
NASA announced this week that the launch of the spiffy next generation Mars rover, called the Mars Science Lab (MSL), will be delayed from 2009 to 2011 because of technical problems.
The wait is worth it. The fundamental purpose of MSL is to explore the possibilities of microbial life ever existing on Mars, or lives there now. The potential for the reality of life off the Earth is one of the most fundamental and timeless questions of our civilization.
The MSL’s technical problems are principally with the rover's 31 actuator motors that are fundamentally mechanical arms containing a motor in a gearbox. They are the muscles of the rover. They basically do almost everything that the rover has to do: drive the wheels, brake the wheels, and are the elbow and shoulder and wrist joints for the robotic arms.
It will take a few months to fix the problem. But the next launch window to Mars isn’t until 2011, when Earth-Mars orbital geometry is optimal for an interplanetary flight.
There is some consternation that this will add $200-$400 million to the mission’s costs. And that might mean the delay of other planetary missions.
In a recent scathing editorial in the New York Times by the former NASA Associate Administrator for Space Science, Alan Stern, he chastised NASA for not better managing its budget. But in a rebuttal letter-to-editor, aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin, director of the Mars Society, pointed out that nearly anything major our country has ever undertaken has cost more than expected, including the Panama Canal and the Transcontinental Railroad.
The Hubble Space Telescope came in significantly over budget, and with technical flaws too. But hardly anyone today would say that HST wasn’t worth the cost. Just try and imagine where astronomy would be today if there never was a Hubble. Its cultural impact alone is immeasurable. “It has given us the universe,” said one astrophysicist.

Likewise, NASA’s Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) satellite was over budget. But it revealed for the first time structure in the afterglow of the big bang – the seeds of the universe that would evolve into galactic structure. Looking at the cosmic microwave background was like “looking at the face of God,” quipped one scientist. The landmark discovery earned a Nobel Prize.
In contrast, America’s Superconducting Supercollider was killed in part because of cost overruns (it would have cost less than twice what Americans spend each year on skin care products). Where are we now? Europe’s Large Hadron Collider leads the world in breakthrough particle physics. (Though the super-machine is now suffering a super-repair cost of $29 million due to a helium leak that requires replacing most of its magnets.)
Of course this doesn’t justify giving government-funded science a blank check. But when it comes to exploring the planets NASA has done all the easy stuff first: planetary flybys and orbiters. But landing something the mass of an automobile on the surface of a planet is not easy. And Mars is unforgiving given the scorecard of one out of every two missions failing.

The MSL is three space vehicles in one. There is the 25-foot diameter Cruise Stage which keeps the spacecraft alive on its nine-month journey to Mars; the revolutionary Sky Crane descent stage that act as sort of a Mars helicopter that lowers the MSL on tether lines; And the nuclear powered rover itself.
“When you are doing things that have never been done before, you are likely to encounter difficulties, and they are almost always unforeseen because if you had foreseen them, you would have taken care of it earlier,” said NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. In firmly controlling costs, “I'm hard put to think of any mission we ever do, . . . unless you just build more of what you built the last time, but nobody cares,” he said.
President John F. Kennedy expressed it best when in 1962 he committed the U.S. to landing humans on the moon: “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do other things, not only because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, . . .”
This has been NASA’s mantra ever since then.

NASA’s setback with the MSL contrasts with the other big news item this week, the plight of the US automakers. I’d argue that the root of their problem lies in their failure to pursue risky, cutting edged technology for building innovative energy efficient cars for today’s gasoline-conscious market.
But it’s not all their fault in that, until gas prices peaked at $4/gallon, Detroit was giving American consumers what they wanted, big gas guzzling monster cars. After the gas shortage lines of the mid 1970s I imagined that by 2000 we’d be living in a Jetsons world of electric cars. No such luck.
Now the automakers are looking for a $35 billion bailout that is roughly equivalent to NASA’s entire space science budget for the next seven years.
To me the bottom line is: what monetary value do you put on finding the first evidence for life elsewhere in space? The realization that we are not alone in the universe is a cultural game-changer as big as the discovery of the New World. And, that doesn’t usually happen in one’s lifetime.
Recent Comments