4 ms·

Blame doesn't matter. All that matters for money is "who accepted the risk". In a lot of contracts, the buyer lists the tests the object needs to pass prior to

Blame doesn't matter. All that matters for money is "who accepted the risk". In a lot of contracts, the buyer lists the tests the object needs to pass prior to acceptance. Then there will be a chunk of money attached to passing that. If it fails, then they don't get paid (that chunk). After that, there may be more negotiation into who pays for the rework, but that's also typically in the contract. Usually the acceptance payment can be a large fraction of the total contract (30-50%). The same thing is done in just about every contract with a vendor. Even house renovations. I typically leave 30% riding on the final inspection passing.

cbanek 8y ago
Money is one factor, but so is time. A lot of these kinds of parts like heat shields and expensive instruments are effectively one-offs, where there may be 1, 2 or 3 of them made, and usually the test articles aren't fit for flight because they determine defects that are later fixed in the one that flies. There are certain launch windows for Mars where Earth and Mars are closer together [1] that you really need to be ready for. If you miss it, you might have to wait 2 more years for the next window. Sometimes you can't get the necessary refit time no matter how much money you spend. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Launch_windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Launch_win...
kodablah 8y ago
> All that matters for money is "who accepted the risk". In a lot of contracts [...] Right. I'm asking what is the case here.
- jpollock 8y ago
  https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/results-of-heat-shield-testing https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/results-of-heat-shield-test... "The structure was originally tested in 2008 and was one of two heat shields manufactured in support of the Mars Science Laboratory mission, which successfully landed the Curiosity rover on Mars in August 2012." It was a spare from a previous mission. I would expect the risk was Nasa's, and they are only out the cost of testing.

cbanek 8y ago

Money is one factor, but so is time. A lot of these kinds of parts like heat shields and expensive instruments are effectively one-offs, where there may be 1, 2 or 3 of them made, and usually the test articles aren't fit for flight because they determine defects that are later fixed in the one that flies. There are certain launch windows for Mars where Earth and Mars are closer together [1] that you really need to be ready for. If you miss it, you might have to wait 2 more years for the next window. Sometimes you can't get the necessary refit time no matter how much money you spend. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Launch_windows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exploration_of_Mars#Launch_win...

kodablah 8y ago

> All that matters for money is "who accepted the risk". In a lot of contracts [...] Right. I'm asking what is the case here.

jpollock 8y ago
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/results-of-heat-shield-testing https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/results-of-heat-shield-test... "The structure was originally tested in 2008 and was one of two heat shields manufactured in support of the Mars Science Laboratory mission, which successfully landed the Curiosity rover on Mars in August 2012." It was a spare from a previous mission. I would expect the risk was Nasa's, and they are only out the cost of testing.