Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

NASA Reconsiders DAWN Mission Cancellation

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the back-on-the-path dept.

amstrad writes "Last month, NASA decided to cancel the DAWN mission to Ceres and Vesta citing 'technical difficulties' and 'budget overrun'. Monday, NASA released a statement reinstating the mission." From the article: "The decision to cancel Dawn was made March 2, 2006, after about $257 million already had been spent. An additional expenditure of about $14 million would have been required to terminate the project. The reinstatement resulted from a review process that is part of new management procedures established by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. The process is intended to help ensure open debate and thorough evaluation of major decisions regarding space exploration and agency operations."

56 comments

  1. Impressive by taskforce · · Score: 1

    I would say that is an impressive use of a Potemkin village to make their own indecisiveness look like a healthy intellectual debate.

    --
    My 3D Texturing Skinning work (under construction)
    1. Re:Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a pain to see how Bush sacrifice science in favor of war :(
      handreds of billions are spent on war every single day and there is no money left to finance science,health care, levee reconstruction against incoming hurricanes , border patrols to fight drugs smuggling etc etc

      NASA is far from being the only loser in the Bush policy

  2. I see by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 4, Funny

    So they'd already made their three easy payments of $39.99, and decided that it would be bad form to not pay the $6.95 in shipping and handling just because they didn't check their bank balance first.

    --
    The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
  3. Sometimes you need an egomaniac by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 1

    What they need, instead of indecision, is an egomaniac whose single-mindedness of purpose can drive the whole space program forward.

    Someone like Bill Gates who the rank & file can identify with as "one of us" but with extraordinary leadership ability. Not someone like Steve Ballmer who may have the business smarts, but can't relate to the masses.

    1. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by MancunianMaskMan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What they need is someone to realise that /(un)*manned/ space exploration is just too expensive to make useful research. NASA is a prestige object of the US government, which should have better things to do. For heaven's sake, employ some theoretical physicists to delve into the details of extraterrestrial physics, and yes, gaze into space all you can with telescopes, but don't fling bits of expensive kit to some distant lump of rock just so that a future US president can feel great during a state of the union address!

    2. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by October_30th · · Score: 1
      employ some theoretical physicists to delve into the details of extraterrestrial physics

      What good is theoretical physics for if you can't compare the theories with experimental results?

      --
      The owls are not what they seem
    3. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by cnettel · · Score: 2

      The problem is that some of us actually want a future physical human presence in space. If we never wanted to do that, there would of course be much less reason to ever send physical objects now. And, yes, I think it's quite reasonable to believe that it will pay off.

    4. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by greginnj · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What they need, instead of indecision, is an egomaniac whose single-mindedness of purpose can drive the whole space program forward.
      Hell yes!
      Someone like Bill Gates ...
      Oh hell no! I thought you were going to say, someone like Theo DeRaadt, who has a long history of hitting his release schedules -- what is it, every 6 months for 10 years now? -- and building a rock-solid product. And, ya gotta concede, he's got the 'egomaniac' and 'single-mindedness of purpose' bit DOWN.

      Bill and Ball release stuff late, charge too much, and even when it's released, their stuff crashes all the time. NOT what NASA needs.
      --
      Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
    5. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by Chrispy1000000+the+2 · · Score: 1

      Money?

      --
      Sig
    6. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by M1FCJ · · Score: 1

      Two very successful satellites: WMAP and Cassini prove that you are incorrect. Such science cannot be done in the same scale using baloons and ground-based research.

    7. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by grub · · Score: 1


      What good is theoretical physics for if you can't compare the theories with experimental results?

      It gives the Young Earth Creationists the out "they can't prove any of this stuff." I'm convinced that's part of the government's motive in slashing NASA exploration.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    8. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by grub · · Score: 1


      Given Mr. De Raadt's penchant for calling people "retarded", I'd love to be privy to his first meeting with the President. Bush'd probably take it as a compliment until an aide whispered in his ear.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    9. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by phunctor · · Score: 1

      Maybe ol' man Harriman?

    10. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey, I am retarded you insensitive clod!

    11. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by networkBoy · · Score: 1

      My gawd you put a hell of a positive spin on theo there, _without_ glossing over certain traits. I'm impressed.
      -nB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    12. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by Schraegstrichpunkt · · Score: 1

      Where do you think electricity is going to come from in a few decades/centuries?

      --
      http://outcampaign.org/
    13. Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac by elevine_2 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the thought, but would have used a different example: Steve Jobs/ John Sculley. The former did everything wrong (closed architecture, inadequate hardware, proprietary software, bullying the staff), but he had the product vision and personal influence to give the company a mission it wanted to accomplish, the staff the will to accomplish it, and the customers a desire to buy it. Sculley did everything right--fixed he product's shortcomings, nurtured the business alliances, regularized management, etc. So -- which one nearly wrecked the company and which actually saved it (at least for the moment)? In certain situations, egomaniacs rock!

  4. Ceres and Vesta by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    The way we are going humans will be landing on asteroids long before we have a go at flying a mission to mars. The reason is that it is just too hard to reliably launch from mars with hardware and consumables you have shipped from Earth.

    Yes, I know you can use ISRU but the whole thing is so dogy with forseeable technology. So my bet is with a landing on a smaller near Earth asteroid, followed by expeditions to the main belt. Recent missions like NEAR have paved the way and I hope DAWN continues the effort.

    This is where our near future in manned spaceflight really is. We should find out more about these places.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  5. Sometimes an ax over your head works wonders... by Amiga+Trombone · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "We revisited a number of technical and financial challenges and the work being done to address them," said NASA Associate Administrator Rex Geveden, who chaired the review panel. "Our review determined the project team has made substantive progress on many of this mission's technical issues, and, in the end, we have confidence the mission will succeed."

    In other words, threat of having their project canceled scared the team into getting their shit together and their project under control.

    I've got to say, so far I'm impressed with Griffin's leadership. He does seem to have a knack of getting the results he's after.

    1. Re:Sometimes an ax over your head works wonders... by Dibblah · · Score: 1

      Results are, in fact, only when something gets _delivered_. All that's happened here is one manager has made a promise to another manager. And you all know how that story goes.

    2. Re:Sometimes an ax over your head works wonders... by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not so. Rex Geveden is NASA Associate Administrator, NOT in charge of this mission. the truth is, Mary Cleave axed the mission foolishly - it had had some tech problems but they had been resolved before Cleave's decision, and the program was back on track.
      The quote is NOT a manager promising a manager something to keep his project - the quote is an ADMINISTRATOR acknowledging that a lower-level administrator had made a decision that was not based on the data that the actual program manager had provided.

      --
      This space available.
    3. Re:Sometimes an ax over your head works wonders... by khallow · · Score: 1
      From the letter in question. I attempted to format this. There also appears to be a few OCR (optical character recognition) glitches, but I saw nothing major. They come from NASA's end and aren't my fault.
      Following are the technical and management findings:

      • The most significant technical concerns ( e . g . , composite fuel tank qualification, ion propulsion power unit test failures, and spacecraft structural design margins) have been resolved or a credible resolution path exists.
      • Project management and contractor oversight have been strengthened through a combination of personnel and process changes. The projected cost overrun is in the range of 15 to 20 percent.
      • Cost uncertainty has been reduced through resolution of technical concerns, management improvements, and detailed assessments by the IAT.
      • The risk posture for the DAWN project at this stage of development (integration and test) is typical for a mission of its complexity.
      • Schedule estimates place the launch between June and August The FY 2007 President's Budget request provides sufficient funding for the projected schedule.

      In light of the foregoing, and in recognition of the fact that about half of the total mission funding has been committed and spent, the review decisions are:

      • The DAWN project will immediately be reinstated to a level of full funding.
      • JPL will immediately restaff the project and undertake to execute its completion.
      • SMD and JPL will develop a detailed replan, including an integrated master schedule and updated cost analysis with appropriate confidence factors.
      • JPL will undertake Propulsion Power Unit 500-hour life testing as soon as possible and will report progress and outcomes to SMD within 90 days.

      DAWN has experienced some serious technical and programmatic issues in the course of its development, and accordingly, consideration of cancellation was justified. Reinstatement does not excuse past performance nor guarantee unequivocal future support. JPL and the DAWN project are, therefore, required to fully commit appropriate resources and management to the successful completion of this mission.

      -----

      It appears to me that this isn't just one administrator correcting a second (though the "risk posture" comment in the findings list indicates something of that nature). There are specific problems outlined and the whole last paragraph lays down the law.

  6. Science making a comeback? by ferd_farkle · · Score: 1

    It sounds as if NASA has been having some success at 'pushing back' against the Bush administration's reluctance to fund Science.

    Recent embarassment over inflicting political spin on scientific findings may have given NASA a little budgetary leeway.

    There is slightly more detail in this articleat the Houston Chronicle.

    1. Re:Science making a comeback? by fatduck · · Score: 1

      Maybe someone realized he planned to redirect all the scientific funding to "religious studies"

      --
      Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
  7. Do I get this right? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    They can't afford to terminate the program?

    Sounds like they can't afford NOT to fly.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Termination fee by MyNameIsFred · · Score: 5, Informative

    The article doesn't give details, but the statement "$257 million already had been spent. An additional expenditure of about $14 million would have been required to terminate the project. " probably does not mean they only needed to spend $14 million to complete the project. Most government contracts have a termination fee associated with it. If the government cancels the project early, the government pays the contractor to close up shop - dispose of unneeded material, severence pay for terminated workers, etc. etc.

    1. Re:Termination fee by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 1

      Ah, that makes more sense. I read "required to terminate the project" as being the same as "required to finish the project".

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    2. Re:Termination fee by SirBruce · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes. From reading elsewhere, they have spent $257M; the total price tag is estimated at $446M. So they still have $189M to go. Cancelling the mission would have saved them $175M, which will now probably come out of the CEV-related budgets.

      Bruce

    3. Re:Termination fee by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1
      From what I read elsewhere, the cost to complete the mission would be about $40m. So, it was a choice between spending $40m, to save a $257m investment, or spend $17m, to just burn the $257m.

      In that light, and since the technical problems were reportedly resolved, cancelling the project seemed pretty stupid.

      --
      This space available.
  9. Nice lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Troll

    If you look at the facts, you'll see just how greatly Bush has increased science spending. He's stealing our money at gunpoint to give way too much of it to science. Why would you claim otherwise? Just don't pay your part of the huge Bushie funded science, and you will go to prison.

    Instead, the government should spend money on people. Welfare and public housing help people educate themselves to get better jobs. Public education helps the future poor. It helps everyone, especially the poor. Instead, the Shurb has increased spending for NASA greatly and science in general. That only helps the technical elite rather than the people. Of course the Shrub only cares about the rich and educated as shown by his increases in science spending over increases in funding that helps the people.

    Again, stop pushing the Repukian lie that the Shurb isn't increasing science spending. He is. It is our money he is taking. You Bush worshipers make me sick.

    1. Re:Nice lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Two comments:

      1) He cut NASA's budget by a third his first 3 years in office. Not until we invaded Iraq did it recieve any re-funding, and even then the new funds were earmarked for use in military technologies - not NASA's area in the first place. NASA had to use that money to support launching of military satelites and whatnot. To this day, NASA's budget is lessthan 80% of what it was when Bill Clinton left office. And that's 80% not adjusting for inflation or time, which means it's around 72% of what it was after adjustments.

      2) You make a good point based on a bad theory. You're assuming that everything NASA does in the field of "research" has no gains. What happens in 2026 when over 60% of the polar ice caps have melted, the earth's land area has been cut in half due to the oceans flooding, and the average world temperature at 2AM is over 120 degrees? What happens is that we've either got ships ferrying people by the millions to another planet to live on, or we all slowly die, wishing that Bush had gotten us to Mars a little quicker.

      The end goal for all this "research" is to find some place for us, human beings as a civilization, to inhabit once this planet is no longer habitable.

      It should also be noted that, if not for this "research" then there would not be half of the education we have in colleges and universities today. Microchips whouldn't exist if not for research done in space, where it's far easier than it is on land, and neither slashdot nor the computer you or I am posting from would likely exist. There are over 2,500 products that humans use on average more than twice a day which, without space exploration, wouldn't even exist. Satelite TV and Internet, Computer Microprocessors, and even the entire idea behind LCD displays (needing to fit a digital data display in a nearly flat space for use in some of the first manned space missions, to be exact) from watches to laptops and LCD TV's. That's not to mention the foam matresses on TV!

      Next time you make broad, sweeping remarks against Space Exploration (which is the correct term) please consider the fact that you can probably touch 10 things in the room you're in whose existance you owe to it.

    2. Re:Nice lie! by SirBruce · · Score: 4, Informative

      The parent post is riddled with mistakes and is, frankly, wrong. Check out this chart and the associated data:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

      For specifics, look at the numbers at the bottom.

      >1) He cut NASA's budget by a third his first 3 years in office.

      False, see the chart above.

      >Not until we invaded Iraq did it recieve any re-funding, and even
      >then the new funds were earmarked for use in military technologies -
      >not NASA's area in the first place. NASA had to use that money to
      >support launching of military satelites and whatnot.

      False. NASA doesn't launch the vast majority of military satellites and hasn't in quite some time. The military buys launch vehicles from aerospace constractors like Boeing and Lock-Mart and they're launched from Air Force stations.

      >To this day, NASA's budget is lessthan 80% of what it was when Bill
      >Clinton left office. And that's 80% not adjusting for inflation or
      >time, which means it's around 72% of what it was after adjustments.

      False; see the chart above. While NASA's budget in 1996 dollars is still not as high as it was under the highest level of Clinton's era, it's still higher than it was the last few years of Clinton's tenure, including when he left office. If you look closely, you can see Clinton was the one who was cutting NASA down from the recent highs it enjoyed under the 4 years of Bush I. This was mostly Space Station cuts... taking Freedom, which was becoming way more expensive than anyone wanted to pay, and saddling us with the ugly albatross of the ISS.

      I believe the CPI for the past few years has also been lower than projected, so NASA's budget has actually done even better, but I'm not 100% sure on that particular point.

      Bruce

    3. Re:Nice lie! by Cyno · · Score: 1

      Does it matter?

      Nasa's never going to put a colony on the Moon or Mars or anywhere. They're just going to suck, until they go bankrupt. Just look at the ISS. Look at it. It sucks!

      Sure, they'll put a few probes out there, and run a few experiments. But we'll probably get more valuable science on the ground at a fraction the price from various other organizations that don't suck.

    4. Re:Nice lie! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Microchips whouldn't exist if not for research done in space

      So what. There are thousands of children dying of starvation in this country each year because of Bush. He has done nothing about it. He is guilty of killing thousands of children. OK, so you rich idiots have your iPods. What about all of the blood on the hands of Republicans? I don't even see how someone could call you Republicans human.

      Skinner
      http://democraticunderground.com/

  10. $14,000,000! by thelem · · Score: 1

    How can it cost $14m to cancel a project? Are they collecting a satellite from orbit or something?

    1. Re:$14,000,000! by Captain+Zep · · Score: 1
      It costs that much because it's NASA, and they like to do things the expensive way.

      Z.

    2. Re:$14,000,000! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This kind of thing is actually fairly common in large operations with (many) subcontractors. The fourteen million probably goes to early contract termination fees, materials already taken delivery of but not paid for, etc. The cynical would blame this "tradition" on NASA inheriting the military/government way of doing things, but one should realize that almost all large systems/transactions are handled in this way.

    3. Re:$14,000,000! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You also forgot things like disposal fees. To dispose of the nuclear fuel needed for any unmanned spacecraft requires untold millions.

      Of course, the reason it costs so much to get rid of (for example) Uranium is partly the government's fault. One could argue that Congress passes strict nuclear waste disposal laws that only one or two companies can comply with, allowing those companies to charge a fortune, and then increasing NASA's spending.

      For NASA to create the equipment, facility, and jobs to dispose of nuclear waste alone could cost 14 million i the blink of the eye. Outsourcing that kind of stuff is pricey, but not as pricey as doing it in-house. Plus, private aerospace companies employ about 10% of the graduates at the college where I work in IT, so I'm happy with it, as it (somewhere down the line) benefits me.

      More often than not, NASA doesn't spend much money. Their subcontractors spend it, and they in turn have to pay what they owe. Would you prefer that NASA pay more to do it itself or even that they simply refuse to pay private industry what they agreed to pay them? Do we really want Boeing VS NASA?

    4. Re:$14,000,000! by fatduck · · Score: 1

      Probably has something to do with all the contractors they'd have to pay for breaking off previously settled agreements.

      --
      Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
    5. Re:$14,000,000! by Rakishi · · Score: 2

      To dispose of the nuclear fuel needed for any unmanned spacecraft requires untold millions.

      Most unmanned probes do not use nuclear fuel, DAWN is one of them and will use solar panels.

    6. Re:$14,000,000! by ChrisA90278 · · Score: 1
      Some expense is simple. Say I've got 3 weeks of vacation saved up and then when I get fired I will get a check for three weeks pay plus maybe two weeks severance pay. And then what about the moving company that hauls all the projects stuf off to some landfill or a storage place.

      It's very common for the government to spend say $100M per year of some project and then one yearcongres wants to save $100M so they cut the project (and waste the $500M already spent) this is so common that everyone who does bussies woth the government wants a cancelation claise in the contract to cover unexpected expenses like lump sum vacation pay for 100 employees Also it is common for the government to direct a canceled project to carefully preserve some of their equipment and to write up documetation and edit notes and clean up computers files. Many times when a spacecraft is canceled the instruments will fly on some later spacecraft so it pays to keep these instruments in proper storage. Someone has to pay for these kinds of tasks

  11. yo0 Fail It.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    betwwen each BSD and Juliet 40,000 TCP/IP st4ck has by the politickers

  12. uhh... by Phyde4ux · · Score: 1

    what?!

  13. Dupe, surely by slightly99 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure I read somewhere on Slashdot that Vesta has been pushed back to 2007.

    1. Re:Dupe, surely by chawly · · Score: 1

      You may be mistaken, sir. I thought I read that somebody called Gates had cancelled 2007 entirely (through a perceived lack of interest, I believe). This cancellation made, Vesta was going to be out next year.

      --
      How many beans make five, anyhow ? ... Charles Walmsley
  14. Trial balloon by amightywind · · Score: 1

    It sounds as if NASA has been having some success at 'pushing back' against the Bush administration's reluctance to fund Science.

    Under the Bush administration planetary science has undergone a golden age. To say they are anti-science is foolish. The NASA budget is a zero sum game. Fully funding the Dawn mission will take away from other more important uses of the money, like CEV development. My guess is the Dawn cancellation was a trial balloon floated by Mr. Griffin in order to obtain some budget relief. This situation is not unlike the Hubble servicing mission cancellation and reinstatement.

    --
    an ill wind that blows no good
  15. Keeping spacestation safe for Russion tourists... by Glasswire · · Score: 0, Troll

    ...with expensive shuttle flights instead of cost effective robotic science exploration.

  16. DAMN!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many acronyms....

    http://dawninfo.samhsa.gov/

  17. It's probably way too hopeful... by jd · · Score: 1

    ...but Slashdot did cover the cancellation at the time, there were a LOT of unhappy campers on here, and we DO know that the Slashdot Effect is feared by many an admin. I seriously doubt NASA made any decisions based on a fear of Slashdot (but it would be nice! :) - however, it may be possible that this site contributed in some way to the restoration of the mission.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  18. Dawn deserved to die by mtaht · · Score: 1

    Dawn deserved to die for many reasons. I was glad when it got killed.

    Maybe the problems have been solved, maybe not, but these still stand:

    The hardware is over 15 years old and troublesome. The original proposal and cost savings in funding this mission is that it reused hardware from a previous mission. That proposal was 9 years ago!

    Ion engines don't work well past mars. The mission takes over 9 years, because of that. The Dawn folk have the gall to pr this "as an extended test of the ion engine technology."

    They are WAY over budget. At least another 30 mil for the project itself is required, plus the launch fees, which were well above 60 mil. Then the loooong wait while the probe labors towards the belt.

    Long duration missions like this are a jobs program, like the Pluto mission. A lot more use science... and a lot more data... could be returned by doing a mission to the near earth asteroids instead... for cheaper... using the same hardware.

    1. Re:Dawn deserved to die by khallow · · Score: 1
      The hardware is over 15 years old and troublesome. The original proposal and cost savings in funding this mission is that it reused hardware from a previous mission. That proposal was 9 years ago!

      Sounds prudent. Use technology that is known to work. Except, of course, it ends up that it didn't work in the first place.

      Ion engines don't work well past mars. The mission takes over 9 years, because of that. The Dawn folk have the gall to pr this "as an extended test of the ion engine technology."

      You mispelled "solar cells". Ion drives work well in a vacuum no matter how close or distant that vacuum is from a star. However, they need power. Clearly, power was being provided by solar cells in order for the probe to be dependent on distance from the Sun (ah yes, I see the large solar cells in the image of the vehicle). Second, there is no rival propulsion system that would provide a faster trajectory with the same mass constraints since the probe actually orbits the two asteroids in question. The impressive ISP of the ion drive really is what makes the mission possible.

      Long duration missions like this are a jobs program, like the Pluto mission. A lot more use science... and a lot more data... could be returned by doing a mission to the near earth asteroids instead... for cheaper... using the same hardware.

      The near earth asteroids are different. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be checked out, but Dawn visits the two most significant asteroids in the asteroid belt. Vesta alone might be the largest source of accessible metals in the Solar System.

      What puzzles me is why multiple probes couldn't be managed by a single group. We end up with vast inefficiencies because we have multiple unique probes each with its own management team.

  19. Sun May Come Up Tomorrow After All! by billstewart · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow - reading that NASA was going to cancel Dawn was scary - all this Daylight Savings stuff was really getting out of hand. I'm glad to know that we do get to have the sun come up again after all....

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    1. Re:Sun May Come Up Tomorrow After All! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Off-topic Nazis say:

      How many times do we have to say it: "Daylight Saving Time! Daylight Saving Time!" Please don't show your "s" about this!

  20. chiggy chiggy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, if we don't land on Vesta, then we can't make first contact with the Chigs!

  21. Dawn was cancelled?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was Tony Orlando cancelled too?

  22. managers these days.. by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

    I'm just happy to see any sort of management admit to need to change a decision. Normally they just keep on going in to the brick wall whilst telling everyone they know what they're doing.

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil