MSL schedule delay? Options

[climber]

I remember that one of the reason the MERs flew and were finished in time was ...because they were two and tested in parrallel.

[Burmese]

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"

[vjkane]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/science/story/53487.html

Ouch! This is a very, very negative story. Apparently, the mission is in trouble on a number of fronts.

My guesses as to what will happen next: (1) NASA will fly the mission. The additional $500M will buy more science (and public support) than any other expenditure of $500M will on Mars, (2) MAVEN will be cancelled or delayed by another two years to free up the funding. It is possible that Congress will kill the project, but I doubt it. They know how popular the Mars program is.

I think this, in conjunction with what are likely to be tight budgets for a number of years because of the financial crisis, will have some ripple effects. NASA is likely to back off of or reduce the number of missions that involve cutting edge engineering. This will be very hard for an agency that sees its mission as developing technology and pushing the engineering envelope. The Mars sample return is dead (or more correctly, pushed out another 10 years -- again). The new technologies required for it are greater than for MSL. In addition, the future Mars roadmap is likely to get quite conservative and focus on reusing existing designs and technology.

I am expecting ExoMars to run into similar problems in the near future. The payload to mass ratio of the mission is aggressive, and the total budget is 1.2B euros (~$1.8B dollars) which seems to *me* aggressive compared to the planned capabilities (although it helps that ExoMars is solar powered [hmmm, wonder if MSL might be descoped to solar power?]).

Also, Italy is making noises about not funding the additional money that is now needed, which could cancel the project: http://www.space.com/spacenews/spacenews_summary.html : "...instead of having 60 percent or more of that budget devoted to ESA programs, Italy henceforth will reserve 50 percent for national programs... One of the immediate consequences of Italy's decision could be ESA's proposed Enhanced ExoMars rover mission, which has been overhauled since its initial approval in 2005 to deliver more science payload to Mars' surface, with a launch in 2013. The increased science package has nearly doubled the ExoMars budget, to an estimated 1.2 billion euros.... One European government official said if Italy declines to increase its spending, then the Enhanced ExoMars mission cannot survive."

And looking for more cheerful news, the MSL overrun is likely to delay other mission starts including the next New Frontiers and the announcement of the next Discovery mission. The outer planet flagship mission may not be delayed -- it's already 12 years from launch. However, the risk of new technologies required may sway the target selection. The Jupiter mission requires significant radiation handling, although considerable investment in technologies have been made already. However, the Saturn orbiter mission should be lower technology risk. The Titan in situ elements, however, may require technology development (although that would be ESA's problem and risk, not NASA's).

[vjkane]

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/sto...%20from%20Italy

[Fran Ontanaya]

http://marsprogram.jpl.nasa.gov/msl/overview/

* demonstrate long-range mobility on the surface of the red planet (5-20 kilometers or about 3 to 12 miles) for the collection of more diverse samples and studies.

That needs an update. MSL would have HiRISE coverage from the start, and we are talking about a full martian year with a RTG powered rover. At least, that's how the Congress may see it.

I'm not sure if 2009 is really the best option. Phoenix science is changing the picture of Mars and landing locations that looked less interesting pre-Phoenix may be more interesting after Phoenix results are well understood.

[SFJCody]

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.

[gallen_53]

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.

[vjkane]

My impression is that we will be shifting away from Mars and focusing more on Venus probes... 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've not seen anything suggesting that a decrease in emphasis on Mars will translate to an increase in Venus mission funding. Also, any landed Venus mission comes with lots of technology development, and hence programmatic and budget risk. I understand that this is why Venus has tended to do poorly in Discovery proposal competitions.

I would personally welcome an increased emphasis on Venus for the reasons you mention, however. A smaller Mars program might lead to less aggressive mission goals, and hence (perhaps) less risk of programs blowing up.

[gallen_53]

I've not seen anything suggesting that a decrease in emphasis on Mars will translate to an increase in Venus mission funding.

There are alot of Venus pre-Phase A proposal studies in the pipeline. The new focus appears to be towards Venus probes and sample returns from the asteroids and the Moon (Genesis and Stardust design derivaties) . Unfortunately, the money isn't there for outer planet work and MSR is off the table. I'm glad that Cassini is RTG powered because it maybe our only asset around Saturn for a long, long time. This is really frustrating because Cassini/Huygens gave us only a tiny glimpse of what an interesting world Titan is.

[gallen_53]

Also, any landed Venus mission comes with lots of technology development, and hence programmatic and budget risk. I understand that this is why Venus has tended to do poorly in Discovery proposal competitions.

The Pioneer Venus Large Probe (PVLP) was well documented and most of that documentation has survived (technological risk is minimal). The big problem with PVLP is it was an atmospheric probe and not a surface lander. The basic PVLP design could be converted to a surface lander for modest additional cost. Problems arise when people want to significantly diverge from the original PVLP design, e.g. increase surface survival time. The only way to survive on the surface of Venus is to increase thermal inertia.

greater thermal inertia = greater mass = greater expense.

[djellison]

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

[gallen_53]

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.

Modern aerospace engineering is all about cost and cost reduction. There are many wonderful interplanetary concepts that can not proceed because they cost too much, e.g. MSR. If you want to have a discussion about aerospace engineering then you need to include cost consideration.

[djellison]

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

[djellison]

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.

[Burmese]

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/A...ory/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.