science insights
1
κ Mars mission setbacks are sad, but not fatal I n 1992, as a fledgling science re- porter covering the National Aero- nautics & Space Administration's Jet Propulsion Laboratory OPL) for the Pasadena Star News, I cut my jour- nalistic teeth on the launch of the Mars Observer. One of the grandiose, old- style NASA spacecraft, the instrument- laden Observer cost nearly $1 billion, and the mission was to have been a sci- entific tour de force. But in 1993, as the Observer prepared to go into orbit around Mars, it sudden- ly cut off contact with Earth, never to be heardfromagain. I wrote story after sto- ry about JPL's vain attempts to reestab- lish communication with the lost probe. A review boardfinallyconcurred that the most likely cause was an accidental propellant leak that led to an explosion. Now, two more failures of U.S. mis- sions to Mars have blemished NASA's record. The Mars Climate Orbiter, a weather satellite, disappeared last Sep- tember as it was going into orbit. Less than three months later, its sister craft, the Mars Polar Lander, went silent just after it was to have touched down on Mars's surface. There's often a perception that noth- ing puts a gleam in a reporter's eye like scandal or tragedy. But for this report- er, after each Mars mission failure, there was no rush of lust for a disaster story; I was sad. I felt bad, not only for the scientists huddled silently and mis- erably around their computers, but for the enormous trove of knowledge lost, or at the very least, delayed. Most of us love space. We love new discoveries about the planets in our so- lar system. We love the exotic pictures of alien terrain. And especially, we love Mars. With its red color and network of "canals," Mars has invited the most speculation of all the solar system bod- ies. Mars was once wet and is generally believed to have the greatest possibility for having harbored life. We're desper- ately eager to know the history of the red planet. NASA had been trying to oblige us with answers. After the loss of the Ob- server, the agency wisely instituted a "faster, better, cheaper" philosophy. No longer could robotic solar system explo- ration be so pricey and risky. Projects would instead be broken into smaller, flexible, so-called Discovery missions costing on the order of $150 million that would be launched every year or two, rather than once a decade. And so began the construction of a fleet of small Mars spacecraft, each de- signed to explore a different feature of Mars and test new technologies. Since then, some of these missions have been spectacularly successful. In 1997, the Mars Pathfinder landed on Mars with a pint-sized rover named Sojourner that captivated people worldwide as it trun- dled across the martian ground. Next came the Mars Global Surveyor, a satel- lite that also reached Mars orbit in 1997 and is still imaging the planet. The suc- cesses have undeniably helped gener- ate a new wave of enthusiasm for the U.S. space program. Unfortunately, the loss of the Cli- mate Orbiter and the Polar Lander threatens to undo that. The space program suffered con- siderable damage to its public image when scientists disclosed that mis- communication between teams over metric and English units likely caused the Climate Orbiter to crash into Mars—a mistake that became the sub- ject of scornful editorials and cartoons. The Climate Orbite/s companion craft, the Polar Lander, was to land last December on Mars and deploy two probes that would plunge beneath the surface and look for water. Last week, JPL scientists announced they are in- vestigating the possibility that a signal detected by an antenna at Stanford Uni- versity camefromthe Polar Lander, but they admitted the possibility is a long shot. With the faster, better, cheaper mis- sions, no longer are scientists spending entire careers on one mission that could be lost in the blink of an eye. But even a smaller loss is still devastating. Clearly, it's time to step back and assess wheth- er the most recent incidents are indica- tive of growing pains for the Discovery missions, or of something more serious. NASA knows it's in a difficult spot. The agency faced serious threats of massive budget cuts forfiscal2000 be- fore being allocated $13.56 billion (which was more than President Bill Clinton's original request). But NASA can ill afford to generate more disapprov- alfromCongress. And any more failures will make it increasingly difficult for the taxpaying public to be sympathetic, espe- cially when the sudden disappearance of 150 million of their dollars is involved. NASA has quickly formed the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team to review the Mars exploration pro- gram. The 16-member committee held itsfirstmeeting early this month. JPL has also put together its own group to study the loss of the Polar Lander. Both panels plan to have reports out by March. But I want to say a few words in de- fense of the beleaguered NASA Such a lumbering agency is to be commended for its relatively quick shift to the faster, better, cheaper style of doing space mis- sions. Despite long-standing allegations of stultifying bureaucracy and poor communication, NASA still puts out. The robotic space program itself must compete with such behemoths as the multi-billion-dollar space station, which seems to be largely a money pit, as well as with the public relations frenzy surrounding thefrequentlyfluffyscience performed on space shuttle missions. But robotic space missions have pro- vided some of the most provocative in- formation we have about our solar sys- tem. They are still, to my mind, the best way to get space science for the public's dollar. Faster, better, cheaper makes good sense—NASA just needs to work on better.' I hope the agency will take aggressive steps to stem the recent tide of failures, and we'll still be able to real- ize the exciting future space missions NASA has waiting in the wings. Elizabeth Wilson 38 JANUARY 31, 2000 C&EN science insights
Transcript of science insights
κ
Mars mission setbacks are sad, but not fatal
I n 1992, as a fledgling science reporter covering the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's
Jet Propulsion Laboratory OPL) for the Pasadena Star News, I cut my journalistic teeth on the launch of the Mars Observer. One of the grandiose, old-style NASA spacecraft, the instrument-laden Observer cost nearly $1 billion, and the mission was to have been a scientific tour de force.
But in 1993, as the Observer prepared to go into orbit around Mars, it suddenly cut off contact with Earth, never to be heard from again. I wrote story after story about JPL's vain attempts to reestablish communication with the lost probe. A review board finally concurred that the most likely cause was an accidental propellant leak that led to an explosion.
Now, two more failures of U.S. missions to Mars have blemished NASA's record. The Mars Climate Orbiter, a weather satellite, disappeared last September as it was going into orbit. Less than three months later, its sister craft, the Mars Polar Lander, went silent just after it was to have touched down on Mars's surface.
There's often a perception that nothing puts a gleam in a reporter's eye like scandal or tragedy. But for this reporter, after each Mars mission failure, there was no rush of lust for a disaster story; I was sad. I felt bad, not only for the scientists huddled silently and miserably around their computers, but for the enormous trove of knowledge lost, or at the very least, delayed.
Most of us love space. We love new discoveries about the planets in our solar system. We love the exotic pictures of alien terrain. And especially, we love Mars. With its red color and network of "canals," Mars has invited the most speculation of all the solar system bodies. Mars was once wet and is generally believed to have the greatest possibility for having harbored life. We're desperately eager to know the history of the red planet.
NASA had been trying to oblige us with answers. After the loss of the Observer, the agency wisely instituted a "faster, better, cheaper" philosophy. No longer could robotic solar system explo
ration be so pricey and risky. Projects would instead be broken into smaller, flexible, so-called Discovery missions costing on the order of $150 million that would be launched every year or two, rather than once a decade.
And so began the construction of a fleet of small Mars spacecraft, each designed to explore a different feature of Mars and test new technologies. Since then, some of these missions have been spectacularly successful. In 1997, the Mars Pathfinder landed on Mars with a pint-sized rover named Sojourner that captivated people worldwide as it trun
dled across the martian ground. Next came the Mars Global Surveyor, a satellite that also reached Mars orbit in 1997 and is still imaging the planet. The successes have undeniably helped generate a new wave of enthusiasm for the U.S. space program.
Unfortunately, the loss of the Climate Orbiter and the Polar Lander threatens to undo that.
The space program suffered considerable damage to its public image when scientists disclosed that mis-communication between teams over metric and English units likely caused the Climate Orbiter to crash into Mars—a mistake that became the subject of scornful editorials and cartoons.
The Climate Orbite/s companion craft, the Polar Lander, was to land last December on Mars and deploy two probes that would plunge beneath the surface and look for water. Last week, JPL scientists announced they are investigating the possibility that a signal
detected by an antenna at Stanford University came from the Polar Lander, but they admitted the possibility is a long shot.
With the faster, better, cheaper missions, no longer are scientists spending entire careers on one mission that could be lost in the blink of an eye. But even a smaller loss is still devastating. Clearly, it's time to step back and assess whether the most recent incidents are indicative of growing pains for the Discovery missions, or of something more serious.
NASA knows it's in a difficult spot. The agency faced serious threats of massive budget cuts for fiscal 2000 before being allocated $13.56 billion (which was more than President Bill Clinton's original request). But NASA can ill afford to generate more disapproval from Congress. And any more failures will make it increasingly difficult for the taxpaying public to be sympathetic, especially when the sudden disappearance of 150 million of their dollars is involved.
NASA has quickly formed the Mars Program Independent Assessment Team to review the Mars exploration program. The 16-member committee held its first meeting early this month. JPL has also put together its own group to study the loss of the Polar Lander. Both panels plan to have reports out by March.
But I want to say a few words in defense of the beleaguered NASA Such a lumbering agency is to be commended for its relatively quick shift to the faster, better, cheaper style of doing space missions. Despite long-standing allegations of stultifying bureaucracy and poor communication, NASA still puts out.
The robotic space program itself must compete with such behemoths as the multi-billion-dollar space station, which seems to be largely a money pit, as well as with the public relations frenzy surrounding the frequently fluffy science performed on space shuttle missions.
But robotic space missions have provided some of the most provocative information we have about our solar system. They are still, to my mind, the best way to get space science for the public's dollar. Faster, better, cheaper makes good sense—NASA just needs to work on better.' I hope the agency will take aggressive steps to stem the recent tide of failures, and we'll still be able to realize the exciting future space missions NASA has waiting in the wings.
Elizabeth Wilson
3 8 JANUARY 31, 2000 C&EN
science insights
