# Presentation: 329883

## NASA Instrument Cost Model(NICM)Presented to the NASA Cost Symposium

- Hamid Habib-Agahi
- Eric Kwan
- April 13, 2005

## Objective

**Approach**

- User Req Development

- Database Development

- Data Collection

- Model Development

- Develop NASA Instrument Cost Model (NICM)
-  at the System & Subsystem Levels

- Data Verification & Validation

- CER Verification & Validation

- Model Maintenance & Updates

## High Level Schedule

## User Requirement Development

- User Req Development

- Database Development

- Data Collection

- Model Development

- Data Verification & Validation

- CER Verification & Validation

- Model Maintenance & Updates

## User Requirements Development

- Formed core instrument development team
- JPL Section 312 - Systems Analysis & Model Development Group
- Technical division experts (instruments)
- Users (Team X, Team I, Cost Office, Div. 38)
- JPL Procurement/Contract department
- Non-JPL consultants
- Analyzed current available instrument cost models
- Solicited capability briefing from experienced industry Systems Engineering/Technical Assistant (SETA) contractors
- Developed a comprehensive NICM instrument list
- Included all instrument built from 1985 to 2004
- Grouped by JPL vs. non-JPL led instruments
- Total of 120 instruments

## Current Instrument Cost Models

|  | Technology/Science
Cost Model | Team X Instrument Cost Model | Scientific Instrument Cost Model (SICM) | Multi-
variable Instrument Cost Model (MICM) | NASA/
AIR Force Cost Model (NAFCOM) | Passive Sensor Cost Model (PSCM) | NASA Instrument Cost Model (NICM) |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Sponsor | JPL | JPL | NASA | NASA | NASA/
Air Force | Air Force | NASA/JPL |
| Developer | JPL | JPL | Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) | Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) | SAIC | Tecolote Research, Inc. | JPL/
Contractor |
| Cost Estimating Level | Subsystem Level | System Level | System Level | System Level | System Level | Subsystem Level | Subsystem Level
 |
| Users | JPL | JPL | NASA/
Contractors | NASA/
Contractors | NASA/
Contractors | Air Force/
Contractors | NASA/
Contractors |

## NICM Instrument List (1985 – 2004)By Lead Organization

- Note:
- JPL Led: 42%
- Non-JPL Led: 58%
- No DoD Instruments

## User Requirements Development

- Categorized the instruments by class
- Optical
- Active Micro/Sub-millimeter Wave
- Passive Micro/Sub-millimeter Wave
- Particle & Fields
- Others/Radio Science
- Developed standard instrument WBS
- Identified cost and technical parameters by subsystem
- Developed a data collection questionnaire to capture required cost and technical parameters

## Data Collection Questionnaire (1 of 3)

- Cost Modeling Attributes

## Data Collection Questionnaire (2 of 3)

- Cost Modeling Attributes

## Data Collection Questionnaire (3 of 3)

**Comments & Assumptions:**
- Review with Dave Swenson (Jan 13, 2005):
- 1) Management and Systems Eng costs were costed together at $117,542.  D.Swenson estimates $27M for Management, $13M Prod Assurance, the rest for Systems Eng.
- 2) Design Inheritance: New
- 3) Mission Class B
- 4) TRLs: Optics-5, Mech-6, Thermal-5, Electronics-5, Detectors-5
- 5) Detector mass is empty because it's so light, only a few ounces.
- *Cost breakdown and TRLs from ESSA database.  See chart below.   NASA New Start Inflation Index (Actuals Thru 1998)
- From http://modis.gsfc.nasa.gov/about/design.html:
- 2) 4 bands defined: The optical system consists of a two-mirror off-axis afocal telescope, which directs energy to four refractive objective assemblies; one for each of the VIS, NIR, SWIR/MWIR and LWIR spectral regions to cover a total spectral range of 0.4 to 14.4 μm.
- 3) The combined weight of the Optical Bench Assembly is 22 kg.  Scan mirror is 4.3 kg, requires 1.9 W power
- 4) Each MODIS instrument has three “doors” that protect the internal components from contamination, damage, and in some cases help the instrument’s self-calibration processes.  NAD (Nadir looking door) is 3 kg, SVD (Space Viewing Door) is 7 kg, and SDD (Solar Diffuser Door) is 1.9 kg.
- 5) Mainframe, main structural component, supports the internal instrument components.  Mainframe is 43 kg.
- 6) Passive Radiative Cooler is 11 kg
- 7) Optical System includes: Afocal telescope, scan mirror, fold mirror, afocal Gregorian telescope, field stop, dichroic housing, secondary mirro, 3 dichroic beamsplitters, 4 FPAs
- 8) Design life, mass, data rate from this website.
- From MODIS Technical Description Document (Final), August 1997, prepared by Hughes:
- - Optics: Scan mirror assembly (10.9 kg), Afocal telescope assembly (11.5 kg), Aft-optics assembly (10.3 kg),
- - Mechanical: Mainframe (43.8 kg), Doors (12.9 kg)
- - Thermal: Radiative cooler (10.0 kg), Sunshade (0.8 kg), Blankets (4.1 kg)
- - Electronics: Main Electronics Module (61.7 kg), Analog Electronics Modules (28.0 kg), Solar diffuser monitor (1.5 kg), Spectral response, radiometric calibration, band-to band registration (12.4 kg), solar diffuser (1.5 kg), Blackbody (5.6 kg)
- - Other: Mischellaneous (13.2 kg)
- - TOTAL: 228.7 kg
- - POWER: MEM (70W), AEMs (60W), Scan Motor (3 W), SRCA (44 W).  Average: 177W, Peak 205 W.  (G.Chen: subsystem power is listed for average power, use their ratios for peak power situation).
- - 15 year mission duration, G.Chen: 180 month design life
- - 10.5 Mbps (day mode), 3.2 Mbps (night mode)

## Data Collection Questionnaire - Block Diagram

**ASI**

**JPL**

**JPL also led Management & Systems Engineering**

**Dish Antenna w/ Feeds**

- Radar: Launched in Oct 97

## Data Collection

- User Req Development

- Database Development

- Model Development

- Data Verification & Validation

- CER Verification & Validation

- Model Maintenance & Updates

## NICM Data Collection Activities

**Feb 04**

**Statement of Work/RFP Development**

**JPL**

**Non-JPL Instruments**

**Task Start ~ Oct 2003**
**Requirements Development/Data Collection**

**Mar  04**

**Instrument Contract  April  04**

**Mar 05**

**FY05 Goal**

**Pathfinder test case**

**JPL Instruments**

**Lessons-Learned from JPL Instrument Data Collection**

## Data Collection Status

- Collected ~ 81 instruments at system and subsystem levels
- Questionnaires were stored electronically in an Excel-based database
- Provided quick search and comparisons of the “raw” data
- The “raw” data were further reviewed and normalized  by JPL technical experts in the related fields
- Captured outliers and anomalies
- ~ 30 reviewed and normalized
- Lessons-learned for Non-JPL data
- Availabilities of instrument cost data at subsystem level
- Especially instruments built by the Universities
- Issues of Non Disclosure Agreements (NDA) among NASA centers
- Full cost accounting policies and practices were not consistent
- Aerospace Survey indicated lack of support from non-JPL institutions

## NICM Database Summary

- Total instruments: 81

## Model Development

- User Req Development

- Database Development

- Data Collection

- Data Verification & Validation

- CER Verification & Validation

- Model Maintenance & Updates

## Initial Cost Modeling

- Apply modern data mining and econometric techniques to develop and validate CER
- Cluster Analysis (CA)
- CA is a multivariate statistical method to partition a population into homogeneous subsets by grouping cases based on similarities within a database of descriptive parameters.
- Principal Component Analysis (PCA)
- PCA is a multivariate statistical technique for uncovering quantitative relationships between multiple attributes of observational/experimental units.

## Cluster Analysis - Optical Instruments

- Derived from simple distance metric (Euclidean metric of log (attribute) differences) of
- 24 programmatic and technical variables
- 15 optical instruments.
- Euclidean Metric:
**D(i,j) = (********k****(ln(A****ik****/A****jk****))****2****)****1/2**
- Where Aik is the value of attribute k for instrument i.
- A table of distances is created between all pairs of instruments
- Complete Clustering is then performed using the table.
- Output results in an unrooted tree.

## Example - Cluster Tree

## Principal Component Analysis (PCA)

- From the PCA mathematical equations, we can express Cost as a Product of Factors:
**C****  **=  **C****0 ***** ********k**(X**k** **/**** **X**0k****)****e****k**
- Where Xk is the value of instrument attribute k.
- C0 and X0k are the reference values of cost and instrument attribute k.
- The ek are parameters derived from the PCA

## Examples – PCA Cost Functional Form

| Instrument
Type | # of Data Point | Cost Estimating Relationship (CER) | R2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| All | 37 | Cost[FY04$K]   =  $25.6M
                                * (Power [W]/61.5).32 
                                * (Mass [kg]/53.8).26
                                * (Data Rate [kpbs]/40.4).11 | 0.77 |
| Particles | 15 | Cost[FY04$K]   =  $13.9M
                                * (Power [W]/10.6).29
                                * (Design Life [years]/4.5).35
                                * (Development Time [months]/49.7).27
 | 0.55 |
| Fields | 7 | Cost[FY04$K]   =  $6.3M 
                                * (Power [W]/7.8).33
                                * (Mass [kg]/12.1).16 
                                               * (# of Detectors/4.9).15 
                                 * Development Time[months]/56.4) .68 | 0.88 |

## Next Steps (FY05 & FY06)

- Continue data collection, evaluation & normalization
- Develop, verify and validate CERs
- Develop the instrument cost model architecture
- Validate and test the cost model
- Integrate NICM to NAFCOM
- Documentation
- Maintenance/Updates