Author Topic: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals  (Read 164145 times)

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13998
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #40 on: 03/26/2015 06:18 am »
@Blackstar thanks for that information.

Offline GuessWho

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #41 on: 03/28/2015 03:42 pm »

I'll comment on the stuff that I have some familiarity with:

One of the dirty little secrets of the planetary science program history is that Lockheed Martin has for a long time apparently made very little profit on their NASA planetary spacecraft. They do it for reasons other than making money, like honing their skills, corporate prestige, etc.


Really, you have proof of this?  Having worked with LM on prior Discovery proposals, I find this 180-deg from reality.  Based on your comment, given how often JPL overruns their missions, their goal must be gouge the taxpayer for everything they can.  Does your comment hold true for Ball and Orbital as well given they try to offer lowest cost spacecraft solutions also?

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #42 on: 03/28/2015 04:11 pm »

I'll comment on the stuff that I have some familiarity with:

One of the dirty little secrets of the planetary science program history is that Lockheed Martin has for a long time apparently made very little profit on their NASA planetary spacecraft. They do it for reasons other than making money, like honing their skills, corporate prestige, etc.


Really, you have proof of this?  Having worked with LM on prior Discovery proposals, I find this 180-deg from reality.  Based on your comment, given how often JPL overruns their missions, their goal must be gouge the taxpayer for everything they can.  Does your comment hold true for Ball and Orbital as well given they try to offer lowest cost spacecraft solutions also?

There are many possibilities here, assuming that LM does make little profit here.  The two top ones that come to mind are (1) they make little profit compared to their defense contracts (which I *think* are often cost plus) and (2) they under estimate the true cost of planetary spacecraft development and therefore eat into their profit margin to stay within budget.  There are also other possibilities.


Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #43 on: 03/29/2015 05:35 am »

Please clarify what "overruns their missions" means,

Offline GuessWho

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #44 on: 03/29/2015 02:59 pm »

Please clarify what "overruns their missions" means,

Cost overruns.  I.e., MER, MSL, and now INsight.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #45 on: 03/29/2015 05:33 pm »

Please clarify what "overruns their missions" means,

Cost overruns.  I.e., MER, MSL, and now INsight.

Yeah the other centers and contractors are doing so much better (JPSS, JWST)

InSight is eating its margins but it's basically on time/on budget.

Offline GuessWho

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #46 on: 03/29/2015 06:36 pm »


Yeah the other centers and contractors are doing so much better (JPSS, JWST)

[/quote]

And this is relevant how?  Blackstar was referencing Lockheed Martin.  Last time I looked, LM wasn't involved with either JWST or JPSS.  My comment was referencing JPL planetary missions as this is clearly Blackstar's home organization and thus JPL's performance is relative to the discussion given his comment about LM.  Last time I looked, neither JWST or JPSS was a planetary mission and neither are being run by JPL.  So again, how is your comment relevant?  Stay on topic and add something of value or don't comment.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #47 on: 03/29/2015 07:19 pm »
Quote

Yeah the other centers and contractors are doing so much better (JPSS, JWST)


And this is relevant how?  Blackstar was referencing Lockheed Martin.  Last time I looked, LM wasn't involved with either JWST or JPSS.  My comment was referencing JPL planetary missions as this is clearly Blackstar's home organization and thus JPL's performance is relative to the discussion given his comment about LM.  Last time I looked, neither JWST or JPSS was a planetary mission and neither are being run by JPL.  So again, how is your comment relevant?  Stay on topic and add something of value or don't comment.

You seem to be uniquely upset about Lockheed/JPL cost and schedule performance, so I suggest looking at the larger context and seeing how poorly other centers and contractors are performing on their programs. I think the comparison is fair game.

More to the point though, I have not seen any information to back up your claims that InSight costs are wildly out of control as you characterize them.

Offline GuessWho

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #48 on: 03/30/2015 03:31 am »
Quote
You seem to be uniquely upset about Lockheed/JPL cost and schedule performance, so I suggest looking at the larger context and seeing how poorly other centers and contractors are performing on their programs. I think the comparison is fair game.

More to the point though, I have not seen any information to back up your claims that InSight costs are wildly out of control as you characterize them.

Upset about LM?  No.  JPL?  Yes.  But according to Blackstar, LM's is somehow perpetuating a "dirty little secret" of low-balling planetary missions.  I am calling him on that comment.  Given NASA planetary missions that LM or any other spacecraft builder can compete on are cost plus award fee contracts with NASA centers as the Project Manager (i.e. JPL), JPL fully knows what LM (or Ball, or Orbital, or Boeing, or anyone else for that matter) costs are and the only thing that is negotiated is the fee.  As such, if LM is hiding some dirty little secret, JPL is fully complicit in that act.  Seems somewhat curious that a JPL employee (Blackstar) is calling out LM for having a dirty little secret when JPL is often running the show.  The fact that Blackstar has yet to come back and provide a basis to support his claim speaks volumes.  That you are so quick to come to his defense speaks equally loud, at least from where I am sitting.

Where did I state/characterize that InSight is "wildly out of control"?  It will come as no surprise to anyone that InSight will not cross the finish line at or below the Discovery cost-cap.  Reserves are gone and they are still in the early stages of ATLO, the instruments are late, and most cost overruns accrue during ATLO as the project scrambles to make their launch date, whatever it takes.  Whether this over-run is 2% or 20% or 100% remains to be seen.  My response merely stated that InSight will have a cost over-run.  You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills and stop projecting your thoughts on to other posters.

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #49 on: 03/30/2015 03:52 am »
Seems somewhat curious that a JPL employee (Blackstar) is calling out LM for having a dirty little secret when JPL is often running the show. 

Whether this over-run is 2% or 20% or 100% remains to be seen.  My response merely stated that InSight will have a cost over-run.  You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills and stop projecting your thoughts on to other posters.
1) Blackstar doesn't work for JPL and so far as I know never has.
2) According to the latest GAO report on major NASA projects, project cost growth rate is 2.4-3% (excluding JWST) for the last two years. 
3) The InSight PI has been open about their development challenges.  I agree, they appear to be on the edge and almost everything may to need to go right not to go over.  Whether they may go over by a trivial amount or a significant amount remains to be seen.
4) Blackstar said that LM said that their profit margins on planetary missions are lower than for other business.  Perhaps NASA drives a harder bargain than DoD.  Perhaps science missions in general have lower profit margins than on other spacecraft or aircraft businesses.  Perhaps science missions are harder to forecast costs for than other types of spacecraft.  Many businesses accept that different business units have different rates of returns. 

Offline Blackstar

  • Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15289
  • Liked: 7828
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #50 on: 03/30/2015 07:52 pm »
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2722/1

Discovery lives
by Jason Callahan
Monday, March 30, 2015

Last month, teams of scientists from around the United States submitted proposals for the thirteenth mission in NASA’s Discovery program. Discovery is a class of small planetary science missions, with costs capped for this round of proposals at $450 million (not including the cost of a launch vehicle.) There is no pre-specified target list for Discovery missions, but they must be based on the scientific questions highlighted in the National Research Council’s Planetary Science Decadal Survey in order to be competitive.

« Last Edit: 03/30/2015 08:19 pm by Blackstar »

Offline redliox

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2539
  • Illinois USA
  • Liked: 683
  • Likes Given: 97
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #51 on: 03/30/2015 09:59 pm »
So apparently there are 28 total proposals in this round!  Obviously that will be cut down significantly, but it's wonderful to know Discovery indeed lives on, as the title of that article Blackstar posted implies.

2 Lunar, 3 Phobos/Deimos, 3 Venusian, 2 to the Outer Solar System, 4 for asteroids/comets, 1 Martian Lander (again based off Phoenix), and even 2 telescopes...that's quite a batch and barely half of that 28!

Oh the suspense...
"Let the trails lead where they may, I will follow."
-Tigatron

Offline GuessWho

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #52 on: 04/01/2015 12:19 pm »

1) Blackstar doesn't work for JPL and so far as I know never has.
2) According to the latest GAO report on major NASA projects, project cost growth rate is 2.4-3% (excluding JWST) for the last two years. 
3) The InSight PI has been open about their development challenges.  I agree, they appear to be on the edge and almost everything may to need to go right not to go over.  Whether they may go over by a trivial amount or a significant amount remains to be seen.
4) Blackstar said that LM said that their profit margins on planetary missions are lower than for other business.  Perhaps NASA drives a harder bargain than DoD.  Perhaps science missions in general have lower profit margins than on other spacecraft or aircraft businesses.  Perhaps science missions are harder to forecast costs for than other types of spacecraft.  Many businesses accept that different business units have different rates of returns. 

1. Ok.  If my guestimate is wrong, so be it.  Based on past comments from him/her, it seemed logical.  I don't think that really changes the basis of my argument.
2.  For the last two years?  That is a pretty short timespan for projects that typically take 4-5 years to complete (Discovery/NF) or more (Flagships).  Not sure that statistic means a whole lot.  How many "major" programs does that timespan cover?  MAVEN? O-REx? GRAIL?
3. I think that is what I said also so not sure what you are trying to add.  But if reserves are shot by the time you start ATLO, which is where InSight is, then cost overruns are all but certain.  Especially if instruments are late or suffer any failure during system-level testing as there is very little time to resolve the problem and thus money gets thrown at it to accelerate the process.
4.  I don't think that is what he said.  Of course I can no longer verify as his post has been removed (hmmm, wonder why ...?)  But he/she would have no way of knowing what LM profit margins are across all of their USG programs so to say that Planetary missions are lower would be assuming facts not in evidence.  Further, my recollection was that his/her position was that LM purposely cut their profit margins in order to hone shills, provide marketing fodder for other USG missions, etc. and that was the "dirty little secret" he/she was complaining about.  Hard to say as he/she seems unwilling or unable to defend their comments. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #53 on: 04/01/2015 05:13 pm »

4) Blackstar said that LM said that their profit margins on planetary missions are lower than for other business.  Perhaps NASA drives a harder bargain than DoD.  Perhaps science missions in general have lower profit margins than on other spacecraft or aircraft businesses.  Perhaps science missions are harder to forecast costs for than other types of spacecraft.  Many businesses accept that different business units have different rates of returns. 

LM treats NASA science missions as PR opportunities and not to make money.  One NASA mission every few years pales against 3-6 DOD spacecraft per year.

Offline Star One

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13998
  • UK
  • Liked: 3974
  • Likes Given: 220
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #54 on: 04/01/2015 06:48 pm »


4) Blackstar said that LM said that their profit margins on planetary missions are lower than for other business.  Perhaps NASA drives a harder bargain than DoD.  Perhaps science missions in general have lower profit margins than on other spacecraft or aircraft businesses.  Perhaps science missions are harder to forecast costs for than other types of spacecraft.  Many businesses accept that different business units have different rates of returns. 

LM treats NASA science missions as PR opportunities and not to make money.  One NASA mission every few years pales against 3-6 DOD spacecraft per year.

But surely they are still going to want too make some kind of margin on them, I can't see them building craft purely at a price that covers their costs and nothing else.

Offline GuessWho

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #55 on: 04/02/2015 03:30 am »

LM treats NASA science missions as PR opportunities and not to make money.  One NASA mission every few years pales against 3-6 DOD spacecraft per year.

You are confusing revenue with profit margin.  As far as the NASA space science missions as PR argument, you are grossly ill-informed ...
« Last Edit: 04/02/2015 08:46 am by Galactic Penguin SST »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #56 on: 04/02/2015 04:05 am »
You are confusing revenue with profit margin.  As far as the NASA space science missions as PR argument, you are grossly ill-informed ...

Me thinks you are a bit confused. 
a.  The margins are higher on the DOD spacecraft.
b.  As for the PR, there is no argument, it is a fact that you must be ignorant of.  I was told* directly by LM management that it does NASA missions for the PR and the good will, since the money is not worth the work and headaches.   Even if the margin is higher, it doesn't really show up on the ledger since it is overshadowed by the DOD side of the house.   

* which mean I was not ill-informed much less grossly
« Last Edit: 04/02/2015 08:47 am by Galactic Penguin SST »

Offline vjkane

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1269
  • Liked: 617
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #57 on: 04/02/2015 04:50 am »
As for the PR, there is no argument, it is a fact that you must be ignorant of.  I was told* directly by LM management that it does NASA missions for the PR and the good will, since the money is not worth the work and headaches.   Even if the margin is higher, it doesn't really show up on the ledger since it is overshadowed by the DOD side of the house.   
One problem with planetary spacecraft is that there are a reasonable number of vendors to choose from: in house at JPL or APL, Orbital, LM, etc.  This will cap profit margins.

It is also possible that the margins LM gets are not bad for many businesses.  DoD work is reputed to be especially profitable, especially for highly technical, classified work.

It's also important to remember that LM worked very hard to get back into the position of a prefered vendors after the failed missions of 1999.  If this wasn't a business they wanted to be in for reasons important to LM, they could have exited then.

Offline GuessWho

  • Member
  • Posts: 96
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #58 on: 04/03/2015 12:27 pm »

Me thinks you are a bit confused. 
a.  The margins are higher on the DOD spacecraft.
b.  As for the PR, there is no argument, it is a fact that you must be ignorant of.  I was told* directly by LM management that it does NASA missions for the PR and the good will, since the money is not worth the work and headaches.   Even if the margin is higher, it doesn't really show up on the ledger since it is overshadowed by the DOD side of the house.   

* which mean I was not ill-informed much less grossly

Pray tell, what do you think the fee percentage is for DoD spacecraft?  For civil space spacecraft?  Let's see if your guesses are even close to being what I know they are.

"LM Management"? Hewson spoke to you directly?  You must be quite an important person then.  I guess her and the Space System Company Exec VP, Ambrose, are on different pages.  Given you state this as a known "fact" that I am ignorant of (apparently I should have known you had a conversation with Hewson, or her stand-in, having never met with or spoken with you before), please share the conversation with everyone (names, places, dates) so we can all be as well informed as you are.

Offline arachnitect

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1553
  • Liked: 501
  • Likes Given: 759
Re: NASA 2015 Discovery proposals
« Reply #59 on: 04/07/2015 02:59 pm »
Spaceflightnow has a run down of known Discovery proposals. http://spaceflightnow.com/2015/04/06/diverse-destinations-considered-for-new-interplanetary-probe/

Most of the missions are covered in this thread, but here's some info on the Psyche mission:

Quote
Lindy Elkins-Tanton, director of the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State University, leads the science team behind the Psyche mission.

She said in an interview that the spacecraft — built by Space Systems/Loral — would take five years to cruise from Earth to Psyche in the 2020s. If approved, the probe will carry ion engines to guide itself toward the asteroid belt and rendezvous with Psyche, where it will enter orbit for at least a year.

The mission is tasked to find out if Psyche was once a larger body that had its crust and mantle stripped away, exposing the metallic core.

“This is one of the few missions (proposed) that’s truly exploration,” Elkins-Tanton said in March at the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference. “Nobody has ever seen a metal world before. We have no idea what it’s going to look like.”

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0