~ 9 a - r ~ 7 498

SE-019-008-2 H-C PART II

FEASIBILITY S T U D Y OF A PRESSURE=FED E N G I N E F O R A W ER REC SPA'CE SHUTTLE BO

VOLUME 111

PROGRAM ACQUISITION PLANNING PROGRAM COSTS

IS MARCH 1972

PREPARED FOR OEQRGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE ADMlNlSTRATlON HUNTSVILLE, ALABAMA

SVSIEMS. 7iiW ORW?

O N e S P A C E P A R K * R E O O N D O B e A C H C A L I F O R N I A

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720018058 2020-06-19T06:36:44+00:00Z

SE-019-008 -2 H- C PART II

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A PRESSURE-FED ENGIN F O R A W A T E R R E C O V E R A B SPACE SHUTTLE B O O S T E R

VOLUME 111

PROGRAM ACQUISITION PLANNING PROGRAM COSTS

15 MARCH 1972

DRD M A - 0 5 PREPARED FOR

GEORGE C. MARSHALL SPACE FLIGHT CENTER N A T I O N A L AERONAUTICS A N D SPACE A D M I N I S T R A T I O N

HUNTSVILLE, A L A B A M A

E LE

SYSTEMS GROUP

O N E S P A C E P A R K 0 R E O O N O O B E A C H * C A L I F O R N I A

SE - 0 I 9 - 00 8 - 2H -, B

PHASE A/B FINAL COST ESTIMATES DOCUMENT FOR

FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A PRESSURE-FED ENGINE FOR A WATER RECOVERABLE SPACE SHUTTLE BOOSTER

DPD 303 DR MA 05

15 March 1972

P repa red for

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

George C , Marshal l Space Flight Center

Huntsville, Alabama 35812

Under Contract

NAS 8-28218

P repa red by c(I-C.=&&& A. C. Ellings

Appro ve d by 8

Dr . Harland L. Burge P rogram Manager P r e s s u r e Fed Engine Study

SYSTEMS GROUP Q N E S P A C E P A R K * R E O O N O O B E A C H C A L l F O P N l A

This document contains inf?rmation PROPRIETARY TO TRW SYSTEMS GROUP. TRW XNC., and shall not be reproduced or transfermed to other documents. or disclosed to others. or used for any purpose other than that for which it i s furnished without the prior written permrssion of TRW Systems Group, TRW Inc.

ii

CONTENTS

Section Page

1 . 0 COSTING APPROACH, METHODOLOGY AND 1 RATIONALE

I. I Costing Approach

1.2 Ground Rules

1.3 Work Breakdown Structure

1 .4 Quantities of Hardware

I. 5 Vendor Survey

1 . 6 Refurbishment

1 . 7 F e e

2 . 0 COST SUMMARY 9

2. 1 Baseline Schedule 9 2 . 2 Maximum Success and Most Probable Schedule 10

2 . 3 Effect of Varying the Number of Flights 10

3 . 0 COST ESTIMATE BY WBS ELEMENT 11

3.1 P rogram Cost Summary

3.2 Engine Costs

11

11

4.0 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS DATA 16

5 . 0 . TOTAL PROGRAM FUNDING SCHEDULES 17

5 .1 Baseline Schedule

5.2 Alternate Schedules

5 a 3

5.4 Manpower Requirements

Alternate Flight Mission Models

17

17

17

17

6.0 WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE DICTIONARY 26

APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL STUDIES A-1

iii

This report has been prepared in partial fulfillment of NASA

Contract NAS 8-28218 entitled “Feasibility Study of a P r e s s u r e Fed

Engine for a W a t e r Recoverable Space Shuttle Booster. I r

This volume presents the Final Cost Estimates for the engine

configurations and schedules studied.

the TRW 4 February 1972 briefings at the Marshal l Space Center.

It updates the data presented in

This volume is prepared in accordance with Data Requirements

Description MF-030A. Work i s covered in Appendix A plus a summary of other cost studies

conducted and additional background data related to the basic study.

The data requested in the Additional Statement of

The complete final report for the study is covered in six volumes:

Executive Summary NASA NO. SE-019-008-2H-A

Technical Report S E - 0 1 9 - 0 0 8 - 2H - B

Program Acquisitional Planning Part 1 and P g r t 2

Design Data Book

SE- 0 19-008 - 2H-C

SE-0 19-0 11 -2H

Prel iminary De sign Package SE-019-013-2H

Mass Proper t ies Report SE - 0 1 9 - 0 1 5 - 2H

iv

I. 0 COSTING APPROACH, METHODOLOGY AND RATIONALE

I. 1 COSTING APPROACH

A detailed engineering approach was used in generating the cost

data and was based on consideration of the engine configuration, program

plan, specified engine deliveries and estimated spares and support

requirements for the fl ight program.

1. 2 GROUND RULES

I. 2. I Configurations Costed

The configurations of the P r e s s u r e Feed Space Shuttle Booster

Engine which were costed in detail included the following pr imary

characterist ics:

Thrust Level: I, 200 K lbs. and 600 K lbs .

Chamber Cooling : Regenerative and Duct

Thrust Control: Fixed and Throttlable

Thrust Vector Control: LITVC (LOX a s injectant)

Head End 2 axis Gimbal

c. g. I axis Gimbal (Hinge)

Hot gas injection for thrust vector control (GITVC) was considered,

however, technical considerations led to the conclusion that GITVC was

too high a r i sk program to mee t program objectives and costs were,

therefore, not prepared.

The detailed cost of the two axis and single axis gimballed configura-

tions were within a few percent of each other and, therefore only one s e t

of costs a r e presented in the summar ies .

The 1, 200 K lb. thrust regenerative chamber, gimballed engine was

used as a baseline for costing purposes.

1 .2 .2 Schedules Costed

I. 2 .2 .1 Alternate FMOF Schedules

Three schedules were costed. The baseline with the First Manned

Orbital Flight (FMOF) on March 1, 1978, a maximum success schedule

1

with the FMOF on August 1, 1977 and a mos t probable schedule with the

FMOF on January 1, 1979. Only the baseline configuration was used in

costing the maximum success and most probable schedules.

1.2.2.2 Flight Models

The baseline flight schedule, 445 flights, used in the costing is

shown in Table 1-1 also shown are the alternate f l i gh t schedules r ang ing

f rom 10 flights to 60 flights maximum pe r year whose operational costs

were estimated.

C Y Year 1978

Baseline 6

Option 1 6

2 6

3 6

4 6

Table 1-1

Baseline and Alternate Flight Schedules

79 80 8 1 82 83 8 4 85 86 87

15 2 4 32 41 50 59 60 60 60

10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

15 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

15 2 4 32 40 40 40 40 40 40

15 2 4 32 41 50 59 60 60 60

Total

445

96

18 1

3 17

40 7

2

1.2.2.3 Engine Deliveries

The costs for delivered hardware were based on the following delivery

of vehicle se t s ( 7 engines per s e t for the 1, 200 K lb. thrust program and

10 engines for the 600 K thrust program).

Sys. Dev. Veh., PTA::

Flight Dev. Veh.

Dynamic Test Veh. w

Flight Veh. No. 1

2

3

7

8

Schedule

Baseline Max. Success

1- 1-75

3 - 1 - 7 6

6- 1 -76

7 - 1 -78

1 - 1 - 77:::::::::

7 - 1 -77

1- 1-78

1- 1-79

7- 1-79

1- 1-80

7 - 1-80

1- 1-75

3 - 1 - 7 6

-

10- 1-76::::::::

4- 1 -77

10- 1-77

4- 1 -78

10- 1-78

4- 1-79

10- 1 -79

4 -1 -80

Most Probable

4- 1-75

11- 1 -76

5 - 1 - 7 7

4 - 1 - 7 9

1 0 - 1 - 7 7 ::: :::::

4- 1 -78

I O - 1-78

10- 1-79

4 -1 -80

10- 1-80

4 - 1 - 8 1

9 1 - 1 - 8 1 10- 1 -80 1 0 - 1 - 8 1

10 7 - 1 - 8 1 4 - 1 - 8 1 4- 1 -82

Spare 1 - - -

Spare 2 - - - ::: 5 engines f o r 600 K lb. th rus t program

::: ::: Dummy Engine s

Engine for FMOF .*_ .,, .,, ,,. ,,. ?,.

3

The cost for the System Development, Flight Development, and

Dynamic Tes t and No. 1 flight vehicles were included in the non-recurring

costs, the balance in the Investment Phase.

I. 3 WORK i3REAKDOWN STRUCTURE

The work breakdown s t ruc ture is shown pictorially in F ig . 1- Y and

the cost methodology for each level 5 cell in Table 1- 2 .

1.4 QUANTITIES OF HARDWARE

The number of engines included in the costs were as follows:

P r o g r a m 1, 200 K lb. Thrus t 600 lb Thrust

Non-recurring

Development

Engine Development

PFC

F F C Deliverable

PTA F F C Flight No. I

Re cur ring

Deliverable

5

11

8

7 7 7

7 7

5

11

8

5 10 10

110

1.5 VENDOR SURVEY

The vendors f rom whom quotes were received a r e l isted in Table

The quotes were evaluated by increasing apparently low quotes, 1- 3. reducing those that appeared excessive, and averaging others .

1 . 6 REFURBISHMENT

In considering the cost of refurbishment, it was assumed that

engines would not be removed f rom the vehicle.

that only those components which were active would wear out and need

replacement.

Table 1- 4 which also shows the hardware breakdown used in costing.

It was assumed that f rom the standpoint of cost ,each active component

would be replaced once in 50 missions.

conservative.) As the ra te of wear out would decrease as the number

It was also assumed

The components considered as active a r e starred 0.7

(This assumption is considered

4

--I--

I -

5

a, k 5 c, V 5 k

;; $ 0

W 24 cd a, k M

2

d I d

a, k 5 M

iz

Table 1-2. Cost Methodology

Identification Number

WRS Comments Identification How E s t imated

xx 100 10 10

xx 100 40 10 Development Seconds of fir ing t ime $300/second at I , 200 K lb thrus t

xx 100 i o 20

Includes other fluids and gases anc losses .

N- at i . 8 c / e a l .

xx 100 10 30

xx 100 10 40 xx 100 10 50

xx 100 10 60 xx 100 10 70

xx 100 10 80

xx 100 20 10

xx 100 20 20

xx 100 20 20

xx 100 20 30

P r o g r a m Management and Engineering

Component Development

Development Hardware Procurement

Engine Tes t

Site Activation

GSE Procuremen t

Tooling

F ie ld Support

Di rec t Manhours

Vendor and TRW es t imates

Vendor es t imates fo r par t s . TRW Direc t Manhours assembly and checkout.

Direct Manhours

Architect and Engineering F i r m fo r s t ruc tua l modifications. TRW Manhours fo r installation of wiring, e tc .

TRW es t imate

Vendor es t imate and TRW manufacturing es t imate .

Direct Manhours.

DELIVERABLE HARDWARE

Covers Development through bench qualification.

Hardware through F F C . (See Section I . 4 fo r quantities. )

Covers activation and modification of EAFR Tes t Facil i ty.

Design engineering in xx 100 10 10

Components and Purchased P a r t s

Assembly

Product Assurance

Acceptance T e s t

Vendor and TRW es t imates

Direct Manhours pe r engine.

5 percent of Vendor and assembly cost .

Direct Manhours

TRW assembly

OVERHAUL AND REFURBISHMENT PARTS

xx 100 30 10 Overhaul and Refurbished Pe rcen t of Deliverable hardware I Parts I

xx 100 40 20

xx 100 40 30

P F C

F F C

Seconds of fir ing t ime $300/second a t I, 200 K lb thrus t

Second of fir ing t ime $300/second a t I , 200 K lb thrus t

xx 200 i o 10

xx 200 10 20

xx 200 10 30

xx 200 10 40

xx 200 20 10

xx 200 20 20

xx 200 20 30

xx 200 20 40

Deliverable Engines

GSE

Initial Spares

Acceptance Tes t Propellants

INVESTMENT

Vendor and TRW es t imates

TRW manufacturing es t imate

Pe rcen t of Deliverable engines

15 seconds of fir ing t ime p e r engine at $300/second a t 1, 200 K lb thrus t engine.

OPERATIONS

Flight Support

Operations

Overhaul and Refurbish- ment Parts

Propellants and Ancillary Fluids

Covers GSE delivered to Launch Si te

Di rec t Manhours

Direct Manhours

Pe rcen t of initial engine cos t based on wear out rate es t imate

Es t imated lo s ses f r o m flushing sys tem.

P r imar i ly fluids for flushing engines.

6

Table 1-3. Vendor Survey

SHUT OFF VALVES WHITTAKER PARKER

POSI -SEAL

SURGE SUPPRESSION (SCALED SHUT OFF)

L I T V C SHUTOFF VALVE

(SCALED SHUT OFF)

CONTROL , ELECTRONICS TRW

ENGINE PARTS FORGINGS

LAD I S H ARCTURU S

SHELL L A D I S H

GRANO

CENTRAL WESTERN

ACTUATORS (GIMBAL AND THROTTLING) TUBES MOOG ( E L E C T R I C HYDRAULIC) L A F E I L

HYDRAULIC RESEARCH ( E L E C T R I C HYDRAULIC)

6 END I X ( ELECTR I C-MECHAN I CAL ) BRAZED ASSEMBLY RYAN AERO

L I T V C SERVO INJECTOR SOLAR

MOOG ROHR L T V

APU A I RESEARCH

A B L A T I V E S HITCO

Table 1-4. Hardware I tems Costing Breakout

* CONTROL, ELECTRONIC AND WIRING

* INSTRUMENTATION * LOX SHUTOFF VALVE * LOX T R I M VALVE * LOX DUCT * RP SHUTOFF VALVE

* RP T R I M VALVE

* RP DUCT * I G N I T E R

INJECTOR

* ACTUATOR

* ACTUATOR ARM

* ACTUATOR MOUNT TOROID, FUEL

* PARTS AND ASSEMBLY

CHAMBER THRUST R I N G

* GIMBAL, R ING/HINGE

SHELL (AND RINGS) MANIFOLD (REGEN I N L E T ) TUBES COLLECTOR R I N G ( INJECTOR INTERFACE)

ASSEMBLY, BRAZE AND ND7

L I T V C (LOX)

* SHUTOFF VALVES

DUCT

MANIFOLD (VALVE I N L E T )

* VALVES CHAMBER MANIFOLD

* ACTIVE ITEMS FOR SPARES COSTING 7

of missions p e r engine is decreased, in o rde r to calculate the refurbish-

ment par t s for the various mission models (paragraph 1 . 2 . 2 . 2 ) the

logarithmic wear out curve shown in Fig. 1- 2 was constructed.

this curve it can be seen that for the 96 flight mission model, the r e -

placement par ts drop to 2 .69 f rom the 100% used for the 445 flight model.

Parts required for damage in recovery are covered by the Investment

Phase init ial spares .

From

AVE. ENGINE LIFE IOVEHICLES

Figure 1-2 . Cost Wear Curve for Replacement

1 . 7 FEE

All costs in this volume include fee (a t 8770) unless otherwise noted.

8

2 . 0 COST SUMMARY

2 . 1 BASELINE SCHEDULE

The total program and non-recurring costs are summarized below

for the baseline schedule.

Configuration Total P rogram Non- Recur ring 1200 K $M $M

A - Regenerative, Fixed Thrust, Gimbal TVC

B - Regenerative, Throttable, LITVC

C - Regenerative, Throttable, Gimbal TVC

D - Duct,Fixed Thrust., Gimbal TVC

600 K

25 2 114

29 6 133

27 5 127

230 104

E - Regenerative Fixed Thrust Gimbal TVC

230 9 1

F r o m the above it i s seen that the duct chamber configuration

results in the lowest cost program although not significantly lower than

the comparable regenerative engine in non-recurring costs.

A comparison of configuration B and C shows that LITVC results

in approximately a 9 percent increase in total funding costs. This results

f rom the high total cost of the 32 LITVC values used in that configuration.

In ear l ie r studies, it was shown that if the APU and actuator were

included, the gimballed configurative would be the m o r e expensive.

In comparing configuration A and C, it is seen that throttling

resul ts in a 9 percent increase in total program costs over the f ixed

thrust configuration.

F o r equivalent configuration (A and E), the 600 K lb thrust program

has lower total costs than the 1200 K lb thrust program, pr imari ly the

resul t of lower hardware and propellant costs in development.

9

2.2 MAXIMUM SUCCESS AND MOST PROBABLE SCHEDULE

F o r the baseline configuration (Regenerative,Fixed Thrust, Gimbal

TVC), the effect of schedule changes to the 445 f l i gh t program was a s follows:

Schedule

Baseline

Total P rogram Non- Recur ring SCM $M

252 114

Maximum Success 27 1 129

Most Probable 263 127

Both schedule modifications resul t in higher costs than the baseline.

The maximum success has higher costs to provide for m o r e redundancy

in development.

the baseline on the assumption that the level of development effort would

be maintained for the added 9 months.

The most probable schedule program cost increase over

2.3 EFFECT O F VARYING THE NUMBER OF FLIGHTS

The effect of varying the number of flights in the program (see

Section 1.2.2.2) on the recurr ing operational costs, assuming the baseline

configuration, is shown below.

i s covered in the non-recurring costs.

The operational cost of the first 5 flights

Recurring Phase

Total No. Flight Rate Flights (max.)

96 10

18 1 20

3 17 40

40 7 60

445 60

Average Cost No. cost Per Flight

Flights __c (SCM) (SCM )

9 1 22.28 0 .24

176 33.20 0.19

3 12 53 .24 0.17

402 75.60 0.19

440 81.56 0.19

The average cost per f l i gh t is essentially the same fo r each schedule.

Although the overhaul and refurbishment par ts cost decrease as per the

percentage shown in Section 1.6 with the decreasing number of flights, the

reduced labor efficiency compensates resulting in the essentially equal costs. The costs of the 96 flight model reflect the costs of minimum staffing.

10

3.0 COST ESTIMATE B Y WBS ELEMENT

3.1 PROGRAM COST SUMMARY

The program total funding requirements for the key configurations

and schedules costed a r e presented in Table 3-1 to level 5 except f o r

non-recurring costs which are summarized at level 4.

tions represent f o r the baseline schedule: (I) the 1200 K lb thrust base-

line configuration, fixed thrust, regenerative, gimballed; ( 2 ) the lowest

cost program, the fixed thrust, duct, gimballed engine; ( 3 ) the highest

cost program, the throttable, regenerative, LITVC configuration; and

(4 ) the throttable, regenerative, gimballed engine. Also shown to the

baseline schedule is the 600 K lb thrust baseline configuration, The

costs for the three schedules; baseline, maximum success and most

probable, are shown for the baseline configuration.

down of the level 4 cell DEVELOPMENT is given in table 3- 2 .

The configura-

The level 5 break-

3 . 2 ENGINE COSTS

3 . 2 . 1 No. of Engines

The number of all up engines costed in the program were a s follows:

WBS

Level - No. Identification No. of Engines

5 xx 100 10 30 Development Hardware 24 Procurement

4 xx 100 20 Delive rable Hardware 21

5 xx 200 10 20 Deliverable Engines 77

3.2.2 Sequence Number

The production sequence number of the first unit used in the r ecu r r -

ing phase is 37 for the 1200 K lb thrust program and 50 for the 600 K lb

thrust program.

curve for 1200 K lb thrust engine and 40th unit for the 600 K 1b thrust

engine .)

(34th unit f rom the standpoint of application of learning

3 .2 .3 Reference Unit Costs

The unit costs of the reference units for the configurations costed

a r e given in Table 3-3 along with the first unit costs.

11

e

12

S A U F

m 0 0 - - 0 1 0 1 N \ O m W t - N V O 0 OD 1 N * - + N 0 0 - $ N N N W W - < $ l $ I . . . . . N

m 0 0 - . - 0 1 0 N S 0 . W P - N P ' O m 1 O + - N 0 0

1 N N C O W M 1 W N N

. . . . . . .

Q N O * * 0 1 0 1 m 0 . O m P - N r r O Q 0 P - + . + - N 0 0 1

N N

$ N m C Q W - 1 1 I i I . . . . . . .

0 0 0 - - o m 0 m P - \ O m P - m 1 0 m Q m ~ - o P - o N N N C - W - i m W N N

. . . . . . .

0 o o . + - o - r o N N 1 W P - N P O \O P - P - * + N W O

0 0 0 - . + 0 1 0 Q N N C O W P - N 1 O 00 a r m * - ~ m o I P- . . . . . . m ~ m m m - m N N P-

1 0 0 - " 0 1 0 Q N P - C O P - a ) t - O .+ 1 W Q + O O O

1 N N P - W M m 1 N N

. . . . . . .

N 0 0 - + + 0 1 0 W P- W m m F W 1 0 N m ~ m Q + o o o I a

13

rn c, m 0 u c, .?I

s"

iz

s

c, m k

W 54 cd U .rl

a, U c; a, k a, ..u

2 c'c, I

rr, a, 9 cd

d

F

C O F O F c o r n

0 o * 0 4 ..t-

d

I n m m m C O Q

In t- o a ..P d

N rr)

d

t- rr)

d

d * d

m NI

d

m rr, d

- In rr)

.rl

0 * d

14

Also shown is the ratio of the first unit cost of the 1200 K lb thrust tcj

the 600 K lb thrus t engines which var ies between 1.32 and 1.41. It is

noted that the ratio of engines per vehicle se t 10/7 is 1.43, therefore,

there is not a large differential in the cost of delivered engines for the

two configurations.

f o r the two thrus t levels is 1.41, the engine cost for a given configuration

therefore, sca le approximately with the chamber diameter .

The ratio of the thrus t chamber cylindrical sections

3 .2 .4 Learning: Curve

A 95 percent s t ra ight line cumulative average learning curve was

used in calculating the engipe cost .

3 .2 .5 Confidence Level

A confidence rating of 3, medium high, has been applied to the

es t imates ,

type engine of the thrus t levels specified,have not been fabricated.

All c r i te r ia for this level of rating a r e met, except a proto-

3 .2 .6 First Unit Cost

The first unit costs a r e shown in Table 3-3. This cost was applied

to the first unit for PFF program and the learning curve applied to sub-

sequent units.

unit cost .

figuration is given in Table 3-4.

Development and PTA engines were costed at the f irst

A fur ther breakdown of the first unit cost of the baseline con-

Table 3 - 4 . F i r s t Unit Cost TRW PFE (Baseline Schedule and 1200 K l b Thrus t Coafiguration)

- --. _- - - . - Cos t (K$)

~- - - _ _ E l e c t r i c a l Cont ro ls In s t rumen ta t ion 72 .0

Part

and Wiring

LOX shu t off and t r i m va lves

R P shut off and t r i m va lves

P rope l l an t l i nes and bellows

Ignition s y s t e m

39.3

19.7

110.5

8 . 0

In j ec to r A s s e m b l y

C h a m b e r A s s e m b l y

T h r u s t mount and g i m b a l r ing

Sub-Tota l Components

QC, engine a s s e m b l y and t e s t

G and A and f ee

Tota l f i r s t unit - _

40.0

254.7

83 .8

628.0

161. 0

106.0

895 .0

15

4 . 0 TECHNICAL CHARACTERISTICS DATA

The p r imary parameters of the technical character is t ics which may

have a significant effect on cost a r e l isted below for the baseline

configuration

Sizing Weight

P e r f o rmanc e

Complexity

Isp delivered (90% of theoretical)

Combustion Stability

Number of missions (50 missions required - 100 mission goal)

No par t icular problem is anticipated with the above parameters .

The basic design philosophy was that of low cost.

in the study a r e therefore considered conservative.

90 percent of theoretical has not been a problem in scaling the basic

injector design up to 250 K lbs thrus t f rom 50 K lbs thrust and none is

anticipated in scaling fur ther to the thrus t levels required. Although the

single axial injector studied has been proven stable in a large number of

tes ts and is considered stable f r o m a theoretical point of view, it is l isted

a s a TCD parameter only because it has not been demonstrated at

the 600 K and 1200 K lb thrus t levels .

chamber will impact costs pr imar i ly because of the extent of the test pro-

g ram required to demonstrate its life.

The weights derived

Arriving at an Isp

The number of missions of the

In the LITVC configuration the maximum thrust vector angle will

impact costs as it determines the valve s ize which tends to increase

exponentially with the la rger s izes up to the maximum thrus t vector

angle obtainable. If the thrust vector angle specified is close to the

maximum obtainable, it may also require a significant number of tes ts to

determine the maximum position and angle.

16

5.0 TOTAL PROGRAMMING FUNDING SCHEDULES

5 . 1 BASELINE SCHEDULE

The t ime phased costs for the key configurations and the baseline

schedule (FMOF 3-1-78) a r e shown in Tables 5-1 through 5-4.

5 . 2 ALTERNATE SCHEDULES

The t ime phased costs for the maximum success schedule (FMOF

8-1-77) is shown in Table 5-5 and for the most probable schedule (FMOF

1-1-79), see Table 5-6.

5 . 3 ALTERNATE FLIGHT MISSION MODELS

The t ime phased costs for the alternate flight mission models a r e

shown in Table 5-7. (See Table 1-1 for Mission Models,)

5 . 4 MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

The t ime phased TRW direct manpower requirements f o r the

program a r e given in Table 5-8.

directly associated with development of some engine components which

were estimated as TRW make decisions, i . e . , the e lectr ical controls

and injector assembly.

per s onnel .

These requirements exclude manpower

Also excluded a r e c ler ical and other supporting

1 7

18

I

21

T I

22

23

TABLE 5-7

SPACE SHUTTLE 1200 K PF ENGINE FUND ESTIMATE RECURRING OPERATIONS COST FOR ALTERNATE

MISSIONS MODELS

Baseline Schedule and Configuration

F M O F 3-1-78

I1977 I1978 11979 119801 19811 19821 19831 19841 19851 1'

91 FLIGHT MISSION MODEL

Opera t ions

F l i g h t Suppor t

Opera t ions

Overhau l and Refu rb i sh P a r t s

P r o p e l l a n t s

176 FLIGHT MISSION MODEL

Opera t ions

F l i g h t Suppor t

Ope ra t ions

Overhau l and Refu rb i sh Parts

P r o p e l l a n t s

312 FLIGHT MISSION MODEL

Opera t ions

F l i g h t Suppor t

Opera t ions

Overhau l and Refu rb i sh Parts

P r o p e l l a n t s

402 FLIGHT MISSION MODEL

Ope ra t ions

F l i g h t Suppor t

Ope ra t ions

Overhau l and Refu rb i sh Parts

P r o p e l l a n t s

F Y 78

+

2.13

0.98 0.90 0.18

0.07

-

- 2.77

1.35 1.05 0.27

0.10 _I

4.16

1.65 1.26 1.18

D. 07

-

_I

5.47

1.65 1.26 2.42

3 . 14

79

-

2.79

1.30 1.20 0.22

0.07

-

- 3.94

2.00 1.40 0.44

0. 10

-

- 6.43

2.40 2.08 1.81

0. 14

~

-..c-

9.14

2.50 2.08 4.42

0.14

80

-

I

2.79

1.30 1. 20 0.22

0.07

I

i=j.__

3.84

1.90 1.40 0.44

0.10

.-

- 6.62

2.40 2.32 1.81

0.09 - 9.17

2.41 2.32 4.42

0.02

-

81

-L

2.49

1.20 1.00 0.22

0.07

-

IILIIPP.

3.75

1.90 1.40 0.44

0.01

-

- 6.62

2.40 2.40 1.81

0.01

-

- 9.42

2.41 2.58 4.42

D.01

82

-

2.23 - 1.20 0.95 0.08

- 3.46

1.90 1.40 0.15

0.01

7

__c

5.02

2.00 2.40 0.61

0.01

-

- 7.07

2.14 3.42 1.50

0.01

-

85

I

2.12

1.10 0.95 0.07

-

=_i..

3.24

1.70 1.40 0.13

0.01

.__

--

4.87

1.95 2.40 0.51

0.01 ==.pp

6.79

2.05 3.48 1.25

0.01

7

86

161 1

2.00

1.00 0.95 0.05

-

- 3 . 11

1.60 1.40 0.10

0.01

-

II---

4.67

1.85 2.40 0.41

0.01

-

- 6.54

2.05 3.48 1.00

0.01

87

7

88 I 89 I

24

Table 5 - 8

.F ' Y

1973

7 4

75

76

77

78

79

80

8 1

82

83

8 4

85

86

87

88

89

Totals

Direct Manpower Requirements

Man Years

Non-Recurring Recur ring

106

148

172

172

1 48

8 2

25

853

13

19

8 4

123

127

131

126

136

140

140

140

140

75

1394

Total

106

i48

172

172

161

101

109

123

127 131

126

136

140

140

140

140

75

2247

25

I u cd

V

(d

.r( c,

c, m F:

.r( I

E 0 U

M G

cd S

.r( c, U cd

.ri c,

R M .r(

m w 0

ci 8 w 0

a G rd

w z z w * 5

a F: cd c,

5

c, m a, E

c,

5 0

Q w * m u 0 Q

0 0 In d

0 0 d 0

0 0 0

4

d M

X X X X

0 0 d tu 0

cy 0 * 0 d

0

0 0

d

d

0 0 d d

0

0 0

d

d

k a, P E

X x z x

2

X 4 a, S N rr)

0 0 0 0 d d

0 0

X x X X X X

X X

X X

m m In In m In

26

w 0 h s E

5 a, m

a G cd a,

2 c, u

9 G cd E k 0 w a a, k 5 e a,

M m d Q

.rl

k .

Z G 0 *& O d Ea,

M G 0 0

.I+ d

E

0 F

0

0 0

0

d

d

d

X X

Ln

x 3 E a, m m Id a, G M .I+

2 k 0 w a a, k 5 e a, k m c1 k cd a a G rd

.rl

m c,

2

2

4

0 u a a, m

k

i a d cd m c,

2

8: : E

G 0

0

0 N

0 0

0

d

d

d

X X

Ln

a, FI M .I+

G a a, c, a, I4

2 0 u w 0 h

z1 E a, m

d

h 3 E a, v) < 0 N 0 N 0 0

0

4

d

X X

Ln

27

a, : 2 5 m m

c, z a 0 k PI 0 rr)

0 N

0 0

0

d

d

X x LD

v) c, m a, E a, 0 d cd c, a a, 0

2 0 w 0 N 0 0 d

0 d

X X

Ln

0 rr)

0 0 4

X X m fd

i!i fd v)

G a,

A

c,

E m 2 2 3 w

a G cd

3 cd

kc, a , k bcd

d

A m

OPI 0

0 cr, 0 0

0

d

d

4

X X

Ln

rl

d d a d cd

x" 0 4

I3 z 4 4 4 W PI 0 d PI

0 w 0 0

0

d

d

X X

*

Ei cd k M 0 k PI w s E F4 0 a, 3 a,

d

n a, G M .rl

i

d

k 0 U 4

d a G cd

X 0 4

2

E' rd k bJl 0 k F4 V bl 61 k 0

W

d

d d a G rd

x 0 J

2?

i 2 M 0 k PI

u bl PI k 0 U U

d d a E: rd

X 0 J ..

zN

G 0

F:

.rl w

.rl

G

u

w d '-s E-c u 5

i3

m

2 fi M

a, d P cd k e, > 'ti 4 a, n 0

0

4

4

d E-c VI

F a, F a rn

a, k rd a VI d

d m w > z H

u 61 P i

u 6-I bl d

0 0 0 0 4 N r n d . l 0 0 0 0 0 W W + W 4

0 0 0 0 0 0 k O O O O 0 0

3 0 0 N

0 0 0 0 N N

0 0 (\y

0 4

X X

0

9 a ) . r ( 4 4 4 N N

0 0 3 0 0 0 0 4 4 U d 4 4

z x x x x X X x x x x x X

0 4

X X

0 0 d 4

x X x x Ln In

28

h I

d m 01 a,

2 k 3 w a, k

M G k a, a,

.rl rd F: rd rl 5 rd

a, 3 0

-f: a r: rd

d M .?I

2 M c c .ti

4 3 rd

a, + 0

E k 0 w

a, U 4

4 3

a c 6 c,

5! E a, M rd F: rd E

a a, c, rd .rl U 0 rn 2 c, k 0

W w w

E rd k M 0

ti u 5 d F tn

0 Q ?cl 4 w d w

c, k 0 a a 5 tn

2 .rl

I+

Fr 0

0 N

d

m

0 N

0 N

0 0 N

0 d

0 e 0 N

0 N

0 0 hl

0 N 0

0 N

0 0 N

0 0 N

k a, a 0

0 d

0 0 d

X X

E 2

0 4

X X

0 d

X x X X

X X

e In In In

2 9

Appendix A

ADDITIONAL STUDIES

1 .0 EFFECT ON COSTS AND SCHEDULE OF ENGINE LIFE

The effect on Development Costs (W.B.S. 10 100 10) of engine

life over the range of 20 to 100 mission duty cycles a r e shown in F i g .

A - I . duty cycles.

not for equal levels demonstrated reliability.

mission duty cycle development,

duty cycles; in the 50 mission duty cycle, 10 engines would be used to

demonstrate 50 + cycles; in the 100 mission duty cycle program, 6 engines

would be run f o r the 100 missions.

The baseline program was established to demonstrate 50 mission

Because of practical t e s t limitations, the costs shown are

F o r example in the 20

13 engines would be run for 20 plus

Also shown in Fig. A-1 is the difference in cost of propellant

(WBS 10 100 40) which has a relatively large change as the number of

demonstrated mission duty cycles i s changed.

A 20 mission duty cycle program could reduce the development

program time (through FFC) by 12 months and the 100 mission d.uty cycle

program would increase the engine testing phase by 8 months.

The baseline configuration, regener9tive thrust chqmber, fixed

thrust injector, and gimballed engine were assumed for these est imates .

2 . 0 REFURBISHMENT COSTS

The cost of refurbishment consists of labor, etc. (Operations

W.B.S. 10 200 20 20) and overhaul and refurbishment par ts

( W . B.S. 10 200 20 30).

costs is given in Section. 1 .6 of this report .

operations costs for alternate mission models all based on 9 flight

vehicles including and subsequent to the FMOF.

in Table 5-7 and plotting against the number of mission duty cycles per

engine as a percentage of the engine unit cost resul ts in Fig. A-2.

The philosophy for determination of the par ts Section 5.3 presents the

Propagating the data

A- 1

70

I- m 0 60 U

t W

n z 0

n

A

Y w

50

/

80 1 00

NUMBER OF MISSION DUTY CYCLES PER ENGINE

0

'0

0

F i g u r e A - I . E f f e c t on C o s t of D e m o n s t r a t e d E n g i n e Life

A -2

2 00

I-

;3 v

100 90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10 10 20 30 40

NUMBER OF MISSION DUTY CYCLES PER ENGINE

50

: I '

1 ; : I . .

I

I

i t

t i

1 I

i t I

b I

i I

r

t

i

f

I

F i g u r e A-2 . C o s t of R e f u r b i s h m e n t as P e r c e n t of E n g i n e Cos t V e r s u s E n g i n e Life

A - 3

3 . 0 ABLATIVE ENGINES

As an alternate to the regenerative thrus t chamber configuration,

the costs of programs based on a n ablative thrust chamber engine were

also estimated. Two types of engines were considered, 1) a reusable

engine in which the chamber would be relined af ter each flight and 2)

a ''throw away" engine which included additional simplifications, i. e . ,

single use valves.

The first unit and program costs for these configurations a r e tabulated

below and compared with the Baseline regenerative thrust chamber

configuration and Baseline 445 flight schedule .

Both also a s s u n e d a fixed thrust and gimballed TVC.

First Unit Program Costs

c o s t Total Non- recurring '

Baseline 895 25 2 114

Ablative Chamber 694 378 92

Throw Away Ablative 592 714 Chamber

86

Although the first unit costs and non-recurring costs are reduced,

the total program costs a r e considerably higher for the ablative engine.

A-4

4.0 FACILITIES

Review of the Edwards Rocket Test Fac i l i ty , Edwards Air Force Bgse, California and the f a c i l i t i e s modifications required has confirmed tha t the original plan f o r operation of tes t stands 2A and 1B i s the most ef- fec t ive from a f a c i l i t y cost standpoint. development program on the schedule shown by the Prel iminary Development Plan dated 10 February 1972, t e s t stand 2A and i t s a$sociated control center will have t o be activated immediately upon i n i t i a t i o n of the program. The costs associated w i t h the control center a r e primarily fo r act ivat ing the recording f a c i l i t y . The additional increment f o r activating the 1B control panel and checkout of land lines was shown i n the TRW labor cos t f o r the activation of s tand 1 B . The costs f o r act ivat ing the 2A position and i t s control center would therefore be a s follows:

I p order to perform the in jec tor

TRW Labor $145,000 Purchased Parts 21 6,000 Purchased Services

C1 eani ng 65,000 Metro1 ogy 107,000

Total $553,000

The additional cos t fo r act ivat ing Stand 1B would be as follows:

TRW Labor $ 450,000 Modification t o 1B 1,600,000 Water Flow Fac i l i ty 150,000

Total $2,200,000

On 1 March 1972 a v i s i t t o the Edwards Rocket Test Faci l i ty fo r the purpose of reviewing engine test stands 1C and 1D as possible sites f o r tes t ing of pressure fed boosters disclosed the following:

1 . The tes t stands a re i n excellent condition. 1D i s currently i n operation while 1C is i n an excellent s t a t e of preservation. control center cmmon t o the two stands is currently i n an oper- ational s t a tus .

The

A-5

2 . The physical separation between the two t e s t s tands will make maintenance of the t e s t schedule eas ie r than on stand 1B.

3 . The separation distance between the stands precludes the use of a common set of run t a n k s .

4. The use of a common control center introduces the same schedul- i n g problems t h a t a re presented on s t and 1B.

The costs fo r converting stands 1C and 1 D t o pressure fed booster re- quirements a re estimated t o be as follows:

TRW Labor $ 100,000 Purchased Parts 1 00 , 900 Modification of stand 1 C 1 , 600 , 000 Propel 1 an t Sys tern ModificatiQn of stand 1 D 1 , 600 , 000 Propel 1 an t System Ins ta l la t ion of Water 15O,OOO F1 ow Faci 1 i ty

$3 , 550 , 000

Total cos t for lC, 1 D and 2A is therefore $4,083,000 as compared t o $2,733,000 for 1 B and 2A. The costs presented above are less G&A and f ee which a re included i n the main body of t h i s report.

In planning the modifications of the Edwards Rocket Test Fac i l i ty , TRW has been working i n c lose association w i t h Norman Engineering Company o f Culver City, California. The costs and schedules for the modification of the 1 B t e s t s t and have been prepared by them i n accordance w i t h engineering direct ion from TRW. The schedule i s based upon the release o f a purchase order f o r procurement of the longest lead time item, namely the propellant run tanks by the second week a f t e r go-ahead; as soon as the tank spec i f i - cation can be released. .On 29 February the realism of the proposed schedule was discussed w i t h Mr. E . F . S l a t t e ry , Vice President of Norman Engineering Company. Pittsburg-DesMoines Steel Company who confirmed a 9 m o n t h schedule f o r desigt,, fabr icat ion, erect ion, and t e s t of the run t anks . A detai l breakdown o f the a c t i v i t i e s required t o ac t iva te the 1B test stands i s given i n Part I o f t h i s

report . activated on the same schedule as shown for stand 1 B ; the second can be activated 3 months l a t e r .

As a r e s u l t of t h i s conversation Mr. Sla t te ry contacted the

If t e s t stands 1 C and 1 D a r e used, the f i r s t t e s t stand can be

A- 6