Cost/Benefit Modeling of ISRU: 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 Space Resources Roundtable VI November 3, 2004


Outline: Outline Distance vs. Energy Markets Commercial Modeling Apollo ISRU Analogy Top Ten List


Slide3: 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


Earth-Moon Distance (most people think of space in this scale): GEO (Geostationary Earth Orbit) L-1 (Lagrange ‘point of balance’ between the Moon and Earth) Earth-Moon Distance (most people think of space in this scale) LLO (Low Lunar Orbit) LEO (Low Earth Orbit) Note colors and shading


Slide5: Rescaling the image using Transportation Energy 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)


Slide6: LEO L-1 Gateway LLO ISS Note: This is a close-up of the previous chart Close-up of region between LEO and Moon in transportation energy scale Note what happens when you aerobrake! The Moon is closer to Low-Earth Orbit by a factor of 17.5:1 when aerobraking is utilized!


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


CSTS Market Descriptions: CSTS Market Descriptions


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


Human Planetary Exploration: 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


International Space Station: 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


Satellite Servicing (Government & Commercial): 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) Orbital Recovery Corporation's SLES spacecraft


Debris Management: 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


NASA Science: 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)


Integrated Modeling Flowsheet: 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


FY02 Parametric Engineering Model: FY02 Parametric Engineering Model Architecture Mass Comparison Arch 1 Arch 2 Total Mass [mt] 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


FY02 Cost Model Development: 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, $10k/kg LEO Scenarios 1.1c and 1.2: Cost Comparison 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Arch 1.1c Arch 1.2 Dev + 1st Unit Cost [$B] LEO OTV L1 OTV Lunar lander LEO depot L1 depot Lunar plant


FY02 Feasibility Modeling: 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 -6.0 -5.0 -4.0 -3.0 -2.0 -1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Version 0 Version 1 Version 2 Version 3 Version 4 =FEASIBLE= NPV [$B]


FY02 Commercial Model Results: FY02 Commercial Model Results Production and delivery rates for water at Lunar cold trap and L1 (Architecture 2, Version 4) CSP Financial Summary (Architecture 2, Version 4)


Cost Buildup & Production Rates: Cost Buildup & Production Rates


SRD Model Results: SRD Model Results Results provide an Upper Bound on Propellant Unit Costs


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


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 Each Apollo mission utilized Earth-derived propellants (Saturn V liftoff mass = 2,962 tons) 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) Propellant from the Moon will revolutionize our current space transportation approach


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 only on Moon: Shuttle-class Refueling at L1 and on Moon: Delta IV-H Refueling at LEO, L1 and on Moon: Atlas V-M +Reusable lander: Atlas II +Reusable upper stage & lander: Atlas Mercury Propellant from the Moon will revolutionize our current space transportation approach


Slide25: Atlas LV 3B 110 tons Atlas V 400 333 tons $90M(2002) Magnum 2,000 Tons $6B DDT&E $160M Recurring Is a Heavy-Lift Launch System a necessary condition for Human Planetary Exploration?? Not if you can refuel…


The Top Ten List: 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?


Necessary v. Sufficient Conditions: 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