Appendixes



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 47
Appendixes

OCR for page 47

OCR for page 47
A Statement of Task and Supporting Documents The full text of the study statement of task appears below, along with two other earlier documents that helped define the framework for conducting this study: • Tasking letter from Edward J. Weiler, Associate Administrator for Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, to Dr. Charles F. Kennel, Chair, Space Studies Board, National Research Council, dated February 19, 2009, • Legislation: NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422), Section 508. Assessment of Cost Growth. STuDy STATEMENT OF TASk After receiving the tasking letter, the National Research Council and NASA agreed to the following statement of task for this study: The National Research Council will assemble a committee to identify the primary causes of cost growth in NASA Earth and space science missions involving large, medium, and small spacecraft. The committee will recommend what changes, if any, should be made to contain costs and ensure frequent mission opportunities in NASA’s Earth and space science programs. In particular, the committee will: • Review existing cost growth studies related to NASA space and Earth science missions and identify their key causes of cost growth and strategies for mitigating cost growth. • Assess whether those key causes remain applicable in the current environment and identify any new major causes. • Evaluate the effectiveness of current and planned NASA cost growth mitigation strategies and, as appropri - ate, recommend new strategies to ensure frequent mission opportunities. In making this assessment and related recommendations, the committee should note relevant differences, if any, that exist between Earth and space science missions. 

OCR for page 47
0 CONTROLLING COST GROWTH OF NASA EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS TASkING LETTER The following letter was sent from Edward J. Weiler, associate administrator for NASA’s Science Mission Directorate, to Charles F. Kennel, chair of the National Research Council’s Space Studies Board, including the enclosure, “Provisional Bibliography for Science Mission Cost Growth External Independent Assessment.” The NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (Section 508) directs the Administrator to arrange for “an independent external assessment to identify the primary causes of cost growth in the large-, medium-, and small-sized space and Earth science spacecraft mission classes, and make recommendations as to what changes, if any, should be made to contain costs and ensure frequent mission opportunities in NASA’s science spacecraft mission programs.” While a significant amount of effort has been expended in recent years, by various parties, to collect and analyze cost growth in national security and NASA science space missions, the results of these studies have not been uniformly and critically appraised, nor their implications integrated into potentially actionable modifications to mission formulation and/or development practices. It would be valuable to leverage the results of these data col - lection and analysis efforts, in addition to assessing any other factors that may affect cost growth in NASA space and Earth science missions and making recommendations on cost containment. This new study should: • Review the body of existing studies related to NASA space and Earth science missions and identify their key causes of cost growth and strategies for mitigating cost growth; • Assess whether those key causes remain applicable in the current environment and identify any new major causes; and • Evaluate effectiveness of current and planned NASA cost growth mitigation strategies and, as appropriate, recommend new strategies to ensure frequent mission opportunities. In making this assessment and related recommendations, the study should note what differences, if any, exist with regard to Earth science compared with space science missions. A provisional list of documents to be furnished by NASA to the panel is provided in the enclosure. NASA does not anticipate that subcontracting with an independent cost estimator will be necessary to complete the task and asks that the National Research Council’s (NRC’s) planning and budget for the study reflect this approach. If the NRC committee established to conduct the study determines that such a subcontractor is needed, a suitable augmentation of resources for the task will be provided. I would like to request that the NRC submit a plan to NASA for conduct of this study along these lines. To respond to the Congressional delivery date, we will need the findings and recommendations of the NRC review by January 31, 2010. Once agreement with the NRC on the scope and cost of the proposed study has been achieved, the NASA Contracting officer will issue a task order for implementation. Mr. Claude Freaner will be the NASA technical point of contact for this effort and may be reached at (202) 358-2522 or claude.freaner@nasa.gov.

OCR for page 47
 APPENDIX A Provisional Bibliography for Science Mission Cost Growth External Independent Assessment NASA Cost Studies “Using Historical NASA Cost and Schedule Growth to Set Future Program and Project Reserve Guidelines,” Bitten, Emmons, and Freaner, September 2006 “SMD Cost/Schedule Performance Study—Final Report Overview,” Perry, Bruno, Jacobs, Doyle, Hayes, Stan - cati, Richie, and Rogers, November 2007 “Cost and Schedule Growth at NASA,” Coonce, November 2007 “SMD Cost/Schedule Performance Study—Summary Overview,” Perry, Bruno, Jacobs, Doyle, Hayes, Stancati, Richie, and Rogers, January 2008 “An Assessment of the Inherent Optimism in Early Conceptual Designs and Its Effect on Cost and Schedule Growth,” Freaner, Bitten, Bearden, and Emmons, May 2008 “SMD Earth and Space Mission Cost Driver Comparison Study,” Mlynczak and Perry, March 2009 (projected) Related Analyses “Space Missions Require Substantially More Funding Than Initially Estimated,” General Accounting Office, December 1992 “Reducing the Costs of Space Science Research Missions,” NRC Joint Committee on Technology for Space Science and Applications, 1997 “Cost Growth of Major Defense Programs,” McCrillis, January 2003 “Report of the Defense Science Board/Air Force Scientific Advisory Board Joint Task Force on Acquisition of National Security Space Programs,” A. Thomas Young (chair), May 2003 Additional sources may be identified1 1 The tasking letter noted that NASA might identify additional sources of cost growth information. NASA did not formally notify the NRC that it should examine additional studies. However, as noted in the main body of this report, some other documents were examined in the course of the study, some of them identified by NASA staff who participated in the open sessions of committee meetings.

OCR for page 47
 CONTROLLING COST GROWTH OF NASA EARTH AND SPACE SCIENCE MISSIONS LEGISLATION The study that produced this report was initially prompted by congressional legislation: NASA Authorization Act of 2008 (P.L. 110-422) Section 508. Assessment of Cost Growth (a) Study—The Administrator shall enter into an arrangement for an independent external assessment to identify the primary causes of cost growth in the large-, medium-, and small-sized space and Earth science space - craft mission classes, and make recommendations as to what changes, if any, should be made to contain costs and ensure frequent mission opportunities in NASA’s science spacecraft mission programs. (b) Report—The report of the assessment conducted under subsection (a) shall be submitted to Congress not later than 15 months after the date of enactment of this Act.