1. Phase E Cost Growth StudyRobert Bitten, Marc Hayhurst, Debra Emmons,The Aerospace CorporationClaude Freaner, Voleak RoeumNASA Headquarters, Science Mission Directorate2012 NASA Program Management ChallengeOrlando, Florida22-23 February 2012

2. Outline Introduction Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set Changes by Phase Changes after Prime Mission Discussion of Phase E Cost Growth Phase E Cost Comparisons using 46 mission data set By mission size By science theme Discussion of Phase E Cost Comparisons Summary 2 3. Introduction Abstract Phase E is the payoff for the long awaited development of NASA sciencemissions as it includes the mission operations to collect the science datarequired for success as well as the data analysis to turn the data into afinal useable product Phase E growth, however, can be problematic as increased Phase Ecost or duration can reduce available funding for the development of newmissions to acquire new science A recent study has shown that Phase E cost growth, as planned fromPhase B start to launch, is greater than 30%* Synopsis: This study looks at Phase E cost growth for NASA science missions toquantify the growth in Phase E annual cost while investigating reasonsfor annual Phase E cost growth and assessing the Phase E cost for avariety of NASA missions for future mission cost assessments* Note: Life Cycle Cost Growth Study, Claude Freaner, presented at 2011 ISPA/SCEA Joint AnnualConference & Training Workshop, 7-10 June 20113 4. Outline Introduction Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set Changes by Phase Changes after Prime Mission Discussion of Phase E Cost Growth Phase E Cost Comparisons using 46 mission data set By mission size By science theme Discussion of Phase E Cost Comparisons Summary 4 5. 20 Mission Detailed Phase E Database* for Cost Growth AssessmentLaunchMissionKeyAcquisition Number of DateAreaProgramOrbitCenter(s) Type InstrumentsAIM4/25/2007 HeliophysicsSMEXLEOLASPCompeted3 5 Directed vs. 15 CALIPSO4/28/2006 Earth Science ESSPLEO LARC Competed3Competed missions Cloudsat 4/28/2006 Earth Science ESSPLEO JPLCompeted1DAWN 9/27/2007 Planetary DiscoveryPlanetaryJPLCompeted3Deep Impact1/12/2005 Planetary DiscoveryPlanetaryJPLCompeted3FERMI (GLAST) 6/11/2008Astrophysics Cosmos LEO GSFCDirected 2 7 Planetary missionsGALEX4/28/2003 AstrophysicsSMEXLEOJPL/CalTech Competed1vs. 13 Earth or near- GENESIS 8/8/2001 Planetary Discovery Langrangian JPLCompeted4Earth OrbitersGRACE3/17/2002 Earth Science ESSPLEO JPLCompeted6IBEX10/19/2008 HeliophysicsSMEXHEO GSFC Competed2Kepler3/7/2008 AstrophysicsDiscovery HeliocentricJPLCompeted1 8 Planetary Science LRO6/18/2009 Planetary LunarPlanetaryGSFCDirected 7vs. 6 AstrophysicsMessenger 8/3/2004 Planetary DiscoveryPlanetaryAPLCompeted7MRO8/12/2005 PlanetaryMEP PlanetaryJPL Directed 7vs. 3 Earth Science New Horizons 1/19/2006 Planetary New FrontiersPlanetaryAPLCompeted7vs. 3 HeliophysicsPhoenix 8/4/2007 Planetary Mars PlanetaryJPLCompeted7missionsSpitzer8/25/2003 Astrophysics OriginsHeliocentricJPL Directed 4STEREO10/26/2006 HeliophysicsSTPPHeliocentricGSFC/APLDirected 4SWIFT 11/20/2004 AstrophysicsMIDEX LEO GSFC Competed4WISE12/14/2009 AstrophysicsMIDEX LEO JPLCompeted1 Database covers a large range of missions * Note: Data gathered from best available source include milestone documents, CADRe,NASA Business Warehouse and other NASA documents5 6. All Missions Phase E Growth Relative to KDP-B PlanAll Phase E Growth Over Time300% Average Mission #1 % Growth in Phase E Cost for Prime Mission Relative to KDP-B Mission #2250% Mission #3 Mission #4 Mission #5200% Mission #6 Mission #7150% Mission #8 Mission #9 Mission #10100% Mission #11 Mission #12 Mission #1350%Mission #14 Mission #15 35% 43% Mission #16 0% 6%17% Mission #17 KDP-B KDP-CCDRLRD Prime Mission #18 Mission #19-50% Milestone Mission #20Average growth from KPD-B plan through end of Prime mission is 43%-100%6 7. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth by Phase50%45%43%40%Average Growth Relative to KDP-B Plan35%35% Largest30%Anticipated25% Growth byPhase20% 17%15%10% 6%5%0%@ PDR @ CDR @ Launch @ End of Prime Largest amount of anticipated growth occurs prior to Launch (i.e. CDR to LRD)7 8. Comparison of Growth from KDP-B Plan for Competed vs.Directed Missions60% 53% Average % Growth Relative to KDP-B PlanDirected50%Competed 41%40%30%20%19% 15% 12% 12%10% 6% 3% 0%@ PDR@ CDR @ Launch @ End of Prime Competed missions show more Phase E growth than Directed missions 8 9. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch PlanPercent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launch 40% 30% 20% 10% 5%0%-10%-20%-30%Average growth over plan at Launch is 5% with half of missions exceeding plan-40%9 10. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch PlanPercent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launch 40% Avg Directed Missions -3% Competed Missions 7% 30% Average 5% 20% 10% 0%-10%-20%-30% Average growth over plan at Launch is less for Directed vs. Competed missions-40%10 11. Prime Mission Annual Cost Growth Example Venus Flyby NOWLRD Plan Mercury FlybyEarth FlybyJune- 2007 Mercury OrbitDerived ActualOct - 2008 Aug-2005Insertion, Venus FlybyMercury Flyby Prime Science, LaunchMercury FlybyOct - 2006 Jan - 2008 Mar-Apr 20118/3/2004Sep - 2009 EOPM March - 2012$25,000Identified$20,000Need forAdditionalStaffing to $15,000SupportPhase EOperations$10,000 $5,000Messenger Phase E $-FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07FY08 FY09 FY10FY11FY12 FY13 11 12. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch PlanPercent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launch 40%Orbit AvgPlanetary 19%EO or Near Earth0% 30%Average 5% 20% 10%0% -10% -20% -30%Average growth over plan at Launch is greater for Planetary missions -40% 12 13. Missions Lifetime for Study Data Set Planned vs Actual Mission Lifetime* 600% Values > 100% exceed planned Prime Mission duration% Actual Lifetime vs. Planned Prime Mission Duration 500% 400% 300% 200% 100%0%Majority of missions exceed their Prime mission lifetime*As of end of Sep-2011 13 14. Prime Mission Phase E Cost Growth from Launch Plan Percent Growth for Prime Mission Relative to Plan at Launch 40% # Instruments Avg 1-2 Instruments -8% 3-4 Instruments3% 30% 5-7 Instruments 20% Average 5% 20% 10% 0%-10%-20%-30%Average growth over plan at Launch is higher for missions with more instruments-40% 14 15. Comparison of Annual Cost - Prime vs. Extended Missions Average Phase E FY Cost (FY11$M) for Prime and Extended Missions$100LRD Plan $90Actual PrimeActual Extended $80 $70 $60 $50Increased Annual Costduring extended mission $40 $30 $20 $10$-Although most missions reduce cost for extended phase, some increase annual cost 15 16. Extended Mission Cost Growth Due to Anomaly Cloudsat FY11 Operations Plan Cum$48,000 Actual CumBattery Anomaly 4/17/2011 Increased$46,000 Cost Due to Anomaly$44,000 Resolution$42,000RY$ K$40,000Recovery, Develop Daylight Only Operations April 2011 - November2011$38,000$36,000$34,000Prior Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 Apr-11 May-11Jun-11Jul-11 Aug-11Sep-11 Example shows increased cost due to anomaly resolution16 17. Potential Reasons for Phase E Cost Growth Phase E cost estimates for Competed missions may be optimistic Competed missions have total life cycle cost caps which include Phase E More funding planned for Phase E reduces funding for development Potentially optimistic Phase E estimates maximize development funding available Planetary Missions potentially underestimating complexity of Phase E Planetary missions can have complex encounter and maneuver events, such as orbit insertion, instrument pointing, etc., which are complex and may be underestimated in terms of science planning or operations tasking Large number of instruments on planetary missions can also lead to complex operations and a greater likelihood of payload anomalies Anomaly Resolution/Replanning during extended missions As missions live beyond their planned mission life they can experience more impactful anomalies These anomalies may require development of contingency operatingmodes/software patches, etc. Short duration missions that are completed may require mission re-planning for extended phases 17 18. Summary of Phase E Cost Growth for 20 Mission Data Set Prime Mission Observations Phase E cost projections, on average, grow through the development cycle with the largest growth coming between CDR and Launch, resulting in a 43% cost increase from the original KDP-B plan Half of the missions studied had a Phase E cost increase over the plan at launch with an average growth of 5% Competed missions have the most growth overall with a 53% increase over the plan at KDP-B and a 7% increase over the plan at Launch relative to 12% and -3%, respectively, for Directed missions Planetary missions and missions with the most instruments had the greatest cost increase relative to the Phase E cost plan at Launch Extended Mission Observations The majority of missions investigated exceeded their prime mission lifetime 6 of the 20 missions studied increased their annual operating costs after their prime missions18 19. Outline Introduction Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set Changes by Phase Changes after Prime Mission Discussion of Phase E Cost Growth Phase E Cost Comparisons using 46 mission data set By mission size By science theme Discussion of Phase E Cost Comparisons Summary 19 20. 46 Mission Data Set* LaunchMissionInstru- LaunchMissionInstru-ThemeThemeMissionDateType mentsMissionDateType mentsACEAug-97Helio Medium9 LROJun-09PlanetaryLarge6Acrimsat Dec-99Earth Small 1 MAP (WMAP) Jun-01Astro Medium1AIMApr-07Helio Small 3 Mars Global SurveyorJul-96 Planetary Medium4Aqua May-02Earth Flagship6 Mars Odyssey Apr-01Planetary Medium5AuraJul-04 Earth Flagship4 MER Jul-03 Planetary Flagship5AXAF (Chandra)Jul-99 Astro Flagship6 MESSENGERAug-04Planetary Medium7CassiniOct-97Planetary Flagship 12 MROAug-05Planetary Flagship6Cloudsat Apr-06Earth Medium1 New Horizons Jan-06PlanetaryLarge5DAWN Sep-07Planetary Medium3 PHOENIXAug-07Planetary Medium5Deep ImpactJan-05Planetary Medium4 RHESSI Feb-02Helio Small 1EO-1 Nov-00Earth Small 3 RXTE Dec-95Astro Medium3FAST Aug-96Helio Small 4 SDOFeb-10Helio Flagship3Fermi (GLAST)Jun-08AstroLarge2 SORCEJan-03Earth Small 4FUSE Jun-99Astro Medium1 SpitzerAug-03Astro Flagship3GALEXApr-03Astro Small 1 Stardust Feb-99Planetary Medium4GENESISAug-01Planetary Medium2 STEREO Oct-06Helio Flagship4GRACEMar-02Earth Medium3 SwiftApr-04Helio Medium3HETE-IIOct-00Astro Small 3 TerraDec-99Earth Flagship5HSTJan-00Astro Flagship5 THEMIS Feb-07Helio Medium5IBEX Oct-08Helio Small 2 TIMEDDec-01HelioLarge4ICESAT Jan-03EarthLarge1 TRACEApr-98Helio Small 1IMAGEMar-00Helio Medium6 TRMM Nov-97EarthLarge5Kepler Mar-09AstroLarge1 WISE Jun-09Astro Medium1 Included in Phase E growth data set* Note: Data gathered from best available source include milestone documents, CADRe,NASA Business Warehouse and other NASA documents20 21. Summary of Phase E Cost vs. Mission Class Phase E Cost per Mission Class$60.0$54.2Average Phase E Cost FY$11M Annual Mission$50.0 Annual $/Inst.$40.0$30.0$19.3$20.0$10.3$11.0$8.4$10.0 $3.7 $2.4$3.8$-Small (10) Medium (18)Large (7)Flagship (11) As expected, larger missions have higher Phase E cost and higher cost per instrument 21 22. Average Number of Instruments for Flagship vs. Non-Flagship Missions Average Number of Instruments 9.0Flagship Average Number of Instruments 8.07.7Non-Flagship 7.0 6.0 5.0 5.04.7 4.53.8 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.6 2.01.6 1.0-Helio AstroPlanetaryEarth Planetary Missions typically have the highest number of instruments per mission22 23. Summary of Phase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions Phase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions $16.0 $14.8 Annual Mission Average Phase E Cost FY$11M $14.0 Annual $/Inst. $12.0$9.8$10.0 $10.0 $7.8$8.0$5.9$6.0$4.8$4.0 $3.5 $2.0$2.0 $- Helio (10) Astro (8)Planetary (10) Earth (7)Heliophysics missions are least costly from both total mission and per instrument perspective23 24. Observations for Phase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions Astrophysics missions are most costly on a per instrument basis Typified by large, data intensive instruments compared to other missions Earth Science missions are the next most costly Earth science instruments are also data intensive due to survey aspects Planetary missions are most costly from a total mission perspective Although per instrument cost is relatively low, cost is large due to larger number of instruments compared to other mission typesPhase E Cost for Non-Flagship Missions$16.0 $14.8Annual MissionAverage Phase E Cost FY$11M$14.0Annual $/Inst.$12.0 $9.8$10.0$10.0$7.8 $8.0 $5.9 $6.0$4.8 $4.0 $3.5$2.0 $2.0$-Helio (10) Astro (8)Planetary (10) Earth (7) 24 25. Summary of Phase E Cost for Flagship Missions Phase E Cost for Flagship Missions$100.0 Annual Mission$85.3 Average Phase E Cost FY$11M $90.0 $80.0 Annual $/Inst. $70.0 $60.0 $54.2 $50.0 $44.1 $40.0 $30.0 $22.8 $19.9 $20.0 $6.6$7.1$9.0 $10.0 $-Helio (2)Astro (3) Planetary (3)Earth (3) SDO, STEREOHST, Chandra, Spitzer Cassini, MRO, MER Terra, Aqua, Aura Heliophysics missions are least costly for Flagship missions as well25 26. Observations for Phase E Cost for Flagship Missions Trends are similar to non-Flagship mission sets as Astrophysics &Earth Science missions are most costly on a per instrument basis Planetary Flagship missions Phase E cost is more costly than EarthScience due to large number of instruments Heliophysics cost per instrument is similar to Planetary but fewernumber of instruments results in lower annual Phase E mission costPhase E Cost for Flagship Missions$100.0 Annual Mission $90.0$85.3 Average Phase E Cost FY$11M $80.0 Annual $/Inst. $70.0 $60.0$54.2 $50.0 $44.1 $40.0 $30.0 $22.8$19.9 $20.0 $6.6 $7.1 $9.0 $10.0 $- Helio (2)Astro (3)Planetary (3) Earth (3)26 27. Ratio of Phase E Cost for Flagship vs. Non-FlagshipMissionsRatio of Phase E Cost for Flagship vs. Non-Flagship 10.0 Ratio of Flagship to Non-Flagship8.7 Per Mission Ratio9.08.0Per Inst. Ratio7.06.05.0 4.4 3.93.74.03.23.0 2.52.1 1.92.01.0 -Helio AstroPlanetary EarthRule of Thumb: Cost per instrument for Flagship is 2 to 3 times higher than non-Flagship27 28. Summary of Phase E Cost Growth for 46 Mission Data Set As expected, larger missions have greater annual Phase E cost andgreater Phase E cost per instrument In general, Heliophysics missions have lower overall annual Phase Ecost and a lower annual cost per instrument Astrophysics missions typically have greater Phase E cost perinstrument Planetary missions typically have lower cost per instrument thanAstrophysics and Earth Science missions Annual mission cost may be greater, however, due to the larger number of instruments per mission A rule of thumb for Flagship missions is that the cost per instrument ofa Flagship mission is 2 to 3 times higher than that for non-Flagshipmissions28 29. Outline Introduction Phase E Cost Change using 20 mission data set Changes by Phase Changes after Prime Mission Discussion of Phase E Cost Growth Phase E Cost Comparisons using 46 mission data set By mission size By science theme Discussion of Phase E Cost Comparisons Summary 29 30. Study Summary Phase E Cost Growth Assessment On average, Phase E cost increases 42% from the original KDP-B plan Half of the missions studied had a Phase E cost increase over the plan at launch with an average growth of 7% Competed missions and Planetary missions have the greatest cost growth The majority of missions investigated exceeded their prime mission lifetime with 30% of the missions increasing their annual cost over Prime Phase E Cost Assessment Larger missions have greater annual Phase E cost and greater Phase E cost per instrument Heliophysics missions have lower overall annual Phase E cost and a lower annual cost per instrument Astrophysics missions typically have greater Phase E cost per instrument Planetary missions typically have lower cost per instrument than Astrophysics and Earth Science missions but annual cost may be higher due to larger number of instruments 30