The Mammoth Book of Space Exploration and Disasters

transfer capability as soon as possible, and, for the long term, would develop next-generation reusable launch vehicle technology.

Regarding impacts on the space station, O’Keefe reported that, since the Columbia tragedy, a Russian unmanned Progress resupply vehicle had delivered supplies to the crew as planned, and additional Progress and Soyuz flights would take place as scheduled. This would allow normal station operations, including research, to continue through June. While the station had sufficient propellant to maintain its orbit for at least a year without shuttle support, if the shuttle fleet was not operating again by June, he said, additional resupply flights might be needed to provide the crew with enough water. He also indicated that it would not be feasible for an autonomous resupply vehicle like Progress to bring up the next scheduled science experiments, so an extended grounding of the shuttle fleet would result in a “diminution of the science” being performed aboard the station.

Declaring that “we want science to be done in space,” Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) inquired whether the shuttle had been used less for science missions than as a delivery vehicle, “a UPS truck” for the space station. The shuttle’s cargo has included both portions of the station for assembly and scientific experiments, O’Keefe responded. He said most of the “groceries” were sent up on unmanned resupply vehicles, which could not be used to transport the science experiments. Members repeatedly expressed their support for a strong science program in space; O’Keefe cited the various kinds of research being conducted aboard Columbia at the time of the tragedy, and on the space station, including human physiology, genetics, biology, fire suppression, earthquake resistance, and Earth observations. To Rep. Lamar Smith’s (R-TX) question, “Can we justify decades of repetitive shuttle flights to a space station that’s not met expectations?” O’Keefe responded, “In contrast to your characterization, we are spending a lot of time on science, as we transition from the engineering phase to science.” He indicated support for going beyond the planned US core complete station configuration as he continued, “It does take at least two folks to maintain [the station], but as we are able to expand the crew, and reach the configuration that enables full use of the station’s capacity, I think you will see comparable scientific results to those from the Hubble Space Telescope.”

Reports by NASA advisory and review committees raising warnings about the shuttle fleet’s age and continued safety were cited by many members. O’Keefe stated that the concerns raised were all in reference to future safety, but there had been no indications that the current safety of the shuttle program was compromised. Another issue raised repeatedly was the budget cuts made over the past decade to planned shuttle upgrades. O’Keefe explained that, in his understanding of the shuttle’s budget history, quality assurance procedures and other program management approaches had yielded efficiencies and cost reductions, while at the same time, indicators showed safety improvements and a decrease in safety incidents both before and on orbit.

Addressing questions about the justification of manned space exploration versus robotic, O’Keefe said it was “not an issue of either/or” NASA’s approach, as it was doing with the Mars mission – to use robotic capabilities to understand the risks of human involvement and learn what would be necessary to support an eventual human mission “if it is deemed appropriate.” He mentioned the Hubble Space Telescope as an example of how unmanned exploration capabilities and human involvement worked in a complementary way to achieve outstanding science.

“This is not the beginning of the end; it is the end of the beginning,” Boehlert said in conclusion. He praised the openness and cooperation of O’Keefe and Admiral Gehman, and “the total commitment I find on the part of every person involved… to get the facts and let us be guided by the facts.”

Chapter 5 New Horizons – The Ongoing Quest

Life on Mars

When in 2003 the orbits of Mars and Earth brought them the closest together they had been for 60,000 years, both NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) sent robotic missions to Mars. The ESA mission was named Mars Express; the NASA mission was named Mars Exploration Rover (MER). NASA already had a satellite, Mars Odyssey, in orbit around Mars. The missions were intended to find evidence of life on Mars, either in the past or the present.

Mars Express was an international collaboration, originally consisting of two orbiters and a lander. The orbiters were ESA’s Mars Express itself and the Japanese spacecraft Nozomi; Beagle 2 was the lander.

Mars Express was launched by a Russian four-stage Soyuz/Fregat launcher, with the Fregat upper stage separating from the spacecraft after placing it on a Mars-bound trajectory. Mars Express was mounted on the Fregat upper stage.

The spacecraft used its on-board means of propulsion solely for orbit corrections and to slow the spacecraft down for Mars orbit insertion. Electrical power was provided by the spacecraft’s solar panels which were deployed shortly after launch. When Mars was at its maximum distance from the sun (aphelion), the solar panels would still be capable of delivering 650 watts which was more than enough to meet the mission’s maximum requirement of 500 watts, equivalent to just five ordinary 100 watt light bulbs!

When the spacecraft’s view of the sun was obscured by Mars during a solar eclipse, a lithium- ion battery (67.5 amp hours), previously charged up by the solar panels, took over the power supply.

Five of the instruments on Mars Express (HRSC, OMEGA, PFS, ASPERA and SPICAM) were descendants of instruments originally built for the Russian Mars ’96 mission. Each of the seven orbiter instrument teams on Mars Express had Russian coinvestigators who contributed their intellectual expertise to the project.

The Japanese spacecraft Nozomi was intended to go into near equatorial orbit around Mars shortly after Mars Express entered polar orbit. Nozomi had been due to reach the Red Planet in October 1999, but was delayed by a problem with the propulsion system, so the two missions took the opportunity to collaborate.

They shared a common interest in the Martian atmosphere – Nozomi even carried a close relative of ASPERA, the instrument on Mars Express to study interactions between the upper atmosphere and the solar wind.

Measurements recorded simultaneously by both spacecraft from their different vantage points would provide an unprecedented opportunity to study such interactions, so the two missions agreed to a programme of joint investigations and to the exchange of coinvestigators between the instrument teams.

ESA’s Beagle 2 landed on Mars at about thesametime as NASA’s Mars Rover mission. The two space agencies made arrangements to use each other’s orbiters as back-up for relaying data and other communications from the landers to Earth.

Mars Express also intended to use NASA’s Deep Space Network for communications with Earth during parts of the mission. US scientists played a major role in one of Mars Express’s payload instruments, MARSIS, and participated as co-investigators in most other instruments.

Mars Express and Beagle 2 marked the beginning of a major European involvement in an international programme to explore Mars over the next two decades. Europe, the US and Japan are planning to send missions, but many more countries will be contributing experiments, hardware and expertise.

The Beagle 2 lander was built by a British team. Being small and light it did not have a propulsion system of its own, and had to be “carried” precisely to its destination. On 19 December 2003 Mars Express was on a collision course with Mars, at which point Beagle 2 separated from it. Mars Express then veered away to avoid crashing onto the planet by firing its thrusters to get away from the collision course and enter into