IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
MSL reasons for delay
nprev
post Jul 16 2009, 04:19 AM
Post #46


Merciless Robot
****

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



To be fair (and not to stray OT), major projects of ANY sort very, very rarely stay within their original budgets. It's an endemic problem with a great number of underlying causes far beyond the scope of discussion on UMSF.


--------------------
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
dvandorn
post Jul 16 2009, 04:40 AM
Post #47


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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Jul 16 2009, 12:45 PM
Post #48


Forum Contributor
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1372
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....... wheel.gif wheel.gif wheel.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BrianL
post Jul 16 2009, 12:50 PM
Post #49


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 530
Joined: 21-March 06
From: Canada
Member No.: 721



I wasn't suggesting the MERs had an easy road. I just disagreed with the suggestion that MSL was too big a jump to take on. I wholeheartedly support pushing development to the limits and maybe a bit beyond. To just play it safe and stay near the status quo... well, to paraphrase an old axiom...

Those who repeat the past are doomed to regret it. biggrin.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stevesliva
post Jul 16 2009, 03:29 PM
Post #50


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1576
Joined: 14-October 05
From: Vermont
Member No.: 530



QUOTE (MahFL @ Jul 16 2009, 08:45 AM) *
Look at the Boeing Dreamliner, its way way behind the original schedule


In MSL's defense, at least they blamed actuators and not fasteners for the first big derailment.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Jul 16 2009, 06:50 PM
Post #51


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
climber
post Jul 16 2009, 07:10 PM
Post #52


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2917
Joined: 14-February 06
From: Very close to the Pyrénées Mountains (France)
Member No.: 682



I agree Ted, but if the beast works, who knows what we'll discover? I've always basicaly the same fear/hope for every probe so I take it cool till things unfold.
Your remark could be a topic by itself to know how "we" at UMSF feel about this.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SFJCody
post Jul 16 2009, 07:26 PM
Post #53


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 813
Joined: 8-February 04
From: Arabia Terra
Member No.: 12



I guess another reason MSL has to be such a big vehicle is that rovers can't get the 'faster better cheaper' treatment and be broken up into smaller separate missions as happened with the payload of the failed Mars Observer. You have to bring a whole suite of instruments if you want to get a complete picture of a particular locale.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
imipak
post Jul 16 2009, 08:49 PM
Post #54


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 646
Joined: 23-December 05
From: Forest of Dean
Member No.: 617



QUOTE (Kierkegaard @ 19th century)
"Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forward."

QUOTE (Unknown saloon-bar sage)
"Hindsight is 20/20"


Although I'm curious about the fine details of exactly which components' power needs were underestimated, and why/how that happened, I'm entirely happy to wait a few years for the "Inside story of the stunning success of MSL!" books to appear to find out.


--------------------
--
Viva software libre!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
centsworth_II
post Jul 16 2009, 08:55 PM
Post #55


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2173
Joined: 28-December 04
From: Florida, USA
Member No.: 132



This is the kind of torturous process that leads to a machine that lives dozens of times past it's minimum requirement. (I hope.)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Jul 17 2009, 01:59 AM
Post #56


Senior Member
****

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



QUOTE (tedstryk @ Jul 16 2009, 10:50 AM) *
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.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Jul 17 2009, 03:28 AM
Post #57


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

Group: Admin
Posts: 4404
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.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peter59
post Jul 27 2009, 08:17 AM
Post #58


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 568
Joined: 20-April 05
From: Silesia
Member No.: 299



http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8168954.stm
"In 2018, it is likely the entry, descent and landing (EDL) of Europe's rover would be handled by the Americans, using the "skycrane" system they have designed for their big 2013 rover known as Curiosity."

I hope that the date 2013 is a mistake in print.


--------------------
Free software for planetary science (including Cassini Image Viewer).
http://members.tripod.com/petermasek/marinerall.html
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tedstryk
post Aug 20 2009, 05:45 PM
Post #59


Interplanetary Dumpster Diver
****

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



QUOTE (peter59 @ Jul 27 2009, 09:17 AM) *
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8168954.stm
"In 2018, it is likely the entry, descent and landing (EDL) of Europe's rover would be handled by the Americans, using the "skycrane" system they have designed for their big 2013 rover known as Curiosity."

I hope that the date 2013 is a mistake in print.


It probably isn't a misprint, but is likely a misinterpretation. The reporter probably saw it was due to launch in 2011 and that there was a two year delay, but missed that 2011 is the new date, not the original date.


--------------------
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Oct 16 2009, 11:02 PM
Post #60


Senior Member
****

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



Hadn't seen anyone discussing the MSL status report from last month -- http://spacepolicyonline.com/pages/images/...s1%20Li-MSL.pdf -- as presented to the Mars panel of the decadal survey.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th March 2024 - 06:08 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.