MSL Cost Caps and de-scoping - Sept '07 Options

[Rakhir]

Very bad news.
It's certainly the best way to run the business of cost overruns but even if we are used to these kind of consequences, it's always sad to hear.

NASA cuts LANL sampler from next Mars rover
http://www.lamonitor.com/articles/2007/09/...news/news02.txt

Edit :
And also...
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...p;channel=space
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.rss.sp....html?pid=25415

... removal of the Mars Descent Imager (MARDI) and the zoom capability on the mast camera...
... SAM and CheMin were cost-capped...

[monitorlizard]

I don't think anyone at NASA, including Alan Stern, expects MSL to launch without ChemCam. But NASA is playing a high stakes game of bluff expecting someone else to come in and pay for its overrun. France is a major partner on the instrument. What if they say "we don't have any extra money either"? Everyone can live with all of the other MSL descopes, but losing ChemCam would be a major blow to the science return of the mission.

I thought NASA was trying to keep its international partners happy. This is not the way to do it.

[stevesliva]

But NASA is playing a high stakes game of bluff expecting someone else to come in and pay for its overrun.

I believe that the better term for NASA stance is "call." The bluff being the budgeted amount for the instrument. Having been called, ChemCam is deciding whether to raise or fold. Maybe you're right and they'll hit a better hand on what France deals them.

[nprev]

I believe that the better term for NASA stance is "call." The bluff being the budgeted amount for the instrument. Having been called, ChemCam is deciding whether to raise or fold. Maybe you're right and they'll hit a better hand on what France deals them.

I think you're right, and please forgive this rage against the machine: what crap. Don't have to be like this, should not be like this for a fundamental mission requirement, period. This churn would be more forgiveable if ChemCam was a late add-on, but clearly it wasn't.

Poker-style trade-offs are more properly reserved for add-ons, once the core requirements are met. Distressed that this sort of politicking is happening over a core capability instrument.