United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees May 2018 NASA Assessments of Major Projects GAO-18-280SP May 2018 NASA Assessments of Major Projects Highlights of GAO-18-280SP, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found This report provides GAO’s annual The cost and schedule performance of the National Aeronautics and Space snapshot for 2018 of how well NASA is Administration’s (NASA) portfolio of major projects has deteriorated, but the planning and executing its major extent of cost performance deterioration is unknown. NASA expects cost growth acquisition projects. In May 2017, GAO for the Orion crew capsule—one of the largest projects in the portfolio—but does found that projects were continuing a not have a current cost estimate. In addition, the average launch delay for the generally positive trend of limiting cost portfolio was 12 months, the highest delay GAO has reported in its 10 years of and schedule growth, maturing assessing major NASA projects (see figure below). technologies, and stabilizing designs. But, at the same time, GAO noted that NASA’s Major Project Portfolio Cost and Schedule Performance Deteriorated in 2018 many of these projects, including some of the most expensive ones, were approaching the phase in their life cycles when cost and schedule growth is most likely. The explanatory statement of the House Committee on Appropriations accompanying the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 included a provision for GAO to prepare status reports on selected large-scale NASA programs, projects, and activities. This is GAO’s 10th annual assessment. This report describes the cost and schedule performance of NASA’s portfolio of major projects, among other The deterioration in portfolio performance was the result of 9 of the 17 projects in issues. This report also includes development experiencing cost or schedule growth. assessments of NASA’s 26 major • projects, each with a life-cycle cost of Four projects encountered technical issues that were compounded by risky over $250 million. To conduct its program management decisions. For example, the Space Launch System and review, GAO analyzed cost, schedule, Exploration Ground Systems programs are large-scale, technically complex technology maturity, design stability, human spaceflight programs, and NASA managed them to aggressive and other data; reviewed monthly schedules and with insufficient levels of cost and schedule reserves. This project status reports; and interviewed made it more difficult for the programs to operate within their committed NASA officials. baseline cost and schedule estimates. What GAO Recommends • Two projects ran into technical challenges that resulted in delays in the integration and test phase. For example, in December 2017, GAO found that In prior reports, GAO has made related the James Webb Space Telescope project encountered delays primarily due recommendations that NASA generally to the integration of the various spacecraft elements taking longer than agreed with, but has not yet fully expected, as well as resolving technical issues during testing. GAO has addressed. GAO continues to believe previously found that integration and testing is when projects are most at risk they should be fully addressed. NASA of incurring cost and schedule growth. generally agreed with GAO’s findings. • Three projects experienced cost growth or schedule delays due to factors outside of the projects’ control, such as delays related to their launch vehicles. NASA continues to face increased risk of cost and schedule growth in future View GAO-18-280SP. For more information, contact Cristina Chaplain at (202) 512-4841 or years due to new, large and complex projects that will enter the portfolio and [email protected]. expensive projects remaining in the portfolio longer than expected. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter 1 Background 3 Portfolio Cost and Schedule Deteriorated but Extent of Cost Growth Is Unknown 12 NASA Generally Maintained Technology Maturity of Its Projects but Performance in Design Stability Measures Is Mixed 26 Too Early to Determine Outcome of NASA’s Efforts to Address Workforce Challenges 35 Project Assessments 43 Commercial Crew Program 45 Double Asteroid Redirection Test 47 Europa Clipper 49 Exploration Ground Systems 51 Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On 53 Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 55 Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy, and Heat Transport 57 Ionospheric Connection Explorer 59 James Webb Space Telescope 61 Landsat 9 63 Laser Communications Relay Demonstration 65 Low Boom Flight Demonstrator 67 Lucy 69 Mars 2020 71 NASA ISRO – Synthetic Aperture Radar 73 Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle 75 Parker Solar Probe 77 Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem 79 Psyche 81 Radiation Budget Instrument 83 Restore-L 85 Space Launch System 87 Space Network Ground Segment Sustainment 89 Surface Water and Ocean Topography 91 Transiting Exoplanet Survey Satellite 93 Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope 95 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 97 Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 100 Page i GAO-18-280SP Assessments of Major NASA Projects Appendix II Major NASA Projects Assessed in GAO’s 2018 Report 107 Appendix III Major NASA Projects Reviewed in GAO’s Annual Assessments 109 Appendix IV Technology Readiness Levels 111 Appendix V Elements of a Sound Business Case 113 Appendix VI Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 115 Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 118 Tables Table 1: Major NASA Projects Reviewed in GAO’s 2018 Assessment by Phase 8 Table 2: Development Cost and Schedule Performance of Selected Major NASA Projects Currently in Development 15 Table 3: Examples of Risky Programmatic Decisions Made by NASA’s Human Spaceflight Programs 18 Table 4: Characteristics of Technology Readiness Levels 111 Figures Figure 1: NASA’s Life Cycle for Space Flight Projects 3 Figure 2: Notional Distribution of Cost Reserves for a Project Budgeted at the 70 Percent Confidence Level 5 Figure 3: NASA’s Workforce Distribution at NASA Headquarters and Centers as of January 2018 11 Figure 4: Development Cost Performance and Average Launch Delay for Major NASA Projects from 2009 to 2018 14 Figure 5: Number of NASA’s Major Projects Attaining Technology Maturity by Preliminary Design Review from 2010 to 2018 28 Page ii GAO-18-280SP Assessments of Major NASA Projects Figure 6: Average Number of Critical Technologies Reported by NASA’s Major Projects in Development from 2009 to 2018 30 Figure 7: Number of NASA Major Projects That Released at least 90 Percent of Drawings by Critical Design Review and Average Percentage of Released Drawings from 2010 to 2018 32 Figure 8: Average Percentage of Engineering Drawing Growth after Critical Design Review for NASA Major Projects from 2010 to 2018 34 Figure 9: NASA’s Workforce Average Age, Retirement Eligibility, and Average Number of Years Worked Past Retirement Eligibility as of January 2018 40 Figure 10: Illustration of a Sample Project Assessment 44 Figure 11: Cost and Schedule of Major NASA Projects Assessed in GAO’s 2018 Report by Phase 107 Figure 12: Major NASA Projects Reviewed in GAO’s Annual Assessments from 2009-2017 109 Figure 13: Major NASA Projects Reviewed in GAO’s 2018 Assessment 110 Page iii GAO-18-280SP Assessments of Major NASA Projects Abbreviations AIM Asteroid Impact Monitor ATLAS Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System CCP Commercial Crew Program CNES Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales DART Double Asteroid Redirection Test DCI data collection instrument DSOC Deep Space Optical Communications EGS Exploration Ground Systems EM-1 Exploration Mission 1 EM-2 Exploration Mission 2 ESM European Service Module ESA European Space Agency GFAS Ground Flight Application Software GFZ German Research Centre for Geosciences GN&C Guidance, Navigation, and Control GRACE-FO Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment Follow-On GSLV Geosynchronous Satellite Launch Vehicle HP3 Heat Flow and Physical Properties Probe HVPS high voltage power supply ICESat-2 Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 ICON Ionospheric Connection Explorer InSight Interior Exploration using Seismic Investigations, Geodesy, and Heat Transport ISRO Indian Space Research Organisation ISS International Space Station JCL joint cost and schedule confidence level JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory JPSS-2 Joint Polar Satellite System 2 JWST James Webb Space Telescope KaRIn Ka-band Radar Interferometer KDP key decision point LBFD Low Boom Flight Demonstrator LCRD Laser Communications Relay Demonstration LRI Laser Ranging Interferometer MAVEN Mars Atmosphere and Volatile Evolution NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NEXT-C NASA’s Evolutionary Xenon Thruster-Commercial NISAR NASA ISRO Synthetic Aperture Radar NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Page iv GAO-18-280SP Assessments of Major NASA Projects NPR NASA Procedural Requirements OCI Ocean Color Instrument Orion Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle OSIRIS-REx Origins-Spectral Interpretation-Resource Identification Security-Regolith Explorer PSP Parker Solar Probe PACE Plankton, Aerosol, Cloud, ocean Ecosystem QueSST Quiet Supersonic Technology RBI Radiation Budget Instrument SCaN Space Communication and Navigation SCCS Spaceport Command and Control System SCS Sampling and Caching System SDO Solar Dynamics Observatory SEIS Seismic Experiment for Interior Structure SGSS Space Network Ground Segment