New NASA budget

There is an article at :

http://space.com/missionlaunches/soyuz_iss_040130.html

About the new NASA budget.

Combines a lot of stuff into the CEV program including some Shuttle funds.
JIMO slipped 3 years which is not IMO a surprise it was no where near ready.
Some delays in a couple of science probes.
Slight decline for Earth Science.
The 2009 Mars rover got a big budget increase.
Lunar orbiter in 2008, rover 2009.
IMO sadly Pluto is still funded.


The biggest surprise for me is that the biggest winner seems to be Mars
while the Moon budget is anemic.
$691 million vs. $70 million for the Moon.

Only $420 million over five years for the Moon which is supposed to be
enough for a orbiter and a rover?
The rovers on Mars now cost $400 million EACH.

Either they must be planning on winning Discovery mission funding, using
lots of left over Mars equipment or being really wimpy.

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 13:02:46 GMT, "Dholmes"
wrote:

Combines a lot of stuff into the CEV program including some Shuttle funds.

Then I will have to see a budget plan where this extra funding comes
in, when the last one had about $1 billion a year fixed for CEV
development until about 2010.

JIMO slipped 3 years which is not IMO a surprise it was no where near ready.

The large xeon ion drive seems to be coming on well, but the nuclear
power generator has always been a problem, when they were not too sure
how best to get electricity out of it.

Since I have not heard anything for a long time concerning nuclear
power generation, then I guess that progress is slow.

JIMO is going nowhere without these two developments.

Some delays in a couple of science probes.
Slight decline for Earth Science.

Not sure what is going on there then.

The 2009 Mars rover got a big budget increase.

Interesting. NASA's own monster truck goes driving on Mars.

One problem with these MERs is that the ground is a bit too smooth,
safe and uneventful. Good for landing and driving, but the spaces
between the locations that they want to go to is very large.

Lunar orbiter in 2008, rover 2009.

Around what I would expect.

IMO sadly Pluto is still funded.

Maybe because NASA cannot kill this one, when Congress paid for it
directly, due to public protest when NASA killed the last Pluto
mission.

So totally out of NASA's hands, when only Congress can cancel this
one. And that won't happen when the public wants to see Pluto up
close.

The biggest surprise for me is that the biggest winner seems to be Mars
while the Moon budget is anemic.
$691 million vs. $70 million for the Moon.

$70 for the Moon? That can hardly pay for the launch. I feel that
there is an error here.

Still, from the below, then $70 million over six years equals $420
million.

Only $420 million over five years for the Moon which is supposed to be
enough for a orbiter and a rover?

It sounds a bit low to me, when I expected more around $500 to $600
million, but then maybe they have some plans.

After all if they did use this MER (Athena Rover) design on the Moon
Rover mission, then that could help reduce development costs. No real
cleaning is need for Moon probes either.

I consider that the orbiter is the biggest unknown, when I have little
idea of what you should ideally have on it. Still, considering the
launch dates, then having Rover communication could be an idea.

NASA should certainly be aiming to reuse their hardware developments,
when that is where the real cost saving is to be found.

The rovers on Mars now cost $400 million EACH.

More around $300 million each, when the rest paid for their launch. I
guess that these Moon missions can use the Smart-1 method, which would
decrease launch costs.

Either they must be planning on winning Discovery mission funding,

The orbiter and rover missions are quite obvious, where I guess it
comes down to who can make the best designs.

using lots of left over Mars equipment

I would assume that a lot of equipment developed for Mars can also
play a role in such Moon missions. After all finding the elements and
water should not be too different.

or being really wimpy.

I don't think that this is a viable option, when they have an
important job to do in finding where all the goodies are at, where not
having the right equipment won't help any.

We will just have to see where this funding is coming from.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

"Dholmes" wrote in
:

The biggest surprise for me is that the biggest winner seems to be
Mars while the Moon budget is anemic.
$691 million vs. $70 million for the Moon.

The moon probes are all new starts. They don't need as much the first year.

Only $420 million over five years for the Moon which is supposed to be
enough for a orbiter and a rover?
The rovers on Mars now cost $400 million EACH.

Either they must be planning on winning Discovery mission funding,
using lots of left over Mars equipment or being really wimpy.

Or they're counting on being able to do moon probes more cheaply.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
"Dholmes" wrote in
:

Only $420 million over five years for the Moon which is supposed to be
enough for a orbiter and a rover?
The rovers on Mars now cost $400 million EACH.

What exactly made them most expensive? Developing them, building them
or getting them to Mars? Is there some breakdown of the rovers' costs
somewhere at NASA's site, because I can't find any.

(Actually I read a prognosis where it said the second rover would cost
only half of what the first cost--$200 vs. $400. So what happened?)


Either they must be planning on winning Discovery mission funding,
using lots of left over Mars equipment or being really wimpy.

Or they're counting on being able to do moon probes more cheaply.

Hmm, the advantage of the Moon is that you can be there in a matter
of days rather than months, on much less fuel. That would make them
cheaper. Also if you lose a rover you can send another one in a mat-
ter of weeks rather than waiting another two years till Mars comes
back around. You can also remote control the things in almost real
time and have a higher bandwidth for sending back data. Not quite as
much sophisticated or powerful radio equipment is needed on either
side.

What makes them more expensive is the much more extreme temperatures
and the stickier dust. Also if you want to operate them for longer
than a fortnight you have to find a way of making them survive the Lu-
nar night.

Could the Mars rovers operate on the Moon without heavy modifications?
I doubt it.



--
__ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.� '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

snip
IMO sadly Pluto is still funded.

Not in my opinion. They could cancel the whole Mars program and I wouldn't
be as upset as losing the Pluto mission. We know very little about Pluto,
and our best images are not much more than blobs on film.

uray

"uray" wrote in message ...
"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

snip
IMO sadly Pluto is still funded.

Not in my opinion. They could cancel the whole Mars program and I wouldn't
be as upset as losing the Pluto mission. We know very little about Pluto,
and our best images are not much more than blobs on film.

We know very little about a whole lot of chunks of
ice in the outer solar system. Some of them in the
same size range as Pluto or Charon. So? We know
*less* about Mars than Pluto because there are more
unanswered questions and those questions are of
greater consequence.

I dont believe that the rovers themselves didnt cost 400million but
that was the entire mission budget. As far as i know the current
numbers in the Nasa budget are for development of the rover hardware
only?...I could be wrong.
Also, i was under the impression that the fuel need for a "soft" moon
landing (one that doesnt "bounce" to a stop) and a martian mission
were relatively the same. In that you need fuel to slow down and
land on the moon where as at Mars you can aerobrake and save a good
deal of braking fuel. The Delta-V for Lunar and Mars missions
appears to be pretty close...wouldnt that meant the same amount of
fuel?



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Christopher M. Jones" wrote in message om...
"uray" wrote in message ...
"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

snip
IMO sadly Pluto is still funded.

Not in my opinion. They could cancel the whole Mars program and I wouldn't
be as upset as losing the Pluto mission. We know very little about Pluto,
and our best images are not much more than blobs on film.

We know very little about a whole lot of chunks of
ice in the outer solar system. Some of them in the
same size range as Pluto or Charon. So? We know
*less* about Mars than Pluto because there are more
unanswered questions and those questions are of
greater consequence.

Don't forget the Moon! Lots we don't know yet about the Moon, such
as, how much ice and precious volatiles are there in the cold traps,
what are good spots to set up camp, and how hard will it eventually be
to set up oxygen factories there and keep them working so probes to
Mars and Pluto would become a lot cheaper? And what else can we pro-
duce there for export?


--
__ "A good leader knows when it's best to ignore the __
('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture." '__`)
//6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
`\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'

"Ool" wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Dholmes" wrote in
:

Only $420 million over five years for the Moon which is supposed to
be enough for a orbiter and a rover?
The rovers on Mars now cost $400 million EACH.

What exactly made them most expensive? Developing them, building them
or getting them to Mars? Is there some breakdown of the rovers' costs
somewhere at NASA's site, because I can't find any.

(Actually I read a prognosis where it said the second rover would cost
only half of what the first cost--$200 vs. $400. So what happened?)

NASA *does* have to pay for the launches and ongoing mission ops... the
total cost of the *program* was $820 million. That does *not* mean that the
second rover cost as much as the first, though some have chosen to break it
down that way.

On 31 Jan 2004 23:11:30 -0800, (Christopher M.
Jones) wrote:


We know very little about a whole lot of chunks of
ice in the outer solar system. Some of them in the
same size range as Pluto or Charon. So?

Like it or not, Pluto is not just another KBO and never will be. It is
one of the nine planets of the solar system, every school child is
taught this. Getting a mission to Pluto represents a milestone:
completing the initial survey of the major planetary bodies of our
solar system. That survey is long overdue.

We know
*less* about Mars than Pluto because there are more
unanswered questions and those questions are of
greater consequence.

Nonsense. We know very little about Pluto, but we have completely
mapped Mars at moderate resolutions and are currently mapping some
areas at very high resolution. We have set five landers successfully
on the surface to provide "ground truth" to support the orbital
surveys. To assert "we know less about Mars than Pluto" is simply
ludicrous.

Brian