Download
launch vehicle business n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Launch Vehicle Business PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Launch Vehicle Business

Launch Vehicle Business

6 Views Download Presentation
Download Presentation

Launch Vehicle Business

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Launch Vehicle Business Workshop

  2. Faculty John M. Jurist, Ph.D. David L. Livingston, D.B.A.

  3. Tasks • Characterize notional vehicle • Principles of cost engineering • Estimate development costs • Estimate production costs • Synthesis of financial proforma • Market assumptions / factors

  4. Goals for Participants • Step through process of notional vehicle characterization • Gather data required for cost estimation • Learn principles and concepts of Transcost • Estimate development and production costs • Synthesis of financial proforma • Study variable sensitivities • Discuss market assumptions / factors

  5. Characterize Notional Vehicle • Define mission characteristics • Incorporate understanding of technology • Rough out vehicle concept

  6. Notional Vehicle Disclaimer Any similarity to Space-X Falcon-1 is purely coincidental Public domain information from Space-X is useful for sanity checks

  7. Notional Vehicle Characterization • Deliver payload of 1,600 pounds to 200 km low earth orbit (LEO) • Expendable launch vehicle (ELV) • Vertical take off (VTO) • Two stage (TSTO) • Conventional bipropellant liquid • Liquid oxygen (LOX) and kerosene (RP-1)

  8. Notional Flight Parameters • 200 km circular orbit • 7,784 meters/sec circular velocity • 30% margin for gravity, air drag, other • Total launch speed change capability • Delta-V = 10,114 meters/sec • Includes 460 meters/sec Earth spin boost

  9. The Rocket Equation Mo/Mf = e(v/c) or v = c ln(Mo/Mf) Mo = GLOW = liftoff mass Mf = burnout mass c = g * Isp = exhaust velocity v = ideal burnout velocity

  10. Space-X Falcon-1e

  11. Cost Engineering • What is it? • Ignore cost (cost + percentage) and optimize performance • Design to cost (cost + fixed fee) and meet performance • Cost engineering (cost + incentive) minimize life cycle (complete or partial) cost

  12. Technology Readiness Levels (1) TRL1 Basic principles observed and reported TRL2 Technology concept and prototype demonstration or application formulated TRL3 Analytical and experimental critical functions or characteristics demonstrated TRL4 Component or breadboard validation in laboratory TRL5 Component or breadboard validation in relevant environment

  13. Technology Readiness Levels (2) TRL6 System/subsystem model or prototype demonstration in relevant environment (minimum for all systems for development) TRL7 System prototype demonstration in space environment TRL8 System completed and flight qualified by test and demonstration TRL9 System flight proven by successful mission operations

  14. Cost Engineering • Most commonly used model: Transcost • Price-H (Burmeister): Component costs adjusted by various complexity factors • TRASIM: Defined subsystem costs • NASCOM: Database adjusts for production and avionics complexity

  15. What is Transcost? • Dr. Dietrich E. Koelle • Statistical-Analytical Model for Cost Estimation and Economical Optimization of Launch Vehicles • Parametric cost estimation: Method of estimating cost per unit mass

  16. Transcost 7.2 (1) • Dr. Dietrich E. Koelle • Parametric (cost surrogate per unit mass) • Weighting factors for team experience, team skill base, vehicle complexity, etc. • Learning factor for production • Cost = A * Mass B * f1* f2 * f3 * … * fN

  17. Transcost 7.2 (2) • Development submodel • Flight tests (intermediate) • Production vehicle cost submodel • Refurbishment (intermediate) • Ground and flight operations submodel

  18. Cost – Why a Surrogate? • Engineering or production man years cleaner variable than dollars • Can be adjusted for inflation • Can be adjusted for productivity • Can be adjusted for currency fluctuations

  19. Engineering Man Year Inflation (1) 1960 = $ 26,000 1970 = $ 38,000 1980 = $ 92,200 1990 = $156,200 2000 = $208,700 2007 = $252,000

  20. Engineering Man Year Inflation (2)

  21. Development Factors • f1 Technical development status • f2 Technical quality • f3 Team experience • f6 Deviation from optimum schedule • f7 Program organization • f8 Engineering man year correction

  22. Development Cost Submodel (1) • Solid propellant rocket motors • Liquid propellant rocket motors with turbopumps • Pressure fed liquid propellant rocket motors • Airbreathing turbo- and ramjet engines • Solid propellant rocket boosters (large) • Propulsion systems / modules • Expendable ballistic launch vehicles

  23. Development Cost Submodel (2) • Reusable ballistic launch vehicles • Winged orbital rocket vehicles • HTO 1st stage vehicles, advanced aircraft • VTO 1st stage flyback rocket vehicles • Crewed re-entry capsules • Crewed space systems

  24. Unit Production Cost Submodel • Solid propellant rocket motors • Liquid propellant rocket motors with turbopumps • Airbreathing turbo- and ramjet engines • Propulsion modules • Ballistic rocket vehicles (expendable & reusable) • High speed aircraft / winged first stages • Winged orbital rocket vehicles • Crewed space systems

  25. Ground & Flight Ops Submodel (1) • Prelaunch ground operations • Launch and mission operations • Ground transportation and recovery • Propellants, gases, and material • Program administration and system management • Technical system support • Launch site and range cost

  26. Ground & Flight Ops Submodel (2) • Function of launch rate • Learning factor applies • RLV reuse and refurbishment relevant • Spares production and inventory • Detailed analysis beyond scope of this workshop

  27. Development Cost • Configure system • Develop mass budget • Develop appropriate margins

  28. Suggested Development Mass Margins

  29. Historical Development Mass Growth (Percent) Thor 6.3 Saturn S-IV 13.7 Saturn S-IVb 12.5 Lunar Lander 27 STS Orbiter 25 Airbus A-380 3

  30. Existing Structural Safety Factors ELV = 1.10 – 1.25 RLV = 1.35 – 2.0

  31. Safety Factor Comparables

  32. Cost Driver -- Payload • Payload is more important cost driver than GLOW • 20% increase in payload increases ELV development by 7% • 20% increase in payload increases RLV development by 4% • Cost effective to oversize vehicle to assure payload sufficiency

  33. Estimate Development Cost • First stage motor(s) • Second stage motor(s) • First stage vehicle • Second stage vehicle • Correct for various relevant factors • Convert into dollars

  34. f1 Technical Development Status 1.3-1.4 1st generation, new concept approach with new techniques and technologies 1.1-1.2 New design with some new technical/operational features 0.9-1.1 Standard projects, state of art, similar systems operational 0.7-0.9 Design modifications of existing systems 0.4-0.6 Minor variation of existing projects

  35. f2 Technical Quality Specific definition depends on submodel

  36. f3 Team Experience 1.3-1.4 New team, no direct relevant experience 1.1-1.2 Partly new activities for team 1.0 Company team with some related experience 0.8-0.9 Team has developed similar projects 0.7-0.8 Team has superior experience with this type of project

  37. f6 Deviation from Optimum Schedule (1) % Optimum Cost Factor 70 1.15 80 1.08 90 1.03 100 1.0 110 1.03 120 1.13 130 1.23 140 1.32 150 1.4 170 1.5

  38. f6 Deviation from Optimum Schedule (2)

  39. f7 Program Organization • “Too many cooks spoil the broth” • f7 = n 0.2 • n = participating parallel organizations • Not number of subcontractors if organized strictly according to prime/sub principle

  40. f8 Engineering Man Year Correction • USA f8 = 1.00 • France f8 = 0.79 • China f8 = 1.34 Correction factor f8 based on effective working hours/year * relative education * relative dedication

  41. Development Cost Submodel (1) Solid propellant rocket motors MYr = 16.3 M0.54 f1 f3 M = motor net mass (kg) Liquid propellant rocket motors with turbopumps MYr = 277 M0.48 f1 f2 f3 f2 = 0.026 (ln NQ)2 M = motor dry mass (kg) NQ = number of qualification firings (vs 12,000 endurance cycle firings for jet engines)

  42. Development Cost Submodel (2) Pressure fed liquid propellant rocket motors MYr = 167 M0.35 f1 f3 M = motor dry mass (kg) Airbreathing turbo- and ramjet engines MYr = 1380 M0.295 f1 f3 M = engine dry mass (kg)

  43. Development Cost Submodel (3) Solid propellant rocket boosters (large) MYr = 10.4 M0.6 f1 f3 M = booster net mass (kg) Propulsion systems / modules MYr = 14.2 M0.577 f1 f3 M = system dry mass with motors (kg)

  44. Development Cost Submodel (4) Expendable ballistic launch vehicles MYr = 100 M0.555 f1 f2 f3 f2 = Kref / Keff M = vehicle dry mass without motors (kg) Kref = reference net mass fraction (from graph) Keff = (M + residuals) / propellant Reusable ballistic launch vehicles MYr = 803.5 M0.385 f1 f2 f3 f2 = Kref / Keff M = vehicle dry mass without motors (kg) Kref = reference net mass fraction (from graph) Keff = (M + residuals) / propellant

  45. Development Cost Submodel (5)(Liquid Ballistic ELV KREF) LH2

  46. Development Cost Submodel (6)(Liquid Hydrogen Ballistic RLV KREF)

  47. Development Cost Submodel (7) Winged orbital rocket vehicles MYr = 1421 M0.35 f1 f2 f3 f2 = Kref / Keff M = vehicle dry mass without motors (kg) Kref = reference net mass fraction (from graph) Keff = (M + residuals) / propellant HTO 1st stage vehicles, advanced aircraft MYr = 2880 M0.241 f1 f2 f3 f2 = Mach0.15 M = vehicle dry mass without engines (kg) VTO 1st stage flyback rocket vehicles MYr = 1462 M0.325 f1 f3 M = vehicle dry mass without motors (kg)

  48. Development Cost Submodel (8)(Liquid Hydrogen Winged RLV KREF)

  49. Development Cost Submodel (9) Crewed re-entry capsules MYr = 436 M0.408 f1 f2 f3 f2 = (N*TM)0.15 M = reference mass (kg) N = crew number TM = maximum mission design lifetime (days) Crewed space systems MYr = 1113 M0.383 f1 f3 M = reference mass (kg)

  50. Development Margins • Requirement changes during development • Technical changes or “improvements” • Technical component/software failures • Changes in personnel or management structure • Funding limitations per budget year