May 11, 2008
Why Does The Official Cost of Mars Phoenix Keep Changing?
NASA to Discuss Phoenix Mission Upcoming Mars Landing
"NASA has scheduled a media briefing Tuesday, May 13, at 11 a.m. EDT, to discuss the challenges, risks and science opportunities of the scheduled May 25 landing of the Phoenix Mars Lander."
Editor's note: Phoenix once had another name: "2001 Mars Surveyor Lander". After NASA crashed two spacecraft into Mars in 1999 (Mars Climate Orbiter and Mars Polar Lander) it was mothballed. Then some imaginative people found a way to use NASA's investment and create a new mission using existing hardware - with lessons learned from the Mars crashes applied.
Alas, when NASA talks about Phoenix they really don't want to remind people of those sad days in 1999. In so doing they go out of their way not to remind people that a lot of money went into this spacecraft before the name change. How much? They can never really provide a straight answer. Instead, they try and pass it off as an inexpensive mission.
What follows [below] is a chronology of sorts as I thave tried to find out just what this mission costs: so far I have found official NASA statements that it is $325 million, $386 million, and $420 million. I am sure NASA can come up with several more if they try. I wonder (if asked the question) what their answer will be at this press event?
Small wonder no one can figure out exactly what MSL is going to cost, eh?
Cost chronology below:
NASA Selects "Phoenix" as First Mars Scout Mission for Launch in 2007, 4 Aug 2003
"The Mars Scout program is designed to complement major missions being planned as part of NASA's Mars Exploration Program, as well as those under development by foreign space agencies, within a total mission cost cap of $325 million."
NASA's Mars Phoenix Mars Mission Begins Launch Preparations, 2 June 2005
"Phoenix revives pieces of past missions in order to take NASA's Mars exploration into an exciting future," said NASA's Director, Solar System Division, Science Mission Directorate, Andrew Dantzler. The cost of the Phoenix mission is $386 million, which includes the launch."
NASA Has a Problem Calculating - and Admitting - What Space Missions Really Cost, 3 June 2005
NASA Watch Question 1: "Does the $386 million figure in this press release include the money spent to develop the 2001 Mars Surveyor Lander prior to its cancellation/mothballing?"
NASA answer: No.
Editor's comment: Then why does NASA post verbiage in public statements such as "The cost of the Phoenix mission is $386 million, which includes the launch."?
Landing Press kit, May 2008
"Cost: U.S. investment of $420 million, including development, science instruments, launch and operations; plus Canadian Space Agency investment of $37 million for the meteorological station."
Earlier Mars Phoenix News
Editor's note: Oh yes, there is this little gem on the mission website:
"The Mars Polar Lander failed to return data upon its arrival to Mars' antarctic region on December 3, 1999 and left many ambitious science goals undone."
Well DUH, that's because it crashed into Mars!
Posted by kcowing at May 11, 2008 6:46 PMvalid points...i'm curious too, although compared to MSL it's cheap! can't wait for the landing
Posted by: Phil at May 9, 2008 2:26 PMAn important piece of information that you will want to get is whether each cost figure is in Real Year or Fiscal Year dollars.
The difference between the two designations is effectively inflation. So $325 Million in FY03 dollars assumes all the money is spent in FY2003, where it is actual spent over a 4-6 year period and the compounded inflation each year can add up to real money.
There are advantages to using FY dollars when you want to compare different programs that have different schedules and mission objectives. This is why NASA proposals often are bid against a fiscal year cost cap (i.e. $325 million FY03)
Note the second page in this paper talking about the 2003 scout mission budget and specifying the FY of the money: http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/iel5/8735/27690/01235484.pdf?arnumber=1235484
Once the mission is actually budgeted it switches to real year dollars.
This does make it difficult to compare because in order to convert from one to another you need to know how the money was spent each year and either remove or add the correct inflation to it.
Posted by: Spacecadet at May 9, 2008 7:10 PMMars Scouts appropriation for Phoenix = $420,000,000.
Mars '01 budget allocated to Lander = ~$113,000,000.
Total cost of Phoenix is ~$533,000,000.
The Mars '01 budget allocated to the Lander can be calculated by taking the total Mars '01 appropriation of approximately $410,000,000 (based on this 2000 NASA chart comparing Faster, Better, Cheaper mission costs against Cassini ftp://ftp.hq.nasa.gov/pub/pao/budget/2000/galileo_v_newmissions.jpg) and subtracting the $297,000,000 identified as the cost of Mars Odyssey (from the Mars Odyssey press kit: http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/press_kits/odysseyarrival.pdf). The remainder is the portion of the Mars '01 appropriation allocated for the lander.
Posted by: Lab rat at May 9, 2008 9:01 PMWE are spending over half a billion dollars for this lander and over a billion for the Mars Science Laboratory and Mike Griffin has the temerity to say that all we need for the Moon is a good map?
What kind of a fool does he take the science community for? Obviously a pretty big fool. Mike Griffin and his Mars fetish and launch vehicle will be the death of exploration for NASA.
Posted by: Lunar Lover at May 11, 2008 4:32 PMGriffin has a Mars fetish? News to me. He's spent most of his tenure trying to eviscerate the vision and strategy developed by the Mars Program and decimate one of the earliest long-term plans developed for space exploration. The Mars program post MSL is in shambles.
IF ONLY he had a Mars fetish. I'd even go for a science fetish. Heck, I'd take a strategy fetish at this stage.
Posted by: starbuck at May 11, 2008 10:46 PMI doubt anyone in the science community will be sorry to see Mr. Griffin's back pretty soon. He's alienated pretty much all of 'em with his "my way or the highway" attitude, and his failure to stick-up for NASA. Isn't he supposed to argue the case for actually FUNDING the VSE and NASA, instead of simply being the administration's hatchet man? Whithout that VSE has simply become an unfunded mandate, highly reminiscent of Bush 1 's smoke and mirrors "vision", and human spaceflight a money pit funded on the back of the REAL exporation arm of NASA, the SMD.
Posted by: JC at May 12, 2008 6:38 PMCan I ask a few questions without getting torn apart? I will be frank with you and tell you I am a space/NASA novice. The site seems to have knowledgeable people conversing so I wanted to ask a question that I've often wondered about, but never put forth too much effort to research. Here are my questions.
What exactly is the purpose of NASA?
Do we really need an organization that spends over 400 million dollars in exploratory missions to Mars?
What will that benefit the majority of life on Earth; the planet we inhabit NOW?
Couldn't the money spent be better utilized to make life better for the inhabitants of this planet that we know sustains life?
Thanks for your time and knowledge and please know this is not an attempt to "stir" things up, but rather an honest attempt to find some answers.
JW asked:
Can I ask a few questions without getting torn apart? I will be frank with you and tell you I am a space/NASA novice. The site seems to have knowledgeable people conversing so I wanted to ask a question that I've often wondered about, but never put forth too much effort to research. Here are my questions.
What exactly is the purpose of NASA?
Do we really need an organization that spends over 400 million dollars in exploratory missions to Mars?
What will that benefit the majority of life on Earth; the planet we inhabit NOW?
#######
I am asking the same questions. I would also like to know what is the annual budget for NASA for this year, and the authorized budget totals for the last 10 years, and what have been the benefits to the American public. I am not one who cares about if there is/has been life on Mars. I do care about the 47 million US children who do not have health insurance.
