



Administrator





Group: Chairman

Posts: 14220

Joined: 8-February 04

Member No.: 1



AdministratorGroup: ChairmanPosts: 14220Joined: 8-February 04Member No.: 1





QUOTE (PhilHorzempa @ Nov 5 2009, 11:55 PM) There is not enough money in NASA's Planetary budget to both support continued preparation of MSL and all of the other missions listed above.



And how do you propose to save money by delaying MSL?



I see no evidence that the '01 lander was cancelled to fund MRO and MER. Indeed, when the '01 lander was cancelled, MRO and MER were not even formal proposals. It was cancelled for engineering reasons, not budgetary reasons. The launch of the '01 lander wasn't delayed 6 years to save money for other missions. The '01 lander was CANCELLED. Full stop. And by the time it was reborn as Phoenix the cost had jumped massively. The total 2001 budget for MODY and 2001 Lander at the time of the 2001 lander cancellation was $283M.



Before cancellation - figures suggest the '01 lander had cost $100M.



Phoenix was supposed to be a $325M cost capped scout. Then $386M. Then $420M.



Add the $100M already spent - and Phoenix was a $520M mission. Take half the orig '01 budget, $142M, and - according to your supposition that it was delayed to get things in order and rectify budget problems - it ended up costing nearly 4x more than that. So on what basis do you think delaying MSL will make it any cheaper or free up any money?



It will inevitably cost more. The logical path at this point is to get it off the ground at the earliest safe opportunity, because once it's off the ground, you're spending money on flight operations, not ATLO, and they are a lot cheaper. Also - I do not see evidence that Juno, Maven and Grail are suffering greatly because of MSL. Indeed - it has been stated that:



QUOTE The other major planetary mission in development (Juno Jupiter mission (2011 launch), lunar GRAIL mission (2011 launch), and the Mars MAVEN mission(2013 launch)) would proceed as planned.



Furthermore - heritage from the MSL design is required for missions already planned in the 2016+ time frame. Delaying MSL until that time frame would push those missions off into mid 2020's and beyond. It has been conceded that the Mars Program can not continue like it is. Hence the NASA/ESA partnership for future missions. But to get to that place, MSL needs to go first so that a clean interface (MSL derived descent stage to payload) can be presented for international cooperation.



MSL is massively, massively expensive and massively massively over budget. It should have been considered a flagship class mission from day 1. It needs a full independent review conducted by outsiders from industry and other NASA centres to establish how and why it's budget was so wrong at the beginning, after it's launched.



It's going to cost $XM to finish it from now. It's going to cost $XM + some quite large yet probably unknown amount that will, inevitably, suffer it's own budget creep to delay. Delaying it 5 years would:



Not save money. It would cost more.

Not positively impact other missions, as more money would, in total, be spent.

Negatively impact, massively, the 2016+ Mars program

Put at risk the NASA/ESA partnership for Mars exploration in that time frame.

Reduce the likelihood of MODY, MRO and MEX being available for relay.





Before continuing, I would urge you to review the forum rules, especially regarding politics which technically, your first post breaks. But this IS an interesting discussion, so I'll let that go - but the admin team is keeping a close eye on this thread. As I've now posted in it - I'll leave moderation and administration of this thread entirely in EGD and A0's hands to avoid accusations of administrative bullying or bias. And how do you propose to save money by delaying MSL?I see no evidence that the '01 lander was cancelled to fund MRO and MER. Indeed, when the '01 lander was cancelled, MRO and MER were not even formal proposals. It was cancelled for engineering reasons, not budgetary reasons. The launch of the '01 lander wasn't delayed 6 years to save money for other missions. The '01 lander was CANCELLED. Full stop. And by the time it was reborn as Phoenix the cost had jumped massively. The total 2001 budget for MODY and 2001 Lander at the time of the 2001 lander cancellation was $283M.Before cancellation - figures suggest the '01 lander had cost $100M.Phoenix was supposed to be a $325M cost capped scout. Then $386M. Then $420M.Add the $100M already spent - and Phoenix was a $520M mission. Take half the orig '01 budget, $142M, and - according to your supposition that it was delayed to get things in order and rectify budget problems - it ended up costing nearly 4x more than that. So on what basis do you think delaying MSL will make it any cheaper or free up any money?It will inevitably cost more. The logical path at this point is to get it off the ground at the earliest safe opportunity, because once it's off the ground, you're spending money on flight operations, not ATLO, and they are a lot cheaper. Also - I do not see evidence that Juno, Maven and Grail are suffering greatly because of MSL. Indeed - it has been stated that:Furthermore - heritage from the MSL design is required for missions already planned in the 2016+ time frame. Delaying MSL until that time frame would push those missions off into mid 2020's and beyond. It has been conceded that the Mars Program can not continue like it is. Hence the NASA/ESA partnership for future missions. But to get to that place, MSL needs to go first so that a clean interface (MSL derived descent stage to payload) can be presented for international cooperation.MSL is massively, massively expensive and massively massively over budget. It should have been considered a flagship class mission from day 1. It needs a full independent review conducted by outsiders from industry and other NASA centres to establish how and why it's budget was so wrong at the beginning, after it's launched.It's going to cost $XM to finish it from now. It's going to cost $XM + some quite large yet probably unknown amount that will, inevitably, suffer it's own budget creep to delay. Delaying it 5 years would:Before continuing, I would urge you to review the forum rules, especially regarding politics which technically, your first post breaks. But this IS an interesting discussion, so I'll let that go - but the admin team is keeping a close eye on this thread. As I've now posted in it - I'll leave moderation and administration of this thread entirely in EGD and A0's hands to avoid accusations of administrative bullying or bias.