Save the 2009 Mars rover. . .

No, not from the budget axe or the usual suspects, but from a far more
pernicious foe: the TooMuchNewStuffAtOnceists. I sent the president's
space commission an email suggesting they ensure a 'moon first, then
Mars' testing regimen for the entire initiative, not just human
missions, because of the momentum stalling nature of a billion dollar
failure.

The mission that worries me most in this regard is the 2009 Mars
Laboratory Rover. The current NASA thinking on this rover has it
costing over a billion as a single rover, testing a brand new landing
method (somewhat like an Acme Rocket Flying Trapeze with a landing
radar) and on a larger scale than any other rover past. This leaves
the potential for a '92 Mars Observer sized embarrassment.

While I applaud the increasing size & power systems for the 2009
rover, the dual success of the current rovers can be easily contrasted
against both the '92 Mars Observer and the 2001 Mars failures. We
should consider testing the trickier parts of the 2009 mission on an
earlier (2007 or early 2008) lunar rover that would try out the Flying
Trapeze landing method before we end up smashing a billion dollars of
RTG warmed earth microbes into the Martian subsurface.

Obviously for monetary and political reasons it does not make sense to
rush to send an RTG powered heavy rover to the moon. But a smaller,
solar powered rover with the capability of sleeping through a lunar
night would be a long term, continuing asset for NASA. In addition,
the landing method for the 2009 Mars rover could be tested on this
moon rover with less risk due to a shorter dormant cruise time and
constant monitoring of the process from earth. Lighter gravity of the
moon, along with the smaller weight of a solar rover, should
adequately compensate for the lack of atmospheric slowing that a lunar
lander gets. Most importantly, any problems or pitfalls with the new
landing process could be discovered with plenty of time to correct the
problems before the 2009 Mars Rover(s) ever leaves earth.

That's a way to smartly leverage goals AND new technologies.
comments?

Tom Merkle

Tom Merkle