Abstract
Engineering metrics are useful in space life support technology selection, but they must be carefully used. Metrics are only part of a complete system trade-off. Metrics do harm if they cause neglect of other important technical, organizational, or intuitive decision factors. Two metrics have damaged space life support, closure and Equivalent Systems Mass (ESM). Closure measures the fraction of the required system inputs that are produced by recycling system outputs. Increasing closure produces diminishing returns and becomes increasingly expensive. Increasing closure does not directly contribute to providing better life support. ESM measures the total launch mass required to provide life support. ESM includes the mass of the system hardware and of its power, cooling, pressurized volume, spares, and logistics. ESM predicts launch costs, but recently launch costs have been reduced by a factor of 20 or more. System development cost for space hardware is often much greater than launch cost. The past nearly exclusive use of ESM has led to the neglect of Life Cycle Cost (LCC), reliability, cost, and the other engineering factors. Closure and ESM have misguided space life support technology selection for more than twenty years and have adversely affected the expenditure of 100’s of millions of dollars. Metrics can be effectively used three ways in space life support technology selection: 1. A small set of key engineering metrics for preliminary screening. 2. A full set of engineering metrics to guide technical selection. 3. Combining engineering metrics with organizational, political, and intuitive decision factors to understand technology selection. The past emphasis on closure and ESM served to support recycling life support over resupply and built on the intuitive appeal of a human ecosystem in space.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call