Mars Science Lab In Deep Trouble

Aviation Week reports the MSL launch in 2009 is in deep doubt:

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Balloon100308.xml&headline=Mars%20Science%20Lab%20In%20Doubt&channel=space

I'm not surprised - this mission has been recklessly optimistic, particularly concerning the "skycrane" landing system.

test

I have read the article. The technology will work....It all comes down to more money and politics....More precisely, political will power...1.5 Billion plus???

Thats nothing...modest for a space program....especially for a nation with a GDP of over 10 TRILLION dollars...I am displeased at congress.....NASA is agency constantly begging for more money to do its job....exploration

The "skycrane" landing system is totally untested, and very complex. I give it a less than 50-50 chance of working on its first operational mission. Like the article says, we'll wind up with a 1.5 billion dollar nuclear crater on Mars.

I don't think it will leave a crater, just a slightly radioactive splat.

I agree it is a recklessly ambitious program. Why not build on the proven MER model. Now that we know they can last for, what is it now, 4 years? 5? Some conservative improvements of the MER design would be an excellent choice for a new rover model. Sky cranes, nuclear power, and rock ablating lasers? Who's designing this thing, George Lucas?

With all the turmoil bailing out the Banks I am not sure if there will be a Dime for NASA but they have gone this far so why not go the whole Hog. The Skycrane is an known how many failed missions have we endured and how many launch windows patiently waited for.

Just a clarification, I think in particular the design roving capabiltiies of MER could be doubled easily. Make it bigger, but not necessarily much heavier, by making the wheels larger, but lightweight, and spread them out on a longer and wider suspension system. Spread out the wheels on a lightweight, agile suspension. the idea is to double wheel size and ground clearance without adding more than 15% to the overall weight. Make the solar array a little bit bigger, and add a system to clean the damn things, and other than that send the same rover. IT would be able to rover just about twice as fast but would still be light enough to use the more reliable airbag delivery system. Design the rover to actually last 4 years, and then with luck will get 8 or more (as we have with the current design). Add improved driving software to cover more ground per sol. The softwar ecombined with physically larger size could triple the amount of ground covered per sol, averaging 300m per sol. Combine that with a longer overall mission and the total range would be 10x what the current MER has done. That allows you to reach targets OUTSIDE of the landing elipse with some confidence, so for example you could find a safe landing ellipse NEAR an exciting science target like mariner valley or something interesting in the Hellas Basin, thats the idea.

You guys are correct, this problem is systemic to the US space program and Congressional culture - abandon proven designs with most of their development costs paid for, for flashy new systems that are easily sold based on their wow factors. We could have peppered the planet with upgraded MER and Phoenix-style landers for the next 4-6 years and learned a hell of a lot for the same costs. But no...

Hello PC....

I agree....spend more money on proven designs....Have a basic plaform with optional accessories....depending on the mission.....

ESA Express program shows this is the way to go. MSL will be a victim of the credit crunch and may end up as another Phoenix. It just depends on how the space race develops. Is it not time that ESA and NASA joined forces?

Well no surprises ESA has pushed ExoMars back again 2016 is a long way away

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7677349.stm