NASA?s Overbudget Mars Rover in Need of Another Cash Infusion

NASA?s Overbudget Mars Rover in Need of Another Cash Infusion
http://www.spacenews.com/civil/11012...need-cash.html

From above:

NASA?s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission needs an
$82 million cash infusion to maintain its late November
launch date after development of the $2.47 billion rover
exhausted program funding reserves last year, according
to agency officials.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

On Jan 31, 12:18*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
NASA?s Overbudget Mars Rover in Need of Another Cash Infusionhttp://www.spacenews.com/civil/110128-mars-rover-need-cash.html

From above:

* *NASA?s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission needs an
* *$82 million cash infusion to maintain its late November
* *launch date after development of the $2.47 billion rover
* *exhausted program funding reserves last year, according
* *to agency officials.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

You mean NASA's borrowed loot needs more borrowed loot. Kinda like a
3rd mortgage with yet another impressive balloon payment coming due.
The same problem of insufficient funding goes for their JWST that blew
through its budget years ago.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

On Jan 31, 3:24*pm, Brad Guth wrote:
On Jan 31, 12:18*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:

NASA?s Overbudget Mars Rover in Need of Another Cash Infusionhttp://www..spacenews.com/civil/110128-mars-rover-need-cash.html

From above:

* *NASA?s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission needs an
* *$82 million cash infusion to maintain its late November
* *launch date after development of the $2.47 billion rover
* *exhausted program funding reserves last year, according
* *to agency officials.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

You mean NASA's borrowed loot needs more borrowed loot. *Kinda like a
3rd mortgage with yet another impressive balloon payment coming due.
The same problem of insufficient funding goes for their JWST that blew
through its budget years ago.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

It makes me wonder if by some sort of miracle nasa were ordered Mars
in 10 or 15 years, 500 days on mars plus transit time.

could nasa do it? and how many trillions would it cost?

It appears nasa is less able to do stuff than it was back in the
beginning of tthe space age......

Seems simple cancel GRAIL - we've already cancelled the Constellation Lunar
Program so who really cares about further details in the lunar gravitational
field - let the Chinese and Indians fly that mission at their expense. We've
already taught China how to do orbital intercept techniques and made it a
better world for future space junk collectors.

Come to think of it - we're not going to Mars either - cancel this and
replace with a cheaper asteroid flyby or a flythrough the L1 point.

While we're at it - Rover is a operating as a stationary platform - time to
say Goodnight Gracie.

But the real problem is why the overrun. There's many possibilities and
realistic reactions:

1) Pure mismanagement - make an example and fire some management

2) Bad engineering estimates of what is technically feasible - make an
example fire some subsystem engineers. Some programs actualy think they can
schedule major technological breakthroughs. We should kill that culture.

3) Requirements creep - make an example fire some system engineers. Drop
some requirements and fly a cheaper mission.

4) Accepting the fact that we can independently let congress establish the
cost and the scientists establish the performance goals. Some programs
actually have firm requirements and goals that can be dropped when everyone
comes to their senses and realizes they're not attainable. Put the program
on unfunded hold and reevaluate the real cost prior to complete
cancellation.

The real problem for NASA is the government is slowly realizing that the tax
payers are sick of constant over runs - and NASA science is probably not a
high priority in the mind of the average tax payer. Not to mention NASAs
recent press releases - lots of Hipe and pure Ho Hum announcements. An
example: my neighbor, a high school teacher, mentioned that one of her
students said he heard NASA was soon to announce that they found other life
in the universe.

Things are going to get cut - and an overrun program and an agency that
makes stupid announcements is like a hand printed invitation.

Actually I really hope the mission is flown - but then I'm interested in
science and astronomy - makes me a member of a small minority (NASA doesn't
realize how small that minority really is). To keep these things happening
the project teams have to be a lot more realistic efficient and upfront
honest in the future.


Val Kraut

On Jan 31, 6:59*pm, "Val Kraut" wrote:
Seems simple cancel GRAIL - we've already cancelled the Constellation Lunar
Program so who really cares about further details in the lunar gravitational
field - let the Chinese and Indians fly that mission at their expense. We've
already taught China how to do orbital intercept techniques and made it a
better world for future space junk collectors.

Come to think of it - we're not going to Mars either - cancel this and
replace with a cheaper asteroid flyby or a flythrough the L1 point.

While we're at it - Rover is a operating as a stationary platform - time to
say Goodnight Gracie.

But the real problem is why the overrun. There's many possibilities and
realistic reactions:

1) Pure mismanagement - make an example and fire some management

2) Bad engineering estimates of what is technically feasible - make an
example fire some subsystem engineers. Some programs actualy think they can
schedule major technological breakthroughs. We should kill that culture.

3) Requirements creep - make an example fire some system engineers. Drop
some requirements and fly a cheaper mission.

4) Accepting the fact that we can independently let congress establish the
cost and the scientists establish the performance goals. Some programs
actually have firm requirements and goals that can be dropped when everyone
comes to their senses and realizes they're not attainable. Put the program
on unfunded hold and reevaluate the real cost prior to complete
cancellation.

The real problem for NASA is the government is slowly realizing that the tax
payers are sick of constant over runs - and NASA science is probably not a
high priority in the mind of the average tax payer. Not to mention NASAs
recent press releases - lots of Hipe and pure Ho Hum announcements. An
example: my neighbor, a high school teacher, mentioned that one of her
students said he heard NASA was soon to announce that they found other life
in the universe.

Things are going to get cut - and an overrun program and an agency that
makes stupid announcements is like a hand printed invitation.

Actually I really hope the mission is flown - but then I'm interested in
science and astronomy - makes me a member of a small minority (NASA doesn't
realize how small that minority really is). To keep these things happening
the project teams have to be a lot more realistic efficient and upfront
honest in the future.

* * * * * * Val Kraut

nasa being dumb has set itself up as a very easy target for tea party
budget cutters

nasa being dumb has set itself up as a very easy target for tea party
budget cutters

There's a Far Side cartoon that comes to mind. Two Deer - one has a target
on his chest, the other is saying - "Bummer of a Birthmark". So maybe
somehwhere in Pasadena they sell t-shirts with targets


Val Kraut

On Jan 31, 2:01*pm, " wrote:
On Jan 31, 3:24*pm, Brad Guth wrote:



On Jan 31, 12:18*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:

NASA?s Overbudget Mars Rover in Need of Another Cash Infusionhttp://www.spacenews.com/civil/110128-mars-rover-need-cash.html

From above:

* *NASA?s Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) mission needs an
* *$82 million cash infusion to maintain its late November
* *launch date after development of the $2.47 billion rover
* *exhausted program funding reserves last year, according
* *to agency officials.

Jeff
--
" Solids are a branch of fireworks, not rocketry. :-) :-) ", Henry
Spencer 1/28/2011

You mean NASA's borrowed loot needs more borrowed loot. *Kinda like a
3rd mortgage with yet another impressive balloon payment coming due.
The same problem of insufficient funding goes for their JWST that blew
through its budget years ago.

*http://translate.google.com/#
*Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

It makes me wonder if by some sort of miracle nasa were ordered Mars
in 10 or 15 years, 500 days on mars plus transit time.

could nasa do it? and how many trillions would it cost?

It appears nasa is less able to do stuff than it was back in the
beginning of tthe space age......

No doubt

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 14:01:40 -0800 (PST), "
wrote:


It appears nasa is less able to do stuff than it was back in the
beginning of tthe space age......

That applies to this country as a whole, not just NASA.

Brian

On Mon, 31 Jan 2011 18:59:29 -0500, "Val Kraut"
wrote:


Seems simple cancel GRAIL -

Not much money to save there, it has already been spent... GRAIL
launches September 8th.

Come to think of it - we're not going to Mars either

The Mars program predates Constellation, et al.

- cancel this and
replace with a cheaper asteroid flyby or a flythrough the L1 point.

While we're at it - Rover is a operating as a stationary platform - time to
say Goodnight Gracie.

Assuming we regain contact with Spirit, that is.

Brian

On Jan 31, 3:59*pm, "Val Kraut" wrote:
Seems simple cancel GRAIL - we've already cancelled the Constellation Lunar
Program so who really cares about further details in the lunar gravitational
field - let the Chinese and Indians fly that mission at their expense. We've
already taught China how to do orbital intercept techniques and made it a
better world for future space junk collectors.

Come to think of it - we're not going to Mars either - cancel this and
replace with a cheaper asteroid flyby or a flythrough the L1 point.

While we're at it - Rover is a operating as a stationary platform - time to
say Goodnight Gracie.

But the real problem is why the overrun. There's many possibilities and
realistic reactions:

1) Pure mismanagement - make an example and fire some management

2) Bad engineering estimates of what is technically feasible - make an
example fire some subsystem engineers. Some programs actualy think they can
schedule major technological breakthroughs. We should kill that culture.

3) Requirements creep - make an example fire some system engineers. Drop
some requirements and fly a cheaper mission.

4) Accepting the fact that we can independently let congress establish the
cost and the scientists establish the performance goals. Some programs
actually have firm requirements and goals that can be dropped when everyone
comes to their senses and realizes they're not attainable. Put the program
on unfunded hold and reevaluate the real cost prior to complete
cancellation.

The real problem for NASA is the government is slowly realizing that the tax
payers are sick of constant over runs - and NASA science is probably not a
high priority in the mind of the average tax payer. Not to mention NASAs
recent press releases - lots of Hipe and pure Ho Hum announcements. An
example: my neighbor, a high school teacher, mentioned that one of her
students said he heard NASA was soon to announce that they found other life
in the universe.

Things are going to get cut - and an overrun program and an agency that
makes stupid announcements is like a hand printed invitation.

Actually I really hope the mission is flown - but then I'm interested in
science and astronomy - makes me a member of a small minority (NASA doesn't
realize how small that minority really is). To keep these things happening
the project teams have to be a lot more realistic efficient and upfront
honest in the future.

* * * * * * Val Kraut

NASA boys always get unlimited do-overs, but unlike our Pentagon and a
few cloak and dagger agencies, they can't just print the necessary
loot.

An all-inclusive 250 million should have been sufficient for MSL, but
instead
our good buddies at JPL have their usual ten fold multiplier and
global
inflation to boot to thank for their 2.5 billion dollar target which
probably doesn't even include their fly-by-rocket mission transporter
or rent on any of the NASA infrastructure. Same reason why the
Pentagon's F-35s are probably going to run us 200 million each and
cost upwards of 100 thousand per hour to utilize.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”