President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

Bill White · 2002-10-01 11:06:23

In today's Spacedaily.com it is reported that sample return will be delayed by a decade, or more, because the Bush Administration is opposed to the cost estimates. A quote from the article:

In 2001, NASA invited five major aerospace firms (Ball Aerospace, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and TRW), along with JPL's "Team X" advanced mission design group, to develop their own designs for a sample return mission and estimate its cost.
The various designs of course varied widely, but all of them cost in the range of 1.5 to 2 billion dollars -- a cost that the Bush Administration indicated it finds unacceptable. Moreover, it became clear that the sheer technical difficulty of this mission, and the huge number of completely new and as-yet untested technologies it requires, would force it to be delayed to 2016 at the earliest.

Palomar · 2002-10-01 12:02:16

In today's Spacedaily.com it is reported that sample return will be delayed by a decade, or more, because the Bush Administration is opposed to the cost estimates. A quote from the article:
In 2001, NASA invited five major aerospace firms (Ball Aerospace, Boeing, Lockheed Martin and TRW), along with JPL's "Team X" advanced mission design group, to develop their own designs for a sample return mission and estimate its cost.
The various designs of course varied widely, but all of them cost in the range of 1.5 to 2 billion dollars -- a cost that the Bush Administration indicated it finds unacceptable. Moreover, it became clear that the sheer technical difficulty of this mission, and the huge number of completely new and as-yet untested technologies it requires, would force it to be delayed to 2016 at the earliest.

*Well, I just read this morning at Yahoo! news that war with Iraq will cost $9,000,000,000 per MONTH. Yeah, I did get the number of zeros right, folks. Go ahead, fellow Americans at this message board, and gag on your hard-boiled eggs like I did!

Yeah, we know where the White House priorities are...big surprise, NOT.

--Cindy

P.S.: I edited this post to include the following I've just now copied and pasted from a Yahoo! news article:

"But it estimated that deploying U.S. forces to the Persian Gulf would cost from $9 billion to $13 billion, and that the monthly cost of combat by either heavy ground or air forces would be $6 billion to $9 billion.

Another $5 billion to $7 billion would be required to bring the troops home after a war. The monthly cost of a postwar peacekeeping force ? excluding humanitarian aid, reconstruction and the dismantling of weapons of mass destruction ? would be $1 billion to $4 billion.

"This debate should not be driven by how much it will cost U.S. taxpayers," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, D-N.D. But he said it was important to keep in mind that three months of combat with a heavy ground force and a five-year occupation by a large U.S. force could cost more than $272 billion."

- end quote-

This article says 6-9 billion per month, whereas a previous article said 9 billion dollars per month. And they're squealing over a measly 1 billion dollars for a Mars project?

And I hope this Kent Conrad guy gets voted OUT of office come next election. Or maybe HE should pay for a war with Iraq.

clark · 2002-10-01 12:30:35

This article says 6-9 billion per month, whereas a previous article said 9 billion dollars per month. And they're squealing over a measly 1 billion dollars for a Mars project?

Hmm, 9 billion dollars a month to ensure our way of life, or 1 billion dollars to see if there IS life on another planet...

Measly "1 billion dollars" for something that we arguably do not need to do right now, or even in the near future....

6-9 billion dollars to solve something that is only going to get worse right now, or in the near future.

However we got here, we are here, so it's time to deal. Mars can wait.

Palomar · 2002-10-01 13:41:28

Mars can wait.

*Yeah, I see your point Clark. It's a shame to consider taking 1 billion dollars away from a 272 billion dollar war effort. It's kind of like shaking a finger of shame in the face of kids trying to sell grape Kool-Aid at a sidewalk stand for $1 per glassful, and then turning around and spending $272 for a bottle of wine at some fancy restaurant.

Tsk, tsk...shame on silly ol' me. What was I thinking?! ???

--Cindy

nirgal · 2002-10-01 13:51:24

I agree with you 100%. We should cut defense spending (now at $300-400 BILLION per year) by 50% or more.

clark · 2002-10-01 13:54:17

It's a shame to consider taking 1 billion dollars away from a 272 billion dollar war effort.

Oh, I get it, since we're already spending sooooo much money on this silly thing to ensure our way of life and maintain our dominance in the region and in the world, who is going to miss that extra billion or two....

1 billion dollars for a high-stake gamble to return (MAYBE) a few grams of mars dirt? Then, even IF funded, the program wouldn't be functional until 2016-2020.

The national government exsists primarily to protect us, yet you suggest that we divert resources from this PRIMARY role to fund a specfic pet project that is largely ignored by the general populace (whom the leaders of our country have sworn to REPRESENT) and with little expectation of improving the quality of life for anyone, in this country or outside it.

We spend billions on education, should we just take a billion or two from that?
How about medicare or medicaid, I mean, all those billions, who is going to miss it?
Wait, I know, let's just take the money from social security...

I have no idea what you are thinking. :0

Palomar · 2002-10-01 14:08:53

It's a shame to consider taking 1 billion dollars away from a 272 billion dollar war effort.
Oh, I get it, since we're already spending sooooo much money on this silly thing to ensure our way of life and maintain our dominance in the region and in the world, who is going to miss that extra billion or two....
1 billion dollars for a high-stake gamble to return (MAYBE) a few grams of mars dirt? Then, even IF funded, the program wouldn't be functional until 2016-2020.
The national government exsists primarily to protect us, yet you suggest that we divert resources from this PRIMARY role to fund a specfic pet project that is largely ignored by the general populace (whom the leaders of our country have sworn to REPRESENT) and with little expectation of improving the quality of life for anyone, in this country or outside it.
We spend billions on education, should we just take a billion or two from that?
How about medicare or medicaid, I mean, all those billions, who is going to miss it?
Wait, I know, let's just take the money from social security...
I have no idea what you are thinking. :0

*Clark, I'm not interested in getting into a debate with you on this.

As for your suddenly dragging Social Security into this discussion...if you've read my posts consistently, you will have seen that I have frequently addressed the issues of prescription medication coverage for the elderly, universal health care for U.S. citizens, etc., ::alongside of:: space exploration/settlement projects. Besides, if Bush does get his way, Social Security WILL suffer, because -- again -- $9,000,000,000 per MONTH can be put to better use.

My position is pro-Social Security; your position, and Mr. Bush's, doesn't help Social Security...so WHY did you bring up the issue of Social Security?

If you truly think "Mars can wait," then aren't you wasting your time at these message boards?

What the White House decides to do with the money in the U.S. Treasury (taxpayers' dollars) depends upon their priorities. The current "priority" seems to be the war-path one.

--Cindy

clark · 2002-10-01 14:33:28

mY point for bringing up social security, or even education for that matter is to point out the arbitrary nature of deciding that one particular program, or objective, is more important than another. You suggest that a billion or two can be spared from the cost of the impending war- that same argument, that same logic, can also be applied to other federally funded programs. You then suggest that money would be better spent on retreiving a few grams of martian rock, without any supporting rationale as to how it is more prudent to spend the money there versus where it is needed now.

My whole point was to address the fact that a clear and present need exsist NOW, to have the funds exactly where they are- there is no need at the present time to fund the mars soil return project, especially if it means that more legitimate needs would have to suffer as a result.

f you truly think "Mars can wait," then aren't you wasting your time at these message boards?

You don't get it. I gave up being a blind sycophant. Mars CAN wait. If you sit down, and look at all the facts objectively, you will come to the exact same conclusion. However, I do have a desire to see man on mars one day, and I do support that goal- but it dosen't mean I have to set aside my personal doubts, or my understanding, derived from the facts that I have, that demonstrate that we are not ready for Mars, and that the issue of colonization has to be seriously assesed in a more realistic manner.

Would I like people on Mars tommorrow, sure, but the question then becomes "at what cost".
I fail to see how a soil sample return mission is worth this cost.

I would imagine that one-two billion dollars might fund the first two years of a manned mission to mars program instead- that seems a bit more worthwhile to me. But who wants to debate.

Mark S · 2002-10-01 15:05:03

Can Mars wait?

Most likely, it can. But there's also the off chance that presently-existing life on Mars, if it exists, could go extinct or become harder to find if we wait. Of course, a Sample Return will probably not do much to enhance our understanding of possible Martian biology.

If you haven't read "Single Stage to Anywhere" by G. Harry Stine, the author implies that Apollo was premature. We should have waited for reusable spaceships and widespread access to space before venturing to the moon. That's why Apollo resulted in flags and footprints.

As anxious as I am to do Mars now, it will most likely not lead to colonization and fizzle out just as Apollo had. The fundamental belief behind Mars Direct is that mankind is still not a space-faring society, and that Martian exploration will strain the resources of the nation who adopts Mars Direct. Thus, the need for multiple launches of large rockets is reduced, and costs are kept to a minimum.

People will not be ready to truly explore space again until World War IV, the fight against Wahabbism and its national sponsors like Iraq, is under control and the free world feels safe again. I'm certain that if we could make a deal with the devil and trade something like the Hubble Space Telescope to prevent the World trade Center from being destroyed, most of us would accept it. There are too many priorities in this life, and as exciting as it is to explore, the fight to survive must always come first.

Palomar · 2002-10-01 15:47:43

People will not be ready to truly explore space again until World War IV, the fight against Wahabbism and its national sponsors like Iraq, is under control and the free world feels safe again....There are too many priorities in this life, and as exciting as it is to explore, the fight to survive must always come first.

*But let's not forget that SOME (but not all, of course) of the "fight to survive" scenarios have come about as a result of war-drum-beating propaganda techniques.

If mankind hesitated and waited to do anything because of the "fight to survive," we'd all still be chopping wood and hauling water in the lands where our ancestors lived and died.

Ever forward!

--Cindy

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-01 18:42:53

We spend billions on education, should we just take a billion or two from that?

Considering the record of state education, how about diverting all of it to other uses?

Phobos · 2002-10-01 19:51:47

We spend billions on education, should we just take a billion or two from that?
Considering the record of state education, how about diverting all of it to other uses?

Uh oh A.J., I think your stepping into another mine field. Personally I'd rather just work on getting people to Mars than to waste time trying to create all of these nifty robots that go out and play geologist. I was reading about some of the stunts they were planning to pull off with the sample return mission and its amazing the feats they want to do. It seems unduly complicated and prone to failure. People say we need this mission not only to search for life but to ensure that we don't end up infecting our astronauts and/or wiping out humanity when they return, but a little sample return mission won't be able to fully catalog the pathogens that exist on Mars anyway. Their scope is too limited.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-01 20:01:44

That 1 to 2 billion dollars for a sample return in 2016 is for just one sample, isn't it?
Somewhere in New Mars I think, I remember reading what sounded like a perfectly reasonable argument that we would need at least several samples from various places on Mars. The logic, of course, being that, with only one return,you might bring home soil from the only place on Mars NOT seething with man-eating pathogens!!
So it seems that a reasonably complete sample return program might involve a half dozen missions spread over, say, 2016 to 2020 (two per launch window), and costing maybe $9 billion. If we insist on this program before we send humans, Mars exploration will end up on the back-burner for many decades to come. And it ISN'T necessary!

Hang on a minute! .... Where did I put that soap-box?! Ah yes ... there it is! ....

As I've argued repeatedly, any Martian life (and I'm as certain in my own mind as I am of anything that there IS some) will be found to be essentially the same as Earth life because of frequent impact transfers of living material between the planets. It is simply out of the question that Earth and Mars have ever been quarantined from each other for more than a few million years at a time.
The risk of our astronauts coming down with an alien ailment are vanishingly small. And I don't think you'd have any trouble at all finding volunteers to 'take a chance' if it meant a ticket on the first ship to Mars! The first explorers will be there for about 500 days, which is plenty of time to contract, incubate, and die from a Martian disease organism. If there's something dangerous there, they won't be bringing it home to an unsuspecting world .... they'll be dead long before they get the chance!

The logic behind the SRM is flawed because it is based on a knowledge paradigm whose foundations are gradually being eaten away, but which hasn't quite fallen yet. That paradigm depends on the notion of planetary quarantine and the independent development of fundamentally different life-forms on Mars which we must protect, or from which we need to protect ourselves.
Individually, most scientists probably will admit that impact transfer is real and that life must have hitched a ride in both directions (and perhaps to the clouds of Venus, too, it seems now! ). But the 'standard model', as chanted routinely in the text books and by clueless journalists on television, still clings to the outmoded quarantine concept.

It would be amusing to watch if it weren't so serious.
But it's slowing us down and frightening the mission planners and bean-counters! Let's scrap this sample return nonsense and concentrate on the realities of the situation. It's hard enough to raise money as it is!!
???

AltToWar · 2002-10-01 20:25:47

To Paraphraise Carl Sagan:

Dutch Elms disease is a highly specialized organism. Humans never get dutch elms disease, and never will.

The only "real" danger if (big if) there is micobial life on mars, is that these bacteria when they do encounter earth will flourish and overtake the domain of some currently existing microbe, and offset the ecosystem some. To this I point out 2 facts:

1: It is highly unlikely that life that involved on an alient planet can out compete a lifeform on earth. The life on earth has spent countless years adapting and enhancing itself to this environment. I dont see how it is likely at all that life on mars would be more suited to live on earth than it's earth counterparts.

2: If we truely are concerned about the stability of our ecosystems, we have been doing one shitty of a job of taking care of it so far. Plants go extinct daily, local human and animal diseases are spread world wide, animals and insects are spread into ecosystems they never had access to before, edging out thee species that currently inhabit the area.

Why is it that, when this happens every day here on earth we barely take note of it, but when the very (VERY) small chance of somthing similar may happening from mars we make policy out of it?

It makes me worried that contamination is really such a big issue.

A.J.Armitage · 2002-10-02 00:05:43

Phobos;

People say we need this mission not only to search for life but to ensure that we don't end up infecting our astronauts and/or wiping out humanity when they return, but a little sample return mission won't be able to fully catalog the pathogens that exist on Mars anyway. Their scope is too limited.

Actually, I think I can catalog the pathogens on Mars right now: none.

Unless aliens put up big "lifeless planet" movie sets around our probes to keep us from looking at their civilization, there are no multicellular organisms on Mars (and probably no microbes except transplanted Earth ones either). No hosts means no pathogens.

Palomar · 2002-10-02 10:34:29

That 1 to 2 billion dollars for a sample return in 2016 is for just one sample, isn't it?...
But it's slowing us down and frightening the mission planners and bean-counters! Let's scrap this sample return nonsense and concentrate on the realities of the situation. It's hard enough to raise money as it is!!
???

*I see your point, Shaun. However, my chief concern was that if the current White House administration considers one billion dollars as "too prohibitive" as regards exploration -- when this same administration is overeager and pulling at the collar to blow 272 billion dollars to "get Saddam" -- this signals to me that Bush will also consider Mars Direct too prohibitive, regardless of what he may have said publically previously.

I'd rather that one billion dollars be put in a fund for Mars Direct or something similar, i.e. people going to Mars, but again I didn't like the signal from the White House on this.

--Cindy

Mark S · 2002-10-02 11:37:46

In 1989, George H.W. Bush promised to put a man on Mars by July 20, 2019. In subsequent years, he also lead the war with Iraq and raised taxes against his better judgement.

Fast forward to the present. His son, George Walker Bush, has cut taxes and will, most likely, finish the job his father started in Iraq. Is a renewed Space Exploration Initiative in the offing?

Some political scientists have viewed President Bush as an "avenging son" who will make amends for his father's mistakes. So far, there's nothing to dispute this. I do expect him to endorse an ambitious space program once the political climate is right (read: the economy straightens out and Saddam is gone.) Remember that the administration has tenatively supported the "Next" plan, which calls for an L1 space station, a base on the moon, and the exploration of Mars (sound familiar?)

sethmckiness · 2002-10-02 12:19:24

Also. I like what Mark said. Unfortunately I think we need to wait till the budget is there to go foward with a Sample return(ducks from possible objects being thrown). I wish public opinion on the subject was higher but it is not. Being that the tax payers are paying for it, I think that it may need to wait till after the terrorist hunting is over with. Then we maybe able to garnish some more support to help further our space program. Also, I like the idea of multiple site sample return. That may be more helpful geologically; yet, the true scientific study afforded by such a mission does not seem to be as much as maybe a public support. I don't know. There is so many different places to go on Mars with so many different terrains that makes it like a lottery.. I don't know..
Unless you can do a multiple sample, I think then the true scientific ability will overpower the cool factor of "Oh Wow, we got some rock from Mars!"

nirgal · 2002-10-02 15:22:31

What ever became of Robert Zubrin's plan to fly a Mars sample return mission with in situ resource utilization/in situ propellant production? The people who have read "The Case for Mars" will know what I'm talking about.
Dan Goldin was a supporter of this idea but NASA seems to have settled for the risky MOR (Mars Orbital Rendezvous) mission plan. Why???

Phobos · 2002-10-02 17:12:46

What ever became of Robert Zubrin's plan to fly a Mars sample return mission with in situ resource utilization/in situ propellant production? The people who have read "The Case for Mars" will know what I'm talking about.
Dan Goldin was a supporter of this idea but NASA seems to have settled for the risky MOR (Mars Orbital Rendezvous) mission plan. Why???

Good point. If we're hell bent on a Mars sample return mission we should at least try out some technologies that would be applicable to a manned mission. Also, using the in-situ propellant to return to Earth would eliminate the need for the sample capsule to dock with a Earth-return craft in space. The Mars bound ship could just leave directly for Earth provided it was able to produce enough fuel.

Unless aliens put up big "lifeless planet" movie sets around our probes to keep us from looking at their civilization, there are no multicellular organisms on Mars (and probably no microbes except transplanted Earth ones either). No hosts means no pathogens.

I don't believe there are pathogens on Mars either, especially ones that would infect people. I was merely trying to counter the argument that we need a sample return to insure there are no deadly diseases awaiting us.

So it seems that a reasonably complete sample return program might involve a half dozen missions spread over, say, 2016 to 2020 (two per launch window), and costing maybe $9 billion. If we insist on this program before we send humans, Mars exploration will end up on the back-burner for many decades to come. And it ISN'T necessary!
Hang on a minute! .... Where did I put that soap-box?! Ah yes ... there it is! ....

Oh God, we might have to wait until 2020 for just a sample return mission? If that's the case I think we'll all be in our final resting places before we see boot prints marking up the Martian surface. And hey, I think you should step on that soapbox more often!

RobS · 2002-10-02 18:22:24

I think the problem with in situ propellant production is power; it would take a few kilowatts to do, and they can't figure out how to stuff it into a small vehicle and still be reliable enough. Dust storms will not only cut off the power, but coat the panels with dust and permanently block them. And shipping a few hundred kilos of liquid hydrogen to Mars takes pretty heavy tanks, compared to a few tonnes (where the volume to surface area is better).

-- RobS

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-02 19:34:52

Just reading through your Oct. 2nd post Cindy, I certainly understand where you're coming from on this, too!
That $272 billion dollars for a war seems a pretty depressing prospect, that's for sure.
But I seem to be in a fairly optimistic frame of mind today and inclined to chime in with MarkS about George W.'s potential to produce the 'space goodies' when the time is right.
I suppose we have to realise also, that the $272 billion is an ill wind which will blow some good in certain areas, even though we all agree that war is best avoided if at all possible. We have to face the fact that a significant percentage of American industry is dependent on military contracts for high technology and for weapons. Much of the huge amount of money we're talking about will find its way into the pockets of Americans who work in these industries. Thus, the war expenditure is, in effect, a kind of stimulus to the economy and may ultimately be useful in revitalising America's currently sluggish economic performance.

So, in a perverse way, a short, sharp war to depose Saddam, may help with the economy and eventually improve the space community's chances of getting the funding they want for exploration.
???

Thanks Phobos for encouraging me in my soapbox lecturing! I'm not sure whether you agree with me or just enjoy seeing my blood pressure rise and my face turn purple!!

Palomar · 2002-10-02 20:19:30

Unless aliens put up big "lifeless planet" movie sets around our probes to keep us from looking at their civilization, there are no multicellular organisms on Mars (and probably no microbes except transplanted Earth ones either). No hosts means no pathogens.
I don't believe there are pathogens on Mars either, especially ones that would infect people. I was merely trying to counter the argument that we need a sample return to insure there are no deadly diseases awaiting us.

*Wouldn't it just be the absolute height of irony if some pathogen from Mars would halt the aging process? Kind of like a Fountain of Youth in a little microscopic squiggley? And here we'd be, unknowingly trying to protect ourselves from it, trying to "sterilize the field," contain it, eradicate it, etc., etc...all while researchers continue busting their rear-ends trying to stop the aging process -- and we passed over this little bug that'd solve the problem. That'd be our luck.

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2002-10-02 23:18:03

Yes, the problem with solar panels on Mars is the accumulation of dust which cuts off sunlight. NASA is currently designing missions to only last a few months before power from the solar panels becomes ineffective. One local member gave me a simple solution for this problem: windshield wipers. If ruber wiper blades don't work with dust then replace them with brushes. The solar panels could last years before scratches accumulate sufficiently to cut-off sunlight.

Shaun Barrett · 2002-10-03 00:20:44

RobertDyck: "... a simple solution for this problem: windshield wipers."

Obvious. Simple. Effective. I love it!

Let's go talk to General Motors!!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2002-10-01 11:06:23

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#2 2002-10-01 12:02:16

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#3 2002-10-01 12:30:35

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#4 2002-10-01 13:41:28

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#5 2002-10-01 13:51:24

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#6 2002-10-01 13:54:17

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#7 2002-10-01 14:08:53

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#8 2002-10-01 14:33:28

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#9 2002-10-01 15:05:03

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#10 2002-10-01 15:47:43

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#11 2002-10-01 18:42:53

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#12 2002-10-01 19:51:47

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#13 2002-10-01 20:01:44

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#14 2002-10-01 20:25:47

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#15 2002-10-02 00:05:43

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#16 2002-10-02 10:34:29

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#17 2002-10-02 11:37:46

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#18 2002-10-02 12:19:24

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#19 2002-10-02 15:22:31

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#20 2002-10-02 17:12:46

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#21 2002-10-02 18:22:24

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#22 2002-10-02 19:34:52

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#23 2002-10-02 20:19:30

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#24 2002-10-02 23:18:03

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

#25 2002-10-03 00:20:44

Re: President Bush and Mars - Sample return too expensive

Board footer