PDA

View Full Version : Another Curiosity ???



samkent
2012-Dec-05, 01:07 PM
Here (http://news.yahoo.com/mars-redux-nasa-launch-curiosity-rover-014911634.html)
I thought we were out of the radio active material for the generator?

Should we believe them (NASA) when they say they can do it for less? 1.5 bil vs 2.5 bil

I would love to see another rover on Mars but NASA doesn't have a stellar record of comming in on budget or even time.

sts60
2012-Dec-05, 02:33 PM
Here (http://news.yahoo.com/mars-redux-nasa-launch-curiosity-rover-014911634.html)
I thought we were out of the radio active material for the generator?
No, there's enough to fuel another generator like the one on MSL. The generator itself is already built, but not fueled.

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/mars-redux-nasa-launch-curiosity-rover-014911634.html"]Should we believe them (NASA) when they say they can do it for less? 1.5 bil vs 2.5 bil

I would love to see another rover on Mars but NASA doesn't have a stellar record of comming in on budget or even time.
A big part of the overrun was due to the extra time (two years) and work needed to get some of the mechanisms right. And if the cruise, descent, and rover buses (i.e., the parts that deliver the scientific payload) are the same, a lot of the non-recurring engineering work is already done. So there's a good shot at doing if for less. But I don't know any of the details.

Siguy
2012-Dec-05, 04:11 PM
It's going to use an RTG? This upsets me. NASA has been perfectly fine using solar power for Mars missions. If they only have enough Pu-238 to do one more mission, why not have it be an outer planet mission?

I feel like the outer planets have been completely neglected as of late. Every proposal for exploring Titan thus far has been shot down.

jmknapp
2012-Dec-05, 05:15 PM
Somehow I doubt that there will be a plutonium (http://www.space.com/15184-plutonium238-spacecraft-fuel-production.html) crisis in 8 years time.

djellison
2012-Dec-05, 05:30 PM
I feel like the outer planets have been completely neglected as of late. Every proposal for exploring Titan thus far has been shot down.

It's very very important for people to realize - this 2020 mission does NOT take ANY money from ANY other part of planetary science. It is ONLY from the Mars budget- which is dictated at the presidential level.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/20121204-the-2020-rover-in-context.html

Casey says it superbly
"Today's announcement essentially designates money already set aside for a Mars mission to a specific mission concept. That's it. It did not take money away from outer planets missions, because in the 2013 budget there is no funding for outer planets missions. It did not unfairly prioritize Mars over other planets because this money had already been prioritized to Mars back in February"

samkent
2012-Dec-05, 06:25 PM
Is the money that is set aside meant to cover current operational costs of Curiosity?

If so then would they need to pass the hat to congress for additional funds to operate both? It seems like they might be spending every dollar they have now, at the expense of future needs for current missions.
At that point they would have congress by the short hairs. Come up with the money or we will have to flip the switch on two rovers.

I'm not saying this is the case but if I were in congress and NASA did this I would vote to flip the switch simply to make a point.

TooMany
2012-Dec-05, 06:58 PM
Here (http://news.yahoo.com/mars-redux-nasa-launch-curiosity-rover-014911634.html)
I thought we were out of the radio active material for the generator?

Should we believe them (NASA) when they say they can do it for less? 1.5 bil vs 2.5 bil

I would love to see another rover on Mars but NASA doesn't have a stellar record of comming in on budget or even time.

We should worry about such a cost overrun while spending $300 billion on the shuttle and ISS?