Phase E Cost Growth StudyRobert Bitten, Marc Hayhurst, Debra Emmons,The Aerospace CorporationClaude Freaner, Voleak RoeumN...
Outline    •   Introduction    •   Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set        – Changes by Phase        – Change...
Introduction  •   Abstract      – Phase E is the payoff for the long awaited development of NASA science        missions a...
Outline    •   Introduction    •   Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set        – Changes by Phase        – Change...
20 Mission Detailed Phase E Database* for Cost Growth   Assessment                                          Launch        ...
All Missions Phase E Growth Relative to KDP-B Plan                                                                        ...
Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth by Phase  50%                                            45%                            ...
Comparison of Growth from KDP-B Plan for Competed vs.Directed Missions                                            60%     ...
Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch Plan              Percent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launc...
Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch Plan              Percent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launc...
Prime Mission Annual Cost Growth Example                                                                   Venus Flyby    ...
Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch Plan              Percent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launc...
Missions Lifetime for Study Data Set                                                                               Planned...
Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch Plan               Percent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Laun...
Comparison of Annual Cost - Prime vs. Extended Missions               Average Phase E FY Cost (FY11$M) for Prime and Exten...
Extended Mission Cost Growth Due to Anomaly                                                     Cloudsat FY11 Operations  ...
Potential Reasons for Phase E Cost Growth•   Phase E cost estimates for Competed missions may be optimistic     – Competed...
Summary of Phase E Cost Growth for 20 Mission Data Set•   Prime Mission Observations     – Phase E cost projections, on av...
Outline    •   Introduction    •   Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set        – Changes by Phase        – Change...
46 Mission Data Set*                     Launch                Mission    Instru-                               Launch    ...
Summary of Phase E Cost vs. Mission Class                                                 Phase E Cost per Mission Class  ...
Average Number of Instruments for Flagship vs. Non-Flagship Missions                                                   Ave...
Summary of Phase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions                                             Phase E Cost for Non-Flagshi...
Observations for Phase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions•   Astrophysics missions are most costly on a per instrument basis...
Summary of Phase E Cost for Flagship Missions                                               Phase E Cost for Flagship Miss...
Observations for Phase E Cost for Flagship Missions•   Trends are similar to non-Flagship mission sets as Astrophysics &  ...
Ratio of Phase E Cost for Flagship vs. Non-FlagshipMissions                                                  Ratio of Phas...
Summary of Phase E Cost Growth for 46 Mission Data Set•   As expected, larger missions have greater annual Phase E cost an...
Outline    •   Introduction    •   Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set        – Changes by Phase        – Change...
Study Summary•   Phase E Cost Growth Assessment     – On average, Phase E cost increases 42% from the original KDP-B plan ...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Bitten mahr phasee

16,150 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
16,150
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
46
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 10 Missions with zero or negative growth:-WISE had its budget cut-4 are directed missions-3 are SMEX missions, GALEX may have data issues-GRACE may have issues with the data-Cloudsat data should be OK, not explanation right now for negative growth
  • Bitten mahr phasee

    1. 1. Phase E Cost Growth StudyRobert Bitten, Marc Hayhurst, Debra Emmons,The Aerospace CorporationClaude Freaner, Voleak RoeumNASA Headquarters, Science Mission Directorate2012 NASA Program Management ChallengeOrlando, Florida22-23 February 2012
    2. 2. Outline • Introduction • Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set – Changes by Phase – Changes after Prime Mission – Discussion of Phase E Cost Growth • Phase E Cost Comparisons using 46 mission data set – By mission size – By science theme – Discussion of Phase E Cost Comparisons • Summary 2
    3. 3. Introduction • Abstract – Phase E is the payoff for the long awaited development of NASA science missions as it includes the mission operations to collect the science data required for success as well as the data analysis to turn the data into a final useable product – Phase E growth, however, can be problematic as increased Phase E cost or duration can reduce available funding for the development of new missions to acquire new science – A recent study has shown that Phase E cost growth, as planned from Phase B start to launch, is greater than 30%* • Synopsis: – This study looks at Phase E cost growth for NASA science missions to quantify the growth in Phase E annual cost while investigating reasons for annual Phase E cost growth and assessing the Phase E cost for a variety of NASA missions for future mission cost assessments * Note: “Life Cycle Cost Growth Study”, Claude Freaner, presented at 2011 ISPA/SCEA Joint Annual Conference & Training Workshop, 7-10 June 2011 3
    4. 4. Outline • Introduction • Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set – Changes by Phase – Changes after Prime Mission – Discussion of Phase E Cost Growth • Phase E Cost Comparisons using 46 mission data set – By mission size – By science theme – Discussion of Phase E Cost Comparisons • Summary 4
    5. 5. 20 Mission Detailed Phase E Database* for Cost Growth Assessment Launch Mission Key Acquisition Number of Date Area Program Orbit Center(s) Type Instruments AIM 4/25/2007 Heliophysics SMEX LEO LASP Competed 3• 5 Directed vs. 15 CALIPSO 4/28/2006 Earth Science ESSP LEO LARC Competed 3 Competed missions Cloudsat 4/28/2006 Earth Science ESSP LEO JPL Competed 1 DAWN 9/27/2007 Planetary Discovery Planetary JPL Competed 3 Deep Impact 1/12/2005 Planetary Discovery Planetary JPL Competed 3 FERMI (GLAST) 6/11/2008 Astrophysics Cosmos LEO GSFC Directed 2• 7 Planetary missions GALEX 4/28/2003 Astrophysics SMEX LEO JPL/CalTech Competed 1 vs. 13 Earth or near- GENESIS 8/8/2001 Planetary Discovery Langrangian JPL Competed 4 Earth Orbiters GRACE 3/17/2002 Earth Science ESSP LEO JPL Competed 6 IBEX 10/19/2008 Heliophysics SMEX HEO GSFC Competed 2 Kepler 3/7/2008 Astrophysics Discovery Heliocentric JPL Competed 1• 8 Planetary Science LRO 6/18/2009 Planetary Lunar Planetary GSFC Directed 7 vs. 6 Astrophysics Messenger 8/3/2004 Planetary Discovery Planetary APL Competed 7 MRO 8/12/2005 Planetary MEP Planetary JPL Directed 7 vs. 3 Earth Science New Horizons 1/19/2006 Planetary New Frontiers Planetary APL Competed 7 vs. 3 Heliophysics Phoenix 8/4/2007 Planetary Mars Planetary JPL Competed 7 missions Spitzer 8/25/2003 Astrophysics Origins Heliocentric JPL Directed 4 STEREO 10/26/2006 Heliophysics STPP Heliocentric GSFC/APL Directed 4 SWIFT 11/20/2004 Astrophysics MIDEX LEO GSFC Competed 4 WISE 12/14/2009 Astrophysics MIDEX LEO JPL Competed 1 Database covers a large range of missions * Note: Data gathered from best available source include milestone documents, CADRe, NASA Business Warehouse and other NASA documents 5
    6. 6. All Missions Phase E Growth Relative to KDP-B Plan All Phase E Growth Over Time 300% Average Mission #1 % Growth in Phase E Cost for Prime Mission Relative to KDP-B Mission #2 250% Mission #3 Mission #4 Mission #5 200% Mission #6 Mission #7 150% Mission #8 Mission #9 Mission #10 100% Mission #11 Mission #12 Mission #13 50% Mission #14 Mission #15 35% 43% Mission #16 0% 6% 17% Mission #17 KDP-B KDP-C CDR LRD Prime Mission #18 Mission #19 -50% Milestone Mission #20 Average growth from KPD-B plan through end of Prime mission is 43% -100% 6
    7. 7. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth by Phase 50% 45% 43% 40% Average Growth Relative to KDP-B Plan 35% 35% Largest 30% Anticipated 25% Growth by Phase 20% 17% 15% 10% 6% 5% 0% @ PDR @ CDR @ Launch @ End of Prime Largest amount of anticipated growth occurs prior to Launch (i.e. CDR to LRD) 7
    8. 8. Comparison of Growth from KDP-B Plan for Competed vs.Directed Missions 60% 53% Average % Growth Relative to KDP-B Plan Directed 50% Competed 41% 40% 30% 20% 19% 15% 12% 12% 10% 6% 3% 0% @ PDR @ CDR @ Launch @ End of Prime Competed missions show more Phase E growth than Directed missions 8
    9. 9. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch Plan Percent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launch 40% 30% 20% 10% 5% 0% -10% -20% -30% Average growth over plan at Launch is 5% with half of missions exceeding plan -40% 9
    10. 10. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch Plan Percent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launch 40% Avg Directed Missions -3% Competed Missions 7% 30% Average 5% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% Average growth over plan at Launch is less for Directed vs. Competed missions -40% 10
    11. 11. Prime Mission Annual Cost Growth Example Venus Flyby NOW LRD Plan Mercury Flyby Earth Flyby June- 2007 Mercury Orbit Derived Actual Oct - 2008 Aug-2005 Insertion, Venus Flyby Mercury Flyby Prime Science, Launch Mercury Flyby Oct - 2006 Jan - 2008 Mar-Apr 2011 8/3/2004 Sep - 2009 EOPM March - 2012 $25,000Identified $20,000Need forAdditionalStaffing to $15,000SupportPhase EOperations $10,000 $5,000 Messenger – Phase E $- FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 11
    12. 12. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch Plan Percent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launch 40% Orbit Avg Planetary 19% EO or Near Earth 0% 30% Average 5% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% Average growth over plan at Launch is greater for Planetary missions -40% 12
    13. 13. Missions Lifetime for Study Data Set Planned vs Actual Mission Lifetime* 600% Values > 100% exceed planned Prime Mission duration % Actual Lifetime vs. Planned Prime Mission Duration 500% 400% 300% 200% 100% 0% Majority of missions exceed their Prime mission lifetime *As of end of Sep-2011 13
    14. 14. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch Plan Percent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launch 40% # Instruments Avg 1-2 Instruments -8% 3-4 Instruments 3% 30% 5-7 Instruments 20% Average 5% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30%Average growth over plan at Launch is higher for missions with more instruments -40% 14
    15. 15. Comparison of Annual Cost - Prime vs. Extended Missions Average Phase E FY Cost (FY11$M) for Prime and Extended Missions $100 LRD Plan $90 Actual Prime Actual Extended $80 $70 $60 $50 Increased Annual Cost during extended mission $40 $30 $20 $10 $-Although most missions reduce cost for extended phase, some increase annual cost 15
    16. 16. Extended Mission Cost Growth Due to Anomaly Cloudsat FY11 Operations Plan Cum $48,000 Actual Cum Battery Anomaly 4/17/2011 Increased $46,000 Cost Due to Anomaly $44,000 Resolution $42,000 RY$ K $40,000 Recovery, Develop Daylight Only Operations April 2011 - November2011 $38,000 $36,000 $34,000 Prior Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 Example shows increased cost due to anomaly resolution 16
    17. 17. Potential Reasons for Phase E Cost Growth• Phase E cost estimates for Competed missions may be optimistic – Competed missions have total life cycle cost caps which include Phase E • More funding planned for Phase E reduces funding for development – Potentially optimistic Phase E estimates maximize development funding available• Planetary Missions potentially underestimating complexity of Phase E – Planetary missions can have complex encounter and maneuver events, such as orbit insertion, instrument pointing, etc., which are complex and may be underestimated in terms of science planning or operations tasking – Large number of instruments on planetary missions can also lead to complex operations and a greater likelihood of payload anomalies• Anomaly Resolution/Replanning during extended missions – As missions live beyond their planned mission life they can experience more impactful anomalies • These anomalies may require development of contingency operating modes/software patches, etc. – Short duration missions that are completed may require mission re-planning for extended phases 17
    18. 18. Summary of Phase E Cost Growth for 20 Mission Data Set• Prime Mission Observations – Phase E cost projections, on average, grow through the development cycle with the largest growth coming between CDR and Launch, resulting in a 43% cost increase from the original KDP-B plan – Half of the missions studied had a Phase E cost increase over the plan at launch with an average growth of 5% – Competed missions have the most growth overall with a 53% increase over the plan at KDP-B and a 7% increase over the plan at Launch relative to 12% and -3%, respectively, for Directed missions – Planetary missions and missions with the most instruments had the greatest cost increase relative to the Phase E cost plan at Launch• Extended Mission Observations – The majority of missions investigated exceeded their prime mission lifetime – 6 of the 20 missions studied increased their annual operating costs after their prime missions 18
    19. 19. Outline • Introduction • Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set – Changes by Phase – Changes after Prime Mission – Discussion of Phase E Cost Growth • Phase E Cost Comparisons using 46 mission data set – By mission size – By science theme – Discussion of Phase E Cost Comparisons • Summary 19
    20. 20. 46 Mission Data Set* Launch Mission Instru- Launch Mission Instru- Theme ThemeMission Date Type ments Mission Date Type mentsACE Aug-97 Helio Medium 9 LRO Jun-09 Planetary Large 6Acrimsat Dec-99 Earth Small 1 MAP (WMAP) Jun-01 Astro Medium 1AIM Apr-07 Helio Small 3 Mars Global Surveyor Jul-96 Planetary Medium 4Aqua May-02 Earth Flagship 6 Mars Odyssey Apr-01 Planetary Medium 5Aura Jul-04 Earth Flagship 4 MER Jul-03 Planetary Flagship 5AXAF (Chandra) Jul-99 Astro Flagship 6 MESSENGER Aug-04 Planetary Medium 7Cassini Oct-97 Planetary Flagship 12 MRO Aug-05 Planetary Flagship 6Cloudsat Apr-06 Earth Medium 1 New Horizons Jan-06 Planetary Large 5DAWN Sep-07 Planetary Medium 3 PHOENIX Aug-07 Planetary Medium 5Deep Impact Jan-05 Planetary Medium 4 RHESSI Feb-02 Helio Small 1EO-1 Nov-00 Earth Small 3 RXTE Dec-95 Astro Medium 3FAST Aug-96 Helio Small 4 SDO Feb-10 Helio Flagship 3Fermi (GLAST) Jun-08 Astro Large 2 SORCE Jan-03 Earth Small 4FUSE Jun-99 Astro Medium 1 Spitzer Aug-03 Astro Flagship 3GALEX Apr-03 Astro Small 1 Stardust Feb-99 Planetary Medium 4GENESIS Aug-01 Planetary Medium 2 STEREO Oct-06 Helio Flagship 4GRACE Mar-02 Earth Medium 3 Swift Apr-04 Helio Medium 3HETE-II Oct-00 Astro Small 3 Terra Dec-99 Earth Flagship 5HST Jan-00 Astro Flagship 5 THEMIS Feb-07 Helio Medium 5IBEX Oct-08 Helio Small 2 TIMED Dec-01 Helio Large 4ICESAT Jan-03 Earth Large 1 TRACE Apr-98 Helio Small 1IMAGE Mar-00 Helio Medium 6 TRMM Nov-97 Earth Large 5Kepler Mar-09 Astro Large 1 WISE Jun-09 Astro Medium 1 Included in Phase E growth data set * Note: Data gathered from best available source include milestone documents, CADRe, NASA Business Warehouse and other NASA documents 20
    21. 21. Summary of Phase E Cost vs. Mission Class Phase E Cost per Mission Class $60.0 $54.2 Average Phase E Cost FY$11M Annual Mission $50.0 Annual $/Inst. $40.0 $30.0 $19.3 $20.0 $10.3 $11.0 $8.4 $10.0 $3.7 $2.4 $3.8 $- Small (10) Medium (18) Large (7) Flagship (11) As expected, larger missions have higher Phase E cost and higher cost per instrument 21
    22. 22. Average Number of Instruments for Flagship vs. Non-Flagship Missions Average Number of Instruments 9.0 Flagship Average Number of Instruments 8.0 7.7 Non-Flagship 7.0 6.0 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.5 3.8 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.0 1.6 1.0 - Helio Astro Planetary Earth Planetary Missions typically have the highest number of instruments per mission 22
    23. 23. Summary of Phase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions Phase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions $16.0 $14.8 Annual Mission Average Phase E Cost FY$11M $14.0 Annual $/Inst. $12.0 $9.8 $10.0 $10.0 $7.8 $8.0 $5.9 $6.0 $4.8 $4.0 $3.5 $2.0 $2.0 $- Helio (10) Astro (8) Planetary (10) Earth (7)Heliophysics missions are least costly from both total mission and per instrument perspective 23
    24. 24. Observations for Phase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions• Astrophysics missions are most costly on a per instrument basis – Typified by large, data intensive instruments compared to other missions• Earth Science missions are the next most costly – Earth science instruments are also data intensive due to survey aspects• Planetary missions are most costly from a total mission perspective – Although per instrument cost is relatively low, cost is large due to larger number of instruments compared to other mission types Phase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions $16.0 $14.8 Annual Mission Average Phase E Cost FY$11M $14.0 Annual $/Inst. $12.0 $9.8 $10.0 $10.0 $7.8 $8.0 $5.9 $6.0 $4.8 $4.0 $3.5 $2.0 $2.0 $- Helio (10) Astro (8) Planetary (10) Earth (7) 24
    25. 25. Summary of Phase E Cost for Flagship Missions Phase E Cost for Flagship Missions $100.0 Annual Mission $85.3 Average Phase E Cost FY$11M $90.0 $80.0 Annual $/Inst. $70.0 $60.0 $54.2 $50.0 $44.1 $40.0 $30.0 $22.8 $19.9 $20.0 $6.6 $7.1 $9.0 $10.0 $- Helio (2) Astro (3) Planetary (3) Earth (3) SDO, STEREO HST, Chandra, Spitzer Cassini, MRO, MER Terra, Aqua, Aura Heliophysics missions are least costly for Flagship missions as well 25
    26. 26. Observations for Phase E Cost for Flagship Missions• Trends are similar to non-Flagship mission sets as Astrophysics & Earth Science missions are most costly on a per instrument basis• Planetary Flagship missions Phase E cost is more costly than Earth Science due to large number of instruments• Heliophysics cost per instrument is similar to Planetary but fewer number of instruments results in lower annual Phase E mission cost Phase E Cost for Flagship Missions $100.0 Annual Mission $90.0 $85.3 Average Phase E Cost FY$11M $80.0 Annual $/Inst. $70.0 $60.0 $54.2 $50.0 $44.1 $40.0 $30.0 $22.8 $19.9 $20.0 $6.6 $7.1 $9.0 $10.0 $- Helio (2) Astro (3) Planetary (3) Earth (3) 26
    27. 27. Ratio of Phase E Cost for Flagship vs. Non-FlagshipMissions Ratio of Phase E Cost for Flagship vs. Non-Flagship 10.0 Ratio of Flagship to Non-Flagship 8.7 Per Mission Ratio 9.0 8.0 Per Inst. Ratio 7.0 6.0 5.0 4.4 3.9 3.7 4.0 3.2 3.0 2.5 2.1 1.9 2.0 1.0 - Helio Astro Planetary EarthRule of Thumb: Cost per instrument for Flagship is 2 to 3 times higher than non-Flagship 27
    28. 28. Summary of Phase E Cost Growth for 46 Mission Data Set• As expected, larger missions have greater annual Phase E cost and greater Phase E cost per instrument• In general, Heliophysics missions have lower overall annual Phase E cost and a lower annual cost per instrument• Astrophysics missions typically have greater Phase E cost per instrument• Planetary missions typically have lower cost per instrument than Astrophysics and Earth Science missions – Annual mission cost may be greater, however, due to the larger number of instruments per mission• A rule of thumb for Flagship missions is that the cost per instrument of a Flagship mission is 2 to 3 times higher than that for non-Flagship missions 28
    29. 29. Outline • Introduction • Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set – Changes by Phase – Changes after Prime Mission – Discussion of Phase E Cost Growth • Phase E Cost Comparisons using 46 mission data set – By mission size – By science theme – Discussion of Phase E Cost Comparisons • Summary 29
    30. 30. Study Summary• Phase E Cost Growth Assessment – On average, Phase E cost increases 42% from the original KDP-B plan – Half of the missions studied had a Phase E cost increase over the plan at launch with an average growth of 7% – Competed missions and Planetary missions have the greatest cost growth – The majority of missions investigated exceeded their prime mission lifetime with 30% of the missions increasing their annual cost over Prime• Phase E Cost Assessment – Larger missions have greater annual Phase E cost and greater Phase E cost per instrument – Heliophysics missions have lower overall annual Phase E cost and a lower annual cost per instrument – Astrophysics missions typically have greater Phase E cost per instrument – Planetary missions typically have lower cost per instrument than Astrophysics and Earth Science missions but annual cost may be higher due to larger number of instruments 30

    ×