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.
Our Cherished Myths – Some Examples: 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. b. c. d.
Werner was right. Apollo is the right model. Only NASA and its contractors can do the job. 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. b. c. d. e.
The Shuttle The Station Mars Observer The Synthesis Group 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
Myths for the Future What are some new paradigms / myths that might serve us better in formulating the future Mars exploration program?
New Myths: Some Examples 1. Tell the truth. a. About costs b. About capabilities c. About risk
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. b. c. d.
Educate the customer (the public), then ask what it wants. Do fun robotic missions. Do more with MGS and Odyssey pictures of Mars. 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 1996
1998
2001
2003
2005
MARS ’96 U.S. MOX
RUSSIAN PMIRR PARTICIPATION (& LANDER?) U.S. INSTRUMENT ON PLANET B (JAPAN)
“MARS TOGETHER” W/RUSSIA
INTERMA RSNET W/ESA
SAMPLE RETURN W/RUSSIA &/OR ESA
INTERNATIONAL OR (11/96)
COLLABORATION OR (4/96)
INTERNATIONAL PATHFINDER INSTRUMENTS
AND
AND
OR
U.S. – ONLY PROGRAM MARS PATHFINDER LANDER/ROVER (DISCOVERY) $171M DEV/$14M OPS + $61M DELTA 7925
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)
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
To 2020
Settlement Strategy – Decision Tree 1996-98
ORBITERS / LANDERS NOTES:
FIND WATER?
YES
1) 2)
NO
3) ROVER OR DRILL TO CHARACTERIZE RESERVOIR
1998-2001
PENETRATORS 4)
AMBIGUOUS?
YES
FINDS WATER?
NO
5) NO
YES
6) SAMPLE RETURN
2001-7
HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP
ROVER OR DRILL
AMBIGUOUS?
2003-13
ROVERS
AMBIGUOUS?
YES
NO
YES
HUMAN EXPED’N
HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP
SAMPLE RETURN
AMBIGUOUS?
NO
FINDS WATER?
NO
AMBIGUOUS?
ROVERS AND/OR SAMPLE RETURNS
SAMPLE RETURN
YES
HUMAN HUMAN COLONY COLONY BUILDUP BUILDUP
AMBIGUOUS? FINDS WATER?
2005-17
YES
NO
YES
NO
CONTINUE EXPED’NS
HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP
HUMAN EXPED’N
HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP
AMBIGUOUS?
2007-21
FINDS WATER = IN EXPLOITABLE FORM AMBIGUOUS = NOT CLEAR IF EXPLOITABLE WATER IS AT THAT SITE 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. HUMAN EXPEDITIONS ARE TO SEARCH FOR OR VALIDATE THE PRESENCE OF WATER HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP INCLUDES ROBOTIC AND/OR HUMAN EXPEDITION MISSIONS FOR SITE PREPARATION & INFRASTRUCTURE EMPLACEMENT AT A WATERHOLE MULTI-YEAR SPANS ALLOW FOR (A) MULTIPLE REPETITIONS OF MISSIONS, AND (B) DEVELOPMENT TIME FOR HUMAN MISSIONS
AMBIGUOUS?
YES
NO
YES
NO
HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP
HUMAN EXPED’N
HUMAN EXPED’N
HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP
FINDS WATER?
YES
NO
YES
NO
CONTINUE EXPED’NS
HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP
HUMAN COLONY BUILDUP
CONTINUE EXPED’NS
Human Settlement Program Schedule DECISION 1990
1992
ROBOTIC MISSIONS
1994
OC PROG START
1996 MGS PF
1998 M98
2000 M01
SITE SITE CHARAC CHARAC
2002
SITE CHARAC
2004 M03
2006 M05
SITE CHARAC
2008 MSR
2010
AUTO M-BASE BUILD
MARS DATA SET
0-G LIFE SCIENCE SS 1ST LAUNCH
IN-SPACE ACTIVITIES
2012
2014
2016
2018
2020
MSR AUTO M-BASE BUILD
AUTO M-BASE BUILD
ROBOTIC “PARTNER” MISSIONS
MARS TRAINING
PARTIAL-G LIFE SCIENCE
RETROFIT SS FOR OOA
MARS MISSION OOA
SS IOC ADV A&R ON SS TECHNOLOGY
HUMAN MISSIONS
MARS EXP TECH PROG START
A-G FL1 EXP ON SS
MARS ISRU GRND DEMO ADV EVA SUIT ON SS
OA PROG START
AUTO M-ISRU DEMO
CLSS DEMO
OB PROG START
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
AUTO M-ISRU DEMO
AERO CAPTURE DEMO MARS EVA SUIT DEMO
AERO CAPTURE DEMO
AERO CAPTURE DEMO
MARS EVA SUIT COMPLETE
MARS MODE SELECT OC PROG START (W/OPTIONS) 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 SCIENCE W/HUMANS M-BASE 1ST LAUNCH
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 of robots – and hopefully, eventually people) to Mars on a regular basis. Standing firmly by the old myths has been proven not to work.