MAX-C/ExoMars, Dual NASA/ESA rovers slated for 2018 launch |
MAX-C/ExoMars, Dual NASA/ESA rovers slated for 2018 launch |
Apr 22 2011, 09:16 AM
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 18-December 07 From: New York Member No.: 3982 |
$1.2 B sounds like New Frontiers 5 instead of a Flagship Mission.
Edit: NF-6, not NF-5. |
|
|
Apr 22 2011, 01:53 PM
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 706 Joined: 22-April 05 Member No.: 351 |
$1.2 B sounds like New Frontiers 5 instead of a Flagship Mission. ESA would invest another ~$1.2B plus NASA would pay for the launch worth perhaps $2-300M. Together that's more than $2.5B, at a New Frontiers investment level for each space agency. -------------------- |
|
|
Apr 22 2011, 03:14 PM
Post
#33
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14431 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
|
|
|
Apr 22 2011, 07:11 PM
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 18-December 07 From: New York Member No.: 3982 |
This is going a little off topic so I apologize.
What I meant was that none of the Flagship missions coming out of the decadal come anywhere close to $1.2B. (The least expensive being the Enceladus Orbiter at $1.9B.) I think it's more likely that they'll choose a fifth New Frontiers mission instead, with any leftovers being folded into other missions or the DSN. I really hope I'm wrong. (Keep in mind that the mission costs from the decadal are only CATE studies, not final mission costs.) Edit: NF-6 not NF-5. |
|
|
Apr 22 2011, 09:53 PM
Post
#35
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14431 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
This is going a little off topic so I apologize. What I meant was that none of the Flagship missions coming out of the decadal come anywhere close to $1.2B. That's because the none of the mission were proposed that could do that, moreover, the Decadal survey was done with a budget in mind that is now clearly not going to be available. Plus - that's the NASA part of the project budget... the total expenditure would still be very very firmly in the $2B+ range. Thus take the Max-C architecture and split it between US and ESA and it becomes affordable and the logical next mission going on the recommendations of the Decadal. This new idea essentially gets both NASA and ESA a large stake in a flagship mission, and little more than New Frontiers costs to each. |
|
|
Apr 23 2011, 02:19 AM
Post
#36
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 18-December 07 From: New York Member No.: 3982 |
I think I might have gotten lost in all the numbers. Let me know where I went wrong.
There was an original mission concept study that was presented to the decadal that estimated the NASA share of the total cost to be $2.2B. The decadal committee had a CATE study done that estimated the NASA share of the costs to be $3.5B. This was deemed too large a portion of the total budget so they performed second “descoped” CATE study where they joined the two rovers together and came up with a NASA cost of $2.4B. Now there saying that NASA’s contribution will only be about $1.2B. It ultimately comes down to what they estimated the ESA costs to be in all these studies. Considering this was a joint mission from the beginning we can assume that it was not zero. |
|
|
Apr 23 2011, 03:11 AM
Post
#37
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14431 Joined: 8-February 04 Member No.: 1 |
I think I might have gotten lost in all the numbers. Let me know where I went wrong. There was an original mission concept study that was presented to the decadal that estimated the NASA share of the total cost to be $2.2B. I think you went wrong right away - none of the decadal plans had a shared cost plan involved. They didn't infer or assume any ESA involvement at all. QUOTE The decadal committee had a CATE study done that estimated the NASA share of the costs to be $3.5B. This was deemed too large a portion of the total budget so they performed second “descoped” CATE study where they joined the two rovers together and came up with a NASA cost of $2.4B. I don't think that happened either. QUOTE Now there saying that NASA’s contribution will only be about $1.2B. By removing the NASA rover entirely. QUOTE It ultimately comes down to what they estimated the ESA costs to be in all these studies. Considering this was a joint mission from the beginning we can assume that it was not zero. It was zero. The decadal could not estimate, guesstimate, assume or infer an ESA contribution. In every mission it was 'how much would it cost US to do all of this' The only odd-ball was JEO which didn't need to worry about JGO. They're independent. |
|
|
Apr 23 2011, 09:50 AM
Post
#38
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 239 Joined: 18-December 07 From: New York Member No.: 3982 |
I think pages 9-14 through 9-16 of the decadal cover most of these points. I'm still not positive about the cost estimated on there decoped MAX-C. It's clear that a new feasibility study needs to be done. (Which I'm sure there doing as we speak.)
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 07:54 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. |