XPost: sci.space.policy, sci.physics   
   From: jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca   
      
   On 2017-08-20 06:23, Rob wrote:   
      
   > The main reason they get expensive is that it is made sure and checked   
   > many times that there can be no likely failures that makes them stop   
   > working too soon, under the extreme conditions they operate in.   
   >   
   > This not only includes the design and manufacturing, but also a   
   > simulation environment and team of highly qualified people on the   
   > ground that prepare and discuss every command sent up, and all possible   
   > solutions for problems that have occurred (e.g. getting stuck).   
      
   But for such a project, is NASA bloated or considered fairly efficient?   
   I note that these rovers are usually done at JPL, not at the main "pork"   
   locations in Florida, Houston, new Orleans.   
      
   Since they don't involve human lives, are the projects far more   
   efficient and less bogged down in endless paperwork and change   
   manegement procedures?   
      
   Since these projects generally don't involve the large donors to   
   political parties (Boeing, Lockheed etc), would they fly under the radar   
   and be allowed to be very efficient for what they do?   
   (or are those donors involved with the rovers too?)   
      
   Note that satellites are commercially built and must widthstand space   
   weather and harsh temperatures too. (but not dust).   
      
   > The actual parts that make up the rover cover only a small fraction   
   > of the total costs of design and operation.  This is of course true   
   > for many one-of designs, not only in space.   
      
   The R&D to create those parts is likely quite expensive though as the   
   part must not only handle wide range of temperatures, but also be   
   extremely light.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)