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.
Quote from: Blackstar on 03/25/2015 04:02 pmI'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?
Please clarify what "overruns their missions" means,
Quote from: PahTo on 03/29/2015 05:35 amPlease clarify what "overruns their missions" means,Cost overruns. I.e., MER, MSL, and now INsight.
QuoteYeah 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.
Yeah the other centers and contractors are doing so much better (JPSS, JWST)
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: vjkane on 03/30/2015 03:52 am4) 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.
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 ...
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.
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
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.”