Cost/Benefit Modeling of ISRU

1. Cost/Benefit Modeling of ISRU Brad Blair, Mike Duke, Javier Díaz, Begoña Ruiz Center for Commercial Applications of Combustion in Space Colorado School of Mines <bblair@mines.edu> Space Resources Roundtable VI November 3, 2004 Space Resource Roundtable VI

2. Outline • Distance vs. Energy • Markets • Commercial Modeling • Apollo ISRU Analogy • Top Ten List Space Resource Roundtable VI

3. Lunar Surface DVHigh-T ~ 2,500 m/s S-E L1 S-E L2 DVHigh-T ~ 2,520 m/s DVHigh-T ~ 1,870 m/s LLO DV ~300-400 m/s DVHigh-T ~ 640 m/s DVLow-T ~ 760 m/s E-M L1 DVHigh-T ~ 4,040 m/s DVLow-T ~ 7,900 m/s DVHigh-T ~ 1,380 m/s DVLow-T ~ 1,500 m/s DVHigh-T ~ 4,000 m/s GEO DVLow-T ~ 7,320 m/s DV ~600 m/s GTO DVHigh-T ~ 3,770 m/s DVLow-T ~ 6,800 m/s DVHigh-T ~ 4,330 m/s DVLow-T ~ 5,800 m/s DVHigh-T ~ 3,000 m/s DVLow-T ~ 5,200 m/s LEO DVHigh-T ~ 10 km/s Earth Delta-V in the Earth’s Neighborhood LEO Low Earth Orbit GTO GEO Transfer Orbit GEO Geostationary Orbit EM L1 Earth-Moon Libration Point L1 SE L1 Sun-Earth Libration Point L1 SE L2 Sun-Earth Libration Point L2 LLO Low Lunar Orbit LTO Lunar Transfer Orbit High-T High Thrust Trajectory Low-T Low Thrust Trajectory Courtesy of John Mankins, NASA Headquarters Space Resource Roundtable VI

4. Earth-MoonDistance (most people think of space in this scale) LLO (Low Lunar Orbit) L-1 (Lagrange ‘point of balance’ between the Moon and Earth) GEO (Geostationary Earth Orbit) Note colors and shading LEO (Low Earth Orbit) Space Resource Roundtable VI

5. Rescaling the image using TransportationEnergy shows the Moon is closer to LEO than Earth by a factor of five LEO L-1 LLO Note: This chart shows the Earth-Moon system in Energy Scale (squaring delta-V yields units of Megajoules per Kilogram) Space Resource Roundtable VI

6. Processor CSM Regolith CSM Bucket Wheel Excavator CSM Bucket Wheel Excavator LEO (aerobraking) Close-up of region between LEO and Moon in transportation energy scaleNote what happens when you aerobrake! LLO LEO L-1 Gateway The Moon is closer to Low-Earth Orbit by a factor of 17.5:1 when aerobraking is utilized! ISS Note: This is a close-up of the previous chart Space Resource Roundtable VI

7. Markets for Lunar Propellant NASA-Science Military Missions Debris Management Satellite Servicing & Refueling International Space Station Human Exploration Space Solar Power Self-Sustaining Colonies Space Resource Roundtable VI

8. CSTS Market Descriptions Space Resource Roundtable VI

9. Commercial LEO-GEO Boost • This is the only currently existing ‘real’ commercial market for space transportation fuels (other markets are hypothetical) • Modeling Approach • Modelused in JPL 2002 study (see Report for details) - Roughly 150 tons of satellite launched to GEO per year Space Resource Roundtable VI

10. Human Planetary Exploration • Rationale: ISRU capability will enable lower long-term costs for human exploration missions • Assumptions • A synergistic partnership between NASA and the Commercial sector could enable an in-space propellant supply, reducing long-term government costs as well as business risk • Modeling Approach • Utilizing a baseline Design Reference Mission architecture • Abstract the quantity and rate of payload transfer • Model propellant extraction & depot characteristics • Estimate costs and net savings due to ISRU Space Resource Roundtable VI

11. International Space Station • Government-operated phase • Assumptions • Stationkeeping & orbit boosting fuel • Management will endorse use of lunar-derived fuel • Modeling Approach • Stationkeeping fuel is high due to low altitude • Orbital boosting may require significant fuel, tradeoff with stationkeeping • Commercially-operated phase • Assumptions • Commercial entity becomes operator of ISS • Operator encourages manufacturing and tourism • Modeling Approach • Use CSTS ‘Space Business Park’ methodology • Model station growth, tourism flow, consumables • Model microgravity manufacturing inputs Space Resource Roundtable VI

12. Satellite Servicing (Government & Commercial) • Rationale: Lowers deployment/operations costs, as well as DDT&E and production costs by reducing reliability requirements and the cost of failure • Assumptions • Norm Augustine’s Law XV states: “The last ten percent of performance generates one-third of cost and two-thirds of the problems.” • Orbital Express / ASTRO technology will be commercially available • Market will adopt technology if total cost drops • Market will trade servicibility vs. reliability vs. innovation risk • US Satellite Market Only (ITAR restriction assumed) • Modeling Approach • Create market capture function for deployment forecast (existing satellite buses are replaced with ASTRO-derived buses) • Use cost/performance relationship to derive market elasticity Orbital Express (courtesy MDR and Boeing) Space Resource Roundtable VI Orbital Recovery Corporation's SLES spacecraft

13. Debris Management • Rationale: Commercial disposal service for large, high-risk space debris • Assumptions • Target acquisition and deorbit uses Orbital Express/ASTRO bus • Market will be enabled under 'cost threshold' (e.g., assumes program or mission budget cap) • Cleanup service will become available to Liable Nation (who serves as 'customer') • Release / indemnity is available for cleanup service provider (Nation maintains liability) • Debris may have nominal value to commercial cleanup enterprise (salvage: infrastructure resale at fixed percentage) • Modeling Approach • Obtain debris forecast - identify high-risk target orbits • Assume fixed size government program with growth function • Derive forecast, model elasticity using fixed-budget approach Space Resource Roundtable VI

14. NASA Science • Rationale: Mission planners will seek to maximize science payload to the target destination • Modeling Approach • Sample Return • Planetary surface refueling • Planetary Orbiters / Deep Space missions • Boost from LEO, stage/spacecraft refueling • ‘Heavy Payloads’ to L1 • Boost, refueling, construction materials • Human Exploration mission support • Boost, refueling, construction, consumables • Mission Classes • Orbital Exploration • Sample Return (asteroid/comet, Mercury, Venus, Moon, Mars, Phobos, Titan, Europa) • Sun • Deep Space • Heavy Payloads to GEO / Libration points (optical, radio, IR telescopes) Space Resource Roundtable VI

15. Demand Model Demand Model Demand Model Benefit Model Benefit Model Benefit Model Improve Technology, Cost or Demand Assumptions Improve Technology, Cost or Demand Assumptions Improve Technology, Cost or Demand Assumptions Fuel Quantity Delta-V Frequency Fuel Quantity Delta-V Frequency Fuel Quantity Delta-V Frequency Economic Model Feasible? Feasible? Feasible? OTV, PTV Size OTV, PTV Size OTV, PTV Size No No No Architecture Architecture Lunar Plant Size Lunar Plant Size Lunar Plant Size Yes Yes Yes Cost Model Cost Model Cost Model Subsystem Masses Subsystem Masses Subsystem Masses Deploy System Deploy System Deploy System Integrated Modeling Flowsheet • Model Structure • Demand • Architecture • Costs/Benefits • Feasibility • Goals of Modeling • Determine feasible conditions (Go / No Go) • Insight into critical assumptions • Insight into systems dynamics (sensitivity) • Prioritization of technology • Development of schedule Space Resource Roundtable VI

16. 40 35 LEO OTV 30 L1 OTV 25 Lunar lander 20 LEO depot 15 L1 depot 10 Lunar plant 5 0 FY02 Parametric Engineering Model Technology assumptions Cryogenic Vehicles (H2/O2 fuel) Lunar Lander Orbital Transfer (OTV) Fuel Depot(s) Solar Power Electrolysis (fuel cell) Tanks for H2, O2 and H2O Architecture Mass Comparison Total Mass [mt] Arch 1 Arch 2 Space Resource Roundtable VI

17. FY02 Cost Model Development • NAFCOM99: Analogy-based cost model • Architecture 2 WBS shown on right panel • Conservative methodology used • SOCM: Operations cost model • Estimates system-level operating costs • Conservative methodology used • Launch Costs: $90k/kg Moon, $35k/kg GEO, $10k/kg LEO Scenarios 1.1c and 1.2: Cost Comparison 9 8 LEO OTV 7 L1 OTV 6 Dev + 1st Unit Cost [$B] Lunar lander 5 4 LEO depot 3 L1 depot 2 Lunar plant 1 0 Arch 1.1c Arch 1.2 Space Resource Roundtable VI

18. Arch 1 Arch 2 FY02 Feasibility Modeling Feasibility Process Summary: Version 0 = Baseline (most conservative) Versions 1-3: Relax assumptions… Version 4 shows a positive rate of return for private investment (6%) Version 4 Assumes: Zero non-recurring costs (DDT&E) 30% Production cost reduction 2% Ice concentration 2x Demand level (i.e., 300T/yr) Architectures 1 and 2: Net Present Value Comparison 3.0 2.0 1.0 Version 0 Version 1 Version 2 0.0 Version 3 Version 4 =FEASIBLE= -1.0 NPV [$B] -2.0 -3.0 -4.0 -5.0 -6.0 Space Resource Roundtable VI

19. FY02 Commercial Model Results CSP Financial Summary (Architecture 2, Version 4) Production and delivery rates for water at Lunar cold trap and L1 (Architecture 2, Version 4) Space Resource Roundtable VI

20. Cost Buildup & Production Rates Space Resource Roundtable VI

21. SRD Model Results • Results provide an Upper Bound on Propellant Unit Costs Space Resource Roundtable VI

22. Transportation Cost vs. Distance(notional) • Assumptions • Cost = production + ops + fuel • Ops cost is constant • Production cost is incurred once • Fuel cost follows previous chart Current space transportation costs ISRU-Based space transportation costs Cost Distance Space Resource Roundtable VI

23. Propellant from the Moon will revolutionize our current space transportation approach Each Apollo mission utilized Earth-derived propellants (Saturn V liftoff mass = 2,962 tons) Schematic representation of the scale of an Earth launch system for scenarios to land an Apollo-size mission on the Moon, assuming various refueling depots and an in-space reusable transportation system. Note: Apollo stage height is scaled by estimated mass reduction due to ISRU refueling What if lunar lander was refueled on the Moon’s surface? 73% of Apollo mass (2,160 tons) Assume refueling at L1 and on Moon: 34% of mass (1,004 tons) Assume refueling at LEO, L1 and on Moon: 12% of mass (355 tons) +Reusable lander (268 tons) +Reusable upper stage & lander (119 tons) Space Resource Roundtable VI

24. Propellant from the Moon will revolutionize our current space transportation approach Schematic representation of the scale of an Earth launch system for scenarios to land an Apollo-size mission on the Moon, assuming various refueling depots and an in-space reusable transportation system Note: Apollo stage height is scaled by estimated mass reduction due to ISRU refueling First assume that all propellant comes from Earth (Saturn V liftoff mass = 2,962 tons) Refueling at L1 and on Moon: Delta IV-H Refueling at LEO, L1 and on Moon: Atlas V-M Refueling only on Moon: Shuttle-class +Reusable lander: Atlas II +Reusable upper stage & lander: Atlas Mercury Space Resource Roundtable VI

25. Magnum 2,000 Tons $6B DDT&E $160M Recurring Atlas V 400 333 tons $90M(2002) Is a Heavy-Lift Launch System a necessary condition for Human Planetary Exploration?? Atlas LV 3B 110 tons Not if you can refuel… Space Resource Roundtable VI

26. The Top Ten List Ten factors that could accelerate the commercial development of space • Risk aversion has created a backlog of good ideas (40 years worth) • Junior firms are more willing to take risks and explore new markets • International competition in aerospace is driving prices down • There is excess capacity within the aerospace industry • Orbital infrastructure could accumulate rapidly if launch vehicle elements are used more than just once • The resources for refueling vehicles are already in space • The experience base for putting space resources into production lies within a healthy and lean industry (mining & energy) • The X Factor: RLVs and Tourism are attracting private capital today • International commercial capital investment makes the annual NASA budget look small indeed • The capital markets are hungry for the next dot.com feast What impact could this have on the space development timeline? Space Resource Roundtable VI

27. Necessary v. Sufficient Conditions • Is space commercialization a necessary condition for human space exploration? • Yes. It is a necessary element of a rational cost reduction plan. • Capabilities and cost effectiveness could dramatically increase. • However, vested interests within NASA and the aerospace industry may not be all that interested in reducing perceived future costs. • These interests have significant political power. • Is space commercialization a sufficient condition for space colonization? • No. There is still a dependence on NASA to lead the way, reduce risks and build infrastructure that can be later privatized. • Technologies with space and terrestrial applications are a potential offsetting factor and are currently attracting industry investment. • It is time to begin assembling the Business Cases for lunar/space commercialization and industrialization • Business case analysis is a useful way to engage a long neglected part of academia in the space program (the business schools) • Strong candidates will emerge and should help to define NASA priorities Space Resource Roundtable VI