• Identify cost drivers and major elements of risk. • Develop capital investment costs as well as operations costs. • Determine user cost projections. All costing objectives were accomplished. These costing objectives served as a guide in determining the type and the amount of cost data developed during the study. The costing approach utilized engineering cost estimates, vendor cost data, and parametric costing techniques. Vendor cost data were used where it was possible to obtain such data at this stage of the study (e.g., structure material costs were based on informal vendor cost estimates). Engineering cost estimates were derived from several reference * documents such as the NASA/MSFC (ECON, Inc.) Report No. 76-145-B, "Space- Based Solar Power Conversion and Delivery Systems Study," the "Hi-Efficiency Thin-film Ga As Solar Cells," First Interim Report, April 1976, JPL for NSF on Grant Aer 76-01823; GE document 76SDS4214, Quarterly P.R. #1, "Feasibility Study of a 200-watt/kg Light Weight Solar Array System;" the NASA/Lewis (Raytheon) Report CR-134886, ER75-4368, Microwave Power Transmission Studies, December 1975; NASA-JSC Report JSC-11443, "Initial Technical, Environmental and Economic Evaluation of Space Solar Power Concepts," July 15, 1976, and Boeing study of "Future Space Transportation Systems." In these instances engineering estimates were considered to be the most suitable cost data available. The parametric costing approach employed the use of cost estimating relationships (CER's) which were developed from the above reference documents and from cost data in the Rockwell in-house cost data bank on the Shuttle Orbiter program and from space station, AFSATCOM, and SEPS studies. The applicable CER's were adjusted for program fixed-year dollars, complexity where required, cost-scaling when there were significant differences between SPS requirements and the base data program requirements, and for differences in Rockwell in-house support effort. CER's were then applied to applicable technical data provided by engineering, such as weight, power, area, number of units, and numbers of flights to derive the program cost estimates. Separate CER's were developed for use in costing DDT&E (nonrecurring) and production and construction (recurring) requirements. 5.2.2 Program Cost Relationships Figure 5.2-1 reflects a cost relationship and comparison of SPS elements. The program elements have been structured for comparison purposes in terms of program management and systems engineering and integration (SE&I), the satellite, ground support systems, space transportation and orbital construction base. Operations costs were assumed in Section 5.2.4, which reflects user cost projections. It may be noted that ground support systems costs represent the largest area of program cost at $435.8B, 51.3 percent. The satellite cost is next at 27.0 percent or $229.3B. Space transportation vehicle costs are approximately 8.0 percent ($65.2B). Launch support, rectenna, solar blankets, and microwave antenna constitute the SPS program cost drivers.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTU5NjU0Mg==