References

PRIMARY REFERENCES

NASA Cost Studies

1. Bitten, R.E., D.L. Emmons, and C.W. Freaner. 2006. Using Historical NASA Cost and Schedule Growth to Set Future Program and Project Reserve Guidelines. IEEE Paper #1545. December.

2. NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). 2007. Cost/Schedule Performance Study for the Science Mission Directorate. Final Report. Prepared by the NASA LaRC Science Support Office and Science Applications International Corporation. NASA LaRC, Hampton, Va. October.

3. NASA. 2007. “Cost and Schedule Growth at NASA.” Presentation provided to the committee by Director of the Cost Analysis Division Tom Coonce, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, NASA, Washington, D.C. November.

4. NASA. 2008. “SMD Cost/Schedule Performance Study—Summary Overview.” Presentation by B. Perry and C. Bruno, NASA Science Support Office; M. Jacobs, M. Doyle, S. Hayes, M. Stancati, W. Richie, and J. Rogers, Science Applications International Corporation. January.

5. Freaner, C.W., R.E. Bitten, D.A. Bearden, and D.L. Emmons. 2008. “An Assessment of the Inherent Optimism in Early Conceptual Designs and Its Effect on Cost and Schedule Growth.” Paper presented at the Space Systems Cost Analysis Group/Cost Analysis and Forecasting/European Aerospace Cost Engineering Working Group 2008 Joint International Conference, European Space Research and Technology Centre, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, May 15-16. European Space Agency, Paris, France.

6. Mlynczak, B., and B. Perry, Science Support Office, NASA. 2009. “SMD Earth and Space Mission Cost Driver Comparison Study. Final Report and Presentation.” March.

Related Analyses

7. General Accounting Office. 1992. Space Missions Require Substantially More Funding Than Initially Estimated. GAO/NSIAD-93-97. Washington, D.C. December.

8. National Research Council. 1997. Reducing the Costs of Space Science Research Missions: Proceedings of a Workshop. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 44
References PRIMARy REFERENCES NASA Cost Studies 1. Bitten, R.E., D.L. Emmons, and C.W. Freaner. 2006. Using Historical NASA Cost and Schedule Growth to Set Future Program and Project Reserve Guidelines. IEEE Paper #1545. December. 2. NASA Langley Research Center (LaRC). 2007. Cost/Schedule Performance Study for the Science Mission Directorate. Final Report. Prepared by the NASA LaRC Science Support Office and Science Applications International Corporation. NASA LaRC, Hampton, Va. October. 3. NASA. 2007. “Cost and Schedule Growth at NASA.” Presentation provided to the committee by Director of the Cost Analysis Division Tom Coonce, Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, NASA, Washington, D.C. November. 4. NASA. 2008. “SMD Cost/Schedule Performance StudySummary Overview.” Presentation by B. Perry and C. Bruno, NASA Science Support Office; M. Jacobs, M. Doyle, S. Hayes, M. Stancati, W. Richie, and J. Rogers, Science Applications International Corporation. January. 5. Freaner, C.W., R.E. Bitten, D.A. Bearden, and D.L. Emmons. 2008. “An Assessment of the Inherent Optimism in Early Conceptual Designs and Its Effect on Cost and Schedule Growth.” Paper presented at the Space Systems Cost Analysis Group/Cost Analysis and Forecasting/European Aerospace Cost Engineering Working Group 2008 Joint International Conference, European Space Research and Technology Centre, Noordwijk, The Netherlands, May 15-16. European Space Agency, Paris, France. 6. Mlynczak, B., and B. Perry, Science Support Office, NASA. 2009. “SMD Earth and Space Mission Cost Driver Comparison Study. Final Report and Presentation.” March. Related Analyses 7. General Accounting Office. 1992. Space Missions Require Substantially More Funding Than Initially Esti - mated. GAO/NSIAD-93-97. Washington, D.C. December. 8. National Research Council. 1997. Reducing the Costs of Space Science Research Missions: Proceedings of a Workshop. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 

OCR for page 44
 REFERENCES 9. McCrillis, J., Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Analysis Improvement Group. 2003. “Cost Growth of Major Defense Programs.” Presentation to the Annual Department of Defense Cost Analysis Symposium, January 30, Williamsburg, Va. 10. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. 2003. Report of the Defense Science Board/Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Joint Task Force on Acquisition of National Security Space Programs. Department of Defense, Washington, D.C. May. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES AFRL (Air Force Research Laboratory). 2007. Defense Industrial Base Assessment: U.S. Space Industry. Final Report. Dayton, Ohio: AFRL. August 31. Available at http://www.space.commerce.gov/library/reports/. Bearden, D. 2008. Perspectives on NASA Mission Cost and Schedule Performance. Presentation at GFC Sympo - sium, June 3. Bitten, R. 2008. Perspectives on NASA Mission Cost and Schedule Performance Trends. Presentation for the Future In-Space Operations Colloquium, July 2. CSIS (Center for Strategic and International Studies). 2008. Health of the U.S. Space Industrial Base and the Impact of Export Controls. Report Released February 19. Available at http://csis.org/files/ media/csis/pubs/021908_ csis_spaceindustryitar_final.pdf. Freaner, C., R. Bitten, and D. Emmons. 2010. Inherent optimism in early conceptual designs and its effect on cost and schedule growth: An update. Paper presented at the 2010 NASA Program Management Challenge, February 9-10, 2010, Houston, Texas. GAO (Government Accountability Office). 2010. NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects. GAO, Washington, D.C. Mlynczak, B., and Perry, B. 2009. SMD Cost/Schedule Performance Study Final Report Overview. Presentation to the Committee on Cost Growth in NASA Earth and Space Science Missions. Washington, D.C. September 1. NAS-NAE-IOM (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine). 2007. Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration). 2008 NASA Cost Estimating Handbook. NASA Head - quarters Cost Analysis Division. NASA, Washington, D.C. NASA. 2005. NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5C. NASA Space Flight Program and Project Manage- ment Requirements. NASA, Washington, D.C. NASA. 2007. NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7120.5D. NASA Space Flight Program and Project Manage- ment Requirements. NASA, Washington, D.C. NASA. 2009. NASA Policy Directive (NPD) 1000.5. NASA, Washington, D.C. January. NASA/GSFC (NASA Goddard Space Flight Center). 2009. Criteria for Flight Project Critical Milestone Reviews. GSFC-STD-1001. NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. Available at http://standards.gsfc. nasa.gov/gsfc-stds.html. NRC (National Research Council). 1995. Review of Gravity Probe B. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. NRC. 2006. Principal-Investigator-Led Missions in the Space Sciences. The National Academies Press, Wash - ington, D.C. NRC. 2007. Decadal Science Strategy Surveys: Report of a Workshop. The National Academies Press, Washing - ton, D.C. NRC. 2009. Optimizing U.S. Air Force and Department of Defense Review of Air Force Acquisition Programs. The National Academies Press, Washington, D.C. Schaffer, M. 2004. NASA Cost Growth: A Look at Recent Performance. NASA, Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 44