Search NASA⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search NASA

Results for “life cycle cost”

Search indexed NASA NTRS and DOE OSTI research on propulsion, heat transfer, battery materials and energy systems. Follow report and document links to the original sources.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 37 records · Page 2
All sourcesNASA NTRSDOE OSTI
NASA NTRS2010

Improving Life-Cycle Cost Management of Spacecraft Missions

This presentation will explore the results of a recent NASA Life-Cycle Cost study and how project managers can use the findings and recommendations to improve planning and coordination early in the formulation cycle and avoid common pitfalls resulting in cost overruns. The typical NASA space science mission will exceed both the initial estimated and the confirmed life-cycle costs by the end of the mission. In a fixed-budget environment, these overruns translate to delays in starting or launching future missions, or in the worst case can lead to cancelled missions. Some of these overruns are due to issues outside the control of the project; others are due to the unpredictable problems (unknown unknowns) that can affect any development project. However, a recent study of life-cycle cost growth by the Discovery and New Frontiers Program Office identified a number of areas that are within the scope of project management to address. The study also found that the majority of the underlying causes for cost overruns are embedded in the project approach during the formulation and early design phases, but the actual impacts typically are not experienced until late in the project life cycle. Thus, project management focus in key areas such as integrated schedule development, management structure and contractor communications processes, heritage and technology assumptions, and operations planning, can be used to validate initial cost assumptions and set in place management processes to avoid the common pitfalls resulting in cost overruns.

Clardy, Dennon↗
NASA NTRS1993

Life cycle cost modeling of conceptual space vehicles

This paper documents progress to date by the University of Dayton on the development of a life cycle cost model for use during the conceptual design of new launch vehicles and spacecraft. This research is being conducted under NASA Research Grant NAG-1-1327. This research effort changes the focus from that of the first two years in which a reliability and maintainability model was developed to the initial development of a life cycle cost model. Cost categories are initially patterned after NASA's three axis work breakdown structure consisting of a configuration axis (vehicle), a function axis, and a cost axis. The focus will be on operations and maintenance costs and other recurring costs. Secondary tasks performed concurrent with the development of the life cycle costing model include continual support and upgrade of the R&M model. The primary result of the completed research will be a methodology and a computer implementation of the methodology to provide for timely cost analysis in support of the conceptual design activities. The major objectives of this research are: to obtain and to develop improved methods for estimating manpower, spares, software and hardware costs, facilities costs, and other cost categories as identified by NASA personnel; to construct a life cycle cost model of a space transportation system for budget exercises and performance-cost trade-off analysis during the conceptual and development stages; to continue to support modifications and enhancements to the R&M model; and to continue to assist in the development of a simulation model to provide an integrated view of the operations and support of the proposed system.

Ebeling, Charles↗
NASA NTRS2008

Constellation Program Life-cycle Cost Analysis Model (LCAM)

The Constellation Program (CxP) is NASA's effort to replace the Space Shuttle, return humans to the moon, and prepare for a human mission to Mars. The major elements of the Constellation Lunar sortie design reference mission architecture are shown. Unlike the Apollo Program of the 1960's, affordability is a major concern of United States policy makers and NASA management. To measure Constellation affordability, a total ownership cost life-cycle parametric cost estimating capability is required. This capability is being developed by the Constellation Systems Engineering and Integration (SE&I) Directorate, and is called the Lifecycle Cost Analysis Model (LCAM). The requirements for LCAM are based on the need to have a parametric estimating capability in order to do top-level program analysis, evaluate design alternatives, and explore options for future systems. By estimating the total cost of ownership within the context of the planned Constellation budget, LCAM can provide Program and NASA management with the cost data necessary to identify the most affordable alternatives. LCAM is also a key component of the Integrated Program Model (IPM), an SE&I developed capability that combines parametric sizing tools with cost, schedule, and risk models to perform program analysis. LCAM is used in the generation of cost estimates for system level trades and analyses. It draws upon the legacy of previous architecture level cost models, such as the Exploration Systems Mission Directorate (ESMD) Architecture Cost Model (ARCOM) developed for Simulation Based Acquisition (SBA), and ATLAS. LCAM is used to support requirements and design trade studies by calculating changes in cost relative to a baseline option cost. Estimated costs are generally low fidelity to accommodate available input data and available cost estimating relationships (CERs). LCAM is capable of interfacing with the Integrated Program Model to provide the cost estimating capability for that suite of tools.

Prince, Andy↗
NASA NTRS1978

The role of interest and inflation rates in life-cycle cost analysis

The effect of projected interest and inflation rates on life cycle cost calculations is discussed and a method is proposed for making such calculations which replaces these rates by a single parameter. Besides simplifying the analysis, the method clarifies the roles of these rates. An analysis of historical interest and inflation rates from 1950 to 1976 shows that the proposed method can be expected to yield very good projections of life cycle cost even if the rates themselves fluctuate considerably.

Eisenberger, I.↗
NASA NTRS1978

Life cycle costing with a discount rate

This article studies life cycle costing for a capability needed for the indefinite future, and specifically investigates the dependence of optimal policies on the discount rate chosen. The two costs considered are reprocurement cost and maintenance and operations (M and O) cost. The procurement price is assumed known, and the M and O costs are assumed to be a known function, in fact, a non-decreasing function, of the time since last reprocurement. The problem is to choose the optimum reprocurement time so as to minimize the quotient of the total cost over a reprocurement period divided by the period. Or one could assume a discount rate and try to minimize the total discounted costs into the indefinite future. It is shown that the optimum policy in the presence of a small discount rate hardly depends on the discount rate at all, and leads to essentially the same policy as in the case in which discounting is not considered.

Posner, E. C.↗
NASA NTRS1988

The multi-disciplinary design study: A life cycle cost algorithm

The approach and results of a Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis of the Space Station Solar Dynamic Power Subsystem (SDPS) including gimbal pointing and power output performance are documented. The Multi-Discipline Design Tool (MDDT) computer program developed during the 1986 study has been modified to include the design, performance, and cost algorithms for the SDPS as described. As with the Space Station structural and control subsystems, the LCC of the SDPS can be computed within the MDDT program as a function of the engineering design variables. Two simple examples of MDDT's capability to evaluate cost sensitivity and design based on LCC are included. MDDT was designed to accept NASA's IMAT computer program data as input so that IMAT's detailed structural and controls design capability can be assessed with expected system LCC as computed by MDDT. No changes to IMAT were required. Detailed knowledge of IMAT is not required to perform the LCC analyses as the interface with IMAT is noninteractive.

Harding, R. R.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Space Transportation System Availability Relationships to Life Cycle Cost

Future space transportation architectures and designs must be affordable. Consequently, their Life Cycle Cost (LCC) must be controlled. For the LCC to be controlled, it is necessary to identify all the requirements and elements of the architecture at the beginning of the concept phase. Controlling LCC requires the establishment of the major operational cost drivers. Two of these major cost drivers are reliability and maintainability, in other words, the system's availability (responsiveness). Potential reasons that may drive the inherent availability requirement are the need to control the number of unique parts and the spare parts required to support the transportation system's operation. For more typical space transportation systems used to place satellites in space, the productivity of the system will drive the launch cost. This system productivity is the resultant output of the system availability. Availability is equal to the mean uptime divided by the sum of the mean uptime plus the mean downtime. Since many operational factors cannot be projected early in the definition phase, the focus will be on inherent availability which is equal to the mean time between a failure (MTBF) divided by the MTBF plus the mean time to repair (MTTR) the system. The MTBF is a function of reliability or the expected frequency of failures. When the system experiences failures the result is added operational flow time, parts consumption, and increased labor with an impact to responsiveness resulting in increased LCC. The other function of availability is the MTTR, or maintainability. In other words, how accessible is the failed hardware that requires replacement and what operational functions are required before and after change-out to make the system operable. This paper will describe how the MTTR can be equated to additional labor, additional operational flow time, and additional structural access capability, all of which drive up the LCC. A methodology will be presented that provides the decision makers with the understanding necessary to place constraints on the design definition. This methodology for the major drivers will determine the inherent availability, safety, reliability, maintainability, and the life cycle cost of the fielded system. This methodology will focus on the achievement of an affordable, responsive space transportation system. It is the intent of this paper to not only provide the visibility of the relationships of these major attribute drivers (variables) to each other and the resultant system inherent availability, but also to provide the capability to bound the variables, thus providing the insight required to control the system's engineering solution. An example of this visibility is the need to provide integration of similar discipline functions to allow control of the total parts count of the space transportation system. Also, selecting a reliability requirement will place a constraint on parts count to achieve a given inherent availability requirement, or require accepting a larger parts count with the resulting higher individual part reliability requirements. This paper will provide an understanding of the relationship of mean repair time (mean downtime) to maintainability (accessibility for repair), and both mean time between failure (reliability of hardware) and the system inherent availability.

Rhodes, Russel E.↗
NASA NTRS1984

Stand-alone flat-plate photovoltaic power systems: System sizing and life-cycle costing methodology for Federal agencies

A simple methodology to estimate photovoltaic system size and life-cycle costs in stand-alone applications is presented. It is designed to assist engineers at Government agencies in determining the feasibility of using small stand-alone photovoltaic systems to supply ac or dc power to the load. Photovoltaic system design considerations are presented as well as the equations for sizing the flat-plate array and the battery storage to meet the required load. Cost effectiveness of a candidate photovoltaic system is based on comparison with the life-cycle cost of alternative systems. Examples of alternative systems addressed are batteries, diesel generators, the utility grid, and other renewable energy systems.

Borden, C. S.↗
NASA NTRS1977

Life-cycle costing: Practical considerations

The history and methodology of life-cycle costing are presented and analyzed, contrasting the potential benefits of the technique with the difficulties of its application. Examples and a short survey of the literature are given.

Eisenberger, I.↗
NASA NTRS2009

Concepts for Life Cycle Cost Control Required to Achieve Space Transportation Affordability and Sustainability

Cost control must be implemented through the establishment of requirements and controlled continually by managing to these requirements. Cost control of the non-recurring side of life cycle cost has traditionally been implemented in both commercial and government programs. The government uses the budget process to implement this control. The commercial approach is to use a similar process of allocating the non-recurring cost to major elements of the program. This type of control generally manages through a work breakdown structure (WBS) by defining the major elements of the program. If the cost control is to be applied across the entire program life cycle cost (LCC), the approach must be addressed very differently. A functional breakdown structure (FBS) is defined and recommended. Use of a FBS provides the visibifity to allow the choice of an integrated solution reducing the cost of providing many different elements of like function. The different functional solutions that drive the hardware logistics, quantity of documentation, operational labor, reliability and maintainability balance, and total integration of the entire system from DDT&E through the life of the program must be fully defined, compared, and final decisions made among these competing solutions. The major drivers of recurring cost have been identified and are presented and discussed. The LCC requirements must be established and flowed down to provide control of LCC. This LCC control will require a structured rigid process similar to the one traditionally used to control weight/performance for space transportation systems throughout the entire program. It has been demonstrated over the last 30 years that without a firm requirement and methodically structured cost control, it is unlikely that affordable and sustainable space transportation system LCC will be achieved.

Rhodes, Russel E.↗
NASA NTRS1974

A simplified life-cycle cost comparison of various engines for small helicopter use

A ten-year, life-cycle cost comparison is made of the following engines for small helicopter use: (1) simple turboshaft; (2) regenerative turboshaft; (3) compression-ignition reciprocator; (4) spark-ignited rotary; and (5) spark-ignited reciprocator. Based on a simplified analysis and somewhat approximate data, the simple turboshaft engine apparently has the lowest costs for mission times up to just under 2 hours. At 2 hours and above, the regenerative turboshaft appears promising. The reciprocating and rotary engines are less attractive, requiring from 10 percent to 80 percent more aircraft to have the same total payload capability as a given number of turbine powered craft. A nomogram was developed for estimating total costs of engines not covered in this study.

Civinskas, K. C.↗
NASA NTRS1978

Effect of various features on the life cycle cost of the timing/synchronization subsystem of the DCS digital communications network

The effect on the life cycle cost of the timing subsystem was examined, when these optional features were included in various combinations. The features included mutual control, directed control, double-ended reference links, independence of clock error measurement and correction, phase reference combining, self-organization, smoothing for link and nodal dropouts, unequal reference weightings, and a master in a mutual control network. An overall design of a microprocessor-based timing subsystem was formulated. The microprocessor (8080) implements the digital filter portion of a digital phase locked loop, as well as other control functions such as organization of the network through communication with processors at neighboring nodes.

Kimsey, D. B.↗
NASA NTRS1995

Major weapon system environmental life-cycle cost estimating for Conservation, Cleanup, Compliance and Pollution Prevention (C3P2)

The Titan 4 Space Launch Vehicle Program is one of many major weapon system programs that have modified acquisition plans and operational procedures to meet new, stringent environmental rules and regulations. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Defense (DOD) mandate to reduce the use of ozone depleting chemicals (ODC's) is just one of the regulatory changes that has affected the program. In the last few years, public environmental awareness, coupled with stricter environmental regulations, has created the need for DOD to produce environmental life-cycle cost estimates (ELCCE) for every major weapon system acquisition program. The environmental impact of the weapon system must be assessed and budgeted, considering all costs, from cradle to grave. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has proposed that organizations consider Conservation, Cleanup, Compliance and Pollution Prevention (C(sup 3)P(sup 2)) issues associated with each acquisition program to assess life-cycle impacts and costs. The Air Force selected the Titan 4 system as the pilot program for estimating life-cycle environmental costs. The estimating task required participants to develop an ELCCE methodology, collect data to test the methodology and produce a credible cost estimate within the DOD C(sup 3)P(sup 2) definition. The estimating methodology included using the Program Office weapon system description and work breakdown structure together with operational site and manufacturing plant visits to identify environmental cost drivers. The results of the Titan IV ELCCE process are discussed and expanded to demonstrate how they can be applied to satisfy any life-cycle environmental cost estimating requirement.

Hammond, Wesley↗
NASA NTRS1982

Life Cycle Cost Analysis of Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles, Volume 1

The design, performance, and programmatic definition of shuttle derived launch vehicles (SDLV) established by two different contractors were assessed and the relative life cycle costs of space transportation systems using the shuttle alone were compared with costs for a mix of shuttles and SDLV's. The ground rules and assumptions used in the evaluation are summarized and the work breakdown structure is included. Approaches used in deriving SDLV costs, including calibration factors and historical data are described. Both SDLV cost estimates and SDLV/STS cost comparisons are summarized. Standard formats are used to report comprehensive SDLV life cycle estimates. Hardware cost estimates (below subsystem level) obtained using the RCA PRICE 84 cost model are included along with other supporting data.

Source record↗
NASA NTRS2002

A Life-Cycle Cost Estimating Methodology for NASA-Developed Air Traffic Control Decision Support Tools

This paper describes the development of a life-cycle cost (LCC) estimating methodology for air traffic control Decision Support Tools (DSTs) under development by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), using a combination of parametric, analogy, and expert opinion methods. There is no one standard methodology and technique that is used by NASA or by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for LCC estimation of prospective Decision Support Tools. Some of the frequently used methodologies include bottom-up, analogy, top-down, parametric, expert judgement, and Parkinson's Law. The developed LCC estimating methodology can be visualized as a three-dimensional matrix where the three axes represent coverage, estimation, and timing. This paper focuses on the three characteristics of this methodology that correspond to the three axes.

Wang, Jianzhong Jay↗
NASA NTRS1990

Minimizing life cycle cost for subsonic commercial aircraft

A methodology is presented which facilitates the identification of that aircraft design concept which will incur the lowest life-cycle costs (LCCs) while meeting mission requirements. The methodology consists of an LCC module whose constituent elements calculate the costs associated with R&D, testing, evaluation, and production, as well as direct and indirect operating costs, in conjunction with the 'Flight Optimization System' conceptual design/analysis code. Provision is made in the methodology for sensitivities to advanced technologies for the subsonic commercial aircraft in question, which are optimized with respect to minimum gross weight, fuel consumption, acquisition cost, and direct operating cost.

Johnson, Vicki S.↗
NASA NTRS2009

The Need for Technology Maturity of Any Advanced Capability to Achieve Better Life Cycle Cost (LCC)

Programs such as space transportation systems are developed and deployed only rarely, and they have long development schedules and large development and life cycle costs (LCC). They have not historically had their LCC predicted well and have only had an effort to control the DDT&E phase of the programs. One of the factors driving the predictability, and thus control, of the LCC of a program is the maturity of the technologies incorporated in the program. If the technologies incorporated are less mature (as measured by their Technology Readiness Level - TRL), then the LCC not only increases but the degree of increase is difficult to predict. Consequently, new programs avoid incorporating technologies unless they are quite mature, generally TRL greater than or equal to 7 (system prototype demonstrated in a space environment) to allow better predictability of the DDT&E phase costs unless there is no alternative. On the other hand, technology development programs rarely develop technologies beyond TRL 6 (system/subsystem model or prototype demonstrated in a relevant environment). Currently the lack of development funds beyond TRL 6 and the major funding required for full scale development leave little or no funding available to prototype TRL 6 concepts so that hardware would be in the ready mode for safe, reliable and cost effective incorporation. The net effect is that each new program either incorporates little new technology or has longer development schedules and costs, and higher LCC, than planned. This paper presents methods to ensure that advanced technologies are incorporated into future programs while providing a greater accuracy of predicting their LCC. One method is having a dedicated organization to develop X-series vehicles or separate prototypes carried on other vehicles. The question of whether such an organization should be independent of NASA and/or have an independent funding source is discussed. Other methods are also discussed. How to make the choice of which technologies to pursue to the prototype level is also discussed since, to achieve better LCC, first the selection of the appropriate technologies.

Robinson, John W.↗