Cassini vs Curiosity - which is worth saving?

[czokletmuss]

Cruel choice, isn't it? Well, it's not impossible that the NASA would have to face it sometime soon:

NASA could soon be facing an awful choice. The agency, feeling a budgetary squeeze from Congress, might not be able to fund all its robotic planetary exploration missions after next year.

This year NASA received $16.9 billion, which may sound like a lot but, once adjusted for inflation, is roughly what the agency got back in 1986. Just $1.27 billion of that budget goes into funding all robotic exploration in the solar system. And most space policy experts don’t see that number going up anytime in the near future. In 2014, NASA will put many of its robotic missions through what’s known as a senior review. Administrators will have to decide which of its missions will yield the highest scientific return and may recommend canceling some of them.

And that’s where some sad calculus comes in.

“We have two very expensive flagship missions, Cassini and Curiosity,†said NASA’s planetary science director Jim Green, speaking to one of the agency’s advisory councils on Nov. 5. “So, this particular competition we’ll have to do very carefully.â€Â

Source: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/11/end-of-cassini-science/

I recommend reading this article, it's very interesting - and sad..

So if you would have to choose, which one would you save?

Cassini?

Or Curiosity?

[magnemoe]

No issue, rater cancel planning of future missions as it is manpower intensive, running an ongoing mission don't cost much.

Running the deep space network for receiving the signals cost money but you has to run it for either of the missions.

[Kilmeister]

I'd say Cassini, but not just because I've always been a big fan of it. I feel, in general, more people would care if Curiosity had to end it's mission early. [WISHFUL] Maybe seeing something get cancelled due to petty squabbling in congress might open some people's eyes and force congress to reevaluate the decision[/WISHFUL].

[lajoswinkler]

As much as I prefer Cassini in an emotional sense, my reason tells me it should be Curiosity that gets saved. Its data impact is much greater.

Disgusting situation as NASA, I agree, but I really doubt they'll have to cancel any of these two missions. This is kind of sensationalism.

It's highly unlikely, and even if the government money faucet gets closed, I think private investment will jump in.

MAVEN and others will get cancelled before Cassini.

[Deadpangod3]

I say we barricade all goverment buildings until congress returns NASA's funding!!

On topic: I'm thinking Cassini should be saved so we get more beautiful pictures of earth from Saturn

[czokletmuss]

No issue, rater cancel planning of future missions as it is manpower intensive, running an ongoing mission don't cost much.

Well, Department of Defense spends more money on golf courses than either of this probes costs in operating terms I say USA have serious problems with its bureaucracy and its priorities.

And there is also issue of cancelling the ISS support to save SLS...

[Requiem762]

Didn't NASA say that they were going to send a follow up curiosity like rover to do more tests around 2020? Can't they just delay that and keep both?

[Requiem762]

As much as I prefer Cassini in an emotional sense, my reason tells me it should be Curiosity that gets saved. Its data impact is much greater.

Disgusting situation as NASA, I agree, but I really doubt they'll have to cancel any of these two missions. This is kind of sensationalism.

It's highly unlikely, and even if the government money faucet gets closed, I think private investment will jump in.

MAVEN and others will get cancelled before Cassini.

MAVEN is already sitting in orbit waiting for the transfer window they won't cancel it after spending the money to launch it to not have it at least attempt it's mission.

[NASAFanboy]

Well, Department of Defense spends more money on golf courses than either of this probes costs in operating terms I say USA have serious problems with its bureaucracy and its priorities.

And there is also issue of cancelling the ISS support to save SLS...

And our politicians still wonder why their the laughing stock of the world.

I mean, come on! The amount if money the government spends on air conditioning is larger than NASA!

Hell, even a single B-2 bomber is four billion more dollars than the budget of NASA.

Someone, kill me please. I don't know how, but the US Bureaucracy is having a case of stupid. But still, if someone cancels the SLS, I'm packing my bags and offering my services to China (Who actually has a plan!), or SpaceX (If they ever get off the ground), or DARPA

Edited November 19, 2013 by NASAFanboy

[Requiem762]

And our politicians still wonder why their the laughing stock of the world.

I mean, come on! The amount if money the government spends on air conditioning is larger than NASA!

Hell, even a single B-2 bomber is four billion more dollars than the budget of NASA.

Someone, kill me please. I don't know how, but the US Bureaucracy is having a case of stupid. But still, if someone cancels the SLS, I'm packing my bags and offering my services to China (Who actually has a plan!), or SpaceX (If they ever

get off the ground), or DARPA

I wouldn't be setting your sights on china if I were you just because the way the governent is there.

Spacex is off the ground and is making great strides in reusability.

DARPA will only let you make something if it can be weaponized and will be the ones soaking up the money that used to be NASAs budget...

[NASAFanboy]

I wouldn't be setting your sights on china if I were you just because the way the governent is there.

Spacex is off the ground and is making great strides in reusability.

DARPA will only let you make something if it can be weaponized and will be the ones soaking up the money that used to be NASAs budget...

A moon colony with nukes is better than no moon colony.

[Lexif]

A moon colony with nukes is better than no moon colony.

On the other hand, an unmanned military spaceplane (X-37) might be less usefull than the same money in NASA's hands. Or not. But we can't know because the mission is secret. You're paying, but you won't get to play with those toys, so to speak.

Seriously, I think it's crazy how much the US is spending on its military considering all that bloat and feature creep that seems to be in every single project. Why is it that everyone is so critical of the costs of social programs and science, but when it comes to the military, it's totally normal when everything costs twice as much in the end and comes ten years later. Not specific to the US either. (See Eurofighter, Eurohawk, apparently every EADS defense project in general.)

[Winter Man]

Crash Cassini into Saturn like they originally planned, wait for compression to send the RTG critical, watch it pop.

[Requiem762]

A moon colony with nukes is better than no moon colony.

Weapons of any kind in space could spark a new arms race and Cold War with other countries wanting to "close the nuclear moon bas gap."

[Idobox]

I checked the EuroHawk thing. Seriously, the global hawk has been a disaster, costing 8 times more than planned, and being inferior to the older U2, so blaming EADS (responsible for adding a radar array) for the failure of the euro hawk is a bit harsh.

That being said, defence project are often more expensive than planned and run late.

[NASAFanboy]

Weapons of any kind in space could spark a new arms race and Cold War with other countries wanting to "close the nuclear moon bas gap."

Having a all-out nuclear war that destroys Earth, but with colonies on the Moon would not prove as damaging to the human race as a all-out nuclear war breaking out while we haven't even colonized space.

[Lexif]

I checked the EuroHawk thing. Seriously, the global hawk has been a disaster, costing 8 times more than planned, and being inferior to the older U2, so blaming EADS (responsible for adding a radar array) for the failure of the euro hawk is a bit harsh.

That being said, defence project are often more expensive than planned and run late.

I meant this more in addition to the other two projects. A400M might be a better EADS example. The EuroHawk is a political failure. They had already sunk all the money (1.3E9€!) when they noticed they couldn't legally fly the damn thing in the European airspace. I generally would have welcomed the promised jump in capability. It would have replaced our Breguet Atlantics in the marine ELINT/SIGINT role.

[Requiem762]

Having a all-out nuclear war that destroys Earth, but with colonies on the Moon would not prove as damaging to the human race as a all-out nuclear war breaking out while we haven't even colonized space.

We'll then let's avoid the whole situation all together and not have nukes in a moon base

[NASAFanboy]

We'll then let's avoid the whole situation all together and not have nukes in a moon base

If it's either a military moon colony or no moon colony, I'd rather say "screw the space treaty" and start another arms race than have no base for a thousand years.

[Lexif]

If it's either a military moon colony or no moon colony, I'd rather say "screw the space treaty" and start another arms race than have no base for a thousand years.

But no general said "if you give us the money, we will build a moon base", it's just a strawman you keep pushing around. Also, every nuclear power would gleefully smile as your country wastes your money away for something that's strategically useless.

[Requiem762]

If it's either a military moon colony or no moon colony, I'd rather say "screw the space treaty" and start another arms race than have no base for a thousand years.

Heck we already pulled out of the anti ballistic missile treaty and militarization of space has already started with the 3 world military powers working on ASAT weapons.

Edited November 19, 2013 by Requiem762

[Requiem762]

But no general said "if you give us the money, we will build a moon base", it's just a strawman you keep pushing around. Also, every nuclear power would gleefully smile as your country wastes your money away for something that's strategically useless.

Our military would use money on fractional bombardment system or kinetic rod strike array not a nuclear capable moon base.

[vetrox]

Keep cassini.

Every space program is sending stuff to mars so let them spend the money discovering stuff. This isnt the 60's nations dont need to beat eachother to stuff.

The cassini probe provides some breathtaking pictures (not that curiosity pictures are to be snuffed at...mars is so...earth like!) and some amazing info on saturn and her moons. I find saturn far more interesting than mars.

Also, this hex storm thing on saturns pole. Is there any footage of the poles from the other gas giants?

[mdatspace]

I cannot choose.

This situation makes me want to throw up.

[Anton P. Nym]

If it's either a military moon colony or no moon colony, I'd rather say "screw the space treaty" and start another arms race than have no base for a thousand years.

If the cost of advancement of the space program is the collapse of the civilization that space program was supposed to benefit... the phrase "too high a price" comes to mind.

As for the main question, I voted for Curiosity as it's just getting started; Cassini's already done a lot of science, and arguably* getting into diminishing-returns territory. That being said, the choice feels like picking which kid to abandon to wolves.

-- Steve