MSL reasons for delay |
MSL reasons for delay |
Mar 4 2009, 03:33 PM
Post
#1
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2547 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
I wanted to make sure that everyone interested sees Adrian Brown's articles at http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1319/1 and http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1318/1 about the technical and budgetary problems with MSL that led to the launch slip. While I can't claim to be privy to the budgetary and political issues at the mission level, the technical discussion seems like a fair summary of the situation as I understand it, at least as good a one as can be gathered from public sources.
People in other forums have complained about errors in these articles, but without giving specific examples or providing any factual basis for their objections. I don't find that very useful. If there are real flaws in this account, I'd be quite interested to know what they are. p.s. I guess we need to change the name of this subforum. -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Jul 16 2009, 04:40 AM
Post
#2
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 3419 Joined: 9-February 04 From: Minneapolis, MN, USA Member No.: 15 |
Very true, Nick. Especially for revolutionary projects, like the MERs and like MSL.
It's a lot easier to plan a realistic budget for something that's basically been done before than to plan a budget for something that's *never* been done before. The latter tend to vastly underestimate the actual costs that will be incurred during the learning curve-induced episodes of redesign, rework, and retest. This is true of nearly every revolutionary project. Evolutionary projects, like, say, the design and manufacture of the 737, tend to stay much more within their budgets since aircraft like that generally make use of tried-and-true technology and are being asked to meet performance standards that are very similar to their predecessors', in very well-understood environments. Now, had Boeing in the same timeframe decided to design the 737 as a passenger version of a flying wing (a la the B-2 bomber, et. al.), even if it used the same engines, avionics, etc. as a conventional aircraft, it would end up badly overrunning its budget and take considerably longer to deliver to market than the conventional 737 took. -the other Doug -------------------- “The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
|
|
|
Jul 16 2009, 12:45 PM
Post
#3
|
|
Forum Contributor Group: Members Posts: 1374 Joined: 8-February 04 From: North East Florida, USA. Member No.: 11 |
Often a low estimate is the only way to get a project running, everyone knows its going to cost more or take longer. Look at the Boeing Dreamliner, its way way behind the original schedule, also Airbus had major problems with the 380, just to be fair and balanced.......
|
|
|
Jul 16 2009, 03:29 PM
Post
#4
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1598 Joined: 14-October 05 From: Vermont Member No.: 530 |
|
|
|
Jul 16 2009, 06:50 PM
Post
#5
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4405 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
The problem is that MSL is so much larger in terms of cost in relation to the planetary exploration program. An 18% overrun for it is a lot more money than it would have been for the MERs (18 percent being randomly picked for an example). My real fear is that considering that the very real possibility that something could happen to it (anything from a launch failure to an EDL problem) could have dire consequences for the entire planetary program save perhaps the missions already in flight.
-------------------- |
|
|
Jul 17 2009, 01:59 AM
Post
#6
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2547 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
The problem is that MSL is so much larger in terms of cost in relation to the planetary exploration program. You realize that MER cost over $1B, right? MSL is bigger, but only by about 2x. (I've seen cost estimates for MER as low as $800M, but I don't think that's a fair accounting of various "slush fund" sources.) -------------------- Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
|
|
|
Jul 17 2009, 03:28 AM
Post
#7
|
|
Interplanetary Dumpster Diver Group: Admin Posts: 4405 Joined: 17-February 04 From: Powell, TN Member No.: 33 |
Right, but that means that x percent overrun is twice as much. When we are talking billions, that is significant. Nothing like an order of magnitude or something, but what I am saying is that a raw comparison of the percent overrun is a bit misleading if you don't factor in the difference in cost. Also, in the case of MER, the money funded two rovers, meaning that it was less susceptible to becoming a total loss due to rotten luck, such as a launch failure.
I agree that this will be a great mission if it succeeds. Fingers crossed. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 31st October 2024 - 11:15 PM |
RULES AND GUIDELINES Please read the Forum Rules and Guidelines before posting. IMAGE 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. |