A complexity-based risk assessment of low-cost planetary missions: when is a mission too fast and too cheap?

Under constrained budgets and rigid schedules, NASA and industry have greatly increased their utilization of small satellites to conduct low-cost planetary investigations. Recent failed small planetary science spacecraft such as Mars Polar Lander (MPL) and Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO), and impaired missions such as Mars Global Surveyor (MGS) have fueled the ongoing debate on whether NASA's “Faster, Better, Cheaper” (FBC) approach is working. Several noteworthy failures of earth-orbiting missions have occurred as well including Lewis and the Wide-field Infrared Experiment (WIRE). While recent studies have observed that FBC has resulted in lower costs and shorter development times, these benefits may have been achieved at the expense of lowering probability of success. One question remaining to be answered is when is a mission “too fast and too cheap” that it is prone to failure? This paper assesses NASA FBC missions in terms of a complexity index measured against development time and spacecraft cost. A comparison of relative failure rates of recent planetary and earth-orbiting missions are presented, and conclusions regarding dependence on system complexity are drawn.