# Presentation: 174928

## FACGSE

**A Spaceport Facility and GSE Acquisition Cost Estimator**
**Edgar Zapata**
**Kennedy Space Center**
**YA-C**
**321-867-6234**
**FACGSE_V5**
**June 25, 2001**

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**FACGSE Documentation Notes**
**A SPACEPORT FACILITY AND GSE BASELINE COST ESTIMATOR**
- This spreadsheet uses Shuttle historical cost information on the acquisition of facilities and ground support equipment (GSE) to assist in estimating these costs for new vehicles.
- This historical cost information has been used to derive “CER’s” or Cost Estimating Relationships.
- These CER’s are simple in that they require only the geometric information on a new concept, such as size of the vehicle, stacked dimensions, and payload space dimensions.
- The estimates for facility and GSE acquisition costs for a new concept CAN NOT be used “as is” because of this prior simplification. Rather, the estimates are a starting point for further modification and adjustment based on other factors. These factors include technology, improvements in design or operations, reliability, design life, and so forth.
- A model such as AATe (Architectural Assessment Tool - enhanced) may be used to perform these adjustments.
- As another enhancement, this spreadsheet has been created to avoid having to estimate certain required inputs, such as the needed size of a mobile launcher platform, without which some calculations are not possible (launch pad, integration).

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**Explanation and Documentation on Each Spaceport Module Calculation**
***Costs Included and Not Included***
- Any cost generated is a total cost, including design and engineering, and the acquisition.
- There is insufficient documentation to determine if the historical cost information includes other costs such as:
- Activation.
- Facility and GSE Development costs, for originating and validating any facility and GSE challenges.
- Associated but indirect costs such as civil service labor, engineers, and oversight of contracts.
- Values generated are likely optimistic (less than the actual costs incurred).
- Spares are calculated and included as a spares factor of 6.5% applied only to GSE, but may be changed by going into the workings of the FACGSE spreadsheet.

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**Explanation and Documentation on Each Spaceport Module Calculation**
***Estimation of Costs for New RLV Facilities and GSE***
**Duplicating an existing design:**
- The cost to duplicate an existing facility or module function given existing design and engineering may be roughly 1/4 to 1/2 the cost of the first unit. As an example, the cost to build a new turnaround facility for Shuttle, exactly duplicating an existing design, is much less than predicted by historical information because of the savings from sunk design and engineering costs. These would not be re-incurred.
**Inflation:**
- The prior factor roughly counters any “10 year doubling” of costs due to inflation (bringing costs back to the original, but still costly amounts).
**New estimates include design and engineering:**
- Because the calculations by CER are indirectly a measure “given equal complexity as Shuttle facilities and GSE, and accounting only for size differences” any new estimates include the impact of design and engineering.
**Further Cost Modifiers Required:**
- Further modification of the prior “estimates” for an RLV are required for a valid sense of costs. These factors would adjust for technology, improvements in design or operations, reliability, design life, and so forth.
- The AATe Model can perform this function of modifying cost estimates for these factors.
**Sunk costs can not be discounted for a new RLV:**
- A new RLV can not discount estimates due to sunk design and engineering costs. A new RLV will incur these costs as facilities and GSE depart in specifics from Shuttle equivalents.

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**1-Payload / Cargo Processing**
- Use COMET/OCM _***VPF***_ (Payload / Vertical Processing Facility) values.
- CofF=19.4*10^6/(217*71*105) 	=11.99
- GSE=39.96/19.4		=2.06
- C of F Equation Space Factors
- 202, 56, 45
- Required STS Inputs
- 217-202	=15
- 71-56		=15
- 105-45	=60
- NOTES:
- This is the payload bay dimension as inputs.
- This indicates that the cost of a vertical payload processing facility is roughly $60M dollars in unadjusted year 1987 dollars (a sum of 19.4+39.96). A rough doubling for decadal inflation would take the value to ~ $120M dollars in year 2001 dollars.

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**2-Traffic Flight Control**
- Use COMET/OCM LCC-FR (Launch Control Center, Firing Room) values.
- CofF=2.75*10^6/(120*90*15)	=16.98
- GSE=37.48/2.75		=13.63
- C of F Equation Space Factors
- Use purely room dimensions.
- Required STS Inputs
- 		=120
- 		=90
- 		=15
- NOTES:
- This value must be modified by AATe to estimate forward to new concepts.
- This indicates that the cost for a new launch control center / firing room would be roughly $40M dollars in unadjusted year 1987 dollars (a sum of 2.75+37.48). A rough doubling for decadal inflation would take the value to $80M dollars in year 2001 dollars.
- This estimation CER is likely very conservative given approximate costs for 2 new Mission Control rooms at JSC of about $250M and costs of also about $250M dollars for 3 new launch control rooms at KSC both in late 1990’ish dollars (a very rough, optimistic  CER of $200M per single string set of traffic control capability).
- A new RLV estimate would require adjustment of any value so as to generate an estimate accounting for improvements due to vehicle design technology, computing, advances, etc.

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**3-Launch ... Part 1 of 2**
- Use COMET/OCM RSS (Rotating Service Structure) values (plus FSS ahead).
- CoF=307.75*10^6/(390*325*265)
- GSE=437/307.75
- C of F Equation Space Factors
- 230, 190, 81
- Required STS Inputs
- 390-230	=160
- 325-190	=135
- 265-81	=184
- NOTES:
- This is the most expensive of facilities and GSE - roughly $750M dollars in unadjusted year 1987 dollars (a sum of 307.75+437). A rough doubling for decadal inflation would take this value to **$1.5 Billion dollars** in year 2001 dollars.
- These input values derive from the length and width respectively of the mobile launcher platform (160’ by 135’) and the height of the stack from the MLP level up (184’).
- For a new concept, assuming an integrate-transfer-launch scenario requiring an MLP type facility, the 2 required MLP dimensions are derived ahead in “Integration” impacts.
***This way, deriving MLP dimensions ahead from vehicle dimensions provided by the user, eliminates the need for the user to estimate (offline) any required MLP dimensions. Only vehicle dimensions are required.***

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**3-Launch ... Part 2 of 2**
- Use COMET/OCM FSS (Fixed Service Structure) values (plus RSS prior).
- CoF=264.3*10^6/(390*325*402)
- GSE=375.3/264.3
- C of F Equation Space Factors
- 230, 190, 218
- Required STS Inputs
- 390-230	=160
- 325-190	=135
- 402-218	=184
- NOTES:
- This is the most expensive of facilities and GSE - roughly $640M dollars in unadjusted year 1987 dollars (a sum of 264.3+375.3). A rough doubling for decadal inflation would take this value to **$1.3 Billion dollars** in year 2001 dollars.
- These input values derive from the length and width respectively of the mobile launcher platform (160’ by 135’) and the height of the stack from the MLP level up (184’).
- For a new concept, assuming an integrate-transfer-launch scenario requiring an MLP type facility, the 2 required MLP dimensions are derived ahead in “Integration” impacts
***This way, deriving MLP dimensions ahead from vehicle dimensions provided by the user, eliminates the need for the user to estimate (offline) any required MLP dimensions. Only vehicle dimensions are required.***

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**4-Landing / Recovery**
- Use COMET/OCM offline estimate as indicated by Mike Nix at MSFC.
- CoF=$5 per cubic foot concrete
- GSE factor of 1
- NOTES:
- Any adjustment here is required by such a tool as AATe or by a user recognizing if the concept in question needs a landing runway at all.

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**5-Turnaround**
- Use COMET/OCM OPF (Orbiter Processing Facility) values.
- CoF=28190000/(197*150*95)
- GSE=173.94/28.19
- C of F Equation Space Factors
- 75, 72, 38
- Required STS Inputs
- 197-75	=122
- 150-72	=78
- 95-38		=57
- NOTES:
- A single RLV element (like an orbiter) length, width and height are required for this CER.
- This indicates that the cost of a turnaround facility and GSE is roughly $200M dollars in unadjusted year 1987 dollars (a sum of 28.1+173.94). A rough doubling for decadal inflation would take this value to ~ $400M dollars in year 2001 dollars.
- Space factors account for necessary space adjacent to the vehicle dimensions allowing as complex a vehicle as a Shuttle orbiter to be processed.

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**6-Integration/Assembly ... Part 1 of 2**
- Use COMET/OCM VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building) values.
- CoF=124.72*10^6/(280*240*525)
- GSE=71.09/124.72
- C of F Equation Space Factors
- 120, 105, 376
- Required STS Inputs
- 280-120	=160
- 240-105	=135
- 525-376	=149
- NOTES:
- These input values derive from the length and width respectively of the mobile launcher platform (160’ by 135’) and the height of the stack from the MLP level up (184’).
- For a new concept, assuming an integrate-transfer-launch scenario requiring an MLP type facility, the 2 required MLP dimensions are derived ahead in “Integration” impacts
***This way, deriving MLP dimensions ahead from vehicle dimensions provided by the user, eliminates the need for the user to estimate (offline) any required MLP dimensions. Only vehicle dimensions are required.***
****The last value of 149’ is here substituted in calculations for the RLV height I.e. would require STS as 184’.***

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**6-Integration/Assembly ... Part 2 of 2 **
- Use COMET/OCM MLP (Mobile Launcher Platform) values.
- First, a “scalable” or “rubber” MLP is calculated based on proportions of the vehicle stacked length, width and height.
- Second, these L and W values are provided to the previous RSS and FSS (launch) calculations and to the integration facility calculation (previous, Part 1).
- Lastly, the actual MLP costs are calculated as follows:
- CoF=98.06*10^6/(160*135*47) 	=96.59
- GSE=70.61/98.06		=0.72
- NOTES:
- Using vehicle dimensions the derived or “rubber” MLP dimension is derived. These MLP dimensions are used to estimate the costs of the new MLP on a volumetric basis using the CofF and GSE factors derived above.
- This indicates that the cost of an MLP was roughly $170M dollars in unadjusted year 1987 dollars (a sum of 98.06 and 70.61). A rough doubling for decadal inflation would take the value to ~ $340M in year 2001 dollars.
- Offline estimates for new MLP’s for the Shuttle program, which would be duplicates of existing, without having to reproduce the original design and engineering, have floated at about $164M dollars which roughly coincides with the CER estimate if the halving factor for reduced or eliminated design and engineering is considered.

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**7-Vehicle Depot Maintenance**
**8-Spaceport Support Infrastructure**
**9-Concept Unique Logistics**
**10-Transportation System Operations Planning and Management**
- Expert judgement is used here to derive the indirect FACGSE spaceport module costs. A factor of 25% or a “wrap” is applied to the previous “in-line” (payload, traffic, launch, landing, turnaround, integration, expendables) sums.
**11-Expendable element**
- This CER is not used in this FACGSE spreadsheet intended for RLV’s.

## Original COMET/OCM Facility and GSE Estimation Interface

- 1-Payload facility/GSE calculation requires payload bay like dimensions to use these space factors

- 2-Traffic LCC like FR dimensions

- 3-Launch RSS and FSS calculation requires MLP L and W and stack height like dimensions as input

- 4-Landing needs L, W and height (thickness) of runway as input

- 5-Turnaround uses orbiter type L, W and H dimensions.

- 6-Integration / Assembly ...NOTE: the last space factor given that the values of 120 and 105 yield MLP values but the last yields 149 (an SRB height).

**Original COMET/OCM Facility and GSE Estimation Interface**

## FACGSE

**Documentation**
**FACGSE**

**New FACGSE Interface**