To me the most interesting experiment was put on late, which is the radar, which is a companion to the Spudis radar on the Indian mission. Maybe both of them working together can map the water concentrations.

We must have in situ sampling at both the poles as well, long before we land, in order to take the best advantage of any possible ISRU processes. To me the biggest failing of NASA is that ISRU has been largely excised from the program, which is in the end, the reason for going.

Riding science on missions flown for other purposes is probably the cheapest way there is to do science. An example which I just read about in Spaceflight is the way the Air Force’s Mid-Course Space Experiment was used to conduct a survey of the galactic plane. Still another is the effort to ride Earth observation experiments on the next generation Iridium satellites.

If the LRO ends up not advancing science, it is because scientists are not looking at the data, not because the data isn’t being generated.

— Donald

Evidence? At minimum, LRO team were/are expereinced SMEX and Explorers spacecraft developers; and given GSFC’s matrix management, they pull experienced talent from the various engineering and flight directorates. So who exactly had never done spacecraft development before?

“chose a group of experiments from ESMD that does little to actually advance lunar science,”

Remember, when LRO was started, it was an SMD managed mission; and the instrument selection process was managed by SMD prior to LRO being transferred to ESMD. While the instruments selected were primarily to address ESMD “exploration” objectives (e.g., finding safe landing sites, looking for potential water ice for ISRU), they all are dual-use for “science” purposes and have significant science value. (see http://lro.larc.nasa.gov/index.html for history of LRO instrument aquisition).

But for argument’s sake, as evidence of LRO science value, SMD recently initiated a new lunar research program (called LASER) to fund research using the data from LRO (as well as other missions). In addition, SMD is expected to take over LRO after its primary mission phase (1 year) and operate it in an extended mission mode. I would not expect SMD would spend its precious research dollars (remember, these initiatives were generated during the Stern era) on data that “does little to actually advance lunar science.”

How about, no one else will take the job and Weiler is hoping that after Griffin is tossed that he will walk into the job, at least as interim? The last guy sold his home, moved to DC, and after less than a year could not deal with it anymore. Yea baby, lot of folks want to follow that up.

For evidence all you have to look at is the LRO budget and the NASA submittals every year for increased spending to cover the overruns. Way over what it was supposed to be but never a peep from anyone, including Stern. You know how high the GSFC overhead rates are. NASA administrators, as far back as the early Goldin era figured out that to cross Babs was a bad idea.

If you heard that then you heard that GSFC put a team together that had never done a spacecraft development before, chose a group of experiments from ESMD that does little to actually advance lunar science, and will probably slip the launch beyond October for yet another delay.

ESMD decisions are largely responsible for the complexity, large launcher, and costs of LRO — decisions that I’ve heard Weiler (and many others) actually tried, but failed, to push back on.

“Went whining to Mikulski and Griffin backed down.”

Evidence?

If Weiler has a history of making end-runs around the NASA Administrator, why would Griffin bring Weiler back as AA?

It’s fine if one wants to be a Stern fan. He did have redeeming qualities as AA. But we should defend Stern. Making up stuff about the new AA won’t polish Stern’s record.

FWIW…

Yea just like Weiler pushed back on the overruns on LRO. Went whining to Mikulski and Griffin backed down.

Err… no… Japan and China have lunar orbiters ‘right now’. India has yet to launch (probably this year). Europe’s SMART-1 was destroyed on impact in 2006. The United States will launch the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter and LCROSS impactor by end of 2008.

5) Go as you pay. If you cannot fit within budget, you go slower.

To return to an earlier point, the decadal surveys highlight science needs related to phobos and deimos as well as the internal structure of small solar system bodies, and the transport of volatiles on the moon. To plan any kind of optical facility on the moon, one also needs to understand the lunar dust atmosphere.

Finally, China and India have lunar orbiters right now, we have nothing. These VSE-related missions do have and will have foreign competition – steamboat landers and big mission mentality/politics are failing and will continue to fail. With HQ politics as they are, NASA’s smaller more dynamic enterprises have been attacked and held back, so VSE will be carried out by foreign countries.