Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

Mark S · 2002-08-02 14:58:17

I think that NASA's robotic armada which will be sent to Mars over the next twenty years is quite excessive. The agency believes that multiple sample return missions will be necessary before humans can fly to Mars. This reasoning is poor in light of the historical precedent set during Apollo. NASA never conducted a robotic sample return from the moon. Instead, the Lunar Orbiter, Ranger, and Lunar Surveyor probes were sent to photograph the moon and find suitable landing spots.

NASA's Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter of 2005 will do a satisfactory job of mapping the planet and finding landing sites. Aside from that, there is no need for many of NASA's future missions. These include Mars Sample Return and the Mars Scout missions. All of the groundwork will have been set up by 2006 for humans to Mars, with one notable exception.

I have said in the past that MSR should be seen as a testbed for propellant manufacturing. Now I believe that this is unnecessary. In 2007-2009 NASA will launch a Smart Lander that will hop over the surface of the planet. This is a perfect opportunity to test the propellant production system in the Martian environment without a long and costly sample return.

Adrian · 2002-08-02 16:29:32

I'd agree with this. I'm not a rocket scientist, but I can't say I understand the reason behind having so many different mapping orbiters around Mars. What with NASA and ESA's missions, and other possible missions from Italy and Japan, is it really cost effective to have this kind of duplication of effort (for surely there must be some)?

Something worth noting is that the Russians conducted a few Lunar sample return missions before Apollo.

Phobos · 2002-08-02 19:58:31

In a way this robotic invasion of Mars is good because it means there's a lot of interest in Mars. But I agree that a lot of these missions seem overly redundant and it might be better to spend the money on sending probes to other locations that won't be visited by people for a very long time. Or better yet route some of the money directly into developing the technology needed for sending people to Mars. I get the feeling though NASA wants to send the sample return probe as insurance so they don't have to endure the public's finger-pointing in case the astronauts are eaten alive by unknown caustic chemicals, bacteria, or whatever.

Palomar · 2002-08-03 11:40:15

But I agree that a lot of these missions seem overly redundant and it might be better to spend the money on sending probes to other locations that won't be visited by people for a very long time.

*Indeed. Like Europa. Yup, that little Jovian moon has me very curious. There is so much more to explore in the solar system; look how many moons Jupiter and Saturn alone have between them.

I think it'd also be worthwhile for probes to be sent to Neptune to study its Great Blue Spot and how -- if at all -- it correlates with Jupiter's Great Red Spot. If I recall correctly, Jupiter's Spot travels clockwise around the planet's surface, and Neptune's Spot travels counter-clockwise around its surface...but don't quote me on that Neptune, IMO, rivals Saturn in its beauty. Its deep, magnificent blue with darker and lighter bands of blue is very striking.

--Cindy

turbo · 2002-08-03 12:33:07

Hi everybody! I thought the big concern was the Martian dust, and how it would affect suit joints and all? It makes sense to get some dust to test in a lab, but so many samples?

Maybe the propulsion experiments with so many sample return mission will give an idea as to capability, as long as they probes aren't programmed to land below the surface again, I'll be fine.

For those of us not doing senior projects this weekend, ENJOY!
For those of us that are, yes, the thing may be in backwards.

Josh Cryer · 2002-08-03 21:00:41

Adrian,

I'm not a rocket scientist, but I can't say I understand the reason behind having so many different mapping orbiters around Mars.

I don't see any redundancy in the latest missions. Each new probe introduces new, interesting technology. MGS had TES, MOLA and the best high resolution camera at the time (MOC). MOLA gives us highly accurate heighmaps, although it died before it had a chance to reach its potential (but well beyond its designed mission requirements). TES (along with MOC) literally gives us a daily weather report.

Odyssey has MARIE, THEMIS and GRS. THEMIS gives really great images (both visual and geological) since it has such a wide spectrum. GRS (along with THEMIS) allows us to see mineral distribution, and has already confirmed large quantities of water. MARIE will help us determine radiation levels... all of these things are obviously prerequisites for humans going to Mars. We need to know where and how much water there is... we need to know radiation levels, and have accurate maps.

The reason NASA sticks with probes is that for their turnaround, we get a whole lot of information. In a word, they're cheap.

As for the robotic missions, I don't really see any duplication efforts from a scientific perspecitve. Sure, the rover idea has ?been done before,? but hey, it worked last time, why not do it again? Same with the whole air bag deployment idea...

Something worth noting is that the Russians conducted a few Lunar sample return missions before Apollo.

Another thing worth noting, is that they didn't succeed until 1970. Russia's luck with the moon was very very poor. Search google for Russia's lunar missions... it's sad to see how many failed.

Cindy,

Indeed. Like Europa. Yup, that little Jovian moon has me very curious.

Me too... but I'm still happy we're spending money focusing on Mars. Europa could answer a lot of questions, but I think Mars has the same potential. And Mars is closer... and Mars is habitable.

Phobos · 2002-08-04 21:35:25

Hi everybody! I thought the big concern was the Martian dust, and how it would affect suit joints and all? It makes sense to get some dust to test in a lab, but so many samples?

I'm beginning to agree with Turbo. It's better safe than sorry to analyze samples of the Martian surface even if a sample return proves to be a worthless endeavour. I remember reading somewhere that Martian dust might contain poisonous or corrosive materials.

I think it'd also be worthwhile for probes to be sent to Neptune to study its Great Blue Spot and how -- if at all -- it correlates with Jupiter's Great Red Spot. If I recall correctly, Jupiter's Spot travels clockwise around the planet's surface, and Neptune's Spot travels counter-clockwise around its surface...but don't quote me on that Neptune, IMO, rivals Saturn in its beauty. Its deep, magnificent blue with darker and lighter bands of blue is very striking.

I think Neptune is the forgotten planet. I think it ranks even less on the radar than Mercury for most people. Have you seen Neptune in your telescope? I imagine it just looks like a blue star, but maybe you can see some of the bands in its atmosphere?

Adrian · 2002-08-05 11:07:36

Ah well, I stand corrected on the non-redundancy of Mars orbiter missions. And while Russia never coped too well with the Moon, I think NASA stands a better chance and there are many worse things they could waste their money on than a sample return mission - which could, if it returned interesting results, provide the impetus for a human mission and also raise worldwide interest in Mars.

Mark S · 2002-08-05 12:13:24

I think NASA stands a better chance and there are many worse things they could waste their money on than a sample return mission - which could, if it returned interesting results, provide the impetus for a human mission and also raise worldwide interest in Mars.

If an in-situ experiment on Mars can provide the evidence of life that we need, a sample return will be unnecessary to justify sending humans. If we can repeat the Viking experiments with better instruments at an area with subsurface water, we can probably establish an answer to this question. I think that the ESA Mars Express will accomplish exactly that in 2003-2004.

A robotic sample return would be a good way to return a small amount of Martian regolith to the earth at the soonest possible date, but that sample would not be representative of the entire Martian regolith. It would be necessary to visit many sites and bring back hundreds of pounds of rocks to even begin categorizing the surface of Mars. Although several sample return probes could pull this off, it might be more cost-effective to send human geologists who can find the best samples and return them in one shot.

Palomar · 2002-08-05 12:24:07

Have you seen Neptune in your telescope? I imagine it just looks like a blue star, but maybe you can see some of the bands in its atmosphere?

*It's a pretty blue star in my telescope, but I cannot make out a disc proper, nor banding.

Another striking feature in the Voyager and Hubble Telescope photos are the pure-white methane clouds which hover around the Great Blue Spot. It would be breath-taking to see it up close; that, and Saturn especially. I envy the future solar system explorers.

--Cindy

Adrian · 2002-08-05 14:16:41

If an in-situ experiment on Mars can provide the evidence of life that we need, a sample return will be unnecessary to justify sending humans.

This is of course the question - is an in-situ experiment enough? The number of tests and their quality will always be limited compared to tests by Earth-based laboratories. The principle point of a sample return mission is that samples can be examined in far greater detail and in many different ways than in-situ. That this is true is not under question. What needs to be determined is whether we really want, or need, to do this, before a human mission - or even at all.

Phobos · 2002-08-05 19:32:36

I agree that Earth-based labs are much better equipped to analyze samples than field explorers, but a robotic sample return probe doesn't have that subtle knowledge of what materials on the surface are worth looking at in a lab. If we are interested in finding life or fossils I think it's going to turn out mandatory that we send people who know what to look for to Mars.

Ryjaz · 2002-08-07 10:35:56

Given today's political climate, I believe that the small missions to mars are the most practical path for robotic missions until a time when it becomes feasible. I heartily agree with the priorities set by the national science foundation that states that the priorieties be a large mission to europe, a medium on to pluto and a bunch of small ones to mars. For robotics, this is the right path IMHO.

Now for humans, the story is much different. The technologies needed to bring humans to Mars have nothing to do with Mars. What is needed more so is research in closed life support systems, quicker rockets and better habs, to name a few. All of which can be done here on Earth or in LEO.

The idea that we need humans to go to mars to perform science is just wrong. Scientists are happy using their tools to gather data that they can sit and crunch on their computers. The real reason to go there, to be completely honest, is to settle. Its a new frontier and we love new frontiers. Lets not lie and use the science excuse for human travel. Leave data gathering to the robots, they are better at it.

Mark S · 2002-08-07 11:11:55

Lets not lie and use the science excuse for human travel. Leave data gathering to the robots, they are better at it.

Sorry Ryjaz, but I'd have to completely disagree. As nifty as robots are, particularly for missions that are too dangerous for humans, their capabilities are limited when compared to those of a human geologist. Although the Surveyor probes told us much about the moon, we learned significantly more by sending astronauts there, particularly on the last three missions when the astronauts received training in geology (except for Schmitt, who was a geologist by profession.) Large amounts of rocks were returned to laboratories on earth, and their study changed the way scientists looked at our celestial neighbor. The study of the Apollo rocks lead to the hypothesis that a glancing blow knocked material from the earth which formed into the moon. I don't know how much the Soviets learned from their small lunar sample returns, but I doubt that they gleaned any earth-shattering observations from their handful of rocks.

dicktice · 2003-10-30 18:19:34

Wasted money, spent training up and coming NASA robot engineering teams how to literally re-invent the wheel: I can hardly believe you who are "for" MSR can in good conscious endorse such a gamble--while the majority of the inhabitants of our one-and-only Home Planet haven't a clue about the possible risks of such Murphy's-law-prone schemes. Of course, once we become spacefaring, knowledge will dictate. But in our present state of ignorance, it's like brats in a sandbox before they've learned to walk--too impatient to wait before grabbing something outside the box to play with, that might possibly turn out to be cat-turds, and mess up the whole darn sandbox. Of what possible use could anything less than hundreds of well dispersed, deep-core samples be, from which to form valid planet-wide conclusions about Mars's regolith? The present situation, with all this super-fine Mars surface imagery. simply screams for human exploration--not the seemingly endless series of Mickey Mouse "rovers" with toy shovels and buckets being launched to scratch away at the surface!

GCNRevenger · 2003-11-02 09:09:49

Ehhh there is a difference between the Moon and Mars that does warrent MSR before a human mission is sent, besides the fact that we don't have Communist Russia to beat...:

The Martian dust does indeed contain some pretty harsh chemical salts and peroxides that could be harmful to humans, which would be difficult to avoid exposure to. With Nasa in its "safe spaceflight or no spaceflight" frenzy, I doubt they are willing to take the chance. Since you can't send up lab rats or a large biology package, the best thing to do is bring some of the dust to Earth. I bet the dust on Mars is pretty well homogeneous from a few billion years of being mixed by the winds, so any sample will do.

It would also be nice if Nasa could find some place with underground water or surface ice or somthing, and turn it into O2/LH, so human crews won't have to skimp on water consumption (hot shower? yay! *grin*) and won't have to bring any Hydrogen feedstock from Earth at all, saving an EELV HLV launch or two worth of mass that you could pack a few Martian GPS/Telecom satellites on the TMI cargo stage or somthing else nice. If TransHab could be built light enough, then you could pack one instead of the LH fuel and have lots more pressurized space. (yay!)

Oh yeah and about nuclear rocket -exaust-...

Hydrogen can't really become radioactive to any great degree with its extremely simple and stable nucleous, so this isn't a big problem, though it would be hard to build a solid core NTR engine that retains 100% of its fuel mass. Some small leakage would probobly occur, but were the engine fired in the upper atmosphere, the material would be so dispursed that the dose recieved on the ground would be nil. Now as Gas Core thermal engine would probobly have signifigant leakage... but a small price to pay for 6X-8X the ISP of SSMEs. Six times the payload, or Earth to Mars in 30 days?

SpaceNut · 2015-06-30 22:11:15

Lunar Sample-return Team Eyes Another New Frontiers Run A lunar sample-return mission that was among the three finalists in the 2011 NASA competition

Topographic map of the moon centered on the South Pole-Aitken Basin, which contains well-preserved traces of materials deposited there by the ancient impact that formed it.

A call for proposals is expected sometime after Sept. 30, the start of the U.S. government’s 2016 budget year. The winning mission would launch in 2021, but exactly when NASA will formally start the race for funding remains a mystery, including to Jolliff.
However, the proposal Jolliff and his team submitted to NASA for the last New Frontiers competition shows the mission would pack a dedicated UHF relay satellite and a lander with a detachable ascent-and-return vehicle into a package small enough to fit inside the 5.4-meter fairing on a United Launch Alliance Atlas 5-531 rocket. Lockheed Martin Space Systems of Denver was the principal industry partner on the proposal last time around.
“This mission would represent a number of firsts: the first soft landing on the Moon’s far side; the first automated sample return from a body with substantial gravity for the U.S. and relevant to future Mars sample return missions; and the first sample return from the Moon’s far side,” Jolliff said

SpaceNut · 2015-07-08 22:03:41

Sorry gang about the shifting page but admin level need to fix the one post.....

I do not have a subscription but here is the article link,
NASA Seeks Human Landing Site On Mars Looking for real estate on the red planet

Space science and human-exploration visionaries are doing their best to “make Mars real,” with new plans and concepts for pioneering on the next planet out from Earth. After a year of behind-the-scenes work, NASA has unveiled its plans for deploying astronauts on the surface, and has issued a call for ideas on exactly where to send them. Central to the concept is an “exploration zone” roughly 100 km (60 mi.) across, divided into subzones for different kinds of ...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-08-02 14:58:17

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#2 2002-08-02 16:29:32

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#3 2002-08-02 19:58:31

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#4 2002-08-03 11:40:15

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#5 2002-08-03 12:33:07

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#6 2002-08-03 21:00:41

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#7 2002-08-04 21:35:25

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#8 2002-08-05 11:07:36

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#9 2002-08-05 12:13:24

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#10 2002-08-05 12:24:07

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#11 2002-08-05 14:16:41

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#12 2002-08-05 19:32:36

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#13 2002-08-07 10:35:56

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#14 2002-08-07 11:11:55

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#15 2003-10-30 18:19:34

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#16 2003-11-02 09:09:49

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#17 2015-06-30 22:11:15

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

#18 2015-07-08 22:03:41

Re: Less probes to Mars - We don't need no stinking probes

Board footer