A Call For A New Human Missions Cost Model NASA 2019 Cost and Schedule Analysis Symposium NASA Johnson Space Center, August 13-15, 2019 Joseph Hamaker, PhD Christian Smart, PhD Galorath Human Missions Cost Model Advocates Dr. Joseph Hamaker Dr. Christian Smart Director, NASA and DoD Programs Chief Scientist • Former Director for Cost Analytics • Founding Director of the Cost and Parametric Estimating for the Analysis Division at NASA U.S. Missile Defense Agency Headquarters • Oversaw development of the • Originator of NASA’s NAFCOM NASA/Air Force Cost Model cost model, the NASA QuickCost (NAFCOM) Model, the NASA Cost Analysis • Provides subject matter expertise to Data Requirement and the NASA NASA Headquarters, DARPA, and ONCE database Space Development Agency • Recognized expert on parametrics 2 Agenda Historical human space projects Why consider a new Human Missions Cost Model Database for a Human Missions Cost Model • NASA has over 50 years of Human Space Missions experience • NASA’s International Partners have accomplished additional projects . • There are around 70 projects that can provide cost and schedule data • This talk will explore how that data might be assembled to form the basis for a Human Missions Cost Model WHY A NEW HUMAN MISSIONS COST MODEL? NASA’s Artemis Program plans to Artemis needs cost and schedule land humans on the moon by 2024 estimates Lots of projects: Lunar Gateway, Existing tools have some Orion, landers, SLS, commercially applicability but it seems obvious provided elements (which we may (to us) that a dedicated HMCM is want to independently estimate) needed Some of these elements have And this can be done—all we ongoing cost trajectories (e.g. SLS, need is the vision, the will and the Orion) while others are conceptual resources to do it 5 Functional Similarity (Selected Examples) Apollo CSM Skylab Apollo LEM Orion Gateway Artemis Lander 6 But Does That Old Cost and Schedule Data Apply? We have no The basic physics Human space flight better data and engineering engineering is are the same always on the bleeding edge We submit that the old cost and schedule data is applicable 7 A Few Example Projects (A Total of 70 Listed On Next Chart) Gemini Apollo CSM Apollo LEM ESA Spacelab ESA Jules Verne ATV ISS Unity (Node 1) Interim Control Module Skylab 8 About 70 Historical Human Space Projects Altogether Gemini Capsule Apollo Command & Service Module (CSM) Apollo Lunar Excursion Module (LEM) ISS Kibo Japanese Pressurized Module (JEM-PM) Skylab Space Station ISS H-II Transfer Vehicle (HTV) aka Kounotori ESA Spacelab Module ISS Cupola ESA Spacelab Pallet ISS Tranquility (Node 3) Soyuz-TM Dragon Capsule ISS Zarya aka Functional Cargo Block (FGB) ISS Leonardo (PMM) ISS Unity (Node 1), Pressurized Mating Adapter (PMA-1 and PMA-2) ISS International Docking Adapter (IDA ISS Pressurized Mating Adapter 1 (PMA-1) ISS Bigelow Expandable Activity Module[20] Progress M1 CST-100 Starliner ISS Interim Control Module Uzlovoy aka UDM, Prichal and also UM ISS Zvezda (Service Module)aka DOS-8, Service Module or SM (Russian: СМ) ISS Russian NEMS Module ISS Z1 Truss ISS Nauka aka Multipurpose Laboratory Module (MLM) or FGB-2 PMA-3 ISS Science-Power Module-1 (SPM-1)aka NEM-1 ISS P6 Truss ISS NanoRacks Airlock Module ISS Solar Array ESA Service Module for Orion ISS Destiny (also known as the US Laboratory) ISS External Stowage Platform-1 ISS Space Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS) aka Canadarm2 ISS Mobile Transporter (MT) ISS Quest (Joint Airlock) ISS ESP-2 (Esternal Stowage Platform) ISS Pirs (Docking Compartment & Airlock) ISS External TCS ISS S0 Truss aka the Center Integrated Truss Assembly Starboard 0 Truss ISS External C&T ISS Mobile Base System (MBS) ISS External GN&C ISS S1 Truss aka Starboard Side Thermal Radiator Truss ISS Japanese Logistics Module (ELM-PS) ISS P1 Truss aka Port Side Thermal Radiator Truss ISS JEM Robotic Arm aka JEM Remote Manipulator System (RMS) ISS Enhanced ISS Boom Assembly ISS Japanese Exposed Facility (JEM-EF) ISS P3/P4 Truss ISS Poisk aka Mini-Research Module 2 (MRM-2) ISS Solar Array 1 ISS ExPRESS Logistics Carriers 1 & 2 ISS P5 Truss[13] ISS EXPRESS Logistics Carrier 4 ISS S3/S4 Truss & Solar Arrays ISS Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer aka AMS-02 ISS S5 Truss and ESP-3 (External Stowage Platform) Orbiter Boom Sensor System (OBSS) ISS Harmony (Node 2) ISS EXPRESS Logistics Carrier 3 ISS Columbus (European Laboratory) ISS European Robotic Arm ISS Jules Verne Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) ISS Science-Power Module-2 (SPM-2)aka NEM-2 ISS Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator (SPDM, aka Dextre or Canada hand Cygnus Capsule 9 ISS S6 Truss & Solar Arrays Orion Capsule Yes, There Are A Few Issues With The Data Many of these projects don’t have documented cost and schedule data Even if total cost exists, it is not at the subsystem level Some of the projects are commercial or even non-U.S. 10 Many of These Projects Don’t Have Documented Data • Don’t underestimate the power of… ▪ Industrial espionage ▪ Really determined data scroungers • The total cost, schedule and mass of many of these missions is given on various websites, in space news articles, etc. ▪ Sometimes wet mass, but dry mass can be estimated easily from wet mass ▪ Total cost and schedule can be sanity checked by comparing with some known analogies 11 Cost And Mass Does Not Exits At The Subsystem Level • We visualize the HMCM to initially operate at the subsystem level ▪ With mass as the principal independent variable at first ▪ Other variables can be added later to address numerous other cost drivers ▪ Let’s just get the basic first step done • We are proposing that “missing” subsystem data can be imputed ▪ The Galorath Chief Engineer, Dr. Christian Smart, is speaking at this symposium on imputation ▪ A simple way to think about how missing data could be estimated ▪ Tabulate subsystem cost and mass breakouts of all the known data points ▪ Select which historical projects with complete data are analogous to the projects with data holes ▪ Apply those percentages to the projects lacking subsystem data ▪ Balance the books so that all elements add to the total 12 Some Of The Projects Are Commercial or Even Non-U.S • The physics and engineering are the same • Institutional culture may be different ▪ NASA, ESA, ASI, JAXA cost scatterplot on top of each other ▪ ESA member countries “eat overruns” ▪ However, there are inefficiencies of assigning work to member nations ▪ These two things seem to about cancel out ▪ Commercial projects in comparison to NASA has been analyzed ▪ Somewhere in the 50% range give or take ▪ Therefore, upward adjustments can be made for commercial cost data to get everything on a level playing field ▪ Again, other variables can be added/re-introduced later ▪ NASA and Roscosmos differences will be more problematic ▪ But not an overwhelming problem 13 ▪ Christian and I could do this between morning coffee and lunch KEY CONCEPTS WE CAN DO THIS MODEL IS NEEDED DATA CAN BE FOUND/IMPUTED ENTERPRISE READY 14 THANK YOU [email protected] +1.321.3809 www.galorath.com 15© Copyright Galorath Incorporated 2019.