Comments on: Planetary missions also have to worry about a senior review

By: asBaldwin

asBaldwin — Mon, 16 Dec 2013 12:11:34 +0000

We all have our opinions as to which mission to cut if it came to that . Therefore it must NEVER come to that. NASA is a large state funded organisation testing the waters to see what it can get away with in terms of savings while times are hard. And asking for help ( covertly). The public need to kick up a fuss about any such cuts. In terms of macroeconomics the few tens of millions it costs to keep these missions going is peanuts . If you work for NASA you are hardly going to push back hard against your pay masters , but there is nothing stopping you laying out the bald facts and consequences for those who can push back. Take it from someone who has worked in state funded organisations in the UK for years. That’s how the state funded game works.

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:28:32 +0000

Think Hubble!

By: Mader Levap

Mader Levap — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 12:24:37 +0000

Don’t confuse him with facts. He would have to lie knowingly, instead out of ignorance.

By: Fred Willett

Fred Willett — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 06:33:09 +0000

Actually Tesla paid back all their loan (plus interest) years ahead of the required deadline. By any measure it was not a bad investment, but a very good one for the US taxpayer.

By: DCSCA

DCSCA — Mon, 11 Nov 2013 02:13:58 +0000

In business we have the idea of not throwing good money after bad. gusts Windy.

Government is not a business, Windy. If it was, Wyoming would have four post offices and the JSC would have been built in Florida, not Texas, and Lovell would have said “Titusville, we have a problem.”

By: Curtis Quick

Curtis Quick — Sun, 10 Nov 2013 00:56:07 +0000

How ’bout a Kickstarter for missions that have gone past prime? Instead of turning off spacecraft how about asking universities to take them over? Or even philanthropists? After all, the Keck telescope was not called Keck after a famous astronomer. The money does not have to come from NASA. And my guess is that these programs can be re-managed to use far less resources. Perhaps we don’t need to pay salaries for researchers to conduct their research but instead let them find funding from other sources. This sounds harsh but reality requires re-thinking how money is being spent and relying on past ways of doing it just do not serve the purposes as well as they once did. New wine does not go in old wineskins.

By: reader

reader — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 18:56:00 +0000

But the science community needs to get on the horn
Just getting on the horn and tooting “we need moar money” message is going to be pretty useless and drown in an ocean similar pleas. The message is only going to be constructive, if you call out the target where would you cut instead, too. Remaining a Switzerland kind of “neutral power” in the constrained budget fight isn’t really an option.
So, pick your poison and a new set of enemies : cut JWST, SLS, Earth sciences, Orion, ISS ? Nasaspaceflight ran a poll for the cutting targets, JWST went head to head with SLS ..

By: vulture4

vulture4 — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 11:44:54 +0000

It seems frustratingly impossible to divert money from SLS to Cassini. But the data Cassini can get between 2014 and 2017 is worth far more than $150M. It isn’t clear why Cassini and Curiosity are so expensive to operate, maybe some cost savings is possible. But the science community needs to get on the horn and convince the public to support these missions even if it taxes one new tax dollar per year per American.

By: Neil Shipley

Neil Shipley — Sat, 09 Nov 2013 02:45:48 +0000

Yes, absolutely agree with your comment so apologies for misinterpreting your previous comments. Just sounded like jobs were all you thought was important – like Congress.

By: Hiram

Hiram — Fri, 08 Nov 2013 22:19:13 +0000

“I donâ€™t see what the fuss is. Senior Reviews have always been a part of any mission extension.”

That’s exactly right. Senior Reviews are standard procedure for keeping a mission going longer than the planned duration. But what the fuss is about is that funds available for mission extensions are now so tight, many more, and more precious missions will need to get their plugs pulled. In the past, the Senior Reviews have been pretty much just formal tools to terminate aging and less productive missions. That’s probably not the case this time. The “hard choices” are going to be a lot harder to make.