NASA cancels MTO, reportedly plans to delay MSL

[wvbraun]

NASA has cancelled the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter to save money. Also Griffin reportedly wants to delay the Mars Science Laboratory (big nuclear powered rover) by two to four years. Ouch. But then again the cancellation and the delay will probably save more than a billion so maybe it's the right decision...<br /><br />nasawatch.com

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Yes, Griffin definitely appears to be an Apollo-mode rather than a Shuttle-mode kind of guy. The MTO was definitely a Shuttle-mode idea.<br /><br />As for the MSL, well something had to give in the science budget, what with the new space telescope going over budget and money needed to continue current space missions that have lasted longer than predicted. At least it wasn't cancelled.<br /><br />It's also possible that Griffin didn't want an argument with the enviromentalists over a nuclear powered space probe at this time.

 

[john_316]

Its sad but who knows in future adjustments and appropriations they can restore some if not all the funds for the MRO.<br /><br />I understand what they want but also what they need and CEV is very important right now...<br /><br />

 

[wvbraun]

MRO is still go (it will launch in August). The MTO decision is final according to NASA, i.e. they don't want the mission revived by congress unless the politicians find some extra money to pay for it.

 

[vogon13]

One of my concerns about delaying missions is that it appears to increase the total mission cost in exchange for a one budget cycle reduction. After a number of years and missions, it would appear that for delays (for budget reasons) that the net effect is to raise costs and reduce the amount of hardware flown, overall.<br /><br />Also, all the money spent to date on the MTO is 100% wasted now instead of having been applied to a mission that launches.<br /><br />What happened to all the money that was saved by canceling the Halley Intercept Mission?<br /><br />Did congress put it all in Microsoft (1985 was a good time to do so) and let NASA get all the capital gains?<br /><br />{that was a rhetorical question and all the sarcasm is directed at Luddites in US Congress}<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[najab]

That is true when you're talking about a mission that is well into its development cycle - MSL was definitely not. I don't think they had started any detailed hardware/mission design work yet. Delaying a "paper mission" costs very little.<br /><br />As for MTO, I think it was a great idea, but MRO is supposed to be able to provide pretty much the same service once it's primary mission is over.

 

[no_way]

The sucky part of it is that interplanetary laser data communications will be pushed to sometime in indeterminate future.<br />One can probably never have enough bandwidth and laser should provide ample bandwidth at low power requirements.<br /> I sure wish that one of the next moonbound probes would test it ASAP. SMART-1 is otherwise innovative and neat technology testbed, pity that it didnt try laser datacomm.

 

[JonClarke]

SMART-1 did carry out some trials in laser communications, demonstrating that a laser could track a spacecraft at lunar distances and communicate with it http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM5CBADFZD_index_0.html. ESA routinely uses its Tereriffe laser facility to communicate with satellites in GEO.<br /><br />As far as MSL goes I suspect a lot of people involved are pleased they have an extra 2 years to develop this very ambitious mission. Four years was looking very tight. With No MSL and no MTO in 2009 that leaves the window completely empy for a NASA spacecraft. It would be nice if a Scout class mission like MARVEL couple be flown, it might help site selection for the MSL (and ExoMars). It would also be vert heap, with mostly off the shelf components and most the development work already done.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

Scout missions are cheap, and with MSL pushed back to 2011 it would make sense bringing the 2011 scout forward to 2009. <br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[thalion]

^<br />Ditto; I'd love to see more Martian climate data, which I think has been woefully neglected (though perhaps not with complete intention) since Pathfinder. I'd also love to see a seismometer go to Mars, something which has never been successfully flown there before.

 

[ehs40]

the mto will probally launched a few years later when it becomes more necssary for data to be sent back once alot more missions are at mars

 

[mikejz]

I would like a 'Mars Dart' Mission, which in essence was a fleet of high tech javelins that would penetrate several feet of soil and contain sensors and a microscopic imager at the tip.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">NASA has cancelled the Mars Telecommunications Orbiter to save money. Also Griffin reportedly wants to delay the Mars Science Laboratory</font>/i><br /><br />Share the pain. I think the price of implementing the new VSE is just starting to become apparent, and I think there will be a lot of unhappy people along the way. Below is a quote from a <i>Science</i> article, and while it is primarily about the shuttle and ISS, I think the core issue (cutting to free up money) is going to affect a lot of people:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The station itself seems safe for now. But Griffin’s job over the next several months will be to satisfy a White House eager to move beyond the station, placate foreign partners frustrated by delays, and convince lawmakers that he isn’t ignoring station science. “With a radically reduced [shuttle] flight rate, <b><font color="yellow">the change is going to be traumatic</font>/b>,” warns one official. “We’re in a mess.” That mess may well prove more daunting than a successful return to flight aboard Discovery.<p><hr /></p></b></p></blockquote></i>

 

[arezn99]

<br />Several months ago I opened the thread <br />"MER-C in 2007?"<br />on this forum.<br /><br />At that time I proposed to discuss MER-C based on international contributions. <br /><br />Something like this: <br />USA will make MER-C itself, Russia will provide Soyuz/Fregat, Europe will organize the work with MER-C on MARS. <br /><br />Though I quite understood that too litlle time till 2007 launch window to prepare MER-C <br />if even the chiefs of NASA, Roskosmos, ESA agreed at once ... <br /><br />But what about<br /><br />MER-C in 2009?<br /><br />The idea of MER-C based on international contributions is acceptable for space community of USA?<br />If yes, I guess there is non-zero possibility that Russia will provide Soyuz/Fregat ... <br />If not, perhaps, USA can realize MER-C in 2009 without international partners?<br /><br />Best wishes, Alexey R., fan of MER-A and MER-C <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />

 

[JonClarke]

MER C would be nice, but I think MARVEL would be needed more. However, how much spare hardware is there from the MER program lying round? Is there enough for a MER C?<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

How about a MER C with a begal mass spec? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[JonClarke]

Even better, the entire PAW. The PAW has a Mossbauer, a microscopic imager, a grinder and the XRF would substitute for the APX, as well as a corer and a mass spec. Some instruments on the poor, like the stereo imager, would be redundant and could be deleted, saving mass.<br /><br />There is already discussion of the PAW flying on ExoMars and on a Chinese lunar lander, as well as on the BeagleNet mission.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>