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.