backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 25 comment(s) - last by djc208.. on Jul 9 at 11:11 AM

Deep Impact launching into space (Image courtesy of NASA)
Instead of permanently retiring two space probes, NASA will send them on new missions

Even though the NASA space probes Deep Impact and Stardust both successfully completed their original missions, NASA officially assigned them new missions.

Deep Impact flew to Comet Tempel 1 and launched a probe to crash into the comet's surface, allowing researchers to learn the comet was less icy but more dusty than original research indicated.  NASA plans to send Deep Impact, working under the mission name Extrasolar Planet Observation and Characterization (EPOCh) and Deep Impact Extended, towards a comet to help study stars that have planets orbiting them.

Originally launched in 1999, Stardust visited Comet Wild 2 to collect dust samples, which were later sent back to Earth in a capsule.  Working under the New Exploration of Tempel 1 (NExT) name, Stardust will be sent to visit Comet Tempel 1, in what researchers hope will reveal what changes -- if any -- the comet's nucleus endured after encountering the sun.  The mission will be the first time a probe launched from Earth made a rendezvous at a comet which has already been visited.

NExT is expected to fly by Comet Tempel 1 on Feb. 14, 2011.

"These mission extensions are as exciting as it gets.  They will allow us to revisit a comet for the first time, add another to the list of comets explored and make a search for smaller planets around stars known with large planets," said Alan Stern, NASA Science Mission Directorate associate administrator.

"These new mission assignments for veteran spacecraft represent not only creative thinking and planning, but are also a prime example of getting more from the budget we have," Stern added.

Using previous space technology allows researchers to conduct missions at 15 percent of the original cost.  Total costs of the original Stardust and Deep Impact missions ranged up to 545 million, while the combined cost to reuse the probes will cost no more than $60 million.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
$60M?
By Homerboy on 7/5/2007 2:57:10 PM , Rating: 2
Why does it cost $60M?




RE: $60M?
By Keeir on 7/5/2007 3:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
It could be an "accounting" number rather than a real number.

For example the 30 million per reprogram probably includes costs for things such as workstation computers, transmission equipment time, support staff time, etc, which would most likely have been a cost to NASA already.

On top of this, space probes are usually designed very specifically for a certain mission profile. This includes structural optimization, power optimization, etc. Unless the probes had these secondary missions in mind from the start, the whole mission will need to be re-engineered to ensure the current probes in the current condition can perform the mission.

Unfortunely, its not as simple as writing a few thosand lines of completely bug free code.


RE: $60M?
By Hakuryu on 7/5/2007 3:50:34 PM , Rating: 2
The majority of the cost is man-hours, but like another alluded to - they may be amortizing part of the cost toward this re-tasked mission.

I was in the Army in 1992, and once my friend in supply told me the replacement tire iron for my rig cost $500. I'm sure you've all heard about $200 hammers and other wastes of money in the military; it doesn't surprise me that other goverment agencies waste money also, so part of that $60 million is probably due to NASA receiving supplies from companies awarded contracts that highly overcharge.


RE: $60M?
By rcc on 7/5/2007 4:39:43 PM , Rating: 4
LOL, I love these discussions.

Having worked for a couple subcontractors for the Military, I can tell you that the bulk of the "overages" charged are a direct result of the hoops that contractors are required to jump through.

The problem is(and no, I don't have any neat way of fixing it)that the military (government) buys from the lowest bidder. The lowest bidder these days is rarely producing a quality product, so the $15 tire iron they provide is made of some form of alumajunk and breaks during the first or second use. So, bureacrats that they are, procurement promptly (ok, it took months...) issues a statement of work, specification, and documentation requirements to all potential contractors. By the time they sorted through everything, and jumped through the hoops, did the dog and pony show, etc. They ended up with a $500 item. Now, the $25 tire iron from the "non" lowest bidder is still available, and probably lasts for 50 years if you don't let it rust. In fact, it may well be superior to the MILSPEC tire iron at 1/20th the price.

I'm not saying that companies don't pad things a bit when asked to go through the military procurement process, but a lot of it is having to do business as required by the military, etc.

As an example, my company produced a device for telemetry receiption. That device was available for order to just about anyone for $10,000 (prices approx.). After going through the additional contracts, testing, site testing, etc. The military ended up spending $15,000 on them. For exactly the same device.

So, 50%, that doesn't sound as bad as a $500 tire iron really. But some of that extra work doesn't scale with item price, so you get hit worse on low price commodities than you do with high ticket items.


RE: $60M?
By alifbaa on 7/6/2007 12:58:53 AM , Rating: 4
Having sat on the other end of the military procurement system for a few years, please allow me to give you my perspective as well.

Many times, off the shelf systems that we use are going to be exposed to many different environments than they were typically designed for.

As an example, consider a piece of communications testing gear. In the civilian world, the equipment is placed securely on a table where it is never moved until it is replaced. It is operated for its originally intended use by well trained users who average far more experience than the military can ever produce. When a problem arises, tech support is just a phone call away.

In the military, that piece of equipment will be boxed up and shipped all over routinely. Instead of a nice office environment, it will be exposed to heat, cold, sand, water, you name it. Instead of being used to test communications gear, perhaps it is used for other purposes. Instead of well trained, experienced users, you've got people who barely know how to do their assigned task. In this environment, a minor hiccup for the civilian world is enough to cause massive confusion and work delays for the military -- potentially leading to far reaching consequences. Working in a fairly fast track procurement area, I have seen products that are VERY well regarded in the civilian world come to us with the best endorsements from those who legitimately know what they are talking about and know what we are doing with the equipment. Most of it has worked wonderfully. Some of it has failed miserably -- usually the result of us fast-tracking a product into the field.

Everyone in the world can correctly think its the greatest thing since sliced bread. That doesn't mean it fits our needs. The only sure way to get what we need is to test the hell out of it and set down some good requirements to make the contractors work through. Unfortunately, that's expensive, slow, and imperfect process. Having said that, I think the system is certainly necessary.


RE: $60M?
By cheetah2k on 7/6/2007 4:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In the military, that piece of equipment will be boxed up and shipped all over routinely. Instead of a nice office environment, it will be exposed to heat, cold, sand, water, you name it. Instead of being used to test communications gear, perhaps it is used for other purposes. Instead of well trained, experienced users, you've got people who barely know how to do their assigned task. In this environment, a minor hiccup for the civilian world is enough to cause massive confusion and work delays for the military -- potentially leading to far reaching consequences.


Isn't this why there is good old K-mart gear, and then Milspec gear?


RE: $60M?
By Sartori42 on 7/6/2007 9:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
That's correct. Actually, the way it works right now, we can go to K-Mart if all we need is a common hammer. If you need a special hammer to do a special job, then we have to pay the big bucks for it. I'm the end-user, so I don't understand the procurement process, but it's my understanding that we pay big bucks for those specialty hammers because they need to have special qualities and all the R&D and development costs are rolled into small quantity purchases. Fortunately, more and more, we get to use inexpensive commercial tools and equipment if that's all we need.


RE: $60M?
By alifbaa on 7/6/2007 9:08:35 AM , Rating: 2
In the past, your $500 toilet seat was accounted for as being $500 because the $3 Billion R&D budget for the total system was divided across all the parts -- leading to a $497/part R&D price, and then $3 for the toilet seat. After the military got a lot of bad press, they changed the accounting system to spread the R&D across only the parts it affects. In the end, this new method only raises costs since it makes accounting more difficult and time consuming.


RE: $60M?
By Sartori42 on 7/6/2007 9:12:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead of being used to test communications gear, perhaps it is used for other purposes. Instead of well trained, experienced users, you've got people who barely know how to do their assigned task.


As a US military professional with 24 years of service (and still running), I take offense to the suggestion that military users are untrained, inexperienced, and don't know how to perform their assigned tasks. I've seen a lot of changes over the years, and one of them is the increase in the average intelligence level of the troops I work with. The average military member is being asked to do more and more with fewer and fewer resources. The dedication and professionalism of today's military member should be commended.


RE: $60M?
By alifbaa on 7/6/2007 1:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
As a fellow active duty member, I agree with you. They are well trained, very dedicated people. On average, they are far smarter than they were in the '80s.

I still stand by my statement. While we train our folks well, we often don't and can never give our folks the same knowledge that can only be gained by multiple decades of experience.

If you don't believe me, take a trip to the test facility of the equipment you use. Talk to the people who left the military to work for the company that produces your equipment. I will give you an absolute guarantee that every single one of them will tell you they are massively better at what they do since leaving the military.

The reason for this is simple. Military users tend to have a wider scope of responsibility than civilians do. A civilian technician in a field as relatively simple as your local cable company will typically be an installer for a number of years before their scope widens to supervise even a few other installers. In the military, a junior enlisted member will work an infinitely more complex job from the start. Within a year, he'll be in charge of a team of people. Within 5 years, he'll barely be focusing on so many things that he'll barely do his main job at all. By then, he's the old hand. In the civilian world, he'd still be a rookie.


RE: $60M?
By rcc on 7/6/2007 4:57:54 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, special purpose requirements will always cost more.
My comments were directed at the inevitable $600 toilet seat/$500 tool crowd.

As far as training goes, that's always an issue when you have everyone change jobs every 2 years. : )

And for humor's sake. Our "labratory" grade equipment gets used in many interesting places. I once received a pair of $18,000 electronic devices for repair that were being used on the beach at Pt Mugu. Then it rained. Fortunately, a bit of cleanup and calibration and all was well. They couldn't get them under cover fast enough, but at least someone had the sense to pull the power.


RE: $60M?
By drank12quartsstrohsbeer on 7/5/2007 5:16:15 PM , Rating: 2
Dont forget about funding the top secret programs that noone knows about.

I don't think the stealth aircraft were listed in the defense budgets during the 80s.


RE: $60M?
By djc208 on 7/9/2007 11:11:43 AM , Rating: 2
You also have to remember that as the end user you also have all the support costs rolled up in the item price.
The contractor charges more since he has all the additional costs involved in submitting his hammer for government approval. Someone has to review and evalulate the contracts, approve the purchase, authorize the money, recieve the hammers and stock them for shipment. If someone in Iraq need this hammer it has to be packaged and shiped (probably via military air lift) to the recieveing area and then distributed to the ordering party (and you thought your shipping was expensive).
All the costs associated with that supply chain (personnel, facilities, transportation, etc.) have to be paid for and that money usually comes from the purchasing organizations budget.
It's really no different than when you purchase something and are doing the whole online vs. in-store comparison.


Kudos!
By MrPickins on 7/5/2007 2:44:56 PM , Rating: 2
I'm impressed with the ingenuity and efficiency of the NASA guys.

It's amazing to me that they can retask the probe like that.




RE: Kudos!
By Fenixgoon on 7/5/2007 2:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
the mars rovers are still going, as far as i know! go nasa!


RE: Kudos!
By Samus on 7/6/2007 3:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the rover is operational but immobilized due to damage to the drivetrain or steering...don't remember, you look it up and tell me if i'm right, i'm going to bed :)


RE: Kudos!
By Michael Hoffman on 7/7/2007 12:28:17 AM , Rating: 2
If you want to learn a bit more about the progress being made by the Mars Exploration Rovers, here is the official NASA linkage:

http://marsrovers.nasa.gov/home/

Cheers.


RE: Kudos!
By ksherman on 7/5/2007 3:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
My question is why is it going to cost $60 million dollars to tell a probe to go in another direction? Have these probes returned to Earth and are now being re-launched? Or are they currently floating about space after having completed their previous mission? If the latter is the case, than wouldn't this be as simple as sending it a new heading?


RE: Kudos!
By A5 on 7/5/2007 3:08:13 PM , Rating: 2
It takes a lot of work to reprogram the software on the probes, monitor their status, and receive/understand the data. It's a significant number of man-hours, and engineers don't come cheap.


RE: Kudos!
By Michael Hoffman on 7/5/2007 3:12:10 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry for the confusion.

Both spacecraft are already in space.