design of a positive feedback investment cycle to achieve...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Design of a Positive Feedback Investment Cycle to Achieve a
Lunar Habitat: ROI Calculator for Capability
Stepping-‐Stones
Final Report GMU SEOR SYST 495
Submitted: April 23, 2012 Submitted to: Dr. Lance Sherry Submitted by: Daniel Hettema Scott Neal Anh Quach Robert Taylor
Sponsored By:
2
Table of Contents Table of Tables ............................................................................................................. 4
Table of Figures ............................................................................................................ 5
Abstract ....................................................................................................................... 7
Context ........................................................................................................................ 9 Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 9 Benefits of Space ........................................................................................................................................................ 9 Past and Current Investment ................................................................................................................................ 9 Potential Outcomes ................................................................................................................................................. 11 Obstacles ...................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Industry Limitations .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Capital Investment .................................................................................................................................................. 12 Debris ............................................................................................................................................................................ 12 Launch Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. 14
Stakeholders .............................................................................................................................................................. 14 High-‐Altitude/Space Tourism ............................................................................................................................ 15 Debris Collection ...................................................................................................................................................... 15 Space Habitats .......................................................................................................................................................... 16 Launch Services ........................................................................................................................................................ 16 Governments .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 Earth’s Population .................................................................................................................................................. 17
“Optimal” Stakeholder Interactions ................................................................................................................ 18 Realities ....................................................................................................................................................................... 19 Debris Collection ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 LEO Habitat Bootstrap Funding ....................................................................................................................... 21 Stakeholder Objectives/Issues Chart ............................................................................................................... 23 Disinvestment Cycle ................................................................................................................................................ 24
Need & Problem Statements ...................................................................................... 27 Need .............................................................................................................................................................................. 27 Problem ....................................................................................................................................................................... 27
Proposed Solution: Capability Stepping-‐Stones .......................................................... 28 Project Boundary .................................................................................................................................................... 28 Single-‐String Design ............................................................................................................................................... 28 Capability Stepping-‐Stones ................................................................................................................................. 29 High-‐Altitude Tourism ........................................................................................................................................... 29 Debris Collection ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 LEO Habitation ......................................................................................................................................................... 29 LEO Hub and Moon Base ...................................................................................................................................... 30 Permanent Lunar Habitat ................................................................................................................................... 30
Building Blocks ......................................................................................................................................................... 31 Decision Support Tool (ROI Calculator) ........................................................................................................ 33
3
Models ....................................................................................................................... 34 Top Level ..................................................................................................................................................................... 34 Stepping-‐Stone 1 ..................................................................................................................................................... 35 Stepping-‐Stone 2 ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 Stepping-‐Stone 3 ..................................................................................................................................................... 38 Launch Costs .............................................................................................................................................................. 40
Stepping-‐Stone 4 ..................................................................................................................................................... 40 Stepping-‐Stone 5 ..................................................................................................................................................... 42
Results ....................................................................................................................... 44 Overall .......................................................................................................................................................................... 44 High-‐Altitude Tourism .......................................................................................................................................... 45 Non-‐Modeled Output .............................................................................................................................................. 47
Debris Collection ..................................................................................................................................................... 47 LEO Habitats .............................................................................................................................................................. 49 Non-‐Modeled Output .............................................................................................................................................. 51
LEO Hub & Moon Base .......................................................................................................................................... 51 Non-‐Modeled Output .............................................................................................................................................. 54
Permanent Lunar Habitat .................................................................................................................................... 54
Trade-‐off Analysis ...................................................................................................... 56 Stepping-‐Stone 5 Cost Reduction ..................................................................................................................... 56 Debris Collection ..................................................................................................................................................... 56 Launch Costs ............................................................................................................................................................. 57 Lunar Mining & Manufacturing ......................................................................................................................... 58
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 60 Capability Rank-‐List ............................................................................................................................................... 60 Timeline ...................................................................................................................................................................... 61 Potential User ........................................................................................................................................................... 62
Management ............................................................................................................. 64 WBS ............................................................................................................................................................................... 64 Budget .......................................................................................................................................................................... 67 Gantt Chart ................................................................................................................................................................. 68 Breakdown of Hours Worked ............................................................................................................................ 71
References ................................................................................................................. 72
4
Table of Tables Table 1: Stakeholder objectives/issues chart _______________________________________________________________ 24 Table 2: Debris Collection Variables _________________________________________________________________________ 37 Table 3: LEO Habitat Variables ______________________________________________________________________________ 39 Table 4: LEO Hub & Moon Base Variables ___________________________________________________________________ 41 Table 5: Permanent Lunar Habitat Variables _______________________________________________________________ 43 Table 6: Overall Results ______________________________________________________________________________________ 44 Table 7: High-‐Altitude Tourism Input Values _______________________________________________________________ 46 Table 8: LEO Habitat Input Values __________________________________________________________________________ 49 Table 9: Hub & Moon Base Input Values ____________________________________________________________________ 52 Table 10: Permanent Lunar Habitat Input Variables ______________________________________________________ 54 Table 11: Permanent Lunar Habit Cost Reduction Methods _______________________________________________ 56 Table 12: Capability Rank-‐List _______________________________________________________________________________ 61 Table 13: Project Budget _____________________________________________________________________________________ 67 Table 14: Breakdown of Hours Worked _____________________________________________________________________ 71
5
Table of Figures Figure 1: NASA Budget History as % of Total Budget ______________________________________________________ 10 Figure 2: Location of Space Debris __________________________________________________________________________ 13 Figure 3: "Optimal" Coordinated Stakeholders _____________________________________________________________ 19 Figure 4: Reality #1: Debris Collection Underfunded _______________________________________________________ 20 Figure 5: Debris Collection Tension Cycle ___________________________________________________________________ 21 Figure 6: Reality #2: Lack of Bootstrap Funding for Space Habitats ______________________________________ 22 Figure 7: Reality #3: High Cost of Launch Services _________________________________________________________ 23 Figure 8: Disinvestment Cycle ________________________________________________________________________________ 25 Figure 9: Building Block Diagram ___________________________________________________________________________ 32 Figure 10: Top Level I/O _____________________________________________________________________________________ 35 Figure 11: Input/Output Diagram for High-‐Altitude Tourism _____________________________________________ 35 Figure 12: Input/Output Diagram for High-‐Altitude Tourism and Debris Collection _____________________ 36 Figure 13: Efficiency of Debris Collection Graph ____________________________________________________________ 37 Figure 14: Input/Output Diagram for LEO Habitats _______________________________________________________ 39 Figure 15: Launch Cost Reduction ___________________________________________________________________________ 40 Figure 16: Input/Output Diagram for LEO Hub and Moon Base ___________________________________________ 41 Figure 17: Input/Output Diagram for Permanent Lunar Habitat _________________________________________ 43 Figure 18: Investment Cycle _________________________________________________________________________________ 45 Figure 19: High-‐Altitude Investment/Revenue _____________________________________________________________ 46 Figure 20: High-‐Altitude Total Trips ________________________________________________________________________ 47 Figure 21: Reduction in High-‐Altitude Tourism Insurance _________________________________________________ 48 Figure 22: High-‐Altitude Tourism Investment with and without debris collection _______________________ 49 Figure 23: LEO Habitat Investment & Revenue _____________________________________________________________ 50 Figure 24: Total # of LEO Habitats __________________________________________________________________________ 51 Figure 25: Hub & Moon Base Investment & Revenue _______________________________________________________ 52 Figure 26: Number of LEO Habitats for SS 4 ________________________________________________________________ 53 Figure 27: Trips to LEO Hub & Moon Base __________________________________________________________________ 53 Figure 28: Permanent Lunar Habitat Investment & Revenue ______________________________________________ 55 Figure 29: Amount of Regolith Removed ____________________________________________________________________ 55 Figure 30: Debris Collection Effect on LEO Habitats _______________________________________________________ 57 Figure 31: Launch Costs on LEO Hub ________________________________________________________________________ 58 Figure 32: Lunar Habitat Investment With and Without Mining & Manufacturing ______________________ 59 Figure 33: Recommended Stepping-‐Stone Timeline ________________________________________________________ 62 Figure 34: Project Budget ____________________________________________________________________________________ 67
6
Figure 35: Project CPI & SPI _________________________________________________________________________________ 68
7
Abstract As mankind continues to progress, a logical next step is the expansion into
space. Independent space enterprises are developing capabilities to support: space
tourism, space debris collection, low earth orbit (LEO) habitats, lunar visits, and
temporary/permanent lunar habitats. The structure of the space market has created
an industry structure such that activities are independent, are not coordinated, and
do not consider leveraging adjacent capabilities. For example, insurance costs are
determined based on individual capabilities and do not take into account synergies
and liability mitigation to reduce risk from adjacent capabilities. This project
evaluates the return on investment from coordination of activities to create
“capability stepping-‐stones” from the five independent capabilities listed above to
develop a lunar habitat.
A decision support tool that utilizes discrete-‐event simulation was developed
to estimate the ROI from alternate investment, direct operating, indirect costs, and
revenues to determine cost, time, and risk thresholds to achieve ROI financial
targets. This model is based on data from peer-‐reviewed government and industry
sources such as DARPA, NASA, and the ESA and includes quarterly computation of
Net Present Value (NPV).
Data and inputs for the decision support tool were used where available.
Trade-‐off analysis indicates the necessity of debris collection, and the importance of
lowering launch costs on the development of space. One of the major factors
achieved through capability stepping-‐stones is lowering of launch costs, insurance
8
costs and reversal of the declining trend of LEO conditions. These results indicate an
important role for international governance and collaboration between capability
stepping-‐stones of the space-‐market place to maximize the potential of space.
9
Context
Introduction
Benefits of Space
Many technological advances were developed during the Space Race
coinciding with the Cold War. Advances in technology gave us many new devices
such as the CAT and MRI machines used in hospitals across the globe. The Space
Race also provided the technologies, which developed the foundation for the
personal computer, a key tool of our time.
Space provides the next step for humanity, the final step in exploration for
mankind. Space provides many unique opportunities for the inhabitants of Earth:
new jobs, new technologies, and new ideas. Establishing a new space market will
provide much needed economic growth to help raise the standard of living across
the globe. Through the further development and habitation of space, it would likely
be seen even greater advancements in technologies as we work to develop those
that will be necessary to achieve a sustainable life in space. New ideas will lead to
better technologies that will in turn help the people of Earth live a better life.
Past and Current Investment
United States investment in space since 1958 has declined (Fig. 1) [1]. During
the mid-‐1960s, NASA had its largest federal budget as a percentage of the GDP.
During this time period, many new technologies were developed that culminated
with putting the first men on the Moon. Since then, the annual percentage of the
10
federal budget for NASA has fallen significantly, reaching a point of 0.48% of the
GDP for the current 2012 NASA budget, one tenth of NASA’s peak budget in the
1960s.
Figure 1: NASA Budget History as % of Total Budget
This decline in budget allotment can be attributed primarily to lack of
interest or change in priorities by people, government, and the private sector
regarding space programs. Without motivation for space development, interest in
space has diminished. Interest in the development of space translates to investment,
so garnering interest in space is necessary.
Private investments are at an all time high, with several companies around
the world collectively investing 100-‐180 million dollars of their own resources,
towards developing space technologies[2]. Some of the more notable companies
are: Virgin Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace, SpaceX, STI, ULA and XCOR. Each company
11
has its own space objectives and goals, that when used together can optimize the
development and expansion of space habitation.
However, before any of this can happen, collaboration must occur among
industries that will reduce the duplication of technologies and the waste of
investment. Through collaboration, avoiding the process of “reinventing the wheel”
will be paramount in effective capital investment, while maximizing ROI possible.
Potential Outcomes
The capabilities necessary to achieve a permanent, sustainable presence on
the Moon are based on five key functionalities: launch, hazard mitigation, space
travel, habitation, and sustainability.
1) Launch: The ability to launch supplies, personnel, and equipment from
Earth is integral to any initial space endeavor.
2) Hazard mitigation: After escaping Earth’s gravity, the ability to mitigate
risk from both natural and man-‐made hazards in space takes precedence.
3) Space travel: Space travel is also important to consider. The average
distance to the Moon from the Earth is 384,400km, a distance that required just
under 76 hours of travel time for the astronauts of the Apollo 11 missions [3] [4].
4) Habitation: Once on the Moon, with temperatures ranging from -‐233 to
133 degrees Celsius on the surface, habitation of its inhospitable environment of the
Moon is the next step.
5) Sustainability: Sustainability of this habitation, as well as all previous
functionalities is then necessary to the development of a permanent presence on the
Moon. This sustainability also includes maintaining ship integrity upon re-‐entry into
12
the Earth’s atmosphere, and maintaining the integrity and operation of a lunar
habitat amidst a radiation storm, for example.
Obstacles
While conditions and travel time to the Moon can be managed, certain
elements of the aforementioned functionalities present obstacles to be overcome.
These obstacles are social, environmental, and technological in nature.
Industry Limitations
Capital Investment
The main problem facing industries attempting to promote a space market is
the lack of interest exhibited by governments and the Earth’s population.
Government’s disinterest can be quantified by a lack of NASA funding compared to
1962 through 1970 during the Space Race, as in Fig. 1. This lack of interest may have
propagated from the general public. According to a poll conducted by TIPP in 2011,
only 10% of respondents showed interest in raising NASA’s budget [6]. The origin of
this lack of interest is a focus on near-‐term problems such as the state of the
economy. This lack of interest is exacerbated by doubt surrounding the feasibility of
the development of space, and the benefit versus the risk of space.
Debris
Since the start of the space race in the late 1950s, governments and private
industries has been launching satellites to orbit Earth. As of 2011, NASA was
tracking 22,000 pieces of debris, each larger than 4 inches in length, an increase of
3,000 from NASA’s 2006 numbers [5] [6]. Fig. 2 shows the location of the 22,000
13
pieces of debris in high Earth orbit dots are not to scale, but represent the location
of debris [7].
Figure 2: Location of Space Debris
NASA can only track debris larger than 10 cm in diameter, and estimates that there
are 500,000 pieces of debris diameters ranging from 1 to 10 cm. These debris travel
at up to speeds of 28,163 kph [8] and are easily capable of damaging spacecraft and
satellites.
Scientists indicate that the quantity of space debris has reached a critical
level [9]. Hugh Lewis, a UK researcher, warned that threat from space debris would
rise 50% in the decade and quadruple in the next 50 years [10]. According to an
NRO study, by 2020, the probability of a catastrophic collision would be at 10% in
LEO [11]. If this problem is not addressed, the insurance cost associated with
protecting people and assets would greatly increase.
14
Launch Costs
The projected launch cost into space is under $1,000 per pound using SpaceX
Falcon Heavy rocket with four launches per year [12]. This cost is the biggest hurdle
preventing mankind from quickly expanding into space. For example, assuming the
Falcon Heavy had a full payload of 53,000 kg (117,000 lb) the cost to launch would
be $117 million. Note, too, that this projection is optimistic compared to previous
launch cost indices. As a point of reference, the NASA space shuttle launch cost index
is $4729 in 2002, or over $6000/lb with added inflation [13]. Fortunately, an
increase in launch frequency will help drive down the cost index by lowering costs
related to maintaining idle components. Bulk launch contracts also qualify for
discounts from certain launch companies, such as SpaceX. In lieu of breakthrough
technological advances, which won’t be considered for this project, these
approaches to lowering the launch cost index must suffice.
Stakeholders
Designing a positive feedback investment cycle concerning space involves all
companies concerned with the development of a space market. This list includes
industries such as high-‐altitude/space tourism, debris collection, space habitats, and
launch services. Also included in the list of stakeholders are the Earth’s population,
and governments that serve as investors to a commercial development of a lunar
habitat.
15
High-‐Altitude/Space Tourism
Virgin Galactic is a prime example of a company in the category of High-‐
altitude/space tourism companies. High-‐altitude/space tourism serves as the
catalyst for garnering the interest of Earth’s population. Brief, commercial exposure
of civilians to space is the first step to encouraging Earth’s population to make space
a higher priority. This added interest translates to investment into all aspects of
space development. Initial exposure will be limited to a select few due to the high
cost of tickets.
Debris Collection
Collection of debris is key to reversing the trend of declining conditions in
low and high Earth orbit. “With so much orbital debris, there have been surprisingly
few disastrous collisions” [8]. NASA discusses their debris avoidance procedures for
the space shuttle and space station in [8]. Planning and execution of avoidance
maneuvers for the space station can take up to 30 hours. The potential risk of
collision will continue to grow and must be addressed, and it is a problem facing not
only NASA, but any future space tourism or space habitation endeavor.
Despite this, it is difficult for organizations developing solutions for debris collection
to receive funding. This is due in part to the complexity of capturing debris that
travels up to 28,000 kph in order to maintain orbit [8]. Star Technology and
Research, developer of the ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator [14], is only in the
feasibility stage (phase I) of their Small Business Innovative Research (SBIR)
contract with Navy SPAWAR (Space and Warfare Systems Command). This company
shows promise, as their solution is developed using existing feasible technology
16
[11]. Government funding should be augmented by investment from private sector
that is interested in the development of space.
Space Habitats
Space habitats are an integral part of the development of a lunar habitat.
When one thinks of a space habitat, one might think of the International Space
Station. However, the concept of a space habitat is evolving, as seen in Bigelow
Aerospace inflatable habitats. The development of habitats that are resilient to the
hazards of space, such as debris collision, radiation, and solar flares, is necessary.
The initial purpose of these habitats is to provide governments and the private
industry with an environment to conduct research. This purpose will eventually give
way to more general all-‐purpose habitats which provide a hospitable environment
for spacefaring tourists.
Launch Services
The ability to transport of commodities, equipment, and personnel to space
from Earth is the lifeblood of the development of a lunar habitat. The sustainability
of space habitats and space tourism industry will depend on the ability to maintain a
supply line from Earth; at least until these commodities can be obtained in space.
Launch capabilities have always been a major obstacle. With regards to launch
capability, the focus has shifted from government to the private industry. This shift
is evidenced by the retirement of the space shuttle, the $8,500 launch cost per
pound to LEO of the Space Launch System currently being developed by NASA [15],
and the welcome addition of sub-‐$1000 launch cost index of the SpaceX Falcon
Heavy.
17
Further improvement of the launch cost index can be achieved through the
increased frequency of launches by lowering overhead costs and taking advantage
of economies of scale. This increased frequency of launch depends on the
development of a maintained presence in space that requires these launch services,
such as space habitats.
Governments
Governments provide regulation, and policy which serve to prevent the
misuse of space. To enforce this, a military presence in space is necessary. The US
government also has some stake in the development space with NASA.
Unfortunately, as seen in Fig. 1, the declining trend of budget allocation for NASA
represents a low prioritization of the development of space. Nonetheless, a
commercial development of space and eventual lunar habitat by the private
industry must be regulated, and this is the role of governments.
In addition to governments with active space programs, such as China,
Russia, Brazil, India, and Japan, there are also countries without a space program
that still want to establish a presence in space. These governments can instead
purchase a space habitat, have it launched into orbit, and then launch personnel to
use with a commercial launch service.
Earth’s Population
Commercial development of a lunar habitat requires consumer spending and
investment from the private sector, governments, and Earth’s population in general.
Obtaining this investment necessitates garnering interest in space for Earth’s
population.
18
The Earth’s population’s main objective is obtaining a better quality of life.
From an entertaining perspective, establishing a commercial market in space
provides the opportunity for civilians to travel into space, and experience
microgravity. Also, research conducted in space by governments and private
industry can lead to innovation. An example of this is crystal formation which is
much more fine and pronounced in the conditions in space. Specifically, the growth
of insulin protein crystals in space lead to a better understanding of insulin which
can allow pharmaceutical companies to better treat the symptoms of diabetes [16].
“Optimal” Stakeholder Interactions
A summary of the interactions between these stakeholders is illustrated in
Fig. 3. Earth’s population demands trips from High-‐Altitude/Space tourism, which
provides civilian space travel. High-‐Altitude/Space tourism is regulated by
government, benefits from a cleaned LEO, and demands habitats from Space
Habitats for longer term space tourism. Debris collection provides a less hazardous
LEO to Space Tourism, Government, Satellite Companies, and, most importantly,
Space Habitats. Space Habitats demands launches from Launch services, which in
turn provides them, and Space habitats provides habitat leasing to the Government,
and Space Tourism.
19
Figure 3: "Optimal" Coordinated Stakeholders
Realities
There are a few realities that prevent this “optimal” coordination of
stakeholders. These realities include a lack of funding for debris collection, space
habitats requiring bootstrap funding, and the environment surrounding launch
costs.
Debris Collection
The first reality is underfunded debris collection. Depicted in Fig. 4, satellite
companies, high-‐altitude/space tourism, space habitats, and government all benefit
from a cleaner LEO.
20
Figure 4: Reality #1: Debris Collection Underfunded
However, the only stakeholder providing any funding to debris collection
currently is government, and their funding is only exploratory and insufficient.
Because of this, debris collection does not take place, and the conditions of LEO
continue to decline. This creates a tension illustrated in the debris collection cycle,
seen in Fig. 5.
21
Figure 5: Debris Collection Tension Cycle
To reiterate: because there is no debris collection, debris continues to
increase through debris colliding with itself, and new accidents occurring. This
increase in debris increases the probability of a debris collision, which in turn
increases orbital insurance costs. Finally, because this insurance cost continues to
raise, activity in LEO will remain low, resulting in reduced incentive to undertake a
debris collection endeavor.
LEO Habitat Bootstrap Funding
The second reality is a lack of bootstrap funding for Space Habitats. This
reality is depicted in Fig. 6.
22
Figure 6: Reality #2: Lack of Bootstrap Funding for Space Habitats
While High-‐Altitude/Space Tourism, Government, and private industry can
all benefit from Space Habitats, no funding is provided to Space Habitats to ensure
their success. The relationship between Space Habitats and Launch services is
particularly important. Depicted in Fig. 7, the third reality is the high cost of launch
services. Because Space Habitats lack bootstrap funding, their development is
hindered, and their demand for launches by Launch Services is encumbered. Low
launch frequency and inconsistent demand are contributing factors that keep launch
costs from improving.
23
Figure 7: Reality #3: High Cost of Launch Services
Stakeholder Objectives/Issues Chart
Table 1 shows a summary of the objectives and issues facing the identified
stakeholders. They have been broken down into private industry companies looking
to develop space, and investors, represented by Government and Earth’s Population.
High-‐Altitude Tourism’s goal is to foster an interest in space, and the problem they
face is the feasibility of sustaining ships that repeatedly re-‐enter the Earth’s
atmosphere. Satellite Companies seek lower orbital costs and increased lifetimes of
satellites, a direct benefit of debris collection. Issues facing Satellite Companies
sprout from this lack of debris collection as well as launch costs. Next, Space
Tourism, which has been separated from High-‐Altitude Tourism due to a difference
in objectives and issues, seeks sustainable space-‐based tourism. Space Tourism
faces a technology gap brought on by prohibitive launch costs and the current
24
availability of space habitats. Lastly, issues concerning Government and Earth’s
Population pertain to other short-‐term concerns unrelated to space such as the state
of the economy, and war.
Table 1: Stakeholder objectives/issues chart
Disinvestment Cycle
From the analysis of identified stakeholders, an illustration, seen in Fig. 8, of
the current environment surrounding identified space markets was created.
25
Figure 8: Disinvestment Cycle
This disinvestment cycle is a summation of negative loops affecting each
space market. Beginning at the top right, a negative cycle is created following the
loop from investment through space tourism, launch costs, and space activity.
Indicated by the red negative cycle symbol, this negative loop shows that a lack of
investment leads to a decrease in space tourism, which in turn negatively impacts
launch costs, which leads to a lower amount of activity in space. The next loop, the
debris collection loop, begins at investment and goes through debris collection,
amount of debris, orbital insurance, and back to investment. This cycle is essentially
the same cycle depicted from the second stakeholder reality mentioned earlier.
Amount of debris and orbital insurance both negatively impact space tourism and
space habitats as well. Lastly is the space habitat loop: from investment to space
habitats to launch frequency to launch costs to space activity and back to
Space Activity
investment
amount of debris
orbital insurance
space habitats
launch costs
Debris collection
launch frequency
space tourism
_
_
_
_
_
26
investment. A lack of investment leads to a decrease in space habitats, which
negatively impacts launch frequency, and therefore launch costs, which in turn
lowers the amount of activity in space. The development of space markets requires
the reversal of a number of these negative loops.
27
Need & Problem Statements
Need
There is a need to break the dis-‐investment cycle, by focusing on reducing
launch costs, and insurance premiums, that will lead to a profitable development of
space.
Problem
Evaluate the costs and revenues of space markets to develop synergy in
investments of capabilities that will break the dis-‐investment cycle.
28
Proposed Solution: Capability Stepping-‐Stones
Project Boundary
Due to the complexity of establishing a lunar habitat, this goal was broken
down into achievable stepping-‐stones that lead to a lunar habitat. These stepping-‐
stones focus on existing solutions to address the capabilities of launch, debris
collection, low Earth orbit (LEO) habitats, and lunar habitats.
Single-‐String Design
After conducting research concerning the environment surrounding a
potential space market, a sequence of capability stepping-‐stones was developed.
These stepping-‐stones focus on combining the necessary capabilities of an industry
or industries to overcome the hurdles of launch cost, debris, and investment under
critical mass while providing that industry or industries the specified ROI. Each
stepping-‐stone requires the previous stepping-‐stone to be established before the
next stepping-‐stone could be enacted. These stepping-‐stones include high-‐altitude
tourism, debris collection, LEO habitats, and LEO hub and Moon base, leading
ultimately to a permanent lunar habitat.
29
Capability Stepping-‐Stones
High-‐Altitude Tourism
Based around Virgin Galactic mission plan, these high-‐altitude tourism trips
focus on bringing in the initial round of investments to space companies. This
investment spurs the construction of various spaceports, and pushes other
industries to recognize future profit from investing in space markets. This stepping-‐
stone also serves as a catalyst for fostering an interest in space in the general public.
This excitement to go into space is key to make the following stepping-‐stones
achievable.
Debris Collection
The potential of a catastrophic collision from space debris continues to grow.
Progress into space will become increasingly encumbered by insurance costs should
debris collection fail to take place. Logically, before LEO can become habitable, the
majority of space debris in LEO needs to be removed. This debris has the potential
to be returned to Earth for reselling or recycling depending on the value of the
debris. By removing large amounts of the debris that is orbiting in LEO, the
insurance factor for both assets and humans would be reduced during LEO
habitation.
LEO Habitation
With the two previous stepping-‐stones complete, LEO human habitation
becomes possible. Now there would be an interest in space from both the public and
also governments, most of the necessary ground framework would have been
30
established, and the risk of catastrophic orbital collisions reduced. Based on
Bigelow Aerospace’s mission plan, this presence in space allows for both scientific
research as well as short-‐term space vacations for the public. As the amount of LEO
habitats increases, the cost for launching reduces, thus making it more accessible to
a larger portion of the public. As the number of LEO habitats increases, our ability
to sustain life at LEO is developed.
LEO Hub and Moon Base
One of the advantages of the LEO habitats utilized in the previous stepping-‐
stone is the modularity of the habitats. Bigelow Aerospace BA-‐330s can be
connected together, so the concept of creating a space station or hub from piecing
together these habitats is logical. This space station will become the platform for
further exploration into space. By utilizing a LEO space station, a space-‐exclusive
travel vehicle would be capable of quickly and efficiently move through space to a
similarly constructed lunar base. The purpose of space-‐exclusive ships is to mitigate
the frequency of reentry into the atmosphere which can damage ships, and to utilize
alternative fuels that do not require fuel to be launched from Earth. This lunar base
sets the groundwork for a permanent lunar habitat.
Revenue is obtained through tickets to both the LEO hub and the lunar base.
Traditional launch vehicles would be used to get tourists to the LEO hub. From
there, the space-‐exclusive travel vehicles would taxi Moon-‐bound tourists.
Permanent Lunar Habitat
The expansion of the lunar habitat to a permanent status requires utilizing
the materials available on the Moon. While certain components, such as nitrogen
31
with a 100 ppm abundance per ton of lunar regolith, still need to be sent from Earth,
basic materials necessary for sustaining life, such as water and oxygen, can be
harvested from lunar regolith. This permanent lunar habitat represents the goal of
the project, and seeks to utilize mining and manufacturing to establish a permanent
presence on the Moon, and create a platform delving deeper into space and
capturing and utilizing resources of other celestial bodies.
Building Blocks
A building block diagram, Fig. 9, was developed to summarize the purpose of
each capability stepping-‐stone and to show how each stepping-‐stone builds off the
previous stepping-‐stone. High-‐Altitude/Space Tourism serves as the catalyst to
incite the interest, and therefore the investment, of the Earth’s population into
space. To elaborate, the success of Virgin Galactic will garner an interest in space
and encourage seed funding for this and subsequent stepping-‐stones. Part of this
funding would be fed into debris collection to reverse the declining trend of low
Earth orbit conditions.
32
Figure 9: Building Block Diagram
With LEO cleaned, LEO habitats can be launched into orbit. By establishing a
location in space that must be maintained, the foundation of a LEO infrastructure is
established. This infrastructure involves the launching of habitats, personnel, and
commodities to LEO, as well as decommissioning habitats and bringing personnel
down safely. This creates a consistent demand for launch services that will bring
down the launch cost index simply by reducing overhead and taking advantages of
economies of scale. Moreover, LEO habitats provide an environment for
governments and the private sector to conduct research in space. This garners
interest from these investors to invest in LEO habitats.
The LEO hub and Moon Base stepping-‐stone extends this infrastructure
further into space to facilitate the extension of sustainability. This infrastructure has
33
also expanded to accommodate space tourism, and includes the addition of space-‐
exclusive ships travelling from the LEO hub to the Moon base.
Lastly, the permanent lunar base is self-‐sustainable through lunar mining
and manufacturing, and serves the foundation for delving further into space.
Oxygen, water, and nitrogen, basic commodities necessary to sustain life, can be
obtained through regolith processing.
Decision Support Tool (ROI Calculator)
These capability stepping-‐stones are combined together to create an ROI
calculator that evaluates the return on investment for industries involved. This ROI
calculator serves as a decision support tool that allows the user to vary inputs into
each stepping-‐stone and observe the effect of these changes on return on
investment. The tool also allows companies to identify minimum selling prices for
commodities to attain return on investment in a specified number of years.
34
Models Each stepping-‐stone model was constructed using SPEC Innovations
NimbusSE, a functional database and modeling tool. These models provide a view of
necessary functionality of each stepping-‐stone and allow complex interaction with
in the model to take place.
The construction of these models first started with creating input/output
(I/O) diagrams. After the top level I/O diagram was finished model equations were
developed to identify the key parameters that needed to be modeled. Then each
model was constructed in NimbusSE, where the necessary calculations were done
using back-‐end scripting provided by the tool. Finally, the assumptions and
limitations of the models were identified.
Top Level
Fig. 10 illustrates the I/O diagram for the top level model. The stepping-‐
stone capabilities and investment are the inputs, with an occasional input of Seed
Funding. ROI is output where part is returned back and used as investment for later
stepping-‐stones.
35
Figure 10: Top Level I/O
Stepping-‐Stone 1
The first stepping-‐stone is High-‐Altitude Tourism. This financial model is
based on and validated by Virgin Galactic’s financial model. The input/output
diagram for this stepping-‐stone is seen in Fig. 11.
Figure 11: Input/Output Diagram for High-‐Altitude Tourism
The equation for this stepping-‐stone is a simple ROI equation.
𝑅𝑂𝐼 = 𝑅𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑛𝑢𝑒 − 𝐼𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 / 𝐼𝑛𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
ROIInvestment
Stepping StoneCapabilities
Seed Funding
Lunar Habitat ROI Calculator
36
Revenue is given by number of tickets sold, and investments are comprised
of the: cost of the ship, development costs, and maintenance costs. Assumption were
made that a high-‐altitude tourism ship could handle two flights before requiring
maintenance service, and that two flights occur per month, or 24 annually.
Stepping-‐Stone 2
High-‐Altitude Tourism with the addition of Debris collection, the second
stepping-‐stone, was designed to show the effect of debris collection on orbital
insurance rates for the previous stepping-‐stone. The input/output diagram for this
stepping-‐stone is seen in Fig. 12.
Figure 12: Input/Output Diagram for High-‐Altitude Tourism and Debris Collection
Stepping-‐stone 2 builds on high-‐altitude tourism thus the ROI equation is
carried over, as indicated in blue on the input/output diagram. In addition the ROI
equation, debris equation models the amount of debris collected over time is
included. Variable definitions are included in Table 1.
37
Table 2: Debris Collection Variables
Variable Meaning Xi Debris in orbit Xi+1 Debris in orbit after time step n Number of active debris collectors r Rate of collection e Efficiency of collection
The rate of collection (r) is identified as the pounds of debris collected over a
24-‐hour period. The efficiency of collection (e) acts as a difficulty factor for
collecting debris based on its abundance. While the amount of debris is large, debris
collection is simple. As the debris is collected, the value begins to drop also. As seen
in Fig. 13, the minimum efficiency was chosen to be .3 (notional), while the
maximum efficiency is 1.
Figure 13: Efficiency of Debris Collection Graph
38
The equation for this graph, is a logistic curve, shown below, that represents
a notional idea of debris collection efficiency.
For this model, the assumption is made that no collisions occur as a result of
the debris collectors. In addition, the debris collected is not salvaged. Debris
collection is a necessary step in the development of these space markets, and while
this collected debris could be salvaged for revenue, the focus of this stepping-‐stone
is simply to reduce insurance costs for other stepping stones. The objective of debris
collection was modeled such that a return on investment isn’t the goal.
This model was validated using Star Tech Inc.’s debris collection model,
which indicated it would take 6.7 years to remove all debris in orbit. The equation
used for this stepping-‐stone differs with the inclusion of the variable “d,” the rate of
increase of debris per time period.
Stepping-‐Stone 3
Stepping-‐stone 3, LEO habitats, is modeled from the perspective of Bigelow
Aerospace, which will be offering leases for LEO habitats in the coming years. This
serves as the basis and validation of the model. The input/output diagram for
stepping-‐stone 3 can be seen in Fig. 14.
39
Figure 14: Input/Output Diagram for LEO Habitats
The profit equation does not include the cost for the renter to launch to the
habitat, but does include the maintenance cost to send a specialist to fix any issues
with the habitat; variable definitions are in Table 3.
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡 = 𝑃 ∗ 𝑛 − [𝐶!𝑛 + 𝐶!"!!
!"#$!+ !
!𝐶!"
!!!"#$!
]
Table 3: LEO Habitat Variables
Variable Meaning P Habitat lease price Ch Cost of habitat CLH Cost to launch
habitat CLP Cost to launch
person to habitat CMN Maintenance cost Lh Lifetime of habitat MTBFH Habitat failure rate n Number of habitats
Habitats were assumed to require repair four times throughout their
operational lifecycle. Also, habitats are assumed to be full, and trips to the habitats
are assumed to be full capacity.
40
Launch Costs
For this and the subsequent stepping-‐stones, a launch cost reduction curve,
seen in Fig. 15, was developed to attempt to quantify the effect of launch frequency
on launch cost. Through reduction of overhead and taking advantage of economies
of scale, the same rocket technology can produce different launch costs indices
purely based on frequency of launch. Data was not available to properly quantify
this idea, so the graph remains notional.
Figure 15: Launch Cost Reduction
Stepping-‐Stone 4
Stepping-‐stone 4, LEO hub and Moon Base, models tourism from Earth to the
hub, and from the hub to the Moon base. As previously mentioned, the hub and
41
Moon base can be comprised of habitats from the previous stepping-‐stone. An
input/output diagram for stepping-‐stone 4 is depicted in Fig. 16.
Figure 16: Input/Output Diagram for LEO Hub and Moon Base
The assets associated with this stepping-‐stone are the LEO hub, the Moon
base, ships taking tourists from the Earth to the Hub, and space exclusive ships
taking tourists from the hub to the Moon base. The cost, launch cost, and
maintenance cost of these assets, therefore, comprise the investment portion of this
profit equation. The revenue generated from this stepping-‐stone the sum of the
tickets to the Hub, and tickets to the Moon base. The equation and Table 4 show the
equation and explanation of variables for this stepping-‐stone.
Table 4: LEO Hub & Moon Base Variables
Variable Meaning Th Ticket to LEO hub Pth Price of Ticket to LEO hub TM Ticket to Moon base PTM Price of Ticket to Moon base CH Cost of LEO hub CMB Cost of Moon base LMB Lifetime of Moon base
42
MTBFMB Moon Base Failure Rate CM,MB Average Cost to fix Moon base LH Lifetime of LEO hub MTBFH Moon Base Failure Rate CM,H Average Cost to fix LEO hub CL,H Cost to Launch LEO hub CL,MB Cost to Launch Moon base x Number of Earth-‐LEO hub ships y Number of LEO hub-‐Moon base ships Cx Cost of Earth-‐LEO hub ship Cy Cost of LEO hub-‐Moon base ship Capx Capacity of Earth-‐LEO hub ship Capy Capacity of LEO hub-‐Moon base ship CLX Launch Cost for Earth-‐LEO hub ship CLY Launch Cost for LEO hub-‐Moon base ship Lx Lifetime of Earth-‐LEO hub ship MTBFx Earth-‐LEO hub ship failure rate CM,x Average Cost to fix Earth-‐LEO hub ship Ly Lifetime of Earth-‐LEO hub ship MTBFy LEO hub-‐Moon base ship failure rate CM,y Average Cost to fix LEO hub-‐Moon base ship
An assumption for this model is the travel time from the Hub to the Moon
base is less than 72 hours using the space exclusive ships. Apollo 11 took 76 hours
from Earth, so this is feasible. Also, a capacity of 10 passengers for both types of
ships was chosen.
Stepping-‐Stone 5
Permanent Lunar Habitation, stepping-‐stone 5, models the sustainability of a
permanent lunar habitat. This sustainability is obtained through lunar mining and
manufacturing. The input/output diagram for this model is depicted in Fig. 17.
43
Figure 17: Input/Output Diagram for Permanent Lunar Habitat
To clarify, initial investment for this model includes the cost of the Moon
habitat, which could perhaps utilize one or more habitats from the previous
stepping-‐stones, as well as mining and manufacturing equipment necessary to
gather and process regolith. The equation and explanation of variables can be found
in equation and Table 5 respectively.
𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑓𝑖𝑡 = (𝑅 ∗ 𝑛)!"#
− 𝐶!!! − (𝐶! + 𝐶! + 𝐶! ∗ 𝑃 ∗ 𝑇)!"#
Table 5: Permanent Lunar Habitat Variables
Variable Meaning R Average Regolith Payload n Number of Payloads CB+E Cost of Base & Equipment Co Operating Costs/year Cm Maintenance Costs/year Ct Travel Cost on Moon/lb P Average Payload T Number of Trips/year
Assumptions for this model include the limitation of mining to the Moon, that
water, oxygen, and nitrogen are harvested through regolith processing.
44
Results
Overall
The overall results for the simulations of each stepping-‐stone are shown in
Table: 6. These values were calculated based on inputs that were gathered from a
combination of reports and documentations that were gathered. When data for a
specific required input value was not available, a best guess was made based on
common values and sponsor input. ROI calculations were then performed based on
output data from the models.
Table 6: Overall Results
These results show that as each stepping-‐stone reaches the investment
critical mass, they reverse the trends present in the disinvestment cycle, thus
creating an investment cycle, seen in Fig. 18. This investment leads to an increase in
space tourism, which in turn increases the level of space activity thus encouraging
45
investment. As investment continues to grow, debris collection starts, and the
savings in orbital insurance rates increase space tourism which leads to increased
investment. Finally, investment is directed into space habitats which increases the
frequency of launch and thus reduces launch costs.
Figure 18: Investment Cycle
High-‐Altitude Tourism
Using model inputs of Table 7, an investment and revenue graph was created,
Fig. 19. Where possible, these values match the published values from Virgin
Galactic. The graph shows an investment break even point of 4.5 years, leading to a
46
ROI across 10 years of 182%. Finally, from this model, an output of the total
number of trips taken can be seen in Fig. 20, this number of trips translates to total
passenger of 630.
Table 7: High-‐Altitude Tourism Input Values
Input Value Direct mission cost $400,000 Flights per month (demand)
2
Flights per maintenance
2
Maintenance Cost $50,000 Maintenance time 2 weeks
Figure 19: High-‐Altitude Investment/Revenue
0.00E+00%
2.00E+01%
4.00E+01%
6.00E+01%
8.00E+01%
1.00E+02%
1.20E+02%
1.40E+02%
0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5%
2012$NPV
$Dollars$
Millions$
Years$
Virgin$Galac6c$Investment/Revenue$
Investment%
Revenue%
47
Figure 20: High-‐Altitude Total Trips
Non-‐Modeled Output
The non-‐modeled output of stepping-‐stone 1 is the implication that high-‐
altitude/space tourism increases interest in space from the general public. This
interest translates to increased investment towards subsequent stepping-‐
stones. The investment increase is modeled by a positive change in performance
parameters. If this model output assumption does not hold true, the single string
design breaks down; subsequent stepping-‐stones should not be attempted.
Debris Collection
The simulation of debris collection shows the number of tons of debris
removed. It starts with an initial value of 2166 tons and fluctuates near zero at the
end. This fluctuation is caused by a continuous increase of debris.
When debris collection is modeled with high-‐altitude tourism, a reduction of
the required investment is shown in Fig. 21. The 10% insurance rate is based on a
48
carry over input from high-‐altitude tourism, and the 7% value is a value entered by
the user for the percent of insurance due to orbital collision. This percentage is low
for high-‐altitude tourism because the probability of collision from orbital debris is
small. After five years, the insurance premium drops roughly two thousand
dollars. This small drop in costs can be associated to the small input value for
insurance cost associated with orbital collision: 7% of 10% of the mission cost.
Figure 21: Reduction in High-‐Altitude Tourism Insurance
Although the cost savings seen by high-‐altitude tourism is low, the savings
are enough to slowly reduce the yearly investment, Fig. 22. By the “end” of the
debris collection process, a cost difference of $10 million per year is obtained.
37000$
37500$
38000$
38500$
39000$
39500$
40000$
40500$
0$ 1$ 2$ 3$ 4$ 5$
2012$NPV
$Dollars$
Years$
Collision$Insurance$Costs$based$on:$7%$of$10%$total$insurance$premium$
Cost$
49
Figure 22: High-‐Altitude Tourism Investment with and without debris collection
LEO Habitats
Having an increased interest in space and improved conditions of LEO, the
LEO habitat stepping-‐stone can begin. This simulation takes an input values of
Table 8, and outputs investment and revenue, Fig. 23. The breakeven point for this
simulation is 10 years. The entire lifecycle of the habitat is considered, as reflected
in the inclusion of decommissioning costs for the habitats.
Table 8: LEO Habitat Input Values
Input Value Initial Investment $200,000,000 Lease Revenue 120,000,000 over 5 Years, 50% up front Maintenance Cost N(800000000,2000000) Frequency of Launch to Habitats 3 per year per habitat Demand 2 Habitats per year Initial Launch Cost $1000/lb Minimum Launch Cost (after frequency benefit)
$700/lb
9.40E+07(
9.60E+07(
9.80E+07(
1.00E+08(
1.02E+08(
1.04E+08(
1.06E+08(
1.08E+08(
0( 1( 2( 3( 4( 5(
2012$NPV
$Dollars$
Years$
Tourism's$Investment$
With(Debris(Collec<on(
Without(Debris(Collec<on(
50
Figure 23: LEO Habitat Investment & Revenue
Through simulation, it is possible to view the total number of LEO habitats,
Fig. 24. Shown on this graph is the steady growth of habitat quantity for 10 years
followed by a more sporadic period as habitats are being both launched and
decommissioned. This is due to the 10 year lifespan of the habitats.
0"
200000000"
400000000"
600000000"
800000000"
1E+09"
1.2E+09"
1.4E+09"
1.6E+09"
1.8E+09"
2E+09"
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9" 10" 11" 12"
NPV
$Dollars$
Years$
LEO$Habaits$Investment$&$Revenue$
Revenue"
Investment"
51
Figure 24: Total # of LEO Habitats
Non-‐Modeled Output
Interest generation from LEO habitats is continued from high-‐altitude
tourism. This interest generates a growing demand in subsequent stepping-‐
stones. Without the increase in demand, the time required to reach breakeven is
increased. Also, the focus of these stepping-‐stones begins to shift from purely
reducing launch costs to developing life sustainability capabilities.
LEO Hub & Moon Base
Utilizing the benefits of reduced launch costs through increased frequency,
and developed LEO infrastructure facilitates life sustainability, the LEO hub and
Moon base stepping-‐stone can occur. Table 9 shows the input assumptions for the
model and Fig. 25 shows the expected investment and revenue. The graph
illustrates that a breakeven point of 8 years is achieved at a total revenue of roughly
52
3 billion dollars. The simulation continues to increase the number of LEO habitats.
Also, initial investment encompasses the costs to establish the temporary Moon
base.
Table 9: Hub & Moon Base Input Values
Input Value Initial Investment $200,000,000 Initial Habitat count (hub) 8 Ticket price to LEO hub $50,000 Ticket price to Moon base $200,000 Cost of Space-‐only Ship $100,000,000 Launch cost/lb for Space-‐only Ships $100/lb Initial Launch Cost/lb for Earth-‐Hub Ships $750/lb Min Launch Cost/lb for Hub-‐Moon base Ships $500/lb Launches to LEO hub per time period 150/yr (average) Launches to Moon base from LEO hub 60/year (average)
Figure 25: Hub & Moon Base Investment & Revenue
The total number of LEO habitats is shown in Fig. 26. This model utilizes 8
habitats from the previous stepping-‐stone. The simulation continues to
decommission and launch habitats based on demand values entered at the end of
0"
500"
1000"
1500"
2000"
2500"
3000"
3500"
4000"
4500"
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9"
2012$NPV
$in$M
illions$
Time$in$yrs$
Stepping7Stone$4:$Investment$&$Revenue$
Investment"
Revenue"
53
each simulated year. Revenue of this simulation is generated by ticket sales to both
the LEO hub and to the Moon. Fig. 27, illustrates that, across a 9 year period, the
total number of trips to LEO is 1,600 and to the Moon is 700. The model assumes
that only 40% of people who go to the LEO hub continue onto the moon.
Figure 26: Number of LEO Habitats for SS 4
Figure 27: Trips to LEO Hub & Moon Base
0"
5"
10"
15"
20"
25"
30"
35"
40"
45"
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9"
#"of"Hab
itats"
Time"in"yrs"
LEO"Habitats"
LEO"Habitats"
0"
200"
400"
600"
800"
1000"
1200"
1400"
1600"
1800"
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9"
#"of"trips"
Time"in"yrs"
LEO"&"Moon"Trips"
to"LEO"
to"Moon"
54
Non-‐Modeled Output
The first assumption for this model is that by the breakeven point of 8 years,
a complete LEO infrastructure is built. This infrastructure is necessary to provide
continued support and cost reductions for stepping-‐stone 4. The second
assumption is that a “pure” space vehicle is developed. This vehicle does not enter
Earth’s atmosphere, and is presumably built in space, thus removing major costs
and reducing necessary shielding. In addition, operational costs are reduced by
utilizing non-‐chemical propulsion such as nuclear power or solar winds.
Permanent Lunar Habitat
Building off of stepping-‐stone 4, the permanent lunar habitat creates the
necessary environment for human life on the Moon. With input parameters shown
in Table 10 investment and revenue graph is created, Fig. 28. With these input
parameters, the simulation fails to achieve a positive ROI within 13 years. The main
reason for this prolonged positive ROI is the high initial investment and the high
cost of operations.
Table 10: Permanent Lunar Habitat Input Variables
Input Value Initial Investment $800,000,000 Regolith Harvested 160k Tons/year Maintenance Cost for Equipment $50,000,000 Time between Maintenance 2.5 Years Operational cost for Base N(100000000,25000000)/year Travel Cost on Moon Number of Initial people at Lunar Base Number of people increase per year
$100/lb 50 20 (average)
55
Figure 28: Permanent Lunar Habitat Investment & Revenue
The profit for this stepping-‐stone is created by selling regolith back to the
people on the lunar surface. The amount of regolith removed is shown in Fig.
29. The quantity removed during the first two years is lower because the mining
operation is still in its infancy.
Figure 29: Amount of Regolith Removed
0"
500"
1000"
1500"
2000"
2500"
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9" 10" 11" 12" 13"
2012$NPV
$USD
$in$M
illions$
Time$in$yrs$
Stepping9Stone$5:$Investment$&$Revenue$
Investment"
Revenue"
56
Trade-‐off Analysis
Stepping-‐Stone 5 Cost Reduction
In order to make stepping-‐stone 5 achieve a breakeven point of 10 years, a
20% cost reduction is necessary. In order to find the level of reduction, single
parameter sensitivity analysis was performed until the 20% cost reduction was
achieved. Table: 11 has a breakdown of the initial input value, and a value that
would result in 20% cost reduction. Each alternative is capable of obtaining the
necessary 20% reduction.
Table 11: Permanent Lunar Habit Cost Reduction Methods
Capability Initial Value Improved Value Travel Costs $100/lb $45/lb Removed Regolith 160,000 tons 248,000 tons People Start 50 25 Growth 20 5 Operational Costs $100 million $65 million
Debris Collection
The design of the stepping-‐stones placed debris collection before LEO
habitats. Utilizing the same input parameters, a simulation was executed where
debris collection did not occur. Fig. 30 shows the investment for both with and
without debris collection. Without debris collection, the required investment slowly
builds relative to with debris collection. At year 9, a collision occurs thus greatly
increasing the orbital insurance costs. The total cost savings for LEO habitats by
performing debris collection is roughly 1 billion dollars.
57
Figure 30: Debris Collection Effect on LEO Habitats
Launch Costs
Throughout the simulation models, launch costs were reduced via an
assumed increase in technology or from the frequency of launches. A trade-‐off
analysis was performed looking at effects of launch cost on stepping-‐stone 4, the
Hub and Moon Base. Fig. 31 shows the 3 potential investments curves when the
parameter of launch costs is varied. The variations of launch costs are: a pessimistic
trend where launch costs remain at a $1000/lb cost, expected cost generated
through proposed cost reduction, and technological breakthrough trend where
launch costs are at $1/lb. By varying this parameter, breakeven times range from 5
years at optimistic launch costs to 10 years assuming the pessimistic trend.
0"
500000000"
1E+09"
1.5E+09"
2E+09"
2.5E+09"
3E+09"
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9" 10" 11" 12"
2012$NPV
$USD
$
Years$
Effect$of$No$Debris$Removal$on$SS$3$
Revenue"
Investment"without"Debris"
Investment"with"Debris"
58
Figure 31: Launch Costs on LEO Hub
Lunar Mining & Manufacturing
An assumption of the model was that performing mining and manufacturing
on the lunar surface would decrease cost by providing necessary life supporting
minerals such as oxygen, and also utilizing the regolith to construct habitats. Fig. 32
shows the required investment if, instead, all minerals necessary to sustain life and
habitats had to be sent from earth. The driving factor for the high costs is that it is
assumed that each person requires 6.5 lbs of oxygen per day. This constraint
becomes costly as the total number of people living on the Moon continues to
increase.
0"
500"
1000"
1500"
2000"
2500"
3000"
3500"
4000"
4500"
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9"
2012$NPV
$USD
$in$M
illions$
Time$in$yrs$
Effect$of$Launch$cost$on$SS$4$
$1000"Launch"Cost"
Revenue"
Expected"(Curve)"
$1"Launch"Cost"
59
Figure 32: Lunar Habitat Investment With and Without Mining & Manufacturing
0"
500"
1000"
1500"
2000"
2500"
3000"
3500"
0" 1" 2" 3" 4" 5" 6" 7" 8" 9" 10" 11" 12" 13"
2012$NPV
$USD
$in$M
illions$
Time$in$yrs$
Stepping9Stone$5:$Mining$vs$No$Mining$
Mining"Investment"
No"Mining"Investment"
60
Recommendations
Capability Rank-‐List
This analysis produces a capability rank-‐list, Table 12. This rank-‐list
identifies the recommended investment order. The list is based on the estimated
amount saved by developing a particular capability and how beneficial that
capability is to other stepping-‐stones. Debris collection is ranked number one. Not
only does it potentially save the largest amount; it also addresses the trend of
declining conditions in LEO, which could eventually result in an uninhabitable and
inescapable low Earth orbit. The next highest ranked capability is space exclusive
ships. If Earth-‐based launch costs exceed launch costs achievable by space exclusive
ships that do not return to Earth, space exclusive ships are beneficial for traveling
through space. Ranked third is habitats. Habitats are a necessary asset to the
development of space tourism, and, moreover, a lunar habitat. Their value isn’t
quantifiable; if habitats are not developed, sustaining life in space is not feasible.
Ranked fourth is launch costs. Launch costs have presented the biggest hurdle to the
development of space, and the proposed launch cost reduction through increased
launch frequency results in savings of $800M. Lastly, developing life sustainability
in space is also a necessary element to establishing a lunar habitat. Without it, even
LEO habitation is infeasible.
61
Table 12: Capability Rank-‐List
Timeline
Combining simulation output and the stepping-‐stones, a timeline of
recommended starting points for each stepping-‐stone is constructed, Fig. 33. The
timeline is built so that when one stepping-‐stone reaches an 80% ROI, the next
stepping-‐stone begins. High-‐altitude tourism is expected to begin in 2013, and was
used as the initial point for the timeline.
62
Figure 33: Recommended Stepping-‐Stone Timeline
Potential User
Any authority in the space industry, such as the president of NASA, who is
capable of coordinating the activities of these space markets will find this decision
support tool useful. With the inclusion of private sector data from the companies
represented in the capability stepping-‐stones, the tool will provide insight towards
quantifying the investment required to establish a space market. This decision
63
support tool also serves to quantify the impact these capability stepping-‐stones
have on one another: a lack of debris collection makes LEO habitats infeasible, for
example.
64
Management
WBS
0.0Space Project
1.0Research
2.0Define
3.0Design
4.0Model
5.0Analysis
6.0Deliverables
1.0Research
1.1Capture Related
Artifacts1.2
Stakeholders
1.2.1Major
1.2.2Minor
1.1.1Space
Tourism
1.1.2Debris
Collection
1.1.3Solar Powered
Satellites
1.1.4Asteroid Defense
1.1.5Asteroid Mining
1.1.6Space
Manufacturing
1.1.7Space
Colonies
1.1.8100yr
Starship
2.0Define
2.1Customer
Expectations2.2
Scope2.3
Context2.4
Stakeholders2.5
Problem Statement
2.6Need
Statement
2.7Proposed Solution
2.8Assumptions
2.3.1Advantages
2.3.2Planned Systems
2.3.3Limitations
65
2.3.3Limitations
2.3.3.1Technology
2.3.3.2Laws
2.3.3.3Design
2.3.3.1.1Launch
2.3.3.1.2Robotics
2.3.3.1.3Sustainability
2.4Stakeholders
2.4.1Major
2.4.2Minor
2.4.1.1Acceptance Criteria
2.4.1.2Current
Involvement
2.4.1.3Potential Impact
3.0Design
3.1SS 1
3.2SS 2
3.3SS 3
3.4SS 4
3.5SS 5
3.5.1IO Diagram
3.5.2 Equation
3.4.1IO Diagram
3.4.2 Equation
3.3.1IO Diagram
3.3.2 Equation
3.2.1IO Diagram
3.2.2 Equation
3.1.1IO Diagram
3.1.2 Equation
5.0Analysis
5.1Cost
5.2Schedule
5.3 Performance
5.4ROI
66
4.0Model
4.1Build
4.2 Simulate
4.3 Validate
4.2.1SS 1
4.2.2SS 2
4.2.3SS 3
4.2.4SS 4
4.2.5SS 5
4.1.1SS 1
4.1.2SS 2
4.1.3SS 3
4.1.4SS 4
4.1.5SS 5
7.0Deliverables
7.1Prelim
Project Plan
7.2Final Project
Plan
7.3Final
Proposal
7.4Conferences
7.5Final
7.5.1Report
7.5.2Presentation
6.5.3Poster
7.4.1Draft
7.4.2Abstract
7.4.3Paper
7.4.4Poster
7.4.5Presentation
7.4.1.1Paper
7.4.1.2Poster
7.3.1Report
7.3.2Presentation
7.2.1 Report
7.2.1 Presentation
7.1.1 Report
7.1.2Presentation
67
Budget
Table 13 shows the values for the project budget. The budget was developed
using 12 hours per person per week, or 48 hours per week.
Table 13: Project Budget
Value Expected Budget 1308 Current Cost 1461 Earned Value 1280
Figure 34: Project Budget
Due to the complexity of the project, the loss of a project member during the
first semester, and a second semester re-‐scoping of the project, the project SPI and
CPI are somewhat sporadic, and have trended towards values less than 1. This
indicates that the project is over-‐budget and slightly behind schedule. The initial
68
spikes in SPI and CPI during the first three weeks represent issues narrowing down
the problem definition. The plateau during weeks 14 through 18 represents winter
break.
Figure 35: Project CPI & SPI
Gantt Chart
The gantt chart for the entire project is shown on the next pages. The critical
paths are highlighted in red, and driven by the milestones of the project.
69
Gantt 1
70
Gantt 2
71
Breakdown of Hours Worked
Table 14 has a breakdown of hours worked per person. A detailed
breakdown of hours worked can be found on the next pages.
Table 14: Breakdown of Hours Worked
Hours Anh Quach 200 Bobby Taylor 312 Daniel Hettema 453 Sami Dajani 62 Scott Neal 416
72
References
[1] NASA, "NASA Budget Statistics," in The World Almanac and Book of Facts 2012, Sarah Jenssen, Ed. USA: World Almanac, 2011, vol. 1, p. 1008.
[2] Virgin Galactic, "Aabar Investments and Virgin Group Agree Equity Investment Partnership in Virgin Galactic," Press Release 2009.
[3] NASA. (2011, January) Solar System Exploration. [Online]. http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Moon&Display=Facts&System=Metric
[4] John Merline. (2011, July) Investors.com. [Online]. http://news.investors.com/article/578923/201107201854/majority-‐opposes-‐shuttle-‐shutdown.htm
[5] NASA. (2011, September) nasa.gov. [Online]. http://www.nasa.gov/news/debris_faq.html
[6] Michael Hoffman. (2009, April) The Show Scout. [Online]. http://blogs.defensenews.com/space-‐symposium/2009/04/03/its-‐getting-‐crowded-‐up-‐there/#more-‐155
[8] NASA. (2010, October) nasa.gov. [Online]. http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/orbital_debris.html
[7] NASA. (2009, September) NASA Earth Observatory. [Online]. http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40173
[9] Leonard David. (2011, August) Space.com. [Online]. http://www.space.com/12602-‐space-‐junk-‐cleanup-‐grand-‐challenge-‐21st-‐century.html
[10] Kate Kelland. (2009, November) The Washngton Post. [Online]. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-‐dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110603555.html?wprss=rss_nation/science
[11] J Pearson, E Levin, and J Carroll, "Active Removal of LEO Space Debris: The ElectroDynamic Debris Eliminator (EDDE)," 2011.
[12] SpaceX. (2012, January) Spacex.com. [Online]. http://www.spacex.com/falcon_heavy.php
[13] Futron, "Space Transportation Costs: Trends in Price Per Pound to Orbit 1990-‐2000," 2002.
[14] Star, INC. (2011, January) Star Technology and Research. [Online]. http://www.star-‐tech-‐inc.com/index.html
[15] John Strickland. (2011, November) The Space Review. [Online]. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1979/1
[16] NASA. (2011, April) science.nasa.gov. [Online]. http://science.nasa.gov/science-‐news/science-‐at-‐nasa/1998/notebook/msad22jul98_1/
73