This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Space & Planetary Science

NASA's Cheaper Mars Rover Is Now Very Expensive

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
July 20, 2016
Filed under
NASA's Cheaper Mars Rover Is Now Very Expensive

NASA’s Management of the Mars Science Laboratory Project, NASA OIG, 8 June 2011
“… in February 2009, because of the late delivery of several critical components and instruments, NASA delayed the launch to a date between October and December 2011. This delay and the additional resources required to resolve the underlying technical issues increased the Project’s development costs by 86 percent, from $969 million to the current $1.8 billion, and its life-cycle costs by 56 percent, from $1.6 billion to the current $2.5 billion. … Finally, since the 2009 decision to delay launch, the Project has received three budget increases, most recently an infusion of $71 million in December 2010. However, in our judgment because Project managers did not adequately consider historical cost trends when estimating the amount required to complete development, we believe the Project may require additional funds to meet the 2011 scheduled launch date.”
NASA announces plans for new $1.5 billion Mars rover, CNet, 4 December 2012
“The new rover announced Tuesday, along with the rocket needed to boost it to Mars, will cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion, plus or minus $200 million, according to a rough estimate by the Aerospace Corp.”
Mars 2020 rover mission to cost more than $2 billion, Space News
“[George] Tahu said that the mission also decided to add new technologies to the rover, including a system that increases the accuracy of the rover’s landing and another to improve the rover’s ability to drive autonomously. “Our confirmed cost today, in real year dollars, of $2.1 billion for development and launch and $300 million for prime mission operations remains consistent with the scope and cost approved at the start of the project,” he said.”
Keith’s note: So that’s $2.4 billion for a rover that was supposed to cost around $1.5 billion – a rover that was sold as being inherently cheaper because it was made with MSL spare part, lessons learned from MSL mistakes, etc. Once again JPL has ignored NASA’s price claims – and NASA SMD just can’t fight the urge and lets it happen. Can you imagine what will happen when NASA starts to price the whole #JourneyToMars thing?

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

16 responses to “NASA's Cheaper Mars Rover Is Now Very Expensive”

  1. AstroInMI says:
    0
    0

    This should shock no one, nor should it shock anyone when JPL is a couple or several billion over budget on Europa.

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      Maybe, but that’s a mission that’s being forced on NASA by Congress. They might want to keep the costs down lower to avoid diverting too much funding from the stuff they want to do on Mars.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      Since when? I tend to pay attention to this, and I haven’t heard a word about the Europa Multiple Flyby mission being over budget. A “couple or several billion” over on a roughly $2 billion mission would attract quite a bit of attention, especially for a mission that’s still in phase B.

      Under congressional direction, NASA is studying what a lander would involve. But that’s not a mission going over budget. It’s having the customer (Congress) ask how much it would cost for either to either significantly change the mission or fly a separate and additional mission.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        You might want to take a step back and reread what A-inMI said. He was clearly speculating (cynically) about the future result if JPL gets EMF.

  2. Rich_Palermo says:
    0
    0

    But, space is hard, don’t you see…

  3. Zed_WEASEL says:
    0
    0

    The Mars 2020 rover might never fly even if it doesn’t get delay during development.

    There is the crazies from Hawthorne planning on landing a capsule on Mars in 2018 with a deployed rover a likely possibility.

    If the crazies succeeds in landing and deploying a rover on Mars in 2018. Then the NASA JPL rover is toast.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      There are no (publicly announced) plans for any science payload on the 2018 Red Dragon mission. In fact, both NASA and SpaceX have said it will simply be demonstration of Entry, Decent and Landing (EDL) technology. SpaceX has said they also plan a 2020 Red Dragon mission, and both they and NASA have said it would have a science payload. A rover wasn’t specified, but it wouldn’t be an unreasonable guess.

      • Zed_WEASEL says:
        0
        0

        A deployed rover on Mars by itself is not a scientific payload. It become a scientific payload once an instrument or several is aboard. IMO SpaceX need to test out how to egress a rover from the Dragon without some one of a kind instruments aboard.

        Supposedly SpaceX planned to have multiple Red Dragons going to Mars during 2020. A precursor test rover is desirable for the 2018 Red Dragon. Some sort of rover with HD video capability.

  4. TheBrett says:
    0
    0

    Can you imagine what will happen when NASA starts to price the whole #JourneyToMars thing?

    That happened with the Space Exploration Initiative. Everybody wanted to have their thing be a part of it – from moon bases to nuclear propulsion – and NASA in its infinite wisdom decided it would be a good idea to just include it all despite the bloat and political cost.

    I think they’ve learned from that, at least when it comes to the crewed missions. It’s just too expensive to bloat costs unless you already have something underway and can play off the Sunk Cost Fallacy when dealing with policymakers.

    • muomega0 says:
      0
      0

      NASA requires more missions and technology development programs, multiple bell shape curves, to reduce the per program costs and make the system more efficient. This is now enabled by launch costs ~ 10X lower with LV designs with the goal of reuse as stated in the VSE. Many expect a stable government demand will enable new markets and further lower LV costs.

      The SEI failed because it was all about Space Station Freedom, old technology heavy lift LVs, return to the moon, and not the Space Grand Challenges, especially #1 Economic Access to Space. same ole, same ole. As proof, today 6B/yr is set aside to redesign and operate decades stuff. http://history.nasa.gov/90_

  5. Jonna31 says:
    0
    0

    Gotta keep the Mars Robot Factory open for the late 2020s Sample Return Mission (that has been continuously pushed a decade into the future since I was in middle school).

    So when is NASA actually going to put a 2m actual drill on a rover? The never ending billions for Martian geology is getting old. If we’re not doing sample return or narrowly focused robotic precursors, these missions should be curtailed.

  6. Michael Spencer says:
    0
    0

    Keith: Your note ” So that’s $2.4 billion for a rover that was supposed to cost around $1.5 billion” isn’t entirely fair. Nor is it accurate.

    Take away the additional tech and THEN compare the prices.This looks like they added additional features to a proven and robust system; it’s the addition that turned apples into oranges.

    • TheBrett says:
      0
      0

      I think that was his point. They piled on additional tech, and NASA let them do it even though it bloated the rover costs higher.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      The problem is that they added those features after they sold the mission. It was originally described as a re-flight of the MSL/Curiosity mission with new and improved instruments. It was originally described as being lower cost, since they were reusing so many existing systems. It really looks like they promised one thing, to get the mission on the books, and then added things they wanted to do, but which would not have been approved.

      Looking at the Decadal Survey, the listed MAX-C (a first step towards a Mars sample return) was listed as the highest priority for large missions. But _only_ if it could be done for under $2.5 billion. If not, then other missions should be considered a higher priority. The 2020 rover is along the lines of MAX-C, but not as capable for the purposes described in the Decadal Survey. So it’s worth wondering if the added $0.9 billion couldn’t have been better spent on an entire New Frontiers mission, or on two entire Discovery missions. The Decadal Survey did stress a balanced mix of large, medium and small missions. That certainly isn’t the sort of decision which should be handled under the table. If they wanted more money for more capability and technology development, fine. Then ask. But just slipping it as cost growth in an approved mission isn’t how things are supposed to work.

  7. Daniel Woodard says:
    0
    0

    Where did the money go? If we are ever going to control costs it is important to keep track of the sources of cost growth. In this case some of the costs for the enhanced instrumentation and descent and surface navigation seem to have been apparent as soon as the design was proposed, but just weren’t included in the original estimate. As long as we follow a policy of approving projects based on unrealistic, inaccurate (or nonexistent) cost estimates, we can’t expect this to change.

    That said, increased computing power allowing for increased autonomous roving could provide considerably higher scientific productivity. Why not develop technology such as autonomous rover navigation separately from the mission itself?