NASA Reconsiders DAWN Mission Cancellation 56
amstrad writes "Last month, NASA decided to cancel the DAWN mission to Ceres and Vesta citing 'technical difficulties' and 'budget overrun'. Monday, NASA released a statement reinstating the mission." From the article: "The decision to cancel Dawn was made March 2, 2006, after about $257 million already had been spent. An additional expenditure of about $14 million would have been required to terminate the project. The reinstatement resulted from a review process that is part of new management procedures established by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin. The process is intended to help ensure open debate and thorough evaluation of major decisions regarding space exploration and agency operations."
Impressive (Score:2)
I see (Score:5, Funny)
Termination fee (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Termination fee (Score:2)
Re:Termination fee (Score:3, Informative)
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:1)
Someone like Bill Gates who the rank & file can identify with as "one of us" but with extraordinary leadership ability. Not someone like Steve Ballmer who may have the business smarts, but can't relate to the masses.
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:1)
What good is theoretical physics for if you can't compare the theories with experimental results?
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:1)
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:1)
What good is theoretical physics for if you can't compare the theories with experimental results?
It gives the Young Earth Creationists the out "they can't prove any of this stuff." I'm convinced that's part of the government's motive in slashing NASA exploration.
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:3)
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:1)
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:2)
uhh... (Score:1)
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:4, Insightful)
Bill and Ball release stuff late, charge too much, and even when it's released, their stuff crashes all the time. NOT what NASA needs.
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:1)
Given Mr. De Raadt's penchant for calling people "retarded", I'd love to be privy to his first meeting with the President. Bush'd probably take it as a compliment until an aide whispered in his ear.
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:2)
-nB
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:1)
Re:Sometimes you need an egomaniac (Score:1)
Ceres and Vesta (Score:2)
The way we are going humans will be landing on asteroids long before we have a go at flying a mission to mars. The reason is that it is just too hard to reliably launch from mars with hardware and consumables you have shipped from Earth.
Yes, I know you can use ISRU but the whole thing is so dogy with forseeable technology. So my bet is with a landing on a smaller near Earth asteroid, followed by expeditions to the main belt. Recent missions like NEAR have paved the way and I hope DAWN continues the effort.
Sometimes an ax over your head works wonders... (Score:5, Interesting)
In other words, threat of having their project canceled scared the team into getting their shit together and their project under control.
I've got to say, so far I'm impressed with Griffin's leadership. He does seem to have a knack of getting the results he's after.
Re:Sometimes an ax over your head works wonders... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sometimes an ax over your head works wonders... (Score:2)
Dawn deserved to die (Score:1)
Maybe the problems have been solved, maybe not, but these still stand:
The hardware is over 15 years old and troublesome. The original proposal and cost savings in funding this mission is that it reused hardware from a previous mission. That proposal was 9 years ago!
Ion engines don't work well past mars. The mission takes over 9 years, because of that. The Dawn folk have the gall to pr this "as an extended test of the ion engine technology.
Re:Dawn deserved to die (Score:2)
Sounds prudent. Use technology that is known to work. Except, of course, it ends up that it didn't work in the first place.
Ion engines don't work well past mars. The mission takes over 9 years, because of that. The Dawn folk have the gall to pr this "as an extended test of the ion engine technology."
You mi
Science making a comeback? (Score:1)
It sounds as if NASA has been having some success at 'pushing back' against the Bush administration's reluctance to fund Science.
Recent embarassment over inflicting political spin on scientific findings may have given NASA a little budgetary leeway.
There is slightly more detail in this article [chron.com]at the Houston Chronicle.
Re:Science making a comeback? (Score:1)
Re:Nice lie! (Score:2, Interesting)
1) He cut NASA's budget by a third his first 3 years in office. Not until we invaded Iraq did it recieve any re-funding, and even then the new funds were earmarked for use in military technologies - not NASA's area in the first place. NASA had to use that money to support launching of military satelites and whatnot. To this day, NASA's budget is lessthan 80% of what it was when Bill Clinton left office. And that's 80% not adjusting for inflation or time, which means it's around 72% of what
Re:Nice lie! (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget [wikipedia.org]
For specifics, look at the numbers at the bottom.
>1) He cut NASA's budget by a third his first 3 years in office.
False, see the chart above.
>Not until we invaded Iraq did it recieve any re-funding, and even
>then the new funds were earmarked for use in military technologies -
>not NASA's area in the first place. NASA had to use that money to
>support launching of military satelites and whatnot.
False. NASA doesn't launch the vast majority of military satellites and hasn't in quite some time. The military buys launch vehicles from aerospace constractors like Boeing and Lock-Mart and they're launched from Air Force stations.
>To this day, NASA's budget is lessthan 80% of what it was when Bill
>Clinton left office. And that's 80% not adjusting for inflation or
>time, which means it's around 72% of what it was after adjustments.
False; see the chart above. While NASA's budget in 1996 dollars is still not as high as it was under the highest level of Clinton's era, it's still higher than it was the last few years of Clinton's tenure, including when he left office. If you look closely, you can see Clinton was the one who was cutting NASA down from the recent highs it enjoyed under the 4 years of Bush I. This was mostly Space Station cuts... taking Freedom, which was becoming way more expensive than anyone wanted to pay, and saddling us with the ugly albatross of the ISS.
I believe the CPI for the past few years has also been lower than projected, so NASA's budget has actually done even better, but I'm not 100% sure on that particular point.
Bruce
Re:Nice lie! (Score:2)
Nasa's never going to put a colony on the Moon or Mars or anywhere. They're just going to suck, until they go bankrupt. Just look at the ISS. Look at it. It sucks!
Sure, they'll put a few probes out there, and run a few experiments. But we'll probably get more valuable science on the ground at a fraction the price from various other organizations that don't suck.
Trial balloon (Score:2)
It sounds as if NASA has been having some success at 'pushing back' against the Bush administration's reluctance to fund Science.
Under the Bush administration planetary science has undergone a golden age. To say they are anti-science is foolish. The NASA budget is a zero sum game. Fully funding the Dawn mission will take away from other more important uses of the money, like CEV development. My guess is the Dawn cancellation was a trial balloon floated by Mr. Griffin in order to obtain some budget relie
Do I get this right? (Score:2)
Sounds like they can't afford NOT to fly.
$14,000,000! (Score:1)
Re:$14,000,000! (Score:1)
Z.
Re:$14,000,000! (Score:3)
Most unmanned probes do not use nuclear fuel, DAWN is one of them and will use solar panels.
Re:$14,000,000! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:$14,000,000! (Score:1)
Re:$14,000,000! (Score:2)
It's very common for the government to spend say $100M per year of some project and then one yearcongres wants to save $100M so they cut the project (and waste the $500M already spent) this is so common that everyone who does bus
Dupe, surely (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Dupe, surely (Score:1)
Keeping spacestation safe for Russion tourists... (Score:1, Troll)
It's probably way too hopeful... (Score:2)
Sun May Come Up Tomorrow After All! (Score:4, Funny)
managers these days.. (Score:1)