November 2004 1

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
• ltbblair_at_mines.edugt
• Space Resources Roundtable VI
• November 3, 2004

2
Outline

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

3
Delta-V in the Earths 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
4
Earth-Moon Distance (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)
5
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)
6
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 17.51 when aerobraking is utilized!
ISS
Note This is a close-up of the previous chart
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
8
CSTS Market Descriptions
9
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

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

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

12
Satellite Servicing (Government Commercial)

• Rationale Lowers deployment/operations costs, as
  well as DDTE and production costs by reducing
  reliability requirements and the cost of failure
• Assumptions
• Norm Augustines 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
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

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)

15
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

16
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
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
18
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 (DDTE)
• 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
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)
20
Cost Buildup Production Rates
21
SRD Model Results

• Results provide an Upper Bound on Propellant Unit
  Costs

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
23
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 Moons
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)
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
25
Magnum 2,000 Tons 6B DDTE 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
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?
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