Another interesting fact sheet on an MSL instrument. This one achieves remote sensing (up to 13 meters away) of elemental abundances by firing a laser and and performing spectrographic analysis of the resultant flash. Another part of the instrument is a Remote Micro Imager, which gives resolution approaching the MER MI, but at a range of 2 meters rather than 6 cm.

Apart from great opportunities for rapid science return, this instrument also has a significant coolness factor. I mean, a rover with a laser that zaps rocks! If that doesn't capture the public's imagination, I wonder what will?

Also: a new article on MSL and ChemCam from Astrobio.net. According to the article the Double and Delay option for MSL is still being considered. Anyone know when NASA will/must make a decision?

Thanks for the links. Very clever ideas. ChemCam will enhance MSL's analytic power; it works fast and will enable preliminary analysis to help decide which targets to study in detail with Chemin etc. The RMI (Remote Micro Imager) will do the same for MAHLI (MArs Handlens Imager).

That zapper laser may also have other uses, it should be possible to detect it from orbit. Does the RMI use the same optics as the laser?

From the diagram at the top right on page 5 of the Fact sheet, it looks like they do. It looks like a beam-splitter or mirror directs the optical path, either from the laser or to the RMI or spectrographs through the telescope. I'm not sure if the laser is directed at the primary mirror of the telescope or if it shoots directly out of the tube.

Does anyone else get a childish kick out of the notion of sending a nuclear-powered rover to Mars, equipped with a heat ray?

The artist's renderings of the MSL firing its beam at various targets does bear an irresistible resemblance to "The War of the Worlds" in reverse (especially if they're all put together on one page, as I first saw them).

I've been meaning for some time to mention the existence of the very high-resolution black-and-white imager which is part of this instrument -- a very important addition to MSL's overall imaging capabilities. (Also, its three laser-flash spectrometers can be used in the passive mode as spot reflectance spectrometers -- which could be especially useful for long-range mineralogical analysis in the case of the longest-wavelength of the three spectrometers, which operates up past 1 micron.)

Also, two other points. First, this gadget can be combined with a Raman spectrometer that would use the laser's light to obtain long-range Raman spectra of its targets -- a very useful mineralogical technique which is also good at identifying organics. (Roger Wiens tells me that they came close to proposing to incorporate this capability into the MSL's ChemCam, but finally decided that it isn't quite well tested enough yet.)

Second, a ChemCam has real potential for future Venus landers, since one of the huge difficulties for the latter is carrying out surface-composition analyses quickly (before the lander overheats) and without having to utilize a complex airlock system to bring the sample inside (as the Soviets had to do for their Veneras and Vegas, and as the landers in Larry Esposito's "SAGE" proposal for the next New Frontiers mission would have to do). This gadget could obtain element analyses of spots all over the surrounding Venusian terrain in a split-second each, as opposed to hours for an X-ray or gamma-ray spectrometer -- and it is even more sensitive. One test has already been run showing that it could operate flawlessly for element analyses in the super-dense, super-hot CO2 air of Venus ( http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1338.pdf ). And when I asked Wiens whether he thought it could also be used for long-range Raman mineralogical spectra on Venus (which I thought unlikely, since Raman- scattered light is extremely faint and I figured that Venus' dense air WOULD interfere with detecting that), he told me that he thinks it might even be usable for that, too. If it isn't, one could still have the lander deploy a simple movable arm, equipped with fiber optics, to bring the laser and the Raman spectrometer into immediate proximity with various spots on the surface so that Raman spectra could be obtained that way -- and the same arm could simultaneously be used for closeup color microscopy, near-IR reflectance spectra, and maybe even abrasion-wheel grinding of rock surfaces. (Near-IR surface spectra of Venusian samples also represent a problem, since the surface is so hot that it glows in the near-IR and this thermal-emission spectrum blends with and muddles the near-IR spectrum of sunlight simply reflected off the surface. The only way to separate the two is by changing the illumination conditions -- which could be done with that arm, and at longer ranges with a flashlamp or a broadbeam laser to provide separate spectra of various places on the landscape with and without the added illumination.)

Anyway, Laser-Induced Breakdown Spectroscopy (of which ChemCam is the first flight version) has a very bright future even if it doesn't finally make it onto MSL -- which it might not. At the first meeting of NASA's Mars Strategic Roadmap group which I attended, there was very considerable apprehension about whether it wil be possible to cram all 10 of the selected experiments onto MSL -- or even all of the highest-priority 6, of which ChemCam is one. And it was stated flatly that, if push comes to shove, ChemCam is lower-priority than the two instruments (SAM and CHEMS) which actually analyze samples that have been ingested and ground up by the rover.

Correction: that other mineralogical instrument on MSL is CHEMIN, not CHEMS. (It's the combined X-ray spectrometer and diffractometer.)

That sort of pins down the landing site, doesn't it?

Now, where exactly on Mars *is* Grover's Mill, anyway...?



-the other Doug

Remote Micro-Imager
The RMI will provide very high resolution
images of targets. Its pixel field of view is
21-22 µrad, much finer than any remote
camera that has operated on Mars. Its
effective resolution exceeds that of MER
Pancam by a factor of 5 to 10. Resolution in
the near-field is within a factor of 2-3 of
MER MI (at closest-focus distance of 2 m for
RMI vs. 6 cm for MI), but still sufficient to
see many diagnostic sedimentary structures
and other features at the sub-millimeter
scale. Sub-meter-sized objects at the Mars
horizon will be visible.
NASA/

Sub-metre sized objects on the horizon?? WOW

Have any of the intruments to fly on MSL have been selected yet?

Yep. Eight proposals were selected for phase A/B preliminary design studies last year plus three others, see http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2004-290

>Double and Delay option
This is new information for me.
I would realy welcome sending two rovers instead of one, that would be great improvement fot this mission.
But if I shoul have decided, I would send one rover in 2009 and the second in 2011. Two reasons:
- we would get some data sooner (who wants to wait by 2011?)
- if the first rover fail, we would be able to improve/reconstruct the second rover to prevent another failure

a good article about MSL. makes me want the time to go faster

http://www.astrobio.net/news/modules.php?o...order=0&thold=0

The double and delay option is under consideration for months now. I'd say that a winning recepy should not be changed: if they build two: just send them within the same window in 2011. It takes time: let MRO do the cartography, carefully select the landingssites (which also needs further thorough analyses of MER data) and incorporate the fanciest and most sophisticated instruments possible at that time. The results will be worth waiting for.....besides: i want them to show us multiple succesfull (completely) autonomous skycrane landings in rocky terrain on earth, before they send these babies !! The testing of this landing technology is going to take a lot of time and attention.

There's another good reason not to launch both MSLs simultaneously -- the basic scientific purpose of repeat MSLs. Although this hasn't gotten as much publicity as it deserves, it was made clear to the Mars Strategic Roadmap Committee that MSL is actually yet another "reconaissance" mission of Mars -- its main purpose is to locate a place on Mars that has trace organic compounds, so that we can use the same spot as the site for the first Mars sample return mission. (Since the latter will cost several billion dollars a pop, we most definitely want to pick out the best possible scientific landing spot for it.) But if the first MSL fails to turn up organics, we would be up the creek when it comes to knowing where to send the sample-return mission (or even the possible cheaper alternative of an "Astrobiology Field Lab" rover carrying instruments for much more detailed in-situ analysis of the organics found by MSL) -- unless we fly another MSL (or even a third one, if necessary) that DOES locate such organics.

For the same reason, the science results from the first MSL are likely to be important in selecting the best landing site for the second MSL. The possibility can't even be ruled out that if the first MSL finds really promising organic evidence, we'll simply skip MSL-2 for now to save money and start focusing entirely on developing and flying the sample-return mission to the MSL-1 site as soon as possible. And if we do fly MSL-2, it may well not fly until 2013, to allow proper time in picking the best landing site (and instruments) for it. I keep quoting Gollum to describe the best Mars exploration strategy: "Cautious, my Precious! More haste less speed!"

To be honest, I don't understand how NOT finding any organics by the first MSL can improve the chance for MSL 2 to do so. In other words: if MSL 1 does not give us data that wants us to go there again to get samples to bring to earth, then what data can it provide us in order to let MSL 2 land on a location more likely to actually have organics ? Can you explain what you mend by "likely to be important in selecting the best landing site for the second "?

I suppose one good reason to do one MSL, and another in the following opportunity

If the first one augers in, the investigation board have about a year to make any change sugestions before the second enters ATLO

I still wish they'd find room for a netlander mission in the next 3 launch ops - it's ripe for an ESA/NASA colab like Huygens

Doug

Agreed - test, test, test! While I know that there have been incredible advances in machine vision and automatic controls, I can't stop the image of Armstrong ejecting out of the "flying bedstead" from entering my mind every time I think about skycrane...

_______________________________________

Just this: if MSL-1 doesn't find organics at one site that was previously regarded as the most promising for the possible retention of fossil organic evidence, then we can send MSL-2 to the NEXT most highly-ranked site. We may also use the data we got from MSL-1 to revise that selection (especially MSL-1's new, detailed mineralogical data on the history of Mars and on the extent to which fossil evidence is likely to be preserved in different Martian geological environments).

You might well see it -- there are, after all, currently supposed to be two separate Mars Scout missions in 2011. (Firouz Naderi, however, said at the Mars Roadmap meeting that he doesn't think the current $400 million cost cap for Mars Scout missions will allow any more lander missions after Phoenix, which of course benefittted from having its spacecraft already built. I suspect you'll soon see the Mars Scout cost cap raised in the same way that the Discovery cap has just been raised.)

Perhaps there's scope for something like ESA provide the launcher and part of the instrumentation - NASA provide the relay capacity and the bulk of the spacecraft. Something in that mould must surely be possible - and sharing the cost between a mars scout budget and a small ESA project would make it not only fiscally possible, but might count as the soft-landing experience required by ESA before attempting the Exomars lander.

Doug

There is certainly a lot of interest, after Cassini/Huygens, in another major NASA/ESA collaboration. The three possibilities being talked about most, however, are (1) a Europa orbiter; (2) the "Constellation-X" formation flight of 4 X-ray telescopes for powerful X-ray interferometry; and (3) thcomparable "TPF-I" formation flight of several IR telescopes to carry out the second phase of the Terrestrial Planet Finder mission. (The first part -- TPF-C -- involves a somewhat cheaper single space telescope which NASA seems willing to build on its own.)

A Mars mission collaboration of the sort you talk about would seem to be a natural, which makes it surprising that I haven't heard more about the possibility.

Collaborations work best when all partners gain something. Space agencies look to gain a mixture of national prestige, enhancing science & technology, defense and commercial interests. As ESA now has the capability to design, build, launch and operate a Mars rover, and given the European priority to be independent of the US, there is no benefit to such a collaboration.

We do? Since when

Before MER - JPL had Viking 1, Viking 2, Pathfinder and Sojourner, and the failed MPL.

We've had Beagle 2.

Something like netlander is, imho a VITAL step towards attempting something like Exomars - if for little reason than to gain experience in operating a spacecraft on mars - and experience and data in the engineering challenges of getting there.

Doug

Today the technology of landing on Mars is not exactly rocket science ... oh it is isn't it ha ha.

ESA has considerable proven technology and sufficient experience from Mars Express/Beagle 2, ERA, SMART-1, Rosetta, Giotto, Cassini/Huygens, Galileo, Ulysses, MER and Sojourner to carry out a successful mission. Look what NASA did with Viking in 1975 without any previous experience of landing or orbiting Mars. ESA can do it if they have the resources.

That is a big "if"

Many of the missions you list weren't designed, managed or operated by ESA. Yes, there is a good amount of experience *worldwide* in various aspects of spacecraft design and operations, and even mission/program management. But we must remember that, according to stories I've heard, the NASA/JPL people told the Beagle 2 designers that American airbag-landing success was based on combining airbags with a terminal phase rocket brake, and gave Beagle 2 a far smaller chance of success than Pathfinder or the MERs because ESA decided they didn't need to bother with a rocket brake at the end of the descent.

And thus, Beagle hit and went splat.

The only way someone else's experience can benefit you is if you heed the other person's advice...

-the other Doug

Quick edit -- I really should say ESA decided they couldn't afford the weight of a terminal rocket brake, not that they couldn't be bothered to use one. I guess my disappointment over the somewhat-predictable failure of Beagle 2 still makes me a little bitter... *sigh*... DVD

Those missions are listed in approximate order of ESA's contribution and involvement. From instruments only on Sojourner and MER, through major subsystems such as Huygens, to complete spacecraft in the case of Ulysses, Giotto, Rosetta, SMART-1 and Mars Express/Beagle 2. In addition ESA has designed, built, managed and operated several observatories, such as XMM, INTEGRAL, Cluster and Hipparcos. Well before ExoMars is launched ESA will also have constructed and launched Venus Express, COROT, Herschel and Planck, all very complex spacecraft.

Even though it has been done three times already by NASA, putting a rover on Mars is a natural next step for ESA and well within European capabilities. Now if only Beagle 2 can be located perhaps ExoMars can repair it

And how many of those complex missions involved EDL?

Sorry, but going from Huygens to a large rover on Mars is a huge leap.

Two more than NASA had when they landed Viking on Mars. Sure EDL on another planet is state of the art stuff, but ESA has been in the space business a long time and has had the benefit of seeing how NASA did it. It's a piece of cake

Yes, but Viking was a billion-dollar mission, and that was in the 1970s. I worry that the European mission won't be properly funded. Hopefully if that is the case they will scale back instead of cutting corners.

One more interesting little tidbit from the first Solar System Exploration Roadmap meeting: the total cost of Viking in today's dollars would have been $4 billion. (Of course, a great deal of the cut in costs for the modern Mars landers -- including Pathfinder -- was due to the fact that their needed research had already been carrried out for the Viking project.)

Yep and that is probably based on NASA's "official" $1 billion for the project, which is a suspiciously round number. My inflation calculator says $4.25 billion when converting 1974 to 2005 dollars.

Viking consisted of four spacecraft, two orbiters and two nuclear powered landers, so it is an unfair cost comparision to ExoMars. As a side note the lander computer had 6000 words (24Kilobytes?) of memory.

NASA's Viking site

Well, yes, ExoMars is one rover and one orbiter, but even if it cost one or two billion dollars, I am skeptical as to whether ESA can/will fund it. Granted, if it does, it will be an exciting mission. I just fear a Beagle. I hope that the mission is descoped (maybe a lander with a camera and a few interesting instruments that don't need to be mobile? - or the Netlander network) if sufficient funding for current plans does not materialized, rather than just becoming another expensive dent on the Martian sand (or anothe Lunar-A that never gets off the ground!).

ESA manages its budget very well (currently about €2 billion?) and will probably get more money in the next five years. There was no official reason for the delay in ExoMars from 2009 to 2011 but it probably was budgetary. Once ESA decides to go ahead with a big project they allocate the funds and nearly always complete (Hermes excluded) unlike NASA.

Have no fear and be optimistic - ExoMars is much heavier than Beagle 2 so it will be easier to find the crater

Comparisons between Beagle 2 and any putative ESA rover (etc) are inappropriate, for the simple reason that Beagle 2 was a shoestring project which was starved of funding from start to finish while any major ESA effort would be conducted with their usual relentless (but rather dull) efficiency!

Beagle 2 was a kit-car based on an old Morris Marina, built in a shed by a man with a funny set of sideburns, while an ESA rover would be a Ferrari factory team entry at Le Mans!

(Apologies to US readers who may not know what a Morris Marina is (and further apologies to UK kit-car owners, among whom am I!)).

I think there were lessons learnt with B2 (no one had tried to build something of that genre before) - and I think those lessons should be used in going for an intermediate step - even if it involves putting Exomars back to '12, '14 - I'm not fussed. I still think that ESA should be attempting a Netlander style mission - infact...it's POLL TIME

or how about a rover race on Mars ... Exo-Ferrari versus MSL-Viper off road track of course!