In article ,
Brett Buck wrote:
... The technology and missions are so unforgiving that even tiny
problems have to be addressed, and beaten to death. That takes time and
money - there's no getting around it.

Actually, it's perfectly reasonable to simply accept a modest amount of
risk... especially since you are *always* doing that anyway, because you
can never anticipate all the problems. (At no time did Apollo planning
ever consider the possibility of losing all oxygen and all electrical
power in the CSM; studies of the "LM lifeboat" were confined to using the
LM *engine* to cover for a CSM propulsion failure.) A sense of proportion
is needed; you can waste unlimited amounts of money on unlikely what-ifs.

The need for *adequate* funding does not imply a need for NASA-megaproject
funding levels. (However, it *does* mean that if you don't have
NASA-megaproject funding levels, you can't use the NASA-megaproject
management style.)

...You are correct that cheaping out or funding or schedule, or
simply ignoring this essential fact, is exactly why there are so many
failures in all sorts of aerospace projects.

Nonsense. There have been numerous failures in aerospace projects which
had ample funding and schedule. The evidence is strong that the bulk of
the failures are simply independent of cost and schedule, at least within
broad limits. For every Mars Climate Orbiter there's a Mars Observer.

...Those "dinosaur" aerospace companies actually know some things
about how to conduct projects that lead to their "exorbitant" bids.

Yeah: they know how to run projects so as to maximize effort -- as
opposed to results -- because that's what they get paid for. When Max
Faget, who had more than a little experience dealing with the dinosaurs,
was trying to get his private-venture Industrial Space Facility off the
ground, his major ground rule when looking for an industrial partner was
"no aerospace companies".

...Most of the proposed budgets for
the "stunts" like Roton aren't enough to cover even the contingencies
that will arise, much less the entire program. That's why they fail.

Name three private launcher projects that have failed by overrunning their
budget estimates.

(Hint: to overrun its estimated budget, such a project would first have
to *have* funding somewhere close to the estimated amount.)
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |