Technical Memorandum - NASA · ~ communications , and guidance and control) ; and six support...

3 8 4 Q

ASTRO SCIENCES CENTER

Technical Memorandum No. C - 1 0

COST ESTIMATION FOR UNMANNED LUNAR AND PLANETARY PROGRAMS

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19730015113 2020-05-23T14:47:45+00:00Z

Technical Memorandum No, C-10

COST ESTIMATION FOR UTYJ%INNED LUNAR AND PLANETARY PROGRAMS

by

J. H, Dunkin P, P. Pekar D. J. Spadoni C. A . Stone

As t ro Sciences IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Chicago, I l l i n o i s

f o r

Planetary Programs Office o f Space Science

NASA Headquarters Washington, D. C.

C. A. Stone, Director Physics Research Division

I I T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

January 1973


ii

A basic model is presented f o r es t imat ing the c o s t of unmanned lunar and planetary programs. required by the model and i t s accuracy i n predic t ing c o s t a r e cons i s t en t wi th pre-Phase A type mission a n a l y s i s ,

The level of input parameters

Cost data was co l lec ted and analyzed f o r e i g h t lunar and planetary programs components: l abor overhead, materials, and technica l support . This study determined, wi th surpr i s ing consis tency, that d i r e c t labor c o s t of unmanned lunar and planetary programs comprises 30 percent of the t o t a l program c o s t

Total cost was separated i n t o the following

Twelve program categories w e r e defined f o r modeling: s i x spacecraf t subsystem categories (science, s t r u c t u r e propulsion, e l e c t r i c a l power ~ communications , and guidance and control) ; and s i x support funct ion categories (assembly and in t eg ra t ion , t es t and q u a l i t y assurance, launch and f l i g h t operat ions, ground equipment, s y s t e m s ana lys i s and engineer ing> and program management). An a n a l y s i s - by category, showed t h a t on a percentage basis, d i r e c t labor c o s t and d i r e c t labor manhours compare on a one-to-one r a t i o . Therefore, d i r e c t labor hours i s used a s the parameter f o r pred ic t ing cos t This has the advantage of e l iminat ing the e f f e c t of i n f l a t i o n on the ana lys i s .

Figure S-1 i s a flow diagram of the use of the c o s t model i n forecas t ing dependent information Scaling laws , physical and mathematical r e l a t ionsh ips , and synthesis guidel ines , provide the bas ic es t imate of manhours The remainder of the model deals wi th converting the basic cos t element, d i r e c t labor hours, i n t o cos t .

The boxes i n the upper l e f t involve the mission


iii

This r equ i r e s two a d d i t i o n a l s t e p s , F i r s t , the average pay scale ($ /hr ) must be determined for the per iod of t he program. s i r e d , the s e l e c t e d pay scale could include i n f l a t i o n between the t i m e of the es t imate and program execution. involves converting d i r e c t labor c o s t i n t o t o t a l program c o s t , Tota l program c o s t can be determined by d iv id ing d i r e c t l abor c o s t by i t s f r a c t i o n of t o t a l cos t , t h i s study i s :

I f de-

The f i n a l s t e p

The r e l a t i o n s h i p used throughout

.3

Figure S-2 presents cos t estimates and e r r o r s f o r the programs used i n developing the c o s t model, The Surveyor program d i d n o t follow c l e a r l y es tab l i shed t rends of the o the r seven programs, and was subsequently n o t used i n the development of the model, c o s t of the Mariner VenuslMercury 1973 program, d i c t e d a program c o s t of $120 Mil l ion , which i s approximately 20 percent higher than current estimates e

As an example, the model w a s used t o p r e d i c t the The model pre-

Recommendations f o r fu r the r e f f o r t include: update the c u r r e n t data base by obtaining the l a t e s t Mariner 1971, Viking Orb i t e r and Viking Lander cost da ta ; expand the data base by obta in ing c o s t data f o r such programs a s Mariner Venus 1967, Mariner Venus/Mercury 1973, and i n t e r p l a n e t a r y and cis-lunar Pioneer and Explorer programs; and develop c o s t models f o r p lane tary atmospheric e n t r y probes,


iV

= - - I s z

V

VJ *I4 m d

4 k 0 k k W c 0 -4 u .u -4 a Q) k PI d Q) a

z

8 U m 0 u

.. N I cn Q) k 3 *rl Fr

N d 03 N m hl 0 b d N N

I4 N 0 b N rl I I

. . I I

3

\o N M N M 4 hl cn a b 4 m m m

a0 u) 03 cn 0 rl

k hi

n U *I4

k 0 k

3 Gl 2

Vi

COST ESTIMATION FOR UJWMI"ND LUNAR AND PLANETARY PROGRAMS

"-Eus=

Summary. ~ ,, a e iii

Glossary of Symbols X

1, Study Objective and Plan e ., e k

2 , Program Cost Data . . I) L. ' a

3 . Spacecraf t Subsystem and Support Category Modelingo 43

4 , S m r y R e s u l t s . ,, .s - I .% ~ 89

5, Recommendations + ,, ri 87

Appendix: Cost Model Example and Work Sheets 98


V i i

L i s t of Figures

Figure No. Page

s-1 Cost Model Schematic . . . . . . . . v s-2

1. 2. 3. 4 . 5. 6.

7.

8 a

9 a 10 a

11.

1 2 I

13 4

14.

15.

16 .

17 .

18.

19. 20 (I

Cost Model Predict ion Error Analysis e . . . v i Cost Study Plan . , . . . a . . . . . . . 5 Tota l Program Costs . . . . . . . a . . a 9 P ro jec t Budget Performance Report . . . . . 11 Components of Program Costs a . . . a . . . 13 Cost Category Defini t ions . . . . . . . . 15 Category Labor C o s t as a Percent of Category Total C o s t . a . . . . . . . . . 1 9 Comparison of Labor Cost and Labor Hours f o r Mariner 1969 . . . a . * . . . a . 21 Program Dates for Non-Recurring and Recurring Determination a . a . . a . , . . . 23 Contractor/Subcontractor Labor Ana lys i s . a a 25 Recurrin DLH Fractions per Fl ight

Coet and Labor Hour Allocations for Mariner64 0 a a a a a . a a a 29 Coet and Labor Hour Allocations for Mariner69 a . . . . . . a a . . . . a . . 30 Coot and Labor Hour Allocations for Mariner 7 1 . (I a a . . . a 0 . 0 0 31 Coot and Labor Hour Allocations for P ione r rF6cG . a . a . I . a . e e a . 32 Coot and Labor Hour Allocations for Viking Orbiter . . . . . . (. . . . . . . . . . 33 Coat and Labor Hour Allocations for Viking Lander . (I a a 0 a a 34 Coat and Labor Hour Allocation8 for Lunar Orbiter . (I (I . . . . . . I . 35 Coa t and Labor Hour Allocation8 for SurvayorI m e e e e . . e 8 . 36 AEC Coats for RTG'a . (I e . e a 39 Cornpariron of Avrragr Direct Labor Rater OfPrograma . . . I e (I . . . . e . . . 41

Spacecra i t for Subsystem Categories a a 27

l l T A l l K A R C H I N S T I T U T I

v i i i

L i s t o f Figures (continued)

Figure No. Page

21. Cost Model Schematic . . I . . , . e 45 2 2 , Parameters Considered f o r Modeling e , I) 47 23 Spacecraft Subsystem Weights . e I) 49 24. Program and Mission Parameters , . e e ., 51 25. Example Select ion of Communications LER ., 53 26 Science Category Predic t ion and Er ro r , e , e 55 27 I St ruc tu re Category Predic t ion and Error . . 57 28 Liquid Propulsion Category P red ic t ion

and Er ro r * , e . e . e e a . e 59 29. E l e c t r i c a l Power Category P red ic t ion

and Er ro r . ., . e e . . e . . . . 6 1 30 RTG Cost Predic t ion and Error . e e 63 31, Communications Category Predic t ion

and Error . . e e . . . e e . 65 32 a Guidance and Control Category P red ic t ion

and Er ro r . . . . . . e e 67 33 0 Assembly and In t eg ra t ion Category

Predic t ion and Error e e . * a I I , e *I 69 34 II T e s t and Q u a l i t y Assurance Category

P red ic t ion and Error . . e . E . , . * 7 1 35, Launch and F l igh t Operations Category

P red ic t ion and Error . . a . . e ., . e 73 36 Ground Equipment Category Predic t ion

and Error ., . . . e . . . . . . .I a 75 37 0 Systems Analysis and Engineering Category

Predic t ion and Error . . . . . . . . 77 38 Program Management Category P red ic t ion

and Er ro r . . e . e . ., e e ' e e 79 39. Direct Labor Hours Error Analysis e , ., 83 40 Cost Model Predic t ion Error Analysis . e I 85


i x

GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS

Symbol

CT

DLH

EPT

ISP

I T LD1

LER

LO

MT

M64

M69

M71

NL

NR

NS

NU PI0

PPL

PTM

pT

pU

R

Definition

Mission cruise time (CT - MT - LDl), i n days

Direct labor hours, in thousands of hours

Sc ien t i f ic experiment and data playback t i m e , i n days

Specific impulse, i n lbf-sec/lbm

Total impulse, i n l b p e c

Launch date of f i rs t f l i g h t in mission

Labor-hour e s t ima t ing re la t ionship

Lunar O r b i t e r

Date of mission termination ( f ina l spacecraft shutdown)

Mariner Mars 1964

Mariner Mars 1969

Mariner Mars 1971

Number of launches i n t o t a l program

Non-recurring d i rec t labor hours, i n thousands of hours

Number of f l i g h t spacecraft

Number of RTG uni t s purchased from A,E.C,

Pioneer F & G

Resolution of imaging instrument, i n pixels per l i n e

Proof test model

Transmitter peak RF output power, i n watts

Unit RTG power a t BOL, in watts

Total conditioned power i n watts; a t 1 A,U, for solar power; a t beginning of l i f e for R E power

Recurring direct labor hours, i n thousands o f hours


X

GLOSSARY OF SYMBOLS (continued)

S bo1 Def in i t ion J?L- ------- r Correlat ion coe f f i c i en t of regression ana lys i s

RMS

S/C Spacecraf t

su Surveyor

T

VL Viking Lander

Root-mean-square error of regression ana lys i s

T ime from August 1960 t o f i r s t launch date, i n years

vo Viking Orbi te r

WAGE Hourly wage r a t e , i n d o l l a r s p e r hour

WT Weight, i n pounds

SUBSCRIPTS

Symbol

A I C DRY EP EPR EPS GC eE LF P PM PR S SE ST TOT TQ

Defini t ion

Assembly and In tegra t ion Communications Dry Weight E l e c t r i c a l Power Electrical Power from RTG's Electr ical Power from S o l a r Cells Guidance and Control Ground Equipment Launch and F l igh t Operations Propulsion Program Management Propel lan t Science Sys t e m s Analysis and Engineering S t ruc ture Ind ica t e s Total T e s t and Qual i ty Assurance

----._--


xi

(page l e f t blank for cont inui ty)

117 R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

xii

1. STUDY OBJECTIVE AND PLAN


1

STUDY OBJECTIVE

The primary objec t ive of th i s study i s t o provide the Plane tary Programs Office (SL) of NASA Headquarters w i t h a c a p a b i l i t y f o r es t imat ing the c o s t of f u t u r e missions. This c a p a b i l i t y i s . intended f o r use i n generating i n i t i a l c o s t estimates of p lane tary missions f o r which pre-Phase A in for - mation i s ava i l ab le , The procedure must be easy t o use and s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e t o accomodate changing mission def in i - t i o n s (flyby, o r b i t e r s , landers, etc,) and v a r i e d levels of a v a i l a b l e m i s s i o n i n f orma t ion e

Previous spacec ra f t cos t modeling by IITRI w a s developed from the cos t s of Ranger, IMP, Mariner, OGO, Relay, Syncom, and Surveyor programs, Program records f o r a number of small, h ighly instrumented spacecraf t were used i n the formulation of the model. The spacec ra f t program c o s t w e r e shown t o be a funct ion of: number of f l i g h t spacecraf t ; t o t a l weight of the spacecraf t p lus experiments; weight of the spacec ra f t less experiments ; s t r u c t u r e weight; telemetry weight; and weight of the propulsion subsystem,

The Planning Research Corporation c o s t p red ic t ive model w a s developed f o r JPL using Mariner 64, 67, 69, and Lunar Orbiter c o s t data. The model relates u n i t and development c o s t t o subsystem weights, bu t i t i s pr imar i ly a Phase B model which requ i r e s more d e t a i l e d input information than i s usua l ly avail- a b l e from a pre-Phase A study.

Another unmanned spacecraf t model w a s developed by the A i r Force Space and Missles Systems Organization (SAMSO) f o r p red ic t ing t o t a l program cos t through the use of c o s t es t imat ing r e l a t i o n s h i p s (CER) The C E R ' s were developed from pr imar i ly earth o r b i t i n g spacecraf t programs, w e r e analyzed t o formulate CEROS f o r subsystems and opera t iona l

A t o t a l of fourteen programs


2

recur r ing and non-recurring cos t . a per iod of s eve ra l years and i s s t i l l being modified.

The model was developed over

A bas i c premise of t h e ana lys i s presented here i s that c o s t forecas t ing can be improved by s e l e c t i n g manhours as the basic c o s t u n i t . Manhours have severa l advantages over fore- ca s t ing t o t a l program do l l a r s ; separat ion of i n f l a t i o n a r y f a c t o r s from estimates and improved cost ing of low volume production. c o s t bas i s only i f some in f l a t iona ry f a c t o r i s appl ied t o the o lder program, formulate f o r t o t a l program c o s t s and of ten f a i l t o accura te ly represent the a c t u a l f i n a n c i a l condi t ions wi th in the industry. The space program has not yet been ab le t o use mass production techniques and thus the t o t a l cos t of each completed i t e m i s no t subs t a n t i a l l y decreased through add i t iona l production, Hence, the c o s t of a program's hardware i s d i r e c t l y connected t o the manhours involved i n development, f ab r i ca t ion , and t e s t i n g

Two programs separated i n t i m e a r e comparable on a

Such i n f l a t i o n a r y f ac to r s a r e d i f f i c u l t t o


3

f=o .rl U 0 al rl rl 0 0

c 0 k (d al m 2

k" 2 c

h rl U

? w al m

E U

E $ E: E

a *rl E

al f! I

*rl c =rl w 4

8 rl al a

0 U

a 0 0 rl

24 0

U 0 al k *rl a

CI 0

M

al .

v

3 0

U

k k E 2 E a

a k 0 P

w 0 m u E E al rl al

a, a rl B I m *rl

f! w 0 u

k 0 P (d rl

d w (d 0

rl 0 0

a d 5

-4 3 *rl a

A (d

U

U aJ 0 2

4

0

k al a k 0 rl (d -rl U

? v al m

(d

c *rl

m a al al 0 0 k a a

E

2

E &

rl

*rl Fr c *rl

B 0 3

(d U (d n

P 3 m

a U (d a a

0 al k 8

a, n

w 0

h U

al U

*rl 0 m

A

h P a *rl rl u 3 0 m 4

2

m U 0 (d k u

0 g

a al

0

w rl al m U *rl

m

k" al U

m al .rl k 0 M al U (d 0

al v1 al 5

al a 8

*rl a a 2

A

rl (d -rl k al U

rl ? cn

a m U m 0 0

k m rl rl 0 a m a rl I4

U

E

2 8

E al M

m

*rl

F 4 k

h

$ *rl 0 a

2 ~- al k w

0

al 0 k

*rl U r l c a 0 a 0 m *rl

al k

v m a al u U

A

3

a0

h al 24 4

i a m m Q : E

(d

kl B a

*rl 0 al a

m (d 3 U H

0 2 m c 3

g al m a P (d z

2 (6 P

1 a al al w

3 2

(d U (d a al

h a 3 U

E (d

a io - m al 5

a al a

0 w 5

A a (d

2 al

CI

m

rl rl

km

w 0

rl a *rl

rl rl (0

a E F

*rl m m *rl

5

m *rl rl P

0

m 4 m h rl

a g *rl U 0 al rl

bD c u m

4 al E

(d

5 0 U

al 3

*?I U 0

n

0 U al

a

A

(d U

M c *rl al P

E (d

al

a 2 F *rl U m al U

0 al a m

a

m *rl

rl

w

0 co h

rl U 0

m (d

rw 0 m *rl m h rl

m al al k al 3 m *rl m h rl

3 k 0 w a

k al m a

4 2 g u

a, 5 w

0

24 k 0 3 al e 2 w

(d U

3 m al U E 3 s

U m

m

2 m rl m h rl (d

2 w 0

al E

al 5

a c (d

h .n a

m *rl d

2

*rl a a U

a, E 4 k PI

a0 m h m P 3 m U w crl

al 0 2

m E k"

(d rl rl

m s u

al E a al M

0 U

h P

k al 0

k ? a a

2 m

8 k w

0 u c 4

c 4

m (d

al P

rl 5 2 m

a, 0 k

0 w a 5

(d

2 id %

a 0

0 a al a 8 ko w w

al

0 k a a

0 0 (d

0 U U a

E 0

n U k 0 a a 2

al 0 0 E E w

0 m a al U m

m E (d k M 0 k a

a

k" G a, U

u

m 0 0 s

k M

0 U B

w

rl rl 0 k

A

E Y 0 k P

al 0 k

rl a

B U

*rl w k" k"

2 c 0 U c 4

rl rl *rl s

m (d 3

(d 4 a 2 m

e (d rl

4

r---- 1

I

L-T - -

L

t LL 0 t n m

5

(page l e f t blank for continuity) I I T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

6

2. PROGRAM COST DATA


7

m *I4 m (d P al

5 m a

u

*rl al

6 a c a

al

5 E a

rd. .U (d a

A

v) v)

M

a v)

ko

s k bo 0 k a

m U

m U rn 0 0 rl (d U 0 U

5 d al

m al 0

k al w w *rl a al

n

E

5 m al u

m 0 0 al

5 ko U

E (d

0 k a

kl m E s bD 0 k

m m U k

0 w m 0 0

a al

3 m u a E

!3

4 pc 9

k w a

h k (d u

k al u

b; m 0 0

0 P 3 m

a E ill

E d a

al

5 0 bD I co

Q)

5 m

2 k M 0 k a

. rl

m

lc m

al a 8

v) Q U

k k E 5

al k (d

al M

5 u al

5 2 *rl m U P 0

U hl k al u 5 ko w *rl

k 0 n al a

3 rl

a E m

(d k 0 w a

al

3 m al u 2

9 r l

m al 0 k 70 % m

3 m 0 U

m

al

rl rl al

70 5

a

*rl m U

8 a *rl u

. m rl 0

U rl al a 8

a a 8

(d c) *rl a c 9 r l

VJ al

al k m

a al

3 Q) k al 3

a E P

0 m m 3 (d

3 U

al

5 0 m bD c

*rl a 0 d al

a E

k ' al a

d E

2 3

*rl

m (d

a al rl al P cd rl

E a 5 rn

U h

B m E 8 a

al k al 3

m 0 0

m m U

id

0 k a

kl k 0 w

al

5 U 3 n

m 0 u

v1 0 0

k al a

8

a 0 * w > 3 a

,m, 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

ln e M (u

v, I- m 0 V

-I

I- O I-

a

N

S t l W l l O O A0 S N O I l l I W ‘IS03 WWUSOtld

9

COST COMPONENTS

Detailed c o s t data w e r e obtained f o r e i g h t programs but i n the cases of Mariner 64 and Viking O r b i t e r the format of the c o s t information was no t adequate f o r a l l types of ana lys i s . I n general , the c o s t p r in tou t s included information on d o l l a r s and manhours f o r l i n e items as well as summaries indica t ing the d iv i s ion of costs by d i r e c t labor , overhead, materials and technical support . gram year o r month enabl ing some s tud ie s of t i m e l i n e behavior, Figure 3 i s a typ ica l data sheet from Mariner 69. ment of c o s t components is shown i n the f igure .

These data were usua l ly ava i l ab le by pro-

The assign-


I

PROJECT BUDGET PERFORMANCE REPORT

+ A 2 XA,:T; t> PRL?I-'L.SI??, SUI' S Y S l E ? !. .'. u BUDGET YEAR 150'9 MONTH OF Ji,'\

PLAN AVERAGE. FY TO DATE CURRENT MONTH EQUIVALENT MAN YEARS T O T A L

'IT I S / T 6 O/T CLASSIFICATION O/T TOTAL S/T O/T TOTAL I

I

THIS MONTH

z !A%:

F / Y TO DATE

I LABOR

TECHNICAL SUPPORT

MATERIALS 1 OVERHEAD 1 "

FIGURE 3.

% USED

IN PROC

REQS. - :OST INCURREC

I F Y TO DATE) (IN D O L L A R S )

E C C 1 3

1 2 '3 l t

7 1 5 1

1355 1 1 9

L 7 2 1

7211 5 3 2 5 d 3 5 9 4 2135 32'34

1 2 0 11 1.3

2 7 : c I

5 t 555 4 3 1 4

tCS79

12344 k 2 524

: d ' , C 4 1 c 573

29 5 3 2

7 7 5 6 8

5 4 1

a m rl (d *rl k al U

al M m k al 3 (d

m U VJ al

5 a 2

3 2 m

m 0 0 a

m u v) *rl

m E cp k M

a ko

k 0

4.1

a U

a rl a

2 k 0 a

m E?

al LI al

?d

k al a rl

(d 0 *rl

8 al U

a m k al

*rl M 2 2 k 0

4.1

al

5 a k al

5 a

0

M c *rl al

5 k 4.1

w 0

5 m al

0 U

h rl U

*rl rl m h rl

til

g VJ al *rl k

al a cn w cn 0 u ko

4.1 m U m 0 0

m *rl m m a

al k

3 2

a z B m 0 &I

ko Fr

al

5 .

0 P (d

a rl

2 al

5 m (d

m U

rl

U 0

*rl ala M (da

E

" 2 a

E: 0 U

rl cp 0 *rl

m 3 4 . n u

0 rl

b cn rl m h rl U 0 al k *rl a

m 0 0 w

0 bl 0

rl 0 8 a m

rl

m *rl m h l-l

a 5 a-

U

0 k al PI

$ a al M

2 0 rl

0 U 0 al k *rl a

al c)

a 2 0 m

'0 E: 4

1CI 0

al U

12

a a W a b z m =)a -10

I I I I I

I I I I I a f- a

W

e b 5

I i I I I a W z - a a 0 2 a

m I- m 0 V

z Q a

LL 0

m I- Z w Z 0 a r 5:

IS03 WWU30Ud 1WlOl A0 IN33U3d

13

SUBSYSTEM AND PROGRAM CATEGORIES FOR COST MODELING ---- Twelve ca tegor ies of program c o s t were es tab l i shed; s i x sub= system categories: power, communications, and guidance and cont ro l ; and s i x support funct ion categories: assembly and in t eg ra t ion , t e s t and q u a l i t y assurance, launch and f l i g h t operat ions, ground equipment, systems ana lys i s and engineering, and program management.

science, s t r u c t u r e , propulsion, e lectr ical

A series of de f in i t i ons were evolved t o ass is t i n the assign- ment of l i n e i t e m s t o each of twelve ca tegor ies , l i s t s the d e f i n i t i o n s t h a t were employed, More e labora te and d e t a i l e d d e f i n i t i o n s were considered but found t o provide no advantages, Each program and cont rac tor used somewhat d i f f e r e n t terminaology, N o de f in i t i on , however de ta i led , i s able t o unambiguously c l a s s i f y a l l l i n e i t e m s ,

Figure 5

It w a s necessary i n a number of cases t o submit quest ionable l i n e i t e m s t o a panel of I I T R I / A S s t a f f f o r review and decis ion, I f a clear consensus w a s no t obtainable from the panel, a t t empt s were made t o obta in c l a r i f i c a t i o n from the center o r cont rac tor involved, terms of subsystem and funct ional de f in i t i ons remains one of the more d i f f i c u l t problems of c o s t ana lys i s . wi th in the accuracy of pre-Phase A estimates, the assignments made i n t h i s s tudy a r e sa t i s fac tory , ,

The lack of uniform c o s t repor t ing ca tegor ies i n

It i s f e l t that


14

Figure, 5: Cost Category Defini t ions

e Science = a l l instruments which perform s c i e n t i f i c experiments but no t including apparatus used pr imar i ly f o r o t h e r mission functions, e.g. r ad io t r ansmi t t e r s which, although used i n occu l t a t ion and t racking experiments, a r e c lassed as communications .

0 Struc ture - spacecraf t main body s t r u c t u r e , mechanical devices , thermal c o n t r o l equipment, cabl ing and harnesses , pyrotechnic devices , payload adapters , scan platform, atmospheric en t ry equipment , booms and appendages.

0 Propulsion - ve loc i ty control components such as p rope l l an t s , engines, tanks, feed l i n e s and valves , p re s su r i - za t ion equipment.

0 E l e c t r i c a l Power - a l l components of main power source such a s s o l a r c e l l s o r RTG's, conditioning components such a s inver te rs and r egu la to r s , secondary power sources such a s b a t t e r i e s , assoc ia ted e l e c t r o n i c s f o r cont ro l and d i s t r i b u t i o n .

0 Communications = a l l components which handle data transmission and reception, da ta management and s torage , data encoding and decoding, command data d i s t r i b u t i o n , antennas .

0 Guidance and Control = a11 f l i g h t con t ro l components such a s a t t i t u d e control equipment (e.g. cold gas systems) and e lec t ronics , a t t i t u d e sensors and t racking devices, control computer and sequencer, l ander terminal guidance equipment. Note: i f TV i s used f o r both science and terminal guidance, i t should be assigned t o science.

IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE

15

(page l e f t blank f o r continuity) l l i R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

16

I)

0

0

0

0

e

Figure 5: Cost Category Defini t ions (continued)

Asseiiibly and In tegra t ion = system and subsystem in t eg ra t ion ana lys i s , design and control , system and subsys t e m packaging and assembly ana lys i s and management, mockup assembly,

T e s t and Quality Assurance - spacecraf t subsystem and component t e s t i n g , manufacturing q u a l i t y assurance and cont ro l , environmental t e s t i n g , quarant ine assurance and cont ro l , subsystem and component r e l i a b i l i t y analysis , t e s t i n g equipment.

Launch and F l igh t Operations - launch con t ro l and operat ions, space f l i g h t control and management, mission operations , spacecraf t team command and subsys t e m team monitors operat ions and t r a in ing , s c i e n t i f i c and engineering data processing, handling and management , telecommunications and t racking data ana lys i s , f i e l d s t a t i o n operat ions, SFOF mission p a r t i c u l a r s ,

Ground Equipment - shipping and s torage container , t rans- por ta t ion and handling equipment , propulsion loading equipment, environmental tes t chamber, mission operations consoles and recording equipment, computers and per ipheral equipment.

Systems Analysis and Engineering - configurat ion management , analys is and cont ro l , mission planning and p r o f i l e ana lys i s , t r a j ec to ry ana lys i s , e l e c t r o n i c par t s engineering, computer software and implementation.

Program Management - project management and cont ro l , p r o j e c t report ing, business operat ions and computer, management support , s a f e t y cont ro l , sc ience team management, t a s k a l loca t ions ,


1 7

18

d co N

.

rn rl m

e

m a hl

.

m b

00 N cv m e e

rl * N m . .

;?;

m 0 . . 0 d m m

N

m 4

N

rl m e

a N N

e

m 4- .

m

m m N

.

m b N

.

a 8

0 m

4- m hf

e

m m cv

e

rl

0 u P 3 cn al M

3

2 $ 4

rl a U 0 B al M a

3 4 !4

19

20

W o z W

> - o 0 c3 W I-

o

- a m

a

W

3 t- o 3

t- v)

a

a

z 0 v) 4 3 a 0 a

-

a

a 3 W

0 a -I

o

I- o W -.I W

a a -

-I 0 t- z 0 0

a W 0 z U P 3 0

a

-

-.I

I- O I-

3 v)

a

m

z 0 t-

(3 W I- z a >- -.I

- a a

-

rn I W v) v) a

W o z

3 v) v)

a a

a > t- -I

3 0

cb

- a

5; W t-

v) z 0 t-

W a 0

t- I 0 -I I&

ab I 0 Z 3'

4

- a a

-

a

0 b

0 (0

0 i m

21

RECURRING AND NON-RECURRING COSTS - The number of f l i g h t spacecraf t assoc ia ted wi th p a s t and cur ren t planetary programs has been small; Lunar Orbi te r with f i v e S/C and Surveyor with seven S/C represent the largest "production runs" t o da te , spacecraf t t o another within the same program. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable t o a t tempt t o separate recur r ing (R) and non- recur r ing (NR) cos t s t o provide a better basis f o r es t imat ing a var ie ty of fu tu re program opt ions,

I n general , t he re have been changes from one

There i s a wide v a r i a t i o n i n the de f in i t i on of recur r ing vs non-recurring cos t s by the space industry. For example, some cont rac tors confine recurr ing cos t s t o the production of f l i g h t subsys t e m s while o thers include operat ional ca tegor ies such a s test, launch/ f l igh t , e t c , Our ana lys i s of the na ture of the operat ional categories and t h e i r c o s t / t i m e h i s t o r y l e d t o a d e f i n i t i o n of ground equipment and system analysis /engineer ing as e n t i r e l y non-recurring, i n t eg ra t ion w e r e found to be e s s e n t i a l l y recur r ing , A l l o ther ca tegor ies w e r e a mixture of recur r ing and non-recurring cos t s ,

Launch/f l ight and assembly and

A study of the t i m e h i s t o r y of program cos t s l e d t o the conclusion t h a t the date of completion of assembly and tes t of the proof tes t model (PTM) provided a reasonable s p l i t of cos t s i n t o the two

ca tegor ies , This i s a somewhat a r b i t r a r y d e f i n i t i o n but on the average agrees with the data supplied. Figure 8 l i s t s the PTM dates used t o c l a s s i f y the programs, Lunar Orbi te r cos t s w e r e suppl ied a s recur r ing and non-recurring based on the cont rac tor d e f i n i t i o n . Since a t i m e h i s tory was not ava i l ab le these data were used a s supplied. During the de t a i l ed modeling ( sec t ion 3) i t was found that t o t a l costs with no d i s t i n c t i o n between non- recur r ing and recur r ing costs provided the b e s t bas i s f o r oper- a t i o n a l support category models,


22

Program Dates f o r Non-Recurring and Recurring Determination

PROGRAM

Pioneer

Viking

Surveyor

Mariner 6 4

Mariner 69

Mariner 7 1

PROOF TEST MODEL ASSEMBLY AND TEST COMPLETION DATE

June 7 1

June 74

October 63

May 64

March 68

October 70

FIRST FLIGHT DATE

March 72

March 75

May 66

November 6 4

February 69

May 7 1


23

0 -4 a o u a .

24

ai (D

1

)a

2

+I

v) a 3 0 r

a -I

I- o a J

t- u

\ U 0 t- V

U I- Z 0 V

a

w U

25

m al *rl

I . 0 d

g c u

26

0 rn rl

0

0 rn rl

0

W 00 0 .

00 W rl

0

g

0 rn rl

0

0 4- rl

0

b m 0

0

0 W 0

0

s

27

k rd

28

- -

k 4-1

v: c *rl U a 0 0 rl rl 4 $4

I N

m a, U

E rl 0

k u k

PI rl (d u s 0 a, rl W

d (d U 0 U

al

m a 4Jsismo k b o 4 09) a u h

a 0

rz)

iY W

29

m

U m h m P 3 cn U u-l td

al 0 td a cn

8 k al

PI l-l td 0 *I4 k U 0 al rl w

U k 0 a v1 9

Co

8

d m

*rl u td

a 0

al 0

k 9 2 rn -4 h U *I4 rl

cy d U VJ

3

c

e M G w rn *I4 m h rl

2 -4

i3 u m h v)

rl td U 0 U P 3 v1

m U m 0 0

al d P

B *rl rn

30

rn E a, U rn h rn P 3 v3

aJ rw 0

a, 0 (d

ko

.$ k 0 w .

; *I4 U a 0 0 rl rl 4 k

X

2

3 Gl a

U rn 0 u ..

m rl

k”

d, v3

k a,

PI rl (d 0 *rl k U 0 Q) rl W

rn

*rl U (d 0 *rl

co

9 0 u

rl

0 u 3 n

8 .

c h - d d * A - ( d d d 4 rn

U rn h v3

a 0

‘3 m

rn U rn 0 0 Q) d P

*rl rn rn

(d 3 Q ) u 8 $ 8

31

VI

U !? A VI P 3 m u W 0 k 0 Q) 0 m p1 m

VI

*rl U m 0

9 r l

eo

1 0 u

d

0 u P s m

3

al

d fn

*rl u m

g

k!

d h rl n E a, fn

2

.rl 3 CP W a

0 5 8

8 4

E fn

0) u fn h m

W Y FL 0

3 v3

32

\D 0 m m m 0p.n . . . . . . .

m Q) u m h m 9 3 cn u a l w o ( d c

Q ) u o m (d n cn

E

$ 2

k al

P4 rl a u *rl k U u al PI w

rl

0 U P 3 cn

3

Q)

m u v) 0 c)

al rl P

ii *rl v)

u a l u 0 I3 d R

33

m rl B a U

0 k u k

co u LZI a 0

3 *rl a

rl cd 4J 0 U

in‘

al

PI a P 9

0 in

m u

3 a 3 is r 4 W

a l o

k

X 2

a 2 u m 0 u .. a d

a k

*rl 14 &

34

0 CQ 0 vr CQ

. 0 0 d d 4

m m \o 4- 00 m rl

; ? ; m

'0 k

m h m

3 cn u w (d

a,

n

5 2 z cn

PI r-l Q u *rl k U u Q) l-l W

bo c: w d rn *I4 m h rl a 4 m Ei a, u v) h cn

rn m cdu

k a, u *I4 a k 0

rn 0 u

3 tj M

35

i? rl 0 cr) N

-8

m

U

al 0

k 3 VI

2

3

h U 4 rl

cy d U m 8

. M c w

9 3 cn

cn U m 0 o al d a

$3 *rl m m ( d u c m

U 3 0 m u 0

36

(page l e f t blank for continuity) I l T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

37

k 0 w

U c

M a , O E w P ,

a, ?4 a 0

U km bD a, U c *rl

h 4

0 a d r l a ,

Ei "0

VJ U v1 0 0

'a, U

m Lz Q)

VJ c *rl

;$I

k a

a a, k k

c 2 *rl

a a, a w 5 .

cn O k s

Q) a VJ a,

2 .rl a s

w 0

d a, $ 2

u a 0 *rl

E a, U

PI X a,

k a a w

VJ h VJ

U \ VJ

3 0 U

s * a u *h( 0 3

a 5 h

M B w o o k

4 a u 0-I

w $ .~

tl E a

0 U

0 U c 4

0 rl a,

a 5 a, 5 B c

*rl

38

rn u, rn 3 VI

cr) 4- 0 co 0

cr) cI\ d 0 d

. 8 . . 8

cr) cI\ m cr) hl m

0 0 m rn co \o

0 0 0 v) 0 0 m 0

hl 0

0 0 0 0 cI\ m

* b m

39

m m k 0

ZI a

f i 3 f i w o a o

m *rl

al U

2 k 0 P 0 IJ

U o al k

9 r l

al

n

e

co 3

E

k 0 w

*rl U

W al

*rl m m al k M al k al

k 2 2 3

40

\ \ \ \ \

a W W z 0 a -

Z - a a 2

a 0 W

a \ >

\ z \

a W t-

a 0 a z 3 -I

- m

a

\ \

m W I- a

0

-I

a

a m a

UnOH / $ 'S39WM t108Wl 133kl10 '8hW

41

(page left blank f o r continuity) I I T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

42

3 . SPACECRAFT SUBSYSTEM AND SUPPORT CATEGORY MODELING


43

.. E m A a,

U U

a, U

I2

70 A rl k

X a,

0 k al 3

k" 70 ?l

X

ln (d GI u 0 al k *rl Q

% x *

44

I

45

a , u

8 8

El (d rl a h rl k (d a,

a a, U

e (d k m a a a, U rd rl

0 ICI al

0 U

m 3 (d

k F B

46

0

t d

cn w

4

Q) 0

*rl 0 cn

s

P W w.=I I 0 1 o u a

Q) k k k P

m m

a m a, rl Z a PI B *5

h U VI P O

r l h

*rl 4-I

c a,

5

3 m c m u a, Gi *A

3 E a, m

m rl a a 8

a 0 d a, 3 a, a

u m a, u 0 U

a a ?

9

m a, 3 rl

k a, u a, !3 (d

a 2 a,

5

48

0 GI

i rn N a3 0 I hl m hl "0. : i 91 . . . I . e m In c\I d I d hl u3 u3 ' m 2 d w r n I I a b co m hl ' 4 In

n A I n u

I .. hl

n a

n u

0 H PI

rl b r=

49

(page l e f t blank for continuity) I l l R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

50

n

2 H 3 h W

n VI

H h

E 3 W

;I PI PI

co m co m co m hl m co m 0 0 0 . .

00 0 rl m m W m rl rl rl rl

4-

b

rl * r l

W 0 0 0 0 b 00 00 0 co

rl rl N rl

0 m

m W N 0 rl rl 4- rl m W m 0 00 co m rl m m m m rl

rl

a * r l

4- 0 03 m * m co 0

a m \D 0 W m W 00 a rl m m co a3 m hl m 0 rl rl co u3

m m m Q\ c\I cr) co m b rl 03 b b rl

. . 3

c\I M . m m m m o\

b 00 hl 0 m m 03 rl 00 m hl N hl hl N N N hl

I I I m I I I I I I I I I I I I b I m I I I I I m I m I I

0 0 0 0 00 0 m 0 b * o\ 0 0

b 00 al rl 0 4- 0 W ul

0 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 rl hl hl N m l-l rl

0 m hl hl hl N 0 I m a co rl co I

rl m 00 I 0 N

* r l m I g m

hl hl hl hl c\l hl m b

51

U

E bD

i

a 5 0

3 0 rl Q)

0

.rl u cn

E l-l 0 w m cd U cd a Q)

5 w 0

E (d k M 0 k a ,

c

k

c) Q ) o a o u k C Q ) Q ) m a a l E a m c c m (d 0 4 cd u u cd m

0 d Fr

k e

52

n u) co 0

0 I w W

n rl In 0

0

0 I 0

p? W

n co cv m 0

0

w' 5 W

n u) m co m cn

0 0 e 0 H II

PI W k m m II

0

k 0 9 (d rl

F *rl k i-l

a, k I E

z

II

0

k 'I

al

d hl

rl Q) a

53

SCIENCE

The model developed f o r the science system i s a two va r i ab le l i n e a r equation based on the r e so lu t ion of the imaging experiment (p ixe ls p e r l i n e ) and the t o t a l weight of the science in= s t rwnents , Viking which had such a large e r r o r that i t was no t included i n the regression f i t ,

This provides a good f i t t o a l l programs except

This i s apparent ly due t o the la rge costs assoc ia ted with the Viking b io logica l experiments which do no t s u b s t a n t i a l l y in- c rease the weight of the science package, A number of o ther models were t r i e d i n an e f f o r t t o f i t the Viking data but none were successful . Further e f f o r t should be devoted t o improving the science model. The comparison of a c t u a l and predicted labor are given i n Figure 26,

NRs = 0 , l PPL + 1 , 8 WTS + 234,2 r = 0.9939

RS = 0,182 NRs (NS) r = 0.9442


54

Actual P red ic t ed Actual Pred ic t ed Program % *S RS RS

M64 311.7 327.6 146.7 119.2

M6 9 553.8 1 562.3 246.8 204.7

* n o t used i n non-recurr ing LER d e r i v a t i o n

* n o t used i n r e c u r r i n g LER d e r i v a t i o n

I A c t u a l ' P r e d i c t e d , DLHs 1 ; DLHS 1 % E r r o r

I - 2.5

- 4.1

i I

458.4 1 446.8

I 800.1 767.0

I

55

M71

P I 0

vo

vL*

LO*

su*

i 8oo*9 i l 7 o 0

1 1 684.4 1

145.5 ' 1 556.6 1 5 4 5 , 2

926.5 1 837,Z

' 1

510.0 1 587.2 174.4 213.7

416.9 399 ,7

693 .9 613.8 232.6 223.4 I - 2 o o I I 1 - 9.6 1

I

i j

i I

I i i

1 13'07

1399.2 450.0 358.6 163 ,8 1 1757.8 613 .8 -65 .1

1463.8 1480.5 437.3 I 1347.3 I 1901.1 I 2827.8 48.7

1243.4 453.3 864 1 577 0 5 2107.5 1030.8 1 -51.1

I I

1 I f 1

STRUCTURE

The LER developed f o r the s t ruc tu re subsystem i s a l i n e a r f i t based on the s t ruc tu re subsystem weight. This includes the weight of thermal control equipment, cabl ing, booms, pyrotechnic and mechanical devices and, i f the spacecraf t uses one, the scan platform. Viking Lander, and the VO-VL adapter i s included f o r Viking Orbiter .

The aeroshel l and b iosh ie ld a r e included f o r

Figure 27 shows ac tua l and predicted values of DLH fo r the s t ruc tu re subsystem. f a i r agreement with the ac tua l values. The major variance occurs i n the M 7 1 program.

The predict ions a r e only i n genera l ly

mST = 1.18 WTST + 50.1 r = 0.8971

56

Figure 27: St ruc tu re Category P r e d i c t i o n and E r r o r

I 1 ' 374.2 i

i 781.7

214.1

149.1

1050.0

1

I

1246 . 1 130.1

1664 . 0

Actua l Program 1 NRST

I ' 282.0

1131.8

1 , 1778.6

M64

M69

M7 1

PI0

vo

VL

LO

SV*

55-0

- 8.0

20.0 1482.7

4 193,O

Pred ic t ed NTST

i

237.4

441.6

612 . 1 235,8

946.3

1487.1

233.2

402 . 9 2594.6

A c t ua 1 RST

79.8

155 . 5 40.7

32.9

180 . 0 236 . 6 62.9

930.6

P r e d i c t e d 1 Actua l ' P r e d i c t e d \ % E r r o r RST 1 1 DLHST j DLEST ,

1 1

46.5

86.6

120.0

46.2

185.5

291.5

114.3

276.4 li

283.9 37.5

679.3 1 - 73.8

* not used i n model d e r i v a t i o n

57

PROPULSION

The LER f o r pred ic t ing non-recurring d i r e c t l abor hours f o r the propulsion subsystem w a s found t o be a power l a w func t ion of the t o t a l impulse of the engine. impulse times propel lan t weight, o r a l t e r n a t e l y , t o t a l burn t i m e times vacuum thrust. used e i t h e r the monopropellant N2H4 o r the b ipropel lan t N,04/MMH whereas Lunar Orbi te r used N204/A-50. The engines f o r M64, M69 and PI0 w e r e used f o r midcourse cor rec t ion only while those f o r o ther programs are used primarily f o r o r b i t i n s e r t i o n o r terminal landing. Obviously, these la t ter engines r equ i r e more p rope l l an t (or equivalently, a longer burning time) and w i l l c o s t more. The derived and program data a r e given i n Figure 28. The Lunar Orbi te r propulsion system was p a r t i a l l y supported by DOD and those cos ts w e r e n o t available. overestimate.

Tota l impulse i s defined as s p e c i f i c

For the p lane tary programs, a l l engines

This may expla in p a r t of the

. 359 NRp = 3.51 (IT)

= 0.149 NRp (NS) RP

r = 0.9175

r = 0.972

58

Program

451.1

M64

M69

M71

P I O

vo

VL

LO

su

420.0

Figure 28: Liquid Propuls ion Category P r e d i c t i o n and E r r o r

244.2

Actual mP

46.3

116 . 7 346.0

123.6

484.9

227.1

143.6

701.2

342.4

P r e d i c t e d mP

76.1

76.3

323.6

102.8

478.6

201.1

196 . 2 364.5

Ac tua 1 RP

12.7

34.2

104.9

26.5

145.5

95.7

100.6

468.3

P r e d i c t e d RP

22.7

22.7

96.4

30.6

142.6

59.9

146.2

380.2

Actual I Predicted1 DLHp 1 DLXp 1 % E r r o r

~ 67.4

-34.4

- 6.9 -11.1

- 1.5

-19.1

40.2

-36.3

* n o t used in model d e r i v a t i o n

59

ELECTRICAL POWER --

The model developed f o r the e l e c t r i c a l power subsystem i s a mul t ip le l i n e a r r e l a t ionsh ip based on t o t a l power suppl ied t o the spacecraf t from the power condi t ioning equipment and the weight of the power subsystem including weight of a l l con- d i t i on ing equipment and aux i l i a ry power suppl ies such as b a t t e r i e s ,

Separate es t imat ing re la t ionships have been developed f o r power subsystems whose primary energy source i s s o l a r energy conversion and those using radioisotope thermoelectr ic energy conversion. For the l a t te r case, the model has two pa r t s : one f o r the power condi t ioning and a u x i l i a r y power equipment and the second f o r the radioisotope thermoelectr ic generators (RTG) , The expenditure f o r RTG's i s assumed t o be an add i t iona l cos t t o the program, and as such i s modeled separately,

The LER fo r s o l a r power subsystems includes the c o s t o f the s o l a r arrays. The power i s that generated a t 1 A ,U,

The LER fo r RTG powered subsystems does not include the c o s t of the RTG's , and the weight term does not include the RTG weights. The power i s the t o t a l beginning-of- l i fe power supplied by the subsystem, The r e s u l t s a r e given i n Figure 29 ,

NREps = 0,21 P 0 + - 2 WTEPS + 55,3

NREpR = 1.57 P 0 + O a 9 WTEpR

r = 0,830

r = 1.00

The recur r ing DLH r e l a t ionsh ip i s used f o r e i t h e r s o l a r power o r RTG power,

REP = 0.154 NREP (NS) r = 0.955


60

Program

M64

M6 9

M 7 1

PI0

vo

VL

LO

su *

Figure 29: E l e c t r i c a l Power Category P r e d i c t i o n and E r r o r

Actua l P E P

~~

224.1

315.2

199.9

279.2

360.1

252.8

184.1

335.6

P red ic t ed NREP

236.8

262.7

273.9

278.5

335.4

252.5

170.3

91.1

Actual REP

61.5

103.2

63.5

81.7

108.0

88.1

138.0

352.4

P r e d i c t e d REP

72.9

80.9

84.4

85.8

103.3

77.8

131.1

98.2

I I

A c t u a l ' P r e d i c t e d , % E r r o r

i

285.6 1 309.7 I 8.4 I

418.4 i 343.6 , -17.9 t I

I I t

263.4 i 358.3 ; 36.0

360.9

468.0

340.9

322.1

688.0

I

364.3 f 0.9 I I

438.7 ' - 6.3

330.3 1 - 3.1

!

I i - 6.4 301.4 ! i

I i - 7 2 * 5

189.3

>k n o t used i n model d e r i v a t i o n

61

RTG ADDITIONAL COSTS - -- The data fo r R E cos t s w a s obtained from the Atomic Energy Commission i n the form of development (non-recurring) d o l l a r s and u n i t ( recurr ing) dol la rs . The d o l l a r data was converted t o d i r e c t labor hours assuming 30 percent t o t a l program c o s t f o r labor and the wage r a t e a t the median year of program development e

The re l a t ionsh ip f o r NASA funded RTG cos t s i s a funct ion of - u n i t power a t beginning-of- l i fe and time, i n years, from August 1960 t o date of f i r s t f l i g h t ( In denotes n a t u r a l logarithm) e

Data on t o t a l number of u n i t s purchased were not ava i l ab le f o r all missions nor were t o t a l cos t s known i n a l l cases. The data i n Figure 30 are based on s ingle u n i t data and errors a r e there- f o r e no t shown.

NRRTG = 1.7 Pu = 265.7 In (T) + 1059,O r = 0,9830


62

Program %TG ~~

Nimbus

Pioneer

Viking

Transit

TOPS - GT

RRTG

Figure 3 0 : RTG Cost Predic t ion and Er ro r

33.4

33.0

29.8

59.3

101.0

Actual %TG

29.7

34.9

30.5

60 .2

99.2 t

662.7

489.8

315.0

1109 3

579.2

Predicted %E

526 . 6

470 . 9

397.9

1139 . 6

538 . 8

63

COMMUNICATIONS

The LER fo r the communication subsystem i s a mul t ip le l i n e a r r e l a t i o n i n t ransmi t te r power and communication subsystem weight. The subsystem weight as u t i l i z e d here includes the weight of such i t e m s a s data acquis i t ion and s torage equipment, data encoding and decoding devices and f l i g h t command equipment. power i s peak RF power transmitted. equipment on the Viking Orbi ter and Lander were not modeled separately, but a r e taken in to account i n the subsystem weight tern.

Transmitter The unique r e l a y communication

Figure 31 presents the a c t u a l and predicted data f o r communications. The predicted values of DLH are i n general ly good agreement with the ac tua l values, the major variances being M69 and M71.

NRc = 16.9 PT + 4.2 WTC = 37.1 r = 0.9758

RC = 0.183 NRc (NS) r = 0.973

64

Figure 31: Communications Category P r e d i c t i o n and Error

I Actual P red ic t ed Program t NRc %

I M64 525.7 564.5

M6 9 1045 . 5 861 . 6 M7 1 699.2 838.1

P I O 325.1 420.7

vo I1214.0 1205.2

VL ; 1067.4 1101.6 I

LO 429.3 388.9

su * 822.0 396.5 I

Actual P red ic t ed 1 A c t u a l P r e d i c t e d DLHC I DLHC ' % E r r o r RC RC 1

I I

197.7 206.6 723.4 1 771.1 1 6.6

423.2 315.3 1468.7 1176.9 -19.9

! 209,3 306.7 908.5 1144.8 26.0

136.5 154.0 461.6 574.7 j 24.5

439.5 441.1 11653.5 I 1646.3 1 - 0.4 366.6 403.2 1434.0 1504.8 ; 4.9

I Y

! .1

I

386.3 355.8 815.6 744.7 - 8.7 I

943 . 9 507.9 ' 1765.9 904.4 '-48.8 1 1

* n o t used i n model d e r i v a t i o n

65

GUIDANCE AND CONTROL

The LER f o r the guidance and c o n t r o l subsystem w a s found t o be a func t ion of t o t a l spacecraf t weight and type of spacecraf t and s t a b i l i z a t i o n . the s lope of the LER developed f o r 3-axis s t a b i l i z e d f lyby and o r b i t e r spacecraf t w a s appl ied t o both landers and s p i n s t a b i l i z e d spacecraf t . Total spacecraf t weight i s defined as launch weight. I n the case of Viking Orbi ter , it includes the weight of the Lander since the G & C of the Orbi te r must account f o r the Lander from launch through o r b i t inser t ion . The actual and predic ted labor hours are given i n Figure 32.

Because of the l imi t ed number of da ta poin ts ,

3 - Axis S t a b i l i z e d Flybys & Orbiters : NRGc = 428.9 exp(4 x 10. 5 WTmT) r = 0.7958

3 - Axis S tab i l i zed Landers: NRGC = 1079,O exp(4 x lod5 WTmT)

Spin S t a b i l i z e d Flybys & Orbiters : NRGc = 84.0 exp(4 x WTmT)

The recu r r ing DLH re l a t ionsh ip i s used w i t h a l l three of the above r e l a t ionsh ips ,

RGC = 0,122 NRGC (NS) r = 0,955


66

Program

M64

M6 9

M7 1

PI0

vo

VL

LO

SUJC

Figure 32: Guidance and Control Category Predict ion and Error

Actual I Predicted + 446.3

444.6

406.3

85.9

602.0

1185.9

490.2

1364.4

438.9

443.5

469.7

85.9

577.0

1185.9

443.8

1181.4

Actual GC

108.1

118.5

96.5

15.5

168.6

330.8

269.6

829.3

Predictec RGC

106.8

108.2

114.6

21.0

140.8

289.4

270.5

1008.7

Actual j Predicted DLHGC 1 DLHGC

554.4

563.1

502.8

101.4

770.0

1516.7

759.8

2193.7

554.4

551.7

584.3

106.9

717.8

1475.3

714.3

2190.1

% Error

- 1.6

- 2.0

16.2

5.4

- 6.8

- 2.7

- 6.0

- 0.2

* not used i n model der ivat ion

67

ASSEMBLY AND INTEGRATION

The model developed f o r assembly and in t eg ra t ion i s a mul t ip le l i n e a r fit based on the number of f l i g h t spacecraf t and the t o t a l dry weight of the spacecraf t minus the weight of the s t r u c t u r e subsystem. This l a s t parameter, WTDRy - WTST, is perhaps an ind ica t ion of the complexity of the spacecraf t t o be assembled. very l i t t l e co r re l a t ion w i t h the data. values of predicted and ac tua l DLH f o r assembly and in tegra t ion . The predicted values are i n only f a i r agreement with actual values .

Total dry weight as a parameter w a s found t o have Figure 33 presents


68

Figure 33: Assembly and In tegra t ion Category Predic t ion and Error

* no t used i n model derivation

69

TEST AND QUALITY ASSURANCE

The LER developed f o r test , q u a l i t y assurance and r e l i a b i l i t y ana lys i s is a double parameter f i t based on the number of f l i g h t spacecraf t and the weight of the s t r u c t u r e subsystem. Figure 34 presents a c t u a l and predicted values of DLH f o r test and q u a l i t y assurance. The predic t ions a r e i n general ly good agreement with the a c t u a l values , The largest var iances occur i n the Pioneer and Viking Orbi te r programs,

= NS (127 .5 + 8,9 x loo4 WTgT) r = 0.9769 DL%


70

Figure 34

Tes t and Q u a l i t y Assurance Category P red ic t ion and Error

Pro gram

M64

M69

M71

P I O

vo

VL

LO

su *

Actual DL%

374.6

423.5

572.6

519 . 6

872.5

3063 . 3

892.7

5066 . 2

* n o t used i n model der ivat ion

Predic ted

DL% % Error

299.8

451 . 0

658.8

299.1

1281.8

2894.8

744.7

894.4

-20 . 0

6.5

15.1

-42.4

46.9

- 5.5

-16.6

-82.3

7 1

LAUNCH AND FLIGHT OPERATIONS

The LER developed f o r launch and f l i g h t operat ions i s a mul t ip le l i n e a r r e l a t i o n based on mission t i m e and number of launches i n the t o t a l program. The mission time comprises two terms i n the model. in te rp lane tary cruise . This t i m e , i n days, i s counted from launch day to date of mission termination. one spacecraf t i n the mis s ion , CT i s counted from launch of the f i r s t vehicle t o shutdown of the f i n a l one (thus f o r Pioneer F & G program, CT = 1300 days). only once.

The f irst , CT, accounts f o r mission operat ions during

I f there i s more than

Periods of time overlap are counted

The second time term, EPT, accounts f o r increased operat ions during t i m e s of encounter science ( o r landed science) and t i m e s of s c i e n t i f i c data transmission, both i n r e a l t i m e and stored/playback t ime .

Two launches were modeled for both the M64 and M71 programs a l - though one f l i g h t i n each program f a i l e d . The times modeled f o r M 7 1 r e f l e c t a l loca ted operations cos t s and t i m e s f o r the planned mission s ince a t the time the model was developed, run-out cos t s f o r the remaining spacecraf t mission were not ava i lab le . shows actual and predicted values o€ DLH f o r launch and f l i g h t operat ions. The predicted values a r e i n very good agreement wi th the actual values.

Figure 35

DL%F = 95.7 NL + 0.4 CT + 2.7EPT = 17.5 r = 0.9925

72

Figure 35

Launch and F l i g h t Operations Category Predic t ion and Error

Actual DLZZLF Program

Predicted DLtELF

M64

M6 9

M 7 1

P I 0

vo

VL

LO

su *

480 . 2

265.3

670.2

890.4

995.9

776.1

759.4

2486 . 3

471.5

259.0

734 . 4

892.4

974.0

746.8

759.4

1032.7 I

% Erro r

- 1.8

- 2.4

9.6

0.2

- 2.2

- 3.8

- 0

-58.5

* n o t used i n model der ivat ion

73

GROUND EQUIPMENT

The LER developed f o r ground equipment i s a m d t i p l e power f i t based on the following parameters; s t r u c t u r e subsystem weight, imaging experiment resolut ion i n terms of p i c tu re elements per l i n e , and t i m e , i n years, counted from August 1960 to the program's f i r s t launch date. data ra te were examined, but proved t o have very low co r re l a t ion . The time parameter appears as a psuedo-inheritance f a c t o r , accounting f o r inheri tance of c e r t a i n equipment from one program t o another. Figure 36 presents a c t u a l and predicted values of DLH f o r ground equipment. As can be seen, the predicted values a r e only i n f a i r agreement with the a c t u a l values.

Total spacecraf t weight and maximum downlink

4.29 m L (WTclr) D L b = T2

r = 0.9344

74

Program

Figure 36

Ground Equipment Category Predict ion and Error

-

M64

M69

M71

P I 0

vo

VL

LO

su *

A c t u a l DLHa

600 . 8 846 . 6

311.4

96.9

354.0

895.6

1592.2

2529 . 9

Predicted DLHa

533.0

594.4

108.2

497.9

525.4

1838.3

924.4

% Erro r

-11.3

-29 ,8

61 .4

1 1 . 7

40.6

-41.3

15.5

-63.5

* n o t used in model derivation

7 5

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS -- AND ENGINEERING

The LER developed f o r the category defined a s systems ana lys i s and engineering i s a mult iple l i n e a r model based on the t o t a l dry weight of the spacecraf t and a percentage of the t o t a l d i r e c t l abor hours required for the ten categories previously discussed, Although the data f o r M64 showed no c o s t a l l o c a t i o n f o r t h i s category and the cos t category Pioneer was r e l a t i v e l y small, f o r consis tency these f x o programs appear i n the data base, presents a c t u a l and predicted values o f DLH for systems ana lys i s and engineering. wi th a r e l a t i v e l a rge negative constant) , i t i s poss ib le that the LER may p red ic t negat ive hours, as i s the case f o r both M64 and Pioneer. An a r b i t r a r y solut ion t o t h i s i s t o set the DLHSE t o zero, The t rue predict ions f o r M64 and PI0 a r e shown i n parentheses

Figure 37

Due t o the na ture of the model (a l i n e a r funct ion

10 DI,HSE = 0 - 3 5 3 WTDRy + 0,067 ( C DLH) - 467,8 r = 0,9954

1


76

Program

M64

M69

M71

P I 0

vo

VL

LO

su*

Fi-re 37

Systems Analysis and Engineering Category Predict ion and Error

A c t u a l DL%E

0.0

210.0

217.8

6.6

829.4

1083 . 1 277.0

2628.9

Predicted DLHSE

0.0 (-6.1)

155.0

384.3

0.0 (-55.6)

786.2

949 . 8 343.9

447.0

% Error

0.0

- 26.2

76.4

-100.0

- 5.2

- 12.3 24.1

- 83.0


77

PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

The LER f o r program management i s a s i m p l e percentage of the t o t a l d i r e c t labor hours predicted f o r the previous eleven categories . and durat ion showed l i t t l e co r re l a t ion with the a c t u a l DLH f o r program management. Again, as wi th the science category, the DLHpM f o r Viking Lander d id n o t follow the t rend e s t ab l i shed by the o ther s i x programs (a 13.6% program management a s compared to an average of 5.1%) . Thus, Viking Lander was not used i n the data base f o r t h i s category. I t i s noted t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n here i s s l i g h t l y below the es tab l i shed minimum, due t o including Lunar O r b i t e r ( a t 3.6% program management) i n the program management data base. f o r the l a r g e s t possible data base, and the r e s u l t i n g c o r r e l a t i o n accepted a s is. DLH f o r program management, The predicted values a r e i n reason- ab le agreement wi th the ac tua l values ,

Models based on measures of program s i z e , complexity

The LO data was used, however, t o a l low

Figure 38 shows values of a c t u a l and predicted

ll

1 DLHpM = 0.051 ( C DLH) r = 0.7334


7 8

VL

LO

A c t u a l Program DLHm

M64 217.8

M69 290.1

M71 370.5

P I 0 190 . 5

VO 420 . 8

1779.8

291.9

su* 2129.0

Predicted 1 DLHpM j % Error

202.4 - 7.1

263.1 - 9.3

- 8.4 339.4

177.9 - 6.6

I

477 . 5 13.5

583 . 3 -67.2

477.9 63.7

494.7 -76.8 - ~


79

(page l e f t blank for continuity) I I T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

80

4 , SUMMARY RESULTS


81

. .

"a a 2

d

w 0

sd Qrl rl

ro 31 k

82

k 0 k k w b q

m c n c n o b o o . . .

0

0 e . .. [I) k 0 k k w Es

3 c a 8

k a, a

'a, a 8 c

*PI

a a, z 2 U

1:

83

. U VJ 0 o

a k M 0 k a l-l

6

Q)

$ 8 o k Q) a

m

VJ k 0 k k a,

k

c 70 k

a, M a 3 Q) M a k

Y E

C Q ) . C k J J :! ft

04

k 0 k k w b q

hl * a3 hl m hl 0 b rl hl hl

rl hl 0 b hl rl I I

. a a . I I

2

85

(page left blank for con t inu i ty ) I l l R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

86

5. RECOMMENDATIONS


87

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY AND ANALYSIS

A basic model f o r pred ic t ing t o t a l program cos t s f o r unmanned lunar and planetary missions has been presented, Recommended areas to f u r t h e r broaden and enhance the model cons i s t of:

e Update the cur ren t data base by obtaining the l a t e s t c o s t data ava i l ab le f o r Viking Lander, Viking O r b i t e r and Mariner 71 , More up-to-date Viking Lander data may lead t o re introducing Surveyor i n t o the data base and the development of separa te LER's fo r lander spacecraf t , where the s i t u a t i o n warrants separate models (as i n Guidance 6c Control)

o Broaden the data base by obtaining cost data f o r such programs as Mariner Venus 1967, Mariner V'enus/Mercury 197'3, and e a r l i e r Pioneer and Explorer programs f o r p a r t i c l e and f i e l d explorat ion of in te rp lane tary and c i s - lunar space, Certain of these programs, together wi th Mariner 71 , should be usefu l i n e s t ab l i sh ing inheri tance faekors o r r e l a t ionsh ips

o Begin development of LER's f o r ou ter p lane t atmospheric en t ry vehicles by obtaining the most up-to-date technica l and c o s t data predict ions f o r t h i s type of program. Separation of the Mars en t ry development and c o s t data from the rest of the Viking Lander program should be use fu l i n t h i s respec t ,

m Refine the methodology fo r es t imat ing recur r ing cos t s , '%he present averaging method has a high var iance and prel iminary examination of the errors f o r Lunar Orbi te r and Surveyor in- d i c a t e t h a t the recur r ing cos t s a r e not d i r e c t l y proport ional t o the number of f l i g h t a r t i c l e s ,


88

0 Analyze the individual e r ro r s by c o s t category, The magni- tude and sign of the e r rors assoc ia ted with each category can provide clues t o reassessment of l i n e i t e m data and model va r i ab le s which can serve t o improve the sub models. The ac- q u i s i t i o n of add i t iona l program data can serve a s a valuable check to avoid "h is tor ica l" data f i t s which have inadequate pred ic t ive capab i l i t y ,


89

(page l e f t blank f o r continuity) I f f R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

90

APPENDIX

COST MODEL EXAMPLE AND WORK SHEETS


91

(page left blank f o r continuity) I l l R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

92

COST MODEL EXAMPLE AND WORKSWETS

The following pages present the app l i ca t ion of the c o s t model t o the Mariner Venus/Mereury 1973 program. The model p red ic t s a t o t a l program d i r e c t labor of 5159,O thousand hours, a $7.00 p e r hour wage rate, based on a median expenditure year of mid 1972, t h i s leads to a t o t a l program c o s t p red ic t ion of $120,377,000 which i s approximately 20 percent higher than the cur ren t estimate f o r M73. Since t h i s program is known t o have s i g n i f i c a n t inher i tance , t h i s error i s not unexpected.

Assuming

Following the example, blank input preparat ion and worksheets a r e provided for user appl icat ion.


93

COST MODEL INPUT PREPARATION SHEET

For Mariner 1973 Program

Spacecraf t Subsys t e m Weights

Science (WTS)

St ruc ture (WTsT)

Propulsion, dry*

E l e c t r i c a l Power (WTEp) (do n o t include RTG weight)

Communications (WTC)

Guidance & Controlik

Tota l , dry (WTDRy)

Propel lan t (WTpR)

To ta 1, w e t (WTToT)

168.2 pounds

46C. 0

2 7 . 9

152 .1

145.C

91.7

1344.9

51.8

1095.7

* n o t ind iv idua l ly requi red by model


94


0 ther Parameters

To ta l S/C conditioned power (Po) ( s o l a r power a t 1 AU) (RTG power a t BOL)

Unit RTG power a t BOL (Pu) Number of RTG u n i t s purchasec

400 wat t s

----_ Transmitter peak RF output power (P,) 2c wat t s

S p e c i f i c impulse (Isp) 230 1 bf - s ec / 1 bm Tota l impulse ( I T = Isp x WTpR) Imaging experiment reso lu t ion (PPL) E32 p i x e l s pe r .1

11?14 lbf -sec

Number of launches (NL) 1 Number of f l i g h t spacecraf t (NS) 1

Date of f i r s t launch (LD1) 11/3/73

Date of m i s s i o n termination (MT) 4/13/74 (shut-down of f i n a l S/C)

Time f a c t o r (T = LD1 - August 1960) 13.24year-

Cruise t i m e (CT = MT -LD1) Experiment and data playback time (EPT) ( t o t a l f o r a l l S/C i n mission)

1 9 2 days 41 days

Hourly labor rate WAGE = exp ( 0 . 0 4 4 ~ - 1.25) = 7 * c 0 dol la rs /hour

where: y = median year of program funding minus 1900


95

COST MODEL WORK SHEET (1 of 3)

For Mariner 1973 Program

Science

NRS = 0.1 PPL + 1.8 WTS + 234.2 =

RS = 0.182 NRs (NS)

DLHs = NRs + RS

S t ruc ture

Propulsion .359 NRp = 3.51 ( I T )

R p = 0.149 NRp (NS)

DLHp = NRp + Rp

. 620.2

112.9

7 3 3 . 1

592.9

58.1

102.0

15.2

1 1 7 . 2

Elec t r ica l Power

Solar: NREp = 0.21 Po + 0.23 WTEp + 55.3 = 174.3

--_--_ - RTG: NREP = 1.57 Po + 0.9 WTEp - REp = 0.154 NREp (NS) - - 26.8

D L H = NREP + REP - - 201.1

I l f R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

96

COST MODEL WORKSHEET (2 of 3)

Communications

NRc = 16.9 PT + 4.2WTC - 37.1 =

- - RC = 0.183 NRc (NS)

DLHC = NRc + RC - -

Guidance & Control

3-Axis Flyby o r Orbiter: NRGC = 428.9 exp (4 x loo5 WTToT)

NRGc = 1079.0 exp (4 x l0-%TToT) 3-Axis Lander:

Spin Flyby o r Orbiter: NRGC = 84.0 exp (4 x lom5 WTToT)

T e s t & Q u a l i t y Assurance

DL%Q = NS * (127.5 + 8.9 x lom4 WTs:) =

Launch & F l i g h t Operations

DL%., = 95.7 NL + 0.4 CT + 2..7 EPT - 17.5 =

Ground Equipment

DLHm = 4.29 PPL (WTsT) 0

TL Sub t o ta 1 10

C DLH = 1


909.9

165.5

1076.4

448.1

56.7

504.9

219.8

315.8

255.7

324.2 ~-

4693.2

97


Svstems Analysis & Engineering lo

= 0.353 WTDRy + 0.067 ( C DLH) - 467.8 = DLHsE 215.5

( i f D L H ~ ~ 0.0, se t DLHSE = 0.0)

Subto ta l 11 C DLH =

Program Management ll

DLHpM = 0,051 ( E DLH)

Total Program Direct Labor Hours

DL%oT - - 5 1 5 ~ . 0 thousand hours

1

4909.7

25c.3

-++e- A.E.C. = Costs 1 . 7 Pu - 265.7 In T + 1059.0 =

N R ~ ~ ~ %TG = (0.6 Pu + 0.04 %TG - 5.9)NU =

Adjusted Total DLH - - D L H T ~ ~ = D L H T o ~ + %TG + RRTG 1

Tota l Program Cost < _1 = $ 120,377 (x1000) COST = DL%T (WAGE)

0.3


98

( p a g e l e f t blank for continuity) I I T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

99


For Program

Spacecraft Subsystem Weights

Science (WTs) pounds

Structure (WTsT)

Propuls ion, dry*

Electrical Power (WTEp) (do not include RTG weight)

Communications (WTC)

Guidance & Control*

Total, dry (WTDRy)

P,ropellant (WTpR)

Total, w e t (WTmT)

* not individually required by model


100


Other Parameters

Tota l S/C conditioned power (Po) ( so l a r power a t 1 AU) (RTG power a t BOL)

Unit RTG power a t BOL (P,) Number of RTG u n i t s purchased (NU) Transmitter peak RF output power (P,)

wat ts

w a t t s

watts

Spec i f ic impulse (Isp) 1 b - s e c / 1 bm lbf-sec

p i x e l s pe r l i n e T o t a l impulse ( I T = Isp x WTpR) Imaging experiment resolut ion (PPL) Number of launches (NL) Number of f l i g h t spacecraf t (NS)

Date of f i r s t launch (LD1) Time f ac to r (T = LD1 - August 1960) years

Date of mission termination (MT) (shut-down o f f i n a l S/C)

Cruise t i m e (CT = MT -LD1) days

Experiment and data playback time (EPT) h Y S ( t o t a l f o r a l l S/C i n mission)

Hourly labor ra te WAGE = exp ( 0 . 0 4 4 ~ - 1.25) = d o l l a r s /hour

where: y = median year of program funding minus 1900


101

COST MODEL WORK SHEET ( 1 of 3)

For Program

Science

NRs = 0.1 PPL + 1.8 WTS + 234.2 =

- - RS = 0.182 NRs (NS)

DL% NRs + RS

St ruc tu re

NRST = 1.18 WTST + 50.1

Propulsion NRp = 3.51 (IT) . 359

Rp = 0.149 NRp (NS)

DLIEp = NRp + Rp

Electrical Power

Solar : qp = 0.21 Po + 0.23 WTEp + 55.3 =

- RTG: q p = 1.57 Po + 0.9 WTEp - REP = 0.154 NREp (NS) DLH %p + REP -

- - -


102


Communications

NRc = 16.9 PT + 4.2 WTC 0 37.1 =

- - RC = 0.183 NRc (NS)

DLHc = NRc + RC

Guidance & Control

3-Axis Flyby o r Orbi ter : - - NRGC = 428.9 exp (4 x l o w 5 WTTOT)

NRGc = 1079.0 exp (4 x l0-%TToT)

NRGC = 84.0 exp (4 x l o g 5 WTToT)

3-Axis Lander: - -

Spin Flyby o r Orbi te r : - -

RGC = 0,122 NRGC (NS)

DLHGc = MGC + RGC

Assembly & In t eg ra t ion

DLHAI = 64,O NS + 0 . 4 (WTDRy - WTsT)

T e s t & Q u a l i t y Assurance

DLHTQ = NS * (127.5 + 8.9 x l o w 4 WTsT2) =

Launch & F l i g h t Operations --- DLHLF = 95.7

Ground Equipment

NL + 0.4 CT + 2.7 EPT - 17.5 =

D L H ~ ~ - - 4.29 PPL (WTsT) -

T2

C DLH 1 I I T R E S E A R C H I N S T I T U T E

103


Systems Analysis & Engineering 10

DL%E = 0.353 WTDRy + 0.067 ( C DLH) 0 467.8 =

(if DL%E 0.0, set DLHsE = 0.0)

Sub t o ta 1 11 C DLH =

Program Management 11

DLHpM = 0.051 (C DLH) e

Tota l Program Direct Labor Hours

thousand hours - DL%OT -

R T G ' s yes 0 h/

no

A.E.C. Costs %TG = 1.7 Pu - 265.7 In T + 1059.0 =

Adjusted T o t a l DLH

D L H T ~ ~ = D L % ~ + %TG + %TG t/ T o t a l Program Cost <

= $ (x1000) (WAGE) COST = DL%OT 0.3


104

Date post:	22-May-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Technical Memorandum - NASA · ~ communications , and guidance and control) ; and six support...

Documents