heliopolis summary

Slide1: 

Chad Kessens, Ryan McDaniel, Melahn Parker, Shane Ross, Luke Voss The Next Giant Leap

Heliopolis Mission: 

Heliopolis Mission To build a profitable, self-sustaining foothold for humanity in space

Heliopolis:Space Business Park / Community: 

Heliopolis: Space Business Park / Community Support several industries Solar power satellites (SPS)* Communications satellites Zero-gravity manufacturing Tourism Asteroid mining Capacity for growth (self-replication) Lunar L1 halo orbit Continuous sunlight Moon-viewing for tourists Necessary for future space infrastructure *Only revenue from SPS modeled

Heliopolis Development Timeline: 

a Heliopolis Development Timeline 2015 2040 Research and Development begins First launch 2020 2025 2035 2030 Heliopolis construction begins; Lunar Mass Driver operational Permanent Heliopolis habitation begins Launch Asteroid retrieval mission Asteroid arrives at Heliopolis Heliopolis construction complete Accounting Profit Economic Profit PHASES: -1 0 1 2 3 4

Phase 0 (2020-2021): 

Phase 0 (2020-2021) Shanty Town Construction ISS-like modules to L1 Mass driver to Moon 3-month crew rotations Cost: 35 B$ (Y2K) People: 0-100 Shanty Town (Earth-Moon L1) Moon Resources Sun Energy Earth People and Resources

Phase 1 (2021-2022): 

Phase 1 (2021-2022) Begin Construction of Heliopolis Build first permanent habitation modules Construction materials from Moon 3-month crew rotations Cost: 27 B$ People: 100-115 0-5% complete Heliopolis Moon Sun Earth

Phase 2 (2022-2032): 

Intermediate Construction Stage Permanent habitation Manufacture of SPSs/Commsats Launch asteroid retriever Cost: 151 B$ Revenue: 343 B$ People: 115-341 5-62% complete Phase 2 (2022-2032) Heliopolis Moon Asteroid Sun GEO Products Earth

Phase 3 (2032-2039): 

Phase 3 (2032-2039) Final Construction Stage Asteroid returned Heliopolis essentially self-sufficient Cost: 50 B$ Revenue: 850 B$ People: 1500-2900 62-100% complete Heliopolis Moon Asteroid Sun GEO Earth

Phase 4 (2039+): 

Phase 4 (2039+) Heliopolis Completed Normal operations Cost: 0.19 B$ per year Revenue: 214 B$ first year People: 2900 100% complete Heliopolis Moon Asteroid Sun GEO Earth

Infrastructure Requirements: 

Infrastructure Requirements Module fabrication facility Heavy-lift launch vehicle (HLLV) services Lunar mass driver Inter-orbital shuttle Ground receiver arrays (rectennas)

Technology Requirements: 

Technology Requirements Enabling Technology 250-tonne-to-LEO class HLLV Improved automation Nuclear reactor in space Closed-loop recycling Enhancing Technology SEP using O2 Nuclear thermal propulsion Improved PowerSail efficiency Mass driver propulsion

Cash Flow Analysis (log scale): 

Cash Flow Analysis (log scale) Chad 1014 1012 1010 108 -108 -1010 -1012 0 $Y2K

Alaska Pipeline Comparison: 

Alaska Pipeline Comparison 1Beginning of Phase 4 2World demand of 612 QBTUs in 2020

Three Gorges Dam Comparison: 

Three Gorges Dam Comparison 1Beginning of Phase 4 2World demand of 612 QBTUs in 2020 3Revenue; profit figures unavailable

Environmental Impact: 

Environmental Impact 1Belarussian Embassy website 21975 Stanford study

Conclusions (1 of 3): 

Conclusions (1 of 3) O`Neill was right: world market exists to begin supply of solar energy World demand of 612 QBTUs1 far exceeds world production capability of 496 QBTUs2 SPS production can begin to supply unmet demand Solar energy from SPS cleaner, safer than alternatives No risk of toxic wastes/spills No risk of explosions or meltdowns No people displaced, no land made unusable 1US DoE 2International Energy Agency

Conclusions (2 of 3): 

Conclusions (2 of 3) LSMD study comparable to 1975 Stanford study Differences reflect 25 years of technological advances However: LSMD study represents fundamentally new analysis Integrated cost model demonstrates project`s economic feasibility Technology exists or can be designed to begin project in the next 20 years

Conclusions (3 of 3): 

Conclusions (3 of 3) Economic profit returned in 20 years Positive cash flow in 15 years Initial investment of $105 billion Self-sufficiency and internalizing costs critical to project success Power requirements dominated by industrial refinery needs Project cost driven by food production Low mass, but biomass only available from Earth Personnel costs surprisingly insignificant