Chatroom
 

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Forum > Space and Astronomy > Space Exploration
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 24-April-2006, 08:24 PM
ToSeek's Avatar
ToSeek ToSeek is offline
Vulcan Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Greenbelt, MD
Posts: 24,106
Default What planetary scientists want

Planetary Community Survey to Prioritize NASA Programs

Quote:
The survey results supports the uniform testimony of planetary and other scientists before the House Science Committee in March, as well as other public statements and editorials by scientists stating that NASA Research and Analysis programs are foundational to the American space science effort overall. This is of particular importance in solar system exploration. Also, Discovery-class (small, competed) missions are considered to be highest priority among the planetary missions.
Interesting that the planetary scientists prefer the quick-and-dirty missions over the massive, Cassini-style missions.
__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 24-April-2006, 08:51 PM
Larry Jacks Larry Jacks is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 2,410
Default

What planetary scientists want is funding for their projects. Huge (and hugely expensive) projects like Cassini cost billions of dollars and only come around about once a decade. You can fly a 10 or more Discovery class missions for the cost of each Cassini-style mission. If you were a planetary scientist, your best bet of getting your project funded is to go with smaller projects that can be created and flown in a relatively short time.

This isn't meant to diss Cassini-style missions. There are some projects that are so large that by their very nature, they're going to be big and expensive. Sending an orbiter to a gas giant is a huge undertaking and you can't do it very well inexpensively.

However, as the Mars Observer proved, even billion dollar programs aren't immune to failure. Would it have been better flying 4 smaller missions instead of putting all of your eggs into one big, expensive basket? That was the motivation behind the 1990s mantra of "faster, better, cheaper." However, as most engineers at the time pointed out, in reality, when faced with "faster, better, cheaper", you end up getting at most 2 out of 3. The experiences of 1999 showed what happens when you shortcut testing in order to go all out for "faster, better, cheaper."
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 24-April-2006, 10:41 PM
mugaliens's Avatar
mugaliens mugaliens is online now
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Dortmund
Posts: 6,535
Default

I can see where a balanced approach between quality and efficiency is required. In production analysis it's called "effectiveness." You can either have high quality or efficiency, but going towards either extreme spells long-term disaster.

The six-sigma concept is born of providing high-quality but at an acceptable level of efficiency.
__________________
I am Mugs, of the Alien clan of Usa, Nordamerica, a Terran, of Sol.

Mine: "Perception isn't reality. It's merely an abstraction thereof, and quite often not a very good one at that."

Heinlein's: "Staying young requires the unceasing cultivation of the ability to unlearn old falsehoods." "Freedom begins when you tell Ms. Grundy to go fly a kite."
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.0.0
©  2006 Bad Astronomy and Universe Today