NASA Dawn asteroid mission told to ‘stand down’ |
NASA Dawn asteroid mission told to ‘stand down’ |
Nov 7 2005, 03:55 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 370 Joined: 12-September 05 From: France Member No.: 495 |
NASA Dawn Asteroid Mission Told To ‘Stand Down’ .
The decision to stand down, according to SPACE.com sources, appears related to budget-related measures and workforce cutbacks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California. http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/051107_dawn_qown.html Rakhir |
|
|
Guest_BruceMoomaw_* |
Jan 23 2006, 08:38 AM
Post
#2
|
Guests |
That possibility was discussed at the November COMPLEX meeting where I first heard that Dawn would be put in a stand-down mode -- and it was quickly dismissed by Andy Dantzler on the grounds that changing Dawn to a one-asteroid mission would only very slightly lower its cost. Its science payload has also been whittled down to an absolute minimum.
I do wonder, though, whether it might be possible to augment its previous budget with the $35 million that goes to the next Discovery Mission of Opportunity, allowing it to fly after all, albeit late. NASA might be amenable to this way out of the problem, given how close the craft is to completion. I intend to look into this. |
|
|
Jan 23 2006, 02:36 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 242 Joined: 21-December 04 Member No.: 127 |
QUOTE (BruceMoomaw @ Jan 23 2006, 08:38 AM) I do wonder, though, whether it might be possible to augment its previous budget with the $35 million that goes to the next Discovery Mission of Opportunity, allowing it to fly after all, albeit late. NASA might be amenable to this way out of the problem, given how close the craft is to completion. I intend to look into this. Bruce, to me the question really is whether the NASA managers for DAWN feel any confidence that the contractor running the project can even tell them what the overrun is going to me to complete the project. I can't speak to the technical side of it, but it is pretty clear the budgeting assumptions used in the proposal were way ouf of whack with reality. Right now we have an almost completed spacecraft...but that is a sunk cost. How much is on the table: 1) There will be funds left in the project budget category for completion of the spacecraft and operations. 2) NASA has got to fund the launch for the bird...how much is that? The launch cost could easily be moved into the next Discovery mission and that would help accelerate the following mission. |
|
|
Jan 24 2006, 01:28 AM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
QUOTE (gpurcell @ Jan 23 2006, 06:36 AM) Bruce, to me the question really is whether the NASA managers for DAWN feel any confidence that the contractor running the project can even tell them what the overrun is going to me to complete the project. I can't speak to the technical side of it, but it is pretty clear the budgeting assumptions used in the proposal were way ouf of whack with reality. This will be one to watch: Clearly, with a nearly-completed craft, Dawn represents a better bang for the (additional) buck than starting some new mission from scratch. But this sends out the bad message that haunts bureaucracies: What will stop the next Discovery proposals from targeting a science/dollar value that matches the Dawn standard (spend all you're allowed, then a little more). A sadistically punitive answer is to give the spacecraft to some other PIs to fly. That gets the mission in the air for not much (additional) money, but doesn't give anyone an incentive to try to duplicate this scenario in future Discovery proposals. But taking the craft from the rightful owners, if legal (?), may introduce operational showstoppers, apart from being somewhat loathsome ethically. This isn't Stalin's space program... At the same time, giving the original team extra money is problematic. If the project is being, in any sense, re-funded, I would just as soon see some of the downscoped original goals being reinstated... |
|
|
Jan 24 2006, 10:57 PM
Post
#5
|
|
IMG to PNG GOD Group: Moderator Posts: 2251 Joined: 19-February 04 From: Near fire and ice Member No.: 38 |
QUOTE (JRehling @ Jan 24 2006, 01:28 AM) A sadistically punitive answer is to give the spacecraft to some other PIs to fly. That gets the mission in the air for not much (additional) money, but doesn't give anyone an incentive to try to duplicate this scenario in future Discovery proposals. But taking the craft from the rightful owners, if legal (?), may introduce operational showstoppers, apart from being somewhat loathsome ethically. This isn't Stalin's space program... I wonder if something similar to Mars 2003/Phoenix might be possible, i.e. canceling the mission and then someone (possibly some other PI) might propose flying a modified version of this thing a few years from now. One problem with not canceling Dawn is the fact that this really isn't the same mission as it was when it was selected. The magnetometer and laser altimeter have been dropped so it is possible that some of the mission against which Dawn originally was competitively selected really are better than Dawn in its present form. So flying Dawn without these instruments might be unfair to these missions. |
|
|
Jan 25 2006, 02:59 AM
Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2530 Joined: 20-April 05 Member No.: 321 |
QUOTE (Bjorn Jonsson @ Jan 24 2006, 02:57 PM) I wonder if something similar to Mars 2003/Phoenix might be possible, i.e. canceling the mission and then someone (possibly some other PI) might propose flying a modified version of this thing a few years from now. One problem with not canceling Dawn is the fact that this really isn't the same mission as it was when it was selected. The magnetometer and laser altimeter have been dropped so it is possible that some of the mission against which Dawn originally was competitively selected really are better than Dawn in its present form. So flying Dawn without these instruments might be unfair to these missions. Note, though, that the Phoenix craft was a JPL mission, so it's not quite the same thing. Some personal career glory would have ensued from the mission, even a lot, but it was a Fed project first and foremost. And Phoenix is a significant reworking of it, to say the least. And the original was grounded for a nonbudgetary reason. I'm so eager to see the laser altimeter fly that any prospect to have the mission be eventually reworked to include it has appeal of its own. Incidentally, what are the specs on a Ceres/Vesta trajectory should this launch window be missed? It would take a number of years for Vesta to catch back up to Ceres, but perhaps a very different flightplan could be used, even switching the order of which asteroid was visited first. I also wonder with this mission if a third or even fourth flyby could fit in if additional budget were available. Imagine that Dawn is placed on the shelf and a Discovery proposal to use the craft asks for full Discovery funding, from the starting point of having that craft as a freebie. No other mission could compete, and the new mission could be rather ambitious, given the added funding. There may be an engineering cap on delta-v, but perhaps restoring the two lost instruments could go along with a more ambitious mission in that target-rich belt. |
|
|
Jan 25 2006, 09:07 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2488 Joined: 17-April 05 From: Glasgow, Scotland, UK Member No.: 239 |
I really hope that Dawn flies, and reasonably soon - but a surprising number of spacecraft built in various countries have reached even beyond this stage and just not been flown. Until the thing is on the pad...
(sigh) Bob Shaw -------------------- Remember: Time Flies like the wind - but Fruit Flies like bananas!
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 17th June 2024 - 05:43 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. |