Bravo, JPL! Now Here Are Your Pink Slips.

At a JPL press conference just after the landing of Curiosity, one of the questions addressed to the scientists, engineers and the Lab ran something like this: "Congratulations, you have done a fantastic job. You invented a new way to land on other worlds with heavy, amazing robots and made it look easy. Now, how many of you will be looking for work next week?" There was some laughter and then muted chuckles, then it got very quiet as many hands were slowly raised. Surely not this many? 

Some will continue to work on Curiosity as it explores Gale Crater and beyond. But for others it's time to scan the want-ads (if they can find any). Thanks for your service, you are no longer needed. JPL doesn't fly to other planets anymore (see below).

It seems no matter how well NASA/JPL performs, no matter how long beyond the stipulated time the mission goes, NASA is punished. Success guarantees nothing.

A common question, still, is: "Why go? Why spend all that money on space when we have problems here on Earth?" This tired query has been with us since the days of Apollo. So indeed: why go?

Because: all successful missions to Mars from the US have outperformed their expected life-cycle. A good example is the MER rover Opportunity which had a planned 90-day mission; it has currently logged over 3000. Other missions have done as well.

Because: $2.4 billion buys us one bailout of a tiny savings and loan, or just under a week of combat operations in the Middle East. That's how quickly the tax dollars burn.

Because: space dollars are not shoveled into the spacecraft and shot into space. They are spent here on Earth, designing spacecraft and missions, hammering together rovers and rockets and paying smart people to do good work. They buy parts and services here in the United States (well less than half of your Chevy is built here- 99% of your Curiosity rover is). They support working Americans.

And I should add, all this is in the pursuit of one of the few things the United States does better than anyone: exploring space, and in particular exploring other planets. Scorecard for Mars: USA, 70%, Russia/USSR, 11% (Europe has fielded one partial success). Mars is hard to do.

Now, add in one more critical component: NASA and JPL engages education  unlike any other federal agency. Future scientists, engineers, mathematicians, physicists and geologists are plucked from universities and enticed in high schools. That’s good for America too.

The list goes on. I could list a thousand or more spinoffs from NASA that would impress. Something like 90% of all the coolest modern technology, including digital watches, iPads, your mother’s pacemaker, the engine management systems in modern automobiles and even the circuit board in today’s microwave ovens owe their existence to NASA. And these advances continue to flow out of a space agency that has seen its budget hacked and its mission divided. But that's still nothing compared to what has befallen JPL.

JPL has a measly eight missions approved for the upcoming decade and not one of them leaves Earth orbit after 2013. As of then, JPL will never explore another world, save whatever their other aging probes scattered across the solar system can accomplish. The Lab’s planetary exploration budget has been cut by a full 20% or roughly $300 million this year alone.

Perhaps, given time, Curiosity will find something with its limited life-seeking capability that will lead us to conclude that life is likely on Mars. That could save space exploration... but don't count on it.

No, Congress, the Senate and the Executive Branch must unite to lead us to new and braver ventures. The media must care and show the world the amazing things that come from space exploration as only the media can. And the public- you- must do your part to press forward. Write, call, vote. You know the drill.

Because if one thing is for certain, it's that in the planetary exploration business, great success does not breed brave and daring programs, it breeds ennui and indifference. And those, above all, are the enemies of everything we hold dear.

Curiosity Is Down, and Ready to Roll (almost)!

Thank goodness the last post is now obsolete. Well, almost (see end). Amidst a tumult of shouts and cheers, the message came back to the JPL press room at 10:32 PM Pacific Time on Sunday night: Curiosity is down, all is well.

Color me surprised! Though I had confidence in the engineering, it was a daunting challenge to land the big, heavy rover on Mars. Dozens of sequences had to go just right, over a hundred pyrotechnic devices had to fire, and so forth, for the rover to complete a successful landing.

As the assembled reporters waited out the 16-minute delay from Earth to Mars, along with hundreds more at the auditorium across the JPL campus and those in mission control, all were aware that whatever we would soon know had already occurred. Either Curiosity was sitting amidst a small dust cloud on the surface of Mars, or it was scattered across a few hundred acres of Gale Crater. Fortunately, it was the former.

Relieved controllers were swamped by the press, and soon the leaders of the mission were assembled on the press dias to give their assessment of the landing. In short- we are there, we are healthy and we will soon be ready to rumble.

Within minutes the first images were in from the Hazcams, showing a murky, lo-res image of a lens cover partially askew. Later a fine image of the shadow of the rover on Martian soil was seen. All across JPL, at may other venues across Pasadena, and even the grand sweep of Times Square in Manhattan, people smiled, pumped fists and hugged one another. We had done it again. The ever-elusive notion of success on Mars was once again America's to claim.

Within two days the camera mast will be up and panoramic images will be coming down to Earth. We will, once again, see the desolation that is Mars. And soon, the biggest, most complex and capable machine ever landed on another world will begin to drive towards scientifically intriguing targets. A new round of discoveries will begin.

Of note: at JPL, the Curiosity test unit was on display. If one got close enough, one could see the slots etched in the wheels of the machine, oddly-spaced cuts in the wheel surfaces. They are Morse code that will show up in the traversed soil. The code spells out "JPL."

Good job, NASA. You have done it again. Here's to hoping that this spurs more defined plans for exploration on the planetary exploration front. Let's not squander this amazing accomplishment. It's time to renew our commitment to reaching out and exploring... now.

Mars Science Laboratory "Curiosity": What if it fails? What if it doesn't?

The Mars Science Laboratory Curiosity at work.

I was interviewed today about the future of the unmanned space program. These are always a bit difficult because, while I am among NASA and JPL's biggest boosters, as an outsider to NASA I also have the flexibility to lower the flag to half-mast (as opposed to flying it high, as I usually do) and speaking candidly. Today was one of those days. With the landing of Curiosity imminent, what is the future of Mars exploration, and planetary exploration, going to look like?

Let's step back for a moment. The US Mars program has had a roughly 70% success rate since it began with Mariner 4 in 1965. Mariner 3 never made it to Mars. Similarly, when Mariner 9 flew in 1971, Mariner 8 was also a no show. And etc. This is one of the reasons we launched spacecraft bound for the Red Planet in pairs, ala the Mariners, Viking, and others. One backstopped the other.

Of note: the Soviet Union/Russian Federation have an 11% success rate (this takes into account partial successes), so while ingenious and notable they are not a part of this discussion. Europe has done better (with Russian assistance in most cases), but with just a few efforts, it's too early to tell.

Why is it so hard to reach Mars? After gaining the moon, flying the shuttle into orbit 100-plus times, and scouting the outer planets, why does Mars still eat spacecraft? As recently as 1998/1999, the Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander failed, one due to faulty programming (the infamous metric/imperial units issue), and the other with a faulty sensor. The planet seems to have a grudge against being explored.

But let's look at the numbers again. Most of the US failures were early on. The Mars Polar Lander and Mars Climate Orbiter programs were both victims of the arguably misguided "Faster, Better, Cheaper" initiative begun under NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin. Parts of other spacecraft were used or recycled. Software was repurposed. And so forth. As the engineers at JPL will tell you off the record about "FBC," "Pick any two." They are right.

And don't forget- the further out you go, the more the errors are magnified. Trajectory, time exposed to intense radiation and brutal temperature swings, aging computer boards and more all take their toll. This is not an 8-day moon mission; we are talking many years in the harshest environment known.

So we know that the odds for success are with newer missions and modern equipment and software, which is expensive. And we wish for the ability to fly twin spacecraft, just in case. It's all about funding.

Despite these restrictions, JPL is still a PR jewel in NASA's crown. The vast majority of their missions, Mars or otherwise, perform so far beyond their primary missions it is almost laughable- if one was not so stunned by admiration. The Mars Exploration Rover Opportunity? Designed to last 90 days, now in its eighth year, or some 3,020 days past its warranty. The Vikings did similarly well, with the Viking 1 lander performing yeoman duty for six years, and ceasing to function only after a bad command was sent up. It had plenty of ife left in its nuclear fuel. And so forth with the orbiters around Mars- unless they run out of maneuvering fuel, they just keep going and going. Mars Odyssey, the current record holder, has passed its first decade of operation in Martian orbit.

So back to MSL/Curiosity. Here we have the largest, heaviest and most capable rover (or lander) ever devised. But due to these characteristics it became prohibitively expensive and only one was built and flown. And to land this heavy machine a new and incredibly complex landing system had to be devised- one that is costing many sleepless nights around JPL as landing day nears. There's one shot- then we will know.

So, as the interviewer asked, what if MSL fails? I responded by asking, what if it succeeds? Other than the wonderful progression from Mars Pathfinder (1996) to the Mars Exploration Rovers (2003), success in planetary exploration usually breeds neglect. When the Vikings were amazingly successful on Mars, it took us 20 years to return to the surface, even while very smart people were still arguing about whether or not life had been found by its primitive analysis. There are other examples, but you get the point. The unmanned program of planetary exploration has always been the poor stepchild to manned spaceflight (though there is precious little of that at the moment), and JPL has made do with what was left. And in the process performed brilliantly.

Their reward as of today? Well, as regards Mars, they have one very expensive ($2.3 billion; more if operations continue over time) lander, MSL, which should soon be operational, and a small and specialized orbiter, MAVEN, scheduled for launch towards Mars next year. Beyond that, through to 2020, the manifest is barren. There are a total of 8 new missions planned, all in low Earth orbit, and most looking at Earth (they do good work- climate change, weather prediction and more, but are not exciting to most civillians). And between 2014 and 2019, ZERO new missions are currently approved. So back to Mars: after MAVEN, we will be left with whatever is functioning on the Martian surface (MER Opportunity and, with luck, MSL Curiosity), and overhead Mars Odyssey (not for much longer) and the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter. That's it.

So win or lose, the broad outlook is similar. Of course, if MSL is a success, the results should be staggering. Here, for less cost than a week of combat in Afghanistan of the bailout of a small S&L from a few years back, we will learn more about the history of water on the planet, and may well puzzle out the likelihood of living things there. And so much more: the results should quickly outstrip everything learned on the Martian surface to date. But success or failure, the future of Mars exploration beyond 2013 is bleak.

View of Mars from a Viking orbiter.

This is a long answer to the interviewer's short question. And the answer is: it doesn't really matter if MSL succeeds or fails as regards the big picture. Not because it is not brilliant, it is. Not because Mars is not important, it is! But because the United States has, in a major way, turned its back on its own impressive past in space exploration, as the civillian populace has becomes consumed with consumerism, we fight multiple (and seemingly endless) wars, and hope against hope that our economy will recover, even as we ship more jobs overseas. Exploration and science for its own sake has waned to the lowest point since NASA was founded (in relative terms). The political support for Mars is weak, and for the manned program is slowly fading. If we did not have the International Space Station (which we crew via Russian rockets), the astronaut office in Houston would be an empty cavern.

Success with MSL will be thrilling and amazing. Failure will be heartbreaking. But in either case, NASA and JPL need a major shot in the arm. Not just of cash, although that is important, but of enthusiastic support, political backing and new blood. To quote a propellant engineer from the Apollo days when he bumped into the astronaut inspecting the rocket he was about to ride to the moon: "Nothing on this rocket will fail because of me." NASA in general, and JPL in particular, must not be allowed to fail because of us... no matter what the outcome of Sunday night is.