Slashdot Mirror
Next-Gen Mars Rover In Danger of Cancellation
OriginalArlen writes "NASA's next-generation rover, the nuclear-powered, laser-equipped Mars Science Laboratory is reported to be at a serious risk of cancellation due to budget and schedule overruns, including non-delivery of vital parts by a subcontractor. Costs are running over $2B so far, and the already thin schedule of Mars missions planned for the next decade — with budget ring-fenced for an outer-planets flagship mission — is in danger of further cuts."
It may be time to put NASA brains on some more immediate problems, like alternative energy, and studying the causes of the continuing decline of every ecosystem on earth. Visiting Mars may be a lot nicer knowing that the astronauts have a habitable planet to return to.
Anyone else thinking that this is just a smokescreen to develop the most awesomest Battlebot ever?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
you know if they shifted the budget for 1 week of the iraq war to this project that probe would already be, well probing things...
-Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
Anyone else notice that Bush's term is leaving the US space program without a Space Shuttle or alternative for staffing or servicing the Space Station that we paid more than our share to build, and actually devastating the manned missions to Mars that would keep our lead among our global competitors? Remember when Bush ran for reelection in 2004 promising us a Mars mission, though everyone knew he was "kidding"?
What we'll have left, after Bush's term is done (in which he put Star Wars scientist and CIA venture capitalist Michael Griffin in charge of NASA) is a space program that mainly launches spy satellites and promotes "space supremacy" for the Pentagon and the CIA. Military satellites now used to spy on Americans.
--
make install -not war
Odds are that that Congress will send the little thing away. Sad, but not surprising. Politicians are myopic opportunistic creatures that managed to stuff 100 billion of porked, unrelated projects into a 700 billion economic bill. Talk about a lopsided understanding of budgeting.
The government is intent on phasing out the Space Shuttles in favor of the Orion, or, based on its appearance and supposed existence no earlier than two years after the Orbiters stop flying, I call it the Disappearing Pencil Trick.
Never mind that we might lose a ride to our own station if relations with Russia continue to cool over the South Ossetia thing.
What do we need to get better and/or more efficient funding for space ventures? Perhaps a large rock heading right for us?
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
But deficit spending is killing the USA.
Are the pork barrel last minute additions to the $700 billion buyout package for this kind of stuff? NASA doesn't have lobbyists? No congressmen from Florida or Alabama have this kind of pull?
I mean, it's sad and all, and I understand that space exploration has benefits, but with the economy in the shape it's in, NASA just doesn't seem quite so important right now.
Once the economy has had a chance to recover, then we can worry about spending money on space probes. But given that the summary seems to suggest this project was mismanaged, cutting it and using the money to bootstrap the economy seems like the much wiser choice.
The time to start putting NASA brains on alternative energy solutions, and studying the causes of global ecosystem decline was in the 1960s.
Good thing we did just that. Fuelcells, solar PV, and pushing mechanical efficiencies to their theoretical limits has been among the best Return on Investment from our NASA budgets ever since the Apollo Program. Global ecology might not even exist without NASA satellites both inspiring the public and gushing data to scientists. Innovation in energy engineering and ecology science has been falling back to Earth for about as long as NASA has been lauching devices off of it.
In fact, the R&D for visiting Mars has lots of "dual use" in delivering "survival tech" here on Earth long before we ever get to Mars. And of course the systems on Mars will need efficiencies and exploitation systems that will work here on Earth, Mars' sister planet. Plus, studying Mars' "parallel evolution" more directly, especially after its climate has evidently catastrophically changed from one more like ours today, is an unequaled opportunity to study what looks like our possible future, without either waiting or having to guess.
These are the main reasons to love space, and NASA's exploration of it. Because Earth is in space, too. What NASA teaches us about space, we learn about ourself. And since NASA primarily teaches us about machines for living in space with extremely limited resources, while we push ours at home to the brink, we need more of exactly what NASA has already given us now more than ever.
--
make install -not war
Tell grandma to get a job and pay for her own pills... I want a rover!
This is my sig.
All energy is "alternative."
If you're trying to say we need to use something other than gasoline to drive, I agree.
But every erg of energy we have comes from the sun, directly or indirectly. Natural gas comes mostly from coal fields, for example. Sailing to work is not likely to happen, sadly.
Not all of it is portable and/or desirable, such as having a small fission reactor in your car. It's there, however.
As are billions of gallons of oil sitting for the taking in a few pieces of tundra.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Just to clarify, the rover is not $2 billion over budget, which is the impression I got from the summary. It is $500 million over its $1.5 billion budget, and part of that is due to inflation.
If we try to delay the launch, the delay will cost us an extra $300 million. If we cancel the launch, we just spent $2 billion on nothing, and the science it was meant to do remains undone. This shouldn't be a hard decision:
1. Pony up and get this thing launched.
2. Investigate how this happened so we can avoid overruns like this in the future.
Anyone else thinking that this is just a smokescreen to develop the most awesomest Battlebot ever?
It could be. That's certainly what the Martians think, which is the real reason it's being canceled. They were okay with us sending a few probes and rovers, but nuclear-powered laser-bots are where they draw the line. So in the name of interplanetary relations the project has to die. Budget overruns is just the cover story, since they can't very well admit that the whole "looking for signs of life" thing is BS as they've known about life on Mars since the 50s. People would either riot and burn down the governments, or come together in a new spirit of love and togetherness amongst humankind. Neither is acceptable.
This is all in TFA, btw, you just have to read between the lines.
The enemies of Democracy are
Couldn't it just be repurposed to fight terrorists?
Oh, yeah, it's not easy to pad these out to 120 characters.
Given how well the two MER rovers are working, why not just build a couple more of them and send them to different locations on Mars? Seems like right now it would be better to explore more areas and get a better overall view of the martian geology. Better to have a limited (from a science standpoint) presence on Mars than put all your eggs in a $2B basket, IMHO.
Tell me this isn't a government op. :-P
The US is in a very bad position with respect to "Big Science". The problem basically is that any congress can't tie the hands of any future congress, and the consequence of this for science is that every single project faces cancellation, every single year. This has led to the cancellation many projects, a prominent example being the Superconducting Supercollider.
Science has a much longer-term view than congress. Congress, at most, has a view that lasts 2 years (to the next election), and practically it's much less than that. The US needs to devise a scheme to keep these projects going through hard times, and through fickle congressional actions. A constitutional amendment is unlikely, but how about some creative financing, of the "trust fund" variety? When things run over budget, bring in auditors, fire some people, but at all costs, make sure the science happens.
I'm at CERN, where the funding comes from member states as a fraction of their GDP. As a consequence, CERN has an extremely stable budget compared to US labs. If a project runs over-budget, the lab can simply delay the project. They also have a large permanent staff, so when new ideas come up, they can very quickly move to answer scientific questions, without building entirely new facilities. The expertise already exists here.
Canceling a project has disastrous consequences. Not only do you lose the science that would be gained, you may also lose the scientists, and technology developed along the way. It really is selling out future generations, and sacrificing technological advancement on a long timescale. It's very hard to see what will happen 50 years in the future, but I don't think human colonies on Mars are out of the question, perhaps spurred by the discoveries of the Mars Science Laboratory. Basic research has always paid off in the long run.
The US will lose out on the discoveries that will be made by the LHC. The US could have done it with the SSC a decade ago. How many more times does this have to happen before the US realizes it's a bad idea to cancel projects, and fixes the problem?
1^2=1; (-1)^2=1; 1^2=(-1)^2; 1=-1; 1=0.
I think I'd like to hear the Martian Defense Minister's comments on this story. Haven't heard from him (her? it?) in quite some time.
I think that, now that government intervention in the economy is now on the table as a policy instrument, that's a good argument for Democrats to make. Let them be the party that wants to curtail forward looking science missions and exploration in favor of more short term social priorities.
On the other hand, let's have Republicans that instead of putting all of the science into the hands of the marketplace, recognize that government spending on the sciences and on technological infrastructure and education helps improve the business climate of the United States.
Any more, arguing over having government do something stupid, versus no government, is sometimes a false choice. When a private enterprise can actually finance missions to Mars and Jupiter profitably, then, by all means, there's no need for the government to do that. But in the meantime, we are on one planet, this is our solar system, the potential of space is nearly limitless, and we must remain committed to understanding it as much as possible.
This is my sig.
There's no need to rationalize NASA. You can't calculate an economic return for it any more than you can calculate the return of a brilliant song, but we sense that those are needed to enrich the human spirit. There are some challenges that great nations must undertake to further the human condition and understanding, like, as the Egyptians built massive monuments, so too the USA must lead the charge into space. When NASA sends back pictures of far away places, when Americans plant a flag on the moon, all of mankind gains from the experience.
This is my sig.
Before you reply: "WTF?!" McCain has a decent policy on our space program, and has supported it while in Congress. This is one area where he's not like Bush.
I'd rather over spend a little on a space program than on a war.
Eschew Obfuscation
The government does not like a $2 billion cost overrun and yet it give's $700 billion dollars to a bunch of morons who can't keep their business afloat.
I knew this is going to happen after market crashed...
Just be glad they got to include the lasers. I was hoping they could squeeze out a few more bucks for a pair of Hellfire missiles, but...
It means something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioisotope_thermoelectric_generator, right?
That would means the lifespan could be estimated accurately and no surprise is possible. Remember those two rovers were supposed to live only for 90 days due to the power? There is the surprise!
Oh never mind, at this point I realized that the surprise came from under-estimation...NASA, please announce the estimated life time of the next rover in half to keep us surprised.
Yeah, 'cause an agency that sends electrically powered devices millions of miles from the nearest electrical grid has probably never done any research on alternative energy. They just use really, really long extension cords.
Support Right To Repair Legislation.
I agree, but it always seems to fall apart, when the reality might mean massive tax increases at the very same time government services are massively cut back. And may include defaulting on some entitlements for future generations.
That's why easy money policies are always replaced with more easy money. Politial reality trumps economic reality.
And the politcal class will flog the currency until it can no longer sustain.
The public doesn't yet see inflation as government stealing from their buying power by printing money.
And the crimes they have been able to get away with can collapse the currency the second the world no longer sees the dollar as their reserve and stop buying our crappy notes.
So far, so good, but the impossible reality is the size of government will have to be deleveraged as much as the housing assets will. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
People will have to accept paying more and getting less. And I don't see that happening. And many workers and savers and sound investors playing by the rules particularly don't like that ideas of paying more and getting less as a response to the reckless and criminal behaviours of others.
FORGET the $2B (or whatever it is and change) for space exploration and the advancement of the human race... WE NEED TO SAVE WALL STREET!
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
"The Earth? Oh, the Earth will be gone in just a few seconds. I'm going to blow it up. It obstructs my view of Venus."
-Marvin, spokesman for the Martian Ministry of Defense
Spirit and Opportunity cost ~$400m each. We know how to launch and land them. The rovers are clearly robust and we have the ground control infrastructure in place. Building and launching more must be a lot cheaper since the R&D has already been expended.
So for say $200m a piece we could put 10 on Mars. Why not divvy up the science between these rovers? If power is a problem, figure out how to land a nuke to charge them. Put it on a little trailer they could tow around.
We keep building unique craft to do a common thing: land and drive around. How about we spend a few $100m on fitting the experiments in a chassis that already works?
Coincidentally, I threw together this chart yesterday when arguing with a friend about NASA's budget and how space exploration is "a huge government waste".
http://foofus.com/amuse/public/Fedspending-2008-linechart.jpg
(disclaimer: I do work for NASA).
Most interestingly to me is that if NASA's budget stayed the same, it would take 47 years to spend as much money as the 2008 wall street bailout - which would be the retirement date for a brand-new, young hire.
It's gonna be hilarious to watch NASA's two billion dollar engine of nuclear laser death get KO'd in five seconds by a $60 ramp on wheels.
Many of NASA's solutions to interplanetary exploration also advances technologies available to mankind to solve problems here on the ground.
In order to develop new technologies that will solve our current terrestrial dilemmas and allow for continued space exploration, the cash needs to be there.
For this we need to replace the idiots tending (and skimming from) the cash register. We may also need to change our way of thinking.
Imagine: Instead of squandering $trillions on nation building we could have already had a complete alternative fuel infrastructure built and operational, all from cheap renewable resources.
Another asinine waste: $700B + another $110B in Pork to bail out the cash register operators, right after they skimmed $10B (in CEO bonuses) from the till.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself." Mark Twain
Here's a transcript for you:
Ack! Ack ack ack! Ack ack ack ack! Ack! Ack!
END
That is beautiful.
Hrm, didnt work for me.
I've spent the last couple weeks modeling a 3d version of the MSL and reading about current issues. The big money problem MSL is dealing with now is that the heatshield originally designed for the atmospheric braking was SLA (super light ablative) which upon further testing for the complex Mars atmospheric reactions was not enough - this means that the heatshield has to be made from PICA (carbon phenolic) making the craft heavier. A heavier spacecraft needs an even thicker heatshield - and a heatshield redesign pushes launch back and increases budgets for all those employee expenses also. The entire Mars exploration budget is gone at this point. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/Heat021408.xml&headline=Mars%20Science%20Lab%20Has%20Heat%20Shield%20Woes%20&channel=space/
Whoops, forgot I'd made a post and was playing with iptables rules.
Reposted here: http://midian.org/~amuse/Fedspending-2008-linechart.jpg
We don't need to send people there. It's far away, really cold, and subject to intense radiation. Getting a human there would be expensive and of questionable value, especially given the sophistication of robots these days.
What's important is the data, not one or a small handful of humans having the privilege of wandering about the place.
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Although I think NASA has lost its way in the last few decades, and I'm pretty critical of the shuttle program, etc., I think in general NASA is a victim of its on success. The dollars spent through NASA have very visible results, so people think "wow, they're spending a fortune" whereas the Defense Dept. has more that just disappears into black programs and since there's no visible return, people don't think of what has been spent or wasted.
This space available.
Than banking industry is NOT free market, the rent of money is set by the Federal reserve, you need a license to do banking... where do I start?
Most environmental problems can be traced back to state intervention and lack of property rights. Not all, but most.
As for space colonization, it's the best bet against catastrophic events. Redundant systems are good.
with less than 1% of earth's atmosphere, those Hellfire missiles would probably fly a whole 5 feet before plummeting to the ground and taking out the robot that launched it. =P
Details, details... The fact that they are self-propelled missiles would get them a little farther than 5 feet. Granted, they'd need to be outfitted with bigger fins for guidance, but what do you think this is? Rocket science?
Jafafa: You're probably correct that NASA gets criticism due to its visibility. I think, though, that another major component of the criticism stems from the fact that quite a large number of people probably don't see direct benefits from the research and development done through NASA.
A lot of the criticism I hear is along the lines of "Why should the public pay to fund X?" or "Tax dollars shouldn't fund research - if X was important a business would jump on it in order to profit!". But much of what gets researched through NASA are not things which by themselves would be profitable or even useful to anyone - for example stereoscopic robot vision or automated planning. However the discoveries feed TONS of technologies which actually do eventually become commercialized by someone.
The military it's easy to see direct benefits of; if you're not being invaded this week, it's your defense dollars at work. I think NASA mostly needs to do a better job of conveying to the public just what benefits they're actually reaping!
(disclaimer: This is purely personal opinion and not official NASA opinion, etc).
If we are planning on sending men/women to mars,whats the point of sending rovers?? We already have an army of satellites taking just about every kind of measurement/photos/chemical analysis whatever. That money would be well spent on getting our men/women to the planet faster, I'm 51 i want to see it lol. Watching them land on the moon was mesmerizing for the whole world and me as a kid. We really need something like this again.
Jack of all trades,master of none
Take a look at this article on wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget
According to that article, after having adjusted for inflation the NASA Budget for the past 50 years totals to $806 billion.
Wee.
The official number is $11 Trillion in debt. The actual number is just over $100 Trillion if the US was counted as a company. A few months ago, the Federal Reserve Chief of Dallas said the debt was over $99.2 Trillion.
http://dallasfed.org/news/speeches/fisher/2008/fs080528.cfm
They have a design that works perfectly with off the shelf parts. Why redesign?
They could have made thousands of the existing mars rover for the 2 billion dollars they spent not making the one new rover.
Go with what you know. Build the base model on an assembly line, store them in a ware house and fire off a dozen a year. Add an extra sensor, or update a single part at a time and see how that works.
Give out a half dozen base models every year to universities to have a contest to see who can make them work better or add new sensors in some kind of deep arctic contest that is by remote control.