Transcript No Slide Title

Paper No. RS2-2004-2004
MIC03-1716
2nd Responsive Space Conference, Los Angeles, CA, April 19-22, 2004
Responsive
Launch Vehicle
Cost Model
James R. Wertz
April 20, 2004
401 Coral Circle
El Segundo, CA 90245-4622
Web: http://www.smad.com
Phone: (310) 726-4100
FAX: (310) 726-4110
E-mail: [email protected]
Topics
•
The Reusable vs. Expendable Launch Cost Model
(RvsELCM)
•
The Microcosm Responsive Launch Cost Model (RLCM)
•
Inputs — Level of Responsiveness
•
Results and Sensitivity
•
“Opportunity Value” — the Benefits of Responsiveness
•
Conclusions
2
Summary
•
•
•
Microcosm previously developed a Reusable vs. Expendable Launch Cost Model
(RvsELCM)
–
Designed to compare ELV and RLV costs
–
Purely analytic model, such that others can input whatever assumptions they like
Goal of the current work is to extend the RvsELCM to explicitly model responsive
launch systems in order to evaluate the cost of
–
Responsiveness
–
Surge Capability
It is often assumed without proof that reusable vehicles will save cost by not throwing
away the launch vehicle every time it is used
–
Conclusion of prior work was that ELVs were lower cost than RLVs for launch rates up to at
least 100 times the expected rates in the near or medium term
–
Key question — Does this same conclusion apply to responsive systems?
Our goal is to provide a quantitative estimate of the Cost of Responsiveness.
3
The Reusable vs. Expendable
Launch Cost Model (RvsELCM)
Claunch = Cdevelopment + Cvehicle + Cflightops + Crecovery + Crefurb + Cinsurance
where
Claunch
≡ Total cost of launch in FY04 dollars (i.e., excluding inflation)
Cdevelopment
≡ Amortization of nonrecurring development cost
Cvehicle
≡ Reusable: Amortization of vehicle production cost
Expendable: Recurring production cost (Theoretical First Unit cost
reduced by learning curve)
Cflightops
≡ Total cost of flight operations per flight
Crecovery
≡ Recurring cost of recovery (reusable only)
Crefurb
≡ Refurbishment cost (reusable only)
Cinsurance
≡ Cost of launch insurance (reliability)
Details of individual terms are explained in the prior paper, available on request. (E-mail
request to [email protected])
4
RvsELCM Estimate of Cost/Launch
vs. Launch Rate for 5,000 kg to LEO
•
•
Conclusions:
–
Economics, rather than
philosophy, should be the
major driver in how new
launch vehicles are
designed and built.
–
A factor of 5 to 10
reduction in near-term
launch cost appears
feasible.
–
It is unlikely that RLVs can
be as economical as ELVs
for launch rates less than
100 times the current rate.
These are the baseline results and conclusions with which we started
5
The Microcosm
Responsive Launch Cost Model (RLCM)
•
Upgrade of RvsELCM to account explicitly for responsiveness and surge
capability
•
Add new term called “cost of inventory” (Cinventory) defined as:
Cinventory = Cvehicle Ninventory Iinventory / Lyear
where
Cvehicle
Ninventory
Iinventory
Lyear
–
–
–
=
=
=
=
average production cost per vehicle
number of vehicles required to be in inventory
annual interest rate for the vehicles in inventory
number of launches per year
More vehicles are produced, therefore average cost/vehicle goes down
Pay only interest on the inventory -- i.e., don’t amortize the cost
For reusable, determine how many vehicles are needed to meet the responsiveness
requirement vs. number needed to meet total launch requirement and use the larger of
the two (but pay only interest on inventory assets held for responsiveness)
•
Adjust Operations Cost by adding a “Standing Army Cost” as a number of FTE
personnel and cost per FTE
•
Adjust cost of development, flight operations, recovery, and refurbishment to
account for required additional effort by simply changing existing input
parameters
6
Baseline Inputs -Level of Responsiveness
•
Added cost of responsiveness depends on how responsive the system needs to be
–
•
Define Level of Responsiveness (LR) = number of vehicles to be kept in inventory at any
time to meet requirement for immediate launch
Four scenarios defined for comparison
–
–
–
–
–
–
Baseline (LR = 0)
• Traditional, non-responsive scenario based on prior baseline adjusted to AF/DARPA
FALCON parameters of 400 kg (1000 lb) to LEO, amortized over 10 years, at nominal
use rate of 20 flights per year
Commercial (LR = 3)
• Meets need for launch on demand without a surge capability; some advance notice
allows launch to be done largely by available crew
FALCON (LR = 16)
• Meets FALCON requirement of 16 launches in 24 hours; some added standing army,
but some advance notice still allows substantial use of existing crew
Full Responsiveness (LR = 32)
• Meets “strong” responsiveness requirement with minimal advance warning and need
to launch a 2nd surge before inventory can be rebuilt (or after an attack on primary
launch site)
Standing Army ranges from 3-6 FTE for Commercial expendable scenario to 40-100 for
Full Responsiveness reusable scenario
Other input parameters are less critical and are listed in the paper
7
Estimated Range of
Total Launch Cost
Baseline System (LR0) Cost per Launch
1000 lbs to LEO
•
Baseline Scenario (LR = 0)
–
Similar parameters as prior model,
except launch is for 400 kg to LEO
amortized over 10 years
FALCON System (LR16) Cost per Launch
1000 lbs to LEO
•
FALCON Scenario (LR = 16)
–
–
Numerical results given in the
paper
Differences from Baseline are
modest
8
Total Cost of Launch for Low
Cost Expendable
Total Cost of Launch vs. Launch Rate for Low-Cost Expendable Model
•
This is generally the lowest cost within each of the 4 scenarios
–
Others curves have similar behavior
9
The Cost of Responsiveness
Cost of Responsiveness for
FALCON Baseline (LR16)
Cost of Responsiveness for
Commercial Responsive Launch (LR3)
Cost of Responsiveness for
Fully Responsive System (LR32)
•
Results relative to non-responsive
baseline scenario
–
–
–
•
Commercial Scenario (LR = 3) total cost
increases by 1% to 5%
FALCON Scenario (LR = 16) total cost
increases by 3% to 30%
Full Responsiveness Scenario (LR = 32)
total cost increases by 25% to 80%
In all scenarios, effect of required
responsiveness is strongest with low
launch rate
10
Comparison of Recurring Costs
Baseline System (LR0) Recurring Cost per Launch
FALCON System (LR16) Recurring Cost per Launch
•
For comparing launch vehicle economics, total cost is a more fair comparison than recurring
cost because total cost includes the effect off non-recurring development cost
•
Recurring cost is a better way to compare with existing systems, because existing vehicle
non-recurring costs were typically covered by government R&D
–
•
Example: Adding just interest on development cost would add $1billion to $2 billion to the cost of
each Shuttle launch
See paper for tabular comparisons
11
“Opportunity Value” — the
Benefits of Responsiveness
•
To decide if responsiveness is worthwhile, economic cost must be balanced
against the benefits
–
–
•
Cost can be estimated, but benefits are harder to quantify
Ordinarily benefits are quantified by mission utility analysis -- but usually not in
economic terms
Opportunity Cost = economic or utility consequences of something not being
available
–
Example: launch failure resulting in failure to provide adequate communications during
wartime
•
We define Opportunity Value = benefit gained by being able to respond
immediately, having assets available in a short time, or being able to conduct
immediate, short term missions or experiments
•
Examples of Opportunity Value
–
–
–
–
Assets safely deployed in CONUS can reach any location in the world in 45 minutes
from launch
Assets can be assigned to operational commands for tactical applications
Ability to monitor inherently hazardous environments
Ability to overfly hostile territory:
• Without warning
• Without being a hostile act
• With little or no chance of being shot down
12
Examples of Opportunity Value
in Specific Mission Areas
•
Military missions — rapid and continuous battlefield intelligence that’s
“responsive and flexible” (quote from Gen. Tommy Franks assessment of the
strategy for the Iraq war — March 22, 2003)
–
•
Commercial missions — ground-based (rather than space-based) sparing, 0-g
manufacturing based on needs defined today
–
•
Without responsiveness, space will be less relevant to future military users
For space to remain relevant, the next major set of commercial systems must succeed
Science — observations of transient phenomena
–
Responsive science with tomorrow’s experiment based on today’s results
•
Education — experiments launched while the student is still a student, or at least
still in astronautics
•
Civil missions — monitoring of natural disasters or search and rescue
•
Crewed missions — can we make them safer by having responsive launch
available?
–
–
–
Consumables brought up as needed to extend on-orbit life
Inspection missions launched when needed to evaluate potential problems
“Spare parts” brought up to mitigate any launch or on-orbit failures
13
Representative Missions
Enabled by Responsive Space
•
Global Strike
•
In-Space Inspection
–
–
–
–
•
Responsive Communications
–
•
Very low cost RF system searching large areas for distress signals
Surveillance system can search very wide ocean areas
Use prograde orbit with inclination just above central search latitude
Monitoring natural disasters
–
•
Example: coordinated attack on a target area with both visual observations and wind
measurements prior to the attack, RF communications during the attack, and damage
assessment afterward
Search and Rescue
–
–
–
•
Single satellite or constellation launched to fill an immediate need
Coordinated Missions
–
•
Launched in response to foreign launch of unknown assets
Shadow at a distance, then close
Can typically launch at first or second pass over the launch site
Provides rapid examination, and potentially mitigation, of unknown space assets
Volcanoes, floods, major storms, or fires
Materials processing in space
–
Launch chemical or biological “processing labs” on demand and return products as
soon as the processing is complete
14
Conclusions
•
Making space missions responsive increases launch cost between 2% and 80%
of the total cost, depending on the level of responsiveness
–
–
•
It is difficult to quantify the Opportunity Value of responsiveness, but it appears
clear that the potential value far outweighs the cost
–
•
Commercial responsive (i.e., launch-on-demand with no surge capability) has a very
low cost, estimated at 2% to 5% of the total cost
Surge capability requires that more vehicles be maintained in inventory and more
people be available to launch them
• Can increase costs by 5% to 80%, depending on the surge level required
Substantial value for nearly all types of missions -- military, civil, scientific, educational,
commercial, and human spaceflight
For military missions, responsiveness and a corresponding surge capability
enable new missions and provide a level of responsiveness to the warfighter
that isn’t currently possible
–
Provides a new source of intelligence and new military and non-military options that
can potentially prevent or shorten military conflicts and shorten the time from terrorist
activity to consequences for those who orchestrated them
Responsive, low-cost missions can begin the process of changing the way we do
business in space. That change is critical to making space relevant to the 21st century.
15