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.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

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

At least 19 records

All sources NASA NTRS DOE OSTI

NASA NTRS1989

Optimizing conceptual aircraft designs for minimum life cycle cost

A life cycle cost (LCC) module has been added to the FLight Optimization System (FLOPS), allowing the additional optimization variables of life cycle cost, direct operating cost, and acquisition cost. Extensive use of the methodology on short-, medium-, and medium-to-long range aircraft has demonstrated that the system works well. Results from the study show that optimization parameter has a definite effect on the aircraft, and that optimizing an aircraft for minimum LCC results in a different airplane than when optimizing for minimum take-off gross weight (TOGW), fuel burned, direct operation cost (DOC), or acquisition cost. Additionally, the economic assumptions can have a strong impact on the configurations optimized for minimum LCC or DOC. Also, results show that advanced technology can be worthwhile, even if it results in higher manufacturing and operating costs. Examining the number of engines a configuration should have demonstrated a real payoff of including life cycle cost in the conceptual design process: the minimum TOGW of fuel aircraft did not always have the lowest life cycle cost when considering the number of engines.

Johnson, Vicki S.↗

NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria - performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and risk - are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost accounts for most of the cost of planetary missions, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated masses of the hardware and of the pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in Advanced Life Support. A crew time mass-equivalent and sometimes other non-mass factors are added to equivalent mass to create ESM. Equivalent mass is an estimate of the launch cost only. For earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is usually exceeded by the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDT&E). Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. Since LCC includes launch cost, it is always a more accurate cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission design, destination, and duration. Since DDT&E or operations may cost more than launch, LCC may give a more accurate cost ranking than equivalent mass. To be sure of identifying the lowest cost technology for a particular mission, we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS2003

Equivalent Mass versus Life Cycle Cost for Life Support Technology Selection

The decision to develop a particular life support technology or to select it for flight usually depends on the cost to develop and fly it. Other criteria such as performance, safety, reliability, crew time, and technical and schedule risk are considered, but cost is always an important factor. Because launch cost would account for much of the cost of a future planetary mission, and because launch cost is directly proportional to the mass launched, equivalent mass has been used instead of cost to select advanced life support technology. The equivalent mass of a life support system includes the estimated mass of the hardware and of the spacecraft pressurized volume, power supply, and cooling system that the hardware requires. The equivalent mass of a system is defined as the total payload launch mass needed to provide and support the system. An extension of equivalent mass, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), has been established for use in the Advanced Life Support project. ESM adds a mass-equivalent of crew time and possibly other cost factors to equivalent mass. Traditional equivalent mass is strictly based on flown mass and reflects only the launch cost. ESM includes other important cost factors, but it complicates the simple flown mass definition of equivalent mass by adding a non-physical mass penalty for crew time that may exceed the actual flown mass. Equivalent mass is used only in life support analysis. Life Cycle Cost (LCC) is much more commonly used. LCC includes DDT&E, launch, and operations costs. For Earth orbit rather than planetary missions, the launch cost is less than the cost of Design, Development, Test, and Evaluation (DDTBE). LCC is a more inclusive cost estimator than equivalent mass. The relative costs of development, launch, and operations vary depending on the mission destination and duration. Since DDTBE or operations may cost more than launch, LCC gives a more accurate relative cost ranking than equivalent mass. To select the lowest cost technology for a particular application we should use LCC rather than equivalent mass.

Jones, Harry↗

NASA NTRS1987

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

Life-cycle cost (LCC) is investigated as a comprehensive design criterion for two major interrelated spacecraft subsystems, Controls and Structures. A Multi-Disciplinary Design Tool (MDDT) is developed to evaluate the sensitivity of LCC to subsystem design parameters. Major costs addressed are: non-recurring; launch; ground support; maintenance; expendables; and software. Examples and results from the MDDT are described, including a structural optimization study between different truss designs; a solar array feathering trade for a minimal drag configuration during umbra; and the cost of active control of a flexible structure is compared against the cost of passive damping using visco-elastic material.

Harding, R. R.↗

NASA NTRS2015

The Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of Life Support Recycling and Resupply

Brief human space missions supply all the crew's water and oxygen from Earth. The multiyear International Space Station (ISS) program instead uses physicochemical life support systems to recycle water and oxygen. This paper compares the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) of recycling to the LCC of resupply for potential future long duration human space missions. Recycling systems have high initial development costs but relatively low durationdependent support costs. This means that recycling is more cost effective for longer missions. Resupplying all the water and oxygen requires little initial development cost but has a much higher launch mass and launch cost. The cost of resupply increases as the mission duration increases. Resupply is therefore more cost effective than recycling for shorter missions. A recycling system pays for itself when the resupply LCC grows greater over time than the recycling LCC. The time when this occurs is called the recycling breakeven date. Recycling will cost very much less than resupply for long duration missions within the Earth-Moon system, such as a future space station or Moon base. But recycling would cost about the same as resupply for long duration deep space missions, such as a Mars trip. Because it is not possible to provide emergency supplies or quick return options on the way to Mars, more expensive redundant recycling systems will be needed.

recycling↗

NASA NTRS2009

Refractory Materials for Flame Deflector Protection System Corrosion Control: Flame Deflector Protection System Life Cycle Cost Analysis Report

A 20-year life cycle cost analysis was performed to compare the operational life cycle cost, processing/turnaround timelines, and operations manpower inspection/repair/refurbishment requirements for corrosion protection of the Kennedy Space Center launch pad flame deflector associated with the existing cast-in-place materials and a newer advanced refractory ceramic material. The analysis compared the estimated costs of(1) continuing to use of the current refractory material without any changes; (2) completely reconstructing the flame trench using the current refractory material; and (3) completely reconstructing the flame trench with a new high-performance refractory material. Cost estimates were based on an analysis of the amount of damage that occurs after each launch and an estimate of the average repair cost. Alternative 3 was found to save $32M compared to alternative 1 and $17M compared to alternative 2 over a 20-year life cycle.

Calle, Luz Marina↗

NASA NTRS1977

A life cycle cost economics model for projects with uniformly varying operating costs

A mathematical model is developed for calculating the life cycle costs for a project where the operating costs increase or decrease in a linear manner with time. The life cycle cost is shown to be a function of the investment costs, initial operating costs, operating cost gradient, project life time, interest rate for capital and salvage value. The results show that the life cycle cost for a project can be grossly underestimated (or overestimated) if the operating costs increase (or decrease) uniformly over time rather than being constant as is often assumed in project economic evaluations. The following range of variables is examined: (1) project life from 2 to 30 years; (2) interest rate from 0 to 15 percent per year; and (3) operating cost gradient from 5 to 90 percent of the initial operating costs. A numerical example plus tables and graphs is given to help calculate project life cycle costs over a wide range of variables.

Remer, D. S.↗

DOE OSTI2025

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Framework for Water Efficiency Measures: Guidance Designed for Federal Agencies (hereafter referred to as “this report”) provides a technical framework for federal agencies to conduct a life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) for water efficiency projects in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 8253. This report leverages insights from the 2023 report, PNNL-34006, Water and Wastewater Annual Price Escalation Rates for Selected Cities Across the United States: 2023 Edition (Unger et al. 2023). The primary objective of this report is to provide a framework to assist federal agencies with evaluating the full economic impact of water efficiency projects by assessing both initial investments and long-term operational benefits. An LCCA can provide a comprehensive view of all costs associated with a water efficiency project, including initial investment, ongoing operations and maintenance (O&M), and eventual disposal or replacement, ensuring the most cost-effective solution is selected. The LCCA methodology outlined in this report enables users to compare base case scenarios with potential alternatives using a standardized present value approach. It incorporates key cost components such as energy, water and wastewater, installation, O&M, and equipment replacement. Additionally, the framework introduces relevant evaluation metrics, such as the net savings and the savings-to-investment ratio, to ensure that water efficiency measures are economically justified over the lifespan of the project. To support practical application, this report also describes various water efficiency strategies that may be analyzed using an LCCA, including plumbing retrofits, irrigation upgrades, alternative water use, and cooling system improvements. By applying this framework, federal agencies can ensure compliance with regulatory mandates while maximizing the return on investment and contributing to resilient water management practices. The information provided in this report is aligned with the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) life-cycle cost (LCC) methodology, as conveyed in National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 135 (Kneifel and Webb 2022). This report is intended to provide relatively high-level guidance, acting as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, that resource.

32 ENERGY CONSERVATION, CONSUMPTION, AND UTILIZATI↗

NASA NTRS1980

Design, performance and life cycle cost relationships for a 500kW space solar array

The effects on life cycle costs of a number of technology areas are examined for a LEO, 500kW space solar array. A baseline system conceptual design is developed and the life cycle costs estimated in detail. The baseline system requirements and design technologies are then varied and their relationships to life cycle costs quantified. For example, the thermal characteristics of the baseline design are determined by the array materials and masses. The thermal characteristics in turn determine configuration, performance and hence life cycle cost.

Richardson, P. W.↗

NASA NTRS1977

A life cycle cost economics model for automation projects with uniformly varying operating costs

The described mathematical model calculates life-cycle costs for projects with operating costs increasing or decreasing linearly with time. The cost factors involved in the life-cycle cost are considered, and the errors resulting from the assumption of constant rather than uniformly varying operating costs are examined. Parameters in the study range from 2 to 30 years, for project life; 0 to 15% per year, for interest rate; and 5 to 90% of the initial operating cost, for the operating cost gradient. A numerical example is presented.

Remer, D. S.↗

NASA NTRS1985

Using a life-cycle-cost criterion for multi-disciplinary design studies for the Manned Space Station

A life-cycle-cost measure for the Manned Space Station is suggested which considers the mass, initial cost, aerodynamic drag, electrical power, moment, required ground support, and expected life of subsystems or components. It is proposed that this life-cycle-cost measure be considered as a criterion for design trade-off studies involving controls and structures. Calculating the related sensitivities in the optimization process is discussed and then applied to specific examples. In the first example, the reaction control system is analyzed with regard to the design of its supporting structure and selection of rocket type. Values of support beam length, structural material selection, and rocket propellant selection are determined which minimize life-cycle-cost. In the second example, the alignment of solar arrays are analyzed for efficiency with regard to generating power, their drag, and their aerodynamic moment. Alignment angles are determined which again minimize life cycle cost. It seems clear from these and other examples that the proposed criterion has value for multi-disciplinary design studies for the Manned Space Station.

Taylor, L. W.↗

NASA NTRS1980

Life-cycle cost analysis task summary

The DSN life cycle cost (LCC) analysis methodology was completed. The LCC analysis methodology goals and objectives are summarized, as well as the issues covered by the methodology, its expected use, and its long range implications.

Mckenzie, M.↗

NASA NTRS1983

Simplified Life-Cycle Cost Estimation

Simple method for life-cycle cost (LCC) estimation avoids pitfalls inherent in formulations requiring separate estimates of inflation and interest rates. Method depends for validity observation that interest and inflation rates closely track each other.

Remer, D. S.↗

NASA NTRS1978

Evaluation of the developing DSN life-cycle cost standard practice

The DSN is developing a life-cycle cost standard practice by comparison to those of industry and the Department of Defense. Results show that the DSN uses the accepted concept of life-cycle costing, tailoring the concept to DSN specific needs, but does not push the concept past the point of prevailing theory.

Mckenzie, M.↗

NASA NTRS2015

Estimating the Life Cycle Cost of Space Systems

A space system's Life Cycle Cost (LCC) includes design and development, launch and emplacement, and operations and maintenance. Each of these cost factors is usually estimated separately. NASA uses three different parametric models for the design and development cost of crewed space systems; the commercial PRICE-H space hardware cost model, the NASA-Air Force Cost Model (NAFCOM), and the Advanced Missions Cost Model (AMCM). System mass is an important parameter in all three models. System mass also determines the launch and emplacement cost, which directly depends on the cost per kilogram to launch mass to Low Earth Orbit (LEO). The launch and emplacement cost is the cost to launch to LEO the system itself and also the rockets, propellant, and lander needed to emplace it. The ratio of the total launch mass to payload mass depends on the mission scenario and destination. The operations and maintenance costs include any material and spares provided, the ground control crew, and sustaining engineering. The Mission Operations Cost Model (MOCM) estimates these costs as a percentage of the system development cost per year.

Life cycle cost↗

NASA NTRS2013

New Approaches in Reusable Booster System Life Cycle Cost Modeling

This paper presents the results of a 2012 life cycle cost (LCC) study of hybrid Reusable Booster Systems (RBS) conducted by NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL). The work included the creation of a new cost estimating model and an LCC analysis, building on past work where applicable, but emphasizing the integration of new approaches in life cycle cost estimation. Specifically, the inclusion of industry processes/practices and indirect costs were a new and significant part of the analysis. The focus of LCC estimation has traditionally been from the perspective of technology, design characteristics, and related factors such as reliability. Technology has informed the cost related support to decision makers interested in risk and budget insight. This traditional emphasis on technology occurs even though it is well established that complex aerospace systems costs are mostly about indirect costs, with likely only partial influence in these indirect costs being due to the more visible technology products. Organizational considerations, processes/practices, and indirect costs are traditionally derived ("wrapped") only by relationship to tangible product characteristics. This traditional approach works well as long as it is understood that no significant changes, and by relation no significant improvements, are being pursued in the area of either the government acquisition or industry?s indirect costs. In this sense then, most launch systems cost models ignore most costs. The alternative was implemented in this LCC study, whereby the approach considered technology and process/practices in balance, with as much detail for one as the other. This RBS LCC study has avoided point-designs, for now, instead emphasizing exploring the trade-space of potential technology advances joined with potential process/practice advances. Given the range of decisions, and all their combinations, it was necessary to create a model of the original model and use genetic algorithms to explore results. A strong business case occurs when viable paths are identified for an affordable up-front investment, and these paths can credibly achieve affordable, responsive operations, characterized by smaller direct touch labor efforts at the wing level from flight to flight. The results supporting this approach, its potential, and its conclusions are presented here.

Zapata, Edgar↗

NASA NTRS2013

New Approaches in Reuseable Booster System Life Cycle Cost Modeling

Zapata, Edgar↗

NASA NTRS1978

Research requirements to reduce civil helicopter life cycle cost

The problem of the high cost of helicopter development, production, operation, and maintenance is defined and the cost drivers are identified. Helicopter life cycle costs would decrease by about 17 percent if currently available technology were applied. With advanced technology, a reduction of about 30 percent in helicopter life cycle costs is projected. Technological and managerial deficiencies which contribute to high costs are examined, basic research and development projects which can reduce costs include methods for reduced fuel consumption; improved turbine engines; airframe and engine production methods; safety; rotor systems; and advanced transmission systems.

Blewitt, S. J.↗