NASA Planning A New Mars Rover

"Planetary scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) may get a chance to reprise the Mars Science Laboratory’s
Curiosity rover, if Congress goes along with a NASA decision to
develop another rover that would reach the planet’s surface using the
“sky crane” technique that worked so well in August.

John Grunsfeld, the former astronaut who is NASA’s associate
administrator for science, was set to announce today that the
planned new rover would be launched in 2020 to cap a restructured
U.S. robotic Mars exploration program."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article...._p0-524167.xml

On 9/12/2012 11:15 AM, wrote:
"Planetary scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) may get a chance to reprise the Mars Science Laboratory’s
Curiosity rover, if Congress goes along with a NASA decision to
develop another rover that would reach the planet’s surface using the
“sky crane” technique that worked so well in August.

John Grunsfeld, the former astronaut who is NASA’s associate
administrator for science, was set to announce today that the
planned new rover would be launched in 2020 to cap a restructured
U.S. robotic Mars exploration program."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article...._p0-524167.xml


Curiosity was fascinating, but I pretty much lost interest in it the
moment it touched down. Unless it finds something compelling that
demands a specially designed mission, sending another craft would be
just more of the same.

Mars may, after all, be just a useless dry lifeless ball of rock.

Sylvia.

On 09/12/2012 05:15, wrote:
"Planetary scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) may get a chance to reprise the Mars Science Laboratory’s
Curiosity rover, if Congress goes along with a NASA decision to
develop another rover that would reach the planet’s surface using the
“sky crane” technique that worked so well in August.

John Grunsfeld, the former astronaut who is NASA’s associate
administrator for science, was set to announce today that the
planned new rover would be launched in 2020 to cap a restructured
U.S. robotic Mars exploration program."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article...._p0-524167.xml


IMHO this mission is being done for purely political & national pride
reasons. If they wanted to save money on a further rover mission they
should not have effectively pulled out of the two European Mars
missions. I understand the Europe rovers will conclusively test for
carbon that is biological in origin. If all this further Nasa rover
does is the same Europe test(s) than to me it's a gross duplication of
effort.

I read somewhere this 2020 Nasa rover may (or may not) collect samples
for a further return to Earth probe. Well, they should make one
complete rover & sample return system instead of maybe launching a
return to Earth probe later on.

--
T

On Dec 9, 9:25*am, Hg wrote:
On 09/12/2012 05:15, wrote:

"Planetary scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) may get a chance to reprise the Mars Science Laboratory s
Curiosity rover, if Congress goes along with a NASA decision to
develop another rover that would reach the planet s surface using the
sky crane technique that worked so well in August.

John Grunsfeld, the former astronaut who is NASA s associate
administrator for science, was set to announce today that the
planned new rover would be launched in 2020 to cap a restructured
U.S. robotic Mars exploration program."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_12_04_20....

IMHO this mission is being done for purely political & national pride
reasons. If they wanted to save money on a further rover mission they
should not have effectively pulled out of the two European Mars
missions. I understand the Europe rovers will conclusively test for
carbon that is biological in origin. If all this further Nasa rover
does is the same Europe test(s) than to me it's a gross duplication of
effort.

I read somewhere this 2020 Nasa rover may (or may not) collect samples
for a further return to Earth probe. Well, they should make one
complete rover & sample return system instead of maybe launching a
return to Earth probe later on.

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * T

I think they should launch a bunch of lower cost rovers all over mars,
sending some to more dangerous landing areas. if you send 10 and 2
dont make it you still have 8 working on the planet...

more like spirit and opportunity than curosity.....

spread all over the planet controlled largely by colleges and
universities, with some safety oversight..

a really neat idea would be a larger service lander that could go to
the help of any stranded or stuck rovers. perhaps it could fly
somehow.

and we definetely need some new orbiters for imaging and
communication.

the NRO telescopes were originally designed for spying on earth.

imagine what one of those could image from mars orbit

the NRO telescopes were originally designed for spying *on earth.

imagine what one of those could image from mars orbit

How you plan on getting it there? *It's around five times more massive
than even the Curiosity spacecraft.


it doesnt have to go fast, even a realtively small ion engine could
get it there given time.

besides if your going to do a real manned mars mission, moving big
things will be part of the job

On Dec 10, 6:39*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

the NRO telescopes were originally designed for spying *on earth.

imagine what one of those could image from mars orbit

How you plan on getting it there? *It's around five times more massive
than even the Curiosity spacecraft.

it doesnt have to go fast, even a realtively small ion engine could
get it there given time.

Sure, if you can wait a few centuries.



besides if your going to do a real manned mars mission, moving big
things will be part of the job

If you're going to do a real manned Mars mission, you're no longer
nattering on about sending toasters and such.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

Yes you send much of the equiptement in advance, years in advance..

all plans i have ever seen show the basics go first. a fuel plant to
make the return fuel before the crew even leaves for mars, the landing
site gets delivered first too..

if you call everything non human toasters well thats a lot of
toasters.

you cant send a crew without confidence a fuel plant will work

::: How you plan on getting it there? It's around five times more
::: massive than even the Curiosity spacecraft.

:: it doesnt have to go fast, even a realtively small ion engine could
:: get it there given time.

: Sure, if you can wait a few centuries.

A quick botec, assuming the ion engine can manage 1/1000 g
continuous acceleration for at least a couple weeks,
suggests several months rather than a few centuries.

What are your assumptions that lead to centuries?

( This should in no way be thought of as an endorsement of the
notion of moving spysats to mars, I'm just curious. )

Sure, Bobbert: you've been told how many times that what you propose isn't
possible? Politically, technically, or otherwise. Does what is said to you
go in one ear and out the other? Each rover going to Mars is HAND-MADE. They
are not assembly-line products out of Lockheed-Martin in Burbank or
Palmdale, or Northrop-Grumman's in Hawthorne or El Segundo, and Boeing's in
either Long Beach or Palmdale. Get out of your fantasy world and back into
reality.

The ex-NRO satellites will find good use in LEO. Getting them to Mars right
now is impossible-or does that little fact get in the way of your fantasy
world?


"bob haller" wrote in message
...
On Dec 9, 9:25 am, Hg wrote:
On 09/12/2012 05:15, wrote:

"Planetary scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) may get a chance to reprise the Mars Science Laboratory s
Curiosity rover, if Congress goes along with a NASA decision to
develop another rover that would reach the planet s surface using the
sky crane technique that worked so well in August.

John Grunsfeld, the former astronaut who is NASA s associate
administrator for science, was set to announce today that the
planned new rover would be launched in 2020 to cap a restructured
U.S. robotic Mars exploration program."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_12_04_20...

IMHO this mission is being done for purely political & national pride
reasons. If they wanted to save money on a further rover mission they
should not have effectively pulled out of the two European Mars
missions. I understand the Europe rovers will conclusively test for
carbon that is biological in origin. If all this further Nasa rover
does is the same Europe test(s) than to me it's a gross duplication of
effort.

I read somewhere this 2020 Nasa rover may (or may not) collect samples
for a further return to Earth probe. Well, they should make one
complete rover & sample return system instead of maybe launching a
return to Earth probe later on.

--
T

I think they should launch a bunch of lower cost rovers all over mars,
sending some to more dangerous landing areas. if you send 10 and 2
dont make it you still have 8 working on the planet...

more like spirit and opportunity than curosity.....

spread all over the planet controlled largely by colleges and
universities, with some safety oversight..

a really neat idea would be a larger service lander that could go to
the help of any stranded or stuck rovers. perhaps it could fly
somehow.

and we definetely need some new orbiters for imaging and
communication.

the NRO telescopes were originally designed for spying on earth.

imagine what one of those could image from mars orbit

On Dec 11, 1:26*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
Sure, Bobbert: you've been told how many times that what you propose isn't
possible? Politically, technically, or otherwise. Does what is said to you
go in one ear and out the other? Each rover going to Mars is HAND-MADE. They
are not assembly-line products out of Lockheed-Martin in Burbank or
Palmdale, or Northrop-Grumman's in Hawthorne or El Segundo, and Boeing's in
either Long Beach or Palmdale. Get out of your fantasy world and back into
reality.

The ex-NRO satellites will find good use in LEO. Getting them to Mars right
now is impossible-or does that little fact get in the way of your fantasy
world?

"bob haller" wrote in message

...
On Dec 9, 9:25 am, Hg wrote:





On 09/12/2012 05:15, wrote:

"Planetary scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) may get a chance to reprise the Mars Science Laboratory s
Curiosity rover, if Congress goes along with a NASA decision to
develop another rover that would reach the planet s surface using the
sky crane technique that worked so well in August.

John Grunsfeld, the former astronaut who is NASA s associate
administrator for science, was set to announce today that the
planned new rover would be launched in 2020 to cap a restructured
U.S. robotic Mars exploration program."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_12_04_20...

IMHO this mission is being done for purely political & national pride
reasons. If they wanted to save money on a further rover mission they
should not have effectively pulled out of the two European Mars
missions. I understand the Europe rovers will conclusively test for
carbon that is biological in origin. If all this further Nasa rover
does is the same Europe test(s) than to me it's a gross duplication of
effort.

I read somewhere this 2020 Nasa rover may (or may not) collect samples
for a further return to Earth probe. Well, they should make one
complete rover & sample return system instead of maybe launching a
return to Earth probe later on.

--
T

I think they should launch a bunch of lower cost rovers all over mars,
sending some to more dangerous landing areas. if you send 10 and 2
dont make it you still have *8 working on the planet...

more like spirit and opportunity than curosity.....

spread all over the planet controlled largely by colleges and
universities, with some safety oversight..

a really neat idea would be a larger service lander that could go to
the help of any stranded or stuck rovers. perhaps it could fly
somehow.

and we definetely need some new orbiters for imaging and
communication.

the NRO telescopes were originally designed for spying *on earth.

imagine what one of those could image from mars orbit

Rovers COULD be buit on a production line basis. name each one for a
sponsor, to help fund them... send some without a name, to replace
failures....

if your ever going to send humans to mars then a heavy lift for the
NRO telescope is a good proof of concept, since any manned thrip to
mars must be gigantic. for food, water, air, other consumables and
spare parts...

volume and weight wise it would like be larger than the spy sat, since
being manned will require lots of extras of everything.

On Dec 11, 9:34*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Dec 11, 1:26*am, "Matt Wiser" wrote:
Sure, Bobbert: you've been told how many times that what you propose isn't
possible? Politically, technically, or otherwise. Does what is said to you
go in one ear and out the other? Each rover going to Mars is HAND-MADE.. They
are not assembly-line products out of Lockheed-Martin in Burbank or
Palmdale, or Northrop-Grumman's in Hawthorne or El Segundo, and Boeing's in
either Long Beach or Palmdale. Get out of your fantasy world and back into
reality.

The ex-NRO satellites will find good use in LEO. Getting them to Mars right
now is impossible-or does that little fact get in the way of your fantasy
world?

"bob haller" wrote in message

....
On Dec 9, 9:25 am, Hg wrote:

On 09/12/2012 05:15, wrote:

"Planetary scientists and engineers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(JPL) may get a chance to reprise the Mars Science Laboratory s
Curiosity rover, if Congress goes along with a NASA decision to
develop another rover that would reach the planet s surface using the
sky crane technique that worked so well in August.

John Grunsfeld, the former astronaut who is NASA s associate
administrator for science, was set to announce today that the
planned new rover would be launched in 2020 to cap a restructured
U.S. robotic Mars exploration program."

See:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article....l/awx_12_04_20...

IMHO this mission is being done for purely political & national pride
reasons. If they wanted to save money on a further rover mission they
should not have effectively pulled out of the two European Mars
missions. I understand the Europe rovers will conclusively test for
carbon that is biological in origin. If all this further Nasa rover
does is the same Europe test(s) than to me it's a gross duplication of
effort.

I read somewhere this 2020 Nasa rover may (or may not) collect samples
for a further return to Earth probe. Well, they should make one
complete rover & sample return system instead of maybe launching a
return to Earth probe later on.

--
T

I think they should launch a bunch of lower cost rovers all over mars,
sending some to more dangerous landing areas. if you send 10 and 2
dont make it you still have *8 working on the planet...

more like spirit and opportunity than curosity.....

spread all over the planet controlled largely by colleges and
universities, with some safety oversight..

a really neat idea would be a larger service lander that could go to
the help of any stranded or stuck rovers. perhaps it could fly
somehow.

and we definetely need some new orbiters for imaging and
communication.

the NRO telescopes were originally designed for spying *on earth.

imagine what one of those could image from mars orbit

Rovers COULD be buit on a production line basis.

And monkeys COULD fly out your butt.



name each one for a
sponsor, to help fund them... send some without a name, to replace
failures....

Name the first one 'Bobbert'. *It will run in circles and insist on
reporting back things that are wrong no matter how many times you try
to reset it.



if your ever going to send humans to mars then a heavy lift for the
NRO telescope is a good proof of concept, since any manned thrip to
mars must be gigantic. for food, water, air, other consumables and
spare parts...

Wrong. *It's the wrong size.



volume and weight wise it would like be larger than the spy sat, since
being manned will require lots of extras of everything.

Bobbert, please go read up on various proposals for manned Mars
missions before you defecate further on the newsgroup...

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
*truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *-- Thomas Jefferson

yep they are mostly minimalist ideas, but growth must occur for
mission safety