1. Instrument First, Spacecraft Second:
A New Mission Development Paradigm
Bob Bitten, Eric Mahr
The Aerospace Corporation
Claude Freaner
NASA Headquarters, Science Mission Directorate
2011 NASA Program Management Challenge
Long Beach, California
9-10 February 2011
Used with permission

2. Executive Summary
• 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
2

3. Agenda
• Background
• Approach Overview
• Individual Mission Simulation Results
• Mission Portfolio Simulation Results
• Considerations
• Summary
3

4. Background
• Observations
– >60% of missions experience developmental issues with the instrument
– 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
– Missions in which the instruments were almost fully developed, such as
QuikTOMS and QuikSCAT, were developed at minimal cost and on short
development schedules while experiencing limited cost growth
• 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
4

5. Instrument Development Problems Account for
Largest Contributor to Cost & Schedule Growth*
Distribution of Internal Cost & Schedule Growth
•
Other Inst. Only
Cost & Schedule growth data 14.8% 33.3%
from 40 recently developed
missions was investigated
S/C Only
22.2% Both Inst
& S/C
• 63% of missions experienced 29.6%
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
* As 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
5

6. 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
* As 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
6

7. 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
7

8. 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
8

9. Case History: QuikSCAT
• On November 19, 1997, NASA awarded the first rapid spacecraft delivery order
to Ball Aerospace & Technologies Corp., Boulder, CO for the delivery of
QuikSCAT spacecraft
– The satellite was the first obtained under NASA's Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite
Quantity program for Rapid Spacecraft Delivery Office (RSDO) for rapid delivery of
satellite core systems
• QuikSCAT, NASA’s ocean-observing satellite mission, was rapidly developed to
fill in the data gap between NSCAT on ADEOS-I and SeaWinds on ADEOS-II
– A scatterometer nearly identical to SeaWinds was quickly assembled from NSCAT
spare parts
• QuikSCAT was launched on June 19, 1999 on a Delta II
Demonstrates that a 2-year procurement and S/C development, when
instruments are complete, is feasible
9

10. Case History: QuikTOMS
• In July 1999, NASA selected Orbital Sciences Corporation (Orbital) to build, launch and
operate the Quick Total Ozone Mapping Spectrometer (QuikTOMS)
– The fifth TOMS instrument flight model 5 (TOMS FM-5) was complete
– FM-5 was originally scheduled to fly as a cooperative mission with Russia in late 2000 but was
delayed due to Russian funding issues, so it was decided to launch in August 2000 as a US
free-flyer
– Named QuikTOMS since the effort entailed the construction and launch of a spacecraft in less
than two years as compared to traditional missions which take from three to five years
• QuikTOMS was procured by NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center’s (GSFC) Rapid
Spacecraft Development Office (RSDO) and was managed by the GSFC QuikTOMS
Project Office
– QuikTOMS, with the already built TOMS FM-5, was co-manifested as a secondary payload with
Orbview 4
– Orbview 4, the primary payload, experienced integration and test difficulties, which caused a
launch delay
• QuikTOMS was launched on September 21, 2001 on a Taurus
Demonstrates that a 2-year procurement and S/C development, when
instruments are complete, is feasible
From FY03 Budget Document, pg. SAT 3-86, dated Feb-02
10

11. Agenda
• Background
• Approach Overview
• Individual Mission Simulation Results
• Mission Portfolio Simulation Results
• Considerations
• Summary
11

12. 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
12

13. 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
HyspIRI-like Development Cost Risk Analysis Results –
$2.5
• Cost to implement
3D-Winds
GACM
Case 1A, 1B & 2B (IFSS with 18 Month Offset) FY10$M
SCLP
Annual Funding Requirement (FY$10M)
GRACE-II
PATH
LIST 100%
ACE
Tier 2 & 3 missions $2.0 GEO-CAPE
SWOT
ASCENDS
90%
80%
Cumulative Probability
HyspIRI
CLARREO 70%
• Time to launch all
DESDynI-L
DESDynI-R
IceSat-2 60%
$1.5 SMAP
GPM 50%
LDCM
NPP 40%
Tier 2 & 3 missions $1.0
Aquarius
OCO-2
Glory
Systematic Missions
ESSP
30%
20% Probability of Instrument Delaying Project
• Number of missions
ES Multi-Mission • 96.7% for Case 1B no IFSS offset (9.8 month average delay)
ES Technology 10% • 5.9% for Case 2B with 18 month offset
Applied Sciences
ES Research 0%
FY11 PBR
$0.5 $200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900
launched by 2024 Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M)
• Percent of Threshold $0.0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Breach Reports
13

14. IFSS Assessment Overview
• Start with instrument resources
– If no detailed instrument data can be found, then surrogates are used
• Size spacecraft for orbit conditions and instrument resource requirements
• Estimate the cost of the system
• Lay out baseline plan
• Phase cost over funding profile
• Identify analogous instrument development times to use in simulation
• Run the individual mission simulation
• Fold the mission simulation results into the mission portfolio simulation
14

15. Example Mission Data - HyspIRI Mission Overview
* Note: As taken from page 3 of HyspIRI presentation at Earth Science Decadal Survey Symposium, Feb 2009 ,
http://decadal.gsfc.nasa.gov/Symposium-2-11-09.html
15

16. Data Completeness Assessment
• Given the desire to have representative (i.e., “-like”) missions,
surrogate instruments used when actual data was not available
Mission Parameters Instrument Parameters
Mission
Altitude Inclination Design Mass Power Data Rate Duty Cycle Type
Tier 2 Life
HySPIRI X X X X X X X X
ASCENDS X X X P P P P X
SWOT X X X P P X
GEO-CAPE X X X P X
ACE X X X X
Tier 3
LIST X X X X X P X X
PATH X X X X X X X X
GRACE-II X X X X
SCLP X X X X
GACM X X X X
3D-Winds X X X X X X X X
X = Yes
P = Partial
Blank = No
16

17. Mission Concept Sizing
• Using mission and instrument
parameters, representative Tier 2 and
Tier 3 designs were developed
• Designs were developed using a
Concurrent Engineering Methodology
(CEM) model
• CEM model is a spreadsheet spacecraft
conceptual design and analysis tool
– Sizing relationships generated using
historical trend data
• Include physics, rules-of-thumb,
parametric relationships, and
educated guesswork
– Will not give an exact result, but
provides representative designs “in the
ballpark”
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 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. Agenda
• Background
• Approach Overview
• Individual Mission Simulation Results
• Mission Portfolio Simulation Results
• Considerations
• Summary
19

20. Simple Schedule Analysis Simulation Framework
Spacecraft Development
Spacecraft Integration & Test
SIR TRR
System Integration
Instrument Development
Env. Test
Typical Delivery
With Pad Ops.
Instrument Delay
Instrument Integration & Test
Launch
Instrument Development Delays Can Lead to Overall Schedule Delay
20

21. 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
21

22. Example of Spacecraft & Instrument Timelines
• Basis of Triangular Schedule Distribution:
– Low: Baseline Plan
– Mode: Baseline Plan (S/C) and Average of Historical Analogies
– High: Schedule Distributions (months)
Maximum of Historical Analogies
Spacecraf t ATP-TRR
Instrument ATP-Delivery
Spacecraft Instrument
Distribution ATP-TRR ATP-Del
Low 45.0 44.6
Most likely 45.0 53.4
High 57.0 66.3
}
40 45 50 55 60 65 70 Mean 49.0 54.8
}
49 54.753
Differences in means will lead to
S/C waiting for instrument delivery
22

23. Comparison of Element Delivery Times –
HyspIRI-like Mission
Spacecraft 44 4 8
Current Plan
Minimum
VSWIR 40 13 16 Mean
Maximum
TIR 45 10 12
20 30 40 50 60 70
Months to Delivery
TIR instrument delivery time exceeds Spacecraft delivery time
23

24. 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”
24

25. 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
25

26. HyspIRI-like Development Cost Risk Analysis Results –
Case 1A & 1B FY10$M
100%
Case 1A
90% Estimate without
instrument issues
80%
$459M
Cumulative Probability
70%
60%
Case 1B
50% Estimate with
Instrument
40% difficulties
$547M
30%
20%
10%
0%
$200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900
Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M)
26

27. 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%
$459M
Cumulative Probability
70%
60%
Case 2B Case 1B
50% Estimate with Estimate with
Instrument Instrument
40% difficulties difficulties
$466M $547M
30%
20% Probability of Instrument Delaying Project
• 96.7% for Case 1B no IFSS offset (9.8 month average delay)
10% • 5.9% for Case 2B with 18 month offset
0%
$200 $300 $400 $500 $600 $700 $800 $900
Estimated Development Cost (FY10$M)
27

28. Summary of Simulation Results*
"Actual" w/o "Actual" w/o
Planned Percent Increase
Mission IFSS IFSS
Case 1A
Case 1B Case 2B w/o IFSS w/IFSS
HySPIRI-like $ 541 $ 654 $ 1,429 22.6% 8.4%
ASCENDS-like $ 599 $ 882 $ 636 47.3% 6.2%
SWOT-like $ 866 $ 933 $ 875 7.8% 1.1%
GEO-CAPE-like $ 759 $ 1,129 $ 816 48.7% 7.6%
ACE-like $ 1,318 $ 1,616 $ 1,429 22.6% 8.4%
LIST-like $ 759 $ 1,093 $ 800 44.0% 5.4%
PATH-like $ 480 $ 628 $ 505 30.8% 5.1%
GRACE-II-like $ 313 $ 374 $ 325 19.4% 3.7%
SCLP-like $ 635 $ 900 $ 681 41.7% 7.1%
GACM-like $ 886 $ 1,333 $ 959 50.5% 8.2%
3D-Winds-like $ 900 $ 1,320 $ 952 46.6% 5.8%
Total $ 8,056 $ 10,862 $ 8,557 34.8% 6.2%
* Note: Cost values represent simulation mean mission total cost
IFSS Approach saves on the order of 30% compared to typical approach
28

29. 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
29

30. Agenda
• Background
• Approach Overview
• Individual Mission Simulation Results
• Mission Portfolio Simulation Results
• Considerations
• Summary
30

31. 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
31

32. 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 curves,
$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
# of missions
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%
complete, etc.
– Assess Figures of Merit
8.5
10%
8 0%
w/IFSS w/o IFSS w/IFSS w/o IFSS
32

33. 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
33

34. 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
34

35. Mission Portfolio Example with IFSS
$3.0
$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
35

36. Mission Portfolio Example Without IFSS
$3.0
$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
36

37. Comparison of Mission Portfolio Results
Cost to Implement ESDS Missions Time to Launch ESDS Missions
$12.0 $11.1 2026
Total Cost FY10$B
$10.0 $9.1
2025
$8.0 2025
$6.0
2024.1
$4.0 2024
$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 70% 64.2%
10.1
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
37

38. Agenda
• Background
• Approach Overview
• Individual Mission Simulation Results
• Mission Portfolio Simulation Results
• Considerations
• Summary
38

39. IFSS Considerations
• Typical IFSS “Offset” for instrument development is two years
– Provides instruments with a two year head start prior to a three to four year mission
development phase
• For most instrument development efforts, this is after CDR but prior to full
instrument integration
– At this point, most instrument problems should be identified
– Time remains to recover prior to delivery to spacecraft for system environmental
test
• Assumes that mission systems engineers and spacecraft vendors are involved
at low level of effort to ensure mission requirements and spacecraft
accommodations are considered
• IFSS approach may not be suitable for all mission types
– May not apply when spacecraft is integral to instrument
39

40. Rapid III Procurement* Can Provide Reliable Spacecraft
with Known Performance within 20 to 36 Months
Spacecraft Spacecraft Spacecraft Comm
Core Payload Payload Pointing System
Vendors Delivery Lifetime Dry Mass Sys
Spacecraft Mass (kg) Power (W) Accuracy Redundancy
(Mos.) (Yrs) (kg) Band
(Arcsec)
Ball Aerospace BCP 2000 36 5 450 500 400 10.5 S, X Fully
GD 300S 26 2 265 65 125 360 S, X Selective
General
Dynamics
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
SSTL 150 22 7 103 50 50 36 S Selective
Surrey Space
Technologies – SSTL 300 28 7 218 150 140 360 S Selective
U.S.
SSTL 600 28 4 429 200 386 605 S, X Selective
Thales Alenia
Space France
Proteus 20 5 261 300 300 72 S Selective
Thales Alenia
Space 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
* Note: As taken from Rapid III Spacecraft Summary, posted April 1, 2010, http://rsdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/Rapid-III.html
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
40

41. Agenda
• Background
• Approach Overview
• Individual Mission Simulation Results
• Mission Portfolio Simulation Results
• Considerations
• Summary
41

42. 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
while providing additional benefits including:
– Launching full set of ESDS missions a year sooner
– Providing for an extra mission launched by 2024
– Decreasing the number of Threshold Breach instances from 64% to 12%
• IFSS approach is enabled/enhanced given Rapid III Rapid Spacecraft
Development Office (RSDO) bus procurement approach
– Availability of wide range of busses provides quick acquisition of required capability
42

43. Questions?
• Bob Bitten, NASA Advanced Projects, The Aerospace Corporation
– robert.e.bitten@aero.org
• Eric Mahr, Space Architecture Department, The Aerospace
Corporation
– eric.m.mahr@aero.org
• Claude Freaner, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters
– claude.freaner@nasa.gov
43