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 26 2008, 06:33 PM
Post
#2
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14434 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
Having done that - here's my thoughts.
Funding a Mars 'program' is , I think, not quite fair. The case in point is clear here. MSL has had budget issues. Now - to be fair, so did MER, but that's spent cash now. Why should the current budget growth of MSL reflect as a punishment on Odyssey and MER? I know 'life isn't fair' - but Odyssey and MER are big success stories, with more to come and the budget problems of another mission shouldn't impact that. However, missions HAVE to be accountable. But, you can't exactly scrap a $1B mission when I'd imagine most (more than half I'd guess) of the cash is already spent. But neither can it spend without implications. And I just don't think it's fair to steal from the pockets of other missions currently flying. The only way I can see it really working is if there is an overrun- you then have to look at future missions, and rescope / descope / delay / cancel them. To look sideways and cull from current missions just doesn't seem right, and nor is it fair to clump together multiple missions ( i.e. Mars program, discovery program ) and punish others from that 'clump' for the errors on a different mission. Funding for extensions is hard. I've spoken to David Southwood in person about the struggle to fund new missions at ESA when MEX, VEX, XMM-Newton, integral, Cluster etc etc are all needing extended mission funds. And while new is always good, it's also criminal to cull an active, scientifically productive mission where all the risk is just about sunk and you KNOW what your extra money will get. As for the argument of how much to spend on certain fields of interest - I think there's a certain level of bigger picture to be had there. Currently we can do 30cm/pixel, 4 Mbits orbiters at Mars, and (hopefully) 20km+ rovers with movie cameras and amazing laboratories. Part of me thinks that actually, whilst it's always true to say that the technology will be better tomorrow (like buying a new laptop for example) - targets such as Neptune and Uranus could do with a decade or two further development so that when we return there, we do so knowing it'll probably be the only trip for half a century, and it better be damn good as a result. But whilst it would be nice to have a 'scheme' on how to fund, who to fund and when - such a system is basically the net result of scientific taste. Who's to say that the scientific calling of one body get's an 'A' over another body getting a 'B'. Guess what, the scientists with an interest in each will say each is the most important. And how much does our technically ability to investigate those sites play a role. I prefer TE over the other flagship missions. Why? Because I like Titan. That's just about it. Does it offer better science than the others? No. It's different science - and I don't think it's even possible to say what better is. It probably offers MORE science though. But then, we don't KNOW what the science if going to be. So, do we do the easiest mission? No - because half (imho) the benefit of these missions is the engineering progress they make - and a mission should be considered good for having engineering challenges that are good challenges, but manageable challenges (MPF for example). Trying to manage all that, well, it'd be enough to make you quit your job. Oops. Doug |
|
|
Mar 28 2008, 09:07 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
The problem with a scarcity of resources is that it means that unfairness is a given. It's a question of what unfairness will happen, not if.
There's nothing about the existence of Europa/Titan that automatically makes the other one less interesting. But one of them is going to bump the other in the queue. I have a fetishistic glee in momentarily considering the attention that X would get if it were the only other world in the solar system. If only Earth and Pallas, or only Earth and Uranus orbited Sol, there would be feverish interest in exploring this one other world. It would be contemplated with almost philosophical wonder. Literature would celebrate it as an alternate Earth. (This implicitly did happen with the Moon in the Sixties, when it became the only other world in clear focus.) When the many-ness of solar system worlds leads to inevitable decreases of attention to those places. The problems with coming up with a mechanism for prioritization are: 1) A lack of disinterested parties. This is common in politics. The mayor has personal investments in X. The people who can best advise you on the oil business get paychecks from the oil business. 2) There is no real bottom line in space science. Pick any world you like, and I can depict a future for you in which we utterly ignore its exploration, for the benefit of exploring the other worlds, and there is no tangible consequence. (Until the day we have to move off-planet in massive space arks.) If you have a clear set of guidelines, you can cut through #2. I don't think we see a lot of that out of NASA. That's the problem with the tenuous connection between political support and funding. Rah-rah stands that are "for" everything are the main alternative to apathy. But it doesn't drive prioritization. If someone makes astrobiology very clearly the main purpose, or the #2 purpose, or the #12 purpose, of space exploration, then a lot of decisions get easy. As long as it's hazily defined, we'll have wars. Of course, it's not the only such issue, but one of the big ones now. |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 25th September 2024 - 08:26 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. |