1 / 5

Architecture Selection Logic

Architecture Selection Logic. Solomon Westerman, PM Week 7, 2/26/09. Complexity drives cost and reliability!. Complexity. Cost. Reliability. Launch Mass in LEO Purchase Licenses Components Salary Integration R&D Construction. Launch Same model TLI, LD, LOCO Moving Parts

fay
Download Presentation

Architecture Selection Logic

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Architecture Selection Logic Solomon Westerman, PM Week 7, 2/26/09 [Solomon Westerman] [PM] 1

  2. Complexity drives cost and reliability! Complexity Cost Reliability • Launch • Mass in LEO • Purchase • Licenses • Components • Salary • Integration • R&D • Construction • Launch • Same model • TLI, LD, LOCO • Moving Parts • Failure Modes • Purchased or Built Components • $ Spent on R&D Improve our reliability! Balance total cost and system reliability to meet requirements for each payload mass [Solomon Westerman] [PM] 2

  3. Architecture Logic for GLXP size Payloads [Solomon Westerman] [PM] 3 • Want to minimize mission cost (maximize profit) • Cost currently driving selection • Unless significant $ spend on R&D, mission reliability is unlikely to be > 90% • R&D cost + mission cost will likely be more than purse money for > 90% reliability • Even the most reliable GEO satellite buses have ~11% of fleet with insurance claims, most have ~25% • Therefore, we could plan for two launches • Allows us to invest less in R&D • 90% reliability for two missions is equal to 69% reliability for one mission • Cross our fingers and hope the first mission works • If first mission works: we make good profit • If first mission fails: fix, build, and launch again to minimize loss • Second launch may not win full GLXP prize money due to time constraint • Locomotion reliability a HUGE driver • Working with slim margin if we don’t pour too much money into LD R&D • Combination of phase vehicles is very promising, even for small payloads • Need to look at model to see if we can get > 90% with one launch • Reduced complexity not only leads to lower cost, but increased reliability!

  4. Architecture Logic for Arbitrary (large) Payload [Solomon Westerman] [PM] 4 • Want to minimize mission cost with acceptable reliability • Payload likely to be expensive, desire higher reliability than GLXP • Reliability requirement currently driving selection • Require 90% reliability for ONE mission! • R&D cost will be needed to satisfy reliability • Significant R&D cost must be put into TLI, LD, and LOCO • R&D cost can be reduced by launching with Soyuz FG (excellent reliability at ~1.7x higher launch cost) • Combination of phase vehicles increases reliability SIGNIFICANTLY • Integrated hopper/lander is almost required to maintain reliability requirement • Less costly mission

  5. Demo Excel Model

More Related