9 big NASA project cost over-runs

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29514257/

Pat

On Mar 5, 1:47*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29514257/

Pat

Looks bad, however it's not even their all-inclusive birth to grave
cost.

Wonder what the real costs are?

Per billion spent/yr, how many are employed and fully accommodated/yr?

~ BG

On Mar 6, 8:08*pm, BradGuth wrote:
On Mar 5, 1:47*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29514257/

Pat

Looks bad, however it's not even their all-inclusive birth to grave
cost.

Wonder what the real costs are?

Per billion spent/yr, how many are employed and fully accommodated/yr?


You do that calculation but why don't you create the list of all the
mission that outlive their life expectancies as well?

Start with the Mars rovers having a 90-day life expectancy and lasting
over 5 years.
Follow that with EOS missions like Terra, Aqua and Aura that have long
past their 5 year life expectancies.

In sci.space.policy wrote:
You do that calculation but why don't you create the list of all the
mission that outlive their life expectancies as well?

Ah, but even if they didn't exceed their initial budgets before
launch, by definition it means they exceeded their budgets because
they had to get extensions to keep monitoring the missions and
gathering the data

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.policy wrote:
You do that calculation but why don't you create the list of all the
mission that outlive their life expectancies as well?

Ah, but even if they didn't exceed their initial budgets before
launch, by definition it means they exceeded their budgets because
they had to get extensions to keep monitoring the missions and
gathering the data

rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

================================================

Speaking of overruns and implied mismanagement ...has anyone looked at
the *economy* lately? And those two *wars* and what are we getting back
from those? ??

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Mar 13]

On Mar 12, 9:45*am, wrote:
On Mar 6, 8:08*pm, BradGuth wrote:

On Mar 5, 1:47*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29514257/

Pat

Looks bad, however it's not even their all-inclusive birth to grave
cost.

Wonder what the real costs are?

Per billion spent/yr, how many are employed and fully accommodated/yr?

You do that calculation but why don't you create the list of all the
mission that outlive their life expectancies as well?

Start with the Mars rovers having a 90-day life expectancy and lasting
over 5 years.
Follow that with EOS missions like Terra, Aqua and Aura that have long
past their 5 year life expectancies.

I agree with using robust robotics, as in most every case they've
outperformed and outlived expectations.

It's those manned missions that seriously suck and blow, and we never
seem to get at any cost stopping point.

However, the true all-inclusive cost of the failed or rather foiled
OCO mission is not limited as to the published amount that the public
gets to hear about.

~ BG

On Mar 12, 10:19*am, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.policy wrote:
You do that calculation but why don't you create the list of all the
mission that outlive their life expectancies as well?

Ah, but even if they didn't exceed their initial budgets before
launch, by definition it means they exceeded their budgets because
they had to get extensions to keep monitoring the missions and
gathering the data

rick jones

Then there's thousands of fancy publications and a NOVA production of
infomercials, and don't forget about those golden egg retirement
plans.

~ BG

On Mar 12, 2:19*pm, Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.policy wrote:
You do that calculation but why don't you create the list of all the
mission that outlive their life expectancies as well?

Ah, but even if they didn't exceed their initial budgets before
launch, by definition it means they exceeded their budgets because
they had to get extensions to keep monitoring the missions and
gathering the data

But that is money well spent. The problems are total failures that
produce nothing or missions that cost 5 times more than they were
supposed to before they produce anything, not successful missions that
cost more to keep them alive beyond their expected lifetimes. Thos
cost overruns are a good thing.

Eric


rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On Mar 5, 4:47*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29514257/

Pat

Why did they make it top 9 list when some of the projects have trivial
cost overruns? Like #8:

"Price: $253.1 million, up $11.7 million since October 2007."

That's ~4% cost overrun. I wouldn't consider that one a budget-
buster. And #9:

"Price: $465 million, up $4.6 million since October 2006."

That's LESS than a 1% cost overrun. Why did they even bother putting
these on the list?


Dave

On Mar 18, 11:05*am, Dave wrote:
On Mar 5, 4:47*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29514257/

Pat

Why did they make it top 9 list when some of the projects have trivial
cost overruns? * Like #8:

* * *"Price: $253.1 million, up $11.7 million since October 2007."

That's ~4% cost overrun. *I wouldn't consider that one a budget-
buster. *And #9:

* * *"Price: $465 million, up $4.6 million since October 2006."

That's LESS than a 1% cost overrun. *Why did they even bother putting
these on the list?

Dave

Pat Flannery is in charge of public damage control, so it's all a big
ruse, of bogus infomercial topics and media diversions away from the
truth.

Pat Flannery has hundreds of such bogus topics to his name. He
doesn't even know what anything is really costing us, because it's not
his job...

~ BG