Tài liệu a budgetary analysis of nasa s new vision for space exploration docx

NASt's Current Five-Year Plan and Extended Badge Projection J NASA's New Direction ‘Comparison of NASA’ Budget Requests for 2004 and 2005 2 Funding fr NASA's Lunar Return Mission 4 Estim

= CBO

A Budgetary Analysis of NASA's

New Vision for Space Exploration

Seprember 2004

‘The Congres ofthe United States @ Congressional Badges Office

Notes nls otherwise indicated, ll dela figure inthis report ar in 2005 dollar, and all ere refered to ae feral fiscal years, which un from October It Sepember 30

[Number inthe tee and tables may not dup o tot because of rounding

“The coer phot ofthe moon iy he Nasional Acros and Space Adiinration, The sho wa ken on ly 2,199, the Apel 1 sonata lingo fm th oon

fn ther ear joey othe pc ship Cali prior 0 Eh, This wa the

‘on fin sigh af he moon before thợ began docking proces wth Colembia

Preface

pablo erage rene

sẽ na

ras GEN TU 0D He,

changes clave to previous plans to reorient the agency programs support the objectives ofthe exploration vision,

“This Congressional Budget Ofce (CBO) sudy-—prepared athe equet of the Subcommit: tee on Science, Technology, and Space of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transporation

\Committe—asesses the implication of the new vision for bth the conten of NASAS farure exploration programs and the funding that might be needed ro execute them The study lo analyzes how NASA budget might be afecred icons for its proposed new ro trams for pace exploration grew as muchas some of NASA program corts have grown in the pate Concluding the analy ian examination of aleratives forthe furure of the pace uc:

dl program and the United Stat involvereat in the International Space Staton In keeping vith CBO's mandate o provide objective, impartial analysis, his study makes no recommen- ations

David Arthur, Adrienne Ramsay, and Robie Samant Roy of CBO National Security Div- son wrote the report unde the general supervision of Michael Gilmore Kathy Gramp of (CBO% Budge Analysis Division, supervised by Kim Cawley, conuibued tothe ana Ade- tayo Adedei reviewed che manucrpt for fcaal accuracy David Auerbach, Mathew Gol berg, David Moore and Elzabech Robinson provided thowghful comment on cal dais of the ud, as did space contltant Dwayne Day, John Logsdon of George Washington Univer sig, and former CBO incern Robbie Schnglr (The asiance of external reviewers implies

‘0 responsibility for thefnal product, which es solely with CBO.) The author ar lo _grtfil to analysand offical from NASA for responding ro many request for information, Leah Manade edited the stady, and Christine Bogure proofread i Mauren Costantino pre- pared the seudy for publiation, nd Lenny Skucik printed the inal copies, Anne Kalicki prepared the elecuonic versions for CBO's Web sie (wwv.cbo go)

DH de

Douglas Hole-Eakin Director

September 2004

NASt's Current Five-Year Plan and Extended Badge Projection J

NASA's New Direction

‘Comparison of NASA’ Budget Requests for 2004 and 2005 2

Funding fr NASA's Lunar Return Mission 4

Estimating Poteatl Cost Growth for NASA's Exploration Vision

‘Using the Mstorial-Average Approach 9

The Risk of Cost Growth and Schedule Delays in Technical

Progeams 9

Deriving Cost Growth Risk Factors for NASA's Programs 10

“The Budget for NASA's Exploration Program with Historical

(Coet Growth 10

Estimating Potental Cost for NASA's Exploration Vision

‘Using Analogies with Past Missions 15

Cort Analogies for Programs wo Return People vo the Moon 15

Cort Analogies for Rabodie Misions tothe Moon and Mars 2ƒ

\Whac Higher Contin the Exploration Initiative Imply for NASA's

‘Budget and Progaming 22

‘Budgetary Implications of Ateratie Decisions About the Shute let and the International Space Station 27

[NASA's New Plans for Operating the Shute and the International

‘Space Sation 27

Implications of Alernative Plans for the Shut's and the 1SS's Operations 31 Append: CB0's Analysis of Cost Growth in NASH's Programs 35

Differences Berween NASA's 2004 and 2005 Budget Reques,

by Program [NASA's Projced Badge forthe Fist Human Return tothe Moon,

12005 Through 2020 Representative Sample of the Set of NASA's Progeame That CBO

‘Used ro Calealte Coat Growth Risk

‘Cost Growth in R&CD Programs for Selected Typet of Defense Sytem [NASA's Plans for Robotic Missions

Cros Section of NASA's Programe and Budgets

[NASA's Projected Budget Through 2020 Aer Adjusting for

“Con Ezeladon Potential Tnreses in Funding Needed for NASA's Exploration Vision

Hisorical Average Cost Growth

‘Compatison of Actual and Proposed Cove for Lunar Missions

‘Analogous NASA's Haman Lanar Exploration Program Potential lactate in Funding Neale for NASA's Human Lonat Exploration Program Bard on the Coats of the Apollo Progra Poendd lacese in Eunding Needed for NASA's Propo Robotic Support Misions Baed on the Coss of Past Robotic Ngon

su

3

41

oteniallncrete in Funding Needed for NASA's Human Laner

Txgloravon and Robove Suppore Minions Bued onthe Coste

sf Analogous Pate Misons Poteoil Additonal Bunding Necded to Extend Space Shaul

‘Operations Through 2017

‘Trends inthe Cots of 72 NASA Programs

[NASA's Initial Pan for Its New Exploration Minion

Adienin for Price Incremesin Analysing the Coes of

NASA's Progra [NASA's Prior Plans fr Reach onthe International Space Staion

6

Summary

P Bushs new vison for human and robotic

exploration of the solar system, which he fs articulated

in January of his year, has shifed the main focus ofthe

[Navonal Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

t6 nhệộ,reesing people othe moon and, ater,

sending human missions to Mar and beyond Following

the Presidents announcement, NASA relesed i budget

equst for fs year 2005 and is budget projection,

which forecasts budgeary requirements through 2020,

Relative to previous plans, that equest and projection

would sgiicanely reorient he agency’ programs fo

Achieve the goa ofthe space exploration vison

“This Congressional Budge Office (CBO) study aeses

the implicrone that those plans might have for the con

tenand schedule of NASAS fur acide as well asthe

fading that migh be needed ro execute them CBO de

‘eloped estimates of how the cost to carry out NASA

plans for space exploration might difer from its current

badger projection and then seid potential budgetary

‘or programmatic options that might be avalble sử:

ress uch cone ferences, In addition, CBO examined

options fr the continued operation of the space shut

td the United Sate? partipation in che Internationa

Space Station (1S), vo programs tha would be signif

cantly affected by NASAS proposed progtam changes

NASA's Budget Request for

Fiscal Year 2005

Tobey decries plane for implementing the Tri:

dents vison forthe ation pace cựbmlee program,

[NASA kas prope a antpred Binding oes

thrgh 20201 yen lenge than the een prj

Sin har unl secrpan x budget equa ce

Sammay Box 1) CBO' ans i bad ely on har

projeson, which indoded dhe fllowing cements

18 Complesing construction ofthe Inrernationl Space

Sean and tering the space shut by 2010;

18 Developing new crew exploration vehicle (CEV) for human misione nto space, with ntl ee Rights at-

ed out by 2008 and fst crewed mision n biet than 2014,

15 Relying on international parenn for access othe ISS daring the period berven the shud erement and the star of CEV operations

= Resuming robotic misions vo the moon stating around 2008 and continuing robotic misions to Mars and

I8 Rennning U.S astronauts tothe moon sometime dar the 2015-2020 period (NASA's projected budgst incorporates the assumption tha a fist crewed lunar landing will occur in 2020 but doesnot include ex- pli plans or schedule for enablhing hina bao for sending astronauts to Mars However, the gency proposes rallocate $2.2 billion during the

2018-2020 pecod o prepare fr human misons be yond theft human hina rerun landing)

In eligning ie activities to achieve those objectives [NASA har made significa changes clave ro is budget requet for 2004 and the sociated five-year projection For example, unde the ew pln, four existing programs wll ech experience cus of more than $1 billion between

2005 and 2009 (se Summary Table) Six pogeams will recive additional fanding of teat S1billio:five of them are closly related othe new exploration inititve

‘The change fo the sith —an incren of $1 billion for

‘the IS8—is intended to adjust NASAL actives reflect the eriencation of US, science research on the space

‘tation chat ic propose o beter suppor the new explora-

‘ion miaion The funding is ako meane to help the agency accommodate the proposed retirement ofthe space hut a ase ive years air than had previously been planned

‘Summary Box

“The National Aeronautic and Space Adminaton

(NASA) has begun co develop hierarchy of perfor

manee requirements (seni, bjetves for is

‘proposed exploration miston to define it moe filly

than the current budget projection dos, Nevrthe-

Tet, that evel of sechnicl deal enor een to

allow the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to

perform an independent cost eimate NASAS mì

tal, or Level 0, exploration requirements incide the

allowing

1 Implemenc sf, susined, and afodable o-

boticand human progr o explore the solar

sytem and beyond and extend the human

presence arom space

1: Acqite «ransporton sytem fr space explana

tion ro convey crews and cago from the Ears

surface to exploration destinations sod return

‘hem sally

1 Fisch sscmbling the International Space Sta

‘ion by the end ofthe decade, according t0

[NASAS plans—inchding the US componens

that mippore the President space eplraion

goals andthe components tat are being provided

ly Rrdgn pc

NASA's Initial Plans for Its New Exploration Mission

1 Pune oppor or menadenelpani<ps tion to suppor U.S space exploration goals and

I Seck contmesial rangement for providing tameperadon and odkersevicz support the Iernational Space Staion and exploration mis- sions beyond low-Earth arbi

Some of those Level 0 regaiemeng ko have aueci- ated eabroquirements that ential sexe che Pre ents video for spac explosion

[NASA has indicate that ew finch defining the nex level of requirement for he new exploration mission (Level 1 sometime ding Fall 2004, but ven thse nore detailed plans are likely to lack cx sential ifermaion fr preparing an independent

et etimate Fr inszance the Level 1 requitemenss

"may notspedlỹ dhe uber of erw mcmnbers or the trew explonton vehi bu rather a range of posi ble crew snes Also uncerain ie whether NASA will choote to develop 4 new heavy if lunch vec

“That decision might not be made until round

“1008 wnh the renlethấ the vehicle's specifica

đan would aot be known until that me,

[NASA expect to achieve the new objectives esublshed

far the exploration anion within vel bdger eee

hough 2020 that ae lil changed (in inflaton

sdjated, of eal terms) from those of today le Sum

mary Figure 1) In NASAY Five-year projection for 2005

hrough 2008, funding thats directly reared 0 support:

ing those new objectives totals over $14 Billion, the ma-

Jory of which would come from relocating $11 billion

ofthe total $84 billion that NASA hs projced fo is

badge over that period The othe 83 billion would con

Sir of funding fr existing programs whose actives sp-

pore NASAS new plan plus $1.24 illon in new funding,

equated or the pesod In el terms, chose new Funde

‘would represen an increste of 1.5 percent in NASA planned budge relative wo the 2004 plan

Beyond ie fve year plan, NASA projesion dhrough

2020 incorporated the sumption thatthe growh of

‘overall nding would be limited oiflaion of about 2 erent per year, Ove the 2010-2020 peso, the sigue

‘an ie pojeced in anna Fondling for exploration raa-

$iont—fom bout $4 ilion in 2010 ro over $9 bilion

in 2020-—‘would be made pose primarily by rciing the space shut in 2010 and ending 1SS actives in

2017 (Under the 2004 plan, che shut was expected to oncinge operating atleast trough 2015 andthe IS, 3¢ lease chrough 2017)

Cow eleraion vehicle 9

Secre:Conresion Ree in aed an ta Ho he anal ana ed Space aint

s TheNisdonsoéSZœte Men Tchnhgy roar relia he 05 en by he anced Space Tehnloar pram, sie rnd wera

Analyzing Costs for Human and

Robotic Exploration

[NAS bude projection hough 2020 frie new space

exploration scien canbe eprted no ve par

ining for the in harman tue miso wo the 08

and Funding for rebic appotmiron to the oom

fd Mar (hn ths gui CBO refer vo oboic masons

tothe moon and Man at “robotic apportion” to

“mo thắc mg ke lntagporing urnan ieions

‘tho places and o dng hen fom nho mức

tone other pats of th slr sytere which are ao

parof NASA plans) NASA projaion i bed on»

‘rsonably dtd plan and ached, Funding vo de

‘op eapailes for human exploration would ince

$638 blo for th ft hasan return to the moon aad

$22 bilo for ire crowed missions forse of

out $66 tllonsragh 2020, or 24 percent of NASA

tol pojted budge Funding fr the bode spport

ison othe moon and Mars woud tot about $29

dien theugh 208, er apparel 1 percent of

NASM budgt.Iaconrat othe way projected he

badge forthe har aren roo, NASA po

Jered Binding fo the obo rappore ions ely

nthe bio constant el fee coving about

51,9 llion pr yea (Chaper 1 describes NASA pro posed plan and schedle, NASA sa have sted tha the :asumptions wed to develop the agency’ budget request

‘nd longer-term projection ae ery istrative and

‘hat the detail oF acral programs could fer suba- tally fom those plans)

[Nonwithstanding NASAS previous experienc wid the Apollo progam (which ook huraas to che moon in the Tate 19605 and eay 1970s) ad ies obec misions other plants, he agency wll fice number of significant techni hurdles in achieving it new exploration objec tives Thote challenge ould res in cont or explors- tien that ae higher than NASA cutrent projection In

‘recognition of tht risk, NASA is investing la techaolo

et whoue development i covered uader the Homan! Robotic Technology category shown in Summary Figure 1) that night offer len expensive ways achieve it ex poration goals, Iris uncer however, whether uch ef {ert wil be accel The analyes dsetibed in hia sady a intended illsrate potential upper Bounds © the costs of NASA exploration program, bounds chat might be lower if dhe agency could impnen successful cotbetgtion aegis,

Note_The dustmant a 205 dls nas bse on cartel ns dened spec NASA's propane

(CBO used two techniques to set cost increas that

[NASA might rie fort new exploration vio, The

fist method studied the cost groweh tha part NASA pro:

grams have experienced relative co inl etimates and

¢stimated the potential costs of NASAS proposed new

programs under the astumption that they wil experience

cost growth similar to historical average levels The se

‘ond approach developed an eatimate ofthe potential cont

‘oF NASA’ projected human and robotic exploration pro-

ramon the basiof the cose of analogous past programs

suchas the Apollo program (NASA sal louse che

gency’ experince with the Apollo projet o guide det

projection of come forthe human nar mission compo-

‘ent of the new plans)

Calculating Potential Cost Growth Based

‘on Historical

In the pas, NASA (and other agence) complex tecai-

cal programs have often experienced higher cost and de

lays in schedule relative wo thee earlier imate and

plans The ess of uch programs can exced intl et-

mates fora variety of reasons, acluding overoptimism in ouging cose unforeseen echnical hurdles, and add tions 9 the capabiltis required ofa program ait de- sign or production progesss Although managers ry to constrain those increases to kecp thế cost within the fe sources ailabe (for example, they might sale back a programs objectives), NASAS final cos fr its actives,

‘much ike those of major development programs in other

‘organizations (uch sche Department of Defense) have historically been greater on average than inal estates ancicpae

“T quantify thc effec, CBO analyzed eos growth for 72 FNASAS programs, which wete drawn from a general

«cross-section of projects that included most of NASA‘ e- search enterprises: CBO used those data to derive cost groweh a (CGR) factor that reflect an average sto of NASA scual cots for thote progr to those pro- grams costs they wer initly budgeted Average cost- tgrowch sin tha calculation, after removing the effec

of nflacon, was about 45 percent for NASA past pro

Note: Tse soins amin NASA’ poeta coe omar ny naa let of he aw rgo/MeZ ngi7gle apm

‘otal ier trough inca potent bsp neds onsite NASH'S pened eration progam (Ana ot rohit

‘epererend (2) te uran lua explain and nea am (205 tough 209 rbd ipeotniehsegelfe tral

‘Snes row () tere hana rr apron missin owe esas ohne er Ral pero)

2086 e human hina explain misono eves ao thos fr te Apolo prem an cosh abe Su armas gona esi obese er leon bo mins

yams! CBO then applied ha 45 pen Factor to the

Coats ofthe human liar exploration acts in NASA

projected exploration program ar ell the cass af

those robotic support misions for which planning su:

fel adraced cha they ane a ine items in

[NASA 2005 budget projection Thor misions con

tute about 8 percent of NASA total projected obvic

spor budget trough 2020 CBO could no analae

Penal con growth ko the remaining robotic up-

fort aves fncladd in NASAS budge projection be

1 Ine pax dace NASA com poh har ben ethan in re ‘to dc Howe tmp we in

‘Sor of NASAL jing male lơ cngEenizem dàn

‘ort were projected onthe basis of some level of derailed planning, costs wil grow as hey have historical; and

‘cond, the Frequency and conten ofthe emsining ro:

ati suppor: mins can be adjusted vo fic within thet projected budge An increase of $32 bilion would rp esentcieof about 12 percent relative to NASA’ rota projected funding of $271 billion through 2020 Ie would constitu aa inctease of ou 33 percent elaive

adv ARCDCEAR SUIS OF NEO FR SC EMORTION

to the $95 billion that NASA hs projected forthe explo-

‘ation portion of ts program over ha sme period

Assessing Potential Cost Increases by

Analogy with Past Missions

‘Avan alternative approach to dhe histdcal average

‘method of asesng poral cons, CBO compared

[NASAS projected exploration aivier and cos throgh

2020 with 2 wotonal program of snr mision that

[NASA has conducted inthe past CBO compared the

‘oat significant of NASA projected actives —the hu

‘man linar exploration mission op through the fis hu

‘man return landing sometime about 2020—with alo

{ous programs that ie constacted on the bass of the

‘Apolo misions and seve other plans for sending ha-

“ma tothe acon or Mars thar were propoted nthe ae

1980s and early 1990 but never executed,

ln estimating the costs of those analogous programs,

(CBO incided adjustment for cost xeaation that NASA

has experienced, which (a Chaprr 3 dicate) has sen

at than genera inflation over the pat several decade

(CBO alo ated confor diferenes in the progr!

‘content For example the Apollo program purchated

enough spacer fr several una landings However,

‘CBOs analogy with Apolo, robe consstene wih NASA

‘chest plan, hated on single mission chac ales place

by 2020, CBO found chat NASA’ projected funding or

recuring peopl the moon-—$63.8 billion out ofa o-

{al projected badges of $271 bilion chrough 2020— Elle

acabout the midpoin ofthe range of cos derived om

this analy of analogous programe, The last expensive

Jana mitsion analogy would have had cous of 924M

lion, in CBO eximation: the Apolo analogy’ ors

‘would have rotaled $100 bibon, and the mor expensive

analogy costs, $109 billion

Using the analogies approich, CBO war alu able wo 2t-

sets the potential implications oF cose growth forall

[NASA proposed robotic support mieione ~in naer

to the limited asesment pombe unde the hiorel

‘CGR method described eter NASA har not defined

the content of dose robotic misions in deal (as would

be required forthe CGR analy), bu has developed a

ropoted schedule for them bath fr misions the room and mons to Mars CBO used tha schedule a4

stating point o derive extimats of the ponent cost for

‘those misone The cor fora roti tipper mission ©

the moon were sumed o be the same athe com oF

‘Mars Exploration Rover (MER), or about $400 milion

For the robotic support misions to Mats, CBO devel:

‘oped ahigh-cosc estimate based on the astumption that

‘ost misions would have cos similar to che Viking missions w Mas, or about 84 bilion each Under those assumprions, he srl cons fr carrying out the proposed Schedule of bose support missions would be about $54 billion—$25 hlion more than NASAS projec fund

ig For purpess of comparbon, CHO developed a lower:

‘ont etiat incorporating che asumprion that a greater number ofthe proposed misions to Mars—epecifally,

‘howe that NASA iene 2s "Mar tet-be ai siont—would have cots similar vo hot forthe MER (ther than the higher-cont Viking) In that analy cents for executing the proposed schedule of rbot up- por misons roc abou $32 bilion, or $3 billion higher

‘han the level hae NASA has projected However that, -MER-basd analogy may at be suinbly dose atch vith NASAS proposed program Although ch MER thse missions might be edequste for some applications

‘more complicated and hence more expensive —robotic sve could be needed to pave dhe way for event human exploration, especially o Mas,

LENASAS coat for the exploration vision through 2020

‘wee smile tthe combined cor forthe analogous

‘Apollo program and the more expensive sobotic support mission analogies, NASA would require arora of $61 bil Thon more in funding than it cutent projection specie (Ge line Din Summary Figure 2) Wits cont fo robotic support misions were closer to chose forthe lower-cost toboric analogies, it woul requize $40 blion more The former amount represents an increase of 23 percent over [NASA tol projected funding of $271 bin: dhe let,

sm increase of 15 percent,

Implications for NASA's Plans and

Schedules of Higher-Than-Expected Costs for Exploration

[NASA hat ai of programmatic optons—in ald

on to requeing haper bce eo =eomumoldetaƑ covnceea chat migeran inf now pce election progam (ee Summary Table 2) CBO steed thei fret that oo enc ppraches might ave on NASAD Thae balge and mision schedules wing te esimaes feel ince ln ots deved fom i hurried

‘vengecon-gowth and analogs methods:

‘Strategies for Addressing Potential Cost Increases in

Nisis Eoploration Missions

‘With Historical

With Cost forthe Human Lunar Exploration Component Similar to Those forthe Apllo Program Tie Cost Growihin Less Complex Very Capable freon ost Robi Sper Roba Smpert_ Roba Sper

"crow?

sa percstage increase andi 2

asian Proectod Buc an Sip Shee ot

AL Blraion Missions (ears el) s4

ain Pree Bue nd eae Fads

toteet Haran inc Landing Seale

(Percenagerducton)

Tether sire categories fieg

Maiti Poet Bag, Realtek to

‘Met Honan una Lang Scheu, and

Sect Ree Rebate Sopp Mson

‘anet Percertage reucton

elect Fuso Cary Out AD Moons

ParsPrctdlee tr ater sere

Sure: Congresion Bega Ore

1 Coes hr a epraon atte a etm eb poe mes

1 Aeumes that coss of rs tst Be misonste simi tes othe Mars Eplerton Revers

Assmes hath costs of Mrs ts te isos ae iia tee ang isons

._impcations are asso ash 220

(© A%go-seyou-cun-py” approach thar would hold the

‘conten ofthe exploration progam constant and ex-

tend the schedules ofboth the human and robotic ex:

poration components to ensure that che progrants

{actives emsined within thee projected budgets and

1m An approach that would cle back NASAX cotent

plans to keep theft human nam to the oon a

schedule and the agency’ wl budget within eo-

‘once atthe levels projected fr that yt Í he pro poted robotic support missions could be eecuced within the evel of funding projected for them, NASA would

sevl_ARLDGETY ASF NAS NEE SOS FORSHEE IORATIN

faves eaten the schedule ofthe nar exploration mis

sion by thre to four year, CBO eximates to cover cost

Increases ofthe magninae of those estimated forthe mit

sion sing both dhe histori cou growth method and

the Apollo analogy (ee the second row in Summary Ta

ble 2) That delay would result fs crewed recur v9

the moa in 2023 oF 2024 Longer extensions would be

needed if cost for the rbot support mision were ao

treater chan projected A schdule delay of up ro even

eae (puring the Fre recur to the moon in about 2027}

trould be need eo corer CBO's higher etimate of po-

tend eas increase forthe roti support sins

‘The dely would be ler four ro fveyars—under dhe

sumption of lower-cost MER Tắc Man tet be mức

‘Such postponement might be sened fo eliminated if

NASA could offs che potently higher cot of ex

poration vison activites by seducing the activities’ con:

feat orb eliocaing fund from other area of bude

it NASA naff contend tha the ageney plas forthe ‘ubotic sppore mission are based on what they antic

pte wl be achievable within the enon projected

Funding and nor necesariy what they consider to be x=

‘ental to support the human exploration componcat of

the vision By implication, those plans could be scaled

back co compensate for higher costs Hower, rt pro-

jected funding fr robotic support mistion i about $29

Billion To cover cor for hamaa haar exploration that

(CBO eximaze could be fm $32 billion (bated on hi

torical cot growth) to $36 billon (bated on the Apollo

analogy) higher than the current projection ancicipstes,

[NASA mould in addon o shifting the bode uppore

taision Funding lve so reallocate some money fram

eras ints budget F that addons ellocaion

sa drawn fom the category of aeronautics and other sc-

nce misions and wcvites for enampe, 2 percent or 6

erent of ha category’ projeced funding would be

needed co cover potential increases similar to those for

CBO’ hisrical cost groweh and Apolo analogy case,

rerpectnely ice the thin ow in Summary Table 2

‘Bar the rua rellocation of fands from roboic spore

‘missons might nat be poable ifthe knowledge o expe

‘ence abesined from thew mistons wa accetary So oe

‘uring humane to the moon, Asan akernative, NASA

could py for potential eos increases by aking some

‘onc fom the funds projected fr raboic support mis:

sions to Mars (ad leaving fund forthe missions eo the

‘moon iat) and the balance from aeronautics and ther

science misions and actives ee the fourth ow in Summary Table 2) In that inane, the Funding needed fiom the aeronautics and other scence category would range From $8ilion co $38 billion (or from 6 percent ro

29 percent) The advantage ofthat approach is tha it

‘would mainain the planed robotic eipport missions the moon, which arly to be more importan othe tauren luna enum progam than rabori uns eo Mare would be,

LENASA decided 0 mains ll of planned rosie support none, i could cover higher crs for both the human lunar and rebodc support tridion programs by reallocaing fund ene from che curently projected for seronutice and other science eons and stv (Ge the fifth ow in Summary Table 2) For CBO’ explo

‘ation cont ates, 24 percent to 46 percent ofthat cate sony projec funding through 2020 would be needed Implications of Alternative Decisions About the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station

“CBÔI seesmena tnenporeel ửe aunpdonk thi ane ao partof NASAS creat proton, that che pace ‘hut would beeen 2010 and che United Stats

‘would inate fo parpation in he near Stace Stato peins by 2017 Some people age, Rewer tht he pce shu should be ited ame lyf up are fan i the eat teem for epon- ton and ved the pote sey il dented since tác leo ofthe shuts Calabi In CBO imation, immediately rer th hues ending the United Stove imscoeetiaảo HS of pore ering of

$59 lion 43 lin fom 2005 through 202, de pending on be cana of esinatig the prope I thee svngs wer welled o eplortion ising tácBathoran hoc cua nding ight be moved up

by cal four yeu, CBO exiater hat 0201 inj wth NASAS proton of 2020, (Tha et trate bad onthe stsunpon hat on for the explo-

‘ston vison do ot inten lie NASAS peered dou and tha the matron of echodogy an he trend orl dignpooascaa kp pce wi ach

‘cheule)

However, immediately reing the shore flee would hve significant operational amifcations far NASA (de- serbed more filly» Chaper 4, incding:

1 Efecively aling construction on the ISS and the

United State Bling to meet international com-

‘mitment for ISS construction and suppor (cody

‘only che space shure has the cacy t ary aay

ofthe components and other equipment planned for

the space station):

1 Lessning or climinating che capacity to conduct ISS

‘research on the effecs of long-duration opeceigh, an

‘understanding of which might be imporent tothe de

sign of extended space exploration misions:

1 Iacreasing the ine berween U.S-ovigia human space:

"ghe From four years undercurrent plans 0 nine

yeas (unless the development of the ecw exploration

‘chile could be accelerted) and

1 Closing the production ines fr component ofthe

shut (uch sche external tank, the solid rocket

boosters, and the nai engines) that might be useful

for Fur exploration stems

Some observer have argued thatthe operations of the

space shure and the ISS should continue to fallow the

path that NASA had lid out before che new exploration

‘ison war unveled, basing thee argument onthe appr0-

Piateness of fully honoring commisment ha he

‘Unie eae as made to international partner ae well son the pure meri ofthe scientific experiments planned for the 1S Under thar approach, the United Sate would sti allo its commitment to 1S part- nes, there would be no gap inthe United Sates aces to pce, and production capiciry would be preserved for

‘components ofthe hut hat ight be seeded in the

¬ annual funding for operating the space shutter mained athe aerage lvls projected for 2005 through

2009, extending those opertions to 2017 and condinb- ing 1SS-rlated actives could inreae NASA’ budget requirements by $21 billion rave to cung projec tion, CBO estimates, Securing tha funding from the money curently allocated to exploration activites could

‘mean postponing he fs human lunar re lan ng by about two years, 0 2022 Tha estimate, which does not take ino account any ofthe cot growth diecatedprev- cus based on rellocaing funds within NASAS bud fet NASA sal have indicate, howover, tht the human tuna sion conld lip by as ouch a one yea for each yea tha the shu operations are extended, implying thar han hina efforts would be ery limited unl fands fom rerng the shuttle became avaiable

1

NASA's Current Five-Year Plan and Extended Budget Projection

S moon in December

1972 by US asuonau fom the Apollo program, he

[Nasional Arona and Space Admiiraons

(NASA) manned spacelight progam hs ben prima

‘lyfe on operations in ow Earth obi Thon

Avis have incded 1970s the operons the Sb program athe hte of he pce shud begining

198, snd the cartes partnenhip for development snd

constuction ofthe ntermaonal Space Staion (19) But

on January 14, 2004, Prien Bush ated new vi

tion fos naional progam of pac exploration and

commited the United States longterm human nd

‘boric investigation beyond low Earth ri chat would

“extend humiys reach vo the moon, Mar and be-

yond? The Paden plan conaine «number of el

‘ren tha once implemented wl ead osignicae

hanes in NASA programs, ley asec of har plant

‘he nial gol of reaming US rons eth oon

sometime berween 2015 and 2020

“Tabegin to purne thowe new bjetves, NASA realigned

‘he funding for is programs in its budget reques fr f-

cal year 2008 and it operating plan through 2009, and

Aevcoped a projection of es budget fr 2010 through

2020 In some instances, shat realignment sified money

to the new space exploration mision fom other NASA

tivities that are nt clevant to che new misions gale

In cther cate, new progams were created wo develop pa

tela components nde forthe new exploration plans

‘gd the Eat penal pul we pry abot 200

00 Kemer above te Ere

2 Theta Dace cn be und ar wah he Presiden aden ‘A Rene Spi of pops

orwell

[NASA current projects thai willbe ble siti fo- uso the new inate snd carryout wichou subran- tially changing is overall funding requirement from thei previously projected lew The res ofthis chapter describes the program that NASA proposes and high- lights the major changes fom is previous plans

Despite the nation’s past success inthe Apollo program, the challenges of «new liar mission wil be signiiant Historically che kind of complex technical programs nec csiy to cary outa pace exploration natin have been more coay chan ead program plans anticipated Chap-

‘ers 2 and 3 ofthis Congresional Budget Office (CBO) nai present che elt of two approaches extimat- ing the potential costs thar NASA could face—one based

on historical average costncreases, the othe onthe coms sssociaed with naogous prgrams—and the potential strategies thar NASA could use wo miigate the effects of coe growth relative tis current plane Another ive thar confront NASA a ic ekes up its new exploration

"mision is the ftareof che space shut and che Unie State involvement with the ISS, Chapter 4 explores

‘ome ofthe implication of skermative decisions about the scope and duration of thoee programs

NASA's New Direction

‘The Adninitcon plan for anew gece exploration rogram inlade

18 Competing contruction ofthe International Space Staton by 2010 and then retiring the space shuts

1 Beginning development of new space vehicle for hu- rman exploration—the crew exploration vehicle (CEV), which will eanspore astronauts berween the Earth ad the moon afi crewed mision forthe

“`

(CEV in low-Earth bic i plans for 2014 a the a

exh

1 Relying om international paren for access othe ISS

between the shut’ etiement (according to pass,

in abou 2010) andthe operational debu ofthe CEV

(round 2014

1m Refocusing U.S esearch cared out on the ISS to-

‘ward the effets on humane of long-duration sty in

sec, eo beer undentand and overcome the eects

‘of prolonged spaceflight on aronaut heh

1m Resuming robotic nite che maun aartiog in

approximately 2008 and expanding robotic missions

to Ma and beyond: and

1 Rerurning humans wo the moon sometime during the

2015-2020 period and evenwualy ening people

Màn,

Inligh of hoe new pins, NASA bgt postion

through 220 separates progr ino seer high le

categorie ha difer rom ứe"omepleF gongfng

hen pst ge rots, Then cto abt

tealgned wit the ew exploration plans they cer ex

Plortion mixions human and robots ehaolgy the

teew exploration vec; the Intemational Space Seon:

15S tempor (for accom othe pce aon ihe igs

af he United Sse inversions partners, ich Ri

San Progetminon for earg an Sou minions or

crew the pce shuts anda aggre aegry that

Coes in seronautis and tet cence actin Fệ

tue 1-1)? The exploration isons eatery indus hue

‘man mins wo the moon and bore misono the

‘moon, Man, a other deviations unde the Soar Sy

tem Explontion sid Astconomsial Search for Oras

programs

(OFNASAv real projected budget of $271 bilion

hough 2020, $100 billon has bon lloated to the ex-

poration missions (sce Table 1-1 on page 4) Beeween

2005 and 2008, Funding foc that eatgory, which averages

‘shout $3.4 billion anally spi beeween human ex

2 The del ASA pj er agh 2020s Gey CBO nae NASA Bad can

Sele agree we rerdogrr

ploration and robotic missions Berseen 2010 and 2020, Funding forthe exploration mion category's projected

to more than double—o abou $7.5 billion pe ear ancicpaion of che fis return mission to che moon, Moc ofthat incre comes foe eng dhe shut fet n 2010 and ending ISS-elated operations in 2017

In is projection for 2010 chrough 2020, NASA has ae sumed that overall growth in es budget wil be Limited to inflaton esened a aboot 2 percent per yer) Afer

2007, NASAS bodgee projection shows thatthe agency has planned for essentially o el (flation-ajusted) growth ini funding through 2020 However, NASA

2005 budget requ i about 4 percent rger than its

2004 budget, and NASA’ plane fries 2006 and 2007 boudgts incorporate anal increases of slightly more than 2 percent inal ternt, Mont ofthat growth wa io incoporated in NASAs 2004 badger plans which pe dat the new exploration progeam—rotal funding for the five-year plan inthe 2005 badge request i ony 1.5 per- ceo higher than funding fr the Five-year plan inthe

‘son is new mision Funding pmposed for 2005 t0

2109 that is directly related vo the space exploration pro-

‘gram totals over $14 billion, the majority of which—

‘hour $10 billion bai ben rellocaed from other bude {rt categories ce Table 1-2 on page 5) The other 4 Ton inches Fang for exiting programs whose mis ons or content support the agency’ ew plan and a total of $1.2 billion in new funding In eal ver, hat increase would consticute growth of only 15 percent elt veto the five-year pla it NASA 2004 budge equest (Un this anlyi, CBO uses constane—that is, 2005-— dallas ater than nominal dlrs ta dings be- tween the ft finfaion and unding char supports changes in the content of programs)

thưngow ` nh

Figure 1-1

NASA's Projected Budget Through 2020

6 1hðilahsg Noni Doors

Sere: Congressional Bubpet te

Note: 1S = Ieraton Spee Son

2 The sett 2005 dlrs ws based on cost escalation acts devlpe spacial NASH'S romans

‘Sexroe:_Congrenios Bee Ofc don ta om te etna Arras a Spee Adon,

to about 18 percent of NASA total budge Thus, ny

progre o activies would expeience le oF 20

‘hang, alhough some programs would be canceled un-

der he 2005 plan, In fat, ức largest reduction, about

$5.6 bio over the 2005-2009 period ems rom can-

celng the Space Launch Inia, program tht wast

develop the next generation of spacecraft ranspor

mans and cago low-Earth obi (ee Table 1-3 on page

6), Other prominent programs whos funding would be

significantly redced under the 2005 plan are the Sun-

anh Connection (by $1.3 billion, of about 24 percent),

ah System Science by S11 Bion, or about 15 pet

ent) and Solar System Exploration by $886 lio, ot

bout 13 percent) The plant retire the space shut in

2010 would reduce the shut’ budge by $958 lion,

or abou 5 percent during the 2008-2009 period Mos

af the savings elie by etiing the shut ery would

accrue in he yeas beyond 2010

‘Under the 2005 budget plan some of NASAS programs

‘would receive increas in thes unding to help support

{Taste ‘nono oyanph 2008, Teemu yr prea in NASMG 208 badge ea nad as be

200s tage ere wh tg 0, CBO ed

‘arin dng or 208 he 804 nmol ap 209

Ing rec Protest we treo th haan ad

ses cng cen hoe races ais NASAL Depwent fbn poam ol soe fan ae

tate poe noua tamer freee Se

eSlormeredeai)

the new exploration iit For example, ove the 2005.2009 peiod the Ma exploration programs would recrve an addana $1.5 billion, and the 1S, an adi

‘ional $1.2 bilion The 2005 budge equest alo ia duded money for the creation ofthe CEY program—

2 $64 billion, ce new program withthe highest cost

‘through 2009as wel as 81.2 billon for new robotic sar esplortion

Funding for NASA's Lunar Retuen Mission

[NASA project that coats fo he in human hua fan

ig snce the end of the Apolo program wil eral $63.8 bilo, with he bul ofthe Faing requied air 2010 (ce Table 1-4 on page 7) The portions of NASAS po jected budget ha wil suppor husan missions beyond the Eat ovbit are speed among several budget ego

‘ies To bererundentand the potential costs of the agen human exploration plans, CBO recast NASAS projected badge and easigned individual programs to

‘ateporcs that would enables more etal ofthe few exploration Inative (ce igure 1-2 on page 8) The

‘os sgiian change thar CBO made weet separte {he exploration miaon igo two categories, human ex poration and rboresoppore include the CEV inthe fuman exploration category: and combine che 188 and 1SS eansporcxegorcs In CBO’ recstegoriation, the robotic npport inion tegory nla only mins {0 dhe moon and Mas robotic minions other planets are seounted for in the eategory for aeronautics and other sence misons and stv

[As Figure 1-2 shows, NASA har asumed that the funding

needed to execute the rbot support mission the

‘moon and Mar and the aeronautics and other ence

‘mssons and sciride vả! emain constant though

2020 at hee 2009 level In addition wo robotic explora

‘ion misions to places other than the moon and Mars,

the aeronautics and eter science category includes car

science activites, biological and physical sciences pro-

grams, aeronautics search, and public education efor

“Three jor component dominete the finding mnie

zed wth rearing humans othe moon (ht che

“Human Lina Exploration” ctgoy in igure 12) the

“CB lunar lander and anew bey i anh veh

For human spacfighe wo te moon, the heny-HỆ banh

‘eb woul ary i low-Earth obi he hander {dan ijn ange eke for abun proplin

‘Once in obit che na Inder and ijn age rocker

‘woul dock with the CEV ad is human ecw: NASA

‘pects launch the CEV ino obi wing aller

Treo cha one ofthe Department of Deen

‘rola ependabl Inch ves (EELV.© Hower,

[NASA safhave emphases the deals ofthe mie

{© BELVs mak pa nyo ches ng the Lace Mar Se Aa rd Boig Det) carbo pani ce

sot hanging te ong of tee man meee

season which their projcions re based shouldbe se

‘pnd alla The actual characteris of pro:

‘game wil eave overtime and fatae plane ey fer From the sssumpsios undeying NASAS cuttent projec: tions For example a portion of NASAS investment in human and robotic technology might yield new 3p- proaches thar could reduce the coat of exploration or a- low scheduler obe accelerated NASAS projecion for the corte of human lunar exploration did ot eke the po tential fr such advances into account.”

‘he Crew Exploration Yhicle NASA bused projced con lo te CEY on cúm the cons othe cecal orl pce plane (OSB and dhe actual eons of essing building and tetng he Apolo command/nerie module wed fo tar lg rm 1969 1 1972, NASA evs bling the CEV under tee phase “pin!” developmen pro- sgn! Eximated on for th fn and second

‘ello shew ‘Spoon ens cand bh ary onal ck tne ee bea temper oe (Sd che arent in

1 Spin dedopmen need dace cl iby ray teldegen rea vanes aree at

‘Sinemeraly gpa e+ wen wh ech ne HE

isting Programs Whose Funding Declined

tina Funds Ned a

Sece: Congresial ust es bse on dat ror he Nr! ernst an Space Risnton

Lạ, Nghe fo 2009 ae inp th 2004 at oes

Heart aah tile 0

‘eal “

—¬ẶằằẰ

versions ofthe CE, whose objective isto eransport hu

‘mans to low-Earth orbit and the ISS, ae bated on ex-

‘mates developed previously forthe OSP; confor the

third sical version of the vb, which would be apa:

lof hares luna roson, ac bated on those foe the

Apollo commandltervie module The CEV progam

‘nay alo encompass a fourth spl of development fo-

‘xsd on misions ro Mars, but NASAS projec budget

‘through 2020 doesnot contain funding for the spiral

Incl development of che CEY, inching test fights is

expected ast rom 2005 through 2014 The fst CEV

text—of paral capable protorpe—i planned for

2008 he Fst unmanned ee of Fly capable uni ic

scheduled for 2011, and the frst human Might, for 2014

INASAS plan for boc theres flight and the nar mise

sion are based on uring an EELY to booet the CEV into

low-Farch ori

[NASA projected funding cover che procurement of four

‘operational vices for abou $730 milion each, Incl

ing esearch and development, esting, and operations,

‘com forthe CEV through 2020 would ctl roughly

$24, billion

‘The Lunar Lander

[NASA erimated how much the hinar lander would core

(on the bass of actual crs fr che Apallo Ione modal,

NA SA projected budget includes Funds fra single Filly

‘capable lander, ec an imate unicast of about $730

txlion; otal cont through 2020 ae estimated a about

313.4 lien Development ofthe new ander expected

te begin in 2011, The development schedule cle fr

to beready in time w supports humaa luna mision in

‘ale payond than thacof the Saturn V rocket wed bi the Api program he Satrn Vs palo was 120 me, titan)? NASA projered the con forthe ne launch

‘chile onthe ba fais of space lunch aleraies conducts th Mantall Space Fgh Center in the cat 1908 In addin ong for developing the heal lanch vehicle, the projection ines money foran njction cage rocker hae wil propel the CEV and

¢helunar lands fom thi ow-Earch bi the oon [NASA projced budget incorporates he ssuimpion that Four hey if launch vehi, a cost of abou $1 billion ech, and tre injecion-stagerockes, for $70 milion ech, would be aceded ots the new sates and uimately conduc the Fst human landing of helo

na rerun mision Total cot fr development and pro-

‘urement of the lunch vehicle and the injection tage rocket ae estimated wo be abou $18 billion

‘Summarizing NASA's Current Funding Plans for Is

‘Lunar Retura Mission

‘Cort ove he 2005.2009 budge period for tác lun

um mision would total $64 bllon, NASA projet all

‘of which would be ued o develop the CEY Through

2020, rol Funding for human exploration would be

3 Re-oeRulen.dgeadngentde Ines aprons M mer tno a pee fr sed get nt eh ELV bry wold eappr 23 me ome

Lạ, The giai pace Staton (1) er nce 1S vane

shout $6 lion, in NASA etimaton, which includes budge projection through 2020 doc ot inch exis '$2.2 billion berween 2018 and 2020 for fllon-on mis» development and procurement of other stems that sions after the fst human lunar recun landing (The ex- would be neesry fr establishing lunar oupos or for scceontentof thse misions is undetermined) With the crying out future human misions to Mas

potential exception of those additional funds, NASA

Estimating Potential Cost Growth for NASA’s Exploration Vision Using the Historical-Average Approach

Ạ

and Space Administration plas vo fund the Rise tps in

Achieving the objectives of es lunarretura mission daring

‘the 2005-2009 period mainly by hifúng money fom

other programs within its budget Ale tha, chrough

2020, ic expects to hold its budget nary constane athe

2008 level adjusted solely for annul inflation af about 2

percent) But the types of complex technical programs

thar are required ro rerurn U.S artronaut to the mcon

tutinelyexpeience increase ia cot and dey in

Schedules chat might sigifcandyaler chose plans This

‘haprerdicuses che Congressional Budget Oe’

sessment of how NASA’ budgets and schedules could be

‘Mfecred if programs expetienced cot growth similar to

the average rz inthe cons of NASA’ programs inthe

past CBOs findings suggest chav if cot forthe new ex

plortien miedon grew to similar dere, uliling the

‘exploration mission’ objectives might require ether add

ing out $32 bilion to NASAS budget or extending the

schedule for the liar landing by thre to four year IF

the agency chose ro meet potentially higher exploration

‘ons by ralloceing funds fom seronatia or other sci

{ence programs it might have oshife as much as 24 per

‘zat of those program’ funding over the 2005-2020 pe-

fd, ia CBO estimation

The Risk of Cost Growth and Schedule

Delays in Technical Programs

“Theos of complex technical programs may se above

anticipated eves for a aie of restons nial eas et

trates may have been overly opimiic because problems

wich important etre of the program were ot fre

tren, Unexpected techni hurdler may develop a)

ing more costly saacons than planners had anticipated

and causing schedule delays while solutions are sought Forerample, the Nav’ FIA-1SE fighter program was briefly delayed when the plane unexpectedly developed insablcy during low-spend mancuver-—2 cial prob- lem fora fighter that must lnd onan aircraft cari IF

an inexpensive wing modifstion had not resolved the problem, 2 more extensive redesign of the wing might have been nceded, che cos ofthe F/ALBE could have in- eased significantly, and its delivery othe flee would probably have Ben delayed

(Cos growth and schedule delays re usualy incerewined when they affect echicl programs A schedule delay sulting fom an unexpected technical obstacle can in- cease cons because geste reources are neded 0 tole the problem, Alternatively a pure ort increase sing from higher bor rates or more expensive rw ma

‘eras an esl in delays if the program must be dowed down wo ay with a constrained yearly budget Therd- sive magitade ofthese and similar eet i unique 0 any given program

(Changes in the pesformance required of syst, oF "re quirements cep," can ao contribute to cost growth, not only on their own But by forcing the redesign of

‘components that have alteady been developed The

“Army's Comanche helicopeer faced such problems The

‘weght of the helicopter grew ste eapabilies required

‘fit ineeaed overtime, and when i weight heated the aircrafts erodynamic pesformance, previously com- pleted portion ofthe desig had to be revised, Wodk Ing in the opposite direction, requirements might be re lated co hp núdgi co gow, For example, space probe might cary fewer sensors than originally planed tebhelp the mission stay within budget

10

Table 241,

Representative Sample of the Set of

NASA's Programs That CBO Used to

Calculate Cost-Growth Risk

Percentage Change in Costs Relative fo Program or Mision intl Budgets

Satter senaty Tiere Aso or “

‘Shc: Congres dpe! Ox bse on dt rome

aa Aeraues an Space kami

eis ceruialy nota foregone conclusion tha techaical

programs auch a thot involved in NASA’ exploration

Iniaive wil experience seriou cst-growth problems

“The Apollo projec is casein pone met President

Kennedys goal of puting 2 man on the mooa by the end

ofthe 1960s afer exceeding che budge lid out in 1961

by only abou 7 percent Newithstanding that relatively

postive example, the ocarence of eos growth in com

lex technical programs is more spa than the ack of

such growth

Deriving Cost-Growth Risk Factors for

NASA's Programs

‘The examples che bore highligh outgrowth for De-

garment of Def (DoD) profes but many of

NASA px progam ave ccounered a well CRO

anand NASA hove cour growth experince oa-

trate how cot incre might afet he pace agency

carne progam and budgm Ta ruỆnh vu le em

odgedeapaidely NÀSA and on hưc Goyrnr

sen Account Of Tormey the Gener A

counting Ofer) of GAO, report tha ok the

con an ichelesof many of ASAT programs, cad

ing the mose prominent, uch asthe Hubble Space Tele- scope and the Mar Exploration Rover (se Table 2-1)

“The oral daa sex comprised 72 program that spanned

‘more than 30 yeas i contained a brosdcrse-section of the agency projects that inched moat of NASA e-

‘catch enterprises (The appendix to this epor provides budgetary data on those programs)

(CBO used hore program’ experience to die cout growth ce (CGR) ficroe chat represented an average rt

‘ho of actual costs t intl estimates for NASAS pro- ams The data yielded an average CGR factor of 145 for NASA pas programe once the eft of iflaton had been removed.” A factor of tha sae—that is, cost growth, on average, of 45 percent—i comparable tothe erage cost growth encountered inthe recach, devlop- ment, ts, and evaluation phases ofa wide vary of DoD systems (ee Table 2.2)?

‘The Budget for NASA's Exploration

Program with Historical Cost Growth

Fellorig is rearpretion of NASAL hii (a e- ced in Chapter 1, CBO andy of com grow f-

1 Feradcsion of NASAL (Ofc Sp Minne Rpt Stes prog cons Genel Accuseg Me Fed Then

‘nia Biman GAOINSIADY 9897 (Decent 1992) CAO, ceepone nthe oon apa i meng

‘Sh Fes GAO-OS107 Gece 300) sno ee edo NASA managment RAS Lack of Died Co

‘ing Pre Hien iin Pero agro CAO

tp coe fh po hat makeup the ew pr

2 Se ML Janae, A Drone nD, Narn, Thee tem Ct efor Dea: Gt Gra ats Cg

‘Stan Aegon er, M25 05D (at Manic Cal RAND, 199611 jo an een Te feof Mage

Iw ists on te Cond td Dư pion ‘Ban (Alana, as nse Dee nas 192) net Ton 6 Harms ed DM, Lah Unda (Geen Schl Gh nun Pg Nan ‘eine Dee Aas 1939)

Cost Growth in R&D is for

Seleced Types of Defence Systems

won 7C CC CS

Seure: Congresiona ue oreo eae cant

row shes by RAD Corporation aaa or ese tae

Note: RAD = research ard devlpmen AIR = comma or ‘ol commas, comptes, meligene, sranaen,

x9 nemsesre

‘used on two of he Five groupings—those composed en-

tialyof programe related o nar and Martian

exploration The larger of the ro comprises the entire

‘human lana exploration category including develop-

ment ofthe crew exploration vehicle, the luna lander,

and the healt vehi) Theater, fr smaller area

takes in the subset of robotic suppor missions wo che

toon and Mae for which planing i uicietyad-

‘vanced that they are funded as lne tems in NASA’ Five

year budge projerin Only such well defined programs

‘an be analyed by compaion with hisrial average

‘coe growth bcaute che appreach requires dented cost

‘ecimats fr programs a a staig pins

(CBO assume ine analyi that fanding for farther

term roboie support missions (chose envisioned for be-

yond 2008, for whic teri ile detailed planning)

nd actives rom the othe categorie (the epace sue,

the ISS, and aeronausis and other science programs)

‘would or experience cout growth but would enn st

thei planned levels NASA budget projection incorpo

‘ates the asumption that though 2020, che number and

‘content of those activites wil be adjusted 0 Fi within

their projected annual funding levele—in the case ofthe

fathe-erm roboie support missions, funding held con-

sean at the level projected forthe misions for 2009, or

about $1.9 bilion per year The agency plans sccom-

‘modae any increase inthe Finding required forthe

SUT FOTNTL COT CROFT FOR NASS SHLORTONSONISINGTUEMSORCLAESNGE PROM — 44

longer-term projects by extending schedles or reals ing funds, citer within the ego or bern catego Fis Alernaively, dhe umber of misons or che content

of sions could be sed back to rece cont In ore cases, however, NASAS ably wo make such adjustments

‘might be limited —in parca ifthe knowledge or ex: petence cat NASA expects to obi rom th yec to be-

‘efined robotic sport misions ictal wo conducting the human exploration mision (CBO addresses the pos sible implications of cost growth inal obote support missions in the analysis described in Chapter 3) Ales quantifying the porentl effec of historia average trowth inthe cos of NASA‘ new exploration ison, (CBO considered thee ways to deal with those increas

12 The prorais anual budget expands, but the pro gam remains oni planned echedale

18 The programs budge remains le phned annual level, bu the schedule lengthened andthe cost are spread over the longer ine fe

1m Addon funds needed fr explontion ative ae reallocated from NASAS othe misons or accivies, Covering Cost Growth by Increasing NASA's Budget [NASA has projected tac cost forts human nar exlo- ration program and rbodc support misons wil al shout $95 bili benseen 2003 and 2020—or roughly

566 billion fr human exploration and $29 billion fo =

‘otic support misions However, in etimating cost growth, CBO based is projection on rr costs of about 568 bilion, or about 25 percent of NASAX ttl pro- jected budget needs through 2020 Thar decision was Imade beat mot of dhe projected robots suppor túc ons were not defined well enough analyze them on the bass of iscorcl cost growth Thus, only about $2.3 billion of NASAS projected cos fr those teboúc mức sions was considered under this analy approach, (CBO estimated that if the exploration nisin and those rebetie apport miion the are curnaly well defined experienced the 45 percent average cot growth that [NASAS progeams faced inthe pas, the agency might needa rol of about 12 percent more in funding © meet

it planed schedules (2 Figure 2-1) That value repee- sents additional funding of abou $32 lion relave co

"NA Nà rol projected funding needs rough 2020 of

5271 billion ei importne ro reiterate that CBOs ete