Submitted by jarvedttudd t3_zvvjh2 in space
IkiOLoj t1_j1tr48l wrote
Reply to comment by SuddenlyLucid in Meet the amateur astronomer who found a lost NASA satellite by jarvedttudd
That's the luxury of not being a for profit organization, they don't have to take a benefit somewhere so they can invest the whole budget in the product. If you were making a product expected to work for 2 years lasting 5, you'd probably be screwing your shareholders somewhere as you would be wasting their potential dividends.
MeagoDK t1_j1ubh2b wrote
In this case nasa just screws the senators because the budget was for 2 years, not 5 years. So they need money for 3 more years.
NASA absolutely have shareholders, they are just government officials and they play politics with them to get their budget and project approvals
skucera t1_j1upltj wrote
The budget to “run science” on a craft is pennies compared to the cost of building, launching, and landing the craft.
MeagoDK t1_j1uua3c wrote
Insight was:(approx)
- Spacecraft 600 million.
- Launch ticket 160 million.
- 2 years operation 60 million.
If we assume insight will last:
- 10 years, that's 300 million, 30% of total budget
- 15 years, that's 450 million, 37% of total budget
- 20 years, that's 600 million, 44% of total budget
A 820 million budget is much easier to approve than 1360 million budget
It's not pennies, you are simply wrong.
skucera t1_j1v2pr1 wrote
Primary mission operations are $30MM/yr; this includes launch activities, landing, and commissioning. The actual cost of the next four years was roughly $15MM/yr. It goes in the annual budget, and congress views this as a good return on investment. If they end up objecting, they can always choose to not fund it.
MeagoDK t1_j1xj8ug wrote
Even if you halve the operational cost, it's stil not pennies.
And yes off cause they do. That's the whole point. It's easier to approve incremental than all at once
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments