This mission is representative of what JPL has become. Leadership there increased the cost of the program to $11B and would not bring the samples back until 2040, they also designed the mission around legacy rockets like Ariane 64 instead of working to lower costs and increase capacity by working with industry and designing around Starship or New Glenn. The moon missions brought back 842 pounds of rocks and MSL would bring back 1.1 pounds. It’s directionally better to wait for manned missions to Mars so we can bring back tons of rocks or even do the research on Mars itself. It seems like the JPL mission is maximized to provide jobs to researchers and maximized for mission complexity rather than just buying rocks from a contractor with quoted price and lead time.
I’d be interested in working there to help accelerate the program but I’m not if I would get support internally.
> It’s directionally better to wait for manned missions to Mars so we can bring back tons of rocks or even do the research on Mars itself.
I'm worried it's arguments like this that doomed MSR [0]. Why spend 11 billion to get a couple rocks back in 2040 when Starship will be sending astronauts in 2030? But now it seems the near term goals of the Starship program are changing. At this point, who knows when we'll send people to Mars?
> buying rocks from a contractor with quoted price and lead time
I don't know about you but I'm not hearing anyone say they've reserved Starship mass-to-Mars-and-back. You're right that we should rely on private industry more. The CLPS program is the most comparable example (although time will tell whether it's a good one). But for a mission with the risk tolerance of MSR, the CLPS model doesn't work, IMO.
And meanwhile the Chinese are planning on launching their sample return in 2028. They're gonna beat us by a decade.
[0] My thoughts here are partially from this great blog post: <a href="https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/who-is-the-villain-in-mars-sample" rel="nofollow">https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/who-is-the-villain-in-mars...
That's a valid response, and I think it gets at the core of why we do planetary science. There are no military or economic applications of knowing what Martian soil is made out of, or why it lost its atmosphere, or whether life evolved there too. So why do both the US and China fund these missions at all? And does it matter if China returns samples first?
First, I would say that in the process of answering these questions, we develop technologies that often have military or economic benefits (technology transfer). There's something about trying to solve problems humanity has not faced before that causes this. We talk a lot about solution spaces, but problem spaces are maybe more important!
Second, there are intangible benefits to answering these questions, which accrue to those who answer them, but also to all of humanity. Prestige, soft power, research expertise, for the one who answers them. And for all of humanity, we gain perspective, awe, wonder, togetherness, curiosity, joy, a whole suite of feelings.
If China discovers life on Mars first, which is absolutely a possibility, would we even bother with being second? I think it's too optimistic to assume it's inevitable that we will do a Mars sample return mission. And if we don't, we'd miss out on all the technology transfer benefits. Being in a race is very motivating.
Definitely haven't made a complete argument here, but those are my thoughts. I know there are more concrete, pressing issues out there. But we don't all have to save the world. We just have to do our part and be decent human beings.
> There are no military or economic applications of knowing what Martian soil is made out of, or why it lost its atmosphere, or whether life evolved there too.
That should start with, "There is no _known_..."
Unknown unknowns are why people who care about economics and power (governments) care about science.
They put him on the Beagle to have dinner with the captain so that the captain wouldn't go mad. The captain himself was the one who went looking for a dinner companion.
Also, Darwin had to pay his own way (with his father's money) as a civilian passenger and received no salary for the trip.
So "the British" didn't put Darwin on the Beagle.
Think of all of the science that goes into firing and controlling a precision guided missile. How much of that technology was created for military purposes.
angelgonzales · · focus · HN ↗
I’d be interested in working there to help accelerate the program but I’m not if I would get support internally.
3lambda · · focus · HN ↗
I'm worried it's arguments like this that doomed MSR [0]. Why spend 11 billion to get a couple rocks back in 2040 when Starship will be sending astronauts in 2030? But now it seems the near term goals of the Starship program are changing. At this point, who knows when we'll send people to Mars?
> buying rocks from a contractor with quoted price and lead time
I don't know about you but I'm not hearing anyone say they've reserved Starship mass-to-Mars-and-back. You're right that we should rely on private industry more. The CLPS program is the most comparable example (although time will tell whether it's a good one). But for a mission with the risk tolerance of MSR, the CLPS model doesn't work, IMO.
And meanwhile the Chinese are planning on launching their sample return in 2028. They're gonna beat us by a decade.
[0] My thoughts here are partially from this great blog post: <a href="https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/who-is-the-villain-in-mars-sample" rel="nofollow">https://mceglowski.substack.com/p/who-is-the-villain-in-mars...
joquarky · · focus · HN ↗
So what advantage, in the realm of all possibilities, would this give China that we should be seriously concerned about?
We have such bigger existential threats right now that my emotional response to the quoted text is an aggressive lack of concern.
3lambda · · focus · HN ↗
Definitely haven't made a complete argument here, but those are my thoughts. I know there are more concrete, pressing issues out there. But we don't all have to save the world. We just have to do our part and be decent human beings.
[deleted] · · focus · HN ↗
[deleted]
parineum · · focus · HN ↗
That should start with, "There is no _known_..."
Unknown unknowns are why people who care about economics and power (governments) care about science.
cubefox · · focus · HN ↗
ted_dunning · · focus · HN ↗
Seriously.
The stupider you are, the more likely it is that there is something valuable that you don't know about.
But sophistry on that level doesn't actually change the minimal economic value of putting people on Mars.
TitaRusell · · focus · HN ↗
Well it turned out to be the start of something very important.
ted_dunning · · focus · HN ↗
Also, Darwin had to pay his own way (with his father's money) as a civilian passenger and received no salary for the trip.
So "the British" didn't put Darwin on the Beagle.
parineum · · focus · HN ↗