Voyager, TRACE, FAST, and more facing the budget axe

[backspace]

Well, we knew this was coming, but... VOYAGER?<br /><br />Ulysses, POLAR, WIND, GEOTAIL, Landsat....<br /><br />http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa004&articleID=0001BB81-6E8C-12B9-9A2C83414B7F0000&ref=rdf<br /><br />Link to the SCIAM article

 

[wvbraun]

Griffin has made it clear that Voyager will not be cut.

 

[nacnud]

What about Ulysses and the rest?

 

[wvbraun]

Let's wait and see.

 

[no_way]

Deep Impact's extended mission is falling a victim too:<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1041<br />

 

[cdr6]

It's a tough one alright...Being a veteran of the "Feed A Starving Martian Program" Aka "Viking". It kind a hurts to let go of some of them. But I think it's a matter of resources available as opposed to money. <br /><br />However, if it's going to help get us back to the Moon and on to Mars I'm willing to let them go. (sniff...a lot of good science done by those guys though.)

 

[yurkin]

This is news is several months old and no longer accurate. <br />The cancellations were just a ploy for Nasa to get more money from Congress. They were able to get another 4 million dollars, or something like that, for all the missions. A few of them may end up getting mothballed though. <br /><br />Actually now that I look back. Nasa never actually got any more money. Congress just imposed the resource allocation from within Nasa. But still I doubt they were ever serious about canceling Voyager in the first place.

 

[dragon04]

"Griffin has made it clear that Voyager will not be cut."<br /><br />Thanks for the GREAT news, wvbraun. I missed this somehow. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[spacefire]

the white elephant has to fly! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacester]

It occurs to me that if there was such a thing as a well funded "Private Space Program" it would be in a position to take over the operations of these probes when they reach the end of their NASA budgetary cycles.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Of course, the knowledge gained from the probes' continued operation would have to support the goals of such a Private Space Program. If that was not the case, perhaps <i>another</i> Private Space Program could be formed with consistent goals. <br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...would have to support the goals of such a Private Space Program. "</font><br /><br />Private enterprise generally has the goal of making money. Knowledge of the sort that space probes gather is unfortunately not a particularly valuable commodity on the open market.<br /><br />I think the best you could hope for would be something like USA, whereby DSN were privatized (or a privatized version of DSN were to be developed) and a firm were to run the missions, employ the scientists, etc. in return for a contract from NASA. Private industry could almost certainly reduce expenses. However, they would <b>also</b> have to make a profit, so this might eat up all (or more) or the expenses thus reduced. Plus the goals of the firm would not always be aligned with the goals of science. <br /><br />That's just off the top of my head -- I haven't spent any time thinking about all the 'gotchas' inherent in such a scheme. I'm sure there's plenty... there always are.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">I haven't spent any time thinking about all the 'gotchas' inherent in such a scheme. I'm sure there's plenty... there always are. </font><br /><br />I have spent the last several years thinking about it . . . yes there are plenty of 'gotchas' . . . but most of them go away if you drop the assumption that Private = For-Profit<br /><br />In which case you end up with something like the<br /><br />ACCESS Space Foundation<br /><br />Which could really use the help of smart skeptics such as yourself . . . assuming your goal is to move our country and our world forward in space, and not to just shoot good ideas down as sport.<br /><br />Not that the help of the skeptics here is vital to our success, it just would be a big help. (Please note how new we are before making too many judgments, thank you)<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[backspace]

Personally, Unless Ulysses is turning in some really good jupiter science, I wouldn't mind seeing it go. The nature of the orbit means it's only returning good solar data once every few years... I wonder what is been spent on it during the "off times"...<br /><br />Although I hate to see any bird with a functioning RTG get shut down, The instruments seem to favor solar observation, and if you can only get that data every few years... it's money down the hole, isn't it?

 

[henryhallam]

As one of those skeptics (though probably not a smart one <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) I think your best bet for success is to focus almost solely on public outreach, education and trying to drum up interest and support for space exploration. If you had a member in every large town with a small stall on the street handing out flyers every weekend explaining WHY space exploration is a worthy goal, you could get a LOT of exposure. I don't mean to be offensive, but I think that directly trying to run actual missions from the outset is a really bad idea. It will lead to people not taking you seriously. Better to work with the public and use them as leverage to help NASA, SpaceX etc and the other people with lots o' funding do what needs to be done.<br /><br />Maybe once your organisation is as large as the Planetary Society you can start running actual missions - at the same time, perhaps it's better not to go into "competition" with another organisation who is basically on your side!

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"but most of them go away if you drop the assumption that Private = For-Profit "</font><br /><br />You have to at least work under the assumption that Private = Break-Even. Only governments can continually throw money into a bottomless pit. B/E is easier than profit for sure, but this isn't an industry with huge margins so it's not <b>that</b> much easier.<br /><br />I checked out the website. I'll let ACCESS get a little less new before I make any judgements one way or another.

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">You have to at least work under the assumption that Private = Break-Even</font><br /><br />No you don't.<br /><br />A foundation can gather money for a noble purpose and take that money and<br /><br />SPEND IT<br /><br />asuming the money keeps coming in. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"asuming the money keeps coming in. "</font><br /><br />That is one heck of an assumption. [placeholder]*<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />* Several sentences were written here, then erased, replaced, erased, repeat. I finally decided to just stick with the first sentence and leave the the placeholder in lieu of a novelette.

 

[spacester]

henryhallam - <br /><br />Agree 100%, well said, that's what we're doing. The timing of the first missions is a long discussion.<br /><br />Good idea on handing out flyers . . . <br /><br />We're are not going to compete with ANYBODY ever unless they insist on it. That's pretty much the whole idea. Enough bickering, let's see what we've got as a whole for the entire space advocate community, coordinate those efforts, bring the case before the public, sell it, fund it, fly it. ACCESS will bend as required to accommodate everyone. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">That is one heck of an assumption.</font><br /><br />Yessir. <br /><br />The task is to turn that pie-in-the-sky assumption into reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>