Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “Project Cost”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 records
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2015

Underestimation of Project Costs

Large projects almost always exceed their budgets. Estimating cost is difficult and estimated costs are usually too low. Three different reasons are suggested: bad luck, overoptimism, and deliberate underestimation. Project management can usually point to project difficulty and complexity, technical uncertainty, stakeholder conflicts, scope changes, unforeseen events, and other not really unpredictable bad luck. Project planning is usually over-optimistic, so the likelihood and impact of bad luck is systematically underestimated. Project plans reflect optimism and hope for success in a supposedly unique new effort rather than rational expectations based on historical data. Past project problems are claimed to be irrelevant because "This time it's different." Some bad luck is inevitable and reasonable optimism is understandable, but deliberate deception must be condemned. In a competitive environment, project planners and advocates often deliberately underestimate costs to help gain project approval and funding. Project benefits, cost savings, and probability of success are exaggerated and key risks ignored. Project advocates have incentives to distort information and conceal difficulties from project approvers. One naively suggested cure is more openness, honesty, and group adherence to shared overall goals. A more realistic alternative is threatening overrun projects with cancellation. Neither approach seems to solve the problem. A better method to avoid the delusions of over-optimism and the deceptions of biased advocacy is to base the project cost estimate on the actual costs of a large group of similar projects. Over optimism and deception can continue beyond the planning phase and into project execution. Hard milestones based on verified tests and demonstrations can provide a reality check.

Cost estimation↗
NASA NTRS2001

Improving Space Project Cost Estimating with Engineering Management Variables

Current space project cost models attempt to predict space flight project cost via regression equations, which relate the cost of projects to technical performance metrics (e.g. weight, thrust, power, pointing accuracy, etc.). This paper examines the introduction of engineering management parameters to the set of explanatory variables. A number of specific engineering management variables are considered and exploratory regression analysis is performed to determine if there is statistical evidence for cost effects apart from technical aspects of the projects. It is concluded that there are other non-technical effects at work and that further research is warranted to determine if it can be shown that these cost effects are definitely related to engineering management.

Hamaker, Joseph W.↗
NASA NTRS2015

Why Don't They Just Give Us Money? Project Cost Estimating and Cost Reporting

Successful projects require an integrated approach to managing cost, schedule, and risk. This is especially true for complex, multi-year projects involving multiple organizations. To explore solutions and leverage valuable lessons learned, NASA's Virtual Project Management Challenge will kick off a three-part series examining some of the challenges faced by project and program managers when it comes to managing these important elements. In this first session of the series, we will look at cost management, with an emphasis on the critical roles of cost estimating and cost reporting. By taking a proactive approach to both of these activities, project managers can better control life cycle costs, maintain stakeholder confidence, and protect other current and future projects in the organization's portfolio. Speakers will be Doug Comstock, Director of NASA's Cost Analysis Division, Kristin Van Wychen, Senior Analyst in the GAO Acquisition and Sourcing Management Team, and Mary Beth Zimmerman, Branch Chief for NASA's Portfolio Analysis Branch, Strategic Investments Division. Moderator Ramien Pierre is from NASA's Academy for Program/Project and Engineering Leadership (APPEL).

Comstock, Douglas A.↗
DOE OSTI2025

Cost Projections for Utility-Scale Battery Storage: 2025 Update

In this work we describe the development of cost and performance projections for utility-scale lithium-ion battery systems, with a focus on 4-hour duration systems. The projections are developed from an analysis of recent publications that include utility-scale storage costs. The suite of publications demonstrates wide variation in projected cost reductions for battery storage over time. We present the suite of projected cost reductions collected from the literature as well as the low, mid, and high cost projections developed in this work. Storage cost projections are $\$$152/kWh, $\$$247/kWh, and $\$$349/kWh in 2035 and $\$$111/kWh, $\$$184/kWh, and $\$$333/kWh in 2050 for the low, mid, and high cases respectively. Battery variable operations and maintenance costs, lifetimes, and efficiencies are also discussed, with recommended values selected based on the publications surveyed.

25 ENERGY STORAGE↗
NASA NTRS2012

Fast Paced, Low Cost Projects at MSFC

What does an orbiting microsatellite, a robotic lander and a ruggedized camera and telescope have in common? They are all fast paced, low cost projects managed by Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) teamed with successful industry partners. MSFC has long been synonymous with human space flight large propulsion programs, engineering acumen and risk intolerance. However, there is a growing portfolio/product line within MSFC that focuses on these smaller, fast paced projects. While launching anything into space is expensive, using a managed risk posture, holding to schedule and keeping costs low by stopping at egood enough f were key elements to their success. Risk is defined as the possibility of loss or failure per Merriam Webster. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) defines risk using procedural requirement 8705.4 and establishes eclasses f to discern the acceptable risk per a project. It states a Class D risk has a medium to significant risk of not achieving mission success. MSFC, along with industry partners, has created a niche in Class D efforts. How did the big, cautious MSFC succeed on these projects that embodied the antithesis of its heritage in human space flight? A key factor toward these successful projects was innovative industry partners such as Dynetics Corporation, University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAHuntsville), Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory (JHU APL), Teledyne Brown Engineering (TBE), Von Braun Center for Science and Innovation (VCSI), SAIC, and Jacobs. Fast Affordable Satellite Technology (FastSat HSV01) is a low earth orbit microsatellite that houses six instruments with the primary scientific objective of earth observation and technology demonstration. The team was comprised of Dynetics, UAHuntsvile, SAIC, Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) and VCSI with the United States Air Force Space Test Program as the customer. The team completed design, development, manufacturing, environmental test and integration in one year. FastSat HSV01 also deployed a Poly Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (PPOD) for a separate nano ]satellite class spacecraft (Cubesat: Nano Sail Demonstration) in partnership with Ames Research Center. The Robotic lunar lander is a MSFC JHU APL partnership that led to the development of a flexible architecture for landers to support robotic missions to a wide range of lunar and asteroid destinations. The team started with the goal of meeting NASA agency directives that led to the creation of a test bed focusing on GN&C and software to demonstrate the descent and landing on any airless body for the final 30 to 60 meters. The team created a complex technology demonstration as well as Guidance Control and Navigation (GN&C) algorithms providing autonomous control of the lander. The team uses a green propellant of 90% hydrogen peroxide and has completed 18 successful test flights. The International Space Station (ISS) SERVIR Environmental Research and Visualization System (ISERV) is a technology demonstration payload to assist the SERVIR project with environmental monitoring for disaster relief and humanitarian efforts. The ISERV project was a partnership with TBE. The ISERV payload consists of a commercial off the shelf camera, telescope, and MSFC developed power distribution box and interfaces on ISS with the Window Observational Research Facility in the US Lab. MSFC has identified three key areas that enabled the low cost mission success to include culture, partnering, and cost/schedule control. This paper will briefly discuss these three Class D efforts, FastSat HSV-01, the Robotic Lunar Lander and the ISERV camera system, the lessons learned, their successes and challenges.

Watson-Morgan, Lisa↗
NASA NTRS2007

Correlation of Spacecraft Mission and Project Costs

A key component of any cost risk analysis is the level of correlation between individual elements of cost. This analysis supplements the available historical records with the cost estimates from the JPL Advanced Design Team. The costs from actual JPL flight projects are then used to validate the results, clearly indicating that, on average, the correlation between elements of cost is between 0.4 and 0.7.

correlation↗
NASA NTRS1982

Study to establish cost projections for production of Redox chemicals

A cost study of four proposed manufacturing processes for redox chemicals for the NASA REDOX Energy Storage System yielded favorable selling prices in the range $0.99 to $1.91/kg of chromic chloride, anhydrous basis, including ferrous chloride. The prices corresponded to specific energy storage costs from under $9 to $17/kWh. A refined and expanded cost analysis of the most favored process yielded a price estimate corresponding to a storage cost of $11/kWh. The findings supported the potential economic viability of the NASA REDOX system.

Walther, J. F.↗
NASA NTRS1980

Cost projections for Redox Energy storage systems

A preliminary design and system cost analysis was performed for the redox energy storage system. A conceptual design and cost estimate was prepared for each of two energy applications: (1) electric utility 100-MWh requirement (10-MW for ten hours) for energy storage for utility load leveling application, and (2) a 500-kWh requirement (10-kW for 50 hours) for use with a variety of residential or commercial applications, including stand alone solar photovoltaic systems. The conceptual designs were based on cell performance levels, system design parameters, and special material costs. These data were combined with estimated thermodynamic and hydraulic analysis to provide preliminary system designs. Results indicate that the redox cell stack to be amenable to mass production techniques with a relatively low material cost.

Michaels, K.↗
NASA NTRS1990

Laser Atmospheric Wind Sounder (LAWS) phase 1. Volume 3: Project cost estimates

The laser atmospheric wind sounder (LAWS) cost modeling activities were initiated in phase 1 to establish the ground rules and cost model that would apply to both phase 1 and phase 2 cost analyses. The primary emphasis in phase 1 was development of a cost model for a LAWS instrument for the Japanese Polar Orbiting Platform (JPOP). However, the Space Station application was also addressed in this model, and elements were included, where necessary, to account for Space Station unique items. The cost model presented in the following sections defines the framework for all LAWS cost modeling. The model is consistent with currently available detail, and can be extended to account for greater detail as the project definition progresses.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2022

Bayesian Rules of Thumb: Robust Uncertainty Quantification in Early Project Cost Estimation

Systems engineers often make use of cost Rules ofThumb in order to estimate cost during early phases of projectformulation. These Rules of Thumb typically take the form ofa sequence of percentages over which a total cost is allocatedacross NASA WBS elements. Rules of Thumb can then be usedto extrapolate cost from one or more known WBS elements tothe remaining unknown WBS elements, assisting early projectformulation architecture studies (such as those in JPL’s Team Xand A Team).A number of issues can arise when generating and using costRules of Thumb. For example, many records of project costsconsist of incomplete data. Typical methods of dealing withincomplete cost allocation data include (a) ignoring missionswith incomplete data, or (b) taking averages of the non-zero percentagesacross missions, but both of these methods can result inbiased estimates if the existence of incomplete data correlateswith total mission cost or any particular WBS element. Anothercommon example is cost reported in one or more incorrect WBSelements. This is especially prevalent in smaller missions whereit is more common for engineers to perform tasks that fall underthe purview of multiple WBS elements.Furthermore, a Rule of Thumb estimate is typically reported asa point estimate; there is no reported uncertainty around thepercentages used to generate an allocation. Even in the rarecase in which confidence intervals around mean percentages areprovided, there may be positive or negative correlations betweenWBS elements which can skew estimates.Here we attempt to address these problems by formulatingprobabilistic Rules of Thumb in which a distribution of allocationschemes, rather than a single allocation scheme, is generated.We use a bootstrap imputation method to simultaneouslyaccount for uncertainty in the missing data while using allavailable information contained in the dataset. The imputeddatasets are then input into a multivariate Bayesian modelwhich accounts for correlations between WBS elements andproperly accounts for uncertainty in the final Rule of Thumbpercentages and predictions. We describe the mathematicalmodel and provides snippets of R code utilizing the brms(Bayesian Regression Models using Stan) package. To illustratethis model, we generate a Bayesian Level 2 WBS Cost Rule ofThumb for MIDEX (Medium-Class Explorers) missions withdata extracted from NASA’s CADRe. We then compare thismethod’s performance with the classical Rule of Thumb method.

Hooke, Melissa A↗
DOE OSTI2025

Soft costs and EVSE – Knowledge gaps as a barrier to successful projects

There has been a recent push to increase access to electric vehicle (EV) charging infrastructure. The National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (NEVI) program, part of the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) has made significant funding available for major charging infrastructure projects along state thruways, and many state and local incentives exist for EV owners to install chargers in their homes. However, deployment of these chargers has not kept up with demand, primarily due to issues in project planning, permitting processes, and unforeseen delays. This paper serves as a review of the current understanding of these and other non-hardware costs in EV charging infrastructure projects (collectively known as “soft costs”). We found that soft costs in EV charging infrastructure projects are not well understood. Specifically, there is little agreement on how soft costs should be categorized and tracked, and less agreement still on best practices for controlling these costs and lowering barriers to infrastructure deployment. A broader review of EV charging infrastructure cost analyses shows that these costs can have significant impacts on project outcomes. EV charging infrastructure projects may be able to examine the success of the solar industry in lowering soft costs, and a similar effort may lower project costs significantly. Further work on standardizing and collecting data on EV charging infrastructure costs is required to begin addressing and controlling these costs.

32 - ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZA↗
NASA NTRS2004

An Exploratory Study of Cost Engineering in Axiomatic Design: Creation of the Cost Model Based on an FR-DP Map

Large complex projects cost large sums of money throughout their life cycle for a variety of reasons and causes. For such large programs, the credible estimation of the project cost, a quick assessment of the cost of making changes, and the management of the project budget with effective cost reduction determine the viability of the project. Cost engineering that deals with these issues requires a rigorous method and systematic processes. This paper introduces a logical framework to a&e effective cost engineering. The framework is built upon Axiomatic Design process. The structure in the Axiomatic Design process provides a good foundation to closely tie engineering design and cost information together. The cost framework presented in this paper is a systematic link between the functional domain (FRs), physical domain (DPs), cost domain (CUs), and a task/process-based model. The FR-DP map relates a system s functional requirements to design solutions across all levels and branches of the decomposition hierarchy. DPs are mapped into CUs, which provides a means to estimate the cost of design solutions - DPs - from the cost of the physical entities in the system - CUs. The task/process model describes the iterative process ot-developing each of the CUs, and is used to estimate the cost of CUs. By linking the four domains, this framework provides a superior traceability from requirements to cost information.

Lee, Taesik↗
NASA NTRS1977

Automated array assembly task, phase 1

An assessment of state-of-the-art technologies that are applicable to silicon solar cell and solar cell module fabrication is provided. The assessment consists of a technical feasibility evaluation and a cost projection for high-volume production of silicon solar cell modules. The cost projection was approached from two directions; a design-to-cost analysis assigned cost goals to each major process element in the fabrication scheme, and a cost analysis built up projected costs for alternate technologies for each process element. A technical evaluation was used in combination with the cost analysis to identify a baseline low cost process. A novel approach to metal pattern design based on minimum power loss was developed. These design equations were used as a tool in the evaluation of metallization technologies.

Carbajal, B. G.↗
NASA NTRS2003

Software for Tracking Costs of Mars Projects

The Mars Cost Tracking Model is a computer program that administers a system set up for tracking the costs of future NASA projects that pertain to Mars. Previously, no such tracking system existed, and documentation was written in a variety of formats and scattered in various places. It was difficult to justify costs or even track the history of costs of a spacecraft mission to Mars. The present software enables users to maintain all cost-model definitions, documentation, and justifications of cost estimates in one computer system that is accessible via the Internet. The software provides sign-off safeguards to ensure the reliability of information entered into the system. This system may eventually be used to track the costs of projects other than only those that pertain to Mars.

Wong, Alvin↗