Defending Planet Earth Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies (2010) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Appendix A: Independent Cost Assessment
Appendix A: Independent Cost Assessment
Pages 103-112
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 103... ...
As a result, it is too early in the NEO program development and design of most of the eight representative projects for the committee to develop confidence in either the projects themselves or the SAIC's cost estimates. As one example, the committee notes the mission to place a 0.5-meter infrared telescope in a Venus-trailing orbit costed by a special team at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL)
|
From page 104... ...
SAIC assessed technology readiness at the major subsystem level and provided an assessment of the critical technologies on the basis of information provided to the estimators. The results of the SAIC assessment were reviewed by the committee, and significant differences, both plus and minus, were noted between the numbers produced by the SAIC cost modeling tools and the project team estimates as described in part above.
|
From page 105... ...
Methodology for Estimating the Most Probable Range of Cost and Schedule for Space-Based Missions The five space-based missions included two infrared telescopes, a kinetic characterization/kinetic impact mission, a gravity tractor, and a nuclear deflector mission. All of these space-based missions were estimated using the NASA QuickCost model (in "References," see the subsection "Cost Models")
|
From page 106... ...
Given the conceptual level of definition at this stage of the project development and the fact that the reconciliation between the project team and model estimates has not been performed, clearly the end points of this range for most of the projects also have a high probability of changing as the designs become more defined and the basis for the difference in current estimates is understood. 100% 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % Confidence 50 % Tied to 49-month 40 % acquisition schedule 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% $0 $50 $100 $150 $ 200 2010 $M FIGURE A.1 Panoramic Survey Telescope and Rapid Response System (PanSTARRS 4)
|
From page 107... ...
Figure A.2 Quad Chart 2.eps 100% 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % Confidence 50 % Tied to 49-month 40 % acquisition schedule 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% $0 $10 $ 20 $30 $ 40 $50 $ 60 $70 $ 80 $90 $100 2010 $M FIGURE A.3 Catalina Sky Survey II (CSS) Binocular Telescope cost S curve.
|
From page 108... ...
ost . Figure A.5 Quad Chart 5.eps
|
From page 109... ...
. Quijote (European Figure A.6 Quad Chart 6.eps 100% 90 % 80 % 70 % 60 % Confidence 50 % Tied to 66-month 40 % acquisition schedule 30 % 20 % 10 % 0% $0 $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 2010 $M FIGURE A.7 Gravity tractor cost S curve.
|
From page 110... ...
Presentation to the Survey/Detection Panel of the Committee to Review Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, April 20. Catalina Sky Survey Team, University of Arizona Lunar and Planetary Laboratory.
|
From page 111... ...
Presentation to the Committee to Review Near-Earth-Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies, April 20. Large Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST)
|
From page 112... ...
Technology Readiness Levels and Risk Ratings Mankins, John C., Advanced Concepts Office, Office of Space Access and Technology, NASA.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.