Eric Mahr

An analogy-based method for estimating the costs of spacecraft

High-level parametric cost models are often used to obtain an estimate of spacecraft costs in cases where system details are unavailable, or in which multiple options are being studied. A previous study demonstrated the advantages of a method for estimating the costs of space-based instruments using the actual costs of a small number of analogous instruments. In the present study, a similar approach is applied to the estimation of spacecraft bus system and subsystem costs. Using The Aerospace Corporations database of small satellite technical, programmatic, and cost parameters, several implementations of this analogy-based approach were tested and the results were compared with estimates from several versions of The Aerospace Corporations small satellite cost model. In all cases, the analogy-based method provided results comparable to good parametric cost models. Good results were also obtained when applying the analogy method at the bus system level with only two or three input parameters

Development of the small satellite cost model (SSCM) edition 2002

0-7803-7651-X/03/

Instrument schedule delays: Potential impact on mission development cost for recent NASA projects

17.00

Instrument first, spacecraft second (IFSS): A new paradigm in space mission development

NASA space-borne instruments, while trying to pursue world class science, have had a history of developmental delays. These development delays can lead to cost growth for the overall mission, as shown in recent studies of NASA missions and a larger historical data set. An analysis was conducted to assess if a new mission development process, labeled instrument first, spacecraft second (IFSS), could provide reduced cost and schedule growth in future missions by minimizing the impact of instrument development issues on mission development. A cost and schedule analysis was conducted for representative Tier 2 and Tier 3 Earth Science Decadal Survey missions to quantify the benefits. The results indicate that the savings resulting from such an approach is on the order of

Rapid space architecture development and analysis using an integrated toolset

2.5B, making more funding available for future missions, while providing a less volatile and more manageable mission portfolio.

An independent cost and schedule estimate process for NASA science projects

An analysis was conducted to determine potential benefits of initiating instrument development prior to full mission development for NASA Earth Science missions. A cost and schedule analysis was conducted for representative Tier 2 and Tier 3 Earth Science Decadal Survey missions to quantify the benefits. The results indicate that the savings resulting from such an approach is on the order of

Evaluating options for enhancing technology development and controlling cost growth

2B, making more funding available for future missions, while providing a less volatile and more manageable mission portfolio.

Instrument first, spacecraft second (IFSS): Options for implementing a new paradigm

Concurrent engineering methodologies (CEMs) have become standard practice for conceptual spacecraft design. These methodologies have been implemented in spacecraft design tools for use by single users as well as for multiple analysts linked over a network performing more complex or broader analyses. Along with the development of these tools, there has also been an increasing need to analyze future space system options at a broader, architectural level. The trade space for such an analysis may include constellation design (altitude, inclination, number), payload sizing, and spacecraft bus configuration. The goal is to be able to span a wide trade space while maintaining analytical fidelity, and arrive at an integrated solution in a short amount of time. This need was recently highlighted during Air Force Space Commands operationally responsive spacelift (ORS) analysis of alternatives (AoA) study, in which several different space architectures had to be generated to support a rather compressed study schedule. This paper describes the development and utilization of the space architecture development and analysis tool (SADAT) which allowed rapid generation of hundreds of system options and the final selection of 30 different space systems to be included as part of the study. The extension of this tool to incorporate more models, such as launch vehicle sizing and cost estimation, extending automation and optimization, and its use as pre-study tool for the Aerospace Corporations Concept Design Center (CDC) are also discussed.

Don't sweat the small stuff - a sensitivity analysis of cost estimate input parameters

As a result of policy changes in 2009, NASA Headquarters mandated that projects must be budgeted using probabilistic cost and schedule estimating. As a response to this requirement, NASAs Science Mission Directorate (SMD) asked The Aerospace Corporation to use their estimating methodology to assess missions at project milestones. This paper describes the cost and schedule estimate processes used by Aerospace at KDP-C, when the agency commitments are established. Key unique features will be described including the use of multiple cost estimates for all WBS elements and an emphasis on analogy-based estimates for both cost and schedule. A comparison of the estimates with the as-launched development costs and schedules for 14 projects with launch dates from 2007 to 2013 will also be presented.

Development of the small satellite cost model 2014 (SSCM14)

Given the history of delays for NASA science instruments, a study was conducted to assess the viability of a new development paradigm called Instrument First, Spacecraft Second (IFSS) to reduce cost and schedule growth in future missions. The new paradigm was shown to provide many tangible benefits, including decreased portfolio costs and less portfolio volatility, but there were still questions as to whether it would work within current NASA policy and what options were available for implementing this new development approach. This paper provides a discussion of how the approach fits within NASA, guidance for setting the project schedule and various management options.