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

Abstract

NASA science instruments 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 $2.5B, making more funding available for future missions, while providing a less volatile and more manageable mission portfolio. This paper reviews the results of this analysis and assesses the implications of implementing such a mission development process by showing the approach on specific mission development examples.

Historical mass, power, schedule, and cost growth for NASA science instruments

“…[15] The IFSS has been identified as an approach to significantly reduce the collateral mission cost growth due to instrument delays and result in more missions being funded for less cost when utilized for a portfolio of missions. [16] Based on the historical data from this study, the IFSS approach would reduce the required reserve levels for instrument development to 10% for mass, 20% for power, 40% for cost, and 20% for schedule, as shown in Table 7, at the start of mission development which is much more manageable and closer to current industry guidelines for mission development.…”