Space Systems Cost Modeling
Prof. David W. Miller
Col. John Keesee
Mr. Cyrus Jilla
Why Cost Estimation?
? Critically important part of system design
– Too high – lose the contract award
– Too low – over-run cost plus contracts, company loss on fixed price
contracts
? Trends
– Design to cost
– Cost as an independent variable
Work Breakdown Structure
? Multi-level table used to organize, normalize and track costs and
schedule
– Ensures accounting of all aspects of costs
– Each element has a start time, completion time, and all components of
direct costs (labor, material, etc)
? Example shows top three levels for spacecraft systems
– From MIL HDBK 881
– http://www.acq.osd.mil/pm/newpolicy/wbs/mil_hdbk_881/mil_hdbk_881.htm
FLEX
1.0 MANAGEMENT
1.1 Project Planning & Schedule
1.1.1 Organization and Meetings
1.1.2 Schedule Maintenance
1.1.3 Implem & Work-around Plans
1.2 Financial
1.2.1 Budget Update & Forecast
1.2.2 Subcontract Monitoring
1.3 Task Manage & Tracking
1.3.1 Monitoring & Tracking
1.3.2 WBS Maintenance
1.4 Interface
1.4.1 Program Monitor
1.4.2 JSC RMS Program
1.4.3 Tech. Tracking Committee
1.4.4 Reporting
1.5 Co-I & Subcontractor Mgmt
1.5.1 Planning & Schedule
1.5.2 Technical & Task Tracking
1.6 Quality
1.6.1 Quality Program Plan
1.6.2 Nonconformance Tracking
2.0 SYSTEM ENGINEERING
2.1 Requirements
2.1.1 Expt Req Document
2.1.2 Subsystem Req. Documents
2.2 Design & Evaluation
2.2.1 3-D 1-g & 0-g Modeling
2.2.2 Feedforward Control Design
2.2.3 Feedback Control Design
2.2.4 Human-in-the-Loop Simulation
2.2.5 Performance Evaluation
2.3 Configuration Control
2.3.1 Design Documents
2.3.2 Processing &Tracking
2.3.3 Equipment List Maintenance
2.3.4 Test Matrix
2.4 Program Reviews
2.4.1 Conceptual Design Review
2.4.2 Requirements Review
2.4.3 Non-Advocate Review
2.4.4 Preliminary Design Review
2.4.5 Critical Design Review
2.4.6 Flight Readiness Review
2.4.7 Post Mission Expt Review
3.0 HARDWARE DESIGN & FAB
3.1 Arm Fabrication
3.1.1 Prototype (1)
3.1.2 Ground Test Facilities (2)
3.1.3 Flight Arms (2)
3.1.4 Motors
3.1.5 Payloads
3.3 Human Interface
3.3.1 Joystick
3.3.2 Grid W/S/W
3.3.3 Task Targets
3.3.4 Video Interface
3.2 Support Elec & Software
3.2.1 Experiment Support Module
3.2.2 Crew Interface
3.2.3 Ground Support Equipment
3.2.4 Software
3.2.5 Up/downlink Refurbishment
4.0 INTEGRATION & TEST
4.1 Engineering Model Integ
4.1.1 Robotic Arm Subsystem Tests
4.1.2 ESM Configuration
4.1.3 System Functional Testing
4.1.4 Prelim Environmental Test
4.2 Flight Model Integration
4.2.1 Integ Planning & Doc
4.2.2 Test Planning & Doc
4.2.3 Arm Subsystem Accept. Tests
4.2.4 System Integration
4.2.5 Functional Testing/Charact
4.2.6 System Accept/Cert Testing
4.3 Carrier Integration
4.3.1 Form 1628 Submittal
4.3.2 Integ Reviews (CIR, FOR,.)
4.3.3 Safety Reviews (0, I, II, III)
4.3.4 Payload Integ Plan (PIP)
4.3.5 Interface Control Doc (ICD)
4.3.6 PIP Annexes
4.3.7 Verification Activities
4.3.8 Crew Training
4.3.9 JSC Interface/Project Monit
4.3.10 Material Lists
4.3.11 Packing & Stowage Plans
4.3.12 FM Delivery & Recovery
5.0 OPERATIONS
5.1 On-Orbit
5.1.1 Diagnostics & error identi
5.1.2 Human-in-the-Loop
5.1.3 Protocol format
5.2 Ground
5.2.1 KSC
5.2.2 JSC
5.2.3 On-orbit Predictions Document
5.3 Post-Mission Activities
5.3.1 Flight Data Analysis
5.3.2 Reporting and dissemination
Software Cost Estimation
? Flight software RDT&E costs $435 / SLOC
? Ground software RDT&E $220/ SLOC
Language Factor
Ada 1.00
UNIX-C 1.67
PASCAL 1.25
FORTRAN 0.91
SMAD Table 20-10
Technology Readiness Levels
Technology Readiness Level Definition Risk Std Dev
(%)
1 Basic principles observed High >25
2 Conceptual design formulated High >25
3 Conceptual design tested analytically or
experimentally
Moderate 20-25
4 Critical function/characteristic demonstrated Moderate 15-20
5 Component or breadboard tested in relevant
environment
Moderate 10-15
6 Prototype/engineering model tested in relevant
environment
Low <10
7 Engineering model tested in space Low <10
8 Full operational capability Low <10
Higher Level Cost Factors
? Wraps model non-physical factors
– Program support, system engineering, management costs, product
assurance, integration and test
? Overhead is incurred in support of an activity but is not solely
identifiable to that activity
– Administration, real estate taxes, facility maintenance
? Level I taxes are allocated to headquarters
– Defense Contract Administration Services (DCAS)
– Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)
– Independent Research and Development (IR&D)
Higher Level Cost Factors (continued)
? Program Support
– Costs activities, systems and hardware development outside the
prime contract
? Analyses
? Govt test facilities, equipment and personnel
? Program office support contractors for technical oversight
? Advanced development studies
?Fee
Management Reserves
? Account for cost and schedule uncertainty
– Regression analysis
– Complexity factor uncertainty
– Cost driver input uncertainty
– Time and material cost
– Vendor ROMs
? Should be held at Management level
? Should not be used to accommodate
scope changes
Development Status Reserve
Percent
Off the shelf; hardware exists; no 10%
mods required
Modifications required to existing 15%
hardware
New hardware but design passed 20%
CDR; vendor quotes
New hardware but design passed 25%
PDR
New design but within state of the 35%
art; Cost est from CERs; vendor
ROMs
New design; remote analogs,
outside SOTA
50%
Production Costs
? Non-recurring costs include design, drafting, engineering unit
integration, assembly and test, GSE, and design verification
? Recurring includes flight hardware manufacture, IA&T
? Theoretical First Unit is the basis for calculating costs for the production
run
? Protoflight unit is the qualification test unit that is refurbished for flight
? Prototype units don’t fly
Annual Funding Profiles
? Total RDT&E costs must be spread across the development
years
– Typically loaded toward the earlier years
? NASA uses a Beta curve but other models exist
– http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/beta.html
? Similar models are used for production runs
Inflation
? CERs are based on constant year dollars and must be inflated
to determine the total value and year-by-year requirement
? Inflation factors for each type of money (RDT&E, Production,
Operation) are published by OSD and NASA annually
? Government figures included in ACEIT cost estimation software
Cost Analysis Requirements Document
? Usually required for formal cost reviews
– Explains the rationale used to derive cost estimates
? Documentation makes it easier to update the estimate through the duration of
the program life
? Usually contains
– Project description
–WBS
– Ground rules and assumptions
– Schedule
– Cost summaries for each WBS element
– Cost phasing summaries
CARD Subsystem Summaries
? Overall technical description (function, components, quantities,
heritage, TRL, risk)
? Schematic, picture or diagram
? CER graphs or single point analog
? Basis of estimate if not parametric (e.g., grassroots, vendor
ROM
? Key assumptions
?POC
Costing References
? Space Mission Analysis and Design, Wertz and Larson
? Reducing Space Mission Cost, Wertz and Larson
? International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, Isakowitz, AIAA
? Jane’s Space Directory
? Cost Models
– Aerospace Corporation Small Satellite Cost Model (SSCM)
– Air Force Unmanned Spacecraft Cost Model (USCM)
– NASA Goddard Multivariable Instrument Cost Model (MICM)
– NASA World Wide Web sites
? http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/guidelines.html
? http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/bu2/models.html
Cost Estimating Methods
1) Detailed Bottom-Up Cost Estimating
– Most accurate, most time consuming
– Applied after an architecture has been selected and the
design is mature
2) Analogous Estimating
– Can be applied at any level of design
– Inflexible for trade studies
3) Parametric Estimation
– Cost Estimation Relationships (CERs)
– Best for trade studies during the Conceptual Design Phase
Reducing Space Mission Cost, Larson and Wertz
Graduate Student Labor Rates
? Many program costs are dominated by the labor costs of the “standing
army” times the duration of the program (e.g., operations)
– Labor costs consist of salary times wraps (e.g., overhead and employee benefits)
– Overhead includes real estate taxes, facility maintenance, aspects of administration,
etc.
– Employee benefits include retirement fund contributions, paid vacation, continuing
education, sometimes health plans
? How much does a graduate student at MIT cost per year?
– $1,475 (PhD) or $1,335 (SM) stipend per month before taxes
– MIT overhead is 63.5%
– Tuition is $1,887 per month
– Only stipend is subject to overhead $/yr=[(1475*1.635)+1887]*12=$51,584 per year
? What about staff
– Assume a salary of $50,000 per year before taxes
– Cost to contract is salary times overhead times employee benefits
– $/year = $50000*1.635*1.377 = $50000*2.25 = $112,570
? Only labor is subject to employee benefits
? Travel, materials, labor, etc. are subject to overhead
– Fabricated equipment and subcontracts beyond first $25k are exempt from
overhead
Lifecycle Cost
? Design and Construction
– The spacecraft, Learning curve
? Launch
– Getting the spacecraft from here to there
? Operations
– Should not be underestimated
? Failure Compensation &
Replacement
– Failures are violations of requirements
– Compensatory action or lost revenue incurs
cost
– Expected Value calculation
? Cost of failure at time t
? Pr(failure) at time t
? Modularity
– Decreases design costs at the expense of
Launch costs
Launch
Design/Construction
Failure
& Replacement
Modularity
(Payload & Bus)
Net Present Value
of Revenue
Operations
Compensation
Autonomy
Multifunctionality,
– Multifunctionality does the opposite
? Autonomy
? Net Present Value
– Trade between cost of inserting autonomy
– A dollar in hand today is worth more than a
during design vs. the actual savings in
dollar in hand tomorrow
operations costs
– A dollar spent tomorrow costs less than a
dollar spent today
Spacecraft Size vs. Distribution
Spacecraft Size
Large Small
Many
Distribution
Heritage
Examples:
.
Cost Model
USAF USCM
(SMAD)
Small Satellites
Examples:
Techsat 21
Cost Model
Heritage
Examples:
GPS
GOES
Cost Model
USAF USCM
(SMAD)
Small Satellites
Examples:
i
Cost Model
Iridium
Globalstar
ings
Fe
w
GEO Comm
Hubble Space Tel.
OrbComm
Aero. Corp. SSCM
(RSMC)
Milstar
Discovery Missions
Explorer Missions
MightySat M ssions
Aero. Corp. SSCM
(RSMC)
Learning Curv
e Sav
Change CERs
Cost Estimating Relationships (CER’s)
? A parametric cost model is a series of mathematical
relationships that relate spacecraft cost to physical, technical,
and performance parameters.
? Cost Estimation Relationships (CERs) show how the cost
properties of the system or subsystem vary with characteristic
parameters.
? “Wraps” typically account for approximately 30% of the
development cost for space systems.
? Requires a historical database.
? Based on regression analysis & the correlation of data.
? Cost=a+bM
c
P
d
? To be used as a comparison tool, not a budgeting tool.
Reducing Space Mission Cost, Larson and Wertz
RDT&E & Production CER’s for Large Satellites
RDT&E Cost Parameter, X (unit) Applicable CER (FY92$k) Standard
Component Range Error
IR Payload Aperture dia. (m) 0.2-1.2
306892x
562.0
c =
46,061
Comm Antenna Wt. (kg) 1-87
1015x
59 .0
c =
1793
Comm Electronics Wt. (kg) 14-144
917x
7 .0
c =
6466
Spacecraft Bus Dry Wt. (kg) 26-897 xc 11016253 += 14,586
Structure/Thermal Wt (kg) 7-428
416
66.0
2640 xc +=
4773
TT&C Wt (kg) 4-112 xc 1991955 += 3010
Att Deter Dry Wt. (kg) 6-97
3330x
46 .0
c =
5665
Att & Reac Ctrl Dry Wt. (kg) 25-170 xc 153935 += 1895
Power EPS Wt. x BOL Pwr (kg-W) 104-414,920
108 .0
97 .0
5303 xc +=
5743
Prod. Cost Parameter, X (unit) Applicable CER (FY92$k) Standard
Component Range Error
IR Payload Aperture dis. (m)
0.2-1.2
758,122 x
562. 0
c =
18,425
Comm Antenna Wt. (kg)
1-87
230
59 .0
20 xc +=
476
Comm Electronics Wt. (kg)
13-156
xc 179=
8235
Spacecraft Bus Dry Wt. (kg)
26-1237
185x
77 .0
c =
6655
Structure/Thermal Wt. (kg)
7-777
86x
65.0
c =
1247
TT&C Wt. (kg)
4-112
164
93.0
93 xc +=
1565
Att Deter Dry Wt. (kg)
6-97
1244x
39 .0
c =
1912
Att & Reac Ctrl Dry Wt. (kg)
9-167
186
73.0
364 xc +? =
999
Power EPS Wt. x BOL Pwr (kg-W)
104-414,920
183x
29.0
2254
SSCM Version 7.4 CER’s for Small Satellites
Independent Variable # Data CER for Total Bus Cost Applicable Standard
Points (FY94$M) Range Error
(FY94$M)
Satellite volume (in3) 12 )ln(66.4 84.34 xc +?= 2,000-80,000 4.27
Satellite bus dry mass (kg) 20
0235.0
261.1
704.0 xc +=
20-400 3.33
ACS dry mass (kg) 14
042.0
2
65.6 xc +=
1-25 5.45
TT&C subsystem mass (kg) 13
29.0
35.1
55.2 xc +=
3-30 4.50
Power system mass (kg) 14
53.1 58.3 x
702.0
c +?=
7-70 3.52
Thermal control mass (kg) 9
19.0
2
06.11 xc +=
5-12 5.37
Structures mass (kg) 14 )ln( 07.0 47.1 xxc += 5-100 5.40
Number of thrusters 5
5.0
86.41 16.46
?
?= xc
1-8 8.95
Pointing accuracy (deg) 16
5.0
98.12 67.1
?
+= xc
0.25-12 7.37
Pointing knowledge (deg) 10 )ln( 681.6 94.12 xxc ?= 0.1-3 8.79
BOL power (W) 16
9.17 62.22 x
15.0
c +?=
20-480 6.13
Average power (W) 17
14.8
22.0
23.8 xc +?=
5-10 5.71
EOL power (W) 14
55.1 507.0 x
452.0
c +=
5-440 6.20
Solar array area (m2) 13
0066.0
7.825 5.814 xc +?=
0.3-11 6.37
Battery capacity (A-hr) 12
91.1 45.1 x
754.0
c +=
5-32 6.01
Data storage cap (MB) 14
85.154
0079.0
5.143 xc +?=
0.02-100 8.46
Downlink data rate (kbps) 18
23.0
86.21 0.26
?
?= xc
1-1000 8.91
Reducing Space Mission Cost, Larson and Wertz
SSCM Version 8.0 CER’s for Small Satellites
Independent Variable(s) # Data CER for Total Bus Cost Applicable Range Std. Error
Points (FY94$M) (%)
r: EOL power (W) 17
356.0
47.6
1599.0 ?
= src
r: 5-500 29.55
s: Pointing accuracy (deg) s: 0.05-5
r: TT&C mass (kg) 18
702.0
0363.0 554.0
src =
r: 3-50 35.68
s: Payload power (W) s: 10-120
r: Downlink data rate (kbps) 21
p
src 0096.1 44.1
509.0 0107.0
=
r: 1-2000 35.66
s: Average power (W) s: 5-410
p: Prop system dry mass (kg) p:-35
r: Spacecraft dry mass (kg) 26
289.0 661.0
5117.1 6416.0 src ?=
r: 20-400 37.19
s: Pointing accuracy (deg) s: 0.05-5
r: Solar array area (m2) 20
s
rc 989.1 291.4
255.0
=
r: 0.3-11 38.53
s: ACS type (3-axis or other) s: 0=other, 1=3-axis
r: Power subsys mass (kg) 25
602.0 r
839.0
c =
r: 7-70 37.07
Reducing Space Mission Cost, Larson and Wertz
Can estimate cost using individual CER’s or can create a weighted
average where weights are inversely proportional to errors
σ
∑
c
i
i
2
σ
C =
∑
1
i
2
Learning Curve
? CERs calculate the Theoretical First Unit Cost (TFU)
? The learning curve is a mathematical technique to account for
productivity improvements as a larger number of units are produced.
– Economies of scale
Cost per Unit vs. N for S=90%
– Set up time
1
0.9
– Human learning
0.8
? Calculation:
%)100ln(( / S)
–1)
B = 1 ?
0.7
2 ln
–2) L=N
B
0.6
– 3) Production Cost = TFU x L
0.5
0.4
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
N
where
S= Learning Curve slope
Cumulative Cost vs. N for S=90%
N= Number of units produced
100
L= Learning Curve Factor
90
80
? For the Aerospace Industry
70
60
N S
<10 95%
50
40
30
10-50 90%
20
>50 85%
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
No Learning Curve
S=90%
N
Adapted from SMAD, Larson & Wertz
Cum
ul
at
i
v
e C
os
t
Co
s
t
P
e
r
Un
i
t
Impact of Technological Risk on Cost
State of Technology Development Team Familiarity
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E)
Well within existing state-of-the-art; familiar technology 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
Slightly advancing state-of-the-art; minor amounts of new technology 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1
Nominal aerospace project using some new technology 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Significant amounts of new technology 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
Major new technology; requires breakthroughs in state-of-the-art 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6
(A) j j
(B) i il i j il j i i
(C) j
(D) j
(E) j
(%)
1 >25%
2 >25%
3
4
5
6
7
8
Team is totally familiar with the pro ect and has completed several identical pro ects. Team’s technical expertise is
superior.
Team s very fam iar w th the type of pro ect and has completed sim ar pro ects. Team’s techn cal expert se is very good.
Nominal team has related but not identical pro ect experience. Team’s technical expertise is average.
Pro ect introduces many new aspects with which team is unfamiliar. Team’s technical expertise is below average.
Team is totally unfamiliar with this type of pro ect. Team’s technical expertise is poor.
Technology
Readiness
Level
Definition of Space Readiness Status Added Cost
Basic principle observed
Conceptual design formulated
Conceptual design tested 20-25%
Critical function demonstrated 15-20%
Breadboard model tested in environment 10-15%
Engineering model tested in environment <10%
Engineering model tested in space <10%
Fully operational <5%
What are the TRL’s for TPF Technology?
Technology TRL What Will it Change When Will This Occur New TRL
Formation Flying
Deployable Structures
Interferometry Optics
Tethers
Cryogenic Optics
Deployable Primaries
Autonomy
White Light Nulling
High Speed Controls
Operations Costs
? What makes up operations costs?
– Ground Station(s)
– Personnel
? Ground Stations
– Facilities (The Operations Control Center)
– Equipment (Antenna, Computers, etc.)
– Software (Usually the most difficult & most expensive)
? Personnel
– Maintenance Costs
– Contractor Labor (~$140K/Staff Year)
– Government Labor (~$95K/Staff Year)
? Please see SMAD for Operations CERs
? Does anyone here have hands-on operations experience?
Adapted from SMAD, Larson & Wertz
The Time Value of Money
Adapted from:
? Applied Systems Analysis - de Neufville
?Aerospace Product Design Course Notes - C. Boppe
? Plays a major role in the allocation of resources for expensive,
long-term space projects.
? Why will an organization incur debt?
The benefit of using the money now is greater than the interest paid.
? Why is a given amount of $ today worth more than the same
amount of $ in the future?
1) Inflation
2) $ can be used to increase productivity now.
? Compound Interest Formula
F= P(1+i)
t
where: F= future value of money P= present value of money
i= interest rate t= investment/project lifetime
? Present Value Formula
P= F(1+r)
-N
where: r= discount rate (~3% greater than the interest rate)
Cash Flow Analysis
Adapted from:
? Applied Systems Analysis - de Neufville
?Aerospace Product Design Course Notes - C. Boppe
? When doing a cash flow analysis for a large, long-term space project, it is
important to compare all revenues and expenditures in constant dollars.
? Commercial Space Projects
– When does it make sense to invest in a space project?
? When the expected return on investment in the project is greater than the return from investing the
same amount of capital at the interest rate.
? Determined through a cash flow analysis.
? Present Value of Profit
– PVP= Revenue(1+r)
-t
-Cost(1+i)
t
(1+r)
-t
? Assumes “Cost” requires borrowing money at i to cover investments
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
-4.0E+09
-3.0E+09
-2.0E+09
-1.0E+09
0.0E+00
1.0E+09
2.0E+09
3.0E+09
4.0E+09
10 11 12 13 14 15
Yrly Net-Cash
Cum-Cashflows
Baseline NPV
Costing References
? Space Mission Analysis and Design, Larson and Wertz, Ch. 20.
? Reducing Space Mission Cost, Wertz and Larson, Entire Book
– see reference list in Ch. 8
? International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems,
Isakowitz, AIAA
? Jane’s Space Directory
? Cost Models
– Aerospace Corporation Small Satellite Cost Model (SSCM)
– Air Force Unmanned Spacecraft Cost Model (USCM)
– NASA Goddard Multivariable Instrument Cost Model (MICM)
– NASA World Wide Web sites.
Mars Rover Engineering Costs (JPL)
? Rover development costs without instruments and instrument
structure (i.e., payload).
M
0.19652
ρ
?1 0.014638 ρ
$ = 222.3645M e
ρ =
V
effective
– M is the rover mass [kg] without payload
ve
is the stowed rover envelope
–V
effecti
– $ is in FY02$M
– Needing to retract the MER wheels for stowage drove up cost
? Effective volume is estimated from launch vehicle fairing
3
V
effective
= 0.038766
(
F ? 0.6
)
av
–F
av
is available fairing diameter [m]
– 3.749m for Delta IV-4240
ARGOS Cost Model
Literature Search
Kahan, Targrove, “Cost modeling of large
spaceborne optical systems”, SPIE, Kona, 1998
Humphries, Reddish, Walshaw,”Cost scaling laws
and their origin: design strategy for an optical array
telescope”, IAU, 1984
Meinel, “Cost-scaling laws applicable to very large
optical telescopes”, SPIE, 1979
2.58
Meinel’s law:
S = 0.37? D [M$] (1980)
Small Amateur Telescopes
? Priced various amateur
telescopes
–DHQ f/5
–DHQ f/4.5
x 10
4
Telescope Cost CER (Aperture): C=28917*D
2.76
3
–D Truss f/5
– Obsession f/4.5 2.5
– Celestron G-f/10
? Fit power law
2
1.5
? Exponent surprisingly similar to
1
Meinel’s Law
0.5
2.76
C = 28917D
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Telescope Diameter D [m]
Telesco
pe Purch
a
se Cost C [20
0
1
$
]
Professional Telescope OTA cost
OTA Cost
[2
001 $
]
5
x 10
4
Classical Cassegrain
Ritchey-Chretien
CERs for
3.5
Ritchey-Chretien
2.80 3
C
RC
= 376000 ? D
2.5
Classical Cassegrain
2
2.75
C
CC
= 322840 ? D
1.5
1
Remarkable Result:
0.5
virtually identical
0
power law across
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Aperture Diameter D [m]
completely different
Company: Optical Guidance Systems
product lines.
(http:www.opticalguidancesystems.com)
ACS Mass and Cost
? Reaction wheel mass scales w/
momentum capacity
Kg = 2.49 Nms
0.41
0.41
]]Ball, Honeywell, and Ithaco RWAs [Kg = 2.49 Nms
14
? Reaction wheels dominate ACS mass
? ACS cost is function of mass
12
0.8
10
o
$
ACS
= cKg
ACS
? Scale using ARGOS ACS mass and cost
8
? Inertia depends on sub-aperture masses
and geometry
6
? Assumed 1.5 deg/sec slew rate
4
2
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Momentum Capacity [Nms]
Mass [Kg]
70
Sub-System Cost Tables
Sub-System Cost Tables
Sub-System Cost Tables
Labor Cost Table
Sub-System Yearly Hours ARGOS
Rate Spring Summer Fall Spring Total Total Recurring
Passive Optics Soon-Jo Chung $70,000 200 200 200 200 800 $61,833 $15,458
Janaki Wickrema $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
Erik Iglesias $50,000 260 360 260 130 1010 $55,760 $7,177
David Ngo $50,000 260 360 260 130 1010 $55,760 $7,177
Active Optics Soon-Jo Chung $70,000 150 160 150 150 610 $47,148 $11,594
Abran Alaniz $50,000 260 360 260 130 1010 $55,760 $7,177
Praxedis Flores III $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
ACS Carl Blaurock $70,000 0 0 78 78 156 $12,058 $6,029
Ayanna Samuels $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
Susan Kim $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
Paul Wooster $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
Structures Marc dos Santos $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
David LoBosco $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
PAS Raymond Sedwick $70,000 104 96 104 104 408 $31,535 $8,038
Soon-Jo Chung $70,000 0 0 0 104 104 $8,038 $8,038
Carolina Tortora $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
Christopher Rakowski $50,000 260 360 260 130 1010 $55,760 $7,177
Dustin Berkovitz $50,000 260 360 260 130 1010 $55,760 $7,177
SOC John Keesee $90,000 104 96 104 104 408 $40,545 $10,335
Eric Coulter $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
Daniel Kwon/Lisa Girerd $50,000 260 0 260 130 650 $35,885 $7,177
Management Paul Bauer $70,000 104 96 104 104 408 $31,535 $8,038
David Miller $90,000 104 48 104 104 360 $35,775 $10,335
Raymond Sedwick $70,000 26 0 26 26 78 $6,029 $2,010
John Keesee $90,000 26 0 26 26 78 $7,751 $2,584
Total $919,903 $190,115
$50,000
$70,000
$90,000
EB/OHD Wrap
2.12
Student
Staff
Management
Labor Cost Table
Sub-System ARGOS Monolith Golay-3
mult Total Recurring mult Total Recurring mult Total Recurring
Passive Optics 1 $209,240 $36,990 0.3 $62,772 $11,096.88 1 $209,240 $36,990
Active Optics 1 $138,794 $25,948 0.3 $41,638 $7,784.38 1 $138,794 $25,948
ACS 1 $119,714 $27,560 1 $119,714 $27,560.00 1 $119,714 $27,560
Structures 1 $71,771 $14,354 0.6 $43,063 $8,612.50 1 $71,771 $14,354
PAS 1 $186,980 $37,608 1 $186,980 $37,607.92 1 $186,980 $37,608
SOC 1 $112,316 $24,689 1 $112,316 $24,689.17 1 $112,316 $24,689
Management 1 $81,090 $22,967 1 $81,090 $22,966.67 1 $81,090 $22,967
Total $919,903 $190,115 $647,572 $140,318 $919,903 $190,115
Sub-System Golay-6 Golay-9 Golay-12
mult Total Recurring mult Total Recurring mult Total Recurring
Passive Optics 1.5 $313,859 $55,484 2 $418,479 $73,979 2.5 $523,099 $92,474
Active Optics 2 $277,588 $51,896 3 $416,381 $77,844 4 $555,175 $103,792
ACS 1 $119,714 $27,560 1 $119,714 $27,560 1 $119,714 $27,560
Structures 2 $143,542 $28,708 3 $215,313 $43,063 4 $287,083 $57,417
PAS 1 $186,980 $37,608 1 $186,980 $37,608 1 $186,980 $37,608
SOC 1 $112,316 $24,689 1 $112,316 $24,689 1 $112,316 $24,689
Management 1 $81,090 $22,967 1 $81,090 $22,967 1 $81,090 $22,967
Total $1,235,088 $248,912 $1,550,272 $307,709 $1,865,456 $366,506
Golay System Costs
? Optimum Golay is D
eff
dependent
? Labor moves Golay
benefits to larger D
eff
? Golay’s sacrifice
Encircled Energy
EE=83.5% EE=26.4% EE=9.3% EE=3.6%
EE=2.2%