Comments on: Mars Science Laboratory Mission Delayed Two Years

By: wiz

wiz — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 20:53:56 +0000

NASA needs proper budget!

Space is the new frontier, we must go towards the stars!

By: Astrofiend

Astrofiend — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:15:15 +0000

"many times they're rated lifetime by"

…make that 'their' rated lifetime.

By: Astrofiend

Astrofiend — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 23:13:57 +0000

Disappointing, but it's the right thing to do. The current Mars rovers didn't end up working for many, many times they're rated lifetime by chance – it was thorough, top class, fastidious engineering that did it.

MSL has capability far beyond the current rovers. Being powered by an RTG, it may potentially last for a very long time on Mars doing great science. It would be simply unacceptable to risk the investment of money so far and the enormous potential for scientific discovery in an attempt to ensure launch by some arbitrary date. It's only two years!

By: Jamie Kitchen

Jamie Kitchen — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:13:33 +0000

I agree with dollhopf. It is amazing how much coin is spent on 'Goodwill' crap that is powered by marketroids. The knowledge gained from this project combined with the atmospheric probe launching in 2013 will give us a clear view of the characteristics of mars' atmosphere and climate since early on in the solar system.

But $400 million in extra costs? Must be a hell of a payroll on retainer for this project for teh next 2 years.

By: Chuck Lam

Chuck Lam — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 14:28:01 +0000

Imagine the technical problems and delays NASA will run into directing the design and construction of a space vehicle to transport a multi-person science team to the surface of Mars. If this scenario actually comes to pass; it will most likely be in the next two or three centuries. The recent patterns of failures and cost over-runs are mind boggling.

By: dollhopf

dollhopf — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:32:40 +0000

So this is still before next UEFA European Football Championship, followed by the 2012 Olympics in London.

The Olympic Games in 2012 are estimated to cost £9.345 billion (currently $13.7 billion). This is nearly four times more than the estimation when London's bid succeeded in 2005. So 13 Billion dollars just to clarify that Michael Phelps is the best swimmer of all times?

In comparison, the MSL is supposed to take $2.25 billion in life cycle costs for to carry out Nobel prize winning science.

By: KG6YRA

KG6YRA — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:38:01 +0000

It's great they're giving extra time to the engineers.

Id rather see a successful mission instead of a broken rover.

By: Mr. Obvious

Mr. Obvious — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:57:44 +0000

Those involved know the mission will not be cancelled, since it is near completion, and extending it will cost less than 5% of budget. More than likely, it is the project workers method of ensuring job security for a couple more years.

By: Bosco

Bosco — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:39:09 +0000

They just delayed it out of existence. In good times Nasa is, at best, ignored. In less than optimum times it's a whipping post for any pol to score points claiming " .. there are too many problems here .. " It's done, it's over, pull the plug now and save a few extra bucks.

By: Skunkchump

Skunkchump — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:34:31 +0000

This is the worst news all year!

NASA needs new management, THIS IS RIDICULOUS.
I understand that this stuff is not easy.
There are set-backs… I know.
This really pisses me off. I'm not sure if I'll live that long!

I hope some of the change we may see will include NASA being a higher priority. (for everyone)

They chop and cut every mission that makes sense.

Ahh well, it's ok….. we have plenty of time.

Mismanagement is the #1 problem.
Need for increased overall budget #2.

By: Don Alexander

Don Alexander — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 19:10:47 +0000

Dang! So the launch window next year just goes unused…

And I guess the chances of having three working rovers on the ground goes wayyyyy down…