Odyssey and MER Budgets Cut |
Odyssey and MER Budgets Cut |
Mar 24 2008, 09:11 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 3 Joined: 12-March 08 Member No.: 4062 |
Just found out today at a MER all-hands meeting that both MER and Odyssey will each be suffering an immediate $4 million budget cut to help defray the cost of MSL. Read more here: http://martianchronicles.wordpress.com/200...rs-budget-cuts/
|
|
|
Mar 25 2008, 05:05 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2542 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
I would argue that Odyssey is far more likely to yield more good science than either of the rovers, which will be lucky to go a few more km and which have pretty much already exhausted the capabilities of their payloads to find anything more out about the landing sites (barring some unpredictable serendipitous discovery.)
But, as usual, the orbiter missions are "boring" and the rovers aren't. Though this budget business is the only rover news I can remember getting any media attention for quite a while (years?) -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Mar 25 2008, 12:26 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Merciless Robot Group: Admin Posts: 8785 Joined: 8-December 05 From: Los Angeles Member No.: 602 |
But, as usual, the orbiter missions are "boring" and the rovers aren't. The Odyssey cuts are equally nonsensical. Given the long lead time, big money and assumed risk required just to get an interplanetary spacecraft where it needs to be, it makes absolutely no sense to me to shut one down or intentionally limit its operations unless the vehicle's capabilities are severely impaired. Annual operating costs are trivial compared to the level of effort & expenditure needed to get them there in the first place. I find it appalling that Odyssey & the MERs are apparently suffering for their superb reliability and longevity. Sure, these days we can always build something better after the fact, but the transportation lag and inherent risks of getting there at all (as well as the capricious nature of developmental efforts/funding) sure as hell reinforces the old chestnut about a bird in the hand being worth two in the bush. Moreover, if shutdowns of operational spacecraft becomes an acceptable practice, what sort of message are we sending to the contractors that build them? "Make it work for *** days...no more?" That's a slippery slope; planned obsolescence has no place at all in UMSF. Likewise, project team members probably would not find the prospect of abitrarily limited term employment appealing enough to stay on...it's gotta be brutal anyhow hoping that their babies stay alive as long as it takes to pay the bills & find another project willing to take you on after this one's done. Disregarding human factors in this system is extremely perilous. -------------------- A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 27th September 2024 - 06:33 AM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE COPYRIGHT |
OPINIONS AND MODERATION Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators. |
SUPPORT THE FORUM Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member. |