Posted by
emmett
on from the one-small-step-for-an-accountant dept.
Spudley writes "Space.com is reporting that NASA are likely to scrap a number of planned missions, due to increasing mission costs. The cost rise is attributed to more failsafes being used, after the recent failures of a number of 'cheap' missions."
NASA went to the "better, faster, cheaper" approach after they were threatened with cuts. Basically the public is impatient and therefore wants NASA to do stuff NOW. Due to this pressure NASA moved from building huge monolithic projects that had a very high chance of success but launched very rarely, to smaller cheaper projects with a smaller chance of success and launched more often.
Although I agree that it is a better idea to be somewhere in the middle, we shall see what the general public thinks. They are in sort of a bind here, if they take too long between missions then the public gets bored and cuts their funding, but if their mission fails then the public get angry and their funding gets cut.
<rant>
Until the public realizes the importance of the space program reason has not won. There is even a split in the slashdot readers over whether it should be publicly or privately funded. I personally believe that the government should fund pure scientific research for the sake of science, and that if we leave it up to private organizations we will lose the research that is conducted for the sake of science and only get science for the sake of profit.
If NASA were to receive more money so that it could hire more scientists and engineers, especially in the QA side, we would be able to pull off faster/better instead of faster/cheaper.
</rant>
-- Disclamer - Opinion of Person
Problems with probability...
by
laborit
·
· Score: 4
It's actually kind of unfortunate that NASA has chosen this time to implement extra safety features, since it makes it more difficult to tell if they work. Statisticians are familiar with the concept of regression to the mean (or just regression): after an extraordinary period, you're most likely to have an ordinary one.
This simply reflects the fact that most of the things you do are going to have an average outcome, due to the definition of average. So if you have a string of great victories, your ordinary, expected performance will look like you're going into decline. If you have a string of failures, it will look like you're improving.
The textbook regression foulup is an experiment in which people are punished for failure and rewarded for success. Since failure naturally leads to improvement, it ends up looking like punishment helps and reward hurts.
So... NASA will implement a lot of safety features. And the missions will be more successful even if the features do nothing at all, just because they're going to have to come out of their slump sometime.
Then it will look like space missions have to be expensive to succeed, and we'll be locked into this paradigm...
- MC
--
----- Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
Re:Problems with probability...
by
wafath
·
· Score: 4
1) Repeat after me: "Lady Luck has no memory." Now write it on the chalk board 1000 times. If I am flipping a fair coin, and I get 4 heads in a row, what is the probability that the next flip will be a head? 50%. Believing anything else will get you into gambler's anonymous.
2) These are not random events. Your spacecraft getting hit by a mico-meteorite en-route is a random event. Your spacecraft digging a hole in the surface of mars because some asshole company decided to do english units is not a random event. NASA knows and is willing to live with the random. What NASA is trying to do is prevent the FUBAR's that throw away very expensive spacecraft.
W
Re:Problems with probability...
by
stubob
·
· Score: 3
Your spacecraft digging a hole in the surface of mars because some asshole company decided to do english units is not a random event.
Um, minor corrections needed here. 1. The problem with the units was not Lockheed Martin Astronautics using english units. The problem was LMCO and JPL not both not noticing that they were using different units during unit testing and integration. The problem was that JPL issued a course correction using x units of thrust, which happened to be the wrong amount.
2. You have the Mars Polar Lander confused with the Mars Climate Orbiter. The english/metric units problem was not on the mission that "dug a hole into the surface." That was the landing legs problem. Which, btw, was seen in testing but not corrected (unexcusable). The english/metric units problem was on one of the mapping satellites that burned up into the atmosphere because of the thrust problem.
fwiw, I worked at LMCO during all this but not on those projects (I got to work with the TLA's in DC. That's why I left.)
I'm sorry, but once I heard about the "cheaper and faster" space missions, I knew it was a disaster from the start.
Yes... cheap missions that fail is a bad thing and
expensive missions that succeed is a good thing.
I think we are so excited about how fast technology is going today we are moving blindly. I have had debates with people not so technically incline about how the speed of processors will not be doubling every two years unless some new break through is found. They have this blind notion that "No! technology will never slow down". I agree that technology will always advance, but it will slow down until something new is discovered. You can only improve on a single method so much.
Now back to the space program. I think it's good that things are being taken more seriously, and we should slow down and do things right the first time. Prototypes are ok, but the final product should work.
Unfortunately, this means things like that Pluto mission may be axed. But I'm optimistic that programs canceled today will be the programs of tomorrow.
Steven Rostedt
-- Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
the dispair banner ad says it all
by
omarius
·
· Score: 4
Yet another blow to the star-filled hopes of my generation; a generation that grew up on the tail end of the Space Race, who still have their copies of TIME magazine from when Viking landed on Mars. At age 10 I fully expected to get to ride on a Space Shuttle one day. At age 26 I am sad that the US seems more interested in immediacy and BS politics than expanding the role of humanity in a universe which happens to be larger than the Republican convention, no matter how it looks on TV.
-Omar
Perhaps they will reconsider...
by
HEbGb
·
· Score: 3
Perhaps they, as well as the public as represented through congress, will reconsider the enormous amount of our hard-earned money we're giving to NASA for missions that are of little value beyond simple entertainment. And that's when things work - the streak of dismal failures they're building is a tremendous and expensive embarassment.
Yes, there have been a few commercially viable innovations which came out of the space prgram. But at what cost? Are those inventions really worth the billions spent? To whom?
If NASA cannot provide enough value to the world to pay it's/own/ bills, it shouldn't exist. I'm tired of being forced to fork over money I work hard for in the interests of supporting an ill-defined pseudoscience entertainment legion.
They're not really in a comfortable place after all. Their funding relies on both their public image and intensive politicking (is that a word? Ah well, you know what I mean) in Congress. Every time something goes wrong with a mission it makes them look bad, no matter whose fault it really was.
This is a shame since NASA is a worthwhile endeavour and deserves a better deal than it gets from the American government. But we can do without a few minor missions in the name of getting the more important ones working - I don't think anyone would deny that money would be better spent on a Mars mission than say a Pluto one.
In the long run though it may well be that NASA fall behind other agencies and corporate interests. The public is simply not up for a huge space program with its attendant costs. NASA are trying to make space flight cheaper, but it costs money to save money in this case, and at they rate things are going, that'll be money they don't get.
The truth is our elected officials have decided that there are other things here on earth which have priority over the space program.
In light of some previous comments both here and in the media, please consider the following.
The military gave birth to the space program. For the first 30 years, nearly all of our astronauts were active duty military persons.
The military initially trained most of our astronauts.
The military financed most of the early space program and continues to pay for several missions today.
(see
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/factsh eet.htm )
The military needs satellites launched. That requires some NASA folks to get in that shuttle and get some flying time. That is better than playing with models in Florida.
(see
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/schedule/mixf leet.htm )
Therefore, I believe that the military has been useful to our space program and hope thier interest will continue as it benefits the program as a whole.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the host of other social programs do not require a space program. These *combined* programs eat more of the federal budget than the defense budget does.
(see http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guidetoc. html )
Does that mean these programs are not neccessary or not as important? Nonsense. However, truth is the success of these programs is not dependent upon a strong space program and these programs' needs will not diminish, on the contrary, they will grow in the future.
So what is the answer? That is up to the individuals which make up our country. I have posted here before that I will only vote for candidates who represent my ideas, which includes, an agressive, yet affective, space program. To that end, I am researching the candidates in order to choose who will best make a working, successful space program a reality. A working space program, however, has to be tempered with meeting the needs of our growing society including assisting our elderly and less fortunate, education, urban problems, committments and cleaning up the planet we were on first.
Your mileage may vary.
Exclusive land grants and mining rights.
by
Moderation+abuser
·
· Score: 3
Greed man.
You want to get into space in 5 years?
Hand out exclusive land grants on Mars and the Moon to the 1st private individuals who can get there. Give exclusive mining rights to people who can get to an asteroid and stake a claim.
You're dreaming if you think it'll happen any other way.
--
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Slashdot Mirror
If they cannot afford as many missions in a safe way asthey have planned, they should put up less missions. Thats all.
Kiwaiti
Member of the Legion Of Microsoft Haters
It's actually kind of unfortunate that NASA has chosen this time to implement extra safety features, since it makes it more difficult to tell if they work. Statisticians are familiar with the concept of regression to the mean (or just regression): after an extraordinary period, you're most likely to have an ordinary one.
This simply reflects the fact that most of the things you do are going to have an average outcome, due to the definition of average. So if you have a string of great victories, your ordinary, expected performance will look like you're going into decline. If you have a string of failures, it will look like you're improving.
The textbook regression foulup is an experiment in which people are punished for failure and rewarded for success. Since failure naturally leads to improvement, it ends up looking like punishment helps and reward hurts.
So... NASA will implement a lot of safety features. And the missions will be more successful even if the features do nothing at all, just because they're going to have to come out of their slump sometime.
Then it will look like space missions have to be expensive to succeed, and we'll be locked into this paradigm...
- MC
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
I'm sorry, but once I heard about the "cheaper and faster" space missions, I knew it was a disaster from the start.
Yes... cheap missions that fail is a bad thing and
expensive missions that succeed is a good thing.
I think we are so excited about how fast technology is going today we are moving blindly. I have had debates with people not so technically incline about how the speed of processors will not be doubling every two years unless some new break through is found. They have this blind notion that "No! technology will never slow down". I agree that technology will always advance, but it will slow down until something new is discovered. You can only improve on a single method so much.
Now back to the space program. I think it's good that things are being taken more seriously, and we should slow down and do things right the first time. Prototypes are ok, but the final product should work.
Unfortunately, this means things like that Pluto mission may be axed. But I'm optimistic that programs canceled today will be the programs of tomorrow.
Steven Rostedt
Steven Rostedt
-- Nevermind
-Omar
Perhaps they, as well as the public as represented through congress, will reconsider the enormous amount of our hard-earned money we're giving to NASA for missions that are of little value beyond simple entertainment. And that's when things work - the streak of dismal failures they're building is a tremendous and expensive embarassment.
/own/ bills, it shouldn't exist. I'm tired of being forced to fork over money I work hard for in the interests of supporting an ill-defined pseudoscience entertainment legion.
Yes, there have been a few commercially viable innovations which came out of the space prgram. But at what cost? Are those inventions really worth the billions spent? To whom?
If NASA cannot provide enough value to the world to pay it's
They're not really in a comfortable place after all. Their funding relies on both their public image and intensive politicking (is that a word? Ah well, you know what I mean) in Congress. Every time something goes wrong with a mission it makes them look bad, no matter whose fault it really was.
This is a shame since NASA is a worthwhile endeavour and deserves a better deal than it gets from the American government. But we can do without a few minor missions in the name of getting the more important ones working - I don't think anyone would deny that money would be better spent on a Mars mission than say a Pluto one.
In the long run though it may well be that NASA fall behind other agencies and corporate interests. The public is simply not up for a huge space program with its attendant costs. NASA are trying to make space flight cheaper, but it costs money to save money in this case, and at they rate things are going, that'll be money they don't get.
The truth is our elected officials have decided that there are other things here on earth which have priority over the space program.
h eet.htm )
f leet.htm )
. html )
In light of some previous comments both here and in the media, please consider the following.
The military gave birth to the space program. For the first 30 years, nearly all of our astronauts were active duty military persons.
The military initially trained most of our astronauts.
The military financed most of the early space program and continues to pay for several missions today.
(see
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/facts
The military needs satellites launched. That requires some NASA folks to get in that shuttle and get some flying time. That is better than playing with models in Florida.
(see
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/schedule/mix
Therefore, I believe that the military has been useful to our space program and hope thier interest will continue as it benefits the program as a whole.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the host of other social programs do not require a space program. These *combined* programs eat more of the federal budget than the defense budget does.
(see http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2001/guidetoc
Does that mean these programs are not neccessary or not as important? Nonsense. However, truth is the success of these programs is not dependent upon a strong space program and these programs' needs will not diminish, on the contrary, they will grow in the future.
So what is the answer? That is up to the individuals which make up our country. I have posted here before that I will only vote for candidates who represent my ideas, which includes, an agressive, yet affective, space program. To that end, I am researching the candidates in order to choose who will best make a working, successful space program a reality. A working space program, however, has to be tempered with meeting the needs of our growing society including assisting our elderly and less fortunate, education, urban problems, committments and cleaning up the planet we were on first.
Your mileage may vary.
Greed man.
You want to get into space in 5 years?
Hand out exclusive land grants on Mars and the Moon to the 1st private individuals who can get there. Give exclusive mining rights to people who can get to an asteroid and stake a claim.
You're dreaming if you think it'll happen any other way.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.