A Case Study in NASA-DoD - The Black Vault
A Case Study in NASA-DoD - The Black Vault
A Case Study in NASA-DoD - The Black Vault
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
-77-<br />
the Air Force's Space Test Program than the development of the STPSS<br />
and that the use of the L-AEM <strong>in</strong> comb<strong>in</strong>ation with the AEM or the MS<br />
would constitute alternative cost-effective procurement options.<br />
In the analysis of the L-AEM spacecraft for Air Force Space Test<br />
Program missions, the L-AEM-BL configuration was found to be able to<br />
accommodate only 28 percent of the missions, primarily because of<br />
limitations on its maximum operat<strong>in</strong>g altitude and orientation. Consequently,<br />
<strong>in</strong> the L-AEM procurement options the more expensive and more<br />
versatile L-AEM-P configuration has been used when the L-AEM-BL<br />
configuration would have been adequate except for those limitations.<br />
To evaluate the effect of <strong>in</strong>creas<strong>in</strong>g the capability of the L-AEM-BL<br />
configuration to allow geosynchronous altitude and sun-oriented operations,<br />
the cost of the L-AEM-BL was <strong>in</strong>creased to allow for an <strong>in</strong>crease<br />
<strong>in</strong> size of the hydraz<strong>in</strong>e reaction control system.<br />
conta<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g this configuration are labeled L-AEM-I.<br />
Options<br />
Table 14 compares the four procurement options based on the L-AEM,<br />
with four options based on the L-AEM-I design. As expected, the program<br />
costs for the procurement options based on the L-AEM-l design are<br />
lower than those based on the L-AEM design; but, given the accuracy of<br />
the spacecraft designs and cost-estimat<strong>in</strong>g procedures, most of the<br />
options are comparable. This means that giv<strong>in</strong>g the L-AEM-BL more capability<br />
is worthwhile but not essential <strong>in</strong> decid<strong>in</strong>g on the procurement<br />
option for conduct<strong>in</strong>g the Air Force Space Test Program missions.<br />
Earlier <strong>in</strong> this section, it was shown that an upgraded AEM <strong>in</strong><br />
comb<strong>in</strong>ation with the MMS provided the lowest total program cost.<br />
upgraded AEM differs from the L-AEM <strong>in</strong> that it has the payload, data<br />
rate, and power limitations of the orig<strong>in</strong>al AEM; L-AEM capability is<br />
greater <strong>in</strong> all of these areas. Table 15 displays a comparison of the<br />
program costs for the four procurement options derived from the L-AEMI<br />
and the two options us<strong>in</strong>g the upgraded AEM. Aga<strong>in</strong>, the upgraded AEM/MMS<br />
procurement option is the preferred solution (as <strong>in</strong>dicated by the<br />
parentheses), but by less of a cost marg<strong>in</strong> than before. This result<br />
<strong>The</strong><br />
It is assumed that the additional sun sensor required for sun<br />
orientation would be part of the payload package and therefore would<br />
not affect the cost of the L-AEM-BL.