Slashdot Mirror


Mars Rover Opportunity Faces New Threat: Budget Ax

astroengine writes "NASA's baseline budget for the year beginning Oct. 1 pulls the plug on the 10-year-old Mars rover Opportunity, newly released details of the agency's fiscal 2015 spending plan show. The plan, which requires Congressional approval, also anticipates ending the orbiting Mars Odyssey mission on Sept. 30, 2016. 'There are pressures all over the place,' NASA's planetary science division director Jim Green said during an advisory council committee teleconference call on Wednesday."

185 comments

  1. 90 day budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It really overran the original 90 day budget.

    1. Re:90 day budget by MrBingoBoingo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, but... Continuing a legacy like that is cheaper than launching anything else. It's almost like the Airforce retiring the A-10 and supposing a vaporware F-35 can replace it, the F-35 being both Vaporware and an abortion because someone insisted the bulk of the US's future airplanes must take off and land like helicopters. Seriously, Fund NASA, axe the F-35 and just buy some French Raphaels already.

    2. Re:90 day budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but... Continuing a legacy like that is cheaper than launching anything else. It's almost like the Airforce retiring the A-10 and supposing a vaporware F-35 can replace it, the F-35 being both Vaporware and an abortion because someone insisted the bulk of the US's future airplanes must take off and land like helicopters. Seriously, Fund NASA, axe the F-35 and just buy some French Raphaels already.

      Just the Marine Corps' have vertical take-off. The F-35 is being bought by three different branches of the military. Yah it costs a lot, but less than the three of them each designing new planes... hopefully. That's what you need to compare it to at least.

    3. Re:90 day budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      yeah but Maven is due to arrive in September and that carries a newer suite of instruments to study Mars. It hopes to answer questions about the history of Mars' atmosphere amongst other things. The Europa mission will never get off the ground. America has been utterly ransacked and pillaged.

    4. Re:90 day budget by wiredlogic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Typical NASA waste.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    5. Re:90 day budget by hax4bux · · Score: 4, Funny

      You had me until "buy French Raphaels"

    6. Re:90 day budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Luckily the future of space exploration isn't NASA, just mothball it and cut your losses. Time to let real scientists achieve the bridge that NASA cannot achieve because of the shortsightedness and the lack of conviction of the American people.

    7. Re:90 day budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > French Raphaels

      Huh? Do you mean "Rafale"? The French aren't the religious, English spelling using type...

    8. Re:90 day budget by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      All of them are compromised to provide for the marine's requirements.

    9. Re:90 day budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need separation of science and state. To get there without violence I think we need to end NIH/NASA/etc and provide 10 years of grad student level stipends for everyone affected as they go learn a different field of science for new perspective.

    10. Re:90 day budget by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      And you forgot the fact that the A-10 is a better combat platform than the F-35 will ever be. Will the F-35 be able to fly home with most of it's wings and tail section missing? I doubt it. the A-10 does it all the time.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    11. Re:90 day budget by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      Uhm, no one said that the bulk of the US future airplanes must take off and land like helicopters - there are three variants of the F-35, and only the F-35B (which will be bought by the US Marine Corp, as well as the UK) has VTOL capability. The bulk of the F-35 order (around 1,600 planes at last count) will consist of the F-35A, which is completely conventional. The third variant is the F-35C, for the US Navy.

      It helps your argument if you actually sound like you know wtf you are bitching about.

    12. Re:90 day budget by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

      No they aren't actually, the F-35A and C have no compromises caused by having to accomodate the B variant, as its the B variant which compromises for its own capability (it has smaller weapons bays, a lower fuel capacity, shorter range etc etc).

    13. Re:90 day budget by AlabamaCajun · · Score: 1

      Why don't we just fly a couple of the friggen F35s to mars and use them their. That would give other superpowers reason to put military hardware in the pink skies also. That in turn would give the red planet some CIA green.

    14. Re:90 day budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/695/

    15. Re: 90 day budget by madprof · · Score: 1

      There is not much commercial imperative to do some interesting science though.

    16. Re:90 day budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > buy some French Raphaels already.
      You misspelled retrofit the -35's sensors to the existing -15e's. It's cool, the keys are right next to each other.

    17. Re:90 day budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That isn't correct, unless by "compromised" you mean "future proofed". The area of the aircraft designed for the lifting fan in the 'B' model is also designed to be able to house a generator in the event that aircraft power requirements go way up, say by the development of a practical airborne directed energy weapon.

    18. Re:90 day budget by BradMajors · · Score: 2

      Typical government run program. It's work was supposed to be completed in 90 days, but after ten years the rover's work is STILL not done.

    19. Re:90 day budget by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      F-35 being both Vaporware and an abortion ...

      I remember back in 20th century when F-35 was CALF, Common Affordable Lightweight Fighter, as many planners saw F22 becoming so expensive that not even the Pentagon could afford no more that 100 or so.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    20. Re:90 day budget by steelfood · · Score: 1

      I think GP mistook the Rafale for an Italian painter who lived in the sewers of NYC with a giant talking rat.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    21. Re:90 day budget by k6mfw · · Score: 2

      Now I want to know what components and parts were selected to make it last so long. Especially in terms of robotics having to deal with virtual vacuum (cannot use typical lubricants), dust and dirt didn't stop its gears (was it lunar dust that caused Chinese lunar rover to fail early in mission?). I think this needs continual funding with requirement of "alrighty how many more years will it last until it really bites the dust?"

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    22. Re:90 day budget by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I read that the entire ariframe, having to accomodate the B version, is larger/different than it would be otherwise, decreasing range and maneuverability in the A and C because of requirements for B.

    23. Re:90 day budget by Dripdry · · Score: 1

      Well they fly a lot better than the F-35!

      --
      -
  2. Not just the ongoing missions are being cut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Science funding has been cut across the board at NASA.

  3. Sounds like the rover needs a Kick Starter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Who's going to create one?

    1. Re:Sounds like the rover needs a Kick Starter by bob_super · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Dude, people are lining up to pay $150k for five minutes in "space" on Virgin Galactic...

      New idea: Get rich idiots to pay Nasa $150k for one hour of "driving" Opportunity, complete with "I drove on Mars last week-end" NASA-certified bumper sticker.

    2. Re:Sounds like the rover needs a Kick Starter by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Driving? I much rather play sports on Mars! Jump higher (almost 3x), leap longer...

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
  4. Getting to close to by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    debunking that life only excists on Earth?

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:Getting to close to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excists, you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

    2. Re:Getting to close to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Troll

    3. Re:Getting to close to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or the word "to", for that matter.

    4. Re:Getting to close to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hah, joke's on you! future assassin meant that we're the only life that performs exorcisms!

  5. Give control to the internet by JesseJMH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For a monthly fee, they should allow commoners to send commands to the rover. Lets see how fast the internet can break it! Bonus points for getting to the scale of twitch plays Pokemon.

    1. Re:Give control to the internet by Alex+Vulpes · · Score: 1

      Oh man, I wish I had mod points. That is awesome.

    2. Re:Give control to the internet by John.Banister · · Score: 2

      I was thinking they could sell it to China, but leasing for a fee sounds better.

    3. Re:Give control to the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh man, I wish I had mod points. That is awesome.

      What the fuck is wrong with you. the post sucks!

    4. Re:Give control to the internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What the fuck is a pokemon?
      And GET OFF MY LAWN!

    5. Re:Give control to the internet by DeadDecoy · · Score: 1

      Even better, have the rover controlled by twitch and watch it spaz out in random directions. To see how this might work, see: Twitch plays pokemon.

    6. Re:Give control to the internet by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      How common? On the other hand, perhaps there is a profitable niche there, sort of like how space tourist lies somewhere in between commoner and astronaut. There's a bunch of money involved and a lot of it covers training.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    7. Re:Give control to the internet by JCMontalbano · · Score: 2

      No, that would be stupid and disrespectful.

    8. Re:Give control to the internet by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

      How much to write your name in Mars dust using the gripper?

      Or draw gripper drawings in the Mars dust.

      Or drive around and leave tracks that spell out a message in cursive...

    9. Re:Give control to the internet by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      You'd probably just end up with a lot of this: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/ho...

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    10. Re:Give control to the internet by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      How much to write your name in Mars dust using the gripper? Or draw gripper drawings in the Mars dust. Or drive around and leave tracks that spell out a message in cursive...

      I think you are on to something - a way to defray the cost of the next Mars lander mission. Equip it with a dual purpose spectroscopic analysis/engraving laser, and engrave people's names on Mars rocks as it goes by. People can pay to get the name of their choice engraved on Mars, good for the next billion years or so, and a photograph of said rock beamed back to Earth.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  6. open source it by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the whole "budget crisis on infinite earth's" is all fiscal voodoo...however if this has to happen, we should turn it over "to the community"

    NASA should open the project to screened volunteers who maintain the basic mission functions.

    NASA could set up an API & a simple prototyping program & let people download it for free. Best ideas get kicked up the ladder...eventually to NASA staff who could approve it.

    This should be happening now...it would cost virtually nothing (on NASA $ scales) and get thousands interested & involved in space.

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:open source it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      They would probably be better off giving operational control over to a university with an existing research program. Preferably one that could field its own operations center (under the assumption that their budget problem is facilities and staff). The university could then create an outreach program for interested community members (maybe team up with the Udacity guys and do something online).

    2. Re:open source it by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I realize it probably sounds like a good idea, but screening and training volunteers is likely to be even more expensive than keeping the minimal crew they have operating the rover now.

      Ditto on the API and "simple prototyping program," although I'm not even sure what that second thing even it supposed to be. Just writing the software would be expensive, not to mention you now have to have NASA people reviewing what comes in.

      Driving rovers probably sounds a lot easier than it is. Commands are strung together in sequences. Sequences have to be checked to make sure they don't have conflicting commands. Instruments have to be taken into account; it's not just driving around that is being done.

      And then there is the intense analysis and investigation that has to be done if something goes wrong. Reports have to be written explaining everything down to the bit level.

      On top of that there is planning to be done to even decide where to drive, which involves a whole lot of people.

      There is not only no money to be saved by handing operations over to "the community," there is also the probability that if you did the rover would be ruined within a few days.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    3. Re:open source it by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This should be happening now...it would cost virtually nothing (on NASA $ scales)

      And it accomplishes virtually nothing to boot! Seriously, there's a hell of a lot more to running the rover than just steering and driving. There's also a whole hell of a lot of engineering support. Then there's the whole science team, who also are on the NASA payroll...

    4. Re:open source it by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      I know code just doesn't write itself but on NASA budgetary scales this would be a pittance.

      When I say "simple prototyping program" I mean they learn the interface + mission capabilities...then they devise a mission...then they **test** the mission via the API & prototyping program.

      Basically it's a simple simulation program that anyone in "the community" could download and test their ideas for what the rover should do.

      They record their simulation & make a proposal that is discussed on forums...eventually the best ideas get implemented.

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
    5. Re:open source it by necro81 · · Score: 3, Informative

      on NASA budgetary scales

      You say that as though it is supposed to bolster your argument. NASA's budget is somewhere around $15bn/year, or about 0.5% of the total federal spending. That covers everything from advanced research to planetary exploration to human space flight. The line item for the Mars Exploration Rover program (i.e., Opportunity) is $13 million. I suspect a lot of that goes to personnel costs, some of which might be reduced through volunteer efforts. It also costs a lot to maintain the control center and the program infrastructure, which cannot be replicated through an "API and 'simple prototyping program' ". The costs associated with people coding instructions for the rover is really a small part of the program budget. The cost to create and administer some sort of volunteer program might be small compared to $15bn, but it would be quite expensive relative to costs it is trying to replace.

    6. Re:open source it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I propose we do "Twitch plays Mars Rover" instead. Sadly this would be the best publicity NASA has had in decades

    7. Re:open source it by UnknowingFool · · Score: 1

      I think I remember that the Mars personnel are on a shifting schedule because a Mars day is 39min longer than an Earth day. That doesn't seem like a lot but it is cummulative. So over the course of two weeks (14 x 39m = 9.1 hours), your schedule is more than 9 hours off everyone else. This has to be factored as well.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    8. Re:open source it by strikethree · · Score: 1

      There is not only no money to be saved by handing operations over to "the community," there is also the probability that if you did the rover would be ruined within a few days.

      I think your viewpoint is a bit skewed here. The rover will "die" immediately upon being defunded. If "the internet" can have fun with it for a few days and then it dies, who cares?

      In other words, the suggestion is not to continue doing "worthy" science with it. The suggestion is to let people "play" with it. If good science arises, then fine. If not, nothing more was lost regardless.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
    9. Re:open source it by strikethree · · Score: 1

      Yourself and Concerned Onlooker seem to be under the impression that we want the program to continue, but with volunteers. That is not the case. We want to do wheelies and drill into random rocks because it is fun. Why should you or anyone else care that it will destroy the rover? It will die immediately upon being defunded anyways. What good is a perfectly working rover going to be if there is nobody to control it? It is better to let people play with it.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  7. Re:Thanks, Obama. by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, you got the wrong president's name, but you do have a point.

    --
    http://www.rootstrikers.org/
  8. tea party america don't go no use fo' outerspace! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck a mars rover, gimme tax cutssssssssssssss

  9. Budget Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's all about priorities.
    We need to strip education and science and all that unimportant crap so we can get the F-35 to fly.

    1. Re:Budget Priorities by mrxak · · Score: 1

      Has nothing to do with the F-35. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the payouts we give to individuals in this country. It's at a record high of 70%, and those programs (unlike military spending) will never be cut, ever, because it'll be political suicide for anyone who tries. Massive expansion of social programs is what kills science spending.

    2. Re: Budget Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Have you ever actually looked at the us budget? They're available online, so there is no excuse.
      Try comparing the budgets from circa 2000 and then follow the next decade. It's pretty obvious where the hole is. Hint you're very wrong.

  10. Can it run another 2.5 years? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    September 2016 is two and a half years from now. If NASA's lucky it'll wear out and stop functioning by then. If not then probably a big hue and cry will arise and funding will be found to keep it going.

    1. Re:Can it run another 2.5 years? by afidel · · Score: 2

      As well it should, compared to designing, building, testing, and launching a new probe manning the ground station has to be downright cheap so as long as they are getting useful scientific information out of it it seems shortsighted to cut the funding.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  11. Send some terrists to Mars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's a disgrace that science is rejected by other wasteful programs, but perhaps if we some terrorists to Mars the budget will magically increase tenfold so certain other agencies can keep an eye on 'em? ;-)

    1. Re:Send some terrists to Mars by x0ra · · Score: 2

      The question is up to what /price/ point is science worth it ?

    2. Re:Send some terrists to Mars by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      to republican leaders? science has zero value.
      Pork bellies is where it's at!

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    3. Re:Send some terrists to Mars by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      So what, no Republicans voted to fund NASA or the NSF and Democrats don't vote for pork? This isn't MoJo, around here someone will call you on it when you engage in mindless political cheerleading.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  12. Take a lesson from youtube by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

    If they give it a face, preferably with puppy or kitty eyes, finding continued funding for it should be no problem.

  13. politics as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nothing to see here. NASA threatens it will lose a popular program if it doesn't get more budgets. Peons rabble. They get more budget.

    The pattern is easy to see and it happens over and over in any highly watched public-funded institution.

    1. Re:politics as usual by coastwalker · · Score: 1

      Actually no one gives a monkeys about the planetary science program, its deeply unpopular because it uses genetic medicine and genetically modifies organisms to survive drought and it supports evolution and it ends the war on drugs - it is fundamental Science.

      NASA should spend more money on that Russian space station, because we get live moving pictures back which make the news. Air time gets funding.

      Actually America is just about done now and the rest of us are just waiting for the Chinese to take over the role of leading the world in real science.

      See they have this dictatorship that doesn't need tv ratings to do things.

      I despair.

      --
      Facts are history now plebs have politics for religion on social media.
  14. If NASA can't afford to explore with robots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If NASA can't afford to explore space with robots, then what's the point of funding NASA at all? That's certainly what some probably want, but I think it's utterly ridiculous that NASA can't afford to continue to use resources they've already developed and launched.

    1. Re:If NASA can't afford to explore with robots... by Megane · · Score: 1

      If NASA can't afford to explore space with robots, then what's the point of funding NASA at all?

      One word: pork. It's to maintain those Shuttle-era jobs in the districts that already have them!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    2. Re:If NASA can't afford to explore with robots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If NASA can't afford to explore space with robots, then what's the point of funding NASA at all?

      WTF? They explored for over a decade with this robot and now they're going to use there time, money and Deep Space Network for more effective robot exploration. This robot had an amazing run I think it's ridiculous that you can let smarter people at NASA decide where best to spend their resources. Fucking arm chair rocket scientists.

    3. Re:If NASA can't afford to explore with robots... by NoWhereMan · · Score: 1

      This is not the only attempt to say that NASA can't afford to continue to use resources they've already developed and launched.

      If you look at the SOFIA Project, you will find that the aircraft recently reached a fully operational status. This is a platform that should run for about 20 years collecting data and expanding our scientific understanding. They were scheduling and assigning people time slots for years on out before this budget release.

      The budget proposal shows other priorities. NASA has been asked to mothball this platform to save the money that would be required to operate the airplane.

      In the spirit of full disclosure, I am not an uninterested party. My spouse is a civil servant working on that program. We are close enough to retirement to handle these types of priority changes. But I do feel sorry for the younger people who moved from AMES and bought a house here expecting to collect scientific data for years to come.

  15. That's what killed skylab by dbIII · · Score: 4, Informative

    An expensive project with huge potential that died due to not putting up the funds to transport and fuel up the vehicle already built that could have both brought people there for a mission and nudge it into a higher orbit.

    1. Re:That's what killed skylab by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Skylab did it's mission, HAve you been in Skylab II? I have, it's sitting there at space camp in Huntsville, AL. I was able to get past the glass and walk around. it was incredibly small and not much science could get done in it. mostly it was to make sure that humans did not get space madness after extended stays in low gravity.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    2. Re:That's what killed skylab by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Skylab was pretty much done; future mission plans involved refurbishment. Just prolonging its existence would not have been productive.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:That's what killed skylab by dbIII · · Score: 1

      That alone is of merit, as is plenty of other experiments done with very small pieces of equipment in the decades since.

  16. Why does it need money? by Karmashock · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is the expense of this thing at this point?

    Everything being used is likely fixed and in use on or orbiting mars. The only things beyond that would be the transmitter/receiver on/above earth, the control room, and whatever you're paying the engineers to run it.

    So of that, the only thing that should really cost money is the engineer's time... and I would think at this point you could get volunteers to do it.

    Sorry, NASA's budget has no room for fat. These little projects add up to being a significant portion of a budget. I think the project should be maintained. But all the fat needs to be trimmed. Additionally, solicit donations and consider relocating the control room somewhere cheaper. Possibly a university somewhere would be happy to have graduate students control it and would pay most of the costs associated with maintaining it. After all, all the expensive stuff was already completed.

    Farm it out to someone with room in their budget.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    1. Re:Why does it need money? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      The big-ticket item is probably communications They need one of the DSN antennas: huge dishes that there are never enough of. Ending the Curiosity mission makes room for a new mission without having to build a new 34-meter dish antenna.

    2. Re:Why does it need money? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nobody seems to be asking the most important question: What more can we expect in return for the continued operation? That answer should drive the decision. It may not cost much to keep it going, but if we've pretty much exhausted any meaningful return, then what is the point of putting more $$ into it. OTOH, if they think there is a lot more information we can gain beyond what we already have, then extend the operation appropriately.

    3. Re:Why does it need money? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There's a whole lot of things that go into that $13m. DSN time is a small part of it. At 2Mbps from MRO relay, an hour of DSN time is 7 Gbit, which is probably on the order of a week's worth of science data.

      I suspect a good portion of the cost is supporting the science team (a bunch of grants in the tens of thousands of dollars each to keep grad students toiling), and just the overall team to operate the rover, the MRO relay, etc.

      $13m is, in rough terms, about 30 people's labor costs, for full time staff. Start adding up all the people needed to operate a rover and you can get to 30 pretty quickly. Not only do you have the actual console operators: people who send commands and receive telemetry back; you have rover drivers; mission planners; people who take the data and archive it in the planetary data systems; someone to update the web sites; engineers who look over the engineering telemetry periodically to make sure the temperatures, voltages, and currents look ok. There's also the cost to maintain a testbed to rehearse in (that's shared among multiple missions); a variety of software support activities (maintaining the CVS/SVN repos of the flight code, doing the usual software maintenance things like working off issues in JIRA, etc.)

      Yes, some of those could be crowd-sourced, but realistically, there's several big impediments in the way:
      1) export controls - pretty much everything having to do with the details of a spacecraft is export controlled
      2) systems complexity - Rovers and their operations are a very complex beast, with 10s of thousands of pages of documentation. It's fairly easy to understand a small piece, but you also need to understand how that piece interacts with the other things, and you have to do ALL of the pieces, because they do interact. You can't just do one piece that you find fun, unless you have people to do all the other pieces. It's not like submitting isolated patches to some open source project.
      3) instrument complexity - the instruments are run by their respective instrument science teams, and the documentation, particularly of idiosyncracies, is less polished than more infrastructurey things. You want to know about how the communications with Earth works, there's lots of docs, and it's pretty standard, since it's been done the same way for lots of missions. You want to know how the RAT or APXS works, and how to use it effectively, there's much less info.
      4) timeliness - spacecraft ops have hard time constraints. You can't just "park it until I have some time to work on it". Let it sit and it might freeze to death, although that's just one of hundreds of issues that require daily or weekly attention.

    4. Re:Why does it need money? by Karmashock · · Score: 1

      The universities don't have a problem with export control. They used export controlled technology all the time.

      Give the program to another institution that wants it and is willing to pay for the upkeep on it. The budget will be less then 13 million a year. But it should be enough to keep it going. The grad students would likely be very grateful to get access to the program if only for the experience.

      NASA should be done with this thing. 13 million is money they can spend doing something else.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    5. Re:Why does it need money? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      The DSN doesn't appear to be that terribly over-booked.

      BTW: we're talking about Opportunity not Curiosity. Either way, I'm sure university students would love a chance at that thing and wouldn't charge a penny. There's still plenty to be learned from Opportunity, and last I knew it hadn't even reached it's last science destination.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  17. Typical government stupidity by mendax · · Score: 1

    This rover has been running ten years and has been used to do great science, far more than anyone ever anticipated. All the rovers have far exceeded their intended lifetimes. In other words, they're cheap. X number of dollars was spent to delivery Y amount of science and they got far more than they bargained for. Continuing the funding for the the rover means that this science gets even cheaper.

    What Congress really ought to do is give NASA $10 billion, tell them to build and launch more rovers of this type, and send them all over Mars. $10 billion will pay for a lot of rovers.

    --
    It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
    1. Re:Typical government stupidity by x0ra · · Score: 1

      and next year, they'll want 11 billion... then 12, 15, 20...

    2. Re:Typical government stupidity by anubi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I keep seeing the argument of what we get for a dollar funded to NASA. I ask what we get for a dollar funded to professional sports. I get to see some grown man chase all over some field trying to snare a ball.

      I admit a lot of kids see this and dream of becoming a sports star or rock star. Is this a productive use of a human lifetime? Some say it is, some say it isn't, and I am not qualified to state. All I know is advancement of science is a dream to me. As far as I am concerned, Space Exploration is to science like programming games is to computer science. Its the stepping stone, the common basis of knowledge, from which we spring off whatever comes up.

      NASA has always been an icon for me - an entity who is actually doing something that has never been done before. Will I benefit from a romp on the moon? Probably not. Would I benefit from stronger alloys, higher energy density batteries, more sophisticated CAD systems, and legions of kids which were motivated by the Scientists at NASA. I believe I will.

      Our society seems to be quickly succumbing to what the economists refer to as "tragedy of the commons", where everybody is in it for themselves regardless of the cost to others. Our government is passing all sorts of laws encouraging "rent seeking" ( ownership benefits ) at the expense of production ( job creation ), leading us into a welfare state. I see big social problems ahead with this leadership model, as the ownership faction will run amok, leading to enormous wealth disparities between those who labor and those who own. We are setting ourselves up for a civil war between the worker and the politician/banker classes.

      We seem to have no problem funding enormous salaries for someone to hit a ball with a stick. Here we have fostered an intelligence great enough to have placed a part of ourselves on another planet, and we bicker over whether we can even fund manning the operation? I am quite sad over this whole affair. It seems the only idols we are given is all this bread and circus crap. No more Spock, Scotty, or Steve Squyres.

      --
      "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]

    3. Re:Typical government stupidity by distilate · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Still only a tiny fraction of what the government spends blowing up civilians in other countries.

    4. Re:Typical government stupidity by x0ra · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the enormous salaries you are speaking about are being paid by private companies whose strategy is to maximize their own profit by paying a select few huge amount of money. NASA is publicly funded by nobody more than a bunch of elected official who merely need to be convinced to fund the project. ROI for the public is literally lights years away And let's be honest, who the @#$% gives a damn on playing with a robot on Mars when we keep being as savage as human can be, beside the guy having fun controlling it... on taxpayer money ?

    5. Re:Typical government stupidity by Redmancometh · · Score: 1

      Don't forget subsidizing corn way, way beyond reasonable!

    6. Re:Typical government stupidity by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Mars? launch a very large rover for the moon and another to Venus. why the hell are we only looking at one planet?

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    7. Re:Typical government stupidity by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      and we should give them 20 billion, then 24, 28,32,36....

      Science is far more important than killing people.... yet we give 80% of our taxes to the department of killing things.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    8. Re:Typical government stupidity by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      then they can pay for their own fricking stadiums.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    9. Re:Typical government stupidity by Ihlosi · · Score: 1
      launch a very large rover for the moon

      The moon's close enough that we shouldn't bother with rovers, unless they're left behind by acutal astronauts..

      another to Venus

      Venus isn't all that interesting since there's no chance for humans visiting it in the forseeable future. And a rover would only survive hours at most. However, placing an airship or balloon probe in Venus' atmosphere (where it could survive for quite a while at the right altitude) might be interesting.

    10. Re:Typical government stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      NASA projects involve basic science.

      The ROI on basic science is so enormous it's difficult to quantify because it's hard to know where to stop. How do you even try to attach a dollar value to the entire Internet and everything it has created and touch in order to answer "What was the ROI of the DoD's investment in ARPANET?" With the corporate sector having, in the last 50 years, become utterly blind to everything more than 3 months out, it's up to the government and associated entities (national labs, universities) to keep funding and doing basic research.

    11. Re:Typical government stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yawn...wake me when the US defense spending drops substantially below 600 billion. The defense budget and contractors are hungry and want NASA's 10/11/12/15/20 billion slice of the pie. Mmmm....pie.....

    12. Re:Typical government stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Dare to dream, Lumpy, dare to dream......

      In Miami we had a Mayor get recalled because he went ahead with a stadium subsidy after the public voted it down. The guy who lead the recall effort won the office of Mayor in a special election. He then pushed through a stadium deal.

      They must have some kind of corporatist mind control ray.

    13. Re:Typical government stupidity by khallow · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing the argument of what we get for a dollar funded to NASA. I ask what we get for a dollar funded to professional sports. I get to see some grown man chase all over some field trying to snare a ball.

      You have to consider this from return on investment. For buying an overpriced ticket, you get to see grown men chasing a pigskin. That's huge value compared to typical NASA projects, which while they do somewhat more, also cost a bunch of orders of magnitude more.

      Watching it on TV is even better from the ROI point of view.

      Our society seems to be quickly succumbing to what the economists refer to as "tragedy of the commons", where everybody is in it for themselves regardless of the cost to others. Our government is passing all sorts of laws encouraging "rent seeking" ( ownership benefits ) at the expense of production ( job creation ), leading us into a welfare state. I see big social problems ahead with this leadership model, as the ownership faction will run amok, leading to enormous wealth disparities between those who labor and those who own. We are setting ourselves up for a civil war between the worker and the politician/banker classes.

      I view NASA's activities as contributing to this state of affairs. It's not all their fault. I doubt they would have spread the work of a project over a bunch of congressional districts, if that weren't the most important aspect of the project from Congress's point of view.

    14. Re:Typical government stupidity by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      The moon's close enough that we shouldn't bother with rovers, unless they're left behind by acutal astronauts..

      If I go to the airport now I can get to Japan by tomorrow, but it still makes more sense for me to FedEx something there than to take it there personally.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    15. Re:Typical government stupidity by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      Thank you, you beat me to it. It's disgraceful how much taxpayer money gets spent on those things.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    16. Re:Typical government stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For buying an overpriced ticket, you get to see grown men chasing a pigskin. That's huge value compared to typical NASA projects, which while they do somewhat more, also cost a bunch of orders of magnitude more.

      They're actually not separate investments. They're two aspects of a single large system which almost everyone has invested, willingly or otherwise.

      When you get the masses hooked on watching grown men chase pigskin, you discourage them from thinking. Just keep staring at the stupid box! You also discourage people from pursuing other, more useful, employable skills and knowledge You're not interesting in chasing pigskin, or watching grown men chase pigskin? NEEEEEEEERRD!

      The result is a population that is dumber and more susceptible to media propaganda and socialism. Propaganda that gets them to vote against their interests, including voting for NASA funding.

      Furthermore, the private sector will have a more difficult time finding talent to develop their own space program (or any other productive business), further entrenching the "need" for NASA and other public programs.

    17. Re:Typical government stupidity by khallow · · Score: 1

      Not everyone is being held back from launching space programs and other ambitious stuff by football. Most really don't have anything better to do. That's who football is for.

    18. Re:Typical government stupidity by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 1

      You're looking at this upside down. Congress is interested in pulling funds for that very reason. These rovers already exist, are comparatively cheap to operate, and have very long lives. Existing rovers aren't bringing home the bacon. They're just funding few "mother's basement" geeks.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
    19. Re:Typical government stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone is being held back from launching space programs and other ambitious stuff by football.

      No, everyone is held back. It's called opportunity cost. Time spent following "the game" could have been spent on doing other things, other things which could have helped space programs and other ambitious stuff. It's not like people who follow sports are naturally stupid and couldn't be an engineer or mathematician or scientist. Sports freaks can do cerebral stuff like recite statistics and analyze plays.

      One reason American workers refuse to lower themselves to the pay of foreign workers (and find themselves unable to find jobs) is because the indoctrinated American wants to follow the game. The American wants those overpriced sports merchandise. The American wants those season tickets. The American wants to take time off to watch the game (which might include traveling to another city where the game takes place). The American wants to renovate his house (that he probably took a huge mortgage to get), to build that expensive home theater to watch the game. The American wants to consume unhealthy amounts of food and alcohol while watching the game. leading to health problems later which further dampen his productivity.

      "Well if you're so poor and unemployed, stop following the game and stop giving yourself luxuries" you tell them. But that has as much effect as telling them to stop paying for that iPad or that XBox (another reason American workers are so costly to hire)

      Most really don't have anything better to do.

      Incorrect, there's always more useful work to be done. We haven't reached the point where machines can do all the work, and we may never reach that point as demand is infinite.

      That's who football is for.

      Other way around. Football creates people who have nothing better to do. It's not the single thing that did it, but it is part of the bread and circus machine.

    20. Re:Typical government stupidity by khallow · · Score: 1

      No, everyone is held back. It's called opportunity cost.

      Note that I already considered opportunity cost when I wrote "Most really don't have anything better to do. That's who football is for." Sure, it's nice to think that we'd be wonderful people, if it weren't for football, but it's not true. After all, they could already do those wonderful things now and they aren't.

    21. Re:Typical government stupidity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note that I already considered opportunity cost when I wrote "Most really don't have anything better to do. That's who football is for."

      That's not considering opportunity cost. That's just your own prejudice against other people. You're acting like some government central planner, deciding for other people what they can or cannot achieve.

    22. Re:Typical government stupidity by khallow · · Score: 1

      That's not considering opportunity cost.

      In other words, I did consider opportunity cost, we just disagree on what it would be.

      You're acting like some government central planner, deciding for other people what they can or cannot achieve.

      I'm deciding for others what? I'm not deciding what they watch or do. I merely have an opinion on what I think most people would be doing in the absence of watching football. I still think the replacement activity for football would be watching people on some sort of field or room chasing a ball or perhaps a puck around.

  18. A tad too soon by Issarlk · · Score: 0

    I don't think the chinese will be there with a rover for another couple of years. Maybe Nasa could give them the rover's keys in the meantime ?

    1. Re:A tad too soon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would NASA need to give them the keys?
      As part of the ongoing cyber war they already have full access and are probably responsible for the rovers damaged wheel, doing burnouts while NASA sleeps!

  19. Remeber this before signing up.. by scsirob · · Score: 2

    Whomever volunteers to go on the first Mars mission should read this article, print it and stable it to the wall.
    Guess what can happen when you are out there, the first glorious conquerors of Mars. You make by with what you have, rely on communication with Earth for guidance and support. Then a bean counter on Earth decides that you are too much of an expense...

    --
    To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    1. Re:Remeber this before signing up.. by hax4bux · · Score: 1

      Time for you to watch "Dark Star"

    2. Re:Remeber this before signing up.. by dave420 · · Score: 0

      "Whoever". Don't use whom if you're not sure.

    3. Re:Remeber this before signing up.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or just use "The" where possible. The "whom" is implied.

    4. Re:Remeber this before signing up.. by scsirob · · Score: 1

      Non-native speaker here, my apologies.. I am looking forward in further lectures in flawless Dutch, which is my native language.

      --
      To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
    5. Re:Remeber this before signing up.. by Immerial · · Score: 1

      Man, they are going to have one hell of a center piece... "Hey, check out what I found outside." =D

  20. Re:tea party america don't go no use fo' outerspac by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    fuck a mars rover, gimme tax cutssssssssssssss

    Fuck your tax cuts, we need to start another war!

  21. nasa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No longer going where no man has gone before

    1. Re:nasa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So they'll be relegated to exploring the deep cavity of goatse's ass then?

    2. Re:nasa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and yet, NASA is many places that no other space agency has been to.

  22. Re:tea party america don't go no use fo' outerspac by x0ra · · Score: 1

    Let's do that, it will be fun to see those nukes flying. I'll keep the score from my homestead.

  23. Just increase the taxes of the 1% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Problem solved. At the same time you will get enough money to re-instate the food stamp program, and depending on how brave you are, introduce universal health care and free higher education.

  24. Washington Monument Syndrome by dottrap · · Score: 0

    This is a clear case of Washington Monument Syndrome.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

    Threaten the most visible/popular projects to get more money.

    Congress Makes NASA Finish Useless $350 Million Structure
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...

    Government Blatantly Wastes $30 Billion This Year (NASA appears 3 times)
    http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/...

  25. Crowd fund it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA could always make a Kickstarter account.

    1. Re:Crowd fund it. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      I thought the same thing...seriously. NASA usually delivers good bang for the buck, and this is the best way to fund efforts for the common good in our cyberpunk dystopia.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  26. this is how they learn "engineering support" by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    And it accomplishes virtually nothing to boot! Seriously, there's a hell of a lot more to running the rover than just steering and driving.

    right...i know what you mean. this would be more in the "PR" realm, but educational "PR"...they learn the stuff you're saying they need to know! Realistically speaking it's highly unlikely that a workable idea for use would get "kicked up the ladder" from the community would be anything that wouldn't have been pre-planned anyway.

    but don't discount "PR"...it's not just "PR" it's a **next level of involvement** in space exploration for anyone with an internet connection and that is absolutely priceless...seriously how many millions upon millions has NASA and the US gov't as a whole spent to get "kids interested in science"...well with my idea they can drive the thing themselves...and learn some of those "engineering support" roles you pointed out ;)

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  27. ITYM but some Eurofighter/Typhoons by Viol8 · · Score: 2

    Thats the nearest equivalent jet in capability to the F-35 - and its actually in production and flying today. The Rafale looks nice buts its a bit long in the tooth now and not at the top of its game.

    1. Re:ITYM but some Eurofighter/Typhoons by JJP · · Score: 1

      There is one real reason why these alternatives will never be considered an option by the US military (and therefore by a couple of other NATO countries). All these planes lack the capability to deliver a US designed nuclear warhead, and the US industrial/military complex is not likely to give away their USP in selling overpriced jets by licencing the technology to non-US manufacturers.

    2. Re:ITYM but some Eurofighter/Typhoons by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 1
      --
      never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
    3. Re:ITYM but some Eurofighter/Typhoons by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2

      The Rafale and the Eurofighter are the same age (they actually date from the same initial development program, from which the Eurofighter countries left because they didn't want a carrier capable variant), it just looks like the Eurofighter is newer because it spent longer in development hell.

    4. Re:ITYM but some Eurofighter/Typhoons by Viol8 · · Score: 1

      Just because one thing is derived from another doesn't mean they're the same age. Otherwise you could say Windows is the same age as DOS is the same age as CP/M.

  28. Sell it to the Chinese by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With the money, NASA may be able to support some of the other projects currently for the chop.

  29. Congressional Idiots by Lumpy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    less than 1% of the Defense budget can run NASA at higher levels. WTF is wrong with the complete MORONS that were elected to be in Congress?

    They want to save money, call all the troops home and end the frigging police actions.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    1. Re:Congressional Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      less than 1% of the Defense budget can run NASA at higher levels. WTF is wrong with the complete MORONS that were elected to be in Congress?

      If you value your gelsacs, I'd watch what I said online, Citizen. K'Breel speaks for the Council, but the Council has trillions of listeners.

    2. Re:Congressional Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF is wrong with the complete MORONS that were elected to be in Congress?

      WTF is wrong with the complete MORONS that elected them to Congress?

      FTFY

    3. Re:Congressional Idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Over $160 million was given to Oregon to make a non functional health care website.

  30. Plenty of money in NASA's budget by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is still apparently plenty of money in NASA's budget for internal diversity programs, sensitivity training, commissioning outside studies to determine if NASA is complying with tolerance policies, and for their GLBTI adoption program (the "I" is for "inter-racial"). Yes, NASA will pay $50,000 towards a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, or inter-racial employee couple to adopt a baby, but not a same-race heterosexual couple.

    1. Re:Plenty of money in NASA's budget by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      Amazing! The worst of the over-zealous, milch-cow, PC-correct HR departments from huge corporations has infected NASA. Ugh.

    2. Re:Plenty of money in NASA's budget by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      Do you have some expense figures for these idiotic HR programs?

  31. You must be fucking kidding. by pcwhalen · · Score: 1

    I did believe / understand this at first. We have hardware on ANOTHER PLANET that works and we want to abandon it?
    Get Kafka on the phone, new story idea.

    --
    Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain with all your metadata.
  32. Opportunity, Growth and Security? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've never heard of the Growth and Security rovers, where are they?

  33. Pick up line? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Howard is going to need another pick up line - no more "Would you like to drive a car on Mars?"

  34. Of course by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    It makes sense the NASA budget is tight, they don't have a lot of jobs that can just be handed to anyone's nephew, and its hard to dupe a bunch of engineers into buying expensive equipment they don't need that may or may not even work as intended.

    This makes NASA a piss poor government program from the POV of politicians. What is the point if they can't make some kickbacks or repay a large campaign donation with favors? Duh. This isn't rocket science.

    I bet if they found a reason to buy full body scanners and found some jobs that don't actually require showing up or doing anything, they would have far less funding issues.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    1. Re: Of course by kellymcdonald78 · · Score: 1

      You should read up on the "Senate Launch System". Pork is alive and well at NASA, in fact it's pretty much destroying the organization. $40 billion for a rocket with nothing to launch and no where to go

  35. Donate! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they're going to kill the rover, why not at least donate the rover and control center to education? If this country feels it can no longer budget and perform scientific tasks like an adult, then let kids use it to learn about Mars. That's right, this country cannot budget like a mature adult, and thus does not deserve it's remote control toys until it can learn to live within its means. Maybe the kids will grow up smarter, and we won't have to deal with so much stupidity and waste in the future.

    Having said that, I'm very sad to see this happen.

    1. Re:Donate! by ledow · · Score: 1

      Yeah.

      Let's donate millions of dollars of multi-purpose infrastructure, tied into secure NASA systems, operating over radio communications towers costing millions of dollars to operate, relaying over satellites around both Earth and Mars and sucking up the most expensive bandwidth in the solar system, that we could use for something else, so that kiddies can drive a remote control car on Mars.

      If just anyone had the power to talk to the Mars Rover, we wouldn't need all these expensive relay satellites and huge ground stations.

      That's probably why the kids are going to grow up smarter. *You* won't be around.

      Fact is, space exploration is THE MOST COSTLY thing you can do except possibly a) go to war, b) let your populous get sick, c) educate your populous (I'll let you draw your own conclusions about quite where your money is being pissed away). And it's not a one-off cost, but a huge, enormous, ongoing, suck-the-budget-dry background infrastructure cost.

  36. Re:tea party america don't go no use fo' outerspac by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    fuck a mars rover, gimme tax cutssssssssssssss

    Or we can keep the program going. You can send me a self addressed, stamped envelope and I'll send you the fraction of a cent that you will have to contribute to the mars rover for this year.

  37. Sure by plaukas+pyragely · · Score: 1

    Go ahead if you can pay for using Deep Space Network: http://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/

  38. What Mras couldn't kill by plopez · · Score: 2

    politicians will

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  39. lol by Charliemopps · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For those that are not aware how this works... Every time there is a new budget proposal, NASA first suggests axing its most popular projects... usually Hubble, but sometimes other things... and they send that up to the hill... Congress panics "They can't shut down Hubble! It's the only sciencey thing we do anymore!!!" and they give NASA a bit more money. It's all part of the game. BTW, you're supposed to write into your congressman angry about how NASA doesn't get enough money right about now. I'm not saying you shouldn't... they really don't get enough money... but you should at least know the game that's getting played.

  40. Surely you are joking by dbIII · · Score: 1
    I really don't know how people can believe such stuff as the above two posters wrote. Is some sort of political tribalism going on where no choice made by Nixon can be questioned?
    Skylab was a lot of effort for work carried out very briefly and with care it had potential to last like Mir. Bullshit about the mission being done is just revisionism to justify abandoning the project just after it started.

    Just prolonging its existence would not have been productive.

    If you look up in the sky long enough you'll see the ISS - productively carrying on the sort of work that could have been done on Skylab.

  41. Reall? by ks*nut · · Score: 2

    This country pisses away billions of dollars a year funding its war machine and can't fund planetary science which serves as a legacy to be passed down to future generations. It will be very clear in the years ahead where our priorities were.

    1. Re:Reall? by scuzzlebutt · · Score: 1

      Could not agree more. This is a penny wise and pound foolish decision!

      --
      In C++, your friends can see your privates.
    2. Re:Reall? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The country's war machine is asked to do much much more than fight wars.

      In the years ahead the health care debacle and other social programs will eat up any flexibility

  42. Re:Thanks, Obama. by Megane · · Score: 2

    Even though I have no love for Obama, this is one case where he doesn't deserve the blame. He's actually big on funding NASA. The blame is squarely on Congress, who insist on funding the SLS (aka Senate Launch System), for no other reason than to keep Shuttle-era pork jobs in their states, and have actually been cutting NASA's non-SLS budget. They've also been cutting the budget for private companies like SpaceX and Sierra Nevada to develop human crew launch vehicles. This delayed the contracts for private crew launches to ISS, so we're dependent on the Russians for another three years. SpaceX is probably going ahead on their crewed capsule anyhow, but Congress sure is being the opposite of Progress here.

    It's still a few years before SLS gets its first unmanned test, then a few years more before it goes up with humans inside. But there's no mission for it. It's too big for LEO (such as trips to ISS), and Congress is solidly against using it for Mars. They want to go to the stupid moon again, which really has little reason for humans to go right now. (IMHO we should be sending up a lot more unmanned missions to the moon, especially since the remote control lag is only a few seconds!)

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  43. Re:Thanks, Obama. by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

    BAD MOD: Not everyone will agree with this, but that doesn't mean it's flamebait.

    --
    Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
  44. Re:tea party america don't go no use fo' outerspac by Megane · · Score: 1

    You're so cuuuuute, I could just pinch your cheeks! I'm gonna slap a big [CITATION NEEDED] on that. How exactly can anybody with the TP, who can barely get the time of day in Congress, where Republicans actually have a majority, have any ability to affect NASA's budget?

    Hint: try looking at the very incumbent pork-barrel politicians on BOTH sides of the aisle who are cutting NASA's budget for everything but the prime pork of SLS.

    --
    #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  45. The Admin tried to cut 300 million by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    Last year the Obama Administration tried to effectively end planetary exploration at NASA by proposing a 300 million dollar cut. This administration has been the worst for planetary science of any in recent memory.

    1. Re:The Admin tried to cut 300 million by Squidlips · · Score: 1

      Here is a link: The Obama Administration tried to cut 300 million from planetary science at NASA last year effectively killing exploration: http://www.planetary.org/blogs... "White house proposes ~$300 million of cuts to Planetary Science in 2013."

    2. Re:The Admin tried to cut 300 million by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      was this before or after they wanted nasa's mission to include muslim outreach?

  46. "If you like your NASA, you can keep your NASA..." by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    The Admin tried to cut 300 million from the NASA planetary science budge last year. This Administration is hostile to planetary science. Check the Planetary Society web site for details and he weasel-y things the Admin and NASA/Houston have done to try to kill planetary science.

  47. if there were only terrorists on mars by schlachter · · Score: 1

    this would be an easy funding battle

    --
    My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
  48. Re:tea party america don't go no use fo' outerspac by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 1

    Bet you only get to count to one...

  49. War is coming. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Brace yourself, War is coming". Just sayin'.

  50. typical space idea obstructionist by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    You say that as though it is supposed to bolster your argument

    Yes...I did!

    Because it *does*

    $13 million. I suspect a lot of that goes to personnel costs, some of which might be reduce

    $13 million per year...that has to be cut

    You exhibit your lack of management experience by your framing of this idea. It's people like you that have made NASA suck for anyone trying to do real space exploration. Every idea is an opportunity for you to exercise your pedantic asperberger proclivities to bolster your ego.

    **MY IDEA COULD BE DONE FOR LESS THAN 1% OF THE ORIGINAL BUDGET**

    you could fund it from money for PR & promotion of space among citizens...there are all kinds of ways to make it happen, asshole

    you take my words completely out of context b/c it's the only way your obstructionist mindset can integrate & shoot down my idea...

    The cost to create and administer some sort of volunteer program might be small compared to $15bn,

    yes...$13 million a year is alot...$15 billion is alot

    but for an agency that spends that much money...they money to do **MY IDEA** is well in hand

    mostly with already existing staff

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  51. Re:Thanks, Obama. by Squidlips · · Score: 2

    Wrong about Obama, mostly wrong about Congress. The Obama Administration tried to cut 300 million from planetary science at NASA last year effectively killing exploration: http://www.planetary.org/blogs... "White house proposes ~$300 million of cuts to Planetary Science in 2013."

  52. Re:Thanks, Obama. by Squidlips · · Score: 1

    Yup. Obama has been trying to kill planetary missions at NASA: The Obama Administration tried to cut 300 million from planetary science at NASA last year effectively killing exploration: http://www.planetary.org/blogs... [planetary.org] "White house proposes ~$300 million of cuts to Planetary Science in 2013."

  53. NASA Funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe NASA could afford space programs if they didn't sell airplane fuel below market cost to Google?

  54. relevant xkcd by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    replace with human....

    https://xkcd.com/695/

  55. Donate your next weeks bar tab. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US booze purchases for one week would be enough to keep those two programs running for almost a decade.

  56. There's more to it than you think. by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

    And it accomplishes virtually nothing to boot! Seriously, there's a hell of a lot more to running the rover than just steering and driving.

    right...i know what you mean. this would be more in the "PR" realm, but educational "PR"...they learn the stuff you're saying they need to know! Realistically speaking it's highly unlikely that a workable idea for use would get "kicked up the ladder" from the community would be anything that wouldn't have been pre-planned anyway.

    Generally, it's considered bad form to learn how to operate multi-hundreds of millions of dollars worth of equipment on the very equipment you'll be operating - not without strict supervision by trained and experienced individuals. The very trained and experienced personnel you've already fired because they're too expensive. The same goes for stuff "kicked up the ladder", not only is there not anyone pre-planning anymore (they've all been fired, remember) there isn't anyone up the ladder to evaluate the idea (they've been fired too).
     
    And I haven't even mentioned the problems of volunteer burnout, turnover, and empire building.
     

    but don't discount "PR"...it's not just "PR" it's a **next level of involvement** in space exploration for anyone with an internet connection and that is absolutely priceless...seriously how many millions upon millions has NASA and the US gov't as a whole spent to get "kids interested in science"

    *Sigh* there's not one single shred of evidence, and we've got a half a centuries worth, that PR for space activities has any concrete result. Zip. Zero. Nada.

    1. Re:There's more to it than you think. by globaljustin · · Score: 1

      *Sigh*

      **slaps you across your bitch mouth**

      --
      Thank you Dave Raggett
  57. Re:Thanks, Obama. by causality · · Score: 1

    BAD MOD: Not everyone will agree with this, but that doesn't mean it's flamebait.

    Anyone who needed to have that explained to them is demonstrably resistant to facts and so-called "common sense" and is therefore a lost cause. Mass numbers of non-individuals agreeing with you bandwagon-style is the only thing they would find persuasive.

    --
    It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
  58. Why not fold it into the Mars Lab team? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can budget for it they should. It's a matter of shuffling people around.

  59. This project deserves better than being killed off by steve.cri · · Score: 1

    This project deserves not to have an experienced crew sacked in its late phase, which would most certainly kill it. It also deserves the best people, and not limit itself to those who can afford to work for free. Society throws large amounts of money at fools for going round a track really fast, for yodeling into a microphone, or generating graphs from spreadsheets somebody else filled in. So if anything, those engineers are paid too little. Anyone who thinks otherwise has so little sense of priority that I wouldn't entrust him with managing two guys with leaf blowers. Why was this modded insightful? It's the most bleak, insight-less, accounting-troll-ish thing I can imagine.

  60. Rover's days are numbered by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but how much will it cost to send Cowboy Neal to Mars and bring the Rovers back to the NASA office?

  61. I found the money in their budget for Opporunity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NASA spends millions to fly first class and business. Hey how about flying coach, or teleconferencing?

    See the news story at TV Channel 7 in Denver.

  62. does it all the time? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what kind of terrorist has the capability to shoot at an airplane?

    1. Re:does it all the time? by Nethemas+the+Great · · Score: 2

      We're gearing up for the cold war with China.

      --
      Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once ... with negative results.
  63. Re:This project deserves better than being killed by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    Then I'd terminate the program outright and task those engineers with helping on curiosity.

    I'm sorry, but this project has largely run its useful course. It is now a curio. Let the universities play with it and maintain its budget. NASA can afford the transmitter time. Beyond that, let private funding handle it.

    NASA's budget isn't big enough to sustain these macguffins.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  64. Congress needs funds for by terrywirth5 · · Score: 1

    Uterus rover.

  65. WHY QUIT NOW ???? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every day that that rover is exploring on that planet is another day added to the world record for functioning rovers. China's moon rover that landed on the moon last month lasted one week !!!!

                The damn thing continues to work thru the dust & snow storms too. Five weeks ago it discovered a magnesium donut shaped surface anomaly that had scientists baffled for weeks.
            It's a shame our president has cut the NASA budget so severely. Our manned space flight is all but gone, and now we may ditch a rover that exceeded all expectations & never ditched us :(