On Mar 12, 9:45*am, wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:08*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 5, 1:47*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29514257/

Pat

Looks bad, however it's not even their all-inclusive birth to grave
cost.

Wonder what the real costs are?

Per billion spent/yr, how many are employed and fully accommodated/yr?

You do that calculation but why don't you create the list of all the
mission that outlive their life expectancies as well?

Start with the Mars rovers having a 90-day life expectancy and lasting
over 5 years.
Follow that with EOS missions like Terra, Aqua and Aura that have long
past their 5 year life expectancies.

I agree with using robust robotics, as in most every case they've
outperformed and outlived expectations.

It's those manned missions that seriously suck and blow, and we never
seem to get at any cost stopping point.

However, the true all-inclusive cost of the failed or rather foiled
OCO mission is not limited as to the published amount that the public
gets to hear about.

~ BG