Comments on: Next NASA Discovery solicitation will miss Congressional deadline

By: Mark Rudenstein

Mark Rudenstein — Sun, 23 Feb 2014 06:10:22 +0000

The last Discovery AO evaluation took about 2 years (including the 9 month long Phase A studies) from final AO release to final selection. Unless Congress intended to hamstring a thorough review of all the proposals — which I’m certain was not the intent — the selection date in the appropriation report must have been based on a misunderstanding of the evaluation and selection process. The dates in the synopsis are probably the best possible given the evaluation and selection process.

BTW, a big driver for the cancellation of the ASRG might have been the $50M/year NASA must use to fund the restarting of Pu-238 production by the DoE. That was non-negotiable, I believe. AFAIK, though, Congress gave NASA the responsibility but did not add any funding.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:09:27 +0000

amightywind said:

“I am not surprised you are not foresighted enough to see the value of ASRG.”

Reread what I wrote – I DO see the value in developing the ASRG, and I DO see the value in taking the money to develop it out of the SLS budget.

Unfortunately it is you that supports a big program that ensures that we’ll have no need for the small technology development programs like ASRG.

Apparently boot-licking is your style…

By: Vladislaw

Vladislaw — Fri, 21 Feb 2014 15:00:29 +0000

I agree with you Ron, but let’s not stop with only cutting off one slice of bacon from that pork wagon the SLS, let’s carve that up and fund a lot more technology. Between SLS and Orion we could have some real useful tecb and hardware created.

By: amightywind

amightywind — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 18:37:30 +0000

I am not surprised you are not foresighted enough to see the value of ASRG. But consider the program you support that casts it aside. Well, boot-licking was never my style.

By: Coastal Ron

Coastal Ron — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:45:45 +0000

amightywind said:

“…the ASRG had the most merit. No wonder it was dropped.”

Not everything that has no current demand can be funded. Perhaps you’d like to fund ASRG (advanced Stirling radioisotope generator) development with money from another program that has no current demand, like the SLS?

Siphoning $50M off of the SLS program to fund the development of ASRG would not make a difference at this point since NO ONE has stepped forward to actually use the SLS, but developing the ASRG would allow us to do more missions with the same amount of Pu238. And, since it’s highly unlikely that any ASRG powered mission would need the SLS, so it’s a Win-Win for everyone!

By: Hiram

Hiram — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 16:03:38 +0000

Let’s not forget that “report language”, attached to legislation, isn’t law. So it’s not unreasonable for NASA to say to that report language “sorry, no-can-do”. Now, it is never constructive to disobey congressional guidance, but if Jim Green has good reasons why it can’t be done, that’s a management decision that he’s responsible for. Not clear if the authors of that report language had any real insight into the complexities of such a solicitation.

I will support the position that ASRGs are remarkable, and highly enabling technology. We need to start flying these things.

By: amightywind

amightywind — Thu, 20 Feb 2014 14:40:20 +0000

A geophysical lander like InSight is ok, but the value of data from one location is limited. The science mission would be better served by using multiple landers and an active seismology experiment. Events like this. Make a global experiment more intriguing. Where are our international partners when you need them? Of all of the 'game changers' NASA has mouthed off about in recent years, the ASRG had the most merit. No wonder it was dropped.