9. Mission Life Cycle Cost

To begin the cost estimating process, a Cost Breakdown Structure (CBS) was created. The CBS covers all aspects of research, development, test and evaluation (RDT&E) as well as production and operations costs. Modeled after Table 20-4 from Reference [3], the spreadsheet organized data collected from each subsystem, assisted in determining all significant costs, and allowed each group member to consistently compare the costs of one system to another.

The cost of the power subsystem is estimated based on plutonium mass. The power subsystem's cost is very high, since the isotope used in these systems, originally available as a byproduct from nuclear weapons production, is very expensive to produce and remaining stocks are limited. No production capability presently exists. The price paid by the government for new supplies of this material will range from $1,200/g PuO₂, as quoted by the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) for sale from their existing stock, to over $8,000/g PuO₂ if new domestic production were initiated. Each RTG is loaded with 448 g of active PuO₂. Counting the costs of production, encapsulation, and assembly, the resulting mission user cost is estimated to be between $6,000 and $18,000 per thermal watt. For an RTG and low power DIPS, this translates roughly to $100,000 to $300,000 per electrical watt. For the chosen RTG and DIPS, the resulting cost is $1,830,000 and $2,547,000 respectively, a total of $4,377,000. [11],[10]

Tables 14 and 15 provide a cost estimate in thousands of fiscal year 1992 dollars as a function of several parameters: payload, spacecraft bus, apogee kick motor, aerospace ground equipment, and program level. To adapt the given model to Project Asterius' design, several assumptions were made:

  

Table 14: Cost Budget: Theoretical First Unit Costs of Asterius

NEED TO INSERT SPREADSHEET DATA

  

Table 15: Cost Budget: Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation

NEED TO INSERT SPREADSHEET DATA

• All scientific instrument mass was included as communications electronics equipment.
• Optical instrumentation was not estimated as a function of aperture; mass was used.
• Star Tracker estimation was added independently of the given cost model.
• Because the CBS given in Reference [3] was tailored for an Earth-orbiting spacecraft, many parameters used in the model exceed the valid range for the cost model equation specified. Due to the lack of a better model, the range limits were ignored.
• Power cost estimation was developed using a different estimation than given in Reference lw.
• The launch vehicle cost estimation was developed using another text.

After the assumptions were made and all of the parameter information was gathered, the CBS for Project Asterius was constructed. Next, the Cost Estimating Relationship (CER) for each component was calculated using the given cost model equations also given in Table 20-4. After each CER was calculated, cost factors for advances in technology, software development, ground segment, operation, communication electronics, and the launch vehicle were added into the spreadsheet. When summing these costs, careful attention was paid to not being redundant in the cost collection, more specifically, in not adding a cost twice. Once the compilation of all costs was completed, FY92$K was changed to 1998 fiscal year dollars (in thousands) using inflation factors based on projection by the Office of the Secretary of Defense. To reduce overall cost, the prototype spacecraft will be used for the final working vehicle with modifications made after any necessary experimental testing. Taking all cost into account, the current bottom line cost is $550 million.