NASA passes on flying airplane over Mars - would have been first plane on another planet.

Associated Press ^ | 08/05/03 | Staff Writer

[bedolido]

NASA decided Monday not to include a rocket-powered airplane built by scientists at the Langley Research Center in its next Mars Scout mission, possibly because of concerns over risk factors following the Columbia shuttle disaster.

The unmanned ARES plane, short for Aerial Regional-scale Environmental Survey, would have been the first plane to fly on another planet.

The plane was designed to fold up inside an aeroshell for the flight to Mars, then unfold and fly over the planet's surface for about 310 miles, studying air, magnetism and geology. The mission would have launched in 2007.

Instead, NASA chose the Phoenix lander, proposed by the University of Arizona, for the trip. Phoenix is similar to the Mars Polar Lander, which lost contact as it descended to Mars in 1999 and was presumed to have crashed.

Phoenix also was the cheapest option available to NASA at $284 million. The other three finalists, including the ARES plane, came in at nearly $325 million apiece.

The lander will examine soil on the northern plains of Mars for life and water. Phoenix researchers said its design includes "capability for guided entry and hazard avoidance."

NASA did not say exactly why it passed over the ARES plane, but Langley researchers believe it had to do with February's Columbia disaster, which killed seven astronauts.

"I think in some people's minds, they thought that there was some question as to the risk of this mission," said Joel S. Levine, principal investigator for the Mars airplane. "We have to go for a detailed debriefing. At that time we'll find out. I would be surprised it it's not related to Columbia."

A half-scale model of ARES did well in a test flight under Mars-like conditions, but a powered airplane has never been flown on another planet. The ARES team at Langley said it will continue working on the plane for possible inclusion in the 2011 Mars Scout mission.

"I think we will fly an airplane on Mars," Levine said, "and I think it will be a made-in-Virginia airplane."

[AntiGuv]

The visionary NASA bureaucrats strike again..

[fishtank]

"NASA did not say exactly why it passed over the ARES plane, but Langley researchers believe it had to do with February's Columbia disaster, which killed seven astronauts."

Let's see, Columbia killed astronauts........ ARES would have a robot on board.......... that's risky????????

[boris]

"Let's see, Columbia killed astronauts........ ARES would have a robot on board.......... that's risky????????"

Any failure would mean "bad press" and congressional investigations--thus pushing them toward "safe" missions with a lower likelihood of failure.

--Boris

[The Duke]

You would think that a device that accomplished its mission *before* touching the surface of the planet would be less risky(?)

[Sam Cree]

What a cool idea. Sorry they're not gonna do it.

[fishtank]

Congress should have allocated funds for a new shuttle YEARS ago...... the day after the Challenger disaster. They've been derelict of duty and vision for a long time with NASA.

[bedolido]

You would think that a device that accomplished its mission *before* touching the surface of the planet would be less risky(?)

True... they haven't had any luck over the past several years landing a craft in a "planned" manner (w/o crashing).

[Sam Cree]

The Shuttle never has really fulfilled its purpose, to be a relatively inexpensive reusable space vehicle. I can't figure out if it's just a poor design, or an obsolete one.

I vote for poor design.

[ffusco]

Obsolete design. The shuttle was on the drawing board during the end of the Apollo program.

[Sam Cree]

<>PObsolete design. The shuttle was on the drawing board during the end of the Apollo program."

Yeah, but obsolete or no, and you're probably right about that, I figure we'd still be happy with the Shuttle if it was any good, just like we are with other stuff designed back then, like Boeing 727's, or M-16's for that matter. And the DC-3, designed in the early 30's, continues to give good service.

'Course we'd already have other better stuff on the drawing boards too, just as we continue to design new aircraft.

Wonderful as it is, I think the Shuttle may have been something of a dog from day one. Perhaps because we were reaching so far into such unknown technology.

[RogueIsland]

Any failure would mean "bad press" and congressional investigations--thus pushing them toward "safe" missions with a lower likelihood of failure.

According to a spokesman, NASA's next bold foray into space will be to launch a "small artificial satellite into earth orbit. We call it Sputnik. This will cement our lead in space exploration for decades to come."

[Jay D. Dyson]

The Shuttle never has really fulfilled its purpose, to be a relatively inexpensive reusable space vehicle. I can't figure out if it's just a poor design, or an obsolete one.

I vote for poor design.

Actually, the air frame is optimal. Just have a look at Russian Buran (Snowstorm) shuttle.

Even the internals, while antiquated, are optimal. Yes, it's decades-old technology, but it is hardened, operates in a fail-safe fashion, and will not "blue screen" when it's needed most. (As one report showed, even as Columbia was disintegrating, its onboard computer systems were still making hardcore efforts to keep flight dynamics sane and allow the craft to get home.)

The main reason that the STS missions are so costly is because of human payload requirements. Food, water, oxygen, environment regulation and cabin space exacts a large toll on the cost-benefit model. Unmanned missions that are not thus burdened run at approximately 1/10th the cost. (That's why we dabbled as long as we did with the ill-fated X33.)

That said, there are just some things that we can do with manned flight that isn't possible with unmanned flight. Those who have been around long enough will remember the billion-dollar Hubble Space Telescope would have been a total loss had it not been for the manned flight and space walks to correct HST's faulty vision. Many other satellites have been captured and repaired by manned shuttle missions at a fraction of the cost of their total loss had they been abandoned when trouble surfaced.

-Jay

[Jay D. Dyson]

Obsolete design. The shuttle was on the drawing board during the end of the Apollo program.

For something to be obsolete, there must be a logically better means of accomplishing the same task. Thus far, every party that has charged the STS as being obsolete has yet to produce a viable alternative.

-Jay

[af_vet_rr]

The Shuttle never has really fulfilled its purpose, to be a relatively inexpensive reusable space vehicle. I can't figure out if it's just a poor design, or an obsolete one.

In its original design, it would have been great. Then the paper pushers got a hold of it and started adding "features", and trying to make it do everything.

We seriously need to go back to a design philosphy of keeping things simple and not letting mission creep take the projects and designs over.

Simple may not be sexy, but it's cheap and it works.

[Sam Cree]

"Actually, the air frame is optimal"

I can't argue with this, it sounds right to me. The thing does seem to fly well. Besides which, the technicalities of this stuff are way over my head.

Only I can't help noticing that 40% of the fleet has been catastrophically wrecked, with the loss of all hands, and that the things turned out to be so much more expensive to operate than expected. This is not to say that the Shuttle has not been a great accomplishment anyway.

Yeah, I am very much in favor of space flight, manned and unmanned both. Ignoring it to look inward seems completely inhuman, uninspired and short sighted.

Well, yes, I remember the Hubble being fixed, I even remember the first Sputnik, back in the 50's.

[rmmcdaniell]

Congress should have allocated funds for a new shuttle YEARS ago...... the day after the Challenger disaster. They've been derelict of duty and vision for a long time with NASA.

The shuttle program is a waste of money. It mainly consists of conducting stupid experiments such as: "How loud do ants fart in zero gravity." I think the money would be better spent doing missions to other planets even if they aren't manned. NASA is more concerned with sending people into space, even if they don't accomplish anything, than achieving anything of real value.

[hchutch]

Perhaps the best options are the X-30 (NASP) and X-33 (VentureStar) programs. Unless we can get Enterprise and Pathfinder flyable, we're going to need a new way to get stuff to orbit.

[Jay D. Dyson]

Perhaps the best options are the X-30 (NASP) and X-33 (VentureStar) programs. Unless we can get Enterprise and Pathfinder flyable, we're going to need a new way to get stuff to orbit.

Those two had promise, but the leap from drawing board to launchpad proved they were not feasible.

Sadly, the X-33 was plagued with problems that far eclipse the difficulties we've seen with the STS. The X-33 had seriously stability problems at various speed ranges, and it couldn't overcome weight limitations necessary to make it a viable unmanned replacement to the STS. To make things worse, the linear aerospike engines were a problem unto themselves. Then the composite liquid-hydrogen tank failed while undergoing tests at MSFC in '99 and that pretty much killed the project by 2001.

As for the X-30, it had to be killed after it got 11 years behind schedule and 500% over budget and would have needed another $20 Billion (with a b) dollars just to produce one operational vehicle. Not exactly what I'd consider a viable alternative.

-Jay

[Jay D. Dyson]

The shuttle program is a waste of money. It mainly consists of conducting stupid experiments such as: "How loud do ants fart in zero gravity." I think the money would be better spent doing missions to other planets even if they aren't manned. NASA is more concerned with sending people into space, even if they don't accomplish anything, than achieving anything of real value.

Hmmmm...

1. Microcomputers.
2. Advances in medical research.
3. Synthesis of compounds that can only be done in zero-G environs.
4. Pure scientific research that validated multiple scientific theories, thus boosting further research in meaningful directions.
5. Repair of failing satellites at a fraction of the cost of their replacement.
6. No less than 259 spinoff commercial applications which generated benefits amounting to almost $22 billion in combined product sales and savings to U.S. companies.

Nope...no benefits there.

-Jay