found to work for space applications either as-is or with minor modification. The use of industrial  components, in our case, mechanisms, provides a great cost savings opportunity – but only if the  mechanism is properly qualified for the application and the environment and the supplier’s approach to  quality is found acceptable. In contrast, the use of industrial components with industrial quality practices is  virtually inconceivable in Big Space.    When considering a mechanism conceptual design, it is important to keep in mind that the goal is lowest  overall system cost. For example, if a low-cost mechanism requires high-cost drive electronics then it may  not provide the lowest overall cost to the satellite system.  Key Point: Concept design, including requirements definition, is the biggest driver of cost  and schedule in a production program.  Detail Design  There is an entire engineering discipline of design-for-manufacturing which is beyond the scope of this  paper. Some highlights providing the most potential benefit for mechanisms will, however, be discussed.  The Design for Manufacturability text points out that 80% of the total lifecycle cost is dictated by the  combination of the concept architecture plus the detail design. Once an unnecessary feature has been  designed in, there is no amount of manufacturing brilliance that can make it cost less than to never have  had to manufacture it in the first place. Thus, the detail design phase is of crucial importance for the  success of any mechanism, which, for New Space, includes performance, cost and schedule.  Low production cost must be an important design consideration from day one. This low cost emphasis  requires a very different mindset than what is common in Big Space. Production cost can and should be  traded against the typical design goals of performance and mass. The design considerations of low cost  must include the full life cycle costs; parts manufacturing, assembly, testability, electrical interface costs,  spacecraft interface and integration costs.  A powerful cost savings in design is simply a minimization of parts count. Every part in an assembly  invokes all the following tasks at a minimum: design effort, a drawing, analysis, manufacturing, a vendor  to manage, an opportunity for manufacturing problems, inspection, storage, and assembly.    Discussions with manufacturers during the part design process can prove extremely valuable as the  manufacturers can provide unique feedback on features which either drive manufacturing costs into the  part or, conversely, save manufacturing difficulties. Design engineers are often unaware of subtle design  selections which accidentally drive manufacturing difficulty and cost.  A significant cost savings can be found by clever designs that leverage modern manufacturing methods  to combine multiple parts into one. When multiple parts are combined, assembly costs and risks are  eliminated, and the savings associated with reduced parts count are realized. The question becomes ‘are  the lifecycle costs of this single complex part, in fact, cheaper than an assembly of several simpler parts?’  Designers must look at tolerancing as a source of cost savings because poor tolerancing will result in cost  increases. Manufacturing costs rise exponentially with tighter tolerances. For example, studies have  shown a 3.5X manufacturing cost increase simply by changing a tolerance from 0.005 inch (0.12 mm) to  0.001 inch (0.025 mm). Cost growth rates are even larger as one tolerance become even tighter.  However, if tolerances are too loose then improper mechanism performance will sometimes result  producing costly test failures. A good designer will carefully choose the loosest acceptable tolerances  while carefully performing worst case tolerance analyses to avoid mechanism faults if tolerances are too  loose.  NASA/CP—2018-219887 449