The price of exploration.

NASA is in the final throes of implementing the most powerful surface reconnaissance mission ever undertaken to Mars. Dubbed the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL), it represents NASA's first life inference mission equipped with instruments capable of detecting the chemical building blocks of life more than an order of magnitude more sensitive than those used by the Viking mission of the 1970s. MSL will also demonstrate multiple technical capabilities needed to enable a future robotic Mars sample return mission. In his 31 October Letter (“Viewing NASA's Mars budget with resignation,” p. [672][1]), former NASA Associate Administrator S. A. Stern suggested that excessive cost growth of MSL is deeply damaging NASA's overall planetary exploration agenda and destroying the opportunity for a future Mars sample return mission. He blames senior NASA leaders for disbanding his MSL independent technical review team, which he claims forced his resignation. ![Figure][2] Let's roll. Wheels have been fitted to NASA's Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) rover, which is being assembled at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California. The rover has a ground clearance of about 60 cm, or 2 feet, and is about the size of a small automobile. CREDIT: NASA/JPL Now is the time to set the record straight. NASA consolidated its independent standing review boards to streamline the process for all major flight programs in 2007. The MSL Standing Review Board remains in effect and was never disbanded. Stern also claims that MSL was “assigned” a cost level of $650 million. He fails to mention when and by whom. The $650 million cost was a placeholder assigned to a medium-class Mars rover mission by the National Research Council Solar System Decadal Survey committee in 2002, before NASA had developed a basis of cost estimate for MSL. This served as input to NASA studies from 2000 to 2004 to fully define the MSL mission and culminated in the competitive selection of its science payload in late 2004. At that time, the overall mission was baselined at a cost of $1.4 billion, not including several costs associated with the radioisotope power system. Given the experience with the cost of the Mars Exploration Rovers and the increased scientific and technical scope of the MSL mission, the so-called assigned value of $650 million is not credible. Stern's own New Horizons flyby mission to Pluto cost NASA more than $650 million; it is unrealistic to expect that a 700-kg analytical laboratory that must soft-land on Mars and drive around with 100 kg of scientific instruments could possibly cost less than a planetary flyby mission. Indeed, MSL's 2 years of intensive surface science operations are difficult to compare to any missions in the $650 million price class given typical science-per-dollar metrics. The established NASA cost to implement MSL as of the time of its confirmation review was $1.55 billion (August 2006), which grew due to NASA-wide issues with thermal protection system materials in 2007 to approximately $1.7 billion. The total cost growth of the MSL mission development since NASA confirmed the mission is typical of other Mars exploration missions successfully flown over the past decade. The cost to fly MSL in 2009 will be less than the cost (in today's dollars) of flying a nonmobile Viking Lander laboratory to Mars, and MSL includes a whole new generation of instruments and mobility. NASA has an exemplary record of honoring its commitments to implement flagship-class missions that frequently “rewrite the textbooks” as they discover how the universe operates. To abandon MSL at this time would represent an unprecedented break with this guiding philosophy. As President John F. Kennedy once stated, we choose to do these things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. NASA succeeded with Apollo to the Moon, Hubble to the universe, and Cassini to Saturn. The agency is ready now to assault the martian frontier with MSL. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.322.5902.672b [2]: pending:yes