FASTER, BETTER, CHEAPER REVISITED

The other day I found my notes from the conference “Low-cost Planetary Missions” at the Applied Physics Lab/Johns Hopkins University 12-15 April 1994. This conference was held at the height of the Faster, Better, Cheaper paradigm promulgated by NASA administrator Dan Goldin, still a very controversial figure in U.S. space history. I must admit I was smitten by Goldin’s speech at the conference. Despite all his shortcomings, and the disrepute into which the ‘faster, better, cheaper’ paradigm fell because of some spectacular Mars probe failures, I think Dan Goldin had some good ideas. I think the readers of this blog might enjoy my notes from this epoch in space history – 14 years ago. Here they are:

…Dan Goldin’s dinner speech 14 April 1994
NASA administrator Dan Goldin (picture on the right) gave a speech at the banquet in the evening of April 14.This man is brilliant!  If successful he will turn NASA and the whole space business upside down. When he entered the rostrum at the conference you could hear a pin drop. He took Kurt Cobain’s suicide as a starting point and how young people in the U.S. have nothing to look forward to, no vision: “Young people do not see the future in positive terms. They have a bleak attitude towards the future”. Then he asked what the space program can do to help and replied himself: “By seeking answers to the Big Questions about how the Universe, the Solar System and the planets were formed, why Earth looks like it does…” He continued: “America tries to change from an old survival mode (Cold War) to a new survival mode with a big investment in the future.”

Then he attacked all the old ways of doing business and that NASA must reduce its infrastructure. “The Space Race made cost irrelevant, politics caused NASA budgets to increase, but in the last 12 months NASA’s budget has been cut by 30%. People are always asking me: Why can’t we have more money for space science, or, why can’t we have more money for aeronautical research? My answer is: What program are you prepared to cancel?”, There are those who want to cling to the past – but the past is gone and forgotten. Also the NASA infrastructure is too big – it will have to collapse!

The space community must shape up! We have set a cost cap of 150 M$ for the Discovery-class missions to the solar system. Why is it that all proposals come in at precisely this figure? If we had set the cost cap at 100 M$ the proposals would have come in at that number! Shape Up!

And industry must also deliver what they promise; Industry scans the federal budget and spots a program costed at, say, 100 M$. How does industry think? Well, let’s quote 60 M$, win the contract and then recoup the remaining 40 M$ on changes! These old habits have to disappear! The key words for the future are:

• Accountability: If projects run over budget they will be canceled. I am looking forward to the first opportunity to cancel a project for this reason!
• Teamwork: The US does not have to do everything; we must work with other nations!
• Excellence: Our space missions must feed technology back to society.
• Relevance,..”

Panel debate on April 14: Miniaturization, Fact or Fiction? 
Mario Acuna (see picture on the right), NASA Goddard’s magnetometer-guru chaired this panel. Mario’s introductory remarks in short:

• “The real cost drivers in space science programs are often associated with the acceptable risk issue. What is the acceptable risk from a scientific or political point of view? You may say that the following formula applies:

Program Cost= AvailableDollars/AcceptableRisk

• Also, to cut costs the probability of the spacecraft failing catastrophically should not be lower than the probability for a catastrophic launch vehicle failure.
• Another cost driver is the fact that the actual work is messed up by the decision process – introduces delays that cost manpower. We should put more emphasis on the PRODUCT than on the PROCESS, but this is incompatible with current government procurement emphasis. We should de-emphasize the PROCESS, i.e. we should get rid of the lawyers!!!!!
• To comment Dr Huntress’ talk; is ‘high-tech’ really science-driven? Science is a great adapter of new technology, not a driver.
• Everybody talks about miniature instruments, but there is no miniature launch vehicle!
• We have to move from an adversary management of our space programs to a collaborative management style that we had in the past! …”

Chuck Carlson, Berkeley:
“… Laptop computers drive electronics miniaturization and that is where most of our progress in miniaturization can be made. We look at commercial devices and test them for SEU and SELs. The result is that FPGA:s (Field Programmable Gate Arrays) like Actel and Xilink replace discrete logic. An ideal technology for small satellites … ”

Roy Torbert, Univ of New Hampshire
“… FPGA crucial to our Cluster instrument. ‘Faster, cheaper .. but also MORE?? To be able to make the small satellite revolution a success you need more missions in the same way as mass production has made the laptop such a success … “

I hope you have enjoyed this look back into space history. We still battle with the same equation of costs, schedule, and reliability!

Sven Grahn