National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: 4 A Balanced Mission Portfolio
Suggested Citation:"5 Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Assessment of NASA's Mars Architecture 2007-2016. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11717.
×

5
Summary

As a result of its discussions and deliberations concerning the above topics, the committee finds that NASA’s plans for the 2007, 2009, and 2011 launch opportunities have considerable merit. The committee does, however, have some specific concerns with the proposed mix and phasing of missions under consideration for launch in 2013 and 2016. The committee notes that the basic objectives and strategy articulated in New Frontiers in the Solar System (the solar system exploration decadal survey) are acknowledged and reiterated as the foundation of the program, in spite of the current fiscal constraints with which NASA is dealing. These objectives and strategy have also been recently reiterated by the Mars science community via the Mars Exploration Program Analysis Group (MEPAG), a structure that has enabled past and continuing science community involvement in, and ownership of, the Mars science process. While external forces have driven the Mars architecture to its science floor, that floor has, importantly, remained intact.

That said, the committee is concerned that the current Mars science program suffers from a lack of balance, in that two of the high-priority missions recommended by the SSE decadal survey do not appear in the 2007-2013 timeframe. An overall Mars science program that moves forward in a balanced, scientifically efficient manner can be guaranteed by undertaking the following actions:

  • Better defining the scientific rationales for the 2013 and 2016 missions (via appropriately constituted mission definition teams);

  • Including the Mars Long-Lived Lander Network in the mix of options for the 2016 launch opportunity;

  • Maintaining the science component of the proposed MSTO and its schedule;

  • Maintaining the R&A base; and

  • While future technology developments may enable better in situ analysis, e.g., for chronology, the committee finds that there is no substitute for an eventual sample return mission. A strategy to implement the Mars Sample Return mission must be devised, and a program to develop the technology necessary to enable this mission should start at the earliest possible opportunity.

Suggested Citation:"5 Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Assessment of NASA's Mars Architecture 2007-2016. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11717.
×

This page intially left blank

Suggested Citation:"5 Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Assessment of NASA's Mars Architecture 2007-2016. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11717.
×
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"5 Summary." National Research Council. 2006. Assessment of NASA's Mars Architecture 2007-2016. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/11717.
×
Page 38
Next: A SSE Decadal Survey Mars Priorities »
Assessment of NASA's Mars Architecture 2007-2016 Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $29.00 Buy Ebook | $23.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The United States and the former Soviet Union have sent spacecraft to mars as early as 1966, with Mars' exploration being priority for NASA spacecraft. Both sides, however, have failed as well as succeed. The inability to determine if life exists on Mars is considered one of NASA's failures and undercut political support for additional Mars missions in the U.S. until the launch of the Mars Observer in 1992. Thus, the exploration of life on Mars continues, but with a new approach.

Assessment of NASA's Mars Architecture, 2007-2016 is an assessment by the Committee to Review the Next Decade Mars Architecture of the National Research Council (NRC) conducted by request of Dr. Mary Cleave, NASA's Associate Administrator for the Science Mission Directorate. The Committee addresses the following questions: Is the Mars architecture reflective of the strategies, priorities, and guidelines put forward by the National Research Council's solar system exploration decadal survey and related science strategies and NASA plans?, Does the revised Mars architecture address the goals of NASA's Mars Exploration Program and optimize the science return, given the current fiscal posture of the program?, and Does the Mars architecture represent a reasonably balanced mission portfolio?

After several months of study, consideration and incorporation of the guidance from NRC studies, especially New Frontiers in the Solar System, and the Vision for Space Exploration; community consultations via individual inputs; and a MEPAG-sponsored working group, a plan was created. This report includes the plan, which has an Astrobiology Field Laboratory or two Mild Rovers mission planned for 2016, recommendations from the committee, NRC guidelines for mars exploration, and more.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!