MarsBlog.net

It’s time again…

Posted on October 31st, 2004 under Meta. Comments Off

Another shot of this week’s eclipse, appropriate for Halloween:

Posted on October 31st, 2004 under Miscellaneous. Comments Off

One of the nice things about living in the middle of nowhere is that I can again see the night sky:

Posted on October 27th, 2004 under Miscellaneous. Comments: 2

High-tech orbiter is NASA’s next Mars mission

With the most powerful camera ever sent to another planet, five additional instruments and the capability to speedily transmit large amounts of data, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will be well equipped for its ambitious mission to broaden the current understanding of Mars, he said.

Like other Mars orbiters before it, the Reconnaissance Orbiter will survey the planet and identify potential landing sites for future Mars landers and rovers. In particular, it will examine possible touch-down locations for the Phoenix Mars Scout, a lander scheduled to launch in August 2007, and the Mars Science Laboratory, a rover mission planned to launch in Oct. 2009.

The orbiter will also use radar technology to search below the surface of the planet for ice and water.

Sounds great! Oh, but then they go and double-jinx the whole effort by letting Lockheed Martin build and launch the thing:

As a result, the launch will require more energy, and therefore a larger rocket. Therefore, the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter will be the first spacecraft since 1973 to use a large Atlas V launch vehicle.

Lockheed Martin Astronautics in Denver, Colorado, won the contract to build the orbiter and provide support for mission operations and has about 175 employees working on the orbiter.

It’s doomed! After all, Lockheed Martin has never had a successful launch, or Mars probe, or lander, right?

Posted on October 18th, 2004 under Space Science. Comments Off

Flawed Drawings Caused Spacecraft Crash

Investigators may have discovered what caused the Genesis spacecraft to crash into the Utah desert this September. Some crucial switches were installed backwards, because of an error in the instructions.

The problem stems from the craft’s design drawings, made by Lockheed Martin in 2001. They showed that some tiny cylindrical plungers, designed to detect the gravity of an incoming planet and deploy a parachute, were installed the wrong way.

There were four such switches – two as a backup in case the first two failed. But all of them had been installed backwards. As a result the parachute didn’t open, and the capsule plummeted to Earth.

Redundancy doesn’t work too well if your redundant system is the same as your primary system, and thus liable to the same flaws or mistakes.

None of NASA’s review processes picked up the mistake. “It would be very easy to mix this up,” says Michael Ryschkewitsch, chair of NASA’s mishap investigation board at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

But of course, the blame rests entirely with Lockheed Martin, just as it did with the metric conversion error, right?

On the bright side, the error doesn’t seem to have been repeated on Stardust:

The Stardust sample return mission, which is set to return to Utah in 2006 carrying a portion of a comet’s tail, has the same switches as Genesis. Fortunately, that craft’s designs show that they were installed correctly.

Posted on October 18th, 2004 under Space Science. Comments Off

Boudreaux — (Space)man’s Best Friend?

NASA will continue this partnership, in the form of a robotic rover (sorry about that) like Spirit and Opportunity of Mars exploration fame — Boudreaux, the robotic “dog” (Extra Vehicular Activity Robotic Assistant).

Recently put to the test in the Mars-like Utah desert, Boudreaux is programmed to follow astronauts on its own, planning a route for itself autonomously. It can carry tools, to reduce the burden on astronauts. It’s stereovision cameras can relay pictures to a control center, making it the eyes of mission control.

The article doesn’t explain where they got the name for the thing, but I can’t help but cringe when I imagine future astronauts giving verbal instructions to “BOO‘drauw”.

Posted on October 16th, 2004 under Space Technology. Comments: 2

Race doesn’t reflect NASA, exploration

It is not surprising that NASA has remained on the sidelines of the presidential race, said Howard McCurdy, a professor at American University and the author of several books on the space program. Historically, he said, space policy has stayed out of national campaigns – and, in general, has not been a heavily politicized issue.

While the agency’s big successes and failures make headlines, McCurdy said, “on the governmental list of priorities, I’m not sure it even breaks the top 20.”

Not that space being under the election year political radar is necessarily a bad thing…look at all the political attention paid to health care, poverty, and pensions over the past forty years, and the state of those issues today. Think of how much worse off NASA might be if it were a political football.

Bush hasn’t mentioned the moon-Mars plan in any significant way, leading some to wonder whether he remains supportive of his own policy initiative.

The Bush-Cheney campaign did not respond to inquiries as to why the president hasn’t brought up the space program in detail since the January speech.

Perhaps it’s because…they don’t want to politicize NASA and the VSE?

While Bush’s plan has been criticized as lacking detail, it is significantly more specific than the stance presented by Kerry’s campaign.

That’s an understatement. But never fear — I’m sure the Senator has a plan for space, too…

Jason Furman, an economic-policy director for the Kerry campaign, said the senator is supportive of continued exploration – and is open to the idea of spending more money on the space program – but thinks Bush’s plan is too expensive and shortchanges some worthwhile NASA programs.

…or maybe just another litany of complaints.

“John Kerry believes the space program has made really important contributions, both to our knowledge about the world and the universe and also has been very important to the economy,” Furman said. “Space exploration, and NASA in particular, will be very important to him.”

If elected, Furman said, Kerry would review the entire space program and set priorities according to the best science available and the best use of NASA’s limited resources. That review might eventually include more money for the program, Furman said.

“But don’t bet on it,” he added sotto voce, “it’s just pander-talk.”

“We can make additional investments – and we should – but we can’t do it in a way that jeopardizes other important NASA programs, or in a way that costs hundreds of billions of dollars,” he said.

Read: we can’t kill any sacred cows, and we can’t spend any more money…a recipe for more of the same.

Clearly, the future of the shuttle, and whether to retire it and build an entirely new spacecraft or try and extend its life, is an issue, Furman said.

Read: Kerry will put 2020 back on the table, and the status quo ante VSE will be restored.

While a review would include NASA’s organization, including its far-flung field centers, Furman said big changes are unlikely.

“This would not be a radical rethinking of NASA and its mission,” he said.

Well, that’s helpful. Heaven knows NASA doesn’t need such a thing.

Fundamentally, McCurdy said, the space programs overseen by both candidates probably would look fairly similar.

Right…except for being totally different.

Posted on October 15th, 2004 under Space Policy. Comments: 1

Jeff at Space Politics reports on a debate between representatives of the Bush and Kerry campaigns on the subject of space policy.

Not much new from either side, to judge from his summary, but there is one question-raising point from the Kerry representative, former NASA Associate Administrator Lori Garver:

Garver argued that while exploration is important, it should not be the only thing NASA is working on; it must be done in balance with aeronautics, earth sciences, and space sciences.

“Must”? Why “must” NASA do all of these things? Why not spin off space sciences to JPL? Earth sciences to NOAA, USGS, or even EPA? Aeronautics is part of NASA’s original mandate, sure, but why couldn’t that role be shifted over to AFRL or the like?

It’s well past time to consider whether NASA should have a toe in so many different undertakings merely because those things are space-related, or whether it makes more sense, given the technological and economic developments of the past two decades, to fold those activities and capabilities into other organizations or split them off into independent entities.

Posted on October 15th, 2004 under Space Policy. Comments Off

Russia Plans 500-Day Mock Mars Mission

The 500 Days experiment, under development by the Russian Institute of Medical and Biological Problems, will isolate human volunteers in a mock space station module for — as its namesake suggests — a complete 500 days to study how a long mission to Mars might affect its human crew…

During the 500 Days study, six volunteers will depend on a preset limit of supplies, including about 5 tons of food and oxygen and 3 tons of water. A doctor will accompany volunteers inside the module to treat illnesses and injuries. Volunteers will only be allowed to quit the experiment if the develop a severe ailment of psychological stress.

Sounds….vaguely familiar….

Polyakov told Interfax reporters that the 500 Days experiment will not include female volunteers.

Posted on October 12th, 2004 under Space Science. Comments Off