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.
[1]
James W Bilbro,et al.
A Suite of Tools for Technology Assessment
,
2007
.
[2]
Russel E. Rhodes,et al.
The Functional Breakdown Structure (FBS) and Its Relationship to Life Cycle Cost
,
2009
.
[3]
Atul Wad,et al.
Technology assessment
,
1984
.
[4]
John W. Robinson,et al.
Concepts for Life Cycle Cost Control Required to Achieve Space Transportation Affordability and Sustainability
,
2009
.
[5]
John C. Mankins,et al.
Technology Readiness Levels-A White Paper
,
1995
.
[6]
Robert Rosen,et al.
The NASA technology push towards future space mission systems
,
1989
.
[7]
Gail L Hahn.
Accelerated Insertion of Materials - Composites (AIM-C) Methodology
,
2004
.