Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Bitten.robert
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Bitten.robert

13,965

Published on

Published in: Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
13,965
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Instrument First, Spacecraft Second: A New Mission Development Paradigm Bob Bitten, Eric Mahr The Aerospace Corporation Claude Freaner NASA Headquarters, Science Mission Directorate 2011 NASA Program Management Challenge Long Beach, California 9-10 February 2011Used with permission
  • 2. Executive Summary• 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 2
  • 3. Agenda • Background • Approach Overview • Individual Mission Simulation Results • Mission Portfolio Simulation Results • Considerations • Summary 3
  • 4. Background• Observations – >60% of missions experience developmental issues with the instrument – 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 – Missions in which the instruments were almost fully developed, such as QuikTOMS and QuikSCAT, were developed at minimal cost and on short development schedules while experiencing limited cost growth• 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 4
  • 5. Instrument Development Problems Account forLargest Contributor to Cost & Schedule Growth* Distribution of Internal Cost & Schedule Growth• Other Inst. Only Cost & Schedule growth data 14.8% 33.3% from 40 recently developed missions was investigated S/C Only 22.2% Both Inst & S/C• 63% of missions experienced 29.6% 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* As 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 5
  • 6. 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* As 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 6
  • 7. 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 7
  • 8. 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 8
  • 9. Case History: QuikSCAT• On November 19, 1997, NASA awarded the first rapid spacecraft delivery order to Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, CO for the delivery of QuikSCAT spacecraft – The satellite was the first obtained under NASAs Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity program for Rapid Spacecraft Delivery Office (RSDO) for rapid delivery of satellite core systems• QuikSCAT, NASA’s ocean-observing satellite mission, was rapidly developed to fill in the data gap between NSCAT on ADEOS-I and SeaWinds on ADEOS-II – A scatterometer nearly identical to SeaWinds was quickly assembled from NSCAT spare parts• QuikSCAT was launched on June 19, 1999 on a Delta II Demonstrates that a 2-year procurement and S/C development, when instruments are complete, is feasible 9
  • 10. Case History: QuikTOMS• In July 1999, NASA selected Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) to build, launch and operate the Quick Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (QuikTOMS) – The fifth TOMS instrument flight model 5 (TOMS FM-5) was complete – FM-5 was originally scheduled to fly as a cooperative mission with Russia in late 2000 but was delayed due to Russian funding issues, so it was decided to launch in August 2000 as a US free-flyer – Named QuikTOMS since the effort entailed the construction and launch of a spacecraft in less than two years as compared to traditional missions which take from three to five years• QuikTOMS was procured by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center’s (GSFC) Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) and was managed by the GSFC QuikTOMS Project Office – QuikTOMS, with the already built TOMS FM-5, was co-manifested as a secondary payload with Orbview 4 – Orbview 4, the primary payload, experienced integration and test difficulties, which caused a launch delay• QuikTOMS was launched on September 21, 2001 on a Taurus Demonstrates that a 2-year procurement and S/C development, when instruments are complete, is feasible From FY03 Budget Document, pg. SAT 3-86, dated Feb-02 10
  • 11. Agenda • Background • Approach Overview • Individual Mission Simulation Results • Mission Portfolio Simulation Results • Considerations • Summary 11
  • 12. 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 12
  • 13. 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 HyspIRI-like Development Cost Risk Analysis Results – $2.5• Cost to implement 3D-Winds GACM Case 1A, 1B & 2B (IFSS with 18 Month Offset) FY10$M SCLP Annual Funding Requirement (FY$10M) GRACE-II PATH LIST 100% ACE Tier 2 & 3 missions $2.0 GEO-CAPE SWOT ASCENDS 90% 80% Cumulative Probability HyspIRI CLARREO 70%• Time to launch all DESDynI-L DESDynI-R IceSat-2 60% $1.5 SMAP GPM 50% LDCM NPP 40% Tier 2 & 3 missions $1.0 Aquarius OCO-2 Glory Systematic Missions ESSP 30% 20% Probability of Instrument Delaying Project• Number of missions ES Multi-Mission • 96.7% for Case 1B no IFSS offset (9.8 month average delay) ES Technology 10% • 5.9% for Case 2B with 18 month offset Applied Sciences ES Research 0% FY11 PBR $0.5 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 launched by 2024 Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M)• Percent of Threshold $0.0 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Breach Reports 13
  • 14. IFSS Assessment Overview• Start with instrument resources – If no detailed instrument data can be found, then surrogates are used• Size spacecraft for orbit conditions and instrument resource requirements• Estimate the cost of the system• Lay out baseline plan• Phase cost over funding profile• Identify analogous instrument development times to use in simulation• Run the individual mission simulation• Fold the mission simulation results into the mission portfolio simulation 14
  • 15. Example Mission Data - HyspIRI Mission Overview * Note: As taken from page 3 of HyspIRI presentation at Earth Science Decadal Survey Symposium, Feb 2009 , http://decadal.gsfc.nasa.gov/Symposium-2-11-09.html 15
  • 16. Data Completeness Assessment• Given the desire to have representative (i.e., “-like”) missions, surrogate instruments used when actual data was not available Mission Parameters Instrument Parameters Mission Altitude Inclination Design Mass Power Data Rate Duty Cycle Type Tier 2 Life HySPIRI X X X X X X X X ASCENDS X X X P P P P X SWOT X X X P P X GEO-CAPE X X X P X ACE X X X X Tier 3 LIST X X X X X P X X PATH X X X X X X X X GRACE-II X X X X SCLP X X X X GACM X X X X 3D-Winds X X X X X X X X X = Yes P = Partial Blank = No 16
  • 17. Mission Concept Sizing• Using mission and instrument parameters, representative Tier 2 and Tier 3 designs were developed• Designs were developed using a Concurrent Engineering Methodology (CEM) model• CEM model is a spreadsheet spacecraft conceptual design and analysis tool – Sizing relationships generated using historical trend data • Include physics, rules-of-thumb, parametric relationships, and educated guesswork – Will not give an exact result, but provides representative designs “in the ballpark” 17
  • 18. Comparison of Tier 2 & 3 Mission Public Costs vs. Estimate Aerospace Public Cost* Mission Estimate Difference (FY10$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 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
  • 19. Agenda • Background • Approach Overview • Individual Mission Simulation Results • Mission Portfolio Simulation Results • Considerations • Summary 19
  • 20. Simple Schedule Analysis Simulation Framework Spacecraft Development Spacecraft Integration & Test SIR TRR System Integration Instrument Development Env. Test Typical Delivery With Pad Ops. Instrument Delay Instrument Integration & Test LaunchInstrument Development Delays Can Lead to Overall Schedule Delay 20
  • 21. 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 21
  • 22. Example of Spacecraft & Instrument Timelines• Basis of Triangular Schedule Distribution: – Low: Baseline Plan – Mode: Baseline Plan (S/C) and Average of Historical Analogies – High: Schedule Distributions (months) Maximum of Historical Analogies Spacecraf t ATP-TRR Instrument ATP-Delivery Spacecraft Instrument Distribution ATP-TRR ATP-Del Low 45.0 44.6 Most likely 45.0 53.4 High 57.0 66.3 } 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Mean 49.0 54.8 } 49 54.753 Differences in means will lead to S/C waiting for instrument delivery 22
  • 23. Comparison of Element Delivery Times –HyspIRI-like MissionSpacecraft 44 4 8 Current Plan Minimum VSWIR 40 13 16 Mean Maximum TIR 45 10 12 20 30 40 50 60 70 Months to DeliveryTIR instrument delivery time exceeds Spacecraft delivery time 23
  • 24. 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” 24
  • 25. 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 25
  • 26. HyspIRI-like Development Cost Risk Analysis Results –Case 1A & 1B FY10$M 100% Case 1A 90% Estimate without instrument issues 80% $459M Cumulative Probability 70% 60% Case 1B 50% Estimate with Instrument 40% difficulties $547M 30% 20% 10% 0% $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M) 26
  • 27. 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% $459M Cumulative Probability 70% 60% Case 2B Case 1B 50% Estimate with Estimate with Instrument Instrument 40% difficulties difficulties $466M $547M 30% 20% Probability of Instrument Delaying Project • 96.7% for Case 1B no IFSS offset (9.8 month average delay) 10% • 5.9% for Case 2B with 18 month offset 0% $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M) 27
  • 28. Summary of Simulation Results* "Actual" w/o "Actual" w/o Planned Percent Increase Mission IFSS IFSS Case 1A Case 1B Case 2B w/o IFSS w/IFSS HySPIRI-like $ 541 $ 654 $ 1,429 22.6% 8.4% ASCENDS-like $ 599 $ 882 $ 636 47.3% 6.2% SWOT-like $ 866 $ 933 $ 875 7.8% 1.1% GEO-CAPE-like $ 759 $ 1,129 $ 816 48.7% 7.6% ACE-like $ 1,318 $ 1,616 $ 1,429 22.6% 8.4% LIST-like $ 759 $ 1,093 $ 800 44.0% 5.4% PATH-like $ 480 $ 628 $ 505 30.8% 5.1% GRACE-II-like $ 313 $ 374 $ 325 19.4% 3.7% SCLP-like $ 635 $ 900 $ 681 41.7% 7.1% GACM-like $ 886 $ 1,333 $ 959 50.5% 8.2% 3D-Winds-like $ 900 $ 1,320 $ 952 46.6% 5.8% Total $ 8,056 $ 10,862 $ 8,557 34.8% 6.2%* Note: Cost values represent simulation mean mission total costIFSS Approach saves on the order of 30% compared to typical approach 28
  • 29. 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 29
  • 30. Agenda • Background • Approach Overview • Individual Mission Simulation Results • Mission Portfolio Simulation Results • Considerations • Summary 30
  • 31. 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 31
  • 32. 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 curves, $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 # of missions 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% complete, etc. – Assess Figures of Merit 8.5 10% 8 0% w/IFSS w/o IFSS w/IFSS w/o IFSS 32
  • 33. 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 33
  • 34. 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 34
  • 35. Mission Portfolio Example with IFSS $3.0 $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 35
  • 36. Mission Portfolio Example Without IFSS $3.0 $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 36
  • 37. Comparison of Mission Portfolio Results Cost to Implement ESDS Missions Time to Launch ESDS Missions $12.0 $11.1 2026Total Cost FY10$B $10.0 $9.1 2025 $8.0 2025 $6.0 2024.1 $4.0 2024 $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 70% 64.2% 10.1 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 37
  • 38. Agenda • Background • Approach Overview • Individual Mission Simulation Results • Mission Portfolio Simulation Results • Considerations • Summary 38
  • 39. IFSS Considerations• Typical IFSS “Offset” for instrument development is two years – Provides instruments with a two year head start prior to a three to four year mission development phase• For most instrument development efforts, this is after CDR but prior to full instrument integration – At this point, most instrument problems should be identified – Time remains to recover prior to delivery to spacecraft for system environmental test• Assumes that mission systems engineers and spacecraft vendors are involved at low level of effort to ensure mission requirements and spacecraft accommodations are considered• IFSS approach may not be suitable for all mission types – May not apply when spacecraft is integral to instrument 39
  • 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 40
  • 41. Agenda • Background • Approach Overview • Individual Mission Simulation Results • Mission Portfolio Simulation Results • Considerations • Summary 41
  • 42. 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 while providing additional benefits including: – Launching full set of ESDS missions a year sooner – Providing for an extra mission launched by 2024 – Decreasing the number of Threshold Breach instances from 64% to 12%• IFSS approach is enabled/enhanced given Rapid III Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) bus procurement approach – Availability of wide range of busses provides quick acquisition of required capability 42
  • 43. Questions?• Bob Bitten, NASA Advanced Projects, The Aerospace Corporation – robert.e.bitten@aero.org• Eric Mahr, Space Architecture Department, The Aerospace Corporation – eric.m.mahr@aero.org• Claude Freaner, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters – claude.freaner@nasa.gov 43

×