IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Better, Faster, Cheaper, Discuss.....
lyford
post Jul 18 2005, 09:39 PM
Post #1


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1281
Joined: 18-December 04
From: San Diego, CA
Member No.: 124



Can one paraphrase the quip about the "Holy Roman Empire" being neither holy, Roman nor an empire regarding this plan?

The idea, if I understood correctly, was this: By designing cheaper missions, NASA could launch more, and afford to lose a few more. The BIG MISSIONS were too expensive and put all the eggs in one basket. Why take a chance on any single failure points that could risk a program after bagillions of dollars were spent, such as Galileo's hi gain antenna?

Was this strategy successful?

To this outsider, it appeared that Dan Goldin drank too much of the 90's cyber-revolution kool aid and got swept up with the "irrational exuberance" of the dot.com boom. Everything will be possible and cheap in the digital age! Moore's Law notwithstanding, hi tech is only one piece of the puzzle when pulling off a successful interplanetary mission.

My opinion is that there is a baseline cost of doing business in space, even if sensors get smaller and cheaper, due to human support, testing, launch costs, etc. Even the "tech" components all have to be space rated, which is not the kind of consumer level mass production ultra cheap type tech with which most people are familiar. (I have had more than one conversation about why JPL couldn't have had bolted a cheap color digital camera on MER.....)

While adopting this plan may have allowed some missions that might not have seen the light of day before, each little failure seemed to hit NASA with more bad PR than the little successes could offset....

SO -

"Better Faster Cheaper : Golden Egg or Goldin's Goose?"

I would value all opinions, especially from those inside the org, natch.


--------------------
Lyford Rome
"Zis is not nuts, zis is super-nuts!" Mathematician Richard Courant on viewing an Orion test
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies
dvandorn
post Oct 20 2005, 03:45 PM
Post #2


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 3419
Joined: 9-February 04
From: Minneapolis, MN, USA
Member No.: 15



I imagine that $111 million figure is for the cost of flying Shenzhou VI only. It's not the cost of the entire Shenzhou program.

About how much did it cost to fly a single Gemini mission (to which the Chinese flight is comparable)? In today's dollars, of course. I bet the costs are similar...

As a comparison, it cost about a quarter of a billion dollars, in 1969 dollars, to fly a single Apollo lunar landing mission. Those were a lot more complex, and used more resources, than a simple two-guys-in-orbit-for-four-days kind of flight, of course.

-the other Doug


--------------------
“The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right.” -Mark Twain
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Rakhir
post Oct 21 2005, 08:10 PM
Post #3


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 370
Joined: 12-September 05
From: France
Member No.: 495



QUOTE (dvandorn @ Oct 20 2005, 05:45 PM)
I imagine that $111 million figure is for the cost of flying Shenzhou VI only.  It's not the cost of the entire Shenzhou program.

*


The cost of the entire chinese manned spaceflight program is $2.3 billion.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/05102...tal_module.html

Rakhir.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Posts in this topic


Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 27th May 2024 - 06:51 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.