A Case Study in NASA-DoD - The Black Vault

More documents

Recommendations

Info

-75- option. Other candidates become competitive only when the program size is expanded to 228 payloads. In this last case, an upgraded AEM spacecraft with costs of that magnitude would probably also have greater payload, power, and data rate capabilities. Furthermore, it would probably also be a redundant design to minimize the single-point failure modes. Because of the potential value of such a spacecraft it seemed highly desirable that an upgraded AEM having many of the above characteristics be designed and evaluated for use in the Air Force's Space Test Program. *l Large-Diameter Shuttle-Launched AEM (L-AEM) Under NASA sponsorship the Boeing Company undertook a configuration and cost study for a 5 ft diameter AEM that would be designed for shuttle launch and would include the capabilities ascribed above to the upgraded AEM. Revised Boeing cost estimates (as described in Appendix A) were used to compute program costs for a variety of procurement options including the L-AEM. Table 13 shows those options compared with others for the nominal case. Where the L-AEM is used, all three configurations (baseline, spin, and precision) were considered; but for the same reasons discussed earlier for the STPSS, the spin configuration is included only when the mission model includes 228 payloads. Two procurement options are included that use the MMS but none that uses the STPSS in combination with the L-AEM. There are two reasons for this. First, the MMS has been used primarily when its use would decrease the total number of spacecraft necessary to fly the designated payloads as a result of its large payload capability (4000 lb); the payload capabilities of the STPSS and L-AEM are identical, so we always chose the lower-cost L-AEM. Second, consideration of both the L-AEM and STPSS in a single procurement option would mean that the nonrecurring cost associated with developing both spacecraft would have to be included in the total program cost. The use of the modified NASA tariff increases the program cost of the MMS and AEM/ MS options relative to the other options shown in Table 12, and thereby would not alter this observation.
-76- Table 13 EFFECT OF THE L-AEMa No. of Max. No. Program Cost (S millions) Payloads of Payloads in per A4// Case Program Spacecraft STPSS 14S AEM/STPSS AEM/M4S L-AE4 AEM/L-AEM L-AEMIWAS L-AEM/1S 114 13 (160) (162) (157) (156) 135 133 139 132 Nominal 114 228 6 13 (222) (244) (263) (247) (210) (244) (240) (240) 186 198 181 208 187 212 186 199 228 6 (373) (418) (342) (392) 306 297 (373) 323 Higher L-AE1 114 13 (160) (162) 157 156 148 146 150 143 114 6 (222) (263) 210 (240) 199 195 200 197 nonrecurring 228 13 (244) (247) (244) (240) 212 222 223 211 cost 228 6 (373) (418) 342 (392) 320 311 (384) 335 a For tvlu r (,L nprn For a given row, program costs within 10 percent of the lowes value are nt in parentheses. Table 13 illustrates that all of the procurement options that use the L-AEM are preferred over those made up of the three original spacecraft. In fact, the lowest-cost L-AEM option is about 15-20 percent less costly than the lowest-cost non-L-AEM option, and that assumes that the nonrecurring cost of the L-AEM would be paid for by the Air Force. If the L-AEM is developed by NASA, the L-AEM options are even more attractive. In Sec. III, the uncertainty surrounding the estimates of the nonrecurring costs of the L-AEM spacecraft configurations was discussed. The nominal case in Table 13 includes the lower set of estimates, because it is felt that they more closely reflect the nonrecurring costs of the L-AEM. However, the effect of higher nonrecurring costs for the L-AEM on the choice of a procurement option has been examined. The second set of estimates in Table 13 shows that when L-AEM development cost is increased, the AEM-STPS9 combination is also attractive for some conditions. As mentioned earlier, however, it is not known whether the L-AEM would be developed (if it is developed) by NASA, the Air Force, or jointly. The L-AEM would probably be suitable for NASA missions as well as for the Air Force Space Test Program missions used in this analysis. In the case described here, it is assumed that the Air Force would underwrite all the nonrecurring costs of the L-AEM. If either of the other two development alternatives was followed, the attractiveness of the L-AEM would be enhanced. Consequently, it is concluded from these excursions that development of the L-AEM would be more appropriate for 4'AjL_
Page 2 and 3:
LEYEL r o R-2619-RC May 1980 Standa
Page 4 and 5:
SECUNITY CLASSIFICATION OF Twa PAGE
Page 6 and 7:
Standard 5pacecraft.ProcurementL_ A
Page 8 and 9:
-ivas representing the official vie
Page 10 and 11:
the missions required. Third, the p
Page 12 and 13:
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I gratefully acknow
Page 14 and 15:
-xii- VI. APPLYING THE NASA-DOD COO
Page 16 and 17:
-. - am~rumn -xv- TABLES 1. Nominal
Page 18 and 19:
-Xvii- 11-19. Case IV(N)...........
Page 20 and 21:
-xx- L-ANX - Large Diameter Applica
Page 22 and 23:
-1- I. INTRODUCTION The National Ae
Page 24 and 25:
-3- development. Finally, the polic
Page 26 and 27:
-5- of which spacecraft would enabl
Page 28 and 29:
-7- II. U.S. SPACE PROGRAM: DEVELOP
Page 30 and 31:
-9- thought. (8 ) The launching of
Page 32 and 33:
-1- had shown great alarm or acknow
Page 34 and 35:
-13- for other purposes. ,(15) it w
Page 36 and 37:
-15- and that determination as to w
Page 38 and 39:
-17- program and the coordination o
Page 40 and 41:
t -19- legislation, messages, petit
Page 42 and 43:
-21- of the continuing Soviet accom
Page 44 and 45:
-23- Subsequently, the Director of
Page 46 and 47: -25- to be asked by one of the agen
Page 48 and 49: -27- space systems; operational sys
Page 50 and 51: -29- no near-earth orbit manned ope
Page 52 and 53: ImP, ~ ~ ~~~~ ......... ~~~~~~~~~~~
Page 54 and 55: -33- 5. Using off-the-shelf, space-
Page 56 and 57: -35- 1. Spacecraft configurations a
Page 58 and 59: -37- STANDARD SPACECRAFT DESCRIPTIO
Page 60 and 61: -39- The payload cluster, while uni
Page 62 and 63: -41- payload or propulsion, is abou
Page 64 and 65: -43- z z 0 0 - 0r CL 0 E 4 41- u- 0
Page 66 and 67: -45- The STPSS can carry a nominal
Page 68 and 69: i -47- orbit-adjust module, while t
Page 70 and 71: -49- M9IS The basic MMS, summarized
Page 72 and 73: -51- 1980-1990 time period are divi
Page 74 and 75: -53- about 7.5 payloads per spacecr
Page 76 and 77: -55- 0- - - - - - - - - - cc - - -
Page 78 and 79: -57- STPSS (STPSS-LC) spacecraft ca
Page 80 and 81: -59- Table 7 ESTIMATED UNIT 1 COST
Page 82 and 83: -61- Nonrecurring Costs. Nonrecurri
Page 84 and 85: -63- where SRU = Service Rendered U
Page 86 and 87: -65- IV. STANDARD SPACECRAFT ACQUIS
Page 88 and 89: -67- The costs associated with thes
Page 90 and 91: -69- to increase to 13. That was fo
Page 92 and 93: -71- 500 * STPSS 400 AW-STPSS PROGR
Page 94 and 95: -73- The implications of the forego
Page 98 and 99: -77- the Air Force's Space Test Pro
Page 100 and 101: -79- decrease any total program cos
Page 102 and 103: -81- COST LAUNCH COSTS (Millions of
Page 104 and 105: -83- V. NASA-DOD COOPERATION: ORGAN
Page 106 and 107: -85- the MHS program stemmed from t
Page 108 and 109: -87- The Air Force had studied the
Page 110 and 111: -89- Air Force Headquarters to NASA
Page 112 and 113: -91- turns out, NASA had agreed to
Page 114 and 115: also evaluate whether or not adequa
Page 116 and 117: -95- design, mission model, cost es
Page 118 and 119: -97- Force interface was retained,
Page 120 and 121: -99- experience and by identifying
Page 122 and 123: . . . . . . . -.. . . . . . . . . .
Page 124 and 125: -103- the nation and other governme
Page 126 and 127: -105- Appendix A ESTIMATES OF COST
Page 128 and 129: -107- RANGE OF BIDS Item Range ($ t
Page 130 and 131: -109- Table A-1 SPACECRAFT COSTS--N
Page 132 and 133: 'I FI Table A-2 SPACECRAFT COSTS WI
Page 134 and 135: -113- Table A-3 LAUNCH COSTS--NOMIN
Page 136 and 137: -115- Table A-5 LAUNCH COSTS FOR TH
Page 138 and 139: Table B-I POWER SYSTEM COMPARISONS
Page 140 and 141: -119- NOTES TO TABLE B-I (Cont.) mo
Page 142 and 143: -121- The duration of the data pass
Page 144 and 145: -123- INNNU AWA n -. s vo (I T 'API
Page 146 and 147:
-125- each battery has its own char
Page 148 and 149:
-127- Table B-2 POWER SUMMARY Chara
Page 150 and 151:
-129- Appendix C COMMUNICATIONS AND
Page 152 and 153:
-131- chiefly for storing commands
Page 154 and 155:
-133- Table C-2 C&DH CHANGES REQUIR
Page 156 and 157:
-135- Table C-3 C&DH CHANGES REQUIR
Page 158 and 159:
-137- NOTES TO TABLE C-3 (Cont.) we
Page 160 and 161:
- 139- Table D-1 ATTITUDE CONTROL A
Page 162 and 163:
* -141- and three reaction wheels a
Page 164 and 165:
-143- by the commonly adopted desig
Page 166 and 167:
-145- Table E-l--Continued I Unit T
Page 168 and 169:
-147- flight-proven elastomeric dia
Page 170 and 171:
-149- Appendix F STRUCTURAL SUBSYST
Page 172 and 173:
-151- points are provided by three
Page 174 and 175:
-153- Table F-2 STPSS STRUCTURAL CO
Page 176 and 177:
-155- Appendix G THERMAL CONTROL SU
Page 178 and 179:
-157- sunlight. These surfaces incl
Page 180 and 181:
-159- Appendix H PROGRAM OPTIONS FO
Page 182 and 183:
I 4 I IQ. w ~ w 01 " 1 I I I I 0 .c
Page 184 and 185:
-163- Table H-4 ORBIT 2: PAYLOAD AS
Page 186 and 187:
-165- c0 k- c" Q N 3- W 0 0 IT -- c
Page 188 and 189:
-167- Table 1-7 CASE I (A)a PROGRAM
Page 190 and 191:
-169- Table H-9 CASES I (K) AND V (
Page 192 and 193:
-171- Table H-11 CASE II(B) PROGRAM
Page 194 and 195:
-173- Table H-13 CASE 111(C) PROGRA
Page 196 and 197:
-175- Table H-15 CASE 111(M) PROGRA
Page 198 and 199:
-177- Table H-17 CASE IV(D) PROGRAM
Page 200 and 201:
-17 9- Table H-19 CASE IV(N) PROGRA
Page 202 and 203:
-181- Table Hi-21 CASE V (E) PROGRA
Page 204 and 205:
-183- Table H-23 CASE VI(F) PROGRAM
Page 206 and 207:
-185- Appendix J AIR FORCE AND NASA
Page 208 and 209:
MEMORANDUM OF AGRE1MENT ON THE PROC
Page 210 and 211:
-189- 2.2 DOD SPACE TEST PROGRAM: T
Page 212 and 213:
-191- l4.1.7 STP will review the HF
Page 214 and 215:
I -193- 5.0 NASA AND DOD FINANCIAL
Page 216 and 217:
-195- 5.4.3 Post Delivery Phase: NA
Page 218 and 219:
I '-197- $4 .0 0 A 0 f-4 ;C:ur 0 V
Page 220 and 221:
t 4 In I Io H 0p Ad ~t m 00 -199- E
Page 222 and 223:
-201- COPIED August 24, 1976 Honora
Page 224 and 225:
-204- 13. "The National Space Progr
Page 226 and 227:
-206- 39. Tec hnical vpoaal for a M
show all

A Case Study in NASA-DoD - The Black Vault

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?