Bitten mahr freaner2submissionparadigm

Instrument First, Spacecraft Second:Implementing a New Paradigm

Bob Bitten & Eric Mahr The Aerospace CorporationClaude FreanerNASA Headquarters, Science Mission Directorate

2012 NASA Program Management ChallengeOrlando, Florida22-23 February 2012

© 2012 The Aerospace Corporation

2

Agenda

• Executive Summary

• Background

• Assessment Overview and Results– Mission Savings– Portfolio Savings

• Implementation Approaches– 7120.5 Compatibility– Schedule Guidance– Organizational Implementation Approaches

• Summary & Discussion

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

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

5

Agenda


• Background




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

7

Instrument Development Problems Account for Largest Contributor to Cost & Schedule Growth*

• Cost & Schedule growth data from 40 recently developed missions was investigated

• 63% of missions experienced instrument problems leading to project Cost and Schedule growth

• Missions with Instrument technical problems experience a much larger percentage of Cost & Schedule growth than missions with Spacecraft issues only

Distribution of Internal Cost & Schedule Growth

* 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

24.1%

17.4%

9.3% 8.0%

18.7%

4.7%

34.6%

51.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Cost Schedule

Pe

rce

nt

Gro

wth

Inst only

S/C only

Both

Other

Cost & Schedule Growth Due to Technical Issues

Both Inst & S/C29.6%

Other14.8%

Inst. Only33.3%

S/C Only22.2%

Historical NASA Data Indicates Payload Mass and Cost Growth Significantly Greater than Spacecraft Mass & Cost Growth

60%

101%

33%

44%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

Mass Cost

Ave

rage

Per

cent

Gro

wth

from

Pha

se B

Sta

rt

Payload

Spacecraft

8

1 1

Note: 1) As measured from Current Best Estimate, not including reserves

Data Indicated Payload Resource has Greater Uncertainty than Spacecraft

* 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

Historical Instrument Schedule Growth*

< 0%

0 to 15%

15% to 30%

30% to 60%

> 60%

9

12%

30%

14%

30%

14%

Distribution ofInstrument Schedule Growth

Average Instrument Development Schedule Growth = 33% (10 months)

* Based on historical data of 64 instruments with non-restricted launch window

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 20 40 60 80 100

Planned Delivery Duration

Ac

tua

l De

live

ry D

ura

tio

n

Planned vs. ActualInstrument Development Duration

Instrument Schedule Growth by Milestone*

10

8.3

9.1

8.8

10.9

15.1

22.6

0 10 20 30 40 50

Planned

Actual

Duration (months)

Average Actual vs. Planned Durations by Milestone

Phase B - PDR PDR - CDR CDR - Delivery

0.8 (9.1%)

2.1 (24.7%)

7.5 (49.7%)

012345678


Dev

elop

men

t Tim

e G

row

th

(mon

ths)

Average Actual vs. Planned Durations -Growth

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

Instruments Schedule Planned vs. Actual Binned by Type*

11

3629 28

41

29

46

35 37

58

39

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dev

elop

men

t Tim

e (m

onth

s)

Instrument Type

Average Phase B Start to Delivery

Planned

Actual

18

1311

16

9

25

15

21

30

18

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Dev

elop

men

t Tim

e (m

onth

s)

Instrument Type

Average CDR to Delivery

Planned

Actual48 9 8 5 4 24 6 8 2 4

Largest schedule growth is experienced by optical instruments

Most of the schedule growth occurs from CDR to Delivery

# = number of instruments in each bin


Instrument Development Durations Binned by Type*

12

Average Actual Durations by Milestone

9.4

7.9

5.7

11.6

10.8

9.1

11.1

11.9

25.0

14.8

20.9

29.9

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Passive Optical

Mass Measurement

X-ray

Active Optical

Duration (months)

Average Actual Delivery Durations


*Insufficient data for landed instruments

Standard deviations are for total schedule duration

Typical instrument durations by phase can be used by program and project managers as a sanity check during early planning of instrument delivery schedules

σ 24.8

σ 1.2

σ 5.7

σ 12.6


Instruments Durations Binned by Spacecraft Destination*

13

3128 29

3640

36 36 38

47

54

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Moon Planetary Comet/NEO Earth Lagrange

Del

iver

y Ti

me

(mon

ths)

Spacecraft Destination

Average Phase B Start to Delivery

Planned

Actual4.3 (14%)

8.4 (30%) 8.8 (30%)

11.0 (30%)

14.7 (37%)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

Moon Planetary Comet/NEO Earth Lagrange

Del

iver

y Ti

me

(mon

ths)

Spacecraft Destination

Average Actual vs. Planned Development Time Absolute Growth

6 16 6 50 8

Mission with constrained launch windows (i.e., missions to planetary bodies or comets/asteroids) have shorter development times and less schedule growth

# = 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

Results plot the average of all the instruments on a given spacecraft

Cost* & Schedule Growth Examples

1.61.7

2.2

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

OCO CloudSat ICESat

Mis

sio

n t

o In

stru

men

t C

ost

Gro

wth

Rat

io

14

1.31.5

2.2

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

OCO CloudSat ICESat

Total Mission to InstrumentCost Growth Ratio

Instrument Schedule GrowthPlanned to Actual Ratio

* 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

Ratio of Mission Cost Growth to Instrument Cost Growth is on the order of 2:1

15

Agenda


• Background




16

IFSS Development Approach Overview

Historical Development Approach

Instrument First, Spacecraft Second (IFSS) Approach

Spacecraft Development

Instrument Development

System I&T

Delay

System I&TPlan Actual

Spacecraft Development

Instrument Development

System I&T

Delay

IFSS Offset

Marching Army

Comparison of Element Delivery Times – HyspIRI-like Mission

45

40

44

10

13

4

12

16

8

20 30 40 50 60 70

TIR

VSWIR

Spacecraft

Months to Delivery

Minimum

Mean

Maximum

IFSS Assessment Approach

17

Earth Science Decadal Survey

Quad ChartsESDS-”like”

Concept Sizing Baseline-”like” ICE Schedule Comparison

Schedule SimulationIFSS ResultsSand Chart ToolMeasures of

Effectiveness

• Cost to implement Tier 2 & 3 missions• Time to launch all Tier 2 & 3 missions• Number of missions launched by 2024• Percent of Threshold Breach Reports

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

An

nu

al F

un

din

g R

eq

uir

emen

t (F

Y$1

0M

)

3D-WindsGACMSCLPGRACE-IIPATHLISTACEGEO-CAPESWOTASCENDSHyspIRICLARREODESDynI-LDESDynI-RIceSat-2SMAPGPM LDCMNPPAquariusOCO-2GlorySystematic MissionsESSPES Multi-MissionES Technology Applied SciencesES ResearchFY11 PBR

HyspIRI-like Design Summary

Mass (kg) Power (W)

Payload 188.9 141.6

Propulsion 23.9 4.0

ADCS 86.9 173.2

TT&C 76.2 153.2

C&DH 168.8 466.9

Thermal 29.0 69.3

Power 198.5 N/A

Structure 193.0 0.0

Dry Mass 965.1

Wet Mass 1056.6

EOL Power 1732.4

BOL Power 1903.7

Mass and power values include contingencySubsystem power values represent orbit average power

As modeled mass of HyspIRI is within the launch capability

of the Atlas V 401

LV capability = 7155 kg

HyspIRI-like Independent Cost Estimate Results FY10$M

Cost in FY10$M IndependentCategory EstimateMission PM/SE/MA 40.5$ Payload PM/SE/MA 7.3$ VSWIR 91.0$ TIR 54.7$ Spacecraft 94.4$ MOS/GDS Development 29.8$ Development Reserves 103.0$

Total Development Cost 420.7$ Phase E 24.2$ Phase E Reserve 4.0$ E/PO 1.9$ Launch System 130.0$

Total Mission Cost 580.7$

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

80.0%

90.0%

100.0%

300 400 500 600 700 800 900

Cum

ulati

ve P

roba

bilit

y

Estimated Cost (FY10$M)

Distribution

Sum of Modes

70th Percentile

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

$200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 C

um

ula

tive

Pro

ba

bili

ty

Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M)

Comparison of Tier 2 & 3 Mission Public Costs vs. Estimate

18

MissionPublic Cost*

(FY10$M)

Aerospace Estimate(FY10$M)

Difference

Tier 2

HySPIRI-like 433$ 451$ 4.2%

ASCENDS-like 455$ 510$ 12.1%

SWOT-like 652$ 808$ 24.0%

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%

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%

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

Tier 2 Missions

Tier 3 Missions

Total

Results indicate that estimates are representative

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

• If S/C Dev + System Integration Time > Instrument Dev + I&T to S/C– Add instrument marching army cost after instrument is developed

19

System ATP to TRR

Instrument ATP to Integration

}Cost due to Instrument Delay

System ATP to TRR

Instrument ATP to Integration

}IFSS Offset

}

Cost of Early Instrument Delivery

Instrument Delays Much More Costly than Early Instrument Delivery due to Marching Army

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

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

HyspIRI-Like Development Cost Risk Analysis Results – Case 1A, 1B & 2B (IFSS with 18 Month Offset) FY10$M

22

$200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900 0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

ba

bili

ty

Case 1BEstimate with

Instrumentdifficulties

$545M

Case 1AEstimate without instrument issues

$430M

Case 2BEstimate with

Instrumentdifficulties

$436M

Probability of Instrument Delaying Project• 99.9% for Case 1B no IFSS offset (12.4 month average delay)• 12.2% for Case 2B with 18 month offset (0.3 month average delay)

Summary of Simulation Results*

23

w/o IFSS w/IFSS

HySPIRI-like 541$ 653$ 556$ 20.7% 2.8%ASCENDS-like 599$ 882$ 636$ 47.2% 6.2%SWOT-like 866$ 1,038$ 880$ 19.9% 1.6%GEO-CAPE-like 759$ 1,129$ 816$ 48.7% 7.5%ACE-like 1,318$ 1,663$ 1,360$ 26.2% 3.2%LIST-like 759$ 1,093$ 800$ 44.0% 5.4%PATH-like 480$ 628$ 505$ 30.8% 5.2%GRACE-II-like 313$ 374$ 325$ 19.5% 3.8%

SCLP-like 635$ 900$ 681$ 41.7% 7.2%

GACM-like 886$ 1,333$ 959$ 50.5% 8.2%3D-Winds-like 900$ 1,320$ 952$ 46.7% 5.8%

Total 8,056$ 11,013$ 8,470$ 36.0% 5.2%

Percent IncreaseMission

PlannedCase 1A

"Actual" w/o IFSS

Case 1B

"Actual" with IFSS

Case 2B

* Note: Cost values represent simulation mean mission total cost including launch vehicle

IFSS Approach saves on the order of 30% compared to typical approach

Mean of Simulation Data is Consistent with Actual Earth Science Mission Cost & Schedule Growth Histories

24

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

De

velo

pm

en

t Co

st G

row

th

Development Schedule Growth

Actual Mission Growth

Simulation Data

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

Strategic Analysis Tool Needed to Support Long Term Decision Making Process – Sand Chart Tool (SCT)

26

Input:baseline plan, cost likelihood curves

Perform Monte Carlo probabilistic analysis

Output:schedule likelihood curves, # of missions complete, etc.

• Quantitative results to support strategic decisions– Changes in mission launch dates to fit new program – Assess Figures of Merit

• The Sand Chart Tool is a probabilistic simulation of budgets and costs

– Simulates a program’s strategic response to internal or external events

• Algorithms are derived from historical data and experiences

– Long-term program/portfolio analysis – 10-20 years

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

An

nu

al

Fu

nd

ing

Re

qu

ire

me

nt


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

$200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900


Cu

mu

lati

ve

Pro

ba

bili

ty

$9.1

$11.1

$0.0

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

$12.0

w/IFSS w/o IFSS

To

tal C

os

t F

Y1

0$

B

2024.1

2025

2023

2024

2025

2026

w/IFSS w/o IFSS

10.1

8.9

8

8.5

9

9.5

10

10.5

11

w/IFSS w/o IFSS

11.8%

64.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

w/IFSS w/o IFSS

Cost to Implement ESDS Missions Time to Launch ESDS Missions

Number of Missions Launched by 2024 Percent Threshold Breach Reports

Sand Chart Tool will Assess Domino Effect for Other Projects in Program Portfolio

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mission #4

Mission #3

Mission #2

Mission #1

27

$0

$50

$100

$150

$200

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Mission #4

Mission #3

Mission #2

Mission #1

Planned Funding = $690M Actual Funding History = $715M

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

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

Mission Portfolio Example with IFSS

29

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

An

nu

al F

un

din

g R

equ

irem

ent


Tier 1Missions

Tier 2 & 3Missions

ExistingMissions

ContinuingElements

Continuing Activities

Tier I MissionsExistingMissions

Funding Availablefor Future Missions

Results are a snapshot in time based on data as of May 2010

Mission Portfolio Example Without IFSS

30

$0.0

$0.5

$1.0

$1.5

$2.0

$2.5

$3.0

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025

An

nu

al F

un

din

g R

equ

irem

ent


Tier 1Missions

Tier 2 & 3Missions

ExistingMissions

ContinuingElements

Continuing Activities

Tier I MissionsExistingMissions

Less Funding Available for

Future Missions

Domino Effect is much greater leading to more inefficiencies & less funding available for future missions

Results are a snapshot in time based on data as of May 2010

Comparison of Mission Portfolio Results

w/IFSS w/o IFSS$0.0

$2.0

$4.0

$6.0

$8.0

$10.0

$12.0

$14.0

$9.1

$11.7

To

tal C

os

t F

Y1

0$

B

31

2024.1

2025

2023

2024

2025

2026

w/IFSS w/o IFSS

10.18.9

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

w/IFSS w/o IFSS w/IFSS w/o IFSS0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

11.8%

65.2%

Cost to Implement ESDS Missions Time to Launch ESDS Missions

Number of Missions Launched by 2024 Percent Threshold Breach Reports

IFSS Provides Better Results for Each Metric Assessed

32

Agenda


• Background




Traditional Approach versus IFSS Approach

33

Approach Pros Cons

Traditional

-Typical project development that is the current paradigm-Complete project staff available to work any issues/questions in early development

-Potential for standing army costs waiting for instruments to be delivered to Integration and Test (I&T)

IFSS

-Focus early resources on development of instruments to mitigate delays in I&T-Various approaches exist that can be tailored to mission and instrument development requirements

-Change from known and understood development environment-Reduced personnel for interaction with instrument developers to trade spacecraft design choices in early development

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

7120.5X* Considerations

35

Current/proposed 7120.5 procurement process does not preclude IFSS approach

* Note: NASA Project Lifecycle, Figure 2-4, NPR 7120.5D, March 2007

Project Plan Control Plan Maturity Matrix*

36

Spacecraft design/procurement approach must be in place by Project KDP-C

* Note: Project Plan Control Plan Maturity Matrix, Table 4-4, NPR 7120.5D, March 2007

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

IFSS Approach Schedule Guidance

38

• 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

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 72 73 74 75 76 77

VSWIR

TIR

Spacecraft

I&T

Launch

∆ KDP-A ∆ KDP-B ∆ KDP-C ∆ KDP-D ∆ Launch

∆ PDR ∆ CDR ∆ SIR ∆ PSR

∆ iPDR ∆ iCDR ∆ iSIR ∆ iPSR

Example Development of an IFSS Schedule

39

Instrument Handoff

45

40

44

10

13

4

12

16

8

20 30 40 50 60 70

TIR

VSWIR

Spacecraft

Months to Delivery

Minimum

Mean

Maximum

DistributionLowMost likelyHighMean40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Schedule Distributions (months)

Spacecraf t ATP-TRR

Instrument ATP-Delivery

Offset of 18 months includes instrument handoff at instrument CDR prior to mission KDP-B

Assessment of Historical Development TimesLeads to Guidance for IFSS Offset

Summary of IFSS Offsets and Relative Savings*

40

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$

MissionInstrument

Offset (Months)

"Actual" w/o IFSS

Case 1B

"Actual" with IFSS

Case 2B

Percent Savings

* Note: Cost values represent simulation mean mission total cost including launch vehicle

Typical offset is on the order of 24 months

Rapid III Procurement* Can Provide Reliable Spacecraft with Known Performance within 20 to 36 Months

41

VendorsCore

Spacecraft

Spacecraft Delivery (Mos.)

Spacecraft Lifetime

(Yrs)

Spacecraft Dry Mass

(kg)

Payload Mass (kg)

Payload Power (W)

Pointing Accuracy(Arcsec)

CommSys

Band

System Redundancy

Ball Aerospace BCP 2000 36 5 450 500 400 10.5 S, X Fully

General Dynamics

GD 300S 26 2 265 65 125 360 S, X Selective

GD 300HP 30 5 1107 3115 775 360 S, Ku Selective

Lockheed Martin LMx 26 3 426 460 427 130 S Fully

Northrop Grumman

EAGLE-0 22 1 471 86 100 360 S Selective

Orbital Sciences Corp

LEOStar-2 32 5 938 500 850 48 S Fully

Surrey Space Technologies –

U.S.

SSTL 150 22 7 103 50 50 36 S Selective

SSTL 300 28 7 218 150 140 360 S Selective

SSTL 600 28 4 429 200 386 605 S, X Selective

Thales AleniaSpace France

Proteus 20 5 261 300 300 72 S Selective

Thales AleniaSpace Italy

Prima 29 7 1032 1138 1100 36 S Selective

Overall Summary 20 - 36 1 - 7 103-1107 50 - 3115 50 - 1100 10.5 - 605 S, X, Ku Selective, Fully

VendorsCore

Spacecraft

Spacecraft Delivery (Mos.)

Spacecraft Lifetime

(Yrs)

Spacecraft Dry Mass

(kg)

Payload Mass (kg)

Payload Power (W)

Pointing Accuracy(Arcsec)

CommSys

Band

System Redundancy

Ball Aerospace BCP 2000 36 5 450 500 400 10.5 S, X Fully

General Dynamics

GD 300S 26 2 265 65 125 360 S, X Selective

GD 300HP 30 5 1107 3115 775 360 S, Ku Selective

Lockheed Martin LMx 26 3 426 460 427 130 S Fully

Northrop Grumman

EAGLE-0 22 1 471 86 100 360 S Selective

Orbital Sciences Corp

LEOStar-2 32 5 938 500 850 48 S Fully

Surrey Space Technologies –

U.S.

SSTL 150 22 7 103 50 50 36 S Selective

SSTL 300 28 7 218 150 140 360 S Selective

SSTL 600 28 4 429 200 386 605 S, X Selective

Thales AleniaSpace France

Proteus 20 5 261 300 300 72 S Selective

Thales AleniaSpace Italy

Prima 29 7 1032 1138 1100 36 S Selective

Overall Summary 20 - 36 1 - 7 103-1107 50 - 3115 50 - 1100 10.5 - 605 S, X, Ku Selective, Fully

Typical 2-3 year procurement for spacecraft plus additional year for testing plus 2 year IFSS offset equates to 5 to 6 year total mission development time

* Note: As taken from Rapid III Spacecraft Summary, posted April 1, 2010, http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/Rapid-III.html

IFSS Organizational Approaches

42

DecadalSurveyScience

Requirements

InstrumentAlternative #1Mission

Project Office

Alternative #2Instrument

Office

Alternative #3Stand-AloneInstrument

Spacecraft

Instrument

Spacecraft

Instrument

SpacecraftDe

crea

sin

g M

issi

on

Dep

end

en

ce

Procurement Approaches

• Alternative #1: Mission Project Office Approach– Directed mission awarded to Center– Project determines acquisition approach

• Project would determine if IFSS approach is best suited

• Alternative #2: Instrument Office Approach– Decadal Survey to Instrument Office to Mission– Handoff at instrument CDR to Mission

• Alternative #3: Stand-Alone Instrument– Competed instrument awarded to supplier– Spacecraft “ride” undetermined

43

IFSS Implementation Alternative #1: Mission Project Office Approach

• The concept of an Mission Approach is to keep the look and feel of a typical project development while allowing for the early development of missions

– Focus management on instrument development

– Provide typical flight project functions at reduced staffing for all elements except instrument developers

– Conduct trade studies/sensitivities analysis to understand impact of instrument design choices on overall mission architecture

44

IFSS Implementation Alternative #1: Mission Approach

45

PROJECT OFFICE

BUSINESS SYSTEMSENGINEERING

INSTRUMENT 1 INSTRUMENT 2 INSTRUMENT ~

FLIGHT SEGMENT PAYLOADMISSION DESIGNMISSION OPERATIONS

LAUNCH SERVICES

SAFETY & MISSION ASSURANCE

Not fully staffed until Instruments are matured

IFSS Implementation Alternative #1: Mission Approach

• Mission Function (Groups)– Project Office Management: Overall management of the project. Both inside and outside

management interfaces. Office consists of a small staff including Project Manager and Deputies. Responsible for facilitating international collaborations.

– Payload Office: Day-to-day oversight of instrument development. Interface between the instrument developers and the other project elements and also amongst the various developers.

– Systems Engineering: Provides the normal external systems engineering functions for the project. Each instrument performs its development functions under the management of the payload office and interfaces with the systems engineering function to discuss the impact of design choices on the overall project (e.g., spacecraft complexity, mission design, operational complexity). Access to the Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) would be handled from this group.

– Business Office: Provides typical procurement/contracting and business functions for the project.

– Other Element Offices: Represented by small teams to support trade studies/sensitivity analyses as instruments mature in development. Possibly not complete offices early in development and work out of systems engineering.

46

ICESat-2 Schedule has iCDR after KDP-C

47

* Taken from ICESat-2 website, http://icesat.gsfc.nasa.gov/icesat2/schedule.php, September 22, 2011

Reprinted courtesy of NASA

IFSS Implementation Alternative #2: Instrument Program Office

• The concept of an Instrument Office (IO) is to allow the development of science instruments outside of a classical flight project environment

– Provide some of the functions of a typical flight project but without the encumbrances and size of a normal flight project

– Manage and be responsible for each instrument development

– Provide resources for items such as potential spacecraft and launch vehicle interfaces

48


49

INSTRUMENT OFFICE

SHAREDRESOURCES/BUSINESS

SYSTEMSENGINEERING


RSDO

LAUNCHSERVICES


• Instrument Office Functions (Groups)– Instrument Office Management: Overall management of the office. Both

inside and outside management interfaces. Consists of a small staff consisting of a Manager, Deputy and clerical support.

– Systems Engineering: While each instrument performs its unique systems engineering trades and analyses, this office-level activity provides the systems engineering functions which are not instrument-unique. For example: what launch vehicles may be appropriate. If international relationships are needed for collaborations, they are worked from within this part of the office. Access to the Rapid Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) would be handled from this group.

– Shared Resource/Business Group: Provides typical procurement/contracting and business functions for each instrument. These would include procurements, configuration management, SR/QA and computer/ADP support.

50

IFSS Implementation Alternative #3: Stand-Alone Instrument

• The concept of a Stand-Alone Instrument Announcement of Opportunity (AO) is to competitively select instruments for development

– Leverage Instrument Incubator Program (IIP) to make instruments selection ready*

– Management of instrument development is under the direction of PIs*

– Flight selection can be one of multiple opportunities: free-flyer (domestic and international), combination of complimentary instruments to comprise full mission*

– Currently being used for Earth Venture-Instrument acquisition

• Typically used for smaller, more resource constrained instruments

51

* Taken from “New Mission Development Model for Earth Science”, Hartley P., Pasciuto M., ESTO white paper, 11/29/2007

IFSS Implementation Alternative #3: Stand-Alone Instrument

52

PROGRAM OFFICE

BUSINESS SYSTEMSENGINEERING


DEVELOPMENTAL MISSIONS

STAND-ALONE INSTRUMENTS

OPERATIONAL MISSIONS

SAFETY & MISSION ASSURANCE

Implementation Approach Comparison

53

Approach Pros Cons

#1: Mission

-Looks and feels like typical project-Staff available from all subject matter areas to support work on development issues-Reduced initial staffing relative to traditional mission approach

-Inability to develop integrated mission baseline (cost, schedule, etc.) early on-Standing army for other project elements that aren’t necessary to directly support instrument development

#2: Instrument PO

-Avoids large staffing associated with a flight project when only instrument development is going on-Provides a core group with instrument-specific expertise and focus-Provides efficiency as some functions such as CM and scheduling may be used regularly whereas some functions such as the RSDO interface may be very infrequently used

-Being removed from a flight project could provide the chance for unanticipated problems later-Would need to guard against instrument “overdevelopment” to ensure that mission requirements are met without building “gold-plated” instrument

#3: Stand-Alone Instrument

-Competitive process allows “best” science to be selected within program constraints -Allows multiple possible launch opportunities

-May result in instruments without a launch opportunity - i.e. “hanger queens”-Can increase risk as is decoupled from institutional instrument expertise and mission & spacecraft requirements D

ecr

easi

ng

Mis

sio

n D

epe

nde

nce

Comparison of Funding for Different Approaches

54

Instrument Office provides best balance for cost, schedule and funding profile

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Anua

l Fun

ding

Req

uire

men

t ($M

)

#1 Mission Office

#2 Instrument Office

#3 Stand-Alone Instrument

55

Agenda


• Background




56

Summary

• Historically, instrument development difficulties have been shown to be a significant contributor to overall mission cost and schedule growth

• An approach that starts instrument development prior to mission development, entitled “Instrument First, Spacecraft Second” (IFSS), could potentially lead to a reduction in cost growth

• Applying IFSS approach to the Tier 2 and Tier 3 Earth Science Decadal Survey (ESDS) missions has the potential to save NASA on the order of $2B

• IFSS approach can be implemented within current NPD 7120.5 guidance

• Mission schedule should be based on acquisition approach and instrument development type(s) and characteristics

• Three implementation approaches identified, each with relative pros and cons– Instrument Office approach may provide best overall balance

57

Back-Up

58

Alternative #1: Mission Office Funding Profile Detail

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7

Ann

ual F

undi

ng R

equi

rem

ent (

$M)

Launch Vehicle

Reserves

MOS/GDS

Spacecraft/I&T

Payload

PM/SE/MA

59

Alternative #2: Instrument Office Funding Profile Detail

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7

Ann

ual F

undi

ng R

equi

rem

ent (

$M)

Launch Vehicle

Reserves

MOS/GDS

Spacecraft/I&T

Payload

PM/SE/MA

60

Alternative #3: Stand-Alone Inst. Funding Profile Detail

$-

$20

$40

$60

$80

$100

$120

$140

$160

$180

Year 1

Year 2

Year 3

Year 4

Year 5

Year 6

Year 7

Year 8

Year 9

Ann

ual F

undi

ng R

equi

rem

ent (

$M)

Launch Vehicle

Reserves

MOS/GDS

Spacecraft/I&T

Payload

PM/SE/MA

Date post:	14-Nov-2014
Category:	Technology
Upload:	nasapmc
View:	13,417 times
Download:	2 times