I think it's essential, regardless of human flights or Mars sample return.The most straightforward point the 'Mars Czar' made was that the currently com linchpin, Odyssey, is over a decade old and bound to fail sooner or later. Everything else isn't apparently up to the job, most likely because their own orbital missions have more science than spare time. Something dedicated ought to be sent.
What's wrong with MRO and MAVEN?
(snip)But everybody should remember that NASA proposed a telecom orbiter once before and it drew some complaints and then got killed. This is a balancing act.
The plus side is that somebody else (eg Universities, ESA, JAXA) can pay for and build the cubesats, NASA only needs to provide a ride and communications backbone.
To which "telecom orbiter" are you referring? The "Mars Micro-Mission" of the late 1990's?Surely a mission structured like that would cost less than a Discovery mission.Now if they want to throw in Lasercom and a "few litttle" instruments.....
Question; Would it be more efficent to send one big comsat to Mars or a cluster of smaller "mini-comsats"? Sats that are larger than cube sats, but smaller than regular comsats.By doing something like this, assuming that the total mass of the mini-comsats and fuel do not exceed the total mass of the regular Comsat, you would wind up with a more redundant network of sats, able to relay transmittions from anywhere on Mars, whether it's day or night. Recent advances in communications electronics should allow the sats to network together and / or transmit the data gathered from ground and airbon sources either together or as independant units, for data straem redundancy.
The MTO vehicle that was cancelled in 2005 even had requirements to release and rendezvous with a practice orbital sample canister:
MAVEN's orbit post science will be circularized.
Quote from: Space Ghost 1962 on 04/08/2015 03:41 amMAVEN's orbit post science will be circularized.Do you happen to know if this will be done via aero braking or with burns?
Quote from: JasonAW3 on 04/08/2015 02:33 pmQuestion; Would it be more efficent to send one big comsat to Mars or a cluster of smaller "mini-comsats"? Sats that are larger than cube sats, but smaller than regular comsats.By doing something like this, assuming that the total mass of the mini-comsats and fuel do not exceed the total mass of the regular Comsat, you would wind up with a more redundant network of sats, able to relay transmittions from anywhere on Mars, whether it's day or night. Recent advances in communications electronics should allow the sats to network together and / or transmit the data gathered from ground and airbon sources either together or as independant units, for data straem redundancy.How many rovers are operating (or will be operating) all over Mars requiring such comprehensive coverage? (Answer: at most, two.)They need comprehensive global coverage far less than they need coverage that lasts a long time. And the goal is to keep this thing relatively inexpensive, and the more capabilities that are added to it the more expensive it becomes.