5.3 - Community Factory: Requirements Allocation


Allocation ApproachEdit

We set our project requirements and measures in section 5.1, and divided the project into phases and the top two levels of functions in section 5.2. The next step in the Systems Engineering process is to divide up and assign subsets of the requirements in time and space, to the phases and lower level functions. Because the factory grows over time, the complete project goals are only met at the end of the last expansion phase. So first we set reduced levels of the project requirements to meet in each phase. Next, the descriptions we wrote in section 5.2 only defined the general scope of tasks included in each function. So we allocate the end point performance levels, operations, and maintenance subsets for each function in more exact terms. The intent is that the sum of the assigned detailed requirements satisfies all the project level goals. Finally, we can define the reduced levels for each function in each phase.


Phase RequirementsEdit

If we examine the requirements in section 5.1, some will change relatively less, or not at all, as the factory evolves through its growth phases. Therefore we will consider them individually. Since we do not have an optimized design yet, we do not know the best way to divide up the requirements by growth phase. Instead, we will make what we think are reasonable assumptions as a starting point. We expect this first draft of the phase requirements will be updated as the design progresses. The discussion that follows uses the same numbering as in section 5.1.

As a first generation design for a self-expanding factory we do not expect to reach 100% performance levels in any part of it. Instead, we assume a general goal of 85% for features with variable performance levels. Across phases, we further assume that the easiest tasks are tackled first, and so the performance levels increase rapidly at first, with decreasing increments in each phase. Numerically, we divide meeting the goals into 6 phases as a geometric progression by raising the 15% unmet goal at the end to the 1/6 power. Thus each phase has a 72.9% smaller unmet goal, and the met goals, rounded to the nearest percent, become 27%, 47%, 61%, 72%, 80%, and 85%. The steps are 27, 20, 14, 11, 8, and 5% per phase, reflecting the assumed increasing difficulty of reaching 100%.


1. Objectives

  • 1.1 Project Goal - The overall goals of the factory are to be locally owned and support the physical needs of the owners. We set both of these to be met 85% at the end of the sixth phase (1F). Any project needs some funding and development to get started, and we allow a large amount of that to be outside the local area at first. This allows us to tap a wider range of financial and technical capacity as a distributed open-source project. Over time, the particular project location grows, and we expect increasing participation by local members who end up owning and operating it themselves. Concurrently, the factory will meet a growing percentage of their physical needs. By phase we scale the local ownership and support levels according to the percentages in the previous paragraph. We do not try to design the factory to provide services that need a human element, like medical care, but we can provide the physical needs that make those services possible, like buildings and utilities. We assume that project members and residents will meet the services part of their needs by providing them to each other, or get them from outside sources.
  • 1.2 Project Scale - The end goal is to add support for 75 people per year up to 660 people total. One of the growth methods for a Seed Factory is by scaling - building larger versions of equipment than was in the starter set. Starting with smaller equipment requires less starter funds, and allows early use of the ability to self-expand. The set of developers and owners is also expected to start small. Even at the end of the growth phases, some percentage of outside supplies will be needed, and this will increase along with production scale. Also, in the later growth phases we are making more of the harder to make items, which would require relatively more equipment to produce. So we will assume the output rate will grow more slowly in percentage terms by phase. By phase the number of added people/year supported will assume starting values of 0.25, 1, 4, 12, 32, and 75. The increases are 400%, 400%, 300%, 267%, and 234% between phases.
  • 1.3 Choice - Another important goal is choice for the owner/operators, including what products the factory will make. However, we cannot design the factory without knowing something about the outputs it will produce. We will use the US Consumer Price Index as a proxy for what people want, since it represents averages from surveys of what people actually spend their money on. By phase we will assume the most basic goods, like food and shelter, are satisfied first. For calculation purposes, we will use typical mixes of items within the goods categories. We will keep in mind factory flexibility, so that the actual owners can choose the production mix within some reasonable range.


2. Performance

  • 2.1 Location - The end goal is a design which will operate in the middle 90% of environments where people live. The first copy will be built in a particular location, which we are assuming to be near Atlanta, GA. Thus by phase we will start out designing for that location, and widen the design range to accommodate the full 90% range by the end of the growth cycle. In some cases, the design differences would be small between the versions, and only one design would be done, to avoid changing it.
  • 2.2 Growth - The growth rate in this requirement is explicitly for after the growth phases, so we skip it as a phase requirement.
  • 2.3 Improved Technology - The first five of these requirements (Local Resources, Self Production, Cyclic Flows, Automation, and Autonomy) all have final goals of 85%. We therefore use the general phase targets noted in the paragraph prior to "1. Objectives" above. The requirement to limit complexity for the starter set begins at 7 major elements. We still don't want to use every existing manufacturing process at the end of the growth phases, since that would require a lot of design work and equipment. Using our scoring formula for complexity in reverse, we can set targets of 7, 13, 21, 39, 48, and 55 major elements by phase. Setting targets like this forces us to choose flexible equipment and think about adapting one device for multiple tasks.
  • 2.4 Quality of Life - Meeting physical needs can cover a wide range of quality. For example, a log cabin and a mansion both provide shelter, but at vastly different levels. The measure here is the monetary equivalent of goods provided from factory production plus other income of residents. Even at the end of growth, residents will do some outside work, and in earlier phases will do relatively more, so we include that portion at the Jan 2013 US average GDP/person of $50,750/year. This applies to the 23% of all needs which are services, and the part of the goods sector not met by factory production. As the factory grows, we expect the quality and quantity of products to increase, so we estimate their value will go as the square of needs being met. This gives values of 10%, 30%, 51%, 72%, 88%, and 100% relative to the final value.
At the end of phase 1F, the factory is providing 85% of the 77.1% goods sector = 65.5% of total needs. The other 34.5% is assumed to generate $17,500 value, giving $138,500/year as the required value of the factory production. Scaling by the percentages in the previous paragraph, we get requirements of 14, 41.5, 70.5, 100, 122, and 138.5 k$/person/year output value by phase.
  • 2.5 Data - Sharing of project experience and data is not variable with the growth phases, so we skip this as a phase requirement.
  • 2.6 Resources - The intent of this requirement is a highly productive system with a surplus of energy and materials production once growth and construction is completed. For earlier phases we will look at the ratio of production vs. factory maintenance and support for what has been built to that point. We scale it according to the scoring formula for this requirement, giving ratios of 2.1, 3.7, 5.4, 7.3, 9.2, and 10.5 by phase.


3. Time

  • 3.1 Completion Time - This does not apply as a separate requirement at the project level, it is covered by output rate under project scale. How fast the growth phases are completed will depend largely on how many people participate, and thus how fast the design is completed and how much in funds and labor is available for construction. We cannot predict those, but we can set a requirement assuming they are available. Based on large scale construction project experience, we will assume each phase requires a minimum of 14 months to finish after the previous phase, with Phase 1A taking 24 months to design and build, and 1F taking 84 months total, each phase taking 12 months longer. Thus in the best case there is a large amount of overlap in starting design of each phase. If less people and funds are available, the start of later phases will be delayed.
  • 3.2 Operating Life - At the project level the service life is intended to be indefinite, given maintenance, repair, and replacement. Given that this project is a factory, and we build it from starter kit to full expansion the first time, by merely repeating the building process we can achieve a long term service life. However, building new items from scratch may not be the most efficient way to do this, and the service life of individual parts is not specified. We cannot specify the best way to meet this requirement by phase until the design is more complete. Instead we will include at each phase a requirement to optimize the design for maintenance, repair, and replacement for sustained permanent operation.


4. Cost

At the start of design we are setting cost goals. As the work progresses, we will later develop cost estimates, and then actual costs. The goals are intended to keep costs within reasonable levels in relation to meeting the other requirements. In particular, the ratio of cost to performance is often considered the most important measure of a project.

  • 4.1 Total Development Cost - This includes the one-time non-recurring costs for technology development and system design. The early phases use smaller versions of the factory equipment because they are designed for fewer people. Their complexity, and thus the design work, is about the same, so the relative design cost is higher at the start. Additionally, some items, like the factory control software, only need to be designed once in the early phases, and then slightly modified for a larger factory with more machine types in later phases. Finally, smaller equipment and fewer different machines are less expensive to prototype. Combining all these factors, we use our scoring formula to set goals of 37, 21.3, 16.4, 13.9, 12.5, and 11.75 times the location cost per phase, to get 13.875, 4.58, 2.46, 1.53, 1.09, and 0.893 M$/person capacity. This is multiplied by phase production capacities of 0.25, 1, 4, 12, 32, and 75/year to get development cost goals of 3.5, 4.6, 9.8, 18.3, 35, and 67 M$/phase. As an open-source project, much of this cost may be contributed design and construction labor.
  • 4.2 Location Cost - The value of $76,000/person repeating cost is at the end of Phase 1F, and covers outside parts, materials, and labor besides what the project produces internally. At earlier phases this value will be larger, because the factory is less capable of producing items, and therefore more must be purchased. For the earlier phases, we apply the relative score scoring formula to set values of 375, 215, 150, 110, and 87 k$/person.


5. Technical Risk

  • 5.1 Risk Allowances - The goal is to reach 7.5% performance and design uncertainties at the point building the last growth phase starts. The earlier phases will have less experience and fewer completed designs, so we will scale the risk allowance by our scoring formula to be 36.5%, 26.5%, 19.5%, 14%, 10%, and 7.5% by phase.


6. Safety

  • 6.1 Location Risk - We have set ambitious safety goals for the project, which can only be met if people change how they live and work. The early phases will make fewer such changes and introduce construction and new production processes with risks that are poorly understood at first. Later phases will have more experience with these same processes and better understanding of how to optimize their safety. We accept higher early risks because of the smaller number of people involved and future benefits. Therefore the goals will be scaled using our scoring formula to 190%, 108%, 74%, 54%, 44% and 38% of US averages by phase.
  • 6.2 Population Risk - The goal is to reduce natural and human-made risks to the nearby population by 17%. Rather than scale this by phase, we will scale it by the resident population supported relative to the final target of 660. A wide variety of risks can be addressed, such as providing fire-fighting assistance or severe weather shelters.


7. Sustainability

  • 7.1 Biosphere Security - The goal is to preserve 89 species outside their normal environmental range. We will also scale this requirement by resident population, thus 1 species per 7.4 population.
  • 7.2 Survivability - The goal is to provide 85 millionths compensation for civilization level critical risks. We scale this requirement by resident population, thus 1 millionth per 7.75 population. An example would be to reduce atmospheric carbon accumulation by the given amount relative to the whole world.


8. Openness

  • 8.1 Open Design - The intent is for the project to share the technology and design methods it develops. This requirement does not change by expansion phase.


Assign Functional RequirementsEdit

Having made our assumed distribution of requirements across the growth phases, we now turn to the functional elements we have divided the project into. The identity of the functions is preserved across the growth phases. Thus the function names, numbers, and flows linking them to other functions do not change from one phase to the next. The quantities, however will change by phase. This includes the possibility that a given function is not used at all in an early phase, and the quantities are zero.

We identified three top level functions and 18 second-tier functions, so we break up and assign subsets of the requirements to each of them. We take care that the subsets add up numerically to the next higher level, and that each requirement is accounted for somewhere in the project. The descriptions that follow are for assignments to the top level functions.


Top Level FunctionsEdit

Our three top level functions are Provide Production Capacity, Provide Habitation Capacity, and Provide Transport Capacity. We will refer to them as Production, Habitation, and Transport for short.


1. Objectives

  • 1.1 Project Goal - The levels of local ownership are distributed to all three functions such that the total meets the goals of the phase. They may vary by functional element. Supporting the physical needs of the owners is assigned to the point of use, which is Habitation and Transport. The required levels of Production outputs are then derived from the flows necessary to meet those needs.
  • 1.2 Project Scale - The number of new people supported per year is assigned to all three functions by creating Production, Habitation, and Transport Scale requirements, and assigning the proper number of people/year by phase.
  • 1.3 Choice - The choice of project locations, internal organization, and operations by members and residents is assigned to the future planning task of the Control Location function of Production. That task will include mechanisms to take inputs from people, and incorporate them into the project plans.


2. Performance

  • 2.1 Location - The operating environment is constant across the top three functions, since the project is defined as locally operated. It is passed down unchanged to each of them.
  • 2.2 Growth - The capacity for growth of 11%/year is explicitly levied against all three top functions in the system level requirements, so we pass it down to each. It only applies once Phase 1F is built and capacity for 75 people per year is reached. The inherent growth rates in earlier phases will be derived from the level of surplus resource production. Actual growth rates, as opposed to inherent growth, will depend on the number of people and sources of funds for the project. By analogy to a forest, the inherent growth rate of the trees is fixed, but you can plant more trees and expand the forest faster than that.
  • 2.3 Improved Technology - The general requirement to increase levels of self-production, recycling, and other technical features is mostly assigned to Production, but the design of Habitation and Transport elements have to accommodate those levels. So we impose a derived requirement on them to use what Production makes and return items to be recycled. This general requirement is divided into more specific ones.
  • 2.3.1 Local Resources - Providing a percentage of continuing matter and energy needs from local resources is mainly assigned to Production. Some resources may be met by Habitation, such as rainwater collection or rooftop solar panels. Percentage is measured in economic terms. Continuing needs are after initial construction. Higher levels of outside supplies may be needed at first.
  • 2.3.2 Self Production - The requirement is to provide a growing percentage of economic value for the owners internally from the project. Use of homes and personal transportation are part of this economic value. We further divide the overall percentage goal into 75% from Production, 15% from Habitation, and 10% from Transport. That division is somewhat arbitrary and may need to evolve by growth phase, so long as the total adds to 100%.
  • 2.3.3 Cyclic Flows - The requirement is to recycle and reprocess a growing percentage of local waste flows. The first part of this, physical delivery of wastes back to production, is allocated to all three main functions. Conversion of wastes back to useful form is assigned to Production. Outside scrap and wastes may be used as a source of materials, but this is not counted as part of the recycled percentage, it is new input.
  • 2.3.4 Automation - The requirement is to reduce human labor by a significant percentage relative to the US average. Some reduction through automation is feasible for items like household maintenance, food preparation, and vehicle driving. Most of the gains, though, would be for Production. We tentatively apply 10% each to Habitation and Transport (especially internal transport within a location), and 80% to Production automation.
  • 2.3.5 Autonomy - Local control of production planning, operations tasks, and maintenance will grow in parallel with percentage local ownership (Requirement 1.1). This is imposed on all three top-level functions to be executed by local humans and control equipment. The percentage for each function will vary, but the combined average will meet the phase percent goal. Habitation will have a higher level of local control by the residents, but Production has a larger quantity of tasks to control. This is due to the complex operations within Production, and that overall location responsibility is also assigned to the Production "Control Location" function.
  • 2.3.6 Complexity - This requirement is specifically about the number of Production elements, therefore it is applied to that function, and the part of Transport that involves production tasks.


  • 2.4 Quality of Life - The intent is to provide an increasing quality of life for project members by phase, in terms of equivalent GDP. This includes the value of directly used factory products such as food and home-building materials, sale of surplus production to generate income, and outside/non project work. Since requirement 2.6 calls for a high level of surplus production, we will allocate 75% of this requirement to Production. Habitation and Transport are assigned 20 and 5% respectively, based on their relative proportions in the Consumer Price Index. Their annual GDP contribution is converted capital values using typical lease rates of 8% for Habitation, and Transport vehicle value declining at 12%/year plus operating and maintenance expenses. This results in a Phase 1F goal of $400,000/person of Habitation value. Transport is more complicated to calculate, and we will defer that to later.
  • 2.5 Data - Sharing of project experience and data is imposed mainly on the Production function, since it already contains design and operations data. Some data may be collected from Transport and Habitation, with the limitation that personal data will be protected.
  • 2.6 Resources - This requirement for a large surplus in materials and energy over internal needs is allocated to the Production function, and is measured by continuing needs of that function only, not total needs counting Habitation and Transport.


3. Time

  • 3.1 Completion Time - This requirement is mostly allocated to building the Production elements, and somewhat to Transport which supports production. The minimum phase design and construction schedules are passed directly to these functions. The schedule for Habitation and personal Transport elements depends on how many people are involved in the project that need them. Therefore actual, as opposed to minimum, schedules, cannot be defined in advance. The planning function within Production will accept inputs from people on an ongoing basis, and adjust progress from phase to phase and construction rates within phases as needed.
  • 3.2 Operating Life - As noted in the phase requirements for operating life, the project as a whole has an indefinite service life with ongoing maintenance, repair, and replacement. We pass down a requirement to optimize each of the three top level functions for an indefinite life assuming maintenance. That optimization will include the fact the project has its own production capacity, assembly areas, and construction equipment, and can therefore do much of its own maintenance tasks.


4. Cost

  • 4.1 Total Development Cost - Total development cost is allocated as a simple sum of the various functions that make up the project. We will use 60% for Production, 20% for Habitation, and 20% for Transport, times the phase development as a first approximation. As the design progresses, we will very likely update these values. Development cost is net of any sales or income from the project, thus it represents the maximum outlay at any point in the phase.
  • 4.2 Location Cost - Location cost is also allocated as a sum of the project function costs. As an initial estimate, we will use 40% for Production, 40% for Habitation, and 20% for Transport, times the phase location cost per person. The relatively higher Habitation estimate versus Development Cost for Production is because Habitation will tend to use repetitive construction elements, while Production will be adding new and different elements in each phase. Again, these first estimates will very likely be updated as the design evolves.


5. Technical Risk

  • 5.1 Risk Allowances - This requirement is the amount of over-design to account for uncertainties in performance. It is an estimate before the final hardware is built and tested, at which point you know the actual performance. The allowance is to ensure the final design performs at least as well as the requirements specify. It is particularly important for a complex and interconnected system such as this one, because a deficiency in one element can cause others to under-perform, and in turn these others can affect still more parts of the system. Therefore we build in a positive bias above the required levels.
We allocate this risk according to an estimate of how much new design is in each of the three top level functions. Much of Habitation will be conventional building materials, so it gets the lowest share, 15%. Transport may use more new designs, such as robotic vehicles, so we give it a 25% share. The remaining 60% is allocated to Production because design for self-production, integrating many different processes, and automated control of all of it have a large degree of new design. These allocations are combined to reach the phase allowances for the project as a whole.


6. Safety

  • 6.1 Location Risk - This consists of life and property risk internal to the project. Until a risk analysis is done, we don't have a good way to estimate where these risks are, and how they could be reduced. Therefore the risk levels relative to US averages is divided among the top level functions such that the total goal is met, but specific percentages are not specified at this time.
  • 6.2 Population Risk - The goal is to have a positive impact by reducing net risk from the project to the nearby population. This consists of two parts. The first is new risks caused by the project. Particular attention needs to be given to Production processes and off-site transportation. The second is active risk reduction by positive changes supplied by the project. Possible mechanisms include a higher tax base funding community improvements, donated goods and services, supplying safer products, or other means. Prior to doing a risk analysis, we assign 50% of this requirement to Production, and 25% each to Transport and Habitation, scaled to the resident population goal of 660 people. We expect these values to be updated.


7. Sustainability

  • 7.1 Biosphere Security - Natural species will exist at and near the project location, and we take it as a default assumption not to endanger these local species. Preserving other species outside their normal range is an active effort above this. The intent is for the project to contribute to long term sustainability of the biosphere. The level of effort is scaled by the size of the resident population. Prior to analyzing the most effective way to do this task, we will assign it 50% each to Production and Habitation, because both Growing Organics and landscaping and pets in Habitation involve living things. Species preservation may be done locally at the project, or at other locations or through agencies if that is more efficient.
  • 7.2 Survivability - This requirement is also scaled to resident population. We assign it to Production because the most likely areas to reduce civilization level risks are in energy production and recycling. Because we will have design and production capacity, there is also the possibility of contributing to larger projects.


8. Openness

  • 8.1 Open Design - The general requirement is to share project technology and design methods so that others can benefit from it, and hope that others outside the project will share their developments in return. Project members need incentive to contribute their own work, thus specific instances of designs may be kept proprietary if desired, and the physical hardware and products are owned by them. Besides proprietary designs, the other limitation on general openness is protecting the personal privacy of members and residents. We assign this requirement to the Production function, because project data will be collected and stored in that function's data networks, and external communication and privacy protection is best implemented there.


Lower Tier FunctionsEdit

Having allocated the requirements to the three top level functions, we would continue this process in later rounds of the design work. Requirements would be allocated to the second and lower tiers, until we reach functional elements that can be individually designed. Section 5.0 as a whole is intended to be an example of how to apply the design process to a particular project. We think that describing the assignment of requirements to every lower level function, and their quantities by phase, is too much detail to include here in the main text of the book. It would break the flow of showing how to do the design work. Instead we will place most of those details in Section 9.0 - Design Notes, and refer readers there if they are interested.

To complete this first round of requirements allocation, and as a starting point for the next lower tier, we can gather the assigned requirements by function into tables. These then serve as the input requirements for the parts of the system in the same way the system requirements in Section 5.1 serve for the project as a whole. For completeness, the tables list requirements not applied to that function, but in subsequent work they are skipped and only the applied subset is analyzed. The values given include the variation by phase.


Allocated Requirements for Function 1.0 - Provide Production Capacity
Requirement Title Text
1.1 Production Goal Contribute to local ownership and meeting the owner's physical needs at 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% levels by phase.
1.2 Production Scale Produce location elements for 0.25, 1, 4, 12, 32, and 75 people/year by phase, to reach a capacity of 660 people.
1.3 Choice Accept owner inputs for locations, organization, and production operations and incorporate these into project planning.
2.1 Location Design for operation initially near Atlanta, GA, to reach any temperate environment (middle 90% of population) in phases.
2.2 Growth Include capacity to increase production by 11% per year compounded, after expansion phases, as measured by economic value of the output.
2.3.1 Local Resources Provide 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase of continuing matter and energy needs from local resources, as measured by economic value.
2.3.2 Self Production Produce 75% x (27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase) of location economic value from Production, with the remainder from outside work.
2.3.3 Cyclic Flows Recycle and reprocess 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase of location waste flows, measured by mass.
2.3.4 Automation Contribute 80% of human labor reduction goal of 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase, relative to US average.
2.3.5 Autonomy Control Production share and overall location operations and maintenance to reach 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase for total location.
2.3.6 Complexity Limit the number of major Production elements to 7, 13, 21, 39, 48, and 55 by phase, not counting attachments, bits, tooling, or conventional small shop tools.
2.4 Quality of Life Contribute 75% of 14, 41.5, 70.5, 100, 122, and 138.5 k$/person/year by phase in equivalent value from Production, referenced at January 2013 prices.
2.5 Data Share Production and general location experience and data with owners and residents, the surrounding community, and beyond, while protecting personal privacy.
2.6 Resources Produce 2.1, 3.7, 5.4, 7.3, 9.2, and 10.5 times internal needs, by phase, for maintenance and support of the Production elements, in products and energy.
3.1 Completion Time Given people and funding, complete Production elements within 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 months by phase, with 2 months minimum between starts.
3.2 Operating Life Design Production elements for an indefinite service life with optimized maintenance, repair, and replacement.
4.1 Development Cost Limit development cost for Production to 60% of 3.5, 4.6, 9.8, 18.3, 35, and 67 M$ by phase, net of sales and including in-kind contributions.
4.2 Location Cost Limit outside incremental Production cost/person to 40% of 375, 215, 150, 110, 87, and 75 k$ by phase, not including self-production.
5.1 Risk Allowances Limit Production performance and design uncertainties to 60% of location design margins of 36.5, 26.5, 19.5, 14, 10, and 7.5% by phase.
6.1 Location Risk Limit Production contribution to location total life and casualty risk of 190, 108, 74, 54, 44, and 38% of US averages by phase.
6.2 Population Risk Reduce life and casualty risk to nearby population from Production by 50% of 17% times 1/660 of resident population.
7.1 Biosphere Security Support preserving 50% of 89 species outside their normal environment range times 1/660 of resident population.
7.2 Survivability Provide 0.0085% compensation for civilization level critical risks, times 1/660 of resident population.
8.1 Open Design License project technology and design methods on open terms, while specific designs and physical items may be privately owned.


Allocated Requirements for Function 2.0 - Provide Habitation Capacity
Requirement Title Text
1.1 Habitation Goal Contribute to local ownership and meeting the owner's physical needs at 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% levels by phase.
1.2 Habitation Scale Operate and maintain Habitation elements for 0.25, 1, 4, 12, 32, and 75 new people/year by phase up to 660 total.
1.3 Choice Provide for owner and resident design and modification choice for Habitation, within overall location and project limits.
2.1 Location Design for operation initially near Atlanta, GA, to reach any temperate environment (middle 90% of population) in phases.
2.2 Growth Include capacity to increase Habitation occupancy by 11% per year compounded, after total of 660 is reached.
2.3.1 Local Resources Design Habitation elements to use 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% local resources by phase for operations and maintenance.
2.3.2 Self Production Produce 15% x (27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase) of location economic value from Habitation.
2.3.3 Cyclic Flows Return 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% of Habitation waste mass by phase to Production for recycling.
2.3.4 Automation Contribute 10% of human labor reduction goal of 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase, relative to US average.
2.3.5 Autonomy Control at least 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase of Habitation operations and maintenance locally.
2.3.6 Complexity Production complexity does not apply to Habitation.
2.4 Quality of Life Provide Habitation elements capital value by phase of 80, 150, 220, 300, 350 and 400 k$/person, referenced at January 2013 prices.
2.5 Data Collect Habitation experience and data while protecting personal privacy.
2.6 Resources Surplus materials and energy production does not apply to Habitation.
3.1 Completion Time Reach element installation rates within 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 months by phase, on 2 month start intervals, given people and funding.
3.2 Operating Life Design Habitation elements for an indefinite service life with optimized maintenance, repair, and replacement.
4.1 Development Cost Limit development cost for Habitation to 20% of 3.5, 4.6, 9.8, 18.3, 35, and 67 M$ by phase, net of sales and including in-kind contributions.
4.2 Location Cost Limit outside incremental Habitation cost/person to 40% of 375, 215, 150, 110, 87, and 75 k$ by phase, not including self-production.
5.1 Risk Allowances Limit Habitation performance and design uncertainties to 15% of location design margins of 36.5, 26.5, 19.5, 14, 10, and 7.5% by phase.
6.1 Location Risk Limit Habitation contribution to location total life and casualty risk of 190, 108, 74, 54, 44, and 38% of US averages by phase.
6.2 Population Risk Reduce life and casualty risk to nearby population from Habitation by 25% of 17% times 1/660 of resident population.
7.1 Biosphere Security Support preserving 50% of 89 species outside their normal environment range times 1/660 of resident population.
7.2 Survivability Civilization level risk reduction does not apply to Habitation.
8.1 Open Design Licensing project technology and design methods does not apply to Habitation.


Allocated Requirements for Function 3.0 - Provide Transport Capacity
Requirement Title Text
1.1 Transport Goal Contribute to local ownership and meeting the owner's physical needs at 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% levels by phase.
1.2 Transport Scale Operate and maintain Transport elements for 0.25, 1, 4, 12, 32, and 75 new people/year by phase up to 660 total.
1.3 Choice Provide for owner and resident design and modification choice for Tranport, within overall location and project limits.
2.1 Location Design for operation initially near Atlanta, GA, to reach any temperate environment (middle 90% of population) in phases.
2.2 Growth Include capacity to increase Transport quantity by 11% per year compounded, after expansion phases.
2.3.1 Local Resources Design Transport elements to use 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% local resources by phase for operations and maintenance, including fuel.
2.3.2 Self Production Produce 10% x (27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase) of location economic value from Transport.
2.3.3 Cyclic Flows Return 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% of Transport waste mass by phase to Production for recycling, not including fuel.
2.3.4 Automation Contribute 10% of human labor reduction goal of 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase, relative to US average.
2.3.5 Autonomy Control at least 27, 47, 61, 72, 80, and 85% by phase of Transport operations and maintenance locally.
2.3.6 Complexity Limit the number of major Transport elements used for Production, and count them in the Production limits by phase.
2.3 Technology - Autonomy Control at least 85% of transport functions locally.
2.4 Quality of Life Contribute 5% of 14, 41.5, 70.5, 100, 122, and 138.5 k$/person/year by phase in equivalent value from Transport, referenced at January 2013 prices.
2.5 Data Collect Transport experience and data while protecting personal privacy.
2.6 Resources Surplus materials and energy production does not apply to Transport.
3.1 Completion Time Reach element production rates within 24, 36, 48, 60, 72, and 84 months by phase, on 2 month start intervals, given people and funding.
3.2 Operating Life Design Transport elements for an indefinite service life with optimized maintenance, repair, and replacement.
4.1 Development Cost Limit development cost for Transport to 20% of 3.5, 4.6, 9.8, 18.3, 35, and 67 M$ by phase, net of sales and including in-kind contributions.
4.2 Location Cost Limit outside incremental Transport cost/person to 40% of 375, 215, 150, 110, 87, and 75 k$ by phase, not including self-production.
5.1 Risk Allowances Limit Transport performance and design uncertainties to 25% of location design margins of 36.5, 26.5, 19.5, 14, 10, and 7.5% by phase.
6.1 Location Risk Limit Transport contribution to location total life and casualty risk of 190, 108, 74, 54, 44, and 38% of US averages by phase.
6.2 Population Risk Reduce life and casualty risk to nearby population from Transport by 25% of 17% times 1/660 of resident population.
7.1 Biosphere Security Preserving species outside their normal environment only applies in Transport support to the Production and Habitation functions.
7.2 Survivability Civilization level risk reduction does not apply to Transport.
8.1 Open Design Licensing project technology and design methods does not apply to Transport.
Last modified on 7 February 2014, at 17:40