Session
Technical Session IIA: Management, Manufacturing, And Risk Mitigation
Abstract
"Faster, Better, Cheaper - pick any two" say critics of NASA's current approach to scientific satellites. As proof, they point to the recent failed or impaired small science satellites: Lewis (failed shortly after reaching orbit), Clark (cancelled before leaving the ground), NEAR (trajectory altered due to engine shutdown) and WIRE (failure resulting in depletion of cryogen). Although the space industry has greatly increased their utilization of small satellites to conduct space activities, the question remains, Is Faster, Better, Cheaper (FBC) yielding a good return on investment? This paper takes a historical look at traditional science missions either flown or started before the FBC era and compares them with missions designed under this new paradigm using a variety of metrics such as development time, cost per mission, and a newly proposed cost-effectiveness metric. Risk is discussd in terms of the failure rates (both catastrophic and partial) of both mission sets as well. Conclusions are reached on the relative merit ofFBC and whether FBC is just a slogan or actually a new, valid approach for spacecraft design.
Evaluating Small Satellites: Is the Risk Worth It?
"Faster, Better, Cheaper - pick any two" say critics of NASA's current approach to scientific satellites. As proof, they point to the recent failed or impaired small science satellites: Lewis (failed shortly after reaching orbit), Clark (cancelled before leaving the ground), NEAR (trajectory altered due to engine shutdown) and WIRE (failure resulting in depletion of cryogen). Although the space industry has greatly increased their utilization of small satellites to conduct space activities, the question remains, Is Faster, Better, Cheaper (FBC) yielding a good return on investment? This paper takes a historical look at traditional science missions either flown or started before the FBC era and compares them with missions designed under this new paradigm using a variety of metrics such as development time, cost per mission, and a newly proposed cost-effectiveness metric. Risk is discussd in terms of the failure rates (both catastrophic and partial) of both mission sets as well. Conclusions are reached on the relative merit ofFBC and whether FBC is just a slogan or actually a new, valid approach for spacecraft design.
