NASA Cancels Missions After All

jd writes "Barely a day after NASA chief Dr. Griffen swore blind that projects might be frozen but not cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints, news comes of a new asteroid mission that has been cancelled due to the new priorities and budget constraints - something Dr. Griffin did not mention in his earlier comments. The visit to two asteroids, short about $90 million, was completely abandoned according to NASA, with no possibility of revival. In consequence, smaller missions are reportedly feeling at much greater risk."

Comments

Climate of budget tightening

[amightywind]

This is a difficult situation because the mission has a lot of merit. But it was over budget and had technical problems. Something had to go in a climate of budget tightening. Most people on this forum will rail at this decision. They should blame the aimlessness of NASA's manned space program since Apollo, and credit NASA administrator Michael Griffin for doing something about it.

Re:Climate of budget tightening

[SpaceViolin]

To hear complaints of "cost overruns" for this mission, knowing well the role that the upper NASA management played in adding to those costs is grating on the ear, I must say. I suggest to read these links for details of the Dawn mission from Mark Sykes, the director of the Planetary Science Institute, writing to the House Science Committee Chair on Friday: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=19838 and his interview with the Planetary Society: http://www.planetary.org/blog/article/00000475/ As for technical problems, yes there were things that were critical to address, but the Dawn Independent Assessment Team, who gave their report to NASA in late January, stated that the Dawn mission was no different in their mission development from any other successful space mission in their late stage of development and they gave a recommendation to finish the project and launch. Another example of the misinformation of the Dawn problems are the much-talked about xenon tanks, which were, in fact, tested at twice their designed conditions when they failed, and on the day of the cancellation, NASA had a letter from the project (at JPL) stating that all xenon tank problems were solved. Please remember that all Dawn instruments were built and more than halfway through the spacecraft integration at the time of the cancellation, so the Dawn spacecraft was ~95% constructed. And not only dollars were spent, but significant amount of euros too, because two of the three Dawn instruments were European, instruments paid for by NASA's international partners: the German Aerospace Agency and Italian Space Agency.

Re:To all the naysayers.

[mrpeebles]

You are clearly not mormon...

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[zcat_NZ]

Who says they never used that ability?

How do you think they found out about the explosives?

Foam insulation my ass.

Try 31 times higher.

[MacDork]

It calculates to about $3 per taxpayer per year. Compare that to the military budget, which is about 500 times higher.

That's a bit of an exaggeration... NASA's share of the federal budget is roughly 15 billion dollars. The DOD gets 475 billion. That's closer to the neighborhood of 30 times. It's worth mentioning that the executive branch gets 25 billion a year though; About the same as the legislative branch, the judicial branch, and NASA combined... Limos and jets cost more than shuttle missions apparently.

Re:JPL

[glitchvern]

The problem is that over the last 15 years while Nasa's budget has remained relatively constant in inflation adjusted dollars we have given science more of the budget, increasing from 24% to 32% of Nasa's total budget. This extra funding for science has come from the human spaceflight budget and now we don't have enough in the human spaceflight budget for return to flight. Add in hurricane Katrina which severely damaged several shuttle facilities, our commitment to other nations to complete ISS, and the costs of developing a new vehicle and human spaceflight has to take back some of it's budget from science.

Re:You have to pay for the Iraq war

[fimbulvetr]

But the military is making the world a better world right here right now.

Oh yes. Wait - they are? I haven't seen it, have you? I give you a 20 year time frame - you give me one, just one, that's right one (1) example of a foreign country where a large problem, like a threat to us, has been solved. Until then, STFU.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[Nowhere.Men]

Don't know for soviet ones but the shuttle has bring back to earth a few things. One was a satellite to test the effects of space environment to different materials. It was supposed to stay in orbit for 6 month, stayed there 2 years.

Re:Relax, We're still going to the moon, right?

[tacocat]

Actually the Space Shuttle was a damn good idea and the concept is still a damn good idea. If it sucked so bad then why are people still considering a reusable delivery system today?

Nay Sayer!!!

It's still a good idea, just like the 286 intel chip was. But they need to opportunity to go next generation on the project and build a new series. In the future I think it would make more sense if NASA only built two and then started a redesign.

Foolish Choices

[rben]

Going to an asteroid made a lot of sense. The asteroid Amun, which is the smallest known metallic asteroid near Earth, has over a trillion dollars worth of metals. Mining it would pay back a hundred fold on the cost of developing the technology to do so. Instead, we have another pie-in-the-sky mission of going back to the Moon and on to Mars with no payback. It will just cost a fortune.

I'm all for going to the Moon and on to Mars, but I want a sustainable space program. I want to see us go out to space and develop the resources that are out there.

As has been pointed out on this thread, the Shuttle isn't the best way to do this. We need safe reliable transportation to space at a reasonable cost. I think the best answer is a space elevator. The folks over at www.liftport.com are working on actually building one -- well actually four of them. If LiftPort accomplishes it's goals, it will have four space elevators that will be able to carry a shuttle load of cargo to orbit on a WEEKLY basis. Since the elevator will extend out sixty thousand miles, it will also serve as an excellent launching platform for missions to anywhere in the inner solar system. The Earth's own momentum will supply the initial velocity needed.