The foregoing, and any additional criteria deemed important, must 
be assigned standards of performance. For example a desirable standard 
for dynamic stability might be the requirement for safe aircraft opera- 
tions in a sea state of 5. Platforms which meet or exceed this standard 
would be given the highest possible score, while a lower score would be 
awarded to candidate's falling short of the standard. 
Some of the performance criteria are more important than others. 
This fact must be acknowledged by giving proportionately greater con- 
sideration to these. Personnel knowledgeable in the mission require- 
ments should be assigned the task of establishing the relative worth 
of performance criteria. 
Performance Record 
As much information as possible must be accumulated concerning the 
projected operational characteristics of the candidate systems so that 
each candidate can be scored (its worth estimated) according to an 
established list of criteria. The required information could include, 
for example, analytical results and model test data of the dynamic 
response of candidate platforms in the seaway, the estimated life and 
maintenance requirements of important subsystems, and refined estimates 
of the power requirement for propulsion or tow, stations keeping and 
life support. 
It will not be an easy task to assess the performance record of 
presently non-existent systems with the rigor required for a comprehensive 
worth determination. It is apparent, however, that studies leading 
to the establishment of a more complete performance record is the next 
logical step in the development program. Investigative efforts intended 
to supply the missing performance record include: (1) structural 
analysis, (2) materials, (3) assembly, (4) hydrodynamic response, (5) 
station keeping, (6) construction, (7) human factors, (8) support facil- 
ities, and (9) vulnerability. Many of the proposed efforts relate di- 
rectly to the materials and fabrication phase. An RDT&E plan for defining 
the MOBS performance record for FY 1971 and beyond is offered later in 
the text. 
Costs 
AS 
The cost estimates presented in this report are based on preliminary 
estimates of size, weight and assembly plant requirements and should, 
therefore, be interpreted as order of magnitude figures. Eventually 
more refined cost estimates will be available, and these, combined with 
the performance records, should be used in ranking alternative MOBS 
concepts. 
1. 
“See Parity i. 
6-4 
