Stern Looks for Way Out of NASA's Budget Squeeze Options

[Mariner9]

That's a darn good question, and your guess is a reasonable one.

I also recall that during the last Discovery round (and possibly before) NASA explicitly noted that launch vehicle costs could unexpectedly rise over the course of the mission developement, and that this kind of rise would not be counted against the mission. In other words, if the Delta II disappears, and the only relplacement available is an Atlas V at twice the price, that extra money is outside the mission budget, and not consdered an overrun (or a screwup by the PI and rest of the team).

So I'm thinking that possibly some of the extra dollars in those estimates represent rise in launch vehicle costs.

[Stephen]

Not sure whether this has been mentioned yet but Andrew Lawler (who wrote the Science magazine article mentioned at the start of this thread back last June) has another and rather longer article at the Science journal website (dated 29 February 2008) on NASA's budget problems (appropriately titled "War of the Worlds?") with a particular focus on the Mars program and Alan Stern's push for a Mars sample return:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/319/5867/1174

There's a timeline of Mars exploration for the next decade depicted in it shows rather dramatically and soberingly how the Mars sample return missions are going to dominate that next decade. If the Astrobiological Field Lab rover vanishes (which, on one view, it may well do: "Stern, meanwhile, has slapped an $800 million cost cap on the 2016 mission, which he acknowledges would rule out the complex astrobiology field lab"; in addition: "Several scientists say that cap might also eliminate the [two mid-sized(?)] rovers") what NASA would have accomplished would be to put nearly all its Mars "eggs" for that decade in one very large basket.

======
Stephen

[PhilHorzempa]

As Alan Stern leaves NASA, I find myself sad. In just 1 year, Dr. Stern was able to completely
re-vamp NASA's Space Science program. SMD was a mess when Alan arrived, and he worked
miracles to make it a balanced program that did more with less.

I want to say to Dr. Stern -

Thank you for reviving NuStar.
Thank you for reviving SOFIA.
Thank you for reviving Space Science's R&A funds.
Thank you for finally getting the Solar Probe mission started.
Thank you for keeping the SIM-Planet Hunter alive.
Thank you for finally getting an Outer Planets Flagship mission started.
Thank you for funding studies for alternative OP Flagship missions.
Thank you for reviving Lunar Science at NASA.
Thank you for initiating an International Lunar Network plan.
Thank you for re-starting the planning for MSR.
Thank you for initiating planning for small science Lunar Orbiters.
Thank you for initiating yearly Missions of Opportunity.
Thank you for planning a firm schedule for future Discovery and New Frontiers missions.
Thank you for trying to get the most Science out of SMD's budget.
Thank you for trying to bring a proper funding balance amongst the programs to
explore Mars and Everything Else in the Solar system.

Alan, I don't know your reasons for leaving NASA, especially after submitting your first budget for SMD,
but I do hope that you return. I also hope that the future administrators of the SMD carry-on with
Dr. Stern's initiatives. Alan, you will be missed.

Another Phil