

First problem, the Delta II is probably gone forever after about 2011. That means unless you have Falcon or some other commerically developed (and well proven) booster to replace it, you launch on an Atlas V or Delta IV, both of which cost a heck of a lot more than the Delta II that MER launched on.

Second problem: The airbag concept got stretched nearly to the breaking point when they scaled up from Pathfinder to MER. Europe thinks they can surmount this by going to a somewhat different airbag concept (I think they deflate on impact, acting like a big sponge or something). But even if there concept proves feasable, it means you are not just repeating the MER descent system.

Third problem: One of the big headaches in MER was the requirement to (1) survive the bounce, bounc, bounce of the airbag landing system and (2) be folded up into a much more compact envelope, to be unfolded and locked into final configuration upon landing. There is a big chance that if we go to a MidRover, airbag landing system, then those new rovers would have to be of the folding variety. Or they would have to re-use the sky-crane, which would be larger than what was needed (but might be cheaper than designing a new airbag system).

Fourth Problem: everything I have ever seen about the MidRover concept says that it is a larger rover than MER, but smaller than MSL. That means you are not building to any previous blueprints, but building an entirely new rover. One that would be too heavy to launch on the Delta II anyway, even if it were available.

Fifth problem: The Athena instrument suite, and much of the MER mobility system (rocker bar suspension) was based on over a decade of different study projects. One of the reasons they could jump into MER and launch in 3 years is that they really didn't start with a blank sheet of paper.

So.... with the Mid-Rovers I see a new rover, new descent system, new instrument package, launching on a more expensive booster than MER.

The AFL, on the other hand, could very likely use the same descent system, and rover, as MSL used. That right there helps keep it's cost contained (not a lot lower than MSL, but at least contained).

Given all of that, I really doubt you could fly two Mid-Rovers for the cost of one AFL. I would instead imagine that if the Mid-Rover concept ever comes into being, it will be a vastly downsized project to accomplish AFL goals, and only involve one rover.