Slashdot Mirror
NASA Pulling Out of ESA-led ExoMars Mission?
astroengine writes "It's a strange irony that to afford the expense of space exploration, international collaboration is often sought after — spreading the cost across several international partners means the biggest space missions may be accomplished. And yet in times of austerity, national budgets balk at the prospect of investing in international projects like ExoMars. Sadly, that's exactly what could be facing the ambitious ESA-led Mars rover/satellite mission if NASA's Science Mission Directorate budget is slashed in the next financial year. NASA may pull out of the project, leaving ExoMars with no rockets or a means to actually land on Mars. Could Russia help out? Possibly, but it will still lead to ESA taking on more cost than it has budgeted for."
I would fund them!
Save us, Invisible Hand Man!
Russian tech and systems seem to have a hard time achieving a safe Martian landing, so the program may really be screwed.
NASA has limited funds these days, and there isn't much to gain for them in a mission which they can't even take full credit for or get much PR out of.
This is hardly anything new. NASA has always been very isolationist when it came to working with other space agencies. ISS was a very rare exception, and there has been tension even in that case (with NASA and the Russian butting heads over space tourism, for example). They've just never played well with others.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Space X has some ideas on how to land a rocket on Mars, and is already testing some design principles, like the SuperDrago rockets for landing its Dragon capsules.
If I were the Europeans, I would be contacting them. The cheapest and best original thinking in the space race is currently at Space/X.
I think it's disingenuous to say to ESA "hey, we can't cover this, hope you can find another partner" this far in. Maybe one can look at the overruns for MSL and JSWT and say that this is the responsible thing to do, to allow those two programs to finish, but in the middle and long term, this is going to prevent any further NASA-ESA collaboration. Where is the big dividend from having shut down the shuttle program?
If I were paranoid, I might say somebody doesn't want landings on Mars. But I'm not paranoid. Why are you looking at me like that?
Practical issues like the availability of rockets are in the end just a matter of finances, both Russia and Europe have rockets large enough to support a Mars mission, because the US has more expertise they have a better chance of success.
The biggest problem for all participants is public interest, without it politicians take the easy road and cancel science missions.
With the present status of education in many EU countries and the US there is little chance to get the population interested, science loses from real time trash TV.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
We must be prepared in case we're ever involved in a land war in Asia.
at least the military accomplishes its goal
How is international collaboration 'ironic'?
So, isn't this going to be a whole lot like the US pulling out of the LHC project, when they thought that by doing so, it would torpedo the whole project?
And as for "Leaving ESA with no rockets" -- whose rockets are going to space station? In fact, whose technology was vital to the space station, what country flew the first piece of the US "origami" space station? It wasn't the US. NASA is great at viewgraphs and theme parks, but as far as science goes, they're rapidly falling behind.
Don't take life too seriously; it isn't permanent.
"annual $5 Billion budget"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You fucking WISH the number was that low! $5 billion per year is NOTHING compared to the actual military budget.
Wow, thanks for that. I really needed a good laugh.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
a land war in Asia.
Those are conceivably the best kind, of course.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Collaboration efforts are MORE expensive. Not less expensive. Look at the space station! It cost the US more money to bring in the Russians, Europeans & Japanese and have to deal with the crap of talking several languages, negotiating everything... Don't fool yourself...
I work for a subcontractor in the states and we contracted out work for the JEM through the Japanese who were subs to the prime Boeing... Talk about a very expensive cluster f*&k. Less expensive my a$$ HA!!
This is quite outrageous these cuts, and the mission is a good is a very good value. It is simply a terrible state of affairs that high value and relatively low cost probe programs are being cut when we have politicians talking about a much more expensive manned mars mission, if we can't afford unmanned probes we have no business contemplating a much more expensive and much worse cost-benefit wise manned mission,. Ask scientists and they will say unmanned probes are the best value, give us the most data for least money and have best scientific value compared to manned missions, which are vastly more expensive. It is indeed almost a twighlight zone insanity and backwardsness when we have people talking about spending massive amounts of money on a hugely expensive (hundreds of billions) human mars mission programme, which has terrible comparative value and return on investment to unmanned probes, and we face this kind of cuts to real science probe programs.
Unfortunately, US space exploration policy is driven more by buzzwards and hype than it is by real science. A human mission to mars would be very expensive and would, considering we can get a lot of data from unmanned probes, have very little additional value. For many people an manned mission is for entertainment value, it would be a very expensive and entertaining stunt. There is room for entertainment but spending hundreds of billions for this really way over the top.
It has mostly been Republican politicians who threaten huge cuts to the space probe programs and to NASAs science missions but then they see to have these crackpot ideas of sending a manned mission to mars just after they have attacked much higher value probes. ThIs i think speaks to the immaturity of them and the lack of understanding of science and the finer points of what are actually the most cost effective ways to obtain data. Republicans are simple minded, they are too ignorant to understand the value of a probe mission and satellites and unfortunately it takes a glitzy circus like manned mars mission stunt which has comparatively little science value, it is because they dont understand the science and what the probes are doing. It is similar to how they view foreign policy, they don't have any like of anything that requires the use of the mind rather than muscle,. such as diplomacy, the only thing that stimulates the Republicans is outright aggression, bombs, missiles, fighting etc, so GOP foreign policy is full of wars and plans for wars but with very little room for diplomacy.
The US clearly needs better leadership that is scientifically acute, that will continue to fully fund satellites, space probes and so on and is less aroused by stunts and entertainment that woujld be a manned mars mission,.
They spend that on Pop Tarts every morning.
If disease, global warming, nuclear proliferation or political catastrophes manage to destroy humanity, we will see what a sound investment space travel would have been.
Having only one planet for our species means we're only one disaster away from extinction. No other species (on earth) has this ability.
If our scientists agree that our best efforts will not stop global warming, only lessen it, we might consider transferring that money into space programs. That way even if we destroy our climate here, our species will persist.
As the United States tries to get their out-of-control spending more in-line with the rest of the world, what seems to be first on the chopping block? Basic research and science. Meanwhile, the government is doing everything is can to limit the freedoms of citizens and making it more difficult to enter or leave the country.
It looks as though America is on a fast-track to going from superpower to third-world nation. Oh yeah, it'll still be the bully of the globe militarily, but that will be at the cost of the entire middle class, and frankly, that enormous military will be turned against it's own citizens when the riots start.
With religious zealots running the show, it won't be long before we're talking about how great it was when the USA had electricity, and the Middle Class enjoyed a lifestyle that was the envy of the world. You guys are turning into Romania, but with nuclear weapons.
I fear for our planet.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
The Defense budget hasn't been a mere 5 billion since, oh, 1948, IIRC. The current 3 wars we're involved in (Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) each suck up about 5 billion a day thereabouts.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
JPL is responsible for many successful planetary robotic mission including collaborationsas happened with Cassini and MSL. JPL has executed a many highly successful missions such as Voyager and MER2 (Opportunity) while never killing anyone or blowing huge budgets. Do not confuse JPL with the manned scapeflight porkbarrel in Houston. JPL does science; Houston does hugely expensive stunts and kills people. Unfortunately NASA is run by ex-pilots and astronauts; when robotic missions are cut, which happens all the time, Houston is usually behind it. The amount of money spent (wasted) on the spacestation and the shuttle dwarf the amount of money spent on Mars missions.
NASA/JPL have already solved most of the problems that this project is trying to replicate, launch, descent, landing and roving.
The Curiosity Rover is already en-route to mars.
NASA and JPL will have a full plate managing this rover along with the existing rovers over the next few years. The rover was designed, developed and assembled at JPL. NASA's Launch Services Program at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida managed the launch. NASA's Space Network provided space communication services for the launch vehicle, and the rover.
Dealing with yet another program would be a huge distraction, entail a large resource drain bringing ESA up to speed, and transferring a lot of technology to them in the process, and being asked to pay for the privileged of doing so.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Which goal? The World War II Memorial? Or "Free Democratic Kuwait"?
that word... i do not think it means what you think it means
Hmm, at $5 billion per day for each of three wars, we're talking $5.5 trillion or so annually. Which is rather larger (about 50%) than the ENTIRE Federal budget.
In other words, your numbers are off. By about a factor of six, I think.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Why does every discussion of a space program devolve rapidly into people calling every space program that isn't their favorite a bunch of incompetent jerks. Guys. Space travel is fucking HARD. There is no agency with any kind of pedigree that doesn't also have a lot of embarrassing screwups. SpaceX is just as bad as any of them: if it has fewer failures, it's because it has fewer successes.
Everyone working in any kind of aerospace program is very intelligent. They are doing something very difficult, with very little room for error, in a room with a lot of different people. I think it's safe to say that space travel has a fairly consistent success rate across agencies, at least up to a reasonable error.
In soviet russia, rocket launches you!
Umph! Way to put a damper on our government-funding-cuts-will-cause-disaster hyperbolefest!
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
They've apparently made arrangements with the Martians so they'll
come visit here. Let's hope their weather balloon technology has
evolved a bit.
You do know we've been spending more than we have since (after) Clinton, right?
Sad that this got modded troll. For the cost of just one of the military's insanely expensive, never used "next generation" airplanes that get crashed by trainees more often than they see battle, entire NASA projects could be funded for a decade...
Ok, how about actual numbers?
Total spending, 2012: $1.030-1.415 Trillion. Depending on a number of factors.
Anyone else think that's completely fucking insane?
We have to be ready in case we tick off the Martians.
I love my sig.
The tile of this article is pretty misleading. You only have to read a few paragraphs in to realize that the funding hasn't been cancelled and the article is mostly speculation.
We have yet to see how well Curiosity Rover will do once it reaches Mars.
The system they have devised to land the device on Mars is pretty complicated and there are a lot of places for something to go wrong.
Wax on, wax off baby!
Its not dramatically more complicated than the 1970s era Viking spacecraft, Phoenix (2008) used rocket motors for its final descent. NASA has tried 3 different landing systems already, and Curiosity will be yet another variation.
Cool Simulation here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqqBy7C8gyU
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Why we would argue about this when the internet knows all the answers, I don't know...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_military#Budget
A little shy of $1 trillion in 2010, apparently. (530 + 130 + 30 + 260).
Sure but don't you think NASA should have made that decision back in 2009 BEFORE promising to deliver on the project?
Sure but don't you think NASA should have made that decision back in 2009 BEFORE promising to deliver on the project?
Oh, of course, lets totally rewrite out constitution and let NASA determine its own level of funding just to please ESA.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
NASA/JPL have already solved most of the problems that this project is trying to replicate, launch, descent, landing and roving.
Aren't those just means to solve the problems, and the problems are things like "finding life on Mars"?
Which goal? The World War II Memorial? Or "Free Democratic Kuwait"?
Bzzt! The correct answer is: more largesse for defense contractors. All of the rest are means to an end.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
Are you also happy with them dumping millions into programs and then cancelling them mid-stream? I'm sorry but if the budgeting that tenuous you might want to have less major programs and more compartentalized research that can be stopped and started easier without impacting major programs (more base fundamental research in very specific areas). These could then be placed on hold for funding shortfalls while keeping the major programs working.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Rendezvous_Asteroid_Flyby https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_Icy_Moons_Orbiter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Telecommunications_Orbiter
As for rewriting the constitution to let NASA determine it's own level of funding, you just might want to read the constitution. None of NASA's funding is authorised by the constitution. You can go here and read it for yourself: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html
The risk vs return is too high. A deep-ish (for a rover) drill rig coming from a collaboration that has mixed up imperial and metric before? Yeah that's gonna work.
Drills are hard to maintain even when you have people on hand. I'd lay money that a rover drill would last a day....land people already!
Get this out of the way, we deficit spend the equivalent of NASA's budget in about week now. That is how insignificant their budget is. I know , I know, but daddy its good for points to bash Republicans and claim they are ignorant of science. Sorry, doesn't fly. Both sides are after one goal, to buy off the most voters they can with whats in the pot. The trouble is they are looking outside the pot for money too and there wasn't any, so they just pretend the pot is bigger.
I suggest you just read over Wikipedia's page on NASA budgets then come back and tell us who doesn't like to fund them. Please do.
This site is filled with such ignorant diatribes all based on politics, is that what we have become, name calling one side or another? Did so many fall to the politician's ploy? While your having your little one up contest both sides are wrecking this country. Its time you realize anytime you vote for an incumbent your most likely contributing to the problem, when you vote D or R your most likely contributing to the problem.
Karma to burn
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
While it makes more sense to scrap the TSA there is so much money going into so many pockets that it would be difficult and even possibly political suicide. Those scientists don't fight dirty (as seen with the gobal warming "debate" where any bug-eyed loonie can safely stick in the knife) so you can safely take their money away with little or no political risk.
As for rewriting the constitution to let NASA determine it's own level of funding, you just might want to read the constitution. None of NASA's funding is authorised by the constitution.
Jeezuz, are you that fucking stupid?
All government programs are funded by congress, per the constitution.
What icebikes was saying is that in order for NASA to be free to make the multi year promises you wanted, they would have to be free to specify their one funding rather than be answerable to elected congress. They would have to be free of the constitution. Is 7th grade reading comprehension a problem for you?
Even the EU isn't dumb enough to turn the power of the purse over to government agencies, and the ESA is just as likely to get cuts as is nasa.
Up to speed? ESA have ben working on this since 2005 and had a rover design pretty much ready to go. An enormous amount of work has been done on an extremely sophisticated science payload including the ability to drill 2m under the surface to acquire pristine samples and onboard sample preparation and analysis capabilities more advanced than anything that NASA have done so far. The big difficulty was the Entry Descent and Landing system so partnering with NASA to provide this element of the system just makes sense for everybody.
http://leonardowilhelmdicaprio.com/ http://backstreetboysfan.com/
Maybe it's best if NASA and, by extension, USA just keep out of it.
Seriously, is it in the best interests of the World/Universe having a load of warmongers poking around in space who can't fund their own shit anymore as they spend so much on war?
Don't worry about 'a large resource drain bringing ESA up to speed' etc. Just forget about it. Rest Of World in general doesn't really care and will go ahead anyway.
When USA has sorted its own internal social problems and stopped playing the big 5-year-old bully in wars around the world, come back and maybe you can be included again (with the hairdressers and phone sanitisers, hopefully).
For now, fuck off with your ball and shut up while we make a better one, probably with increased GPS resolution ;)
When Newt finishes his moon base by his 2nd term you can launch from there.