IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
MSL "Heat shield woes"
hendric
post Feb 21 2008, 09:20 PM
Post #46


Director of Galilean Photography
***

Group: Members
Posts: 896
Joined: 15-July 04
From: Austin, TX
Member No.: 93



I can see it, but I'm not sure I can make anything intelligible out of it:
Attached Image


Based on the years in common, it looks like it went up from 956 (FY2007-2011 in FY07) to 1069.2 million. However, the better comparison is probably 07 and 08 predicted budget in 2007 vs actual budget reported in 2009, where it went from 632.5 to 722.3 million, or growing by 14%.


--------------------
Space Enthusiast Richard Hendricks
--
"The engineers, as usual, made a tremendous fuss. Again as usual, they did the job in half the time they had dismissed as being absolutely impossible." --Rescue Party, Arthur C Clarke
Mother Nature is the final inspector of all quality.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve G
post Feb 24 2008, 09:48 PM
Post #47


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 29-December 05
From: Ottawa, ON
Member No.: 624



NASA is always reinventing the wheel. Every spacecraft for Mars is a new and expensive design. MSL has a brand new landing concept, and that's just the beginning. Would it not be prudent for NASA to say, okay, here is the design we'll be using for the next decade. So rather than moving towards a sample return mission, (more billions) just build four of five addional MSL's over the next fifteen years and make it the cornerstone of your Mars exploration strategy? I don't expect assembly line econiomics, but certainly the cost of the sixth spacecraft will be a lot less than the first. We have also learned from the MERs that Solar Panels are feasible for long duration missions, simply have a cleaning and better pointing mechanisms for them and you won't have to worry about pluotonium production shortfalls and save them for outter planet missions.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Feb 24 2008, 10:55 PM
Post #48


Founder
****

Group: Chairman
Posts: 14431
Joined: 8-February 04
Member No.: 1



QUOTE (Steve G @ Feb 24 2008, 09:48 PM) *
Every spacecraft for Mars is a new and expensive design.


MER was Pathfinder heritage. Odyssey was MCO heritage. Phoenix is MPL heritage. I can see the point you're trying to make, but it's not entirely true. The one major problem - we can barely afford one MSL. Where is the money to build several more? There isn't any. More often than not, you want to fly a specific payload, and that specific payload has specific accommodation requirements and landing site challenges and thus requires a unique solution. I'm sure, if successful, the MSl decent profile will be re-flown several times in the future, but there isn't the money to fly many MSL sized vehicles, nor are there many interesting places where you could safely send MER clones.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
brellis
post Feb 25 2008, 01:27 AM
Post #49


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 754
Joined: 9-February 07
Member No.: 1700



NASA doesn't want to waste a lot of $$ in new R&D, so even if a design is technically 'new', it's not a complete reinvention of the wheel.
Innocent opinion: MSL looks like a big MER; they didn't start entirely from scratch. Also, some new landing methods are the result of investments in R&D from years past. Why not enjoy the fruits of that labor?

That said, I really wish we could make several copies of successful rovers and spacecraft. It would be great to have several Cassini's and several MER's/MSL's. Maybe they find gold on Mars and Titan, and private investors will pony up! cool.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Feb 25 2008, 04:02 AM
Post #50


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 704
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



QUOTE (brellis @ Feb 25 2008, 01:27 AM) *
That said, I really wish we could make several copies of successful rovers and spacecraft. It would be great to have several Cassini's and several MER's/MSL's. Maybe they find gold on Mars and Titan, and private investors will pony up! cool.gif

Proposals for series of missions have been made in the past. Cassini was originally supposed to be the first mission using the Mariner Mark II series to explore comets and the outer planets. The problem has been to secure follow on funding for the subsequent missions.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
brellis
post Feb 25 2008, 04:33 AM
Post #51


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 754
Joined: 9-February 07
Member No.: 1700



Right, I forgot about Mariner Mark II. If only NASA's budget were double its current size, think how many replicas would be moving through production at reduced cost.

Regarding private investment, I wonder if a really longterm partnership with private investment funds could be formed where sample return leads to mining, and manned missions lead to tourism. Are there enough billions out there to do it without draining the global economy?

If I had the choice, I'd rather dedicate my 401(k) to the space program. smile.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
edstrick
post Feb 25 2008, 06:07 AM
Post #52


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1870
Joined: 20-February 05
Member No.: 174



"...Cassini was originally supposed to be the first mission using the Mariner Mark II series ..."

JPL Director Bruce Murray <I think> had a major article in Science magazine in the mid 80's explaining in detail how the newly concieved Mariner Mark II program would provide the basis for continuing low cost planetary exploration. Mission costs <I think> were to be well sub-1-Billion-$, achieved in part by reusing modifications on a common spacecraft bus, much the way Mariners 69, 71, 73 and Viking Orbiters had massive design heritage.

The first missions were to be Comet Rendezvous / Asteroid Flyby CRAF and Cassini.

Well.... as the mission pair cost past umpteen billion, CRAF was nuked and Cassini was descoped to (among other things) a No-Scan-Platform mission.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions"

I'd really like to see the story of how Mariner Mark II went form good intentions to budget control hell. Watching MSL, I'm getting massive deja vu.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Feb 25 2008, 03:08 PM
Post #53


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 704
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



The pre-MRO Mars orbiters, as I understand it, shared much of their designs, which helped kept costs down. One idea I have would be if NASA were to design a new platform capable of orbiting Venus, the moon, or Mars (there are some thermal problems, but as Venus Express and several studies have shown, it is possible) and then hold a Discovery-like competition to pick the target and payload for a new mission every two years. I think we could get some really nice missions out of that at a fairly low cost.

Alternately, NASA could complete its just announced partnership to develop cheaper and more capable radar systems and then fly a copy at Mars and Venus to study both the surface and sub-surface.

There are lots of ways to do good science and lower costs. But this approach requires planning a series of missions and amortizing development costs.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Feb 25 2008, 06:24 PM
Post #54


Merciless Robot
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 8783
Joined: 8-December 05
From: Los Angeles
Member No.: 602



This is the third or fourth time I've seen mass production of planetary spacecraft come up on the forum (I instigated one such discussion). Unfortunately, in order to realize any economy of scale, you not only have to place severe constraints on payload mass & volume that may well severely restrict the type of experiments that can be flown, but you also have to assume a stable budget environment for many years...and historically, the latter has been anything but. sad.gif The third fly in the soup is technological advancement, which tends to obviate long-term configuration control as new methods become available.


--------------------
A few will take this knowledge and use this power of a dream realized as a force for change, an impetus for further discovery to make less ancient dreams real.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Feb 25 2008, 07:20 PM
Post #55


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2502
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (edstrick @ Feb 24 2008, 10:07 PM) *
I'd really like to see the story of how Mariner Mark II went form good intentions to budget control hell.

One big reason is that the Cassini and CRAF missions were not really very similar, so the idea of sharing a common spacecraft was not that valid to start with.

As I have pointed out before when these "common spacecraft" discussions come up, there is huge commonality at the box level. Regardless of how different spacecraft may look on the outside, much of the guts are built out of catalog items.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Feb 25 2008, 08:31 PM
Post #56


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
Joined: 17-February 04
From: Powell, TN
Member No.: 33



There was also the problem of NASA's budget not being able to support Mariner Mark II missions at a rate that would make the "assembly line" advantage practical.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mariner9
post Feb 25 2008, 10:56 PM
Post #57


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 220
Joined: 13-October 05
Member No.: 528




One example of design inheritance working well was Rosetta - Mars Express - Venus Express.



Venus express was a nearly identical ship to Mar Express, with almost the same collection of instruments. In fact, the ESA leaders put out the request for proposals of what kind of mission could be flown with the Mars Express vehicle, and do it shortly after Mar Express so they could keep the same engineering teams together to do the work. Thus, Venus Express was born.

Venus Express flew, the cost for that mission was far, far lower than a comparable NASA planetary mission. However, it was limited to be a near repeat of Mars Express, just flown to a different destination. And then mostly with instruments originally selected for a comet mission 10 years earlier.

Typically scientists and engineers identify a mission they want to fly, then design a spacecraft around those requirements. That isn't what happened in this case.

Venus Express was not a mission in search of a spacecraft. It was a spacecraft in search of a mission.

So there is a real downside on "assembly line" spacecraft . You are very limited in how you move forward.

A big part of MSL's problems may have been avoided if they had stuck to a modestly scaled up MER. However, MER was already pushing the size and weight envelope of the airbag delivery system. So you would have been stuck flying another MER, and never get anywhere near to MSL's capabilities. I've expressed a lot of concerns over the MSL cost problems, but I completely understand that in order to move past MER that the engineers had to take some risks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tom Tamlyn
post Feb 26 2008, 03:15 AM
Post #58


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 443
Joined: 1-July 05
From: New York City
Member No.: 424



>Venus Express flew, the cost for that mission was far, far lower than a comparable NASA planetary mission

One interesting aspect of the cost efficiencies of Venus Express is that they depended to a large extent on assembling the spacecraft immediately after (or indeed, concurrently with) Mars Express. If I recall correctly, a fascinating ESA discussion (can't remember source) said that even a several year delay would have largely vitiated the cost savings of the twin mission approach, due to the ordinary obsolescence of contractor tooling, processes, and parts used in fabrication.

TTT (Heraclitus said as much several millenia ago)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
vjkane
post Feb 26 2008, 03:36 AM
Post #59


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 704
Joined: 22-April 05
Member No.: 351



QUOTE (Tom Tamlyn @ Feb 26 2008, 03:15 AM) *
One interesting aspect of the cost efficiencies of Venus Express is that they depended to a large extent on assembling the spacecraft immediately after (or indeed, concurrently with) Mars Express. If I recall correctly, a fascinating ESA discussion (can't remember source) said that even a several year delay would have largely vitiated the cost savings of the twin mission approach, due to the ordinary obsolescence of contractor tooling, processes, and parts used in fabrication.

When NASA was considering series of missions, it was always pointed out that a key was to commit to the program up front so that they could make block purchases of critical components, keep the engineering and mission ops teams together, etc.

To get an idea of what a series of orbital missions at Mars could do, look at the 4 proposed MSO focii: "Report from the 2013 Mars Science Orbiter (MSO) Second Science Analysis Group" http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/reports/index.html


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Steve G
post Mar 1 2008, 05:39 AM
Post #60


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 289
Joined: 29-December 05
From: Ottawa, ON
Member No.: 624



Nasa still needs to eventually land another spacecraft on Mars. Granted, every launch window for Mars has different payload constraints, some are favourable windows, others less favourable, but why not stick the MSL herritage as much as possible? I know the trend is looking towards a sample return mission but the money may simply not be there. If that's the case, keep landing rovers, each with a specific focus and instrumentation, but keep the heritage.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th March 2024 - 06:25 AM
RULES AND GUIDELINES
Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting.

IMAGE COPYRIGHT
Images posted on UnmannedSpaceflight.com may be copyrighted. Do not reproduce without permission. Read here for further information on space images and copyright.

OPINIONS AND MODERATION
Opinions expressed on UnmannedSpaceflight.com are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of UnmannedSpaceflight.com or The Planetary Society. The all-volunteer UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderation team is wholly independent of The Planetary Society. The Planetary Society has no influence over decisions made by the UnmannedSpaceflight.com moderators.
SUPPORT THE FORUM
Unmannedspaceflight.com is funded by the Planetary Society. Please consider supporting our work and many other projects by donating to the Society or becoming a member.