modeling ppp economic benefits for lunar isru - usra · modeling ppp economic benefits for lunar...

Modeling PPP Economic

Benefits for Lunar ISRU

2017 LEAG Annual Meeting USRA HQ, Columbia, MD

October 11, 2017

Brad R. Blair

Founder and General Partner

NewSpace Analytics

The NASA Emerging Space Office (ESO) recently selected a proposal

entitled PPP framework for multi-commodity lunar ISRU for

award under NRA Solicitation NNA15ZBP0001N-B1.

PI: Brad Blair

Co-I: David Cheuvront

Consultants: Hoyt Davidson and Hannah Rens

Elements of the Public Private Partnership modeling layer will be

emphasized, with solicitation of input by the LEAG community.

If everything goes to plan, project kickoff starts next week. The

contract duration is 6 months.

Status Update

A robust, private-sector commercial lunar ecosystem will prove

invaluable to NASA, provisioning propellant, life support

consumables and other materials to NASA as one customer

among many. This would increase the robustness of NASA’s

human space exploration missions by providing sustainable,

affordable, complementary options that reduce NASA’s science

and spaceflight costs.

A commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) approach could also lower the

risk of NASA program failure and/or requirements creep that

typically accompanies cyclical regime change – which is

especially troubling for long duration programs (indeed, a lack of

fully considering economic factors may be the leading cause of

agency regime change).

Relevance to NASA

The primary objective of this study is quantitative evaluation of PPP

scenarios using a commercial lunar mining framework. The proposed

work would estimate the effect of both supply and demand side

stimulation through PPP scenarios, providing a method to estimate

the degree of acceleration and/or risk reduction in the emergence of

commercial lunar enterprise. This work will also draw upon

comparisons to terrestrial mining activities, where byproducts often

generate more operating profit than the primary commodity

produced. A secondary objective of the proposed work will examine

lunar resource byproduct scenarios that may be synergetic or of low

incremental cost to obtain high economic benefit. This secondary

activity could also create a tool that could facilitate steering near-

term prospecting and ISRU technology demonstration missions

toward commercially useful results.

Project Objectives

Prior Economic

Models

• Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level

B. Blair SU Econ Lecture, Mtn View, CA July 2010 6

The Case for Commercial Lunar Ice Mining

by

Brad R. Blair, Javier Diaz, Michael B. Duke, Center for the Commercial Applications of

Combustion in Space, Colorado School of Mines, Golden, Colorado

Elisabeth Lamassoure, Robert Easter, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California Mark Oderman, Marc Vaucher CSP Associates, Inc., Cambridge, Massachusetts December, 2002

http://www.isruinfo.com//docs/LDEM_Draft4-updated.pdf

FY02 Parametric Engineering Model

Architecture Mass Comparison

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Arch 1 Arch 2

To

tal M

ass [

mt]

LEO OTV

L1 OTV

Lunar lander

LEO depot

L1 depot

Lunar plant

Technology assumptions Cryogenic Vehicles (H2/O2 fuel)

Lunar Lander

Orbital Transfer (OTV)

Fuel Depot(s) Solar Power

Electrolysis (fuel cell)

Tanks for H2, O2 and H2O

ARCH 1 ARCH 2

Lunar Surface Plant Mass (kg) Mass (kg)

Excavators 210 272

Haulers 273 354

Extractors 2099 2724

Electrolyzers 564 732

Hydrogen liquefiers 19 24

Hydrogen liquefier radiators 326 423

Oxygen liquefiers 70 91

Oxygen liquefier radiators 100 130

Water tanks 554 554

Hydrogen tanks 497 497

Oxygen tanks 2119 2119

Aerobrake production system 0 0

Pow er system (nuclear) 2624 3405

Ancillary equipment (25% of total) 2364 2832

Total 11820 14158

Annual refurbishment 660 847

L-1 Fuel Depot Mass (kg) Mass (kg)

Electrolyzers 195 690





Water tanks 316 368


Oxygen tanks 823 2616

Pow er system (solar) 72 255

Ancillary equipment 206 617

Total 2264 6783


LEO Fuel Depot Mass (kg) Mass (kg)

Electrolyzers 673 0





Water tanks 180 0


Oxygen tanks 1277 0

Pow er system (solar) 91 0

Ancillary equipment 310 0

Total 3409 0


Vehicle mass (kg)

Moon - L1 (Lander / fuel carrier) 7869

Propulsion system 2180

Telecomm 10

w ater storage (0.01%) 256

C&DH 3

Structures 3482

Pow er 15

Landing System 1801

L1-LEO-L1 Vehicle (fuel carrier) 1424


Telecomm 10

w ater storage (0.01%) 200

C&DH 3

Structures 560

Pow er 15

L1-LEO Aerobrake 3214

LEO-GEO-LEO Vehicle (payload transport) 3422


Telecomm 10

C&DH 3

Structures 2032

Pow er 15

LEO-GEO-LEO Aerobrake 513

L1-LEO-L1 Vehicle (fuel carrier) 5431


Telecomm 10

C&DH 3

Structures 3315

Pow er 15

LEO-L1-LEO Aerobrake 3504

FY02 Cost Model Development

• NAFCOM99: Analogy-based cost model

– Architecture 2 WBS shown on right panel

– Conservative methodology used

• SOCM: Operations cost model

– Estimates system-level operating costs

– Conservative methodology used

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

Scenarios 1.1c and 1.2: Cost Comparison

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Arch 1.1c Arch 1.2

De

v +

1st U

nit C

ost [$

B]

LEO OTV

L1 OTV

Lunar lander

LEO depot

L1 depot

Lunar plant

SRD Architecture 2 Cost Model ($M FY02 NAFCOM Estimate) Mass (kg) D&D STH FU Prod Total Cost

GRAND TOTAL 37470.2 5393.2 1018.1 1264.5 1264.5 7675.8

SYSTEM 1: Lunar Surface Mining & Procesing Equipment 13980.7 3972.1 750.5 927.1 927.1 5649.7

HARDWARE TOTAL 13980.7 1861.6 750.5 577.3 577.3 3189.5

Regolith Excavator 274.0 19.5 17.7 13.6 13.6 50.8

Structure 68.5 8.2 5.7 4.4 4.4 18.3

Mobility 68.5 3.9 6.4 4.9 4.9 15.3

Excavation 68.5 0.8 1.4 1.1 1.1 3.3

Soil Handling 65.5 6.1 3.7 2.8 2.8 12.6

CC&DH 3.0 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.3 1.3

Regolith Hauler 356.0 27.7 25.5 19.6 19.6 72.8

Structure 117.7 10.0 6.7 5.2 5.2 22.0

Mobility 117.7 5.3 9.3 7.2 7.2 21.8

Soil Handling 117.6 11.0 8.3 6.4 6.4 25.8

CC&DH 3.0 1.3 1.1 0.9 0.9 3.3

Thermal Extraction 2736.9 602.3 24.1 18.5 18.5 644.8

Water Electrolysis 736.0 90.6 38.2 29.4 29.4 158.2

Hydrogen Liquefier 25.0 2.9 0.6 0.4 0.4 3.9

Hydrogen Liquefier Radiators 425.0 26.9 1.6 1.3 1.3 29.8

Oxygen Liquefier 92.0 5.6 1.6 1.2 1.2 8.4

Oxygen Liquefier Radiators 131.0 14.9 0.6 0.5 0.5 16.1

Water Tanks 520.0 7.0 1.0 0.8 0.8 8.7

Hydrogen Tanks 469.0 6.6 0.9 0.7 0.7 8.2

Oxygen Tanks 1999.0 14.6 2.2 1.7 1.7 18.6

Pow er System (Nuclear) 3420.9 565.1 442.7 340.5 340.5 1348.3

Maintenanace Facility 1000.0 374.1 152.6 117.4 117.4 644.0

Mobility 200.0 78.9 10.4 8.0 8.0 97.3

Sensors 200.0 140.2 51.7 39.8 39.8 231.6

Manipulators 200.0 7.1 13.5 10.4 10.4 31.1

CC&DH 200.0 108.6 61.3 47.1 47.1 217.0

Spare Parts 200.0 39.4 15.6 12.0 12.0 67.0

Ancillary Equipment 1796.0 103.9 41.3 31.7 31.7 176.9

SYSTEM INTEGRATION 2110.5 349.7 349.7 2809.9

SYSTEM 2: L1 Depot 6806.8 569.1 74.2 93.8 93.8 737.1

HARDWARE TOTAL 6806.8 280.3 74.2 57.1 57.1 411.6

Water Electrolysis 692.0 154.4 48.7 37.4 37.4 240.5

Hydrogen Liquefier 63.0 4.6 1.2 0.9 0.9 6.7

Hydrogen Liquefier Radiators 1096.0 43.2 3.5 2.7 2.7 49.4

Oxygen Liquefier 236.0 8.9 3.4 2.6 2.6 14.9

Oxygen Liquefier Radiators 236.0 20.1 1.0 0.8 0.8 21.9

Water Tanks 369.0 5.8 0.8 0.6 0.6 7.2

Hydrogen Tanks 615.0 7.6 1.1 0.8 0.8 9.6

Oxygen Tanks 2624.9 17.0 2.6 2.0 2.0 21.6

Pow er System (solar) 256.0 2.7 5.3 4.1 4.1 12.2

Ancillary Equipment 619.0 15.9 6.6 5.1 5.1 27.6


SYSTEM 3: Lunar Lander 7747.8 446.8 83.5 105.4 105.4 635.7

HARDWARE TOTAL 7747.8 208.1 83.5 64.2 64.2 355.9

Propulsion System 2180.0 56.4 24.9 19.2 19.2 100.5

Water Tanks 239.0 4.5 0.6 0.5 0.5 5.7

CC&DH 13.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.1 4.2

Structure 3481.9 68.8 42.4 32.6 32.6 143.8

Pow er 15.0 7.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 7.5

Landing System 1819.0 69.6 14.0 10.8 10.8 94.4


SYSTEM 4: OTV (LEO-GEO-L1) 8934.8 405.2 109.8 138.2 138.2 653.2

HARDWARE TOTAL 8934.8 173.2 109.8 84.5 84.5 367.5

Propulsion System 2088.0 55.1 24.3 18.7 18.7 98.0

CC&DH 13.0 1.6 1.5 1.1 1.1 4.2

Structure 3314.9 67.0 40.9 31.5 31.5 139.4

Pow er 15.0 7.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 7.5

Aerobrake 3503.9 42.4 43.0 33.1 33.1 118.4


SRD Architecture 2 Cost Model ($M FY02 NAFCOM Estimate) Mass (kg) D&D STH FU Prod Total Cost

GRAND TOTAL 37470.2 5393.2 1018.1 1264.5 1264.5 7675.8

SYSTEM 1: Lunar Surface Mining & Procesing Equipment 13980.7 3972.1 750.5 927.1 927.1 5649.7

SYSTEM 2: L1 Depot 6806.8 569.1 74.2 93.8 93.8 737.1

SYSTEM 3: Lunar Lander 7747.8 446.8 83.5 105.4 105.4 635.7

SYSTEM 4: OTV (LEO-GEO-L1) 8934.8 405.2 109.8 138.2 138.2 653.2

FY02 Demand Model (CSTS)

MBS Item ISRU Market Description

Short-Term Medium-Term Long-Term

1 Communications Market (commercial)1 Fixed Satellite Service X X X Orbital Transfer (Deployment)

2 Direct Broadcast Service X X X Orbital Transfer (Deployment)

2 Space Manufacturing1 Manufacturing X Feedstock, Construction Materials

2 In-Space Processing X X Mineral Feedstock

3 Government Missions1 Existing Government Missions

1 NASA Missions (Excluding Station) X Orbital Transfer (Deployment)

2 DOD Missions X Orbital Transfer (Deployment + Missions)

2 Increased Space Station Missions

1 Station Deployment X X Orbital Transfer

2 Station Resupply X X X Life Support

3 Station Reboost X X Stationkeeping

3 Human Planetary Exploration

1 Lunar Base Program X Orbital Transfer, Life Support, Construction Materials

2 Mars Design Reference Missions X X Orbital Transfer, Life Support

3 Asteroid Exploration X Orbital Transfer, Life Support

4 Asteroid Detection/Negation (robotic) X X Orbital Transfer (Deployment + Missions)

5 Technology Development Testbed X X X Experimental (e.g., DARPA Orbital Express program)

4 Transportation1 Space Servicing X X X Orbital Transfer (Deployment + Missions)

2 Hazardous Waste Disposal X Orbital Transfer (Deployment)

3 Space Tourism X X Orbital Transfer, Life Support

5 New Missions1 Space Debris Management X X X Orbital Transfer (Deployment + Missions)

2 Multiuse LEO Business Park X X Stationkeeping, Life Support

3 Space Settlements X Construction Materials, Life Suppport, Fuels

6 Space Utilities1 GEO Solar Pow er Satellites X X Orbital Transfer (Deployment), Construction Materials

2 Lunar Based Pow er Station X Construction Materials

3 Space to Space Pow er Beaming X Orbital Transfer (Deployment), Construction Materials

Time Frame (modeled markets in bold)

FY02 Feasibility Modeling

Feasibility Process Summary: Version 0 = Baseline (most conservative)

Versions 1-3: Relax assumptions…

Version 4 shows a positive rate of return for private investment (6%)

Version 4 Assumes:

Zero non-recurring costs (DDT&E)

30% Production cost reduction

2% Ice concentration

2x Demand level (i.e., 300T/yr)

Architectures 1 and 2: Net Present Value Comparison

-6.0

-5.0

-4.0

-3.0

-2.0

-1.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

Version 0 Version 1 Version 2

Version 3 Version 4

=FEASIBLE=

NP

V [$

B]

Arch 1

Arch 2

Version Summary Description

1.1c.0 1.2.0

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

1.1c.1 1.2.1

No Non-Rec. Investments Assumes the public sector pays for the Non-Recurring Investments (design, development and first unit cost)

1.1c.2 1.2.2

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

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

1.1c.3 1.2.3

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

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

1.1c.4 1.2.4

No Dev. Cost, 30% Production Cost Reduction, 2x More Water on Moon, 2x Demand

Same as above, and Double the Demand

FY02 Commercial Model Results

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total Market Demand [MT] 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300

Market Share and Growth 0% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Actual Demand [MT] 0 0 0 30 60 90 120 180 240 300

Number of deployed production units 0 0 0 2 4 6 8 12 16 20

Non-Recurring Investments (Development) [$M] 4,378$ 2,368$ 550$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Recurring CAPital EXpenditures (Production & Launch) [$M] -$ -$ -$ 1,533$ 3,013$ 2,384$ 1,910$ 3,649$ 4,105$ 4,410$

Tons Produced - Moon (MT) 0 0 0 491 981 1472 1963 2944 3925 4907

Tons Delivered - L1 (MT) 0 0 0 225 451 676 902 1353 1804 2255

Annualized cost/ton - Moon ($M/t) 3.12$ 3.07$ 1.62$ 0.97$ 1.24$ 1.05$ 0.90$

Annualized cost/ton - L1 ($M/t) 6.80$ 6.68$ 3.53$ 2.12$ 2.70$ 2.28$ 1.96$

Production and delivery rates for water at Lunar cold trap and L1 (Architecture 2, Version 4)

CSP Financial Summary (Architecture 2, Version 4)

INCOME STATEMENT 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Cumulative

Revenues 0$ 0$ 0$ 600$ 1,200$ 1,800$ 2,400$ 3,600$ 4,800$ 6,000$ 20,401$

Gross Profit 0$ 0$ 0$ 539$ 1,078$ 1,617$ 2,155$ 3,233$ 4,311$ 5,388$ 18,321$

EBITDA (4)$ (9)$ (10)$ 527$ 1,065$ 1,604$ 2,142$ 3,219$ 4,296$ 5,373$ 18,205$

EBIT (4)$ (9)$ (10)$ 373$ 610$ 910$ 1,257$ 1,970$ 2,195$ 3,272$ 10,565$

Net Income (4)$ (9)$ (10)$ 184$ 225$ 337$ 510$ 924$ 1,058$ 1,708$ 4,924$

CASH FLOW 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Cumulative

Net Cash From Operations (4)$ (9)$ (10)$ 338$ 680$ 1,031$ 1,395$ 2,173$ 3,159$ 3,809$ 12,563$

Net Changes in Working Capital 0$ 0$ 0$ (45)$ (45)$ (45)$ (45)$ (90)$ (90)$ (90)$ (448)$

CAPEX/NRE 0$ 0$ 1,548$ 3,018$ 3,013$ 2,384$ 1,910$ 3,649$ 4,105$ 4,410$ 24,039$

Taxes -$ -$ -$ 107$ 150$ 225$ 340$ 616$ 706$ 1,138$ 3,282$

Annual Cash (Shortfall) Surplus (4)$ (8)$ (1,557)$ (2,725)$ (2,378)$ (1,399)$ (560)$ (2,928)$ (2,224)$ (1,391)$ (15,174)$

Equity Financing 104$ 8$ 1,557$ 1,363$ 1,189$ 699$ 280$ 1,464$ 1,112$ 695$ 8,472$

Debt Financing -$ -$ -$ 1,363$ 1,189$ 699$ 280$ 1,464$ 1,112$ 695$ 6,802$

Principal and Interest Payments -$ -$ -$ 82$ 235$ 348$ 407$ 1,792$ 1,620$ 1,126$ 5,610$

BALANCE SHEET 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

Total Assets 100$ 100$ 1,648$ 4,562$ 7,170$ 8,911$ 9,987$ 12,486$ 14,590$ 16,999$

Short and Long Term Liabilities 0$ 1$ 1$ 1,369$ 2,563$ 3,267$ 3,552$ 3,664$ 3,597$ 3,603$

Shareholder Equity 104$ 112$ 1,670$ 3,032$ 4,221$ 4,921$ 5,200$ 6,665$ 7,777$ 8,472$

Retained Earnings (4)$ (13)$ (23)$ 161$ 386$ 724$ 1,234$ 2,158$ 3,216$ 4,924$

• Click to edit Master text styles Second level Third level Fourth level Fifth level


FY02 Cost Buildup & Production Rates

Annual Cost Buildup (Arch 1c Version 5)

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Year

Co

st

($M

)

Taxes

Principal Payments

Interest Payments

CAPEX

Annual Propellant Production Rates (Arch 1c Version 5)

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016Year

An

nu

al

Pro

du

cti

on

(t)

Tons Produced - Moon

Tons Delivered - L1

Tons Delivered - LEO


Earth

Surface

Lunar

Surface

LLO

L1

Gateway

LEO

Outbound Leg

Landing Leg

Return Leg

Lunar ISRU Architecture

CSM Bucket Wheel Excavator CSM Bucket Wheel Excavator

CSM Regolith Processor






CSM Bucket Wheel ExcavatorCSM Bucket Wheel Excavator



ISRU

Payload

Launch

Refuel

LV Stage

at L1




Deploy ISRU

System at Lunar

South Pole

Refuel

LV Stage

at LEO

Fuel

Delivery

Propellant

Shipments Infrastructure Leg


CSM Regolith Processor CSM Bucket Wheel Excavator CSM Bucket Wheel Excavator

Crew

Arrives at

Gateway

And So

On…

Gateway

L1 Depot

Launch

Deploy Crew

Lander to L1

Crew Arrives at

Moon – Refuels

Lander Propellant

Launch

Crew

Transitions

to Return

Vehicle


Mars ISRU Architecture

Earth

Surface

Mars

Surface

LMO

L1

LEO

Outbound

Cargo

Cargo

Landing

Return Leg

OSP

Crew

Launch

XTV Refuels in

Lunar Orbit

Lander

Refueled

Propellant

Launches

Crew

Landing








ISRU

Payload

Launch

Refuel

at L1




Deploy System

on Mars Surface

Refuel

at LEO

Crew

Lands

Surface

Ops

Outbound

Crew

Advancing the

State of the Art

A rich set of public-private partnership (PPP) options are

available to government. A tool is needed to help select the

PPP strategy that could maximize the rate of lunar

commercialization by attracting private capital into the

development of critical infrastructure and robust

capabilities that directly serve government needs.

A successful lunar industrial development program would be

good for the country, offering a path to revitalize the US

economy by opening up whole new worlds of resources

while increasing national employment in aerospace and

other high technology sectors.

Public Private Partnerships

PPP Example Feature

Exploration Partner Reduced resource uncertainty

Bond Financing Transfer risk

Technology Maturation Pick winners

Operations Management authorities

Anchor Tenancy Assured customer

Demonstration Missions Risk Reduction

PPP Attribute & Feature Extraction


The Emerging Cislunar Marketplace

NASA-Science

Military Missions

Debris Management

Satellite Servicing & Refueling

International Space Station

Human Exploration

Space Solar Power

Self-Sustaining Colonies

Volatile Resources

-Water (H and O2 for life support & propellant)

-Nitrogen and carbon gases (CH4 NH3)

-3He

Industrial / Manufacturing

-Sulfur (concrete)

-Soil for agriculture

-Basalt fiber

-Cast basalt

-Iron / Steel

-Aluminum

-Sintered Bricks (e.g. Pavers)

-Solar cells

-Transparent & opaque glass (including fiber)

-Shielding for L1 Gateway

Candidate Lunar ISRU Products

Space Population Forecast

Chapter 6 of Space Mineral Resources (Dula & Zhang)

Per-Capita Consumption Model

Source: US Minerals Management Institute

Each US Child Born Will Need

What Will A Space Baby Need?

modeling ppp economic benefits for lunar isru - usra · modeling ppp economic benefits for lunar...

Documents