The Myths of Mars: Why Were Not There Yet, and How to Get There* - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Myths of Mars: Why We’re Not There Yet, and How to Get There*

Donna L. Shirley President, Managing Creativity 11 June 2002 NASA Institute for Advanced Concepts Meeting Lunar and Planetary Institute Houston, TX

• The opinions in this paper are my own and do not reflect the views of NASA,

the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, or the University of Oklahoma

Myth / ‘mith / n 2a: a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; esp: one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society.

• 1. All it takes is guts and leadership:
• a. If a President would just declare …
• b. If astronauts were willing to take risks …

Our Cherished Myths – Some Examples:

• 2. NASA knows best:
• a. Werner was right.
• b. Apollo is the right model.
• c. Only NASA and its contractors can do the job.
• d. NASA is HEDS (Human Exploration and Development of Space).

Our Cherished Myths – Some Examples:

• 3. If we tell the truth, it won’t sell:
• a. The Shuttle
• b. The Station
• c. Mars Observer
• d. The Synthesis Group
• e. Mars Sample Return

Our Cherished Myths – Some Examples:

• 4. Only astronauts are interesting: (e.g.)
• a. The Meatball eats all other NASA logos (except astronaut

mission patches).

• b. NASA TV covers every minute of shuttle missions, even

when nothing is happening.

Our Cherished Myths – Some Examples:

• 5. Scientists know best.
• a. Alan Binder’s House Science Subcommittee testimony –

“just put an experienced PI in charge and all will be well.”

• b. Scientists staff most leadership positions at Code S.
• c. Sometimes science payload selection committees ignore

engineering inputs (e.g., MO, Surveyor 2001).

Our Cherished Myths – Some Examples:

• 6. Engineers know best.
• a. Reviews by armies of experienced engineers after a failure

will solve the problems for the next mission.

• b. “Just put an experienced engineer who has delivered flight

hardware in charge and all will be well.”

Our Cherished Myths – Some Examples:

• 7. We can’t risk astronauts’ lives.
• 8. International participation saves money.
• a. Space Station
• b. Mars Sample Return

Our Cherished Myths – Some Examples:

What are some new paradigms / myths that might serve us better in formulating the future Mars exploration program?

Myths for the Future

• 1. Tell the truth.
• a. About costs
• b. About capabilities
• c. About risk

New Myths: Some Examples

The Truth Myth 1: We keep our promises!

• Like George Washington and the cherry tree -- about a project

which did what it promised and didn’t overrun.

• Engineers and managers who delivered

(e.g. Tony Spear and Gene Kranz) are heroes.

• No “managing by fear”.
• No “buying in and getting well”.

The Truth Myth 2: Margins are us!

• Reserve 10% of integrated Mars Exploration Program for planning

future missions.

• Reserve 10% for solving problems in the program’s projects.

The Truth Myth 3: The Mars Exploration Team!

• Each element of the program is a fundamental part of the whole,

not a separate fiefdom.

• Incentivize project managers to cooperate with other project

managers.

• Seek synergy.
• Make payload selection process so payloads fit overall program

strategy.

• 2. Follow the money
• a. Mars jobs programs (a la Station), but don’t overdo it.
• b. Nurture commercial and international efforts, but don’t oversell

them.

• c. Recycle International Space Station components.

The Money Myth 1:

• Find “heroes” who have made/may make money in space.
• Help media create Mars myths about them.
• Examples: John Carmack of Armadillo Aerospace or

John Copple of Space Imaging.

The Money Myth 2:

• Promote Mars commercial partnerships and publicize them.
• Examples: Kennedy Space Center and Florida, NASA and

Dreamtime (?), Oklahoma and Small Commercial Launch Companies, Takeoff Technologies and Frederick, Oklahoma.

• 3. Keep it interesting
• a. Educate the customer (the public), then ask what it wants.
• b. Do fun robotic missions.
• c. Do more with MGS and Odyssey pictures of Mars.
• d. Let other people play (e.g. University student payloads, space

tourists, commercial launch companies).

• e. Make NASA interesting again.

The Open NASA Myth 1: NASA wants YOUR input!

• A Customer Engagement Plan
• Deliberative Polling
• Student Input (e.g. “NASA Means Business”)
• Partnerships, Not Competition with Private Companies

The Open NASA Myth 2: NASA wants YOUR participation!

• A Mars Exploration USRA Center.
• Mars USRA Center partners with public and private organizations (e.g.

Planetary Society, National Space Society, Mars Society, Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority).

• X-prize style award for the first team demonstrating some key piece of

technology for Mars exploration.

• Create Mars program office focused on public participation.

The Open NASA Myth 3: NASA is the happening place!

• Interesting NASA TV – Work with George Lucas?
• Help sell an “engineer” TV show like cop shows.
• Support companies like Takeoff Technologies.
• Scientists make results interesting (shades of Carl Sagan?)

(e.g. Ken Edgett, Matt Golombek).

• Science research grants for “really cool” videos (for example) of

analysis results.

• Really do comparative planetology (well, where DID all that water go

and could that happen to us?).

• 4. Be Flexible
• a. Set aside some budget for targets of opportunity.
• b. Take advantage of demonstrated new technology.
• c. Use a “decision tree” program strategy.

The Flexible Mars Program Myth 1: We adapt!

• Budget for quick analysis of science and engineering

data to revise program.

• Make room for private and student payloads.

The Flexible Mars Program Myth 2: We are technology leaders!

• Follow and use commercial technology.
• Have a dedicated Mars technology program.
• Have a dedicated Mars instrument program.
• Fly technology-enabled missions (e.g. Mars airplane

deploying penetrators to test “water” deposits).

The Flexible Mars Program Myth 3: We have a flexible Mars exploration strategy!

• Develop and manage a decision-focused Mars program.
• Develop a process to make decisions rapidly.
• “Slow and steady wins the race.”
• “Better” in Better, Faster, Cheaper needs to refer to results of

the program, not of each project.

Mars Exploration Program Strategy

2001 2003 2005 1998 1996

“MARS TOGETHER” W/RUSSIA

INTERNATIONAL OR (11/96)

INTERMA RSNET W/ESA

COLLABORATION OR (4/96)

SAMPLE RETURN W/RUSSIA &/OR ESA

OR

RUSSIAN PMIRR PARTICIPATION (& LANDER?) U.S. INSTRUMENT ON PLANET B (JAPAN)

AND

MARS ’96 U.S. MOX INTERNATIONAL PATHFINDER INSTRUMENTS

AND To 2020 U.S. – ONLY PROGRAM

MARS PATHFINDER LANDER/ROVER (DISCOVERY) MARS SURVEYOR ’98 ORBITER (PMIRR) & POLAR LANDER* MARS SURVEYOR ’01 ORBITER (GRS) & LANDER W/MOBILITY MARS SURVEYOR ’03 ORBITER (GRS) & LANDER(S) (NETWORK?) SAMPLE RETURN (W/HEDS?)

OR

MED-LITE LANDER(S)

$171M DEV/$14M OPS + $61M DELTA 7925

MARS GLOBAL SURVEYOR ORBITER

$154M DEV + $61M DELTA 7925 $187M DEV + $72M (2 DELTA 7325s) ~ $180M DEV + $72M FOR 2 LV’s PER MISSION SET

MARS SURVEYOR OPERATIONS PROJECT = $20M/YEAR

* POSSIBLY W/NEW MILLENIUM MICRO LANDER ALTERNATIVES DLS 1/27/96

Settlement Strategy – Decision Tree

1996-98 1998-2001 2001-7 2003-13 2005-17 2007-21 ORBITERS / LANDERS NOTES: 1) FINDS WATER = IN EXPLOITABLE FORM 2) AMBIGUOUS = NOT CLEAR IF EXPLOITABLE WATER IS AT THAT SITE 3) MAY BE MORE THAN ONE OF EACH MISSION AT A TIME, OR THEY MAY BE REPEATED AT DIFFERENT SITES TO FIND WATER OR RESOLVE AMBIGUITIES. 4) HUMAN EXPEDITIONS ARE TO SEARCH FOR OR VALIDATE THE PRESENCE OF WATER 5) HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP INCLUDES ROBOTIC AND/OR HUMAN EXPEDITION MISSIONS FOR SITE PREPARATION & INFRASTRUCTURE EMPLACEMENT AT A WATERHOLE 6) MULTI-YEAR SPANS ALLOW FOR (A) MULTIPLE REPETITIONS OF MISSIONS, AND (B) DEVELOPMENT TIME FOR HUMAN MISSIONS FIND WATER? YES NO ROVER OR DRILL TO CHARACTERIZE RESERVOIR AMBIGUOUS? PENETRATORS FINDS WATER? NO YES SAMPLE RETURN HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP AMBIGUOUS? NO YES NO YES ROVER OR DRILL ROVERS AMBIGUOUS? NO YES SAMPLE RETURN HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP AMBIGUOUS? HUMAN EXPED’N HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP AMBIGUOUS? NO YES CONTINUE EXPED’NS HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP NO YES HUMAN EXPED’N HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP AMBIGUOUS? NO YES CONTINUE EXPED’NS HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP FINDS WATER? NO HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP ROVERS AND/OR SAMPLE RETURNS FINDS WATER? YES NO HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP HUMAN EXPED’N YES AMBIGUOUS? SAMPLE RETURN AMBIGUOUS? NO HUMAN EXPED’N HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP YES NO CONTINUE EXPED’NS YES FINDS WATER? HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP

Human Settlement Program Schedule

DECISION 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2002 2000 MGS PF SITE CHARAC SS 1ST LAUNCH M98 SITE CHARAC 0-G LIFE SCIENCE SS IOC M01 SITE CHARAC PARTIAL-G LIFE SCIENCE M03 SITE CHARAC M05 AUTO M-ISRU DEMO MSR RETROFIT SS FOR OOA AUTO M-ISRU DEMO MSR ROBOTIC MISSIONS OC PROG START AUTO M-BASE BUILD AERO CAPTURE DEMO AUTO M-BASE BUILD AERO CAPTURE DEMO AUTO M-BASE BUILD MARS MISSION OOA AERO CAPTURE DEMO ROBOTIC “PARTNER” MISSIONS IN-SPACE ACTIVITIES MARS TRAINING ADV A&R ON SS A-G FL1 EXP ON SS MARS ISRU GRND DEMO MARS EXP TECH PROG START TECHNOLOGY ADV EVA SUIT ON SS CLSS DEMO MARS EVA SUIT DEMO MARS EVA SUIT COMPLETE OC PROG START (W/OPTIONS) OB PROG START OA PROG START HUMAN MISSIONS M-BASE 1ST LAUNCH MARS SCIENCE W/HUMANS MGS=MARS GLOBAL SURVEYOR PF=MARS PATHFINDER (DISCOVERY) LP=LUNAR PROSPECTOR (DISCOVERY) M98, M01, M03, M05 (SURVEYOR ORBITERS/LANDERS) MSR=MARS SAMPLE RETURN M-BASE=HUMAN MARS BASE CLSS=CLOSED CYCLE LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEM ADV=ADVANCED ISRU=IN-SITU RESOURCE UTILIZATION A-G=ARTIFICIAL GRAVITY SS=SPACE STATION FL1 DEMO=FLIGHT DEMONSTRATION AUTO=AUTOMATED MARS DATA SET MARS MODE SELECT

Conclusions and Implications for Mars Architecture: Robotic Missions

Assuming a $300M per year robotic mission budget.

The Truth Myth: Set aside ~ 25% of the Mars Program budget for:

a) Thorough program and mission definition. b) Technology development, including instruments. c) Science/engineering analysis and synthesis for future program planning.

The Open NASA Myth: 5% of the Mars Program budget for: a) “Customer” deliberative polls. b) Non-NASA participation (education, private, interesting experiments). c) Public information (interesting!).

Leaves about $200M per year for the projects, inc. launches =

• More than initial Mars Exploration program with Water strategy.
• One U.S. mission per opportunity – allows one Pathfinder or MGS.

The Flexible NASA Myth: 5% of the Mars Program budget for: a) Replanning and redesign in response to things learned, either from science, engineering, or economic/policy changes. b) Exercising options in the program “decision tree.”

Human Missions

• Human missions to Mars will depend on new myths about human exploration.
• Apply all new NASA myths to human elements of Mars Exploration Program.
• HEDS provide a budget for human exploration elements.

Human Missions

• Human elements must depend on:

(a) Space Station experiments for demonstrating partial-g issues, closed loop life support, etc. (b) Space Station adaptations of habitats, radiation protection, etc. for Earth-Mars transit. (c) A funding wedge (if any) from post-station construction to finance needed advancements from Low Earth Orbit to Mars.

Finale

• A Mars Exploration Program employing honesty, openness, flexibility,

patience and hard-nosed management can get us (at least a steady stream

• f robots – and hopefully, eventually people) to Mars on a regular basis.

Standing firmly by the old myths has been proven not to work.