Lunar Station, V1.2

IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2

Lunar Station: The Next Logical Step In Space Development By Mr. Robert Bruce Pittman* Ms. Lynn Harper** Mr. Mark Newfield** and Dr. Daniel J. Rasky** * - Space Portal, Lockheed; ** - Space Portal, NASA Ames

September, 2014

The International Space Station (ISS) is putting the equivalent capability of the the product of the efforts of sixteen na- ISS down on the surface of the Moon, or tions over the course of several decades. by developing the required capabilities It is now complete, operational, and has through a combination of delivered mate- been continuously occupied since No- rials and equipment and in situ resource vember of 20001. Since then the ISS has utilization (ISRU). Scenarios that leverage been carrying out a wide variety of re- existing technologies and capabilities as search and technology development ex- well as capabilities that are under devel- periments, and starting to produce some opment and are expected to be available pleasantly startling results2. The ISS has a within the next 3-5 years, will be exam- mass of 420 metric tons, supports a crew ined. This paper will explore how best of six with a yearly resupply requirement practices and expertise gained from de- of around 30 metric tons, within a pres- veloping and operating the ISS and other surized volume of 916 cubic meters, and a relevant programs can be applied to effec- habitable volume of 388 cubic meters. Its tively developing Lunar Station. solar arrays produce up to 84 kilowatts of power. In the course of developing the Why Lunar Station? – A Lunar Station ISS, many lessons were learned and much can provide many benefits to NASA and valuable expertise was gained. Where do the country. It would serve as a very use- we go from here? ful development step between our current capabilities in LEO, and our aspira- The ISS offers an existence proof of the tions to one-day travel in person to Mars. feasibility of sustained human occupation It can provide a testing and proving and operations in space over decades. It ground for a variety of important ad- also demonstrates the ability of many vanced technologies and capabilities, in- countries to work collaboratively on a cluding robotics, ISRU, resource depots, very complex and expensive project in deep space crew habitats, closed loop life space over an extended period of time to support, in-space propulsion, optical achieve a common goal. By harvesting communication and space additive manu- best practices and lessons learned, the ISS facturing to name a few. can also serve as a useful model for ex- ploring architectures for beyond low- The large permanently shaded craters in earth-orbit (LEO) space development. the pole regions of the Moon have tem- peratures as low as 40 °K (minus This paper will explore the concept and 388 °F)3, and offer opportunities for new feasibility for a Lunar Station. The Station scientific observations, exploration, inves- concept can be implemented by either tigation, and learning. The Moon has re-

1 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/main 2 See Microgravity Imperative Report, Office of the Chief 3 http://www.space.com/7311-moon-craters-coldest- Technologist, 2014 place-solar-system.html

Page 1 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2 sources, including large quantities of wa- lunar surface and returned tantalizing ter in the permanently shaded craters, hints of the presence of water in the per- which could be very useful for lunar and manently shadowed lunar craters. The eventual Mars missions and activities. Lunar Prospector7 mission in 1998 confirmed these initial observations. Lunar Station would establish important infrastructure in transportation, high val- In Oct. 2009, the LCROSS mission impact- ue extraterrestrial resources, power and ed one of these permanently shadowed communications, crew habitats and facili- craters and the data obtained from this ties that would significantly lower tech- project confirmed the presence of large nical and financial risks for missions be- quantities of water, as well as methane, yond the Moon. And it would give our ammonia, carbon dioxide and carbon space program a much-needed clear, monoxide8; all very useful materials for timely and logical next step to strengthen future lunar activities. our relevance with the public, maintain our international space leadership, and NASA has pursued other lunar orbital hone our technical cutting edge. missions, including the Lunar Resource Orbiter (LRO)9 that is currently in orbit US Lunar Exploration – A Brief History around the Moon, and most recently the Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment President Kennedy launched the Apollo Explorer (LADEE)10 mission which ended Program in May 1961. This program sent its mission with an impact on lunar sur- 12 Americans to the surface of the Moon face on April 17th of this year. NASA and between July 1969 and December 19724. other space organizations are also work- The Apollo-17 astronauts were the last ing on a lunar rover mission called the humans to visit the Moon. A recent as- Resource Prospector Mission (RPM) 11 . sessment put the program cost for Apollo This mission has the Regolith and Envi- at $174 billion in today’s dollars 5 . ronment Science and Oxygen and Lunar Planned missions beyond Apollo-17 were Volatile Extraction (RESOLVE) device as a cancelled, even though the Saturn-5 rock- primary payload, and a tentative launch ets had been built and were operational, date of 2018. because of the large cost of the program. Despite the unquestionable success of Returning To The Moon – Some Failed Apollo, many people now realize that the Attempts suite of conditions that enabled it was an anomaly that is not likely to be repeated. On July 20th 1989, the 20th anniversary of No one has been back to the Moon, or the Apollo 11 landing, President George even travelled beyond LEO, in 42 years. H.W. Bush initiated the Space Exploration Initiative to return Americans to the Moon After the Apollo program, the Moon was and eventually to Mars12. A NASA “90 Day mostly ignored for many years. The first US mission to the Moon after Apollo was 7 the Clementine mission in 19946. This http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/missions/archive/l was a low cost mission that mapped the unarprospector.html 8 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/main/ind ex.html 4 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/apollo/ 9 http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/ 5 http://beforeitsnews.com/space/2014/03/nasa-end- 10 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ladee/main manned-space-flight-2-2476914.html 11 http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil- 6 space/39307nasa-planning-for-mission-to-mine-water- http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LCROSS/searchfor on-the-moon water/clementine.html 12 http://history.nasa.gov/sei.htm

Page 2 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2

Study” group was formed to explore op- ration missions beyond low Earth or- tions to carry out this assignment. The bit”. price tag for this 20-30 year program 5. Return US astronauts to surface of the came out to be a whopping $400-500 bil- Moon by 2020. lion. The program quietly died in the ear- To fulfill the VSE, new NASA Administra- ly 1990’s. tor Mike Griffin initiated the Constellation

Program14. Constellation consisted of two On February 1st 2003 the Space Shuttle launch vehicles: the Ares-1 for launching Columbia disintegrated upon reentry over crew, and the Ares-5, a large heavy lift Texas killing all seven astronauts on launch vehicle for cargo. In addition to board. Responding to this disaster Presi- the launch vehicles, there was also a new dent George W. Bush rolled out an ex- crew capsule (Orion) and a large lunar traordinary Vision for Space Exploration lander (Altair) proposed. Following the (VSE)13 on January 14, 2004. The VSE had program rollout in the autumn of 2005, a been carefully developed and had four number of criticisms quickly arose re- major thrusts: garding the viability of the proposed 1. Implement a sustained and affordable launch systems, particularly the Ares-1. human and robotic program to ex- Work proceeded on Constellation despite plore the solar system and beyond. these criticisms. 2. Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human In May 2009 newly elected President return to the Moon by the year 2020, Barack Obama commissioned a “Review in preparation of human exploration of the US Human Spaceflight Plan Com- of Mars and other destinations. mittee” (the Augustine Committee15). The 3. Develop the innovative technology, Committee spent five months reviewing knowledge and infrastructures both the Constellation program and concluded to explore and to support decisions that, contrary to the VSE guidelines, the about the destinations for human ex- program was not “sustainable”. On Feb- ploration. ruary 1st, 2010 with the rollout of the his 4. Promote international and commer- FY 2011 NASA budget, President Obama cial participation in exploration to cancelled the Constellation program and further U.S. scientific, security and retargeted NASA to send astronauts to an economic interests. asteroid and eventually onto Mars, rather than returning them to the Moon. There were several important new ele- ments in the VSE as well: The cancellation of the Constellation pro- 1. Direct references to sustainable, af- gram and the re-vectoring of US human fordable and flexible exploration. space program to visiting an asteroid and 2. The realization that infrastructure eventually Mars, rather than returning to would be needed to enable this long- the Moon, was a major blow to many in term exploration. the aerospace community. It was a blow 3. The focus on using lunar and asteroid to a number of members of Congress as materials to reduce the mass that well. Congress reacted by demanding a must be transported from Earth. standup of a new heavy lift rocket pro- 4. The instruction to “Pursue commercial gram, the Space Launch System or SLS (es- opportunities for providing transportation and other services support for the International Space Station and explo- 14 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main /index2.html 13 http://history.nasa.gov/sep.htm 15 http://www.nasa.gov/offices/hsf/home/

Page 3 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2 sentially the Ares-5 launch vehicle), to referred to in this document as the take the place of Constellation. SLS along “Commercial Leverage Model.”16 with the Orion crew capsule remain the NASA principle programs of record for Twenty-one proposals were received in human exploration beyond LEO as of the response to the COTS program solicita- time of this writing. The current public tion, and initial award selection went to program objective of SLS/Orion is to pro- two companies: SpaceX 17 run by Elon vide transport for astronauts to an un- Musk and RocketPlane Kistler18 run by specified asteroid in the mid to late George French. The program was execut- 2020’s that will be moved to a cis-lunar ed using pre-negotiated, firm fixed price location, and eventually on to Mars in the milestones and associated payments. 2030’s. SpaceX met all of their milestones leading to the development and successful launch Engaging Emerging Commercial Space of a Falcon-9 rocket in June 2010, and a demonstration flight of their Dragon At the time that the Constellation pro- spacecraft to the ISS in May 2012 – an his- gram was being pursued, NASA made a torical first for a private company. very wise decision to engage the emerging commercial space industry. The Rocketplane Kister did not fare as well. Commercial Orbital Transportation Ser- After completing some early milestones, vices (COTS) program was instrumental in they were unable to meet a key-financing developing new US launch capabilities at milestone. Their agreement with NASA very low cost and risk to the government. was eventually canceled in October 2007. COTS is used in this paper as a model for The funds made available by this cancela- future space capability development. tion were then re-competed and this time Orbital Sciences 19 (Orbital) received an In January 2006, NASA announced the award. Similar to SpaceX, Orbital pro- COTS program. The objective of the proceeded to meet all their milestones and in gram was to demonstrate the capability of April 2013 successfully demonstrated commercial providers to deliver cargo their new Antares launch vehicle. Then in and potentially crew to the International September of 2013, Orbital became the Space Station (ISS) at a lower cost than second private company to successfully traditional aerospace operating under launch and berth their resupply module, standard contracting approaches. An ini- Cyngus, to the ISS. tial program budget of $500M was made available and awards were made through A formal assessment of the COTS program competitively selected NASA funded by NASA20 showed unambiguously that the Space Act Agreements (SAA). The use of commercial leverage model could reduce the SAA is important because it offered an development costs by an order of magni- alternative to the cost plus contracts that tude over traditional cost-plus contract were typically used by NASA for large development methods. space development projects. The SAA’s utilized performance-based milestones: While both SpaceX and Orbital were Companies would only be paid a previ- working to complete their COTS program ously agreed amount upon successful milestones, NASA awarded them two completion of milestone. This model turned out to be very effective and is now 16 Pittman, Rasky, Harper, IAC-12, D3,2,4,x14203 17 http://www.spacex.com/ 18 http://www.kistler.co/ 19 https://www.orbital.com/ 20 http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/586023main_8-3-11_NAFCOM.pdf

Page 4 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2 large, competitively selected service con- Space Systems24, and Moon Express25, are tracts under the Commercial Resupply working with NASA on this program un- Services (CRS) program21. The award was der no-exchange-of-funds space act for eight ISS cargo flights valued at about agreements. $1.9 billion from Orbital Sciences, and 12 cargo flights valued at about $1.6 billion Private Space Attempts for the Moon from SpaceX. Added to the financial in- centive from the COTS program, these At the time that NASA was pursuing the additional contract awards were very COTS program, the privately funded welcome news to the companies as they Google Lunar XPRIZE was announced26 in worked to develop and demonstrate their September 2007. With a prize purse of cargo launch capabilities for the ISS. $30 million, it was an audacious chal- lenge: Send a robotic spacecraft to the Since 2009, following the very successful Moon, land safely, traverse across the sur- COTS and CRS example, NASA has been face at least 500 meters and send back pursuing a similar approach to establish video and other information from the commercial based crew transportation to Moon to the Earth. The first private team the ISS. The Commercial Crew Program to accomplish this by December 31, 2015 (CCP), used the same commercial leverage will be awarded $20 million, with a se- model that was used for COTS. The CCP cond place prize of $5 million, and $5 mil- was divided into four phases. On Sep- lion in bonus prizes. Currently, with a tember 16, 2014 the final Commercial little over one year left to accomplish the Crew Transportation Capability (CCtCap) task, there are still 18 official teams in the phase was announced with awards going competition and at least 5 of the teams to Boeing and SpaceX. This phase will have made significant progress toward fund the two companies, $4.2 billion for the goal. From the beginning of the com- Boeing and $2.6 billion to SpaceX, to petition it was clear that it was going to demonstrate crew to ISS transfer of up to cost significantly more than $20 million to seven astronauts by late 2017. The cap- win the prize, and so fund raising would sules will also serve a lifeboat function at be one of the major challenges for the the ISS and will allow the crew size to in- competing teams. crease from six to at least seven. The winning of the XPRIZE will be an Regarding the Moon, in January 2014 enormous feat: these will be the first pri- NASA issued a called for proposals for the vately funded craft to land on the Moon … Lunar Cargo Transportation and Landing but what then? If the Google Lunar by Soft Touchdown (Lunar CATALYST)22 XPRIZE’s stated goal of “inspiring a new program. This program sought ideas and generation of private investment in space recommendations from commercial enti- technology” is to be fully realized, the ties that are interested in developing a achievements of these private lunar pio- lunar landing capability that NASA could neers will only have been a first step. The eventually purchases services from. question that must then be addressed is NASA offered to provide technical and what comes next? facility support to help put such a capability in-place. Currently three organiza- It is clear that the teams involved in the tions, Astrobotic Technologies23, Masten XPRISE are looking beyond the scope of

21 http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2008/12/spacex- and-orbital-win-huge-crs-contract-from-nasa/ 24 http://masten.aero/ 22 http://www.nasa.gov/lunarcatalyst/#.VCXbmI1dUfI 25 http://www.moonexpress.com/ 23 http://www.astrobotic.com/ 26 http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

Page 5 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2 the competition. These organizations will velop a self-supporting research park on be in a unique position to scale up their the Moon in three phases: work and land increasingly large payloads 1. Establish high fidelity lunar analog onto the lunar surface with growing effi- sites on Earth to develop, explore and ciency and even return samples to Earth. verify needed technologies and capa- But without some kind of organizing ele- bilities. ment, this could lead to wasteful duplica- 2. Establish a “lunar robotic village” on tion or even destructive competition. the Moon with advanced and collabo-

rative robotics, additive manufactur- The Google Lunar XPRIZE teams who ing and in-situ resource utilization to were hoping to provide transport and prepare the site for eventual human other services to support NASA’s Constel- occupation. lation lunar program were negatively af- 3. Send humans to the Moon to begin fected by its cancelation in early 2010. To living and working there while con- help at least partially compensate for this tinuing to advance capabilities of the change, in October 2010, NASA an- ILRP, and developing useful and reve- nounced the selection of six companies to nue making products. participate in the Innovative Lunar Demonstration Data (ILDD) program 27 . This concept was found to be compelling ILDD was a $30 million program targeted to a number of high-profile individuals, at the US XPRIZE teams to offer up to $10 was discussed at length during several million to each team in exchange for shar- international meetings, and described in ing data about their development process several conference papers32 ,33 . It was and experience with NASA. even featured on This Week at NASA34. Unfortunately, similar to many of the There are also companies pursuing lunar Google Lunar XPRIZE competitors, it was business initiatives outside of XPRIZE. found that without a significant commit- One of these, Golden Spike28, is offering to ment by the government to pursue hu- begin privately funded exploration of the man lunar space activities, the technical Moon, including returning people there. and financial risks are too large to attract Another, Shackelton Energy29, is hoping to sufficient investment to get the ILRP off develop lunar resources for re-sale. the ground.

In 2009 the NASA Ames Research Center Some Recent Developments Space Portal Office and the State of Ha- waii Department of Aerospace Develop- A number of relevant and notable devel- ment in collaboration with colleagues opments that could significantly affect the from around the world rolled out the con- nation’s space activities and programs cept for an International Lunar Research have begun to emerge. Leveraging these Park (ILRP)30,31. The concept was to de- activities could significantly reduce the cost and speed the development of the Lunar Station concept. 27 http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/oct/HQ_10- First, SpaceX 35 recently launched their 259_ILDD_Award.html 28 http://goldenspikecompany.com/ thirteenth successful Falcon-9 rocket (in 29 http://goldenspikecompany.com/ 30 International Lunar Research Park https://sites.google.com/site/internationallunarresearch 32 http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2011-7136 park/ 33 IAC-14, A3, 2C.6x26569 31 International Lunar Research Park Exploratory Work- 34 shop http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/podcasting/TWAN_04 https://sites.google.com/site/ilrpexploratoryworkshop2 _15_11.html 011/ 35 http://www.spacex.com/

Page 6 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2 thirteen attempts) and are working on serve as a deep-space habitat for four to three important new capabilities: six crew for an extended period. 1. Development of a reusable Falcon-9 The investment community is now show- launch system (Falcon-9R) which ing interest in lunar exploration and de- could significantly reduce launch velopment. On Saturday, August 23, 2014 costs even further from their ~$60M a workshop was held at the noted Silicon currently for a Falcon-9 that launches Valley venture capital investment house, 13.5MT to low-earth-orbit (LEO), Draper-Fischer-Jurvetson (DFJ). The title down to around $10M per launch. of the workshop was “Low Cost Strategies This is easily a factor of ten below for Lunar Settlement”, and it was orga- current space industry pricing. nized by Steve Jurvetson of DFJ. The 2. Development of a Falcon-heavy (Fal- workshop brought together about 50 sci- con-H) that will be capable of putting entists, engineers, executives and entre- over 50MT to LEO for a price of preneurs, who have significant back- ~$135M, and which is expected to fly grounds and interests in lunar explora- in 2015. The closest current available tion and development, including a num- US capability is about 29MT that can ber of NASA and former NASA personnel be lofted to LEO by a Delta-4 Heavy and an Apollo astronaut. The group was rocket for a price of ~$380M. assembled to answer the question: Is it 3. Development of a new liquid- possible to have a permanent human lunar oxygen/methane rocket engine settlement of about 10 people on the Moon (called Raptor) with approximately a by 2022, for a price tag of $5 billion or less? one-million pound thrust capability -- The surprising consensus answer to this similar to the engines used on the question was a qualified “Yes, under the NASA Saturn-5 first stage. The inten- right organizational and funding condi- tion apparently is to use this engine to tions”. There were no technical show- power a Falcon-super-heavy rocket stoppers and a great deal of the technolo- that could loft ~200MT to LEO to gies needed were either on the shelf or support crewed Mars missions. could be developed in a relatively short SpaceX CEO Elon Musk calls this new period of time using contemporary tech- vehicle the Mars Colonial Transport niques. The group agreed to write a set of (MCT). papers outlining those conditions, and NewSpace magazine will dedicate a future Second, Bigelow Aerospace continues to issue to publishing the results. advance their expandable space modules, following the successful in-space demon- One particularly interesting idea that strations of two scale models in 2006 and emerged from the meeting was the “Apol- 2007 that are still in orbit. Bigelow Aero- lo Prize37”. This would be a $1 billion dol- space now has a contract with NASA to lar prize for the first organization that put a small module called the Bigelow Ex- succeeded to “Transport two or more peo- pandable Activity Module or BEAM36 on ple to the surface of the Moon, and then the ISS starting in 2015. In addition, Bige- return them safely back to Earth”. Several low is currently advertising a bigger ex- individuals are now pursuing this idea in pandable module they call the BA-330 earnest. that has a pressurized volume of 330 cu- Outside of the US, interest continues to bic meters, and which they say could grow for pursuing human missions to the Moon. Most recently the Chinese have clearly shown their intents concerning 36 http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/news/bea m_feature.html 37 Courtesy Charles Miller, [email protected]

Page 7 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2 the Moon with their successful Chang’e-3 well as science and technology activities, lunar robotic spacecraft38. The Russians and has been continuously inhabited have also recently stated their interest in since November 2000. Similar to the ISS putting Russian cosmonauts on the but with a broader set of stakeholders in Moon39. The International Space Explora- mind, Lunar Station will be developed tion Coordination Group (ISECG) is com- with investments from nations, commer- prised of members representing the space cial developers, philanthropists, academic agencies of 14 countries. The ISECG has institutions and even private citizens to produced a Global Exploration Roadmap40 develop and evolve the facilities over time. and the near term goal of the vast majori- ty of this groups members is the Moon. For the purposes of the analysis we will use the ISS as a guide for establishing the Returning To The Moon: Lunar Station initial capabilities that will be targeted for Lunar Station. These are listed as follows. The intent of the Lunar Station is to put a Lunar Station Initial Goals: permanent human facility on the Moon Pressurized volume: 900+ cubic meters using the demonstrated capabilities and Habitable volume: 300+ cubic meters best practices derived from the develop- Power: 100+ KW ment and operation of the International Initial crew size: 6 - 10 people Space Station. Lunar Station would be a Life support recovery: 90% or better facility capable of supporting crews of 6- Crew rotation: Every six months 10 people by providing shelter, power, Initial lunar mass: 150+ MT life support, communications and the Initial yearly resupply: 30+ MT ability to egress from the facility and The largest delta with respect to ISS travel across the surface of the Moon. It is numbers is the initial lunar mass of envisioned to be developed primarily 150+MT compared to the ISS mass of through a consortium of public, private, 420 MT. We believe this lower mass is and international contributors, and would enabled by using the soon to be available be the kernel around which the broader pre-fabricated Bigelow Aerospace habitat capabilities of the ILRP could nucleate. modules (described in more detail below) The Lunar Station community would compared to the traditional hard-body jointly develop and share infrastructure modules used on ISS. Mass savings can as well as separately develop and own also be anticipated from the effective use specific capabilities. Activities would of ISRU and additive manufacturing (dis- range from scientific research and tech- cussed more below). With the current nology development, to resource mining and near term capabilities of emerging and processing, to human exploration of commercial space companies, such as the Moon and even tourism. SpaceX and Bigelow Aerospace, building a lunar facility that meets these goals ap- The existence proof that this type of en- pears very feasible at this time, as will be terprise can be developed successfully discussed. beyond Earth is the ISS, which was built and continues to be used by sixteen coun- In considering a budget for both the build tries. The ISS now features commercial as and operational phases of Lunar Station ISS again served as a guide. It is assumed 38 http://www.universetoday.com/107716/china- that the initial effort will result from a considers-manned-moon-landing-following- breakthrough-change-3-mission-success/ largely government-funded program. The 39 http://rt.com/news/157800-russia-moon- current annual budget for the ISS runs colonization-plan/ about $3 billion per year. Given contem- 40 http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/about/isecg/#.VA- gRI1dVS_ porary commercial capabilities and ap-

Page 8 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2 proaches, and to promote more cost- fall considerable short of the 30+MT year- effective choices, an annual budget level ly re-supply target for $1 billion of trans- of approximately $2 billion per year for portation costs. Lunar Station is considered. Of the $2 billion, roughly half is assigned to trans- Falcon-HLRF stands for Falcon-heavy, portation with the remainder funding LEO Re-Fueled. It is an extrapolation by payloads and operations. Once the initial the authors on the kind of launch capabil- station is underway, additional funding ity that could be achieved by combining a from international and private partners is Falcon-H with multiple flights of a future anticipated. low-cost reusable Falcon-9R. The idea is to put a Falcon-H “tanker” (Falcon-HT) An essential capability for building and into LEO, partially fueled, and then top-off operating Lunar Station is transportation through the rendezvous and fuel transfer to the Lunar surface. Table 1 gives a of multiple (approximately 10) Falcon-9R summary of current US transportation flights carrying only fuel for payload. This options beyond LEO, including listing the would provide a low-failure consequence, capabilities of the NASA Saturn-5 rocket high-flight rate payload for the Falcon-9R for comparison (cost numbers for the that is well tuned to its reusable capabili- Saturn-5 have been adjusted to current ties. With the fully fueled Falcon-HT in year values). The data in the table come LEO, a second Falcon-H with its lunar pay- from a variety of public sources and in- load is launched to LEO, retaining its se- corporate a number of assumptions as cond stage after main-engine cut-off. This well as engineering and professional Falcon-H then rendezvous with the Fal- judgment. As such, these numbers should con-HT, transfers fuel to refill the re- be used more for comparison of different tained Falcon-H second stage (similar to launch options than numbers for detailed aircraft aerial refueling), separates from mission planning. the Falcon-HT, and then re-fires its re- tained second stage to perform the trans- As can be seen from the table, the recent lunar-injection burn. Note comparing the and future development of the SpaceX Falcon-HLRF to the numbers for the Sat- launch capabilities could be very im- urn-5 vehicle, that this approach would portant to achieving an economically via- yield Saturn-5 type lunar payload capabil- ble approach for build and operating Lu- ities for a fraction of the historical costs of nar Station. Assuming a transportation the Saturn-5. Also this large payload ca- budget of approximately $1 billion per pability may be particularly useful for year as previously discussed, the time sending prefabricated crew habitats to frames to achieve 150MT on the lunar the lunar surface as discussed below. surface run from a little over nine years using a Falcon-9, down to five years for a Concerning the SLS rocket currently un- Falcon-H, and down to three years using a der development by NASA, note that its Falcon-HLRF (described below). Also, the capabilities are similar to the Saturn-5, Falcon-H and Falcon-HLRF are the only particularly the SLS-Block2, while being options that achieve the operational tar- somewhat lower cost. However, because get of 30+MT yearly re-supply for approx- of its low expected flight rate and signifi- imately $1 billion a year of transportation cant costs, it doesn’t appear to fit within costs. Note the other launch options re- the cost envelope or viable time-lines for quire a considerably longer time to get supporting Lunar Station. the 150MT of payload to the lunar surface, with a minimum of over 20 years using a As mentioned earlier, a very good option Delta-4 heavy. Also all the other options for a crew habitat is soon to be available

Page 9 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2 from Bigelow Aerospace (BA). Real estate tageous topography, we initially are se- entrepreneur Bob Bigelow founded BA in lecting Peary crater41 at the Lunar North 1999. BA licensed technology from the pole for our assessment. Further analysis NASA Transhab project that was develop- and discussion would be needed to final- ing expandable space habitats for sending ize the selection, but other lunar experts astronauts to Mars. Although NASA was have noted the attributes of this site42. We making excellent progress and developing suggest therefore that Peary crater be very promising technology, Congress can- treated as the “site to beat” relative to celed the Transhab program in 2000. other site candidates. Starting with the NASA technology base, Bigelow invested over a decade of effort Lunar Station Build Scenario and ~$250 million of his own money to develop and flight-test this technology for Precursor Missions – We propose a Lu- in-space crew habitats. In 2006 and again nar Station build scenario as follows. in 2007 BA launched two small technolo- First a series of precursor robotic mis- gy demonstration modules: Genesis 1 and sions would be sent to Peary crater to do 2. These units have performed very well a “resources and hazards” assessment. and are still operational. Bigelow is now This would provide both surface truth well into the development of the BA-330 data about the resources in the perma- which as the name implies will have 330 nently shadowed crater as well as the ter- cubic meters of pressurized volume and rain on the northern rim of the crater that mass of ~20MT. Each of these modules is is exposed to almost constant sunlight capable of supporting up to six crew- according to the orbital images from sev- members for an extended period of time. eral lunar orbiter missions the, most re- While the original BA-330 is designed for cent being the NASA Lunar Reconnais- LEO, BA is currently developing an en- sance Orbiter 43 (LRO). The precursors hanced version, the BA-330MDS for lunar will be searching for volatiles in the crater surface operation. and a suitable landing site and base location on the crater rim. Once initial goals have been specified and viable transportation and crew habitat Power and Comm – Assuming this site is options have been identified, the next de- evaluated to be a suitable location, a se- cision is the location for Lunar Station; i.e., ries of missions to prepare the site would site selection. A number of different loca- then be launched. One of the first ele- tions could be proposed, but the polar- ments to be landed would be a 100 KW regions provide three key benefits: solar Power and Communication station (weighing approximately 4 MT) with a 1. Continuous sun-light providing con- 100m tall boom to continuously collect tinuous power sunlight and convert it into electricity. A 2. Access to cold-traps in permanently graphic illustration of such a power sta- shadowed craters that hold stores of tion, courtesy of SkyCorp44 is shown in water and useful hydrocarbons Figure 1. 3. Lower surface temperature swings

compared to off-polar locations. Once a facility is established at a pole, eventual exploration and development 41 missions to off-polar locations could then http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LRO/multimedia/l roimages/lroc-20091224-peary-crater.html be pursued. Site locations at both the 42 http://www.space.com/957-perfect-spot-moon- South and North Lunar poles should be base.html considered, but based on the more advan- 43 http://lunar.gsfc.nasa.gov/ 44 http://www.skycorpinc.com/Skycorp/Home.html

Page 10 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2

Site Prep – Managing dust at the landing LLO by earlier Falcon-H or Falcon-HLRF sites and habitats is a significant issue. launches. The four lunar descent mules Inspired by the utility of rugged flexible would then lower the BA-330MDS to the Bobcats™, electrically powered multi- Lunar Station site landing pad area. This function excavators, or “MoonCats” would is illustrated conceptually in Figure 2. then be brought to the site to level off the The BA-330MDS would then be picked up terrain for both the landing pads and the by previously sent “Lunar Surface Mules” habitation site. Equipment to either sin- and moved to the habitation site where it ter or otherwise stabilize the regolith would be positioned and potentially would then be sent to the site. All of the joined together with other modules, as equipment would be operated autono- illustrated in Figure 3. Power from the mously or through tele-operations from power station would then be connected to Earth. Once the landing pads and berms the habitats for operation. were put in place, roadways would be constructed from the regolith leading Crew Transport – With the habitats in from the landing pads to the habitation place, crew could then be sent to Lunar site. The habitation site would be sized to Station to begin its permanent occupancy. initially accommodate up to three BA- One way this could be accomplished is to 330MDS for crew habitat and operations. pre-position a “Gryphon” reusable crew lunar lander at LLO using a Falcon-H. ISRU and Additive Manufacturing – In- Then a crew of four to six could be sent on situ resource utilization along with addi- a “Deep Space Dragon” (DSD) to LLO us- tive manufacturing may provide signifi- ing a second Falcon-H. The DSD would cant benefits for building and operating rendezvous with the Gryphon lander, the Lunar Station. However, much more will crew and light payloads would transfer to need to be learned about resources at the the Gryphon, the Gryphon would detach site, effective procedures and processes, from the DSD, and then descend to the required precursor materials and equip- lunar surface. For departure from the ment, hazards and potential malfunctions, Moon, the crew would re-board the and methods of repairs before firm plans Gryphon lander and ascend to LLO for can be made relying on these capabilities rendezvous with the orbiting DSD, sepa- and approaches. Pursuing experiments rate from the Gryphon, and then fire the and investigations on a small scale during Dragon engines for return to Earth using the site preparation period would be very direct entry. advantageous in-order to make the required assessments and establish effec- Initial Operating Capability and Re- tive procedures. This in turn could lead to supply – With the initial infrastructure the integration of an appropriate level of and crew in-place, Lunar Station would ISRU and additive manufacturing into the begin its initial operations. Focus would station build and operation plans. be on additional investigations for resources and hazards (e.g., cold-traps, pos- Landing Crew Habitats – Once the site sible sub-surface lava tubes), possibilities prep has been completed, BA-330’s would for food growth and bioregenerative life then be sent to the lunar surface. Given support, ISRU activities and assessments, their large gross mass of 20MT, the easi- and medical and life sciences investiga- est way to accomplish this maybe to use a tions affecting long term habitation in low Falcon-HLRF to deliver a BA-330MDS to gravity. After a sufficiently robust initial Low-Lunar-Orbit (LLO). There it could operating capability is achieved, attention rendezvous with four “Lunar Descent could turn to expanding and evolving Lu- Mules” that have been pre-positioned in nar Station into a more multi-function,

Page 11 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2 multi-asset facility accommodating a This is how a solid business case for the greater number of people and capabilities, Moon can be accomplished. and bringing on additional private, government and international partners that Conclusions leverage and expand the infrastructure. The aim would be to eventually grow to a With the ISS built and operational, our fully functional International Lunar Re- space program needs a clear, timely, search Park, pursuing both private and achievable, and highly engaging next step government interests and activities. This for space development. This next step would include lunar capabilities and re- must also serve as a useful pathway for sources that would be very beneficial for NASA’s ultimate goal of human missions NASA to use to accomplish our aspira- to Mars, and exploration and develop- tions for human explorations of Mars. ment of asteroids and other planetary bodies. Making use of government lunar A Business Case For The Moon initiatives, such as the Lunar CATALYST program, the Lunar Reconnaissance Or- Experience to date with the Google Lunar biter and the Resource Prospector Mis- XPRIZE, Golden Spike, Shackelton Energy sion, as well as private initiatives such as and the ILRP shows that the prospects are the Google Lunar XPRIZE, the Interna- dim for private interests alone to accom- tional Lunar Research Park, and the Apol- plish significant lunar surface activities at lo Prize, would be wise as well. A clear, this time – it’s just too expensive and too timely, achievable and highly engaging risky. For lunar development to become a next step is also important for NASA to near-term reality, there is a clear need for maintain its relevance to the US public, its the government to make key investments leadership in the international communi- to lower technical and financial risks. Lu- ty, and its technical cutting edge. Lunar nar Station would be a wise approach in Station could meet these objectives, as this regard. There are many historic our initial analysis has shown. precedents for this type of government investment including the interstate high- Lunar Station falls inside of reasonable way system, municipal utilities, and the time-lines (about 5 years to build) and internet. Recent NASA programs such as budget levels (~$2 billion/year to build COTS/CRS have also demonstrated the and operate) and can be accomplished efficacy and benefits of this approach. with current and near term capabilities. The public/private and international Pursued under the feasibility proof of ISS, partnerships that would likely develop using best practices extracted from its following the initial government invest- build and operation, and combined with ment in Lunar Station would further ex- the current and emerging capabilities tend its capabilities and functions, while from the traditional and emerging aero- providing beneficial lunar activities, re- space industry, Lunar Station is the logical sources and possible revenue streams. next step in space development.

Page 12 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2

Table 1 – Comparison of launch options for building and operating Lunar Station

Lunar Station Launch Options* Saturn-5 SLS-Block1 SLS-Block2 Atlas-5 401 Delta-4 Heavy Falcon-9 Falcon-H Falcon-HLRF Falcon-9R Falcon-HR Launch vehicle fixed price (M$/yr) $3,169 $1,500 $1,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Launch vehicle variable price (M$/unit) $565 $500 $750 $187 $380 $62 $135 $250 $10 $22 LEO Payload Cap (MT) 117.5 70.0 130.0 9.8 28.8 13.2 53.2 140.7 9.2 37.2 TLI Payload Cap (MT) 45.6 30.0 56.4 4.2 9.8 4.6 18.6 47.2 N/A 13.1 # Launches/yr 1 0.5 0.33 4.2 2 11 5 3 28.5 16 Total Price (M$) per LEO Launch $3,734 $3,500 $5,295 $187 $380 $62 $135 $250 $10 $22 Cruise stage and lander price (M$/unit) $375 $250 $375 $50 $100 $25 $54 $82 N/A $38 Total Price (M$) per Lunar Launch $4,109 $3,750 $5,670 $237 $480 $87 $189 $332 $10 $60 Lunar Surface Payload Cap (MT) 16.4 8.8 16.3 1.2 3.6 1.5 6.0 16.9 N/A 4.7 MT/yr to Lunar Surface 16.4 4.4 5.4 5.1 7.2 16.4 30.1 50.7 N/A 74.5 Launch Cost/yr (M$) $4,109 $1,875 $1,871 $995 $960 $957 $947 $996 $285 $958 # Launches to get 150MT on the Lunar Surface 9.2 17.1 9.2 122.4 41.7 100.6 24.9 8.9 N/A 32.2 Years to get 150MT on the Lunar Surface 9.2 34.3 28.0 29.2 20.8 9.1 5.0 3.0 N/A 2.0 Notes: * - Cost and other data from a variety of public sources.

Figure 1 - 100 KW Power Lander (courtesy SkyCorp)

Page 13 of 14 IAC-14,D3,1,4,x22217 Lunar Station, V1.2

Figure 2 – Illustration of a lunar crew habitat, with attached lunar descent mules (courtesy of Masten Space Systems)

Figure 3 – Illustration of a three-habitat module Lunar Station facility (courtesy of Bigelow Aerospace)

Page 14 of 14