Comparing NASA and ESA Cost Estimating Methods for Human Missions to Mars

To compare working methodologies between the cost engineering functions in NASA Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and ESA European Space Research and Technology Centre (ESTEC), as well as to set-up cost cngi~iccri~~g ciipbiiiiies fur future manned Mars projects and other studies which involve similar subsystem technologies in MSFC and ESTEC, a demonstration cost estimate exercise was organized. This exercise was a direct way of enhancing not only cooperation between agencies but also both agencies commitment to credible cost analyses. Cost engineers in MSFC and ESTEC independently prepared life-cycle cost estimates for a reference human Mars project and subsequently compared the results and estimate methods in detail. As a non-sensitive, public domain reference case for human Mars projects, the “Mars Direct” concept was chosen. In this paper the results of the exercise are shown; the differences and similarities in estimate methodologies, philosophies, and databases between MSFC and ESTEC, as well as the estimate results for the Mars Direct concept. The most significant differences are explained and possible estimate improvements identified. In addition, the Mars Direct plan and the extensive cost breakdown structure jointly set-up by MSFC and ESTEC for this concept are presented. It was found that NASA applied estimate models mainly based on historic Apollo and Michel 0. van Pelt Noordwijk ZH, The Netherlands ESA-ESTEC Space Shuttle cost data, taking into account the changes in technology since then. ESA used models mostly based on European satellite and launcher cost data, taking into account the higher equipment and testing standards for human space flight. Most of NASA’s and ESA’s estimates for there are some important, consistent differences in the estimates for: 0 Large Structures and Thermal Control subsystems; 0 System Level Management, Engineering, Product Assurance and Assembly, Integration and Tesflerification activities; Space Agency Program Level activities. A urn--n:--.. LIIG I V I ~ L S U L L G L ~ i i i ~ coi;ilpaiaLvk, 5ut