Cost Estimation and Engineering Economics

Transcription

1 Cost Sources Vehicle-level Costing Heuristics Learning Curves 2 Case Studies Inflation Cost Discounting Return on Investment Cost/Benefit Ratios Life Cycle Costing Cost Spreading David L. Akin - All rights reserved

2 Cost Analysis Direct Costs - directly related to designing, testing, building, and operating the system Indirect Costs - required to do business, but not directly associated with development or operations Management Profit Non-operational facilities Overhead 2

3 Direct Cost Breakdown Non-recurring costs - only incurred once in program, such as design Recurring costs - reoccur throughout the life of the program Per vehicle Per flight Per year 3

4 Nonrecurring Cost Sources Research Design Development Test and evaluation Facilities Tooling 4

5 Recurring Cost Sources Vehicle manufacturing Mission planning Pre-flight preparation and check-out Flight operations Post-flight inspection and refurbishment Range costs Consumables (e.g., propellants) Training 5

6 Refurbishment Cost associated with maintenance and upkeep on reusable vehicles between flights Refurbishment fraction f R - fraction of first unit production cost that is required for average postflight refurbishment Airliner: ~0.001% Fighter jet: ~0.01% X-15: 3% Shuttle: 6-20% Major contributor to space flight costs 6

7 Spacecraft/Vehicle Level Costing Model C($M) =a [m inert hkgi] b Spacecraft Type Nonrecurring a Nonrecurring b 1st unit production a 1st unit production b Launch Vehicle Stage Manned Spacecraft Unmanned Planetary Unmanned Earth Orbital Liquid Rocket Engine Scientific Instrument $ 2008$ 7

8 Implications of CERs Launch Vehicles Nonrecurring $42K-$182K/kg inert mass 1st Unit $3600-$10.7K/kg inert mass Manned Spacecraft Nonrecurring $119K-$1.56M/kg inert mass 1st Unit $13K-$90K/kg inert mass 8

9 Space Vehicle Level Costing Model from Arney and Wilhite, Rapid Cost Estimation for Space Exploration Systems AIAA , AIAA Space 2012, Pasadena, California, Sept

10 Costing Applied to Launch Vehicle Design Optimization Approach Minimize Gross Mass Minimize Inert Mass Minimize Nonrecurring Cost Single Stage to Orbit ΔV Distribution (m/sec) Gross Mass (kg) Inert Masses (kg) 134,800 2,937 10,780 13, ,000 2,066 11,123 13, ,000 1,666 11,762 13,428 NR Cost ($M99) ,400 18, kg payload, LOX/LH2 engines 10

11 The Learning Curve The effort (time, cost, etc.) to perform a test decreases with repetition Doubling the production run results in consistent fractional reduction of effort 80% learning curve - 2nd unit costs 80% of 1st, 4th is 80% of 2nd, 8th is 80% of 4th C n = C 1 n p Average cost: C n C 1 n p 1 p p = log C 2 C 1 log (2) 11

12 Cost and Learning Effects Total Program Payload Mass = 1,000,000 kg Nonrecurring Cost Recurring Cost Operations Costs Total Program Cost Payload Mass per Flight (kg) 12

13 Expendable/Reusable Trade Study Total Market to Orbit=1,000,000 kg Cost/kg of Payload ($) Expendables Reusables Payload Mass (kg) 13

14 Cost Modeling RLV Institute MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WASHINGTON Launches Forecast for Commercial Launches Year Commercial Launches During Past 5 Years Launches NGSO Small Launches NGSO Medium to Heavy Launches GSO Medium to Heavy At ~$100M/launch, worldwide annual launch revenue is ~$6-8 B Potential savings by cutting costs by factor of 2 is ~$3-4 B Given a 10 year development program and a 10% discount rate (government support), maximum feasible program cost for new vehicle is ~$2.5 B/yr At a 50% ROI (commercial), maximum yearly expenditure is ~$70 M Only economically feasible as a government program Lauches Year NGSO GEO Budget caps reduced if launch costs don t drop as much (e.g., 75% of current launch costs gives annual NTE of $1.25 B) Incorporation of advanced technology is only justified insofar as it reduces launch costs Design goal is effective, not efficient!!!

15 Parametric Cost Analysis RLV Institute MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WASHINGTON Preliminary model developed to bound problem, identify critical parameters Assumptions: Total program launch mass 20,000 MT Program lifetime 20 years NASA SLVLC model for cost estimates 80% learning curve Vehicle modeled as LOX/LH2 SSTO (δ=0.08; I sp =420 sec avg.)

16 Effect of Refurbishment Rate RLV Institute MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WASHINGTON Payload Cost ($/kg to orbit) Refurb= Payload Mass (kg)

17 Effect of Vehicle Lifetime RLV Institute MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WASHINGTON Payload Cost ($/kg to orbit) Flts/vehicle= Payload Mass (kg)

18 Effect of Total Launch Mass RLV Institute MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WASHINGTON Optimum Payload Mass (kg) Payload Cost ($/kg to orbit) Total Program Payload (MT) 0 Payload Mass (kg) Payload Cost ($/kg)

19 Effect of Refurbishment Fraction RLV Institute MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WASHINGTON Optimum Flts/vehicle Payload Cost ($/kg to orbit) Refurbishment Fraction Optimum Flts/Vehicle Payload Cost ($/kg) 0

20 Costing Conclusions RLV Institute MICHIGAN NORTH CAROLINA WASHINGTON Primary cost drivers are refurbishment and mission operations costs Keep flight rate and production rates high to take advantage of learning curve Strong sensitivity to fleet size Prediction: effects will be worse with RLV Smaller fleet sizes Higher (inert mass)/(payload mass) ratios Effects of vehicle losses on program resiliency Need to add cost discounting Bottom line: compare cost of airbreathing RLV vs. rocket RLV vs. expendable launch vehicle (not a foregone conclusion!)

21 Inflation As money supply and economy expand, buying power of money decreases A fixed sum of money is worth less from year to year Real year dollars - what specific year the money is quoted for (e.g., $M2000 ) Constant year dollars - costing multiyear program based on buying power in single specified year (inflation added later) 21

22 Annual NASA Inflation Rates

23 Cost of Comparable NASA Components $14.00 $12.00 $10.00 $8.00 $6.00 $4.00 $2.00 $ TQ

24 NASA Inflation Factors Year 1959=1 2008=1 Year 1959=1 2008=1 Year 1959=1 2008= TQ

25 NASA Inflation Factors Year 1959=1 2008=1 Year 1959=1 2008=1 Year 1959=1 2008=

26 Example: Saturn V Development Costs Year Real-Year $M $M Totals ($M) ,931 26

27 Cost Discounting Opportunity costs of money Analogous to compound interest at a bank Not the same thing as inflation Basic Definitions: Net Present Value (NPV) - value of future sum today Net Future Value (NFV) - value of sum today in the future Discount Rate ( r ) - annual interest rate Provides a method of comparing costs across multiple years 27

28 Basic Equations of Cost Discounting Net Present Value (NPV) C i = C i+n (1 + r) n Net Future Value (NFV)! NPV of constant annual payments of R! C i = R 1 n (1 + r) r NFV of constant annual payments of R C i+n = R (1 + r)n 1 r C i+n = C i (1 + r) n 28

29 Cost Discounting Example: Saturn V Costs NPV (2000) NFV (2010) Year $M2000 (r=0.10) (r=0.10) Totals

30 Cost Discounting and Breakeven NPV (2000) Year $M2000 Flights Revenue Costs Revenue $8428/lb Totals

31 Breakeven with Discounting Year $M2000 Flights Revenue Costs Revenue $12,660/lb Totals

32 Effect of Moving Revenue Forward Year $M2000 Flights Revenue Costs Revenue Totals $11,480/lb NPV (2000)

33 Internal Rate of Return Discount rate that produces breakeven $M NPV Costs NPV Revenue NPV Benefits

34 Effect of IRR Targets Investors generally require specific minimum values of IRR Have to increase revenue stream to achieve IRR Saturn V launch case: 10% IRR $11,480/lb 25% IRR $17,580/lb 50% IRR $32,700/lb Venture capitalists general look for % IRR with 18-month payback 34

35 In-line SDLV Assumptions Low-Cost Return to the Moon $8.4B nonrecurring (published estimate)! 6 year development cycle! $400M first unit production (shuttle parallel)! 10 units at 85% learning curve! $285M average flight cost Unit Cost ($M) Unit Cost ($M) Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

36 Head-to-Head Launch Comparison Low-Cost Return to the Moon Nonrecurring cost ($M) 10,200 Average production cost per mission ($M) Average amortized cost per mission ($M) Total production run NPV discounted cost per mission ($M) Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

37 Sensitivity to Monolithic Costing Low-Cost Return to the Moon $432M Baseline NPV discounted cost per mission $432M Development costs cut in half $432M $432M $432M Production costs cut in half $878M $508M $809M Production is free $740M All costs cut in half $439M Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

38 Minimum Cost Lunar Architecture 38

39 Vehicle Inert Masses Low-Cost Return to the Moon Component Direct Flight Lunar Orbit Rend. Boost Module Descent Stage Ascent Stage Lunar Crew Mod 3849 Mini-Boost Mod 1419 TEI Stage 233 Earth Return Mod All masses in kg Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

40 Vehicle Nonrecurring Costs Low-Cost Return to the Moon Component Direct Flight Lunar Orbit Rend. Boost Module Descent Stage Ascent Stage Lunar Crew Mod 2058 Mini-Boost Mod 469 TEI Stage 173 Earth Return Mod Totals Costed as LV stage! 2 Costed as manned S/C All costs in $M2008 Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

41 Vehicle 1st Unit Production Costs Low-Cost Return to the Moon Component Direct Flight Lunar Orbit Rend. Boost Module Descent Stage Ascent Stage Lunar Crew Mod Mini-Boost Mod 23.6 TEI Stage 7.1 Earth Return Mod Totals Costed as LV stage! 2 Costed as manned S/C All costs in $M2005 Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

42 Nonrecurring Costs Low-Cost Return to the Moon Baseline LLO Case Boost Stage Descent Stage Ascent Stage TEI Stage Crew Cabin Entry Systems Totals All costs in $M Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

43 Nonrecurring Cost Comparison Low-Cost Return to the Moon 2, , , , , , Entry Systems Crew Cabin TEI Stage Ascent Stage Descent Stage Boost Stage 0.0 Baseline Variation 2 Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

44 First Unit Production Costs Low-Cost Return to the Moon Baseline LLO Case Shuttle Launch Delta IVH Boost Stage Descent Stage Ascent Stage TEI Stage 11.9 Crew Cabin Totals All costs in $M Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

45 First Unit Cost Comparison Low-Cost Return to the Moon Entry Systems Crew Cabin TEI Stage Ascent Stage Descent Stage Boost Stage 0 Baseline LLO Case Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

46 UMd EI Mission Models Low-Cost Return to the Moon Single Mission Model! One all-up lunar flight! Single crew cabin, ascent/descent stages! Three boost stages, four launch vehicles! Apollo Comparison Model! One orbital test flight (crew module, ascent/ descent stages)! One high orbital mission (above + one boost stage)! One lunar orbital rehearsal mission! Seven lunar landing missions Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

47 Single Mission Model Cost Summary Low-Cost Return to the Moon Baseline Case Nonrecurring First Unit Recurring Number Cost ($M) Cost ($M) Cost ($M) Totals Shuttle Launch Delta IVH Boost Stages Descent Stage Ascent Stage TEI Stage Crew Cabin Totals Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

48 Production for Apollo Case Low-Cost Return to the Moon Earth High Lunar Lunar Orbit Orbit Orbit Landing Totals Shuttle Launch Delta IVH Boost Stages Descent Stage Ascent Stage TEI Stage Crew Cabin Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

49 Apollo Mission Model Cost Summary Low-Cost Return to the Moon Baseline Case Nonrecurring First Unit Recurring Number Cost ($M) Cost ($M) Cost ($M) Totals Shuttle Launch Delta IVH Boost Stages Descent Stage Ascent Stage TEI Stage Crew Cabin Totals Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

50 Apollo Model Cost Comparisons Low-Cost Return to the Moon 13,200 11,000 8,800 6,600 4,400 2,200 0 Baseline LLO Case Entry Systems Crew Cabin TEI Stage Ascent Stage Descent Stage Boost Stages Launch Vehicles Space Systems Laboratory University of Maryland

51 Cost Spreading Estimation Programs very seldom occur in a single funding year Costs are not constant from year to year Low start-up costs High costs during vehicle development and fabrication Low end-of-life costs Costs are estimated using a beta function Calculation worksheet at 51

52 Beta Function for Cost Spreading Cumulative normalized cost function! C(τ ) =10τ 2 1 τ where ( ) 2 ( A + Bτ) + τ 4 ( 5 4τ) C = fraction of total program cost (0 C 1) τ = fraction of total program time (0 τ 1) A and B = shape parameters (0 A+B 1) Can also define equivalent parameters c f (location of maximum) and P (width of peak) 0 P 1; c f

53 Sample of Beta Function 100 Expenditure (%) Annual Cumulative Program Year 53

54 Cost Fraction in Beta Function 30 CF=0.2 CF=0.35 CF=0.5 Annual Expenditure (%) Program Year 54

55 Peakedness in Beta Function 25 PK=0 PK=0.5 PK=1 Annual Expenditure (%) Program Year 55

56 Beta Curve Fit to Saturn V Data Curve-fit Actual A=0.371; B=

57 References Richard de Neufville and Joseph H. Stafford, Systems Analysis for Engineers and Managers McGraw-Hill,