Recent improvements in JPL's mission formulation process

Leising, C. J.; Sherwood, Brent; Adler, Mark; Wessen, Randii R.; Naderi, F.

doi:10.1109/aero.2010.5446881

Cited by 13 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…More recently, a set of cost-risk subfactors were identified from past studies and missions at JPL. [17,18] These are typically used to assign additional margins in early cost estimates, but were also shown to help provide more accurate cost correlations when used as mass weightings. The complexity metric defined for this study is therefore an adaptation of the two above-mentioned sets of weightings and the complexity metric presented in [19].…”

Section: Figure 4 -Example Of a Sep Trajectory With A 2022 Departure mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Trade space evaluation of ascent and return architectures for a Mars Sample Return mission

Alibay

Bailey

2014

2014 IEEE Aerospace Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of Mars Sample Return (MSR) has been considered since the 1960s and is still a top priority for the planetary science community.[1] Although a plan on the number and types of samples to be collected for MSR has been outlined, as articulated in the Mars 2020 Science Definition Team report [2], the trade space of options to return this sample from the surface of Mars to the surface of the Earth is still being explored. One of the main challenges with MSR is that it is inherently a multi-vehicle system where each vehicle's design impacts that of the others. Defining the trade space must therefore be treated as a System of Systems (SoS) problem. The work presented puts forward a framework to rapidly explore such spatially and temporally distributed systems. It investigates the possible vehicle and technology options for MSR, assuming that a packaged sample has been left on the surface of Mars. It also evaluates how launch sequencing choices affect the expected return on investment of different architectures. The paper explores eight key trades, including different types of landing and propulsion systems, as well as low-cost direct return options. A large set of architectures are compared to the baseline proposed in the Planetary Science Decadal Survey [1] for MSR, which consists of a stationary lander, a small fetch rover, a Mars Ascent Vehicle (MAV), and a return orbiter with chemical propulsion. Overall, the baseline is found to be well optimized, although a few options, including the use of solar electric propulsion and of a roving vehicle carrying the MAV to the sample, are shown to offer a better return on investment. Furthermore, when considering only the goals of MSR, an approach where the lander is sent to Mars at least one launch window ahead of the return orbiter is demonstrated to be preferable.

show abstract

Section: Figure 4 -Example Of a Sep Trajectory With A 2022 Departure mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In this equation, F is the relative average cost per unit mass of a given platform j, and CW is the complexity weighting of a given technology choice i, derived from the list of costrisk subfactors in [17]. The most important weightings are provided in Table 8.…”

Section: Figure 4 -Example Of a Sep Trajectory With A 2022 Departure mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade space evaluation of ascent and return architectures for a Mars Sample Return mission

Alibay

Bailey

2014

2014 IEEE Aerospace Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Component cost ( C i ) is estimated using system‐specific parametric cost‐estimating relationships and is corrected for design complexity ( C i (DC i ) ) either by adding a penalty to component mass prior to estimating its cost (as in Selva [] and Alibay and Strange []) or by adding a penalty after its costs have been calculated (as in Leising et al. []). The weightings applied to correct for process and architectural complexity are also system‐specific and should be determined on a case‐by‐case basis.…”

Section: Proposed Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Framework for Studying Cost Growth on Complex Acquisition Programs

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The government acquisition system is consistently plagued by cost growth and by attempts at acquisition reform. Despite these persistent challenges, the academic community lacks a methodology for studying complex acquisition programs both in‐depth and longitudinally throughout their life cycles. In this paper, we present a framework for studying complex acquisition programs that provides researchers with a strategy for systematically studying cost growth mechanisms. The proposed framework provides a means to identify specific technical and organizational mechanisms for cost growth, to organize those mechanisms using design structure matrices, and to observe the evolution of those mechanisms throughout a program's life cycle. To illustrate the utility of our framework, we apply it to analyze a case study of the National Polar‐orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) program. Ultimately, we demonstrate that the framework enables us to generate unique insights into the mechanisms that induced cost growth on NPOESS and that were unacknowledged by previous studies. Specifically, we observed that complexity was injected into the technical system well before the program's cost estimates began to increase and that it was the complexity of the NPOESS organization that hindered the program's ability to effectively estimate and to manage its costs.

show abstract

“…This weighting is based on the concept of cost-risk subfactors, which are normally used to assign additional budget reserves. [10] They are characteristics of a mission that are believed to drive complexity and cost. CW ranges from 0 to 7 for each instrument.…”

Section: Metricsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade space evaluation of multi-mission architectures for the exploration of Europa

Alibay

Strange

2013

2013 IEEE Aerospace Conference

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent cuts to NASA's planetary exploration budget have precipitated a debate in the community on whether large flagship missions to planetary bodies in the outer solar system or sequences of smaller missions as part of a long-term exploration program would be more beneficial. The work presented explores the trade between these two approaches as applied to the exploration of Europa and concentrates on identifying combinations of flyby, orbiter and/or lander missions that achieve high value at a lower cost than the Jupiter Europa Orbiter (JEO) flagship mission concept. The effects of the value attributed to the four main science objectives for Europa, which can be broadly classified as investigating the ocean, ice-shell, composition and geology, are demonstrated. The current approach proposed to complete the ocean exploration objective is shown to have conflicting requirements with the other three objectives. For missions that fully address all the science objectives, such as JEO, the ocean goal is therefore found to be the main cost driver. Instrument combinations for low-cost flyby missions are also presented, and simple lander designs able to achieve a wide range of objectives at a low additional cost are identified. Finally, the current designs for the Europa Habitability Mission (EHM) are compared to others in the trade space, based on the prioritization given to the science goals for the exploration of Europa. The current EHM flyby mission (Clipper) is found to be highly promising in terms of providing very high potential science value at a low cost.

show abstract

Recent improvements in JPL's mission formulation process

Cited by 13 publications

References 2 publications

Trade space evaluation of ascent and return architectures for a Mars Sample Return mission

Trade space evaluation of ascent and return architectures for a Mars Sample Return mission

A Framework for Studying Cost Growth on Complex Acquisition Programs

Trade space evaluation of multi-mission architectures for the exploration of Europa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About