As long as NASA exists in a world of limited resources, efficient allocation of those resources is critical. A few thoughts.

First, Dawn and Messenger's experiences (and I guess Kepler as well...I didn't realize they had blown their cost cap that badly Bruce) bring into question the entire Discovery program. Don't fall into the "sunk cost fallacy." The cost-benefit analysis to go forward with Dawn has to include both the funding stream to Dawn in future years as well as the consequences for the rest of the program. We have at least one "nearly complete spacecraft" sitting on the ground right now--Triana--and I don't hear much call from anyone for THAT to be launched.

Second, I think it should be fairly obvious that tight cost constraints on a mission will decrease both the science return (as had occured extensively during the Dawn mission planning) as well as the risk the mission will return very limited data due to a technical fault.

Third, I disagree with you about Deep Impact. There should be no expectation of extended missions on Discovery-class missions. The flaws in that spacecraft truly make me question the value of it going forward.

The Discovery effort is suffering from Goldin's insistence on asking for too much from the limited funds available. I hope they choose achievable missions for the next competititon or I fear it will be the last one.

Bamboo. You want to spread life through the universe, fly bamboo shoots on penetrators!

This mission has had nothing but problems. The major descope and now this. Given the small reserve they used to get it in under the Discovery cap, and the technical challenge of the mission, the lack of budget margins has really bitten it hard.

What really concerns me is that the the talking points from JPL make no sense. The standdown cannot be due to Lab layoffs as the contract would surely have funded sufficient FTEs to do the job. And the report of the investigative team indicates this is about a bit more than budgets.

Now, I've been on the wrong end of an federal department investigation, so I'm somewhat cynical about the process. But this would not be happening is, for good reasons or bad, high up folks in NASA did not have significant concerns about Dawn's prospects for success.

Best one yet! Thumbs up on the subtitles and colorization!

According to Nasawatch, OMB has asked for the costs involved in shutting the shuttle down in FY 2006.

So, it's definitely an option that is being considered. Frankly, given the delays in the Re-Return To Flight, it sure makes a lot of sense to divert the money to accelerated CEV development.

I love the rovers, don't get me wrong...but give three moderately competent geology grad students two weeks in Gusev Crater or Meridiani and they would have collected an order of magnitude more data than the rovers. Robotic missions make a lot of sense...but there will come a day when the questions we will want to ask, and the amount of data we will want to gather, simply cannot be addressed with a robotic mission, particularly one with a massive communications lag.

In the JPL lecture last night, the speaker said that they thought home plate might be "evaporite."

Very, very nice!

So, NASA is proposing to send a billion$+ mission that is going to depend on an 8-year old spacecraft as its only effective communications link?

Yeah, right. This is the same as a cancellation if it happens.

Killing the magentometer seems like a particularly bad idea right now....

Hm. Observe the shadow on only one rim of the elongated crater. It may be an optical illusion, showing an ellipsoidal shape due to the angle of the moon in that location.

These are the views that show Mars as a real place...views that you can imagine yourself seeing IRL.

Bruce, I really wonder about that. I really think Phoenix, while a cool mission, will sudder from the MER comparison and cause a lot of people to sit back and say "No immobile missions anymore."

I agree..but I also think we're going to find it very bittersweet when we can't look over that rise 15 meters away....

Pitcher's mound is looking a lot less like a cinder cone and a lot more like a mesa....

Honestly, I'm utterly unconvinced about the value of the Mars plane proposals. I just don't see the science return as coming close to justifying the risk in the inherent designs.

Interesting on how sensitive SCIM might be to variations in Mars' atmosphere.

What about SCIM? That seemed like a really interesting concept...and being able to fully characterize the dust of the Martian atmosphere will be critical....

My feeling as well.

Looks like an in-filled crater to me....

My physics teacher made up a batch of this on a sheet of paper. As he was shifting the sheet, it blew...BIG sound, BIG purple cloud of smoke!

My sense, and it only a sense, is that there may also be a larger quanitity of the concretions in the matrix than would have been expected earlier in the mission.

Sol 680

At what mass will a body have a differentiated core?

I wonder if a size+orbital mechanics might not be a way to proceed. It strikes me that the inclination/highly elliptical nature of the orbits of the TNO class will end up being one of the key elements of differentiation. Set Pluto as an lower limit for mass and size, but also require that they be within a certain number of degrees within the solar plane AND that their orbits be no more elliptical than Pluto's if they are to be considered planets.

Ah, my mistake...it is Shuttle_RTF. The +4 second event doesn't look important at this stage, apparently....