Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

1 Size and Historic Causes of Cost Growth
Pages 8-29

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 8...
... As part of this effort, NASA also asked the NRC to "note what differences, if any, exist with regard to Earth science compared with space science missions." NASA identified a list of relevant cost studies and related analyses to use as primary references for the study (see Table 1.1)
From page 9...
... The findings and recommendations contained in the primary references are summarized in Appendix C ANNOuNCEMENT OF OPPORTuNITy AND DIRECTED MISSIONS NASA implements two separate and distinct classes of Earth and space science missions: announcement of opportunity (AO)
From page 10...
... The primary references confirmed that extensive cost growth exists in many -- but not all -- NASA Earth and space science missions, but the extent of the cost growth differed significantly from one mission to the next, and from one study of cost growth to the next. However, regardless of the wide range in cost growth reported by the various studies, unwanted cost and schedule growth have certainly made it more difficult to accomplish NASA's Earth and space science missions than was originally anticipated when these missions were authorized.4 3 Here and in the sections that follow, each section begins with a finding and/or recommendation, which is then explained and justified by the text that follows.
From page 11...
... These differences make it very difficult to derive a single, reliable value for the average cost growth of NASA Earth and space science missions based on previous studies. Cost growth estimates can also be distorted by missions with exceptionally long development schedules, by changes in mission scope, and by the cost of extended mission operations.
From page 12...
... Primary Reference 9 examined 142 DOD projects covering a wide range of applications; the vast majority were not space launch missions. Table 1.3 lists the missions assessed by each of the primary references that examined NASA missions.
From page 13...
... are Type III. 8 In other words, half of the Earth and space science missions in this large sample were completed within the 15 percent cost growth target needed to avoid congressional notification.
From page 14...
... 1999 X 1998a MCO Mars X MGS Mars 1998 X 1999a MPL Mars X DS-1 New Millennium 1998 X SWAS Small Explorer 1998 X 1999a WIRE Small Explorer X
From page 15...
... 2007 X TWINS A/B Heliophysics 2008 X LCROSS ESMD 2009 X LRO ESMD/SMD 2009 X Kepler Discovery 2009 X 2010c Glory Earth Observing - Directed X 2009a OCO Earth System Science Pathfinder X Planck ESA 2009 X Herschel ESA Horizon 2000 Program 2009 X WISE Explorer/Medium-class Explorer 2009 X 2014c JWST Great Observatory X 2010c Aquarius Instrument X OSTM Joint NASA/CNES/NOAA 2008 X 2011c MSL Mars X CINDI Mission of Opportunity 2008 X Space Technology 7 New Millennium cancelled X Space Technology 8 New Millennium cancelled X M3-Foton Russian-ESA 2007 X 2014c MMS Solar Terrestrial Probe X 2011c NPOESS Preparatory Project NASA/NOAA/USAF X Cassini-Huygens NASA-ESA 1997 X Phoenix Mars Scout 2007 X AIM Small Explorer 2007 X Magellan Venus 1989 X NSCAT NASA/Japan 1996 X ACTS Communications 1993 X GOES I-M Operational weather satellites 1994-2001 X EUVE Explorer 1992 X XTE Explorer/Medium-class Explorer 1995 X Galileo Planetary 1989 X continued
From page 16...
... Earth and space science programs are very complex, with extensive interactions among
From page 17...
... The two figures are identical, except that the first shows the distribution of Earth science and space science missions, and the second shows the distribu tion of AO and directed missions. Figure 1.3c also shows the initial cost estimate and launch date for each of these missions.9 The average development cost for each of these 40 missions is $215 million.
From page 18...
... 8 CONTROLLING COST GROWTH OF NASA EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS 150% CALIPSO 140% 130% 120% EO-1 110% 100% y = 1.22x + 0.01 2 R = 0.64 90% 80% CLOUDSAT Percent Cost Growth HETE-II 70% SWAS SWIFT 60% GALEX Messenger 50% ICESAT HESSI 40% Gravity Probe B Type SIRTF STEREO III 30% TIMED See inset Type II 20% Earth Science Missions Space Science Missions Type10% I 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% EOS-Aqua Percent Schedule Growth TRMM -10% MGS Stardust NEAR -20% ACE -30%
From page 19...
... : Clustering of 40 NASA missions from Primary Reference 1 in terms of percent cost and schedule growth in excess of reserves: Type I, less than 15 percent; Type II, 15-30 percent; and Type III, more than 30 percent. The linear trend line shows the best fit to all the missions plotted in the figure.
From page 20...
... Hamaker, December 21, 2009, providing source data for Primary Reference 1. Cost Growth by Phase One of the clear and consistent findings in the primary references is that cost growth does not accumulate uniformly across mission phases; rather, the bulk of cost growth occurs post-CDR (see Figure 1.5)
From page 21...
... 9) .10 Similarly, Primary Reference 6 reported that the highest percentage of schedule growth occurs after the start of integration and testing, i.e., during Phase D, and that this phenomenon is consistent across Earth science, heliophysics, astrophysics, and planetary missions.
From page 22...
... Hamaker, December 21, 2009, providing source data for Primary Reference 1. TABLE 1.4 Breakdown of Cost and Cost Growth for the 40 missions from Primary Reference 1 Total Initial Cost Total Cost Growth (billion $)
From page 23...
... SOURCE: Cost and schedule data from Tom Coonce, NASA Headquarters, e-mail to committee member Joseph W Hamaker, December 21, 2009, providing source data for Primary Reference 1.
From page 24...
... Therefore the majority of cost growth, typically 20 to 30 percent of the initial estimate, occurs post-CDR. This is an important finding, which is supported by many of the primary references.
From page 25...
... Past studies identify a wide range of factors that contribute to cost and schedule growth of NASA Earth and space science missions. The most commonly identified factors are as follows: • Overly optimistic and unrealistic initial cost estimates, • Project instability and funding issues, • Problems with development of instruments and other spacecraft technology, and • Launch service issues.
From page 26...
... Budget constraints, lack of stable funding, and/or inadequate initial 25 6 15 11 funding profile 15 Weak independent validation of cost and schedule 6 Inadequate definition of technical and management aspects of 11 projects prior to NASA and OMB approval Inadequate cost and schedule reserves 12 6 Technical complexity 15 Adverse impacts of financial problems experienced by other NASA 6 missions Development of Instruments and Other Spacecraft Technology Instrument development problems caused, for example, by 11 29 6 8 12 117 instrument designs that lack technical details and/or fail to identify 15 13 technical challenges The primary contributor to internal cost growth (i.e., growth caused 4 by factors within the control of a given project) is instrument 11 development problems.
From page 27...
... NOTE: Primary Reference 8 is focused on reducing the absolute costs of NASA space science missions. It does not directly address cost growth, and so its results are not included in this table.
From page 28...
... Development of Instruments and Other Spacecraft Technology Earth and space science satellites are highly customized, and their design is often driven by the nature of their instruments and their requirements in terms of power, mass, pointing accuracy, thermal control, and so on. The primary references conclude that instrument development problems may be the largest element of mission cost growth that can be attributed to factors within the control of a given project.
From page 29...
... Space science missions that leave Earth orbit have greater incentives to minimize spacecraft mass and power, and the average cost and the average spacecraft mass for space science missions are less than those for Earth science missions. However, as specifically addressed by Primary Reference 6, Earth science missions have not shown a systematic difference in cost or cost growth compared to other SMD missions.12 Both Earth and space science missions have shown good correlation between (1)


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.