VEG

————

October 3, 1972

Dr. John Naugle

Headquarters

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Washington, D.C. 20546

Dear John,

I am still wondering how we might be able to compromise with the
budget squeeze and still manage a mission to Mars in 1977 or 1979 that
can make more effective use of the data we have collected in 1972 and
perhaps 1976.

I am told that it would be physically and fiscally impossible to
mount new programs in time for the 1977 opportunity and that it may be
almost impossible to do this for 1979. So I am led to fhink of some
seemingly desperate alternatives.

Has the following been thought about? Suppose we regard the doubling
of spacecraft for Viking 1976 as a safeguard not for all of the risks
that might attend one mission but for the rather substantial part of them
that would be revealed during the first 30 days or so after launch. Then
if there were a successful launch of the first vehicle it might still be
possible to hold the second vehicle and spacecraft in reserve, that is to
gay to save it for a 1977 or 1979 mission. This is even a decision that
does not have to be made until the last minute although some cerebrations
about that contingency would, of course, be likely to pay off very handsomely.
You may say that we also need to keep a second mission system in reserve
against the hazards of the latter part of the attempt. But a reply to that
is why not defer the backup for two years, in that event, when it is more
likely that we will have learned enough about the reasons for possible
failure to be able to respond more effectively to it.

If we have this contingency in mind it may then also be possible to
give some thought to the incremental costs not only of deferring the backup
mission for another two years, which I well realize is not cost~free, but
also to possible revisions of the mission for the sake of scientific
optimization. Tnis would be gambling on a mortgage for the future but it
would have the possible shortrun advantage of keeping the evident program
costs for the next couple of years at least within the same limits that
they are under the present mission plan. Against the argument that there
would be inefficiencies in not doubling up during Viking operations one
could answer that it may be more of a strain then we know how to deal with
to have two spacecrafts in orbit and landers simultaneously, and furthermore
that having some continuing operations to keep the teams busy is in itself
a scientific and technical advantage.

over

 

die EC.

DJ Ve) pe
Dr. John Naugle -2- 10/3/72

I realize that every perturbation of thinking in itself exacts some
costs but it seemed to me that this was an idea that you would be able
to evaluate without too much trouble at least to determine whether it is
worth looking into it any further and that it is much less drastic then
many of the other options.

Sincerely yours,

Joshua Lederberg
Professor of Genetics

JL/rr