CONTENTS ...,*O

Transcription

1 Chapte 7 costs

2 CONTENTS Page Intoduction Estimated Costs of Options Baseline Enhanced Baseline b Inteim Option with Titan IV Inteim Option with Titan V Inteim Options with Shuttle-C Inteim Option with Tansition Launch Vehicle,*O Advanced Option with Advanced Launch System Advanced Option with Shuttle II Compaisons Cost Compaison, b Tade-offs Between Up-Font and Out-Yea Costs Altenative Cost Estimates L Boxes Cost Components Failue Costs Shuttle-C Low Launch Rate Option Figues Funding Pofile fo Enhanced Baseline Option Funding Pofiles fo Inteim Option with Titan IV Funding Pofiles fo Inteim Option with Titan V Funding Pofiles fo Inteim Option with Shuttle-C, Funding Pofiles fo Inteim Option with Tansition Launch Vehicle Funding Pofiles fo Advanced Option with Advanced Launch System Funding Pofiles fo Advanced Option with Shuttle II Cost Compaison Low-Gowth Mission Model Cost Compaison -Gowth Mission Model 7-10 Cost Compaison Expanded Mission Model 7-11 Cost Compaison--All Mission Models 7-12 Ranges of Estimated Costs Tables 7-1 Cost Summay-Enhanced Baseline Option, 7-2 Cost Summay-Inteim Option with Titan IV 7-3 Cost Summay-Inteim Option with Titan V 7-4 Cost Summay Inteim Option with Shuttle-C 7-5 Cost Summay-Inteim Option with Tansition Launch Vehicle 7-6 Cost Summay-Advanced Option with Advanced Launch System 7-7 Cost Summay-Advanced Option with Shuttle II 7-8 Tade-offs: Investment vesus Savings b

3 Chapte 7 costs This chapte compaes estimated life-cycle costs of using the options descibed in chaptes 2-5 acoss a ange of demand levels These estimates do not include the vey substantial costs of payloads and uppe stages, which can be seveal times moe costly than the vehicles that launch them 1 These costs, as well as those of launch systems, must be educed to foste economy, affodability, and gowth of space activity In conducting its analysis of the costs of space tanspotation system hadwae, facilities, and sevices, OTA elied initially on data and estimation methods developed by the Boeing Aeospace Company fo the Space Tanspotation Achitectue Study (STAS) and the Advanced Launch System (ALS) pogam These initial estimates wee adjusted to include OTA s estimate of failue costs, cost isk, and eliability A detailed desciption of the cost estimation methods used to deive the figues contained in this chapte can be found in appendix A INTRODUCTION ESTIMATED COSTS OF OPTIONS The cost-estimating fomulae used by OTA wee eviewed by NASA, the Ai Foce, Boeing Aeospace Company, Geneal Dynamics, Hughes Aicaft Company, Matin Maietta Denve Aeospace, McDonnell Douglas Copoation, Rockwell Intenational Copoation, and United Technologies Copoation These eviewes suggested impotant additions and coections, and two suggested altenative fomulae fo estimating the costs of developing, poducing, and launching the launch vehicles consideed OTA poduced altenative estimates of lifecycle cost based on the fomulae poposed by two of the eviewes; the section below on Altenative Cost Estimates, shows the anges spanned by these fomulae and the OTA estimates deived fom them Estimates of costs of launch vehicle development and opeations ae necessaily uncetain because development can take longe and cost moe (o less) than assumed, o demand might gow moe slowly (o incease moe apidly) than assumed Fo this eason, OTA cannot assue the accuacy of the estimates contained in this chapte Howeve, OTA does maintain that the estimates ae easonable given the stated gound ules and assumptions, and that the methodology used hee is epesentative of the state of the at Baseline To give the eade a basis upon which to compae the options discussed in this epot, OTA defined a Baseline (in chapte 2) The Baseline featues cuent vehicles launched at ates limited only by the constaints imposed by existing manufactuing and gound facilities Limiting the Baseline to existing facilities means that it could not even fly all the missions in the Low-Gowth mission model Although the Baseline might 1 Some spacecaft cost seveal hunded thousand dollas pe pound; scc ~ I ~, l~xccutlvc Summa~ (Washington, DC: National secuity Industial Association, 1987), fig

4 64 Launch Options fo the Futue A Buye s Guide Box Cost Components Life-cycle cost appopiately discounted to eflect isk and oppotunity cost is the most impotant economic citeion by which to compae diffeent launch vehicle achitectues Fo each mission model examined hee, the option that has the lowest discounted life-cycle cost would be most economical, if the assumed discount ate wee appopiate and if the equied funding wee available Howeve, the most economical launch achitectue might be deemed unaffodable if it would equie moe spending in a paticula yea than the Executive would budget o than Congess would authoize and appopiate fo the pupose To help the eade compae the long- and shot-tem advantages of the vaious options, this chapte displays thei funding pofiles fo each mission model in constant 1988 dollas Funding pofiles in cuent ( {then-yea ) dollas ae exhibited in appendix B Life-cycle costs include both non-ecuing and ecuing costs The non-ecuing costs include costs of design, development, testing, and evaluation (DDT&E), poduction of eusable vehicle systems, and constuction and equipping of facilities The ecuing costs include all costs of planned opeation% including poduction of expendable vehicle systems, as well as expected costs of failues Expected costs of failues ae calculated fom estimates of vehicle eliabilities and estimates of the costs that would be incued in the event of a failue (see box 7-2, *Failue Costs, and appendix A) In geneal, ealy non-ecuing investment is equied to educe total discounted life-cycle cost Tadeoffs between investment and savings ae discussed below in the section, Tade-Offs between Up-Font and Out-Yea Costs Cost isk is included in some of the cost estimates quoted hee Cost isk was defined in the Space Tanspotation Achitectue Study (STAS) as a subjectively estimated pecentage incease in life-cycle cost (discounted at 5 pecent) that the estimato expects would be exceeded with a pobability of 30 pecent, assuming cetain goundules ae met Basically, cost isk is intended to epesent likely inceases in life-cycle cost caused by unfoeseen difficulties in technology development, facility constuction, etc Howeve, cost isk as defined in the STAS does not include isks of cost gowth due to mission cancellation% funding stetch-outs, o standdowns afte failue, which wee excluded by the goundules of the study The cost isk estimates by OTA also exclude isks of mission cancellations, funding stetch-outs, and standdowns afte failues; estimation of these isks in a logically consistent manne will equie moe sophisticated methods than wee used hee, o in the STAS Howeve, OTA s cost isk estimates do include the isk of geate-than-expected failue costs (see box 7-2, "Failue Costs,") Because cost isk is defined in tems of life-cycle cost and not annual cost, cost isk is excluded fom the funding pofiles in this chapte but included in the histogams compaing life-cycle cost Cost isk is also excluded fom the estimates of savings on page 75, because all options use common vehicles (Shuttle, Titan IV, and MLV) and facilities, and thei cost oveuns (if any) maybe coelated OTA has not attempted to estimate these coelations and thei esultant savings in cost isk be adequate fo the nea-tem epesenting gowth fom 1985 launch ates in all categoies (piloted, light cago, and heavy cago) 29 of 161 post-1999 heavy cago missions in the Low-Gowth mission model would have to be cancelled Because Baseline vehicles and facilities cannot launch all the missions in the Low-Gowth mission model, its life-cycle cost fo doing so cannot be calculated Enhanced Baseline Option The Enhanced Baseline Option featues an impoved Shuttle with advanced solid ocket motos (ASRMs), impoved Titan IVs with new solid ocket motos and faulttoleant avionics, MLVs, and an exta Titan IV pad to handle the peak Titan IV launch ate in the Low-Gowth mission model (16 pe yea)

5 I Ch 7 Costs 65 Box 7-2 Failue Costs Expected launch vehicle failue costs ae the poduct of the expected failue fequency (calculated fom vehicle eliability estimates) and the estimated failue cost pe vehicle (based on histoical expeience) Cost pe failue will geneally include cost of accident investigation and coective action It may include costs of eplacing and eflying lost payloads, eplacing eusable vehicle components, and delays pending completion of accident investigation In the Space Tanspotation Achitectue Study (STAS), opeations costs wee estimated assuming that opeations would be continuous (ie no standdowns ), and failue costs wee estimated assuming that all lost payloads would be eplaced and eflown The same assumptions wee made in this epot Accident investigation costs wee included, but launch opeations wee not assumed to be suspended pending thei completion To assume that a fleet would stand down pending completion of accident investigation equies that the oppotunity costs of delaying missions be estimated Moeove, since some missions would be cancelled as a esult of the delay, life-cycle costs would have to exclude missions not flown In addition to calculating expected failue costs, OTA has estimated the expected statistical vaiations in failue costs One measue of such vaiations is the standad deviation of failue costs A elated measue, 19 times the standad deviation, is the diffeence between the expected failue cost and the 70th pecentile of failue cost, ie the excess failue cost which would be exceeded with a pobability of only 30 pecent This cxcess failue cost has been included in OTA s estimates of cost isk, along with the cost isk as defined in the STAS Fo a moe detailed discussion of the cost estimation methodology employed in this epot, see appendix A Enhanced Baseline Option costs ae estimated only fo the Low-Gowth mission model To fly all missions in the Gowth mission model, which has a peak Titan IV launch ate of 30 pe yea, would equie about five new Titan IV pads As noted in chapte 3, about 14 new Titan IV pads would be needed to launch 66 Titan IVs pe yea in the Expanded mission model Because existing launch sites could accommodate at most fou new Titan IV pads, 2 and constuction of the facilities infastuctue fo an additional ten pads would epesent a adical athe than incemental change in launch facilities and opeations, we assume that the Enhanced Baseline Option conceived as an evolutionay enhancement could not accommodate Gowth o Expanded peak launch ates Figue 7-1 shows the estimated funding pofile in 1988 dollas fo the Enhanced Baseline Option sized fo the Low-Gowth mission model The funding pofile is elatively flat Foty to fifty pecent of the annual expenditue is fo failue costs; about half of the est ($13B pe yea) is the fixed cost of impoved Shuttle opeations 3 The second lagest contibuto is the incemental cost of impoved Titan IV launches ($95M pe launch) The fixed cost of Titan IV opeations and the incemental cost of impoved Shuttle launches ae elatively small Thee Figue 7-1 Funding Pofile fo Enhanced Baseline Option A / I II 10II J 2 This includes one launch pad at Vandenbeg Ai Foce Base, one at Cape Canaveal Ai Foce Station, and two at Kennedy Space Cente, 3 Annual opeations costs have a vaiable component, which depends on the numbe of launches duing the yea, and a fixed component, which does not In this special epot, total (fixed plus vaiable) annual opeations costs ae defined as ecuing costs

6 66 Launch Options fo the Futue A Buye s Guide is a baely noticeable hump of development and facility constuction costs in the ealy 1990s Because fixed costs ae such a lage faction of total annual costs, total annual costs incease only about 50 pecent as the combined-fleet launch ate doubles between 1989 and 2010 The funding pofile fo the Enhanced Baseline Option and all othe options discussed in this chapte includes expected failue costs but not cost isk The analysis assumes that opeations would continue afte failues Appendix A descibes the cost estimation methodology and othe assumptions in geate detail Table 7-1 Cost Summay Enhanced Baseline Option - discounted 570 pe yea: $83B - undiscounted: $150B - in FY88 $ $8B in in cuent $ $21B in 2010 Inteim Option with Titan IV The Inteim Option with Titan IV assumes that the United States could build as many new Titan IV launch facilities as ae necessay to accommodate the peak launch ate fo each mission model Note that hee, and in the options that follow, OTA has named the option accoding to the lagest cago system in the option Although each option actually suppots a mixed fleet of vehicles, this option, fo example, includes existing facilities and launch vehicles that ae now opeational o in poduction (the Shuttle, Titan IVs with new solid ocket motos, and MLVs) Figue 7-2 shows estimated funding pofiles fo this option fo all thee OTA mission models The funding pofile fo the Low-Gowth mission model is elatively flat, with expected failue costs consuming almost half the annual expenditues, and with fixed costs of Shuttle opeations taking up almost half of the emainde The second lagest contibuto is the incemental cost of Titan IV launches ($100M pe launch) The fixed cost of Titan IV opeations and the incemental cost of Shuttle launches ae elatively small Thee is a baely noticeable hump of facility constuction costs fo the Low- Gowth model, and geate inceases in the Gowth and Expanded mission models, but no development costs As in the Enhanced Baseline Option, fixed costs ae a lage faction of total annual costs, theefoe total annual costs hadly change as the combined-fleet launch ate doubles between 1989 and 2010 in the Low-Gowth mission model and only double as the launch ate moe than quaduples and as the heavy cago launch ate inceases tenfold in the Expanded Mission Model This option assumes that additional onshoe o off-shoe Titan IV launch sites can be found that ae acceptable in tems of safety, secuity, and envionmental impacts and isks, and that these pads can be built at a cost compaable to the cost of new Titan IV pads at Vandenbeg Ai Foce Base o Kennedy Space Cente This assumption is most citical fo the Expanded mission model, Figue 7-2 Funding Pofiles fo Inteim Option with Titan IV c A 6 I I

7 1 Ch 7 Costs 67 Table 7-2 Cost Summay Inteim Option with Titan IV mission model Life-cycle cost ( ) in FY88 $B Low Gowth Gowth Expanded - discounted 5% pe yea: $87B $1OOB $150B - undiscounted: $150B $180B $270B Peak funding ate and yea - in FY88 $ pe yea $87B in 2005 $llb in 2010 $17B in in cuent $ pe yea $22B in 2010 $29B in 2010 $45B in 2010 which will equie the most new sites OTA has not examined the easonableness of these assumptions, 4 but, as mentioned in the Enhanced Baseline Option, we note that thee is little oom at Vandenbeg fo expansion Inteim Option with Titan V The inteim Option with Titan V featues the Titan V a poposed heavy-lift (100,000- pound class) launch vehicle deived fom the Titan IV; it also includes unimpoved Shuttles, MLVs, unimpoved Titan IVs (until Titan Vs became opeational in 1996), and additional launch facilities as equied to fly all missions Figue 7-3 shows the estimated funding pofiles fo the inteim Option with Titan V in the Low-Gowth, Gowth, and Expanded mission models, in fiscal yea 1988 dollas The investment costs ae compaable to those of the Inteim Option with Titan IV Titan Vs could use conveted Titan IV pads This analysis assumes that fo $500M all Titan IV pads could be modified to launch Titan Vs at a maximum annual launch ate of 12 pe yea, the assumed cuent maximum annual Titan IV launch ate The out-yea costs, also compaable to those of the Inteim Option with Titan IV, ae attibutable lagely to the incemental cost of Figue 7-3 Funding Pofiles fo Inteim Option with Titan V 25 F 88 ~ 8 ~ 15 e y 10 e a Table 7-3 Cost Summay Inteim Option with Titan V I cycle cost ( ) in FY88 $B L OW Gowth - discounted 570 pe yea: $85B $98B $140B - undiscounted: $150B $180B $270B - in FY88 $ pe yea $8lB in 2005 $llb in 2010 $17B in in cuent $ pe yea $21B in 2010 $27B in 2010 $44B in It should be noted that off-shoe options might equie additional infastuctue to handle hazadous fuels o povide tanspotation to an off-shoe location

8 68 Launch Options fo the Futue A Buye s Guide Titan V launches, which is estimated as $160M pe launch 60 pecent geate than that of Titan IV, although 20 pecent fewe launches would be equied to fly payloads off-loaded fom Titan IVs The fixed annual cost of Titan V launches is also estimated to be substantial about $270M pe yea, as compaed to $200M pe yea fo Titan IV Figue 7-4 Funding Pofiles fo Inteim Option with Shuttle-C Inteim Option with Shuttle-C The Inteim Option with Shuttle-C feahicle tues the expendable Shuttle-C cago ve poposed by NASA and includes unimpoved Shuttles, MLVs, unimpoved Titan IVs (until Shuttle-C is opeational in 1995), and additional launch facilities as equied to fly all missions Figue 7-4 shows the estimated funding pofiles fo the Inteim Option with Shuttle-C in the Low-Gowth, Gowth, and Expanded mission models, in 1988 dollas These pofiles show a modest ealy hump of investment in Shuttle-C development $12B ove 6 yeas and constuction of additional Shuttle pads, which Shuttle-C could use with minimal modification (not costed hee) They also show high annual costs in ) in FY88 $B Table 7-4 Cost Summay Inteim Option with Shuttle-C the out-yeas, especially at high cago launch ates The high annual out-yea cost is attibutable pimaily to the high estimated incemental opeations cost of Shuttle-C: about $235M pe launch, less savings ealized by using depeciated Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSMEs), which NASA will no longe fly on the Shuttle By eplacing 5 Titan IV, Shuttle-C launches would outnumbe Shuttle launches in all the mission models, so savings fom flying depeciated SSMEs would be small 6 In the out-yeas of OTA s mission models, the estimated incemental cost pe Shuttle-C flight would exceed foufold that of Shuttle, twice that of Titan IV, and sevenfold Low Gowth Gowth - discounted 5% pe yea: $92B $110B $170B - undiscounted: $160B $200B $330B del - in FY88 $ pe yea $94B in 2005 $13B in 2010 $22B in in cuent $ pe yea $24B in 2010 $33B in 2010 $55B in A new SSME costs about $40 million Boeing assumed that SSME lifetime on the Shuttle would incease fom 10 flights (ea 1985) to 20 flights ( ), and 40 flights (post-1995) Based on this assumption, Boeing estimated that the equivalent of fou fully depeciated SSMEs would be available in 1989, when the OTA mission models begin NASA has assumed a 10-flight lifetime Assuming a shote engine life educes the estimated cost pe Shuttle-C flight; this should be eflected in highe cost pe Shuttle flight The actual cost diffeence esulting fom the diveging assumptions is not geat (see appendix A) 6 The SSME cedit would be only $2M pe flight in the out-yeas of the Low-Gowth mission model,5 o $05M in the out-yeas of the Expanded mission model

9 Ch 7 Costs 69 Box Shuttle-C Low-Launch-Rate Option At only thee launches a yea, Shuttle-C could simplify and impove Space Station assembly by launching outfitted Space Station modules too heavy fo the Shuttle o Titan IVs to cay It could povide edundant means of launching heavy cago and hence incease opeational flexibility OTA has estimated the costs of using Shuttle-C fo only thee launches a yea afte 1994, and using Titan IVs and the Shuttle fleet fo othe taffic OTA assumed that in each yea afte 1994: Shuttle-C would eplace the Shuttle on 20 pecent of the Shuttle flights in the [non-hllv] mission models The emaining Shuttle-C flights (0,6-14pe yea) would cay cago offloaded fom Titan IVs; fou Shuttle-C flights would eplace five Titan IV flights MLV flights would be educed by 30 pecent of the heavy cago vehicle flights in the mission model which ae flown by Shuttle-C (ie, not counting the flights on which Shuttle-C substitutes fo the Shuttle) This option would equie moe investment than would the Titan IV o Shuttle-C options, because both a Shuttle-C and anothe cago vehicle would be needed Howeve, it would have essentially the same discounted life-cycle cost no moe than about 1 pecent geate in any mission model Hence although Shuttle-C would not be cost-effective as the pimay US heavy-lift launch vehicle, it could povide useful flexibility especially fo selected NASA missions at a small pemium in life-cycle cost Cost Summay $ w Gowth Go anded - discounted 5% pe yea: $87B $1OOB $150B - undiscounted: $150B $180B $280B - in FY88 $ pe yea $82B in 2005 $10B in 2010 $16B in in cuent $ pe yea $21B in 2010 $27B in 2010 $42B in 2010 ion with Titan IV - exta nonecuing cost $860M $900M $900M - exta life-cycle cost $460M $690M $17B that of the Advanced Launch System Most of the costs ae not engine-elated; they include the costs of the payload module ($55M, including payload cadles), the boattail in which the engines ae mounted ($55 M), and othe pats ($56M, including an extenal tank) No costs of using, ecoveing, and efubishing Obital Maneuveing Vehicles (OMVs) fo docking Shuttle-C to the Space Station ae included In this option, Shuttle-C is assumed to be the Nation's pimay heavy cago vehicle; this contasts with NASA s poposal that Shuttle- C be used only fo a few selected missions, such as Space Station deployment NASA concedes that an expendable Shuttle-C would not be economical at high launch ates; patially eusable vesions, which have been consideed by NASA and the Ai Foce, might be The box Shuttle-C Low-Launch- Rate Option estimates costs fo an option in 7 See appendix A

10 70 Launch Options fo the Futue A Buye s Guide which Titan IVs would launch most heavy cago, and Shuttle-C would be launched only thee times pe yea beginning in 1995 This option is less expensive than the Inteim Option with Shuttle-C and competitive with the Inteim Option with Titan IV At essentially the same life-cycle cost of the Titan IV option, Shuttle-C could simplify Space Station assembly by launching outfitted Space Station modules too heavy fo the Shuttle o Titan IVs to cay Hence Shuttle-C appeas economical fo selected missions (ie, Space Station module launches) but does not compae well as the pincipal US heavy-lift launch vehicle Inteim Option with Tansition Launch Vehicle The Inteim Option with Tansition Launch Vehicle featues a poposed patially eusable unpiloted launch vehicle with ecoveable engines that bun liquid hydogen and oxygen; fo eliability, it uses no solid-fuel engines The option also includes unimpoved Shuttles, MLVs, unimpoved Titan IVs (until they ae supeseded by Tansition vehicles in 1996), and additional launch facilities as equied to fly all missions Figue 7-5 shows the estimated funding pofiles fo the Inteim Option with Tansition Launch Vehicle in the Low-Gowth, Gowth, and Expanded mission models, in 1988 dollas Figue 7-5 Funding Pofiles fo Inteim Option with Tansition Launch Vehicle / II P e y 10 e a 5 15{ I Table 7-5 Cost Summay Inteim Option with Tansition Launch Vehicle These pofiles show highe and longe investment humps than fo Shuttle-C, but vey little gowth in out-yea costs, even while launch ates double (in the Low-Gowth mission model) o moe than quaduple (in the Expanded mission model) Although the initial investment is geate fo this launch option, its life-cycle cost is elatively low Aveage launch cost (life-cycle cost divided by total numbe of launches) is especially low at high launch ates, because it is assumed that the ealy investment has esulted in vey low incemental costs ($54 M) fo launches Advanced Option with Advanced Launch System This option featues the Advanced Launch System design poposed by Boeing Aeospace Company fo launching lage cago payloads economically at high launch ates It also includes the Shuttle, MLVs, - 4 mission model Life-cycle cost ( in FY88 $B Low Gowth Gowth Expanded - discounted 5% pe yea: $81B $87B $l10b undiscounted: $130B $150B $190B Peak funding ate - in FY88 $ pe yea $82B in 1993 $87B in 1993 $10B in 2005 in cuent $ pe yea $16B in 2010 $19B in 2010 $26B in 2010

11 Ch 7 Costs 71 unimpoved Titan IVs (until eplaced by the Advanced Launch System in 20008), and additional launch facilities as equied to fly all missions The Advanced Launch System pogam has not yet selected a vehicle design, but designs cuently unde consideation include vehicles capable of launching payloads substantially heavie than 50,000 pounds The cost estimates quoted in this section efe to a patially eusable vehicle featuing a flyback booste buning liquid oxygen and hydocabon popellants; a coe stage with expendable tanks and payload faiing; and a ecoveable payload/avionics module with engines that bun liquid oxygen and hydogen OTA s selection of this vehicle fo puposes of cost estimation should not be constued as an endosement of this paticula configuation OTA did not examine all poposed vehicles Figue 7-6 shows the estimated funding pofiles fo the Advanced Option with Advanced Launch System in the Low-Gowth, Gowth, and Expanded mission models These pofiles show substantial investment humps even fo the Low-Gowth mission model, but low out-yea costs that gow little with inceasing heavy cago taffic Compaed to the Shuttle II option, the Advanced Life-cycle cost ( ) in FY88 $B Launch System option is much moe economical because its new vehicle is optimized fo caying heavy cago to obit, not fo piloted soties o etun of cago This analysis makes the key assumption that the incemental cost of ALS opeations will be $33M pe launch much lowe than that of Titan V ($160M) o Shuttle-C (about $235 M), and just unde 1/3 that of Titan IV ($100M) The ALS pogam is equied by law 9 to seek to lowe ecuing launch cost pe pound by a facto often compaed to cuent ELV launch costs, which wee assumed to be about $3000 pe pound to low-eath obit in 1987 dollas An ALS launch vehicle must be able to lift 110,000 pounds to low- Eath obit to fulfill this goal, if its incemen- Figue 7-6 Funding Pofiles fo Advanced Option with Advanced Launch System $ B : 15 ; 10 a 5 Table Cost Summay-Advanced Option with Advanced Launch System - 0 Low Gowth I Gowth - discounted 5% pe yea: $89B $95B $120B - undiscounted: $150B $160B $200B del - in FY88 $ pe yea $llb in 1997 $12B in 1998 $16B in in cuent $ pe yea $17B in 1997 $19B in 1998 $24B in Boeing assumed an initial launch capability of 1996; OTA consides 2000 moe plausible A sensitivity analysis indicates that the ank ode of option costs is insensitive to the change 9 Public Law , Depatment of Defense Authoization Act, 1988/1989, Sec 256 (101 Stat 1066)

12 72 Launch Options fo the Futue A Buye s Guide tal launch cost is $33M pe launch Howeve, it is unclea that thee would be many payloads o feasible combinations of payloads that lage As a esult, actual cost savings could be much smalle than the theoetical maximum savings The uncetainties in estimates of Advanced Launch System costs ae paticulaly high because of the uncetainty about which vehicle configuation would be selected To indicate the impact of selecting a diffeent configuation on the cost of this option, OTA also estimated the cost of an Advanced Launch System featuing an expendable launch vehicle with a lowe development cost, no cost of pocuing eusable elements, a lowe fixed annual opeations cost, but a highe incemental cost pe launch OTA assumed this option would be available ealie (1996 v 2000) at lowe cost isk Its payload deployment eliability is estimated to be slightly lowe, but it need not be ecoveed and theefoe has no isk of failue duing ecovey This and othe cost estimates, ae discussed in the section on Altenative Cost Estimates Advanced Option with Shuttle II The Advanced Option with Shuttle II featues a poposed fully eusable piloted launch vehicle deived fom the cuent Shuttle Although Shuttle 11 is not a fim concept, this analysis assumes that it can cay payloads compaable to those caied by the Shuttle and that it will eplace the Shuttle in the yea 2000 This option also includes unimpoved Titan IVs, MLVs, and additional launch facilities as equied to fly all missions Figue 7-7 shows the estimated funding pofiles fo the Advanced Option with Shuttle 11 in the Low-Gowth, Gowth, and Expanded mission models Each pofile shows a pominent hump of spending fo Shuttle 11 development and facilities fom 1994 to 1999 These calculations assume that expenditues fo Shuttle II development and facility constuction would be delayed until 1994 and completed in 1999 so that Shuttle II could be launched in 2000 Shuttle 11 could use conveted athe than new pads This analysis assumes that fo $lb all Shuttle pads could be modified to launch Shuttle 11 vehicles at a Figue 7-7 Funding Pofiles fo Advanced Option with Shuttle 11 B : 5 y 10 e a 5 0,, Table 7-7 Cost Summay Advanced Option with Shuttle II mission model Life-cycle cost ( ) in FY88 $B Low Gowth Gowth Expanded - discounted 570 pe yea: $89B $1OOB $150B - undiscounted: $150B $170B $270B Peak funding i ate - in FY88 $ pe yea $13B in 1997 $13B in 1997 $17B in in cuent $ pe yea $19B in 1997 $21B in 2010 $37B in 2010

13 Ch 7 Costs 73 maximum combined annual launch ate of 16 pe yea, the maximum Shuttle launch ate sustainable with cuent facilities, in Boeing s estimate The pofiles fo the Gowth and Expanded mission models show smalle humps of ealie spending ( ) fo Titan IV launch facilities Compaed to the Inteim Options with Titan IV o Titan V, the out-yea costs of the Shuttle II option ae lowe, because the fixed annual opeations cost of Shuttle II would be much lowe than that of the Shuttle, which it would eplace, and the expected failue cost of Shuttle II would be lowe because it is expected to be moe eliable than the Shuttle Annual opeations cost would be educed by the same amount in all thee mission models, because the mission models diffe only in launch ates fo heavy cago vehicles Although OTA s analysis assumes Shuttle 11 to be much moe economical than the cuent Shuttle, the Advanced Option with Shuttle 11 would not be as economical as othe options, because of the pedominance of cago taffic in OTA s mission models Only the Shuttle-C option would be moe expensive If demand fo piloted flights wee to incease and demand fo cago launch wee to decease, the Advanced Option with Shuttle 11 could become moe economical than the othe options consideed hee In any case, sometime ealy in the next centuy, the cuent Shuttle will begin to exceed its useful lifetime o will become obsolete At this point, a eplacement fo the cuent Shuttle will be necessay whethe o not it is competitive at launching cago with then existing o planned cago vehicles Cost Compaison The histogam in Figue 7-8 compaes the expected life-cycle cost and cost isk of each option in 1988 dollas discounted at 5 pecent, fo the Low-Gowth mission model The bottom potion of each ba epesents the expected life-cycle cost, excluding failue costs The middle potion of each ba epesents the expected cost of failues The to potion of each ba epesents the cost isk 11 The figue shows that at Low-Gowth launch ates, no option pomises savings with confidence, and that cost is elatively insensitive to choice of option Figues 7-9 and 7-10 ae simila compaisons fo the Gowth and Expanded mission models, espectively Figue 7-10 shows that in the Expanded mission model, clea-cut savings ae possible with COMPARISONS some options, while othe options would be wasteful That is, cost is moe sensitive to choice of option at Expanded launch ates than at Low-Gowth launch ates Figue 7-11 is a supeposition of figues 7-8, 7-9, and 7-10, showing the sensitivities of cost to mission model as well as to choice of option These cost compaisons suggest the following conclusions: Low Gowth: If the futue US space pogam esembles the Low-Gowth mission model consideed hee, then it is not possible to distinguish meaningfully among the options examined Uncetainties of cost estimation obscue the small estimated diffeences in savings be- 10 NASA estimates a maximum sustainable Shuttle launch ate of 14 pe yea; OTA s mission models assume no moe than 12 Shuttle flights pe yea 11 The cost isk in dollas is the cost isk in pecent, divided by 100, times the expected cost of the option

14 74 Launch Options fo the Futue A Buye s Guide Figue 7-8 Cost Compaison Low-Gowth Mission Model Figue 7-9 Cost Compaison Gowth Mission Model F Y 150 I 8 [ I I I ~ = I I $ B Baseline Vehicle Figue 7-10 Cost Compaison Expanded Mission Model 0 Titan IV ALS Vehicle Figue 7-11 Cost Compaison All Mission Models 250 F Y t --1 2Q0 : w 8 8 $ B 100 n n 50 J Tansition -Shuttle II Vehicle tween the options In shot, at Low- Gowth launch ates, life-cycle cost is insensitive to choice of option and is unlikely to be educed significantly by any option OTA consideed Development of a new cago vehicle would, howeve, pesent an oppotunity to in cease the eliability of cago delivey 12 This would also incease the opeational availability and esiliency of launch systems without equiing that downtimes afte failues be educed It would incease the pobability of access to space and hedge against a geate than expected gowth in launch demand in the late 1990s If continuation of piloted 0 Enhanced Titan IV Baseline Shuttle-C ; Vehicle ALS Shuttle II spaceflight wee of paamount impotance, a Shuttle II might be appopiate Gowth: If the US space pogam expands to esemble the Gowth mission model, then Tansition Launch Vehicles would seem to be the best choice The othe options except use of Shuttle-C as the pimay cago vehicle would be economically competitive, though hee again estimated diffeences in savings ae obscued by uncetainties of cost estimation The Tansition Launch Vehicle o Advanced Launch System options could maximize the eliability of cago delivey 12 Inceases in eliability ae limited by pobabilities of human eo and catastophic component failues not avoidable though edundancy

15 Ch 7 Costs 75 pocuement fo the othe options Fo each Expanded: Fo a geatly expanded mission model, table 7-8 shows the expected launch demand, the Tansition Launch investment equied to fly all missions with Vehicle option o an Advanced Launch each option and the expected potential System would be appopiate These op- tions have the lowest estimated life-cycle savings in discounted life-cycle cost elative costs, and thei pimay cago vehicles to the Inteim Option with Titan IV Cost ae intended to povide geate isk is not included in the calculation of lifeeliability of cago delivey cycle costs 14 Tade-Off s Between Up-Font and Out- The table shows that at Low-Gowth taf- Yea Costs fic levels, the Tansition Vehicle, Enhanced Baseline, and Titan V options ae expected to In addition to choosing which technologies yield savings that ae at most a small faction and launch vehicles to pusue, Congess must of the cost isk of each option The Enhanced also detemine the most appopiate plan fo Baseline Option is expected to have the funding these capabilities Much has been geatest cost leveage (savings to investment witten about how estictions on the up- atio) Some options would equie geate font Shuttle development costs esulted in investment and save less money, if any At the cuent high opeations costs 13 The Ad- taffic levels eflective of the Gowth model, ministation and the Congess now face the Tansition Vehicle, Titan V, and Adsimila tade-offs between educing the up- vanced Launch System options ae all exfont costs of developing the next geneation pected to yield savings At the high cago of launch vehicles and facilities educing the launch ates of the Expanded mission model, un out costs of opeating them One way the Titan V, Tansition Vehicle, and Adto illustate the tade-offs available is to show vanced Launch System options ae expected the potential savings, elative to that of a to yield savings Because estimates of cost efeence option, obtainable by investing in and savings ae both quite uncetain, small development, facility constuction, and fleet diffeences in the estimates should not be egaded as meaningful 13 Sec, fo example, John Imgsdon, The Decision to Develop the Space Shuttle, -, vol 232, May 1986, pp ; NASA, eve_ (Ilouston, TX: NASA JSC, June 8, 1986); and Boeing Aeospace Opeations, ~ ~, : May 4, Cost isk is not included in the calculation of life-cycle costs, because coelations among eos in estimates of non-ecuing and ccunng costs of diffeent op[ions must be known to calculate the cost isk of savings; it cannot be calculated simply by subtacting the cost isk of each option fom the cost isk of the Inteim Option with Titan IV,

16 76 Launch Options fo the Futue A Buye s Guide Table 7-8 Tade-offs: Investment vesus Savings Option Nonecuing Cost a Low-Gowth Enhanced Baseline $12B Inteim option with Titan IV $039B Titan V $17B Shuttle-C $13B Tansition Vehicle $8OB Advanced option with Advanced Launch System $14B Shuttle II $17B $35B $0B $22B ($48B) $62B ($2lB) ($27B) Gowth Inteim option with Titan IV $2OB Titan V $3OB Shuttle-C $26B Tansition Vehicle $93B Advanced option with Advanced Launch System $15B Shuttle II $18B $OB $20B ($93B) $13B $47B ($27B) Expanded Inteim option with Titan IV Titan V $64B $65B Shuttle-C $6lB Tansition Vehicle $13B Advanced option with Advanced Launch System $18B Shuttle II $23B a In Fiscal Yea 1988 dollas b Relative to the Inteim Option with Titan IV SOURCE: OTA and Boeing Aeospace Co $OB $091B ($25B) $38B $28B ($27B) ALTERNATIVE COST ESTIMATES As noted ealie, the cost estimates quoted isk Two eviewes suggested altenative above ae based in pat on cost-estimating CERs, which in some cases, diffe significantelationships (CERs) developed by Boeing ly fom those povided by Boeing Using Aeospace Company in the couse of its wok these altenative CERs, OTA poduced two on the Space Tanspotation Achitectue altenative estimates of life-cycle cost Study and the Advanced Launch System pogam, modified by OTA s and Boeing s Figue 7-12 shows the ange spanned by the estimates of eliability, failue cost, and cost nominal and altenative estimates of option life-cycle costs (including failue costs and

17 Ch 7 Costs 77 cost isk) Estimates fo the Inteim Option The diffeences between estimates fo most with Shuttle-C at Expanded launch ates lead options ae compaable to the cost isk of the to the geatest cost discepancy Estimates option as estimated by OTA and Boeing (see fo the Inteim Option with Titan IV also figue 7-1 1) span a lage ange at Expanded launch ates 250 Figue 7-12 Ranges of Estimated Costs 200 F Y 8 8 $ B (1 - Enhanced Titan IV Titan V Shuttle-C Tansition ALS Baseline Vehicle Shuttle II