NASA NTRS2003
The Advanced Life Support (ALS) has used a single number, Equivalent System Mass (ESM), for both reporting progress and technology selection. ESM is the launch mass required to provide a space system. ESM indicates launch cost. ESM alone is inadequate for technology selection, which should include other metrics such as Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and Life Cycle Cost (LCC) and also consider perfom.arxe 2nd risk. ESM has proven difficult to implement as a reporting metric, partly because it includes non-mass technology selection factors. Since it will not be used exclusively for technology selection, a new reporting metric can be made easier to compute and explain. Systems design trades-off performance, cost, and risk, but a risk weighted cost/benefit metric would be too complex to report. Since life support has fixed requirements, different systems usually have roughly equal performance. Risk is important since failure can harm the crew, but it is difficult to treat simply. Cost is not easy to estimate, but preliminary space system cost estimates are usually based on mass, which is better estimated than cost. Amass-based cost estimate, similar to ESM, would be a good single reporting metric. The paper defines and compares four mass-based cost estimates, Equivalent Mass (EM), Equivalent System Mass (ESM), Life Cycle Mass (LCM), and System Mass (SM). EM is traditional in life support and includes mass, volume, power, cooling and logistics. ESM is the specifically defined ALS metric, which adds crew time and possibly other cost factors to EM. LCM is a new metric, a mass-based estimate of LCC measured in mass units. SM includes only the factors of EM that are originally measured in mass, the hardware and logistics mass. All four mass-based metrics usually give similar comparisons. SM is by far the simplest to compute and easiest to explain.