Next-Gen Mars Rover In Danger of Cancellation 210
OriginalArlen writes "NASA's next-generation rover, the nuclear-powered, laser-equipped Mars Science Laboratory is reported to be at a serious risk of cancellation due to budget and schedule overruns, including non-delivery of vital parts by a subcontractor. Costs are running over $2B so far, and the already thin schedule of Mars missions planned for the next decade — with budget ring-fenced for an outer-planets flagship mission — is in danger of further cuts."
The US can't do big science (Score:5, Interesting)
The US is in a very bad position with respect to "Big Science". The problem basically is that any congress can't tie the hands of any future congress, and the consequence of this for science is that every single project faces cancellation, every single year. This has led to the cancellation many projects, a prominent example being the Superconducting Supercollider [wikipedia.org].
Science has a much longer-term view than congress. Congress, at most, has a view that lasts 2 years (to the next election), and practically it's much less than that. The US needs to devise a scheme to keep these projects going through hard times, and through fickle congressional actions. A constitutional amendment is unlikely, but how about some creative financing, of the "trust fund" variety? When things run over budget, bring in auditors, fire some people, but at all costs, make sure the science happens.
I'm at CERN, where the funding comes from member states as a fraction of their GDP. As a consequence, CERN has an extremely stable budget compared to US labs. If a project runs over-budget, the lab can simply delay the project. They also have a large permanent staff, so when new ideas come up, they can very quickly move to answer scientific questions, without building entirely new facilities. The expertise already exists here.
Canceling a project has disastrous consequences. Not only do you lose the science that would be gained, you may also lose the scientists, and technology developed along the way. It really is selling out future generations, and sacrificing technological advancement on a long timescale. It's very hard to see what will happen 50 years in the future, but I don't think human colonies on Mars are out of the question, perhaps spurred by the discoveries of the Mars Science Laboratory. Basic research has always paid off in the long run.
The US will lose out on the discoveries that will be made by the LHC. The US could have done it with the SSC a decade ago. How many more times does this have to happen before the US realizes it's a bad idea to cancel projects, and fixes the problem?
Re:The Bush Legacy (Score:4, Interesting)
Politics aside, Michael Griffin has been in the space business a long time and is a very intelligent person. He also happens to be borderline rabid on Mars. I took a class on space guidance and navigation (basically a graduate level orbital mechanics class) and our part of our final exam was a Mars mission flight. I was long gone from NASA before he took over, so he could be an administrative nightmare, but he does know his stuff.
As for the Bush promise - yeah, but anyone who understood what was necessary knew he was blowing smoke. I put the mars mission at about $2T, based on previous high profile projects; I might have underestimated by a hair, but I don't think I'm too far off. And, of course, you should never trust any project for which the substantial portion of money will be spent _after_ the politician is certain to be out of office.
Stand up, take responsibility (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree, but it always seems to fall apart, when the reality might mean massive tax increases at the very same time government services are massively cut back. And may include defaulting on some entitlements for future generations.
That's why easy money policies are always replaced with more easy money. Politial reality trumps economic reality.
And the politcal class will flog the currency until it can no longer sustain.
The public doesn't yet see inflation as government stealing from their buying power by printing money.
And the crimes they have been able to get away with can collapse the currency the second the world no longer sees the dollar as their reserve and stop buying our crappy notes.
So far, so good, but the impossible reality is the size of government will have to be deleveraged as much as the housing assets will. But I don't see that happening any time soon.
People will have to accept paying more and getting less. And I don't see that happening. And many workers and savers and sound investors playing by the rules particularly don't like that ideas of paying more and getting less as a response to the reckless and criminal behaviours of others.
Re:700 billion (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Love space, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
Alas, it is in the nature of politics that if NASA's budget were "temporarily suspended", it would never be unsuspended. What you're essentially wishing for here is that NASA cease to be, and the USA get out of space travel/exploration.
A changing environment precipitated by a honking big rock falling from the sky.
Note that we're not quite up to diverting a dinosaur killer. But we ought to be capable of doing so within 20 years, if we don't give up on space travel/exploration now.
Which means there's a really good chance we'll never "go the way of the dinosaurs". We may make ourselves extinct in other ways, but we should be immune to falling rocks within my lifetime.
Re:Love space, but... (Score:3, Interesting)
"I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."
-Woodrow Wilson, after signing the Federal Reserve into existence.
Free Market is not the problem. It is government involvement in said Free Market which creates ALL the issues.