Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 3 – uploaded by Shai GERNER

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
SSP12 OASIS Team at Space Shuttle Launch Complex 39A It is with great pleasure that we integrate the Space Studies Program (SSP) 2012 class in a year of extraordinary celebrations. The 25" anniversary of the International Space University is a milestone and huge success in joining incredible minds within the space domain. There would not be a better place to celebrate this event than the legendary Kennedy Space Center (KSC) at the time of its own 50 year anniversary. Kennedy Space Center has been one of the greatest Earth- based spaceports of the space age, making it an even more remarkable experience for us.

Figure 3 SSP12 OASIS Team at Space Shuttle Launch Complex 39A It is with great pleasure that we integrate the Space Studies Program (SSP) 2012 class in a year of extraordinary celebrations. The 25" anniversary of the International Space University is a milestone and huge success in joining incredible minds within the space domain. There would not be a better place to celebrate this event than the legendary Kennedy Space Center (KSC) at the time of its own 50 year anniversary. Kennedy Space Center has been one of the greatest Earth- based spaceports of the space age, making it an even more remarkable experience for us.

Related Figures (50)

Kennedy Space Center Organizations
Kennedy Space Center Organizations
Launch/Odyssey Launch Platform (USA based), SHAR Sathish Dhawan Space Center (India), Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center (China), Tanegashima Space Center (Japan), Vandenberg Air Force Base (USA) and Xichang Satellite Launch Center (China). Low latitude means that the spaceport’s location is close to the equator. This is desirable for the launch of geosynchronous and geostationary satellites. As these GEO satellites’ positions are near a zero-inclination orbit, a launch from higher latitudes requires a plane-change maneuver. This maneuver requires a certain mass of propellant, which needs to be subtracted from the payload mass. Additionally, the rotation of the Earth at lower latitudes results in a higher absolute velocity of the spacecraft at launch when launched to the East, reducing the total change in velocity required to attain orbit. In conclusion, proximity to the equator results in higher payload mass to GEO. Some examples of favorably located spaceports are listed below.
Launch/Odyssey Launch Platform (USA based), SHAR Sathish Dhawan Space Center (India), Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center (China), Tanegashima Space Center (Japan), Vandenberg Air Force Base (USA) and Xichang Satellite Launch Center (China). Low latitude means that the spaceport’s location is close to the equator. This is desirable for the launch of geosynchronous and geostationary satellites. As these GEO satellites’ positions are near a zero-inclination orbit, a launch from higher latitudes requires a plane-change maneuver. This maneuver requires a certain mass of propellant, which needs to be subtracted from the payload mass. Additionally, the rotation of the Earth at lower latitudes results in a higher absolute velocity of the spacecraft at launch when launched to the East, reducing the total change in velocity required to attain orbit. In conclusion, proximity to the equator results in higher payload mass to GEO. Some examples of favorably located spaceports are listed below.
Table 3-1: Launch Vehicle Capability and Price 3.4 Market Analysis of Potential New Services For many decades, the high cost of launch services has been one of the biggest obstacles to the growth of space commercialization and exploration. A temporary, relatively low price did appear between the years of 2003 and 2006, but from 2007, the price began to increase again and is still very high. The data listed in Table 3-1, as well as Table 3-6, is from the launch vehicle provider’s official website and public release, indicating the current available (or available in 2012-15) major launch vehicles and their respective estimated price (United Launch Alliance, 2011; Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, 2012; China Great Wall Industry Corporation, 2011; Arianespace, 2011; International Launch Services, 2009; Sea Launch, 2008 and JAXA, 2012).
Table 3-1: Launch Vehicle Capability and Price 3.4 Market Analysis of Potential New Services For many decades, the high cost of launch services has been one of the biggest obstacles to the growth of space commercialization and exploration. A temporary, relatively low price did appear between the years of 2003 and 2006, but from 2007, the price began to increase again and is still very high. The data listed in Table 3-1, as well as Table 3-6, is from the launch vehicle provider’s official website and public release, indicating the current available (or available in 2012-15) major launch vehicles and their respective estimated price (United Launch Alliance, 2011; Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, 2012; China Great Wall Industry Corporation, 2011; Arianespace, 2011; International Launch Services, 2009; Sea Launch, 2008 and JAXA, 2012).
3.4.2 Priority Short-Term Services (2012-25)
3.4.2 Priority Short-Term Services (2012-25)
Table 3-4: List of Potential Services for Long-Term (2045—Onwards)
Table 3-4: List of Potential Services for Long-Term (2045—Onwards)
Table 3-5: Number of GEO Spacecraft Launched by Mass Category The risk of telecommunication interference limits the number of operational GEO spacecraft. It is expected that the number of spacecraft launched into the GEO orbit will remain between 20-23 satellites per year, reference Table 3-5. However, the average mass per spacecraft is expected to increase as “the trend is to build heavier, more capable satellites”, based on the research conducted by Federal Aviation Administration (2012). In the future, the average mass per GEO spacecraft will reach about 4.5 tons per satellite (ASD-Eurospace, 2012).
Table 3-5: Number of GEO Spacecraft Launched by Mass Category The risk of telecommunication interference limits the number of operational GEO spacecraft. It is expected that the number of spacecraft launched into the GEO orbit will remain between 20-23 satellites per year, reference Table 3-5. However, the average mass per spacecraft is expected to increase as “the trend is to build heavier, more capable satellites”, based on the research conducted by Federal Aviation Administration (2012). In the future, the average mass per GEO spacecraft will reach about 4.5 tons per satellite (ASD-Eurospace, 2012).
Figure 3-2: Launched Mass to GEO by Launcher Family (Telecoms only)
Figure 3-2: Launched Mass to GEO by Launcher Family (Telecoms only)
Table 3-6: Price per Kilogram Charged to Customers by Existing Launchers Considering a dual satellite launch from Earth to LEO and using a low-cost launcher to launct water to refill the LEO depot, the spaceport can reach a lower cost structure than conventiona GEO satellite launchers. Insurance cost is reduced: instead of insuring two launches, the If we consider that launch operators manage to use the maximum mass to GTO and LEO of their launchers, the price per kilogram is displayed in Table 3-6. OASIS would still provide the lowest price solution for GTO even after considering a 20% profit margin for the spaceport. Falcon Heavy is not considered, as it is not yet operational. The impact of Falcon Heavy on the tug service profitability will be analyzed later.
Table 3-6: Price per Kilogram Charged to Customers by Existing Launchers Considering a dual satellite launch from Earth to LEO and using a low-cost launcher to launct water to refill the LEO depot, the spaceport can reach a lower cost structure than conventiona GEO satellite launchers. Insurance cost is reduced: instead of insuring two launches, the If we consider that launch operators manage to use the maximum mass to GTO and LEO of their launchers, the price per kilogram is displayed in Table 3-6. OASIS would still provide the lowest price solution for GTO even after considering a 20% profit margin for the spaceport. Falcon Heavy is not considered, as it is not yet operational. The impact of Falcon Heavy on the tug service profitability will be analyzed later.
The total mass of the dual launch is 9t in GTO, the dry mass of the tug is 2.9t. The required amount of propellant to transport the tug and both satellites from LEO to GTO is 8,730kg. Considering that 1.28kg of water produces 1kg of propellant, the required amount of water is 11,174kg. Considering a cost of launch from Earth to LEO of $4,000/kg (Proton: $4,348/kg; Falcon 9: $4,106/kg) for both satellites, $3,200/kg for the water, and neglecting the cost of purchase and logistics of the water on Earth, the total cost to bring both satellites from Earth to GTO is $71.8m without charges. Considering 10% charges (tug operations and monitoring), the total cost for the OASIS Earth to GTO service is $78.9m or $8,770/kg of GEO satellites. Considering a 20% profit margin, the price charged for both satellites is $98.7m or $10,963/kg of GEO satellites. This increase in cost leads to a negative profit for masses lower than 3t if it is decided to fix the price at $10,963/kg regardless of the mass of the GEO satellite(s). A more adequate solution to avoid reducing profit margins is to adopt a flexible pricing method: regardless of the mass tugged from LEO to GTO, a 20% profit margin on the cost can be charged.
The total mass of the dual launch is 9t in GTO, the dry mass of the tug is 2.9t. The required amount of propellant to transport the tug and both satellites from LEO to GTO is 8,730kg. Considering that 1.28kg of water produces 1kg of propellant, the required amount of water is 11,174kg. Considering a cost of launch from Earth to LEO of $4,000/kg (Proton: $4,348/kg; Falcon 9: $4,106/kg) for both satellites, $3,200/kg for the water, and neglecting the cost of purchase and logistics of the water on Earth, the total cost to bring both satellites from Earth to GTO is $71.8m without charges. Considering 10% charges (tug operations and monitoring), the total cost for the OASIS Earth to GTO service is $78.9m or $8,770/kg of GEO satellites. Considering a 20% profit margin, the price charged for both satellites is $98.7m or $10,963/kg of GEO satellites. This increase in cost leads to a negative profit for masses lower than 3t if it is decided to fix the price at $10,963/kg regardless of the mass of the GEO satellite(s). A more adequate solution to avoid reducing profit margins is to adopt a flexible pricing method: regardless of the mass tugged from LEO to GTO, a 20% profit margin on the cost can be charged.
tugged from LEO to GTO using the flexible pricing method. It also shows the cost for the GEO satellite customers of using any of the existing GEO launchers. Two areas are highlighted in red and show potential competition from Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy as they match OASIS prices for certain ranges of mass. One solution is to lower the price by reducing the profit margin for these ranges. However, the OASIS solution would still allow more comparable dry mass to be launched with any chosen launch vehicle. In the short-term, the Spaceport Node 1 “tug” service may only capture four of the 20-23 GEO satellites, with an average mass of 4.5t, launched per year. If two are dual launch and two are single launches, using the flexible pricing method, the yearly profit is $42m. This yearly profit figure does not take into account the potential profit from offering lower launch cost to LEO satellites willing to launch with GEO satellite(s) in one launch (thus reaching the maximum mass of the launcher and ensuring the lowest cost for a given launcher).
tugged from LEO to GTO using the flexible pricing method. It also shows the cost for the GEO satellite customers of using any of the existing GEO launchers. Two areas are highlighted in red and show potential competition from Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy as they match OASIS prices for certain ranges of mass. One solution is to lower the price by reducing the profit margin for these ranges. However, the OASIS solution would still allow more comparable dry mass to be launched with any chosen launch vehicle. In the short-term, the Spaceport Node 1 “tug” service may only capture four of the 20-23 GEO satellites, with an average mass of 4.5t, launched per year. If two are dual launch and two are single launches, using the flexible pricing method, the yearly profit is $42m. This yearly profit figure does not take into account the potential profit from offering lower launch cost to LEO satellites willing to launch with GEO satellite(s) in one launch (thus reaching the maximum mass of the launcher and ensuring the lowest cost for a given launcher).
Table 3-8: List of Major and Scheduled Space Agencies Planetary Missions As the service enables larger mass to reach farther destinations, a pricing model that will charge a premium price to spacecraft requesting high propellant mass at the LEO depot can be considered (monopoly situation). The potential revenue and profit could be more than stated above. Indeed, the study only considers the major and scheduled planetary missions to be conducted by NASA, European Space Agency (ESA) and other space agencies. In addition, providing LEO on-orbit fueling increases the capability of sending more important masses to destinations beyond LEO. This will certainly push space agencies and commercial space companies to increase their mass budget leveraging this more efficient method to reach their destination. This will multiply the market size.
Table 3-8: List of Major and Scheduled Space Agencies Planetary Missions As the service enables larger mass to reach farther destinations, a pricing model that will charge a premium price to spacecraft requesting high propellant mass at the LEO depot can be considered (monopoly situation). The potential revenue and profit could be more than stated above. Indeed, the study only considers the major and scheduled planetary missions to be conducted by NASA, European Space Agency (ESA) and other space agencies. In addition, providing LEO on-orbit fueling increases the capability of sending more important masses to destinations beyond LEO. This will certainly push space agencies and commercial space companies to increase their mass budget leveraging this more efficient method to reach their destination. This will multiply the market size.
Long, Richards, and Hastings showed in their publication “On-Orbit Servicing: A new Value Proposition for Satellite Design and Operation” in 2007 that a market for on-orbit servicing ir GEO has existed since 2006 as shown in Table 3-9 (Long, Richards, and Hastings, 2007). In the short-term, the spaceport network will not provide the complete set of on-orbit servicin; but can definitely leverage its tug structure and Spaceport Node 1 to provide “inspect an relocate” services if the customer is willing to pay the cost and a fixed margin as profit. In the short-term, the spaceport network will not provide the complete set of on-orbit servicing
Long, Richards, and Hastings showed in their publication “On-Orbit Servicing: A new Value Proposition for Satellite Design and Operation” in 2007 that a market for on-orbit servicing ir GEO has existed since 2006 as shown in Table 3-9 (Long, Richards, and Hastings, 2007). In the short-term, the spaceport network will not provide the complete set of on-orbit servicin; but can definitely leverage its tug structure and Spaceport Node 1 to provide “inspect an relocate” services if the customer is willing to pay the cost and a fixed margin as profit. In the short-term, the spaceport network will not provide the complete set of on-orbit servicing
In the medium-term, the spaceport network will continue to provide “tug” services from LEO to GEO for the GEO satellite market. An expansion of the “tug” service is also considered for destinations like Lunar orbit, if a reasonable profit can be generated. The total initial investment cost for the construction of a robotic spaceport on the Moon with mining operations to provide 150t of water to Spaceport Node 1 per year is estimated at $5.3b. The payback period for the initial investment is set to 15 years. As a result, the cost of a kilogram of propellant extracted from the Moon and made available at the Spaceport Node 1 is $3,261. This corresponds to a reduction of 38 % compared to the short-term Earth propellant solution.
In the medium-term, the spaceport network will continue to provide “tug” services from LEO to GEO for the GEO satellite market. An expansion of the “tug” service is also considered for destinations like Lunar orbit, if a reasonable profit can be generated. The total initial investment cost for the construction of a robotic spaceport on the Moon with mining operations to provide 150t of water to Spaceport Node 1 per year is estimated at $5.3b. The payback period for the initial investment is set to 15 years. As a result, the cost of a kilogram of propellant extracted from the Moon and made available at the Spaceport Node 1 is $3,261. This corresponds to a reduction of 38 % compared to the short-term Earth propellant solution.
Figure 3-6: Evolution of the Cost of Lunar Propellant in LEO — Payback Period: 15 years For a payback period of 15 years, more than 100t of lunar water should be extracted per year and provided to the LEO depot to offer a lower cost of propellant than the short term solution. The capture of future medium-term planetary or exploratory missions, tourism and mining companies’ missions will guarantee the viability of the Spaceport Node 2. In addition, if GEO Space Solar Power transmitted to Earth becomes viable due to the reduced cost of access to GEO and other technology developments, then the market will become very large and the modular OASIS system can be scaled up to accommodate it. This will lead to further economies of scale and a corresponding reduction in price of LEO to GEO transportation. For a payback period of 15 years, more than 100t of lunar water should be extracted per year
Figure 3-6: Evolution of the Cost of Lunar Propellant in LEO — Payback Period: 15 years For a payback period of 15 years, more than 100t of lunar water should be extracted per year and provided to the LEO depot to offer a lower cost of propellant than the short term solution. The capture of future medium-term planetary or exploratory missions, tourism and mining companies’ missions will guarantee the viability of the Spaceport Node 2. In addition, if GEO Space Solar Power transmitted to Earth becomes viable due to the reduced cost of access to GEO and other technology developments, then the market will become very large and the modular OASIS system can be scaled up to accommodate it. This will lead to further economies of scale and a corresponding reduction in price of LEO to GEO transportation. For a payback period of 15 years, more than 100t of lunar water should be extracted per year
Table 3-10: Potential Moon Installation Related Services in the Medium-Term (2025-45) Providing such services will allow the spaceport network to generate economies of scale on initial investments, increase its profit in the future and boost the tourism market on the Moon by providing the necessary infrastructures required for a short stay.
Table 3-10: Potential Moon Installation Related Services in the Medium-Term (2025-45) Providing such services will allow the spaceport network to generate economies of scale on initial investments, increase its profit in the future and boost the tourism market on the Moon by providing the necessary infrastructures required for a short stay.
Table 4-1: Lunar Surface Average Regolith Composition Pelee ~~ Se Oxygen makes up 80% of the fuel by weight required in current launch systems (Larson 2010, p.1); the remaining 20% of the propellant is hydrogen. Proportionally lighter than oxygen, one option is hydrogen could be transported from Earth. Hydrogen and oxygen can also be used in fuel cells as an energy source. Fortunately, oxygen is present in about 45% of the lunar soil by weight (Bussey, Plescia, and Spudis, 2006). Lunar regolith contains oxides, according to compositions in Table 4-1 (ISU Team Project, 2007).
Table 4-1: Lunar Surface Average Regolith Composition Pelee ~~ Se Oxygen makes up 80% of the fuel by weight required in current launch systems (Larson 2010, p.1); the remaining 20% of the propellant is hydrogen. Proportionally lighter than oxygen, one option is hydrogen could be transported from Earth. Hydrogen and oxygen can also be used in fuel cells as an energy source. Fortunately, oxygen is present in about 45% of the lunar soil by weight (Bussey, Plescia, and Spudis, 2006). Lunar regolith contains oxides, according to compositions in Table 4-1 (ISU Team Project, 2007).
Table 4-2 (ISU Team Project, 2007), compares oxygen extraction methods based on excavation rate, mass, power, and efficiency. The carbothermal reduction process is the best compromise between feed efficiency and technology readiness. The hydrogen reduction of ilmenite has a 1.41% efficiency, which leads to a high feed-through rate and requires significant infrastructure. The Molten Silicates Electrolysis involves heating regolith to a molten state, and electrolyzing the O, and metal (in addition to metallic refinement). This process is a high risk owing to containment and management at the molten state. However, operational prototypes exist and the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is around 3-4.
Table 4-2 (ISU Team Project, 2007), compares oxygen extraction methods based on excavation rate, mass, power, and efficiency. The carbothermal reduction process is the best compromise between feed efficiency and technology readiness. The hydrogen reduction of ilmenite has a 1.41% efficiency, which leads to a high feed-through rate and requires significant infrastructure. The Molten Silicates Electrolysis involves heating regolith to a molten state, and electrolyzing the O, and metal (in addition to metallic refinement). This process is a high risk owing to containment and management at the molten state. However, operational prototypes exist and the Technology Readiness Level (TRL) is around 3-4.
Figure 4-1: Indication of Hydrogen at the Lunar Poles [ISU Team Project, 2007]
Figure 4-1: Indication of Hydrogen at the Lunar Poles [ISU Team Project, 2007]
Figure 4-2: Nadir NIR Spectral Identifications in Sorted Spectra [Gibson and Pillinger, 2010] The concentrations of exposed hydrogen remain on the order of 150+/-80 ppm (ISU Team Project, 2007) in the craters and permanently shadowed regions at the poles. To confirm the results shown, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)/Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission was conceived. The mission collided one stage of the module with the lunar surface and analyzed the plume it created. The results showed that 4-8% of the plume consisted of water, but that this “represents only the sunlit fraction from the upper surface with speeds sufficient to reach an altitude of 830m” (Dino, 2009). Figure 4-2 illustrates LCROSS’ water identification in blue.
Figure 4-2: Nadir NIR Spectral Identifications in Sorted Spectra [Gibson and Pillinger, 2010] The concentrations of exposed hydrogen remain on the order of 150+/-80 ppm (ISU Team Project, 2007) in the craters and permanently shadowed regions at the poles. To confirm the results shown, the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO)/Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) mission was conceived. The mission collided one stage of the module with the lunar surface and analyzed the plume it created. The results showed that 4-8% of the plume consisted of water, but that this “represents only the sunlit fraction from the upper surface with speeds sufficient to reach an altitude of 830m” (Dino, 2009). Figure 4-2 illustrates LCROSS’ water identification in blue.
Figure 4-3: Permanently Lit Region of the Moon [McKee, 2005] Most processes that we would expect to undertake at a Lunar OASIS node require electrical energy, and it is important to maximize the availability of solar power from sunlight that can be generated at a given location. The Lunar rotational period is 29.53 days (Williams, 2010); day and night both last roughly 13 days which places a huge demand on a node’s ability to retain generated power. A node would have to store battery power to operate through the 13-day night period. Lunar surveyor Clementine (McKee, 2005) mapped the lunar surface for 71 days in 1994 and identified a Northern polar region that seemingly experiences year-round exposure according to Figure 4-3.
Figure 4-3: Permanently Lit Region of the Moon [McKee, 2005] Most processes that we would expect to undertake at a Lunar OASIS node require electrical energy, and it is important to maximize the availability of solar power from sunlight that can be generated at a given location. The Lunar rotational period is 29.53 days (Williams, 2010); day and night both last roughly 13 days which places a huge demand on a node’s ability to retain generated power. A node would have to store battery power to operate through the 13-day night period. Lunar surveyor Clementine (McKee, 2005) mapped the lunar surface for 71 days in 1994 and identified a Northern polar region that seemingly experiences year-round exposure according to Figure 4-3.
The table provides an insight into the power and mass requirements to enable an ISRU system with current technologies. As it can be seen, the mass requirements for the system especially water acquisition is fairly large. The following subsections will detail the possible propellant and life consumable resources which can be found on Mars, as well as their locale, the available concentration, extraction methods, and the difficulties associated these tasks. naking the implementation of ISRU challenging. For instance, a joint Jet Propulsion Laboratory JPL)-Lockheed-Martin study in 2004 (Badescu, 2010) modeled an ISRU system on Mars which vould operate continuously over a period of 16 months utilizing reduction of regolith for water oroduction and CO, production via a cryogenic process, and the results of the study are in fable 4-3 (Badescu, 2010). with current technologies. As it can be seen, the mass requirements for the system especially
The table provides an insight into the power and mass requirements to enable an ISRU system with current technologies. As it can be seen, the mass requirements for the system especially water acquisition is fairly large. The following subsections will detail the possible propellant and life consumable resources which can be found on Mars, as well as their locale, the available concentration, extraction methods, and the difficulties associated these tasks. naking the implementation of ISRU challenging. For instance, a joint Jet Propulsion Laboratory JPL)-Lockheed-Martin study in 2004 (Badescu, 2010) modeled an ISRU system on Mars which vould operate continuously over a period of 16 months utilizing reduction of regolith for water oroduction and CO, production via a cryogenic process, and the results of the study are in fable 4-3 (Badescu, 2010). with current technologies. As it can be seen, the mass requirements for the system especially
Figure 4-4: Data from 2001 Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer [NASA, n.d.]
Figure 4-4: Data from 2001 Mars Odyssey Gamma Ray Spectrometer [NASA, n.d.]
Figure 4-5: Hypothetical Ceres' Strata [Pullen, 2009]
Figure 4-5: Hypothetical Ceres' Strata [Pullen, 2009]
Table 4-4: Science Summary From this table we conclude that the Moon and Mars have the necessary resources for supporting commercial production of propellant. These resources will also enable the establishment of regenerative life support system allowing the presence of humans within the different nodes of the network. This chapter identifies the known locations for oxygen, water and sunlight. Additionally, the locations for further exploration and expansion of the spaceport network are categorized for tha naar Solar Svctam Plasma, micro and partial gravity, as well as radiations and meteoroids constitute specific hazards for spacecraft and humans at each location, which will have to be accounted for in the design of the network of spaceports. In situ resources on the Moon include oxygen, water, metals, carbon and solar energy. Mapping these resources and their quantity is critical for the establishment of network nodes, as this will eventually enable the reduction of mission mass and costs and the development of commercial markets. The major resource stockpiles of the inner solar system as detailed in this chapter are shown in Table 4-4. supporting commercial production of propellant. These resources will also enable the
Table 4-4: Science Summary From this table we conclude that the Moon and Mars have the necessary resources for supporting commercial production of propellant. These resources will also enable the establishment of regenerative life support system allowing the presence of humans within the different nodes of the network. This chapter identifies the known locations for oxygen, water and sunlight. Additionally, the locations for further exploration and expansion of the spaceport network are categorized for tha naar Solar Svctam Plasma, micro and partial gravity, as well as radiations and meteoroids constitute specific hazards for spacecraft and humans at each location, which will have to be accounted for in the design of the network of spaceports. In situ resources on the Moon include oxygen, water, metals, carbon and solar energy. Mapping these resources and their quantity is critical for the establishment of network nodes, as this will eventually enable the reduction of mission mass and costs and the development of commercial markets. The major resource stockpiles of the inner solar system as detailed in this chapter are shown in Table 4-4. supporting commercial production of propellant. These resources will also enable the
Table 5-3: Capability and Requirements Matrix
Table 5-3: Capability and Requirements Matrix
The business analysis identified several markets in GEO, such as an Orbital Tug and refueling services. Moreover, a research on the future international exploration missions point to the Moon, Mars and locations as far out as Jupiter as being the most common mission destinations. This information allowed defining the desired functions and capabilities for the first node.
The business analysis identified several markets in GEO, such as an Orbital Tug and refueling services. Moreover, a research on the future international exploration missions point to the Moon, Mars and locations as far out as Jupiter as being the most common mission destinations. This information allowed defining the desired functions and capabilities for the first node.
Table 5-4: Propellant Mass Comparison for Different Staging Points 9.4.2 Node Description where m,,is the mass of the propellant, mg; is the dry mass of the spacecraft, I;, is the specific impulse, g is the gravitational acceleration of Earth and Av is the required change in velocity for an orbital maneuver. Normalizing the ratio with respect to the baseline, we can compare different staging routes. The results can be seen in Table 5-4. By taking into account the evaluation criteria presented previously, three nodes were selected for the spaceport network: LEO, the Moon surface and Phobos. The main characteristics of each node are presented; identifying the most attractive locations to the network.
Table 5-4: Propellant Mass Comparison for Different Staging Points 9.4.2 Node Description where m,,is the mass of the propellant, mg; is the dry mass of the spacecraft, I;, is the specific impulse, g is the gravitational acceleration of Earth and Av is the required change in velocity for an orbital maneuver. Normalizing the ratio with respect to the baseline, we can compare different staging routes. The results can be seen in Table 5-4. By taking into account the evaluation criteria presented previously, three nodes were selected for the spaceport network: LEO, the Moon surface and Phobos. The main characteristics of each node are presented; identifying the most attractive locations to the network.
5.4.5 Roadmap The purpose of this section is to cross-check the capabilities of the network against the elements to guarantee that every element has a purpose and every capability is achieved.
5.4.5 Roadmap The purpose of this section is to cross-check the capabilities of the network against the elements to guarantee that every element has a purpose and every capability is achieved.
Table 5-6: Overview of the Relevant NASA Technology Areas (TA) Much of the technology for ISRU for the Moon will also be applicable on the moons of Mars (LEAG, 2011). The major difference is that the gravity well is comparable to that of a parabolic flight (Shi et al., 2012). The construction of the Spaceport Node 3 will benefit from the already established Moon supplied propellant depot in LEO and direct propellant from the Moon. Additionally, L2 should be considered as a possible staging point on the way to Phobos. Moreover, a second generation tug servicer with an additional electric propulsion capability should be developed. Additionally, L2 should be considered as a possible staging point on the way to Phobos.
Table 5-6: Overview of the Relevant NASA Technology Areas (TA) Much of the technology for ISRU for the Moon will also be applicable on the moons of Mars (LEAG, 2011). The major difference is that the gravity well is comparable to that of a parabolic flight (Shi et al., 2012). The construction of the Spaceport Node 3 will benefit from the already established Moon supplied propellant depot in LEO and direct propellant from the Moon. Additionally, L2 should be considered as a possible staging point on the way to Phobos. Moreover, a second generation tug servicer with an additional electric propulsion capability should be developed. Additionally, L2 should be considered as a possible staging point on the way to Phobos.
Table 5-7: Overview of Critical Technologies by Phase
Table 5-7: Overview of Critical Technologies by Phase
Figure 7-1 shows the entire Spaceport Node 1 infrastructure. Docked to the central (processing plant) structure are the water tank on top and the tug on bottom.
Figure 7-1 shows the entire Spaceport Node 1 infrastructure. Docked to the central (processing plant) structure are the water tank on top and the tug on bottom.
Table 7-4: Launch and Investment Cost Overview (2012) The mass of the components was estimated according to two references, (Blair et. al., 2002) and (Christiansen, 1988). The cost was estimated based on the NASA Spacecraft/Vehicle Level Cost Model, which is based on the NAFCOM (NASA/Air Force Cost Model) database and relates mass directly to cost. The model was based on 2008 US Dollars and was therefore corrected with an inflation rate of 3% to 2012 US Dollars. Every element was considered a “Scientific Instrument” except the Reusable Moon Shuttle (“Unmanned Planetary”) in the cost model. Additionally, system integration and maintenance costs as well as support equipment mass were accounted for with 10% each on the total cost and mass respectively. The launch cost was approximated with $80,000 per kilogram of payload on Moon surface. This cost could be reduced to $65,000/kg with the use of the OASIS network resulting in a total launch cost reduction of over $400m.
Table 7-4: Launch and Investment Cost Overview (2012) The mass of the components was estimated according to two references, (Blair et. al., 2002) and (Christiansen, 1988). The cost was estimated based on the NASA Spacecraft/Vehicle Level Cost Model, which is based on the NAFCOM (NASA/Air Force Cost Model) database and relates mass directly to cost. The model was based on 2008 US Dollars and was therefore corrected with an inflation rate of 3% to 2012 US Dollars. Every element was considered a “Scientific Instrument” except the Reusable Moon Shuttle (“Unmanned Planetary”) in the cost model. Additionally, system integration and maintenance costs as well as support equipment mass were accounted for with 10% each on the total cost and mass respectively. The launch cost was approximated with $80,000 per kilogram of payload on Moon surface. This cost could be reduced to $65,000/kg with the use of the OASIS network resulting in a total launch cost reduction of over $400m.
Figure 7-2: Upgraded Spaceport Node 1 The OASIS tug servicer will be a reliable, simple and efficient solution for the GEO satellite market. Together with the primary function of orbital transfer, OASIS provides all the additional services we mentioned before. The market is both diverse and long-lasting. The primary advantage of this solution is reliability: a standard water tank, an electrolyzer, cryogenic tanks, robotic arm, standard interfaces, and automatic docking system are all flight proven technologies with heritage and high TRL levels. For this reason the OASIS implementation strategy has high confidence in an immediate initiation period, and qualification test. These developed technologies provide our customers and their missions with an affordable and reliable system. The execution of the mission then is a classical Hohmann transfer free from orbital complexity. In closing, the modular design can be upgraded and sized according to demand or request for additional services.
Figure 7-2: Upgraded Spaceport Node 1 The OASIS tug servicer will be a reliable, simple and efficient solution for the GEO satellite market. Together with the primary function of orbital transfer, OASIS provides all the additional services we mentioned before. The market is both diverse and long-lasting. The primary advantage of this solution is reliability: a standard water tank, an electrolyzer, cryogenic tanks, robotic arm, standard interfaces, and automatic docking system are all flight proven technologies with heritage and high TRL levels. For this reason the OASIS implementation strategy has high confidence in an immediate initiation period, and qualification test. These developed technologies provide our customers and their missions with an affordable and reliable system. The execution of the mission then is a classical Hohmann transfer free from orbital complexity. In closing, the modular design can be upgraded and sized according to demand or request for additional services.
Figure 8-1: Bat Chart of a Mission with Water Supply from Earth. Legend: 1- Launch of water to LEO; 2 -Tug docks with water tank and takes it to depot; 3 -Water is transferred to main water tank and small water tank is de-orbited; 4 -Water is converted to cryogenic propellant and transferred to the tug; 5 -Launch of satellite from Earth’s surface to LEO; 6 -Tug rendezvous and docks with satellite; 7 -Tug takes satellite tc GTO; 8 -Satellite is placed in GTO; 9 - Tug returns to LEO; 10 - Tug docks with depot and another mission is ready to start. The bat chart below presents the mission concept of operations.
Figure 8-1: Bat Chart of a Mission with Water Supply from Earth. Legend: 1- Launch of water to LEO; 2 -Tug docks with water tank and takes it to depot; 3 -Water is transferred to main water tank and small water tank is de-orbited; 4 -Water is converted to cryogenic propellant and transferred to the tug; 5 -Launch of satellite from Earth’s surface to LEO; 6 -Tug rendezvous and docks with satellite; 7 -Tug takes satellite tc GTO; 8 -Satellite is placed in GTO; 9 - Tug returns to LEO; 10 - Tug docks with depot and another mission is ready to start. The bat chart below presents the mission concept of operations.
Figure 8-3: Schematic of Example Mars Mission
Figure 8-3: Schematic of Example Mars Mission
Figure 9-1: OASIS Spaceport Network Concept
Figure 9-1: OASIS Spaceport Network Concept
11.1 Spaceport Market: Benchmark of Selected Major Worldwide Spaceports
11.1 Spaceport Market: Benchmark of Selected Major Worldwide Spaceports
Table 11-1: Analysis of Legal Entity Options to Create, Manage, and Commercialize the OASIS Project Table 11-2: Legal Issues Covering OASIS Activities.
Table 11-1: Analysis of Legal Entity Options to Create, Manage, and Commercialize the OASIS Project Table 11-2: Legal Issues Covering OASIS Activities.
Related topics:
Space SciencesSpace ExplorationSpace ProgramCommercial Uses of Outer SpaceOuter Space Law
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved