IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
MSL Cost Caps and de-scoping - Sept '07
stevesliva
post Sep 24 2007, 03:15 PM
Post #31


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1578
Joined: 14-October 05
From: Vermont
Member No.: 530



QUOTE (helvick @ Sep 23 2007, 03:26 PM) *
Some commentary by Leonard David over at LiveScience.com featuring quotes from what appears to be a fairly annoyed Jim Bell.

I agree that at this point it appears to be "penny-wise pound-foolish" but I've got to wonder to what extent the people doing budget planning are getting equally annoyed at projects that win approval by first being too optimistic about costs. This could lead to more up-front budgeting for the craft and less for science, but perhaps in the long run the science would be better protected from craft-cost overruns.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Sep 25 2007, 01:36 PM
Post #32


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2504
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



This Falcon stuff is all totally off-topic for MSL. Could we move it to some appropriate place, please?


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 25 2007, 02:09 PM
Post #33


Founder
****

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



You're right Mike - http://www.unmannedspaceflight.com/index.php?showtopic=4626

Meanwhile - how much of what we're reading about is spin, and how much of it is actual cuts. If you limit a project (and in this case I use the term to describe an instrument) budget to add additional margin, then surely you're doing a cut - because the point of margin is to get things finished. And which ever way you butter it - the loss of MARDI is a cut. We can pretend that HiRISE renders it redundent - but even as just an EPO tool, it would be gold dust. Can you imagine any news station in the world not showing it time after time?

I'm still trying to understand how this all comes together - and I can see Alan's problem with budgets - but I do worry that this may well be a pound-foolish situation. Bad analogy - you don't buy the best motherboard, the best hard drive, the best case, the best graphics card and amazing PSU and a Blu-Ray drive....and then fit a £30 CPU and drive a 14" CRT with it.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 25 2007, 09:05 PM
Post #34


Founder
****

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



Trying to find some meat for this whole issue is like finding meat in a vegitarians fridge...

From http://spacespin.org/article.php/msss_msl
"The MastCam instrument will be developed and operated by Malin Space Science Systems, Inc., of San Diego, CA, under a $17.0 million (current year) contract, with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA. The MAHLI instrument will be developed and operated by MSSS under a similar $12.9 million contract. MARDI will cost $7.9 million and will also be developed by MSSS under JPL contract."

That's an early story from the first selection. Not sure how much the budgets will have changed since then - but it's a starting point.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Sep 25 2007, 09:28 PM
Post #35


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2504
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (djellison @ Sep 25 2007, 02:05 PM) *
That's an early story from the first selection. Not sure how much the budgets will have changed since then - but it's a starting point.

I know this is our own press release, but those numbers sound high to me. I think as part of all three instruments being selected, the total cost was significantly lower.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
algorimancer
post Sep 26 2007, 12:55 PM
Post #36


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 656
Joined: 20-April 05
From: League City, Texas
Member No.: 285



That $1M figure for the sample collection basket seems on the high side. Seems like I could go off to the local walmart and find something suitable which could be epoxied to the frame for under $20. The usual sort of testing and validation seems unnecessary here.

I really hope the zoom feature can be preserved within the cost cap.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
monitorlizard
post Sep 26 2007, 01:12 PM
Post #37


Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 234
Joined: 8-May 05
Member No.: 381



This is from a recent MEPAG article titled "Mars Science Laboratory Project Changes Respond to Cost Increases, Keep Mars Program on Track":

MSL RESCOPED PAYLOAD SEPTEMBER 2007

MastCam // Zoom capability deleted and cost capped
MAHLI // Cost capped
MARDI // Instrument deleted
APXS // No change
ChemCam // No funding beyond FY'07 after a 77% cost growth
CheMin // Cost capped after a 160% cost growth
SAM // Cost capped after a 60% cost growth
RAD // No change
DAN // No change
REMS // No change

The change to the three imaging instruments is "After a combined 60% cost growth" to MastCam, MAHLI, and MARDI.

These are considerably worse overruns than I had imagined, but in fairness I would say that these are very ambitious instruments of types never flown before, so estimating their development costs must have been extremely difficult. I doubt any team deliberately low-balled their initial estimate.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MahFL
post Sep 26 2007, 01:31 PM
Post #38


Forum Contributor
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1372
Joined: 8-February 04
From: North East Florida, USA.
Member No.: 11



They Low Ball all the time or they would never get approved..
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
djellison
post Sep 26 2007, 02:08 PM
Post #39


Founder
****

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



For those wondering - it's here : http://mepag.jpl.nasa.gov/msl.html

What I don't understand is this..

MC : " I think as part of all three instruments being selected, the total cost was significantly lower."

and

MEPAG : "after a combined 60% cost growth"

Now cost 'growth' seems a careful selection of words. Where was the genesis for this growth. Was it from the top asking for changes, or at the instrument level just getting the budget estimation wrong from the start? Something doesn't scan here.

Doug
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Sep 26 2007, 02:27 PM
Post #40


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2504
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (MahFL @ Sep 26 2007, 06:31 AM) *
They Low Ball all the time or they would never get approved..

The MSSS instruments on MGS, MPL. MCO, Odyssey, and MRO all came in at or under budget.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mcaplinger
post Sep 26 2007, 03:01 PM
Post #41


Senior Member
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2504
Joined: 13-September 05
Member No.: 497



QUOTE (monitorlizard @ Sep 26 2007, 06:12 AM) *
The change to the three imaging instruments is "After a combined 60% cost growth" to MastCam, MAHLI, and MARDI.
These are considerably worse overruns than I had imagined...

At best this is a vast oversimplification of how and why costs evolved. I think you can expect some public discussion of this in the near future.


--------------------
Disclaimer: This post is based on public information only. Any opinions are my own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ustrax
post Oct 18 2007, 11:51 AM
Post #42


Special Cookie
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2168
Joined: 6-April 05
From: Sintra | Portugal
Member No.: 228



I was told by one of the participants in the 2nd MSL workshop that all the PI's in the mission requested the return of ChemCam...
Let's see in what this results...


--------------------
"Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ustrax
post Oct 23 2007, 10:43 AM
Post #43


Special Cookie
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2168
Joined: 6-April 05
From: Sintra | Portugal
Member No.: 228



QUOTE (slinted @ Sep 16 2007, 11:33 PM) *
If it doesn't make the payload, ChemCam will be surely missed, since it would have helped to bridge the "Burns Cliff" (and now Victoria Crater) gap (between what you can reach with the arm and what you can see with the cameras).


Sure it will, sure will be a great loss, although scientists are confident and fighting for having it back on MSL.
According to Vicky Hamilton (one of the scientists at the 2nd MSL workshop) there will be significant scientific loss and where this will be more significant in measuring light elements and getting chemical analyses from underneath any coatings that are present on the rocks at the landing site.
Still according to her a major loss will occur operationally if MSL lacks the ability to do chemical remote sensing, as this will mean that the team has to decide where to go and which rocks to analyze based only on images, with little ability to target a route based on the differences in composition between rocks and soils in the area.
She makes a special reference to the Mini-TES on the MER mission that has demonstrated how important it is, fo a mission like MSL, to have this capability for operations as well as science. (from spacEurope)


--------------------
"Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nprev
post Oct 23 2007, 02:26 PM
Post #44


Merciless Robot
****

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



Great article, Rui. smile.gif

It's a damn shame that projects (not just space!) always, always require this sort of contention & debate to preserve original requirements. However, if the PIs present a unified front, they most likely will prevail. Question then becomes where the trade-off happens given that performance is preserved: cost or schedule? Hate to say it, but in the current climate I could see MSL slipping to the 2011 launch window in lieu of throwing more money at it...


--------------------
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
ustrax
post Oct 23 2007, 04:34 PM
Post #45


Special Cookie
****

Group: Members
Posts: 2168
Joined: 6-April 05
From: Sintra | Portugal
Member No.: 228



QUOTE (nprev @ Oct 23 2007, 03:26 PM) *
Great article, Rui. smile.gif

It's a damn shame that projects (not just space!) always, always require this sort of contention & debate to preserve original requirements. However, if the PIs present a unified front, they most likely will prevail. Question then becomes where the trade-off happens given that performance is preserved: cost or schedule? Hate to say it, but in the current climate I could see MSL slipping to the 2011 launch window in lieu of throwing more money at it...


Thanks, there's more tomorrow... wink.gif

I don't see MSL being postponed until 2011...Everyone with I had the chance to exchange words are confident that ChemCam will be back...if not, as the guest for tomorrow puts it, sending MSL, that is being built as a super rover, it would be a shame to "send it hobbled by blindness to the mineral signatures"...

I'm optimistic...but that's not new... rolleyes.gif


--------------------
"Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 28th March 2024 - 02:40 PM
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.