Wednesday’s issue of Aerospace Daily had an interesting article about the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), the first in a series of robotic lunar missions under the Vision for Space Exploration designed as precursors for human expeditions. What was most surprising is the proposed budget for the mission:
Funding for the LRO begins with $70 million requested in fiscal year 2005. The total funding for the mission through FY ’09 is $1.3 billion.
This is very surprising, given that previous reports suggested that LRO would cost “only” several hundred million. If the $1.3-billion figure is correct, this would make LRO considerably more expensive than the Mars Exploration Rovers, which were far more complex and challenging than LRO would likely ever be. Indeed, it’s hard to figure out how you could make a lunar orbiter cost that much. Given that there are already some grumblings in Congress, particularly in Sen. Brownback’s office, about the approach NASA has taken for LRO, I suspect this mission will face closer scrutiny, particularly if this price estimate is accurate. (I have already argued for a different approach for robotic lunar exploration in an article in The Space Review last month.)
This must be a mistaken report. It is a Delta class mission and it’s hard to see how you can cram a gigabuck worth of science into a Delta size payload. Even if this includes the proposed lander and data processing fees, that is still way too high of a number.
“…it’s hard to see how you can cram a gigabuck worth of science into a Delta size payload.”
You’re joking, right, Dwayne?
Well, maybe you can’t get a gigabuck worth of science, but you can easily spend a gigabuck in attempting to, if you’re NASA.
It reminds me of the story in Augustine’s Laws, when he described the problems that the aerospace industry was having in continuing up the exponential cost curve with each new fighter generation, because cost correlated with weight, and they were reaching the point at which, in order to get to the next cost point on the curve, the airplanes were getting too heavy to fly. Then they came up with an answer: software.
I was in the NAC meeting. The charts say that they are looking at a Delta II for a LRO.
However, the charts show funding for the entire Robotic Lunar Exploration *PROGRAM* beginning in FY 05 and going through FY 09 spending $1.3 Billion.
“the charts show funding for the entire Robotic Lunar Exploration *PROGRAM*”
Well, what else is there to this program, apart from LRO ?
If there are no other robotic lunar craft heading out in this timeframe, this must be the cost of the LRO, correct ?
Which delta class rocket is capable of lunar orbital insertion? If a modified version is require then I could see that the developement cost would be tossed into that gigabuck cost(1.3B) even if half the cost was rocket and the other the payload. I still think that it can be done for less and that Nasa should try and do just that.
Cost reducing of Nasa’s budget woo’s by cancellation of on going projects, closing or consolidation of facilities, is and should not be the only way to get the needed funds for the VSE from with in the budget.
Kert:
There are other spacecraft included in the program per the charts presented:
– 2008 LRO
– 2009/2010 lunar robotic landed mission
– other missions
Harold:
I don’t understand your point(s)
“- 2008 LRO”
“- 2009/2010 lunar robotic landed mission”
Which, being generous and taking into account traditional budget timelines for such projects, will make around $800M for a lunar orbiter. Still hideously expensive, IMHO.
The $1.3 billion for the entire lunar program through FY09 makes some sense, but it still seems a bit high. By the end of FY09 we should have LRO built and launched, and perhaps the lander mission too, as well as one or two more missiions (yet to be determined) in the development process. Keep in mind that back in February that O’Keefe told the House Science Committee that “the robotic capability to return to the Moon this decade” would cost no more than $500-600 million:
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55862main_ok_house_hearing_transcript.pdf
(Turn to page 18 of the transcript.) Could this overall program cost $1.3 billion over five years? *Should* it cost $1.3 billion? Those are two very different questions…
Regarding choice of launch vehicles: while NASA has baselined a Delta 2 for LRO, there have been some whispers that LRO could be too large to fit on a Delta 2, forcing them to turn to a EELV. This might well be the case if NASA wants LRO to carry out multiple missions and last five years in orbit, at least part of which will be spent in a low lunar orbit that may require significant propellant to maintain.
Kert – try reading my post again there are more than 2 missions i.e ‘other missions’.
This is all still confusing. It is hard to see how this project essentially doubled in price in four months, unless NASA is planning on adding at least two more missions at $250-300 million apiece.
And one suspects that this is going to raise a lot of hackles on Capitol Hill, where there are already a lot of people wondering why missions to the moon cannot be done a) much cheaper than other missions, and b) done via different methods, such as private partnerships.
“try reading my post again there are more than 2 missions i.e ‘other missions'”
I did. Still no change, i dont see no ‘other missions’ spoken about in ’05-’09 timeframe. What are they, big national secrets ?
a recon orbiter – check
a lander ( tech demonstrator ?? or what ? ) – check
What other missions could there be, and why not speak openly about them ?
Regardless of the number of lunar missions(ie lander,orbitors ect..)The cost is still in question since the dual Mars rovers were around the 800 million. Why not combine the missions seperating them just drives up the overall total cost of getting ready for manned mission to the moon.
Kert: WRT “What other missions could there be, and why not speak openly about them ?”
DUH, maybe they haven’t formulated all of their plans yet. Why not call Chris Scolese at 202-358-1413 or email him at cscolese@mail.hq.nasa.gov and demand to know all the details.
Harold: WRT ” Why not combine the missions seperating them just drives up the overall total cost of getting ready for manned mission to the moon.”
It is often far less expensive to build a dedicated orbiter and a dedicated lander than to build a spacecraft spilts into two parts – each doing a different function. It certainly makes for much smaller spacecraft and smaller launch vehicles. Why weren’t the Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor projects combined?
Do you have an example of the cost difference on the rockets versus the payload of seperate units.
Versus one that could carry both items to destination moon.
example:
If rocket A cost is 75 million and rocket B cost is 100 million then you would spend an additional 50 million for seperate launches not counting any difference for the payload Lunar Orbiter and Surveyor.
Harold: you really do need to take some classes in rocket science.
OK, this isn’t even rocket science… Take a stab at the cost of LRO itself — pick a comparable spacecraft: Mars Odyssey, Mars Express, etc. Add either a Delta II or a low end EELV (at this level of precision I’m not worried about the cost difference). Add a dollop for several years science ops, plus data analysis, plus possibly operating it for more years as a comm relay.
Now, on to the lander… When was the last time we *successfully* landed a robot on rockets (That would be Viking, wouldn’t it? 30 years in the past by the time the lunar lander flies.)?? So, take a w.a.g. on the development cost for the landing stage, then add roughly one MER’s worth of rover development (minus the airbag engineering). Add a mid-size EELV. If we assume this launches in ’09, then I’ll give a pass on adding the science ops.
Finally, add in a wedge for initial development of the succeeding mission and perhaps a smaller one for preliminary design on the one after that.
When the dust settles I’d be very surprised if a set of reasonable guesses doesn’t end up in the $1.0 – 1.3 billion range. I don’t think anyone in NASA is pulling a fast one or gold-plating the budget (at least not blatantly or excessively). If you believe that the Gov’t should just put out a Request for Data (i.e., we’ll pay a bounty of $300 million for x,y, and z datasets if the data are returned by 1 Jan 2009), that’s a different argument altogether. I *think* that the bounty method should get the same data for under $1.0 billion, maybe a lot less, but that’s an experiment who’s time probably has not yet come in the current budgetary climate (can you say risk-aversion?).
– Eric.