additional launch needed as the total mass of all dipoles increases. The location of the point design discussed in this study is indicated by the red dot.
Argos beam combining optics and optics assemblies were determined from exact component costs of the Argos telescope itself. Due to the new application of these components, appropriate research and development costs were added to these component costs. Due to the new
application and the additional hardware needed for the combining optics, the research and development costs was determined to be 20 times the cost of the components themselves.
Similar R&D costs were calculated throughout the telescope design, valuing the component cost at 5 to 10 percent of the total component cost contribution.
It was more difficult to directly determine the cost of the individual telescope elements, as the Spitzer optical assembly cost was not directly available. Therefore, a Meinel relation was used based on estimations from SMAD [37]. The relationship used was
Cost = 356,851*D0.562 , (Eq. 29)
where D is the diameter of the aperture. The result was then inflated to 2010 dollars. Since the Spitzer design is relatively complex, being composed of a single beryllium structural element, the above cost was multiplied by a factor of 10 to be conservative. In addition to this single element material cost, the research and development costs was determined to be 10 times the cost of the components themselves (telescope assembly equal to 10% of total contributing cost). This low number was used due to the similarity of this telescope to legacy designs. Also useful to note, this research and development cost was added to each of the 9 individual telescope elements, making the cost estimate still more conservative. Applying an appropriate learning curve to this technology development, research and development costs would realistically only be appropriate for the first element.
9.3.2 Rationale for costing of computers and electronics
As with LIRA, the cost estimate for the electronics subsystem of LIMIT is based on the actual costs of the command and data handling subsystem of the SIRA telescope, as verified by Broad Reach Engineering [38].
In addition to central processing, communication, and scheduling/pointing computer systems, the LIMIT concept uses similar charge-coupled devices (CCDs) and associated electronics from the Spitzer telescope. The collecting electronics are priced according to available information on Spitzer, with research and development costs added.
9.3.3 Rationale for costing of communications
The rationale for the LIMIT communications cost estimate is the same as for LIRA.
9.3.4 Rationale for costing of power
The rationale for the LIMIT power cost estimate is the same as for LIRA.
9.3.5 Rationale for costing of structures and mechanisms
The structure for supporting and pointing each telescope element is priced using
commercially available, aerospace-grade aluminum honeycomb materials. Estimates of the cost of the movable parts and power systems for the supporting structure were also done using commercially available materials. In addition to the cost of material, a large research and development cost is added to account for the new technology development.
9.3.6 Rationale for costing of thermal control system
Cost estimates for the active thermal control of the beam combining unit are derived from the cost of various architectures from NASA’s Advanced Cryocooler Technology Development Program (ACTDP). Estimates for the passive cooling of each telescope element were found using commercially available Multilayer Insulation.
9.3.7 Rationale for costing of deployment
The LIMIT telescope does not include deployment costs in the total for the telescope architecture. It is assumed that the human space flight program, including the south pole lunar base, will be heavily leveraged. This includes the use of two lunar base rovers for transportation and 2 to 3 astronauts for approximately 2 weeks. Due to the difficulty of assigning a value to this cost, it was left out of the cost estimation.
9.3.8 Rationale for integration and other costs
The rationale for integration and other costs for LIMIT is the same as for LIRA.
9.3.9 Research and development costs
Even though most of the LIMIT subsystems are designed to use operationally-tested
technology, there is still a need for some new technology and integration and flight certification of legacy technology. In addition, it is estimated that there will be some subassemblies not included in the initial subsystem designs. To account for this, R&D cost multipliers ranging from 10 to 20 are used. This translates to an additional 90 to 95 percent of the subsystem cost as R&D-specific. The relative research and development multiplier costs for each telescope
subsystem are shown in Table 28.
Table 28. Research and development cost multipliers for various LIMIT telescope subsystems.
LIMIT Research Development Cost Multipliers
Subsystem Cost
(M$) R&D Multiplier
Telescopes 45.1 10
Supporting Structure /
Mechanisms 2.9 20
External Optics 5.8 20
Active Thermal Control 0.1 20
Electronics / Computer 4.7 10
Communications 0.2 20
Power 0.3 15
Integration and Other 14.8 20
9.3.10 Rationale for costing of transportation
The transportation cost for the entire LIMIT concept is based on the number of Ares V booster vehicles necessary for launch. This number was calculated from the fraction of the total mass capability of an Ares V required for launch to the Moon. Because the LIMIT mass is less than the mass capability of a single Ares V launch, combined with the location of the LIMIT facility near the human base infrastructure, a decision was made to share the transportation with one or more other launches to the base. It is important to note, however, that the volume
constraints for the Ares V were not known at the time of writing. For this reason, mass is used as the limiting factor in the estimation, though it could turn out that volume is the more important constraint.
9.3.11 Effect of number of elements on cost estimation
If it is decided in further design iterations that the number of Spitzer elements used in LIMIT should be increased beyond the number used in the point design chosen for this study, the
modularity in the design of LIMIT provides an easy means of scaling the number of elements.
Increasing the number of interferometer elements, however, will have a direct effect on the estimate for the total cost of the system. To account for this, Figure 93 shows the effect of the number of elements on overall system cost, indicating the location on the curve of the present design.
Cost vs. # Telescope Elements Cost vs. # Telescope Elements
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
CoCst (M$)
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000
ost (M$)
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37
Number of Telescope Elements Number of Telescope Elements
Figure 93. Effect of number of telescope elements on total system cost. The regular stepping behavior exhibited is indicative of the effects of increasing the number of elements past specific cost barriers, at increments of 10% of an Ares V launch
and increments of 15 elements per each beam-combining unit. The location of the point design discussed in this study is indicated by the red dot.
In this analysis, nothing was done to account for the learning curve for building in larger quantities. Thus, the actual total cost of the system would not increase as fast with increased number of elements as in Figure 93. The modular nature of the design, including beam-combining elements, leads to stepped cost increases due to the cost of adding 15-beam combining assemblies, as seen in Figure 93 at 16 and 31 elements.