The Policy Process

Mars exploration has evolved through a series of programs, projects, and strug­gles over the years. There have been five periods in policymaking for Mars to date, with a sixth debated at the time of writing. The first, characterized by fly­bys and orbiters, was that of Mariner. It extended from 1958 to the early 1970s, when the aborted Voyager and Viking initiated a second era that culminated in twin landings in 1976. Viking turned out to be a single mission, rather than the start of a program of sequential missions. The third era was one of hiatus and agitation to regain momentum. It started in the wake of Viking and did not end until 1992, when Mars Observer went up. Mars Observer failed, giving rise to a fourth era that extended through the 1990s.

Mars missions were now part of programs called Discovery and Mars Sur­veyor. This fourth era, begun in the early 1990s, was characterized by the FBC mantra and saw a number of great successes, such as Pathfinder and Mars Global Surveyor. It also featured an abrupt shift in orientation due to the discovery of a Mars meteorite that was said to have fossils of microbiological Martian life. NASA sought to speed the pace toward MSR. This had been an ultimate goal of the Mars Surveyor Program but did not have a firm deadline. The shift in the mid-1990s established a harder deadline to force action. However, the failure of two Mars missions in 1999 ended this period and gave rise to a fifth era of Mars discovery. Called Mars Exploration Program, this era emphasized an incremen­tal “follow-the-water” strategy aimed at finding habitable places. It downplayed FBC in favor of “mission success.” The climax of this program came in 2012, with the landing of the MSL rover, Curiosity.

MSL is the most challenging and costly Mars mission since Viking—in some ways it is a much more sophisticated version of the Viking follow-on that was proposed but aborted in the late 1970s. It “follows the water,” but also transitions to looking for carbon and other building blocks of life.5 A smaller, specialized orbiter project, the Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution Mis­sion (MAVEN), was launched in November 2013, ending the follow-the-water programmatic era as conceived.

Finally, a sixth era is on the NASA agenda and in planning. It initially had been characterized by major international missions, starting jointly with Eu­rope, in 2016 and in 2018. Its ultimate goal was the return of a sample of Martian soil and rock to Earth for examination in the 2020s. However, White House cuts to NASA’s budget precluded the planned 2016 and 2018 missions with Europe. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, in response, pledged to continue Mars missions, with the path ahead to be determined.6 He stated that he wanted the new program—called Mars Next Decade—to be more integrated with human spaceflight goals.7

Meanwhile, to help maintain momentum, NASA proposed a mission for 2016, called InSight. This would be a relatively modestly priced venture to use seismic instruments to study Mars’s interior forces. NASA also indicated that it would contribute to the European missions via certain instruments. Most im­portantly, NASA, in late 2012, received approval for a $1.5 billion rover for 2020 which would build on MSL’s Curiosity. How this 2020 rover mission related to MSR and Mars Next Decade was not clear at the time of writing. However, it did seem to augur that there would be a sixth era of Mars exploration, arguably beginning in 2016.8

Each of the programs and missions passed and proposed goes through vari­

ous decision stages. In theory, these stages are straightforward. In an ideal situa­tion, the policy process for each program or mission begins with an awareness of need or opportunity that is sufficiently compelling to get this potential program on the agenda of NASA decision makers. Planning for action follows along with formulation of proposals. Then comes formal adoption of the new program or specific mission by authoritative political decision makers. Once adopted and funded, the program moves into an implementation stage that can last for years. At some point during execution, there is an evaluation stage that can lead to reorientation. The last stage is completion. Completion of the program or mission can prelude a follow-on effort.

The sequence of decisions noted above is obviously an abstraction. Reality is not so linear and is often messy. Stages overlap. Policy proposals are rejected. A program or specific project can be terminated prior to its planned end. One set of stages can recycle and lead to the beginning of another sequence. In Mars explo­ration, new programs can be planned before an existing one is completed. There can also be a gap between programs, especially following failure. The process can move swiftly or slowly—or stagnate. There are technical, administrative, and political barriers every step of the way. The journey is torturous. Indeed, it has its casualties in terms of careers of scientists, engineers, and administrators. Overall, however, there is progress. Mars exploration takes place, through a “program of programs.”