Senate puts NASA on notice over Mars mission

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Ez2cDave

Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
6,552
Reaction score
2,698
Location
Raleigh, NC Area

Senate puts NASA on notice over Mars mission​


https://www.aol.com/news/senate-puts-nasa-notice-over-100000356.html


The Senate is signaling deep skepticism about NASA’s ambitious plans to fetch samples of soil from the red planet, expressing concerns over the mission’s cost and viability.

Senate appropriators are offering just $300 million in funding for fiscal 2024 for the Mars mission — less than a third of the $949 million budget request from NASA.


Appropriators also say they have deep doubts about whether NASA can complete the mission, known as Mars Sample Return (MSR).

“The Committee has significant concerns about the technical challenges facing MSR and potential further impacts on confirmed missions, even before MSR has completed preliminary design review,” the Appropriations Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies subcommittee wrote in an appropriations bill outlining the funding for 2024.

It further said it would rescind the $300 million allocated for the mission if the agency cannot guarantee that overall cost will not exceed $5.3 billion. NASA estimates that the mission’s development costs, which were originally $4.4 billion, have soared to more than $9 billion.

Notably, this price tag only represents the cost of developing and testing the mission’s components. It does not include launch costs or operating costs for the mission’s planned five-year timeframe. It also doesn’t include construction of any new sample-receiving facility that may be required to handle the rock and soil samples.

The samples in question have been collected by NASA’s newest Mars rover — Perseverance —which launched to Mars in 2020. The rover was dispatched to Mars to help find signs of life, and was tasked with scooping up samples of the Martian surface and subsurface. So far, Perseverance has collected 18 of 43 planned samples.

The ability to collect and study samples could provide scientists with unprecedented data on Mars, helping to fill in the gaps about how the planet changed over time. They could help scientists understand whether Mars was habitable and may even contain definitive signs of life — either past or present.

NASA has been working with the European Space Agency to develop the MSR mission. As part of this plan, NASA will build a Sample Retriever Lander that is slated to launch in 2028, although the Senate as well as some within the agency doubt this is a viable launch date.

As NASA has been working on developing the technology needed for the mission, costs have ballooned. First estimates indicated the cost of this mission would be around $4 billion, but according to the committee’s report, the space agency has already spent more than $1 billion. The subcommittee also flagged that the planned 2028 launch date is very aggressive and likely to slip, increasing cost overruns.

NASA also convened an Institutional Review Board to review the MRS mission and determine its best path of success. The board is expected to issue its findings in late August or early September.

A periodic polling of the scientific community designed to flag important NASA missions last year estimated that MSR would cost around $5.3 billion, the limit the Senate is now setting.

If NASA cannot guarantee it can complete the mission for this amount, the Mars program faces cancellation, and the Senate will transfer the $300 million to other missions, with the bulk of it going to the Artemis lunar program.
That mission aims to return astronauts to the surface of the moon and establish a small space station in orbit around the moon.

Scientists in the same survey said the Mars mission was highly critical, and that it was worth asking Congress for more money to complete it. They argued that the request would help to ensure that any extra funding would not be taken away from other science missions.

But NASA faces significant headwinds in winning more funding, as congressional negotiators feel the pressure to keep overall government spending in line with a budget caps deal worked out between President Biden and Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) earlier this year.

Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) described himself as a NASA supporter but acknowledged during consideration of NASA funding in the Senate Appropriations Committee last week that the cuts will lead to “significant challenges” in continuing all of the agency’s programs.

“We were able to protect the most important national priority within NASA’s budget, which is to return to the moon and maintain our strategic advantage in space,” said Moran, the top Republican on the spending subpanel overseeing NASA funding.

Costs for the Mars program have risen for a number of reasons.


There were technical flaws in the original mission concept, which involved a single lander and a small rover to retrieve the samples. There were also large errors in the technical requirements of the mission which meant that more hardware was needed, which costs more money.

Staffing issues at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif., has also delayed multiple missions, including MSR.

This isn’t the first time a mission was massively over budget or the first time a major NASA mission faced cancellation.

The James Webb Space Telescope faced its own possible cancellation in 2011, but went on to launch in 2021 despite a ballooning budget that ended up costing $10 billion. NASA’s Artemis lunar program is also massively over its planned budget, and could end up costing an estimated $93 billion by the time astronauts reach the lunar surface.
 
NASA’s Artemis lunar program is also massively over its planned budget, and could end up costing an estimated $93 billion by the time astronauts reach the lunar surface.
That's not that expensive when you consider that in inflation-adjusted dollars it was 257 Billion to get to the moon in the 1960's. But yes,. it looks like NASA is getting less money when the need for space access is going up. COngress seems to think that private industry will fill the gaps, but it's NASA that does the basic, boring research that private industry takes advantage of.
 
But yes,. it looks like NASA is getting less money when the need for space access is going up. COngress seems to think that private industry will fill the gaps, but it's NASA that does the basic, boring research that private industry takes advantage of.
You are conflating launches with actual missions.

NASA is not relevant to space access; access to space is provided by launches, which can be sufficiently done by private industry now. NASA only provides missions, which is the actual important part. The only launches they provide are SLS launches, and there is significant debate on whether they should even be doing that.

As for missions, the biggest problem with Mars Sample Return going massively over budget is opportunity cost - other missions would likely have their funding cannibalized to keep MSR going. I had some hope that we would finally get that Uranus orbiter I always wanted after the last decadal survey gave second-highest priority to it, but MSR is gobbling up so much funding that getting other projects off the ground seems harder than usual.
 
You are conflating launches with actual missions.
Actualy I am conflating a number of things. But my point is that NASA does the really boring stuff -- the stuff that private industry doesn't see a profit in doing -- basic research. That might be material sciences, propulsion research, and other stuff that doesn't directly relate to a "product" yet, and might not for 20 more years, but that science needs to be done in order for a billionaire to take advantage of it 20 years from now. Maybe I'm rambling, but if you think of how we all got here -- this civilization -- it was because a lot of people figured out a lot of really basic stuff first.
 
LOL. The senate is a joke, they produce nothing but mayhem. They piss away billions on BS programs and no one cares.
Congress has a long an storied history with funding and defunding NASA programs, going back to the 60's. If it weren't for the Cold War and JFK's "moon speech", then a lot of the advances in the 60's probably would not have happened... voting against Apollo funding was akin to kicking Kennedy in his grave. Once we got to the Moon, different story... programs got canceled left and right, and NASA had to pick and choose its priororities. That's true of virtually every government agency... nobody has unlimited funding (even the military). It's more politically astute to give 50 senators $1B each and get some political capital out of it than to give a single program $50B that doesn't provide the same payback potential.
 
If it weren't for the Cold War and JFK's "moon speech", then a lot of the advances in the 60's probably would not have happened...
It was moreso LBJ that made Apollo happen. He twisted arms and spent political capital to make it happen. Note that NASA's first big downturn in funding was in 1967 - the year of Apollo 1, yes, but also the year LBJ's popularity tanked over Vietnam.
 
I seriously hope those samples never come to earth.
Something caused the extinction of all life on Mars and they don't have a clue about it. Their decision to bring a sample of Mars here is irresponsible at best. There is no possible way they can do it safely when they don't know the nature of what it is.
If you think there was never any life on Mars, you need to pay attention. If all you know is what they tell you, you don't know much at all.
This pic is from the rover on Mars looking straight down. It shows what looks like pieces of sticks.
 

Attachments

  • mars.png
    mars.png
    566.6 KB · Views: 1
I seriously hope those samples never come to earth.
Something caused the extinction of all life on Mars and they don't have a clue about it. Their decision to bring a sample of Mars here is irresponsible at best. There is no possible way they can do it safely when they don't know the nature of what it is.
That's ridiculous. We have plenty of clues pointing to Mars once having an atmosphere and presumably a magnetic field, and when the magnetic field died, the atmosphere was lost to the solar wind and everything died, assuming there was anything to kill in the first place.

This pic is from the rover on Mars looking straight down. It shows what looks like pieces of sticks.
It's quite a large leap of logic to go from "looks vaguely like pieces of sticks" to "fragments of Martian trees."
 
It's quite a large leap of logic to go from "looks vaguely like pieces of sticks" to "fragments of Martian trees."

Not to mention that assuming trees even grew on mars, the "sticks" would have decomposed due to natural erosion long before the atmosphere evaporated, and they never would have been petrified on the surface. I'd dare say that anyone who thinks we're going to find "sticks" on the surface of mars doesn't really understand nature, or science.
 
Not to mention that assuming trees even grew on mars, the "sticks" would have decomposed due to natural erosion long before the atmosphere evaporated, and they never would have been petrified on the surface. I'd dare say that anyone who thinks we're going to find "sticks" on the surface of mars doesn't really understand nature, or science.
Following your lead, decomp can only occur in the presence of 02. While Mars may have a little 02, we really don't know much of anything about the nature of Mars, do we? We don't even understand the process of fossilization here on Earth. Science says that it takes millions of years and a burial yet there is lots of evidence of fossilization completed in less than half a century. They just don't have a good handle on it.
If those aren't sticks, then maybe they are stick shaped rocks, right? That would be even less likely. That pic is an untouched screenshot from live Perseverance video footage that I grabbed, myself.
 
While Mars may have a little 02, we really don't know much of anything about the nature of Mars, do we?
It's O2, not 02, and saying "we don't know anything about the nature of Mars" is rather ridiculous after all the landings and rovers over the past few decades. What exactly are you asserting we don't know?

We don't even understand the process of fossilization here on Earth. Science says that it takes millions of years and a burial yet there is lots of evidence of fossilization completed in less than half a century. They just don't have a good handle on it.
A simple google search takes me to all kinds of information on the fossilization process. Why do you assert that scientists "don't have a good handle on it?" If it took millions of years for a fossil to form, the bones themselves would decay before any fossil could be formed, so that number is right out. My brief look seems to agree on thousands to tens of thousands of years, but I don't think it's too outlandish for a fossil of a small object to form in a few decades under the right conditions.

If those aren't sticks, then maybe they are stick shaped rocks, right? That would be even less likely.
Why do you assert that stick-shaped rocks less likely than sticks?
 
We don't even understand the process of fossilization here on Earth. Science says that it takes millions of years and a burial yet there is lots of evidence of fossilization completed in less than half a century. They just don't have a good handle on it.
We don't? Yes, science is a complete waste of time because we don't really know anything yet! Let's just give up and post crazy notions about things we know nothing about. After all witches exist and newt eyes have substances we don't understand therefore magic is real! Green videos reveal the presence of ghosts!
 
Sorry... that was probably harsh... I just get crazy when people suggest we shouldn't do science because we don't understand things entirely yet. Because that's exactly why we have to do science. Science is a self-correcting institution because as we learn things, we change our understanding of how things work. And the only way to do that is with *more* science.
 
That's ridiculous. We have plenty of clues pointing to Mars once having an atmosphere and presumably a magnetic field, and when the magnetic field died, the atmosphere was lost to the solar wind and everything died, assuming there was anything to kill in the first place.


It's quite a large leap of logic to go from "looks vaguely like pieces of sticks" to "fragments of Martian trees."
Clearly, those are all bone fragments. We must send paleontologists to Mars. ;)
 
Note: I am biased as I have worked on Mars missions in the past and currently have an instrument roving around on the red planet…

I would encourage those skeptical of exploring Mars to at least speak from a background of knowledge and fact…
There is a good history of Mars Exploration here:

As for Planetary Protection, all I can say is that it’s taken very seriously as evidenced by: https://sma.nasa.gov/sma-disciplines/planetary-protection

You can argue with how it’s done, and there are those that do, but please do it from a position of knowledge of what’s currently done, what’s planned, and what the real risks are.
 
Back
Top