tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post269654382350403396..comments2024-01-03T20:28:17.727-08:00Comments on Future Planetary Exploration: Balancing Risk in Planetary Mission RoadmpaVan Kanehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14227978868817989527noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-270899075443508100.post-64491214093920455282009-03-09T09:39:00.000-07:002009-03-09T09:39:00.000-07:00From what I hear from friends who've been involved...From what I hear from friends who've been involved with "Big Science" projects, the trouble is different from the one industry has. In my own high-tech career, we often made estimates that were too optimistic, but those were honest estimates; we genuinely thought we could do what we originally promised to do. As you say, with age we didn't learn to estimate much better -- we just learned to double our estimates.<BR/><BR/>But with Big Science projects, according to what several people have told me, you don't double your estimate; you cut it in half. The reason is that everyone else does it too, and if you don't, then you won't get funded at all. As Alan Stern says, there's no real penalty for being overbudget, so honesty is punished.<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure how you make a strong distinction between an honest but over-optimistic estimate and a dishonest one, but, in my view, anyone deliberately making a dishonest estimate ought to be indicted -- not just denied future contracts.<BR/><BR/>But if there's any truth to what I've been told (and I've heard it from three unrelated people now), then I think there's quite a lot the Administration could do to clean these things up.<BR/><BR/>--GregGreg Hullenderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16720604327299886491noreply@blogger.com