Reusable Booster System Review and Assessment (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Cost Assessment
4 Cost Assessment
Pages 53-66
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 53... ...
The basic premise behind a new RBS for future space launch of Air Force space systems is that if such a reusable launch system, including all associated infrastructure and support services can be developed, flight certified, and operated at an "affordable" cost (meaning substantially less costly than a present Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle [EELV]
|
From page 54... ...
4.1 BASELINE COST MODELING APPROACH AND ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW The Air Force cost modeling approach uses a mixture of models and methodologies for estimating the various RBS elements. The configurations shown in Figure 4.1 represent the baseline flight vehicle designs examined by the committee.
|
From page 55... ...
The scenarios described above are all based on the assumption that the current EELV launch systems would be fully retired and that the RBS satisfies the complete Air Force launch manifest. In this case, a problem identified in the RBS system could potentially jeopardize the entire Air Force launch capability.
|
From page 56... ...
Facilities modelb Operations and Sustainment RBD Flight Test Program ODMb RBS Flight Test Program ODMb RBS Launch Operations ODMb RBS Mission Integration Based on EELV data RBS Transportation Based on EELV data Range Costs Based on EELV data Sustainment Based on EELV data a Used first unit production cost as mod estimate b Aerospace model NOTE: CCAFS, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; DDT&E, design, development, test and engineering; EELV, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle; NAFCOM, NASA/Air Force Cost Model; ODM, Operations Design Model; OGC, Other Government Costs; VAFB, Vandenberg Air Force Base. SOURCE: Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, SMC Developmental Planning, "Reusable Booster System Costing," presentation to the committee, February 15, 2012.
|
From page 57... ...
Atlas V 541 0.20 HEO Atlas V 551 0.29 Polar Delta IV H 0.29 Polar Atlas V 401 0.16 GTO Delta IV M+(5,4) 0.50 GEO Delta IV H 0.50 Average annual launch rate 8.00 NOTE: EELV, Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle; GEO, geosynchronous Earth orbit; GTO, geosynchronous transfer orbit; HEO, high Earth orbit; LEO, low Earth orbit; MEO, medium Earth orbit; SSO, Sun-synchronous orbit.
|
From page 58... ...
This factor accounts for the maturity of the vehicle design and depends on what is inherited from previous projects. A high design level value indicates that the system has little inheritance from previous projects, and vice versa.
|
From page 59... ...
Ø Selected based on vehicle design and programmatic considerations: § Manufacturing Method · RBD Maximum Methods Significant Methods Moderate Methods Minimal Methods Limited Methods · RBS Maximum Methods Significant Methods Moderate Methods Minimal Methods Limited Methods § Engineering Management · RBD Minimum Changes Few Changes Moderate Changes Dedicated Team Distributed Team · RBS Minimum Changes Few Changes Moderate Changes Dedicated Team Distributed Team § Design Level · RBD Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6* Level 7 Level 8 · RBS Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5 Level 6 Level 7 Level 8 § Funding Availability · RBD No Delays Infrequent Delays Possible Delays Likely · RBS No Delays Infrequent Delays Possible Delays Likely § Test Approach · RBD Minimum Testing Moderate Testing Maximum Testing · RBS Minimum Testing Moderate Testing Maximum Testing § Program Interfaces · RBD Minimal Interfaces Moderate Interfaces Extensive Interfaces · RBS Minimal Interfaces Moderate Interfaces Extensive Interfaces § Pre-Development Study · RBD 2 or More Study Contracts One Study Contract <9 months of Study · RBS 2 or More Study Contracts One Study Contract <9 months of Study FIGURE 4.2 Additional NASA/Air Force Cost Model inputs for other characteristics.
|
From page 60... ...
These models are generally accurate when based on similar applications, although they rely on assumptions about reusability requirements, which carry some uncertainty. Eng Mgmt Level 300% 5 275% 4 250% 3 2 225% 1 Cost % 200% 175% 150% RBS DDT&E 125% Without RBD 100% 75% RBS DDT&E 50% 25% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Existing Existing Design Existing Design Existing Design Existing Design New Design New Design New Design "Flight-Proven" w/Minor Mods, w/Minor Mods ~50% Major >50% Major w/Prototype w/Components w/Components Design No Requal and Requal Mods Mods Validated in Validated in Validated in With Requal With Requal Relevant Environ Relevant Environ Lab Environ Design Level FIGURE 4.3 Sensitivities to NASA/Air Force Cost Model inputs normalized to the baseline RBS design, DDT&E program.
|
From page 61... ...
Table 4.5 shows cost estimate sensitivity to turnaround time. This sensitivity is not significant, unlike in past studies of reusable launch systems, largely because the relatively low assumed flight rate does not put great pressure on the launch vehicle processing schedule.
|
From page 62... ...
NOTE: CCAFS, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station; VAFB, Vandenberg Air Force Base. SOURCE: Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center, SMC Developmental Planning, "Reusable Booster System Costing," presentation to the committee, February 15, 2012.
|
From page 63... ...
Labor estimates for operations appear lower than would be expected for a reusable system, as they are nearly the same as those applied for EELVs, which one would expect to have lower operability requirements since the entire launch vehicle is expendable. 4.3 RBS BUSINESS CASE 4.3.1 Approach and Assumptions For this study, the RBS business case compares the costs for the RBS system, using the Air Force cost methodology, with the projected costs for competing expendable launch vehicles, including commercial vehicles.
|
From page 64... ...
The expected expendable launch costs for Department of Defense missions, with anticipated levels of government oversight typical of those for meeting the mission assurance requirement, are expected to be still higher. Conversely, development of a commercial launch capability that can satisfy Air Force launch requirements may lead to true competition and lower overall costs.
|
From page 65... ...
So in this regard, the entire range of expendable launch vehicle costs can be considered to be the range of cost uncertainty. Given the existing uncertainties in the costing associated with expendable launch vehicles, the business case for RBS development is not as clear as portrayed in Figure 4.6 when RBS costs are compared to today's EELV operations.
|
From page 66... ...
In addition, this analysis essentially accepts the feasibility and success of a reusable booster system in the time frames suggested by the Air Force projections. However, previous chapters have detailed a number of important technical areas (as, for example, with the rocketback maneuver)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.