NASA Dawn asteroid mission told to ‘stand down’ Options

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

NASAWatch/Spaceref has an interesting new bit of news.

[helvick]

NASAWatch/Spaceref has an interesting new bit of news.

Now that is definitely something that makes one you go "hmmmh". I was a bit unclear about the sequence of events, reported in this way it seems decidedly odd.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Now that is definitely something that makes one you go "hmmmh". I was a bit unclear about the sequence of events, reported in this way it seems decidedly odd.

As I posted over at TPS Members Forum: "This is an interesting development. Although it's not totally unprecedented, it isn't a common occurence for a NASA Administrator to overrule a programmatic decision of a NASA Associate Administrator, assuming, of course, that Griffin doesn't merely reaffirm the cancellation decision after a decent interval of 'deliberation.'"

We'll see. However, if Griffin does spare Dawn, then that is great news for them. I wonder, though, whether this new development could be bad news for the current Discovery solicitation. In other words, robbing Peter to pay Paul.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Emily has posted some interesting new details in her blog.

[gpurcell]

Very interesting.

A Kepler solution, perhaps?

[nprev]

From the Sky & Telescope site (emphasis added by me):

"In January, NASA officials canceled the high-energy X-ray Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array (NuStar) Explorer mission. On March 2nd NASA's new head of science, Mary Cleave, terminated the Dawn asteroid mission. That craft had only a few months of work left to go before becoming launch ready. Cleave's announcement about Dawn came shortly after she testified to a hostile Congressional panel about the cuts.

Congressional leaders challenged both the internal and external priorities affecting the budget. The science community questioned whether large, overbudget missions should be protected at the expense of losing both the research jobs needed to analyze the data and the small missions needed to round out a healthy science program.

It's very unusual for missions to be cancelled so close to launch. The Dawn termination apparently saves only $30 million out of a $370 million project, and Dawn's cost overrun was mostly due to the impact of previous delays imposed by NASA headquarters rather than technical issues."


Okay, then. Talk about penny-wise/pound-stupid. Emily, can TPS start some action now???

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Let's wait and see whether the cost overruns (which were actually closer to $60 million) really WERE the result of NASA HQ actions. In that connection, I'll have a note later on in the "Policy and Stategy" section about "Nature's" new free-access article on the effects of the Webb Telescope's gargantuan cost overruns on the rest of space astronomy -- most of which have nothing to do with any fault by NASA HQ.

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

Let's wait and see whether the cost overruns (which were actually closer to $60 million) really WERE the result of NASA HQ actions. In that connection, I'll have a note later on in the "Policy and Stategy" section about "Nature's" new free-access article on the effects of the Webb Telescope's gargantuan cost overruns on the rest of space astronomy -- most of which have nothing to do with any fault by NASA HQ.

So, the Reichhardt article I mentioned in the JWST thread is now freely accessible?

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

Well, it was 2 days ago, although I can't seem to connect to it now. However, first I downloaded a copy, which I attach.

Hmmph. That didn't work. I'll try it again down in the "Policy & Strategy" section.

[mcaplinger]

"The Dawn termination apparently saves only $30 million out of a $370 million project..."

Yes, but terminating it also saves the remaining development, launch, operations, and science costs, which probably total up to at least $150M if not more.

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I had heard that Dawn's total estimated cost was up to $413 million -- as compared to the original cost cap of $350 million. And Sykes' complaint that a lot of this was due to NASA expanding the reserve requirements in the wake of Messenger and Deep Impact is unconvincing -- the reserves were expanded precisely because NASA, by then, had every reason to believe that those reserves would be needed in reality. (Note also that Kepler is currently up to $520 million!)

[djellison]

So why has Kepler not been cancelled? A much much bigger cost overrun. It should have been cancelled before a Dawn cancellation was even considered surely?

Doug

[Guest_BruceMoomaw_*]

I mentioned previously that, at the November COMPLEX meeting where Andy Dantzler first broke the news of the Dawn reappraisal, he also mentioned that phenomenal cost overrun on Kepler -- but pointed out that it now falls under the control of NASA's separate Universe Division, which has decided to retain it as a central part of the extrasolar-planet search program despite the overrun. (This might have something to do with the delays on SIM, since at least one of those two missions will be necessary to do a census of the frequency of Earthlike planets so that we can decide which of the two radically different TPF designs should be followed.) As Dantzler said in an exasperated tone, "It's no longer my responsibility."

[djellison]

So basically, your Discovery mission will get cancelled if it's over-running the budget, unless we really really like it, in which case we'll move it to another division.

Doug

[Guest_AlexBlackwell_*]

I mentioned previously that, at the November COMPLEX meeting where Andy Dantzler first broke the news of the Dawn reappraisal, he also mentioned that phenomenal cost overrun on Kepler -- but pointed out that it now falls under the control of NASA's separate Universe Division, which has decided to retain it as a central part of the extrasolar-planet search program despite the overrun. (This might have something to do with the delays on SIM, since at least one of those two missions will be necessary to do a census of the frequency of Earthlike planets so that we can decide which of the two radically different TPF designs should be followed.) As Dantzler said in an exasperated tone, "It's no longer my responsibility."

I recall some grumbling among the planetary sciences community (for various reasons) when NASA opened the Discovery Program to missions like Genesis and Kepler. The most common complaint was that Genesis belonged in NASA's Living With A Star Program and Kepler in NASA's Origins Program.