Mars Rovers Facing Budget Cuts [Updated]

BUL2294 notes a CNN article reporting that the Mars Rovers program at NASA is facing budget cuts of $4 million for this year and $8 million for fiscal 2009. This will mean job cuts; and in all likelihood Spirit will be put in "hibernation mode," to be reactivated when or if future funding becomes available."

Update: 03/29 20:02 GMT by KD : NASA has rescinded the memo to the JPL threatening budget cuts, and is now saying that no rovers will be shut down.

Simple solutions for NASA

[tomhudson (43916)]

All NASA has to do is say they found indicators of [terr'rists | oil | bin Laden's hideout | WMDs ] on Mars and they're good to go.

And for a manned facility, they can pitch Mars as the next Gitmo. Think of the security!

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[NeverVotedBush (1041088)]

And that is the really sad part of this. So much money is being siphoned out of just about everything to pay for the war in Iraq. We have bridges collapsing, overwhelmed health institutions, overwhelmed educational systems, money being "borrowed" from social security, etc.

The Bush administration is basically robbing this country blind to fund their war and even high-profile programs are falling victim.

And the really sad part of all this is that the draining of money out of everything is only just beginning. We have tens of thousands of veterans who will need expensive, long-term care and more joining those ranks every day. We have interest building on the money that has been borrowed so far, while we continue to borrow to fund the war. It's total madness.

Only a madman can stand at a podium, look America in the eye, and tell us that we are strong, our economy is strong, and we are winning some imaginary war on "terra".

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[Belial6 (794905)]

I think the war in Iraq is as stupid as the next guy, but none of the problems you state are new since the invasion. The financial crisis that the US is facing is not caused by our war of aggression. It is caused by deficit spending. If the we had never attacked Iraq, we would still be screwed financially.

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[osu-neko (2604)]

*notes that the previous administration had budget surpluses*

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[Harmonious Botch (921977)]

*notes that the previous administration had budget surpluses*

TEMPORARY budget surpluses. The yearly debt is built into programs that we are committed to. Occasionally we will have budget surplusses, but we still, as GP says, are screwed in the long run.

Re:

[tomhudson (43916)]

*notes that illegal immigrants cost the government more in services per year than the war in Iraq does*

* notes that illegal immigrants do jobs that americans won't take, keeping whole sectors of the economy from collapsing - or do you really want to pay $35 for an apple pie made from imported apples because there's no longer a viable fruit industry in the US because nobody picks the fruit... *

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[statemachine (840641)]

or do you really want to pay $35 for an apple pie made from imported apples because there's no longer a viable fruit industry in the US because nobody picks the fruit...
I'm all for low prices, but if fruit growers would stop getting away with paying under minimum wage to illegal and even legal workers, maybe we would have more incentive to invent decent fruit picking machines? Maybe they could be assembled in Mexico? And our locals would maintain them? Win-win?

Although, we already import fruit [freshplaza.com] out of season.

Re:

[molarmass192 (608071)]

There are no Mexicans picking fruit up in Canada or in France and Apple pie is nowhere near $35 CAD / 35 Euros in either place. It may be $35 USD however, I haven't checked the exchange rates today.

Re:Look again

[molarmass192 (608071)]

Ok, I stand corrected on Canada, at least they're not illegal. That's the whole point of the issue down here, if we need migrant workers, FINE, collect their passport numbers, do a background check and grant them temporary visas if they've got a clean background. I don't think ANYBODY would have an issue with people who go through, instead of avoid, the system of checks and balances. There's a catch though, note that's a "temporary visa", not "permanent residence". If workers want to stay permanently, that's fine too, but do it legally. Apply for permanent residence with the INS, pass the background, health, and character checks, and wait in the 5 year long line like every other law abiding immigrant.

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[peragrin (659227)]

Under Clinton the Budget deficit would be nearly gone by now. The forecasts were for 10 years to be eliminated. Even if that got stretched to 15 because of the down turn, it would a lot better than doubling it like Bush did.

There was a chance to clean up the future. Now the only way is to collapse the economy and rebuild. preferably with a new government first.

anyone want to start a revolution with me?

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[ushering05401 (1086795)]

"anyone want to start a revolution with me?"

The main problem with revolution is finding enough people you can trust after the conflict. If you win then there is all this power to be distributed... and if you lose then there is a wicked manhunt.

In my entire life I have met two people I would trust enough to rise up with and take the consequences (win or lose) afterwards.

Back on-topic: Space exploration joins progress in art and literature on my list of indicators that a civilization is truly prospering. Space exploration, much like astronomy, lacks the utilitarian nature of many other branches of science, and I have always considered it to be one of the brightest signs of our progress as thinking beings. Our continuing withdrawal from funding space related endeavors strikes me as a sad indicator of where we are headed.

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[Cassius Corodes (1084513)]

I think there are practical reasons for having space exploration - it serves much like war in stimulating a different kind of thinking, unusual problems to be solved, and that inspires a new wave of creativity. When nothing major is going on things become stagnant and civilisation doesn't progress. If we put a lot of focus on space we could find new opportunities that would force us to look into new directions.

As a side note the war in Iraq is doing wonders for the robotics industry - defence is putting a lot of funding into AI and robotics which will speed up progress by possibly a decade.

Re:

[Schlage (195535)]

Lets not forget the fact that studies have shown that spending on the space program has a direct correlation to increased GNP of the United States (estimates on how much vary, I've seen ratios ranging from 1:2 to 1:7 dollars-spent:GNP-rise).

And then, of course, there's all of the direct spin-offs that come from research done in the space program, and I'm not just talking tempurpedic!

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[nametaken (610866)]

I'm inclined to agree with you, but my disdain for management of Iraq and such aside, I didn't see anything about the Bush administration in the article. Did the administration cut the funding for this somehow or was it an internal decision at NASA to redirect the funds? I honestly don't know, is this something congress controls through an oversight committee?

Was it due to diminishing returns on the rovers? Is the money genuinely better spent on what the article says they'll be spending it on... next year's new rover?

I'd imagine that $8 mil is a tiny bit of their annual budget and you'd think you'd want to put it towards something you already have parked on another planet and you know works. But then, I'm about the least qualified guy in the world to guess about those things.

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[NeverVotedBush (1041088)]

We might still be screwed but certainly not to the extent that we are now. Estimates of what this war will end up costing - if it is ended soon with a complete withdrawal of US forces - are in the $3 Trillion dollar range. That used to be over half of our National debt.

No more. The US National debt is now $9.4 Trillion. Our debt is increasing by $1.6 Billion dollars every single day. http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/ [brillig.com]

The National debt was around $5 Trillion when Bush took office. As noted above, it's now approaching $10 Trillion. He has basically doubled it during his two terms. So, yeah, we would still be screwed without the war but we are especially screwed with it.

And 4,000 Americans are really screwed - they're dead. And another 30-40,000 suffer from various levels of injuries up to missing limbs, missing eyes, missing parts of their brains, extreme disfigurement, etc.

Any other comments are superfluous.

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[Plutonite (999141)]

Thank you for putting up the numbers, saved me a whole lot of searching as I was infuriated by the GP. 3 Trillion kind of makes a difference.

About the casualties(drifting slightly off-topic) I think the most alarming are the psychological effects. [nytimes.com]
There may be 4000 soldiers dead, but those returning home after an utterly meaningless time spent in a country thousands of miles away, are the ones tearing my heart apart. It is one thing to lose a limb or an eye. That is terrible, but at least you can try to move on with your life. But to have your body whole and yet be wandering like a madman (or literally as a madman) with a gun at night, in the streets of your home town, because some ABSOLUTE MORON decided to send you to war with a secular country that had nothing whatsoever to do with us.. I think that is the saddest thing in the world. My heart goes out to all the people we killed, and all the soldiers we lost, and all the money that could have saved millions and done miracles in supporting science and human welfare. War is such a bitch.

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[chuckymonkey (1059244)]

Yes war is a bitch, it's ugly, dirty, bloody and terrible as well. I would know as I spent two years in Iraq, and I still ask for what? The guys you talk about walking around with the guns in the middle of the night are very few compared to the many like myself and a friend I met in the Army who is more like a brother to me than my real brother. He's also the godfather of my children. We're the ones that hunted in the night, made the decisions on whether or not someone would die (not reactionary as in a firefight, we targeted and premeditated who would die) and have to live with those decisions for the rest of our lives. I could probably be called a psychopath now from the things that I had to do. I live with the nightmares, I wake up wondering where I am sometimes, I react badly to anyone trying to cause me or my family harm, sometimes if the terrain is right while I'm driving I'll have brief flashes of being back in Iraq driving around the desert, objects beside the road still terrify me, and where I used to be somewhat phlegmatic I now can snap into blazing irrational anger in an instant. I'm one of the lucky ones though, my wife stayed with me unlike 80% of the other soldiers. Not only that but she has been instrumental in helping me through the bad times, never fearing that I would hurt her, and calming me down when I have an episode. My brother has sunk into a depression so deep that I don't know how to help him, I can't get him to see a doctor and the only person he'll really open up to is me. Those are the stories that are around you every day, 1/4 of us have them somewhat severely and damned near all to some minor extent. Ours are probably a little different because we premeditated everything, but then again everyone's story is different.

Back on topic though, this country really needs to get the sense of wonder back and realize that a lot of what we have today we owe to the space programs.

Re:

[FailedTheTuringTest (937776)]

Maybe the US would have been screwed anyway, but it's now $3 trillion more screwed [timesonline.co.uk] than it would have been without the war. That's $10,000 per person -- a significant amount of extra screwing, I'd say.

Re:Simple solutions for NASA

[NickCatal (865805)]

Or it could be that people don't trust banks now because banks trusted people with loans that they could never possibly repay barring their winning the lottery (although with interest rates as high as these people were getting, even that may not have saved them)

Here is what I have been seeing said a few times that makes some sense to me:

One thing that IS causing a problem is the decrease in the value of the dollar. It is cheaper to sell American products like Wheat and Corn overseas than keep it in the USA, which means Americans have to pony up extra-cash for stuff so that it makes sense for farmers to keep their products in the USA. But the value of the dollar is based on how much other countries trust keeping their money in USD, and with all the economic indicators the way they are, and the banks being in trouble the most, overseas banks are thinking that keeping their assets in a currency that is NOT the USD is a better idea. How much that has to do with the war I don't know.

As long as we don't go back to the gold standard I'm good. Because the moment someone figures out how to make gold out of a less expensive material we are all screwed. If I can make something with 79 electrons, 79 protons and 79 neutrons out of my basement we will have a real crisis on our hands.

Much of the money is borrowed from the PRC

[MichaelCrawford (610140)]

... People's Republic of China. They have all these excess US dollars you see, as a result of selling us consumer products. They don't have much useful to do with them, so they buy our Treasury bonds.

This means the PRC has the US over a barrel: if we try to stand up to them over, say, Tibet or Taiwan, they'll stop buying our bonds, or even dump them.

Sad day

[edwardpickman (965122)]

Billions wasted in Iraq and one of the most exciting programs since the Moon landing starts a slow death from budget cuts. Just plain sickening. We need a grass roots funding effort to save the Rovers since it looks like the second one will be cut next year.

Re:Sad day

[rucs_hack (784150)]

There's no oil on Mars.

Besides, people tend to believe that more money is spent on space science then actually is, so it's a nice visible way to pretend to be cutting back on government spending.

Canada also hates its Space Program

[Cordath (581672)]

It's painful watching some of the most fascinating projects ever conceived being raked over the coals of budget cuts in the U.S., but you guys aren't alone.

Some of you may have seen that giant freakin' cool space robot called Dextre that just went up to the ISS. The Canadian company responsible (MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates or MDA) for that coolness is being sold off to a U.S. company.

The important thing to realize about MDA is that it was started over four decades ago and has been carefully nurtured by public funding with the express intention of forwarding Canada's space technology sector. MDA is the backbone of Canada's space program. (as small as it may be) In addition to selling off Canada's space program, this sale also includes RADARSAT-2, which was built with Canadian tax money and is currently used by the government to monitor the arctic. The sale of this satellite to a U.S. company will mean that the Canadian government will be ceding control [foxbusiness.com] of the satellite which it paid for to the U.S., a country which disputes Canadian sovereignty in some of the areas RADARSAT-2 monitors. RADARSAT-2 was effectively *given* to MDA to simplify operations, but now it's being sold to the U.S. and the money is going to MDA's shareholders rather than the Canadian government that paid for it!

The only thing standing in the way is a Rubber Stamp from the Industry minister Jim Prentice. Seeing as he's never failed to rubber stamp a sale before, the picture looks grim.

So, the U.S. is not alone in being mismanaged from the very top.

Re:Canada also hates its Space Program

[Telvin_3d (855514)]

Actually, decent chance that the sale may not go through.

First, for political reasons there are a lot of reasons to say no. Canada WILL be seeing a Federal election in the next six months or so. Selling off the company undermines a lot of the current government's platform. It looks bad on a national security front. It looks bad on an arctic sovereignty front. It looks bad on a selling out Canadian interests to the Americans front (which never goes over well with the voters). It looks bad on a public money front seeing as the Canadian government just finished bankrolling a lot of the research and tech that is making the company an attractive purchase.

The second reason the sale might not go through is that it might be illegal. The united states is basically the only first world country in the world that has not signed the Ottawa Convention on Landmines. Big-ass international treaty, famously brokered by Canada, that bans the production and use of anti-personnel landmines among other things. Now, seeing as the company trying to buy MDA is one of the largest landmine manufacturers in the world. Under the terms of the treaty, it may actually be illegal for Canada to approve any sale or business involving them.

In addition, many of the engineers and big brains that work for MDA are threatening to quit if the sale goes through. Plenty of them could be pulling in larger paycheques in the States already except that they don't want to build weapons or support companies that do.

So, very little advantage in Canada for the government to approve the sale. And the only real downside to not approving it is pissing off a few of Bush's friends. On the other hand, he is down to a few months now and it is looking like bending over for his administration now won't score many brownie points with whoever replaces him.

What are the costs involved in running the program

[JSBiff (87824)]

I confess complete and total ignorance here. I'm just trying to figure out why it's so expensive to run the rover program?

The rovers, it's true, cost a lot of money to design, build, test, and deliver to Mars. But that is money already spent. Now that they are there, what are the major expenses of running the program? I realize that you do need staff and equipment to maintain communication with the rovers, and to send them programming, and that implies needing facilities in which to house the staff and equipment. But NASA already owns the facilities and equipment, I believe?

How many staff does it take to run the program? I wouldn't think it would be a huge number of people? 20 or 30 (that might be way off, I'm just pulling numbers out of the air, admittedly, but I can't understand why it would take a lot of people to run the program)? I realize that the scientists and engineers working on a program like this would be higher paid than the general public. Assuming an average salary of 100k per year, plus benefits at, say, 20k per year, 30 people would run you 3.6M per year.

Also, quick question - sometimes in large organizations like NASA, you can get some tricks going like paying one person to work on something that benefits two programs, but who is officially working on the other program. Could the Mars Rover program be kept alive with assistance from other programs inside NASA that need to maintain 'shared infrastructure'?

Re:Sad day

[tomhudson (43916)]

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather see the quality of life improve for millions of people rather than look at another boring shot of a red rocky destitute landscape. I could just drive to Utah if I was that needy.

Offshoots from the space program improve the lives of billions of people.

Re:Sad day

[explosivejared (1186049)]

It's more of a general rule of thumb. Scientific exploration is crucial to improving life. If the way to perfect life were readily available here already, well then there's no reason to explore. That's not the case though. Humanity is still limited by its level of comprehension of the world around it. Scientific exploration, especially in space, has proven time and time again that it is a crucial part of improving life here on earth. On top of the fact that that it's a puny, albeit strategic, $12 million we're talking about, compared to a debt that is in the trillions of dollars.

Also, did you really expect to find anyone agreeing with you here? I mean come on.

Re:

[ScentCone (795499)]

On top of the fact that that it's a puny, albeit strategic, $12 million we're talking about, compared to a debt that is in the trillions of dollars.

So... it does make sense to put that pint of Godiva ice cream on a credit card? Mmmmm.... ice cream.

Re:Sad day

[KillerBob (217953)]

Please explain to me how the mars rovers have improved the lives of billions of people. Sure it's neat that we have the technology to go explore planets but honestly, you and I will never go there. It's great that we're contemplating colonizing planets but really we should be focusing on their problems we face on our own planet.

Ever hear of Velcro or Microwave Ovens? What about Tang? Ever owned a cell phone? Used the Internet lately?

NASA played a significant role in the popularization/development of all of those technologies. It's a fair assessment to say that none of those technologies would be anywhere near as ubiquitous as they are today if it wasn't for the role NASA played. It's not a question of whether you'll ever go to Mars yourself. It's a question of what new technologies are being developped, or commercialized, as a result of the space program.

Re:Sad day

[tomhudson (43916)]

Don't you love people who purposefully don't quote your stuff, then present arguments in an attempt to sidetrack you?

Original statement by poster and my reply:

Maybe it's just me but I'd rather see the quality of life improve for millions of people rather than look at another boring shot of a red rocky destitute landscape. I could just drive to Utah if I was that needy.

Offshoots from the space program improve the lives of billions of people.

Now notice the deception:

Please explain to me how the mars rovers have improved the lives of billions of people.

Never made that claim.

However, I will be happy to demonstrate just one way that the space program (specifically remote sensing - you know, the stuff that the Mars Rovers are an extension of) has improved the lives of 6.5 billion people:

Without decent remote sensing capabilities (spy satellites) allowing real-time verification, the cold war would have turned into a hot war. Glowing in the dark might be "cool", but it sucks when your half-life is cut down to hours.

Remember - some of the shuttle missions were military spy satellites. These missions helped end the cold war, since the USSR couldn't keep spending at the same pace, and ultimately lost the "militarization of space race."

Continuing to develop rovers into semi-autonomous or even autonomous vehicles would be one step towards workable von Neumann machines. There are lots of practical uses for a working von Neumann machine right here on earth

Re:Sad day

[spun (1352)]

Well, here's the thing: the mars rovers haven't improved the lives of many people outside the scientists and engineers working on them. Yet. And they may not ever, sometimes basic research bears no tangible fruits. You never know. But sometimes basic research yields really important breakthroughs. Scientific revolutions, even. Most of the time, basic research yields small advances from which further basic and applied research can itself advance.

Applied research is easier to predict. We sink money into figuring out how to do things that improve the human condition better, faster, and cheaper, and it's going to pay off in the shorter term. But is the problem with the state of the human condition really one of not having the know-how to make it better, or is it simply not having the will? And what do we do when we run out of ways of doing things better, faster, and cheaper, and we have to figure out whole new ways of doing things? If we've ignored basic research, we're screwed.

The thing is, as much as the overspecialized would have you believe otherwise, science is a vast web, a framework of inter-connected ideas and techniques. Research in one area can pay unexpected dividends in another. Do you honestly think that by studying Martian geochemistry, we aren't learning things that apply to Earth as well? You don't think we've learned things about materials science by sending these probes to Mars? Solar cells that work in low Martian sunlight, there's something that'll never come in handy here on Earth... Those are just two examples anyone could think of off the top of their heads.

I think the most important point is that there is no way for us to truly understand the way our own planet works until we put that understanding into a larger framework of how planets work in general. Whether you believe in anthropogenic climate change or not, I'm sure that you can agree that really understanding how our planet works could improve the lives of billions of people.

Re:Sad day

[Lemmy Caution (8378)]

Knowing more about our universe improves the quality of life, period. I know that you want to help everyone at the bottom, but a culture that maintains intellectual curiosity evinces and spreads values that benefits everyone. And your argument can spiral downward: why spend money teaching people art and music when some can't read? Why spend money on parks when some people have no homes, and don't have any way of visiting the parks? Etc. etc.

Besides, I like the Utah landscape, and I'm not even Mormon.

Re:Sad day

[tomhudson (43916)]

NASA's FY2008 budget has been increased by about 1 billion over FY2007 ($17.3B vs $16.25B).

That won't even keep pace with inflation. Real inflation (not the CPI bs that the government hands out every year, which excludes stuff like fuel) is running between 10% and 12%. Or are you planning on doing space missions without any energy costs, and getting all your supplies from suppliers that don't have to contend with energy increases?

Re:Sad day

[by Anonymous Coward]

I'd love to see where you got that "real" inflation is 10%-12% (which is a huge, useless range, btw). Second, the CPI is calculated by Ph.D Economists - if you think you know better than them, go prove them they're wrong, otherwise, keep your crackpot "facts" to yourself.

As an actual economist, I can't stand people that pull numbers out of their asses and talk like they're some kind of "authority" or that some crap they read is an "authority." Anyone that ACTUALLY understands economics would know that there is no such thing as "knowing" the "real" rate of inflation and that the CPI is the best indicator of inflation we have; there are versions of the CPI that DO include energy expenditures.
The reason that the traditional CPI does not include energy is because of the speculative nature of energy prices and 1) they change too often to be measurable with accuracy (on a monthly basis) and 2) it is assumed that the cost of energy will be picked up by cost increases in all other goods, thus energy costs would have a multiplicative effect on the CPI, which will make it less accurate and less useful.

Thanks for playing. Go home.

Re:Sad day

[tomhudson (43916)]

Price of gasoline 10 years ago: $1.04.
Price of gasoline now: $3.27

They exclude energy from the inflation calculations for just that reason - it affects the cost of everything, and it's HUGE.

Then there's housing: http://therealreturns.blogspot.com/2007/06/median-and-average-house-prices-in-usa.html [blogspot.com]

The average house price in January of 2000 was at $200,300 and in April of 2007 the average house price stood at $299,100. The average house prices grew about 50% from January 2000 to April of 2007.

It was a lot worse on the coasts, where price increases of 15 to 30% per YEAR were the norm.

http://www.financialsense.com/stormwatch/2005/0624.html [financialsense.com]

One way to lower entitlements would be to bring the inflation rates down, which would translate into lower Cost of Living Adjustments (COLA). The way to do this was to bring down the rate of inflation. However, this was not done by natural means, but artificially through statistical manipulation. The supply of money and credit began to go parabolic in the 1990s as shown in the graph of M3. The rise in money and credit would mean higher inflation rates. Higher inflation rates would mean higher COLA adjustments, which would lead to bigger deficits.

As for the "it is assumed that the cost of energy will be picked up by cost increases in all other goods" - when calculating the CPI, they substitute goods preferentially so as to lower the calculation, as well as "adjusting" the price of a good downward!!! if it's better than last year's model...

Hedonics

The manipulation didnt stop there. The bureau also began to adjust prices for quality. This practice became known as hedonics. Hedonics adjusts the prices of goods as a result of the increased pleasure a consumer derives from a product. A few examples will illustrate how removed the index has moved away from reality. Tim LaFleur is a commodity specialist for televisions at the BLS. In December last year he adjusted the price of a 27-inch television set for quality improvements. The 27-inch television set had a retail cost of $329.99. However, he decided the new model, which still sold for $329.99, had a better screen. After putting this improvement through the governments complex hedonic adjustment model he determined the improvement in the picture was worth at least $135! Taking in this improvement he adjusted the price of the TV by $135, concluding that the price of the TV had actually fallen by 29%! [1] The price reflected in the CPI was not the actual retail store cost of $329.99, but $194.99. The only problem for we consumers is that if we went to Best Buy or Circuit City to buy that TV, we would still pay $329.99.

Another example of hedonics at work is the way the BLS treats rising automobile prices. Mr. Reese, a specialist for autos, took a 2005 model car, which went from $17,890 in 2004 to $18,490 in 2005. After adjusting for quality items and making antilock disc brakes standard, the bureau adjusted the actual $600 price increase down by $225. The problem for we consumers is that the price of the car in dealer showrooms was still $18,490.

and

Instead of using new car prices, which were going up each year, the BLS substituted used car prices, which were falling. In place of exploding real estate prices, the Bureau gave more weight to the price of rents, which were falling as more households bought homes. Rents were given more weight even though 69% of households own a home versus the 31% that rent.

Real inflation has been understated since 1986, when they changed the way it was calculated. Anyone who says they believe the "official" CPI is a fool or a liar.

Re:

[proxima (165692)]

That won't even keep pace with inflation. Real inflation (not the CPI bs that the government hands out every year, which excludes stuff like fuel) is running between 10% and 12%.

The CPI is released in several forms. It's usually reported in the news as either the overall CPI index (which includes food and energy), or the CPI less food and energy (sometimes referred to as the "cold and hungry" CPI). Neither is anywhere close to 10-12%. See for yourself [bls.gov]. Overall inflation, at an annual rate, based on the l

Understatement of the year...

[copponex (13876)]

Whoa. Let me sort of agree with you... if the Bush administration had stuck to the platform of a humble foreign policy, they would have been alright.

All they've done is start a new age of McCarthyism, suspend habeas corpus, agree to formally demolish our borders with Mexico and Canada, extend the powers of the executive branch beyond the oversight of congress, lied under oath or refused to even testify about the terrorist attacks under oath, wiretapped American citizens who are 'guilty' of receiving 'suspic

Re:Sad day

[isomeme (177414)]

Republicans don't have as big of a problem blowing lots of money on space stuff, whereas Democrats always have to get past this "we could use the money to feed the poor" mental stumbling block.

Yep, those Democratic bastards John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson nearly killed our space program by underfunding Gemini and Apollo, but the Republican Richard Nixon did a swell job of building on the success of Apollo with ambitious, well funded follow-on programs, which is why we have a thriving lunar colony and burgeoning orbital industries today.

Priorities?

[wangf00 (901609)]

Why is it that we can't support cheap science that provides valuable insight into our solar system and neighboring planets, but we can find hundreds of millions of dollars to piss away on some congress critter's self named statue and bridge? Is it really possible that not one person in congress can be asked to not screw us over for self gratification?

Sell one

[victim (30647)]

They should sell one of the rovers to any institution willing to pay for it rather than let it die a slow death of neglect. A deployed rover with a proven track record is better than an $800 million shot that might arrive and land successfully.

I'm sure non-scientists could find a use. Use it to write messages in the sands of mars.
Maybe some Slashdotters could pool their money to write "First Post" on mars.

Selling one is more feasible than you might think.

[Tackhead (54550)]

They should sell one of the rovers to any institution willing to pay for it rather than let it die a slow death of neglect. A deployed rover with a proven track record is better than an $800 million shot that might arrive and land successfully.

The Planetary Society [planetary.org] immediately comes to mind as a serious buyer. They launched the Cosmos 1 Solar Sail [wikipedia.org] on an all-private budget of $4M. The mission failed due to hardware problem (hey, it really is rocket science), but it proved that private charitable organizations are quite capable of raising $4M for space exploration.

The Planetary Society was also instrumental in getting the word out (and raising funds to rescue the data) regarding the Pioneer Anomaly [planetary.org].

More important than the funding angle is the political one, but the Planetary Society has worked extremely closely with NASA over the past 30 years. The collaboration has been sufficiently close that they've actually flown hardware on the ill-fated) Mars Polar Lander [planetary.org]. The Society's work with NASA on Spirit and Opportunity goes all the way back to when the rovers were named [planetary.org] in the first place, as well as the calibration target" [nasa.gov] for the rovers' cameras.

In other words, $4M isn't just a business possibility, the handover of a rover from NASA to the Planetary Society is a political possibility too.

Let me know

[WarJolt (990309)]

Squyres says the money will mean job cuts in the staff of about 300 scientists that operate the rovers and analyze the science findings. Those staff reductions likely will mean that they have to suspend science operations for one of the rovers, and Spirit is the likely candidate because it is currently riding out the Martian winter in a parked position.

What I want to know is how 300 scientists manage to take turns operating because one time me and my brother tried to share a video game and it didn't end well.

How much does Spirit cost?

[stranger_to_himself (1132241)]

Now Spirit is out there, how much does it cost to run on a day-by-day basis? Surely there are enough scientific groups around the world with the money and the projects to buy time with Spirit to keep it running. There's no way we should be even contemplating new missions to Mars if nobody can find a use for the perfectly good and proven rover that is already there.

Call your Congressman

[kramer2718 (598033)]

I just called mine and told them to fund the rover.

Get their info here [votesmart.org].

To quote The West Wing

[Landshark17 (807664)]

"No one is any hungrier because we went to the moon, no one is any colder and certainly no one is any dumber. Why go to Mars? 'Cause it's next. 'Cause we came out of the cave and we looked over the hill and we saw fire. And we crossed the ocean and we pioneered the West and we took to the sky. The history of man is hung on a timeline of exploration and this is what's next."

In Space Nobody Can Hear A Brain Fart

[DynaSoar (714234)]

I find this sadly typical of the kind of defective fiscal NASA-think that emerged when the engineers running things were replaced by professional administrators (and the political thinking that made that happen). The rovers are the single most successful high profile mission since the Apollo 13 rescue. The good PR generated is worth the budget. Witness the persistence of positive media reports about the success in excess of the intended mission, and compare with the other long term, ongoing mission ISS and the positive reactions of those who see those reports. (Not to compare with long term, punctuated missions, such as the Voyagers' fly-bys with long absence of reporting in between). NASA has people whose job it is to keep people engaged. Were they included in this decision?

In any case, I'd think it more productive to hibernate the two rovers alternately, 20% of the time each. Or even 25% each, to make up for the additional shut-down and start-up costs. Both regions get 75%+ of the exploration and science done with only about half the ground personnel at the consoles and performing analyses. Hopefully some one or more group like The Planetary Society or the Mars Society will collect donations to make up for the cut.

We hatessss adminimonstersssss, don't we my precioussss roverssss?

Re:In Space Nobody Can Hear A Brain Fart

[nelsonal (549144)]

It's saber rattling that is common in budget fights. An agency with it's budget cut threatens to kill needed/popular programs to get it's budget increased. Same as when it looks like state budgets will be cut the first thing on the chopping block is police and early release of prisoners.

Times are tough

[PPH (736903)]

I heard that Opportunity had to take a second job as a Roomba.

Privatize.

[PinchDuck (199974)]

Seriously. This would be a huge PR boost for some company. Having "Coca Cola" written in the Martian soil is a small price to pay for funding the mission.

Re:Maybe Next Year?

[tomhudson (43916)]

As someone above you pointed out, Bush is the president to enact a plan for getting men to Mars. Perhaps you need to actually look at budgets, because as someone else pointed out, NASA's budget has grown by a billion dollars this year. Spew elsewhere.

Perhaps YOU should look at NASA's budgets:

NASA budget: 1997: 14.358 Billion
NASA budget: 2007: 16.250 Billion

This is not an "inflation-adjusted" figure. Over the last 10 years, NASA's budget has grown by a total of 13.177%. Over those same 10 years, inflation totalled 27.23%. (and that's only using the "core inflation" figures that don't take into account housing, food, or energy).

Adding a billion still leaves it short by $2.017 Billion.