Responsive Access Small Cargo Affordable Launch (RASCAL ...

The design alternatives were costed in much the same way as the baseline the
alternative designs were costed using a combination of the NAFCOM tool as well as
Transcost CERs. The cost analysis results for cost per flight follows as Figure 30.
Cost per Flight (Millions)
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Number of Flights per Year
Figure 30: Cost per Flight Comparisons of Optimized Alternatives.
Alt 8 Case 1
Alt 9 Case 1
Baseline Case 1
Alt 8 Case 2
Alt 9 Case 2
Baseline Case 2
Alt 8 Case3
Alt 9 Case 3
Baseline Case 3
As this figure shows the baseline has the cheapest cost per flight of every design.
This is misleading because cost per flight does not take into account the fact that the
baseline only carries 52 lbs to orbit. If only the alternatives which reach the performance
requirement are evaluated alternative 5 results in the lowest cost per flight for Case 1 and
2, with alternative 4 being the cheapest for Case 3. The reason alternative 4 is cheaper in
Case 3 is due to the higher DDT&E costs of alternative 5 over alternative 4 ($3.675 B vs.
$3.48 B respectively). This higher DDT&E is due to the increased cost of having a
MMC first stage, which is not a fully mature technology. The increased cost of the
MMC is taken into account through the use of complexity factors on the CERs. The
complexity factors take into account the fact that some designs may cost more per pound
than conventional designs due to the complexity of the materials or processes used in the
manufacture of the design.
41