New Mars Forums

The only real problem with cutting one (let's pick Voyager 2 - being several million km less distant than V1) is that one instrument on V1 (the PLS) is out of commission but working on V2 - a minor inconvience however even though it would be valuable to have for the VISM-phase.

But, if V1 ends up being taken out by a piece of debris and we've let V2 go, we've wasted that opportunity and money, unless V2 can be picked up again, which as time goes on is less and less likely.

Plus I'm not entirely sure that much money would be saved by not listening to one of them.  The various universities that handle the data would still have to... handle the data (just less of it).  The cost savings probably wouldn't be that large.  But it might be interesting to see if that could be done.

It would solve one problem - a fixed DSN ability for an ever increasing number of spacecraft (which it seems to me is the real problem - not the money for Voyager - but the money for an increased DSN capability).

To kinda answer a question I know something about...

Expensive?  Not really.  The only major expense is having a receiver sensitive enough to receive the data.  The DSN is currently the only NASA-run set of receivers that could do so, which isn't to say the Russians couldn't use some of their larger radio telescopes, or perhaps Greenbank, etc.

How often do they return data?  Every day - oftentimes every 16 seconds for some instruments.  They don't have data recorders (tape or otherwise) that can store more than a couple of days worth of data due to power requirements.  Miss a day (or a hour) of reception - miss a day (or an hour) of data collection - which happens due to weather quite often:

http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/wee … /index.htm

Being new here, I'll take my time and be as concise and humble as possible - plus I'm about 4 months behind but I've seen some disingenious arguments here.  I've read this version of this article twice very carefully before seeing this discussion, and am reading it again as I write in it's more updated form (from April 21st, 2005).

This later version is the one I'll address as far as robotic missions.

I'm not sure where Zubrin advocates two things I've read here: a). focusing on piloted Mars missions exclusive of other destinations (excluding the Moon) or b). "racing" to Mars.

I'd also like to quickly comment on the money issue.  The public loves space exploration.  That's no problem, as long as no one scares them with numbers like $100 billion or $40 billion (not mentioning that's over 10, 20, or even 30 years).  That's been pretty well established before elsewhere.

Back to what I was saying - I'm no big fan of Zubrin's (might be if he would have replied to my questions - assuming they were received), but he's often shown insight into the issue of NASA and it's management that most of us should have realised on our own - and I appreciate that.  He's not as smart as he thinks he is, but he's no slouch either.

In the most recent version of this article Zubrin makes mention of two robotic missions - Hubble and JIMO.  His points on both are spot-on.  What is the need for a 150-100 kw reactor for JIMO - not to mention it taking 9 years to get there - when 20 kw would do and getting there earlier would lessen the possibility of failure?

Why ditch Hubble (although the proposed Hubble II is interesting - assuming it gets built in an era where $4.6 million/year for Voyager is stretching things) for supposed "safety reasons"?

Zubrin correctly points out that over 40 interplanetary missions were launched during the 60's/70's while during the last decade only a half-dozen have been launched (not all successfully mind you).  Being Mars-centric is a false objection to Zubrin's points.

Zubrin's assertions about the goal/destination driven focus versus the technology-first focus are also dead-on when you consider other things he says - including the use of the technology for Mars also being useful for Lunar or NEO missions.

He specifically makes it clear in the article that exploring many avenues for reaching the destination are the point of his contention - except that making it time-definite will also force NASA to choose the best, most cost-efficient method of reaching all the goals.

On the other hand we have what we have now.  The shuttle, the space station, and some MLV's.  What was/is the Shuttle good for?  What was/is the ISS good for?  What will the Moon offer that will be of use for a Mars mission (much less missions to NEO's - other destinations being uncertain - we aren't talking about outer solar system or interstellar flights here)?

Besides a training/testing ground that requires the same technology to acheive as a Mars mission (another valid point by Zubrin) - I would very much like to know.

The Moon may have water (or hydrogen deposits) but only at one or both poles.  Yes, there is O2 to be found in the rocks, but you still have to do some heavy processing to extract either - and a polar mission is highly unlikely considering the safe-mode NASA talks about but rarely follows when inconvient.

Why develop a secondary technology to pursue the Moon, and potentially sacrifice Mars exploration which will need another technology-base (thanks to spending billions on the Moon alone) when developing a cohesive technology within a set period of time around the primary goal that can also be useful for other destinations will save time, money, and as important - the experience of the people who work at the various NASA centers?

I believe Zubrin's insights in both versions of this article are all valid - including his assertions on the reasons for this lengthy planning (to satisfy the aerospace industry interests among other things).

I hope the new Admin. Griffin sees that as well so we can move boldly into the future rather than continue running around in circles in LEO - talking about grand adventures once again - and doing nothing more that we have for the past 25 years.