ISRU For All Government (NASA, DOD, DOE, NOAA, … Study: FY02 CSM/NExT ... Commercial Lunar Propellant Feasibility Study Project Description ... – Define scope and charter for Government-Industry

G. Sanders/JSC, [email protected] 1 of 13Mar. 25, 2005

ISRU For All Government (NASA, DOD, DOE, NOAA, Science)

& Commercial Applications

Jerry B. Sanders, NASA/JSC, [email protected] Blair, Colorado School of Mines, [email protected] Nall, Klaus Heiss, Woody Anderson, Peter Curreri, Eric Rice, Ed McCullough, Mike Duke


Fundamental Purpose For Commercializing ISRU

NASA Guiding National Objective 4 (from NASA Strategic Plan, 2005)– Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to

further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests

NASA Strategic Objective 17 (from NASA Strategic Plan, 2005)– Pursue commercial opportunities for providing transportation and other

services supporting International Space Station and exploration missionsbeyond Earth orbit

NASA Strategic Objective 18 (from NASA Strategic Plan, 2005)– Use U.S. commercial space capabilities and services to fulfill NASA

requirements to the maximum extent practical and continue to involve or increase the involvement of the U.S. private sector in design and development of space systems

Unless the cost for Earth launch, in-space transportation, and planetary surface infrastructure and operations steadily decreases over time, ‘sustained’ and simultaneous human Moon and Mars operations willnot be possible– Commercialization of government-developed technology and lunar

infrastructure offers a rational pathway to sustainable exploration


Benefits of Commercializing ISRU

Government-developed and operated ISRU can reduce cost and risk of human exploration compared to non-ISRU architectures, however further reductions in costs to government are possible if ISRU is ‘commercialized’

Money saved due to commercial ISRU and resulting infrastructure can support other aspects of the Space Exploration Program

– Lunar ISRU commercialization can become a hand-off strategy, enabling human Mars exploration

A partnership between industry and NASA can benefit both parties– NASA Benefits

• Reduced operation costs and ‘sustained’ human exploration• Access to extensive terrestrial hardware and experience• Industry could steer technology development toward near-term market applications• Non-aerospace industries could provide additional congressional support

– Industry Benefits• Anchor tenant and co-funding for technology and operations into emerging markets• Demos and ground/space laboratories to prove concepts and reduce risk for

business plans and financing• Government support for favorable regulation • Reduced development costs and increase the likelihood of spin-off products and

services


Lunar Commercialization Could Enable Budget for Mars

0.0

5000.0

10000.0

15000.0

20000.0

25000.0

30000.0

35000.0

40000.0

45000.0

50000.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040

Commercialization of Lunar Base• Lunar facility continues expansion• Infrastructure is operated by industry• ISRU further reduces Mars exploration cost

Human Mars

Exploration Begins

Aeronautics and Other Science Activities

Space Shuttle

Robotic Exploration Missions

Human/Robotic TechnologyCrew Exploration Vehicle

International Space Station

Human Lunar Exploration

Mars exploration budget is enabled by transfer of lunar assets to industry, NASA benefits from commercial infrastructure.

Transition to Human Mars Exploration• Transfer lunar facility to private consortium• Costs of lunar base assumed by industry• ISRU enabled commercial activities

Note: Timelines and budgets are notional and not intended to appear quantitative –further study is recommended.

Human Lunar Exploration• Begin construction of Lunar Base• ISRU enabled exploration• ISRU commercialization precursors

Infusion of Private Capital into Lunar Base• Commercial developers acquire NASA infrastructure• Lunar base no longer requires NASA funding• Mars exploration benefits include commercial propellants Lunar

Commercial Activity

Expands to Earth Orbital

Markets

Note: Green block signifies private capital investment in lunar infrastructure, not NASA funding

Red Line shows projected NASA budget limit (assuming 2% annual inflation)Gold Line shows how early commercial engagement could increase total funding profile


Approach to Commercializing ISRU

To ‘commercialize’ ISRU, markets besides NASA human exploration are required.

Note: Commercialization is NOT engaging a private company to design/build something where their main source of profit comes from the process and not the final product’s use.

Identify ISRU capabilities that could be of benefit to multiple customers (Science, National Security, Public Interest, Economic Security)

Identify impediments to commercialization (technology, policy/regulations, risk, etc.)

Initiate NASA/Government activities to promote ISRU commercialization– Infrastructure, research & development, coordination, etc.

The ‘Business Model’ will drive the Missions; Early Human exploration ISRU demonstrations could:

– Develop and demonstrate technologies & operations to reduce risk– Business models can accelerate/defer ISRU demo prioritization and timing

Define Exploration Requirements

Identify Needed Capability

Identify & Select Technologies

Perform System Demonstrations

Incorporate into Human Mission

Architecture

Attempt to Commercialize

System

Identify Market & Needed Capability

Define Initial Capital-Cost Constraints

Identify & Select Technologies*

Determine Commercial Feasibility

Initiate Commercial Activity w/ System

Demo

Attempt to Satisfy Market


Architecture

Traditional NASA Approach (Begin with Exploration goals)

Business Model Approach (Begin with Market goals)

*Selection of Technology is based on optimum cost not performance


Market Identification

Most Space Resources-related Exploration Applications have Commercial Potential– Propellants, consumables, power system elements, building materials,

fabricated parts and higher-order manufactured items

Possible Market Areas for commercialized space ISRU in next 10 to 15 years– Science (NASA): lunar-based astronomical observatories– National Security (DOD, DOE):

• Earth and space surveillance• Satellite refueling, space control, debris management• Eliminate dependence on foreign energy (power beaming, Helium-3, etc.)• Eliminate dependence on foreign strategic metals (NEOs)

– Public Interest (NOAA): weather monitoring, Earth monitoring – Economy:

• Space Commercial: communications & data, power, transportation,tourism/habitats

• Earth Applications: mining, petrochemical, power, construction, powder, manufacturing


Near & Far Term Space Commercial Applications

Remote Sensing– Earth viewing– Astronomical observatories

Self-Sustaining Colonies– Tourism– Resort construction & servicing

Power Generation– Power beaming from lunar surface– Helium-3

Cis-Lunar Transportation & PropellantAt Earth-Moon L1 for following:

– NASA Science & Human Exploration Missions

– Debris Management – Military Space Control (servicing; moving,

etc.)– Commercial Satellite Delivery from LEO,

Servicing, & Refueling – Delivery of resources/products for Space

Solar Power


Commercial Lunar Propellant Production Example

Begin with projected Human Exploration requirements– Initial market: Propellant for Direct-return from Moon to Earth– Evaluate other markets and growth in production rate and infrastructure to enable

propellant depot at Earth-Moon (EM) L1 for increased human exploration & other markets (i.e. LEO to GEO satellite transfer & DOD satellite refueling)

Perform commercial propellant feasibility assessment based on Initial & long-term markets

– Utilize NASA human lunar missions and ISRU-compatible transportation elements as ‘anchor’ for initial infrastructure on Moon

– Evaluate growth in infrastructure and production required for E-M L1 propellant depotSelect ISRU technologies & processes and propellant storage & transportation concepts based on projected demand and growth to obtain fastest return on investmentUtilize NASA ISRU demonstration missions to reduce risk for complete commercial venture and provide initial capability

Case Study: FY02 CSM/NExT Report on Commercial Feasibility Assessment of Lunar Propellant Production

Identify Market & Needed Capability

Define Initial Capital-Cost Constraints

Identify & Select Technologies*

Determine Commercial Feasibility

Initiate Commercial Activity w/ System

Demo

Attempt to Satisfy Market


Architecture


Commercial Lunar Propellant Feasibility Study

Project DescriptionFY02 Study Funding provided by the NASA Exploration Team (NExT)Scope: Examine the commercial feasibility of lunar-based transportation fuel production and deliveryParticipants: JPL / CSM / CSP Associates, Inc.Assumptions

– Water is produced on the Moon, along with the propellant needed to transport it to L-1 and LEO

– Only commercial infrastructure is assumed (this study pre-dates the NASA Exploration Vision and does not consider human exploration)

– Commercial infrastructure is deployed on lunar surface (ISRU plant), at L1 (fuel depot) and in LEO (fuel depot)

– Hardware replacement at 10%/yr– Launch Costs: $90M/ton Moon, $35M/ton GEO,

$10M/ton LEO

Annual Propellant Unit Costs (Arch 1c Version 5)

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Year

Prop

ella

nt U

nit C

ost

($M

/t)

Cost/ton - LEO ($M/t)Cost/ton - L1 ($M/t)Cost/ton - Moon ($M/t)

Model Feasibility ConditionsZero non-recurring costs (DDT&E)30% Production cost reduction2% Ice concentration2x Demand level (i.e., 300T/yr)25% Price IncreaseD

ev +

1st

Uni

t Cos

t [$B

] Architectures 1c and 2: Cost Comparison

0123456789

Arch 1c Arch 2

LEO OTVL1 OTVLunar landerLEO depotL1 depotLunar plant

Weblink to Report: http://www.mines.edu/research/srr/Reference%20Library/LDEM_Draft4-updated.pdf


Space Commercial Development Which Leverages Human Exploration Architecture

“Fort to City” ApproachPhase 1: Provide products/services to “Fort”: NASA Lunar surface human exploration

– Propellant production for lunar ascent: oxygen, fuel– Consumables for life support: oxygen, nitrogen, water– Power system growth: fuel cell consumables, solar energy (electric/thermal)– Site preparation & construction: berms, radiation shielding

Phase 2: Provide products/services to “Traders/Prospectors”: Other government & Earth-focused commercial activities

– Power generation: helium-3, power beaming to Earth, space solar power– Transportation:

• Propellant production and delivery to Earth-Moon L1 for cis-lunar transportation, satellite servicing, and space control

• Propellant & consumable production for surface transportation and hoppers– Surveillance: weather, ‘enemies’, surface & space astronomical and Earth

observatories

Phase 3: Provide products/services to “Farmers”: Surface industry and tourists

– Surface power generation growth– Infrastructure Growth: habitats/shelters, roads, life support consumables


Path to Commercialization

Initiate NASA-Government Tasks to Enable Space Commercialization– Demonstrations to validate concepts & build business case– Regulation reforms: tax incentives, property rights, liability, ITAR / export control

Utilize Multiple Methods for ‘Commercializing’ ISRU– Traditional development BAA/Contracts – NASA Innovative Partnership Program (IPP)– Contract for ‘services’– Government-Industry Consortiums (Comsat or Galileo)– Government-Industry “Infrastructure” Partnerships (railroad, air-mail, highways, etc.)– Prizes– Creation of Earth, LEO, and Lunar-based ISRU test & development laboratories

Establish a committee of representatives from NASA, industry, and academia– Define the roles that NASA and Industry will have as space exploration matures.– Promote enactment of regulations and policy that enable short and long-term lunar

commercialization goals– Initiate and establish policies, procedures and incentives to turn over Lunar

infrastructure assets to industry so NASA can focus on exploring beyond the Moon.– Prioritize technology development & demonstrations which best meet goals of both

reduced costs to NASA human exploration & space commercialization– Define scope and charter for Government-Industry Space Consortiums

Early engagement of NASA/commercial partnerships is required to maximize commercial benefits


ISRU Commercialization Challenges

Financing– Government funding for space is fairly flat– European Galileo project demonstrates industry-banks willing to invest when

government is anchor tenant– Iridium, Space-X, Virgin Galactic, & Bigelow efforts demonstrate investment funding

for commercial space activities are possible– Economic & market research can provide early feedback on commercial feasibility

Regulations & Policy– International Agreements (Outer Space Treaty, Moon Treaty)– US Laws (Tax incentives, property rights, liability, ITAR / export control, etc.)– NASA policies, procurement and Industry cooperation infrastructure

Technical– Level of maintenance & repair unknown– Uncertainty in resources– Uncertainty in performance and amount regolith excavation required– Sealing for regolith processing systems

NASA as ‘anchor tenant’ can be catalyst, coordinator, and ‘glue’ to make commercialization of ISRU and space possible


Implementing ISRU Commercialization

Activity Outcome Benefits to NASA Time Frame ProcessResponsible Organization Key Assumptions

Partnerships for multi-use technology development

Non-NASA investment in ISRU technology

Reduced cost to develop ISRU technology and immediate public benefit from exploration Currently in existence

NASA ISRU focused partnerships through the Research Partnership Centers

NASA Innovative Partnership Program

Continued need to leverage funding and maintain political support

Involvement of potential commercial developers in ISRU planning

Greater chance of successfully privatizing NASA’s Lunar infrastructure

Lunar ISRU assets available for NASA use while freeing up funding for going to Mars

ASAP Since this can influence Lunar exploration architecture planning

Establishment of an industry working group to advise on architecture planning

ESMD Requirements Division

Exploration beyond the Moon remains a priority for NASA

Prizes for ISRU development

ISRU system level demonstrations and potentially Lunar robotic ISRU demonstrations

Reduced cost of demonstrating ISRU technologies since NASA only pays for winners

ASAP for terrestrial demonstrations

Centennial Challenge announcement

ESMD ?? Division

Some ISRU is deemed beneficial to exploration

Establish a Federal Governenment Corporation (FGC) for ISRU

Organization that can sponsor research, coordinate ISRU efforts, and enter into agreements with industry and other government organizations with ore flexibility than NASA can

More efficient commercial ISRU development process that allows NASA to focus on exploration ASAP

ESMD works with Congress to establish a FDC for space resource development

ESMD and Congress

Industrial development of space is a priority

Anchor tenancy agreements for future purchase of In-Situ Resources

Non-NASA investment in ISRU production

Reduced cost to utilize In-Situ Resources and enhanced commercial space infrastructure

As soon as Lunar exploration architecture (ISRU requirements) is finalized

RFP for projected quantities of energy, gases, etc., needed for exploration

Space Operations Mission Directorate

Significant In-Situ Resources are needed to support exploration

Commercial ISRU Development MatrixPartnership matrix

Activity Outcome Benefits to NASA/USG Time Frame Process Key Assumptions

Partnerships for multi-use technology development

Leveraging off industrial development has demonstrated enormous savings to NASA

Reduced cost to develop ISRU technology and immediate public benefit from exploration Currently in existence

NASA ISRU focused partnerships through the Research Partnership Centers

Continued need to leverage funding and maintain political support

Involvement of potential industrial developers in ISRU planning

Greater chance of successfully privatizing NASA’s Lunar infrastructure

Lunar ISRU assets available for NASA use while freeing up funding for going to Mars

ASAP Since this can influence Lunar exploration architecture planning

Establishment of an industry working group to advise on architecture planning

Exploration beyond the Moon remains a priority for NASA

Prizes for ISRU development

ISRU system level demonstrations and potentially Lunar robotic ISRU demonstrations

Reduced cost of demonstrating ISRU technologies since NASA only pays for winners

ASAP for terrestrial demonstrations

Centennial Challenge announcement

Some ISRU is deemed beneficial to exploration

Establish a Comsat / Intelsat Type Federal Governenment Corporation (FGC)

Create organization that can sponsor research, coordinate ISRU efforts, and enter into long term, binding agreements with industry and other government organizations with more flexibility than NASA can

More efficient industrial ISRU development process that allows NASA to focus on exploration ASAP (2007)

White House / ESMD works with Congress to establish a FDC for space resource development

Political support for this approach exists or can be created

Anchor tenancy agreements for future purchase of In-Situ Resources

Non-NASA / Government investment in ISRU production

Reduced cost to utilize In-Situ Resources and enhanced commercial space infrastructure

As soon as Lunar exploration architecture (ISRU requirements) is finalized

RFP for projected quantities of energy, gases, etc., needed for exploration

Significant In-Situ Resources are needed to support exploration

Homesteading & Property Rights

Enables independent commercial, market driven activities related to space exploration and development

Allows NASA exit strategy from Operations, enables Exploration focus

2007 - Jamestown Anniversary

Implement and expand the NASA 1958 Act

Progressive emergence of future market opportunities

Commercial Partnership Matrix


Backup Charts - Information


Notional Commercial ISRU Mission TimelineISRU demonstrations & capabilities augmenting Notional ISRU Architecture: Pace of ISRU activities shown accelerated compared to Notional ISRU Architecture

It’s the Business Model that drives the Missions


ISRU Near-term & Far Term Earth Applications

ISRU technologies with potential near-term Earth applications include:– Mining

• Miniaturized, low-power geologic sensors • Wear-tolerant surfaces and bearings (increase component life)• Electrostatic dust containment / removal • Dry drilling systems • Robotics: automation & teleoperation

– Manufacturing & Construction• Basalt processing into fibers, rebar, and other construction materials• Rapid prototyping

– General Industry• Powder & grain handling and transport• Robotics: automation & teleoperation• Micro-channel chemical and thermal processing systems

Far-term Earth applications include:– Helium-3 fusion power– Advanced materials & space-obtained strategic metal usage (fuel cells, aerospace

products, etc.)


Space-SEED Approach: Participation/Funding Potential

0.0

5000.0

10000.0

15000.0

20000.0

25000.0

30000.0

35000.0

40000.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030

Industrialization of Cis-Lunar Space• Energy, Observatories, Robotics, Transportation• Moon, Cis- and Trans-Lunar Industries

Human Mars Exploration

Begins

Aeronautics and Other Science Activities

Space Shuttle

Robotic Exploration Missions

Human/Robotic TechnologyCrew Exploration Vehicle

International Space Station

Human Lunar Exploration

Note: Mars exploration budget is enabled by transfer of lunar assets to industry, NASA benefits from commercial infrastructure.

Transition to Human Mars Exploration• Transfer lunar facility to private consortium• Costs of lunar base assumed by industry• ISRU enabled commercial activities

Note: Timelines and budgets are notional and not intended to appear quantitative –further study is recommended.

Human Lunar Exploration• Begin construction of Lunar Base• ISRU enabled exploration• ISRU commercialization precursors

ADDED INFLOW of Funds to Space Initiative

(Binding JEAs, PPMs, IPOs, Ventures)


ISRU Commercialization(Blair)

3-16-05


Lunar Customers and Markets

Spiral 3-4 Lunar Commercial Activities (notional) Current NotionalB. Blair - CSM/CCACS - 3/11/05 Moon L1 GEO LEO Earth Moon L1 GEO LEO Earth TRL IOCIndustrial Production

Propellants E,S E,S E,S E,S,C E,C C E,S,C 4 2015Life Support Consumables (air & water) E E,C E,C 4 2015Basic Construction Materials E S E,S,C E,S,C C 2 2020Power grid components (solar & nuclear) E E,S,C E,S,C C S,C 3 2020

Mining and ExplorationHelium-3 S,C S,C 3 2025Platinum Group Metals S S,C S,C 2 2020Rare Earth Elements (KREEP) S S,C S,C S,C S,C 1 2025

Agricultural ProductionAir & Water Revitalization (ECLSS support) E E,C E,C 5 2020Vegetable Production (full dietary component) E E,C E,C 4 2020Animal Production (protein sources) E,C 2 2025

Industrial Research & DevelopmentThermally Stable Cryogenic Facility S S,C C 2 2020High Vacuum Facility C S,C C 2 2020Biotech Research (quarantined facility) C C 5 2025

Tourism & SettlementLLO Tourist Flybys C C 4 2020Lunar Hilton C C 2 2025

Internment of Hazardous MaterialsRadioactive Waste Permanent Storage S,C C 1 2030

Asteroid Impact 'Insurance Facility'Seed Bank & Genetic Archive S,C C 1 2030Antiquities & Data Archive C C 2 2035

E = Exploration Support (NASA Core Mission)C = Commercial Market Potential S = Strategic Utilization

Spiral 3 Markets Spiral 4+ Markets


Capability To Commercialization

ExplorationRequirements

Projected Need

Capabilities

SystemsDemos

TechnologyChoices

Capabilities TechnologyChoices

ProjectedMarket

Demand

CommercialFeasibility

Model

CostConstraints

•Reverse path prunes decision tree

•Forward path begins with exploration relevance

•Comments•A multiplicity of ISRU technology choices exist•Not all technologies are cost optimum (i.e., the minimum cost for NASA to meet exploration requirements with no frills)•Higher cost technologies with commercial investment could dramatically reduce total life cycle cost for capabilities that link to projected markets

EnablesCommercial

Potential


Lunar Propellant Example

Begin with projected Human Exploration requirementsDirect-return is enabled through ISRU propellants – Assume lunar ISRU volatile plant selected as technology precursors and

operations demonstrators, providing propellant and consumables supplyExamine commercial implications of lunar ISRU propellants– For example, CSM FY02 & FY03 Economic Studies

Extract Technology & Capability Crossover Points

Moon / MarsExploration

ISRURefuelingCapability

CommercialTechnologyCandidates

ProjectedMarket

Demand

PropellantFeasibility

Model (incl. cost)


Propellant Example, Expanded

ExplorationRefueling

Requirement

MarsSurface

Refueling

Methane CryogenicStorage & Transfer

Commercial & Gov Orbital

TransferDemand


Model (incl. cost)

OrbitalRefueling

LunarSurface

Refueling

LunarISRU

MarsISRU

Commercial Tourism

RefuelingDemand

StrategicRefueling

MarketDemand

Mars Surface Water Plant

Orbital CryoFuel Depot

Lunar Polar Ice Plant

Cryogenic LOX/LH2Storage & Transfer


Implications for Human Exploration

Assume future commercial propellant demand per CSM FY02 & FY03 models (satellite orbital transfer + other strategic uses)Assume 50/50 mix of government-commercial investment in lunar and orbital infrastructureFacilities include– Lunar ISRU plant– L1 fuel depot

Benefits to NASA– Lower propellant costs– Capability leverage

Implications– Strengthens case forexploration lunar ISRU– Orbital refuelingcapability is a bonus– Added capabilities change forward planning


Model (incl. cost)

OrbitalRefueling

LunarSurface

Refueling

LunarISRU

Orbital CryoFuel Depot

Lunar Polar Ice Plant

Cryogenic LOX/LH2Storage & Transfer


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

G. Sanders/JSC, [email protected] 25 of 13Mar. 25, 2005Earth

Rescaling the image using Transportation Energyshows the Moon is closer to LEO than Earth

LEO

GEO

L-1

LLO


LEO

GEO

L-1

LLO

Close-up of LEO-Moon orbits shows energetic proximity of lunar surface to L1, GEO and LEO assuming aerobraking

Close-up of Earth-Moon system shown inTransportation Energy Scale (MJ/kg)

LEO-aerobraking


NExT Space Resource Development (SRD) Economic Modeling Project

SRD Project Description– FY02 Funding by the NASA Exploration Team (NExT)– Scope: Examine the commercial feasibility of lunar-based

transportation fuel production and delivery business– Participants: JPL / CSM / CSP Associates, Inc.– Water is produced on the Moon, along with the propellant needed to

transport it to L-1 and LEO– Only commercial infrastructure is assumed (this study pre-dates the NASA

Exploration Vision)

Disclaimer: Our analysis has not yet demonstrated that it is economically attractive to mine lunar ice and produce propellant for the particular market analyzed. A profitable enterprise will depend on a number of factors such as the scale of the market, technology development, and the way in which the venture is financed.

For More Information, see: http://www.mines.edu/research/srr/Reference%20Library/LDEM_Draft4-updated.pdf


Architectures Studied

Two architectural variants were modeled:Architecture 1

Has an L1-based transportation system for getting payloads from LEO to GEO

Architecture 2Is a LEO-based system, which requires that propellant be

shipped to LEO

GEO

L-1

LEO

LLO

GEO

L-1

LEO

LLO

OTV returns

to LEO

Lunar Plant

OTV rendezvous with

Satellite in LEO

Architecture 2

L1 Fuel Elec

trolys

is

Plant & Depot

Lunar Cargo/Ascent Vehicle

Satellite delivered to GEO

ELV Delivers

Satellite to LEO

GEO

L-1

LEO

LLO

GEO

L-1

LEO

LLOL1-LEO OTV

return to L1

L1-LEO Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV) delivers water to LEO

LEO Fuel Elec

trolys

is

Plant & Depot

L1 Fuel Elec

trolys

is

Plant & Depot

Lunar Cargo/Ascent Vehicle

Lunar Plant

Satellite delivered to GEO

OTV retu

rns

to LEO

OTV rendezvous w/

Satellite in LEO

OTV refuels at LEO station

ELV Delivers

Satellite to LEO

Architecture 1

Conservative Technology assumptions:Cryogenic Vehicles (H2/O2 fuel)

Lunar LanderOrbital Transfer (OTV)

Fuel Depot(s)Solar PowerElectrolysis (fuel cell)Tanks for H2, O2 and H2O


Parametric Engineering Model

Architecture Mass Comparison

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Arch 1 Arch 2

Tota

l Mas

s [m

t]

LEO OTV

L1 OTV

Lunar lander

LEO depot

L1 depot

Lunar plant

Technology assumptionsCryogenic Vehicles (H2/O2 fuel)

Lunar LanderOrbital Transfer (OTV)

Fuel Depot(s)Solar PowerElectrolysis (fuel cell)Tanks for H2, O2 and H2O

ARCH 1 ARCH 2Lunar Surface Plant Mass (kg) Mass (kg)Excavators 210 272Haulers 273 354Extractors 2099 2724Electrolyzers 564 732Hydrogen liquefiers 19 24Hydrogen liquefier radiators 326 423Oxygen liquefiers 70 91Oxygen liquefier radiators 100 130Water tanks 554 554Hydrogen tanks 497 497Oxygen tanks 2119 2119Aerobrake production system 0 0Pow er system (nuclear) 2624 3405Ancillary equipment (25% of total) 2364 2832Total 11820 14158Annual refurbishment 660 847L-1 Fuel Depot Mass (kg) Mass (kg)Electrolyzers 195 690Hydrogen liquefiers 18 63Hydrogen liquefier radiators 308 1092Oxygen liquefiers 66 235Oxygen liquefier radiators 66 235Water tanks 316 368Hydrogen tanks 193 613Oxygen tanks 823 2616Pow er system (solar) 72 255Ancillary equipment 206 617Total 2264 6783Annual refurbishment 86 293LEO Fuel Depot Mass (kg) Mass (kg)Electrolyzers 673 0Hydrogen liquefiers 22 0Hydrogen liquefier radiators 389 0Oxygen liquefiers 84 0Oxygen liquefier radiators 84 0Water tanks 180 0Hydrogen tanks 299 0Oxygen tanks 1277 0Pow er system (solar) 91 0Ancillary equipment 310 0Total 3409 0Annual refurbishment 170 0

Vehicle mass (kg)Moon - L1 (Lander / fuel carrier) 7869 Propulsion system 2180 Telecomm 10 w ater storage (0.01%) 256 C&DH 3 Structures 3482 Pow er 15 Landing System 1801L1-LEO-L1 Vehicle (fuel carrier) 1424 Propulsion system 636 Telecomm 10 w ater storage (0.01%) 200 C&DH 3 Structures 560 Pow er 15L1-LEO Aerobrake 3214LEO-GEO-LEO Vehicle (payload transport) 3422 Propulsion system 1362 Telecomm 10 C&DH 3 Structures 2032 Pow er 15LEO-GEO-LEO Aerobrake 513L1-LEO-L1 Vehicle (fuel carrier) 5431 Propulsion system 2088 Telecomm 10 C&DH 3 Structures 3315 Pow er 15LEO-L1-LEO Aerobrake 3504


Cost Model Development

NAFCOM99: Analogy-based cost model– Architecture 2 WBS shown on right panel– Conservative methodology used (to model worst-case results)

SOCM: Operations cost model– Estimates system-level operating costs– Conservative methodology used– Hardware replacement at 10%/yr

Launch Costs: $90k/kg Moon, $35k/kg GEO, $10k/kg LEO

Architectures 1c and 2: Cost Comparison

0123456789

Arch 1c Arch 2

Dev

+ 1

st U

nit C

ost [

$B]

LEO OTVL1 OTVLunar landerLEO depotL1 depotLunar plant

SRD Architecture 2 Cost Model ($M FY02 NAFCOM Estimate) Mass (kg) D&D STH FU Prod Total CostGRAND TOTAL 37470.2 5393.2 1018.1 1264.5 1264.5 7675.8 SYSTEM 1: Lunar Surface Mining & Procesing Equipment 13980.7 3972.1 750.5 927.1 927.1 5649.7 HARDWARE TOTAL 13980.7 1861.6 750.5 577.3 577.3 3189.5 Regolith Excavator 274.0 19.5 17.7 13.6 13.6 50.8 Structure 68.5 8.2 5.7 4.4 4.4 18.3 Mobility 68.5 3.9 6.4 4.9 4.9 15.3 Excavation 68.5 0.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 3.3 Soil Handling 65.5 6.1 3.7 2.8 2.8 12.6 CC&DH 3.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.3 Regolith Hauler 356.0 27.7 25.5 19.6 19.6 72.8 Structure 117.7 10.0 6.7 5.2 5.2 22.0 Mobility 117.7 5.3 9.3 7.2 7.2 21.8 Soil Handling 117.6 11.0 8.3 6.4 6.4 25.8 CC&DH 3.0 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 3.3 Thermal Extraction 2736.9 602.3 24.1 18.5 18.5 644.8 Water Electrolysis 736.0 90.6 38.2 29.4 29.4 158.2 Hydrogen Liquefier 25.0 2.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.9 Hydrogen Liquefier Radiators 425.0 26.9 1.6 1.3 1.3 29.8 Oxygen Liquefier 92.0 5.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 8.4 Oxygen Liquefier Radiators 131.0 14.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 16.1 Water Tanks 520.0 7.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 8.7 Hydrogen Tanks 469.0 6.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 8.2 Oxygen Tanks 1999.0 14.6 2.2 1.7 1.7 18.6 Pow er System (Nuclear) 3420.9 565.1 442.7 340.5 340.5 1348.3 Maintenanace Facility 1000.0 374.1 152.6 117.4 117.4 644.0 Mobility 200.0 78.9 10.4 8.0 8.0 97.3 Sensors 200.0 140.2 51.7 39.8 39.8 231.6 Manipulators 200.0 7.1 13.5 10.4 10.4 31.1 CC&DH 200.0 108.6 61.3 47.1 47.1 217.0 Spare Parts 200.0 39.4 15.6 12.0 12.0 67.0 Ancillary Equipment 1796.0 103.9 41.3 31.7 31.7 176.9 SYSTEM INTEGRATION 2110.5 349.7 349.7 2809.9 SYSTEM 2: L1 Depot 6806.8 569.1 74.2 93.8 93.8 737.1 HARDWARE TOTAL 6806.8 280.3 74.2 57.1 57.1 411.6 Water Electrolysis 692.0 154.4 48.7 37.4 37.4 240.5 Hydrogen Liquefier 63.0 4.6 1.2 0.9 0.9 6.7 Hydrogen Liquefier Radiators 1096.0 43.2 3.5 2.7 2.7 49.4 Oxygen Liquefier 236.0 8.9 3.4 2.6 2.6 14.9 Oxygen Liquefier Radiators 236.0 20.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 21.9 Water Tanks 369.0 5.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 7.2 Hydrogen Tanks 615.0 7.6 1.1 0.8 0.8 9.6 Oxygen Tanks 2624.9 17.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 21.6 Pow er System (solar) 256.0 2.7 5.3 4.1 4.1 12.2 Ancillary Equipment 619.0 15.9 6.6 5.1 5.1 27.6 SYSTEM INTEGRATION 288.8 36.7 36.7 362.3 SYSTEM 3: Lunar Lander 7747.8 446.8 83.5 105.4 105.4 635.7 HARDWARE TOTAL 7747.8 208.1 83.5 64.2 64.2 355.9 Propulsion System 2180.0 56.4 24.9 19.2 19.2 100.5 Water Tanks 239.0 4.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 5.7 CC&DH 13.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.1 4.2 Structure 3481.9 68.8 42.4 32.6 32.6 143.8 Pow er 15.0 7.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 7.5 Landing System 1819.0 69.6 14.0 10.8 10.8 94.4 SYSTEM INTEGRATION 238.6 41.2 41.2 321.0 SYSTEM 4: OTV (LEO-GEO-L1) 8934.8 405.2 109.8 138.2 138.2 653.2 HARDWARE TOTAL 8934.8 173.2 109.8 84.5 84.5 367.5 Propulsion System 2088.0 55.1 24.3 18.7 18.7 98.0 CC&DH 13.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.1 4.2 Structure 3314.9 67.0 40.9 31.5 31.5 139.4 Pow er 15.0 7.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 7.5 Aerobrake 3503.9 42.4 43.0 33.1 33.1 118.4 SYSTEM INTEGRATION 232.0 53.7 53.7 339.5

SRD Architecture 2 Cost Model ($M FY02 NAFCOM Estimate) Mass (kg) D&D STH FU Prod Total CostGRAND TOTAL 37470.2 5393.2 1018.1 1264.5 1264.5 7675.8 SYSTEM 1: Lunar Surface Mining & Procesing Equipment 13980.7 3972.1 750.5 927.1 927.1 5649.7 SYSTEM 2: L1 Depot 6806.8 569.1 74.2 93.8 93.8 737.1 SYSTEM 3: Lunar Lander 7747.8 446.8 83.5 105.4 105.4 635.7 SYSTEM 4: OTV (LEO-GEO-L1) 8934.8 405.2 109.8 138.2 138.2 653.2


Cost Buildup & Production Rates

Annual Cost Buildup (Arch 1c Version 5)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Year

Cost

($M

)

TaxesPrincipal Paym entsInteres t Paym entsCAPEX

Annual Propellant Production Rates (Arch 1c Version 5)

0500

10001500

200025003000

35004000

45005000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Year

Annu

al P

rodu

ctio

n (t)

Tons Produced - Moon

Tons Delivered - L1

Tons Delivered - LEO


Financial Modeling: A Feasible Solution

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 5 Assumes:

Zero non-recurring costs (DDT&E)30% Production cost reduction2% Ice concentration2x Demand level (i.e., 300T/yr)25% Price Increase

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

]

Arch 1Arch 2

Same as above, and Double the DemandNo Dev. Cost, 30% Production Cost Reduction, 2x More Water on Moon, 2x Demand

1.1c.41.2.4

Assumes all the above, and a Concentration of Water in Lunar Regolith twice higher than the current best estimate.

No Non-Rec. Investments, 30% Production Cost, 2x Lunar Water Concentration Reduction

1.1c.31.2.3

Assumes the above, and Reduces the First unit production cost of all elements by 30%

No Non-Rec. Investments, 30% Production Cost Reduction

1.1c.21.2.2

Assumes the public sector pays for the Non-Recurring Investments (design, development and first unit cost)

No Non-Rec. Investments1.1c.11.2.1

Baseline Version -all assumptions the same as previously except for demand and architecture changes

Baseline1.1c.01.2.0

DescriptionSummaryVersion


SRD Model Results

Production and delivery rates for water at Lunar cold trap and L1 (Architecture 1c, Version 5)

CSP Financial Summary (Architecture 1c, Version 5)INCOME STATEMENT 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CumulativeRevenues 0$ 0$ 0$ 750$ 1,500$ 2,250$ 3,000$ 4,500$ 6,000$ 7,500$ 25,501$ Gross Profit 0$ 0$ 0$ 689$ 1,378$ 2,067$ 2,755$ 4,133$ 5,511$ 6,888$ 23,421$ EBITDA (4)$ (9)$ (10)$ 677$ 1,365$ 2,054$ 2,742$ 4,119$ 5,496$ 6,873$ 23,305$ EBIT (4)$ (9)$ (10)$ 520$ 908$ 1,357$ 1,853$ 2,864$ 3,440$ 4,817$ 15,736$ Net Income (4)$ (9)$ (10)$ 274$ 411$ 621$ 895$ 1,502$ 1,867$ 2,728$ 8,275$ CASH FLOW 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 CumulativeNet Cash From Operations (4)$ (9)$ (10)$ 431$ 868$ 1,317$ 1,783$ 2,758$ 3,924$ 4,784$ 15,844$ Net Changes in Working Capital 0$ 0$ 0$ (57)$ (57)$ (57)$ (57)$ (115)$ (115)$ (115)$ (573)$ CAPEX/NRE 0$ 0$ 1,587$ 2,998$ 2,993$ 2,394$ 1,923$ 3,670$ 4,127$ 3,880$ 23,571$ Taxes -$ -$ -$ 167$ 274$ 414$ 596$ 1,002$ 1,245$ 1,819$ 5,517$ Annual Cash (Shortfall) Surplus (4)$ (8)$ (1,596)$ (2,624)$ (2,182)$ (1,134)$ (197)$ (2,338)$ (1,409)$ 222$ (11,270)$ Equity Financing 104$ 8$ 1,596$ 1,312$ 1,091$ 567$ 98$ 1,169$ 705$ -$ 6,650$ Debt Financing -$ -$ -$ 1,312$ 1,091$ 567$ 98$ 1,169$ 705$ -$ 4,942$ Principal and Interest Payments -$ -$ -$ 79$ 223$ 322$ 362$ 1,671$ 1,419$ 838$ 4,914$ BALANCE SHEET 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Total Assets 100$ 100$ 1,686$ 4,589$ 7,187$ 8,947$ 10,043$ 12,582$ 14,778$ 16,950$ Short and Long Term Liabilities 0$ 1$ 1$ 1,318$ 2,414$ 2,986$ 3,089$ 2,957$ 2,581$ 2,024$ Shareholder Equity 104$ 112$ 1,708$ 3,020$ 4,111$ 4,678$ 4,776$ 5,945$ 6,650$ 6,650$ Retained Earnings (4)$ (13)$ (23)$ 251$ 662$ 1,283$ 2,178$ 3,680$ 5,547$ 8,275$

Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Tons Produced - Moon 0 470 941 1411 1881 2822 3762 4703Tons Delivered - L1 0 216 432 648 864 1296 1729 2161Tons Delivered - LEO 0 134 267 401 535 802 1069 1337CAPEX 1,587$ 2,998$ 2,993$ 2,394$ 1,923$ 3,670$ 4,127$ 3,880$ CAPEX+Int 1,587$ 3,077$ 3,216$ 2,716$ 2,285$ 4,029$ 4,455$ 4,151$ CAPEX+Int+prin 1,587$ 3,077$ 3,216$ 2,716$ 2,285$ 5,341$ 5,546$ 4,718$ CAPEX+Int+prin+Tax 1,587$ 3,244$ 3,490$ 3,130$ 2,881$ 6,343$ 6,791$ 6,536$ Cost/ton - Moon ($M/t) 6.90$ 3.71$ 2.22$ 1.53$ 2.25$ 1.81$ 1.39$ Cost/ton - L1 ($M/t) 15.01$ 8.08$ 4.83$ 3.33$ 4.89$ 3.93$ 3.03$ Cost/ton - LEO ($M/t) 24.27$ 13.05$ 7.80$ 5.39$ 7.91$ 6.35$ 4.89$


SRD Model Results

Results provide an Upper Bound on Propellant Unit Costs

Annual Propellant Unit Costs (Arch 1c Version 5)

$-

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Year

Prop

ella

nt U

nit C

ost

($M

/t)

Cost/ton - LEO ($M/t)

Cost/ton - L1 ($M/t)

Cost/ton - Moon ($M/t)

Propellant Unit Costs in Cislunar Space (Arch 1c Version 5)

$0

$10

$20

$30

$40

$50

$60

$70

$80

$90

LEO GEO L1 LLO MoonDestination

Prop

ella

nt U

nit C

ost

($M

/t)

Earth Cos t/t

A1cV5Y0 Cost/t

A1cV5Y7 Cost/t


Commercial Manufacturing(Curreri)


Lunar ISRU Manufacturing: Products & Customers

Customers– NASA lunar, NASA mars, DoD, Commercial (tourism, industrial, etc)

Capabilities– Advanced materials, welding, fastening, manufacturing, assembly

Processes– Casting, extrusion, sintering, machining, printing, volatile extraction

Technology– Formative – extruded (glass, metal) sheets, SHS, etc.– Additive – lithographic build-up of parts– Subtractive - precision cuts in sheet metal (IOI)

Dependency– power, consumables, reagents, etc.

Criticality depends on customer baseValue added basis is suggested to estimate value of manufacturing – has a very good upside potential


Manufacturing with In Situ Resources Rapid Space Industrialization Model

Spiral 1-2Lunar Demo

Fab. and Repair

Manuf. withResource fromNEA, Phobos,

Mars, AsteroidalMaterials

Spiral 1-2Lunar Demo

PV Power Prod.

Humanity moves toSolar System

Economy

Power Beaming in Mars

Jupiter Space

Spiral 1-2Lunar DemoExtraction

metals and Si

Spiral 3Lunar Base Expansion

CommercialLunar Manuf.Facility Seed

Manuf. In Earth/Moon

Space

Spiral 3Lunar Power

Growth

CommercialLunar Power

Growth and Beaming

Space SolarPower

Satellites


Manufacturing with In Situ Resources Rapid Space Industrialization Model Explanation

1. Lander Experiments in Exploration Vision Spirals 1 & 2 demonstrate metal & Si Extraction, Fabrication, and Power Production with Lunar Resources

2. Manufacturing with In Situ Resources in Spiral 3 Expands Lunar Base Infrastructure and Power

3. Commercial development of Lunar Manufacturing and Power utilizes fast exponential growth models.

4. Manufacturing and Power Production with In Situ Resources expands into Earth Moon Space Enabling the Space Solar Power Satellite Industry.

5. Manufacturing and Power Production with In Situ Resources is expanded to Mars and Beyond enabling cheep energy rich human exploration and commerce.


Implications for Human Exploration of In Situ Commercial Manufacturing and Power Production

Assume Spiral 1&2 Exploration Initiative Lunar Lander Demonstrations of Extraction of Metals & Silicon, lunar glass and ceramic productionAssume 50/50 mix of government-commercial investment in lunar and orbital infrastructure in Spiral 3 to grow lunar base facilities and power and to establish the basis for rapid space industrialization.Facilities include

– Lunar Extraction, Photovoltaic Power Production, Fabrication and Repair, Demonstration Lander(s) (NASA)

– Lunar Base Photovoltaic Power Expansion and Fabrication and Repair with In Situ Resources (NASA/Industry)

– Industry Led Power Production and Manufacturing Facilities on the Moon and BeyondBenefits to NASA

– Model Allows for decreasing costs for Space Energy and Facilities with time thus lowering Exploration Program Costs. All other In Situ products such as propellant are developed and provided at decreasing costs

– Rapid Space Industrialization enables NASA to accelerate the fulfillment of its charter at minimum taxpayer cost

Implications– The Moon and Beyond become energy and infrastructure rich as human exploration progresses– Human presence on the Moon and beyond become safe, self sustaining and self sufficient– Rapid expansion of space infrastructure and energy to the Moon and Beyond expand the human

economy from the “zero sum” one planet to a solar system economy– The increased human wealth from the solar system economy enables human travel beyond the

solar system


COMMERCIAL PARTNERSHIPS(IPP Input - Nall, Anderson)

Note: Commercialization must be Agency wide, not ISRU unique!


Definitions

Definition of Commercialization:– Commercialization is a research/development activity by industry that may or

may not involve government and/or academia such that industrial entities invest their own resources intending to reap a profit from the sale or use of the product at a later time. Commercialization is NOT engaging a private company to design/build something where their main source of profit comes from the process and not the final product’s use.

Definition of Partnership:– A partnership is an activity where government and industry each make a

substantial investment of resources, and each anticipate leveraging off each other to get a higher return for the invested resources than acting independently. This “dual use” of joint research and development forms the starting point for future commercialization.

Definition of Internally Solicited Industry– This is industry that we have contracted with to deliver a specified product at a

pre-set price. The function is competed, and periodically re-competed. The government need not be the only customer. This industry must adhere to Agency, National, and International regulations.

Definition of Independent Industry– This is an industrial function that operates on the Moon or Mars outside of a

NASA established facility. This Industry must adhere to International regulations.


ISRU Commercialization

Challenges to space exploration and development including ISRU (in priority order)– Financing– Regulations & Policy

• International Agreements• U. S. Laws• NASA Internal policies, especially IP policy

– Technology– Infrastructure Management & Planning

The greatest sources of money include– Industry– Government

Benefits of Commercialization– Revenue potential (industry motive)– Infrastructure leverage & cost savings (government motive)

Money saved due to ISRU and resulting commercial infrastructure can support other aspects of the Space Exploration Program– Lunar commercialization can become exit strategy to enable Mars


The ISRU Market Outlook

In order for Commercial ISRU to become a reality, a market beyond a NASA anchor tenancy must be matured and expanded

In the next 10 to 15 years, the following non-NASA markets for space resources are expected develop:

– In space• Satellite servicing, power & positioning• Orbital resort servicing (tourism-related)• Cis-Lunar transportation systems• Strategic Applications (DoD)• Debris Management & Recycling

– On Earth• Information & Data (r/e Klaus Heiss)• Energy• Strategic Metals



Where we are today:– Over the last few decades NASA has encouraged academia and industry

participation through many varied programs. These programs have now been brought together under one umbrella and are being integrated into a unified program. ESMD Innovative Partnership Program (IPP) nowincludes:

• University Led Partnerships (>50% outside contribution)• Industry Led Partnerships (formulation stage)• Technology Transfer• SBIR – Small Business Innovative Research • Small Technology Transfer Research

– Currently University Led Partnerships has demonstrated leveraging of better than 1 to 1

• Industry often invests because of the “dual use” aspect of technology development, enabling NASA to join with industry, academia, and other government to share the cost of developing projects that will benefit all parties.

• Universities have flexibilities that NASA doesn’t have, often resulting in lower costs to develop technology

• We must continue to “protect” the universities from inhibiting regulations and imposed NASA bureaucracy



Immediate Future: Survey the path and set the stakes.:– Innovative Partnership Program (IPP) office and the rest of NASA should expand

their partnerships with industry, academia, and other government agencies including both BAAs and Directed Funding. This has been recommended by numerous independent panels.

• Reduce cost of exploration through non-NASA investment• Produce Earth application dual-use products that benefit the public• Involve a broad community beyond aerospace in space exploration

– Be sure that people understand the meaning of: • Commercialization, • Partnerships, • Internally Solicited Industry, • Independent Industry.

– Establish a committee of NASA, industry, and academia to project the roles that NASA and Industry will have as space exploration matures. Possible role models are:

• Early exploration and trade by sailing ships,• U. S. Railroad industry,• Aviation today in the U.S.A.



Spiral 1: Laying the Foundation– Types of commercialization

• Partnerships– Present to NASA employees and the American people the future roles

that NASA has, and that private enterprise has, and how there is a place for both. This is an education campaign.

– Regulations and policy that enable short and long-term lunar commercialization must be developed (Agency, National, and International)

– Initiate the establishment of policies, procedures and incentives that allow NASA to turn over Lunar infrastructure assets to industry so NASA can focus on exploring beyond the Moon.

– Continue encouraging partnerships with academia, industry and other government in BAAs, directed spending, and seed money..

– Make good on our promises including flight opportunities



Spiral 2:– Types of commercialization

• Partnerships• Internally Solicited Industry

– NASA contract requirements must be limited to the final product specifications, and to process requirements that appropriately protect the environment, safety and international law. Require-ments on how to do the task should be very limited if any at all.

– A clever company should have significant profit potential.– Appropriate provisions need be made for re-competing the service contract.

Our biggest challenge here is high start up costs inhibit competition in the re-competition.

– Evaluate and update policies and regulations (Agency, National and International)

– NASA has a tendency to impose tough performance requirements to assure things work – expensive and not good.

– Develop policy and regulations for totally commercial ventures to Moon/Mars, independent transportation and independent of the site.



Spiral 3:– Types of commercialization

• Partnerships• Internally Solicited Industry• Independent Industry

– Assess what worked during Spiral 2 and make appropriate adjustments.• Special Legislative Panel of government and industry should be

assembled to propose mid-course adjustment to policy and regulations (Agency, National and International)

• Special Technical Panel of government and industry should be assembled to review procedures and policies and recommend changes to the Legislative Panel. Also the panel should re-assess technical needs and approaches to achieve the overall needs.

– Implement accommodations for totally commercial ventures to the Moon, Mars, and beyond.


Business Structure(Heiss)


A US Space Exploration & Enterprise Development Corporation

Industry – Government – International Partnerships


Historical Precedents

ComSat and IntelSat of 1960’s: – the most innovative and successful Space “Applications” Development

Company (US and International)– One Offspring – SBC just “swallowed” AT&T

Arianne-Space in Space TransportationAirbus Consortium in Aircraft ProductionTennessee Valley Authority (Nuclear, Electricity)Various Regional Port AuthoritiesFannie-Mae, Freddie-Mac in Mortgage FinancingThe “Virginia Company” of 1606 for North AmericaThe “East India Company” for Asia


Overall Goal: A Robust ProgramTo Bring About Early and Significant Industry Participation in The President’s Space Initiative

Start-Up: Deployment of Test Bed Facilities on the Moon for– Human Health / Space Medicine (“Safe Passage” Issues)– Closed Ecological Life Support Systems (CELSS)– In-Situ Resources Utilization (ISRU) for Extended Lunar, Cis- and Trans-

Lunar Space Missions and Applications– A Condominium of Observatories– Lunar Solar Energy RDT&E

Location(s)– AT CENTER (Near 0o,0o), NORTH OR/AND SOUTH POLES

TIME Lines: 2020 – 2015 – 2020: Start-Up Phase Preparatory Manned Missions

• 7days, 30 days, up to 360 days– 2020: IOC Twelve or more Astronauts

• One to two year rotations– 2025+: Expanded Presence, Assessment of Human Mars Missions

• Several locations, two year rotations


SOME ROLES OF “Space-SEED” Group

develops/provides “additive cost” access rights to any and all NASA/USG Space infrastructure components

indemnifies for 2005 through 2030 period. The users will pay an insurance premium to Space-SEED Group for such and related insurance issues;

enter into legally binding long term co-operation/procurement contracts(services, hardware, RDT&E)

– See next chart for technology/joint venture/PPM areas

PRIVATE SECTOR PARTNERS retain full rights to intellectual/other property rights


Joint Technology/Venture/PPM Areas: Example: Human Health Issues Reference: “Safe Passage” 2001 Report on Long Term Space Flight

Human Body & Mental Issues:– Ideal 1/6 g Testbed– HZe and other radiation issues– Mental, Cultural and Societal factors– (Combined) Immune Systems Effects

Assessment/Test of CountermeasuresTwo year baseline “on station” rotation schedule for Long Duration Missions RDT&ETELE-MEDICINETELE-OPERATIONS

Unique Test Bed for vast Range of Medical Research & Technologies


Joint Technology/Venture/PPM Areas:Space Energy Technologies

Peter Glaser: Power Beaming Growth Path


Joint Technology/Venture/PPM Areas

HUMAN HEALTH ISSUES OF LONG TERM SPACE FLIGHT– TEN YEAR GOAL: ASSURED TWO YEAR DURATION SPACE FLIGHT

MISSIONS IN TRANSLUNAR SPACE CONDOMINIUM OF LARGE OBSERVATORIES

– HUBBLE/CHANDRA/COMPTON CLASS FACILITIES 2020, LARGE DISTRIBUTED APERTURE SYSTEMS: 1 KM – 2020, 100 KM – 2025, 1,000 KM + 2030

“In Situ” RESOURCES UTILIZATION, PRODUCTION, PROCESSING, STORAGE and DISTRIBUTION

– TEN YEAR GOALS: 2020 – 100 MT, 2030 - 1,000 MT of varied output ROBOTICS AND TELE-OPERATIONS

– TEN YEAR GOALS: Demonstrations in the context of the 10 Year Technology Goals stated herein

continued next page ….


Joint Technology/Venture/PPM Areas (cont.)

“in situ” ENERGY PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGIES – NUCLEAR FISSION, Lunar Solar and Space Solar, 3HE CLEAN FUSION– TEN YEAR GOALS: 2020 – 1 MWE, 2025 – 10 MWE, 2030 – 1 GWE

(CLOSED) ECOLOGICAL/BIOLOGICAL LIFE SUPPORT SYSTEMS (ELSS - CELSS) – TEN YEAR GOALS: ELSS MODULE FOR 12 PEOPLE BY 2020, CELSS

MODULES FOR 24 PEOPLE BY 2030 NOVEL SPACE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGIES

– “in situ” FUELS PRODUCTION and storage, “FUEL-LESS” TRANSPORTATION (Electromagnetic Propulsion, Lunar Elevator concepts, microwave and laser assisted propulsion)

– TEN YEAR GOALS: O/H 100 MT 2020, EMP 2025, SPACE ELEVATOR TO L1 2030

A DIGITAL HUMAN KNOWLEDGE ARCHIVE AND LIBRARY “ALEXANDRIA”– to safeguard mankind’s historic, cultural and knowledge base against

catastrophic loss Many others …the “Unknown Unknowables”


Early (FY07-FY20) Industry/Venture Funding Budgets for Area Technology RDT&E

a. Industrial/Venture Funds: JEAs and PPMs starting in 2007, building up to, say, $10 billion by 2020;b. International Participation/Funds: build up to same as “Human Robotic and Robotic Exploration levels” as shown in “Roadmap” (same rules as US)c. Missing: SDVs and Space Tugsd. Also: in “Master Budget Chart” - Interchange funding levels for HUMAN ROBOT and ROBOTIC … and budget levels may make sense

Documents

ISRU For All Government (NASA, DOD, DOE, NOAA, … Study: FY02 CSM/NExT ... Commercial Lunar Propellant Feasibility Study Project Description ... – Define scope and charter for Government-Industry