NASA Cut Means No Roving for Mars Rover

Mar 24, 2008 By ALICIA CHANG, AP Science Writer
Cut Forces NASA to Park a Mars Rover

(AP) -- Scientists plan to put one of the twin Mars rovers to sleep and limit the activities of the other robot to fulfill a NASA order to cut $4 million from the program's budget, mission team members said Monday.



Content from The Associated Press expires 15 days after original publication date. For more information about The Associated Press, please visit www.ap.org .

Explore further: Collisions of coronal mass ejections can be super-elastic

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

NASA's BARREL mission launches 20 balloons

1 hour ago

(Phys.org) —In Antarctica in January, 2013 – the summer at the South Pole – scientists released 20 balloons, each eight stories tall, into the air to help answer an enduring space weather question: ...

Amazon plans greenhouse-style headquarters

1 hour ago

US online giant Amazon has unveiled plans for a futuristic greenhouse style headquarters "where employees can work and socialize in a more natural, park-like setting."

Recommended for you

NASA head views progress on asteroid lasso mission

10 hours ago

Surrounded by engineers, NASA chief Charles Bolden inspected a prototype spacecraft engine that could power an audacious mission to lasso an asteroid and tow it closer to Earth for astronauts to explore.

Ecuador satellite collides with Russian space junk

10 hours ago

A small Ecuadoran satellite collided in orbit with the remains of a Russian rocket, but it is too soon to know how much damage it might have sustained, Quito's space agency said Thursday.

Forecast for Titan: Wild weather could be ahead

May 22, 2013

(Phys.org) —Saturn's moon Titan might be in for some wild weather as it heads into its spring and summer, if two new models are correct. Scientists think that as the seasons change in Titan's northern hemisphere, ...

SDO observes mid-level solar flare

May 22, 2013

UPDATE 16:30 p.m. EDT: The M7-class flare was also associated with a coronal mass ejection or CME, another solar phenomenon that can send billions of tons of particles into space. While this CME was not Ea ...

User comments : 16

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

FelixDraconis
4.4 / 5 (8) Mar 24, 2008
I know this may be a little confusing to me, but why does it cost 20 million dollars to run a couple of solar powered rovers for a year? Is that because there's a team of highly paid scientists working full time on it? Satellite transmission costs? Computers to analyze the incoming data?

If these two rovers are 'doomed' anyway by the shutting down, as they very likely will be soon, why not turn them over to, say, a university team? There isn't much real science to get out of them, anyway, if they're going to be shut down, so might as well do something with them before the dust storms take them out.
quantum_flux
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2008
RIP Spirit! Hope to see you again on some obscure future manned space mission to Mars. Or, may some brilliant hacker rig up a satellite dish and revive you in the mean time.
gopher65
4.1 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2008
Boooooooooooooo. How hard would it be to cut 4 million dollars from the useless shuttle program instead of from a program that actually DOES something.

Or better yet fire a few of the "political advisers" that the US government has making sure that NASA doesn't make any press releases that make them look bad. How much money do they spend every year proofreading NASA press releases and papers to make sure there is no substantial mention of AGW or other contentious issues? Where AGW is real or not, political interference either way is a waste of time and money, and I'd bet that that interference costs them more than a measly 4 million.
Damon_Hastings
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 24, 2008
I'm utterly baffled. I thought Republicans were supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility? They paid $820M for the first 3 months, and then a near-miraculous performance by the rovers unexpectedly extends this for $20M per *YEAR*, and they just walk away from that??? Did someone put stupid pills in their water? I mean, that's a 164-fold reduction in cost! Okay, so maybe the data returned by the rovers today is less valuable than it was 4 years ago... but I seriously doubt it's 164 times less valuable! $20M/yr is chump change by NASA standards; they probably spend more on pencils.

I mean, come on! One-hundred-freakin-sixty-four! Hel-LO-O??!
drknowledge
4 / 5 (4) Mar 24, 2008
Answering Felix, depending on what costs NASA chooses to include the 20 million is for: telescope time, science and analysis team, programming and troubleshooting team, control team, historical data storage, Web site and other media presentation, etc. The complete costs for an engineer at an American company run over 1/4 million, each, last I heard. That includes management, office space, equipment, medical coverage, retirement, etc. I.e., 20 million, as the other folks are saying, for *working* rovers on Mars is a real deal.
nilbud
1 / 5 (2) Mar 24, 2008
Zimtastic
deadwhale
4.5 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2008
The shame of it all is that in the near future they'll spend much more to send up another probe that will cost much more and do not much more. Run these until they won't run any more, then worry about what to send up next...
x-15
3.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2008
So most of the cost is in paying people,well, people pay tax on everything and this tax goes to...the government!! Whats the problem? Keep the rovers going, we might learn something about the universe around us. It's a damn sight better than the crap we are force fed on tv.
fleem
4.5 / 5 (2) Mar 25, 2008
This is obviously politicking by the NASA heads, which can justifiably be at least partly blamed on the one that appointed them. However there are multiple sides to this.

1. Some might not think its all that bad politicking. The result will certainly be that the general public takes notice of the cutbacks, and thus maybe there will be pressure to increase funding. (Yes, its still politicking)

2. But then NASA is a very inefficient operation in general, bogged down with bureaucracy, incompetence, and laziness from top to bottom (no not everyone involved). So maybe a cutback in general is good. If it sticks, hopefully the heads will get tired of politicking when they see it does no good, and eventually juggle the money more efficiently.

3. There are some projects that some might argue are better than continuing the rovers over another year, like exotic propulsion systems and alternate energy sources. --dunno how much, if any, of those were trimmed.

DGBEACH
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2008
I agree with FelixDraconis, why not lease them out to Universities, and allow them to absorb the operation costs, for as long as these two finely crafted robots continue to function...anything else would be pure arrogance!
saucerfreak2012
4 / 5 (7) Mar 25, 2008
Subsidize the expense by leasing C&C time to Universities!!! Is it that difficult to figure out!

WHAT A WASTE!!!!! SHAME SHAME SHAME!!!!

I'll bet the issue is paying salaries to umpteen redundant techs monitoring these little gems. Not in "real" operations cost. I bet any good university could monitor these rovers using 1/20th the manpower and money.

I feel sick.
TJ_alberta
3 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2008
maybe NASA can outsource this operation to an IT company in Bangalore. They can probably run the whole program on $4 mil PA. Polititians accountants = danger
SDMike
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 25, 2008
An old story at NASA. If it works, kill it. Walk away from proven tech. Kill the Saturn & spend billions building the "heavy lift" rocket - which STILL doesn't exist. Reminds me of little children chasing the new shiny toy.

We need to put 50% of NASA's budget into commercial companies. Let them build and maintain the infrastructure. Let NASA and the Universities chase baubles with the other 50%. Research establishments are not designed or rewarded for maintaining roads.
hopefulbl
3 / 5 (4) Mar 25, 2008
Why not just get advertising revenue by doing what TV does...add digital advertising on mars photos
HeRoze
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2008
*no comment*
HeRoze
5 / 5 (1) Apr 02, 2008
Funny - people take offense to comments against NASA. I have to wonder if they ever worked with a government agency, particularly NASA? Even in gov't circles NASA is regarded as a beacon of inefficiency and bureaucracy. If you work FOR NASA, I can understand why you would be offended, but be honest, are the jabs that far off the mark?

More news stories

A hidden population of exotic neutron stars

(Phys.org) —Magnetars – the dense remains of dead stars that erupt sporadically with bursts of high-energy radiation - are some of the most extreme objects known in the Universe. A major campaign using ...

Hubble reveals the ring nebula's true shape

(Phys.org) —The Ring Nebula's distinctive shape makes it a popular illustration for astronomy books. But new observations by NASA's Hubble Space Telescope of the glowing gas shroud around an old, dying, ...

NASA head views progress on asteroid lasso mission

Surrounded by engineers, NASA chief Charles Bolden inspected a prototype spacecraft engine that could power an audacious mission to lasso an asteroid and tow it closer to Earth for astronauts to explore.

Controlling mood through the motions of mitochondria

(Medical Xpress)—Regulating the distribution of power in neurons is done by a system that makes the national electric grid look simple by comparison. Each neuron has several thousand mitochondria confined ...

A quantum simulator for magnetic materials

Physicists understand perfectly well why a fridge magnet sticks to certain metallic surfaces. But there are more exotic forms of magnetism whose properties remain unclear, despite decades of intense research. ...