A mission NASA might kill is still returning fascinating science from Jupiter
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
I'm hoping that, in defiance of the administration, instead of shutting down or deorbiting the satellite, that they instead give custody of it to another country that isn't turning into shit at a spine breaking clip.
Upvote
111
(114
/
-3)
Plenty of money for war, no money for sciences, healthcare, renewables, etc. Reminds me of that 100+ year old comic.
Upvote
92
(94
/
-2)
Where does that cost number come from? Data processing? Personnel cost?
The bird is already out there, so there's no cost there.
Is there any mechanism for sponsoring it?
The bird is already out there, so there's no cost there.
Is there any mechanism for sponsoring it?
Upvote
40
(40
/
0)
Slowly, we are ceding our position as global leader in science and technology. And China is waiting in the wings.
Upvote
53
(54
/
-1)
“We can’t quite afford to support everything that we have done in the past,”
War Costs:
Gulf War (1990-91) = $7.3 billion (88% of total cost paid for by Arab states)
War in Afghanistan = $2.3 trillion dollars
Irag / Syria war = $1.9 trillion dollars
Operation Enduring Freedom (Africa / Asia) = $1.9 trillion
Operation Epic Fury - Iran- (estimate as of March 23,2026) = $28 - $30 billion
NASA science mission costs:
Viking 1&2 = $1.06 billion
Europa Clipper = $5 billion
Cassini - Huygens = $3.6 billion
Mars Science Laboratory = $2.5 billion
Mars Rover (2020) = $2.7 billion
Galileo = $1.5 billion
Voyager 1 and 2 = $1 billion
Juno = $1.1 billion
TOTAL = $18.46 billion
So the total costs of these numerous, highly successful and cutting edge NASA missions IN TOTAL cost the U.S. a little more than half of what 23 days of bombing Iran has cost.
Let that sink in for a moment.
War Costs:
Gulf War (1990-91) = $7.3 billion (88% of total cost paid for by Arab states)
War in Afghanistan = $2.3 trillion dollars
Irag / Syria war = $1.9 trillion dollars
Operation Enduring Freedom (Africa / Asia) = $1.9 trillion
Operation Epic Fury - Iran- (estimate as of March 23,2026) = $28 - $30 billion
NASA science mission costs:
Viking 1&2 = $1.06 billion
Europa Clipper = $5 billion
Cassini - Huygens = $3.6 billion
Mars Science Laboratory = $2.5 billion
Mars Rover (2020) = $2.7 billion
Galileo = $1.5 billion
Voyager 1 and 2 = $1 billion
Juno = $1.1 billion
TOTAL = $18.46 billion
So the total costs of these numerous, highly successful and cutting edge NASA missions IN TOTAL cost the U.S. a little more than half of what 23 days of bombing Iran has cost.
Let that sink in for a moment.
Last edited:
Upvote
167
(167
/
0)
I'm not a rocket scientist but... maybe take the money budgeted for moving Discovery to dipshit Texas and fund this instead.
Upvote
107
(107
/
0)
I’m curious what goes into operating each of the missions.
E.g Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is listed at $25M in F.Y. 2025.
I would assume most of the infrastructure is already in place (and paid for?). Is that largely staffing costs, or does is it things like cost of upkeep for antennas amortized based on mission usage?
E.g Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is listed at $25M in F.Y. 2025.
I would assume most of the infrastructure is already in place (and paid for?). Is that largely staffing costs, or does is it things like cost of upkeep for antennas amortized based on mission usage?
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
So stupid. Fund everything still working and more. $220 million is peanuts compared to Defense Dept. budget. $218 million will buy you exactly two F-35B fighter jets.
Upvote
34
(35
/
-1)
meanwhile gas is gonna be 4 bucks a gallon here soon. But Congress finds money for the big contractors i suppose.
Upvote
15
(19
/
-4)
No US administration in last 70 years is off the hook for this, but to your last point in particular, what do you expect from the Arsenal of Freedom administration?
Bunch of fucking warmongering morons couldn't even parse the irony of the title, much less the message of episode.
Upvote
49
(50
/
-1)
It’s largely staffing costs, yes. It takes a team to keep a spacecraft operating, even on the far side of the solar system. Flight engineers diagnosing issues and developing workarounds to keep aging hardware going, mission planners scheduling science operations plans and figuring how to get as much science done as possible given limited data downlink and power and other constraints, orbital dynamicists keeping a mission precisely flying through a precisely-chosen path of orbital slingshots and gravity assists, data analysts making sure science data is properly calibrated, scientists planning and overseeing experiments, software engineers carefully vetting patches to flight code running on decades-old rad hard hardware, and more. And then add on all the practical matters that get lumped into “overheads”: computing, data storage, office space, facilities, admin and support staff… The details depend on which mission, of course. But across the board it’s mostly people. Highly experienced people with specialized expertise and often decades of knowledge of these missions and their operations.
Upvote
62
(62
/
0)
NASA can afford everything with plenty of benefits. What we can’t afford are billionaires tax cuts. The B-people just use money as counting tokens to hoard. Or, spend $200 billion on NASA (and many other useful things) instead of simply blowing it up in war.
Upvote
23
(28
/
-5)
Won't scrounge up a few million to staff getting extra value out of hardware already launched out into the field, but no problem robbing us blind for a billion to make electricity more expensive by killing new wind investment.
Upvote
48
(48
/
0)
It would be a great shame to lose Juno. Much of NASA's greatest successes and science stories are about running these very literally far flung space probes and robots into extra, double super overtime and all the additional science and discoveries they make just by being there. For example: Without Juno, what is going to be there for the next Shoemaker/Levy 9 event? Last time, it was Galileo, and it had a crippled high gain antenna. Don't throw away a still perfectly good space probe on mission.
Upvote
33
(33
/
0)
Couldn't we have a narcissist that, let's say, keeps making money via multi-billion dollar lawsuits spend a fraction of his money to keep Juno alive by renaming it the Narcissist J Lastname and Juno Spacecraft?
Upvote
16
(17
/
-1)
Upvote
55
(55
/
0)
It entered Jupiter’s orbit 10 years ago, so is only a few years past its primary mission. Further, most of the instruments are still working well. There’s been some radiation damage to some of the detectors, but they have been annealed to repair them. Why destroy expensive hardware that is still providing added value? The limiting factor is fuel, and the operators have come up with a gravity assist orbit through the Jovian system that minimizes fuel use while exploring additional scientific questions that we won’t be able to address for years to come.
And no, you don’t hand these missions over to less experienced people who might “screw it up” because the destruction has to be an intentional planned event in order to prevent contamination of those moons.
Upvote
39
(40
/
-1)
If JUNO is on the chopping block, then NASA's team should gamble on firing the main engines to adjust its orbit period to the original 14 day period. Right now it is in a 53 day period that has drastically slowed down data collection between Jupiter flybys. When JUNO arrived at Jupiter they found a problem with sticking helium check valves so NASA played it safe by not firing the main engine for the final orbit adjustment.
If JUNO survives the firing, then go back to congress. The data-to-cost ratio just went up 4x and would be worth at least another mission extension.
If JUNO survives the firing, then go back to congress. The data-to-cost ratio just went up 4x and would be worth at least another mission extension.
Upvote
22
(22
/
0)
It was either this or spending $240 million for ICE Barbie to ride horsies in her ad campaign. If you love freedom fascism and murdering nurses you know the ad campaign was the right choice!
Upvote
22
(25
/
-3)
They have to operate the large dish antennas, data collection and reduction facilities and the continual spacecraft control. Neither Der Orange Führer nor the fanatic creationists who are supporting him understand science, and since it does not confirm their primitive flat earth views, it is on their list to eliminate spending on it altogether. Electrical power to the antennas could be used for something more useful, like mining for the “$Trump” meme coin. /S
PS: Ninja'd. See the mperrin response above for a more exhaustive list.
Last edited:
Upvote
7
(10
/
-3)
The original lifespan was predicated on much shorter science orbit (14 days) and thus more frequent and relatively prolonged exposure to the Jovian radiation belts.
When Juno's primary thruster notably experienced pressurization issues after the spacecraft entered its initial orbit, Juno was thus physically constrained to much longer orbital periods (53 days) and thus less frequent exposure to the radiation belts.
While the deviation from the planned orbits has positively contributed to the longer than expected lifespan of Juno's instruments, some have lasted even longer than could be expected from the updated orbit due to a combination of NASA fixes (something Galileo benefitted from enormously) and a fair amount of luck. JunoCam in particular was only expected to last to eight orbits instead of the 81 it has actually completed.
As others have touched upon, there is a lot more to keeping interplanetary missions running than can be addressed by replacing staff with mere, "interns".
Upvote
20
(20
/
0)
Yggdrasill1986
Smack-Fu Master, in training
It'd be a real shame to not support this vessel any longer. It's one of the most important science mission in the solar system! We now know so much about Jupiter and gas giants in general, it's overwhelming!
The current administration really has a war going on with anything science related. I hope the probe will stay operable!
The current administration really has a war going on with anything science related. I hope the probe will stay operable!
Upvote
6
(7
/
-1)
Looking back, it is amazing how much our lives and our economy are grounded in technology created for the space program. For example, if you like your smartphone and smartTV, you like NASA. It also is amazing how much of the DoD budget is wasted on pork that does nothing for us. I worked on the Hill for 20 years, and can testify that pork runs to hundreds of billions per year. I’ve been guilty of a little of it.
Upvote
8
(8
/
0)
If something must be cut, cut Dragonfly. It seems like a silly idea and the data it could collect will still be there later when NASA has more money and launch becomes cheaper.
Upvote
-12
(1
/
-13)
That must be some rotorcraft? Where's Titan being launched to? Are we bringing it to Earth orbit so that it's easier to study it?
Upvote
-1
(5
/
-6)
Was about to make this comment, but you wrote it better.
Entire NASA budget (~25 B) was wasted in two weeks of pointless bombing of Iran. Gotta love the priorities of US government.
Upvote
13
(14
/
-1)
The heck are you on about? Juno is in good enough health that NASA considers it worth it to give it another mission extension. That's not saying it's going to keep going forever but "make this mission hard to impossible to go on" is.... stretching things a bit...
And "let this go to the interns"??? You have no idea what interns are for, or what they do, or what use they are apparently. Interns are primarily there to LEARN. They can only do that if they have experienced people to guide them and teach them. You don't just throw a hard project at them and tell them to "figure it out" and "oh well" if they fail. That's a waste of both a good science project AND of internships.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
The US will take decades to recover from the destruction this administration is causing. Not only economically and scientifically but in many other areas, specially diplomacy/international relations. Good thing China takes science seriously and they are open to international cooperation for all the problems they do have regarding democratic practices. But then again, the US seems to be moving towards the same direction.
Upvote
4
(6
/
-2)
We're in danger of losing so much science but at least America will get a gaudy ballroom built on a house most people will never get to see the inside of and which the current incumbent is supposed to vacate in 2 and a half years anyway... (right?)
Seems like a great tradeoff to me. </s> (I'm so pissed off that we now live in an era where I have to announce I'm being sarcastic because there are morons who would post something like this for real)
Seems like a great tradeoff to me. </s> (I'm so pissed off that we now live in an era where I have to announce I'm being sarcastic because there are morons who would post something like this for real)
Upvote
9
(10
/
-1)
I seem to recall reading somewhere that the money spent on the Vietnam war could have funded nearly a hundred Apollo moon landings.
The more things change, the more they stay the same
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
Your point? If it's still working then why not keep running it?
But it's currently still running. So why not keep running it until it's no longer viable?
You seem to have no idea how space science works or how much it costs.
Hint: Letting a perfectly good spacecraft die and then replacing it with a new one costs more than letting the perfectly good spacecraft continue to operate until it can't anymore.
Upvote
10
(11
/
-1)
Don't forget reputational damage.
We trusted America and got burned. Once bitten, twice shy.
Upvote
11
(11
/
0)
Maybe ... Trump could sell it to the European Space Agency?
"Here guys, great little space craft, barely used, For only 10 million dollars to my Presidential library, it can be yours!"
"Here guys, great little space craft, barely used, For only 10 million dollars to my Presidential library, it can be yours!"
Upvote
7
(7
/
0)