InSight mission Options

[Paolo]

launch reportedly canceled (or delayed):
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2015/12/nasa-will-not-b.html

[dtolman]

Most reports are that it is delayed until the next launch window in two years, as they could not repair a critical defect in time for the March launch.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon...nsight-shelved/

[Explorer1]

Telecon link here: http://www.nasa.gov/news/media/newsaudio/index.html

[B Bernatchez]

Most reports are that it is delayed until the next launch window in two years, as they could not repair a critical defect in time for the March launch.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon...nsight-shelved/

Discovery missions are cost capped. If the delay causes costs to rise above the cap, it may be canceled. I hope not.

[MahFL]

Wow what a bummer.

[Explorer1]

Yep, it sucks but just like Curiosity, better to do it right after a wait then do it wrong without one. A leak on Earth is obviously better than a leak up there, right?

[antipode]

Awww darn. After initially being disappointed that TiME lost out to this mission I was actually getting excited about the mission science. Still, as Emily has pointed out, if she goes in 2018 it will fill a quiet period in the planetary launch schedule and I'd forgotten that ESA is going to Mars next year, so better safe than sorry.

Also in 2016 - Juno!

P

[vjkane]

Just to be clear, InSight will be reviewed and it may be either cancelled or delayed.

If it is delayed, then it is unlikely that NASA will be able to select two Discovery proposals in the current competition as it had hoped. So we likely will lose a Discovery mission either way.

Sometimes, crap happens and it very often happens in the simplest, low tech elements. InSight got unlucky.

[Explorer1]

Yep, and honestly, finding a flaw before launch is the best case scenario; there's still a good chance that some great science will result. DSCOVR had it way worse, and look where it is now!
Or contrast Insight's situation with CONTOUR...

[PaulM]

I would like NASA to use the 2 Year delay to add other instruments to the deck of the Insight deck such as a spare of the Phoenix LIDAR experiment that presumably exists. I think that additional meteorology experiments would help round out the instrument payload of the Insight mission.

[PaulM]

I think that if the Opportunity rover was to deteriorate further over the next Year then there would be an argument to park Opportunity close to its current position on a North facing slope to carry out the delayed Insight radio science experiment for the next 2 Years. Opportunity has already performed a successful 6 months radio science stint 4 Years ago which showed Opportunity's value in that role.

In retrospect the idea of leaving Spirit parked on a North facing slope and re-purposing Spirit for radio science role after the last winter that she survived on Mars might have been a good idea given the trouble that Spirit had in roving during the last Summer that she was still working.

[James Sorenson]

I would like NASA to use the 2 Year delay to add other instruments to the deck of the Insight deck such as a spare of the Phoenix LIDAR experiment that presumably exists.

I can tell you this with certainty, that's not going to happen. Instrument selection happens early in the design and the lander is pretty much now complete. Because of the launch slip and subsequent storage, Insight may hit its cost cap of $675 million. If that happens NASA will have to decide whether to cancel the mission or continue with it. At this point in the game, any new instruments isn't on the table, but perhaps possible descoping some things is?

[Explorer1]

Removing something is still 'work' so it would still cost money to do anything beyond the storage. Too bad; it would have been nice to add that Mars microphone at last.
Perhaps the 2020 rover....

[gpurcell]

So what happens to the readied Atlas V that they were going to launch with in this sort of case?

I also don't understand how the contractor that was supposed to deliver the SEIS instrument isn't on the hook for any costs of redesigning that instrument plus damages.

[katodomo]

The SEIS sphere isn't built by a contractor but by CNES itself. Given that SEIS is an instrument provided to the mission for free (to NASA) no damages are caused (to NASA) if it doesn't work. If they decide not to fly while it's not working that's NASA's problem.

This construct stems from the fact that NASA paid for less than 25% of the instruments for InSight in order to save cost (under the cost cap for the mission) - and it will probably be the last mission with excessive non-NASA instrumentation. CNES' SEIS cost $42 million alone, DLR's HP³ (based on Philae's MUPUS) another $19 million. NASA spent $18 million on the RISE radio experiment (using the lander's x-band link), a robotic arm to deploy SEIS and HP³ in a number of places around it and - to track the arm's movement - two b/w cameras.