This document summarizes an assessment of the "Instrument First, Spacecraft Second" (IFSS) approach to mission development. The IFSS approach aims to start instrument development earlier than spacecraft development to reduce cost and schedule growth. The assessment found that applying IFSS to Earth Science missions could save NASA several billion dollars by launching more missions sooner and reducing cost overruns. Implementation would be compatible with current guidelines but require developing instruments 2 years before spacecraft. Savings come from instruments being more mature when integrated to spacecraft.
Appendix B Sample Project Charter · Information Systems· Mobi.docxrossskuddershamus
Appendix B: Sample Project Charter
· Information Systems
· Mobile Mammography Van
· Project Charter
· Version 1.0
· Created: 08/01/2008
· Printed:
· Prepared by: Sam Smith
· Presented to: Karen Zimmerman
Project Charter Table of Contents
· REVISION HISTORY
· FOREWORD
· BUSINESS REQUIREMENTS
· Background
· Project Overview
· Project Objectives
· Value Provided to Customers
· Business Risks
· VISION OF THE SOLUTION
· Vision Statement
· Major Features
· Assumptions and Dependencies
· Related Projects
· SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
· Scope of Initial Release
· Scope of Subsequent Releases
· Out of Scope
· PROJECT SUCCESS FACTORS
· BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS
· TIMELINE
· PROJECT ORGANIZATION
· PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
· Project Meetings
· Issue Management
· Scope Change Management
· Training Strategy
· Documentation Development Strategy
· Project Work Paper Organization and Coordination
Revision History
Table B.1
Name
Date
Reason for Changes
Ver./Rev.
Foreword
The purpose of a Project Charter is to document what the Project Team is committed to deliver. It specifies the project timeline, resources, and implementation standards. The Project Charter is the cornerstone of the project, and is used for managing the expectations of all project stakeholders.
A Project Charter represents a formal commitment among Business Sponsors, Steering Committees, the Project Manager, and the Project Team. Therefore it is the professional responsibility of all project members to treat this agreement seriously and make every effort to meet the commitment it represents.
Business Requirements
Background
Sponsored by the Dana Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) in partnership with the Boston Public Health Commission, neighborhood health centers, and community groups, Boston’s Mammography Van provides mammography screening and breast health education throughout the City of Boston to all women, regardless of ability to pay, with a priority on serving uninsured and underserved women right in their neighborhoods. The Mammography Van program began in April of 2008, using GE software for registration, scheduling, and billing. All clinical documentation of the mammography screening has been performed manually since April 2008. Statistical reports generated to maintain state and federal guidelines are all done manually.
Project Overview
The project has two major objectives:
· Implementation of Mammography Patient Manager software to allow for on-line documentation of the clinical encounter with the patient.
· Implementation of a wireless solution on the van at the time of the new software implementation. This will allow real-time updating of the patient appointment information as well as registering walk-on patients on the spot. Online documentation will allow ease of reporting to the state and federal agencies.
The products evaluated for implementation are specific to the needs of a mobile program and will meet most, if not all, of the needs of the pr.
Similar to Bitten mahr freaner2submissionparadigm (20)
In his public lecture, Christian Timmerer provides insights into the fascinating history of video streaming, starting from its humble beginnings before YouTube to the groundbreaking technologies that now dominate platforms like Netflix and ORF ON. Timmerer also presents provocative contributions of his own that have significantly influenced the industry. He concludes by looking at future challenges and invites the audience to join in a discussion.
Observability Concepts EVERY Developer Should Know -- DeveloperWeek Europe.pdfPaige Cruz
Monitoring and observability aren’t traditionally found in software curriculums and many of us cobble this knowledge together from whatever vendor or ecosystem we were first introduced to and whatever is a part of your current company’s observability stack.
While the dev and ops silo continues to crumble….many organizations still relegate monitoring & observability as the purview of ops, infra and SRE teams. This is a mistake - achieving a highly observable system requires collaboration up and down the stack.
I, a former op, would like to extend an invitation to all application developers to join the observability party will share these foundational concepts to build on:
Encryption in Microsoft 365 - ExpertsLive Netherlands 2024Albert Hoitingh
In this session I delve into the encryption technology used in Microsoft 365 and Microsoft Purview. Including the concepts of Customer Key and Double Key Encryption.
Enchancing adoption of Open Source Libraries. A case study on Albumentations.AIVladimir Iglovikov, Ph.D.
Presented by Vladimir Iglovikov:
- https://www.linkedin.com/in/iglovikov/
- https://x.com/viglovikov
- https://www.instagram.com/ternaus/
This presentation delves into the journey of Albumentations.ai, a highly successful open-source library for data augmentation.
Created out of a necessity for superior performance in Kaggle competitions, Albumentations has grown to become a widely used tool among data scientists and machine learning practitioners.
This case study covers various aspects, including:
People: The contributors and community that have supported Albumentations.
Metrics: The success indicators such as downloads, daily active users, GitHub stars, and financial contributions.
Challenges: The hurdles in monetizing open-source projects and measuring user engagement.
Development Practices: Best practices for creating, maintaining, and scaling open-source libraries, including code hygiene, CI/CD, and fast iteration.
Community Building: Strategies for making adoption easy, iterating quickly, and fostering a vibrant, engaged community.
Marketing: Both online and offline marketing tactics, focusing on real, impactful interactions and collaborations.
Mental Health: Maintaining balance and not feeling pressured by user demands.
Key insights include the importance of automation, making the adoption process seamless, and leveraging offline interactions for marketing. The presentation also emphasizes the need for continuous small improvements and building a friendly, inclusive community that contributes to the project's growth.
Vladimir Iglovikov brings his extensive experience as a Kaggle Grandmaster, ex-Staff ML Engineer at Lyft, sharing valuable lessons and practical advice for anyone looking to enhance the adoption of their open-source projects.
Explore more about Albumentations and join the community at:
GitHub: https://github.com/albumentations-team/albumentations
Website: https://albumentations.ai/
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/100504475
Twitter: https://x.com/albumentations
DevOps and Testing slides at DASA ConnectKari Kakkonen
My and Rik Marselis slides at 30.5.2024 DASA Connect conference. We discuss about what is testing, then what is agile testing and finally what is Testing in DevOps. Finally we had lovely workshop with the participants trying to find out different ways to think about quality and testing in different parts of the DevOps infinity loop.
Unlock the Future of Search with MongoDB Atlas_ Vector Search Unleashed.pdfMalak Abu Hammad
Discover how MongoDB Atlas and vector search technology can revolutionize your application's search capabilities. This comprehensive presentation covers:
* What is Vector Search?
* Importance and benefits of vector search
* Practical use cases across various industries
* Step-by-step implementation guide
* Live demos with code snippets
* Enhancing LLM capabilities with vector search
* Best practices and optimization strategies
Perfect for developers, AI enthusiasts, and tech leaders. Learn how to leverage MongoDB Atlas to deliver highly relevant, context-aware search results, transforming your data retrieval process. Stay ahead in tech innovation and maximize the potential of your applications.
#MongoDB #VectorSearch #AI #SemanticSearch #TechInnovation #DataScience #LLM #MachineLearning #SearchTechnology
Maruthi Prithivirajan, Head of ASEAN & IN Solution Architecture, Neo4j
Get an inside look at the latest Neo4j innovations that enable relationship-driven intelligence at scale. Learn more about the newest cloud integrations and product enhancements that make Neo4j an essential choice for developers building apps with interconnected data and generative AI.
Essentials of Automations: The Art of Triggers and Actions in FMESafe Software
In this second installment of our Essentials of Automations webinar series, we’ll explore the landscape of triggers and actions, guiding you through the nuances of authoring and adapting workspaces for seamless automations. Gain an understanding of the full spectrum of triggers and actions available in FME, empowering you to enhance your workspaces for efficient automation.
We’ll kick things off by showcasing the most commonly used event-based triggers, introducing you to various automation workflows like manual triggers, schedules, directory watchers, and more. Plus, see how these elements play out in real scenarios.
Whether you’re tweaking your current setup or building from the ground up, this session will arm you with the tools and insights needed to transform your FME usage into a powerhouse of productivity. Join us to discover effective strategies that simplify complex processes, enhancing your productivity and transforming your data management practices with FME. Let’s turn complexity into clarity and make your workspaces work wonders!
GridMate - End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid...ThomasParaiso2
End to end testing is a critical piece to ensure quality and avoid regressions. In this session, we share our journey building an E2E testing pipeline for GridMate components (LWC and Aura) using Cypress, JSForce, FakerJS…
20 Comprehensive Checklist of Designing and Developing a WebsitePixlogix Infotech
Dive into the world of Website Designing and Developing with Pixlogix! Looking to create a stunning online presence? Look no further! Our comprehensive checklist covers everything you need to know to craft a website that stands out. From user-friendly design to seamless functionality, we've got you covered. Don't miss out on this invaluable resource! Check out our checklist now at Pixlogix and start your journey towards a captivating online presence today.
Threats to mobile devices are more prevalent and increasing in scope and complexity. Users of mobile devices desire to take full advantage of the features
available on those devices, but many of the features provide convenience and capability but sacrifice security. This best practices guide outlines steps the users can take to better protect personal devices and information.
Why You Should Replace Windows 11 with Nitrux Linux 3.5.0 for enhanced perfor...SOFTTECHHUB
The choice of an operating system plays a pivotal role in shaping our computing experience. For decades, Microsoft's Windows has dominated the market, offering a familiar and widely adopted platform for personal and professional use. However, as technological advancements continue to push the boundaries of innovation, alternative operating systems have emerged, challenging the status quo and offering users a fresh perspective on computing.
One such alternative that has garnered significant attention and acclaim is Nitrux Linux 3.5.0, a sleek, powerful, and user-friendly Linux distribution that promises to redefine the way we interact with our devices. With its focus on performance, security, and customization, Nitrux Linux presents a compelling case for those seeking to break free from the constraints of proprietary software and embrace the freedom and flexibility of open-source computing.
LF Energy Webinar: Electrical Grid Modelling and Simulation Through PowSyBl -...DanBrown980551
Do you want to learn how to model and simulate an electrical network from scratch in under an hour?
Then welcome to this PowSyBl workshop, hosted by Rte, the French Transmission System Operator (TSO)!
During the webinar, you will discover the PowSyBl ecosystem as well as handle and study an electrical network through an interactive Python notebook.
PowSyBl is an open source project hosted by LF Energy, which offers a comprehensive set of features for electrical grid modelling and simulation. Among other advanced features, PowSyBl provides:
- A fully editable and extendable library for grid component modelling;
- Visualization tools to display your network;
- Grid simulation tools, such as power flows, security analyses (with or without remedial actions) and sensitivity analyses;
The framework is mostly written in Java, with a Python binding so that Python developers can access PowSyBl functionalities as well.
What you will learn during the webinar:
- For beginners: discover PowSyBl's functionalities through a quick general presentation and the notebook, without needing any expert coding skills;
- For advanced developers: master the skills to efficiently apply PowSyBl functionalities to your real-world scenarios.
zkStudyClub - Reef: Fast Succinct Non-Interactive Zero-Knowledge Regex ProofsAlex Pruden
This paper presents Reef, a system for generating publicly verifiable succinct non-interactive zero-knowledge proofs that a committed document matches or does not match a regular expression. We describe applications such as proving the strength of passwords, the provenance of email despite redactions, the validity of oblivious DNS queries, and the existence of mutations in DNA. Reef supports the Perl Compatible Regular Expression syntax, including wildcards, alternation, ranges, capture groups, Kleene star, negations, and lookarounds. Reef introduces a new type of automata, Skipping Alternating Finite Automata (SAFA), that skips irrelevant parts of a document when producing proofs without undermining soundness, and instantiates SAFA with a lookup argument. Our experimental evaluation confirms that Reef can generate proofs for documents with 32M characters; the proofs are small and cheap to verify (under a second).
Paper: https://eprint.iacr.org/2023/1886
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