I imagine that someone at NASA has thought of this, but perhaps the best way to handle MSL's "situation" would be to delay its launch until 2010. This extra year would allow the Assembly and Test of MSL to proceed at a safe pace.
You are right if you noticed that there is no Mars launch window in 2010. To get around this, MSL would be launched into a Solar Holding Orbit that would return it to Earth 1 year after launch. This Earth flyby would occur in the 2011 Mars window and the flyby would inject MSL into a trans-Mars trajectory.
This procedure was used by the Rosetta and Messenger spacecraft when they experienced launch delays. To avoid flying too close to the Sun in this holding orbit, the spacecraft's solar orbit incorporates an appropriate inclination to the Ecliptic. When the spacecraft returns to Earth after 1 year, the flyby takes out that inclination and transfers that orbital energy into a change in perihelion or aphelion.
The advantage of launching early and waiting a year in solar orbit comes down to cost. Rosetta's launch delay, of about 1 year, added about $100 million dollars to that project's cost. Another year's delay would have added another $100 million to the cost.
Therefore, let's remove the danger of speeding through Assembly and Test for MSL and target its launch for 2010. It should save a good amount of money over the alternative of waiting until 2011, assuming that MSL is ready to launch in 2010.

Another Phil

From the article referenced upthread:

"If the science lander is delayed, it could be launched in 2010 and parked in a solar orbit until 2011, when Mars is again in range of Earth, Green said."

Is this view based on anything except your opinion and reading of the media reports?

I would suggest that further discussion on this thread wait for the outcome of the NASA HQ review.

I dont know how much money can be saved by launching 1 year early and parking in a solar orbit - though it will probably be less likely that a mission is canceled after launch . Would an Earth flyby and its free delta-v allow for the use of a cheaper launch vehicle? My hinge is that it does not, otherwise that might have been the original mission design anyway. And increasing the payload has its downside for the landing on Mars.

I want to add a "couple" of considerations to the discussion:

- most of the people at JPL working on MSL worked on MER as well, and this includes management; I've read many harsh comments (not necessarily on this site) about mismanagement of the project and I think they are somewhat unfair: they imply either incompetence or malice and do not reflect the technical complexity of the mission, and how hard is to correctly cost a mission such as this years in advance

- the MERs went through the same kind of difficulties both technical and financial; I clearly remember people working their long hours in the testbed and in ATLO wondering if one or two of the rover would not have flown; or if they would have a job in the next few months; some of these young engineers later became the "stars" of the surface mission and now work on MSL; so I sincerely hope everyone working on MSL can keep their spirit up, and work the long hours necessary to make this project unsuccessful.

I do understand the concern that this overrun will reflect necessarily on other projects, and I will disappointed as any of you if that happens.

Good points. Both MER and Phoenix show what rovers and Scout missions can deliver, and Mars has this strange property of providing more scientific surprises than were expected. It could be reasoned that, if MERs didn't last so long and Phoenix didn't find perchlorates and carbonates, additional effort would have been needed anyway to produce that outcome. They aren't just returning high-brow science --they are rewriting high school textbooks.

JPL can be a pressure cooker. During casual conversation with JPL employees, I've heard stories more than once about how many marriages were ruined by Mars Pathfinder or MER. When these big projects go south, it's not uncommon for a fair number of people at JPL to get laid off (sort of like getting frog marched off of Mount Olympus). However it's all worth it in the end. There aren't many other jobs that enables one to brag to their grandchildren about putting something on the surface of Mars or on orbit around Saturn.

space.com article on the MSL "issues".

My guess is that MSL flies eventually, just because there is absolutely no guarantee that money saved by cancelling it would be directed into other Mars program activities. If I were the budgeteer handling this I suck every penny and dime from the rest of the program into the MSL account and make a pitch for the difference using that good faith demonstration. That means cancelling all work on MSR, cancelling MAVEN, cancelling the 2016 lander in favor of a cheaper orbiter (perhaps delayed until 2018), and cancelling MER continuing operations (at least Spirit). I'd also recommend pushing MSL to 2011 to make sure this thing flies right since there won't be a "next mission" coming down the pipe for a long time.

Oops, bordering on political there, better be careful.

Indeed - the rest of your post has been deleted - the no politics rule is not there to play with - Admin

MEDIA ADVISORY: M08-200

NASA TO PROVIDE MARS SCIENCE LABORATORY LAUNCH UPDATE

WASHINGTON -- NASA will host a media teleconference at 3 p.m. EDT,
Friday, Oct. 10, to brief reporters after a meeting held by the
agency's administrator concerning the Mars Science Laboratory, or
MSL. The meeting is to discuss technical and budget issues.

The briefing participants are:
- James Green, director of the Planetary Division in the Science
Mission Directorate at NASA Headquarters in Washington
- Doug McCuistion, director of the Mars Exploration Program at NASA
Headquarters
- Michael Meyer, Mars Program lead scientist at NASA Headquarters

I would say that the Title already state that MSL will not be cancelled...

I'd agree with that... whilst keeping my fingers crossed.

On a serious note here, whatever the bad news is later - and it is going to be bad news, of some sort - I know we are all desperate to see this mission fly, and are going to hate the thought of any delay, so the temptation will be to get all angry and indignant, but I really hope that - whatever the rights or wrongs of the process that has led MSL to this point - we as a forum will try to be supportive of the mission and the people behind it, some of whom I know read what we post here. It will be a dark day for them, with decisions being made Higher Up that will affect their careers possibly, and we don't need to make it worse for them, do we?

Everyone please bear in mind the "No Politics" rule when the news breaks, and just, well, try to be respectful and supportive, that's all I'm suggesting.

I fully agree Stu. You say the right worlds. May be you remember this topic: http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.p...ic=3765&hl= when I met the whole EDL team at LA airport. They are very motivated people and I guess, not only EDL people.

NASA TV doesn't seem to be carrying the press conference... I hope that's a good sign. *fingers crossed*

Edit: live streaming audio here, allegedly, though it's not working for me:
http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html