Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Nasa announces new rover mission to Mars in 2020
Unmanned Spaceflight.com > Mars & Missions > Past and Future > Mars 2020 Rover
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Mongo
NASA plans Mars rover remake for 2020

QUOTE
NASA today announced a $1.5 billion plan to build another Mars rover based on the design of its current Curiosity rover, with the intention of sending it to the Red Planet in 2020 and perhaps storing up samples for later return to Earth.

The move comes less than a year after the space agency said it couldn't afford to contribute $1.4 billion to the European-led Exomars missions, and it seems likely to stir new debate within the planetary science community. Hoped-for missions to other interplanetary destinations, such as the Jovian moon Europa, could conceivably be impacted further by the revised plans for Mars exploration.

John Grunsfeld, associate administrator for science at NASA Headquarters, insisted that the budget could handle the new commitment. "This mission concept fits within the current and projected Mars exploration budget, builds on the exciting discoveries of Curiosity, and takes advantage of a favorable launch opportunity," he said in a NASA news release.

He said the future rover would be built on the same basic design used for the Curiosity rover, which landed on Mars in August, and thus capitalize on the design work that was done during Curiosity's development for its $2.5 billion Mars Science Laboratory mission. Like Curiosity, the new rover would be nuclear-powered, thanks to a spare radioisotope thermoelectric generator, Grunsfeld said.

Grunsfeld announced the plan during a town-hall session at the American Geophysical Union's fall meeting in San Francisco. Based on Twitter updates from the meeting, reaction was deeply mixed. "NASA town meeting audience is very quiet," Lindy Elkins-Tanton of the Carnegie Institution of Washington tweeted. "I think we are all in shock."

Projected budget cuts have cast a pall of uncertainty over future plans for interplanetary probes, but the idea of bringing samples back from Mars for study on Earth is on top of planetary scientists' priority list for the next decade. Grunsfeld told his AGU audience that the rover could have the capability to gather and store samples for later return, depending on how its science mission is defined.

NASA said a science definition team would be selected to outline the mission's objectives, and that the selection of science and instruments for the mission would then be openly competed. The mission would also help lay the groundwork for eventual human exploration of Mars, the agency said.

"The Obama administration is committed to a robust Mars exploration program," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said in today's statement. "With this next mission, we're ensuring America remains the world leader in the exploration of the Red Planet, while taking another significant step toward sending humans there in the 2030s."

Two rovers are currently in operation on Mars Curiosity and Opportunity. Meanwhile, three working spacecraft are orbiting the Red Planet: the European Space Agency's Mars Express as well as NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Mars Odyssey orbiter. Next year, NASA is due to launch the $500 million MAVEN orbiter to study Mars' upper atmosphere. In 2016, NASA plans to send a $425 million lander called InSight to delve into Mars' depths.

NASA also plans to participate in the European Space Agency's Exomars program by contributing radios for an orbiter and lander due for launch in 2016, as well as scientific apparatus for a 2018 rover. But the space agency had to trim back its commitment to Exomars early this year, in large part due to the need to cover cost overruns on the James Webb Space Telescope. The Russian Space Agency is filling the gap left by NASA's pullback.

U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who has been critical of past cutbacks in NASA's planetary science program, applauded the plan announced today.

"In its few short months on Mars, Curiosity has broadened our understanding of our planetary neighbor, and the findings announced thus far point to even greater discoveries as Curiosity continues to explore Gale Crater and Mount Sharp," Schiff said in a written statement. "An upgraded rover with additional instrumentation and capabilities is a logical next step that builds upon now-proven landing and surface operations systems."

However, Schiff said he favored launching the rover in 2018 when the alignment of Earth and Mars is more favorable, permitting the launch of a heavier payload. "I will be working with NASA, the White House and my colleagues in Congress to see whether advancing the launch date is possible, and what it would entail," he said.
elakdawalla
Of interest to this forum: Science News journalist Alex Witze just tweeted: "I asked Cameron if he would fly his zoom camera (taken off MSL at last minute) on the new MSL. A: Yes I'll start pushing right away."
Explorer1
Another chance for the sky-crane too! It's gonna be like Phoenix all over again, with the recycling of legacy stuff?
And another chance for the PS microphones if they don't get on InSight....
JRehling
It's a necessary evil from time to time, and I'm speaking largely of Mars exploration, because that's the place that gets follow-up missions, that commitments are made to Mission #K+1 when science from Mission #K has not been gathered / studied.

This always makes an implicit bet on what the findings would be. If the intent is to gather samples for a later return, then the possibility remains that Curiosity will hit the jackpot and find the materials we would most want to return. But Curiosity has no sample cache, so we would either need another rover, after the 2018/2020 one, to gather samples in Gale, or to send the 2018/2020 rover back to the same spot.

The 2018/2020 landing site can be chosen after MSL's main mission will have ended, so it seems more likely that this rover will be sent to a site that is complementary to Gale (maybe an MSL backup, like Eberswalde) and then for any sample return, the choice will be made between Gale and the other site. That will require changes in the architecture depending on whether it will be the pre-cached samples at the other site, or a new roving mission will cover Curiosity's tracks to pick up samples at Gale.
SFJCody
To me it sounds like a splicing of the MAX-C and AFL concepts. I quite like it, although I have some reservations. Provided it really does have a caching capability and end up becoming the first element of a sample return it should provide a decent amount of science per buck. Using the existing reserves of expertise and spare materials from MSL (which would otherwise disperse and become outdated, respectively) could be seen as amortizing MSL's hefty development costs.
Explorer1
What exactly is meant by 'caching ability'? If we mean just storing samples on a rover, than Curiosity already has that ability in SAM's sample cups and other systems, right? Would this new rover just store them in a more easily removable area on its body without a followup mission doing serious interplanetary surgery?
Because if MSL finds something worth taking back to Earth, the latter could allow skipping a middleman mission.
I'm just throwing hypotheticals out there, so please excuse my idle (and years too early!) layman's speculation.
djellison
QUOTE (Explorer1 @ Dec 4 2012, 11:50 PM) *
What exactly is meant by 'caching ability'? If we mean just storing samples on a rover, than Curiosity already has that ability in SAM's sample cups and other systems, right?


No - specifically - cache samples for later collection for return to earth. SAM can't do that.
ollopa
Does anyone know what 3D picture John Grunsfeld was referring to at the beginning of his press briefing after the Town Hall? He talked about a 3D picture he could view on his iPad and could pan and tilt to look around.
dombili
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreie...in-context.html

QUOTE (ollopa @ Dec 5 2012, 09:10 AM) *
Does anyone know what 3D picture John Grunsfeld was referring to at the beginning of his press briefing after the Town Hall?


I didn't watch the briefing, but judging your comment he was probably talking about the app called Spacecraft 3D (link goes to iTunes).
Drkskywxlt
Very surprised this was announced yesterday. Michael Meyer addressed the MAVEN workshop on Sunday and said the discussion was still ongoing and the future plan would be announced in a couple MONTHS...not days.
dvandorn
QUOTE (Explorer1 @ Dec 5 2012, 02:50 AM) *
What exactly is meant by 'caching ability'? If we mean just storing samples on a rover, than Curiosity already has that ability in SAM's sample cups and other systems, right? Would this new rover just store them in a more easily removable area on its body without a followup mission doing serious interplanetary surgery?

The idea of caching samples on a rover for a sample return mission (Mars Sample Return, or MSR) is that the rover would be the mobile part of the operation, picking up samples and inserting them into a cache that is designed to be transferred into the MSR Earth return capsule. The cache unit and transfer mechanism to place the cache unit into the MSR capsule are not yet designed. Of course, neither is the MSR return capsule.

The MSR lander, with its ascent stage and Earth return capsule, is going to be heavy, likely the heaviest thing we will try landing on Mars up to that time. The caching and transfer systems will almost definitely have to be landed separately, as part of the rover that collects the samples.

However the design evolves, it will definitely be more involved and complex than dropping rocks on the rover deck and trundling them up to the MSR lander. I envision an encapsulating system on the rover and a simple transfer of sample cans into well-fitting receptacles in the Earth return capsule. That will all have to be designed and implemented. So, no way either of the active rovers on Mars right now would be able to support MSR sample caching.

-the other Doug
djellison
QUOTE (dvandorn @ Dec 5 2012, 09:21 AM) *
The cache unit and transfer mechanism to place the cache unit into the MSR capsule are not yet designed. Of course, neither is the MSR return capsule.


Just a cursory google or NASA tech reports search will show that actually, sealed caching mechanisms and a return capsule have all had significant design work and are far more mature than you're suggesting.

QUOTE
The MSR lander, with its ascent stage and Earth return capsule, is going to be heavy


The earth return capsule will not be part of the ascent stage - it would be carried by the orbiter that will rendezvous with the ascent stage in orbit.
dvandorn
QUOTE (JRehling @ Dec 4 2012, 07:49 PM) *
...the possibility remains that Curiosity will hit the jackpot and find the materials we would most want to return. But Curiosity has no sample cache, so we would either need another rover, after the 2018/2020 one, to gather samples in Gale, or to send the 2018/2020 rover back to the same spot.

Well, yes-but. See, one of the big things that is happening in the Mars Exploration Program is that we're developing a recognition of "signatures" from orbital data to identify the kinds of rocks and soils we would see on the surface. The landers are providing ground truth for these initial attempts at identifying these signatures and interpreting them correctly.

What I would more expect than a revisit to Gale or Meridiani would be the identification, based on ground-truth-refined signatures seen from orbital data, of other locations that not only offer "jackpot" samples (as defined by correlations between MER/MSL data and orbital data) but also samples of other materials that are tempting but for which we have not yet achieved ground-truth correlations.

I think this is going to play out differently from "OK, Curiosity found our samples, let's land another MSL there to gather 'em up." I'd bet we will find another location where our jackpot signatures are strong but which also features evidence of even other fascinating sample options, and send an MSL with a caching system to that location.

-the other Doug
JRehling
I think you're right, other Doug, but the snag I had in mind was that there would be, I think, a respectable chance that once we've seen Gale and the other location, X, there's roughly a 50% probability that we would prefer to get samples from Gale returned rather than from X. Then the reaction to that would have to be either to create a new mission to go back to Gale, or say "Too bad!" and return the samples from X anyway.

To get more nuanced on that "50%", we might expect that because we're getting to know Mars better, that X will be a smarter decision than Gale. On the other hand, it may be that Gale is the best possible location to return from and X will be by definition the backup. I think most would agree that this is what happened with the MERs, that given two rovers, one landing site was correctly viewed as the favorite, and Gusev ended up being a poor alternative which was, perhaps coincidentally interesting for reasons (the Columbia Hills) other than why it was chosen (the inflow site of Ma'adim Vallis).

Mind you, I'm not finding fault with the approach: It's a matter of trade-offs. The possibility of that hiccough, a risk that we will need to send a "collector" to Gale, may be a better approach than, say, waiting to design the next mission until much later, or sending an exact MSL clone to X and guaranteeing that we'll need a collector later.
Fran Ontanaya
I wonder if it will still use the same lubricant or they'll try again to use dry one.
djellison
To be honest, I think Curiosity's system is doing so well ( and requiring so little heating ) that they probably will not ( and ought not to ) bother.
dvandorn
Since there was more hydrazine left in the descent stage tanks on Curiosity than expected, is it possible that the 2020 rover could be upgraded somewhat in weight? Or do the other EDL phases constrain the total mass for this landing system such that we'll need to end up with a rover pretty much the same weight as Curiosity?

-the other Doug
Explorer1
If the EDL can be modified to avoid kicking up so much dust and debris, that would be good news as well (for the REMS team at least!).
mcaplinger
QUOTE (Explorer1 @ Dec 6 2012, 08:18 PM) *
If the EDL can be modified to avoid kicking up so much dust and debris, that would be good news as well (for the REMS team at least!).

The instruments will be recompeted and while it would be nice if the landing environment were more benign, I expect that proposed instruments will be expected to prove their robustness to landing debris.
stevesliva
QUOTE (dvandorn @ Dec 6 2012, 09:49 PM) *
Since there was more hydrazine left in the descent stage tanks on Curiosity than expected, is it possible that the 2020 rover could be upgraded somewhat in weight?


Gale's low elevation provided some margin there, right?
djellison
Correct - although I think margin could be found elsewhere as well - The requirement was to be able to land 1000kg - which the system could easily have handled.
Explorer1
Scott Anderson's portable geochronometer would be a nice payload option, finally giving absolute dates for samples.
This article details it, but doesn't mention how heavy the finished instrument will be, other than 'light enough' for deep space.

http://www.nature.com/news/planetary-scien...machine-1.11049
PaulM
QUOTE (elakdawalla @ Dec 5 2012, 12:35 AM) *
Of interest to this forum: Science News journalist Alex Witze just tweeted: "I asked Cameron if he would fly his zoom camera (taken off MSL at last minute) on the new MSL. A: Yes I'll start pushing right away."

I would like Cameron's camera to be flown on insight mission although I realise that there would be a considerable cost involved in integrating the camera and processing the data. However, the camera would do a great job of filming dust devils. dd.gif
Phil Stooke
No, the imaging part of that mission will be brief, and it and will use copies of MER Hazcam and Navcam. The design is basically done, don't expect any changes. If you want a fancy new camera you have to wait for the new rover.

Phil

Mars Attack
What would really excite me is including on the 2020 rover the most up to date and sophisticated life detection instruments available or under development. Viking provided inconclusive evidence of possible life thirty some years ago. Since then we have learned much more about Mars and we will learn even more in the coming years. John G.mentioned that the new rover could land in places that even MSL couldn't have, opening up the most likely places to detect life. He also said that there are new life detection instruments that are being considered for the 2018 lander from Europe and Russia that could be used. I can't think of anything more exciting for the world then to have a rover looking for life and possible finding hard, conclusive evidence of it. You just never know until you actually try!
mcaplinger
QUOTE (Phil Stooke @ Dec 7 2012, 07:10 AM) *
The design is basically done, don't expect any changes.

If they haven't had their Critical Design Review yet, then the design is not "done". I don't think they've even had PDR.

There's no technical or schedule reason we couldn't have better imaging on InSight. As to cost, how much is it worth?
elakdawalla
If they are to stick to the $1.5B number I think they will have to stay very close to the MSL blueprint in terms of EDL, mobility system, etc. Instruments are, at least according to NASA's public statement, wide open. There was a Q and A about instruments at the announcement. Someone pointed out that congressman Schiff had issued a release pushing for a 2018 launch date; Grunsfeld replied that instruments couldn't be ready by 2018 and that 2020 would be a tight schedule.

It would be cool to get to take advantage of the guided entry capability to go to some place that was totally inaccessible to previous landers. Gale was pretty benign as far as the entry phase goes, because of its low elevation.
Drkskywxlt
Also, to be responsive to the Decadal Survey, this rover MUST cache samples. If it doesn't cache, then the Decadal was clear that this type of mission is lower priority relative to Europa, etc...
vjkane
I think that the key unknown for MSL-2020 is the instrument budget. The march of technology since the instrument selection for MSL-2012 allows some new of instruments such as geochronology dating instruments and contact instruments that can measure composition at the scale of individual grains. However, developing flight versions, I suspect, may be expensive. I also suspect that creating a flight ready version of a sample cache system may require substantial investment.

As I recall the $1.5B estimate for the caching rover included only next-generation contact instruments and the cache sample system. That might mean that the budget for new internal instruments may be limited.

One option may be to update Curiosity's instruments and also to refly some of the ExoMars rover instruments. I'd like to see MSL-2020 carry a copy of the ExoMars deep drill.
elakdawalla
On a visit to Honeybee Robotics last year I saw a pretty sweet sample acquisition and caching system. They had a coring drill with a really neat design that had a window they could use to inspect the sample before it was stored; their cache had a goodly number of slots for cores and soil samples.
Drkskywxlt
Emily, I think the caching technology is reasonably well-advanced. I'm not sure about the TRL of the system, but I'm disconcerted that caching wasn't explicitly included in the announcement. A caching "instrument" shouldn't have to compete with other instruments on this mission. Plain and simple, if the rover doesn't cache, it shouldn't fly.
vjkane
Do you know the technology readiness level?
pospa
QUOTE (vjkane @ Dec 8 2012, 06:44 PM) *
Do you know the technology readiness level?

Not sure how far they are these days but in June 2010 A Sample Handling, Encapsulation, and Containerization Subsystem Concept for Mars Sample Caching Missions looked like this:
http://www.planetaryprobe.eu/IPPW7/proceed...ion7A/pr502.pdf
mcaplinger
QUOTE (Drkskywxlt @ Dec 8 2012, 09:42 AM) *
Plain and simple, if the rover doesn't cache, it shouldn't fly.

I am just a lowly engineer and I build what scientists tell me they need, but I don't see how this follows. It's not like the Decadal Survey has to be inviolate. We all have to adapt to fiscal and political realities.

I have yet to see a science rationale for what returned samples will be used for and how they should be selected with enough detail to inform engineering. Caching without return is clearly a waste.
Drkskywxlt
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Dec 8 2012, 12:29 PM) *
I am just a lowly engineer and I build what scientists tell me they need, but I don't see how this follows. It's not like the Decadal Survey has to be inviolate. We all have to adapt to fiscal and political realities.

You're right, the government has no obligation to follow the Decadal Survey. But, the scientific community was very clear. There are guidelines in the Decadal on their recommendations would be adapted to different budget situations. And in this case, if someone on high is unwilling to commit to sample return, then Europa is the next priority. The Europa folks have done their homework to develop a compelling scientific mission for ~$2B.

QUOTE
I have yet to see a science rationale for what returned samples will be used for and how they should be selected with enough detail to inform engineering. Caching without return is clearly a waste.

As far as can be understood, the samples can be cached on Mars' surface waiting for a MAV/ERV indefinitely. The scientific rationale for sample return is spelled out in the Decadal and a variety of MEPAG documents. I'm not saying Mars isn't scientifically compelling unless we do sample return, but I am saying it's less scientifically compelling relative to any of the other recommended flagship missions in this budget environment.
MahFL
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Dec 7 2012, 03:24 PM) *
There's no technical or schedule reason we couldn't have better imaging on InSight. As to cost, how much is it worth?


My understanding was the small team was not setup to do a lot of imaging, the system will record the earthquakes, if any, and send the data to Earth once every month or so. They only need a Navcam mosaic to record the local area, and help deploy the 2 experiments.
vjkane
QUOTE (Drkskywxlt @ Dec 8 2012, 11:07 AM) *
You're right, the government has no obligation to follow the Decadal Survey.

Without naming branches of government, the Surveys are chartered by the government with the expectation that they will be followed. They were set up to avoid the previous situation where groups of scientists lobbied for their favorite mission.
djellison
QUOTE (Drkskywxlt @ Dec 8 2012, 08:42 AM) *
A caching "instrument" shouldn't have to compete with other instruments on this mission. Plain and simple, if the rover doesn't cache, it shouldn't fly.


The planetary science community produced the Decedal survey

The planetary science community will choose the 2020 payload

If the motivation to do caching was in the Decadal, it should end up on the rover by the same means. Peer review and community consensus opinion.

I see no reason in griping about a payload that hasn't even had an AO released yet.
nprev
MOD NOTE: Please keep rule 1.2 in mind during this discussion.
Phil Stooke
I think all this concern is very premature. NASA has simply announced a flight opportunity. The definition of rover goals and equipment is still to come, and it's not NASA's role to decide them in advance. The science team has that role and will almost certainly be guided by the Decadal Survey. Chances are they will request input from the community and get an earful about the Decadal in the process.

Phil

machi
Many possible instruments for future rover(s) can be found in International Workshop on Instrumentation for Planetary Missions (IPM 2012) abstracts.
Some of them are capable of detecting heavy organics and even radiometric dating - 1152.pdf and
are feasible in 2018-2022 time frame.
dmg
Many concepts and lab experience/testing of prototypes for sample handling and caching were presented at the Concepts and Approaches for Mars Exploration workshop held at the LPI in June. I watched a number of the presentations and the sessions are all still available on Ustream. I don't remember and have not taken the time to look for exactly which session & which elapsed time are about sample handling & preservation for caching, but they are there if people want to find them. All would require substantial development & testing, but lots of seemingly promising ideas. See: http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/marsconcepts2012/

For what it's worth, though, I agree with those who believe that the complexity is very high for the decisions of responding to the current fiscal and political climate vis a vis following the Decadal Survey's preference for caching & MSR vs. doing an interesting but not MSR-enabling mission [at lowest cost with as many spare parts and proven hardware as possible]. I want ALL of the planetary missions to occur (and physics like eLISA, etc.) -- but almost all of the outer planets missions might return data after I'm dead (I'll be 75 - 80+) anyway which is a very sobering thought. It takes a long time to get to outer planets and the radiation environment at Europa is a huge & costly problem. Anything can be done with enough money, but...... the prospect for THAT is currently low and the future is hard to judge. Mars is reachable every two years; we know how to land highly capable platforms, and like it or not it does engage the public (c.f. the flap over "earthshaking results").

So I say give Dr. Grunsfeld & his crew (and MPPG) some credit for trying to do the best in a very tough situation.
Drkskywxlt
I'm not griping about a hypothetical payload, I'm griping that this is a mission that has no declared science goal. The way to operate is define the science that needs to be collected and design a mission around it. This is a mission that is having the science designed around a rover. It's backwards.
mcaplinger
QUOTE (Drkskywxlt @ Dec 9 2012, 11:31 AM) *
This is a mission that is having the science designed around a rover. It's backwards.

I can appreciate the sentiment, but the idea that the science comes first in a mission is, in my experience, somewhat idealized. You can't sensibly design a mission without any engineering constraints. Usually there is a mission concept with total cost, rough LV selection and spacecraft total mass, then a science definition team, and then an instrument AO. This doesn't seem a lot different from that.

At any rate, I didn't think that criticizing mission selections was what this forum was about.
Drkskywxlt
QUOTE (mcaplinger @ Dec 9 2012, 01:48 PM) *
I can appreciate the sentiment, but the idea that the science comes first in a mission is, in my experience, somewhat idealized. You can't sensibly design a mission without any engineering constraints. Usually there is a mission concept with total cost, rough LV selection and spacecraft total mass, then a science definition team, and then an instrument AO. This doesn't seem a lot different from that.


It is a bit idealized, but look back at previous missions and there is a general driving science goal, e.g., MER was about finding surface evidence of water-altered geology, MSL is about characterizing habitability of past environments. A science traceability matrix is not what I'm looking for. I'm looking for "the 2020 rover will determine suitable samples and cache them for return to Earth on a future mission".
djellison
QUOTE
MSL is about characterizing habitability of past environments.


And the payload was competitively bid after the mission was selected. And MER was entirely focused on fitting in Pathfinder EDL and fitting what science they could within it. You're using very rose tinted programmatic glasses.

The payload will do what the mars science community want it to do. They will want it to do what the Decadal asked. You will get what you are 'looking for' - but not yet. Is it an ideal situation? No. Is it the best we can hope for given the Mars program budget profile - arguably, yes. Given the funding profile - it's simply not OK for HQ to flat out state this is step one of MSR. The payload has to be competed - the science community must decide what it's for. HQ are giving them the blank canvas that they can fill in how they see fit. If sample return is really what they want - then this vehicle can do it. If this were the other way around - we would see people complaining about HQ dictating the science goals of a mission rather than letting it be determined by the community's suite of available instrumentation competed for the ride.

Note - this decision doesn't come arbitrarily - it comes after the report that followed the summer long process of looking at the Mars program (engineering and science) with invited contributions from the full spectrum of the Mars science community.

This mission is an absolutely perfect enabler for MSR phase 1. The science community simply have to make it so.
centsworth_II
QUOTE (Drkskywxlt @ Dec 9 2012, 01:31 PM) *
...I'm griping that this is a mission that has no declared science goal....

Or... there is an "off the shelf" science goal available.

There was talk of building two MSL rovers just as two MERs were built (look how well that turned out), and the choice between the last two MSL landing sites was hotly debated.

As I see it, an identical rover to MSL could be built and sent to the site that lost out to Gale and worthwhile science objectives that have already been thoroughly vetted could be realized. If a better payload is designed and a better site is selected, so much the better.
Drkskywxlt
Centsworth...that's certainly true, but such a mission is lower priority than a Europa mission (or any other flagship) per the Decadal Survey.

I think the reality is probably what Doug has suggested. There are programmatic (and the other "p" word) reasons why the announcement didn't say caching and it will be up to the SDT to declare it a caching mission.
djellison
The point regarding Europa is moot.

I explained why earlier in this thread and even linked to Casey's amazing article that explains it so very well
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreie...in-context.html

Drkskywxlt
Doug, I see your and Casey's point, that this is Mars program money and isn't pulling funds from somewhere else. I grant that point, however it's a bit of a technicality. The Decadal Survey essentially said there should be no Mars program if it isn't doing sample return. There is only money in the budget for 1 flagship. This rover is a flagship mission.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2017 Invision Power Services, Inc.