Survey Companion Guide
description
Transcript of Survey Companion Guide
CubeSat Mission Risk Survey
Question Companion Guide
Your response is greatly appreciated for these questions. A few clarifications:
No single question is required. However, the more responses received for each question, the
better the statistical analysis that will result.
For some questions, a few “N/A” response categories are provided in case the mission has not
yet reached a phase to enable answering the question.
If you are an organization with multiple missions, a separate survey is requested for each
mission. This will allow the responses to be categorized to specific missions and allow more
specific data points.
All results will be published in aggregate. No single organization will be identified by name or
mission in publications.
There is an option at the end to provide contact information for other CubeSat-knowledgeable
people. If their information is provided, an email will be sent to them with the information to
complete the survey. You may also forward the survey link to additional people.
To receive updates and additional information regarding this research, you can send an email to
[email protected] or scan the QR code below with your
smartphone:
Page 1 – Demographic Information
Question 1
What is the name of your CubeSat?
Points of clarification: None
Purpose of question: Classification, reference, contact information
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 2
What is your CubeSat form factor? Please answer in "U's" as defined by the CubeSat standard. (e.g. 3)
Points of clarification: Enter value in U’s
Purpose of question: Classification
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 3
What is the mass limit to which you’re designing the CubeSat? (e.g. 4)
Points of clarification:
This is the design limit of the spacecraft – either imposed by the form factor, or by the summing the mass of spacecraft components. The value entered may be over the limit imposed by the form factor, if you’re planning on applying for a waiver.
Purpose of question: Classification
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 4
Has this CubeSat been launched yet?
Points of clarification: None
Purpose of question: Classification
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 5
If you have been launched: when was the launch? (e.g. 11/1/2010) If you have been manifested or promised a launch: when is the projected launch? (e.g. 9/2014)
Points of clarification: None
Purpose of question: Classification
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 6 & 7
Question 6: How many months has this mission been in development, testing, and in operations? If you have yet to fly, please enter your predicted/estimated time for each phase not yet accomplished. Question 7: Please indicate whether the response represents actual or predicted data.
Points of clarification:
Development = everything up to spacecraft flight integration Integration Spacecraft Functional Testing = any testing completed on integrated s/c at the organization level, including functional testing Environmental Testing = necessary testing to satisfy launch provider requirements (usually thermal vac, vib tables, mass properties testing) Awaiting launch = environmental testing has been completed, but the s/c is awaiting delivery to launch site or is waiting at the site for launch Operations = once launched and in orbit
Purpose of question: Classification
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 8
In your opinion, did this spacecraft achieve mission success (may be full, partial, minimum, none, etc.)?
Points of clarification: Every mission defines success differently. This question will be used to determine the impact that any observed failures had on the overall mission success.
Purpose of question: Reference, Classification
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 9
Please provide any comments or rationales for the response to mission success in Question 8. The response need not be lengthy, could entail “met all mission requirements” or that a specific component malfunctioned
Points of clarification: Every mission defines success differently. This question will be used to determine the impact that any observed failures had on the overall mission success.
Purpose of question: Reference, Classification
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 10
Please provide your name so that we may contact you with further questions.
Points of clarification: None
Purpose of question: Reference, Contact info
How data will be analyzed:
Reference, Contact info
Question 11
At what email address may we contact you with further questions?
Points of clarification: None
Purpose of question: Reference, Contact info
How data will be analyzed:
Reference, Contact info
Question 12
How long have you personally been participating in the spacecraft design process? Please enter a value in number of years to two decimals if necessary. (e.g. 1.25)
Points of clarification: You need not provide two decimals, it is simply an option. You could respond simply, 5.
Purpose of question: This question helps to identify the expertise of the respondent
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 13
At what phone number may we contact you with further questions?
Points of clarification: None
Purpose of question: Reference, Contact info
How data will be analyzed:
Reference, Contact info
Question 14
What is/was your role on this project?
Points of clarification: None
Purpose of question: This question helps to identify the expertise of the respondent
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 15
If you were a subsystem lead or team member, please indicate with which subsystems you were involved.
Points of clarification: None
Purpose of question: This question helps to identify the expertise of the respondent
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 16
What institution is designing and integrating this spacecraft?
Points of clarification: May be industry, an academic institution, etc.
Purpose of question: Reference, Contact info
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 17
Please indicate the approximate percentage of the team representing each of the following demographics: (e.g. Professionals – 1; Undergraduates – 74; Graduate – 25; Other – 0). Note: Total should equal 100%. If it does not, the values will be normalized.
Points of clarification:
Professionals are those who are paid a salary to design or build spacecraft or spacecraft components (may include faculty). Many student labs use professionals to assist in learning about the system, or to answer questions. “Other” may include special titles which do not fall into the three categories.
Purpose of question: Reference, Classification
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Question 18
What is the funding level of this spacecraft? If a question does not apply to your mission, please enter “N/A”
Points of clarification:
For organization providing funding - Do not need to provide specific office. Answering simply with sponsors like “NASA”, “AFRL”, “NSF”, etc. is helpful for classification of the data. Nature of funding, total funding level, and years of funding help to classify data
Purpose of question: Reference, Classification
How data will be analyzed:
Classification
Level Technical Schedule Cost
5
Severe degradation in
technical performance; cannot
meet key technical/
supportability threshoold; will
jeopardize program success
Cannot meet key program
milestones.
Slip > 6 months
Exceeds budget threshold
> $100K (10 % of budget)
4
Significant degradation in
technical performance or
major shortfall in
supportability; may jeopardize
program success
Program critical path
affected.
Slip < 6 months.
Budget increase or unit
production increases
< $100K (10% budget)
3
Moderate reduction in
technical performance or
supportability with limited
impact on program objectives
Minor schedule slip. Able to
meet key milestones with
no schedule float.
Slip < 3 months.
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $50K (5% of budget)
2
Minor reduction in technical
performance or supportability,
can be tolerated with little or
no impact on program
Able to meet key dates.
Slip < 1 month
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $10K (1% of budget)
1Minimal or no consequence to
technical performanceMinimal or no impact Minimal or no impact
Notes:Technical slip amounts based
upon DoD standards
Schedule slip amounts
based upon a 2 year design
life cycle
Cost slip amounts based
on a $1 Million budget
(including all personnel
and hardware)
Consequence Criteria
Page 2 – Schedule Risks What type of schedule slip issues did you experience? The following risks are deemed to be the most common causes of schedule slip for CubeSat missions. If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you did not experience this issue, please select the "Does not apply" option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD
Figure 1 - Mission Risk Survey Consequence Criteria
Question 19 & 20
Question 19: What type of schedule slip did you experience? Question 20: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.
Points of clarification:
(a) Inability to find desired spacecraft components
Given the mass, size, and many times, financial, constraints of CubeSats, were you unable to find components to satisfy your mission requirements which fit within the necessary ranges? If so, how big of an impact did this have on your schedule?
(b) Mechanical design delays (such as issues with the CAD or drawings)
At any point in your design – may be in preparation for EDU or flight build, did you experience mechanical design delays? How much did this affect your schedule?
(c) Software design delays (such as basic component functionality or embedded coding issues)
At any point in your design – did your delivery or mission progress depend on sufficient software progress, perhaps in the area of basic functionality or the more detailed embedded coding? If so, how much did this affect your schedule?
(d) Delay due to issues with payload provider (may be related to delivery of EDU or flight unit, documentation, or interface issues)
Is your payload out-of-house? If so, what kind of schedule delays did you experience when working with the payload provider? Were the delivery of the payload unit (EDU or flight) or deliverables late? Were there any issues with the software or hardware interfaces?
(e) Delay due to inadequate documentation
Were you unable to pass certain design gates because of lack of documentation? If so, how much did this impact your schedule?
Purpose of question:
To identify the issues related to schedule that CubeSat missions may experience, and the severity of these issues on getting the spacecraft to delivery. In Q.20, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1.
Question 21
Please describe any additional schedule root causes which were not listed above.
Points of clarification: An opportunity to share any experiences your mission experienced.
Purpose of question: Reference, Complete the data analysis
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1. Additional respondent-entered responses will be grouped in sets as similar as possible. Follow-up emails will ask for clarification and severity rankings.
Level Technical Schedule Cost
5
Severe degradation in
technical performance; cannot
meet key technical/
supportability threshoold; will
jeopardize program success
Cannot meet key program
milestones.
Slip > 6 months
Exceeds budget threshold
> $100K (10 % of budget)
4
Significant degradation in
technical performance or
major shortfall in
supportability; may jeopardize
program success
Program critical path
affected.
Slip < 6 months.
Budget increase or unit
production increases
< $100K (10% budget)
3
Moderate reduction in
technical performance or
supportability with limited
impact on program objectives
Minor schedule slip. Able to
meet key milestones with
no schedule float.
Slip < 3 months.
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $50K (5% of budget)
2
Minor reduction in technical
performance or supportability,
can be tolerated with little or
no impact on program
Able to meet key dates.
Slip < 1 month
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $10K (1% of budget)
1Minimal or no consequence to
technical performanceMinimal or no impact Minimal or no impact
Notes:Technical slip amounts based
upon DoD standards
Schedule slip amounts
based upon a 2 year design
life cycle
Cost slip amounts based
on a $1 Million budget
(including all personnel
and hardware)
Consequence Criteria
Page 3 – Payload Risks What type of payload issues did you experience? The following events are deemed to be the most common causes of issues with the CubeSat mission payloads. If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you did not experience this issue, please select the "Does not apply" option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD
Figure 1 - Mission Risk Survey Consequence Criteria
Question 22 & 23
Question 22: What type of issues did your spacecraft experience with the payload during mission operations? Question 23: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.
Points of clarification:
(a) Software interface issues between payload and spacecraft bus
May be the result of things like interface control documents not specifying enough detail to ensure successful interfacing of payload and spacecraft bus from a software perspective.
(b) Hardware/electrical interface issues between payload and spacecraft bus
May be the result of things like interface control documents not specifying enough detail to ensure successful interfacing of payload and spacecraft bus from a mechanical and electrical perspective. This includes issues with current/power draw.
(c) Payload malfunction due to mechanical issues
Payload simply does not function, or the data is meaningless. This could be due to a variety of component failures or issues.
(d) Payload malfunction due to software issues
Payload simply does not function, or the data is meaningless. This could be due to a variety software failures or issues.
Purpose of question:
To identify the issues related specifically to the payload that CubeSat missions may experience, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.23, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1.
Question 24
Please describe any additional payload issues which were not listed above.
Points of clarification: An opportunity to share any experiences your mission experienced.
Purpose of question: Reference, Complete the data analysis
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1. Additional respondent-entered responses will be grouped in sets as similar as possible. Follow-up emails will ask for clarification and severity rankings.
Level Technical Schedule Cost
5
Severe degradation in
technical performance; cannot
meet key technical/
supportability threshoold; will
jeopardize program success
Cannot meet key program
milestones.
Slip > 6 months
Exceeds budget threshold
> $100K (10 % of budget)
4
Significant degradation in
technical performance or
major shortfall in
supportability; may jeopardize
program success
Program critical path
affected.
Slip < 6 months.
Budget increase or unit
production increases
< $100K (10% budget)
3
Moderate reduction in
technical performance or
supportability with limited
impact on program objectives
Minor schedule slip. Able to
meet key milestones with
no schedule float.
Slip < 3 months.
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $50K (5% of budget)
2
Minor reduction in technical
performance or supportability,
can be tolerated with little or
no impact on program
Able to meet key dates.
Slip < 1 month
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $10K (1% of budget)
1Minimal or no consequence to
technical performanceMinimal or no impact Minimal or no impact
Notes:Technical slip amounts based
upon DoD standards
Schedule slip amounts
based upon a 2 year design
life cycle
Cost slip amounts based
on a $1 Million budget
(including all personnel
and hardware)
Consequence Criteria
Page 4 – Spacecraft Risks What type of spacecraft bus issues did you experience? The following risks are deemed to be the most common causes of issues with the CubeSat spacecraft bus (i.e. no payload). If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you had the component on the spacecraft, but did not experience this issue, please select the zero (0) option. If you did not have the component on the spacecraft, select the N/A option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD
Figure 1 - Mission Risk Survey Consequence Criteria
Question 25 & 26
Question 25: Inability to communicate with spacecraft: What issues caused your ground station to be unable to communicate with the spacecraft once in orbit? Question 26: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.
Points of clarification:
(a) No frequency on which to communicate with spacecraft due to delay in receiving frequency allocation
Sometimes the frequency allocation paperwork takes a long time to go through the system. Did you launch before receiving your allocation? If so, how much of an impact did this have on your mission?
(b) Failure of spacecraft radios (due to either hardware or software issues)
No additional clarifications
(c) Failure of spacecraft antennas due to improper deployment or activation
Could be due to improper restoring of deployable antennas, unexpected deployment of antennas, etc.
(d) Failure of ground station radios (due to either hardware or software issues)
No additional clarifications
(e) Failure of ground station antennas (due to either hardware or software issues)
May also be nature related (i.e. storm damage).
Purpose of question:
To identify the issues related specifically to the communication system that CubeSat missions may experience, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.26, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue, with a dependence on whether or not the question was considered in the spacecraft design, as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1.
Question 27 & 28
Question 27: Inability to gather health data from spacecraft: What issues caused the spacecraft to be unresponsive or the data to be unhelpful? Question 28: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.
Points of clarification:
(a) Failure of flight computer (due to either hardware or software issues)
No additional clarifications
(b) Failure of sensors gathering health data (due to either hardware or software issues)
No additional clarifications
(c) Failure of actuators causing unstable spacecraft motion (due to either hardware or software issues)
No additional clarifications
(d) Failure of power regulation/battery system (due to either hardware or software issues)
No additional clarifications
(e) Failure of solar panels to generate power (due to either hardware or software issues)
No additional clarifications
(f) Unexpected thermal environment caused system issues
No additional clarifications
(f) Unexpected vibration environment caused system issues
No additional clarifications
Purpose of question:
To identify the issues related specifically to the spacecraft bus system that CubeSat missions may experience, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.28, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue, with a dependence on whether or not the question was considered in the spacecraft design, as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1.
Question 29 & 30
Question 29: Inability to meet spacecraft standards: Many international standards exist for spacecraft design, development, launch, and operations. Please identify any issues related to these tasks which your mission experienced. Question 30: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.
Points of clarification:
(a) Spacecraft will not de-orbit within 25 years after end-of-life
The new international space standard calls for a spacecraft to de-orbit within 25 years of its end-of-life.
(b) Spacecraft bus does not meet in-house requirements (i.e. dimension, mass limits, structural/thermal analyses)
Specifically of interest are requirements imposed by the CubeSat standard or your launch provider. These include requirements like thermal or structural analyses, or dimensions and mass limits necessary for the release mechanism.
(c) Spacecraft does not meet on-orbit launch and release mechanism provider requirements (i.e. waiting to beacon and deploy antenna)
Certain launch providers and release mechanism providers impose operations-based requirements on CubeSats, such as waiting to deploy antennas, or waiting to start beaconing.
(d) Mission does not supply required documentation as requested by launch and release mechanism providers
Includes documentation such as integration procedures, testing and certification logs, structural and thermal analyses, etc.
Purpose of question:
To identify the issues related specifically to the spacecraft bus system that CubeSat missions may experience, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.30, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue, with a dependence on whether or not the question was considered in the spacecraft design, as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1.
Question 31
Please describe any additional spacecraft bus issues which were not listed above.
Points of clarification: An opportunity to share any experiences your mission experienced.
Purpose of question: Reference, Complete the data analysis
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1. Additional respondent-entered responses will be grouped in sets as similar as possible. Follow-up emails will ask for clarification and severity rankings.
Level Technical Schedule Cost
5
Severe degradation in
technical performance; cannot
meet key technical/
supportability threshoold; will
jeopardize program success
Cannot meet key program
milestones.
Slip > 6 months
Exceeds budget threshold
> $100K (10 % of budget)
4
Significant degradation in
technical performance or
major shortfall in
supportability; may jeopardize
program success
Program critical path
affected.
Slip < 6 months.
Budget increase or unit
production increases
< $100K (10% budget)
3
Moderate reduction in
technical performance or
supportability with limited
impact on program objectives
Minor schedule slip. Able to
meet key milestones with
no schedule float.
Slip < 3 months.
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $50K (5% of budget)
2
Minor reduction in technical
performance or supportability,
can be tolerated with little or
no impact on program
Able to meet key dates.
Slip < 1 month
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $10K (1% of budget)
1Minimal or no consequence to
technical performanceMinimal or no impact Minimal or no impact
Notes:Technical slip amounts based
upon DoD standards
Schedule slip amounts
based upon a 2 year design
life cycle
Cost slip amounts based
on a $1 Million budget
(including all personnel
and hardware)
Consequence Criteria
Page 5 – Personnel and Management Risks What type of personnel and management issues did you experience? The following risks are deemed to be the most common personnel and management issues with the CubeSat missions. If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you did not experience this issue, please select the "Does not apply" option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD
Figure 1 - Mission Risk Survey Consequence Criteria
Question 32 & 33
Question 32: What issues did the mission experience from a personnel and management perspective? Question 33: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.
Points of clarification:
(a) Loss of information (due to configuration management issues or computer malfunction)
Sometimes team members are not the best at remembering to save their files in locations which other team members may access the information. Other teams have experienced temporary loss of their information when the computer system is not accessible for various reasons.
(b) Loss of hardware (perhaps due to uncontrolled access to lab environment and hardware)
Especially in university labs, the ability for random strangers to walk into the lab is extremely likely. This could potentially lead to missing hardware, costing the team time and money to replace the lost components.
(c) Lack of sufficient training for team members completing flight qualification necessary tasks.
As missions near flight integration, the technician’s ability becomes more and more important. What damage could having an unqualified person working on difficult tasks harm mission success?
(d) Attrition or turnover of team members
Student teams experience this regularly with team members graduating, leaving the lab, or other reasons. Industry may experience this when personnel get other positions and move around within the company or to other companies.
(e) Sudden loss of crucial team members (due to either personal or work/school reasons)
Things happen, how much does a sudden loss of a crucial team member affect the mission? From a schedule and technical standpoint, this may cause a lot of damage if the proper precautions had not been implemented.
Purpose of question:
To identify the issues related specifically to the personnel and management of the mission, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.33, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1.
Question 34
What requirements does your team place on its team members in order to work on the project? In other words, for student teams: does your lab enforce a GPA requirement? For industry teams: does your company enforce a certain amount of required experience?
Points of clarification: Some teams require students to work a certain number of hours per week, other labs require students to maintain a certain GPA. Every team is different!
Purpose of question: Reference, Complete the data analysis, Together with basic demographic information, this question will give a more complete picture of what it takes to achieve mission success on CubeSat projects.
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1. Additional respondent-entered responses will be grouped in sets as similar as possible. Follow-up emails will ask for clarification and severity rankings.
Question 35
Please describe any additional personnel and management issues which were not listed above.
Points of clarification: An opportunity to share any experiences your mission experienced.
Purpose of question: Reference, Complete the data analysis
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1. Additional respondent-entered responses will be grouped in sets as similar as possible. Follow-up emails will ask for clarification and severity rankings.
Level Technical Schedule Cost
5
Severe degradation in
technical performance; cannot
meet key technical/
supportability threshoold; will
jeopardize program success
Cannot meet key program
milestones.
Slip > 6 months
Exceeds budget threshold
> $100K (10 % of budget)
4
Significant degradation in
technical performance or
major shortfall in
supportability; may jeopardize
program success
Program critical path
affected.
Slip < 6 months.
Budget increase or unit
production increases
< $100K (10% budget)
3
Moderate reduction in
technical performance or
supportability with limited
impact on program objectives
Minor schedule slip. Able to
meet key milestones with
no schedule float.
Slip < 3 months.
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $50K (5% of budget)
2
Minor reduction in technical
performance or supportability,
can be tolerated with little or
no impact on program
Able to meet key dates.
Slip < 1 month
Budget increase or unit
production cost increases
< $10K (1% of budget)
1Minimal or no consequence to
technical performanceMinimal or no impact Minimal or no impact
Notes:Technical slip amounts based
upon DoD standards
Schedule slip amounts
based upon a 2 year design
life cycle
Cost slip amounts based
on a $1 Million budget
(including all personnel
and hardware)
Consequence Criteria
Page 5 – Cost Risks What type of cost issues did you experience? The following risks are deemed to be the most common cost issues with the CubeSat missions. If you find an event that occurred on your mission is not captured below, please use the comment box at the end of this section to provide a brief description. Rank each root cause by its severity (or, consequence) on a scale of 1 to 5, where 5 is the most severe. If you did not experience this issue, please select the "Does not apply" option. Please refer to the guideline for the severity rankings, found here, and also shown in Figure 1. If the link does not work, please copy/paste the following into your browser: http://goo.gl/aHNxD
Figure 1 - Mission Risk Survey Consequence Criteria
Question 36 & 37
Question 36: Building a spacecraft is expensive. Please identify which cost risks your mission experienced. Question 37: Are you unable to answer the previous question? Please provide a reason.
Points of clarification:
(a) Incomplete understanding of the projected total mission cost
Many teams underestimate the total cost of the mission – which includes flight hardware as well as EDU/development hardware in addition to personnel costs (for student teams, how many graduate and undergraduate research assistants you may be able to support).
(b) COTS component prices increase
The economic climate is never certain and prices may increase suddenly. If this has not been accounted for with contingency funds it could seriously impact the mission.
(c) Inability to obtain new research grants or funding
Funding and grants are extremely competitive. It is entirely possible a mission may not be selected for funding on many levels.
(d) Delay of receiving promised funding
With budget battles becoming the norm, promised funding may take awhile to be transferred. This may cause a delay in ordering components or covering personnel costs and thusly impact the mission.
Purpose of question:
To identify the issues related specifically to the cost of the mission, and the consequence these issues have on mission success. In Q.37, an opportunity is given for respondents to select an “N/A” option. The question distinguishes whether the mission did not experience the issue as opposed to whether or not they’ve reached a phase where the issue would be experienced.
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1.
Question 38
Please describe any additional cost issues which were not listed above.
Points of clarification: An opportunity to share any experiences your mission experienced.
Purpose of question: Reference, Complete the data analysis
How data will be analyzed:
Statistical analysis will be dependent upon response rate. Ideally, gathered data will be fit to probability distributions and will result in consequence rating scales based on demographic information entered on page 1. Additional respondent-entered responses will be grouped in sets as similar as possible. Follow-up emails will ask for clarification and severity rankings.
Page 6 – Final Submit
Question 39
Approximately how long did it take you to complete this survey? Please enter a value in minutes, may be up to two decimals. (e.g. 20.25 minutes)
Points of clarification: No additional clarifications
Purpose of question: Reference, follow-up opportunity regarding opinion of survey
How data will be analyzed:
Purely for reference
Question 40
Would you recommend other people fill out this survey? If so, please list their names and email addresses. (e.g. Katharine Brumbaugh; [email protected])
Points of clarification: An opportunity to suggest additional people take the survey.
Purpose of question: Reference, follow-up opportunity
How data will be analyzed:
Will follow-up with people named with contact information provided.
Question 41
Please provide any final comments, questions, or suggestions. Feel free to make suggestions for what you would like to see in the final risk analysis tool.
Points of clarification: An opportunity for the respondent to share anything they like.
Purpose of question: Reference, follow-up opportunity
How data will be analyzed:
If necessary, will follow-up with comment.
Would you like to receive updates on the progress made in this research? Send an email (need not have a subject or
message) to [email protected], or scan the QR code below on your
smartphone.