11 Mars Exploration Rovers vs. 1 Mars Science Laboratory

[access]

I would suggest that we let the current programs run to completion but in the future it may be advisable to develop a base model of rover or several different rover bases whose scientific payload can be swapped out depending on the mission.

If we were to develop the robotic part of a rover going as far as the robotic arm and the camera system. With that we could develop all of the launch strategies necessary and also the reentry to mars' (or other) atmosphere.

I can see there being a very successful future for a modular rover system that would allow for more missions with less development.

 

[bdewoody]

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.

After re-reading your post I'm not sure what your position here is. At first I thought you were in favor of one robust robotic lab that can perform a large variety of experiments. But then you stated that NASA should abandon mission specific designs and build a bunch of identical probes and send them all around the solar system. To me the problem with that is that different locations in the soloar system require different instruments to analyse the local condition.

 

[MeteorWayne]

And as I said a few posts back, not just different instruments, but different power systems, different shielding, different communication systems, different...well you get the idea.

 

[xXTheOneRavenXx]

And as I said a few posts back, not just different instruments, but different power systems, different shielding, different communication systems, different...well you get the idea.

Oh I totally understand your point of view Wayne. Not really trying to debate it, as we all have our own opinions. That and the project is pretty much completed anyhow, like you said. Personally, I just see it as one of NASA's mistakes at this point in the game to take such a chance when they had an exceeding well Rover that proved superior than anything else ever sent to the red planet. I understand they want new equipment, instruments, etc... there to study different things... however with the budget, the development of the Constellation Project, and mulitple other projects they have on the go; how can they complain about lack of funding when if they just stuck with what worked (at least in the short term), then much of the money they sunk into a non-test, very expensive peice of hardware could have been wisely invested into either sending more rovers to Mars, or a couple of other planets simultaneously, vastly increasing our knowledge of the solar system in a shorter time frame. I just really hope this investment was worth it, and not wasted on a burned up pile of rubble. I'm just saying that NASA had been able to our perform every other nation that has tried to send craft to Mars with the rovers. With their current budget and projects requiring funding, why fix what wasn't broken? is all I'm trying to say.

 

[garyegray]

Should NASA Build More Mars Exploration Rovers?

This post relates to the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) design that has worked so well on the surface of Mars for over 5 years now with the rovers Spirit and Opportunity. The MER is now a well proven legacy design with ample software improvements since they landed on Mars in 2004. With the huge budget challenges that NASA faces, would it make sense to continue to slightly evolve and build new MER's at the rate of one per year and launch every two years when the positioning of the planets is optimum.

The reasons I post this question are:

1) No need to incur new costs to design a new rover - the MER design is proven. Saves Money.
2) Launch costs are relatively low with the Delta II - and it is a reliable launcher. Saves Money.
3) The science value of having multiple MER's on Mars could be tremendous. Big Bang For The Buck.

Basically, instead of spending over a billion dollars to build a high risk nuclear powered rover in the Mars Science Laboratory Rover, we could instead have a robust surface exploration program with a much lower cost legacy design using the MER platform.

I believe NASA should build on successful designs and evolve them over time instead of completely redesigning a new spacecraft with each new mission. In my view, trashing proven legacy designs and building custom spacecraft for each mission creates unnecessary costs and carries technical and mission risks as well.

As such, how does the forum participants feel about such a proposal for NASA to use proven legacy designs for exploration programs instead of "re-creating the wheel" for each new mission?

To be clear, I am a huge supporter of NASA but as a pragmatist, I also want to see our exploration dollars spent wisely.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Re: Should NASA Build More Mars Exploration Rovers?

There's a closely related discussion concerning rovers in Space Business and Technology where this really belongs anyway. I'll move it to SB&T, and merge it with the other thread tomorrow

Waqyne

 

[Ruri]

Re: Should NASA Build More Mars Exploration Rovers?

It would be sensible to reuse a highly successful design and simply add new instruments to it.
Other changes could be designing better wheels and adding nano rovers such as tiny UAV type vehicles to the platform.

 

[menellom]

Re: Should NASA Build More Mars Exploration Rovers?

I would love for there to be more rovers... I don't think a behemoth like the Mars Science Laboratory is the right next step though. NASA needs to use the current MERs, Pathfinder, and the recent LCROSS mission as a template for the majority of their unmanned missions - set a low budget and do the best you can with it. Spirit and Opportunity have been exploring Mars for almost half a decade for less than a billion dollars... compare that to the $2.5 billion spent on developing the Mars Science Laboratory.

We could have launched four more rovers with that money!

 

[bdewoody]

Re: Should NASA Build More Mars Exploration Rovers?

This post relates to the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) design that has worked so well on the surface of Mars for over 5 years now with the rovers Spirit and Opportunity. The MER is now a well proven legacy design with ample software improvements since they landed on Mars in 2004. With the huge budget challenges that NASA faces, would it make sense to continue to slightly evolve and build new MER's at the rate of one per year and launch every two years when the positioning of the planets is optimum.

The reasons I post this question are:

1) No need to incur new costs to design a new rover - the MER design is proven. Saves Money.
2) Launch costs are relatively low with the Delta II - and it is a reliable launcher. Saves Money.
3) The science value of having multiple MER's on Mars could be tremendous. Big Bang For The Buck.

Basically, instead of spending over a billion dollars to build a high risk nuclear powered rover in the Mars Science Laboratory Rover, we could instead have a robust surface exploration program with a much lower cost legacy design using the MER platform.

I believe NASA should build on successful designs and evolve them over time instead of completely redesigning a new spacecraft with each new mission. In my view, trashing proven legacy designs and building custom spacecraft for each mission creates unnecessary costs and carries technical and mission risks as well.

As such, how does the forum participants feel about such a proposal for NASA to use proven legacy designs for exploration programs instead of "re-creating the wheel" for each new mission?

To be clear, I am a huge supporter of NASA but as a pragmatist, I also want to see our exploration dollars spent wisely.

Sounds logical to me so don't expect things to turn out this way.

 

[MeteorWayne]

el bumpo

 

[EarthlingX]

If there were a common bus for such explorer vehicles, to which you plug in modules depending on the budget and mission, those 11 rovers could be tailored very specifically for intended scientific goals.
It would be nothing new, such things are used in satellites, cars, everywhere.
Improvements and upgrades would function similar to as for example launch vehicles, where they get tweaked a bit after every launch if necessary, or upgraded when compatible new tech gets available.
Magic word is 'standard' and the costs would fall on their head.

 

[samkent]

My big beef has always been the $475 million for Phoenix. A 2 month mission that just sits there in one spot.

I can hear it now “But they were trying to prove water on Mars”. That’s a lot of cash considering the orbiters said water was there.

 

[menellom]

Since the MSL is already basically done I say launch it then go back to using the MERs as a template for future Mars probes. They're just a better concept overall, they may not be able to carry half a lab on them, but they cheap, efficient, and best of all they're resilient little robots that, in spite of their simple design, have survived not months, but years after their predicted operating life. So launch MSL, it'll either be a big success or a colossal failure. Either way, after that go back to a cheaper, more easily mass producible template.

 

[EarthlingX]

MSL should be launched, of course, it will very likely teach us new tricks, at least it should, for the money spent.
Let's hope the next one will be the first of the fleet of standard explorers, at least as standard as the plane types are (not a big series usually, with a lot of sub-types)