May 12, 2008
The Actual Cost of Mars Phoenix is $520 Million
Editor's note: According to NASA PAO: "Phoenix leveraged the 2001 lander investment to produce a polar lander for a mission cost of $420M. The Mars 2001 Lander was approximately 71% complete at cancellation and the sunk costs were estimated to be $100M. It is difficult to determine the exact costs since the lander was being developed along side the orbiter, Mars Odyssey, and both spacecraft were treated as one project. However, here's what we have:
2001 Lander = $100M
Storage = $250K
Phoenix = $420M (Full cost LCC $419.6M, Launch vehicle $90.3M, Spacecraft $295.7M, Phase E $33.6M)"
As such, the total cost for Mars Phoenix is $100 million spent on the original 2001 lander, plus $250K to store it, and then $420 million for the Mars Phoenix project or a total of $520 million.
Posted by kcowing at May 12, 2008 7:01 PM
There is an interesting wiki on the "sunk costs" effect at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost
One paragraph that drew my interest was:
Behavioral economics recognizes that sunk costs often affect economic decisions due to loss aversion: the price paid becomes a benchmark for the value, whereas the price paid should be irrelevant. This is considered non-rational behaviour (as rationality is defined by classical economics). Economic experiments have shown that the sunk cost fallacy and loss aversion are common, and hence economic rationality — as assumed by much of economics — is limited. This has enormous implications for finance, economics, and securities markets in particular. Daniel Kahneman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in part for his extensive work in this area with his late collaborator, Amos Tversky.
Economic rationality is limited?! Who'd have thought...
Posted by: A KSC'er at May 13, 2008 1:01 PMAnyone who still thinks the actual price is the quoted price doesn't belong in politics.
Posted by: heroineworshipper at May 13, 2008 1:03 PM$520 million is not that much in today's dollars. It's not like you can go to Home Depot and order a Mars lander.
Remember, the Viking missions cost nearly $935 million in 1974 dollars! Adjust that for today's inflation and you have a Mars project that does not survive the discussion stage.
The money is not wasted on space. It is spent here on Earth and there's knowledge gained and new technologies discovered with each mission, whether or not it is considered a success.
I just do not believe dollar amounts make the best adjectives when describing mission costs. Most reporters do it because they are lazy.
You do not see many people talking about the cost of the Hubble Space Telescope. We could have built and launched other space-based telescopes for the money spent to repair and manage Hubble. Yet, when a project is successful, like Hubble, the money spent seems like a good investment and is largely ignored by the media.
Posted by: JSC_LIS at May 13, 2008 3:32 PM$250 million for storage? Is someone kidding us? Where did they store it? That's almost the cost of vehicle.
Editor's note: Is everyone dyslexic today? It says $250K NOT $250M.
Posted by: Gonzo at May 14, 2008 9:39 AMI'm trying to figure out how
2001 Lander = $100M
Storage = $250K
Phoenix = $420M
adds up to $520M. I get $770M. What am I missing here?
Editor's note: Yea, it says $250K. NOT $250M
Posted by: Stephanie Barr at May 14, 2008 10:23 AMI think we need to figure in the salaries of the employees building this thing. Just to give a more detailed cost.
Posted by: Appsbyaaron at May 27, 2008 10:25 AM> I think we need to figure in the salaries of the employees building this thing. Just to give a more detailed cost.
What do you think the "cost" consists of if not including salaries?
Posted by: Tom Liotta at May 29, 2008 7:48 PMRead the article guys....250k = 250,000 NOT 250million
So $100m + $420m + $250k = ($520m + 250k) = $520250000. A drop in the bucket.
