NASA Dawn asteroid mission told to ‘stand down’ Options

[ljk4-1]

It's at http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hr2862...09_hr2862cr.htm .  (Note also the order to NASA to initiate Europa Orbiter in FY 2007, and to bolster spending for SIM and the Sun-Earth Connection missions.  But also note the staggering $280 million in Congressional pork -- er, earmarks.)

Is that the same Europa Orbiter that was cancelled in 2003? Or is this a new concept? And will it have some sort of lander with it?

And how will this jive with VSE?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

It's a decidedly souped-up version with a much bigger science payload, made possible by the decision to use inner-planet gravity-assist flybys to reach Jupiter (why these were rejected for the original Europa Orbiter is one of the great mysteries of our time). There may or may not be enough of a mass margin to add a small piggyback lander -- in fact, that was one of the major subjects of the COMPLEX meeting, although the question was still wide open at the end of the meeting. It really depends on whether we can cram enough science onto such a small lander to be be worthwhile, as opposed to other uses for the same weight (more orbiter instruments, more radiation shielding to allow a longer lifetime at Europa, a higher bit rate, etc.) But the initial work on its design can be found at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jun_05_meetin...ssion_Study.pdf and http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jun_05_meetin..._Trace_OPAG.pdf .

And, yes, the funding does take NASA's new funding problems into consideration -- except for Katrina, whose final effects nobody is sure of at this point. They really are talking about a start in FY 2007 and a launch around 2012.

[tedstryk]

I really hope this takes off. I mean, after New Horizons, there are no missions to study the outer planets except the relatively small-scale Juno. Continuity is a good thing.

[ljk4-1]

D A W N ' S E A R L Y L I G H T November 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The eighth issue of the Dawn team newsletter, Dawn's Early Light, has been
posted on the Dawn website. Follow the links below to
view individual articles, or obtain the formatted pdf version. We look forward
to obtaining your feedback.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dawn Mission Status

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett...dawnstatus.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dawn Instruments are Delivered to Orbital

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett.../delivered.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ceres Results Published in Nature

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett...1117/ceres.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Email List Signup Instructions:

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett...117/signup.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Printable version of this newsletter (PDF format): To obtain a
formatted printable version of the newsletter, follow this link

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett...df/20051117.pdf

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Dawn mission has been selected as NASA's ninth Discovery
mission to be launched in June 2006 to orbit both Vesta and Ceres. This list has
been established to keep members of the scientific
community informed about the Dawn mission.

Dawn's Early Light is published on an occasional basis and
distributed electronically. To contribute material or query the
team, email us at dawnnews@igpp.ucla.edu.

Editor: Carol A. Raymond, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Word now is that D-Day for the report on whether to delay or cancel Dawn is Jan. 20: http://www.lacanadaonline.com/articles/200...ws-dawn1117.txt .

[mars loon]

After reading Squyres' "Roving Mars," I want to remind y'all that this is exactly what *almost* happened to the MERs.  They had some pretty impressive technical hurdles to overcome, with an ATLO that came together on a wing and a prayer.  Add just one more major technical issue to overcome, and the MERs would have been forced to stand down for a late 2004 / early 2005 launch opportunity.

Just a reminder that trouble -- even serious trouble -- encountered in ATLO doesn't necessarily mean that the mission will go badly.  It just means that they're working out all the bugs at the right time, on the ground when there's still a chance of fixing them...

-the other Doug

Well said. Fix the bugs and lets launch this exciting mission.

Had we listened to the naysayers, Spirit wouldnt be celebrating the triumph on top of the Husband Hill Summit and Oppy wouldnt be on course for Victoria Crater

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The trouble with blithely doing this for Dawn is that -- unlike the MERs -- it was accepted as the result of a competition in which one of the supposed central ground rules for the proposing teams is that you do NOT exceed the maximum possible cost that you stated in your proposal without getting cancelled. Allow a mission to seriously break this rule, and you open the gates of Hell: EVERY team will deliberately understate its mission's real cost, and then look innocently amazed when they tell you that they need lots more money than they thought, and that they're sure you'll provide it...

It may have been a mistake to decide to break this rule for Messenger, and in fact NASA did so only after considerable wrangling. They've already broken it much more seriously for Dawn -- they'll fly it, albeit delayed, even if it undergoes a cost cap overrun of fully 1/3. But no higher. Nor should they -- and maybe they shouldn't fly it even if the cost doesn't go that high.

By the way, Kepler has also totally shattered its cost cap -- its cost is now $500 million. However, as Andy Dantzler told us, that's now the problem of the Universe Division -- which now has custody of the Kepler project, and which has already decided to adopt Kepler as a "Strategic" mission that is therefore immune from the Discovery cost-cancellation rule.

[mars loon]

The trouble with blithely doing this for Dawn is that -- unlike the MERs -- it was accepted as the result of a competition in which one of the supposed central ground rules for the proposing teams is that you do NOT exceed the maximum possible cost that you stated in your proposal without getting cancelled.  Allow a mission to seriously break this rule, and you open the gates of Hell: EVERY team will deliberately understate its mission's real cost, and then look innocently amazed when they tell you that they need lots more money than they thought, and that they're sure you'll provide it...

It may have been a mistake to decide to break this rule for Messenger, and in fact NASA did so only after considerable wrangling.  They've already broken it much more seriously for Dawn -- they'll fly it, albeit delayed, even if it undergoes a cost cap overrun of fully 1/3.  But no higher.  Nor should they -- and maybe they shouldn't fly it even if the cost doesn't go that high.

By the way, Kepler has also totally shattered its cost cap -- its cost is now $500 million.  However, as Andy Dantzler told us, that's now the problem of the Universe Division -- which now has custody of the Kepler project, and which has already decided to adopt Kepler as a "Strategic" mission that is therefore immune from the Discovery cost-cancellation rule.

While your point on cost caps is valid, you have so enlarged it that I respecfully disagree with your point of view.

Science, not bean counting should be the driving force in these decisions!!!

It makes no sense to have a nearly complete spacecraft sit on the ground vs. launched to make ground breaking discoveries especially in light of the new Ceres Observations by Hubble.

It also makes no sense to "mothball" Deep Impact, which thankfully may now proceed with a follow on target

Finally, great news about the Europa Orbiter, thats long overdue. As is a follow-up to Cassini-Huygens

[gpurcell]

While your point on cost caps is valid, you have so enlarged it that I respecfully disagree with your point of view. 

Science, not bean counting should be the driving force in these decisions!!!

It makes no sense to have a nearly complete spacecraft sit on the ground vs. launched to make ground breaking discoveries especially in light of the new Ceres Observations by Hubble.

It also makes no sense to "mothball" Deep Impact, which thankfully may now proceed with a follow on target 

Finally, great news about the Europa Orbiter, thats long overdue.    As is a follow-up to Cassini-Huygens

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.

[ljk4-1]

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.

What were Deep Impact's flaws, other than the fact that everyone seemed to think that the impact crater would somehow be clear of debris right away so that the flyby probe could image into the comet?

How much will it cost to send DI to another celestial body? What science can it accomplish?

[tedstryk]

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.

I don't think Triana can be compared to DAWN. Triana is so tied to Al Gore that it was a victim of politics. I don't think DAWN has a political affiliation.

[Mariner9]

A bit of history here. NASA tried in the 1980s to get a Planetary Observer (if I recall the name correctly) program going, which resembled the Discovery program in scope and budget. But at that time Congress just didn't trust NASA on it's planetary missions... they had a way of growing bigger and bigger after approval.

Somehow NASA managed to convince Congress to go with the Discovery Program in about 1993. There were several aspects of Discovery that we all know so well: cost constraints (150 million for the spacecraft and mission in those days, exclusive of the launch vehicle cost if I recall). Plus the missions were competitively selected. And thirdly, something we don't discuss much these days, individual Discovery missions essentially were not approved by Congressional action. Congress gave NASA essentially a line item, an annual budget, and left it up to NASA to figure out how to spend it.

This was unprecedented for planetary missions. Previously each mission was a hard fought battle to gain approval. And two things had happened about the same time in the 70s. Each mission was approved furthur and furthur apart (so we were getting fewer missions) and each mission was tending to grow larger in size. This occured largely because the powers that be felt that since there were few missions, it was best to get as much as possilbe out of each one. The second factor was that after Viking a lot of the scientific community had it in their heads that from here on out missions should all be like Viking in scope. Or such was the feeling of Robert Kraemer, directory of planetary missions in the 70s.

So Congress gave NASA permission to shape their own destiny on Discovery. And since Discovery worked so well, we now have New Fronteirs. But if Discovery missions start to revert to the old ways of "oops, the cost just went up 25%" I'd think there was a serious risk that Congress would start to question the wisdom of it all and start to take away some of the authoirty NASA gained in Discovery and New Fronteirs.

So.... I'm hoping Dawn flies. I really like that mission. But I can see NASA getting worried about forgiving two missions in a row on cost over runs. There is a risk here.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

There sure is. To repeat: let ANY mission get away with that, and everyone else will also want it (as with the Epicure Dining at Crewe who found Quite A Large Mouse in his Stew). Our concern must be not for flying any ONE mission, but for making sure the Discovery Program as a whole properly succeeds -- which it can't if it allows incorrect or downright fraudulent cost estimates when it's selecting the damn missions in the first place. (Dantzler sounded downright exasperated when he was talking about how the Kepler team have been allowed to get away with their own huge cost overrun -- but, as he said, "It's not my problem anymore.")

[Holder of the Tw...]

Does anyone know how much DAWN saved, in dollar figures, by deleting the laser ranger and magnetometer? If possible, I'd be curious as to the cost savings for each one individually.

[JRehling]

There sure is.  To repeat: let ANY mission get away with that, and everyone else will also want it (as with the Epicure Dining at Crewe who found Quite A Large Mouse in his Stew).  Our concern must be not for flying any ONE mission, but for making sure the Discovery Program as a whole properly succeeds -- which it can't if it allows incorrect or downright fraudulent cost estimates when it's selecting the damn missions in the first place.

Yep. Letting a mission get away with this seriously is like letting some athletes use steroids, because it would be a shame to keep such a fine physical specimen from being in the game. What you do with that decision is eliminate the rule. And in the mission-over-budget case, you eliminate the budget.

Incidentally, an enormous number of projects, often governmentally funded, have gotten to break the rule. Examples are rampant -- Army tanks, Air Force fighters, Massachusetts freeways. The end result is almost certainly more harmful than is made up for with the good of one tank, one fighter, one tunnel. Dawn is a nice mission if it happens, but it's not worth killing the Discovery program over. Because the next time around, you'd have someone promising Venus sample return under a $400mm cap, winning the competition, then saying "Oops" when they run over that before the thing is 1/10 built.