Er, yeah, still doesn't work like that when it comes to creating new programs (as opposed to stuffing money into an ongoing project).Look, I know the guy who is in charge of the planetary program. He has said in public on several occasions that he cannot pursue a new program without a formal new program start from OMB. Just cannot do it. For starters, the money provided by Congress is only there for one year (technically, they usually have two years to spend it), without any promise of further money. Thus, NASA cannot sign contracts for programs that would require many years to pay for them. Go ask him.
In fact, there is actually still money left over in the Europa account from when Congress first appropriated it. That's because it was a huge chunk of money for "studies" and there's only so much that you can spend on studies without actually bending metal. It's a rather sloppy and inefficient way to run a program (in part because that money is not free, but is being taken from other things that NASA has on its plate, like another New Frontiers mission). What it does do, however, is send a message to the OMB that if OMB doesn't get in front of the horse on a Europa mission, it will continue to be behind the horse on a Europa mission, and nobody really wants to be behind the horse.
When NASA has a real program for building a Europa Clipper you will know it because they will talk about it as a development program. They don't have it now, and Congress cannot make it happen on its own.
And overridden it was. On October 18, 1972, first the Senate, then the House overrode Nixon's veto and the bill became law. After the veto override, Nixon refused to spend the money appropriated by Congress, using his presidential powers to impound half of the money. For a time, members of the House considered impeachment proceedings against Nixon and his actions were eventually challenged in the Supreme Court. In Train v. City of New York (1975), the court ruled "that the president had no authority to withhold funds provided by Congress in the Clean Water Act of 1972," stating essentially, "The president cannot frustrate the will of Congress by killing a program through impoundment." In addition, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 provided a means of controlling the President's ability to impound funds for programs that they don't support.
How did NASA sign a contract with Boeing and SpaceX for crew access to ISS when no funds have been appropriated?
From Stephen Clark Tweeter at IAC2014QuoteStephen Clark @StephenClark1APL's Thomas Magner: We've selected solar power for the Europa Clipper mission, baselined for launch on SLS in June 2022. #IAC2014
Stephen Clark @StephenClark1APL's Thomas Magner: We've selected solar power for the Europa Clipper mission, baselined for launch on SLS in June 2022. #IAC2014
The SLS thing is not at all assured. They have studied it because they were _told_ to study it. But I know a lot of people in the planetary program who just roll their eyes whenever it comes up. That's not because it is a bad engineering choice, but because they think the politics is very sketchy. Nobody wants to go down that road and get burned.
In an Oct. 3 presentation at the 65th International Astronautical Congress here, Europa Clipper deputy project manager Thomas Magner of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, said that using large solar panels for the mission was both technically viable and less expensive than a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG).
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42121europa-clipper-opts-for-solar-power-over-nuclearQuoteIn an Oct. 3 presentation at the 65th International Astronautical Congress here, Europa Clipper deputy project manager Thomas Magner of the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland, said that using large solar panels for the mission was both technically viable and less expensive than a radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG).
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/07/2014 03:37 amThe SLS thing is not at all assured. They have studied it because they were _told_ to study it. But I know a lot of people in the planetary program who just roll their eyes whenever it comes up. That's not because it is a bad engineering choice, but because they think the politics is very sketchy. Nobody wants to go down that road and get burned.We've been down the road where planetary missions were tied to a new launch system. NASA didn't pursue a Voyager Uranus probe mission because they were phasing out the Titan launch system and the shuttle wouldn't be ready in time. We all know the story of how Galileo was repeatedly delayed because of its dependence on the shuttle.
The death of the Titan definitely put limits on probes,
Quote from: redliox on 10/08/2014 10:18 pmI don't recall probes in the '60s and '70s opting for numerous out-of-the-way gravity assists, so I see them for what they are: improvising. You cannot simply throw a large launch vehicle at every mission. That's expensive. That is money better spent on instruments.
I don't recall probes in the '60s and '70s opting for numerous out-of-the-way gravity assists, so I see them for what they are: improvising.
Quote from: Blackstar on 10/09/2014 01:21 amQuote from: redliox on 10/08/2014 10:18 pmI don't recall probes in the '60s and '70s opting for numerous out-of-the-way gravity assists, so I see them for what they are: improvising. You cannot simply throw a large launch vehicle at every mission. That's expensive. That is money better spent on instruments.Has anyone proposed doing something like using an HLV for every mission? Instruments are usually a small portion of a mission's budget.
Has anyone proposed doing something like using an HLV for every mission?
Instruments are usually a small portion of a mission's budget. For instance, from memory, I think MSL was 2.5 billion total cost and the instruments were ~100 million total.
Quote from: ncb1397 on 10/09/2014 03:10 amInstruments are usually a small portion of a mission's budget. For instance, from memory, I think MSL was 2.5 billion total cost and the instruments were ~100 million total.Wrong. They are not a small portion. A lander is the wrong example. MSL had 3 additional pieces of hardware that other spacecraft don't have: aeroshell, descent stage, and rover.
Quote from: Jim on 10/09/2014 01:56 pmQuote from: ncb1397 on 10/09/2014 03:10 amInstruments are usually a small portion of a mission's budget. For instance, from memory, I think MSL was 2.5 billion total cost and the instruments were ~100 million total.Wrong. They are not a small portion. A lander is the wrong example. MSL had 3 additional pieces of hardware that other spacecraft don't have: aeroshell, descent stage, and rover.Also, the Curiosity instrument suite cost more than that. I think the cost was more like $170-$190 million. After all, the cost of the instrument suite for Mars 2020--not including the sample cacher--is over $130 million.
And that's for a rover, for telescopes is much more (like 200M per instrument for a big one). And I wonder about something like Cassini which should be the closest match for this mission.
Quote from: baldusi on 10/09/2014 03:04 pmAnd that's for a rover, for telescopes is much more (like 200M per instrument for a big one). And I wonder about something like Cassini which should be the closest match for this mission.I'd quibble with counting a telescope that way. When it comes to a telescope, I don't think it is totally fair to divide it in terms of "instruments" and everything else. The telescope itself should in some way be considered a scientific instrument. It's not just support equipment.