[X] My Assistant

[Rakhir]

NASA Dawn Asteroid Mission Told To ‘Stand Down’ .

The decision to stand down, according to SPACE.com sources, appears related to budget-related measures and workforce cutbacks at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/051107_dawn_qown.html

Rakhir

[Mariner9]

I suspect the reason is both budgetary and technical.

Nearly three years ago I met a guy who was working as an 'intern' at JPL. He worked at another NASA center, and was essentially getting cross training by working at JPL for a while.

He told me at the time that Dawn was experiencing a lot of technical problems. At least one engineer had commented in a review meeting that "Deep Space 1 suceeding may have been the worst thing that ever happened to JPL"

I got the impression that JPL basically sold NASA headquarters that the Dawn mission could stay within Discovery Program cost constraints by stating that it would use a lot of design inheritance from Deep Space 1.

My friend told me that the thing he learned from all this was never take at face value anyone who uses the phrase "design inheritance" ... unless they are truely using the original component almost precisely as originally designed.

Well, Dawn is not Deep Space 1 with an extra couple ion thrusters, and it's been in cost and technical trouble ever since.

I suspect that with the 5 % workforce reduction at JPL, NASA headquarters wants to be darn sure that the reduction in personell doesn't mean that Dawn is threatened by either budget shortfalls or loss of any key personell.

Of course... there is also that nagging voice in the back of my head that reminds me that Discovery 2004 down select yeilded no mission, and the 2005 RFP Discovery was delayed for "several weeks" in April, and we still haven't seen that come out. So there may be a LOT of budget problems in Discovery land.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Andy Dantzler said at the COMPLEX meeting that the main question is whether the big parade of technical problems Dawn has been having are just a chance bad-luck collection of unconnected problems, or whether there's some programmatic cause for them. He also wants to know whether the cost of eliminating them will be too excessive. Thus the stand-down until an assessment group can look at this, since Dawn has a very long launch window.

As for Discovery, the only thing delaying release of the latest AO is the fact that Congress has yet to decide whether to stick to the Senate's current insistence on retaining the current $350 million cost cap (which Dantzler says would be disastrous) instead of raising it to $450 million as NASA wants.

[gpurcell]

This mission has had nothing but problems. The major descope and now this. Given the small reserve they used to get it in under the Discovery cap, and the technical challenge of the mission, the lack of budget margins has really bitten it hard.

What really concerns me is that the the talking points from JPL make no sense. The standdown cannot be due to Lab layoffs as the contract would surely have funded sufficient FTEs to do the job. And the report of the investigative team indicates this is about a bit more than budgets.

Now, I've been on the wrong end of an federal department investigation, so I'm somewhat cynical about the process. But this would not be happening is, for good reasons or bad, high up folks in NASA did not have significant concerns about Dawn's prospects for success.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The stand-down will last for at least three months, until a decision is made. If there's a further cost overrun, the mission will be delayed into 2007 -- and if any new cost overrun exceeds $100 million, the mission goes into the dumpster.

I can tell you, by the way, that Andy Dantzler is furious at the Senate's attempt to retain the Discovery cost cap at $350 million.

[dvandorn]

After reading Squyres' "Roving Mars," I want to remind y'all that this is exactly what *almost* happened to the MERs. They had some pretty impressive technical hurdles to overcome, with an ATLO that came together on a wing and a prayer. Add just one more major technical issue to overcome, and the MERs would have been forced to stand down for a late 2004 / early 2005 launch opportunity.

Just a reminder that trouble -- even serious trouble -- encountered in ATLO doesn't necessarily mean that the mission will go badly. It just means that they're working out all the bugs at the right time, on the ground when there's still a chance of fixing them...

-the other Doug

[ljk4-1]

The stand-down will last for at least three months, until a decision is made.  If there's a further cost overrun, the mission will be delayed into 2007 -- and if any new cost overrun exceeds $100 million, the mission goes into the dumpster.

I can tell you, by the way, that Andy Dantzler is furious at the Senate's attempt to retain the Discovery cost cap at $350 million.

What would they do with the probe if the mission is cancelled? All that time and money for nothing?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Well, the trouble is that if you DON'T stick to your previous threat to cancel a selected mission that undergoes cost overruns, every future proposer is going to deliberately underestimate their mission's cost and then later say, in an innocent tone: "Whoops! Well, whaddya know?..."

It may have been a mistake to fly Messenger despite the fact that it busted its cost cap; the justifications were that NASA got a solid endorsement from the science community for doing so and that a lot of the cost rise was due to factors that provably weren't the design team's fault and couldn't have been anticipated by it. But that can't be done again without opening the gates of Hell. (And, yes, NASA has cancelled competitively selected missions that underwent cost overruns, even after the spacecraft had been almost completely built -- they did it with the "Clark" environmental satellite, and they almost did it with Gravity Probe B.)

[Mariner9]

The Discovery missiong cap of 350 million really does need to go up, or NASA's expectations for a Discovery Mission need to go down.

Several years ago I remember reading a summary of a meeting between NASA Discovery program officials and members of teams who had particiapated in Discovery missions. The meeting was a review of how Discovery was working, what wasn't working, and troubles on the horizon. One of the major points that the participants made was that Discovery mission scopes had been inflating since the start of the program.

Everyone felt that in the early days of Discover, they could propose something modest (such as a Lunar Prospecter) and compete with the other teams. But now the winners were at the Messenger and Dawn level.

Lunar Prospecter was a spin stabalized lunar orbiter, a simple instrument package, and no onboard computer. Compare that to the 3-axis stabilized Messenger Mercury orbiter sent out on a 6 year mission with 7 instruments and operating in a fairly hostile space environment compared to Lunar Orbit.

In order to compete, the proposers had to come up with extremely aggressive missions and overly optimistic cost and schedule estimates.

NASA seemed to agree, but made some general statement of "well, that is something to worry about, but we don't know how to address it right now".

Seems simple enough. Either you down scope, and start being more open to the CONTOUR type mission proposals again (well, hopefully better funded and carefully executed than CONTOUR) ... or you raise your mission cap.

Just as an outside observer, I'd be fine with raising the cap to 450 million and flying a little less often. But then again, there hasn't been a Discovery mission selected in 4 years, so a little less often seems to be turning into never.

[Mariner9]

One last point: when I said "it sounds simple enough" to down scope expectaions, or raise the cost cap.... I was being a bit sarcastic.

Obviously if it was that simple, they would have done it already.

[djellison]

What would they do with the probe if the mission is cancelled?  All that time and money for nothing?

To quote senior Nasa management during the pre-launch-MER-panic

"I think it'd look pretty damn good in the Smithsonian"



Doug

[Marz]

To quote senior Nasa management during the pre-launch-MER-panic

"I think it'd look pretty damn good in the Smithsonian"



Doug

This mission needs to fly, so if they need more time and money to get it right, then that's what must happen. I'd imagine the science community puts a fairly high priority on this mission in light of recent Ceres observations, so maybe it should qualify for another waiver like Messenger?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Good news on the Discovery cost cap front: the Senate-House conference has just officially raised it to $425 million. Not quite what Andy Dantzler wanted, but close.

[punkboi]

Good news on the Discovery cost cap front: the Senate-House conference has just officially raised it to $425 million.  Not quite what Andy Dantzler wanted, but close.

Where did you read or hear about this, Bruce? 'Cause it's good news.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

It's at http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hr2862...09_hr2862cr.htm . (Note also the order to NASA to initiate Europa Orbiter in FY 2007, and to bolster spending for SIM and the Sun-Earth Connection missions. But also note the staggering $280 million in Congressional pork -- er, earmarks.)

[ljk4-1]

It's at http://www.rules.house.gov/109/text/hr2862...09_hr2862cr.htm .  (Note also the order to NASA to initiate Europa Orbiter in FY 2007, and to bolster spending for SIM and the Sun-Earth Connection missions.  But also note the staggering $280 million in Congressional pork -- er, earmarks.)

Is that the same Europa Orbiter that was cancelled in 2003? Or is this a new concept? And will it have some sort of lander with it?

And how will this jive with VSE?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

It's a decidedly souped-up version with a much bigger science payload, made possible by the decision to use inner-planet gravity-assist flybys to reach Jupiter (why these were rejected for the original Europa Orbiter is one of the great mysteries of our time). There may or may not be enough of a mass margin to add a small piggyback lander -- in fact, that was one of the major subjects of the COMPLEX meeting, although the question was still wide open at the end of the meeting. It really depends on whether we can cram enough science onto such a small lander to be be worthwhile, as opposed to other uses for the same weight (more orbiter instruments, more radiation shielding to allow a longer lifetime at Europa, a higher bit rate, etc.) But the initial work on its design can be found at http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jun_05_meetin...ssion_Study.pdf and http://www.lpi.usra.edu/opag/jun_05_meetin..._Trace_OPAG.pdf .

And, yes, the funding does take NASA's new funding problems into consideration -- except for Katrina, whose final effects nobody is sure of at this point. They really are talking about a start in FY 2007 and a launch around 2012.

[tedstryk]

I really hope this takes off. I mean, after New Horizons, there are no missions to study the outer planets except the relatively small-scale Juno. Continuity is a good thing.

[ljk4-1]

D A W N ' S E A R L Y L I G H T November 2005
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The eighth issue of the Dawn team newsletter, Dawn's Early Light, has been
posted on the Dawn website. Follow the links below to
view individual articles, or obtain the formatted pdf version. We look forward
to obtaining your feedback.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dawn Mission Status

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett...dawnstatus.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dawn Instruments are Delivered to Orbital

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett.../delivered.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ceres Results Published in Nature

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett...1117/ceres.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Email List Signup Instructions:

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett...117/signup.html

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Printable version of this newsletter (PDF format): To obtain a
formatted printable version of the newsletter, follow this link

http://www-ssc.igpp.ucla.edu/dawn/newslett...df/20051117.pdf

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The Dawn mission has been selected as NASA's ninth Discovery
mission to be launched in June 2006 to orbit both Vesta and Ceres. This list has
been established to keep members of the scientific
community informed about the Dawn mission.

Dawn's Early Light is published on an occasional basis and
distributed electronically. To contribute material or query the
team, email us at dawnnews@igpp.ucla.edu.

Editor: Carol A. Raymond, Jet Propulsion Laboratory

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Word now is that D-Day for the report on whether to delay or cancel Dawn is Jan. 20: http://www.lacanadaonline.com/articles/200...ws-dawn1117.txt .

[mars loon]

After reading Squyres' "Roving Mars," I want to remind y'all that this is exactly what *almost* happened to the MERs.  They had some pretty impressive technical hurdles to overcome, with an ATLO that came together on a wing and a prayer.  Add just one more major technical issue to overcome, and the MERs would have been forced to stand down for a late 2004 / early 2005 launch opportunity.

Just a reminder that trouble -- even serious trouble -- encountered in ATLO doesn't necessarily mean that the mission will go badly.  It just means that they're working out all the bugs at the right time, on the ground when there's still a chance of fixing them...

-the other Doug

Well said. Fix the bugs and lets launch this exciting mission.

Had we listened to the naysayers, Spirit wouldnt be celebrating the triumph on top of the Husband Hill Summit and Oppy wouldnt be on course for Victoria Crater

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

The trouble with blithely doing this for Dawn is that -- unlike the MERs -- it was accepted as the result of a competition in which one of the supposed central ground rules for the proposing teams is that you do NOT exceed the maximum possible cost that you stated in your proposal without getting cancelled. Allow a mission to seriously break this rule, and you open the gates of Hell: EVERY team will deliberately understate its mission's real cost, and then look innocently amazed when they tell you that they need lots more money than they thought, and that they're sure you'll provide it...

It may have been a mistake to decide to break this rule for Messenger, and in fact NASA did so only after considerable wrangling. They've already broken it much more seriously for Dawn -- they'll fly it, albeit delayed, even if it undergoes a cost cap overrun of fully 1/3. But no higher. Nor should they -- and maybe they shouldn't fly it even if the cost doesn't go that high.

By the way, Kepler has also totally shattered its cost cap -- its cost is now $500 million. However, as Andy Dantzler told us, that's now the problem of the Universe Division -- which now has custody of the Kepler project, and which has already decided to adopt Kepler as a "Strategic" mission that is therefore immune from the Discovery cost-cancellation rule.

[mars loon]

The trouble with blithely doing this for Dawn is that -- unlike the MERs -- it was accepted as the result of a competition in which one of the supposed central ground rules for the proposing teams is that you do NOT exceed the maximum possible cost that you stated in your proposal without getting cancelled.  Allow a mission to seriously break this rule, and you open the gates of Hell: EVERY team will deliberately understate its mission's real cost, and then look innocently amazed when they tell you that they need lots more money than they thought, and that they're sure you'll provide it...

It may have been a mistake to decide to break this rule for Messenger, and in fact NASA did so only after considerable wrangling.  They've already broken it much more seriously for Dawn -- they'll fly it, albeit delayed, even if it undergoes a cost cap overrun of fully 1/3.  But no higher.  Nor should they -- and maybe they shouldn't fly it even if the cost doesn't go that high.

By the way, Kepler has also totally shattered its cost cap -- its cost is now $500 million.  However, as Andy Dantzler told us, that's now the problem of the Universe Division -- which now has custody of the Kepler project, and which has already decided to adopt Kepler as a "Strategic" mission that is therefore immune from the Discovery cost-cancellation rule.

While your point on cost caps is valid, you have so enlarged it that I respecfully disagree with your point of view.

Science, not bean counting should be the driving force in these decisions!!!

It makes no sense to have a nearly complete spacecraft sit on the ground vs. launched to make ground breaking discoveries especially in light of the new Ceres Observations by Hubble.

It also makes no sense to "mothball" Deep Impact, which thankfully may now proceed with a follow on target

Finally, great news about the Europa Orbiter, thats long overdue. As is a follow-up to Cassini-Huygens

[gpurcell]

While your point on cost caps is valid, you have so enlarged it that I respecfully disagree with your point of view. 

Science, not bean counting should be the driving force in these decisions!!!

It makes no sense to have a nearly complete spacecraft sit on the ground vs. launched to make ground breaking discoveries especially in light of the new Ceres Observations by Hubble.

It also makes no sense to "mothball" Deep Impact, which thankfully may now proceed with a follow on target 

Finally, great news about the Europa Orbiter, thats long overdue.    As is a follow-up to Cassini-Huygens

As long as NASA exists in a world of limited resources, efficient allocation of those resources is critical. A few thoughts.

First, Dawn and Messenger's experiences (and I guess Kepler as well...I didn't realize they had blown their cost cap that badly Bruce) bring into question the entire Discovery program. Don't fall into the "sunk cost fallacy." The cost-benefit analysis to go forward with Dawn has to include both the funding stream to Dawn in future years as well as the consequences for the rest of the program. We have at least one "nearly complete spacecraft" sitting on the ground right now--Triana--and I don't hear much call from anyone for THAT to be launched.

Second, I think it should be fairly obvious that tight cost constraints on a mission will decrease both the science return (as had occured extensively during the Dawn mission planning) as well as the risk the mission will return very limited data due to a technical fault.

Third, I disagree with you about Deep Impact. There should be no expectation of extended missions on Discovery-class missions. The flaws in that spacecraft truly make me question the value of it going forward.

The Discovery effort is suffering from Goldin's insistence on asking for too much from the limited funds available. I hope they choose achievable missions for the next competititon or I fear it will be the last one.

[ljk4-1]

Third, I disagree with you about Deep Impact.  There should be no expectation of extended missions on Discovery-class missions.  The flaws in that spacecraft truly make me question the value of it going forward.

What were Deep Impact's flaws, other than the fact that everyone seemed to think that the impact crater would somehow be clear of debris right away so that the flyby probe could image into the comet?

How much will it cost to send DI to another celestial body? What science can it accomplish?

[tedstryk]

We have at least one "nearly complete spacecraft" sitting on the ground right now--Triana--and I don't hear much call from anyone for THAT to be launched.

I don't think Triana can be compared to DAWN. Triana is so tied to Al Gore that it was a victim of politics. I don't think DAWN has a political affiliation.

[Mariner9]

A bit of history here. NASA tried in the 1980s to get a Planetary Observer (if I recall the name correctly) program going, which resembled the Discovery program in scope and budget. But at that time Congress just didn't trust NASA on it's planetary missions... they had a way of growing bigger and bigger after approval.

Somehow NASA managed to convince Congress to go with the Discovery Program in about 1993. There were several aspects of Discovery that we all know so well: cost constraints (150 million for the spacecraft and mission in those days, exclusive of the launch vehicle cost if I recall). Plus the missions were competitively selected. And thirdly, something we don't discuss much these days, individual Discovery missions essentially were not approved by Congressional action. Congress gave NASA essentially a line item, an annual budget, and left it up to NASA to figure out how to spend it.

This was unprecedented for planetary missions. Previously each mission was a hard fought battle to gain approval. And two things had happened about the same time in the 70s. Each mission was approved furthur and furthur apart (so we were getting fewer missions) and each mission was tending to grow larger in size. This occured largely because the powers that be felt that since there were few missions, it was best to get as much as possilbe out of each one. The second factor was that after Viking a lot of the scientific community had it in their heads that from here on out missions should all be like Viking in scope. Or such was the feeling of Robert Kraemer, directory of planetary missions in the 70s.

So Congress gave NASA permission to shape their own destiny on Discovery. And since Discovery worked so well, we now have New Fronteirs. But if Discovery missions start to revert to the old ways of "oops, the cost just went up 25%" I'd think there was a serious risk that Congress would start to question the wisdom of it all and start to take away some of the authoirty NASA gained in Discovery and New Fronteirs.

So.... I'm hoping Dawn flies. I really like that mission. But I can see NASA getting worried about forgiving two missions in a row on cost over runs. There is a risk here.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

There sure is. To repeat: let ANY mission get away with that, and everyone else will also want it (as with the Epicure Dining at Crewe who found Quite A Large Mouse in his Stew). Our concern must be not for flying any ONE mission, but for making sure the Discovery Program as a whole properly succeeds -- which it can't if it allows incorrect or downright fraudulent cost estimates when it's selecting the damn missions in the first place. (Dantzler sounded downright exasperated when he was talking about how the Kepler team have been allowed to get away with their own huge cost overrun -- but, as he said, "It's not my problem anymore.")

[Holder of the Tw...]

Does anyone know how much DAWN saved, in dollar figures, by deleting the laser ranger and magnetometer? If possible, I'd be curious as to the cost savings for each one individually.

[JRehling]

There sure is.  To repeat: let ANY mission get away with that, and everyone else will also want it (as with the Epicure Dining at Crewe who found Quite A Large Mouse in his Stew).  Our concern must be not for flying any ONE mission, but for making sure the Discovery Program as a whole properly succeeds -- which it can't if it allows incorrect or downright fraudulent cost estimates when it's selecting the damn missions in the first place.

Yep. Letting a mission get away with this seriously is like letting some athletes use steroids, because it would be a shame to keep such a fine physical specimen from being in the game. What you do with that decision is eliminate the rule. And in the mission-over-budget case, you eliminate the budget.

Incidentally, an enormous number of projects, often governmentally funded, have gotten to break the rule. Examples are rampant -- Army tanks, Air Force fighters, Massachusetts freeways. The end result is almost certainly more harmful than is made up for with the good of one tank, one fighter, one tunnel. Dawn is a nice mission if it happens, but it's not worth killing the Discovery program over. Because the next time around, you'd have someone promising Venus sample return under a $400mm cap, winning the competition, then saying "Oops" when they run over that before the thing is 1/10 built.

[mcaplinger]

Because the next time around, you'd have someone promising Venus sample return under a $400mm cap, winning the competition, then saying "Oops" when they run over that before the thing is 1/10 built.

Well, obviously a large portion of the proposal evaluation and selection process is assessing the cost realism of the proposal, so it's not like you can just claim anything and be believed. Of course, this cuts both ways -- people can end up claiming that a mission can't possibly be done for a given cost cap when it certainly could, just perhaps not by the organization doing the evaulating. That's one of the factors which IMHO has led to spiraling cost increases in aerospace in general.

[RNeuhaus]

New updates about the DAWN's proyect:

NASA Dawn Mission Status November 2005

In mid-October, the Dawn mission team was asked by NASA Headquarters to cease all work except that which was critical to maintaining the viability of the Dawn mission to launch on a delayed schedule, still achieving all of its scientific objectives. This action was taken in response to concerns about the availability of funding in FY2006 to cover any problems that might arise during environmental and performance testing, particularly with regard to several pieces of subsystem hardware perceived to have experienced significant problems.

There are three items of concern:
1) The Power Processing Units (PPUs) that provide the high voltage power to the thrusters in the ion propulsion system. Not yet has started the test. It would be during on November and December 2005.
2) One of the redundant Attitude Control Electronics (ACE) boxes. Item above.
3) The xenon tank. --> Its solution might be by reducing its capacity of xenon fuel load from 450 to 425 kg to increase the safety margin.


Because of the flexibility afforded by the ion propulsion, Dawn's launch period extends at least into late 2007. The original launch period in June 2006 was chosen based on projected readiness to launch at that time. The baseline trajectory includes a Mars Gravity Assist in 2009, which fixes the timing of subsequent events.

More details: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18748

Rodolfo

[BPCooper]

NASA has marked the launch as no earlier than Nov. 17 2006 officially now.

[punkboi]

NASA has marked the launch as no earlier than Nov. 17 2006 officially now.

Well... As long as DAWN flies.

[Decepticon]

From the current issue of Astronomy magazine.

I found this neat. I never saw this picture of ceres.

Here's the link. http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3478

[mars loon]

From the current issue of Astronomy magazine.

I found this neat. I never saw this picture of ceres.

Here's the link. http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=3478

Here is an earlier news article on this from Spaceflightnow.com.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n0509/07ceres/

As I wrote in an earlier post in this thread, This scientifically exciting mission should fly !!
Its ridiculous to leave a nearly complete spacecraft on the ground unless there are unresolved technical issues!!

The small cost overrun is within the increase of the new Discovery cost cap.

[punkboi]

Wasn't today (1/20) the day NASA was gonna decide whether or not to continue with the Dawn mission?

[Guest_Sunspot_*]

Can't see anything on the Dawn website about it: http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/

[nprev]

Can't see anything on the Dawn website about it: http://dawn.jpl.nasa.gov/

Saw a blurb that Dawn was delayed on the CNN bottom-screen ticker a few minutes ago...

[Rakhir]

Dawn will not launch this year
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_06..._dawn_hold.html

"The planned summer launch of the Dawn spacecraft has been indefinitely postponed"

Rakhir

[punkboi]

Dawn will not launch this year
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/ap_06..._dawn_hold.html

"The planned summer launch of the Dawn spacecraft has been indefinitely postponed"

Rakhir

I didn't want my name sent to the Asteroid Field anyway...



Just kidding.

[BPCooper]

Disappointing news. And one less launch.

[RNeuhaus]

Postponed due to technical problems with new technology of ion engines.

Dawn, however, has suffered several setbacks, including ruptures of two of its fuel tanks during testing, forcing engineers to reduce the amount of xenon gas that will be loaded into the tanks.

The project was capped at $371 million, according to Russell, and when project scientists asked for an extra $40 million last year, NASA ordered the standdown to figure out why it was going over budget.

Rodolfo

[gpurcell]

I suspect this project is done. Sound like there are significant technical problems and no reason to believe that the DAWN team can overcome them at a cost near the capped award.

I wonder how much unexpended funding will be available to roll back into the Discovery program account. Maybe enough for a couple of Missions of Opportunity....

[nprev]

Does Dawn have Hall effect ion thrusters, or is this a completely new design?

[mchan]

Does Dawn have Hall effect ion thrusters, or is this a completely new design?

IIRC, Dawn uses the thruster design from DS1, but three thrusters.

[SFJCody]

I suspect this project is done.  Sound like there are significant technical problems and no reason to believe that the DAWN team can overcome them at a cost near the capped award.

That's a shame. I don't think a good understanding of the processes that created Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars will be possible until we look at the 'mini-terrestrials' Ceres and Vesta.

[Decepticon]

Sadly I would even take a scaled down project with a Ceres Only Target.

Does anyone agree?

[Bob Shaw]

Sadly I would even take a scaled down project with a Ceres Only Target.

Does anyone agree?

Yup. They can't let this one go - perhaps it's an ideal international mission in waiting...

Bob Shaw

[Marz]

Yup. They can't let this one go - perhaps it's an ideal international mission in waiting...

Bob Shaw

I agree. Ceres must rank pretty high in terms of science targets, especially since it was discovered to have a differentiated mantle, and lots of water, and possibly some ancient organic chemistry.

I'd imagine the launch windows are fairly flexible for this mission, since it only relied on a mars flyby... although it might require sacrificing visiting Vesta.

I sure hope this project is only slightly delayed instead of being mothballed.

[nprev]

Hmm. Anybody tight with anyone over at the Planetary Society? Now that NH made it safely off, perhaps it's time to mount a campaign to save Dawn!

[punkboi]

Hmm. Anybody tight with anyone over at the Planetary Society? Now that NH made it safely off, perhaps it's time to mount a campaign to save Dawn!

I'm a member of TPS

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

That possibility was discussed at the November COMPLEX meeting where I first heard that Dawn would be put in a stand-down mode -- and it was quickly dismissed by Andy Dantzler on the grounds that changing Dawn to a one-asteroid mission would only very slightly lower its cost. Its science payload has also been whittled down to an absolute minimum.

I do wonder, though, whether it might be possible to augment its previous budget with the $35 million that goes to the next Discovery Mission of Opportunity, allowing it to fly after all, albeit late. NASA might be amenable to this way out of the problem, given how close the craft is to completion. I intend to look into this.

[Rakhir]

Hmm. Anybody tight with anyone over at the Planetary Society? Now that NH made it safely off, perhaps it's time to mount a campaign to save Dawn!

Ask Emily

[gpurcell]

I do wonder, though, whether it might be possible to augment its previous budget with the $35 million that goes to the next Discovery Mission of Opportunity, allowing it to fly after all, albeit late.  NASA might be amenable to this way out of the problem, given how close the craft is to completion.  I intend to look into this.

Bruce, to me the question really is whether the NASA managers for DAWN feel any confidence that the contractor running the project can even tell them what the overrun is going to me to complete the project. I can't speak to the technical side of it, but it is pretty clear the budgeting assumptions used in the proposal were way ouf of whack with reality.

Right now we have an almost completed spacecraft...but that is a sunk cost.

How much is on the table:

1) There will be funds left in the project budget category for completion of the spacecraft and operations.
2) NASA has got to fund the launch for the bird...how much is that?

The launch cost could easily be moved into the next Discovery mission and that would help accelerate the following mission.

[JRehling]

Bruce, to me the question really is whether the NASA managers for DAWN feel any confidence that the contractor running the project can even tell them what the overrun is going to me to complete the project.  I can't speak to the technical side of it, but it is pretty clear the budgeting assumptions used in the proposal were way ouf of whack with reality.

This will be one to watch: Clearly, with a nearly-completed craft, Dawn represents a better bang for the (additional) buck than starting some new mission from scratch. But this sends out the bad message that haunts bureaucracies: What will stop the next Discovery proposals from targeting a science/dollar value that matches the Dawn standard (spend all you're allowed, then a little more).

A sadistically punitive answer is to give the spacecraft to some other PIs to fly. That gets the mission in the air for not much (additional) money, but doesn't give anyone an incentive to try to duplicate this scenario in future Discovery proposals. But taking the craft from the rightful owners, if legal (?), may introduce operational showstoppers, apart from being somewhat loathsome ethically. This isn't Stalin's space program...

At the same time, giving the original team extra money is problematic.

If the project is being, in any sense, re-funded, I would just as soon see some of the downscoped original goals being reinstated...

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

At the same time, giving the original team extra money is problematic.

Although I think this is one of the better Discovery missions (as originally proposed) from a science standpoint, even with the currently descoped science payload, and while I certainly hope the mission flies, I feel that funding the cost overrun (notwithstanding the fact that that MESSENGER came within a hair's breadth of being cancelled for similar reasons) would set a bad precedent. Indeed, I think that further descopes (either of payload or target) would degrade the mission dangerously close to the performance floor.

[RNeuhaus]

I agree. Ceres must rank pretty high in terms of science targets, especially since it was discovered to have a differentiated mantle, and lots of water, and possibly some ancient organic chemistry. 

I'd imagine the launch windows are fairly flexible for this mission, since it only relied on a mars flyby... although it might require sacrificing visiting Vesta. 

I sure hope this project is only slightly delayed instead of being mothballed.

Agree. The last chance is up to the end of the year 2007. The setback is sometime good since it starts to review, track down the critical problems and develop a plan in order to determine the next fund rise to solve the identified problems. That way will help to stop the vicious circle.

Rodolfo

[Redstone]

NASA management is being briefed on Friday by the independent review panels. Then they'll make a decision, to fund or cancel, which is expected "within weeks."

New Scientist article

My fingers are crossed.

[Bjorn Jonsson]

A sadistically punitive answer is to give the spacecraft to some other PIs to fly. That gets the mission in the air for not much (additional) money, but doesn't give anyone an incentive to try to duplicate this scenario in future Discovery proposals. But taking the craft from the rightful owners, if legal (?), may introduce operational showstoppers, apart from being somewhat loathsome ethically. This isn't Stalin's space program...

I wonder if something similar to Mars 2003/Phoenix might be possible, i.e. canceling the mission and then someone (possibly some other PI) might propose flying a modified version of this thing a few years from now.

One problem with not canceling Dawn is the fact that this really isn't the same mission as it was when it was selected. The magnetometer and laser altimeter have been dropped so it is possible that some of the mission against which Dawn originally was competitively selected really are better than Dawn in its present form. So flying Dawn without these instruments might be unfair to these missions.

[JRehling]

I wonder if something similar to Mars 2003/Phoenix might be possible, i.e. canceling the mission and then someone (possibly some other PI) might propose flying a modified version of this thing a few years from now.

One problem with not canceling Dawn is the fact that this really isn't the same mission as it was when it was selected. The magnetometer and laser altimeter have been dropped so it is possible that some of the mission against which Dawn originally was competitively selected really are better than Dawn in its present form. So flying Dawn without these instruments might be unfair to these missions.

Note, though, that the Phoenix craft was a JPL mission, so it's not quite the same thing. Some personal career glory would have ensued from the mission, even a lot, but it was a Fed project first and foremost. And Phoenix is a significant reworking of it, to say the least. And the original was grounded for a nonbudgetary reason.

I'm so eager to see the laser altimeter fly that any prospect to have the mission be eventually reworked to include it has appeal of its own.

Incidentally, what are the specs on a Ceres/Vesta trajectory should this launch window be missed? It would take a number of years for Vesta to catch back up to Ceres, but perhaps a very different flightplan could be used, even switching the order of which asteroid was visited first.

I also wonder with this mission if a third or even fourth flyby could fit in if additional budget were available. Imagine that Dawn is placed on the shelf and a Discovery proposal to use the craft asks for full Discovery funding, from the starting point of having that craft as a freebie. No other mission could compete, and the new mission could be rather ambitious, given the added funding. There may be an engineering cap on delta-v, but perhaps restoring the two lost instruments could go along with a more ambitious mission in that target-rich belt.

[Bob Shaw]

I really hope that Dawn flies, and reasonably soon - but a surprising number of spacecraft built in various countries have reached even beyond this stage and just not been flown. Until the thing is on the pad...

(sigh)

Bob Shaw

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

I also wonder with this mission if a third or even fourth flyby could fit in if additional budget were available. Imagine that Dawn is placed on the shelf and a Discovery proposal to use the craft asks for full Discovery funding, from the starting point of having that craft as a freebie. No other mission could compete, and the new mission could be rather ambitious, given the added funding.

Bjorn raised an interesting question but, like you, I think the two situations are factually distinguishable. Frankly, I have trouble seeing the realism (let alone the fairness) of resurrecting a possibly-cancelled Dawn in the Discovery 2006 solicitation à la Mars Surveyor Lander 2001->Phoenix Mars Scout. As you note, the former is a PI-led mission, while the latter was a NASA "core" mission, part of the Mars Exploration Program. Refer, for example, to the recently published NRC report.

I could very well imagine many other proposers crying foul if Dawn is cancelled in its present incarnation but the PI is allowed to re-propose the same mission under the new Discovery AO, presumably at a much lower cost than other proposers who might want to propose the same type of mission; indeed, the exact mission.

[ljk4-1]

DELTA ROCKET WORKERS SET TO VOTE ON ENDING STRIKE
-------------------------------------------------

A strike by Boeing machinists that has grounded the Delta rocket fleet for
nearly three months could be edging closer to resolution. Negotiations
between the company and union leaders have resulted in a revised contract
offer that will be put to a vote on Wednesday.

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n0601/28boeingstrike/

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I got a message yesterday from Chris Russell yesterday on his possible plans for Dawn, but it's so vague and noncommittal in its information that it doesn't really tell us anything -- excpe that he apparently isn't ruling anything out, including an attempt to keep Dawn going with additional funding from a new Mission of Opportunity proposal:

"The IAT [NASA review board] did present its findings [Friday] and there are things it feels we should do to ensure mission success. We certainly are prepared to do these and move forward to launch.

"NASA officials were not planning to act on the IAT recommendations at this time. Perhaps more important than what the IAT said is whatthe president will say in just over a week. NASA needs the money to execute its science program. If that money is further constrained, many programs will have to be cut.

"The PI is quite confident that we have a successful program ready to take the last steps to launch if we are given the go-ahead. The cost of a mission of opportunity and what we have left in the bank (no we are not out of funds) certainly would launch Dawn. So why not just delay the Mission of Opportunity and invest in Dawn? Funding profile might be one issue.

"I think NASA has options, but it may also have too many problems
at once. We wait with bated breath.

"Would I propose [Dawn] again [as a whole mission]? I am very pleased with the work JPL and Orbital have done, and we have a great spacecraft ready to be tested and sent to the Cape. There are other exciting missions that could be done
with a Dawn clone and done cheaply now that we have all the procedures, requirements and software completed. The first bus is off the assembly line. The next buses could get started tomorrow. I would love to drive a 'Dawn 2' to another of our mysterious protoplanets. Yes, I would propose again."

[Bob Shaw]

Chris Russell said:

"Would I propose [Dawn] again [as a whole mission]? I am very pleased with the work JPL and Orbital have done, and we have a great spacecraft ready to be tested and sent to the Cape. There are other exciting missions that could be done
with a Dawn clone and done cheaply now that we have all the procedures, requirements and software completed. The first bus is off the assembly line. The next buses could get started tomorrow. I would love to drive a 'Dawn 2' to another of our mysterious protoplanets.  Yes, I would propose again."

Bruce:

How do you think these statements compare with the very negative responses we heard of to a clone for NH? The Pluto spacecraft is simpler, highly conservative and it's sister is half built; in addition, it's management team has managed to get it's vehicle off the ground...

...seems a bit unfair!

Bob Shaw

[Decepticon]

Bruce:

How do you think these statements compare with the very negative responses we heard of to a clone for NH? The Pluto spacecraft is simpler, highly conservative and it's sister is half built; in addition, it's management team has managed to get it's vehicle off the ground...

...seems a bit unfair!

Bob Shaw

Curious is there a thred on this?! I didn't know there was a clone probe!!

Is there any plans as to where it will be sent?

[Bob Shaw]

Curious is there a thred on this?! I didn't know there was a clone probe!!

Is there any plans as to where it will be sent?

There isn't a clone as such, but there's spare hardware already built, and a pitch was made for a NH2 flight using it. The (alleged) costings were such that it was quite uneconomic. The suggested targets were, of course, KBOs...

...and yes, it *was* discussed here!

Bob shaw

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I imagine that what Chris Russell is thinking of is that a second Dawn would be cheap enough that it could fit into the new, raised Discovery cost cap (as the first Dawn now can).

[mars loon]

I imagine that what Chris Russell is thinking of is that a second Dawn would be cheap enough that it could fit into the new, raised Discovery cost cap (as the first Dawn now can).

Well if I understood what you quoted, the first DAWN is the pathfinder. The second would naturally be somewhat easier and perhaps cheaper as a result of the normal learning curve for all aspects of the mission. Right now I'm praying for a go-ahead for the nearly complete first DAWN to visit these exciting miniplanets.

[peter59]

This is incomprehensible to me. Dawn may be cancelled, but congress approved next 6.2 billion dollars for ISS and pseudo-experiments like this SuitSat experiment.

SuitSat experiment

Spirit, Cassini, New Horizons and Dawn it's real space exploration. Gravity Probe B it's real great scientific experiment !

SuitSat and other "great" ISS's experiments (mostly biological), it's scientific humbug. Wasted 100 billion dollars and counting, therefore no money for Down, no money for real science.

[nprev]

I sincerely hope that NASA will allocate the resources needed to fix the propulsion system problems & get this bird out where it belongs; I understand that the final decision has not yet been made.

If Dawn gets semipermanently mothballed for lack of needed support by NASA and not for unrecoverable technical problems, I suggest that we petition the Planetary Society to campaign for Dawn's salvation. TPS has the muscle; New Horizons proved that!!!

[dvandorn]

This is incomprehensible to me. Dawn may be cancelled, but congress approved next 6.2 billion dollars for ISS and pseudo-experiments like this SuitSat experiment.

SuitSat experiment

Spirit, Cassini, New Horizons and Dawn it's real space exploration. Gravity Probe B it's real great scientific experiment !

SuitSat and other "great" ISS's experiments (mostly biological), it's scientific humbug. Wasted 100 billion dollars and counting, therefore no money for Down, no money for real science.

First: SuitSat was NOT in any way a NASA-funded experiment. So, your first statement is not truthful.

Second: Your second statement is truthful, but you contradict it with your third statement, which is not truthful. If there is no money for real science, where did the money for Spirit (and Oppy, too!), Cassini and New Horizons come from? Much less the money for MRO, LRO, MSL, and all the other missions out there, present and future?

Dawn has already cost nearly half a BILLION dollars -- that's not "no money" for Dawn. That's a LOT of money for Dawn.

It is completely acceptable to ask the question, how much more than a half a billion dollars ought we have to spend for a mini-tour of the asteroid belt? And can you state, with a straight face, that ISS and Shutle are responsible for the fact that the Dawn project team has been unable to provide a *working* spacecraft for the half-billion dollars they've already spent on it?

If you want to know why money for Dawn is drying up, don't look at $6 billion for ISS/Shuttle activities -- look at a half a TRILLION dollars to fight a war in Iraq. Or look at $85 billion spent so far on reconstruction after Katrina and about five other major hurricanes that struck the U.S. in 2005. Those two little, minor funding drains have had just a *little* more of an impact on the U.S. budget than U.S. manned spaceflight -- like several orders of magnitude more of an impact.

I want to see Dawn fly, too. But I am sick to death of seeing the manned spaceflight program being blamed for the Dawn team's inability to get their spacecraft built and working for the amount of money they *promised* it would cost. It's simply not a truthful argument, and must therefore be rejected.

-the other Doug

[djellison]

DV - spot on.

Doug

[gpurcell]

This is incomprehensible to me. Dawn may be cancelled, but congress approved next 6.2 billion dollars for ISS and pseudo-experiments like this SuitSat experiment.

SuitSat experiment

Spirit, Cassini, New Horizons and Dawn it's real space exploration. Gravity Probe B it's real great scientific experiment !

SuitSat and other "great" ISS's experiments (mostly biological), it's scientific humbug. Wasted 100 billion dollars and counting, therefore no money for Down, no money for real science.

Just to pile on a bit, you should realize that Gravity Probe B...is probably not the best example for you to bring up, for reasons of economy and of scientific merit. I'll just leave it at that.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Let me add, though, that all this is entirely separate from the question of whether Dawn itself should be cancelled. That mission was accepted by the Discovery program on the condition that it stayed within the specified cost cap, which it has now seriously exceeded. As I've said before: if you allow that cost cap to be busted in this case, you will be opening the gates of Hell by encouraging all future proposers to deliberately lowball their price estimates, and then later come back to NASA with expressions of wide-eyed innocence to rattle their begging bowls like Oliver Twist and ask, "Please, Sir, it was an honest mistake. Can I have some more?" And some more, and some more, and... Uh-uh. This is a good argument even against completing Dawn with additional funding from the supply for the Missions of Opportunity (although I made that suggestion earlier).

[Marz]

Well, yeah; basically, that IS what I'm saying -- at least for now, and for a long time to come.  The thing is simply that when you're exploring or doing anything else in Earth orbit or on the Moon, it's tremendously cheaper and more efficient to it using telepresence -- and when you get farther away, at distance where the radio time lag does start seriously interfering with the ability to control robots from Earth, the difficulty and cost of sending humans out so far also skyrockets compared with the cost of simply putting them into orbit or sending them to the Moon. 

BTW: Sky & Telescope's March issue has a tiny blurb that basically says that Dawn was told to stand down for review, but there's optimism that the go-ahead will be given once the actual costs are re-evaluated for a launch in 2007. There was also a blurb that J.Webb telescope has already suffered from costs ballooning, and they're reducing costs where possible.

While I agree that NASA can't afford bad cost-management practices to become entrenched, clearly there must be weight given to the scientific importance of a mission. Ceres is not just some rubble-roid; it's probably a key piece in understanding solar system evolution, and probably a much more interesting world to visit than Mercury.

Heck, if I were head of Dawn, I'd just borrow that "Mission Accomplished" banner the President used and take a photo of the team infront of the completed spacecraft. Then, request extended mission funding about 5 times the initial budget. If congress gripes, be sure to call them "unpatriotic".

As to the larger argument; sure ISS is a behemoth, but one could apply that argument to almost any unmanned space mission too when compared to funding requests by terrestrial biologists, chemists, etc... I think the answer for what is an appropriate level of funding for manned exploration requires a larger context: what are it's near and long-term goals. I tend to think the end-game is a sustained manned presence on mars (or possibly Ceres?), but at what timeframe? Clearly these worlds should first be explored with sterile robots to clear up the biological questions before lobbing hairless apes at them.

It's hard for me to answer what the optimum levels of funding for which programs and at what % of the GNP; . I tend to think more research $$ should be spent trying to get a space-elevator going at this point, but I'm woefully ignorant of how many show-stopper technology gaps there are into seeing that a reality.

But as the Doug's have said, it's silly for scientists to squabble over such a tiny amount of the federal budget that's measured in *trillions*. I mean, you could eliminate NASA *entirely* (and flushing down one of our best think-tanks in the process), and not even make a 1% dent in the budget. The only squabble to discuss is why did Dawn miss its budget target and/or why is the Discovery cap so low to preclude anything but a NEO mission.

I was so darn optimistic in the 90's watching the usa defense portion shrink year after year. Boy, what a lousy start the 21st century has gotten off to... it just seems like an economy that astromical can do anything, until one realizes the scope of the world's problems anyways.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

You know, that might be a workable Solomonic solution to the problem (and I don't mean Sean Solomon...) Let the mission fly but take custody of its scientific returns away from the original proposers.

[mcaplinger]

Let the mission fly but take custody of its scientific returns away from the original proposers.

Seems like the technical problems are the fault of Orbital or their subs, not the science team or the instrument providers. My guess is it'll be a while before Orbital gets picked to do a planetary mission again.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Mike Caplinger says that this discussion has gotten a wee bit off the subject of Dawn. He is, of course, correct -- so my imminent reply to Scisys' arguments will be over in the "Policy" department below.

[David]

Let me add, though, that all this is entirely separate from the question of whether Dawn itself should be cancelled.  That mission was accepted by the Discovery program on the condition that it stayed within the specified cost cap, which it has now seriously exceeded.  As I've said before: if you allow that cost cap to be busted in this case, you will be opening the gates of Hell by encouraging all future proposers to deliberately lowball their price estimates

Maybe so, but that seems to be a moot point, since as of the the latest budget there aren't going to be any new projects anyway. Space science would be better off trying to complete the current projects that can be completed, if there is not going to be any funding for future projects in the immediate future.

[Guest_Analyst_*]

Orbital, the company building the Dawn spacecraft, is doing this for the first time. Contrary to all the talking about doing this cheaper and faster and better than the majors (LM, TRW, Boeing etc.), they can't. It's not their fault, because is hard. What makes me mad is they are proposing to do it cheaper and faster and better. And a lot of people believe them. And wonder now.

Other topic, but the company building the Falcon rocket is talking about boosters in the Atlas and Delta range now, before their first launch ever. For much less money of course. Spaceflight is not cheap because it is hard and therefore expensive, not because LM is overcharging. They don't burn the money for joy, they test and test and redesign and test and test ... and sometimes fail even then.

Last example: During MPF and later MPL there has been a lot of talk about how expensive Viking was and we can do now better and cheaper. They doublechecked during the 1970ies, even tested chutes in real flight, and trusters ... They didn't with MPL and Deep Impacts camera. And used a very risky approch for Contours departure ...

Analyst

[mcaplinger]

Last example: During MPF and later MPL there has been a lot of talk about how expensive Viking was and we can do now better and cheaper. They doublechecked during the 1970ies, even tested chutes in real flight, and trusters ... They didn't with MPL and Deep Impacts camera.

Your post implies that spending more money decreases risk. It ain't necessarily so, at least not at all times and not linearly. There have been plenty of failures in programs where few expenses were spared: Hubble and Galileo, just to name two.

The MPL failure had little or nothing to do with parachute or thruster testing, and it's really hard to estimate how much more money would have been needed to find the problem. If a couple of people had been thinking just a little harder, a few more lines of code would have been written and there's a good chance we wouldn't be using MPL as a negative example.

[ljk4-1]

The following is quoted from the FPSPACE list:

From ALLEN THOMSON thomsona at flash.net

Thu Feb 9 12:59:02 EST 2006

Relayed from a source who does not wish to be identified.

******************

One of the things that nobody here seems to understand is that many of the NASA programs that are getting cut or placed under review have their own problems, and they are on the chopping block not explicitly because of the Vision for Space Exploration, but because NASA officials have lost confidence in their ability to come in on time and reasonably close to schedule.

For instance, DAWN suffered from sudden cost increases last year. But that is not the whole story, because what really made NASA officials worried was the nature of the increases. They occurred in parts of the program (the ion drive) that were supposed to be easy. So when DAWN started to experience cost overruns on the easier parts of the spacecraft, NASA understandably became worried that it would also experience cost overruns on the harder parts as well. They lost confidence in the management of the program and put it under review. Put a simpler way, DAWN would not be in danger of cancellation if the program was running smoothly. The Vision is not threatening DAWN.

The complete post is here:

http://www.friends-partners.org/pipermail/...ary/018939.html

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

That is exactly what Dantzler said at COMPLEX -- which, I believe, is where the news of the stand-down was first announced. They were running into a puzzling cloud of problems with multiple parts of the project that were supposed to be routine and easy -- and so the stand-down was to provide time to determine whether this was just a run of random bad luck, or whether something more systematic was going on.

To repeat what I said at the start of this thread: if the total projected cost overrun is over $100 million, into the trash can it goes. Otherwise, they'll probably try to salvage it.

[djellison]

they are on the chopping block not explicitly because of the Vision for Space Exploration, but because NASA officials have lost confidence in their ability to come in on time and reasonably close to schedule.
......
They lost confidence in the management of the program and put it under review.

As someone mentioned over at the HZ, pity they don't apply the same logic to Shuttle/ISS/VSE.

Doug

[gpurcell]

Like I said back in November:

Now, I've been on the wrong end of an federal department investigation, so I'm somewhat cynical about the process. But this would not be happening is, for good reasons or bad, high up folks in NASA did not have significant concerns about Dawn's prospects for success.

I really think that you cannot separate this review from the radical descoping the mission unwent even prior to the stand-down. I'd sure like to know how much is left in the DAWN's budget item...that plus the launch costs could be a pretty nice piece of change to toss somewhere.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

As someone mentioned over at the HZ, pity they don't apply the same logic to Shuttle/ISS/VSE.

That's hard to believe, Doug.

And no, I'm not referring to the "pity they don't apply the same logic to Shuttle/ISS/VSE" portion, a sentiment with which I wholeheartedly agree. Rather, I find it hard to believe that such an intelligble, to-the-point comment could emanate from THZ

[djellison]

I find it hard to believe that such an intelligble, to-the-point comment could emanate from THZ 

Since going Grondine free a few months ago, it's not TOOooo bad actually.

Some utter tripe from time to time, but still some interesting things as well. The occasional thing that I spot that I doubt I'd have seen otherwise. In terms of structure and admins etc - it's a 'strange' place though

Doug

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Excerpt from the February 13, 2006, issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology:

Space Technology
Orbital Enhances Satellite Manufacturing Facilities to Meet Demand
Aviation Week & Space Technology
02/13/2006, page 64

Frank Morring, Jr.
Dulles, Va.

[...]

"ALONG WITH THE Pegasus-class spacecraft built on Orbital's MicroStar and LEOStar buses, the company is well along on its first planetary spacecraft, which is sized for a Delta II-heavy. Built for NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the Dawn spacecraft is a Discovery-class mission that will use three xenon-ion engines to thrust out to the main asteroid belt on a 10-year mission that will take it to the large asteroids Vesta and Ceres. The spacecraft is built around a composite tank with a titanium liner designed to hold 900 lb. of xenon fuel for the solar-electric propulsion system.

"A couple of technical issues have left the Dawn mission in limbo for the moment, although its planetary launch window remains open until the second half of 2007. NASA is reviewing the xenon tank for safety, after test failures on similar hardware, and is rechecking the long-term reliability of the power processing unit.

"'In both of those cases, we think we see our way clear to getting to a flightworthy situation,' says John McCarthy, Orbital's program manager for the Dawn spacecraft.

"IN KEEPING WITH NASA's overall push beyond low Earth orbit under President Bush's Moon, Mars and Beyond exploration initiative, Danko sees planetary spacecraft like Dawn as a promising growth area for Orbital's satellite-manufacturing operation.

"'In the satellite business I think growth is going to come basically from two places: one, from the geostationary satellite business, or [two,] from winning a larger market share within the government program,' he says. 'We won the Dawn program several years ago. That was our first entry into our planetary market, and we think we've done a very credible job there. We're looking to get more programs in the deep-space planetary market, which for us is a larger market share of the NASA overall budget.'"

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

NASAWatch/Spaceref is reporting that Dawn has been cancelled.

[Decepticon]

!%#*(*&%!

[jamescanvin]

!%#*(*&%!

I couldn't have put it better myself!

I REALLY want to see Ceres!

If only we could get the IAU to come up with a suitible definition of a planet...

[Decepticon]

I'm itching to see Ceres myself.

The only thing we could look forward to now is earth based observations with these new telescopes.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Hrmpph. Well, I can't say that cancelling a mission that had gone so far over its cost cap was unjustified; but I do find it interesting that it gets the ax while Certain Other Programs which are both vastly huger and have vastly higher percentage cost overruns go shambling onwards as unstoppably (and productively) as Godzilla.

Russell, by the way, had just published an EGU abstract listing his planned targets for a follow-up "Dawn 2" mission. Not surprisingly, they were Hygiea and Psyche ( http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU06/05272/EGU06-J-05272.pdf ). God knows what he'll do now.

[gpurcell]

Hrmpph. Well, I can't say that cancelling a mission that had gone so far over its cost cap was unjustified; but I do find it interesting that it gets the ax while Certain Other Programs which are both vastly huger and have vastly higher percentage cost overruns go shambling onwards as unstoppably (and productively) as Godzilla.

That is true. But they also employ lots and lots of people in F-L-O-R-I-D-A.

[punkboi]

NASAWatch/Spaceref is reporting that Dawn has been cancelled.

I guess that means I can throw away the printout I made of that Dawn certificate after I submitted my name...

[John M. Dollan]

I only know that I'm hugely dissapointed. I'm sure there's more to the cancellation than what is being reported (for instance, I had no idea about the over-budget and technical issues), especially at this early juncture, but considering all of the other "indefinite postponements", things are looking pretty bleak.

...John...

[Holder of the Tw...]

NASAWatch/Spaceref is reporting that Dawn has been cancelled.

Oooooohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, CRAP !!!

Edit: A nice touch by NASA to announce this with Russel on his way to his mother's funeral. Couldn't this announcement have waited a few more days?

[mcaplinger]

Edit: A nice touch by NASA to announce this with Russel on his way to his mother's funeral.

In all fairness, is NASA HQ supposed to keep track of this sort of thing? How would they reasonably have known?

Russell, by the way, had just published an EGU abstract listing his planned targets for a follow-up "Dawn 2" mission.

I'm not sure if publishing this was hubris, chutzpah, or just utter cluelessness on his part.