Optimism in early conceptual designs and its effect on cost and schedule growth: An update

Bitten, Robert; Freaner, Claude W.; Emmons, Debra

doi:10.1109/aero.2010.5446867

Cited by 17 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The growth curves for each individual mission as well as the average mass growth can be seen in Figure 4. [16] The space missions in this figure launched between the years 2000 and 2009 making this data significantly more recent than Hawkins's study. However, the trends in mass growth are nearly identical even though these space vehicles are generations ahead of the vehicles reported in Hawkins's study.…”

Section: Space Vehicle Mass Growthmentioning

confidence: 98%

Aeromechanics and Vehicle Configuration Demonstrations. Volume 3: A Hybrid Probabilistic Method for Estimate Design Margin

Robertson¹,

Edwards²,

Mavris³

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using Government drawings, specifications, or other data included in this document for any purpose other than Government procurement does not in any way obligate the U.S. Government. The fact that the Government formulated or supplied the drawings, specifications, or other data does not license the holder or any other person or corporation; or convey any rights or permission to manufacture, use, or sell any patented invention that may relate to them. This report was cleared for public release by the USAF 88th Air Base Wing (88 ABW) Public Affairs Office (PAO) and is available to the general public, including foreign nationals. Copies may be obtained from the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) (http://www.dtic.mil).

show abstract

Section: Space Vehicle Mass Growthmentioning

confidence: 98%

Aeromechanics and Vehicle Configuration Demonstrations. Volume 3: A Hybrid Probabilistic Method for Estimate Design Margin

Robertson¹,

Edwards²,

Mavris³

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The difficulty of instrument developments versus spacecraft developments can also be seen when investigating resource growth for historical NASA missions. Another study reviewing twenty NASA missions in greater detail shows that instrument resources, such as mass and cost, grow at a significantly greater rate than spacecraft resources [3]. Figure 4 shows the average percentage mass and cost growth of the instruments and spacecraft from the start of Phase B.…”

Section: Historical Instrument Delay Impactsmentioning

confidence: 98%

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

Bitten

Mahr

2012

2012 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…The difficulty of instrument developments versus spacecraft developments can also be seen when investigating resource growth for historical NASA missions. A more recent study reviewing a subset of twenty NASA missions in greater detail demonstrates that instrument resources such as mass and cost grow at a significantly greater rate than spacecraft resources [2]. Figure 6 shows the average percentage mass and cost growth of the instruments and spacecraft from the start of Phase B within this twenty mission data set and shows that the growth for instruments is essentially twice the growth for spacecraft.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 95%

The need for an instrument first, spacecraft second mission development approach

Freaner¹,

Bitten

2010

2010 IEEE International Geoscience and Remote Sensing Symposium

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. There are examples of historical missions, such as QuikSCAT and QuikTOMS, that have had shorter development times and less than historical average cost and schedule growth, which had instruments that were largely developed prior to the start of mission development. This implies that a similar approach, labeled instrument first, spacecraft second (IFSS), could provide reduced cost and schedule growth in future missions. This paper discusses the supporting data for such an approach.

show abstract

Optimism in early conceptual designs and its effect on cost and schedule growth: An update

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

Aeromechanics and Vehicle Configuration Demonstrations. Volume 3: A Hybrid Probabilistic Method for Estimate Design Margin

Aeromechanics and Vehicle Configuration Demonstrations. Volume 3: A Hybrid Probabilistic Method for Estimate Design Margin

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

The need for an instrument first, spacecraft second mission development approach

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About