It is possible and desirable to consider many NASA human spaceflight scenarios, along with all their elements, within a long-term NASA budget context. While there is an abundance of cost analysis of specific space system elements in a narrow context or performance analysis of broad scenarios with no NASA budget context, approaches that balance the details in-hand alongside a NASA budget context across possible scenarios have been absent. This situation is not for lack of enough data, understanding, cost models or mission definition. Uncertainty in selecting or having a mandate for a specific spaceflight direction should not be cause to avoid looking at any scenarios at all, especially if many very different scenarios can be analyzed rather well. Insufficient emphasis on a NASA budget context as an input into long term planning, the treatment of budgets and schedules as an output of proposed initiatives, rather than an input, and a lack of understanding of NASA budget-nuances likely all contribute to the lack of life cycle cost analysis for spaceflight scenarios. Given the importance of a NASA budget context, life cycle cost modeling and analysis for NASA's spaceflight pioneering investments cannot afford to ignore where or who and the types of money in the NASA budget. Similarly, valuing situational awareness, it is not advantageous or necessary to await a specific mandate or decision only to analyze slight variations on that single directions life cycle costs later. This is akin to being in the wilderness, but refusing to explore your surroundings until after a decision on which way to go -and then proceeding strictly in that direction. Rather, reconnaissance in many directions is valuable, feedback on which way to go, regardless of uncertainty about eventual choices. The modeling and analysis here will show that it is not necessary to define every part of every possible space exploration scenario in order to gain valuable insights. A scenario planning approach that explores many life cycle possibilities is valuable and feasible, by combining the more defined space system elements alongside a thorough understanding of NASA budgets as context. This provides defined and valuable insights for "that which remains". A scenario exploration strategy of "that which remains" takes the more defined elements, places these into potential, but defined, budget scenarios, and outputs valuable insights for the less defined elements. From this process, the necessary affordability and productivity characteristics of "that which remains" are refined. In addition, the understanding of the scenario as a whole improves. This paper presents such an approach, via cost modeling and analysis, reviewing many space exploration scenarios within a NASA budget and inflation context, a purchase power context, with a detailed understanding of NASA-speak and NASA practice in properly accounting for all costs. Scenarios where the International Space Station (ISS) ends and those where the ISS does not end in the scenarios horizon are considered. Within this backdrop, scenarios include: potential reusable launch vehicles (Falcon 9-Reusable and others), existing expendable launch vehicles (Falcon 9, Delta Ⅳ Heavy), potential space transportation systems in development (the Space Launch System, the Falcon Heavy), potential spacecraft in development (Orion, Commercial Crew, future variants, etc.), and potential in-space infrastructure (for in-space refueling of Earth departure stages) for lunar, asteroid and Mars exploration scenarios. Important links between what and how, technical and non-technical factors, and how these affect costs, are shown. Given budgetary pressures, it is no longer possible to ignore nontechnical drivers of industry / partner costs as has been past practice in cost modeling. Commercial space scenarios are explored at many levels, where "how" a system is acquired by NASA and developed and made by industry partners, existing or emerging, is a
展开▼
