11 Mars Exploration Rovers vs. 1 Mars Science Laboratory

[DarkenedOne]

Something that bothers me about how NASA is conducting robotic exploration is how every mission requires a completely new and unique spacecraft. The results of conducting robotic exploration in this manner is that most of our money and time is spent on development of each of these extremely unique and complex space vehicles rather than actual exploration.

The most recent example of this is the Mars Science Laboratory. Development for this latest Mars rover began in 2006 for a planned launch in 2009. Due to cost overruns the mission is now on track for a 2012 launch with a final cost of 2.3 billion. The rover itself is being designed for a mission that will last only two years and cover 19km of the Mars surface. That means that for a mission we only plan to last 2 year we spend 6 years developing.

Now consider instead that we scrap the Mars Science Laboratory, and just spend that money on more Mars Exploration Rovers. According to the articles I have read the second Mars Exploration Rover only cost $200 million including the launch. That means that we can get about 11 Mars Exploration Rovers for the same cost as the new Mars Science Lab. The Mars Exploration Rover has a very proven record and beaten all expectations by conducting operations for 5 years rather than the 90 days it was designed for. Combined the rovers have traveled 21km, which means that 10 of them would be able to cover around 100 km of various sites of interest on the red planet.

Essentially what I am saying is that I think NASA should adopt a fleet approach to exploration. Rather than build all of these mission specific vehicles develop a single space craft or rover for a multitude of missions, and then send to various destinations around the solar system.

 

[Gravity_Ray]

Here is a great article to show the differences.

http://eands.caltech.edu/articles/LXX4/mars-rovers.html

Just ignore the 2009 launch date.

But incase you dont want to read all that, here is the main reasons.

The MER's were looking for water, MSL is looking for life (or life chemicals), time to take the next step.
The MSL can go almost to the pole because it doesnt depend on solar power.
The MSL is the size of a Mini Cooper (I drive a Mini Cooper and that right there is cool factor).
It should be able to go 2 Earth years, but it will more likely outlast me. If it works as good as the MER's.

But I love your idea of a fleet of standardized robots for various bodies we want to examine. Maybe once MSL is designed others can be sent to NEO's or some Jovian Moons.

 

[bdewoody]

I think maybe one reason would be that the size of the probe would end up being too large and therefore to bulky to manuver around the solar system. By building mission specific craft they can keep the weight down and therefore the fuel requirements.

 

[DarkenedOne]

I think maybe one reason would be that the size of the probe would end up being too large and therefore to bulky to manuver around the solar system. By building mission specific craft they can keep the weight down and therefore the fuel requirements.

I think the saving from having to do less development work would out weigh the extra cost of a larger launch vehicle.

 

[BenS1985]

Maybe this is a newbie answer but...

Isn't the purpose of a specific rover, lab, or whatchamhahoozit very specific to a goal?

I understand the argument of making 11 of the same probes, but I think that the probes we used fulfilled their goals. Therefore, building 10 more won't further our understanding of Martian biology like a Mars Science Lab would. Furthermore, the cost of repurposing a Mars Rover probably is similar to what the Mars Science Lab is.

I could be wrong in my statement, but that could be the case. I see the issue being that the requirements to obtain an understanding of a particular field (geological, biological, ect) requires a very specific type of vehicle designed for a very specific mission, as opposed to a more modular design....Thus requiring all the new dev work.

However, I do understand what your getting at. Maybe NASA needs to take a step back, and develop a modular craft like a 'Mars Science Vehicle' that can be re-purposed for any type if scientific inquiry without the need to re-develop the system. Kind of like building different kinds of vehicles on the same chassis - one may be an SUV, or a compact, but they use many of the same parts to save on money

 

[samkent]

In spirit I tend to fall on the side of more rovers. But I do understand the rational behind MSL.
If I had my way I would re-task MSL with more cameras, including a DVR camera, a scoop and maybe a drill. Then drop it in a river valley and search for visual signs of past life.

Visual images stir the sole and make people want to go there and see more.
Mineral reports rank up there with rice cakes. Dry and hard to swallow.

 

[tanstaafl76]

In my mind it's a quality versus quantity issue (not that the rovers haven't produced quality data). It's quite possible the places in which we could land 11 more rovers and have them roam around would not yield breakthrough data on Mars. It would be interesting to be sure, but I would rather have one MSL that has far greater capabilities in terms of study than a dozen vehicles that may not tell us anything more than what we already know.

 

[MeteorWayne]

To some extent all the above is right, but one unmentioned factor is how much technology advances between spacecraft designs. In a few years, the 11 common rovers would be woefully obsolete, and we would regret building and launching them with such "ancient" capabilities.

 

[samkent]

How many opinions would change if MSL gets stuck in a sand trap two or three months into the mission. It’s like having all your eggs in one basket. Isn’t the landing success rate about 50 percent for Mars?

Does anyone know if MSL’s footprint is heavier than the current rovers?

 

[DarkenedOne]

In my mind it's a quality versus quantity issue (not that the rovers haven't produced quality data). It's quite possible the places in which we could land 11 more rovers and have them roam around would not yield breakthrough data on Mars. It would be interesting to be sure, but I would rather have one MSL that has far greater capabilities in terms of study than a dozen vehicles that may not tell us anything more than what we already know.

I think it more of a question of cost effectiveness. Like I said before with the current model of exploration 90% of all the money and time gets spent on development not exploration. It is like building a car to drive once.

If NASA can just come up with a rover that they could use on a multitude of missions than it would make exploration far more productive.

 

[DarkenedOne]

To some extent all the above is right, but one unmentioned factor is how much technology advances between spacecraft designs. In a few years, the 11 common rovers would be woefully obsolete, and we would regret building and launching them with such "ancient" capabilities.

It is not always the most advanced technologies that are the most useful. It is quite often the older cheaper ones that get the most done.

 

[brandbll]

Something that bothers me about how NASA is conducting robotic exploration is how every mission requires a completely new and unique spacecraft. The results of conducting robotic exploration in this manner is that most of our money and time is spent on development of each of these extremely unique and complex space vehicles rather than actual exploration.

The most recent example of this is the Mars Science Laboratory. Development for this latest Mars rover began in 2006 for a planned launch in 2009. Due to cost overruns the mission is now on track for a 2012 launch with a final cost of 2.3 billion. The rover itself is being designed for a mission that will last only two years and cover 19km of the Mars surface. That means that for a mission we only plan to last 2 year we spend 6 years developing.

Now consider instead that we scrap the Mars Science Laboratory, and just spend that money on more Mars Exploration Rovers. According to the articles I have read the second Mars Exploration Rover only cost $200 million including the launch. That means that we can get about 11 Mars Exploration Rovers for the same cost as the new Mars Science Lab. The Mars Exploration Rover has a very proven record and beaten all expectations by conducting operations for 5 years rather than the 90 days it was designed for. Combined the rovers have traveled 21km, which means that 10 of them would be able to cover around 100 km of various sites of interest on the red planet.

Essentially what I am saying is that I think NASA should adopt a fleet approach to exploration. Rather than build all of these mission specific vehicles develop a single space craft or rover for a multitude of missions, and then send to various destinations around the solar system.

Another thing that you neglected to mention that supports your point is that you said 200 million included the launch. We launch 11 of those puppies to different parts of the planet and the odds would highly favor us landing atleast half of them. One thing goes wrong with the Mars Science Labaratory landing and we just flushed over a billion dollars down the toilet. So you significantly increase your odds of actually getting science from the ground on Mars by sending out 11 lower tech rovers.

Personally, i'm not sure which option i like better. I like taking the chance and think the payoff science wise for 1 expensive mission could be incredible. Also, the range for eploration(i.e. where it can land on Mars) is much greater than that of MER type rover. But then again, like i said the 11 MER option is a much safer option.

With all that said, you only live once, so i say take the gamble and send the big guy.

 

[vulture4]

In retrospect launching two Mars probes on every orbital opportunity (about every 2 years) while making moderate improvements in the design with each version might be a better approach. The MSL simply made too many changes at once. And Mars is a big planet; two probes of identical design can cover twice as much ground as one at much less than twice the price.

 

[access]

I would be in favor of at least a common vehicle portion with a changing scientific bay as that would speed up the number of rovers we could send.

As for Wayne's arguments, Is the Soyuz ancient? maybe. Is it useful? Yes.

 

[MeteorWayne]

As for Wayne's arguments, Is the Soyuz ancient? maybe. Is it useful? Yes.

That's not the same, and you should know it. What is Soyuz? It's a system to laonch material to LEO. It's function is basically the same as it ever has been. That's not the case when you are exploring different worlds, each of which has it's own thermal, radiation, solar energy environment, and has different objectives. There's something to be said about the core concept, but if it's solar based, you can't use the same system at Venus as you need at Neptune, from a thermal view, you can't use the same systems at Mercury as at Pluto, for visual band imagers, you can't use the same system for the moon that you need at Eris, etc...

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

How many opinions would change if MSL gets stuck in a sand trap two or three months into the mission. It’s like having all your eggs in one basket. Isn’t the landing success rate about 50 percent for Mars?

Does anyone know if MSL’s footprint is heavier than the current rovers?

I have to strongly agree with you here samkent. Even if we had say 7 rovers, we could study more surface area of Mars than one MSL. Yes, what they look for are different however we have had great images from the two rovers currently on Mars and learned a great deal. Can you just imagine what we could learn with more of them traveling to currently unstudied locations. I believe we would learn more in 4 months with 7 rovers than in 2 years with just one MSL. Plus we have now had hands-on experience with the rovers on Mars, how they respond both communication-wise and terrain-wise. Since they were a huge success, why fix what's not broken, right? If it's a quality verses quantity issues, I think the rovers would prove superior in both categories. Experience, exceeded in ALL expectations, and cost effective.

 

[MeteorWayne]

The problem is that those seven rovers combined would have nowhere near the capability of MSL. The instruments and tools it is using are big and heavy. They would not be adaptable to small, lightweight rovers. While we certainly would learn more about Mars from 7 MER's than the two we have, we could not do the science that MSL will do....just more of the same in different locations.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

NO, I totally agree with you on that point MeteorWayne. However with studying more of the same science in the various landscapes on Mars might give us a broader understanding of the planet as a whole, rather than focusing on higher technology for a much smaller surface area. I'm sure the MSL is a great concept. But do we really want to chance a "one shot deal" with not only the economy the way it is, and the lack of hands-on experience with a new technology at this point in the game. If this vehicle is lost during launch or during landing, we will have lost any chance at gaining further knowledge of the planet. However if multiple vehicles that are well tested are launched, we have just pretty much guarenteed the chances of gaining further knowledge.

 

[MeteorWayne]

The bottom line really is, show me the money. MSL is almost finished (though they just added a new experiment). There are no more rovers in the pipeline. There's no money for ANY new missions until NASA's budget is ironed out.

I guess it the pragmatism and my age talking. Stuff that is going to happen in 50 years IF we decide to pay for it just isn't on my radar anymore People can propose lots of wonderful ideas....just look at this forum. But the fact is, there's a very small money pie to be split up on different sized projects. The rovers were designed to be cheap missions. Then there are plans for a few big missions, like MSL, Juno (scheduled for launch next year) to orbit Jupiter. They are different classes of missions.

I don't know what future small cheap rovers are in the pipeline. I see the "Futire Missions" cupboard on the NASA site is pretty bare

The fact is, we can't do everything that "we" here at SDC would like to see done with the atrociously limited funds.

So throwing out ideas that have no chance of being funded just seems kind of pointless to me...

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

Well, we can all agree that there is very little money to be had... especially with the economy the way it is. However I would have thought NASA would have thought about this prior to developing the MSL. Smaller, more cost-efficient missions over larger more complex and costly missions would have surely expanded the amount of science that could be gathered over a greater area. I know it is only human nature to push the threshold of exploration to the next level. But I'm sure we are both on the same page when it comes to the money factor. No money, no science. If something happens to MSL, then all that money will have been for nothing. Then we won't be any further ahead then what we are right now, except with having a rather large bill to pay with nothing to show for it. I really hope they are making the right decission here. Sometimes I think some of the people here at SDC should be running NASA. NASA has been known for making rediculous mistakes that if those figure heads had visited here and got some very well deserving inputs for some pretty intelligent people, then purhaps their budget might have been stretched a bit further.

 

[DarkenedOne]

How many opinions would change if MSL gets stuck in a sand trap two or three months into the mission. It’s like having all your eggs in one basket. Isn’t the landing success rate about 50 percent for Mars?

Does anyone know if MSL’s footprint is heavier than the current rovers?

I have to strongly agree with you here samkent. Even if we had say 7 rovers, we could study more surface area of Mars than one MSL. Yes, what they look for are different however we have had great images from the two rovers currently on Mars and learned a great deal. Can you just imagine what we could learn with more of them traveling to currently unstudied locations. I believe we would learn more in 4 months with 7 rovers than in 2 years with just one MSL. Plus we have now had hands-on experience with the rovers on Mars, how they respond both communication-wise and terrain-wise. Since they were a huge success, why fix what's not broken, right? If it's a quality verses quantity issues, I think the rovers would prove superior in both categories. Experience, exceeded in ALL expectations, and cost effective.

That is another great point. Historically there is a 50% chance of failure rate of rovers reaching the Mars surface. The MSL is also planning on using a new and unproven technology for more precise landings. Therefore essentially there is a significant chance that the project will culminate to a $2.3 billion dollar pile of junk on the Marian surface with no science done whatsoever. On top of that you have the risks of other unproven technologies aboard the rover itself.

The technology that the MER has proven to work 2/2 times. Thus the chances of your investment being a complete waste are negligible.

 

[DarkenedOne]

As for Wayne's arguments, Is the Soyuz ancient? maybe. Is it useful? Yes.

That's not the same, and you should know it. What is Soyuz? It's a system to laonch material to LEO. It's function is basically the same as it ever has been. That's not the case when you are exploring different worlds, each of which has it's own thermal, radiation, solar energy environment, and has different objectives. There's something to be said about the core concept, but if it's solar based, you can't use the same system at Venus as you need at Neptune, from a thermal view, you can't use the same systems at Mercury as at Pluto, for visual band imagers, you can't use the same system for the moon that you need at Eris, etc...

Considering that the drop location of the new MSL is still not decided I think it is reasonable to conclude that the rover can operate in a number of Mars like conditions.

 

[space_hitchhiker]

Simple and short answer is that the MER craft would not be physically able to support(dimensional size and power needs)of the instruments being sent on MSL. The MERs did their job and inspite of Spirit's mishap, very sucessful mission. MSL is more akin to the Viking landers of the 70s--but with better methods to identify possible life. MSL is also targeted for a VERY precise landing site and will not be bounced and rolled around the martian landscape.

 

[DarkenedOne]

The problem is that those seven rovers combined would have nowhere near the capability of MSL. The instruments and tools it is using are big and heavy. They would not be adaptable to small, lightweight rovers. While we certainly would learn more about Mars from 7 MER's than the two we have, we could not do the science that MSL will do....just more of the same in different locations.

Wayne I am not saying that we should not eventually develop the MSL. My problem is that they are sending $2.3 billion on ONE.

Here is what I think NASA should do. Build a few more MERs. Send them to other locations of interest on the Mars. Doing this should only cost a few hundred million extra.

Then continue to develop with MSL, but delay it until 2015. Make it more versatile and capable of surviving extreme cold. It's nuclear power source should be able to operate practically anywhere in the solar system. Also develop it with a modular scientific payload so that mission specific scientific instruments can be added with little cost. Then build a few of them and send them to various locations on Mars. Send one to the moon. Then send one to Titan. Send one to Europa.

Then 5-10 years after do that work on the next multi-mission rover/spacecraft.

You see that is my point. We will get much more bang for our buck if we focus on developing multi-mission spacecraft and rovers with modular scientific payloads, and deploying a number of them on a number of different missions.

My problem is that they are spending all that money just to develop ONE. Why send all that money just to develop a single rover that you will only use once.

 

[MeteorWayne]

This is all really a moot point. The MSL is built. Since there was a two year delay to 2011, they are continuing to tweak the scientific payload given the extra time, but whatever is done has to fit into the weight, power, and space package they have. So there's really not a choice of MSL or something else... it's already built, and the construction and design is already paid for. Is it better to keep the $2.3 billion or whatever here on earth and never send it to Mars? THAT seems really wasteful to me
MW