3. 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
4. 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
6. 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
7. Instrument Development Problems Account for
Largest 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
8. Historical NASA Data Indicates Payload Mass and Cost Growth
Significantly 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
9. 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% 40
30% 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
10. 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-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
10
11. 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
12. 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-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
12
13. 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
14
Delivery 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
14. 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 delays
were the primary contributor
14
16. 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
17. IFSS Assessment Approach
Earth Science
Decadal 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 $0.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Breach Reports
17
18. Comparison of Tier 2 & 3 Mission Public Costs vs. Estimate
Aerospace
Public Cost*
Mission Estimate Difference
(FY10$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 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.html
Results indicate that estimates are representative
18
19. 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 Delivery
Instrument Delays Much More Costly than Early Instrument Delivery due to Marching Army
19
20. 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
21. 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
22. 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
24. Mean of Simulation Data is Consistent with Actual Earth
Science 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
25. 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
26. 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
27. 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
28. 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
29. 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 LIST
Annual 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
30. 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 for
Annual 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
31. Comparison of Mission Portfolio Results
Cost to Implement ESDS Missions Time to Launch ESDS Missions
$14.0 2026
$11.7
Total Cost FY10$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
33. 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 interaction
IFSS -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
34. 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
35. 7120.5X* Considerations
* Note: NASA Project Lifecycle, Figure 2-4, NPR 7120.5D, March 2007
Current/proposed 7120.5 procurement process does not preclude IFSS approach
35
36. Project Plan Control Plan Maturity Matrix*
* Note: Project Plan Control Plan Maturity Matrix, Table 4-4, NPR 7120.5D, March 2007
Spacecraft design/procurement approach must be in place by Project KDP-C
36
37. 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
38. 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
39. 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 77
VSWIR 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Mean
TIR
Spacecraft
I&T
Launch
∆ 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
40. 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 vehicle
Typical offset is on the order of 24 months
40
