Management, Cost, and Schedule Review for the Deimos Impact & Observation Spacecraft (DIOS) Mission

Jeff Anderson, Thomas Blachman, Andrew Fallon, John Franklin, Samuel Gaultney, David Habashy, Brian Hardie, Brandon Hing, Zujia Huang, Sung Kim, and Jonathan Saenger

Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, 30332

This document discusses the Management, Cost, and Schedule Review for the Deimos Impact & Observation Spacecraft of the DIOS mission and provides the charts and tables to that show the mission is able to meet its key requirements. The project cost covers both the staffing the personnel, as well at the cost of the cubesats components. The project schedule is included and is divided into phases A-F.

NomenclatureCBE Currently Best EstimateCDR Critical Design ReviewCERR Critical Events Readiness ReviewDR Decommissioning ReviewDRR Disposal Readiness ReviewFAD Formulation Agreement DocumentMCR Mission Concept ReviewMDR Mission Definition ReviewMEV Maximum Expected ValueMRR Mission Readiness ReviewORR Operational Readiness ReviewPDR Preliminary Design ReviewSIR System Integration ReviewSRR System Requirements ReviewΔVi Velocity change for initial burn, m/sΔVc Velocity change for impactor burn, m/sΔVo Velocity change for observer burn, m/sΔVT Total velocity change, m/s

I. Introduction

The objective of the Deimos Impact & Observation Spacecraft (DIOS) Mission is to determine the origin and composition of Mars’ moon Deimos. Current hypotheses from NASA’s decadal survey speculate that Deimos is either an asteroid captured from the asteroid belt or accreted from a collision between Mars and another large body. According to NASA’s Vision and Voyages for Planetary Science in the Decade 2013-2022, Deimos plays an important role in the future exploration of Mars, especially if it is related to volatile-rich asteroids. If it is, Deimos may be a surviving representative of a family of bodies from the outer asteroid belt that reached the inner solar system and delivered volatiles and organics to the accreting terrestrial planets.1 During the course of this mission, DIOS will analyze the surface and sub-surface composition of Deimos to definitively determine the moon’s origin.

In order to consider the mission to be considered a complete success, the following mission requirements must be met:

1. The impactor shall collide with Deimos’ surface and generate a plume sufficient enough in size for the CubeSat Spectrometer to detect

2. The impactor shall penetrate Deimos’ surface deep enough to expose volatile compounds including oxygen, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, water, and ammonia

3. The CubeSat shall analyze the plume with a spectrometer and determine the 1.3µm absorption levels, as well as the absorption levels of volatiles

This document discusses the trajectory design that will allow DIOS to achieve a flyby of Deimos while providing the optimum velocities to achieve the mission requirements.

II. Key Requirements

The two major design goals of the spacecraft are to generate a plume of Deimos subsurface material, and to relay the composition of the material to Earth. The driving requirements serve to fulfill these two goals either directly or secondarily.

1. Shall be ready for launch by July 20th 20202. Shall arrive at Deimos between February 16th 2021 and February 17th 20213. Shall not exceed 5.6 million dollars in total cost4. Shall have an acceptable amount of risk.

III. Project Management

Figure 1. Work Breakdown Structure

The work breakdown structure (WBS) is created by grouping the spacecraft subsystems and development phases. The WBS is not organized chronologically. Project management facilitates the development of the

spacecraft subsystems which are then put together by the integration supervisor. The testing supervisor makes sure the completed spacecraft meets the launch requirements. The launch preparation supervisor makes sure the completed, tested spacecraft is ready and present for launch. The post-launch supervisor analyzes the data once the mission is complete. The purple box represents a post-doctoral associate. The red boxes represent 4 graduate students. The yellow boxes represent 8 undergraduate students. The green boxes represent the general tasks that the higher-up boxes are responsible for. Below the green boxes would be detailed descriptions of what the green boxes entail. An example would be “Gather propulsion requirements from the trajectory group. Analyze available propulsion system options. Perform trade studies for propulsion systems based upon deltaV, mass, size, power, etc.”

The cost in terms of work breakdown structure elements is detailed in Table 1. The majority of costs for the mission stems from project management, specifically facilities and administrative fees, and project system engineering. Facilities and administrative fees consists of wage and benefits for all personnel as well as tuition and health care for graduate students. Project systems engineering contains the majority of the cubesat components necessary for the mission.

Table 1. Cost by WBS Elements

IV. Project Cost

PersonnelThe Research and Development (R&D) team of DIOS mission consists of 1 principal investigator(PI), 1 post doctoral associate, 4 graduate students and 8 part-time undergraduate students, giving a total team size of 13. The principal investigator acts as the project leader and primary contact. The post doctoral associate acts as an executive manager that coordinates work between graduate and undergraduate students and assist them with professional experience. The four graduate students are in charge of project systems engineering, spacecraft flight systems

engineering, science payload engineering, and mission systems engineering respectively, with the undergraduate students sharing their workload under guidance.

The PI requires a base salary of $113,381 in FY 2017 when the project starts. The salary increases on a predicted 3% rate per year, until FY 2020 when the development phase ends. The post doctoral associate requires a base salary of estimated $45,000 in FY 2017 and a 1.5% raise in every succeeding year.. The four graduate students require a base salary of estimated $26,000 each in FY 2017, giving a total of $104,000, plus a 1.5% raise every year. The undergraduate students, working part-time and for course credits, are not paid.

The PI and post doctoral associate also require fringe benefits at a rate of 28.8% in FY 2017, a combined amount of $45.614. Therefore, total salaries and fringe benefits in FY 2017 is $307,995. Total salaries and fringe benefits over 4 years is $1,288,535.

Equipment

The equipment required for the DIOS mission are primarily on-board equipment and components, and mostly appears as non-recurring cost. Only equipment with cost close to or exceeding $5,000 are considered significant for discussion. There are 8 major on-board components of significant cost, covering C&DH, ADCS, power, propulsion, communication and scientific payload. Table 2 lists those components and their costs. The costs of two propulsion systems, Vacco MiPS and Rocketdyne MPS-130, have not been disclosed by manufacturers, and are estimated values based on similar products. All other costs are given by manufacturers or providers.

Table 2. Equipment Cost Profile

Equipment Quantity Cost1. IRIS 1 $150,000.00

2. BCT XACT 2 $290,246.003. VACCO End-Mounted MiPS 1 $50,000.004. Argus 1000 IR Spectrometer 1 $49,500.00

5. Clyde Space 2U Deployable Array 4 $40,000.006. CS High Power Bundle C:

EPS + 80 Whr Battery 2 $38,600.007. Rocketdyne MPS-130 1 $35,000.00

8. Nanomind A3200 1 $10,000.009. Cube Computer 1 $4,970.00

10. Total Equipment 14 $668,316.00

Travel

Only full-time investigators, including PI, post doctoral associate and graduate students(6 personnels total) are accounted for in travel and conference. The expected location of the conference (Aerospace Conference) is Big Sky, Montana, and the expected location of design review is at JPL in Pasadena, California. Both trips are expected to last one week. Hotels nearby the locations of interest provided quotes for the trip. Delta Airlines was used to

estimate transportation costs for each member. The total amount for travel costs per year is $23,450 for the entire mission.

Trainee/Participant Costs

There were no trainees or participants associated with the mission. All necessary testing deals with component testing. The mission does not require any human to physically accompany the cubesat. Therefore no costs associated with trainees or participants (stipend, tuition, etc.) were accounted for.

Other Direct Costs

Other direct costs mainly include publication/documentation cost, miscellaneous terms associated to graduate students and Deep Space Network operation cost. The publication and documentation cost is estimated at $5,000 and is a non-recurring cost term. For graduate students, health insurance and tuition are major costs. The health insurance is rated at 4.7% in FY 2017, a total of $4,888 for 4 students. The tuition is rated at $1,489 per person per month. The combined total is $76,360 in FY17. The health insurance increases by 1.5% per year until project ends in FY 2020. The Deep Space Network cost was calculated using an equation provided by NASA.

The equation above calculates the aperture fees for DSN. The aperture fee coverage is detailed in Table 3. The DSN cost came out to be $2,114.00 per year. This cost is less than $5,000, but was included due to its crucial role in the mission.

Table 3. Aperture Fee Coverage for DSN

Summary

The total cost for each year is listed below in Table 4. The non-recurring equipment cost are counted as cost for first year(FY 2017). Counting contingency for all costs, the total cost over four years is $2,654,874, less than half of the $5.3M limit. The full cost profile can be found in the appendix.

Table 4. Overall mission cost over four years.Year 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total

Total Cost $1,083,234 $395,855 $428,973 $438,931 $2,346,995Total Cost with Contingency $1,161,583 $489,028 $500,607 $512,533 $2,663,753

V. Project Schedule

Figure 2. Project Life Cycle (Note: Red Triangles - Required Review)2

Pre-Phase A

Figure 3. Pre-Phase A Gantt Chart

Pre-Phase A will consist of concept studies relating to the mission. This may include refining the mission concept, preliminary mission architecture design, and assessing technology and engineering development. Using these, staff and infrastructure requirements will be determined for the project. With the work done in Pre-Phase A, a Formulation Agreement Document (FAD) will be developed as a tool for communicating and negotiating the project’s funding and schedule requirements for mission development. Before entering Phase A of the project, a Mission Concept Review (MCR) will be conducted to ensure life-cycle review objectives and expected maturity states have been met. 4

Pre-Phase A will last approximately 2 months.

Phase A

Figure 4. Phase A Gantt Chart

Phase A is the first phase of project formulation. Within this step, concept and technology development activities will be performed to develop a mission architecture that meets program requirements and constraints for the project. This will ensure the mission definition and plans are mature enough to begin Phase B.

The activities in this phase include:· Developing/defining project requirements to the system level· Developing system architecture· Developing cost and schedule estimates for the project· Identifying and mitigating development risks· Updating staffing/infrastructure requirements

In this phase, two reviews will be conducted. In the middle of this phase, a System Requirements Review (SRR) will be performed to evaluate whether the performance requirements of the system satisfy the program’s requirements of the project. At the end of Phase A, a Mission Definition Review (MDR) will be conducted to determine if the maturity of the mission definition is sufficient to begin Phase B. 4

Phase A will last 5 months.

Phase B

Figure 5. Phase B Gantt Chart

Phase B is the final phase of project formulation and deals with the preliminary design and technology completion activities. In this phase, technology development will be completed, heritage hardware and software assessments will be performed, engineering prototyping will be conducted, and risk-mitigation activities will be identified. Furthermore, mission objectives, requirements, cost estimates, and schedule estimates will be updated.

At the end of this phase, a Preliminary Design Review (PDR) will be conducted. The PDR will consist of evaluating the planning, cost, and schedule developed during Formulation and assessing the preliminary design’s compliance with the mission requirements.4

Phase B will last approximately 8 months.

Phases C-DPhases C and D are the steps in which project implementation is conducted. In Phase C, final system designs will be completed and documented, and fabrication of test and flight architecture will begin. Phase D consists of system assembly, integration, and testing various system pieces, while performing verification and validation on products as they are integrated. During this phase, hardware and software documentation will be finalized, issues from testing will be resolved, and the system will be prepared for launch and shipment.

Figure 6. Phase C Gantt Chart

In Phase C, two reviews will be conducted, the Critical Design Review (CDR) and the System Integration Review (SIR). The objective of the CDR is to evaluate the integrity of the project design and the ability of the system to meet mission requirements with appropriate margin and risk. The CDR is performed in the middle of Phase C. The SIR will evaluate the readiness of the project to begin assembly, integration, and testing.4 The SIR is performed at the end of Phase C.

Figure 7. Phase D Gantt Chart

In Phase D, the Operational Readiness Review (ORR) and Mission Readiness Review (MRR) will be conducted. The ORR is used to evaluate the readiness of the project to assemble, integrate, and test flight systems. The ORR is performed in the middle of Phase D. The MRR is used to assess the pre-flight operational readiness of the project. This will insure there are no problems with the flight systems and all personnel and infrastructure are ready to support launch. The MRR is performed at the end of Phase D.4

Phase C will last around 15 months and Phase D will last around 11 months.

Phase E-F

Figure 8. Phase E Gantt Chart

Phase E is the launch, operations, and sustainment of the mission. The parameters for this phase are determined by the flight schedule. In this phase, a Critical Events Readiness Review (CERR), and Decommissioning Review (DR) are performed. The CERR will evaluate the readiness of the project to execute a critical event during flight operations. The DR (towards the end of the mission) will evaluate the readiness of the project to conduct closeout activities.4

Figure 9. Phase F Gantt Chart

Phase F deals with the decommissioning of the mission. This phase begins with a Disposal Readiness Review (DRR), in which the readiness of the project for disposal will be evaluated.4 In this stage, final archival of data and spacecraft closeout will be performed.

Phase E will last under 9 months and Phase F will last 1 month.

Critical Path

Figure 10. Critical Path

The critical path of the project shows that the minimum duration of the project will be 50 months. Each of the activity times are broken down in the Phase summaries above. This path does not include schedule margin, which is discussed below.

Schedule MarginThe planned activities of this mission will last 52 months, providing 8 months of schedule margin. This will provide sufficient margin for activities that may take more time than expected such as assembly, integration, and testing. The schedule margin rate is 0.133.

VI. Project-level Risk Assessment and Mitigations

1. Propulsion isn’t ready in time2. Production schedule surpasses time allotted until launch3. Components don’t meet testing standards4. Costs are higher than expected5. Loss of satellite upon launch

Figure 11. Project-level risk assessment matrix.

There are five major project-level risks to be considered in risk analysis, the likelihood and consequences of which are summarized in figure 11.

An overdue in propulsion system delivery is mission-critical, particularly for the Rocketdyne MPS-130 propulsion module. The high delta-V capability is essential for the success of DIOS mission; however, the MPS-130 has been in test phase for a long time without anticipated date of availability. The Vacco cold gas propulsion module, on the other hand, has samples already available and is generally higher in TRL than the MPS-130. The cold gas propulsion is also less mission critical and can be replaced by other similar products should the delivery fail to achieve,

An overdue in spacecraft production also leads to direct failure of mission, since the launch vehicle and launch date is not under control of the DIOS mission team. The likelihood of an project overdue is to the best reduced by setting the end date of Phase D(system assembly, integration and testing) at least six months prior to launch, giving a generous margin for any delay.

A loss of satellite upon launch will lead to direct failure of mission, but the possibility is low given the very high reliability of launch vehicle(Atlas V), with only one partial failure per 66 flights. The sub-model Atlas V-541 used for Mars 2020 mission has three successful launches to date with no failure. Should a launch vehicle accident occur and the spacecraft is lost, cost would be reimbursed partially by insurance.

Unsatisfactory quality of spacecraft components threatens the reliability of spacecraft and thus the possibility of mission success. However, many of the components are off-the-shelf and have been tested by other successful missions. The component in development, such as the MPS-130, will be manufactured by top-tier companies, and thus the chances of component failing standards are low. Other structural parts, including frame, wire and thermal/radiation protection are held to relatively low standards, given the somewhat short(less than one year) lifespan of the spacecraft. In addition, redundant testing will be performed to guarantee readiness of all components; extra testing and possible fixing of parts are accounted for in schedule design.

A cost overdue is likely, given the unpredictability of project progress. For instance, increase of cost will occur if components are replaced, duplicates are used for testing, or if salary level increases over the year at a rate higher than anticipated. However, reasonable cost overdue are covered in contingency and will not be impeding the mission. Should cost rise above the maximum anticipated level, it is most likely still within the $5.3M limit and thus additional funding can be acquired.

VII. Descopes

If we need to save on costs or time, there are several different options for descoping. The first would be to reduce the amount of testing for each part. This would reduce the amount of time for building the components for the satellite, which reduces the overall build time. It also would decrease the costs associated to test the components. However, this would increase the risk failure of the components.

Another descope option would be to reduce the amount of employees. This would decrease the total cost by reducing the amounts paid due to salaries. The downside to this option is that it would increase the production time, since there would be fewer people to work on the components. This could also increase the risk of individual components.

A third option would be to reduce the amount of trips to conferences and design review trip. This would reduce the cost that do not apply directly to the manufacturing of the satellite. However, this would reduce the amount of critique and feedback received. Also, mission exposure would be far lower.

VIII. Conclusion.

The Management, Cost, and Schedule Review for the Deimos Impact & Observation Spacecraft of the DIOS mission and provides the charts and tables to that show the mission is able to meet its key requirements. The project cost covers both the staffing the personnel, as well at the cost of the cubesats components. The total estimated project cost with contingency falls well below the monetary limit given to each team. The project schedule is included and is divided into phases A-F.

IX. References1K.M. Brumbaugh, The Metrics of Spacecraft Design Reusability and Cost Analysis as Applied to Cubesats, 2012.

2Chapter 2. NASA Life Cycles for Space Flight Programs and Projects. (2012, August 14). Retrieved from NASA Procedural Requirements: http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_7120_005E_&page_name=Chapter2

3NASA's Mission Operations and Communications Services, NASA Deep Space. (2014). https://deepspace.jpl.nasa.gov/files/dsn/6_nasa_mocs_2014_10_01_14.pdf (accessed November 5, 2016).

4(2014). NASA Space Flight Program and Project Management Handbook. NASA, Hampton. Retrieved from https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20150000400.pdf

5Preparing a Budget, Georgia Tech Office of Sponsored Programs. http://www.osp.gatech.edu/budget (accessed November 5, 2016).

X. Appendix

Category QuantityFunds

RequestedYear

2Year

3Year

4 ContingencyA. Senior Personnel - - - - - -

1. Principal Investigator (PI) 1 $113,381.00$116,782

.43$120,285

.90$123,894

.48 20.00%2. Co-PI 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.003. Co-PI 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.004. Co-PI 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

5. Others 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

6. Total Senior Personnel 1 $113,381.00$116,782

.43$120,285

.90$123,894

.48B. Other Personnel - - - - -

1. Post Doctoral Associates 1 $45,000.00$46,350.

00$47,740.

50$49,172.

72 20.00%2. Other Professionals 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

3. Graduate Students 4 $104,000.00$107,120

.00$110,333

.60$113,643

.61 20.00%4. Undergraduate Students 8 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

5. Secretarial - Clerical 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.006. Others 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

7. Total Other Personnel 13 $104,000.00$107,120

.00$158,074

.10$162,816

.32

TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES - $262,381.00$270,252

.43$278,360

.00$286,710

.80

C. Fringe Benefits - $45,613.73$46,982.

14$48,391.

60$49,843.

35TOTAL SALARIES AND WAGES

FRINGE BENEFITS - $307,994.73$317,234

.57$326,751

.60$336,554

.16D. Equipment - - - - -

1. IRIS 1 $150,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 10.00%2. BCT XACT 2 $290,246.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5.00%

3. VACCO End-Mounted MiPS 1 $50,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 15.00%4. Argus 1000 IR Spectrometer 1 $49,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5.00%5. Clyde Space 2U Deployable

Array 4 $40,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5.00%6. CS High Power Bundle C:

EPS + 80 Whr Battery 2 $38,600.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5.00%

7. Rocketdyne MPS-130 1 $35,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 15.00%8. Nanomind A3200 1 $10,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5.00%9. Cube Computer 1 $4,970.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5.00%

10. Total Equipment 14 $668,316.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 -E. Travel - - - - - -

1. Conference Trip Entrance 6 $8,400.00$8,400.0

0$8,400.0

0$8,400.0

0 10.00%2. Design Review Trip 6 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%

3. Hotels 6 $3,150.00$3,150.0

0$3,150.0

0$3,150.0

0 10.00%

4. Transportation 6 $11,900.00$11,900.

00$11,900.

00$11,900.

00 10.00%

5. Total Travel Costs $23,450.00$23,450.

00$23,450.

00$23,450.

00 -F. Trainee/Participant Costs - - - - - -

1. Stipends 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%2. Tuition & Fees 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%3. Trainee Travel 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%

4. Other 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%5. Total Participants 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%G. Other Direct Costs - - - - - -

1. Materials and Supplies - $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%2. Publication/Documentation 1 $5,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 5.00%

3. Consultant Services 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%4. Computer Services 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%

5. Subcontracts 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 0.00%6. Others (Grad Healthcare,

Tuition) 4 $76,360.00$76,506.

64$76,657.

68$76,813.

25 5.00%

7. Deep Space Network Costs 1 $2,114.00$2,114.0

0$2,114.0

0$2,114.0

0 5.00%

8. Total Direct Costs - $83,474.00$78,620.

64$78,771.

68$78,927.

25 -

TOTAL YEARLY COST - $1,083,234.73$395,855

.21$428,973

.28$438,931

.41 -TOTAL ESTIMATED PROJECT

COST$2,346,994.6

3 - - - - -TOTAL YEARLY COST WITH

CONTINGENCY - $1,161,583.70$489,02

8.16$500,60

7.19$512,53

3.60 -TOTAL COST WITH

CONTINGENCY$2,663,752.6

5 - - - - -