SEARCH · Search NASA
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.
Software Cost Estimation Model SOFTCOST provides automated resource and schedule model for software development. Combines several cost models found in open literature into one comprehensive set of algorithms. Compensates for nearly fifty implementation factors relative to size of task, inherited baseline, organizational and system environment and difficulty of task.
The cost estimation of software development activities is increasingly critical for large scale integrated projects such as those at DOD and NASA especially as the software systems become larger and more complex. As an example MSL (Mars Scientific Laboratory) developed at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory launched with over 2 million lines of code making it the largest robotic spacecraft ever flown (Based on the size of the software). Software development activities are also notorious for their cost growth, with NASA flight software averaging over 50% cost growth. All across the agency, estimators and analysts are increasingly being tasked to develop reliable cost estimates in support of program planning and execution. While there has been extensive work on improving parametric methods there is very little focus on the use of models based on analogy and clustering algorithms. In this paper we summarize our findings on effort/cost model estimation and model development based on ten years of software effort estimation research using data mining and machine learning methods to develop estimation models based on analogy and clustering. The NASA Software Cost Model performance is evaluated by comparing it to COCOMO II, linear regression, and K- nearest neighbor prediction model performance on the same data set.
A parametric software cost estimation model prepared for JPL deep space network (DSN) data systems implementation tasks is presented. The resource estimation model incorporates principles and data from a number of existing models, such as those of the General Research Corporation, Doty Associates, IBM (Walston-Felix), Rome Air Force Development Center, University of Maryland, and Rayleigh-Norden-Putnam. The model calibrates task magnitude and difficulty, development environment, and software technology effects through prompted responses to a set of approximately 50 questions. Parameters in the model are adjusted to fit JPL software lifecycle statistics. The estimation model output scales a standard DSN work breakdown structure skeleton, which is then input to a PERT/CPM system, producing a detailed schedule and resource budget for the project being planned.
Parametric cost models can be used by designers and project managers to compare cost between major architectural cost drivers and allow high-level design trades; enable cost-benefit analysis for technology development investment; and, provide a basis for estimating total project cost between related concepts. The NASA Marshall Space Flight Center has developed a 5- parameter cost model that explains 93% (Adjusted R2) of the cost variation in a database of 46 total ground and space telescope assemblies. This model can be used to estimate the most probably cost for the Habitable Exoplanet Telescope Assembly.
A parametric software cost estimation model prepared for Deep Space Network (DSN) Data Systems implementation tasks is presented. The resource estimation model incorporates principles and data from a number of existing models. The model calibrates task magnitude and difficulty, development environment, and software technology effects through prompted responses to a set of approximately 50 questions. Parameters in the model are adjusted to fit DSN software life cycle statistics. The estimation model output scales a standard DSN Work Breakdown Structure skeleton, which is then input into a PERT/CPM system, producing a detailed schedule and resource budget for the project being planned.
A parametric software cost estimation model prepared for Jet PRopulsion Laboratory (JPL) Deep Space Network (DSN) Data System implementation tasks is described. The resource estimation mdel modifies and combines a number of existing models. The model calibrates the task magnitude and difficulty, development environment, and software technology effects through prompted responses to a set of approximately 50 questions. Parameters in the model are adjusted to fit JPL software life-cycle statistics.
The cost model presented is a preliminary methodology for determining a rough order-of-magnitude cost for implementing a satellite servicing mission. Mission implementation, in this context, encompassess all activities associated with mission design and planning, including both flight and ground crew training and systems integration (payload processing) of servicing hardward with the Shuttle. A basic assumption made in developing this cost model is that a generic set of servicing hardware was developed and flight tested, is inventoried, and is maintained by NASA. This implies that all hardware physical and functional interfaces are well known and therefore recurring CITE testing is not required. The development of the cost model algorithms and examples of their use are discussed.
NASA's JPL managed by Cal Tech is currently investing ways to improve its ability to increase the cost estimation accuracy early in the project life cycle.
The development of the planetary program cost model is discussed. The Model was updated to incorporate cost data from the most recent US planetary flight projects and extensively revised to more accurately capture the information in the historical cost data base. This data base is comprised of the historical cost data for 13 unmanned lunar and planetary flight programs. The revision was made with a two fold objective: to increase the flexibility of the model in its ability to deal with the broad scope of scenarios under consideration for future missions, and to maintain and possibly improve upon the confidence in the model's capabilities with an expected accuracy of 20%. The Model development included a labor/cost proxy analysis, selection of the functional forms of the estimating relationships, and test statistics. An analysis of the Model is discussed and two sample applications of the cost model are presented.
The CubeSat Or Microsat Probabilistic and AnalogiesCost Tool, or COMPACT, is a NASA Headquarters fundedeffort to fill the gap in cost estimating capabilities for CubeSats,as well as other microsat spacecraft. The COMPACT team hasfocused mainly on CubeSats to date, and has collected technical,programmatic and cost data on dozens of flown CubeSatsmissions led by NASA, research labs, and universities. In late2019, the team released the first tool prototype which uses a nonparametricregression technique, k-Nearest Neighbors (KNN),on actual data from historical CubeSat missions to produceearly ballpark analogy-based cost estimates for new CubeSatconcepts. Since the KNN prototype was first released, theCOMPACT team has normalized 17 new missions to be addedto the model in COMPACT V2. COMPACT V2 also featureschanges to the KNN tool algorithm including the introduction ofPrincipal Component Analysis (PCA) to the model developmentprocess and changes to the input parameters which have madethe analogy results more intuitive and have improved modelperformance. This paper describes the current COMPACTKNN dataset, improvements made to the model in COMPACTV2, an assessment of current model performance, and a forwardlook at COMPACT’s planned future enhancements.
Directed energy deposition (DED) additive manufacturing (AM) processes are amenable to synergistic combination into multi-process AM systems due to similar requirements for automation and energy sources. This work analyzes the economic performance of such DED AM systems from a quality-agnostic combinatoric standpoint with a model that calculates lowest-cost system combinations based on part geometry and process performance metrics. Common DED AM systems research focuses on a single process and does not consider the process, system, and application in the context of all possible system combinations (e.g., the combined set of process selection(s), motion system(s), and process hardware), leading to limited applicability of the resulting DED AM systems to cost-sensitive components such as those found in energy generation applications. The model developed herein incorporates the capital, material, and energy costs associated with DED AM system combinations into a predictive tool for estimating part and system cost, the output of which is intended to guide deployment of finite research and development resources towards DED AM system combinations with the lowest costs and greatest likelihood of economic impact. The DED AM systems identified by this framework may enable domestic production of the large conventionally cast and forged components necessary for energy generation.
No abstract provided
A model for estimating the cost required to do a cost estimate for Deep Space Network (DSN) projects that range from $0.1 to $100 million is presented. The cost of the cost estimate in thousands of dollars, C(sub E), is found to be approximately given by C(sub E) = K((C(sub p))(sup 0.35)) where C(sub p) is the cost of the project being estimated in millions of dollars and K is a constant depending on the accuracy of the estimate. For an order-of-magnitude estimate, K = 24; for a budget estimate, K = 60; and for a definitive estimate, K = 115. That is, for a specific project, the cost of doing a budget estimate is about 2.5 times as much as that for an order-of-magnitude estimate, and a definitive estimate costs about twice as much as a budget estimate. Use of this model should help provide the level of resources required for doing cost estimates and, as a result, provide insights towards more accurate estimates with less potential for cost overruns.
A high-level parametric mathematical model for estimating the costs of testing rocket engines and components at Stennis Space Center has been implemented as a Microsoft Excel program that generates multiple spreadsheets. The model and the program are both denoted, simply, the Cost Estimating Model (CEM). The inputs to the CEM are the parameters that describe particular tests, including test types (component or engine test), numbers and duration of tests, thrust levels, and other parameters. The CEM estimates anticipated total project costs for a specific test. Estimates are broken down into testing categories based on a work-breakdown structure and a cost-element structure. A notable historical assumption incorporated into the CEM is that total labor times depend mainly on thrust levels. As a result of a recent modification of the CEM to increase the accuracy of predicted labor times, the dependence of labor time on thrust level is now embodied in third- and fourth-order polynomials.
A high-level parametric mathematical model for estimating the costs of testing rocket engines and components at Stennis Space Center has been implemented as a Microsoft Excel program that generates multiple spreadsheets. The model and the program are both denoted, simply, the Cost Estimating Model (CEM). The inputs to the CEM are the parameters that describe particular tests, including test types (component or engine test), numbers and duration of tests, thrust levels, and other parameters. The CEM estimates anticipated total project costs for a specific test. Estimates are broken down into testing categories based on a work-breakdown structure and a cost-element structure. A notable historical assumption incorporated into the CEM is that total labor times depend mainly on thrust levels. As a result of a recent modification of the CEM to increase the accuracy of predicted labor times, the dependence of labor time on thrust level is now embodied in third- and fourth-order polynomials.
A high-level parametric mathematical model for estimating the costs of testing rocket engines and components at Stennis Space Center has been implemented as a Microsoft Excel program that generates multiple spreadsheets. The model and the program are both denoted, simply, the Cost Estimating Model (CEM). The inputs to the CEM are the parameters that describe particular tests, including test types (component or engine test), numbers and duration of tests, thrust levels, and other parameters. The CEM estimates anticipated total project costs for a specific test. Estimates are broken down into testing categories based on a work-breakdown structure and a cost-element structure. A notable historical assumption incorporated into the CEM is that total labor times depend mainly on thrust levels. As a result of a recent modification of the CEM to increase the accuracy of predicted labor times, the dependence of labor time on thrust level is now embodied in third- and fourth-order polynomials.
The National Laboratory of the Rockies (NLR) first released its pumped storage hydropower (PSH) cost model in 2023 as the most detailed bottom-up PSH cost model available to the public. It is available both as a spreadsheet and an interactive web tool, enabling users with a variety of PSH interests to transparently characterize costs of alternative PSH sites and designs. The PSH cost model cannot replace detailed site-level studies and design, but it is important to validate it against other industry PSH cost estimates. The initial model methodology report validated the cost model for a single proposed site, the Eagle Mountain Project in California. This slide deck documents an expanded validation exercise using cost data from six other sites: Goldendale (Washington), Seminoe (Wyoming), Gordon Butte (Montana), Swan Lake (Oregon), White Pine (Oregon), and Lewis Ridge (Kentucky). It compares itemized costs from Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) applications and other reported costs with NLR PSH cost model outputs after customizing inputs for each site. The validation exercise finds that the NLR model's conservative indirect cost assumptions often drive overall cost overestimation, with direct cost comparisons typically agreeing more closely. All cost model estimates are well within an Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) Class 5 estimation range (-50% to +100%), with five within the AACE Class 4 range (-30% to +50%) and four being within 15%. This result is considered reasonable performance for a parametric model applied at a preliminary design stage.