MSL Cost Caps and de-scoping - Sept '07 |
MSL Cost Caps and de-scoping - Sept '07 |
Sep 24 2007, 03:15 PM
Post
#31
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 1582 Joined: 14-October 05 From: Vermont Member No.: 530 |
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. |
|
|
Sep 25 2007, 01:36 PM
Post
#32
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2511 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.
|
|
|
Sep 25 2007, 02:09 PM
Post
#33
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 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 |
|
|
Sep 25 2007, 09:05 PM
Post
#34
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 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 |
|
|
Sep 25 2007, 09:28 PM
Post
#35
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2511 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
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.
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
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..
|
|
|
Sep 26 2007, 02:08 PM
Post
#39
|
|
Founder Group: Chairman Posts: 14432 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 |
|
|
Sep 26 2007, 02:27 PM
Post
#40
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2511 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
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.
|
|
|
Sep 26 2007, 03:01 PM
Post
#41
|
|
Senior Member Group: Members Posts: 2511 Joined: 13-September 05 Member No.: 497 |
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.
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
Oct 23 2007, 10:43 AM
Post
#43
|
|
Special Cookie Group: Members Posts: 2168 Joined: 6-April 05 From: Sintra | Portugal Member No.: 228 |
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 |
|
|
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.
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.
|
|
|
Oct 23 2007, 04:34 PM
Post
#45
|
|
Special Cookie Group: Members Posts: 2168 Joined: 6-April 05 From: Sintra | Portugal Member No.: 228 |
Great article, Rui. 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... 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... -------------------- "Ride, boldly ride," The shade replied, "If you seek for Eldorado!"
Edgar Alan Poe |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 4th May 2024 - 09:34 AM |
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. |