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: 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 Figure 35: Project CPI & SPI _________________________________________________________________________________ 68 6 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 7 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. 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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. 13 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. 14 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 15 [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. 16 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. 17 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. 18 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. 19 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. 20 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. 21 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. 22 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 23 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. 24 space
habitats
launch
frequency
_
launch
costs
Space
Activity
_
investment
_
space
tourism
Debris
collection
_
amount of
debris
_
orbital
insurance
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 25 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. 26 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. 27 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. 28 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 29 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 30 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. 31 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 32 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. 33 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. 34 Seed Funding
Stepping Stone
Capabilities
Investment
Lunar Habitat
ROI Calculator
ROI
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 35 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. 36 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 37 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. 38 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 P Ch CLH CLP CMN Lh MTBFH n Meaning Habitat lease price Cost of habitat Cost to launch habitat Cost to launch person to habitat Maintenance cost Lifetime of habitat Habitat failure rate 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. 39 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 40 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 Th Pth TM PTM CH CMB LMB Meaning Ticket to LEO hub Price of Ticket to LEO hub Ticket to Moon base Price of Ticket to Moon base Cost of LEO hub Cost of Moon base Lifetime of Moon base 41 MTBFMB CM,MB LH MTBFH CM,H CL,H CL,MB x y Cx Cy Capx Capy CLX CLY Lx MTBFx CM,x Ly MTBFy CM,y Moon Base Failure Rate Average Cost to fix Moon base Lifetime of LEO hub Moon Base Failure Rate Average Cost to fix LEO hub Cost to Launch LEO hub Cost to Launch Moon base Number of Earth-­‐LEO hub ships Number of LEO hub-­‐Moon base ships Cost of Earth-­‐LEO hub ship Cost of LEO hub-­‐Moon base ship Capacity of Earth-­‐LEO hub ship Capacity of LEO hub-­‐Moon base ship Launch Cost for Earth-­‐LEO hub ship Launch Cost for LEO hub-­‐Moon base ship Lifetime of Earth-­‐LEO hub ship Earth-­‐LEO hub ship failure rate Average Cost to fix Earth-­‐LEO hub ship Lifetime of Earth-­‐LEO hub ship LEO hub-­‐Moon base ship failure rate 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. 42 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 R n CB+E Co Cm Ct P T Meaning Average Regolith Payload Number of Payloads Cost of Base & Equipment Operating Costs/year Maintenance Costs/year Travel Cost on Moon/lb Average Payload 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. 43 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 44 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 45 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 Direct mission cost Flights per month (demand) Flights per maintenance Maintenance Cost Maintenance time Value $400,000 2 2 $50,000 2 weeks 2012$NPV$Dollars$
Millions$
Virgin$Galac6c$Investment/Revenue$
1.40E+02%
1.20E+02%
1.00E+02%
8.00E+01%
6.00E+01%
4.00E+01%
Investment%
2.00E+01%
Revenue%
0.00E+00%
0%
1%
2%
3%
Years$
4%
5%
Figure 19: High-­‐Altitude Investment/Revenue 46 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 47 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. Collision$Insurance$Costs$
based$on:$7%$of$10%$total$insurance$premium$
40500$
40000$
2012$NPV$Dollars$
39500$
39000$
Cost$
38500$
38000$
37500$
37000$
0$
1$
2$
3$
4$
5$
Years$
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 $10 million per year is obtained. 48 Tourism's$Investment$
1.08E+08(
2012$NPV$Dollars$
1.06E+08(
1.04E+08(
With(Debris(
Collec<on(
1.02E+08(
1.00E+08(
9.80E+07(
Without(Debris(
Collec<on(
9.60E+07(
9.40E+07(
0(
1(
2(
3(
4(
5(
Years$
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 Initial Investment Lease Revenue Maintenance Cost Frequency of Launch to Habitats Demand Initial Launch Cost Minimum Launch Cost (after frequency benefit) Value $200,000,000 120,000,000 over 5 Years, 50% up front N(800000000,2000000) 3 per year per habitat 2 Habitats per year $1000/lb $700/lb 49 LEO$Habaits$Investment$&$Revenue$
2E+09"
1.8E+09"
1.6E+09"
NPV$Dollars$
1.4E+09"
1.2E+09"
1E+09"
800000000"
600000000"
Revenue"
400000000"
Investment"
200000000"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
6"
7"
8"
9"
10"
11"
12"
Years$
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. 50 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 51 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 Initial Investment Initial Habitat count (hub) Ticket price to LEO hub Ticket price to Moon base Cost of Space-­‐only Ship Launch cost/lb for Space-­‐only Ships Initial Launch Cost/lb for Earth-­‐Hub Ships Min Launch Cost/lb for Hub-­‐Moon base Ships Launches to LEO hub per time period Launches to Moon base from LEO hub Value $200,000,000 8 $50,000 $200,000 $100,000,000 $100/lb $750/lb $500/lb 150/yr (average) 60/year (average) Stepping7Stone$4:$
Investment$&$Revenue$
4500"
2012$NPV$in$Millions$
4000"
3500"
3000"
2500"
2000"
1500"
Investment"
1000"
Revenue"
500"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
6"
7"
8"
9"
Time$in$yrs$
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 52 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. LEO"Habitats"
45"
40"
35"
#"of"Habitats"
30"
25"
20"
LEO"Habitats"
15"
10"
5"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
6"
7"
8"
9"
Time"in"yrs"
Figure 26: Number of LEO Habitats for SS 4 LEO"&"Moon"Trips"
1800"
1600"
1400"
#"of"trips"
1200"
1000"
to"LEO"
800"
to"Moon"
600"
400"
200"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
6"
7"
8"
Time"in"yrs"
9"
Figure 27: Trips to LEO Hub & Moon Base 53 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 Initial Investment Regolith Harvested Maintenance Cost for Equipment Time between Maintenance Operational cost for Base Travel Cost on Moon Number of Initial people at Lunar Base Number of people increase per year Value $800,000,000 160k Tons/year $50,000,000 2.5 Years N(100000000,25000000)/year $100/lb 50 20 (average) 54 Stepping9Stone$5:$
Investment$&$Revenue$
2500"
2012$NPV$USD$in$Millions$
2000"
1500"
1000"
Investment"
500"
Revenue"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
6"
7"
Time$in$yrs$
8"
9"
10"
11"
12"
13"
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
55 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 Travel Costs Removed Regolith People Start Growth Operational Costs Initial Value $100/lb 160,000 tons 50 20 $100 million Improved Value $45/lb 248,000 tons 25 5 $65 million Debris Collection The design of the stepping-­‐stones placed debris collection before LEO habitats. Utilizing the same input parameters, a simulation was executed where debris collection did not occur. Fig. 30 shows the investment for both with and without debris collection. Without debris collection, the required investment slowly builds relative to with debris collection. At year 9, a collision occurs thus greatly increasing the orbital insurance costs. The total cost savings for LEO habitats by performing debris collection is roughly 1 billion dollars. 56 Effect$of$No$Debris$Removal$on$SS$3$
3E+09"
Revenue"
Investment"without"Debris"
2.5E+09"
Investment"with"Debris"
2012$NPV$USD$
2E+09"
1.5E+09"
1E+09"
500000000"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
6"
7"
8"
9"
10"
11"
12"
Years$
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 $1/lb. By varying this parameter, breakeven times range from 5 years at optimistic launch costs to 10 years assuming the pessimistic trend. 57 Effect$of$Launch$cost$on$SS$4$
4500"
4000"
2012$NPV$USD$in$Millions$
3500"
3000"
2500"
$1000"
Launch"Cost"
2000"
Revenue"
1500"
Expected"
(Curve)"
1000"
$1"Launch"
Cost"
500"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
6"
7"
8"
9"
Time$in$yrs$
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. 58 Stepping9Stone$5:$
Mining$vs$No$Mining$
3500"
2012$NPV$USD$in$Millions$
3000"
2500"
2000"
1500"
Mining"
Investment"
1000"
No"Mining"
Investment"
500"
0"
0"
1"
2"
3"
4"
5"
6"
7"
8"
9"
10"
11"
12"
13"
Time$in$yrs$
Figure 32: Lunar Habitat Investment With and Without Mining & Manufacturing 59 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. 60 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. 61 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 62 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. 63 Management WBS 0.0
Space Project
1.0
Research
2.0
Define
3.0
Design
4.0
Model
5.0
Analysis
6.0
Deliverables
1.0
Research
1.1
Capture Related
Artifacts
1.2
Stakeholders
1.2.1
Major
1.1.1
Space
Tourism
1.1.2
Debris
Collection
1.1.3
Solar Powered
Satellites
1.1.4
Asteroid
Defense
1.1.5
Asteroid
Mining
1.1.6
Space
Manufacturing
1.2.2
Minor
1.1.7
Space
Colonies
1.1.8
100yr
Starship
2.0
Define
2.1
Customer
Expectations
2.2
Scope
2.3
Context
2.4
Stakeholders
2.3.1
Advantages
2.3.2
Planned
Systems
2.3.3
Limitations
2.5
Problem
Statement
2.6
Need
Statement
2.7
Proposed
Solution
2.8
Assumptions
64 2.3.3
Limitations
2.3.3.1.1
Launch
2.3.3.1
Technology
2.3.3.2
Laws
2.3.3.1.2
Robotics
2.3.3.1.3
Sustainability
2.4
Stakeholders
2.3.3.3
Design
2.4.1.1
Acceptanc
e Criteria
2.4.1
Major
2.4.2
Minor
2.4.1.2
Current
Involvement
2.4.1.3
Potential
Impact
3.0
Design
3.1
SS 1
3.2
SS 2
3.3
SS 3
3.4
SS 4
3.5
SS 5
3.1.1
IO Diagram
3.2.1
IO Diagram
3.3.1
IO Diagram
3.4.1
IO Diagram
3.5.1
IO Diagram
3.1.2
Equation
3.2.2
Equation
3.3.2
Equation
3.4.2
Equation
3.5.2
Equation
5.0
Analysis
5.1
Cost
5.2
Schedule
5.3
Performance
5.4
ROI
65 4.0
Model
4.1
Build
4.2
Simulate
4.3
Validate
4.1.1
SS 1
4.2.1
SS 1
4.1.2
SS 2
4.2.2
SS 2
4.1.3
SS 3
4.2.3
SS 3
4.1.4
SS 4
4.2.4
SS 4
4.1.5
SS 5
4.2.5
SS 5
7.0
Deliverables
7.1
Prelim
Project Plan
7.2
Final Project
Plan
7.1.1
Report
7.1.2
Presentation
7.2.1
Report
7.2.1
Presentation
7.4
Conferences
7.3
Final
Proposal
7.3.1
Report
7.5
Final
7.4.1
Draft
7.5.1
Report
7.4.1.1
Paper
7.3.2
Presentation
7.4.2
Abstract
7.4.1.2
Poster
7.5.2
Presentation
6.5.3
Poster
7.4.3
Paper
7.4.4
Poster
7.4.5
Presentation
66 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 Expected Budget Current Cost Earned Value Value 1308 1461 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 67 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. 68 Gantt 1 69 Gantt 2 70 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 Anh Quach Bobby Taylor Daniel Hettema Sami Dajani Scott Neal Hours 200 312 453 62 416 71 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/ 72 73