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.
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.
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.
Parent comment is plain wrong. NASA is desperate for funds, happy to work with any capable and trustworthy collaborators. Cassini-Huygens is an example of a working collaboration.
Is your implication that they're walking away because they consider the ESA incapable and untrustworthy?
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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.
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.
My thoughts exactly. Whereas NASA usually lets us europeans pay and take all the PR and credit to themsleves, this one is ESA-lead so as soon as budgets get tight this one is the first to get abandoned. The saved money is much better spent on a new war, I suppose.
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.
There's more value in blowing people up, instead of learning about our solar system!
-- By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.
I don't think ExoMars' defunding, if the rumor is true, would be an example of a choice NASA has made, but rather a budget choice coming down from higher levels in the administration. If all that is true, it's really unfortunate, because, in the long term, its in America's interests to engage with other competent space programs, and to prove ourselves to be a trustworthy partner.
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.
or we could tax the rich 3% and have them both, woohoo!!
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.
Assuming there is any competency worth engaging. We have landers and rovers on mars and another one (Curiosity) enroute.
Why isn't ESA buying into our program instead of relying on us to fund theirs?
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
Taxing the rich?!? That's COMMIE talk!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
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
and to prove ourselves to be a trustworthy partner.
I think the ship has already sailed on that one.
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
What? Another rover on a whole planet is redundant? You could launch a fleet of them and barely (ahem) scratch the surface.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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.
Well, there's plenty of competency in ESA, I think. Space is hard. More than half the missions sent to Mars don't arrive safely, that's one data point. ESA has a list of successful missions also - Mars Express is a good example, and an example of what makes ESA a stakeholder in Mars exploration. ESA contributes a lot of good instruments to missions we fly. Also, SpaceWire (and its follow-on, SpaceFibre) is an example of a technology in which Europe has taken the lead, and NASA follows. And, in fairness, ESA operates under a certain brain drain, as I know a fair number of scientists at NASA (Goddard) who are expats from Europe (and Japan).
Ultimately its in NASA's interest to enlist all friendly countries' space programs in planetary science and exploration, even if the overhead costs are higher in the short term. These efforts are towards answering questions that all humanity is trying to answer. Everybody will benefit. This is one way in which the human race will grow.
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...
Or we could have them both without taxing anybody. NASA funding is trivial. If you look at a pie chart of government spending, you'll see all the science/roads/infrastructure/etc spending - all the funding that actually does something - in the "other" slice. Check my sig for the 6 biggest expenses, you might be surprised.
It's a good thing the defense department does research spending - it probably funds more research than the rest of the government.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
We have to be ready in case we tick off the Martians.
I love my sig.
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!
you dare devalue the moon landing? That's COMMIE talk!
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?
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
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.
And this is a bogus argument. Within discretionary non-military spending, it has a huge, disproportionally large slice.
National Science Foundation gets more than two times less than NASA.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
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.
http://leonardowilhelmdicaprio.com/ http://backstreetboysfan.com/
Well yes, that's what the Soyuz is for... And they used to do so in the USA too.
(\__/) This is Lapinator
(='.'=) copy it in your sig
(")_(") so it can take over the world
The ESA buys into plenty of NASA led programs. Hubble and the James Webb sapce telescopes are both NASA/ESA projects.
When Newt finishes his moon base by his 2nd term you can launch from there.
"discretionary non-military spending" is entirely a propanda number, with no relation to reality. Anyone talking about "discretionary spending" is bullshitting you for political gain.
Follow the link in my sig (and what it cites), or just look at the wikipedia page on the federal budget. Really - it's quite educational. Get past the cute charts cooked up to deceive you; get into the actual numbers. The truth is there, if you want it.
The US government is a pension plan with an army, and we've almost forgetten about the normal business of government - and yet that real work is what gets cut, because we'll never stop trying to buy votes.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Discretionary non-defense spending is exactly the category for NASA expenditure. Its something that you get to CHOOSE to spend on. In case of NASA, a rough guess is that at least half of their budget is just simply wasted.
So instead of tossing that $8B a year that they piss away on things like Constellation, Ares-I, SLS or any number of previous cancelled manned spaceflight projects, or stupendously expensive toys like MLS or JWST that will never justify their cost - i'd rather see this money go to NSF, education, frigging EPA, or whatever else.
I am a space nut, i am spending quite a bit of my own money on related hobbies and interests, hoping to eventually fly to space myself as well. And yet, i am completely against the model of government welfare for aerospace workers prevalent right now in NASA.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
Keep in mind that most of the stupid stuff that NASA does is in earmarked programs that NASA has no choice about - a senator makes NASA pour money in to some program that's sure to be cancelled, but all the money is spent in his state. That's more symptom of a general corruption issue than a NASA-specific issue (and given the government spends 100x just handing money to other groups of citizens who aren't even pretending to work for it, I can't get too upset about the NASA jobs programs).
The future of effective government spending on space technology is likely defense spending. I can only hope that helps pave the way for the commercial space groups.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.