IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
MAX-C/ExoMars, Dual NASA/ESA rovers slated for 2018 launch
briv1016
post 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. sad.gif

Edit: NF-6, not NF-5.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Apr 22 2011, 01:53 PM
Post #32


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 706
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



QUOTE (briv1016 @ Apr 22 2011, 01:16 AM) *
$1.2 B sounds like New Frontiers 5 instead of a Flagship Mission. sad.gif

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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Apr 22 2011, 03:14 PM
Post #33


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (briv1016 @ Apr 22 2011, 01:16 AM) *
$1.2 B sounds like New Frontiers 5 instead of a Flagship Mission. sad.gif


Nope - NF is <$1B + LV.

This is nearly half a discovery mission more than that.

Moreover, the budget is essentially none existant to think about spending significantly more than that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
briv1016
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Apr 22 2011, 09:53 PM
Post #35


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (briv1016 @ Apr 22 2011, 11:11 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
briv1016
post 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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Apr 23 2011, 03:11 AM
Post #37


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (briv1016 @ Apr 22 2011, 06:19 PM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
briv1016
post 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.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V  < 1 2 3
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 09:28 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and 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.