Though cost is not everything these days it however is on our minds. But this should not be a show stopper for the vision that was put forth by President Bush. We must think of ways to do this in the least costly way as possible. Which may mean thinking outside of the box not like the usual think tanks. Definitely recycle current projects research and there materials not just there budgets. Also combine mission launches when possible to minimize cost. Do not send a probe to map the surface and then later send a seperate rover or lander when these should be done in a single launch. Have the lander wait in orbit with the mapping unit then have it undock once the chosen landing site has been made. Lander should probably be able to manufacture fuel for boeings usuable lander and for the Moon base station. Which still needs lots of design work to prove out the mission staying capabilities that would be needed on Mars.

I would go one better...

NASA needs a lunar orbitor...

Transorbital's Trailblazer is due to launch in 04 or 05

NASA needs a lunar rover...
LunaCorp is planning a Icebreaker Mission, a lunar rover that will verify the existance of lunar ice at the poles

instead of NASA using its own funding to build and launch an orbitor, by the Data from Transorbital, also ESA's SMART-1 is on its way, India & China are planning Lunar probes, pool resources, but I would urge to support Commerical Space effors

These are great suggestions to use the already in process projects to subsidize the first few missions that Nasa thinks it needs to do.

Transorbital's Trailblazer will use high-resolution video cameras to image the lunar surface, with special attention paid to NASA's Apollo and Russia's Lunakhod landing sites.

These may prove usefull but little or no value from the rest of the orbitors mission is of any need.

LunaCorp's lunar rovers are in stages starting with the initial spacecraft SuperSat, which will be assembled on the ISS and be sent into orbit around the Moon's polar lunar orbit – about 30-45 days following its release from the ISS. It will deliver the first high-resolution digital video of a voyage from the Earth to the Moon, and create the first digital map of the lunar surface looking for safe landing spots near the Moon's poles for upcoming rover missions.

This mission may not happen or will be delayed.

The next step is landing on the surface with a mobile robot tele-operated from Earth. The south pole is the highest-priority region to explore, because it may harbor valuable water ice in the polar craters. Confirming the existence of water would be a key step in creating the first off-planet human settlements.

The Icebreaker 2010 expedition will be followed by several robots to begin testing methods for extracting, storing and utilizing lunar water and other volatiles that may be discovered in the cold traps.

These projects all seem to fit into the scheeme of things needed but not are all needed because of duplication.

ESA's SMART-1 proving of an ion drive engine and will test miniaturization technology while exploring the Moon from orbit. It will be the first space probe ESA has ever sent to the Moon and it will also be the first of ESA's missions to test advanced technology needed for future scientific planetary missions.

I like the Ideal of using an ION drive to simulate in a way the long journey that would occur preping for the mission to Mars and with a new lunar crew cabin of which would need to be designed to simulate the living conditions habitat while on there way. This would make the lunar testing grounds more realistic and would also prove out the crew safety factors for such a long duration mission. Not sure of the supplies that would be needed but it should be very simular to what is needed aboard the ISS for the chosen crew size.

Great ideal to include India & China which are planning Lunar probes to pool resources from other nation.

I would also agree on urging the support of other Commerical Space efforts. This should also include all space venturing nations as well as those that would like to invest as well.

I sent the Commission an email suggesting they ensure a 'moon first, then Mars' testing regimen for the entire initiative, not just human missions.

The mission that worries me most in this regard is the 2012 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) 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 size & power systems for the rover, the dual success of the current rovers can be easily contrasted against the Mars observer failure. I urged the team to consider testing the trickier part of the 2012 mission on an earlier (2010 or early 2011) lunar rover that would try out the Flying Trapeze landing method, and allow subsequent lunar roving in areas of interest & with easier oversight from earth.

Tom Merkle

You are refering to the article that was on Space.com the Next Generation Rover: The Mars Science Laboratory by Leonard David Senior Space Writer posted: 07:00 am ET 11 February 2026

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/mars_science_lab_040211.html

This can not work totally on a lunar scale or level due to the parachutes that are to aid in stabalizing the platform as stated in this article. The down side to this is the amount of propellent needed to hover or descend for mars is also by far greater than that to which would be required for a moon landing.

It's true that the Moon should be the focus for most of the testbedding of technology for the human exploration of Mars. But the goal of the MSL is for an extended science mission (I think it was a minimum of one Mars year) to gather a lot of mission critical data for the eventual human mission.

To do this you need power and durability, all of which in turn translates into weight. The new landing method was required, I think ,in part due to these mission parameters - this rover would have been simply to heavy and bulky for the "beach ball" landings to be feasible.

On a recent Discovery channel vidzine on the MER it was noted that one of the design challenges was to fit the rovers into the same dimensions as the original sojourner lander - hence all the complicated unfolding of parts etc. before egress was possible. The new lander design eliminates some of those issues.

Very interesting article on MSL. Can anyone hazard a guess about how they'll be able to achieve such an improvement (the article says nearly 10 times better) in the size of the target landing ellipse? Will this be achieved via maneuverability of the Skycrane, improved prediction methods, or some other factor?

2 Earth years on Mars... I'm drooling.

P.S. - Please, can we send two of these things again? I think the comparative science and engineering made possible by having two MER rovers with identical instruments has already proved very beneficial. Plus, having two chances instead of just one is better for my overall cardiovascular health ;)

Not to mention the economies of scale. It will be cheaper to build a second MSL than the first - and almost double the science, right?

I think the improvement in the landing ellipse would be due to the fact that it would be more of a controlled landing vs the bouncing beach ball approach.

I don't know about you guys - but I'm personally really excited about the JIMO and MSL proposals. I think with the right marketing by NASA (with the help of Hollywood, perchance, as the Commission suggested?) it would go a long way into ensuring the public buy-in into space exploration.

These are potentially very exciting missions - just imagen the excitement of following a rover exploring a lot Mars over the course of two years! And a spaceship 50m long! The type of thing that fires the imagination.

Speaking of NASA marketing, I could spend hours on this site:

http://www.freewebs.com/thombone/

These 3D pics blow away the ones released by JPL. I'm assuming that's because Thom spends more time getting them just right.