document.xls - CoverPage Last Updated: 27 Jan 2004 5:30pm 747-8 Main Deck Panel Assembly Upper Decking Method STAKEHOLDERS Name Organization Phone E-mail 1 Shawn Boike Vought Aircraft-ME 2 Mario Robinson Vought Aircraft-ME 3 Randy Johnson Vought Aircraft-ME-Lead 4 JC Eckert Vought Aircraft-ME MGR 5 James Parker Vought Aircraft-Purchasing 6 Larry Wardlow Vought Aircraft-IE 7 Neil Dixon Vought Aircraft-Planning MGR 8 Cory Alcantara Vought Aircraft-IR-HFE 9 Jeff Wasson ought Aircraft-Production Supr 10 Scott Torres Vought Aircraft-747-8 Mit. 11 Andy Rapp Vought Aircraft-T/D 12 Richard Earl Boeing Aircraft-Offsite Tooling Formal Trade Study 12-13 Jan 2009
Transcript
document.xls - CoverPage Last Updated: 27 Jan 2004 5:30pm
747-8 Main Deck Panel AssemblyUpper Decking Method
STAKEHOLDERSName Organization Phone E-mail
1 Shawn Boike Vought Aircraft-ME2 Mario Robinson Vought Aircraft-ME3 Randy Johnson Vought Aircraft-ME-Lead4 JC Eckert Vought Aircraft-ME MGR5 James Parker Vought Aircraft-Purchasing6 Larry Wardlow Vought Aircraft-IE7 Neil Dixon Vought Aircraft-Planning MGR8 Cory Alcantara Vought Aircraft-IR-HFE9 Jeff Wasson Vought Aircraft-Production Supr.
10 Scott Torres Vought Aircraft-747-8 Mit.11 Andy Rapp Vought Aircraft-T/D12 Richard Earl Boeing Aircraft-Offsite Tooling
Formal Trade Study
12-13 Jan 2009
document.xls - CoverPage Last Updated: 27 Jan 2004 5:30pm
document.xls - Background Last Updated: 27 Jan 2004 5:30pm
Author / Lead: Shawn Boike
Motivation for the Trade Study
Assumptions
q. Proposed platform system (electrical, hydraulic or pneumatic) shall have safety shut-offs. Backup.
Additional InformationDriving RequirementsSchedule Implementation for Production useDisrupt to Production User Friendliness Added Production Demand Timeliness to Install
The goal of this study is to evaluate the proposed technique and method for providing decking mainly in the new Aft section of the Main Deck Cargo Panel Assembly without standing on the skins. The results of this study will determine which propsal and technique to proceed with implementing for production. Award the Tool Order for the Portable Mechanical Equipment (PME) 146U0967-951 T/O#06204090 (Team Review)
a. Proposed platform system is to be capable & repeatable hold 1 worker with equipment (400lbs) every 32 inches in width without structural, part or tooling damage.b. All work is to be performed (on proposed deck-tooling) without incident to the 8FAJ146U0967-951 tooling and equipment within.c. All work is to be performed (on proposed deck-tooling) without damage to Aircraft Skin Panel Assembly. Maximum pressure for skin contact is less than 2lbs every 12 inches non accumulative (ref. < ½ of BAC5300).d. Motion controlled equipment must have safe auto shut-off & block-outs preventing human injury.e. In facility Crane height is 22 feet from the floor, the crane load limit is 4 tons.f. Height from the top of skin loaded into 8FAJ146U0967-951 tool is: 158 inches to the floor.g. Proposed platform system shall not impede production during skin load & unloading operations (exceed 158 inches from floor at North end of tool Aircraft UPR).h. The lowest skin edge is 62.38 from the floor.i. The length (X dir.) of the 146U0967-951 Panel Assembly is 25‘ (300 inches), w/Bump Strap is 33 1/3’.j. The width of the 146U0967-951 (Z dir.) Panel Assembly is 208.5 inches (17.38’).k. Proposed platform system shall not interfere or affect the working in, loading & unloading of the 8FAJ146U0967-951.l. Proposed platform system installation shall not disrupt production during normal production operation.m. Transitional into production shall be simplified and tasks check lists to be reviewed and approved at site prior to shipping and Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. facility implementation.n. Proposed platform system must be capable to be installed in sections capable to be transported with Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. 20-ton cranes or Hi lows.o. Proposed platform system shall not exceed existing facilities footprint (see Figure 5).p. All automated (electrical, hydraulic or pneumatic) shall have mechanical backup.
Top of Skin
158
112.25
62.5
153.9
LwrSkin
Deck
260"
Crane Clearance
>> NEXT >>
T ra d e S tu d y - G o a ls H ie ra rchy
C o s t S ch ed u le T e ch in ca l
R isk
T im in gin to P ro d .
T o o l R e v is ionIn te s ity
In teg rationB u rd en
F u ll P u rch . P rice O p era tio n &S u s ta in m e nt
S a vin gs
C o st
747-8M ain D eck Panel
U pr. D eckingO ption
747-8 Main Deck Panel Assembly
Slide 105/03/23
Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. PROPRIETARY
Proposal-Process Fab. (Option 2)
Slide 105/03/23
Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. PROPRIETARY
Proposal-Process Fab. (Option 2)
Slide 105/03/23
Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. PROPRIETARY
Proposal-Process Fab. (Option 2)
Slide 105/03/23
Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. PROPRIETARY
Review ROM Proposal-Handling Specialty (Option 1A)
Multi Unit – Concept (Boom)
Slide 1
05/03/23Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. PROPRIETARY
Review ROM Proposal-Handling Specialty (Option 1A)
Multi Unit – Concept (Boom)
Slide 105/03/23
Vought Aircraft Industries, Inc. PROPRIETARY
Proposal-Process Fab. (Option 2)
document.xls - Decision Criteria Last Updated: 9 Sept. 2005
List of Criteria (Initial) Basic Trade
Top Goal(s) Measure(s) Units
MD
CD
-Pan
el D
ecki
ng T
rade
COST
Full Purchase Price $$$ $150 $108 $108 $222.8K N/A
Additional InformationCost Definition:The metallic alloys in each basic chassis class (Titanium, Aluminum, Steel) will be defined for material and process cost estimates Raw Material Cost: Team will define projected raw material cost for candidate materials for the 2012 LRIP time frame Processing Cost: The processing costs will be a relative number for each of the three materials due to proprietary information of the parties involved. For Example: Let’s say it costs $1/lb to process Aluminum, Steel would cost $.35/ lb, and Titanium would cost $2/lb. This is how processing costs will be accounted for. What is important is the ratio between the numbers and not the actual number itselfRisk Definition:
Value
(Original) Custom Ladders
Opt-1Auto-Deckg
H.S.
Opt-2PME-Slidg
Process Fab (PF)
Opt-3Plank & Ladders AMRO
Opt-4Rolling Arch
CVI & PF
Schedule Risk – The risk and or uncertainty associated with availability of the candidate raw material in 2012 to meet production scheduleTechnical Risk – The risk and or uncertainty associated with the properties, performance, processing and application of candidate material
document.xls - Ref-Decision Criteria Last Updated: 27 Jan 2004 5:30pm
Decision Criteria
List of Criteria Measures Mandated by FCS MGV SEIWG In Support of Whole Systems Analysis.
Top Goal(s) Sub-Goal(s) Sub-Sub-Goal(s) Measure(s) Units Description / Definition Rationale for Selection
MG
V B
asic
Hul
l Met
allic
Mat
eria
l Tra
de
COST N/A N/A
O&S $k
Operational and sustainment costs measure the resources needed to maintain the material.
Production $
$
RISK N/A N/A
Cost Low (1)/Med (3)/High (5)
Cost risks of the material based on current projections.
Low (1)/Med (3)/High (5)
It is difficult to predict the material situation for the options in 2012
Technical Low (1)/Med (3)/High (5)
Qualitative determination of the technological risks associated with the material.
N/A N/A
kW
kW
The vehicle structure does not require active thermal heating/cooling, regardless of the material selected.
Volume
Internal volume effects the space available for other subsystems.
Weight kg
N/A N/A
The point design of the structure considers the "A + B" armor solution
This is taken into account in the point design of the structure
PERFORMANCE
RESPONSIVENESS
1st Response Measure
Lifecycle costs of the material for sustainment. Includes costs of repair due to corrosion, cracking, battle damage, insert repair/replacements, etc. Operation & Support (O&S) Costs includes all costs of operating, maintaining, and supporting a fielded system. Encompasses costs for personnel; consumable and repairable materials; organizational, intermediate and depot maintenance; facilities; and sustaining investment. O&S costs are incurred in preparation for and after a system's fielding and continue through the end of the system's useful life.
The production costs associated with the material. Production Costs consists of those costs incurred during the Production and Deployment phase. Production Costs encompasses costs associated with producing, procuring, and deploying the primary hardware and directly associated hardware and activities, such as system-specific support equipment, training, data, initial spares, and military construction.
Production cost measure the raw material and processing cost to manufacture the structure using the material options.
R&DNon Discriminating
The prototyping cost associated with developing the material for testing and qualification. Research & Development (R&D) Costs consists of costs incurred from program initiation at Concept Demonstration and Approval through the Engineering and Manufacturing Development phase. Includes costs of feasibility studies; modeling; trade-off analyses; engineering design; development, fabrication, assembly, and test of prototype hardware and software; system tests and evaluation; system- specific support equipment; and documentation.
Prototyping costs measure the resources needed to develop the material. The development cost is assumed to be comparable for all options.
An assessment of the cost risks associated with the use of the material. Cost risk that the FCS MGV Program Management and Business Management Teams will manage. See FCS MGV Risk Management Plan for definitions of likelihood definitions, which include the following categories: Component Integration, Design Maturity, Design, Integration, IPT Process, Management, Process, Program Specifications, Requirements, Safety, Software, Supportability, Technology, Test, and Total Ownership Costs. Specific consequence levels are as follows for COST:
CONSEQUENCE LEVEL1 - Negligible Minimal or No Impact2- Minor Team Budget Increase < 5%3 – Moderate Team Budget Increase > 5% or Other Teams Impacted4 – Significant Team Budget Increase > 10%5 – Catastrophic Team Budget Increase > 15%
ScheduleNon Discriminating
An assessment on the risks associated with the schedule impacts with the use of the material. Programmatic risk that may be encountered within the project schedule. Schedule risk will be managed by the FCS MGV Program Management and Business Management Teams. See FCS MGV Risk Management Plan for definitions of likelihood definitions, which include the following categories: Component Integration, Design Maturity, Design, Integration, IPT Process, Management, Process, Program Specifications, Requirements, Safety, Software, Supportability, Technology, Test, and Total Ownership Costs. Specific consequence levels are as follows for SCHEDULE:
CONSEQUENCE LEVEL 1 - Negligible Minimal or No Impact2- Minor Additional Activities Required. Able to Meet Need Dates3 – Moderate Key Team Milestone Slip <= 1 month4 – Significant Key Team Milestone Slip > 1 month or Program Critical Path Impacted5 – Catastrophic Can not Achieve Key Team or Major Program Milestone
Technology/Technical risks will be addressed through the application of the Systems Engineering process. Technical risks will be managed by the FCS MGV Systems Engineering Integration Working Group (SEIWG). See FCS MGV Risk Management Plan for definitions of likelihood definitions, which include the following categories: Component Integration, Design Maturity, Design, Integration, IPT Process, Management, Process, Program Specifications, Requirements, Safety, Software, Supportability, Technology, Test, and Total Ownership Costs. Specific consequence levels are as follows for TECHNICAL:
CONSEQUENCE LEVEL 1 - Negligible Minimal or No Impact2- Minor Moderate Reduction, Same Approach Retained3 – Moderate Moderate Reduction, But Workarounds Available4 – Significant Major Reduction, But Workarounds Available5 – Catastrophic Unacceptable, No Alternatives Exist
INTEGRATION BURDEN/ ALLOCATION
PowerNon Discriminating
Not ApplicableUnits: kilowatts (kW)ORD 2769 requires that all FCS Manned Systems must transition between on board power sources without any loss of functionality. (Threshold) How much power is required by the system/sub-system and associated components to operate without any loss of functionality?
The vehicle structure does not require electical power, regardless of the material selected. It cannot be used as a power return.
ThermalNon Discriminating
Not Applicable A quantitative specification for the energy-producing or energy-transferring capability of heating and cooling systems. For example, the heat output of computer equipment is often specified so that it can be considered when planning the size of climate control systems in an enclosed structure. Computer device heat output is expressed in BTUs per hour (3.7 BTUs per hour is equivalent to 1 watt of heat dissipation).
m3
The internal structural volume necessary to accommodate the structure sized for the material to meet automotive loads (this is ECC volume).Units: cubic meters (m3)Definition: Total "integrated" Volume of the system/sub-system and its associated components required for installation into the vehicle, which includes mounting hardware if required. For example, the Engine's total integrated volume includes the engine, generator, cooling system, air induction system, exhaust, thermal management system, water generation system, fuel system, and grilles. Integration favors the smallest engine and subsystem package that meets all performance requirements. Different engine configurations and/or design approaches may drive larger or smaller subsystems.
The weight necessary to accommodate the structure sized for the material to meet automotive loads at Essential Combat Configuration (ECC ~ transport).. Units: kilograms (kg)Definition: Total "integrated" weight of the system/sub-system and its associated components required for installation into the vehicle, which includes mounting hardware if required. Rationale: Weight is a key factor in meeting MGV C130 transportability requirements.
ECC weight is an important factor for transportability on a C-130. The platforms are severely constrained by weight.
DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVES
Growth Potential(Modularity)
Non Discriminating
The ability of the material to be used for further up-armoring of the platform, to accommodate armor maturity and/or objective threats.Example: Using ORD 2355, which is a Band 5 requirement, it states, "FCS Networked Battle Command system must have growth potential through an open system architecture that enables technology insertion. (Threshold)" Using this definition, the following levels are defined:
Unacceptable (1) - Complete Redesign Required, No HooksPoor (2) - Redesign Required, but Hooks in Place to AcceptAverage (3) - Can Leverage Some (<50%), But not All of the Existing Design, Hooks in Place to AcceptGood (4) - Can Leverage Some (>50%), But not All of the Existing Design, Hooks in Place to AcceptIdeal (5) - No Redesign, True Spiral Upgrade, All the Hooks in Place
CommonalityNon Discriminating
The ability of the material to be used for further up-armoring of the platform, to accommodate armor maturity and/or objective threats.Commonality has a Program Approved Technical Performance Measure (TPM) attached to it, and this TPM serves as the defintion for this measure. Current TPM is for 70% (90% Objective) commonality at the "LRU" level, which correlates to "installations" and will eventually be related to "Part Numbers". Examples can be found in ORD 3622, which is a Band 3 requirement, include: Engine, drive train, suspension and power generation, and platform LRUs must be interchangeable on all manned variants (Threshold); and LRUs for C4ISR/C2 must be common across ground system classes (MUM) within the FCS FoS (Threshold), and across all platforms (Objective).
>> NEXT >>
C17
FCS units must be capable of conducting distributed, simultaneous, multiple and continuous fully integrated CA full-spectrum operations, day and night, against any threat ina wide assortment of terrain and weather. The UA will operate globally, with minimum preparation time. It is imperative to project decisive power rapidly and precisely through multiple entry points and by multi-modal forms of lift to prevent the enemy from setting intoa postion to their advantage. The current sequential build of combat power where personnel and equipment move on different conveyances and then reassemble in staging base, while effective in the past, is constly in time. Combat formations should move as a single entiity with an essential combat load. Candidate measures can be drawn from following ORD Requirements: Employment over ranges of 750 km (Threshold) and 1000 km (Objective) Conduct distributed and continuous 24-hour operations, self-sustained, for a minimum of 3 days, without reliance on fixed ports and staging base(s). Capable of incorporating add-on armor protection packages, safely attached in 30 minutes (Threshold)/15 minutes (Objective).
E17
If you have any Responsiveness Measures, Please enter 1st Responsiveness measure here and subsequent ones below it.
document.xls - Ref-Decision Criteria Last Updated: 27 Jan 2004 5:30pm
MG
V B
asic
Hul
l Met
allic
Mat
eria
l Tra
de
PERFORMANCE
RESPONSIVENESS
DEPLOYABILITY
The ability to meet contractual requirement on C-130 transportability
The ability to meet FCC weight allocation
The ability to meet contractual requirement on Installation Time (to FCC) A common point design is used for all options
The ability to meet contractual requirement on Removal Time (to ECC) A common point design is used for all options
AGILITY & VERSATILITY
C4 & Leadership 1st Agil&Vers Measure
ISR/TA
Maneuverability
Mobility
LETHALITY
1st Lethal Measure
SURVIVABILITY
Addressed as integration burden
Addressed as integration burden
The ability of the material to survive mine blast without TBD level of degradation… All options are designed to meet required mine protection requirements
The ease of material to accommodate EMI shielding for the vehicle.
The ability of the structure, given the material, to resist corrosion and accommodate corrosion management. All material options will require comparable levels of corrosion protection
The ability of the material to handle CBRN environments experienced in the theater. All material options will require comparable levels of CBRN resistant coating
Hit Avoidance
Signature Mgmt The signature management issues associated with the material. Signature management will be addressed at the vehicle system level
SUSTAINABILITY
Rel & Maint Reliability of the material. All material options, in its application, will be designed to meet R & M goals
Logistics Burden
INTEROPERABILITY
1st Interop Measure
Training 1st SSI Measure
HFE
Manpower/PersHealth Hazards
System Safety No safety concerns identified with any of the candidate material
Additional InformationCost Definition:The metallic alloys in each basic chassis class (Titanium, Aluminum, Steel) will be defined for material and process cost estimates Raw Material Cost: Team will define projected raw material cost for candidate materials for the 2012 LRIP time frame Processing Cost:
C-130 Transport Non Discriminating
All the candidate material, when used in the point design structure, will meet C-130 transporatbility
FCC WeightNon Discriminating
All the candidate material, when used in the point design structure, will meet FCC weight allocation
Installation Time (to FCC)Non Discriminating
Removal Time (to ECC)Non Discriminating
Soldier & Equipment Survivability
Additional Ballistic Weight
The additional weight of the material to meet ballistic requirements (the structure is first sized to meet automotive loads). (ECC ~ transport).
Soldier & Equipment Survivability
Additional Ballistic Volume
The additional internal structural volume of the material to meet ballistic requirements (the structure is first sized to meet automotive loads). (this is ECC volume).
Soldier & Equipment Survivability
Mine Blast ResistanceNon Discriminating
Soldier & Equipment Survivability
EMI ShieldingNon Discriminating
EMI shielding is a vehicle level requirement. Electrical conductivity must be maintained on the surface area of the vehicle to accommodate EMI shielding.
Soldier & Equipment Survivability
Material CorrosionNon Discriminating
Soldier & Equipment Survivability
CBRNNon Discriminating
SignatureNon Discriminating
Reliability & Maintainability
Non Discriminating
Logistics BurdenNon Discriminating
The maintainability/supportability concerns with the material. The burdens imposed by repair/replacement or support in the field.
Based on the 2-tier maintenance concept on FCS, structural repairs will be conducted at depot level. Depots will be facilitized to conduct repairs of selected material
SOLDIER SYSTEM INTEGRATION
SafetyNon Discriminating
Safety concerns associated with the use of the material.
C25
The FCS-equipped UA must be immediately capable of conducting distributed and continuous combined arms full-spectrum operations, day and night, in open, close, and complex terrain, throughout the battlespace, and without underoing reception and staging. The UA must be transportable by multi-modal means, capable of rapid inter- and intra-theater deployment with near-real time, in-transit visibility, and be able to continue planning, training, and rehearsing en-route. The following deployability parameters are already in the trade space - Weight and Volume. Candidate measures include: ECC Weight FCC Weight Ready to Fight Prep Time - transition from transport configuration to ready to fight. Reconfigure Time to FCC (transition to full combat configuration. The FCS FoS must be transportable by air, sea, hightway, and rail modes. Measures may want to consider how system/subsystems will respond/be affected by various transportation modes.
C33
Battle Command is the art and science of applying leadership and decision making to achieve mission success. Distributed operations and high tempo maneuver will demand rapid synchronization, swift adaptation of plans and control measures and direct exchanges across vertical and horizontal echelons to integrate Joint ISR, fires and maneuver to achieve effects. The network must be dependable and capable of functioning degraded, [greater than 80% (Threshold) and 98% (objective) static, and greater than 75% (Threshold) and 90% (Objective) mobile
E33
If you have any Agility & Versatility Measures, Please enter 1st A&V measure here and subsequent ones below it.
C41
Assumption: All caliber decisions made prior to Whole System or Subsystem Trade. Candidates for measures include: Ammunition Load - Number of rounds on board. Metric should consider average daily use and sufficient storage/access for mission specific rounds/charges. Any storage above daily use and load plan should be considered under supportability measure not lethality measure. ROF (Rate of Fire) - Rate of Fire metric should only be applied to quantity of rounds to complete one fire mission unless the period to reconfigure the ammunition load exceeds the period between fire missions. The time line should account for access to desired round type but a logical load plan of the ammunition can be assumed if a ready/semi ready AHS system is being considered. Time to load/fire one of any type of round should be considered. Sight / Sensor / Stiffness / Stabilization / Inhibits - The lethality contributions of the system/component being considered as it relates to the probability of detecting or hitting the target and/or Field of View or Field of Regard preventing same and/or any inhibits that prevent firing at the target.
E41
If you have any Lethality Measures, Please enter 1st Lethality measure here and subsequent ones below it.
C49
To ensure survival, the FCS must be protected against the full range of threat weapon systems that may produce significant platform damage or destruction. The suite of survivability technologies and techniques must be optimized to ensure protection against all effects with maximum effectiveness. Each FCS Manned System must provide the best combination of detection avoidance (e.g. signature management and obscurants), target acquisition avoidance, hit avoidance (e.g. active protection and jamming), ballistic protection, and kill avoidance (e.g. separation of ammunition from the crew, and fire suppression). (Threshold)
C57
The sustainability is an ability to maintain the necessary level and duration of operational activity to achieve military objectives. It is a function of providing for and maintaining those levels of ready forces, materiel, and consumables necessary to support military effort. For the FCS FoS, the goal is to maximize available combat power while achieving significant logistics footprint reductions and personnel efficiencies in the area of operations through reduced demand for maintenance and supply. Cornerstone enabling capabilities include increased operational availability [measured by mission defined critical systems, greater than 85% (Threshold) and 99% (Objective) (Ao)], reduced maintenance ratios [less than 0.10 (Threshold) and 0.025 (Objective)] maintenance manhours to operating hours (MMH/OH)], reduction in fuel consumption, and onboard water generation (Objective). Supporting enablers include component commonality, reliable embedded diagnostic and prognostic capabilities, and rapid component replacement capabilities. Potential measures for sustainability: Mean Time Between Failure (MTBF) Mean Time To Repair (MTTR) Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM) Mean Maintenance Time Maintenance Ratio Preventive Maintenance Time (i.e. Servicing & Inspection Time) Fuel efficiency # Of parts Embedded diagnostics & prognostics capabilities
C65
The Maneuver Unit of Action (MUoA) requires information to build and sustain combat power. The availability of accurate information prior to deployment sets the conditions for successful operations. The available information is merged to form an understanding of the battlespace and the threats within that space. Measure candidates include: Army Interoperability - UA Command and Control must be interoperable with all current and future Army C4ISR systems. Joint Interoperability - UA will always operate in a Joint environment; KPP #1 specifies the FCS FoS must be Joint Interoperable. Interagency Interoperability - There are over a 100 US Government Agencies with specializations ranging from intelligence to agriculture. Multi-national Interoperability - The UA is optimized for major combat operations, but operates across the full spectrum of operations, which will most likely take place in a foreign country. Information Exchange Requiremetns - The FCS equipped UA will operate as part of a Join Team, and supports top-level Information Exchange Requirements detailed in Annex J of the FCS ORD.
E65
If you have any Interoperability Measures (i.e., Standardization with Allies), Please enter 1st SSI measure here and subsequent ones below it.
C73
Soldier System Integration includes the following Sub-Goals: Training, Human Factors Engineering (HFE), Manpower/Personnel, Health Hazards, and System Safety. Candidate measures can include: Hazardous materials used (Yes/No) Interactive Electronic Training NBC protection (crew) EMP protection (equipment)
E73
If you have any SSI Measures, Please enter 1st SSI measure here and subsequent ones below it.
document.xls - Ref-Decision Criteria Last Updated: 27 Jan 2004 5:30pm
The processing costs will be a relative number for each of the three materials due to proprietary information of the parties involved. For Example: Let’s say it costs $1/lb to process Aluminum, Steel would cost $.35/ lb, and Titanium would cost $2/lb. This is how processing costs will be accounted for. What is important is the ratio between the numbers and not the actual number itself. Risk Definition:Cost Risk – The risk and or uncertainty associated with the projected 2012 cost of raw material and processing cost assigned to each candidate materialSchedule Risk – The risk and or uncertainty associated with availability of the candidate raw material in 2012 to meet production scheduleTechnical Risk – The risk and or uncertainty associated with the properties, performance, processing and application of candidate material
document.xls - Goals Hierarchy Last Updated: 27 Jan 2004 5:30pm
Goals HierarchySHORT TITLE
OBJECTIVECOST
GOAL
-ILITY
SUB-GOAL
O&S CostMeasure
Production CostMeasure
R&D CostMeasure
Measure_NameMeasure
Measure_NameMeasure
Measure_NameMeasure
Measure_NameMeasure
RISK
GOAL
COST RiskMeasure
SCHEDULE RiskMeasure
TECHNICAL RiskMeasure
BURDENS &ALLOCATIONS
GOAL
PowerMeasure
ThermalMeasure
VolumeMeasure
VolumeMeasure
DEVELOPMENTOBJECTIVES
GOAL
CommonalityMeasure
Growth PotentialMeasure
PERFORMANCE
GOAL
-ILITY
SUB-GOAL
Measure_NameMeasure
Measure_NameMeasure
-ILITY
SUB-GOAL
Measure_NameMeasure
Measure_NameMeasure
Measure_NameMeasure
document.xls - Data Set Last Updated: 27 Jan 2004 5:30pm
Rationale:1 Type rationale here Required2 Type rationale here Required3 Type rationale here Required4 Type rationale here Required5 Type rationale here Required67
Type rationale hereType rationale hereType rationale hereType rationale hereType rationale here
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ8687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168
Short Title 7Short Title 8Short Title 9Short Title 4Short Title 5Short Title 6Short Title 1Short Title 2Short Title 3
Short Title 3Short Title 2Short Title 1Short Title 6Short Title 5Short Title 4Short Title 9Short Title 8Short Title 7
Short Title 3Short Title 2Short Title 1Short Title 6Short Title 5Short Title 4
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ169170171172173
174
175176177178179180181182183
184
185
186
187188189190191192193194195196197198199
200
201202203204205206
Short Title 9Short Title 8Short Title 7
Short Title 3Short Title 2Short Title 1Short Title 6Short Title 5Short Title 4Short Title 9Short Title 8Short Title 7
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ207208
209210211212213214
215
216217218219220221222223224225226227
12345678
AK AL AM AN AO AP AQ AR AS AT AU AV AW AX AY AZ BA BB BC BD BE BF BG BH BI BJ BK BL BM BN BO BP BQ BR BS BT BU BV BW
