Logic isn’t really a strong point for ya is it Tom….

No, this is a fairly civil discussion.

“your assertion that New Horizons was actually only one of 6 missions rated ‘number one’.”

It is not an assertion. It’s a fact printed and repeated in black and white throughout the NRC report that the planetary decadal survey assigned six mission and program recommendations #1 rankings.

“This is NOT a logical conclusion if you read the entire survey and it is a completely unsupportable assertion and is not constructive in the least.”

You keep saying that, but you have yet to provide any evidence that supports such a statement.

“Chapter 8, page 207 uses the *strongest possible language* that a report like this is likely to ever use to support a Pluto/Kuiper belt Object mission in BOLD FONT no less:

‘the SSE Survey strongly endorses the New Frontiers initiative. These spacecraft should be competitively procured and should have flights every 2 or3 years, with the total cost capped at approximately twice that of a Discovery mission. Target selection should be guided by the list in this report.'”

Reread the passage you’re quoting. You’re confusing New Frontiers (a program consisting of a series of missions) with New Horizons (a single mission). In that passage, the survey used its “strongest possible language” and “BOLD FONT” to support the former (New Frontiers), not the latter (New Horizons).

(In fact, the survey never refers to the New Horizons mission at all, only a generic mission to Pluto and the Kuiper Belt.)

Again, the evidence you’re quoting does not support the argument you’re making. Please read more carefully.

“So, there was no false or misleading statements, none.”

Wrong, Dr. Stern made two false and misleading statements earlier in this thread.

The first statement was:

“our priority as listed in the National; [sic] Academy’s Decadal Survey was #1 for medium class missions”

This is a false and misleading statement because the survey assigned #1 rankings to two medium mission priorities, not one.

The second statement was:

“Pluto-Kuiper Belt was the #1 rec: nothing was higher.”

This is a false and misleading statement because the survey assigned #1 rankings to six mission and program priorities in total.

I don’t know how to explain it any more plainly than that.

I don’t know why Dr. Stern made these false and misleading statements. I don’t know if it was out of ignorance or a deliberate attempt to be disingenous — I can’t read his mind. But the fact remains that the statements were made and that they are at odds with the facts as printed in the decadal survey.

Look, I think it’s great that you’re a devoted fan of the New Horizons mission, but that doesn’t change the planetary science community’s priorities as written in the decadal survey. It’s also nice to see a researcher earn a devoted fan, but your grasping attempts to defend patently hypocritical, false, and misleading statements from said researcher is at odds with what is written in black and white and is honestly bordering on the creepy. I’d urge you to take off the rose-tinted glasses and accept the facts as they stand in print. And if you can’t do that, then you should probably stop wasting your and my time with this conversation, because you’re never going to be convinced otherwise.

“With regards to your point of budget overuns, 20% representing $100 Million for this kind of mission… What concrete & proactive solutions do you propose to address this?”

At this point, the only solution to reduce New Horizon’s prior cost growth is to terminate the mission. Its cost growth is big enough for a Nunn-McCurdy breach. Although drastic, maybe such a measure should be considered. As Dr. Stern argued in his editorial, sunk costs are sunk costs, after all.

FWIW…

If so I shall try to focus on the facts & not in any personal insults and my comments are to you and any one who may wish to comment or add their 2 cents.

Before we change the topic to Dr. Griffin & Constellation

I first would like to agree with you that “Our arguments stand on their logic and the evidence behind them” and the corresponding parallel to that is that when we have been shown to be incorrect, we acknowledge it and move forward.

I have enjoyed debating you Tom, and I have learned a lot about space science in reading the entire NAS (National Academy for Sciences) SSES (Solar System Exploration Survey) Decadal survey (thanks to Dr. Stern for pointing out it’s relevance), and I would recommend it to anyone with a real passion on this topic.

http://cart.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?&record_id=10432

Your assertion that perhaps somehow Dr. Stern was being “deliberately disingenuous” or even “false & misleading” is a deliberately misinformed opinion, as is your assertion that New Horizons was actually only one of 6 missions rated “number one”.

This is NOT a logical conclusion if you read the entire survey and it is a completely unsupportable assertion and is not constructive in the least.

The Decadal survey is clear as are pages 21 & 22 in that IT QUALIFIES THE PRIORITIES & the differences between missions of different scope and costs:

“Because resources are finite, the SSE Survey prioritized all new flight missions within each category along with any associated activities”

Yes there were other missions rated #1, *in their class*, but none had as much detailed explanation of their merits and how they related to questions of a scientific paramount as did a Pluto/KBO mission.

For clarification the survey states (pg 19) that Discovery class missions are to launched ideally every 18 months at a targeted cost of less than$325 Million.

New Frontier Class missions are to be launched ideally every 2-3 years at twice the cost of Discovery Missions at less than $650 Million.

Flagship missions are to be developed and flown at a rate of about one per decade for a budget greater than$650 million.

Perhaps (?) you haven’t yet had a chance to read the entire report and the the conclusions in Chapter 7: Priority Questions for Solar System Exploration,
2003-2013:

On Pages 192 -198 the report is crystal clear on the need and benefits of a Pluto/Kuiper Belt Object mission under the New Frontiers program. This is shown by including two Charts (7.1 & 7.2) showing the merits of different missions and what questions they address.

Chapter 8, page 207 uses the *strongest possible language* that a report like this is likely to ever use to support a Pluto/Kuiper belt Object mission in BOLD FONT no less:

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

..”the SSE Survey strongly endorses the New Frontiers initiative. These spacecraft should be competitively procured and should have flights every 2 or3 years, with the total cost capped at approximately twice that of a Discovery mission. Target selection should be guided by the list in this report.”

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

(The list mentioned is on page 22 (acrobat #) where it is Numero Uno.

The key words here are “Strongly endorses” and they are only used once in the entire report.

So, there was no false or misleading statements, none.

New Horizons became the New Frontier mission that this report “Strongly” endorsed. It will give us key info on primitive bodies in the solar system, the outer solar system & understand planet formation better. It is & will continue to be a great success for a great price!

With regards to your point of budget overuns, 20% representing $100 Million for this kind of mission which has a Nuclear power source (RTG) and is destined for deep space pales in significance to the overall problem of NASA’s SMD (Science Mission Directorate) $5 Billion overun.

What concrete & proactive solutions do you propose to address this?

No, even if we disregard the fact that Ares I/Orion were so expensive that Griffin had to cancel most ISS research, Project Prometheus (nuclear power/propulsion development), and most other exploration technology development from the get-go, technical issues and poor systems engineering, not budget, have been driving Constellation’s schedule problems for about a year now. The program is now looking down an 18-month slip from the first operational Ares I/Orion flight in 2016 due to “‘serious disconnects’ between related departments, such as Orion, Ground Ops and Ares” and “issues such as Thrust Oscillation and vehicle performance have come at a price for both schedule and costings”. See:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/03/aresorion-slipping-18-months-shuttle-extension-upper-hand/

With the “program reporting they are at ‘zero percent confidence’ for keeping to [schedule]… confidence [that schedule savings] can be achieved without a major boost to Constellation funding is classed as low… with the worst case cost estimate coming in at around $7 billion.” There is now a “‘9th Floor’ NASA HQ effort already taking place to evaluate the viability of cancelling Ares I, and replacing the launch vehicle with an EELV (Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle) – such as an Atlas V Heavy or a Delta IV Heavy”. Of course, now “shuttle extension” is also “building up a head of steam”, with all the attendant budget and schedule impacts to Orion, whatever its launch vehicle.

FWIW…

My reply was to Dr. Stern, not to you, Mr. Koester.

“I take issue with your tone as I think such a loose use of the term ‘hypocritical’ is totally uncalled for”

A spade is a spade. You can take issue all you want, but it’s the very definition of hypocritical to criticize cost growth on certain projects — in editorials in major newspapers nonetheless — when one’s own project is also guilty of cost growth, and especially when said project goes unmentioned in said editorial. It’s even worse when the excuses used here for said project’s cost growth (HQ directives forced cost growth on my project for which I had no recourse) are the same as the excuses used by the projects one is criticizing.

“and deserving of a posting under something other than an anonymous name…”

Mr. Foust welcomes anonymous comments in this forum. Our arguments stand on their logic and the evidence behind them. It doesn’t matter who makes the argument.

If you’re uncomfortable debating an anonymous poster, then don’t respond to posts from anonymous posters, especially those that are not directed at you.

“I might add sir, that taking someone’s word for it usually doesn’t usually involve citing websites…”

You’re confused here. I was taking Dr. Stern’s word, not the websites’.

“To say that there were SIX missions rated as #1 could be seen as a bit confusing as the priorities are split into Mars & NON MARS missions”

It doesn’t matter how the priorities are grouped. The fact remains that decadal review assigned six missions and programs #1 rankings.

I don’t know if Dr. Stern didn’t learn these priorities or was being deliberately disingenuous. But regardless of how one groups the #1 ranked priorities in the survey, his statement that “Pluto-Kuiper Belt was the #1 rec: nothing was higher” is false and misleading.

“this means that New Horizons mission was indeed #1 for non-mars exploration missions budgeted for Medium Missions”

So what? Dr. Stern’s arguments was that “our priority as listed in the National; Academy’s Decadal Survey was #1 for medium class missions”, not #1 for non-Mars medium missions. Again, I don’t know if Dr. Stern didn’t learn these priorities or was being deliberately disingenuous. But regardless, his statement is again false and misleading.

FWIW…

I couldn’t resist checking the link you cited for NRC’S (National Research Council) Decadal Survey from 2003 on Space exploration for the period of 2003-2013.

In the 15 mb free pdf download,the page 5 you refer to is page 22 in an acrobat reader and it seems to be the page you are referring to but your interpretation that Dr. Stern is “Wrong Again” is way off base and incorrect.

To say that there were SIX missions rated as #1 could be seen as a bit confusing as the priorities are split into Mars & NON MARS missions:

Small Mission =Less than $350 Million (2 options – Discovery was #1)

Medium Mission=Less than $650 Million (5 options Pluto/Kuiper was #1)

Large Mission =More than $650 Million (1 choice-Europa Geophy/Expl)

There are 3 Mars Missions on page 22, but Page 21 clearly qualifies this by stating:

“…since the Mars Exploration Program line is already successfully
established as a separate entity within NASA, its missions are prioritized separately in this report.”

Page 21 of the Report also clearly states that the NRC:

“Recommended Solar System Flight Missions (non-Mars)

Europa Geophysical Explorer
Kuiper Belt/Pluto Explorer
South Pole-Aitken Basin Sample Return”

Since the Europa mission was budgeted at more than $650 Million it was considered as a large Mission (and would likely today be in the Billions given NASA’s recent decision to partner with the ESA outer solar system exploration) — this means that New Horizons mission was indeed #1 for non-mars exploration missions budgeted for Medium Missions under $650 Million.

I just felt this deserved some clarification. If anyone wants to have a Direct link to the Decadal survey, go here:

http://cart.nap.edu/cart/deliver.cgi?&record_id=10432

(or use Tom’s link and click on free download)

You stand corrected Dude

Tom… What are we debating here? I respectfully suggest “we” are missing the forest for the trees…

New Horizons came in at a reasonable cost for an outer planet mission(Under $700 Million), had effective budget control for what was under the purvey of the PI (Principal Investigator) & his team, and will provide essential info about the outer solar system & the Kuiper Belt.

With it’s Jupiter gravity assist & fly-by (which captured the giant plume from Io’s Tvashtar volcano) and it’s long range reconnaissance imaging of Neptune’s moon Triton, to it’s mission to Pluto, Charon & possibly 2 Kuiper Belt Objects —- —- This mission has to date and will continue to be quite a success.

The question/discrepancy(?) about the AO (which for all you Acronym Haters out there – stands for “Announcement of Opportunity” – essentially NASA’s version of a letter of Intent.

You point out the AO was for FY (Financial Year) 2000 instead of 2001, –but if you think about –this it actually supports the inflation change from $500 Million to $590 when fully “costed”. I also suggest that the budget is prepared in advance so therefore the 2001 Budget is prepared in the prior year, in this case the year 2000.

The AO link clearly shows that there was to be *TWO* finalists and that the decision would not be made until August of 2001. You will note that Dr. Stern did not get his Award letter until November of 2001.

Sorry Tom, I believe you are incorrect about there being no mention by Dr. Stern about his own experience with cost overruns in the NY Times while he may not have mentioned NHs specifically, it is fair to say that in he has been completely transparent on this matter, both here & elsewhere:

“As a scientist in charge of space sensors and entire space missions before I was at NASA, I myself was involved in projects that overran.”

Your statement that any “…AA (PI?) (or other NASA manager) owes the taxpayer the best possible stewardship of NASA’s budget… ” is well taken and reasonable.

Your interpretation that this is an example of the best stewardship not occurring is not reasonable. In my judgment and in the minds of others (and I am sure Dr. Sterns peers), NH was a good example of a well run mission.

However as Dr. Stern points out, it is your prerogative to disagree, however I think it is fair that the facts be accurately reflected in your responses.

When a mission is 20% or $100 Million over which consists of a launch vehicle that is $75 Million of that difference along with 13 months of unexpected salary costs, then I think a majority of people would not see that as a hypocrisy nor poor management, quite the opposite.

I take issue with your tone as I think such a loose use of the term “hypocritical” is totally uncalled for and deserving of a posting under something other than an anonymous name…

I might add sir, that taking someone’s word for it usually doesn’t usually involve citing websites whose 2nd or 3rd hand sources are very likely less accurate than a principal involved in the story. Like the professional that he is Jeff Foust notes that any links to Dr. Sterns resignation and the MER’s are “Speculation”…. which given Dr. Sterns above statement and the passage of time I think we can see was precisely accurate (Thank you Jeff).

Please keep in mind that Dr. Stern’s concern with the SMD’s 5 Billion budget busting wasn’t just based on money but how the whole process works. That means we need those SMEX and discovery class missions and other so that PI’s can get more experience. It means not having so many eggs in one basket with multiple state of the art systems. You could say we need more 10 yard downs that Hail Mary passes for better space science….

You have are clearly of person who cares about space science and I appreciate & respect that Tom and I can agree to disagree on a lot of things, but I know that given your passion you will be with me paying close attention July 2015 to see what surprises Pluto has in store for us…

Sincerely,

Brian Koester

Major Tom raises the issue of the science value of a pluto flyby
and it’s true, it’s only a few weeks of data, but considering how little
close data we have, and that Voyager made an irreversible choice
30 years ago on wether to go to pluto, it’s not a choice we can
easily undo. Investing 400 Million to get a pioneer or ranger class
mission off is in my mind worth it, and NH has a real chance to
push on to a couple of other KBO’s while it’s out there.

I did, and we’re both wrong. It was $500M in FY00 dollars, at least according to this press release on the AO:

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2000/00-201.txt

“By the way, our priority as listed in the National; Academy’s Decadal Survey was #1 for medium class missions.”

Wrong. MSL, at least the $650 million version, was also ranked as a #1 medium class mission.

“Again, check your facts– Pluto-Kuiper Belt was the #1 rec: nothing was higher.”

Wrong again. The decadal survey made six program recommendations with #1 rankings: the Discovery Program, a Kuiper Belt-Pluto Explorer, a Europa Geophysical Explorer, the Mars Scout line, a Mars Science Laboratory, and a Mars Sample Return mission.

See p. 5 in the PDF link here:

http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10432

“Now back to our cost increase on NH: Yes, we went over–as I have many times said in print and in public (e.g., check the New York Times OpEd I wrote in November).”

There is no mention of New Horizons (in reference to cost growth or anything else) in that editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/opinion/24stern.html?_r=1

“You seem to be claiming that because New Horizons failed to come within 20% of its cost, my attempts to control 10x bigger cost increases in other missions was illegitimate and somehow disingenuous.”

That was not my argument. Any AA (or other NASA manager) owes the taxpayer the best possible stewardship of NASA’s budget, regardless of cost performance in prior projects.

What is hypocritical are editorials in major news outlets calling out other missions for overruns with no acknowledgement of the overrun on New Horizons. The use of certain cost baselines in those editorials is also very disingenuous. (But I’m not stating anything that you havn’t already heard from others.)

I’m all for reigning in mission cost growth, but we need to take the high ground and acknowledge all of our failings, not cherry pick our cases and evidence.

“Neither I nor anyone on New Horizons had any recourse in this.”

There’s always a recourse, up to and including project termination.

I’m apologize for the tone, but these kinds of lame excuses are naseatingly common in this business. There’s a couple summary articles at Mr. Foust’s other website that make the same kind of “no recourse from above” arguments (HQ redirected MSL funding to Phoenix, HQ limited inter-year budget flexibility, etc.) with regard to MSL’s overrun.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1318/1

The magnitude of the overruns may be different, but the essential excuses for the overruns on the New Horizons and MSL projects — HQ made us do it — are the same.

We _all_ can and need to do better.

“I did not quit over MER… I quit when my boss effectively told me he was taking over SMD to fund MSL no matter how much damage it did to the rest of SMD.”

I take your word for it. Other reports, including on this site, indicated otherwise:

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2008/03/26/stern-resigns/

“I like your handle too, but as I have clearly stated for 6 months,… I am not a candidate for NASA Administrator. Period.”

I was arguing against your candidancy, not for it.

“I have a son and daughter to raise and it is there [sic] turn to come first,.”

The best of luck with the budget on that project.

FWIW…