Mars: Are We Losing the Vision?
An Opinion by Louis Friedman
Executive Director of The Planetary Society
8 August 2005
Mars is a busy place right now: Global Surveyor, Odyssey and Mars Express
are orbiting the planet, and Spirit and Opportunity are traversing it.
This year the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will join that fleet and, in
2007, the Phoenix lander will be launched. In the works for 2009 are the
U.S. Mars Surface Laboratory rover and the Russian Phobos sample return,
and Europe has just moved closer to initiating a ExoMars lander. One can
hardly complain that Mars is not getting enough attention from us earthlings.
Still, I am complaining.
In one of his first re-programming actions, NASA Administrator Mike Griffin
deleted more than $two billion for Mars mission preparations from the
Exploration program – the NASA program to implement the Vision for
Space Exploration policy which calls for sending humans to the Moon and
Mars. These funds were being used to develop a post-2011 Mars sample return
mission, and to initiate Mars mission planning for the human exploration
program. In addition, NASA is about to announce the cancellation of the
2009 Mars Telecommunication Orbiter (MTO).
Both cancelled programs were intended as links between the ongoing robotic
exploration of Mars and a future human landing. The Mars sample return
work was funded by NASA’s Exploration Office as a precursor to human
flights, and the MTO was to be the first element of infrastructure for
Mars base development. Eliminating the Exploration Funding for Mars, and
canceling MTO, effectively removes Mars mission planning from the human
exploration program.
The reason in both cases is the same: NASA needs the money for its nearer
term objectives in the human spaceflight program.
Let me assert that I am very supportive of Griffin and the moves he is
making to implement the new exploration policy for human spaceflight.
His efforts to accelerate development of the new Crew Exploration Vehicle
and move the U.S. past the old shuttle/space station focus are right on
the mark. And, if oxen, such as Mars sample return, must get gored to
enable the transition to the new human exploration program then so be
it. We can always go back to the farm and buy a new ox.
I am not so concerned about my ox as I am about eating our seed corn.
The deletion of Mars funding in the exploration program (after it was
added only one year ago specifically for the new Vision for Space Exploration),
and the cancellation of the first element of a Mars communication infrastructure
signify that when the going gets tough (as it always does) the robotic
connection with the human program will suffer. This is a bad sign for
human space exploration. If the trend continues, human spaceflight will
slowly, steadily be ratcheted back to a program without a goal, without
exploration, without a destination, with tasks that are worth neither
the cost nor the risk of human spaceflight. Then, when the next accident
occurs, or the costs overtake the funding, the same argument about human
spaceflight will start all over again.
Planning for a Mars sample return mission has started, and then stopped,
several times since Viking landed on Mars in 1976. Each time the planning
stopped in the second or third year, when financial implications ran into
financial expectations. (I led one of those planning efforts at JPL around
1978 when Mike Griffin was working on it, too). It is clear by now that
Mars sample return will NEVER happen without a connection to the human
program. Such a mission will be expensive, and science goals alone will
not support it. Humans want to see humans in space; that is the basis
of the popular support for an ambitious space program. Even our wonderful
robotic Mars program is a dead-end without the human connection.
By canceling the work on future human exploration of Mars in favor of
more immediate goals, NASA is not merely putting first things first. That
may be what Mr. Griffin intends, but we have been this way before and
repeatedly seen the results. In the 1980s, Sally Ride led a “leadership” study
for NASA, and a few years later Thomas O. Paine led a National Commission
on Space. Both studies concluded that NASA’s ultimate goal should
be the landing of humans on Mars. Dan Goldin instituted a Human Exploration
and Development of Space (HEDS) program that boldly tried to tie the robotic
Mars program to the human spaceflight. Experiments to pave the way for
human explorers were even approved for robotic missions then being planned.
But, at the first sign of budget trouble, HEDS was dropped. The human
program was again left without a purpose, and the robotic program was
cut back. By cutting the sample return mission and MTO, we are repeating
the same mistake once more.
Mr. Griffin’s intentions are good, and there is an urgent need
for him do just what he is doing: building the Crew Exploration Vehicle
and getting the International Space Station minimally completed so that
we can move on. Nevertheless, we are headed for the same old result: A
purposeless human program and a dead-ended robotic program.
There is a simple solution: put Mars planning back in the Exploration
Program; make it drive all the decisions, near-term and long-term. It doesn’t
take a lot of money, but it takes will. Without that, the public support
will weaken and again the value of human spaceflight will be questioned. |