Cost-benefit analysis of a notional fractionated SATCOM architecture

Collection of Technical Papers - 24th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference, ICSSC

Volumn 1, Issue , 2006, Pages 200-216

  Brown, O ^a,c   Eremenko, P ^b,d   Roberts, C ^b,e  

^a DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH PROJECTS AGENCY   (United States)

^b BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON   (United States)

^c Tactical Technology Office   (United States)

^d Defense Business Segment ^*

^e National Security Business Segment

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33845205611     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.2514/6.2006-5328     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (24)

1. Kong, E., Kwon, D., Schweighart, S., Elias, L., Sedwick, R., Miller, D., "Electromagnetic Formation Flight for Multi-Satellite Arrays", Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 41, No. 4, pp. 659-666, July-August 2004;
2. Landis, G. and Westerlund, L., "Laser Beamed Power: Satellite Demonstration Applications", NASA-CR-190793, 1992;
3. Megla, E., Konangi, V., and Seibert, M., "Protocols for Inter-Satellite Communication in a Formation Flying System", Proceedings 20th AIAA International Communications Satellite Systems Conference, AIAA-2002-1960, 2002.
4. The astute reader will observe a duality of purpose here - leading to a slightly schizophrenic analysis. First, we wish to determine the optimum degree of fractionation for a given mission. This only requires the quantification of value and cost of a given architecture relative to the monolithic architecture for that mission. Thus, only those sources of value and cost impact that are different between a monolithic and fractionated system are need be identified and modeled. Our second aim, however, is to provide a cost-benefit analysis for a particular architecture with a specified degree of fractionation. This necessitates an exhaustive bookkeeping of all sources of value and cost whether they be different or identical for a fractionated and monolithic architectures. We focus our energy on the first objective, but believe that the resultant model comes fairly close to meeting the second.
5. deWeck, O., deNeufville, R., and Chaize, M., "Enhancing the Economics of Communications Satellites via Orbital Reconfigurations and Staged Deployment", AIAA Space 2003 Conference, AIAA Paper 2003-6317, Long Beach, CA, September 2003.
6. Saleh, J., Hastings, D., et al., "To Reduce or to Extend a Complex Engineering System Design Lifetime?", AIAA International Communications Satellite Conference, AIAA Paper 2004-, Monterey, CA, 9 May 2004.
7. vonNeumann, J. and Morgenstern, O., Theory of Games and Economic Behavior, Princeton University Press, 1947.
8. Keeney, R. and Raiffa, H., Decisions with Multiple Objectives: Preferences and Value Trade-Offs, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1993.
9. Thurston, D., "Multiattribute Utility Analysis in Design Management," IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 296-301, 1990 (a general discussion of modern MAUT);
10. Ross, A., Multi-Attribute Tradespace Exploration with Concurrent Design as a Value-Centric Framework for Space System Architecture and Design, M.S. Thesis, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Technology and Policy Program, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2003 (a discussion of MAUT applied to space architecting problems).
11. Hershey, J. and Schoemaker, P., "Probability versus Certainty Equivalent Methods in Utility Measurement: Are they equivalent?" Management Science, Vol. 31, pp. 936-954, 1985.
12. deNeufville, R., Applied Systems Analysis: Engineering Planning and Technology Management, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990.
13. Delquie, P., Contingent Weighting of the Response Dimension in Preference Matching, Ph.D. Thesis, Operations Research, Department of Civil Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 1989.
14. Bonds, T., Mattock, M., et al., Employing Commercial Satellite Communications: Wideband Investment Options for DoD, Report No. MR-1192-AF, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2000.
15. Bonds, T., Mattock, M., et al., Employing Commercial Satellite Communications: Wideband Investment Options for DoD, Report No. MR-1192-AF, The RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, 2000.
16. Brown, O., "Reducing Risk of Large Scale Space Systems Using a Modular Architecture", Space Systems Engineering and Risk Management Symposium, Manhatten Beach, CA, 17 February 2004.
17. The self-insurance analogy applies to the launch phase only if each of the modules of the fractionated system is launched separately. This is consistent with the subsequent assumption that a responsive space launch capability exists in the payload range that is essentially perfectly tailored to the module size. Self-insurance may also be accomplished by piggy-backing the individual modules on other payloads placed in orbit by larger launch vehicles. The only real requirement for self-insurance is that the random variables for the success or failure of each module's launch be independent.
18. th Quarter 2002.
19. Black, F. and Scholes, M., "The pricing of options and corporate liabilities", Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 81, pp. 637-659, May/June 1973;
20. Merton, R., "Theory of rational option pricing", Bell Journal of Economics and Management Science, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 141-183, 1973.
21. Trigeorgis, L., Real Options: Managerial Flexibility and Strategy in Resource Allocation, 1st ed., The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996.
22. Glaros, G., "Real Options for Defense", Transformation Trends, Newsletter of the Office of Force Transformation, Office of the Secretary of Defense, 6 June 2003.
23. Saleh, J., Hastings, D., et al., "Flexibility and the Value of On-Orbit Servicing: New Customer-Centric Perspective", Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 40, No. 2, pp. 279-291, 2003.
24. Wertz, J. and Larson, W. (eds.), Space Mission Analysis and Design, 3rd ed., Microcosm Press, El Segundo, CA, 1999.