Engineering topics

Bitten, Robert E.

Publications and source records attributed to Bitten, Robert E..

6 records

NASA NTRS2019

Challenges and Potential Solutions to Develop and Fund NASA Flagship Missions

Large, strategic "Flagship" missions have unique characteristics that lead to challenging developmental difficulties for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). Missions such as the Hubble Space Telescope (HST), James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), and the Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) had technical and programmatic challenges that led to significant schedule delays and subsequent cost growth. Although NASA has instituted policies that have reduced cost growth for more "typical" NASA science missions, NASA Flagship missions remain a distinct challenge due to their requirement to provide unprecedented science or tackle bold exploration goals, typically while concurrently developing new technologies. The unique challenges presented by Flagship missions make it extremely difficult to fully predict cost and schedule given that the technical and programmatic advances needed to meet performance requirements are unprecedented. This paper addresses why Flagship missions are unique and proposes a new programmatic approach to develop and fund Flagship missions.

Develop↗

NASA NTRS2019

Space Power Heritage Study Final Results

NASA space missions have long employed Radioisotope Power Systems (RPS) and solar-based power generation architectures. RPS have been used to enable or significantly enhance missions that venture deep into the solar system to distances from the sun which can make using solar architectures unfeasible and to areas where the sun is obscured due to shadows or atmospheric phenomena. The destination, however, is not the absolute factor of the determination of RPS or solar. This is highlighted by the Jupiter missions Galileo and Juno, which employed RPS and solar architectures, respectively. When baselining either RPS or solar architectures for a planetary mission, numerous factors must be considered, including scientific objectives, cost, schedule, and mass just to name a few. In an effort to better understand the decision-making process and provide insight for potential future missions, the NASA RPS Program Office tasked The Aerospace Corporation (Aerospace) to study historical missions that used RPS and solar architectures. Data was collected for a variety of RPS and solar missions to look for possible trends from the selected implementation. Additionally, mission case studies were developed based on interviews with mission personnel who were responsible for defining the power architecture of their mission. Informed by the data collected and case studies, two Measures of Effectiveness (MoEs) were produced: one based on cost of RPS versus solar, and one based on science mission cost effectiveness. The final results of this study have been captured in this briefing package which is available for full and open release. Additionally, a final report document also provides the same details of this package. This briefing package also includes an appendix which contains data not for public release which was used to provide detailed answers to questions raised during this study. The results of these inquiries are discussed in the report, but the proprietary data is not included. Finally, an executive summary package is also publicly available which was used to present the results of the study at the 2018 Aerospace Space Power Workshop.

Study↗

NASA NTRS2016

Historical Mass, Power, Schedule, and Cost Growth for NASA Spacecraft

Although spacecraft developers have been moving towards standardized product lines as the aerospace industry has matured, NASA's continual need to push the cutting edge of science to accomplish unique, challenging missions can still lead to spacecraft resource growth over time. This paper assesses historical mass, power, cost, and schedule growth for multiple NASA spacecraft from the last twenty years and compares to industry reserve guidelines to understand where the guidelines may fall short. Growth is assessed from project start to launch, from the time of the preliminary design review (PDR) to launch and from the time of the critical design review (CDR) to launch. Data is also assessed not just at the spacecraft bus level, but also at the subsystem level wherever possible, to help obtain further insight into possible drivers of growth. Potential recommendations to minimize spacecraft mass, power, cost, and schedule growth for future missions are also discussed.

Schedule↗

NASA NTRS2013

Assessing the Benefits of NASA Category 3, Low Cost Class C/D Missions

Category 3, Class C/D missions have the benefit of delivering worthwhile science at minimal cost which is increasingly important in NASA's constrained budget environment. Although higher cost Category 1 and 2 missions are necessary to achieve NASA's science objectives, Category 3 missions are shown to be an effective way to provide significant science return at a low cost. Category 3 missions, however, are often reviewed the same as the more risk averse Category 1 and 2 missions. Acknowledging that reviews are not the only aspect of a total engineering effort, reviews are still a significant concern for NASA programs. This can unnecessarily increase the cost and schedule of Category 3 missions. This paper quantifies the benefit and performance of Category 3 missions by looking at the cost vs. capability relative to Category 1 and 2 missions. Lessons learned from successful organizations that develop low cost Category 3, Class C/D missions are also investigated to help provide the basis for suggestions to streamline the review of NASA Category 3 missions.

Bitten, Robert E.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Explanation of Change (EoC) Study: Approach and Findings

This study investigated thirty historical NASA science missions to explain the cost change experienced. The study included investigation of historical milestone and monthly status report documentation followed by interviews with key project personnel. Based on the information collected, the reasons for cost change were binned, at the highest level, into four separate categories: NASA External, Project External, Internal Planning, and Internal Execution. The results identified that roughly a third of the change is outside of the project's control, a third is due to assumptions made in project planning, and a third is due to the inherent difficulty of building highly complex, one-of-a-kind, cutting edge, Earth and space science missions.

Bitten, Robert E.↗

NASA NTRS2013

Explanation of Change (EoC) Study: Considerations and Implementation Challenges

This paper discusses the implementation of considerations resulting from a study investigating the cost change experienced by historical NASA science missions. The study investigated historical milestone and monthly status report documentation followed by interviews with key project personnel. The reasons for cost change were binned as being external to NASA, external to the project and internal to the project relative to the project's planning and execution. Based on the results of the binning process and the synthesis of project meetings and interviews, ten considerations were made with the objective to decrease the potential for cost change in future missions. Although no one magic bullet consideration was discovered, the considerations taken as a whole should help reduce cost and schedule change in future NASA missions.

Bitten, Robert E.↗