as already mentioned, my first reaction to the storage box had been deprecatory. Meanwhile, at least I found wherefores pro.

From my point of view, the doubts about "we-don't-know-how-long" and "we-don't-have-a-clue-what" are – in the contrary – pros. Without the critical current economical events a basket full of extraordinary samples waiting for recovery on Mars would vitally have influenced the decision making on the next steps of how to approach Mars.

And this next steps would have been the technological preparations for the approach through humans itself.

With a basket, full with or half filled by thoroughly selected precious samples, the demonstration of the ability to return would have had a goal. Did you ever hear about Thomas Schellings tacit agreement finding? That was what die Storage Box was really predestinated for. It was the perfect focal point. The design may look simple, but the psychological idea was ingenious. It would have been the tacit crown on top of a successful return mission (which would have been the precursor for the first men on Mars). But the current course of economy let this fine concept fail. It would have become our aiming point.

It's obvious that a lot of U.S. citizens experience lose of wealth these days. That is essential. Every night when I go to sleep I wonder why I still am not affected and shaken in my daily life by this crisis till to the bones. Even the unemployment in Germany is still decreasing. We know that by 2009 the impact will finally hit us with might. But we might nevertheless be able to stand tall again already by 2010.

But will the Mars project ever stand tall again, too? We must make sure that it will!

Come on…

And U still say Europeans have funny ideas…

The tremendous abhorrence uttered by some in the audience is well fed by the way how the problem is expressed verbally:

Because everybody "knows" what a "box" is, everybody "understands" that a "box" cannot cost $ 2 million, which is "convincing".

The first success for the former Soviet's return mission from the Moon – Lunar 16 – did occur not until the preassure was off, which had been induced by the competition with America to have the first lunar samples back on Earth. Just after America had won the race, the Soviets were able to succeed with their attempts, too.

If the constraints are too strong, then you are too weak.

Could you explain what part of the budget overruns are inevitable? Did you mean "perennial" or "recurring"?

in Germany, we think it is more valuable for society if a juvenile delinquent with a never-ending criminal record is send on adventure vacation for rehabilitation on a mediterranian island together with a social worker. Isn't that so much funnier than to gain samples from other worlds? Even if the price is that Germany will no more be able to compete with the U.S. in space?

…suddenly, $47,000 for a hammer sounds like a bargain.

From an engineering standpoint, they needed to streamline the process- define what the MSL will do, what is needed to accomplish that, slap the damn thing together, send it to Mars and let it do what they intended for it to do- just basic engineering thought.

The US hasn't got the money for it, neither do Russia or the EU and China has it but lacks the brains to do it

Since we're all half-assed egotic monkeys we'll never get to mars until we unite funds and brains and create a UN of space exploration.

But the US will never agree to it because of Cheney & other military industrial, excuse my french, a**holes.

1) sample

But this Storage "Box" (a high tech device) would already have been the Sample Return Mission – part one.

Karl is right: "For those who think 'There seems to be a never ending supply of rocks on Mars' and all rocks are the same – if you accept that assumption then logic dictates you might as well just test rocks from earth."

The bandwagon effect on this thread here lets some participants forget what the main goal of space missions commonly is: they are gathering information.

2) return

But in contrary, a return mission would have been a technology test in the first instance, a step necessary to develop the ability to bring humans back from the surface of Mars.

Therefore, during a return mission there would never have been the means to fully concentrate on evaluating and selcting probes and samples from the surface of Mars worth to be in a laboratory on Earth. And so the information contained in the probes and samples would have been dramatically less.

With a Heave ho! mission ("test ability to return and also bring some stones with!") the price-performance ratio for each gram of surface material transfered would have decreased dramatically.

3) suicide

But I say "would have been", because "The Mars program is slowly committing suicide in front of our very eyes."

Accomplishing half of a sample return mission (arguably the most difficult half!) for just $2 million would be an unbelievably good use of limited funds.

For those who think "There seems to be a never ending supply of rocks on Mars" and all rocks are the same – if you accept that assumption then logic dictates you might as well just test rocks from earth. We've got plenty of them here and it would save a lot of money to use them instead of squandering funds on rockets and space probes.

START A SAMPLE RETURN MISSION.

Is this from Onion?

Indeed, "The Mars program is slowly committing suicide in front of our very eyes".

extensive gathering is the underlying mission which MSL has to conduct. A mission which main goal is to bring back a ship from the surface of Mars cannot conduct this special MSL task a second time. So it is crucial for a return mission that the scientific work in situ is already done by a prior mission and that the samples and probes worthwhile need only be picked up.

Sampling and returning cannot be accomplished either by MSL or the return mission alone. Both missions need to be linked together.

And people wonder why NASA has budget problems…..

Imho, landing a return capsule on Mars would be such an effort, that very less additional equipment would be in the payload. One can imagine that it would be very difficult to send a full functioning return vehicle with all the fuel and all the other things for a journey back to earth and in the same time also a rover to select fresh probes in a proximity of several Martian days travelling.

It is clear, that the longer the return vehicle would wait for the sampler vehicle, the more likely would a damage to the whole system be. The sooner it could return the better for the probability for success.

Therefore, it would be very useful, if a forerunner would already have selected material very carefully over a very long period of time. So there would have been reasonable time to only select precious pieces from the surface, stones and material that would obviously be of interest.

And of course, not the return vehicle would pick up the probes, but the MSL would come the the landing site of the return vehicle.

That is the argument, why the Sample Storage Box might be absolutely important.

I just can't understand the thinking behind the storage box. There seems to be a never ending supply of rocks on Mars, and the chance of a lander being designated to retrieve rocks analyzed on a prior landing is nearly zip.

It's the mind-set of quasi-scientific bureaucrats that caused the waste of $2m on a terribly silly notion. These people should be held accountable.

kind regards,

Günther

The more one thinks about this the dafter the whole idea becomes. You have a whole planet of rocks and sand. Most of the samples will be similar to each other. i.e you will see repeats of similar samples for a known region of known geological structure.

It will only be the occasional one that has any difference. All you need to do is log the site. If the original sample area is known, you can return to take a second or a third sample.

The data is much more important than the original sample. UNLESS, that is, you do not believe the result. Well the answer to that is surely, no science has any worth unless it is completely repeatable, by another researcher taking a new sample from the same location and processing it to create the same result?

I completely agree with the decision to remove the box.

But, yes, the whole concept has to be thought through from the beginning. For example, it seems plausible that costs are dominated by the weight of what you bring back (because you have to take all the fuel for that with you, and so you need to lift all that fuel off the earth. So if you can leave the digging arm behind on Mars, it's not going to make so much difference in the big picture.