The document analyzes Phase E cost growth for 20 NASA science missions using detailed mission data. It finds that on average, Phase E costs grew 43% from original plans. Growth was highest between critical design review and launch. Competed missions saw more growth than directed ones. Phase E costs also tended to be higher for planetary missions and those with more instruments. Many missions exceeded their planned prime mission durations and some saw increased annual costs for extended missions due to anomalies. The study aims to better understand Phase E cost drivers to inform future mission planning and cost assessments.

1. Phase E Cost Growth Study
Robert Bitten, Marc Hayhurst, Debra Emmons,
The Aerospace Corporation
Claude Freaner, Voleak Roeum
NASA Headquarters, Science Mission Directorate
2012 NASA Program Management Challenge
Orlando, Florida
22-23 February 2012

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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
$25,000
Identified $20,000
Need for
Additional
Staffing to $15,000
Support
Phase E
Operations $10,000
$5,000
Messenger – Phase E
$-
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13
11

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 46 Mission Data Set*
Launch Mission Instru- Launch Mission Instru-
Theme Theme
Mission Date Type ments Mission Date Type ments
ACE Aug-97 Helio Medium 9 LRO Jun-09 Planetary Large 6
Acrimsat Dec-99 Earth Small 1 MAP (WMAP) Jun-01 Astro Medium 1
AIM Apr-07 Helio Small 3 Mars Global Surveyor Jul-96 Planetary Medium 4
Aqua May-02 Earth Flagship 6 Mars Odyssey Apr-01 Planetary Medium 5
Aura Jul-04 Earth Flagship 4 MER Jul-03 Planetary Flagship 5
AXAF (Chandra) Jul-99 Astro Flagship 6 MESSENGER Aug-04 Planetary Medium 7
Cassini Oct-97 Planetary Flagship 12 MRO Aug-05 Planetary Flagship 6
Cloudsat Apr-06 Earth Medium 1 New Horizons Jan-06 Planetary Large 5
DAWN Sep-07 Planetary Medium 3 PHOENIX Aug-07 Planetary Medium 5
Deep Impact Jan-05 Planetary Medium 4 RHESSI Feb-02 Helio Small 1
EO-1 Nov-00 Earth Small 3 RXTE Dec-95 Astro Medium 3
FAST Aug-96 Helio Small 4 SDO Feb-10 Helio Flagship 3
Fermi (GLAST) Jun-08 Astro Large 2 SORCE Jan-03 Earth Small 4
FUSE Jun-99 Astro Medium 1 Spitzer Aug-03 Astro Flagship 3
GALEX Apr-03 Astro Small 1 Stardust Feb-99 Planetary Medium 4
GENESIS Aug-01 Planetary Medium 2 STEREO Oct-06 Helio Flagship 4
GRACE Mar-02 Earth Medium 3 Swift Apr-04 Helio Medium 3
HETE-II Oct-00 Astro Small 3 Terra Dec-99 Earth Flagship 5
HST Jan-00 Astro Flagship 5 THEMIS Feb-07 Helio Medium 5
IBEX Oct-08 Helio Small 2 TIMED Dec-01 Helio Large 4
ICESAT Jan-03 Earth Large 1 TRACE Apr-98 Helio Small 1
IMAGE Mar-00 Helio Medium 6 TRMM Nov-97 Earth Large 5
Kepler 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Ratio of Phase E Cost for Flagship vs. Non-Flagship
Missions
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 Earth
Rule of Thumb: Cost per instrument for Flagship is 2 to 3 times higher than non-Flagship
27

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. 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. 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