Grading NASA's Solar System Exploration Program A Midterm Report (2008) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Mars
4 Mars
Pages 34-47
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 34... ...
FIGURE 4.1 Spirit rover's robotic arm.
|
From page 35... ...
By "well-characterized" sample, the committee means that the sample should be of both geological and biological interest and must have preserved or recorded the context from which the sample was taken. The committee believes that NASA will need to engage relevant members of the Mars science community in the Mars Sample Return (MSR) planning process to ensure that a consistent definition of a "well-characterized" sample is employed by the program.
|
From page 36... ...
. The committee endorses the current plan that would ensure that Scout missions fly at every other launch opportunity and that NASA should continue to plan for an Announcement of Opportunity for a 2016 competed Scout mission. New Frontiers Recommendation Results of Midterm Review "The SSE Survey recommends that while carrying out its science mission, the Grade: B Trend: ➜ Mars Science Laboratory mission should test and validate technology required for sample return (e.g., sample handling and storage in preparation for sample return and feed-forward lander design, consistent with the future use of a Mars Ascent Vehicle)
|
From page 37... ...
The committee encourages the Mars Exploration Program to use this experience to guide future technology development for the Astrobiology Field Laboratory and Mars Sample Return. New Frontiers Recommendation Results of Midterm Review "The SSE Survey recommends that NASA begin its planning for Mars Sample Grade: C Trend: ➜ Return missions so that their implementation can occur early in the decade 20132023." (pp.
|
From page 38... ...
Past progress on a sample-handling/sample-receiving facility for the quarantine, characterization, curation, and distribution of returned Mars samples has stalled. In preparation for Mars Sample Return, NASA should work with the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG)
|
From page 39... ...
The committee believes that innovative thinking such as carrying long-lived landed science packages on the proposed 2013 Mars Science Orbiter is a way to reach a second-decade mission queue that maximizes scientific return while also providing much-needed communications infrastructure. However, late in its deliberative process, the committee received information from NASA implying that the Mars Long-Lived Lander Network may be removed from the Mars Exploration Program entirely.
|
From page 40... ...
The prime consideration will be to balance these maturity considerations with the need for in situ biological characterization prior to MSR and to maintain the momentum supplied by Spirit and Opportunity, Mars Science Laboratory, and the ESA's Exo-Mars spacecraft. Mars Architecture Recommendation Results of Midterm Review "Establish science and technology definition teams for the Astrobiology Field Grade: A Trend: ➜ Laboratory, the Mars Science and Telecommunications Orbiter [name now changed to Mars Science Orbiter]
|
From page 41... ...
The committee is concerned about the uncertainty of future planning and outcomes and assigns a trend assessment that, although stable, is uncertain. Mars Architecture Recommendation Results of Midterm Review "Maintain the Mars Scouts as entities distinct from the core missions of the Mars Grade: A Trend: ➜ Exploration Program.
|
From page 42... ...
3) Following the loss of two spacecraft late in the last decade, the Mars Exploration Program was restructured to emphasize tightly coupled, science-driven strategic missions with supporting infrastructure, along with community based PI-led Scout projects.
|
From page 43... ...
The committee notes that, in general, orbital science and telecommunications orbits are incompatible, and thus mission orbital mechanics design must be carefully defined. The committee observes that the intention of the Mars Exploration Program is clearly to keep scientific objectives uppermost, as reflected in the name change to Mars Science Orbiter.
|
From page 44... ...
While NASA personnel provided a plausible sketch of the safeguards put in place to prevent this caching requirement from driving or undermining the balance of the mission, the committee believes that very rigorous reviews will have to be implemented to ensure overall MSL mission success. The "Ideal Mars Next Decade Campaign" Throughout most of this report, the committee has generally applauded NASA's Mars Exploration Program as an impressive and well-managed program achieving substantial scientific results and greatly increasing our knowledge of the red planet.
|
From page 45... ...
Mars Science Orbiter 2013 As noted elsewhere in this report, the architecture of the Mars Exploration Program embraces interdependent missions that provide both scientific context and supporting infrastructure. In the current Mars architecture, the 2013 orbiter provides technology for future missions as well as science that will be solicited by an Announcement of Opportunity in early 2008.
|
From page 46... ...
Additional Possibilities for Next-Decade Tradeoffs During NASA's presentation of the well-reasoned and seemingly achievable description of the "Ideal" plan's mission queue,13 the committee was surprised by the addition of several other options also now being considered by NASA: • Possible cancellation of the 2013 Mars Science Orbiter; • Potential conversion of the 2016 Astrobiology Field Laboratory to an orbiter; • Starting a Mars Sample Return mission in 2018; and • Opening the New Frontiers program to Mars missions. 12The committee notes that the decadal survey recommended slipping the Astrobiology Field Laboratory to 2018, whereas the NRC Mars Architecture report considered it as an option for 2016.
|
From page 47... ...
There is a real risk in this new "Ideal" plan's architecture that future implementation and budget issues could result in the substitution of an "engineering spectacular" for a scientifically sound Mars Exploration Program. Recommendation: NASA should seek community review to carefully scrutinize the new Mars architecture and its budget implications in order to ensure that the value of the sample returned is worth the cost to the Mars Exploration Program.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.