MSL/Curiosity landing method

[Blackstar]

1-Well, if the MSL rover proves to work as well as EDL, then we have a proven concept. Mass (well, multi) producing that platform would be cheaper and safer than inventing something new unique.

2-As I said earlier, I think that the relative success of Soviet/Russian launch vehicles lies in building upon a proven concept.

1-But MSL is too big for what is needed for the next science missions on Mars. You wouldn't want to build something that big and complex and expensive if your goal is simply to go around and collect samples and cache them.

2-Apples and oranges. Standardizing launch vehicles makes sense because they are doing the exact same things every time you launch them--putting payloads into specific orbits. You don't need to change the design each time because the mission stays the same.

But for science, the science advances and the questions are always changing. Launching the same kind of spacecraft to do entirely different science doesn't make any sense. And because you would launch it many years after the first one, you have to adopt new technology, new manufacturers, new materials. That is why the spacecraft will change.

Indeed, we ran into this issue on the planetary science decadal survey with regards to MAX-C/ExoMars. NASA's plan in 2010 was to put two rovers (NASA's MAX-C and ESA's ExoMars) onto the same spacecraft, using the Skycrane to descend to the surface. The problem was that they would not fit, and this would have forced a redesign of the backshell of the EDL system, at considerable expense (it was a dumb idea for lots of other reasons that I won't go into here). The planetary science decadal survey told them DO NOT DO THAT, and instead told them to standardize on the existing Skycrane approach (assuming that it was successful--as it was). In fact, NASA came to the same conclusion around the same time that the decadal survey was released. Then OMB canceled the program.

[arachnitect]

On Friday I got to see NASA's DSCOVR satellite. I asked the program manager about using a piece of hardware that has been in storage for over a decade. He explained all the stuff that they are doing to qualify that hardware, and it's a lot. They're taking a lot of the spares and cutting them up to examine aging issues and things like that.

Can we convince you to write about this field trip in greater detail? Are you allowed to talk more about it? Either in a new thread here on NSF, or maybe over at TSR?

Thanks!

[Blackstar]

On Friday I got to see NASA's DSCOVR satellite. I asked the program manager about using a piece of hardware that has been in storage for over a decade. He explained all the stuff that they are doing to qualify that hardware, and it's a lot. They're taking a lot of the spares and cutting them up to examine aging issues and things like that.

Can we convince you to write about this field trip in greater detail? Are you allowed to talk more about it? Either in a new thread here on NSF, or maybe over at TSR?

I've been to seven of ten NASA field centers in the last two months (another one this week) for a project I'm working on. Seen a lot of the work they're doing. NASA has some very bright and talented people working for it.

[JohnFornaro]

If they'd standardize a good design, we could control costs better.  ...

I continue my whine:  Why does it always have to be one-off designs?

The ASRG is the new design. It will be baselined for use on multiple spacecraft. ...

Which is good to hear, in principle.

You should really stop whining.

Maybe so, but not for the reasons you say.  My narrative is long held and logically consistent:  My government wastes my money.  I want it to stop.  We were promised a lunar outpost forty years ago and while many billions of dollars have been wasted within NASA, within our government the waste is worse, particularly with what appears to be an unnecessary continued practice of elective war.

Focusing on the concept of wasted funds, there is no pragmatic, non-wasteful reason why RTGs, "where reliability, demonstrated over 50 years, is 100%", have not been appropriately developed into a product line of several capacities, available for missions in the NASA community at a predictable cost.

Coals to Newcastle, and all.  The future is the only thing that can be changed, and cost is the object.

1) You don't understand this stuff nearly as much as you think you do (for instance, your mistaken 2) belief that the community picks difficult missions on purpose, and your 3) lack of understanding of the decadal survey process), and your complaints largely miss the mark. 4) I'd suggest reading up on the subject more and developing a better understanding of what is happening and why rather than complaining that the 5) people who do this stuff for a living are not as smart as you think they should be.

1) I don't pretend to know any more than I do.  And when I make factual mistakes, I correct them as soon as possible, and try not to repeat them.

2) Mine is an allegation of what the process seems like.  It is not a belief.  You have no knowledge about my beliefs.  You're simply going to have to accept what I say about myself.

3) MSR was decided upon in 2007, if I can rely upon this reporting:

Given that it's really a human precursor mission, I think it's appropriate to mention here that not only is Mars Sample Return officially a go for 2020...

My question continues to go unanswered:  How could it have already been decided that we know all that we need to know about the samples to be collected?  It seems like the order in which the samples would be collected is not that important.

5) But all I get is arguments from authority.

4) Which I continue to do.

Where is the money for both?

Ask the families of the deceased and maimed from our ongoing elective wars.

I think because the funding is political.

Which wouldn't be a problem if our political system was not broken.  At heart, politics is an expression of opinion of where the budgets should be spent.  Those opinions are wrong.

One of the big reasons is that the planets all happen to be far apart. Suppose that you want to explore Jupiter. It is going to take around five years to get there. So should you build five spacecraft and launch them one year apart?

No.  This is the part of my suggestion that you refuse to accept.  Send five missions to the Moon.  Jupiter can wait.  To reduce costs, we need mass production, and routine cis-lunar
capabiltiy.  Most importantly, permanent human presence.  Mine is a long view, not a short view.

...don't you want to learn from the first spacecraft's observations and use its data to refine your later spacecraft?

I ask again.  We already knew, in 2007, where we wanted to look for samples?  Will Curiosity bring any new information to the table?

The scientists don't care about economies of scale, or re-usability, or stockpiling rusty descent stage lander hulks on mars.

First, it won't rust.

Second, we're all in this together.  They need to start thinking about economy. 

But MSL is too big for what is needed for the next science missions on Mars.

You all have the mass and capability.  Use it.

...the science advances and the questions are always changing...

And the rover platform can stay the same.  Use it.  Change the instrumentation as required.

And because you would launch it many years after the first one...

Launch again in two years.  You don't need to redesign the rover.  Just build your instrument package.  Or is Mars a BTDT planet already?

The tactics are the rover.  The strategy is to learn more about Mars, and develop a routine capability and then move on.  What is the urgency that Jupiter now seems to have?

[Jim]

1.  Ask the families of the deceased and maimed from our ongoing elective wars.
2.  Most importantly, permanent human presence. 

3.  What is the urgency that Jupiter now seems to have?

1.  Has no bearing on the subject.  NASA's funding is independent.

2.  Not a concern of the US gov't nor should it be.

3.  Why should the moon or Mars have more priority?

[JohnFornaro]

1.  Ask the families of the deceased and maimed from our ongoing elective wars.
2.  Most importantly, permanent human presence. 
3.  What is the urgency that Jupiter now seems to have?

1.  Has no bearing on the subject.  NASA's funding is independent.

2.  Not a concern of the US gov't nor should it be.

3.  Why should the moon or Mars have more priority?

1.  We live in one country.  Cash is fungible.  It is the point.  1% for NASA.  There's plenty of money available.

2.  It's fine if we continue to disagree here.

3.  Let's finish what we started, before moving on to the next challenging and difficult mission without a better understanding of the urgency requireing its funding prioritization.  Mars, BTDT?

[Jim]

1.  We live in one country.  Cash is fungible.  It is the point.  1% for NASA.  There's plenty of money available.

2.  It's fine if we continue to disagree here.

3.  Let's finish what we started, before moving on to the next challenging and difficult mission without a better understanding of the urgency requireing its funding prioritization.  Mars, BTDT?

1.  NASA doesn't need nor deserve 1%. 

2,  NASA is not US planetary settlement agency.  Off earth settlements provide no benefit to the USA as a nation.  Form an NGO to do it,  but don't waste USA gov't resources on it.

3.  Why?  Not everybody is researching Mars.

[JohnFornaro]

1.  We live in one country.  Cash is fungible.  It is the point.  1% for NASA.  There's plenty of money available.

2.  It's fine if we continue to disagree here.

3.  Let's finish what we started, before moving on to the next challenging and difficult mission without a better understanding of the urgency requireing its funding prioritization.  Mars, BTDT?

1.  NASA doesn't need nor deserve 1%. 

2,  NASA is not US planetary settlement agency.  Off earth settlements provide no benefit to the USA as a nation.  Form an NGO to do it,  but don't waste USA gov't resources on it.

3.  Why?  Not everybody is researching Mars.

1.  My point holds.  There is plenty of money. it is political opinion which allocates it.

2.  I understand your position.  There's no a priori reason forbidding NASA to do a better job in those areas where a better job is needed to be done.  The agency could deserve 1%.

3.  I don't want to get rhetorical.  It is a matter of mission prioritization, and focusing resources that have been limited by the actions of policymakers, who have responded in part to the actions of the various NASA endeavors.  Curiosity has just landed, and now we need to go somewhere else?

[savuporo]

1% for MSL landing method discussion in this thread !

[JohnFornaro]

1% for MSL landing method discussion in this thread !

LOL.
 
Point taken.

[majormajor42]

So now that they have done it once, how much would it cost to use this EDL method again, with and without launch costs, not including the rover? Basically what could be the base cost to land 1 ton of zinc on Mars using the same method?

[HappyMartian]

... 
Off earth settlements provide no benefit to the USA as a nation.  Form an NGO to do it,  but don't waste USA gov't resources on it.
...

Not quite Jim. There is a good chance that Britain would not have survived WW II if not for the major efforts of its former "settlement", the United States of America. Neither you nor I can determine the potential future benefits of "Off earth settlements", but the history of humans suggests there could be some major or minor benefits and little evidence that there would be "no benefit to the USA as a nation".



Edited.

[Jim]

... 
Off earth settlements provide no benefit to the USA as a nation.  Form an NGO to do it,  but don't waste USA gov't resources on it.
...

Not quite Jim. There is a good chance that Britain would not have survived WW II if not for the major efforts of its former "settlement", the United States of America. Neither you nor I can determine the potential future benefits of "Off earth settlements", but the history of humans suggests there could be some major or minor benefits and little evidence that there would be "no benefit to the USA as a nation".

Wrong again as usual.  Wrong analogy.  Off world colonies are not the same as off continent colonies.  The scifi depiction of lunar and mars from the 50's-70's is not going to happen.

I never said that "off Earth settlements" wouldn't benefit humanity.  They won't benefit nations and their gov't because
1.  They won't return resources back to the homeland unlike terrestrial colonies did
2.  The off earth colonies will have their own gov't
3.  The USA is not going to establish colonies.

So, yes, I can say that they would be "no benefit to the USA as a nation".

[mmeijeri]

The scifi depiction of lunar and mars from the 50's-70's is not going to happen.

How confident are you that off-world settlements will happen at all? Will there ever be true colonies, where people will spend their whole lives? And what about lunar resorts, or ISRU facilities where people might work for several years of their lives? How far in the future is all this? Decades, centuries, a thousand years or more?

[arachnitect]

So now that they have done it once, how much would it cost to use this EDL method again, with and without launch costs, not including the rover? Basically what could be the base cost to land 1 ton of zinc on Mars using the same method?

Don't know on costs, but MSL "skycrane" design was driven by the requirements of soft landing a rover (protecting instruments, not having to drive off descent stage).  If you were just trying to dump a bunch of metal on the surface, other methods would probably win out; why not just split your payload up into 4-5 chunks and airbag it in pathfinder style?

The need for delivering raw materials to mars is so far off as to make cost estimates based on today's prices irrelevant