What Happens to MGS after MRO?

[gpurcell]

Watching the Von Karman lecture on the MRO mission, it makes me wonder whether it will be neccessary/desirable to keep MGS functioning. It seems like MRO can do everything MGS is doing, and do it better and more quickly.<br /><br />Anyone know what the plans are for MGS post-2006?

 

[trockner]

I think the MGS has several more years of productive utility left. It's orbital attitude means that very little remaining fuel is expended. <br /><br />The probe will be absolutely essential as a spotter for MRO, as well as continuing the extended long-term global hi-res mapping mission.<br /><br />People have to keep in mind that large areas of Mars have been mapped at relatively hi-res only by Mariner 9 ! I'm pretty sure that's correct.

 

[JonClarke]

I think Viking gives the best global converage. But othrerwise, MRO and MGS offering complementary systems, one certainly does not replace the other.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[trockner]

OK...thanx...what I was getting at is that, as far as I know, ONLY Mariner 9 carried out a COMPLETE global mapping mission on Mars. I'm pretty 90%+ sure that even the Viking orbiters didn't do as thorough a job.<br /><br />I'm going to guess that Viking updated Mariner 9's mapping by only 25- />30%.<br /><br />We HAVE to keep in mind that Mars has WAAAY more dry land area than does Earth!<br /><br />Mars is as mysterious as ever. We need to maintain...AND EXPAND... our observational infrastructure around Mars until WE can get there and settle matters once and for all!<img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

Mariner 9 imaged 85% of the planet. The two Vikings imaged 97%http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/SPACEFLIGHT/inner_planets/SP29.htm<br /><br /><br />Mars has a surface area of 28% of earth. However as the earth is 71% covered in water, the dry surface area of the two planets is almost the same.<br /><br />Cheers<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[trockner]

OK...thanx for filling the lacuna in my memory banks vis the Viking orbiters records.<br /><br />But I DID read the other day that MGS has only, so far, mapped about 4- />6 % of Mars.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The probe will be absolutely essential as a spotter for MRO, as well as continuing the extended long-term global hi-res mapping mission. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Plus, doesn't MGS carry equipment for relaying transmissions back to Earth? As more spacecraft arrive at Mars, the relays on all the orbiters will become increasingly useful. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Plus, doesn't MGS carry equipment for relaying transmissions back to Earth? As more spacecraft arrive at Mars, the relays on all the orbiters will become increasingly useful.</i><br /><br />Yes, MGS carries the Mars Relay (MR) system, which was used on MER, and earlier slated for use on the Mars Polar Lander and Deep Space 2 missions. Being an older system, however, its relay capability is more limited than the Mars Odyssey UHF relay and the Electra system slated for MRO.<br /><br />That said, as long as MGS MR is functioning, it will still be an asset to supplement data return, assuming the landers or near-surface packages have, unlike Beagle 2, compatible comm systems.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>But I DID read the other day that MGS has only, so far, mapped about 4->6 % of Mars.</i><br /><br />Just to be clear, this figure represents the MOC Narrow Angle (MOC NA) high resolution coverage to date, which was predicted before the mission. The MOC wide angle system (MOC WA) produces daily global coverage.<br /><br />The Viking and Mariner 9 coverage totals are by no means comprised entirely of high resolution imagery. In fact, the opposite is true.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>Anyone know what the plans are for MGS post-2006?</i><br /><br />As long as the spacecraft remains healthy and the MOC and MR are operational, I see no reason why the mission will not be extended. That said, however, at some point propellant reserves will dwindle to the point where spacecraft momentum management will not be possible (i.e., unable to desaturate the RWAs) or to the point where MGS would be unable to be boosted into a higher quarantine orbit for planetary protection purposes.

 

[alexblackwell]

<i>I think Viking gives the best global converage. But othrerwise, MRO and MGS offering complementary systems, one certainly does not replace the other.</i><br /><br />I'm not sure I agree, Jon. MRO MARCI, a medium angle color system, will give Viking-era or better resolution over the entire planet, and in five visible and two ultraviolet wavelengths. MRO's B/W context imager, CTX, will give regional coverage; eventually a global map will be built up, at better than Viking-era resolution.

 

[JonClarke]

I stand corrected. Thanks. Fantastic stuff. Should MGS be decomissioned then, as surplus to requirements when MRO arrives?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Well, I don't think anything should be decommissioned at Mars until it's seriously limping! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Every asset at Mars is incredibly valuable and in large part irreplaceable. It would be foolish to sacrifice any of those assets prematurely unless there was a really serious budget problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[trockner]

Yes, you're all correct.<br /><br />This is what's involved (before our very eyes <img src="/images/icons/shocked.gif" />) with establishing a robotic scientific infrastructure at Mars. There is a rapidly evolving redundancy and capability in both surface and orbital assets.<br /><br />It is highly likely that the scientifically illiterate Congress and overworked OMB bean-counters won't realize what NASA's up to until a request for "in situ mobile intelligent organic units" (humans...heh heh<img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />) comes up in an obscure budget line item...by which time it'll be too late to say NO!<br /><br />It wouldn't be the first time NASA's attempted such an end run. They submitted a request for a "Galactic Millimeter Wave Mapping Mission", or some such, back in the '80s. Unfortunately, Sen. Bryan (R)Nev. caught onto the fact that NASA was up to some "dangerously revolutionary" SETI studies...both he and Sen. Bumpers (D)Ark. managed to defeat the budget amendment on the very eve that NASA's receivers were about to be turned on. Not to be deterred, NASA simply transferred the equipment over to the privately run Project Phoenix. I think Microsoft's Paul Allen is the latest major contributor to the project...<br /><br />