Bitten mahr freaner2submissionparadigm

Instrument First, Spacecraft Second: Implementing a New Paradigm Bob Bitten & Eric Mahr The Aerospace Corporation Claude Freaner NASA Headquarters, Science Mission Directorate 2012 NASA Program Management Challenge Orlando, Florida 22-23 February 2012© 2012 The Aerospace Corporation

Agenda • Executive Summary • Background • Assessment Overview and Results – Mission Savings – Portfolio Savings • Implementation Approaches – 7120.5 Compatibility – Schedule Guidance – Organizational Implementation Approaches • Summary & Discussion 2

Executive Summary – IFSS Benefits• Instrument development difficulties have been shown to be a significant contributor to overall mission cost and schedule growth• An approach that starts instrument development prior to mission development, entitled “Instrument First, Spacecraft Second” (IFSS), could potentially lead to a reduction in cost growth• An assessment of the IFSS approach was conducted looking at historical instrument development times to assess schedule variability at the mission level and its effect on a portfolio of missions• Applying IFSS approach to the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Earth Science Decadal Survey (ESDS) missions has the potential to save NASA several billion dollars while providing additional benefits including: – Launching full set of ESDS missions sooner – Increasing number of missions launched by a given date – Decreasing number of Threshold Breach instances 3

Executive Summary – Implementation Considerations• IFSS approach can be implemented within current NPD 7120.5 guidance – IFSS implementation approach would accommodate the spacecraft design/decision required by Mission PDR after Instrument CDR (iCDR)• Typical IFSS “Offset” for instrument development is two years – Mission schedule should be based on acquisition approach and instrument development type(s) and characteristics – Provides instruments with a two year head start prior to a three to four year mission development phase• Three implementation approaches identified, each with relative pros and cons – Assumes that mission systems engineers and spacecraft vendors are involved at low level of effort to ensure mission requirements and spacecraft accommodations are considered• Instrument Office approach may provide best balance with regard to mission dependency, cost, schedule and funding profile 4

Background• Observations – >60% of missions experience developmental issues with the instrument – Average instrument schedule growth from CDR to instrument delivery is 50% (7.5 months) – These issues lead to increased cost for other mission elements due to “Marching Army” cost – Recent missions such as ICESat, OCO & Cloudsat all had instrument development issues • Results show instrument cost growth influences total mission cost growth at 2:1 factor• Hypothesis – Developing instruments first and bringing them to an acceptable level of maturity prior to procuring the spacecraft and initiating ground system development could provide an overall cost reduction or minimize cost growth 6

Instrument Development Problems Account forLargest Contributor to Cost & Schedule Growth* Distribution of Internal Cost & Schedule Growth • Cost & Schedule growth data Other 14.8% Inst. Only 33.3% from 40 recently developed missions was investigated Both Inst S/C Only • 63% of missions experienced & S/C 29.6% 22.2% instrument problems leading to project Cost and Schedule growth 60% Cost & Schedule Growth Due to Technical Issues 51.3% 50% • Missions with Instrument Percent Growth 40% 34.6% Inst only S/C only technical problems experience 30% 24.1% Both 18.7% 17.4% a much larger percentage of 20% 9.3% Other 8.0% Cost & Schedule growth than 10% 4.7% missions with Spacecraft 0% Cost Schedule issues only* Taken from “Using Historical NASA Cost and Schedule Growth to Set Future Program and Project Reserve Guidelines”,Bitten R., Emmons D., Freaner C., IEEE Aerospace Conference, Big Sky, Montana, 3-10 March 2007 7

Historical NASA Data Indicates Payload Mass and Cost GrowthSignificantly Greater than Spacecraft Mass & Cost Growth 120% Average Percent Growth from Phase B Start Payload 101% 100% Spacecraft 80% 60% 60% 44% 40% 33% 20% 0% 1 1 Mass Cost Data Indicated Payload Resource has Greater Uncertainty than Spacecraft Note: 1) As measured from Current Best Estimate, not including reserves* Taken from “Inherent Optimism In Early Conceptual Designs and Its Effect On Cost and Schedule Growth: An Update”,Freaner C., Bitten R., Emmons D., 2010 NASA PM Challenge, Houston, Texas, 9-10 February 2010 8

Historical Instrument Schedule Growth* Distribution of Planned vs. Actual Instrument Schedule Growth Instrument Development Duration 100 > 60% < 0% 90 80 Actual Delivery Duration 14% 12% 70 60 50 30% 30% 4030% to 0 to 15% 30 60% 20 14% 10 0 15% to 0 20 40 60 80 100 30% Planned Delivery Duration Average Instrument Development Schedule Growth = 33% (10 months) * Based on historical data of 64 instruments with non-restricted launch window 9

Instrument Schedule Growth by Milestone* Average Actual vs. Planned Durations Average Actual vs. Planned Durations - by Milestone Growth 8 7.5 (49.7%) Development Time Growth Actual 9.1 10.9 22.6 7 6 5 (months) Planned 8.3 8.8 15.1 4 3 2.1 (24.7%) 0 10 20 30 40 50 2 0.8 (9.1%) 1 Duration (months) 0 Phase B - PDR PDR - CDR CDR - Delivery Phase B - PDR PDR - CDR CDR - Delivery A majority of the schedule growth (absolute and percent) occurs from CDR to delivery* Taken from “Instrument Schedule Delays Potential Impact on Mission Development Cost for Recent NASA Projects (Follow-onStudy)”, Kipp K., Ringler S., Chapman E., Rinard L., Freaner C., ISPA/SCEA Conference and Training Workshop, Albuquerque,New Mexico, 8-11 June 8, 2011 10

Instruments Schedule Planned vs. Actual Binned by Type* Average Phase B Start to Delivery Average CDR to Delivery 70 35 58 30 60 30 Development Time (months)Development Time (months) 25 50 46 25 41 21 39 40 36 35 37 20 18 18 16 29 28 29 15 30 15 13 11 20 10 9 Planned Planned 10 48 9 8 5 4 Actual 5 24 6 8 2 4 Actual 0 0 Instrument Type Instrument Type Largest schedule growth is experienced by Most of the schedule growth occurs from optical instruments CDR to Delivery # = number of instruments in each bin * Taken from “Instrument Schedule Delays Potential Impact on Mission Development Cost for Recent NASA Projects (Follow-on Study)”, Kipp K., Ringler S., Chapman E., Rinard L., Freaner C., ISPA/SCEA Conference and Training Workshop, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 8-11 June 8, 2011 11

Instrument Development Durations Binned by Type* Average Actual Durations by Milestone Average Actual Delivery Durations Active Optical 11.6 11.9 29.9 σ 24.8 X-ray 5.7 11.1 20.9 σ 1.2 Standard Mass Measurement 7.9 9.1 14.8 σ 5.7 deviations are for total schedule duration Passive Optical 9.4 10.8 25.0 σ 12.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Duration (months) Phase B - PDR PDR - CDR CDR - Delivery *Insufficient data for landed instruments Typical instrument durations by phase can be used by program and project managers as a sanity check during early planning of instrument delivery schedules* Taken from “Instrument Schedule Delays Potential Impact on Mission Development Cost for Recent NASA Projects (Follow-onStudy)”, Kipp K., Ringler S., Chapman E., Rinard L., Freaner C., ISPA/SCEA Conference and Training Workshop, Albuquerque,New Mexico, 8-11 June 8, 2011 12

Instruments Durations Binned by Spacecraft Destination* Average Phase B Start to Delivery Average Actual vs. Planned Development Time 60 54 Absolute Growth 16 14.7 (37%) 50 47 14Delivery Time (months) 40 Delivery Time (months) 40 36 38 36 12 11.0 (30%) 36 31 10 28 29 8.4 (30%) 8.8 (30%) 30 Planned 8 20 Actual 6 4.3 (14%) 6 16 6 50 8 4 10 2 0 0 Moon Planetary Comet/NEO Earth Lagrange Moon Planetary Comet/NEO Earth Lagrange Spacecraft Destination Spacecraft Destination Mission with constrained launch windows (i.e., missions to planetary bodies or comets/asteroids) have shorter development times and less schedule growth Results plot the average of all the instruments on a given spacecraft # = number of instruments in each bin * As taken from “Instrument Schedule Delays Potential Impact on Mission Development Cost for Recent NASA Projects (Follow-on Study)”, Kipp K., Ringler S., Chapman E., Rinard L., Freaner C., ISPA/SCEA Conference and Training Workshop, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 8-11 June 8, 2011 13

Cost* & Schedule Growth Examples Total Mission to Instrument Instrument Schedule Growth Cost Growth Ratio Planned to Actual Ratio 2.5 2.5 2.2 Mission to Instrument Cost Growth Ratio 2.2 2.0 2 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.3 1.0 1 0.5 0.5 0.0 0 OCO CloudSat ICESat OCO CloudSat ICESat Ratio of Mission Cost Growth to Instrument Cost Growth is on the order of 2:1* Note: Although it is understood that other factors contributed to the cost growth of these missions, it is believed that the instrument delivery delayswere the primary contributor 14

IFSS Development Approach Overview Historical Development Approach Spacecraft Development Marching Army Instrument Development Delay System I&T System I&T Plan Actual Instrument First, Spacecraft Second (IFSS) Approach IFSS Offset Spacecraft Development Instrument Development Delay System I&T 16

IFSS Assessment Approach Earth ScienceDecadal Survey ESDS-”like” Quad Charts Concept Sizing Baseline-”like” ICE Schedule Comparison HyspIRI-like Independent Cost Estimate Results Comparison of Element Delivery Times – HyspIRI-like Mission HyspIRI-like Design Summary FY10$M Mass (kg) Power (W) Payload 188.9 141.6 Cost in FY10$M Independent Propulsion 23.9 4.0 Category Estimate Spacecraft 44 4 8 ADCS 86.9 173.2 Mission PM/SE/MA $ 40.5 100.0% TT&C 76.2 153.2 Distribution As modeled mass of HyspIRI Payload PM/SE/MA $ 7.3 90.0% Sum of Modes C&DH 168.8 466.9 is within the launch capability VSWIR $ 91.0 80.0% 70th Percentile Minimum Cumulative Probability Thermal 29.0 69.3 of the Atlas V 401 70.0% TIR $ 54.7 VSWIR 40 13 16 Mean Power 198.5 N/A 60.0% LV capability = 7155 kg Spacecraft $ 94.4 Structure 193.0 0.0 MOS/GDS Development $ 29.8 50.0% Maximum Dry Mass 965.1 40.0% Wet Mass 1056.6 Development Reserves $ 103.0 30.0% EOL Power 1732.4 Total Development Cost $ 420.7 20.0% 10.0% TIR 45 10 12 BOL Power 1903.7 Phase E $ 24.2 0.0% Mass and power values include contingency Phase E Reserve $ 4.0 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Subsystem power values represent orbit average power E/PO $ 1.9 Estimated Cost (FY10$M) Launch System $ 130.0 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total Mission Cost $ 580.7 Months to Delivery Measures of Sand Chart Tool Effectiveness $3.0 IFSS Results Schedule Simulation $2.5• Cost to implement 3D-Winds 100% GACM SCLP Annual Funding Requirement (FY$10M) GRACE-II 90% PATH LIST 80% ACE Cumulative Probability Tier 2 & 3 missions $2.0 GEO-CAPE SWOT ASCENDS HyspIRI CLARREO 70% 60%• Time to launch all DESDynI-L DESDynI-R 50% $1.5 IceSat-2 SMAP GPM 40% LDCM NPP Tier 2 & 3 missions Aquarius 30% OCO-2 Glory 20% $1.0 Systematic Missions ESSP• Number of missions ES Multi-Mission 10% ES Technology Applied Sciences 0% ES Research FY11 PBR $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 $0.5 launched by 2024 Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M)• Percent of Threshold $0.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Breach Reports 17

Comparison of Tier 2 & 3 Mission Public Costs vs. Estimate Aerospace Public Cost* Mission Estimate Difference (FY10$M) (FY10$M) Tier 2 HySPIRI-like $ 433 $ 451 4.2% ASCENDS-like $ 455 $ 510 12.1% SWOT-like $ 652 $ 808 24.0% Tier 2 Missions GEO-CAPE-like $ 1,238 $ 677 -45.3% ACE-like $ 1,632 $ 1,285 -21.2% Tier 2 Total $ 4,409 $ 3,731 -15.4% Tier 3 LIST-like $ 523 $ 683 30.7% PATH-like $ 459 $ 387 -15.7% GRACE-II-like $ 454 $ 280 -38.3% Tier 3 Missions SCLP-like $ 449 $ 552 22.9% GACM-like $ 988 $ 830 -16.0% 3D-Winds-like $ 760 $ 856 12.6% Tier 3 Total $ 3,632 $ 3,587 -1.2% Total $ 8,042 $ 7,319 -9.0% Total Note: Costs are at the 70% confidence level and do not include launch vehicle cost * Taken from NASA Day 2 - Earth Science and the Decadal Survey Program, Slide 20 February 2009 and inflated to FY10$, http://decadal.gsfc.nasa.gov/Symposium-2-11-09.htmlResults indicate that estimates are representative 18

Simulation of IFSS Approach • If Instrument Dev + I&T to S/C > S/C Dev + System Integration Time – Add project marching army cost until instrument is complete Cost due to Instrument Delay System ATP to TRR } Instrument ATP to Integration • If S/C Dev + System Integration Time > Instrument Dev + I&T to S/C – Add instrument marching army cost after instrument is developed IFSS Offset System ATP to TRR } } Instrument ATP to Integration Cost of Early Instrument DeliveryInstrument Delays Much More Costly than Early Instrument Delivery due to Marching Army 19

Mission Simulation Overview• To test the potential impact of implementing an IFSS approach, an analysis was conducted using historical instrument development durations to simulate the development of a mission• A simulation was developed in which a Monte Carlo draw is made for both the spacecraft development duration and instrument development duration(s) to determine if the spacecraft will be ready for system testing prior to the instruments’ availability for integration to the spacecraft – Simulation provides a statistical distribution of potential outcomes allowing for an assessment of the benefit or penalty of different IFSS offsets• Two primary cases were studied – – Case 1: Baseline without any IFSS “offset” – Case 2: IFSS with an IFSS “offset” 20

Summary of Cases• Case 1A – Plan without IFSS – Normal NASA mission development which has concurrent instrument, spacecraft, and ground system development, with no unanticipated problems• Case 1B – “Actual” without IFSS using Historical Data – Baseline with historically representative technical difficulties• Case 2A – Plan with IFSS – “Instrument first" - development of instruments through successful CDR and environmental test of an engineering or protoflight model prior to initiation of spacecraft and ground system development, with no unanticipated problems• Case 2B – “Actual” with IFSS using Historical Data – “Instrument first" with historically representative technical difficulties 21

HyspIRI-Like Development Cost Risk Analysis Results –Case 1A, 1B & 2B (IFSS with 18 Month Offset) FY10$M 100% Case 1A 90% Estimate without instrument issues 80% Cumulative Probability $430M 70% 60% Case 1B Case 2B Estimate with Estimate with 50% Instrument Instrument 40% difficulties difficulties $436M $545M 30% 20% Probability of Instrument Delaying Project • 99.9% for Case 1B no IFSS offset (12.4 month average delay) 10% • 12.2% for Case 2B with 18 month offset (0.3 month average delay) 0% $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M) 22

Summary of Simulation Results* "Actual" w/o "Actual" with Planned Percent Increase Mission IFSS IFSS Case 1A Case 1B Case 2B w/o IFSS w/IFSS HySPIRI-like $ 541 $ 653 $ 556 20.7% 2.8% ASCENDS-like $ 599 $ 882 $ 636 47.2% 6.2% SWOT-like $ 866 $ 1,038 $ 880 19.9% 1.6% GEO-CAPE-like $ 759 $ 1,129 $ 816 48.7% 7.5% ACE-like $ 1,318 $ 1,663 $ 1,360 26.2% 3.2% LIST-like $ 759 $ 1,093 $ 800 44.0% 5.4% PATH-like $ 480 $ 628 $ 505 30.8% 5.2% GRACE-II-like $ 313 $ 374 $ 325 19.5% 3.8% SCLP-like $ 635 $ 900 $ 681 41.7% 7.2% GACM-like $ 886 $ 1,333 $ 959 50.5% 8.2% 3D-Winds-like $ 900 $ 1,320 $ 952 46.7% 5.8% Total $ 8,056 $ 11,013 $ 8,470 36.0% 5.2%* Note: Cost values represent simulation mean mission total cost including launch vehicleIFSS Approach saves on the order of 30% compared to typical approach 23

Mean of Simulation Data is Consistent with Actual EarthScience Mission Cost & Schedule Growth Histories 160% 140% 120% Actual Mission Growth Development Cost Growth Simulation Data 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Development Schedule Growth 24

Mission Portfolio Assessment Approach• Mission Portfolio Assessment – The Tier 2 and Tier 3 mission simulation results were entered into a mission portfolio simulation entitled the Sand Chart Tool – The Sand Chart Tool assesses the affect of mission cost and schedule growth on the other missions within the portfolio – The interaction creates a domino effect for all subsequent missions• Simulation Assesses Portfolio with and without IFSS – Baseline Without IFSS Case • Case 1B (i.e. baseline with historical instrument problems) is used to adjust mean and standard deviation and results are propagated through model – With IFSS Case • Case 2B (i.e. IFSS approach with historical instrument problems) mean and standard deviation is used as input and simulation is run again 25

Strategic Analysis Tool Needed to Support Long Term Decision Making Process – Sand Chart Tool (SCT) 100% 90% 80% Cumulative Probability 70% Input: 60% 50% 40% baseline • The Sand Chart Tool is a probabilistic simulation of budgets and costs 30% 20% 10% plan, cost – Simulates a program’s strategic response 0% $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M) $800 $900 likelihood curves to internal or external events • Algorithms are derived from historical $3.0 data and experiences $2.5 3D-Winds – Long-term program/portfolio analysis – Perform GACM SCLP GRACE-II PATH LIST 10-20 years Annual Funding Requirement ACE $2.0 GEO-CAPE SWOT Monte Carlo ASCENDS HyspIRI CLARREO DESDynI-L DESDynI-R $1.5 IceSat-2 SMAP GPM probabilistic LDCM NPP Aquarius OCO-2 Glory $1.0 Systematic Missions ESSP ES Multi-Mission analysis $0.5 ES Technology Applied Sciences ES Research FY11 PBR $0.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Cost to Implement ESDS Missions Time to Launch ESDS Missions Output: $12.0 $11.1 2026 Total Cost FY10$B $10.0 $9.1 2025 $8.0 2025 schedule $6.0 2024.1 $4.0 2024 $2.0• likelihood $0.0 2023 w/IFSS w/o IFSS w/IFSS w/o IFSS Quantitative results to support strategic decisions Number of Missions Launched by 2024 Percent Threshold Breach Reports curves, # of 11 70% 64.2% 10.5 60% 10.1 – Changes in mission launch dates to fit new program 10 50% 40% 9.5 9 8.9 30% 20% 11.8% missions – Assess Figures of Merit 8.5 10% 8 w/IFSS w/o IFSS 0% w/IFSS w/o IFSS complete, etc. 26

Sand Chart Tool will Assess Domino Effect for Other Projects in Program Portfolio Planned Funding = $690M Actual Funding History = $715M$200 $200 Mission #4 Mission #4$150 Mission #3 $150 Mission #3 Mission #2 Mission #2$100 Mission #1 $100 Mission #1 $50 $50 $0 $0 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Although the total program funding remained consistent over this time period, implementation of successive missions were substantially affected Portfolio effect adds cost due to inefficiencies of starting & delaying projects 27

IFSS SCT Measures of Effectiveness • Equal Content, Variable Cost – Cost to implement all Tier 2 and Tier 3 ESDS Missions • Equal Content, Variable Time – Time to launch all Tier 2 and Tier 3 ESDS Missions • Equal Time, Variable Content – Number of Tier 2 & Tier 3 ESDS Missions launched by 2024 • Program Volatility – Percentage of time that missions exceed the 15% cost growth or 6-month schedule growth threshold breach requirement** Note: Of the 11 SMD missions under breach reporting requirements in FY08, 10 missions had experienced a breach 28

Mission Portfolio Example with IFSS $3.0 Results are a snapshot in time based on data as of May 2010 $2.5 3D-Winds Funding Available GACM SCLP for Future GRACE-II PATH Tier 2 & 3 Missions LISTAnnual Funding Requirement $2.0 ACE Missions GEO-CAPE SWOT ASCENDS HyspIRI CLARREO DESDynI-L Tier 1 DESDynI-R $1.5 IceSat-2 Missions SMAP GPM Existing Tier I Missions LDCM NPP Existing Aquarius Missions OCO-2 Missions Glory $1.0 Systematic Missions ESSP ES Multi-Mission Continuing ES Technology Applied Sciences Elements ES Research FY11 PBR $0.5 Continuing Activities $0.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 29

Mission Portfolio Example Without IFSS $3.0 Results are a snapshot in time based on data as of May 2010 $2.5 Less Funding 3D-Winds GACM SCLP Available forAnnual Funding Requirement GRACE-II PATH Tier 2 & 3 Future Missions LIST ACE Missions $2.0 GEO-CAPE SWOT ASCENDS HyspIRI CLARREO DESDynI-L Tier 1 DESDynI-R $1.5 IceSat-2 Missions SMAP GPM Existing Tier I Missions LDCM NPP Existing Aquarius Missions Missions OCO-2 Glory $1.0 Systematic Missions ESSP ES Multi-Mission Continuing ES Technology Applied Sciences Elements ES Research FY11 PBR $0.5 Continuing Activities $0.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Domino Effect is much greater leading to more inefficiencies & less funding available for future missions 30

Comparison of Mission Portfolio Results Cost to Implement ESDS Missions Time to Launch ESDS Missions $14.0 2026 $11.7Total Cost FY10$B $12.0 $9.1 2025 $10.0 2025 $8.0 $6.0 2024.1 2024 $4.0 $2.0 $0.0 2023 w/IFSS w/o IFSS w/IFSS w/o IFSS Number of Missions Launched by 2024 Percent Threshold Breach Reports 12 65.2% 10.1 70% 10 8.9 60% 8 50% 40% 6 30% 4 20% 11.8% 2 10% 0 0% w/IFSS w/o IFSS w/IFSS w/o IFSS IFSS Provides Better Results for Each Metric Assessed 31

Traditional Approach versus IFSS Approach Approach Pros Cons -Typical project development that is -Potential for standing army costs the current paradigm waiting for instruments to be delivered -Complete project staff available to to Integration and Test (I&T)Traditional work any issues/questions in early development -Focus early resources on -Change from known and understood development of instruments to mitigate development environment delays in I&T -Reduced personnel for interactionIFSS -Various approaches exist that can be with instrument developers to trade tailored to mission and instrument spacecraft design choices in early development requirements development 33

IFSS Implementation Considerations• NPR 7120.5X policy considerations – Does 7120.5 need to be modified to implement an IFSS approach?• IFSS Implementation Guidance – What is best way to structure an IFSS acquisition?• Organizational implications – What is the best organization to implement an IFSS approach? 34

7120.5X* Considerations* Note: NASA Project Lifecycle, Figure 2-4, NPR 7120.5D, March 2007Current/proposed 7120.5 procurement process does not preclude IFSS approach 35

Project Plan Control Plan Maturity Matrix** Note: Project Plan Control Plan Maturity Matrix, Table 4-4, NPR 7120.5D, March 2007Spacecraft design/procurement approach must be in place by Project KDP-C 36

7120.5X Initial Observations Relative to IFSS • Project guidelines require complete project plan prior to Mission Confirmation (KDP-C) – Spacecraft would have to be chosen/preliminary design complete prior to KDP-C which makes sense from a mission perspective • This requirement doesn’t preclude an IFSS approach – Instrument could still be developed at a heightened level of maturity prior to KDP-C – Individual Projects can make decision to use IFSS approach • Modification to 7120.5X would not be necessary – Separately Identify “IFSS Acquisition Approach” guidance – Institute requirement for “demonstrated instrument maturity” and provide guidelines for maturity demonstration • Example - engineering model demonstrated in relevant environment 37

IFSS Approach Schedule Guidance• Development schedule for a mission can be based on historical duration and variance of instrument development duration to stagger instrument procurement and spacecraft procurement• Mean and variance of instrument development durations can be identified by instrument type• Identify unique characteristics/challenges of instrument development• Lay out specific instrument development plan• Compare with spacecraft development durations• For Instrument Office approach, instrument handoff would occur after instrument CDR, after engineering models are developed and tested • Specific guidelines for passing instrument CDR to be developed • Instrument CDR to occur prior to KDP-B decision 38

Example Development of an IFSS Schedule Spacecraft 44 4 8 Minimum VSWIR 40 13 16 Mean Maximum Schedule Distributions (months) TIR 45 10 12 Spacecraf t ATP-TRR Instrument ATP-Delivery 20 30 40 50 60 70 Months to Delivery Assessment of Historical Development Times Leads to Guidance for IFSS Offset Distribution Low Most likely 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 High 74 75 76 72 73 77VSWIR 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 MeanTIRSpacecraftI&TLaunch ∆ KDP-A ∆ KDP-B ∆ KDP-C ∆ KDP-D ∆ Launch ∆ PDR ∆ CDR ∆ SIR ∆ PSR ∆ iPDR ∆ iCDR ∆ iSIR ∆ iPSR Instrument Handoff Offset of 18 months includes instrument handoff at instrument CDR prior to mission KDP-B 39

Summary of IFSS Offsets and Relative Savings* "Actual" w/o "Actual" with Instrument Percent Mission IFSS IFSS Offset (Months) Savings Case 1B Case 2B HySPIRI-like 18 15% $ 653 $ 556 ASCENDS-like 24 28% $ 882 $ 636 SWOT-like 18 15% $ 1,038 $ 880 GEO-CAPE-like 24 28% $ 1,129 $ 816 ACE-like 18 18% $ 1,663 $ 1,360 LIST-like 24 27% $ 1,093 $ 800 PATH-like 24 20% $ 628 $ 505 GRACE-II-like 12 13% $ 374 $ 325 SCLP-like 24 24% $ 900 $ 681 GACM-like 24 28% $ 1,333 $ 959 3D-Winds-like 24 28% $ 1,320 $ 952* Note: Cost values represent simulation mean mission total cost including launch vehicleTypical offset is on the order of 24 months 40

Rapid III Procurement* Can Provide Reliable Spacecraftwith Known Performance within 20 to 36 Months Spacecraft Spacecraft Spacecraft Comm Core Payload Payload Pointing System Vendors Delivery Lifetime Dry Mass Sys Spacecraft Mass (kg) Power (W) Accuracy Redundancy (Mos.) (Yrs) (kg) Band (Arcsec) Ball Aerospace BCP 2000 36 5 450 500 400 10.5 S, X Fully GD 300S 26 2 265 65 125 360 S, X Selective General Dynamics GD 300HP 30 5 1107 3115 775 360 S, Ku Selective Lockheed Martin LMx 26 3 426 460 427 130 S Fully Northrop Grumman EAGLE-0 22 1 471 86 100 360 S Selective Orbital Sciences Corp LEOStar-2 32 5 938 500 850 48 S Fully SSTL 150 22 7 103 50 50 36 S Selective Surrey Space Technologies – SSTL 300 28 7 218 150 140 360 S Selective U.S. SSTL 600 28 4 429 200 386 605 S, X Selective Thales Alenia Space France Proteus 20 5 261 300 300 72 S Selective Thales Alenia Space Italy Prima 29 7 1032 1138 1100 36 S Selective Overall Summary 20 - 36 1-7 103-1107 50 - 3115 50 - 1100 10.5 - 605 S, X, Ku Selective, Fully * Note: As taken from Rapid III Spacecraft Summary, posted April 1, 2010, http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/Rapid-III.html Typical 2-3 year procurement for spacecraft plus additional year for testing plus 2 year IFSS offset equates to 5 to 6 year total mission development time 41

IFSS Organizational Approaches Alternative #1 Instrument Decreasing Mission Dependence Mission Project Office Spacecraft Decadal Survey Alternative #2 Instrument Science InstrumentRequirements Office Spacecraft Alternative #3 Instrument Stand-Alone Instrument Spacecraft 42

Procurement Approaches• Alternative #1: Mission Project Office Approach – Directed mission awarded to Center – Project determines acquisition approach • Project would determine if IFSS approach is best suited• Alternative #2: Instrument Office Approach – Decadal Survey to Instrument Office to Mission – Handoff at instrument CDR to Mission• Alternative #3: Stand-Alone Instrument – Competed instrument awarded to supplier – Spacecraft “ride” undetermined 43

IFSS Implementation Alternative #1: Mission ProjectOffice Approach• The concept of an Mission Approach is to keep the look and feel of a typical project development while allowing for the early development of missions – Focus management on instrument development – Provide typical flight project functions at reduced staffing for all elements except instrument developers – Conduct trade studies/sensitivities analysis to understand impact of instrument design choices on overall mission architecture 44

IFSS Implementation Alternative #1: Mission Approach PROJECT OFFICE SYSTEMS BUSINESS ENGINEERING SAFETY & MISSION ASSURANCE FLIGHT SEGMENT MISSION MISSION DESIGN LAUNCH SERVICES PAYLOAD OPERATIONS Not fully staffed until Instruments are matured INSTRUMENT 1 INSTRUMENT 2 INSTRUMENT ~ 45

IFSS Implementation Alternative #1: Mission Approach• Mission Function (Groups) – Project Office Management: Overall management of the project. Both inside and outside management interfaces. Office consists of a small staff including Project Manager and Deputies. Responsible for facilitating international collaborations. – Payload Office: Day-to-day oversight of instrument development. Interface between the instrument developers and the other project elements and also amongst the various developers. – Systems Engineering: Provides the normal external systems engineering functions for the project. Each instrument performs its development functions under the management of the payload office and interfaces with the systems engineering function to discuss the impact of design choices on the overall project (e.g., spacecraft complexity, mission design, operational complexity). Access to the Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) would be handled from this group. – Business Office: Provides typical procurement/contracting and business functions for the project. – Other Element Offices: Represented by small teams to support trade studies/sensitivity analyses as instruments mature in development. Possibly not complete offices early in development and work out of systems engineering. 46

ICESat-2 Schedule has iCDR after KDP-C* Taken from ICESat-2 website, http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat2/schedule.php, September 22, 2011Reprinted courtesy of NASA 47

IFSS Implementation Alternative #2: Instrument ProgramOffice• The concept of an Instrument Office (IO) is to allow the development of science instruments outside of a classical flight project environment – Provide some of the functions of a typical flight project but without the encumbrances and size of a normal flight project – Manage and be responsible for each instrument development – Provide resources for items such as potential spacecraft and launch vehicle interfaces 48

IFSS Implementation Alternative #2: Instrument ProgramOffice INSTRUMENT OFFICE SHARED SYSTEMS RSDO RESOURCES/BUSINESS ENGINEERING LAUNCH SERVICES INSTRUMENT 1 INSTRUMENT 2 INSTRUMENT ~ 49

IFSS Implementation Alternative #2: Instrument ProgramOffice• Instrument Office Functions (Groups) – Instrument Office Management: Overall management of the office. Both inside and outside management interfaces. Consists of a small staff consisting of a Manager, Deputy and clerical support. – Systems Engineering: While each instrument performs its unique systems engineering trades and analyses, this office-level activity provides the systems engineering functions which are not instrument-unique. For example: what launch vehicles may be appropriate. If international relationships are needed for collaborations, they are worked from within this part of the office. Access to the Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) would be handled from this group. – Shared Resource/Business Group: Provides typical procurement/contracting and business functions for each instrument. These would include procurements, configuration management, SR/QA and computer/ADP support. 50

IFSS Implementation Alternative #3: Stand-AloneInstrument • The concept of a Stand-Alone Instrument Announcement of Opportunity (AO) is to competitively select instruments for development – Leverage Instrument Incubator Program (IIP) to make instruments selection ready* – Management of instrument development is under the direction of PIs* – Flight selection can be one of multiple opportunities: free-flyer (domestic and international), combination of complimentary instruments to comprise full mission* – Currently being used for Earth Venture-Instrument acquisition • Typically used for smaller, more resource constrained instruments* Taken from “New Mission Development Model for Earth Science”, Hartley P., Pasciuto M., ESTO white paper, 11/29/2007 51

IFSS Implementation Alternative #3: Stand-AloneInstrument PROGRAM OFFICE SYSTEMS BUSINESS ENGINEERING SAFETY & MISSION ASSURANCE DEVELOPMENTAL OPERATIONAL STAND-ALONE MISSIONS MISSIONS INSTRUMENTS INSTRUMENT 1 INSTRUMENT 2 INSTRUMENT ~ 52

Implementation Approach Comparison Approach Pros Cons Decreasing Mission Dependence -Looks and feels like typical project -Inability to develop integrated mission -Staff available from all subject matter areas baseline (cost, schedule, etc.) early on to support work on development issues -Standing army for other project #1: Mission -Reduced initial staffing relative to elements that aren’t necessary to traditional mission approach directly support instrument development -Avoids large staffing associated with a -Being removed from a flight project flight project when only instrument could provide the chance for development is going on unanticipated problems later -Provides a core group with instrument- -Would need to guard against specific expertise and focus instrument “ overdevelopment” to #2: Instrument PO -Provides efficiency as some functions such ensure that mission requirements are as CM and scheduling may be used regularly met without building “ gold-plated” whereas some functions such as the RSDO instrument interface may be very infrequently used -Competitive process allows “ best” science -M ay result in instruments without a to be selected within program constraints launch opportunity - i.e. “ hanger #3: Stand-Alone -Allows multiple possible launch queens” Instrument opportunities -Can increase risk as is decoupled from institutional instrument expertise and mission & spacecraft requirements 53

Comparison of Funding for Different Approaches $180 Anual Funding Requirement ($M) $160 $140 #1 Mission $120 Office $100 #2 Instrument $80 Office $60 #3 Stand-Alone Instrument $40 $20 $- Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9Instrument Office provides best balance for cost, schedule and funding profile 54

Summary• Historically, instrument development difficulties have been shown to be a significant contributor to overall mission cost and schedule growth• An approach that starts instrument development prior to mission development, entitled “Instrument First, Spacecraft Second” (IFSS), could potentially lead to a reduction in cost growth• Applying IFSS approach to the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Earth Science Decadal Survey (ESDS) missions has the potential to save NASA on the order of $2B• IFSS approach can be implemented within current NPD 7120.5 guidance• Mission schedule should be based on acquisition approach and instrument development type(s) and characteristics• Three implementation approaches identified, each with relative pros and cons – Instrument Office approach may provide best overall balance 56

Back-Up 57

Alternative #1: Mission Office Funding Profile Detail $180 $160 Annual Funding Requirement ($M) $140 Launch Vehicle $120 Reserves $100 MOS/GDS $80 Spacecraft/I&T $60 Payload $40 PM/SE/MA $20 $- Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 58

Alternative #2: Instrument Office Funding Profile Detail $180 $160 Annual Funding Requirement ($M) $140 Launch Vehicle $120 Reserves $100 MOS/GDS $80 Spacecraft/I&T $60 Payload $40 PM/SE/MA $20 $- Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 59

Alternative #3: Stand-Alone Inst. Funding Profile Detail $180 Annual Funding Requirement ($M) $160 $140 $120 Launch Vehicle $100 Reserves MOS/GDS $80 Spacecraft/I&T $60 Payload $40 PM/SE/MA $20 $- Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 60

Bitten mahr freaner2submissionparadigm

by NASAPMC on Mar 02, 2012

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Usage Rights

Statistics

Bitten mahr freaner2submissionparadigm Presentation Transcript