Multi-Disciplinary Design Project - Final Report
Vertical Take-Off and Horizontal Landing Spacecraft Facility
Issue: 1.5 Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Status: Final
VTOHL Group 2
Callum Dykes Michael Groehe Antonio-Luis Martinez Paul Mearman Daniel Moore Mark Warrilow
Supervisors Steve Proctor Dr Olaf Marxen
MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final Executive Summary
The UK is on the verge of losing grasp of the space race. Other countries such as the USA, Russia, India, Japan, Kazakhstan and China have their own capability to launch payloads into orbit, as well as the European Union utilising a facility in South America.
The UK government has stated an interest in capturing 10% of the global space industry by 2030. In this pursuit, many reports have been created to identify the space industry contribution of present UK facilities, as well as establishing the UK Space Agency to support competitive growth.
The business case identifies that a large proportion of launch orders are derived from European demand. Competition for launch services is stiff globally but relaxed in Europe, where no launch site operates a service for companies to send their satellites into orbit.
The suggested course of action then, is the design of an installation capable of providing launch capability for small satellites, into low earth orbits, in the UK. This would be implemented in three Phases of site development. Firstly, Heliaq’s ALV-2 and Virgin Orbit, followed by Phase 2 which would move to the ALV-3. Finally, in Phase 3, the most ambitious and theoretical, is catering to Skylon, a British single stage-to-orbit space plane.
The Spaceport will be located at Dounreay on the north coast of Scotland, which is an ideal launch site for polar orbital applications, as well as providing limited air traffic and a safe area along the flightpath in the event of falling debris. Commercial and support operations will be located in the nearby town of Thurso. A mass transit rail system will connect to the two sites for the movement of staff and supplies, with an additional connection to the national railway line planned in Phase 3. The Thurso Site will additionally contain an enterprise zone for businesses and educational institutions to stimulate innovation in the space industry which will directly benefit the Spaceport.
During the first two Phases, these launch vehicles chosen for the Spaceport will be able to send masses of 100 kg (ALV-2) and 300-500 kg (Virgin Orbit) into a high inclination, low earth orbit. The eventual target for launches per year is to be 92 (45 Skylon, 35 ALV, 12 Virgin Orbit).
The satellites would be provided by the customer who wishes to launch them and the Spaceport will include payload preparation and post-mission satellite operation services. The payload preparation facility will offer an ISO class 8 cleanroom, with the most essential equipment needed for manoeuvring payloads of up to 500 kg and testing of satellite systems. Satellite operations will
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 1 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final be offered as a service to continually maintain the orbit of the customer’s satellite through telemetry and telecommand, as well as managing its data output as an additional source of revenue.
The facilities also allow for civilian air travel to the site by following international regulations, making travel to the Spaceport easier, providing an additional functionality and making the transport of materials more direct.
Catering to the launch and mission are control centres capable of monitoring the engineering parameters of the launch vehicle and payload, helmed by a team of highly skilled staff. These facilities also offer space for press conferences and negotiations with prospective clients. Adjacent to the payload preparation facility, a launch vehicle assembly building will be available to customers where both the ALV-2/3 and Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne can be assembled, and the payload integrated. Storage buildings dedicated to protection and maintenance of the launch vehicles will be provided with the necessary equipment to be able to lift equipment and transfer it to a trailer for transportation to the assembly building where needed. When Phase 3 of the Spaceport is reached, an additional hangar will be provided to house and maintain Reaction Engine’s Skylon.
The majority of potable water is sourced from the nearby Loch Calder, whilst rainwater collection systems will be implemented in all Spaceport buildings to reduce the quantity of potable water required. The estimated daily water consumption of the Spaceport will be 48,600 litres, with roughly 25% of this being non-potable water harvested using the rainwater collection systems. Power will be generated for the Spaceport through the construction of a nearby on-shore wind farm. The peak daily energy usage of the site is estimated to be 13.3 MWh. A total annual renewable energy generation of 16.2 GWh is predicted, including an estimated 12.2 GWh of this being used to power more than 3,100 homes across the UK.
The propellants required by the launch vehicles are brought to the site by road, and are deposited into specialist tanks designed particularly for the contents which are to be contained. The chemicals used in the initial Phases of the project are Liquid Oxygen, Rocket Propellant 1 and Jet A-1 fuel.
The total cost of the project, including Phase 3, is £1.339 billion. The total expected revenue is £142 million before Phase 3, with this figure rising to £906.6 million once Skylon is operational. The financial analysis shows an annual increase in profit, due to the interest payments reducing each year. The profit in year one is expected to be £30.74 million. Year 6 is the sole year with an expected loss, with an estimated figure of £29.82 million. Once all debt is repaid an annual profit of £140.17 million can be expected.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 2 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
‘We confirm that the submitted work is our own work. No element has been previously submitted for assessment, or where it has, it has been correctly referenced. We have also clearly identified and fully acknowledged all material that is entitled to be attributed to others (whether published or unpublished) using the referencing system set out in the programme handbook. We agree that the University may submit my work to means of checking this, such as the plagiarism detection service Turnitin® UK. We confirm that we understand that assessed work that has been shown to have been plagiarised will be penalised.'
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 3 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final Table of Contents
Executive Summary ...... 1
Issue Record ...... 10
Document Notes ...... 10
List of Acronyms ...... 10
List of Figures ...... 12
List of Tables ...... 15
1. Introduction ...... 17
2. Project Scope ...... 18
3. Business Case ...... 19
4. Spaceport Configuration Justification ...... 23
4.1. Launch Vehicles ...... 23
4.1.1. Austral Launch Vehicle ...... 23
4.1.2. Virgin Orbit ...... 24
4.1.3. Skylon...... 24
4.2. Launch Site ...... 25
5. Adaptation of Launch Site...... 26
5.1. Summary of existing infrastructure and facilities ...... 26
5.1.1. Royal Air Force Station Dounreay ...... 26
5.1.2. Nuclear Power Development Establishment ...... 27
5.1.3. Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment ...... 28
5.1.4. Regional Considerations ...... 29
5.1.5. Transport Access ...... 30
5.2. Climate ...... 30
5.2.1. Precipitation and Flooding ...... 30
5.2.2. Temperature Variation ...... 32
5.3. Site Development ...... 33
5.3.1. Dounreay Decommissioning Work ...... 33
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 4 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
5.3.1.1. Logistical Impact ...... 33
5.3.1.2. Socio-economic Impact ...... 34
5.3.2. Dounreay Site Overview ...... 34
5.3.3. Thurso Site Overview...... 36
5.3.3.1. Shipping and Receiving ...... 38
5.3.3.2. Office Area ...... 41
5.3.3.3. Housing Development ...... 43
5.3.3.4. Enterprise Zone ...... 44
5.3.4. Mass Transit System ...... 45
5.3.5. Road Network ...... 47
5.3.5.1. A836 Road...... 47
5.3.5.2. A9 Road...... 48
5.3.6. Weather Protection ...... 49
5.3.6.1. Drainage System ...... 49
5.3.6.2. Revetment...... 49
5.3.6.2.1. Revetment Configuration ...... 50
5.3.6.2.2. Cost...... 52
5.3.6.2.3. Environmental Impact ...... 52
5.3.6.3. Demolition and Relocation...... 53
5.3.6.3.1. Local Population ...... 53
5.3.6.3.2. Forss Business Park ...... 54
6. Control Facilities ...... 55
6.1. Justification of Satellite Services ...... 56
6.2. Requirements of Facilities ...... 58
6.2.1. Launch Control Tower ...... 59
6.2.2. Mission & Satellite Control Centre ...... 59
6.3. Telemetry ...... 59
6.4. Launch Control Tower Detailed Design ...... 62
6.5. Mission & Satellite Control Centre Design...... 68
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 5 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
6.6. Cost Analysis...... 68
7. Take-off and Landing Infrastructure ...... 69
7.1. Runway...... 70
7.1.1. Landing and Take-Off Requirements ...... 70
7.1.2. Lighting and Line marking requirements ...... 73
7.1.3. Asphalt Pavement Design ...... 77
7.2. Taxiways and Apron Markings & Lighting ...... 77
7.3. Launch Pad ...... 78
7.4. Cost of Runway, Launch Pad and Apron Pavement ...... 79
8. Launch Vehicle Infrastructure ...... 80
8.1. Payload Preparation Facility ...... 80
8.1.1. Function and Requirements ...... 81
8.1.1.1. CubeSat Preparation ...... 81
8.1.1.2. Typical Satellite Preparation ...... 82
8.1.1.3. Cleanroom Specification and Procedure ...... 82
8.1.2. Payload Preparation Facility Design ...... 84
8.1.2.1. Capability and Equipment ...... 84
8.1.2.2. Floor Plan ...... 84
8.1.3. Equipment, Staffing and Construction Costs ...... 86
8.2. Launch Vehicle Assembly ...... 88
8.2.1. Building Function and Requirements ...... 88
8.2.2. Floor Plan ...... 89
8.2.3. Equipment and Staffing Costs ...... 90
8.2.4. Design, Construction and Cost ...... 90
8.3. Launch Vehicle Storage ...... 91
8.3.1. ALV-2 Storage ...... 91
8.3.2. Virgin Orbit Storage ...... 92
8.3.2.1. LauncherOne ...... 92
8.3.2.2. Cosmic Girl ...... 92
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 6 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
8.3.2.3. Hangar Function and Requirements ...... 92
8.3.2.4. Hangar Detailed Design ...... 93
8.3.2.5. Equipment, Staffing and Construction Cost ...... 94
8.3.3. Skylon Storage ...... 95
9. Fuel Storage and Supply ...... 95
9.1. Tank Design ...... 96
9.1.1. Cryogenic Tanks ...... 97
9.1.1.1. Propellant Tank Details ...... 99
9.1.2. Non-Cryogenic Tanks ...... 101
9.1.2.1. Propellant Tank Details ...... 102
9.2. Tank Safety ...... 105
9.2.1. Physical Safety ...... 105
9.2.2. Hazard and Operability Study ...... 106
9.2.3. Dow Fire and Explosion Index...... 108
9.2.4. Control of Major Accident Hazards ...... 109
9.3. Costing ...... 110
9.3.1. Capital Cost ...... 110
9.3.2. Operational Cost ...... 113
9.4. Tank Layout ...... 114
9.5. Obtaining Fuels ...... 114
9.6. Future Considerations ...... 116
10. Utilities ...... 116
10.1. Power ...... 116
10.1.1. Power Supply ...... 117
10.1.1.1. Renewable ...... 118
10.1.1.1.1. Tidal ...... 118
10.1.1.1.2. Wind ...... 119
10.1.1.2. Proposed Power Plant...... 121
10.1.2. Power Distribution Network ...... 123
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 7 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
10.1.2.1. Medium Voltage Network ...... 123
10.1.2.2. Low Voltage Network ...... 124
10.1.3. Power Re-Distribution...... 125
10.2. Water ...... 125
10.2.1. Sources ...... 126
10.2.1.1. Potable Water ...... 126
10.2.1.2. Non-Potable Water ...... 128
10.2.2. Water Treatment ...... 129
10.2.2.1. Surface Water Treatment ...... 129
10.2.2.2. Groundwater Treatment ...... 130
10.2.3. Water Distribution ...... 130
10.3. Waste Disposal and Treatment ...... 131
10.3.1. Waste Water, Sewage and Sludge Treatment ...... 131
10.3.2. Refuse Collection and Disposal ...... 132
10.3.2.1. Existing Landfill Sites ...... 133
10.3.2.2. Proposed Landfill Sites ...... 134
10.3.3. Recyclable Materials Collection ...... 136
10.4. Gases ...... 138
10.5. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning ...... 138
10.6. Communication Links ...... 139
11. Services ...... 139
11.1. Emergency Response Teams ...... 140
11.2. Security...... 140
12. Scheme Layout ...... 142
13. Sustainability ...... 147
13.1. Societal and Environmental Impact ...... 147
13.2. Material Sourcing ...... 148
13.3. Project Life-Cycle Assessment ...... 148
14. Scheme Programme...... 149
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 8 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
15. Finance ...... 153
15.1. Sources of Seed Capital...... 153
15.2. Income through Operation ...... 154
15.3. Capital Cost ...... 155
15.4. Operational Cost ...... 156
15.5. Return on Investment and Feasibility Study ...... 157
16. Project Management ...... 160
16.1. Work Breakdown Structure ...... 160
16.2. MDDP Project Gantt Chart ...... 161
16.3. Spaceport Project Gantt Chart ...... 162
16.4. Risk Assessment ...... 163
16.5. Responsibilities Table ...... 166
17. Conclusion ...... 166
18. References ...... 167
19. Appendices ...... 183
Appendix A – Revetment Calculations ...... 183
Appendix B – Runway ...... 184
Appendix C – Launch Vehicle Infrastructure ...... 186
Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply ...... 189
Appendix E – Utilities ...... 195
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 9 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Issue Record
1.0 Initial Draft Issue of template. 05/12/2017 1.1 Initial population of individual and collaborative sections. 08/01/2018 1.2 Further population of individual and collaborative sections. 09/01/2018 1.3 Further population of individual and collaborative sections. 11/01/2018 1.4 Final Draft issue requiring final checks. 12/01/2018 1.5 Final Formal Issue. 13/01/2018
Document Notes
As agreed with the project supervisors, the authors of the indvudual sections of this report have been detailed in a table in Section 16.5. Any other sections of this report should be considered collaborative.
Attached to this report is an Excel spreadsheet containing details of the financial analysis performed and a PDF containing high definition drawings of the Scheme Layout.
List of Acronyms
AGL Aeronautical Ground Lighting ARC Airport Reference Codes CAA Civil Aviation Authority CNS Communication, Navigation and Surveillance CNSRP Caithness & North Sutherland Regeneration Partnership COMAH Control of Major Accident Hazards CPT Cost per Launch DFR Dounreay Fast Reactor DMTR Dounreay Materials Test Reactor DSRL Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd ECA Enhanced Capital Allowances EFR European Fast Reactor ESA European Space Agency ETL Energy Technology List F&EI Fire and Explosion Index FAA Federal Aviation Authority
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 10 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
FCT Flight Control Team FIT Feed-In Tariff GICW General Industrial and Commercial Waste HAZOP Hazard and Operability Study HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle HSE Health and Safety Executive HV High Voltage ICAO International Civil Aviation Organisation IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers IEP Interim End Point ISS International Space Station LCA Life-cycle Assessment LCN Load Classification Number LCT Launch Control Tower LEO Low-Earth Orbit
LH2 Liquid Hydrogen LLW Low Level Waste
LN2 Liquid Nitrogen LOx Liquid Oxygen LV Launch Vehicle LVA Launch Vehicle Assembly LVS Launch Vehicle Storage MAPP Major Accident Prevention Policy MDDP Multi-Disciplinary Design Project MSCC Mission & Satellite Control Centre MSW Municipal Solid Waste MTS Mass Transit System MV Medium Voltage NPDE Nuclear Power Development Establishment NRTE Naval Reactor Test Establishment NTSLF National Tidal and Sea Level Facility PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator PFR Prototype Fast Reactor PPE Personal Protective Equipment PPF Payload Preparation Facility P-POD Poly-Picosatellite Orbital Deployer
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 11 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
PS Prioritisation Score PVA Potentially Vulnerable Area RAF Royal Air Force RESA Runway End Safety Areas RN Royal Navy RP-1 Rocket Propellant 1 SABRE Synergic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine SAR Shipping and Receiving SCT Satellite Control Team SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency SSTL Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd STF Shore Test Facility SW Storage Warehouse TDZ Touchdown Zone TM/TC Telemetry/Telecommand TT&C Telemetry Tracking & Control UKAEA United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority UKSA UK Space Agency ULA United Launch Alliance UPS Uninterruptile Power VTOHL Vertical Take-Off and Horizontal Landing WBPR Water Borehole Prognosis Report WBS Work Breakdown Structure WwTW Wastewater Treatment Works
List of Figures
Figure 1: Image of the Guiana Space Centre’s Soyuz Launch Site run by Arianespace (Arianespace, 2018)...... 17 Figure 2: Infographic summarising some key findings on the UK Space Industry (London Economics, 2016)...... 20 Figure 3: Graphic displaying air traffic across parts of Europe, with the proposed location for the Spaceport labelled (NATS, 2018)...... 26 Figure 4: The legacy runway located at Dounreay (Google, 2017)...... 27 Figure 5: The remaining facilities from the Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment site (DSRL, 2017)...... 28
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 12 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 6: The Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment (Nuclear Information Service, 2015). ... 28 Figure 7: The harbour at Scrabster, located 3 km from the town centre (Cruise Europe, 2017). ... 29 Figure 8: Forss Business Park with its six wind turbines (Abbey Ecosse, 2016)...... 30 Figure 9: Average Annual Precipitation at Dounreay (Meteoblue, 2018)...... 31 Figure 10: Estimates of flood damage costs and their likelihood in the Thurso PVA (SEPA [B], 2015)...... 32 Figure 11: Annual temperature distribution at Dounreay (YR, 2018)...... 33 Figure 12: The area to be encompassed by the Dounreay Site...... 35 Figure 13: The commercial aircraft terminal at the Dounreay Site...... 36 Figure 14: Illustrative whole town masterplan, taken from Charrette for Thurso (John Thompson and Partners, 2013)...... 37 Figure 15: Proposed area that the Thurso Site will be located within...... 38 Figure 16: Scrabster Harbour expansion plans submitted to the Highlands Council and its surrounding area (The Highlands Council, 2014) ...... 39 Figure 17: Scheme layout of the SAR building...... 40 Figure 18: Scheme layout of the office facilities at the Thurso Site...... 42 Figure 19: The Thurso Western Expansion Area (Rennilson, 2003)...... 43 Figure 20: Scheme layout of the housing development and leisure and shopping centre...... 44 Figure 21: Location of the enterprise zone within the Thurso Site...... 45 Figure 22: Proposed route of the MTS between the Dounreay Site and the Thurso Site...... 46 Figure 23: Map showing where the A836 will intersect the Dounreay Site...... 47 Figure 24: Traffic flow on the A836 from Dounreay to Thurso, based on a 5 day average (AECOM, 2012)...... 48 Figure 26: A drawing comparing a low-to-moderate scour toe configuration to a moderate-to-severe toe configuration (USACE, 1995)...... 51 Figure 27: Cross section dimensions of the selected revetment configuration...... 52 Figure 29: Image of Johnson Space Center's Mission Control Center (NASA, 2010)...... 55 Figure 30: UK downstream and upstream space industry income 1999/2000-2014/15 (London Economics, 2016)...... 57 Figure 31: Typical implementation of multi-mission ground segment for an Earth Observation mission (SSTL, 2009)...... 61 Figure 32: Image of computer terminals in the Flight Control Room during SpaceX Rendezvous Operations (NASA, 2017)...... 63 Figure 33: Floorplan of the MSCC...... 65 Figure 34: Visual representation of Security Level per room, where Red is high, Yellow is low.. 67 Figure 35: Wind rose for Dounreay (Meteoblue, 2017)...... 71 Figure 36: SE winds from wind rose (Meteoblue, 2017)...... 73
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 13 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 37: CAP 637 runway markings (CAA, 2007)...... 75 Figure 38: Runway approach lighting system (CAA, 2007) ...... 76 Figure 39: Runway exit lighting (CAA, 2007)...... 78 Figure 40: CubeSat size variants, 1U being the smallest and standard size (University of Colorado Boulder, 2013)...... 81 Figure 41: Payload preparation facility ground floor (units in metres)...... 85 Figure 42: Payload preparation facility first floor (all units in metres)...... 86 Figure 43: LVA floor plan depicting the floor space use...... 89 Figure 44: Proposed pitched portal frame solution for the LVA...... 91 Figure 45: Cosmic Girl aircraft hangar plan view (units in m)...... 93 Figure 46: Cosmic Girl aircraft hangar front elevation (units in m)...... 94 Figure 47: The standard process flow diagram for the storage of a cryogenic liquid...... 98 Figure 48: The general process flow diagram for non-cryogenic tanks...... 101 Figure 49: An example of a manual override system...... 107 Figure 50: An example of the type of lorry used to deliver non-cryogenic propellants (Lommer, 2005)...... 115 Figure 51: Example of a turbine used to harvest tidal energy (Power Technology, 2016)...... 119 Figure 52: Location of the wind farm...... 121 Figure 53: Proposed layout of the onshore wind farm...... 123 Figure 54: Kingspan Klargester Commercial Below Ground Rainwater Harvesting System (Kingspan, 2017)...... 129 Figure 55: Example of refuse and recycling bins located around Spaceport sites (West, 2015). 138 Figure 56: An example of the security fencing to be used at the Spaceport (Protective Fencing, 2017)...... 141 Figure 57: Excerpt of the Scheme Layout, showing the Phases of development...... 142 Figure 58: Excerpt of the Scheme Layout, showing the Dounreay Site plan view, excluding launch pads...... 143 Figure 59: Excerpt of the Scheme Layout, showing the Dounreay Site launch pads...... 144 Figure 60: Excerpt of the Scheme Layout, showing the Thurso Site...... 145 Figure 61: Excerpt of the scheme layout, showing the Thurso site housing development and mass transit system infrastructure...... 146 Figure 63: An example of a life-cycle assessment that can be applied to this project (Fedkin). .. 149 Figure 64: Cash Flow Graph...... 158 Figure 65: Cash Flow graph (No Skylon)...... 159 Figure 66: Risk Prioritisation Matrix showing the Prioritisation Score of each risk, with low risks shown in green, medium risks in yellow, and high risks in red (NASA, 2014)...... 163
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 14 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final List of Tables
Table 1 Key competitors in the global space launch services market...... 21 Table 2: The cost of the SAR, harbour facilities and railway line broken down into their Phase of development...... 41 Table 3: Cost breakdown of the Thurso Site offices area construction...... 42 Table 4: Cost breakdown of the MTS...... 46 Table 5: Cost breakdown of the revetment construction...... 52 Table 6: Population breakdown of the Caithness region of Scotland (The Highland Council, 2013)...... 53 Table 7: Cost breakdown of the wind turbine relocations assuming the process can be completed in a single day...... 55 Table 8: Radio Frequency Band Designations (IEEE Standards Association, 2009)...... 60 Table 9: Estimation of Employees for the MSCC...... 62 Table 10: Designation of Security Level per room...... 66 Table 11: Equipment quantity and cost for the MSCC...... 68 Table 12: Areas of each floor of each building and their estimated cost to construct...... 69 Table 13: Salaries for all control facilities employees based off similar industry roles...... 69 Table 14: LV data...... 72 Table 15: FAA Airport Reference code (Federal Aviation Authority , 1989)...... 72 Table 16 : ICAO ARC (SKYbrary, 2017)...... 72 Table 17: Prices of each pavement section according to Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT, 2016) ...... 80 Table 18: ISO Classes of air cleanliness by particle concentration. Values taken from BSI (2016)...... 82 Table 19: Estimated equipment costs...... 87 Table 20: Estimated PPF staff and salaries (salary estimates from PayScale (2018))...... 87 Table 21: Estimated construction cost for the payload preparation facility...... 87 Table 22: LVAB estimated equipment needs and costs...... 90 Table 23: LVAB estimated staff and salary requirements (salary estimates from PayScale (2018))...... 90 Table 24: Estimated LVA construction cost...... 91 Table 25: Cosmic Girl hangar equipment items and cost...... 95 Table 26: Cosmic Girl hangar estimated staff numbers...... 95 Table 27: Cosmic Girl hangar estimated construction costs...... 95 Table 28: Propellants required for each LV to launch...... 96 Table 29: LOx tank system data...... 100
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 15 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 30 RP-1 tank system data ...... 103 Table 31 Jet A-1 fuel tank system data ...... 104 Table 32: Assessment of hazard, adapted from the Dow F&EI guide (1994)...... 108 Table 33: Calculated F&EI index values with their corresponding hazard degree and radius of exposure...... 108 Table 34: Actual mass compared to the upper and lower tier requirements for each propellant. . 109 Table 35 Calculated purchase costs for each equipment type...... 111 Table 36: Sub-Lang factors and the calculated total Lang factor for the materials used in the design (Lang, 1947)...... 112 Table 37: Capital cost calculations for the propellant storage tanks...... 112 Table 38: Calculated costs to buy the standard propellant quantities...... 113 Table 39: Calculated cost of propellants per launch for Phase 1 LVs...... 113 Table 40: Power estimations...... 117 Table 41: Cost breakdown of power infrastructure...... 122 Table 42: Water usage estimations...... 126 Table 43: Cost Breakdown for the water collection and distribution system...... 131 Table 44: Details of landfill sites for potential disposal of Spaceport refuse (SEPA, 2015)...... 133 Table 45: Data for the annual capacity and waste acceptance of two viable recycling centres (SEPA, 2015)...... 137 Table 46: Cost breakdown of refuse and recycling collection points...... 137 Table 47: Work Breakdown Structure for the Spaceport Scheme Programme...... 150 Table 48: Revenue sources...... 155 Table 49: Capital Cost Breakdown...... 155 Table 50: Preliminary Vehicle Specification (Heliaq, 2017)...... 156 Table 51: Operational Cost ...... 156
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 16 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 1. Introduction
With ambitious satellite launch projects such as OneWeb (2018), a project aimed at providing a global internet broadband service, the market for satellite launches and therefore cost-effective Launch Vehicles (LV) is becoming a focus for many countries and companies.
In the face of uncertainty over continued connection to the European Space Agency (ESA) due to Brexit, the UK’s lack of launch site, LV and now connection to other space-faring nations leaves it at threat of being left out of the space race.
The aim of this report is to examine the use of Vertical Take Off and Horizontal Landing (VTOHL) launch vehicles, i.e. ones that have a reusable aspect, to determine whether a cost-effective launch site could be established in the UK, such as the one shown in Figure 1, for the main purpose of satellite launches.
Figure 1: Image of the Guiana Space Centre’s Soyuz Launch Site run by Arianespace (Arianespace, 2018).
It will propose a programme covering the operations of the launch site facilities, here on referred to as the ‘Spaceport’, as well as detailed planning of the facilities themselves, including a scheme layout, utilities and individual floor plans and a cost analysis.
Already produced is an Inception Report (VTOHL Group 2, 2017), which covered an option study of the possible technical aspects of the project and detailed some basic background research and a potential business case.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 17 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The market for space missions is broad, with large constellations of satellites needed to be launched for OneWeb mentioned already. Other similar ventures being conceived by SpaceX and Samsung are space tourism and space debris clearing. It is a field that has always been close to innovation and as humanity grows the reward for investment seems ever tantalising.
This perhaps is why the UK needs to establish something soon. Europe has Arianespace who launch from French Guiana; the United Launch Alliance (ULA), who consist of Lockheed martin and Boeing, launch out of the USA; and the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan provides launch facilities for multiple companies. These are just a few of the current launch operators, with SpaceX and Blue Origin are some others to prove the rapidly expanding competition.
The report will also aim to consider improvement of the nearby area and environment such as suggesting an enterprise zone and adaptation of present infrastructure to better suit the Spaceport whilst also offering development to the local economy.
In terms of major challenges, the project is presented with, first and foremost will be establishing a cost-effective solution and overcoming the technical uncertainty and risk inherent with something as volatile and untapped as space travel.
2. Project Scope
The Inception Report set out the deliverables for this project, the following are updates on their progress as of this report: • Option Study – Carried out in the Inception Report and used to accompany justifications in this report. • Justification for options selected – Can be found in Section 4. • Scheme layout of facility – Can be found in Section 12. • Design Calculations – Are present in the main text where important, otherwise can be found throughout the appendix. • Financial Analysis – Conducted on both an individual basis in Sections 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as well as all together in Section 15. • Proposed programme of operations – Details a typical mission and can be found in Section 14. • Multi-Disciplinary Design Project (MDDP) Project management – Can be found completed in Section 16.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 18 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Following the Inception Report, individual technical areas were identified for detailed design and delegated amongst group members. These areas involve analysis of costs as to provide a full breakdown of the fiscal feasibility of the project.
The business case from the Inception Report has been refreshed and expanded upon to refine missions carried out by the site.
In the Inception Report (VTOHL Group 2, 2017) key problems were identified concerning: • Maturity of the developmental LVs and uncertainty about their final performance. • The economic viability of refurbishing and maintaining reusable LVs. • Safe launch and recovery of the LV and any discarded stages with regards to the location of the Spaceport.
The first two have been addressed by the choice of LVs further along in their design process and which have information available on their costs, the chosen LVs will be detailed in Section 4.1. The third point is addressed by the choice of a location with low air space traffic and sea in the direction of the launch path, this is shown in Section 4.2.
3. Business Case
In 2010, government, academic and industrial institutions collaborated to form a 20-year plan to grow the UK space industry. The Space Innovation & Growth Strategy (Space IGS, 2010) aims to capture 10% of the global space industry by 2030. This led to the establishment of the UK Space Agency (UKSA) which is responsible for supporting the growth of a competitive space sector. Its budget is around £370 million as of 2016/17 (UK Space Agency, 2017, p. 18).
London Economics (2016) produced a report covering the size and health of the UK space industry and updated that through 2014/15 the UK had secured 6.5% of the global space economy and added that it showed “steady progress towards the 10% ambition”. Figure 2 below shows an infographic that accompanied the same report, summarising the key figures that describe the size of the UK space industry.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 19 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 2: Infographic summarising some key findings on the UK Space Industry (London Economics, 2016).
Britain’s first astronaut aboard the International Space Station (ISS), Tim Peake, sparked renewed interest in the UK space industry and according to the National Space Policy (HM Government, 2015), the UK had increased investment in the European Space Agency (ESA) over the three previous years and remarks of the 2014 decision to invest in the ISS. All of which points not only to an increased growth and focus on the space industry, but also on co-operation with Europe.
However, the policy came a year before the announcement that the UK would be leaving the European Union, creating uncertainty over whether the UK could rely on European facilities and cooperation to continue to grow its space industry.
The UK is already being left in the cold when it comes to upstream services, with no launch operators or launch sites. Countries at the fore-front of the space game currently are: USA, Russia, China, Japan, India and the European Union. Table 1 shows the key competitors currently active or upcoming in the space industry, compiled using information found in the Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation (Federal Aviation Administration, 2016).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 20 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 1 Key competitors in the global space launch services market.
Company Name Launch Site(s) Launch Vehicle(s) Antrix Corporation Satish Dhawan Space Centre, India PSLV, GSLV, LVM-3 Arianespace Guiana Space Center, French Ariane 5, Soyuz-2, Guiana Vega China Aerospace Science Jiuquan, Mongolia; Xichang, Long March and Technology Wencheng and Taiyuan Satellite Corporation Launch Centers, China Eurockot Launch Plesetsk Cosmodrome, Russia Rockot Services International Launch Baikonur Cosmodrome, Proton-M, Proton Services Kazakhstan; Plesetsk and Medium, Proton Light, Vostochny Cosmodromes, Russia Angara 1.2 ISC Kosmotras Yasny Launch Base, Russia; Dnepr Baikonur Cosmodrome, Kazakhstan Mitsubishi Heavy Tanegashima and Uchinoura Space H-IIA, H-IIB, Epsilon Industries Center, Japan Orbital ATK Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Antares, Minotaur, and Vandenburg Air Force Base, Pegasus USA SpaceX Cape Canaveral, Vandenburg Air Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy Force Base and Kennedy Space Center, USA Starsem Baikonur Cosmodrome, Soyuz-FG, Soyuz-2 Kazakhstan; Guiana Space Center, French Guiana; Vostochny Cosmodrome, Russia United Launch Alliance Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg Atlas V, Delta IV Air Force Base, USA Sea Launch Equatorial Ocean Platform Zenit-3SL Blue Origin* Cape Canaveral, USA New Glenn Virgin* Mojave Space Port and Spaceport Galactic, Orbit America, USA *Whilst Blue Origin and Virgin are not active yet, it could be assumed they may well be active by the completion of this Project’s Spaceport.
Of these, only the following show even partial re-usability: Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, New Glenn, Virgin Orbit and Galactic. This proves reusable launch vehicles are still in their infancy and could provide accelerated growth in the market for the UK.
The UK is already ripe with companies operating in the space sector, supporting approximately £250 billion of the UK’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) through space-enabled data and applications, these findings come from the UK Space Facilities Review (UK Space Agency, 2017) that surveyed the current facilities available in the UK. The UK also enjoys the lowest corporate
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 21 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final tax rate amongst the G7, providing a great incentive for businesses interested in expanding the space sector to locate themselves here.
In terms of launch sites, there are none in Europe (outside of Russia) which poses a great opportunity to capture European satellite launch demand and is perfectly described in paragraph 3.29 of the UK Government review of commercial space plane certification and operations (Civil Aviation Authority, 2014, p. 38):
“Approximately 35 per cent of global satellite launches are funded from, and take place in, the US; it is essentially self-sufficient, so even if the UK market matured, it would be unlikely to capture much of the US demand. However, a large proportion of launch orders are derived from European demand. In 2012, 11 of the 25 recorded orders were from Europe. The only operational launch capability within Europe at the time of writing is in Sweden, and to date it has only been used for sounding rockets and scientific balloons. The Guiana Space Centre or, more commonly, Centre Spatial Guyanais (CSG) offers a large- scale European-owned and managed facility, but it is located in French Guiana in South America. A UK launch capacity would thus appear to stand a good chance of gaining some of the European satellite orders, particularly for small satellites into LEO. However, it is important to be clear that, on account of its northerly latitude, the UK – like Sweden – is only suitable for launching satellites into polar orbit (as opposed to equatorial orbit).”
As mentioned in the excerpt, the latitude (50oN – 59oN) does restrict the launch missions available however, Russian launch sites such as Vostochny and Yasny are within the same latitude and are currently operating, as are two other launch sites close in latitude: Baikonur (45.9oN) and Plesetsk (62oN).
The market for satellite launches is very bright with huge, industry changing projects being carried out, such as OneWeb (2018), a constellation of around 900 satellites providing global internet access; and Galileo (European Space Agency, 2018), Europe’s own global navigation satellite system to reduce dependency on the current US and Russian systems. The UK is already currently collaborating with the French space agency to create a Space Climate Observatory (HM Government, 2017), perhaps with the right facilities the UK could launch projects like these. Other markets exist of course in the space launch sector and could be included through later expansion, such as:
• Sub-orbital travel/Space tourism – This covers ventures such as Virgin Galactic, providing the civilian population with the opportunity to experience space and travel across the globe in the fraction of the time commercial flights would take. A study carried out by Reddy, et
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 22 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
al. (2012) found that people’s perceptions of the risk involved as well as considerations like training required could stifle potential interest. • Space debris removal – The European Space Agency (2018) identifies the active removal of debris as a strategic goal and that population of large and massive objects in Low Earth Orbit (LEO) has reached critical concentration. It goes on to state that limiting launch rates as a solution would be neither feasible nor helpful. • International Space Station – Whilst already involved, the UK could increase involvement in the ISS if its space sector were able to grow to the point of running its own self-contained launches.
Finally, the site will employ a three-phase program due to the different complexities and final certifications of certain Launch Vehicles, the decision of which is covered in more depth in Section 4, the Phases are as follows: • Phase 1 – The minimum infrastructure needed to provide for the ALV-2 and Virgin Orbit. • Phase 2 – Expansion to encompass the use of ALV-3 and increase capacity for Virgin Orbit. • Phase 3 – Additional land leased out and future infrastructure for Skylon expansion.
4. Spaceport Configuration Justification
The following section justifies the choice of LVs and the launch site for the final Spaceport configuration.
4.1. Launch Vehicles
4.1.1. Austral Launch Vehicle
The Austral Launch Vehicle (ALV) Programme is running in several phases where the final stage will be the commercially operational ALV-3. Currently, the Spaceport is being developed to accommodate the ALV-2 stage, which is smaller, with the possibility of further expansion for the ALV-3 to future-proof the facility. The ALV programme is a three-stage to orbit spacecraft, where the first stage boosters are reusable which return by deploying wings and starting a small aero engine; upon return the boosters are essentially large unmanned aerial vehicles until final approach where a remote pilot will take control. In contrast to the Inception Report, the ALV programme is very far into its development with Phase 2 (the ALV-2) undertaking first orbital flights later in 2018 (Heliaq, 2017).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 23 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The ALV will be able to carry a variety of payloads, as it can be adjusted by attaching more boosters, with the maximum for ALV-2 being 6 boosters carrying a payload of 100 kg to a 500 km orbit. This ability makes it very desirable for small and micro satellite launches, which is what this facility is looking to accommodate for (Heliaq, 2017).
4.1.2. Virgin Orbit
Virgin Group is also taking part in the new space race, sending satellites frequently and efficiently into orbit, with its new subsidiary Virgin Orbit. This Programme is using a modified Boeing 747- 400FR, named Cosmic Girl, to carry an expendable rocket under its wing, called LauncherOne. The aircraft will carry LauncherOne to an altitude of 35,000ft where it will ignite its rocket engine to launch into orbit. Once the rocket has been deployed, Cosmic Girl will commence its return flight to any commercial airport in its vicinity. LauncherOne consists of three stages, of which the first two will be safely deorbited while the final stage with a payload ranging between 300 and 500 kg will complete its flight into Sun-synchronous Orbit (Virgin Orbit, 2017).
4.1.3. Skylon
As mentioned in the Inception Report, Skylon is a Spaceplane developed by Reaction Engines with planned test flights in 2025. It is powered by a Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine (SABRE) which is designed to operate as an air breathing jet engine up to Mach 5.2, then transition into a standard rocket engine to reach exit velocity. The propellants used in this spacecraft will be liquid hydrogen, liquid oxygen and helium (Reaction Engines Ltd , 2010).
This single-stage to orbit spacecraft is an exceptional example of the ingenuity taking place in the industry, especially in Britain. As this project will provide an operating/testing facility for such a unique vehicle, it can be argued that the government would support such ingenious endeavours by providing some financial support to the facility that can host such an extraordinary British invention.
Additionally, Skylon has the ability to carry large payloads to the ISS, and future developments are looking to expand its capacity to human space travel, providing it with a strong business case to operate from this projects facility, as well as future proving it. Furthermore, he ESA has published an assessment report which concluded that that there is no implausibility of both the Skylon Vehicle and the SABRE engine. Throughout the assessment, the ESA has not found any critical issues that would prevent successful development of the SABRE engine, which is vital to the Vehicles development and operation (ESA, 2011).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 24 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 4.2. Launch Site
As mentioned within the Inception Report, many factors will affect the location of the Spaceport, including the geography and climate of the site, as well as the launch capabilities (VTOHL Group 2, 2017). From the analysis performed in the Inception Report, as well as the business case put forward in Section 3 of this report, it has been decided that the Spaceport shall be situated on the North coast of Scotland, between the Dounreay nuclear site and the town of Thurso.
One of the first considerations when deciding upon a location was the political and economic factors that may influence any decisions made on the location of the Spaceport. Section 3 of this report puts forward evidence that a UK based spaceport would not only help with the achieving of government targets, but it could also help to promote collaboration between the UK and EU member states.
Another key decision influencing factor is the type of mission that would be offered. Section 3 of this report states how a UK based launch facility would stand a good chance of gaining a portion of the European satellite market, especially for small satellites in LEO. The section continues to mention that, due to the latitude of the UK, it would only be suitable for launching satellites into polar orbit.
As can be seen above, out of the three sites analysed within the Inception Report, the Dounreay site would appear to be the prime candidate for the location of the Spaceport. This is further supported by the low level of air traffic in the North East of Scotland, as is visible in Figure 1, as well as the low population density of the county of Caithness, in which Dounreay is located, both of which were highlighted within the Inception Report as important issues to consider.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 25 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Dounreay
Figure 3: Graphic displaying air traffic across parts of Europe, with the proposed location for the Spaceport labelled (NATS, 2018).
5. Adaptation of Launch Site
Following analysis of the proposed location of the Spaceport, it has been concluded that the site will be split into two sections, referred to as the Dounreay Site and the Thurso Site, which will encompass LV and commercial operations, respectively. The following section will detail how the location will be adapted to accommodate the Spaceport, including its effects on the wider regional economy.
5.1. Summary of existing infrastructure and facilities
5.1.1. Royal Air Force Station Dounreay
The derelict runway at the site is a legacy of Royal Air Force (RAF) Station Dounreay, which was built as an airbase during World War 2. The existence of the approximately 1.8 km long runway, which can be seen in Figure 4, is of particular significance with regards to the development of the Spaceport, as the new, much longer runway will likely require part of the legacy runway to be removed.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 26 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 4: The legacy runway located at Dounreay (Google, 2017).
5.1.2. Nuclear Power Development Establishment
Following the acquisition of the site by the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA), the Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment (NPDE) was formed and was a major nuclear atomic research facility for several decades. The first reactor built was the Dounreay Materials Test Reactor (DMTR), with two fast-reactors later constructed: the Dounreay Fast Reactor (DFR) and the Prototype Fast Reactor (PFR) (Jensen & Olgaard, 1995).
The DFR was constructed at the site in the late 1950s, and was in operation until 1977. The PFR, an experimental plug-flow reactor, was developed with construction beginning in 1966. The PFR operated in conjunction with The European Fast Reactor (EFR) programme until the UK Government withdrew in 1993, with the PFR ceasing operation in 1994.
The decommissioning of the Dounreay reactors is now managed by Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd (DSRL), and is expected to continue late into the 2020s. The Dounreay NPDE site in its current state is shown in Figure 5.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 27 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 5: The remaining facilities from the Dounreay Nuclear Power Development Establishment site (DSRL, 2017).
5.1.3. Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment
The Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment (NRTE) is a Royal Navy (RN) facility that carried out research on nuclear reactor cores for use in nuclear submarines, which began activity in 1957. The Shore Test Facility (STF) ceased primary operation in 2015, with decommissioning planned to begin in the 2020s in conjunction with the Dounreay NPDE (HM Government, 2015). The total decommissioning cost of the facility has been estimated by the UK Government to be £2.1 Billion (HM Government, 2006). The NRTE shares the same site as the NPDE, and is shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6: The Vulcan Naval Reactor Test Establishment (Nuclear Information Service, 2015).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 28 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 5.1.4. Regional Considerations
Dounreay is located in the Scottish council area of Highland, county Caithness. This is a large region compared to the size of Scotland with a low population density. The area around the Dounreay Site is primarily farmland, with a few sparsely populated villages, the largest of which is Reay, 4 km to the south-west.
The nearest large town is Thurso, which is located 15 km to the East of the Dounreay Site. The town has a population of approximately 8000 people, with the Dounreay site currently employing a significant proportion of the town population, as indicated by the Caithness and Sutherland Local Development Plan (CaSPlan) (The Highland Council, 2017). Thurso is considered to be the most suitable town for support of the Spaceport due to its relatively high population and close proximity to Dounreay. A harbour is also located nearby to Thurso at Scrabster, which, despite being relatively small, has expansion plans under development for the near future (Scrabster Harbour, 2017). The current harbour facilities are shown in Figure 7 below.
Figure 7: The harbour at Scrabster, located 3 km from the town centre (Cruise Europe, 2017).
The Forss Business and Technology Park is located 6km north-east of the Dounreay Site, which house a small number of companies associated with the decommissioning of the reactors (Invest Caithness, 2017). Six wind turbines are situated next to the business park, as shown in Figure 8 below, which could create regulatory issues with regards to the new runway which will be constructed. Another, larger wind farm is located at Baillie to the south east of Dounreay, although this is far enough away that it should not pose any issues.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 29 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 8: Forss Business Park with its six wind turbines (Abbey Ecosse, 2016).
5.1.5. Transport Access
The Dounreay Site is accessed by a single carriageway road, the A836, which connects the site to Thurso. Thurso itself has reasonable accessibility, with the town being connected to the city of Inverness 175 km further south via the A9, in addition to the nearby port facilities. The relative isolation of the Dounreay Site is a consequence of the desire for the Spaceport to be located far from urban populations as described in Section 4.2.
The nearest commercial airport currently is in Wick, 30 km to the South East of Thurso. This airport is not considered to be a useful asset to the Spaceport due to its distance and accessibility, so it is more likely that any necessary commercial flights will fly directly to the new runway at Dounreay.
5.2. Climate
5.2.1. Precipitation and Flooding
The amount of precipitation at Dounreay on an annual basis is shown in Figure 9, based on 30 years of weather data, which is reasonably higher than the national average (Met Office, 2018).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 30 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 9: Average Annual Precipitation at Dounreay (Meteoblue, 2018).
It has been identified by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA) in their flooding assessment of the Highland and Argyll district that there are four Potentially Vulnerable Areas (PVA) within the Wick, Thurso, and Naver area. Three of these are located around the town of Wick on the east coast, which accounts for the majority of the annual flood damage in the region (SEPA [A], 2015).
The town of Thurso is also considered a PVA due to it being at the mouth of the River Thurso. This area covers the nearby harbour at Scrabster too, but does not extend towards the Dounreay Site. However, the damages caused by flooding in this area are a very minor impact on the total population, with only 10 out of 3,700 residential properties and 10 out of 530 non-residential properties in the area considered to be at high risk (SEPA [B], 2015).
The flooding impact on the local transport infrastructure is of more significance to the development of the Spaceport, since it will be reliant on a consistently steady flow of supplies and equipment. The A9 and A836 roads fall within the PVA, which are crucial to the sustainment of the Spaceport. Likewise, the railway connecting Thurso to the south is also at risk.
Analysis by SEPA estimated that for the worst case scenario of flooding impact, the total annual damages to the PVA would be in the region of £1,200,000, as shown in Figure 10 (SEPA [B], 2015). Due to this being a highly pessimistic figure, equating to a 1 in 1000 chance, the flood risk posed to the Thurso Site is considered to be satisfactorily low.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 31 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 10: Estimates of flood damage costs and their likelihood in the Thurso PVA (SEPA [B], 2015).
Coastal flooding is not considered to be a major risk in the Dounreay and Thurso area following an analysis of local flood maps, which are based on historical data (SEPA, 2018). However, these maps do suggest that Forss Water to the east of the Dounreay Site is liable for flooding, so this has been considered in the design of the drainage system.
5.2.2. Temperature Variation
The annual variation in temperature at the Dounreay Site is of importance for the development of the Spaceport, since this will affect the operating conditions for the LVs. The temperature distribution for Dounreay is shown in Figure 11 with the high, low and average temperature indicated. The low temperatures for significant portions of the year highlights the needs for the Spaceport to cope with cold weather, including snow, hail and ice.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 32 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 11: Annual temperature distribution at Dounreay (YR, 2018).
5.3. Site Development
The existing infrastructure and facilities summarised in Section 5.1 will need to be adapted at both the Dounreay Site and the Thurso Site to enable the Spaceport to function effectively. The following section details how the Spaceport will be developed accordingly.
5.3.1. Dounreay Decommissioning Work
5.3.1.1. Logistical Impact
With regards to the disposal of contaminated material from the site, a number of strategies have been put forward. Some waste has already been transported out of the country to Belgium (AECOM, 2012), in addition to the future plans in place for new storage facilities on site, including a Low Level Waste (LLW) disposal facility (DSRL, 2010).
With decommissioning continuing until the Interim End Point (IEP) in 2025 and further storage of contaminated material continuing indefinitely, the operation of the Spaceport will have to work concurrently with the operation of the Dounreay site (DSRL, 2010).
Whilst there have been several accounts of radiation leaks at Dounreay over the years, these remain relatively minor incidents. The greatest of these concerns the waste pipe into the sea, although the ramifications of this error remains largely inconclusive (The Guardian, 2008). With the Spaceport
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 33 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final not being located close to the sources of these leaks, they are considered not to be detrimental to the performance of LV operations.
5.3.1.2. Socio-economic Impact
There are also socio-economic impacts of the decommissioning work at Dounreay, since the current site is a major employer of skilled workers in the regions. It has been estimated that Dounreay accounts for 10% of the economic output of the North Highlands region (Canning & Leitham, 2008), with 1,800 jobs dependent on its operation, 900 of which are direct jobs. Indirect jobs from the provision of goods and services to DSRL and induced jobs from the employees’ wider effects on the local economy are around 1000 (Grangeston, 2012).
This is a 25% reduction in the number of dependent jobs from in 2005, giving perspective as to the scale of the project completion. The impact of not only these jobs on the local economy, but the associated families of those individuals should also be considered. It is also worth noting that the number of employees at DSRL considering staying to work in the Caithness area following the closure of Dounreay has increased by 23% between 2006 and 2011 (Grangeston, 2012).
An analysis of the skills of the existing workforce at DSRL shows that Project Management, Operation and Maintenance, Information Technology (IT) and Safety Management, Advice and Audit are the most widely held (Grangeston, 2012). With the Spaceport workforce needing workers with these skills, there is a major opportunity to employ these individuals once the decommissioning work has finished. This is compatible with the aims of the Caithness & North Sutherland Regeneration Partnership (CNSRP), which was established to support the transition process and to create alternative sources of economic activity to offset the eventual closure of Dounreay (Caithness Business Index, 2011). The introduction of the Spaceport will provide a major boost to the targeted diversification of the local economy in line with these plans. A resultant risk of this however is in the event of the Spaceport not performing well economically, the region could become too dependent on the Spaceport.
5.3.2. Dounreay Site Overview
The Dounreay Site will be located at the end of the new runway closest to Thurso. This will be more convenient in terms of land access, as the distance to travel would be reduced. An additional benefit of this location is an increased distance from the nearby village of Reay and the ongoing decommissioning work at the nuclear facilities, which will be at the opposite end of the runway.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 34 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
This site will contain all infrastructure associated with the operation of LVs and their associated missions. The facilities that this primarily includes are:
• Control Facilities • Payload Preparation Facility (PPF) • Launch Vehicle Assembly (LVA) • Launch Vehicle Storage (LVS) • Storage Warehouse (SW)
These facilities are described in detail in Sections 6 and 8. The area encompassed by the Dounreay Site is shown in Figure 12 below.
Figure 12: The area to be encompassed by the Dounreay Site.
With the legacy Dounreay runway being too short to support spaceplanes, a new runway will need to be developed, the design of which is detailed in Section 7. However, the space occupied by the legacy runway could potentially be converted into a second runway once the decommissioning is fully completed, if the commercial demand for one was there. Current timescales suggest this is not feasible, with site handover not yet envisaged in the near future (DSRL, 2010).
Considering vertical launch applications, the area of land north of the new runway along the coastline is suitable for launch pads due to being far away from any existing infrastructure or local
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 35 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final populations. This also supports the rational that these LVs would be launched in a northerly direction out to sea, in order to enter a polar orbit.
Due to the nearest airport being at Wick, the option of flying passengers and freight in exceptional circumstances to the runway at the Dounreay Site should be accounted for. However, this should not be the primary method of accessing the site, otherwise the incoming and outgoing flights could interfere with the launch schedule. Consequently, a separate terminal will be needed for the handling of passengers and freight not directly associated with LVs, the location of which is shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: The commercial aircraft terminal at the Dounreay Site.
Dounreay is currently designated as a Prohibited Area according to the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), with a 2 nm no-fly zone around the site (CAA, 2012). Consequently, it has been assumed that the Spaceport would receive enough support from the UK Government to be able to use the runway at the Dounreay Site for use by LVs and occasional commercial flights.
5.3.3. Thurso Site Overview
With direct LV operational facilities being located at the Dounreay Site, all other operations will be located in the nearby town of Thurso. The rationale behind this is threefold. First, in terms of safety, it would be sensible to only locate facilities and staff close to the runway and launch pads that are necessary for their functioning. In the event of anything going wrong with a launch, a significant percentage of the Spaceport’s infrastructure would be far enough away at Thurso to not be at risk.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 36 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Second, the launch facilities and LVs will need to be located in a high security area, but this is not the case for the majority of other facilities such as offices and the enterprise zone, which can have a lesser degree of security. Finally, with a large proportion of the people in employment by the Spaceport residing in Thurso, locating a proportion of the workplace to Thurso would reduce the distance employees would need to commute, proving both convenience and a reduction in the environmental impact of the Spaceport.
The plan to focus Spaceport activities around Thurso would result in the town becoming a hub of commercial activity, which supports expansion plans envisaged by Charrette for Thurso (John Thompson and Partners, 2013). This project looks to develop the town in order to provide support for future growth, with the main developments shown in Figure 14 below.
Figure 14: Illustrative whole town masterplan, taken from Charrette for Thurso (John Thompson and Partners, 2013).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 37 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
In order to be compatible with these local plans, the Thurso Site has been designated to encompass the area shown in Figure 15, which equates to 185 acres.
Figure 15: Proposed area that the Thurso Site will be located within.
5.3.3.1. Shipping and Receiving
The Shipping and Receiving (SAR) building will be the primary sorting and storage facility for all incoming Spaceport deliveries. All land and sea deliveries to the Spaceport will be processed at the Thurso Site, with deliveries that are required at the Dounreay Site transported by rail, as described in Section 5.3.4.
SAR will be able to support deliveries by sea by being close to Scrabster Harbour, which has plans in place to expand operations. Scrabster Harbour Trust acquired land from Scrabster farm which it intends to develop (AECOM, 2012), with the conceptual layout of the expanded facilities shown in Figure 16 below.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 38 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 16: Scrabster Harbour expansion plans submitted to the Highlands Council and its surrounding area (The Highlands Council, 2014) .
With this land being specified for use by the Harbour, SAR will be located in the adjacent plot of land to the east, which will be the main location of the Thurso Site. Existing quay space is a constraint, primarily due to the steep cliffs enclosing the harbour from the mainland, hence why SAR is not located directly in the harbour facilities. Suitable land access arrangements will need to be put in place to account for the change in elevation between the quays and SAR, mostly likely through the use of a Heavy Goods Vehicle (HGV) shuttle service.
Furthermore, Scrabster Harbour has been identified by the Highlands Council as a high priority for expansion to increase the competitiveness of the region, in particular the development of the deep water quay, presenting the opportunity for additional funding from local governance. The extra capacity generated from the expanded Scrabster Harbour will enable the Spaceport to accept increased deliveries by sea. Conservative estimates regarding the frequency of sea deliveries to the Spaceport should be made, due to the numerous current uses of the harbour. For example, the current port provides a vital ferry link to the Orkney Isles, so any increase in deliveries by sea will have to accommodate these regular journeys (AECOM, 2012).
In coordination with the Scrabster Harbour expansion plans, SAR will be connected to the A9 road which currently leads directly to the harbour, allowing HGV deliveries to be made via land from the rest of the UK. Additionally, it is intended that the rail connection to the centre of Thurso will
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 39 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final be extended so that the line reaches SAR in the Thurso Site. This would be a major undertaking, since it would require a large amount of upfront investment, planning permission for its route, and it would be lengthy in construction time. However, its benefits would be numerous, since deliveries by land would no longer be constrained to lengthy HGV journeys. Too much dependency placed on the A9 access road to the south poses a high risk, since the Spaceport would have critically reduced accessibility in the event of the road being out of action, such as weather related blockages. With this in mind, the extension of the railway line to SAR is planned to take place in Phase 3 of development in order to support the increased delivery demand to the Spaceport. The proposed scheme layout of SAR is shown in Figure 17 below.
Figure 17: Scheme layout of the SAR building.
With the expansion of the town likely to bring new commercial opportunities, the extension of the railway line could be combined with an upgrade of the existing station in the centre of Thurso. Through the use of Enabling Development, the station could become a major driver of growth in the town, with the additional benefit of another revenue stream. The cost breakdown of SAR, the upgrade of the harbour facilities and the extension of the railway line are detailed in Table 2 below.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 40 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 2: The cost of the SAR, harbour facilities and railway line broken down into their Phase of development.
Description Quantity Unit Cost / £ Total Cost / £ Phase 1 SAR Building - standard steel and 4,800 m2 800 per m2 3,840,000 concrete construction Car Park 1,400 m2 50 per m2 70,000 Rail Loading Bay 4 x bays 10,000 40,000 HGV Loading Bay 1 x gantry 30,000 30,000 Initial upgrade to harbour facilities Harbour expansion and - 20,000,000 20,000,000 reorganisation Additional road network 2 1,500,000 per km 3,000,000 Phase 2 Additional storage expansion 900 m2 800 per m2 720,000 Additional offices 240 m2 600 per m2 144,000 Phase 3 Extension of railway line Rail 5.5 km 20,000,000 per km 110,000 Road Bridges 4 20,000 80,000 Further upgrade to harbour facilities Additional deep quay 1 30,000,000 30,000,000 Total: 58,034,000
5.3.3.2. Office Area
For the daily operations of the Spaceport, a number of support staff will be needed to deal with functions such as business acquisition, administration and human resources. Consequently, office facilities will be needed at the Thurso Site. The scheme layout of these is shown in Figure 18, with the associated cost of construction shown in Table 3. The offices will be complemented with an adjoining canteen and education zone area to accommodate visitors to the Spaceport.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 41 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 18: Scheme layout of the office facilities at the Thurso Site.
Table 3: Cost breakdown of the Thurso Site offices area construction.
Description Quantity Unit Cost / £ Total Cost / £ Car Park 800 m2 50 per m2 40,000 Pond and Garden Area 600 m2 20 per m2 12,000 Offices Building - standard steel and 2 x 900 m2 1,500 per m2 2,700,000 concrete construction Furnishings 2 x 900 m2 30 per m2 54,000 Canteen / Education Zone Building - standard steel and 1,200 m2 1,500 per m2 1,800,000 concrete construction Furnishings 1,200 m2 25 per m2 30,000 Total: 4,636,000
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 42 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 5.3.3.3. Housing Development
With the Spaceport needing a large workforce to support its operation, the town of Thurso will need expanded housing stock to accommodate. As part of the Charrette for Thurso plans, a new housing development called the Thurso Western Expansion Area is intended to be built (Rennilson, 2003). The schematic of this plan is shown in Figure 19, with 275 to 300 homes anticipated.
Figure 19: The Thurso Western Expansion Area (Rennilson, 2003).
With these new houses planned to meet existing demand, it is likely that additional housing stock will be required to accommodate the workforce. For this reason, an additional housing development has been proposed which will be located at the Thurso Site. This will be supported by an associated shopping and leisure centre to increase the attractiveness of the area. The proposed scheme layout of this development is shown in Figure 20.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 43 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 20: Scheme layout of the housing development and leisure and shopping centre.
The housing development will feature 96 dwellings, spread across the 8 buildings. Assuming the average number of occupants per household is 2.17 (National Records of Scotland, 2016), the total number of occupants that can be accommodated is 208. Further to this, land to the east has been allocated for future housing in the event of extra capacity being needed at a later date. The development has been proposed to be outsourced to a specialist housing development company who would also manage the properties on site, reducing the financial and managerial burden on the Spaceport.
5.3.3.4. Enterprise Zone
The Enterprise Zone, as stated in the Inception Report, will encourage investment by businesses and academic institutions with links to the space industry that will aid the development of the Spaceport (VTOHL Group 2, 2017). A plot of land will be allocated for the Enterprise Zone at the Thurso Site, which companies with business dealings with the Spaceport may utilise with their own facilities, and is shown in Figure 21 below.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 44 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 21: Location of the enterprise zone within the Thurso Site.
5.3.4. Mass Transit System
A clear disadvantage of the two site operation of the Spaceport is the need to quickly and reliably travel between the two. For this reason, it has been proposed that a Mass Transit System (MTS) be built to connect the Dounreay Site to the Thurso Site. This would be used not only for freight and deliveries, but also as a method of staff living in Thurso accessing the Dounreay Site. Furthermore, the station will be appropriately connected to the Thurso Site housing development and the Thurso Western Expansion Framework through the use of foot paths, cycle paths and potentially even a shuttle bus service. The MTS will be encouraged as an alternative to commuting by car in order to reduce emissions in the local area. To further reduce the carbon footprint of the Spaceport, the MTS will be completely electric powered with zero emissions, although this does create a very significant additional demand on electricity production in the area. This could be partially mitigated through the use of regenerative braking technology.
The MTS would begin at the Thurso Site at SAR and end at a station at the Dounreay Site, with the line being approximately 6km in length. Once Phase 3 of the Spaceport development has been completed, the MTS will share the Thurso Site station with the national rail line that is being
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 45 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final extended to access the Spaceport, allowing freight and passengers to be more easily transported. The route of the MTS is shown in Figure 22.
Figure 22: Proposed route of the MTS between the Dounreay Site and the Thurso Site.
This proposed route for the MTS will involve traversing a number of small streams, so bridges will be built accordingly. The locomotives will be stored and maintained at the MTS depot located next to the station at the Thurso Site. A cost breakdown of the construction of the MTS is shown in Table 4.
Table 4: Cost breakdown of the MTS.
Description Quantity Unit Cost / £ Total Cost / £ Locomotives 2 1,000,000 2,000,000 Passenger Carriages 2 600,000 1,200,000 Freight Carriages 3 700,000 2,100,000 Rail 6 km 20,000,000 120,000,000 per km Standing Structures, 5 20,000 100,000 including bridges MTS Station 2 1,000,000 2,000,000 MTS Depot 1 3,000,000 3,000,000 Total: 143,400,000
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 46 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 5.3.5. Road Network
As part of the Spaceport development, the local road network will have to be adapted in order to be suitable for the potentially increased traffic. This applied primarily to the A836, which connects Thurso to Dounreay, and to the A9, which connects Thurso to the south of Scotland.
5.3.5.1. A836 Road
The proposed location of the Dounreay Site overlaps with a section of the A836 as it approaches Dounreay, so a decision needed to be made as to whether to move the runway and the launch pads so that the road could continue functioning, or to close the final section of the road. Figure 23 details the problem and where the road would have to be cut off.
Figure 23: Map showing where the A836 will intersect the Dounreay Site.
The closure to the public of the A836 may initially seem like an extreme solution, but analysis of the traffic flow shows that this may not be as significant an issue when the Spaceport enters operation. While the A836 is considered to be a major road, traffic records show that it is primarily used for commuters working at Dounreay, as shown in Figure 24, by the spikes in traffic flow directly correlating with a working day.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 47 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 24: Traffic flow on the A836 from Dounreay to Thurso, based on a 5 day average (AECOM, 2012).
When Dounreay closes down, this road will have significantly reduced usage, justifying diverting the traffic along alternative roads to the south. Despite the closure to the public, the road needn’t be demolished, since access to the Dounreay Site by road acts as a redundancy in the event of the MTS being out of operation.
5.3.5.2. A9 Road
The A9 so called ‘trunk road’ is a critical piece of infrastructure for the north of Scotland and the operation of the Spaceport (HM Government, 1974). 70% of traffic entering and leaving Caithness utilises the A9, and it has been identified that the road needs be more reliable in order to encourage development in the area (MVA Consultancy, 2008), such as encouraging businesses to set up operations at the Enterprise Zone.
In the event of this road being closed due to severe weather or an accident, the region can become crippled, and supplies would not effectively be able to reach the Spaceport. It has also been noted that there are few overtaking points, so the single carriageway road can become congested at peak times (AECOM, 2012).
While this of concern to the Spaceport, the situation of the road in Thurso is off greater significance. The A9 currently passes straight through the centre of the town, with the narrow streets and
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 48 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final junctions proving inappropriate for HGVs. To eliminate this burden, a Thurso bypass has been considered for a number of years, although the plan is not yet supported by Transport Scotland.
This would be an expensive undertaking, as the bypass has been estimated to cost £50 million, and the project would take a long time to plan and implement (AECOM, 2012). For this reason, the bypass will not initially be considered in Phase 1 of development, as further discussion with local authorities is needed regarding its route and funding. Current plans suggest the bypass will be built in Phase 3 of development alongside the extension of the railway line.
5.3.6. Weather Protection
The analysis of the climate in the Dounreay area in Section 5.2 emphasised the significance of high rainfall in Northern Scotland, and its potential flooding effects. Consequently, the Spaceport will be designed with sufficient protection to these risks to mitigate the possibility of damage to its infrastructure.
5.3.6.1. Drainage System
The flooding risk necessitates a suitable drainage system to be used for the Spaceport, in particular at the Thurso Site, where the risk is considered greater due to the town being in a PVA. At the Dounreay Site, the drainage pipes will primarily flow towards Forss Water on the east side of the site. Due to this being a minor river, contingency reservoirs will be in place in the event of unusually heavy rainfall. The outlet flow rate into Forss Water will be controlled through the culverts so that water can be diverted into the reservoirs if necessary.
The Thurso Site drainage will be in the direction of the harbour and should prove more effective, since the steeper decline will allow greater volume flow rate. Future expansion of the Spaceport should not prohibit the effectiveness of the drainage system, since extensions of facilities and infrastructure will be built with accompanying drainage pipes. Standard pavement grate inlets will be used through which the drainage water will flow into the pipes due to their versatility and suitability for large areas of flat land.
5.3.6.2. Revetment
At Thurso, a revetment, also known as a sea wall, exists around the harbour. This protects inland infrastructure from both the impact and erosion effects of the sea, in addition to preventing the land
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 49 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final from sliding into the sea. With the Thurso Site already located at the top of the cliff next to Scrabster Harbour, no further work will be needed to protect from the sea. However, there is no structure in place in the vicinity of the Dounreay Site, in particular along the coastline near to the location of the launch pads. To mitigate any damages to the Dounreay Site infrastructure from erosion and the climate change effects of rising sea levels, a revetment will be built along the nearby coastline.
5.3.6.2.1. Revetment Configuration
The revetment will follow the length of coastline in close proximity to the Launch Pad area, leading to the structure being approximately 1km in length. The design will feature thickened end sections to account for the increased erosion there, hence preventing structural flanking failure. The access road network used within the Dounreay Site will be extended to, and will run the length of, the revetment, allowing access for maintenance of the structure when required. The revetment was designed in accordance with the US Army Corps of Engineers design code, with details of the calculations used given in Appendix A – Revetment Calculations (USACE, 1995).
The maximum water level at Dounreay is a combination of the highest astronomical tide and maximum storm surge. The National Tidal and Sea Level Facility (NTSLF) provides tidal predictions for many areas of the areas of the UK dating from 2008 to 2026. Due to no data being available for Dounreay, a highest equinoctial spring tide of 3.96 m was taken from the data point at Wick, which has been assumed to be representative of the Caithness region. Likewise, storm surge archived data is provided, with analysis of records showing that a value 0.6 m is appropriate (NTSLF, 2018). Consequently, the revetments will be designed to accommodate a peak water level of 4.56 m. A value of 1.8m was taken for the significant wave height at Dounreay, based upon an assessment of the whole of the UK (DTI, n.d.).
The armour type selected for this design wave is rough angular quarrystone, based upon its simple design and being relatively easy to source. A reasonably steep 30° slope was selected for the revetment, since flatter slopes have been found to use more stone for the same effectiveness (Coastal Engineering Research Centre, n.d.). An armour unit stability of 310 kg was consequently calculated, which refers to the average individual armour unit weight. This has a corresponding armour layer thickness of 1.2 m. The potential runup is the maximum vertical height above the still water level that any impacting waves will reach, and was calculated to be 1.6 m.
Using a freeboard of 6 m, which is the vertical height of the top of the structure above the still water level, the total height of the structure will be 10.56 m. No overtopping is expected to occur with
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 50 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final this freeboard, but to account for extreme scenarios, appropriate drainage will be located along the top of the revetment.
The toe of the revetment refers to its base, which is a key area of design as the stability of the structure depends on it. Due to the local climate at Dounreay being reasonably turbulent, as described in Section 5.2, the toe will need to withstand moderate to severe levels of wave scour. This is achieved by continuing the revetment into the water an appropriate distance from the shore, as shown in the second image in Figure 25.
Figure 25: A drawing comparing a low-to-moderate scour toe configuration to a moderate-to-severe toe configuration (USACE, 1995).
Underneath the armour layer, a filter layer consisting of finer stone prevents seepage of soil through the revetment, and likewise prevents seawater passing through and compromising the land behind the structure. A diagram of the designed revetment structure is shown in Figure 26.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 51 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 26: Cross section dimensions of the selected revetment configuration.
5.3.6.2.2. Cost
A breakdown of the cost required to construct the revetment are outlined in Table 5. Due to the scale of the structure and the lack of consistent material cost, these figures should be treated with a high degree of uncertainty.
Table 5: Cost breakdown of the revetment construction.
Description Quantity Unit Cost / £ Total Cost / £ Armour Layer: 1 km length 200,000 / 100 m 2,000,000 Quarrystone (Scottish National Heritage, 2018) Filter Layer: 1 km x 1m x 26 per m3 548,600 Stone Riprap 21.1 m = (Environment 21,100 m3 Agency, 2015) Total: 2,548,600
5.3.6.2.3. Environmental Impact
The short term effects regarding the construction of the revetment are numerous, since a significant amount of quarrystone will be transported to the location. The long term effects of the structure on the local waters remain an unknown, but the structure is unlikely to affect the waters in Thurso along the coast. Also, due to there being no beach located in front of the Dounreay coastline, any wave reflections created by the revetment are not likely to impact the local shoreline.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 52 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 5.3.6.3. Demolition and Relocation
The construction of the Spaceport in the area necessities that some of the existing population and infrastructure must be relocated accordingly. Estimates must be made of the impact of these, such that reimbursement costs can be calculated.
5.3.6.3.1. Local Population
Using UK 2011 census data, it has been found that within the Highlands and Islands region of Scotland, the Caithness and Sutherland area has a population of 39,732. The relevant breakdown of this population is shown in Table 6, with the Spaceport being located in the Landward Caithness Highland Council Ward. Landward Caithness encompasses the Caithness region minus the higher density areas of Thurso and Wick, making it a more appropriate population figure to determine the population residing within the area required for the Spaceport.
Table 6: Population breakdown of the Caithness region of Scotland (The Highland Council, 2013).
Area Population Caithness 26,067 Thurso 7,933 Wick 7,155 Landward Caithness 11,023
The area that the Spaceport encompasses includes the Dounreay Site, the Thurso Site and the land in-between, which has been estimated to be 21 km2 with a corresponding perimeter length of 30 km. Consideration was made as to whether the whole area in-between the Dounreay Site and the Thurso Site needed to be utilised, since the only current requirement for the land is for the MTS and the access road. However, taking into account future expansion of the Spaceport and the likely increasing size of the enterprise zone, it would be practical to prepare for the acquisition of the land by including it in the cost estimates.
The Landward Caithness Ward has population density of 14.4 people per km2 which, given the Spaceport area of 21 km2, yields and approximate population within the Spaceport boundary of 302 people (The Highland Council, 2013). The proposed locations of the Dounreay and Thurso Sites do not significantly encroach into the residential populations of Reay and Thurso, respectively, so the relocation of these populations are assumed to be not required. However, due to minor overlap of the Spaceport boundary out of the Landward Caithness Ward into the Thurso Ward, this population
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 53 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final figure should be treated with a high degree of uncertainty when estimating the required relocation costs.
Regarding the cost of reimbursing these people for their relocation, airports such as Heathrow offer a 25% above market value to properties for compulsory purchase (UK Department for Transport, 2016). With the view of offering a similar scheme, the average house price in Caithness is £69,250 (MVA Consultancy, 2008), meaning a reimbursement of £86,560 would be required per household. Taking the average number of people per household in Scotland to be 2.17 (National Records of Scotland, 2016), 139 properties will be subject to compulsory purchase, equating to approximately £12,000,000.
5.3.6.3.2. Forss Business Park
Due to both the length of the runway, and its orientation restrictions as a result of ongoing decommissioning at Dounreay, the local Forss Business Park will be required to relocate from its current position. The current plans for locating the vertical take-off launch pads to the north of the runway further supports this relocation, since the launch pads will need significant clearances around them. The existing businesses at Forss will be given the option of moving to the Thurso Site or the nearby business park in conjunction with the Thurso Western Expansion Framework. An alternative to an upfront relocation reimbursement in this case would be to offer an equivalent discounted rate at the Thurso Site to spread out the initial reimbursement cost burden on the Spaceport.
Furthermore, the 6 wind turbines located at Forss Business Park will also need dismantling, since they pose a risk to LVs and aircraft in the area. Wind turbines have several negative effects on nearby airspace aside from their physical obstruction, including the creation of turbulent regions of air, the interruption of some Communication, Navigation and Surveillance (CNS) systems, and the reflection of radar waves (CAA, 2006).
These effects do not necessarily conclude that the wind turbines should be removed provided their positioning is not too intrusive to the Spaceport. However, taking into account the support required in their maintenance, makes their continued presence increasingly unfeasible, since regular access would be required if the wind turbines were to remain in close proximity to the Spaceport perimeter.
Removing the 6 wind turbines located at Forss Business Park would have a negative impact on the local electricity supply, and potentially also to local public opinion of the Spaceport as a result. To address this issue, the wind turbines would likely need to be transported to an alternative wind farm
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 54 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final in the region and integrated back into the network. This also supports the desire for the Spaceport to be powered by renewable sources where possible, as stated in Section 10, therefore investment in other nearby wind farms will be necessary regardless. The cost breakdown of dismantling, transporting, and re-assembling the 6 wind turbines are detailed in Table 7.
Table 7: Cost breakdown of the wind turbine relocations assuming the process can be completed in a single day.
Activity Cost / £ Labour (25 workers) 3,500 Crane hire x 6 4,800 Specialist HGVs x 6 9,000 Total: 17,300
Northern Scotland has a long term strategy associated with renewable energy, in particular wind farms. The Spaceport will work closely with energy producing companies to ensure that any future expansions of the Spaceport infrastructure and operations are not working against the development of new wind farms, but rather are mutually beneficial.
6. Control Facilities
In this section, the control of the launch and mission will be covered, this means providing detailed design of the facilities required to deliver all functionality associated with these areas, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) mission control room shown in Figure 27.
Figure 27: Image of Johnson Space Center's Mission Control Center (NASA, 2010).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 55 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Also in this section, the viability of running the satellites post-launch mission for the client will be explored as a possibility for an extra source of revenue (see ‘Justification of Satellite Services’ below). Upon justification a concept is to be established and with it, a similar design process will be used as for the launch and mission control facilities.
The requirements for all of these facilities will be first broken down into a list of required functions and from there may be collected or separated out into different structures that meet these criteria. The solutions will come in the form of staff, equipment and regulations to ensure requirements are met by the individual facilities.
A brief study of telemetry will also be conducted in order to establish how communication with the launch vehicle and payload will be maintained as well as to help define the equipment and staff needed. For each of the facilities, floor plans are detailed, and justification is given for staffing, equipment, build design, access and utilities. Finally, a collection of all costs for this section is calculated to be used in assessing the feasibility of such facilities.
6.1. Justification of Satellite Services
London Economics (2016) found in their size and health of the UK space industry report that the upstream segment, which comprises services such as satellite launches, is larger than previous years at £1.7 billion, though the downstream segment, which covers the applications and operation of satellites, remains dominant at £12.0 billion in 2014/15, this can be shown in Figure 28 below.
Of all the space services in the UK, Space Operations, which is defined in the report as including “third-party ground segment operation and ground station networks” is the second largest segment at £2 billion.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 56 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 28: UK downstream and upstream space industry income 1999/2000-2014/15 (London Economics, 2016).
What this shows is that by only providing launches, i.e. upstream services, there is not only a limitation of the impact the Spaceport can have on the UK space industry, but also on the revenue possible.
As an example, Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd (SSTL) organise launches of satellite missions and negotiate on behalf of the client with launch sites (Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, 2018), once launched SSTL satisfy the ground segment requirements needed to communicate with the satellite and maintain it, providing the client with the payload data they desire. Such a service could be lucrative if provided by the launch site itself as there would be no need to negotiate for one, since contact with the launch vehicle must be maintained during the mission anyway, the additional equipment to monitor and command the payload could prove minimal when compared to the potential revenue.
The price quoted for maintaining the orbit of these satellites will be affected by many things such as the complexity of the satellite and its orbit, for example LEO satellites will degrade faster than others. If the following assumptions are made: • Order of magnitude for the price is estimated at £10,000 per customer satellite operated. • 50% of our client base will wish to take advantage of the convenience of this service. • Total launches per year of around: 100
This yields £500,000 a year in revenue, however, if the average lifespan of a LEO satellite is assumed to be 5 years then the satellites operated will accumulate until the 5-year mark where it
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 57 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final will plateau at £2,500,000 a year. This figure will later be used in Section 15 as a rough estimate of the steady-state flow of income from satellite operations.
6.2. Requirements of Facilities
The facilities covering control of the launch, mission and satellite are to be described through a list of requirements they must meet before being able to be separated in to individual structures, if necessary.
Collectively, the Control Facilities must: • Be able to communicate with the Launch Vehicle and Payload/Satellite. • Have visibility of the Runway and Launchpad. • Control the launch and take-off. • Safely house staff and equipment. • Provide comfortable working conditions for staff. • If airside, be located at a safe distance from high risk areas (e.g. Launchpad, Fuel Storage). • Have adequate accessibility. • Have the capability to carry out pre-launch flight checks. • Monitor weather and airspace. • Provide a press/visitor area and secure other areas against unauthorised personnel. • Be capable of monitoring parameters of the Launch Vehicle and Payload/Satellite. • Provide technical personnel capable of operating and advising all aspects of control. • Securely provide the end user/client with desired data from satellite. • Meet all relevant regulations (e.g. Building regulations).
Initially then, it can be seen certain requirements will need to be met by all areas of the control facilities (such as staff comfort) whilst some only need to be met by a single facility (provision of a press/visitor area).
Separating out gives two structures, one airside covering the launch and one landside to cover the mission and satellite control. Expanding upon the previous requirements gives:
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 58 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 6.2.1. Launch Control Tower
The Launch Control Tower (LCT) structure is to be located airside with visibility of the Launch Vehicle and will operate in a similar capacity to an Air Traffic Control Tower. The LCT will hold responsibility over the launch from the moment it is delivered to the launchpad/runway until the moment it clears the launchpad/runway. It will only need to communicate with the Launch Vehicle as the payload will be mostly inert during launch, using this communication, pre-flight checks will be carried out from the LCT. It will also need to be capable of monitoring weather and airspace and therefore will also be responsible for aborting the flight count-down if necessary.
6.2.2. Mission & Satellite Control Centre
The Mission & Satellite Control Centre (MSCC) will be safely located landside, with high accessibility for staff, visitors and press. Inside will be secured zones covering the operation of the launch mission, with responsibility being handed from the LCT. It will hold the equipment capable of communication with the Launch Vehicle and Payload as well as the capability to issue telecommands and monitor telemetry for engineering and flight parameters. The satellite control portion of the MSCC will be responsible for the long-term maintenance of the satellite, maintaining its orbit, monitoring its health and processing relevant data before finally decommissioning when it reaches the end of its life. It should, therefore, also house a server room capable of storing and processing data from the payload as well as the majority of telemetry and telecommand equipment. This leaves requirements that are to be met by both structures: • Safely house staff and equipment. • Provide comfortable working conditions for staff. • Have adequate accessibility. • Provide technical personnel capable of operating and advising all aspects of control. • Meet all relevant regulations (e.g. Building regulations).
6.3. Telemetry
The contact between the Spacecraft and the ground is typically referred to as either Telemetry, Tracking and Control (TT&C) or Telemetry/Telecommand (TM/TC) as well as many other used acronyms. The two functions of these systems are to issue commands for the Spacecraft to execute (Uplink) and to acquire data from it (Downlink), the latter consisting of many things such as engineering parameters used to gauge health, orbit and error checking; as well as data recorded by instruments onboard the payload which are typically the reason for the mission in the first place.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 59 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The spacecraft typically communicates through radio signals, an example range of frequencies used for space applications are VHF, UHF, L-Band, S-Band, with X-band used for deep space (Underwood, 2016). The frequencies attributed to these letter designations as set by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) can be seen in Table 8.
Table 8: Radio Frequency Band Designations (IEEE Standards Association, 2009).
Band Designation Frequency Range (GHz) VHF 0.03 – 0.3 UHF 0.3 – 1 L 1 – 2 S 2 – 4 C 4 – 8 X 8 – 12
Ku 12 – 18 K 18 - 27
Ka 27 - 40
The radio frequency is then received by a Ground station, also called an Earth or Tracking station, which usually consists of a high gain parabolic antenna. This would then connect via internet connections to ground centres like mission control, satellite control and possibly even directly to the end user of the system. Figure 29 illustrates an example of the network of infrastructure utilised to capture and transmit data on the ground, known as the ‘Ground Segment’.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 60 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 29: Typical implementation of multi-mission ground segment for an Earth Observation mission (SSTL, 2009).
However, this system can only communicate with the Spacecraft when visible to the ground station, this moment is referred to as ‘pass’ and must be managed through either a network of tracking satellites or a network of ground stations. Again, this issue is complicated further when considering the period during launch when constant contact is of dire importance, Fillery & Stanton (2011, p. 440) summarises this issue:
“Spacecraft destined for GEO will be non-synchronous in their early phases, such as during launch and intermediate orbits, and will require special ground support before they are handed over to their dedicated ground controllers. The intelsat spacecraft use a worldwide Launch Support Network operating in C-band, both during launch and subsequently. Other spacecraft may use the ESA network operating in S-band for initial orbits, with control being transferred to a dedicated station operating in Ku-band when it is on- station.”
As suggested by the passage, should the UK continue its collaboration with the ESA, the use of their tracking stations (Estrack) could be an option during launches or for payloads that require constant delivery of data. As an alternative, should the UK government wish to keep as much of the
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 61 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final infrastructure under UK control, the network of ground stations controlled by British Telecommunications could be an option, with coverage spanning two thirds of the planet (British Telecommunications plc, 2018).
6.4. Launch Control Tower Detailed Design
As mentioned in Section 6.2 before, the LCT will cover responsibility of pre-launch flight checks, monitoring weather and airspace, and finally aborting or continuing with the launch countdown.
An initial concept of the staffing required, based on guidance from Herd, et al. (2013, pp. 381-384), is as follows: • Flight Director – Leads the real-time flight operations that are carried out by their Flight Control Team (FCT) and is ultimately responsible for safety. • Spacecraft System Specialist – Experts of individual spacecraft subsystems ready to offer direct support and monitor subsystem parameters. Such subsystems would include: Propulsion, telemetry & telecommand, attitude control, power, structure, thermal and communications. • Security Management Team – Responsible for ensuring only personnel with permission may enter the MSCC, monitoring cameras, providing security authentication devices such as key cards and developing security procedures. • Satellite Control Team (SCT) – A small group of telemetry/telecommunication experts who monitor and control satellite parameters once deployed, taking over control of that section of the mission from the FCT.
Taking in to account the differing complexity of missions and that the Virgin orbit missions will be “additionally supported by a launch engineer on console in the 747-400 and teams on console at the headquarters facility in Long Beach” (Virgin Orbit, 2017) it is not clear the exact number of staff required. Table 9 below contains approximate ranges for the staff required and a final estimated value.
Table 9: Estimation of Employees for the MSCC.
Employee Role Approximate Range Estimated Value Flight Director 1 1 Spacecraft System Specialist 7 (1 per subsystem) 7 Security Management Team 1 - 2 2 Satellite Control Team 4 - 6 5 Total: 15
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 62 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Therefore, some of the key facilities that must be housed by the MSCC structure are: • Flight Control Room – A room for the FCT to operate, complete with individual computer terminals similar to the ones mentioned in the design of the LCT. Figure 30 illustrates a basic layout of a flight control room as well as the type of computer terminals used. • Break Room – In order to provide comfortable working conditions, staff need to be provided a place to rest and eat. • Toilets – Same reason as the break room, one for male staff, one for female staff. • Security Booth – Upon entering the MSCC, security will clear all personnel first, with a window to visibly see personnel entering, a bench for visitors to wait whilst issued a security pass and a bank of monitors for viewing camera footage. • Server Room – Servers will provide a good deal of the computing power for all devices and communication between them, this is a key functionality and therefore must be protected by adhering to the proper standards laid out by BS EN 10015-3:1994, the protection of electrostatic sensitive devices. These servers will also be processing much of the TM/TC, archiving data and distributing it to clients. • Satellite Operations Room – Similar to the Flight control room but allowing for a more relaxed, long term control of the satellites being operated, largely handling the flow of data and ensuring customer satisfaction. • Meeting Room – A meeting room big enough to hold all key control staff plus a few client representatives, potentially for planning of future missions. • Press Conference Room – An area capable of hosting press and visitors for briefing on key mission news.
Figure 30: Image of computer terminals in the Flight Control Room during SpaceX Rendezvous Operations (NASA, 2017).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 63 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The operation of the ALV is mainly done through two trailers however due to the more static desire for this Spaceport’s operation the technology present on these trailers will be accommodated for in the MSCC. According to Heliaq (2017), who lay out the details of these trailers in their High-Level Operational Concept, the trailers contain the following:
Telemetry, Tracking & Command (TT&C) Station: • Bands: o UHF: 430-470 MHz Receive and Transmit o S-Band: 2200-2500 MHz Receive Only • Antennas: o UHF: Crossed LPDAs, 15dBi gain @430MHz o S-Band: Parabolic Dish, 2.4m diameter • Transmit Power (UHF only): o 2 Watt • Antenna Positioner: o Elevation Range: -5 to 95 deg o Azimuth Range: -450 to +450 deg o Positioning Accuracy: Better than 0.5 deg o Max. Angular Velocity: 20 deg/s • Network Interfaces: o Ethernet (100Mbps) via Optical Fibre o 5.8GHz Wifi/WiMAX (for Line-of-Sight communication with Control Centres) o 3G/4G Terrestrial Networks (backup) • Time Synchronization and Position Update: o Automatic via Global Positioning System (GPS) • Power Interface o 230 VAC, 50 Hz, Single Phase o Consumption: <500 W o On-board Uninterruptible Power Supply (UPS)
Mobile Control Centres: • Direct fibre-optic connections to tracking stations (preferred) • Line of sight WiFi / WiMAX connections • Terrestrial fixed WAN systems • Terrestrial mobile internet (3G/4G) systems (backup) • Network Equipment
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 64 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
• Servers • Operator Workstations (computers) • UPS and backup generator (external)
Much of this equipment will be present either in the computer terminals in the flight control room, the servers in the server room or externally on the building such as parabolic dishes and antenna. Figure 31 shows a floorplan of the MSCC with the requirements for facilities above accounted for.
Figure 31: Floorplan of the MSCC.
The placement of the rooms is such that: • All entrants must pass security. • Following paragraph 3.5 of HM Government (2013, p. 32) Approved Document B2, structures with fewer than 60 occupants may have only one fire escape route if that route is no longer than 18 m, which is not the case here. Hence a second escape was added to the
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 65 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Press Conference Room as this has the highest possible capacity and is at the opposite end from the other fire escape (the main entrance). • All rooms are accessible from a single hallway for high accessibility and to ensure no visitor must pass through a high security room to get to any low security rooms, the list of which is detailed in Table 10 where high simply means for permanent members of staff and low is for visitors cleared by security. • The Flight Control Room has two entrances for swifter access to other rooms, as this is a key area. • The server room is close to the Satellite Operations Room as this is populated with the most IT focused staff. • The toilets and break room are close together to minimise hallway traffic during breaks • All facilities are located on a single floor, this eliminates the need for additional accessibility for disabled personnel such as elevators, this being more crucial at the MSCC for it will welcome visitors, clients, staff and press. • Following paragraph 3.14 g of HM Government (2015, p. 31) Approved Document M2, doors opening on to a major access route/escape route is either avoided or given a recess to avoid projection into corridor space.
Table 10: Designation of Security Level per room.
Room Security Security Booth High Flight Control Room High Toilets Low Break Room Low Meeting Room Low Server Room High Satellite Operations Room High Press Conference Room Low
All high security rooms will have doors electronically locked and only accessible through key card. Figure 32 below displays these secure areas in red to help illustrate the ease of access visitors have to areas intended for them, where yellow zones are low security and red zones are high security.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 66 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 32: Visual representation of Security Level per room, where Red is high, Yellow is low.
Table 11 contains a cost analysis of the key equipment required for the rooms to provide their basic functions.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 67 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 11: Equipment quantity and cost for the MSCC.
Room Item Quantity Total Cost / £ Desk Chair 3 300 Security Booth Desk 2 200 CCTV Monitor Bank 1 500 Computer Terminals 8 16,000 Projector 1 500 Flight Control Room Projector Screen 1 1000 Desk Chair 8 800 Toilet 8 3,200 Toilets Sink 2 650 Microwave 1 60 Sink 1 325 Break Room Table 2 400 Chair 10 500 Meeting Table 1 1,000 Meeting Room Chair 16 800 Server Room Server Rack 6 18,000 Filing Cabinet 3 180 Desk 5 500 Satellite Operations Computer 5 2,500 Desk Chair 5 500 TV (wall mount) 2 600 Chair 38 1,900 Press Conference Lectern 1 50
6.5. Mission & Satellite Control Centre Design
The job of the MSCC will be to cater to the vast majority of control functions outside of the initial launch, which of course will be handled by the LCT. The MSCC is to be a hub for most activity centred around the space mission such as hosting press conferences, monitoring mission and satellite parameters and even enabling meetings with the client to plan the next mission.
6.6. Cost Analysis
In terms of construction cost, an estimate of £1500 per square metre has been assumed to be a reasonable guess after consulting Statista (2016), HM Government (2013) Construction costs and Towey (2013). The area per floor for each building is given in Table 12.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 68 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 12: Areas of each floor of each building and their estimated cost to construct.
Building Floor Area / m2 Cost / £ Ground 53.03 79,545 1st 53.03 79,545 LCT 2nd 53.03 79,545 3rd 53.03 79,545 MSCC Ground 447.46 671,190
With this the total for building construction costs is estimated to be £989,370 and the total for equipment tallied prior to be £62,665. Finally, the salary of the staff is tabulated in Table 13 below using PayScale.com (2017) to find the median salary for what is estimated to be a suitable equivalent role to be billed as.
Table 13: Salaries for all control facilities employees based off similar industry roles.
Job Role Billed as: Quantity Yearly Total Cost Salary / £ per year / £ Launch Director Director of 1 60,700 60,700 Operations LV Test Conductor Air Traffic 1 55,052 55,052 Controller Payload Test Conductor Air Traffic 1 55,052 55,052 Controller Range Operators Air Traffic 2 55,052 110,104 Controller Flight Director Director of 1 60,700 60,700 Operations Spacecraft System Specialist Senior Mechanical 7 41,749 292,243 Engineer Security Management Team Security Officer 2 20,537 41,074 Satellite Control Team Senior Systems 5 36,214 181,070 Engineer (Computer Networking / IT)
The total fixed cost for the Control Facilities stands at £1,052,035 and the variable costs in the form of salary at £855,995. For the additional cost due to utilities see the Section 10.
7. Take-off and Landing Infrastructure
This section covers the Spaceport’s runway and launchpad design. It ranges from international landing regulations, pavement markings and lighting as well as reinforced concrete slab design. To finalise this section a cost estimation of his construction has been included.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 69 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 7.1. Runway
As this is a facility designed for VTOHL spacecraft, a runway will be required for horizontal landing; and take-off in the cases of Virgin Orbit and Skylon. As the Virgin Orbit program uses a Boeing 747-400FR and the facility will allow for payload delivery to the site by plane, the aerodrome needs to adhere to several international standards, such as the CAA (Civil Aviation Authority), FAA (Federal Aviation Authority) and ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organisation), in order to promote a maximum level of safety. The runway shall be 3 km long in Phase 1, with the possibility of an extension to 5.5 km in Phase 3 to accommodate for Skylon.
According to the British Geological survey, the soil of the region where the runway shall be built is a mixture of clay, silt and sand. A section of the map indicating this is presented in Appendix B – Runway. As a result of the local soil type, a base layer of untreated granular material, cement stabilised material or bituminous bound material must be constructed as a foundation for the tarmac (Sargious, 1975).
7.1.1. Landing and Take-Off Requirements
The runway is aligned as shown in the scheme layout of the Dounreay Site, as for optimal operation an LVs would need to land and take-off into the wind. The wind rose for Dounreay published by Meteoblue, shown in Figure 33, highlights how many hours per year the wind blows from an indicated direction, as well as its speed. From this diagram it is possible to identify that the majority of the time, the strongest winds blow from the West South West, thus the runway is to be aligned in that general direction.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 70 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 33: Wind rose for Dounreay (Meteoblue, 2017).
One can observe from the wind rose that there is a frequent crosswind to the selected airstrip alignment. However, depending on the aircraft landing requirements these cross winds can be within the ICAO and FAA limits. Table 14 below shows the landing specification of each launch vehicle operating from this Spaceport. This information has be extracted from the Skylon users’ Manual (Reaction Engines Ltd , 2010), the Boeing 747-400 Airport Planning document (Boeing, 2011) and the Heliaq Advanced Engineering ALV-2 High Level Operation Concept document (Heliaq, 2017).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 71 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 14: LV data.
Parameter 747-400 ALV Skylon Max Take-Off Mass 396,894 kg N/A 325,000 kg Max Landing Mass 302,093 kg 1,030 kg 74,900 kg Approach Speed 72 m/s 31 m/s 95-100 m/s Maximum Take-off 2.8 km N/A 5.5 km Distance Max Landing Distance 2.8 km 394 m 5.5 km Turning Radius 20 m N/A N/A Geometric Characteristics Wing Span 64.9 m 6.875 m 26.818 m Height of pilot’s eyes 8.66 m N/A N/A above the ground Vehicle Total Length 71 m 9.4 m 83.133 m Aeroplane Height 19.56 m 1.05 m 10.744 m
Using the data above, the vehicles can be classified under the FAA and ICAO Airport Reference Codes (ARC). The FAA and ICAO ARCs are summarised in Table 15 and Table 16, respectively.
Table 15: FAA Airport Reference code (Federal Aviation Authority , 1989).
Approach Speed / Category Group Tail Height / m Wingspan / m Knots A < 91 I < 6.1 < 14.9 B 91 - < 121 II 6.1 - < 9.1 14.9 - < 24.1 C 121 - < 141 III 9.1 - < 13.7 24.1 - < 36.0 D 141 - < 166 IV 13.7 - < 18.3 36.0 - < 52.1 E 166 < V 18.3 - < 20.1 52.1 - < 56.2 VI 20.1 - < 24.4 56.2 - < 79.9
Table 16 : ICAO ARC (SKYbrary, 2017).
Aeroplane Code Code Outer Main Gear Reference Field Wingspan / m Number Letter Wheel Span / m length / m 1 < 800 A < 15 < 4.5 2 800 - < 1200 B 15 - < 24 4.5 - < 6 3 1200 - < 1800 C 24 - < 36 6 - < 9 4 1800 < D 36 - < 52 9 - < 14 E 52 - < 65 9 - < 14 F 65 - < 80 14 - < 16
According to the FAA ARC, the Boing 747-400FR is classified as C-VI and 4-E according to the ICAO. Due to these classifications, the FAA’s crosswind limit for Virgin Orbit is 16 knots (18.4 mph) and 20 knots (23 mph) according to the ICAO (13 knots (15 mph) in wet conditions).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 72 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The ALV boosters, on return of the missions, are classified as A-I under the FAA ARC and 1-A under the ICAO ARC. Thus, the maximum allowed crosswind for the ALV is 10.5 knots (12.5 mph) according to both the FAA and the ICAO. As the ALV boosters upon return are classified as “small aircraft” (Heliaq, 2017), the maximum landing distance required was estimated using the landing distance required by a Cessna 172.
The approach speed of Skylon was not found in its user manual, therefore, the approach speed of the Space Shuttle was used, under the assumption that they would be at similar velocities (NASA, 2007). Using this speed, Skylon was classified as E-III under the FAA ARC and 4-C under ICAO ARC. Under these classifications, the maximum allowed crosswinds for Skylon are 20 knots (23 mph). However, the ICAO specifies that under wet conditions the maximum landing crosswind should be 13 knots (15 mph) (de Neufville, et al., 2013).
Figure 34 highlights how many hours per year at which specific speed the crosswinds to the runway generally blow. From this, it can be identified that there are several hours in the year where the crosswinds will exceed the limits set out by the FAA and ICAO. However, as launches from this Spaceport are not as frequent as at a civil airport, the launch and return of the vehicles can be planned around the weather conditions.
Figure 34: SE winds from wind rose (Meteoblue, 2017).
7.1.2. Lighting and Line marking requirements
The runway shall be surrounded by a runway strip, intended to ensure the safety of the LV and its occupants/cargo in the events of undershooting, overrunning, or veering off the runway during take- off/landing. As a precision approach runway shall be used, the runway strips shall extend 150 m from the centre line. No equipment or construction which may create an obstacle or endanger the vehicles shall be positioned within this region, with the exceptions being radio-navigation, visual aid and other equipment which are installed on the runway strip to support the operation of the LVs.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 73 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Such equipment includes but is not limited to: Instrumental Landing System, glide path antenna, Precision Approach Radar and Runway Visual Range equipment (Kazda, 2007).
The purpose of a runway strip is to allow the undercarriage to sink in to the material in order to decelerate the vehicle, in the event of it running off the runway. The vehicle’s structure should not suffer serious damage in doing so, therefore the surface of the runway strip will be grass, as it is commonly used and easily implementable in the area (Kazda, 2007).
The runway also requires Runway End Safety Areas (RESA) of 300 m at each end to decelerate the vehicle in case it lands short or overshoots. It should also be as wide as 75 m from the centreline either side (FAA, 2016).
All markings on the runway shall be marked in white, as specified in CAP 637 by the CAA. It states the runway shall be labelled with a two-digit number identifying its magnetic heading to the nearest 10 degrees. Thus, this projects’ runway shall be labelled 25 in the WSW to ENE direction and 07 in the opposite direction. The pre-threshold markings for this runway shall be as indicated in Figure 35 d) iii) to allow for accidental short landings. Additionally, the runway shall have a centre line, touchdown zone, aiming point markings and edge markings as identified in Figure 35.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 74 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 35: CAP 637 runway markings (CAA, 2007).
Aeronautical Ground Lighting (AGL) shall be installed for operation at night and in low visibility conditions. The Dounreay Site shall be fitted with an aerodrome beacon, to make it identifiable to approaching aircraft at night. Figure 36 shows the complex system of approach lightings used
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 75 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final during day and night, as specified by the CAP 637. In order to aid pilots on the approach, a Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) shall be installed on the left from the approach point of view.
The lights on the centre line shall be installed at 50 feet (15.24 m) intervals, resulting in 196 lights for a 3 km long runway (Houston, 2017). The runway edge lighting, according to the FAA, shall be at 200 feet (60.96 m) intervals, resulting in 49 lights for a 3 km runway (FAA, 2015). As the Touchdown Zone (TDZ) will be will be approximately 880 m long for a 3 km runway, with two rows of lights either side of the centre line, one can assume that 240 lights should be sufficient to light that area if the spacing of those lights is the same as that of the centre line.
At such an early stage of the project, it is difficult to predict how many pavement lights are required. However, with the above mentioned approximations and accounting for taxiway lighting and runaway threshold lights, one can estimate 600 lights shall be sufficient.
Figure 36: Runway approach lighting system (CAA, 2007)
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 76 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 7.1.3. Asphalt Pavement Design
Some of the pavement materials’ properties are time-dependent. Thus, it is vital that the use of materials for pavement design is carefully selected with due regard to their performance under prevailing climate conditions. Asphalt pavements can be divided into two groups, flexible pavements with untreated granular basis and full-depth asphalt pavements, where an asphalt base is used. The latter is recommended for airfield use due to the following advantages. (Sargious, 1975). The asphalt base can resist tensile stresses, spreading the load over larger areas, thus reducing the pavement thickness required. A full-depth asphalt pavement is unaffected by frost or moisture and provides a retained uniformity in the pavement structure. Additionally, it has no permeable granular layers, entrapping water which reduces the subgrade strength and worsens performance (Sargious, 1975).
When designing the pavement of an aerodrome, the LV’s gross weight and tyre pressure are some of many critical factors in determining loading on the pavements. Therefore, when designing the pavements, the heaviest aircraft will be the vehicle it is designed to. This is often called the ‘design aircraft’. As illustrated in Table 14 earlier, the Boeing 747-400FR has the largest gross mass, thus making it this aerodrome’s design aircraft. Using the Load Classification Number (LCN) system, one can determine the load applied by an aircraft on the pavement. With a flexible pavement thickness of 21 inches, the 747 Airport Planning Document states that the aircraft has an LCN of 63. Under these conditions, the permissible load on the main landing gear is 500,000 lb for a 747- 400 with a tyre pressure of 200 psi. If the pavement thickness were 30 inches with an LCN of 95, the allowable load on the main landing gear would be 600,000 lb with a tyre pressure of 230 psi (Boeing, 2011). As Skylon is a new untested vehicle, additional safety measures must be taken. Despite the fact that Skylon’s maximum take-off mass is lower than that of the 747-400, the pavements shall be 30 inches thick to allow for any unexpected high loads exerted by the Skylon LV during take-off and landing. The load requirements on the taxiways and apron will be the same as those on the runway, as during take-off and landing some of the aircraft’s weight will be supported by the wings as they create lift at high speeds. Thus, it can be assumed that the maximum stresses experienced on the tarmac due to the aircrafts weight occur when the aircraft is taxing on and off the runway.
7.2. Taxiways and Apron Markings & Lighting
According to CAP 637, all taxiway markings shall be yellow, to differentiate them from the main runway. They shall consist of a centreline, Runway Taxi-Holding Position, Intermediate Taxi- Holding Position, Edge and Information markings, all of which are illustrated and explained in
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 77 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Appendix B – Runway. These markings are required in order to direct the pilot and ensure sufficient clearances from buildings and fixed objects. The taxiway markings continue onto the apron to direct the pilots to the gate (CAA, 2007).
To make these markings noticeable in low-visibility conditions, taxiway lighting is required. According to CAP 637, taxiway centrelines shall be fitted with green guide lights and blue edge lights. To indicate an exit of a runway, the green taxiway guide lights may be installed onto the runway, as illustrated in Figure 37. (CAA, 2007)
Figure 37: Runway exit lighting (CAA, 2007).
7.3. Launch Pad
A launch pad area will be required to launch the ALV variants. As the ALV High Level Operational Concept document (Heliaq, 2017) states, the ALV will be launched from an integration and launch trailer. This trailer will consist of an integration rail, umbilical connections to the vehicle, hydraulic erector mechanism, launch pad fuelling connections, launch frame connections and a flame deflector. The integration and launch trailer will be towed by a standard articulated-truck to the launch pad. As the trailer is so well equipped, the launch pad itself need not be of complex design.
As the ALV Operation document states, the launch pad is essentially a concrete slab with road and service connections. No fixed infrastructure such as a tower or flame trench will be required. However, there is one specific requirement for the launch pad which is, to be reinforced to carry the weight of the largest ALV variant fully fuelled, as well as that of the integration and launch trailer. Nonetheless for the ALV-2 Phase, this is not expected to exceed 50 tons. Additionally, the pad must be equipped with anchoring points for the launch frame. This will prevent the vehicle
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 78 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final from lifting the launch frame in case of a hold-down system failure. Therefore, the anchoring points must withstand more than the maximum lifting thrust. The thrust provided per engine of each buster is 25 kN. Each booster consists of four engines, therefore produces 100 kN of thrust. The largest ALV-2 variation will be launched using six boosters, therefore the anchoring points need to withstand more than 600 kN. (Heliaq, 2017) As the ALV program develops into the ALV-3 Phase, the requirements of the launch pad area will change, as the ALV-3 is approximately twice the scale. However, the exact figures are not yet available for this particular LV. Thus, appropriate land will be kept available to further expand the launch pad facilities to implement stronger reinforced concrete slabs to be used by the ALV-3 in the future.
As the trailer is approximately 20 m long, the launch pad shall be just 4 m longer and 4 m wider than the trailer, so that it can comfortably fit on the pad. Due to the soil mixture of clay, silt and sand, appropriate foundations shall be installed to support the reinforced concrete slabs. According to Linek & Nita, reinforced concrete pavemetns shall include two steel bar grids arranged lengthwise and crosswise at the top and bottom of the slab, approximately 15–35 cm apart with a bar thickness in the range of 12–16 mm (Linek & Nita, 2016).
7.4. Cost of Runway, Launch Pad and Apron Pavement
As this project’s runway will adhere to the same regulations as a commercial runway, standard civil airport guidelines can be used to price it. The table below shows prices used by the Florida Department of Transportation to price an aerodrome, which can be used as estimates for the runway at the Dounreay Site. The total pavement cost, using this estimation, would be $120.14 million (£88.79 million) of which $18.04 million (£13.33 million) is the expected expansion to accommodate Skylon. The final cost of the runway, taxiway and apron pavements may vary as the location of the aerodrome does impact the cost of construction. Conversion rates of the above prices are correct as of 09/01/2018.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 79 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 17: Prices of each pavement section according to Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT, 2016)
Commercial (8,000 to 13,000 foot runway, typical length: 13,000 ft. 20” . Cost per Total cost depth: 4” in Asphalt Concrete + 16” base. Units Unit / $ / million $ Includes paved shoulders and blast pavement.) Runway Construction (100’ width. 2,200 per 3,000 m (9842.5 ft) 21.7 Includes paved shoulders and blast linear foot pavement.) Runway Extension (Skylon) 2,200 per 2,500 m (8202.1 ft) 18.04 linear foot Taxiway Construction (including road to 23 per 204,900 m2 50.7 launch pad) square foot (2,205,525 ft2) Ramp/Apron Construction 23 per 120,000 m2 29.7 square foot (1,291,700 ft2) TOTAL: 120.14
The pavements would need to be resurfaced after extensive use. However, as the frequency of large aircraft landing at this facility is relatively low compared to that of commercial airports, resurfacing would only need to be conducted if there is damage to the tarmac.
According to BuildBase (BuildBase , 2018) a steel reinforcement mesh for a reinforced concrete slab is £26.64 for a 3.6 m x 2 m mesh. Thus, Launchpad of the size of 24 m x 10 m will require such meshes, resulting in a cost of £1,811.52. The concrete on the other hand, is priced between £65 and £85 per cubic meter according to Household Quotes (Household Quotes, 2018), with the entire slab being 24 m3 a cost between £1,560 and £2,040 can be expected. Therefore, using the midpoint of the previous ranges, the overall cost of the Launchpad will be approximately £3,600. This results in a total pavement cost of approximately £88,800,000.
8. Launch Vehicle Infrastructure
The LV infrastructure encompasses the payload preparation, the LVA and payload integration and the LVS facilities. This section shall present design options for these facilities and the chosen scheme layout configuration.
8.1. Payload Preparation Facility
It has been determined from the Inception Report, that a facility will be required to prepare payloads for LV integration. Therefore, the following section of this report will discuss the design and construction recommendations for the Payload Preparation Facility (PPF). The PPF will be the
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 80 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final location of the Spaceport where the customer payloads will be checked and housed within the LauncherOne LV and the ALV-2/3 expendable LV.
8.1.1. Function and Requirements
The function of the PPF is simply to provide a clean and electrostatically stable environment from where the customer and contractor can prepare their satellite or other payload, perform checks on payload equipment and function, and complete LV integration. The PPF will also serve as the fuelling facility for payloads that require fuel to enable thrust capabilities whilst in low-earth orbit.
8.1.1.1. CubeSat Preparation
The most likely and common payloads to be launched from the Spaceport are CubeSats. CubeSats are classified as “picosatellites” (Konecny, 2004) as they typically range from 0.1 kg-1 kg in mass, however, it has become more common for larger and therefore heavier iterations of CubeSats to be built Figure 38. Their purpose is to provide an inexpensive solution for both scientific research and education in LEO. They require a Poly-Picosatellite Orbital Deployer (P-POD) to be safely and efficiently deployed from an LV into their proposed orbit (Chin, et al., 2008). The P-POD can house several CubeSats at once and several P-PODs can be integrated into a LV. This means that single a launch will be able to cater for several customers at once.
Figure 38: CubeSat size variants, 1U being the smallest and standard size (University of Colorado Boulder, 2013).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 81 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Preparation of CubeSats will involve powering up the CubeSat so that activation can be achieved in orbit, final customer checks of the satellites systems or time dependant experiment integration, insertion of the CubeSats into their P-POD and finally, integration of the P-POD into the LV.
8.1.1.2. Typical Satellite Preparation
Typical satellite processing before launch will involve carrying out pre-checks on the systems that the satellite will be using whilst in orbit. The systems that will likely be checked include, but are not limited to: solar panel unfolding, dish movement and other systems unique to the satellite and its mission. In addition to system checks, fuelling of the satellite will need to take place before it enters the LV integration procedure. For the largest of payloads expected to make use of the PPF, it may be necessary for final assembly of the customer’s satellite to take place here. Lastly, the common procedure for all satellite’s being processed here is the transfer of the satellite to the LV assembly building where the payload is integrated into the LV. Due to the nature of the final two procedures mentioned here an overhead crane system, with a maximum capacity greater than that of the payload weight, will need to be installed in the PPF.
8.1.1.3. Cleanroom Specification and Procedure
The PPF requires a room where the number of particulates in the air can be controlled, such that the risk to electrical shortage within the circuits of any payloads are minimised during payload preparation for launch. This room must be kept at the same environmental conditions throughout its lifespan (disregarding potential maintenance necessities), as payloads or equipment sensitive to dust particles may be stored here for long periods of time. In addition to reduced numbers of dust particles, the cleanroom will also be required to control the number of airborne microscopic organisms.
Using information from other existing PPFs, it is recommended that the air cleanliness within the cleanroom should be of ISO class 8. The ISO class 8 designation, requires that the maximum concentration of particles/m3 be kept within the following figures shown in Table 18.
Table 18: ISO Classes of air cleanliness by particle concentration. Values taken from BSI (2016).
Maximum allowable concentrations Particle Size of air cleanliness / particles/m3 0.5μm - 1μm 3,520,000 1μm - 5μm 832,000 5μm < 29,300
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 82 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
To achieve this cleanliness class, several measures must be in place. The first and most important measure is the installation of an air filtration system. An air filtration system will ensure that air coming into the cleanroom is filtered to the ISO class as required and that air can be removed from the cleanroom at the same time. This constant airflow is what will ensure the cleanliness of the air going in and out. According to BS EN ISO 14644-4:2001 (2003), implementing a pressure differential between the cleanroom and outside of the cleanroom is an ideal measure to take as it ensures that no air can come into the cleanroom unless through the air filtration system. This pressure differential can be controlled through the use of the air filtration system.
Access to and from the cleanroom must also be controlled carefully to reach the desired cleanliness class. Where personnel enter and exit the clean room, airlocks will be in place and will maintain the pressure differential within the clean room. Two airlocks will be required in this cleanroom: the first to provide access to personnel to and from the room, the second to be large enough to allow the largest of payloads to enter the cleanroom for processing.
The final measure to maintain ISO class 8 cleanliness is through personnel use of disposable protective clothing. Before entering the cleanroom, personnel must change into provided clothing that covers the entire body including head and feet. This clothing ensures that contaminants in clothing, hair and shoes are not left behind in the cleanroom or on the payload being processed. In addition to the clothing, a disposable face mask that covers the nose and mouth must also be used when entering the cleanroom. This will prevent particles from the nose or mouth from reaching the payload within the cleanroom. Sterile disposable gloves will also need to be provided as personnel will be handling sensitive payloads by hand. The cleanroom clothing will also provide antistatic protection for the payloads being handled.
Clothing will be provided and changed into in a clean changing room adjacent to the cleanroom airlock door. Once personnel have changed and are fully covered, they may enter the airlock with the door closed behind them and wait for the pressure to be increased to the same as that of the cleanroom. Once the pressurisation has been achieved, the personnel may enter the cleanroom and begin payload preparation. When returning to the changing room, the personnel will enter the airlock, close the door behind them, depressurise, and then enter the changing room. Once used clothing has been removed it must be disposed of and not reused.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 83 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 8.1.2. Payload Preparation Facility Design
8.1.2.1. Capability and Equipment
The virgin orbit service guide provides information regarding the cleanroom facilities that they provide (Virgin Orbit, 2017), using this information, the PPF must have the capability to carry out the following: • Have the ability to lift and manoeuvre a payload weight of 500 kg within an ISO class 8 clean room. • It must maintain an ISO class 8 standard of cleanliness at all times unless the facility is closed for maintenance. • The PPF must provide the customer with office space and workstations with high-speed internet access. • Have a supply of consumables such as air, helium, and nitrogen. • Have the necessary power for customer electrical equipment (100 V AC at 60 Hz and 230 V AC at 50 Hz) • Forklift, scissor lifts and rolling ladders access for at height working • Provide adequate quantities of disposable cleanroom wear such as full body coveralls, masks and gloves. • Have the necessary containers to store payload propellant (xenon/krypton and non- hazardous fuels).
8.1.2.2. Floor Plan
The size of the cleanroom has been determined based on the presumption of the largest expected payload being processed at the centre of the room. The largest single payload size has been determined from the internal dimensions of the payload module of the LauncherOne LV. From the LauncherOne service guide, the two extreme payload dimensions are 3.54 m in length and 1.26 m in width. Given these dimensions, a distance of at least 4m on each side of the payload will be available in the clean room.
With regards to external and internal access to the building, the requirements set by Approved Document M (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2015) will be met, for example, all doors will be a minimum of 1 m in width. With regards to fire escape access, the requirements set by Approved Document K (Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 84 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Government, 2013) will also be met, as an example of this, the minimum number of fire escapes for 60 persons will be achieved and surpassed.
As shown in Figure 39, the ground floor of the PPF is where the main functions occur. The entrance (bottom right) enters into a foyer, at the end of which is a stairwell to the first floor and a fire escape at the bottom of the stairs. There is also a door leading to the changing room, payload control room and lift to the first floor. Through the door at the end, the payload control room is accessible; in this room, any tests that will need carrying out on the payload will be controlled from this room. Several workstations are located here to enable this. It is also possible view the cleanroom from the payload control room through a viewing window.
Figure 39: Payload preparation facility ground floor (units in metres).
The changing room area will be where personnel change into their protective clothing before entering the clean room area. Lockers and a bench are provided for storage of any items that are not permitted in the cleanroom. Also found in the changing room is an airlock entrance for personnel to enter the cleanroom.
In the cleanroom area, the payload will enter from the airlock to the left hand side, which also leads to LVA. When payload preparation is completed, the payload will be taken into LVA and integrated
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 85 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final with the LV. A smaller personnel airlock leads into LVA also. Both personnel airlocks act as emergency exits from the cleanroom in the event of a fire or other evacuation event.
The first and final floor of the PPF can be seen in Figure 40, below. On this floor, the toilets, additional office space and a storage room (for cleaning and maintenance). On this floor it should be noted that there is also a disabled toilet available. The ceiling level of the cleanroom is also shown here and it illustrates the presumed location of air filtration units and crane rail. The overall height of the PPF will be in the range of 6-7 m tall, this provides a ceiling height of 2.5 – 3 m in each room (cleanroom height of 5 – 6 m) and sufficient room for overhead services.
Figure 40: Payload preparation facility first floor (all units in metres).
8.1.3. Equipment, Staffing and Construction Costs
By taking into account the size of the facility and its expected use, an estimation of the equipment, staffing and construction costs can be made. The quantities and costs shown in Table 19 list the most necessary and currently foreseeable equipment to be used in the PPF. In Table 20, the estimated numbers of staff, their roles and they’re estimated earnings, are shown here. It is likely that most of the Spaceport employed staff will be facilities management personnel as most of the
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 86 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final skilled personnel using the facility will be provided by customers. For example, a customer will know their satellite configuration, and in conjunction with the LV supplier, will carry out the payload preparation. The staff numbers have been estimated based on square meterage and the type of role.
Table 19: Estimated equipment costs.
Item Estimated Total Estimated Quantity Cost / £ Desk Chair 20 1,000 Computer Workstations 20 40,000 Toilet 11 4,400 Overhead Crane 1 10,000 Air Filtration Unit 2 20,000 HVAC 1 50,000 Total: 125,400
Table 20: Estimated PPF staff and salaries (salary estimates from PayScale (2018)).
Role No. of Salary / £ Total Estimated Personnel Yearly Rate / £/yr Cleaner 5 10,000 50,000 Cleaning Supervisor 1 24,000 24,000 Skilled Maintenance 2 34,000 68,000 Technician Security Guard 2 17,000 34,000 Total 10 - 176,000
The construction costs for the PPF will be estimated based on data related to the cost per square metre to construct a cleanroom and on top of that, an estimated cost per square metre for office space, as shown in Table 21.
Table 21: Estimated construction cost for the payload preparation facility.
Item Estimated Rate / £/m2 Total Estimated Area / m2 Cost / £ Cleanroom 138 4900 (Gering, 2015) 686,964 Office Space 222 1650 (Cost Modelling 366,300 Limited, 2018) Total: 1,053,264
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 87 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 8.2. Launch Vehicle Assembly
Prior to launch, an enclosed location is needed to integrate the payload into either the ALV or the LauncherOne LV, and to also assemble to ALV together with its reusable boosters. The LVA will provide this service. It should however be noted that the LauncherOne will not be mated with Cosmic Girl in this building.
8.2.1. Building Function and Requirements
Due to the overall size of the ALV system being greater than LauncherOne, the design of LVA will be based on the requirements set out by Heliaq in their high level operation concept for the ALV-2 programme (Heliaq, 2017). The requirements set out by this report are as follows: • Sufficient space for a total of 2 LV integration trailers equalling 100 m2. • Sufficient room for 4 boosters, supported on their own landing gear, area totalling 80 m2. • An area of 7 m2 for the second stage section of the LV.
2 • An area of 3 m for the third stage section of the LV. • A total area of 4 m2 for the payload to be stored before it is integrated into the LV. • A technical workspace area for personnel to utilise during LV assembly. • An overhead crane system with two independent winches capable of lifting the individual vehicle sections to integrate them and the payload. • A minimum internal height of 5 m from the floor to the bottom of the overhead crane hook.
From the list above and including any additional floor areas of LVA, a total floor space of 350 m2 and a minimum floor area length of 25 m (to accommodate for the fully integrated ALV) is proposed by Heliaq (2017).
In addition to the requirements set out for the ALV-2, it is recommended that LVA is built as an extension of the PPF. LVA and PPF will be connected via an airlock that leads into the PPF cleanroom area. The purpose of this connection is to put in place a seamless transition for payloads from the PPF cleanroom straight to LVA without being exposed to external conditions. It should be noted that the payload will exit the cleanroom area either within the payload capsule of an LV or within an environmentally controlled container. It is also recommended that LVA be equipped with a Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) system to regulate the temperature and humidity of the building whilst LV segments are inside.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 88 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Finally, to account for the height and width of the fully integrated ALV-2 and its launch trailer and the LauncherOne LV, a sliding entrance door with minimum dimensions of 5 m height and 3 m width will be required for access.
8.2.2. Floor Plan
The proposed floor plan, based on the requirements set out in Section 8.2.1, is shown in Figure 41. The total floor area of this proposed floor plan is approximately 3.5 times greater than the minimum proposed. At a total of 1,250 m2, this floor space should provide enough room to perform LV assembly for 3 ALV-2’s at a time, or a combination of ALV-2 and LauncherOne assembly. Though this number of LV’s is unlikely to occur at Phase 1 of the Spaceport project plan, it does account for the expected increase in launches per year and therefore number of LV’s. Ensuring that LVA is constructed larger than necessary now means that launches would not need to be postponed due to building expansion and the cost of building an additional LVA will be mitigated.
Figure 41: LVA floor plan depicting the floor space use.
In addition to the floor plan, it should be noted that the proposed internal height of the building, from the crane winch to the floor, will be 5m as recommended. However, the overall height of the building will be approximately 6-7 m in height.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 89 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 8.2.3. Equipment and Staffing Costs
The necessary equipment required to make this building fully able to assemble the two LV options and to integrate payload is not specified in the available documentation that both Virgin Orbit and Heliaq provide. It is therefore necessary to postulate as to what equipment is necessary and an estimated price can be determined from this; these figures can be seen in Table 22. As with the PPF, LVA does not require many skilled staff that would not already be provided by the customers who wish to use the Spaceport facility. Much of the labour that will be carried out will involve cleaning to maintain health and safety standards, maintenance of machinery such as the overhead crane system and security to ensure that equipment and hardware are safe out of hours. The figures related to the staffing requirements and costs are shown in Table 23.
Table 22: LVAB estimated equipment needs and costs.
Item Estimated Total Estimated Quantity Cost / £ Computer Workstations 3 6,000 Overhead Crane (2tonne) 1 100,000 HVAC System 2 100,000 Forklift Truck 3 30,000 Total: 236,000
Table 23: LVAB estimated staff and salary requirements (salary estimates from PayScale (2018)).
Role No. of Salary / £ Total Estimated Personnel Yearly Rate / £/yr Industrial Cleaner 10 16,000 160,000 Cleaning 1 24,000 24,000 Supervisor Skilled 2 30,000 60,000 Maintenance Technician Security Guard 4 17,000 68,000 Total 17 - 320,000
8.2.4. Design, Construction and Cost
LVA is an industrial building with large spanning open spaces within it and so due to this, it would be advisable to design it as a steel pitched portal frame, as shown in Figure 42. By designing the building this way, the possibility of further expanding the building in the future becomes a much less costly and simpler task. The other benefit of choosing a steel frame design is that the erection
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 90 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final time is very short when compared to a concrete construction. This will aid in reducing the completion time of Phase 1 of the Spaceport project program.
Figure 42: Proposed pitched portal frame solution for the LVA.
Although steel construction is significantly more expensive than concrete construction, the nature of LVA requires this type of construction to function. Table 24 provides an estimation of the cost to construct this building based on steel building cost data taken from AECOM (2017).
Table 24: Estimated LVA construction cost.
Item Floor Area / m2 Rate / £/m2 Total Estimated Cost / £ Flooring 1,250 136 170,000 Fire Protection 1,250 29 36,250 Portal Frame 1,250 94 117,500 Total: 323,750
8.3. Launch Vehicle Storage
During downtime after a launch has taken place, it is necessary for the LV’s to be stored away and protected from the elements. During this down time, the LV has the opportunity to undergo maintenance before the next launch occurs. The following section will discuss and go into the preliminary design of Launch Vehicle Storage LVS for each of the proposed LV’s.
8.3.1. ALV-2 Storage
The ALV-2, which encompasses its re-usable boosters and expendable first, second and third stages, will not require a standalone LVS. When not in use, the ALV-2 will be stored within LVA whilst being prepared for the next launch. The reusable boosters will be maintained in LVA and made fit for launch. Due to there being no available ALV-3 dimensions, the storage area will be subject to detailed design at a later date.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 91 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 8.3.2. Virgin Orbit Storage
8.3.2.1. LauncherOne
The LauncherOne LV, will be treated the same as the ALV-2, in that it won’t have its own storage building, and will in fact be stored in LVA awaiting the next launch. The reason for this is that the expendable LauncherOne LV will only need storage for as little as 3 days before launch (Virgin Orbit, 2017), and therefore its time spent on the Spaceport, and its small size, negates the need to build a separate building.
8.3.2.2. Cosmic Girl
Part of the Virgin Orbit launch system is the Boeing 747-400 airplane named Cosmic Girl. The 747-400 will be carrying out multiple launches per year and will therefore spend a considerable amount of time within the Spaceport. For this reason, it is necessary to provide an aircraft hangar that is equipped to sufficiently help to maintain the Cosmic Girl and to also assist with the mating of the LauncherOne LV to its wing.
8.3.2.3. Hangar Function and Requirements
As mentioned previously, the Cosmic Girl Boeing 747-400 will require an aircraft hangar for it to be stored in whilst it undergoes maintenance between launches. Though maintenance will not occur between every launch, the hangar will still serve as a protection for the 747-400 against adverse weather conditions over time. The following requirements for the hangar have been determined: • The aircraft hangar shall have the capacity to carry out maintenance check’s A and C. Where an A-Check is carried out every 80-100 aircraft flight hours and needs 10-20 man- hours to be performed. A C-Check is a much more thorough check that requires whole aircraft checks and must be carried out every 2 years. The C-Check will require 10,000- 30,000 man hours to be performed (Department for Business Innovation & Skills, 2016). • The aircraft hangar shall have a clear span greater than the wingspan of a 747-400 Freighter, which is equal to 64.92 m (Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2002). • As per the 747-400 Airplane characteristics for airport planning guide (Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2002) defines, the following parameters must be adhered to: the total length of the hangar must exceed the maximum aircraft length of 68.63 m. The total internal height beneath overhead cranes and door must exceed the maximum tail height of the aircraft equal to 19.59 m.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 92 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
• The hangar must have a crane system capable of lifting the LauncherOne LV into position below the wing of the 747-400. • The hangar must also house several pieces of maintenance equipment that are necessary to carry out checks A and C. • The opening of the hangar must be large enough to encompass a 747-400 Freighter and a door to close off the building must also be present.
8.3.2.4. Hangar Detailed Design
By using the requirements listed above, an initial hangar blueprint can be created that follows each of the rules with regards to the sizing of the airplane. The floor plan in Figure 43 shows an internal roof span of 80 m and an overall building length of 88 m. The reason behind providing the 747-400 with an additional 10 m of clearance is so that its manoeuvrability is greater when attempting to enter and leave the hangar. The second reason for the large clearance, is to provide ample room for aircraft maintenance staff to be able to move around the aircraft efficiently without the risk of damaging the aircraft or the maintenance equipment, damaging the aircraft or the maintenance equipment.
Figure 43: Cosmic Girl aircraft hangar plan view (units in m).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 93 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
In Figure 43 and in Figure 44, the overhead crane is visible above the aircraft’s left wing. The crane rails span over the full thickness of the section of wing that they are positioned over, therefore providing plenty of manoeuvrability when mating LauncherOne to the wing. Figure 44 shows the internal and external heights of the hangar. The total internal height has been pushed to 23 m giving a ceiling to tail fin clearance of 3.41 m. This height clearance provides enough room for the tail fin to not only clear the roof, but also the overhead crane. Figure 44 also depicts two distinctive structural design ideas to combat the deflection that is likely occur in the roof due to the long span and the loading caused by the overhead crane.
Figure 44: Cosmic Girl aircraft hangar front elevation (units in m).
An N-Pratt roof truss was chosen as it provides the best transfer of uniform vertical loading to the supports. Furthermore, the distance between purlins has been set to 2 m as this means that any roof loads are spread more efficiently. The second structural design solution is to use truss columns in the place of solid steel columns as this removes the induced bending moment from the support columns, therefore helping to reduce the overall deflection of the roof. As a general rule, for a span this long, the maximum deflection should not exceed L/240, where L is the span (80 m).
8.3.2.5. Equipment, Staffing and Construction Cost
As with previously discussed launch infrastructure, the specific items of equipment that may be required for maintenance within the hangar is unknown. However, an estimation of the total price of maintenance equipment will be made, as shown in Table 25. In addition to this, the staff who will utilise this building for its intended purpose will be Virgin Orbit staff. The Virgin Orbit staff have the skills and knowledge with regards to maintaining Cosmic Girl and its modified wing, therefore it would be inappropriate to include those staff within this estimate of the Spaceport’s
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 94 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final staff and salaries, as shown in Table 26. Construction costs in Table 27 can be estimated through comparison of previously built 747-400 hangars.
Table 25: Cosmic Girl hangar equipment items and cost.
Item Estimated Quantity Total Estimated Cost / £ Overhead Crane 1 200,000 747-400 Maintenance 1 25,000 Access Equipment Total: 225,000
Table 26: Cosmic Girl hangar estimated staff numbers.
Role No. of Salary / £ Total Estimated Personnel Yearly Rate / £/yr Industrial Cleaner 20 10,000 200,000 Cleaning 2 24,000 48,000 Supervisor Security Guard 1 17,000 17,000 Total: 265,000
Table 27: Cosmic Girl hangar estimated construction costs.
Item Floor Area / m2 Rate / £/m2 Total Estimated Cost / £ Flooring 7,040 136 957,440 Fire Protection 7,040 29 204,160 Complex Steel 7,040 216 1,520,640 Frame Total: 2,682,240
8.3.3. Skylon Storage
As Skylon is still under development, it is very difficult to say what facilities and requirements a storage building would need to house it. However, to estimate a cost, it has been decided that due to their similar size, that Skylon would need to same facilities as Cosmic Girl. Therefore Table 25, Table 26 and Table 27 share the same estimated costs as Skylon would do.
9. Fuel Storage and Supply
The storage of LV propellants is an area that should be looked at in great detail, due to the dangerous nature of the chemicals that are used. Background information used to design the tanks and their systems was based primarily on existing spaceports and industrial providers since these tended to set the industry standard. The first part of the design phase was identifying the propellants that
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 95 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final would be kept on the site, and this was conducted based on the chosen LVs that the Dounreay Site is being designed to accommodate. The following table displays which propellants each vehicle requires for launch.
Table 28: Propellants required for each LV to launch.
Launch Vehicle Propellants Virgin Orbit Cosmic Girl 747 – Jet A-1 Fuel LauncherOne – LOx and RP-1 (Virgin Orbit, 2017) ALV Family LOx and Jet A-1 Fuel (Heliaq, 2017)
LN2
Skylon (Phase 3) LOx, LH2, LN2 and Liquid Helium (Reaction Engines Ltd , 2010)
As Table 28 shows, all of the vehicles that are to leave the Earth’s atmosphere use liquid oxygen (LOx) as an oxidiser, which allows for the combustion of the fuel in the vacuum of space. This is a commonly seen choice for spacecraft, but the fuel to be burnt is normally more varied. Normally, the deciding factor to do with the fuel choice is the specific impulse, which is defined as the total impulse per unit mass of propellant delivered (Farokhi, 2014). Different fuels have different specific impulses when burnt in the presence of oxygen, so this can influence the decision made.
Of the fuels listed in Table 28, LOx, LN2, LH2 and Liquid Helium are to be stored cryogenically, meaning they are to be kept at very low temperatures (between 5 and 125 K) to maintain the component in liquid form. A benefit of storing the propellants as liquids, rather than their natural gaseous forms, is to do with the density differences of the two phases and thus the amount of fuel that can be stored/carried. In the ALV and Skylon spacecraft, liquid nitrogen (LN2) is used to pressurise tanks and pipelines, and can also provide cooling to fuels stored in the LV to maintain their condition (Reaction Engines Ltd , 2010). Unlike the propellants previously mentioned, Jet A- 1 fuel and rocket propellant 1 (RP-1) exist in liquid form at atmospheric temperature and pressures, allowing for easier storage.
The following sections will provide a detailed design procedure for the LVs that will be in use during Phases 1 and 2, whilst some of the information will be transferrable to the Skylon spacecraft to be introduced in Phase 3.
9.1. Tank Design
The detailed tank designs will be completed in this section, splitting the cryogenic tank designs from the non-cryogenic ones. The safety systems for each type of tank will remain the same and
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 96 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final will be addressed in Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, with any propellant-specific details (unique materials, tank size, materials, etc.) being provided in Sections 9.1.1.1 and 9.1.2.1. Each of the propellants handled on the site pose some sort of explosive threat, which is why the safety of the systems are discussed in detail.
9.1.1. Cryogenic Tanks
The main difficulty with storing fluids at cryogenic temperatures is being able to maintain the low fluid temperatures. This means that the tanks are often multi-layered and heavily insulated between them. A potential danger of the fluid bulk warming is the evaporation and expansion of the material, which could cause a large increase in internal tank pressure. For example, the expansion ratio of oxygen from liquid form to gaseous is 1:861 (Air Products, 2017), so a small amount of boil-off from the liquid could result in a significant pressure increase. Initially, the only large cryogenic tanks to be installed on-site will contain only LOx. The ALV family of launchers do also require
LN2 for launch, however this is a relatively small volume that there will be no need for the erection of a dedicated tank system (Heliaq, 2017). The LN2 can be stored in portable storage dewars which can be delivered for each launch along with the delivery of LOx. In Phase 3 other cryogenic storage facilities will need be constructed to accommodate the Skylon spacecraft, however such services will not be considered in the costing procedure due to the uncertainty about the date of the LV being available.
The cryogenic tanks at the Dounreay Site will all be installed with matching safety systems to ensure the conditions are kept as required. The necessary precautions will be installed to enable the safe release of the contents, both for fuelling and venting purposes, and the general process flow diagram can be seen below.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 97 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 45: The standard process flow diagram for the storage of a cryogenic liquid.
The process diagram in Figure 45 is based off the one used by Linde (2017) and includes tank level and pressure indicators for monitoring. The dotted lines represent pipelines where the flowing fluid will be vapour, and the solid lines indicate liquid flow. The majority of large-scale liquid storage tanks on the Spaceport will have high internal pressures, so are spherically shaped – also called a Horton Sphere – due to the more even distribution of stresses on the drum surfaces. The manufacture of Horton Spheres proves to be much costlier to produce in comparison to cylindrical ones, but the added safety is deemed necessary (Towler & Sinnott, 2013). Both the inner and outer tank layers are fitted with sealed drains, which can be used in the event of scheduled maintenance, where the tanks can be completely emptied. All pipes on the system are to be vacuum jacketed lines in order to minimise the heat transfer that occurs, thus minimising boil-off of the fluid. As mentioned in Section 9.1.1, the tank should be heavily insulated to minimise vaporisation of the fluid increasing the pressure within the tank. A standard rate of boil-off is in the range of 0.4-3.0% of the fluid volume per day (Air Products, 2017), so the tank should be able to periodically vent these gases to maintain the desired operating pressure. The annular space between the two layers is intended to be maintained at a very low pressure, around 0.00005 bar, to reduce the thermal conductivity of material within the cavity. Although not shown in the figure, key features such as a manhole, access stairs and structural aids are to be included in latter design. The safety relief valves vent to the atmosphere, away from any sources of ignition. The valves are to be covered to stop any rainwater from coming into contact with them, as the water will freeze and jam the valve mechanism (Air Products, 2017).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 98 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
On the previous figure, some of the valves are in place to serve very particular and important jobs. V-111 is a no-return valve for, stopping any vapours that are taken off the product feed line from flowing back on itself. This is necessary as pressure differences could cause backwards flow meaning malfunctioning could occur during product use. The vapour passing through V-111 will then then enter V-112, which is a three-way valve. This valve splits any vapour and liquid entering it, where the exiting fluids can be controlled automatically through the employment of a pressure controller. The vapour leaving V-112 is returned to the tank inlet pipe which maintains the pressure within the tank. This feature is particularly useful when the product is being used and the overall tank pressure would therefore be decreasing. The liquid line leaving V-112 passes through a pressure building coil, which then circulates back into the liquid feed line. V-113 is a trycock valve, which is the only true indication of a full tank. It is to be opened during filling and when the desired tank capacity is reached, the fluid will overflow into the pipe and pass through the valve (Praxair Technology Inc., 2010). This is in place as a clear indication of the tank being at maximum capacity, but once the level has dropped the electronic level indicators will be used to provide the information.
9.1.1.1. Propellant Tank Details
As mentioned previously, this design will be solely covering the propellants that will be required for Phases 1 and 2 whilst giving brief mention to Phase 3 and the Skylon launch vehicle. It is because of this that the only cryogenic liquid that is to be considered in detail in this report is LOx, with the amount of LN2 needed being minimal. As stated by Heliaq Advanced Engineering (Heliaq, 2017), the volume of LOx per booster for an ALV-2 launch is 3.66 m3. Since it is intended that the ALV-3 LV will also be accommodated at the Spaceport, which is twice the scale of an ALV-2 booster, this volume can be upscaled by a factor of 8 to 29.28 m3 per booster. Depending on the desired payload for a mission up to six boosters can be utilised for a launch, meaning a total LOx volume of 175.68 m3 could be required. When the later stages of the launch vehicle are considered, with the associated fuel requirement for each, a total LOx tank volume of 250 m3 was chosen. Although exact figures of the fuel requirements for the upper stages are unknown, Heliaq themselves have stated that it is much less than what the boosters consume (Heliaq Advanced Engineering, n.d.). This volume is larger than the maximum required volume, which is provide excess propellant in the event of an unforeseen incident. The materials used in the construction of the LOx storage tank were decided based on the properties of the propellant, atmosphere and storage conditions. Some figures were obtained through calculations, which can be seen in Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply, whilst others were taken from reputable sources where the figure was deemed acceptable for design. An example of this is the use of perlite as an insulator in the annular space between the two tank layers. It is widely reported to be used in cryogenic applications, due to its exceptional thermal conductivity, k, at near-vacuum pressures so a small amount of research
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 99 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final proved this to be an acceptable material. At 498 K and in a vacuum, the thermal conductivity of 푊 perlite is 0.00137 which is over 17 times more effective than air at the same temperature (k = 푚 퐾 푊 0.024 ) (Ellenberger, 2010). The spherical tanks are to be mounted on 8 pre-formed concrete 푚 퐾 pillars that are capable of holding the complete mass. Table 29 below displays the chosen tank specifications.
Table 29: LOx tank system data.
Parameter Units Value Notes Liquid Volume m3 250 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Tank volume to hold 10% extra Temperature K 90 (Linde AG, 2017) Pressure bar 3 Inner Layer Material - Stainless (Sinnott, 2005) Steel 304 Thickness mm 14.3 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Internal Diameter m 8.06 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Outer Layer Material - Carbon Steel (Sinnott, 2005) Thickness mm 9.71 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Internal Diameter m 8.37 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Cavity Insulation Insulation Material - Perlite (Mokhatab, et al., 2014) Insulation Thickness mm 140 Pressure bar 0.05 (Linde AG, 2017) Pump Entry Pressure bar 3 Exit Pressure bar 5.5 (Heliaq, 2017) Material - Stainless (Sinnott, 2005) Steel 304 Power kW 11.15 Calculation appendix Pump type - Single stage (Sinnott, 2005) Pump speed RPM 3500 (Sinnott, 2005) Pumping time (Estimated) Hours 1.5 Per ALV-2 launch Hours 0.5 Per Virgin Orbit launch
For the case of the ALV family the desired LOx pressure is 0.55 MPa, or 5.5 bar, so it is significantly higher than the storage pressure, as defined in Table 29. Upon leaving the main storage tank, the propellant will enter a vacuum-jacketed pipe – much like the tank itself – where the flow is passed through a centrifugal pump. The pump will increase the pressure of the liquid to the desired amount before depositing it within the launch vehicle’s fuel tank. The pump that is used in this system is to have a backup in the event of an unforeseen incident or if maintenance is required.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 100 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The reason a dedicated liquid nitrogen tank is not going to be erected is due to the comparatively small amount required for launch. As stated by Heliaq (2017), only 98 kg of LN2 is required per booster for an ALV-2 launch. Assuming a maximum of six boosters are utilised, a total requirement of 588 kg is required. However, since liquid nitrogen at its boiling point possess a density of 808.5 kg m-3 (Kutz, 2016) (Air Products, 2015), the total requirement amounts to 0.727 m3. Even for the
3 ALV-3 launch vehicle, the respective LN2 volume is 5.82 m . Constructing a tank for a volume so low is not deemed economically worthwhile, when some chemical companies can provide canisters of similar volumes relatively easily and cheaply.
9.1.2. Non-Cryogenic Tanks
The regular, non-cryogenic tanks that have been designed for the Spaceport all follow the same principles, owing to the similarities in propellants being stored. Both Jet A-1 fuel and RP-1 are stable at atmospheric conditions, which allows for easier and cheaper storage solutions. The tanks being designed for this use are to be horizontal cylindrical tanks, with two layers to accommodate for any leakages or spillages within the inner vessel. Figure 46 shows a generalised process layout for this type of tank, complete with safety release valves and level and flow indicators to ensure the desired conditions are maintained.
Figure 46: The general process flow diagram for non-cryogenic tanks.
An electronic level controller is installed onto the inner tank, which will automatically close a valve, V-201, should the liquid level reach the maximum specified amount. This would also sound an alarm and stop any more propellant from being loaded into the vessel. The fuel is to be delivered into the tank through a designated filling hydrant away from the fuel tanks. There is also a flow indicator on the exit pipe to ensure the required volume of propellant is being loaded into the launch
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 101 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final vehicle which can automatically adjust a valve, V-202, to keep it at the correct level. Valves V-204 to V-206 are installed as safety release valves over both tank layers which will automatically open, venting any gases should there be an unexpected build-up in pressure. In a similar way to the cryogenic tanks previously discussed there is a trycock valve installed to provide a definitive indication of the tank being too full. The label “Fuel to LV” indicates a hydrant that is built into the ground near to where fuelling will occur. Rather than including an in-built pump into the tank system, in this case a fuelling lorry – complete with connecting hose and pump – will be used to transfer the fluid. Due to the vertical displacement between the tanker and storage vessel, the gravitational potential energy will be high enough to remove the need for an external pump. This feature is regularly seen in large airports where the majority of the propellant is stored in underground tanks. The non-cryogenic fuel tanks are to be raised slightly off the ground, using pre- formed concrete legs, which will allow for piping to exit the bottom of the tank. This access will also be useful for maintenance.
9.1.2.1. Propellant Tank Details
The main difference in tanks when changing propellant in this case is primarily to do with the volume of each vessel. RP-1 is used in much smaller quantities than Jet A-1 fuel, as only the LauncherOne spacecraft requires it. Jet A-1 fuel, however, is required in a vastly larger quantity since not only the ALV craft require it, but so does the 747 associated with the Virgin Orbit scheme.
In the case of RP-1, where the quantity to be stored is lower, only one tank will be required to provide the storage needs, this tank will have the specifications shown in Table 30. Jet A-1 fuel, however, will be stored in three 150 m3 tanks, 80% full, to give a normal storage capacity of 360 m3 of the propellant, the specifications of these tanks can be found in Table 31. These three tanks will be above ground and will be connected in series to the same pump to distribute around the site, as needed. The reason for designing the tanks like this is down to cost, a much larger tank will require extra structural support with higher fabrication costs. An extra benefit in having more – but smaller – tanks, is that maintenance can be conducted on one of them, whilst the others remain fully operational, thus allowing for constant use of the Spaceport rather than ceasing operations.
All tanks will have a manhole installed, providing access to the tank interior for desired maintenance. Unlike the LOx tanks, no insulation is required on the tank or in the piping, resulting in a cost saving in comparison. The pipelines that lead to the Virgin Orbit LVs will go underground, where attached to a 2-1/2 in. diameter hydrant built into the ground, much like at large commercial airports. From the hydrants, lorries with a built-in pump and connecting hose are used to provide
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 102 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final the LV with the required amount of propellant. The pipelines will require human access, and so will not be covered by concrete, instead a series of cast-iron manhole covers.
Table 30 RP-1 tank system data
Parameter Units Value Notes Liquid Volume m3 45 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Tank volume to hold 10% extra Temperature K Atmospheric Pressure bar Atmospheric Inner Layer Material - Stainless Steel Type (Sinnott, 2005) 304 Thickness mm 15.9 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Internal Diameter m 2.77 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Internal Length m 8.31 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Outer Layer Material - Mild Carbon Steel (Sinnott, 2005) Thickness mm 9.15 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply External Diameter m 3.07 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Length m 8.61 Cavity Insulation Material - N/A Cavity Thickness mm 125 Pressure bar Atmospheric Pump Entry Pressure bar Atmospheric Exit Pressure bar 5.5 Material - Stainless Steel Type (Sinnott, 2005) 304 Power kW 20.12 Calculation appendix Pump type - Single stage (Sinnott, 2005) Pump speed RPM 3,500 (Sinnott, 2005) Pumping time Hours 0.5 Per Virgin Orbit launch (Estimated)
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 103 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 31 Jet A-1 fuel tank system data
Parameter Units Value Notes Liquid Volume m3 120 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Tank volume to hold 10% extra Temperature K Atmospheric Pressure bar Atmospheric Inner Layer Material - Stainless Steel Type (Sinnott, 2005) 304 Thickness mm 11.1 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Internal Diameter m 3.5 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Internal Length m 15.6 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply Outer Layer Material - Mild Carbon Steel (Sinnott, 2005) Thickness mm 9.15 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply External Diameter m 3.80 Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply External Length m 15.90 Cavity Insulation Material - N/A Cavity Thickness mm 125 Pressure bar Atmospheric Pump Entry Pressure bar Atmospheric Exit Pressure bar 3.45 – 5.5 (Heliaq, 2017) (Ayson, et al., 1970) Material - Stainless Steel Type (Sinnott, 2005) 304 Power kW 27.31 Calculation appendix Pump type - Single stage (Sinnott, 2005) Pump speed RPM 3500 (Sinnott, 2005) Pumping time Hours 1 Per ALV-2 launch (Estimated) Hours 2 Per Virgin Orbit launch
The materials to be used in the tanks are similar throughout the components, due to the similar nature in propellant properties. Using Stainless Steel type 304 (type 801B as defined in BS 1501) for the inner layers and pumps in these systems provides a high tensile strength, whilst also being corrosion resistant from the stored liquids. Since the operating conditions of all non-cryogenic tanks are atmospheric, there is less of a worry for corrosion of the metal (Sinnott, 2005). The cost of stainless steel 304 is mid-range – more than carbon steel but less than more specialist metals like
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 104 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final monel or nickel – but the high design stress (164 N/mm2) proves it to be a worthwhile choice. The pumps and piping are also to be made of this material, to ensure there is no corrosion when mass is transferred. It would be cheaper to construct a single-layered tank, with dykes or burms used to contain any spilled liquid. However, the explosive nature of the chemicals means the added cost to completely enclose any spillage is worthwhile in this scenario. The outer tank layers are to be fabricated from mild carbon steel, a cheaper alternative to serve as a cover for the inner layer. On top of the good price, other favourable properties of mild steel include good tensile strength and ductility, whilst also being widely available (Sinnott, 2005). The outer membrane is to serve as a casing for the inner one, providing protection from the weather and containment should there be a leak. In these cases, since the tanks are to be operated at atmospheric conditions, there is no need for any cavity insulation.
In Table 31, a range for the pump power was calculated. This is since different launch vehicles require the fuel to enter their tanks at different pressures. The ALV family, as previously mentioned, have the propellant enter at 5.5 bar, whereas the Boeing 747 operated by Virgin Orbit has a fuel pressure of 3.45 bar (50 psig) at the inlet nozzle (Ayson, et al., 1970). The pumping rate to all launch vehicles is to be 100 m3 per hour, except in the case for the 747 where a total of 270 m3 per hour of Jet A-1 fuel will be pumped through two nozzles.
9.2. Tank Safety
Due to the hazardous nature of the propellants that are to be contained at the Dounreay Site, it is necessary to conduct a detailed study on the safety of the designed tanks and their features. Aspects of this section are to be used in both the preliminary design aspect as well as the physical construction of the Spaceport. The aim of this design stage is to incorporate inherent safety features that comply with legislation and standards to ensure all major dangers have been considered.
9.2.1. Physical Safety
Although preventative measures can be taken to minimise the risk of an incident, it is necessary to still implement physical features into the design scheme to be able to deal with such situations. On the process diagrams in Sections 9.1.1 and 9.1.2, examples of physical safety such as pressure relief valves and control systems have already been built in to the design. Other examples that have not been shown on the aforementioned figures will be discussed in this section, with reasoning as to why they are important.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 105 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
All of the tanks in use are bunded, by having an external layer to enclose any fluids should the primary tank leak. In the case of the cryogenic tanks, the cavity between the two layers is also filled with insulation, minimising losses from the tank and its system. For the LOx tanks particularly, pressure build up is an area for concern. API14C is a code of practice relating to the safety devices necessary on oil and gas production platforms, however some of the practices can be applicable to this site as well. The code requires a properly designed control system, with two extra independent safety devices that provide double the protection should there be multiple failures. For example, a spring-loaded pressure relief valve can be the first line of protection which will open when the internal pressure gets too high. Following this, a bursting disk will be the second and last precautionary measure which will rupture a metal disk if the internal and external pressure difference is exceeded, allowing for a free flow of the vapours to the atmosphere. This is a measure that will require the drainage of the tank to allow for a new rupture disk to be fitted.
All necessary personal safety equipment and signage will need to be factored in to the general design considerations, as per HSE’s Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) regulation (Health and Safety Executive, 2013). For processes that will occur at the Spaceport, some necessary measures will need to be adhered to in order to satisfy the regulation. Eye and skin protection is required in areas where contact with chemicals may occur. Head wear should be worn around all tanks in the case of falling objects or to minimise the outcomes of a head impact. Bodily protection in the form of overalls or boiler suits may be needed for tank maintenance and appropriate footwear should be worn around the tanks to prevent injury. The relevant signage should be installed in the areas where specific PPE is required and staff should be adequately trained in the use of PPE.
Although not directly related to the operation of the tank systems, the foundations for the tanks need to be able to withstand the forces exerted by the mass of the (full) tanks. The normal storage mass of liquid oxygen will exceed 285 tonnes which, when combined with the mass of the tank itself, will produce large amounts of stress on the ground.
9.2.2. Hazard and Operability Study
In the case of large-scale process designs, an important area of the project safety is the Hazard and Operability study, or HAZOP. It is a qualitative method of identifying any process risks to equipment or personnel. Typically, the whole process is broken down and each line is looked at in detail. The HAZOP study does not solely focus on dangerous substances or explosion risk, it is more focused around the conditions within the system and what could happen if a condition exceeds an extreme level. In the case of this project, parameters that could be investigated include: flow, pressure, temperature, leakage and venting.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 106 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
For the scenarios that would be found at the Spaceport, all propellant flows will be induced by pumps, rather than pressure drops, suggesting that little action needs to be taken to minimise any irregularities. However, it may be necessary to install a low-level alarm on the tanks which would indicate to the operator of such an incident occurring. Bypass piping could also be integrated into the system to ensure operations can continue in the event of a primary valve failing via manual override. An example process line displaying this can be seen in Figure 47 below.
Figure 47: An example of a manual override system.
The manual override system displayed could be utilised if the primary valve develops an issue. The two valves either side could be closed, with the one on the diversion to be opened. This would divert flow away from the valve requiring maintenance, which could then be removed or fixed. A lack of flow could indicate that a control valve on the system is faulty, which would have to be manually checked.
One major parameter to be investigated should be any fluid losses through leakages. Of course, in the case of liquid oxygen, some losses are expected through boil off, but in the non-cryogenic tanks this should not happen. Any potential leakage through unsealed flanges or cracked/burst piping could result in a potential fire hazard due to the explosive nature of the materials. This calls for the adequate measures to be implemented to avoid any risk of disaster. Such measures include the installation of flow indicators on lengthy pipelines to ensure mass flow is constant. If flow downstream is decreasing below the upstream flow, a valve will automatically close as this would be an indication of a leak somewhere along the line. The correct selection of corrosion-resistant materials is imperative here to factor out corrosion as a possible cause for leakages. Of course, prevention is not 100% achievable, so the necessary measures are to be put in place to safely deal with any leakage. A bund is to be fitted under all pipelines, with adequate drainage capabilities. Equipment that could cause a spark is not to be used in the vicinity of the tanks and their systems and easy access to all piping is recommended.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 107 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Other cases to be examined for the propellant storage tanks would most likely be related to the vessel and liquid pressure, as this would be the greatest indication of there being an issue. Ideally, there is no heat transfer occurring, so the temperature parameter should vary minimally.
9.2.3. Dow Fire and Explosion Index
The Dow Fire and Explosion Index (F&EI), as published by the American Institute of Chemical Engineering, can be used to evaluate the potential risks of a chemical plant in the design phase and the data calculated can also be used to identify which areas pose the highest risk (Dow Chemical Company, 1994). The calculation procedure produces a final range of risk, as can be seen in the Table 32, which is a systematic method for classifying the dangers of each process operation.
Table 32: Assessment of hazard, adapted from the Dow F&EI guide (1994).
F&EI Range Degree of Hazard 1-60 Light 61-96 Moderate 97-127 Intermediate 128-158 Heavy >159 Severe
In the case of the Spaceport, conducting the F&EI procedure was relatively simple. This is since each of the propellant storage tanks are separated and there is never a mix of chemicals on-site. Rather than calculating the index based on the most prominent component in a mixture, it was possible to do so on a basis only relating to the propellant itself and the mass stored. Of the three propellant storage systems looked at in detail, only the Jet A-1 fuel and RP-1 needed to be considered for the Fire and Explosion index, since liquid oxygen itself cannot explode – although it can aid an explosion. This is not to say that LOx is completely safe, but in this case, it does not need to be considered. Table 33 displays the calculated values for the F&EI of the two propellants, with approximate radii of exposure noted for each.
Table 33: Calculated F&EI index values with their corresponding hazard degree and radius of exposure.
Component Fire and Degree of Radius of Explosion Index Hazard exposure / m RP-1 84.60 Moderate 21.66 Jet A-1 Fuel 91.20 Moderate 23.35
As the table shows, both tank types pose relatively little threat which is likely down to the nature of the processes. Often, complex reactors at high temperatures are the sorts of equipment that will give rise to heavy or severe risk indices. The primary danger associated with storage tanks is the
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 108 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final large volume that is contained which, when coupled with a potentially toxic chemical, can lead to larger increases of the F&EI. For the case of Jet A-1 fuel, the use of multiple storage tanks helps to reduce the index value, as a smaller mass will be stored in each tank, minimising the penalty for this in the calculation procedure.
The radius of exposure is an estimated value for how far an explosion could reach from one of the units, resulting in damage to anything within that area. The most important factor in determining the layout of the propellant tanks is therefore the relative location with respect to the other storage tanks. Should one tank explode, the worst-case scenario would result in damage to an adjacent tank, causing another explosion. For this reason, the radius of exposure will be used as the absolute minimum distance between any propellant tanks, with additional space provided to ensure this instance will not happen.
9.2.4. Control of Major Accident Hazards
The Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH) is a regulation set by the UK government with the following intentions:
“Take all necessary measures to prevent major accidents involving dangerous substances. To limit the consequences to people and the environment of any major accidents which do occur." (Health and Safety Executive)
This regulation followed information provided by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) to identify the classification of the site, based on the masses of propellants stored. Data was provided by the government in the Schedule 1 document for COMAH, which allowed for the calculation of this classification. The data included upper and lower tier requirements in tonnes for each dangerous substance, which could then be utilised to calculate the overall tier for the site. Table 34 shows the upper and lower bounds, and the corresponding on-site mass for each of the three propellants.
Table 34: Actual mass compared to the upper and lower tier requirements for each propellant.
Propellant Actual Stored Lower Tier Upper Tier Mass / tonnes Requirements / tonnes Requirements / tonnes LOx 285.25 200 2,000 RP-1 37.4 2,500 25,000 Jet A-1 302.4 2,500 25,000
Therefore, as shown by the calculation Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply, the site can be classified as a lower tier site. The calculation procedure used values for normal operation, so there
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 109 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final could be instances where more propellants are accounted for, but there is not enough tank capacity available to push the site into the upper tier.
By being a lower tier site, fewer rigorous procedures need to be followed in the design, construction and operation phases of the project. A Major Accident Prevention Policy (MAPP) is required for all COMAH-operated sites, but in the case of the Dounreay facility this can just be a standalone document. This document, along with a hazardous substances consent and planning permissions sheet is usually a sufficient amount of information, without the addition need for a specific site report. The documents to be submitted all serve specific purposes and intend to cover all possibilities of incidents that may occur. The risk to human or environmental danger must be minimised and a competent display of this is required. Regular inspections and maintenance should also be considered to preserve the longevity of the project (COMAH Competent Authority, 2013).
An additional feature of COMAH, is the area classification of the regions around the tanks based on where explosive atmospheres may occur. The standard in the United Kingdom that describes the zoning is BS EN 60079-10, which includes special precautionary measures relating to the construction and use of the apparatus. This classification can also be used in the design phase, where the identification of suitable safe zones around the storage equipment should be kept. The hazardous areas are classified as zones, based on the likelihood of the atmosphere containing explosive gas, ranging from zone 0 – where an explosive gas atmosphere is continuously or often present – to zone 2 – where it is unlikely for an explosive atmosphere to occur during normal operation and, if it does, will only occur for a limited time. Certain pieces of equipment will not be allowed in particular zones, due to the likelihood of ignition is high (British Standards Institute, 2016).
9.3. Costing
9.3.1. Capital Cost
To estimate the capital cost of the fuel storage facilities, the factorial method was utilised. Both direct and indirect costs were incorporated in the method used. Using the estimated sizes of the equipment to be installed, the initial cost estimation could be calculated by referring to cost curves for each equipment type (Gerrard, 2000). From this reference, it was also possible to obtain a purchase cost for all pieces of equipment, these are shown in Table 35. For the spherical storage tanks, it was necessary to calculate the mass of the metal required to fabricate each layer of the tank to obtain this value. This was done by using the wall thickness to compute the total metal volume required, before multiplying this figure by the mass of the material. There is the possibility of
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 110 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final encountering errors in this method, since the extrapolation of log-log graphs was required in some cases. A small mistake in doing this could result in an error a factor of 10 out.
Table 35 Calculated purchase costs for each equipment type.
Description Design Parameter Cost Defining Parameter Purchase Type Tanks Internal Dimensions Total Volume / Cost / £ / m m3 LOx Tank 8.06 Diameter Spherical 275 242,000 RP-1 Tank 8.31 x 2.77 Horizontal Cylindrical 50 39,000 Jet A-1 Fuel 15.6 x 3.5 Horizontal Cylindrical 150 74,000 Tank Pumps Power / kW LOx Pump Centrifugal 11.15 10,000 RP-1 Pump Centrifugal 20.12 16,000 Jet A-1 Fuel Centrifugal 24.51 – 27.31 19,000 Pump
The value for the tank volume used was the maximum volume, rather than the specified operational liquid volume. The purchase costs for the tanks include the estimation for all layers. Lang sub-factors, f, were then introduced (Lang, 1947) taking into account all the direct costs as a result of construction, which could then be used to produce an individual Lang factor, F, of each equipment type. The equation for the Lang factor calculation can be seen as follows:
퐹 = (1 + 푓푝)푓푚 + 푓푒푟 + 푓푖 + 푓푒푙 + 푓푐 + 푓푠푏 + 푓푙
푓푝 = 푃𝑖푝𝑖푛푔 퐿푎푛푔 퐹푎푐푡표푟 푓푒푙 = 퐸푙푒푐푡푟𝑖푐푎푙 퐿푎푛푔 퐹푎푐푡표푟
푓푚 = 푀푎푡푒푟𝑖푎푙 퐿푎푛푔 퐹푎푐푡표푟 푓푐 = 퐶𝑖푣𝑖푙 퐿푎푛푔 퐹푎푐푡표푟
푓푒푟 = 퐸푟푒푐푡𝑖표푛 퐿푎푛푔 퐹푎푐푡표푟 푓푠푏 = 푆푡푟푢푐푡푢푟푒푠 푎푛푑 퐵푢𝑖푙푑𝑖푛푔푠 퐿푎푛푔 퐹푎푐푡표푟
푓푖 = 퐼푛푠푡푟푢푚푒푛푡 퐿푎푛푔 퐹푎푐푡표푟 푓푙 = 퐿푎푔푔𝑖푛푔 퐿푎푛푔 퐹푎푐푡표푟
Gerrard (2000) provided data relating to the installation sub-factors which could produce a more accurate estimation to be computed, since the equipment costs could be multiplied by their individual Lang factors. In some cases, the individual Lang factors had to be chosen based on the system components and conditions. For example, for the LOx system, the piping and lagging Lang factors would be different to that of the RP-1 values, due to the different temperatures of the fluids in question. These changes can be seen in Table 36 along with the total Lang factor used for each piece of equipment.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 111 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 36: Sub-Lang factors and the calculated total Lang factor for the materials used in the design (Lang, 1947).
Equipment Material fm fer fp fi fel fc fsb fl F Name LOx Pump RP-1 Pump Jet A-1 Pump 304 Stainless 1.30 0.04 0.40 0.22 0.03 0.31 0.10 0.04 2.56 RP-1 Tank Steel Jet A-1 Tank LOx Tank 1.30 0.20 0.50 0.22 0.03 0.31 0.10 0.10 2.91 LOx Outer Carbon Steel 1.00 0.60 0.66 0.34 0.06 0.50 0.14 0.10 3.40 RP-1 Outer 1.00 0.04 0.40 0.22 0.03 0.31 0.10 0.04 2.14 Mild Steel Jet A-1 Outer
The purchase costs shown in Table 35 were then multiplied by the relevant Lang factors for each material and the quantity of each item of equipment, giving the total installed cost. The data used to calculate this value was based on figures from the year 2000, so a conversion (roughly 1.417) of this estimated value was also factored in with data provided by the Chemical Plant Cost Index (Vatavuk, 2002). The finalised capital cost estimation for this part of the facility can be seen in Table 37 below.
Table 37: Capital cost calculations for the propellant storage tanks.
Purchase Installed Installed Equipment Cost for 2000 Quantity Equipment Cost Equipment Cost / £ per item for 2000 / £ for 2017 / £ LOx Tank 242,000 2 1,477,000 2,093,000 RP-1 Tank 39,000 1 96,300 136,400 Jet A-1 74,000 3 540,600 766,100 Fuel Tank LOx Pump 10,000 4 102,400 145,100 RP-1 Pump 16,000 2 81,300 116,100 Jet A-1 19,000 2 97,300 137,900 Fuel Pump Estimated Total: 2,394,900 3,394,600
The cost estimate is based on the project still being in the 2nd stage of design, where the initial ideas proposed are developed from the recommendations from the Inception Report. At this stage, the cost estimation is in the area between classes 4 and 3, where semi-detailed unit costs are being calculated for the feasibility study of the Spaceport. The expected accuracy range of the costing is therefore in the range of -15% to +50% (AACE International, 2011).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 112 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 9.3.2. Operational Cost
The key operational costs associated with this aspect of the Spaceport are the costs to buy the fuels. The required pump duty is also important in this aspect, but will be covered in Section 10, alongside the rest of the electrical needs. There is a large dependence on market fluctuations and for this reason the figures in Table 38 are estimated and are subject to change.
Table 38: Calculated costs to buy the standard propellant quantities.
Chemical Price / Tank volume Total Notes £/litre / litre Cost / £ Liquid 0.85 500,000 £425,000 Data Provided by BOC on Oxygen 02/01/18 Liquid 0.226 727 £165 BOC prices on Nitrogen 01/03/2013 Jet A-1 0.293 360,000 £105,300 (Index Mundi, 2017) Fuel RP-1 1.523 45,000 £68,535 (Aerospace Energy, 2017)
The price per litre of RP-1 is significantly greater than the other propellants, which could largely be down to the relative obscurity of it. The other propellants are all produced at a greater scale and are therefore more accessible. The costs associated with each propellant type are assuming the tanks are to be filled from empty to the standard desired amount, so the expected running costs are lower than those in the table. The capacities were chosen to provide extra propellants, so the actual operation costs will be less than this. For example, for a launch of the ALV-2 with six boosters, roughly 175,000 litres of LOx and 95,000 litres of Jet A-1 fuel are required. The estimated cost per launch, assuming all tanks are filled and emptied completely, of the Phase 1 LVs can be seen in Table 39 below.
Table 39: Calculated cost of propellants per launch for Phase 1 LVs.
Launch Vehicle Fuel Volume / litres Cost / £ Jet A-1 184,000 53,910 RP-1 20,000* 30,460 Virgin Orbit LOx 27,500* 23,380 Total: 77,450 Jet A-1 95,000 27,835 LOx 176,000 149,600 ALV-2 (6 boosters) LN2 727 165 Total: 177,600 * Estimated
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 113 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 9.4. Tank Layout
The tanks should be placed appropriately on the Spaceport where the risk of fire or explosion is minimised. As discussed in Section 9.2.3, the two fuel tanks both pose a moderate risk of an incident occurring, with an estimated radius of explosion exposure of 21.66 m and 23.35 m for the RP-1 and Jet A-1 fuels respectively. Therefore, these tanks will be placed such that this radius of expose will not impact on any other facilities, whilst also ensuring they are away from any potential sources of ignition. All of the propellant tanks, especially those serving the launch pad(s), are to be positioned downwind of the pad, so if a tank is to leak, the vapours will be transported with the wind away from the launch pad. A distance of roughly 150-200 m from the launch pad is decided upon to provide a suitable distance, such that there will be no increased risk of explosion at the pad itself or the tank.
The location of the tanks can be seen on the overall schematic diagram for the Dounreay Site, with the major safety aspects previously discussed being used to identify a suitable position for each.
9.5. Obtaining Fuels
An issue with the location of the Spaceport is the distance it lies from major chemical terminals, which makes sourcing the propellants more difficult – especially in winter months. The cryogenic liquids are to be sourced from specialist chemical companies who will produce and deliver the propellants in tanker lorries. Several such companies exist in the United Kingdom, with Air Products, BOC and CryoService. The pricing for the cryogenics were sourced from BOC, who deliver every day of the year from only 36 hours of order notice. They also provide a tank maintenance service, adhering to all relevant safety regulations. The tankers providing the LOx will be able to drive straight up to the storage vessel, and discharge the fluids from one to another. A potential issue with sourcing the propellants in this way is the lack of accessibility in the winter months, should the conditions be too dangerous. This could eventually lead to the tanks being too empty for launch, which is why the designed capacities were much greater than the propellant required for one launch. In doing this, the tanks can be topped up to the maximum capacity if bad weather is forecast or delivery at a later date is looking unlikely.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 114 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 48: An example of the type of lorry used to deliver non-cryogenic propellants (Lommer, 2005).
The non-cryogenic propellants are to be sourced in a similar way, most likely by a tanker lorry. An issue with this, when referring to the Jet A-1 fuel, is the sheer volume of fuel required in comparison to the capacity of a tanker. The Jet A-1 tanks at the Spaceport are designed to hold 360 m3 of fluid in total and a large chemical tanker has a volume of around 40 m3, meaning around 9 tankers would be required to completely fill the vessels. Again, like previously mentioned, the total volume exceeds the demand, so extra fuel can be kept on-site to reduce the need for deliveries. Several large oil companies that provide Jet A-1 fuel, such as ExxonMobil, Shell or BP, operate in Scotland, providing a relatively short distance from the refinery to the Spaceport. RP-1 is a refined form of kerosene, also commonly produced by similar oil companies. Required in much smaller quantities, RP-1 can also be brought to the site by tanker, with only one journey necessary to fill the majority of the container.
The port by the Thurso Site could be altered to accommodate small tankers bringing the propellants in by boat. However, an issue with this is from the port, the fuels will still have to be transported by some means to the Dounreay Site several kilometres away. It would be possible to install a short pipeline linking the two sites, but this would come at great cost. One mile of pipeline could cost several hundred thousand pounds, and different pipelines would be needed for each propellant type, so this does not seem like an economically favourable way to source fuels. If the Spaceport were to get into Phase 3 of the project, then the addition rail link could be used to transport the propellants. Aside from the initial cost of altering the railway, the operational costs would most likely decrease by using this method, since all of the propellants could be transported in one go. The rail link would
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 115 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final be less dependent on the weather, compared to using the road, which is an additional benefit of this idea.
9.6. Future Considerations
Some of the future considerations relating to this section have been identified in their relevant sections, so this section will briefly discuss what changes may occur during the transition from Phase 2 to 3.
The main change will be the addition of the Skylon LV, which requires different propellants and thus, the installation of further storage. LOx and LN2 storage facilities will already be available, however, due to the size of the Skylon spacecraft, will be required in larger quantities than what would be available from the previous Phases. In addition, LH2 is to be the main fuel to be combusted meaning a new storage system will need to also be installed. Like LOx, the liquid hydrogen is a cryogenic fluid and therefore the storage vessel could be similar to the existing cryogenic tanks.
Depending on the Spaceport success, the alteration of the existing railway line was discussed, which would connect the line between the Thurso and Dounreay Sites with the mainline entering Thurso itself. This would open up the possibility of having the propellants arrive by rail to the Dounreay Site and therefore take some pressure off the lorries that are required to deliver the propellants in earlier Phases.
10. Utilities
The sourcing of utilities for the Spaceport is a topic that requires attention, as the choices made regarding this must be in line with the overall ethos of the Spaceport project. This section will cover the sourcing and distribution of numerous utilities, including power, water and waste.
10.1. Power
The following section will cover various options regarding the sourcing of power to be used at the Spaceport sites, the distribution networks that would be required, and the possibility of redistributing power back into the grid when an excess is produced. The recommendations made in this section will be mainly based on the economic viability and sustainability of various sources of power, as well as the feasibility and likelihood of success of any potential options.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 116 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
From the estimations made of the number of staff and additional residents, as well as the activities performed at the Spaceport, an estimation for the average peak daily usage of both sites has been made, using the calculations detailed in Appendix E. The estimations can be seen below in Table 40
Table 40: Power estimations.
Building/Component Peak Power Peak Daily Energy Estimated Annual Usage / kW Usage / kWh Energy Usage / MWh ALV2 38.5 44.0 1.5 Virgin Orbit 58.6 70.3 0.8 Runway 120.3 2887.2 1053.8 LCT 12.7 243.8 63.4 MSCC 64.3 1404.7 365.2 Thurso Site Offices 138.5 2769.2 720.0 Thurso Site Canteen 30.0 300.0 78.0 and Education Zone Housing Development 42.6 1022.9 373.7 Shipping and 89.0 1262.2 328.2 Receiving Thurso Facilities 48.0 576.0 149.8 Management and Medical Centre PPF 12.8 307.9 112.4 LVA 8.9 212.3 77.5 LVS 58.8 941.4 343.6 Mass Transit System 370.4 1296.4 337.1 Total: 1095.9 13397.8 4004.7
10.1.1. Power Supply
When investigating the sourcing of power for the Spaceport, various factors must be taken into consideration. Firstly, as is a key factor in the design and construction of the Spaceport, any chosen power sources must provide sustainability to the project. Sustainable energy; renewable energy and energy efficiency being its two main components, can be described as energy that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs (Lemaire, 2010). Secondly, for a power source that is deemed suitable, it must be financially viable, not only in the present day, but also in future times, ensuring the sustainability of the source.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 117 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 10.1.1.1. Renewable
One of the key factors that makes an energy source sustainable is whether it is renewable or not. The Scottish government have set a target for renewable sources to generate the equivalent of 100 percent of Scotland’s gross annual electricity consumption by the year 2020 (Scottish Government, 2017). The target set by the Scottish Government makes it apparent just how important it is for any electricity supplied to the Spaceport to have come from a renewable source. Thus, non-renewable energy will not be considered as a potential source for the power supply to the Spaceport.
In addition to the target set by the Scottish Government, it can be observed across the globe that other spaceports are opting to utilise renewable energy for power generation, as evidenced by the use of solar power plants to provide power to both Kennedy Space Centre and Vandenberg Air Force Base (Beutel & Anderson, 2010), (Volio, 2017), taking advantage of the climate and typical weather conditions within southern parts of the US, with average temperatures in Florida above 20°C for the majority of the year (The Weather Channel, 2018). The high levels of sunshine make solar power an ideal method of renewable energy generation. The 10 MW solar array project at Kennedy Space Centre not only provides power to the space centre, but also to more than 1,000 homes (Beutel & Anderson, 2010), demonstrating how an excess in power can be redistributed to the grid. This will be covered in more detail in Section 10.1.3.
10.1.1.1.1. Tidal
As mentioned in Section 10.1.1.1, solar power plants have been installed to provide electricity to both Vandenberg Air Force Base and Kennedy Space Centre. Solar power however, would not be a viable option for the sourcing of power at the Spaceport sites on the North coast of Scotland. One average the weather is overcast for seventeen days a month in Dounreay (Meteoblue, 2018), and as a result, different forms of renewable energy must be considered.
One possible option, is using tidal power as a source. Tidal power, different from wave power, harnesses the kinetic energy of moving water in tidal flows, to power a turbine, an example of which is shown in Figure 49, that is mounted to the seabed (Greenpeace, 2018). In the Pentland Firth, the strait above Thurso that separates the Orkney islands from the UK mainland, there is already in place an 86 MW tidal power plant, which when fully constructed, will have a capacity of almost 400 MW (Power Technology, 2016). It has been estimated that up to 1.9 GW of tidal power could be harvested from the Pentland Firth (The University of Edinburgh, 2016), highlighting the potential of tidal power, especially in the north of Scotland.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 118 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 49: Example of a turbine used to harvest tidal energy (Power Technology, 2016).
One major downside to the use of tidal power however, is its relatively high cost, not only to conventional power generation methods, but also to other renewable energy methods. In 2012, it was reported that tidal energy cost as must as £325 per MWh to be generated, with estimates stating that through high levels of research and development, the cost of tidal power could fall to £80 per MWh by 2050 (Chestney, 2012).
10.1.1.1.2. Wind
A further source of renewable power is through the harvesting of the wind’s energy. Average wind speeds of greater than 9 ms-1 (Nordex, 2014) give rise to the possibility of employing wind turbines as a form of energy generation. The presence of Forss Wind Farm (Renewable Energy Systems, 2018) and Baillie Wind Farm (Statkraft, 2016), already mentioned in Section 5.1.4, are existing wind farms that are located within 10 km of the Dounreay and Thurso Spaceport sites. Due to the Spaceport’s close proximity to the sea, both onshore and offshore wind power should be considered.
On-shore wind turbines, perhaps the more conventional of the two, are in use all over the globe. Within the UK itself, there are currently almost 7,000 wind turbines, with a power generation capacity of almost 12 GW (Renewable UK, 2018). Off-shore wind is a newer form of power generation, with the world’s first off-shore wind farm becoming operational in 1991, being operated by Denmark (Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 2010). There are fewer off-shore wind
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 119 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final turbines currently operating within the UK, with a total of 1,569 turbines spread across 30 different projects and a maximum operational capacity of over 5.7 GW (Renewable UK, 2018).
When deliberating between the construction of an on-shore or off-shore wind farm, there are many factors to consider. One factor that is often the most crucial is the overall cost of electricity generated per MWh. Arup have stated that as of mid-2017, onshore wind farms within the UK are able to generate electricity at a price of £50 per MWh across fifteen years (Vaughan, 2017), with costs expected to fall further over the coming years due to technological advances. Also, the recommencement of government subsidies for on-shore wind projects could see prices fall to £47 per MWh (Danigelis, 2017). Offshore wind however, cost almost double the price in the UK in 2016, at an average of £97 per MWh across 20-25 years (Clark, 2017). Despite this, the cost of offshore wind energy is falling at even quicker rates than predicted.
The higher costs of energy production associated with off-shore is mainly down to the large amount of infrastructure that is necessary to transmit electricity from off-shore turbines, as well as the balancing and securing of turbines to the seabed. For off-shore wind turbines, the turbine itself represents just 32% of the total initial costs, as opposed to 47% for the balancing of the turbine, including electrical infrastructure and construction of foundations (Moné, et al., 2017). In contrast, on-shore wind turbines represent 71% of the up-front cost for on-shore projects, with balancing of the turbine making up just 20% (Moné, et al., 2017). Another significant difference between the two wind farm types is the cost of maintaining the plants. The operational costs of off-shore wind farms can vary greatly due to various reasons, but the operational expenditure per kilowatt of power produced for off-shore wind farms was roughly three times that of on-shore wind farms (Moné, et al., 2017).
Consequently, the upfront, as well as operational costs of on-shore wind turbines are significantly less than that of off-shore turbines. On top of this, the average capacity of a UK off-shore wind farm is just under 200 MW, due to the number of turbines present at each wind farm, more than twenty times the average operational capacity of a UK on-shore wind farm (Renewable UK, 2018). Having reviewed wind and tidal energy, it is recommended that an on-shore wind farm is constructed to supply power to the Spaceport. However, because of the inconsistency of the power generated using wind farms, due to the inconsistent nature of the wind, it is recommended that the Spaceport also be connected to the national grid. This would enable the possibility of the grid supplying power to the Spaceport during periods of peak demand, when the wind farm is operating at a low production rate. Any additional wind turbines constructed should be incorporated into the same wind farm as the Forss Wind turbines, which are required to be moved, due to the location of
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 120 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final the Spaceport, as mentioned in Section 5.3.6.3.2. The details of the proposed site housing both sets of wind turbines are covered below in Section 10.1.2.
10.1.1.2. Proposed Power Plant
When designing the layout of an on-shore wind farm, attention must be paid to the location of each wind turbine relative to the others. Poor grouping of the wind turbines could lead to a loss in power generation due to wake velocity deficits (Sanderse, et al., 2011).
It is recommended that the wind farm is located either between or to the south of the villages of Lythmore and Janetstown, shown in Figure 50. This location, approximately 6 km from the Dounreay Site, would be far enough away from the Spaceport runway that the wake generated by the turbines would be unlikely to affect any aircraft that are taking off or landing at the Spaceport. Calculations showing this can be seen in Appendix E. By locating the wind farm as close to both Spaceport sites as possible, without causing detriment to either site, the cost of establishing a power distribution network between the wind farm and the Spaceport will be minimised.
Figure 50: Location of the wind farm (Google, 2017).
From the peak power requirement of just over 1 MW detailed in Section 10.1, in addition to the existing Forss Wind Farm turbines that will be relocated, it is recommended that two Nordex N90/2500 wind turbines are constructed, to provide the power generation for the Spaceport. This turbine has been selected as there are twenty-one N90/250 turbines already constructed at the Baillie
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 121 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final wind farm. As mentioned in a case study produced by the manufacturer (Nordex, 2014), these wind turbines are certified for strong-wind locations, such as the north coast of Scotland. Each wind turbine has a capacity of 2.5 MW, and based on the Baillie wind farm, will generate roughly 8 GWh of energy (Statkraft, 2017). It is proposed that Nordex are responsible for the installation of the wind turbines, as was the case for the Baillie wind farm (Nordex, 2014). The cost breakdown of the installation of the proposed infrastructure can be seen in Table 41.
Table 41: Cost breakdown of power infrastructure.
Description Quantity Unit Cost / million £ Total Cost / million £ Wind turbine 2 2.24 per turbine 4.48 Balancing of system 2 0.63 per turbine 1.26 Contingency and 2 0.28 per turbine 0.56 financing Total: 7.3 million
As previously mentioned, it is recommended that two N90/2500 wind turbines are constructed, resulting in an estimated annual energy production of 16.2 GWh. This value is intentionally greater than the estimated annual energy requirement of the Spaceport of just over 4 GWh, to allow for any increases in energy demand due to expansion of the Spaceport, whilst in the mean-time, the excess energy produced will be sold, as detailed in Section 10.1.3. When wind speeds are low, the amount of power generated by the wind turbines may be less than power demand of the Spaceport at that moment. It is for this reason that two wind turbines are recommended to be constructed, as opposed to one, to ensure that the wind farm is responsible for as much energy used at the Spaceport as possible.
The grouping of the wind turbines is essential to maximise the power generation of the wind farm. Whilst studies are continually ongoing to confidently determine the optimum separation between wind turbines, Northern Ireland’s Department of the Environment recommend that each turbines are placed between three and ten rotor diameters apart, as a compromise between the increased capital cost of purchasing more land and the levels of energy losses (Department for the Environment, 2007). As a result, it is recommended that the additional two N90/2500 wind turbines, which have a rotor diameter of 90 m are positioned 630 m apart from each other, as well as from the existing Forss Wind Farm turbines, which are recommended to keep their existing layout. The proposed layout and the relative spacing between the wind turbines can be seen below in Figure 51, with the existing Forss Wind Farm turbines coloured in red and the proposed N90/2500 turbines coloured in blue.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 122 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 51: Proposed layout of the onshore wind farm.
10.1.2. Power Distribution Network
Covered within this section is the power distribution network that will transfer the power generated from the power plant down to the consumer through a number of different voltage networks. The network will originate using overhead cables, but will at some point, most likely during the medium voltage network and through a sealing end compound, change to a network of underground cables.
10.1.2.1. Medium Voltage Network
Large on-shore windfarms, of power capacity above 50 MW (Deutsches Windenergie-Institut, 2001) tend to be connected to the high voltage (HV) electricity transmission grid (Krohn, 2009), however a windfarm of the magnitude proposed in Section 10.1.1.2, in the region of 5 MW to 40 MW would instead be connected to the medium voltage (MV) network system. MV networks, which often act as an intermediary and interlink HV and low voltage networks. MV networks tend to operate over the range of 1 kV to 40 kV (Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2008), (Lakervi & Holmes, 1995). The inclusion of MV systems result in significant cost savings over
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 123 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final simply supplying low voltage networks directly from HV networks. Material and construction costs of 10-20 kV overhead lines are only slightly higher than a 400 V line of the same length, whereas a 100 kV line of the same line would cost roughly ten times as much (Lakervi & Holmes, 1995).
When selecting the operating voltage of the MV network, the cost and availability of substation sites and circuit routes must be considered, and the cost and technological impacts of all voltages of the network must be considered before a voltage is selected (Lakervi & Holmes, 1995). In rural areas, higher voltages tend to be preferred, as even though they lead to an increase in insulation and substation construction costs, the reduction in system losses and the number of substations tends to outweigh this. The optimum voltage could only be determined following a series of long studies (Lakervi & Holmes, 1995), the depth of which this report is unable to go into, and as a result, an optimum voltage cannot be selected.
At the point of common coupling between the proposed wind farm and the medium voltage network, a circuit breaker for the whole wind farm must exist (Deutsches Windenergie-Institut, 2001), normally located within a substation. At the other end of the network, power will be distributed to the Spaceport in two ways, making it a conglomeration of load centres (Eaton & Cohen, 1983).The first distribution method is through a direct distribution line that runs within the Spaceport itself, to deliver MV electricity to components or buildings that require it, via an on-site substation. The second distribution method is through the use of final distribution transformer substations, that convert the electricity to the lower voltage conventionally used within residential and commercial buildings. Final distribution transformer substations will be covered further in the following section, with both power distribution methods included within Section 12.
10.1.2.2. Low Voltage Network
As mentioned in the previous section, final distribution transformer substations will be required to convert the voltage supplied to the Spaceport to voltages suitable for the supply of the low voltage lines distributed across the Spaceport (ABB, 2015). Substations of this type can be either open substations located outside, indoor substations that are built into buildings, or cabinet substations that are built into a fully-enclose cabinet (ABB, 2015). It is recommended that cabinet substations are constructed at the Spaceport, to reduce the encroachment on separate buildings whilst also protecting the substation from the elements. Details of the design of cabinet substations, including the standards that they must adhere to, can be found in the ABB report (ABB, 2015).
In Europe, each final distribution substation is able to supply low voltage electricity to an area corresponding to a radius of approximately 300 m from the substation (Electrical Intallation, 2016),
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 124 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final and it is based on this that the substations are distributed across the Spaceport, shown in Section 12. Once the electricity has been stepped down to the low voltage, it will then be transported through low voltage cables to the end users, across the Spaceport.
10.1.3. Power Re-Distribution
The level of power generated by a wind farm is inconsistent. At times, when wind speeds are low, low amounts of power will be generated. On the other hand, when demand for power at the Spaceport is low, and the rate of production at the wind farm is high, an excess amount of power will be produced. It is therefore recommended, as mentioned in Section 10.1.3, that when this is the case, the power is sold to the national grid, resulting in a further income stream. This process is governed within the UK through the Feed-In Tariff (FIT), with the price offered per kWh displayed online (Ofgem, 2018). An estimated 12.2 GWh of energy will be generated each year, which will be able to power over 3,100 homes in the UK, based on government statistics (BEIS, 2017).
In order to distribute the excess power across the grid, it is recommended that a second network radiates from the proposed wind farm. This is not only necessary to allow the distribution of excess power generated by the proposed wind turbines, but will also be required to transmit power generated by the Forss Wind Farm turbines which shall be relocated, as mentioned previously.
10.2. Water
The following section will cover the sourcing, treatment and distribution of water to be used at both the Dounreay and Thurso Sites. The recommendations made in this section will be based on geological data already available, existing solutions for the sourcing and treatment of water within the town of Thurso and alternative methods that would be economically advantageous to the project.
From the estimations made of the number of staff and additional residents that the Spaceport project would attract, an estimation for the average daily water usage of both sites has been made, using the calculations detailed in Appendix E. The estimations can be seen below in Table 42.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 125 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 42: Water usage estimations.
Potable Water Non-Potable Potable Water Non-Potable Building Usage per Day / Water Usage Usage per Water Usage per litres per Day / litres Annum / m3 Annum / m3 LCT 90 160 24.1 41 MSCC 280 470 72.2 122.9 Thurso Site Offices 2,500 4,250 649.4 1,105.7 Thurso Site Canteen 550 950 144.3 245.7 and Education Zone Housing Development 29,600 0 10,780.6 0 SAR 1,400 2400 365.6 622.4 Facilities Management and Medical Centre 870 1,480 226.1 384.9 Buildings PPF 185 315 48.1 81.9 LVA 315 535 81.8 139.2 LVS 850 1,450 221.3 376.7 Total: 36,640 12,010 12613.3 3120.4
10.2.1. Sources
All the water that is sourced within Scotland is either sourced as surface water from streams, lochs and reservoirs, or as ground water, obtained from wells or boreholes. The majority of the water provided to residential, commercial and industrial properties by Scottish Water being sourced as surface water (Scottish Water, 2015).
10.2.1.1. Potable Water
One report (Bateman, 2003) details the design and construction of a water treatment works in close proximity to Loch Calder, which is a loch approximately 8 km south of Thurso. Within the report, it states that the water is supplied to 30,000 people in and around the region of Caithness and is a good quality, high yield source (Bateman, 2003). It is then fed to the five service reservoirs outlined in the map within Bateman’s report, before being passed along to consumers (Bateman, 2003). According to a report by the Director of Planning & Development for the Highland Council (Macleod, 2006), there are no constraints on the water supply from Loch Calder, and capacity exists for the facility to supply water to a greater population.
A further source of the water that is used along the north coast of Scotland are boreholes. Boreholes are narrow holes that are drilled into the ground, in order to reach and extract ground water. In order for a borehole to be successful, the quality and quantity of water available must be adequate. The
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 126 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final most prolific sources of underground water are areas with high concentrations of sedimentary rocks, in particular limestones and sandstones (Twort, et al., 2000), due to their good levels of water storage and transmissivity. Pockets of sandstones and limestones are often easily accessible by boreholes of relatively low depth, and the large areas that the pockets cover and their considerable thickness make for excellent water storage (Twort, et al., 2000).
The British Geological Survey have produced an extensive interactive map (British Geological Survey, 2017) that details the bedrock geology across the UK, as well as mapping out any boreholes that have been drilled. It can be seen on the map that more than fifty boreholes have previously been drilled either on or in close proximity to the Dounreay nuclear site. From the information provided on the map’s overview of the site, as well as a number of reports (Fugro, 2004), (Foundation and Exploration Services, 2002), (Foundation and Exploration Services, 2002) on the boreholes within the Dounreay Site, it can be established that the bedrock of the Dounreay nuclear site consists of mainly sandstone, mudstone and siltstone, hence the large number of boreholes drilled at the site.
For any boreholes to be drilled at the Dounreay or Thurso Spaceport sites, a Water Borehole Prognosis Report (WBPR) would be required to describe the geological succession that might be encountered when drilling a borehole (British Geological Survey, 2017). From the overview provided by the interactive map (British Geological Survey, 2017), it can be presumed that the Dounreay and Thurso Spaceport sites lies on a combination of sandstones and siltstones. From this data, it would seem that the sites would be geologically suitable for boreholes to be drilled at the site. By adding additional modules to the WBPR, an assessment of the abstraction of groundwater from a borehole could be provided, to give a better estimate of the quality and quantity of the water sourced from any boreholes.
As there is capacity for further supply from Loch Calder, and due to the relative simplicity, as the Dounreay Nuclear site is already fed by Loch Calder (Bateman, 2003), of extending the existing infrastructure to the Dounreay and Thurso Spaceport sites, it is recommended that Loch Calder is the primary source of potable water for the Spaceport. However, due to the possibility of peak demands, the construction multiple boreholes on site is recommended, to supply additional water storage and help to meet any spikes in water demand. As mentioned in the previous paragraph, it would not be possible to identify any specific location for these boreholes, without a WBPR being produced.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 127 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 10.2.1.2. Non-Potable Water
One final method of sourcing water for use at either of the Spaceport sites would be the construction and implementation of rainwater collection systems. Rainwater collection systems are a particularly useful source in regions where daily rainfall is frequent (Twort, et al., 2000). As the average monthly precipitation at the Dounreay Site is 72 mm (Meteoblue, 2018), then rainwater collection systems could prove to be a useful addition to the site. One source estimates that 63% of water used in commercial and industrial applications does not need to be of drinking standard (South Staffordshire Water, 2017). By implementing a rainwater collection system, not only would a money saving be made as less potable water would be required from primary water sources, but by collecting the rainwater that falls onto the roofs of buildings, these systems would also reduce the burden on the site’s drainage systems.
A typical rainwater collection system would operate using typical roof drainage layouts, with rainwater running off the roof into guttering. The water would then be passed through a filter, removing any debris that may have accumulated within the guttering, before entering a storage tank. Storage tanks could be constructed either above or below ground, however for a commercial or industrial application, storage tanks tend to be constructed underground, due to their potentially considerable size. The rainwater collected would be used for a number of applications, where drinking water is not required, although water for flushing toilets would be the primary use. Based on an average monthly precipitation of 72 mm (Meteoblue, 2018), the average daily rainwater collection based on a roof of area 400 m2 would be 947 litres. The calculations for this figure can be found in Appendix E.
One possible system that could be implemented is the Klargester Commercial Below Ground Rainwater Harvesting System, produced by Kingspan, shown below in Figure 52.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 128 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 52: Kingspan Klargester Commercial Below Ground Rainwater Harvesting System (Kingspan, 2017).
It is recommended that each office building is constructed with a rainwater harvesting system in place, each of which is connected to a number of centralized underground storage tanks that provide non-potable water to each building in turn. In the event that the underground storage tanks are filled to capacity, any excess rainwater collected will be passed off to the site’s drainage system.
10.2.2. Water Treatment
When sourcing water for potable uses, the treatment of the water must be considered. As time progresses, it becomes increasingly more difficult to find a source of water that does not require treatment (Binnie & Kimber, 2013) before becoming a potable supply. Water contains impurities that are both biological and inorganic matter. Impurities are present in water for many different reasons, from human and animal impacts to the geology of the route taken from rainfall to extraction (Binnie & Kimber, 2013). Most modern water treatment processes are implemented to manage organic chemical present in water. These chemicals can either be naturally occurring, and affect the taste or colour of the water, or they can arise from human activities, possibly as herbicides or other chemicals used in agriculture (Binnie & Kimber, 2013).
10.2.2.1. Surface Water Treatment
As mentioned in Section 10.2.1, the water sourced from Loch Calder passes from the Loch to a water treatment works located 8km south of Thurso. The water treatment works has a design capacity of 17.5 Ml/day, and any instantaneous peak demands can be met by storage within an extensive distribution system, as detailed in Scottish Water’s report (Bateman, 2003).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 129 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The abstraction rate from the loch is set by the plant operators, however the flow into the water treatment works is automatically controlled by the demand from the five service reservoirs that are fed from the Loch Calder water treatment works. The water treatment process that takes place at the Loch Calder works, including the balancing of the pH of the water, is described in detail within Bateman’s report. As mentioned in Section 10.2.1, the Loch Calder water treatment works has sufficient capacity for an increase in demand (Macleod, 2006), and would likely be able to deal with the demand of the Spaceport.
10.2.2.2. Groundwater Treatment
The treatment of groundwater sources is arguably more essential than that of surface water sources, as the main problems of groundwater sources tend to be high levels of iron and manganese within the water (Binnie & Kimber, 2013). On top of this, human influence within industry and agriculture leads to the generation of often high levels of groundwater pollutants (Twort, et al., 2000). The quality of the water obtained from any boreholes must adhere to the private borehole regulations (Scottish Parliament, 2006). As opposed to the method of treating the water sourced from Loch Calder, the water sourced from on-site boreholes could as well be treated on-site. The systems required for this are commercially available, however a water test report would be required to identify the exact treatment that is required.
10.2.3. Water Distribution
Following the sourcing and treatment of water from Loch Calder, the water is then distributed to five service reservoirs, as mentioned in Section 10.2.1.1. The closest service reservoirs to the Dounreay and Thurso Spaceport sites are the Shebster and Ormlie reservoirs (Bateman, 2003). From the reservoirs, water is then fed to the point of consumption for both residential and commercial use. In order for the water to be re-distributed to both Spaceport sites, new pipework will need to be laid. As the Dounreay and Thurso Sites are in close proximity to the Dounreay nuclear site, and the town of Thurso, respectively, only a small amount of pipework would need to be laid to connect existing infrastructure to the Spaceport. Once supplied to both the sites, the water would then be fed off to each individual usage point through a series of pipework, which will be laid during the construction of each building, as well as the Spaceport itself.
Water sourced from boreholes constructed at the Spaceport will require storage, and it is recommended that underground storage is constructed, to reduce the amount of ground space required for this. As mentioned in Section 10.2.1.1, this storage would aid in water distribution at
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 130 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final times of peak demand, in particular to accommodate the needs of the on-site fire service, as detailed in Section 11. Water storage would also be required for the implementation of a rainwater collection system, detailed in Section 10.2.1.2. Water storage would not be required for the water sourced from the Loch Calder surface water source. The cost breakdown for the water collection and distribution system requiring installation can be seen in Table 43.
Table 43: Cost Breakdown for the water collection and distribution system.
Description Quantity Unit Cost / £ Total Cost / £ Connection of site to 2 1,343 2,686 existing water main Water distribution 4125 48 per metre 200,686 pipework Rainwater collection 10 8,500 per 85,000 and storage system system Total: 137,556
10.3. Waste Disposal and Treatment
The following section will cover the options available when considering the disposal and treatment of sewage and waste water, as well as refuse and recyclable materials. The recommendations made in this section will be based on the existing infrastructure surrounding the Thurso and Dounreay Spaceport sites and the estimated increase in demand due to the Spaceport’s activities. The increase in demand of waste facilities would be primarily down to the increase in population within Thurso, as well as additional staff that commute to either of the Spaceport sites.
10.3.1. Waste Water, Sewage and Sludge Treatment
At present, the treatment of waste water, sludge and sewage for the town of Thurso is handled by the Wastewater Treatment Works (WwTW), constructed in 2005, just to the east of Thurso. Prior to the construction of this facility, the raw sewage from Thurso, and the village of Scrabster was, following maceration, discharged straight into Thurso Bay via a long sea outfall (Scottish Water Solutions, 2006). The facility comprises two main components; an underground sewage transfer pumping station adjacent to Thurso headworks, and a secondary wastewater treatment plant at East Thurso. The WwTW were constructed to ensure that the noise and odour levels experienced by locals were kept to a minimum, the details of which are included in the journal article (Scottish Water Solutions, 2006).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 131 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Also included within the article is a list of the main features of the WwTW at East Thurso, such as inlet screening and grit removal and several settlement tanks. The WwTW, which cost £11.82 million to construct (Scottish Water Solutions, 2006), have a design population of 15,200 people. At the time of the 2011 census, Thurso had a population of 7,933 people (The Highland Council, 2013).
For the purpose of this report, it has been assumed that the Thurso WwTW also provides service to the 200 square kilometres of land surrounding the East Thurso plant. Based on a population density of 14.4 people per square kilometre (The Highland Council, 2013) of the historical county of Caithness, an additional population of 2,880 people, as well as the 8,061 within the town of Thurso, were provided wastewater and sewage treatment by the Thurso WwTW in 2011. The population of Caithness increased by 2.3% in the ten years between 2003 and 2013 (The Highland Council, 2013). Based on this population increase, it is estimated that the Thurso WwTW currently provides service to 11,100 people.
As previously mentioned, the Thurso WwTW has a design capacity of 15,200 people. As it’s estimated that the Spaceport will only result in a population increase of roughly 500 people, the Thurso WwTW would be more than capable of supplying wastewater, sewage and sludge treatment to both the Dounreay and the Thurso Spaceport sites. A further indication of this comes from a report titled “Scottish Water Update” (Macleod, 2006). Within this report, it states that there aren’t any constraints on the supply of wastewater treatment from the Thurso facility, and capacity exists for the facility to provide service to a greater number of customers.
10.3.2. Refuse Collection and Disposal
Due to the population increase of Thurso and its surrounding areas that the Spaceport would lead to, the increase in the amount of refuse generated must be taken into consideration. On top of this, a very considerable amount of waste would be generated during the construction of the Spaceport. Landfill sites accept waste not only from within the site’s local authority boundaries, but from all over Scotland and beyond. This means that whilst it isn’t theoretically strictly essential to identify specific landfill sites that would be suitable to collect the Spaceport’s refuse, in order to ensure the sustainability of the Spaceport and the local area, it must be done. The Scottish Landfill Regulations (Scottish Parliament, 2003) state that all landfill sites must be classified as either hazardous, non- hazardous or inert. Descriptions of these three classifications can be found on SEPA website (SEPA, 2015).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 132 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
It is recommended that an on-site refuse collection point is located at both the Dounreay and Thurso Spaceport sites, where General Industrial and Commercial Waste (GICW) is collected and stored, ready to be taken away to landfill by council refuse collection services. These are displayed in the scheme layouts, in Section 12.
10.3.2.1. Existing Landfill Sites
Having analysed the data provided by an interactive map detailing waste sites across Scotland (SEPA, 2015), four landfill sites that could potentially be used for the disposal of refuse generated by the Spaceport’s construction. The classification of each landfill site, as well as various details, such as the estimated date that each site will cease to operate, is included below in Table 44.
Table 44: Details of landfill sites for potential disposal of Spaceport refuse (SEPA, 2015).
Skitten Nether Site Name Seater Duisky Quarry Dallachy Non- Non- Non- Site Classification Inert Hazardous Hazardous Hazardous Annual Landfill Capacity (2015) - 65,000 25,000 120,000 24,000 Tonnes Total Landfill Accepted (2015) – 39,207 2,525 42,086 11,104 Tonnes Remaining Capacity (End of 250,000 71,418 145,000 482,000 2015) – Tonnes Estimated Date for 01/11/2024 31/12/2029 01/08/2020 01/12/2040 Ceasing Operation Distance from Dounreay (By 22 26 167 195 Road) - Miles
Using data provided by multiple sources (Ellis, 2016), (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2016), as well as estimates for the number of staff and additional residents within the Thurso area due to the Spaceport, it has been calculated an additional 150 tonnes Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) and GICW will be produced annually. These calculations can be seen in Appendix E. On top of this, the rubble that would be a by-product of the construction of the Thurso and Dounreay Spaceport sites would also need to be factored in when estimating the additional refuse.
Having analysed the four landfill sites mentioned above, it is apparent that Nether Dallachy landfill site would not be a feasible site at which to dispose the MSW produced by the Spaceport. The main
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 133 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final reason for this being that the site is estimated to cease its refuse collection activities in 2020, which is when the construction of the Spaceport is scheduled to commence. For a similar reason, the Seater landfill site would not be a long-term solution to the Spaceport’s refuse collection.
The only remaining landfill site for non-hazardous waste would be the Duisky landfill site. Using this site could be feasible, due to the large remaining capacity (as of 2015) of nearly five hundred thousand tonnes, resulting in an estimated date of 2040 for the ceasing of activities. However due to the distance by road between the two sites of nearly two hundred miles, it would be unlikely that using the Duisky landfill site would be a success.
As none of the three non-hazardous landfill sites detailed would be suitable, it is recommended that a new landfill site is constructed.
The Skitten quarry landfill site would be a suitable option for the rubble produced during the construction of the Spaceport, due to it being an inert landfill site. As of 2015, the site’s remaining capacity was estimated to be over seventy thousand tonnes of refuse, with an estimated date for ceasing the site’s operation of the end of 2029. The Skitten quarry landfill site would be a suitable option for the construction of the first Phase of the Spaceport. However, a separate landfill site would be required for the disposal of the rubble from the construction of the second and third Phases of the Spaceport at a later date, due to the estimation that the Skitten quarry landfill site will cease operation in 2029.
Landfill sites that are classified to accept non-hazardous waste can accept MSW along with non- hazardous wastes, including inert wastes, of any other origin (Environment Agency, 2010). Because of this, it is recommended that a landfill site for non-hazardous waste is constructed near to the town of Thurso.
10.3.2.2. Proposed Landfill Sites
When planning the construction of a landfill site, several aspects must be taken into consideration, from the type of landfill site, to the geology of the site. The recommended process contains two steps; first identify a broad list of potential sites, and then rank those sites in order of suitability. Before this can be done however, the type of landfill site must be considered. Three separate types of landfill site are to be considered (EPA Victoria, 2015). Firstly, the trench and fill method, in which a hole is dug, to be filled with waste, before using the excavated material to cover the waste when each cell is full. Secondly, there is the mound method, in which the landfill is placed in a
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 134 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final mound that rises above ground level. Finally, there is the area method, which can be like either of the other two methods, however it differs from the others, as it is sited where a hole already exists, with this hole then being filled with refuse (EPA Victoria, 2015).
Having analysed existing landfill sites within Caithness county, it appears that the mound method is generally not used. This is likely to be because the exposed nature of the site would not only be an eyesore, but would also require significant litter controls (EPA Victoria, 2015). Having discounted the mound method that leaves both the trench and fill or the area method. The area method relies on the presence of a suitable, existing hole. One such site has been identified: the Melvich sand quarry.
The Melvich sand quarry, located 10km west of the Dounreay Site, was granted planning permission back in 2006, for the reopening of the sand quarry, for a period of 20 years (Robertson, 2006). The quarry provides concrete and building sand, as well as gravel (A&W Sinclair, 2018), and within the planning consent, has permission to extend its active lifetime through further application (Robertson, 2006). One factor that affects the screening of potential landfill sites, is the alternative uses of sites (EPA Victoria, 2015). As the Melvich sand quarry could continue to be used as a quarry for years to come, it makes the site an unlikely candidate for a landfill site. As well as this, with the Seater landfill site estimated to cease activities in 2024, it is unlikely that construction on a landfill site at Melvich sand quarry could start until well after this date. Finally, as the proposed landfill site will likely be a replacement for the Seater landfill site, it should be sited between the towns of Thurso and Wick, as was the intention when constructing the Seater landfill site (Cooper, et al., 1991).
Because of the reasons listed above, the Melvich sand quarry will be regarded as an unsuitable site for landfill siting. Due to the lack of any alternative sites that would be suitable for an area method landfill site, that method shall also be discounted, leaving just the trench and fill method. As mentioned at the start of this section, several factors must be considered, when identifying a list of potential sites. As a result, it would not be possible to confidently identify a number of potential sites, and then rank them in order of suitability. To do this, a number of tests and excavations would need to be performed, as was the case during the construction of the Seater landfill site (Cooper, et al., 1991). When identifying potential sites for the new landfill site, the following must be considered (EPA Victoria, 2015): • Groundwater – Leachate from a landfill site could contaminate any groundwater sources, so to minimise the possibility of this, landfills must not be located in areas of potable groundwater, or below the regional water table.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 135 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
• Site geology – As the stabilisation and decomposition of waste will likely take several decades, the landfill site should be constructed on a site where the bedrock is solid, ensuring the long-term stability of the landfill cap and liner system. • Infrastructure – There must be sufficient infrastructure, such as roads, that is either pre- existing, or can be built, to enable to successful operation of the landfill site.
As mentioned previously, it is recommended that the landfill site is constructed somewhere between the towns of Thurso and Wick, so that it can replace the Seater landfill site and continue to serve both towns, as well as the wider area and the Spaceport. As the Spaceport will only be one of many users of the landfill site, it is recommended that the construction of the landfill site is a cooperative project alongside the local council, with the council bearing the majority of the construction and running costs, as well as managing the site once it is operational, with the Spaceport providing a fee to contribute to the construction of the landfill site.
10.3.3. Recyclable Materials Collection
As is the case with refuse collection, the collection of any additional recyclable materials generated by the Spaceport’s existence must be taken into consideration. Using data provided by multiple sources (Ellis, 2016), (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2016), as well as estimates for the number of staff and additional residents within Thurso due to the Spaceport, it has been calculated an additional 95 tonnes of recyclable waste from everyday activities will be produced annually. These calculations can be seen in Appendix E.
Having analysed the same interactive waste site map as mentioned in Section 10.3.2.1 (SEPA, 2015), two separate recycling centres were chosen as potential destinations for the Spaceport’s recyclable materials. Details of the two sites can be seen below in Table 45. From the data displayed on the interactive map, it was discovered that Seater landfill site also contained a recycling centre, with annual recyclable waste acceptance of roughly 3,000 tonnes. However due to the same reasons that the site was discounted as a potential landfill site for the Spaceport, it will not be considered as a likely candidate for the Spaceport’s recyclable waste collections.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 136 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 45: Data for the annual capacity and waste acceptance of two viable recycling centres (SEPA, 2015).
Site Thurso Recycling Centre Wick Recycling Centre Year 2014 2015 2014 2015 Annual Capacity 4,999 4,999 4,999 4,999 – Tonnes Waste Accepted 2,331 2,696 2,064 2,516 – Tonnes Waste Output – 2,331 2,696 2,064 2,516 Tonnes Distance from Dounreay (By 10 31 Road) - Miles
It initially appears that both recycling centres would be viable locations for the depositing of the Spaceport’s recyclable waste. Both sites are close to the Dounreay Site, with Thurso Recycling centre being just three miles from the proposed Thurso Spaceport site. Both sites offer a collection service for a wide range of recyclable materials (The Highland Council, 2017) (The Highland Council, 2017) that would cover all normal domestic recycling needs. The estimated annual production of recyclable waste due to general activities at the Spaceport of 95 tonnes would comfortably be absorbed by either of the recycling centres, and as a result, it is recommended that an additional recycling centre does not need to be constructed.
The highland council also offer a commercial recycling and refuse collection service, the details of which can be found online (The Highland Council, 2014). It is therefore recommended that an on- site recyclable waste collection point is located at both the Dounreay and Thurso Spaceport sites, to collect recyclable waste before it is collected by the council’s commercial recycling collection service. These are displayed in the scheme layouts, in Section 12. The cost breakdown of the refuse and recycling collection points can be seen in Table 36.
Table 46: Cost breakdown of refuse and recycling collection points.
Description Quantity Unit Cost / £ Total Cost / £ 1,110 litre refuse bin 12 315 3,780 1,110 litre recycling bin 16 315 5,040 Total: 8,820
Multiple refuse and recycling bins, similar to the one shown in Figure 53, will be placed around both Spaceport sites, as well as information informing staff and visitors what can and cannot be recycled.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 137 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 53: Example of refuse and recycling bins located around Spaceport sites (West, 2015).
10.4. Gases
Natural gas will mainly be required within the housing development at the Thurso Site, where it will be used within homes for heating, hot water and cooking. It will also be required for the same services within commercial buildings and office spaces at both the Dounreay and Thurso Spaceport sites, including within canteen areas for buildings that contain these facilities. Each dwelling or commercial property will be connected to pre-existing gas mains through service lines, which will distribute the gas to each property.
10.5. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning
In this section, the design considerations for HVAC systems across the Spaceport will be studied, and recommendations shall be made on a number of potential systems that could be implemented. HVAC systems regulate the temperature, humidity and quality of air within the buildings in which they are installed (Carbon Trust, 2017). As is evident from the name, HVAC can be separated into three main constituents, the first of which is heating.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 138 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Heating will be provided throughout the Spaceport through the use of gas fueled boilers. A central boiler will be installed in each dwelling and office space that feeds a series of radiators throughout the buildings. Within large open spaces, such as the LVA, indirect condensing gas-fired air heating modules for air handling units, which are a set of heat exchangers that are fitted within air handling units, will be used to heat the fresh air being provided to the building. Within a report produced by The Carbon Trust (Carbon Trust, 2014), a scheme is outlaid in which companies will be eligible for Enhanced Capital Allowances (ECA) from the government when in machinery listed in the Energy Technology List (ETL). It is stated within the report that each ETL indirect warm air heating system installed can provide cost, energy and emissions savings of £1,185, 39,500 kWh and 7.25 tonnes of
CO2 respectively per year (Carbon Trust, 2014).
When planning the ventilation and air conditioning of buildings, one report (Bureau of Reclamation, 2006) lays out a useful set of guidelines that could be followed. The report goes into sufficient detail on numerous aspects of the design, such as the location of air intakes and ductwork implemented within the design. Alternatively, as was the case with heating systems, a separate report (Carbon Trust, 2012) details how implementing ventilation and air conditioning systems that are included in the ETL would make further ECAs available. It is estimated within the report that for a typical office building of 1,000m2 area, implementing these ventilation and air conditioning systems could result in a cost saving per annum of roughly £2,500, and an energy saving of over 60,000 kWh. From the information provided, it is recommended that the Spaceport implements HVAC systems that are listed in the ETL, due to the possibility of ECAs being made available, as well as the potential energy and emissions savings.
10.6. Communication Links
Due to the nature of operations that shall be conducted at the Spaceport, having well established communication links is essential. Perhaps most importantly, internet access must be available across both Spaceport sites, particularly in modules such as the launch control centre. At the Thurso Site, the required infrastructure will be constructed to enable each dwelling, as well as every commercial property to have access to high speed internet.
11. Services
Since the Spaceport is an area of high importance, with large safety risks, it is imperative to have the relevant services capable of dealing with any potential issues that could occur. In an ideal world, no incidents would ever occur at the Spaceport, and any dangers that could occur relating to the design will be minimised as much as possible.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 139 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 11.1. Emergency Response Teams
There is a high fire or explosion risk at several points on the Dounreay Site, particularly where large quantities of propellants are stored. Necessary precautions have been taken to minimise the effect of an explosion on any surrounding facilities or people, so the correct training for dealing with such dangers must be undertaken. An emergency response team consisting of fire and ambulance crews must be readily available at all times. The extent of the incident will determine which crews are required for particular call-outs.
The fire crews should undergo specialist training to deal with different scenarios, which can include both buildings/structures and aircraft containing fuels. Extra training to deal with hazardous materials should be completed regularly, which will help in managing potential incidents that could arise across the site. The area of hazardous materials posing the highest risk are the propellant tanks, although there is a very low possibility of an incident occurring. There will very rarely be cases where multiple operations will be ongoing at any one time, so training for such situations is also necessary. These scenarios are all trained for at the Kennedy Space Centre, and are deemed to be applicable for this Spaceport (Holton, 2016).
Medical teams on site at the Dounreay Site will need to specialise in dealing with the effects of hazardous materials. Fume inhalation and skin contact could cause irritation, whilst more severe risks such as burning are also possible. At the Thurso Site, a specialist medical team is not required, but there should be medically trained members of staff working close to SAR to deal with any incidents. PPE is to be placed where necessary around both the Dounreay and Thurso Sites, which is intended to minimise the risk of personal injury. However, there is still a small chance of injury occurring, displaying the need for an emergency response team.
11.2. Security
The Spaceport’s locations will contain materials of high importance and value, and therefore require necessary physical safety to ensure that there is no risk of anything being accessed by a member of the public. All areas of the site are to be fenced off, with security gates providing the only access in. A method of identification will therefore be required to access the sites, which allows for relevant background checks on the entrants to take place. Particularly at the Dounreay Site, fencing is necessary. Not only are there large safety risks but there are also millions of pounds worth of equipment being stored, which needs protection against potential thieves.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 140 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The perimeter around the Dounreay Site will have security fencing, as shown in Figure 54, installed with anti-climbing mechanisms, such as razor wire or spikes, on the top. There will be surveillance points positioned periodically along the length of the fence to allow for constant monitoring and any entrances through the perimeter are to be well lit. The site will house a safety team, where routine patrols will occur, allowing for thorough checks.
Figure 54: An example of the security fencing to be used at the Spaceport (Protective Fencing, 2017).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 141 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
12. Scheme Layout
Figure 55: Excerpt of the Scheme Layout, showing the Phases of development.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 142 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 56: Excerpt of the Scheme Layout, showing the Dounreay Site plan view, excluding launch pads.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 143 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 57: Excerpt of the Scheme Layout, showing the Dounreay Site launch pads.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 144 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 58: Excerpt of the Scheme Layout, showing the Thurso Site.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 145 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Figure 59: Excerpt of the scheme layout, showing the Thurso site housing development and mass transit system infrastructure..
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 146 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 13. Sustainability
There are several factors that can affect the overall project sustainability, including social, economic and environmental factors. The economic side of this investigation is covered in greater detail in its own section, so this section will cover the other areas project, and identify any potential areas of concern. In order to have a sustainable project, the social, economic and environmental aspects must all be balanced.
13.1. Societal and Environmental Impact
The most obvious issues with the project lie within the societal and environmental impacts of the Spaceport and the project, with the environmental aspect particularly providing several areas of concern. Not only is the Spaceport located in a relatively isolated part of the country, but the whole project is based around transporting small satellites into space, producing significant emissions in the process.
The fuels being used in Phase 1 and 2 of the project are RP-1 and Jet A-1, both types of highly refined kerosene which are combusted in the presence of oxygen. RP-1 especially is processed to minimise the sulphur content aiming to avoid the production of sulphur-containing chemicals. Assuming all the fuels are clean, the only compounds produced would be carbon dioxide and water vapour. One issue with the combustion of hydrocarbons is the production of soot, or black carbon. The discharged particles are able to absorb infrared radiation emitted by the Sun, directly warming the surrounding air. It is thought that this is potentially the most damaging issue with regards to the promotion of climate change within the industry (Ross, 2011).
An environmental benefit of the LVs that are being accommodated, is the lack of toxic substances being used for fuels. Solid fuels are known to produce hydrochloric acid, a toxic chemical that can also contribute to ozone depletion, so it was necessary to avoid LVs that use such fuels (Ross, et al., 2009). Although measures are taken to reduce the emissions of the LVs, there will still be some which are unavoidable. Part of the reason for choosing an isolated location was to minimise the disturbance on nearby residents. The noise produced by the LVs could be disruptive, so necessary steps are taken to try and avoid this issue. The Dounreay facility is several kilometres from Thurso, whilst the flight path of a launch takes the LV over sea. Since the Spaceport is to be constructed in the UK, the CAA have specified relevant regulations to be followed. This highlights the importance of meteorological factors in affecting the way sound can be carried (CAA, 2017).
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 147 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The Spaceport is to be constructed over two sites near the town of Thurso in northern Scotland. The construction and infrastructure required for a project of this scale will have a large impact on this town, with a population of less than 10,000 people (Office for National Statistics, 2011). The fully completed facilities, will provide jobs for 381 people, most of whom will have to relocate to the area. This will bring more business to local shops and businesses but will, however, increase the population of the town, which some current residents may find unfavourable. Where possible, it is advised that local firms are contracted to undertake construction and completion of the Spaceport, which will help to boost the local economy and could possibly increase the amount of jobs in the area indirectly.
As mentioned in Section 5, part of the facility construction involves the adjustment of local infrastructure, which could impose a temporary detrimental problem for local residents. Road and rail closures could potentially cut the area off briefly, causing difficulty to people who require those services. Large amounts of heavy machinery are to be used to properly develop the sites, which will increase congestion on the roads, especially during times where other road closures may be in place.
13.2. Material Sourcing
The vast majority of the facilities to be erected at the Spaceport are to be made of reinforced concrete, where both the steel and concrete are readily available and accessible. Most of the buildings will be made out of this material, as well as the runway and all air-side paving. Several thousand cubic metres of concrete are likely to be required for the construction of the runway alone.
In this aspect of the design, very few materials will be constructed of rare metals or other more specialist components. Much of the building contents, especially offices or desks, will be made from plastic materials, and electronic components will contain small amounts of rare metals like gold and palladium (EPA, 2017).
The propellant tanks, pumps and piping require different kinds of steel, which are mass produced on a large scale, so there should be no issue in the sourcing or fabrication of such materials.
13.3. Project Life-Cycle Assessment
A Life-Cycle Assessment (LCA) is a method to assess the environmental impacts of a project from cradle (raw material extraction) to grave (decommissioning and closure of the site) and all activities in between. An LCA tends to be used for processes that produce a product, rather than provide a
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 148 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final service such as the Spaceport. For that reason, the LCA in this case can be simplified, based off ISO standards 14040 and 14041, as seen in Figure 60.
Figure 60: An example of a life-cycle assessment that can be applied to this project (Fedkin).
In an ideal world, both the inputs and outputs would be minimised to try and produce a self- sustaining project. Once initial design phases have been completed, it is possible to conduct an inventory analysis, looking at the primary resources required along with the emissions produced, both in construction and operation. In this instance, the inventory analysis will be based purely around the operations of the Spaceport, as including emissions produced from third-party contractors for supplies and construction could lead to large calculation errors.
As previously mentioned, the main pollutants from the Spaceport are produced during launch. Assuming a clean burn, only carbon dioxide and water vapour will be produced, but realistically there will be oxides of nitrogen and sulphur present in the plume. The release of nitrous oxide (N2O) to the atmosphere contributes 298 times towards global warming when compared to the same mass of carbon dioxide (Solomon, et al., 2007). Not only this, but oxides of nitrogen and sulphur from combustion can dissolve in atmospheric moisture, causing acid rain, which can damage vegetation and aquatic life. This is why the fuels are so highly refined, so there is a minimal amount of these compounds to combust.
14. Scheme Programme
The following is a generic Spaceport scheme programme to summarise the entire launch process. One work day has been taken to be 9 hours to arrive at the Cost per Launch (CPT) estimation. This
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 149 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final is for an assumed payload delivery from either the UK or mainland Europe. The following definitions should also be considered for this scheme programme: • Container: any incoming deliveries will be transported in a container, which will be processed at Shipping and Receiving. • Aircraft Deliveries: any more urgent deliveries required at the Dounreay Site that must be transported by air. • Payload Components: any deliveries directly associated with the payload, and consequently must be transported to the Dounreay Site.
The Scheme Programme Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) shown in Table 47.
Table 47: Work Breakdown Structure for the Spaceport Scheme Programme.
WBS Activity Activity Description Work (days) 1 Client Acquisition 1.1 Contact payload Identifying and liaising with potential clients and 40 providers arranging which LV can transport their payload. 1.2 Negotiate costs Agreeing a cost for the launch of the client’s 10 payload. 2 Primary Delivery Method 2.1 Container Delivery by Sea 2.1.1 Arrange ship Contacting shipping companies and allocate the 10 delivery to a scheduled voyage. 2.1.2 Transport on ship Deliver the container from the client to Scrabster 5-20 Harbour on a ship. 2.1.3 Unload at Scrabster Transfer the container from the ship to the 0.5 Harbour harbour facilities. 2.1.4 Move to SAR Transport the container from the harbour to SAR 0.5 by loading it onto a HGV. 2.1.5 Sorting and Storage Process the contents of the container in SAR and 2 store until required. 2.2 Delivery by Road 2.1.1 Arrange HGVs Send a HGV to the client to pick up their 5 delivery. 2.1.2 Transport on HGVs Transfer the delivery on a HGV on the road. 2-15 2.1.3 Unload to SAR Unpack the contents of the HGV at SAR. 0.5 2.1.4 Sorting and Storage Process the contents of the HGV in SAR and 2 store until required. 2.3 Delivery by Rail (Phase 3) 2.3.1 Arrange timetabled train Contacting rail service providers and allocate the 5 delivery to a scheduled train. 2.3.2 Transport on train Transfer the delivery by rail. 1-5 2.3.3 Unload to SAR Unload the containers off the train at SAR. 0.5 2.3.4 Sorting and Storage Process the contents of the containers in SAR 2 and store until required.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 150 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
2.4 Dounreay Site Deliveries Handling 2.4.1 Transfer to MTS Load relevant deliveries onto the MST freight 0.5 carriages. 2.4.2 Transport to Dounreay Move the deliveries from the Thurso Site to the 0.25 Site Dounreay Site on the MTS. 2.4.3 Unload into Storage Process the contents of the MTS freight carriages 0.5 Warehouse in the Storage Warehouse and store until required. 3 Secondary Payload Method 3.1 Delivery by Air 3.3.1 Arrange timetabled flight For more urgent Dounreay Site deliveries, 5 contact airlines and organise flight to Dounreay. 3.3.2 Transport deliveries by Fly the freight aircraft to Dounreay with the 0.25 aircraft delivery. 3.3.3 Land aircraft at Dounreay Land the freight aircraft on the Dounreay runway 0.25 Site runway and taxi to terminal. 3.3.4 Unload deliveries onto Transfer the deliveries off the freight aircraft 0.25 HGV onto a HGV. 3.3.5 Transport deliveries to Drive the lorry to the Storage Warehouse and 0.25 Storage Warehouse transfer the contents of the HGV and store until required. 4 Payload Components Handling 4.1 Transfer to PPF Move Payload Components to the PPF from the 0.5 Storage Warehouse. 4.2 Sorting and Quality Perform quality control checks on the Payload 5 Control Components to ensure they’re ready for assembly. 4.3 Payload Assembly Assemble the Payload from the Payload 5 Components in PPF. 5 Launch Process 5.1 ALV 5.1.1 Transfer Payload to LVA Move the assembled Payload from PPF to LVA. 5.1.2 ALV assembled with Assemble ALV and integrate with the Payload. Payload 5.1.3 Boosters attached Attach the boosters to the assembled ALV. 5.1.4 Transport to Launch Pad Move the launch ready ALV to the Launch Pad on its trailer via the access roads. 5.1.5 Fuelling Fuel the ALV with LOx and Jet A-1 fuel. 5.1.6 Launch ALV launches from the Launch Pad and begins 2 mission. 5.1.7 Booster separation Separate the boosters from the ALV for controlled return to the Spaceport. 5.1.8 Stage 2 and 3 continue Progress with the remainder of the ALV mission into orbit into orbit. 5.1.9 Boosters land on Runway Fly the boosters back to the Spaceport and land at the Runway. 5.1.10 Taxi to LVS Return the boosters to LVS along the taxiways.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 151 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
5.1.11 Checks and Analyse the returned boosters and refurbish them Refurbishment accordingly for their next mission. 5.2 Virgin Orbit 5.2.1 Transfer Payload to LVA Move the assembled Payload from PPF to LVA. 5.2.2 Payload loaded into Prepare Launcher One by inserting the payload LauncherOne in LVA. 5.2.3 Transfer LauncherOne to Move the compiled LauncherOne from LVA to LVS LVS. 5.2.4 LauncherOne mated to Mate the LauncherOne to the underside of the Cosmic Girl wing of Cosmic Girl. 5.2.5 Cosmic Girl tugged to Tug Cosmic Girl out of LVS and transport to the Fuel Station Fuel Station. 5.2.6 Fuelling Cosmic Girl loaded with aviation fuel 5.2.7 LauncherOne fuelling LauncherOne loaded with RP-1 and LOx whilst mated to Cosmic Girl. 5.2.8 Taxi to Runway Cosmic Girl taxis from the fuel station to the end 3 of the Runway along the taxiways. 5.2.9 Launch Cosmic Girl takes off from the Runway and begins its mission. 5.2.10 LauncherOne detaches Detach LauncherOne from Cosmic Girl at from Cosmic Girl 35,000 ft, with Launcher One continuing into orbit. 5.2.11 Cosmic Girl lands on With LauncherOne detached, Cosmic Girl Runway returns to the Spaceport and lands on the Runway. 5.2.12 Taxi to LVS Return Cosmic Girl to LVS along the taxiways. 5.2.13 Checks and Analyse Cosmic Girl and refurbish accordingly Refurbishment for its next mission. 5.3 Skylon 5.3.1 Transfer Payload to LVA Move the assembled Payload from PPF to LVA. 5.3.2 Payload loaded into Fit the assembled Payload into the Skylon Payload Container specific Payload Container. 5.3.3 Transfer Payload Move the Payload Container with the Payload Container to LVS inside from LVA to LVS 5.3.4 Payload Container Insert the Payload Container into the storage bay inserted into Skylon of Skylon in LVS 5.3.5 Skylon tugged to Runway Tug Skylon out of LVS and transport to the end of the Runway. 5 5.3.6 Fuelling Fuel Skylon at the end of the Runway with LOx,
LH2 and helium. 5.3.7 Launch Skylon takes off from the Runway and begins its mission. 5.3.8 Release Payload When in orbit 5.3.9 Skylon lands on Runway With the Payload released, Skylon returns to the Spaceport and lands on the Runway.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 152 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
5.3.10 Empty Propellant Tanks Leftover propellant is removed from the tanks and placed back in the tanks. 5.3.11 Taxi to LVS Return Skylon to LVS along the taxiways. 5.3.12 Checks and Analyse Skylon and refurbish accordingly for its Refurbishment next mission.
15. Finance
15.1. Sources of Seed Capital
When financing a large infrastructure project such as the Spaceport, one cannot simply take a large loan or only use private investors. As debt is the cheapest method of raising capital, it will be a substantial part of the seed capital, especially with London Inter Banking Offer Rates (LIBOR) being as low as 0.5% (December 2017). However, banks will not lend such large amounts, therefore some percentage of the starting capital is required by investors (equity), such as firms with an interest in the proposed project. This project will be split by raising 60% of its capital through debt and 40% through equity. Below are some arguments to suggest where the equity investments would come from.
The Autumn Budget of 2017 states that it sets out actions the government will take to establish the UK as a world leader in new technologies and science. To support this, the budget states in section 4.17 that the previously announced £4.7 billion investment by the Northern Powerhouse Investment Fund in science and innovation is to grow by a further £2.3 billion by 2021-22 (HM Treasury, 2017). Reaction Engines Ltd., which is developing Skylon, receives €10 million from the European Space Agency (ESA) and £60 million from the UK Government (Reaction Engines Ltd., 2017). Thus, it can be argued, that by facilitating the Spaceport for Skylon, the first of its kind, some funding from both the ESA and the UK Government for this Spaceport can be acquired.
Furthermore, a feasibility study will be conducted in this section, potentially making this project a desirable investment for high net worth individuals, investment funds, investment banks and other engineering firms such as BAE Systems who has invested £20.6 million in Reaction Engines (Reaction Engines Ltd., 2017). Several other satellite manufacturers may show interest in this facility and provide seed capital for a small stake or other benefits. Having a European-based launch facility accommodating frequent, cost efficient launches for micro, small and large satellites will be particularly attractive to European companies, such as Airbus Defence and Space, OHB SE, Thales Alenia Space, Berlin Space Technologies and many more.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 153 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 15.2. Income through Operation
Revenue for this project will be generated by charging Virgin Orbit a fee to use the facility, in a similar manner commercial airports charge airlines, and through providing a satellite launch service using the ALV and Skylon. As this Spaceport will be the first of its kind to host Skylon, it may serve as a first test flight location. Thus, a more favourable price of the vehicle can be negotiated. However, the cashflow analysis assumes the full purchase price of the vehicle. The ALV will be in a similar position. Once the vehicles have been purchased and are operational, a customer will deliver a satellite to the site where it will then launched using the appropriate vehicle. An annual revenue of each spacecraft is indicated in Table 48, where a price per launch is estimated in the comments column. Currently, the strongest competition in the industry lies with SpaceX and the Falcon9 programme, which currently is priced at $61.2 million per launch (Space News, 2016). Therefore, the estimated prices per launch from Spaceport would be significantly undercutting the market giving a great price setting power, thus a potential for even larger profits than predicted.
The enterprise zone and the entertainment zone will generate revenue through leasing land to companies who wish to be located in the Spaceport’s Thurso Site. An annual rent price has been estimated through assessing the value of the land. There is the potential of additional small revenue from any excess energy produced by the wind turbines.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 154 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Table 48: Revenue sources.
Cost / £ Source of Revenue million Comments ALV 140 35 launches charged at £4 million Virgin Orbit 0.984 £82,000 per launch 12 launches per year Post Launch service 2.5 Enterprise zone lease 0.15 Estimate Entertainment zone lease 0.20 Estimate
Total 143.8 Other 143.8 All the above Skylon 765 £20 million charged to make 10 million profit per launch; 45 Flights per year Total: 908.8
15.3. Capital Cost
Table 49 below shows the project’s capital cost. These figures have been calculated in the relevant sections, bar the vehicle prices. A total of 10 boosters shall be purchased for the ALV, so that if ALV-2.6 is launched there are spare boosters in case of some critical last minute issues. The cost of the ALV boosters is not publically available, therefore a figure of £20 million was assumed, resulting in a total cost of £200 million for 10 boosters. One Skylon LV shall be purchased in the 6th year once the runway expansion, at a cost of £13.33 million, has been completed. The spacecraft purchase price is currently at £810 million (ESA, 2011).
Table 49: Capital Cost Breakdown.
Item Cost Per unit / £ Number of Units Total Cost / £ million Aerodrome Pavements 88,794,000 1 88.8 Land 12,000,000 1 12 Site adaptation 2,548,600 1 2.55 Launch control 1,052,035 1 1.05 Infrastructure 7,553,000 1 7.55 Fuel storage 3,394,600 1 3.40 Utilities Implementation 9,000,000 1 9 ALV-2 20,000,000 10 200 Sub Total: 295.6 Skylon 810,000,000 1 810 Skylon Expansion 13,330,000 1 13.3 Total: 1118.9
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 155 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 15.4. Operational Cost
According to Flight Global, the operation of Skylon would cost approximately £10 million per launch (Thisdell, 2011). Whereas the ALV-2 will have an operational cost depending on the number of boosters used as illustrated in Table 50 below.
Table 50: Preliminary Vehicle Specification (Heliaq, 2017).
Vehicle ALV-2.1 ALV-2.2 ALV-2.3 ALV-2.4 ALV-2.6 No. Boosters 1 2 3 4 6 Payload to 10 24 40 60 100 500 km / kg Target Cost / 600 1,500 2,100 3,000 4,000 $
An average of the above values has been used to give a fixed cost per launch of $2,240,000 (£1,660,000 as of 10/1/18). The operational cost of Virgin Orbit has been estimated by the maximum cost of fuel (£77,450) per launch plus an estimate cost of £2,550 for involved staff, resulting in an operational cost of £80,000 per launch. Furthermore, the operational cost covers the cost of Utilities usage and the overall cost of staff employed at the Spaceport as illustrated in Table 51.
Table 51: Operational Cost
Item Annual cost / Comments £ millions Utilities 0.15 ALV 58.1 35 launches per year; Average launch cost for all Vehicle variation £1.66 million Staff £1.88 Virgin Orbit 0.96 12 launches per year; at £80,000 covering fuel cost and approximately £3,000 of staff Subtotal 61.1 Annual operational cost before the Skylon implementation Skylon 450 45 launches per year; cost per launch £100 million Total: 511.1
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 156 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 15.5. Return on Investment and Feasibility Study
The attached Excel sheet shows a cash flow analysis of 34 years. It summarises the revenue and operational cost to give an annual profit. The blue columns show the debt repayment analysis where debt shall be repaid at an 8% interest rate, giving the banks 7.5 percentage points above LIBOR to secure against risks.
For this project, two separate loans shall be taken; the first to cover the initial construction of the entire Spaceport, 60% of the total project initial cost, which amounts to £309.8 million. The second loan shall be taken in the 6th year to fund the expansion to accommodate Skylon; amounting to £823.3 million. The loans shall be repaid over a thirty-year period, where the annual repayment of the first five years is £10.33 million, and the remaining 25 years is £43.26 million.
An annual maintenance reserve of £2 million shall be kept in the Spaceport’s accounts in the first 5 years, to allow for unforeseen future payments. As a Skylon LV has a life cycle of 200 flights, a new spacecraft will need to be purchased every 4.5 years, should it complete 45 flights annually. Therefore, once Skylon is operational, an annual maintenance reserve of £182 million shall be taken aside to cover the cost of a new spacecraft and keep £2 million in reserve for emergencies. The years in which a new vehicle is purchased are highlighted in the “Cumulative Maintenance Reserve” column.
Using a very conservative discount rate, as was used in the Skylon Assessment Report of 12% (ESA, 2011), a Net Present Value (NPV) of running the project for 34 years was calculated to be £229.48 million. Using this figure, a Return on Investment (ROI) could be calculated by dividing the equity invested by NPV, resulting in a ROI value of 111.11%. Furthermore, the Equity Internal Rate of Return (Equity IRR) was calculated annually, showing the annual potential dividend yield which in year 2 is as high as 14.88%; and once all debt has been repaid the Equity IRR stands at 67.87%. The potential dividend yield is the annual percentage of the shareholders’ investment that can be paid out in dividends, if all profits were to be paid out in dividends. Despite the losses endured in the year the Spaceport is expanded to accommodate for Skylon, these results show a significant return for investors making this a financially feasible and attractive project for investors. Figure 61 below, graphically shows the cash flow and debt repayment of the project over 34 years. The blue bars show the final cash available after all reductions (tax, debt repayment including interest, reserves), the orange bars show the present value of that cash flow and the red line highlights the amount of debt that is left to be paid which is scaled on the secondary axis on the right. From this graph, one can see that all debts shall be repaid after 30 years following a linear repayment plan and that the cash flow increases proportionally to the debt repayments, as the
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 157 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final interest payment decrease over time. It is evident from the graph that the project endures a loss in year 6 as the debt increases significantly, and thus the interest paid on it, due to Phase 3 expansion of the Spaceport.
Figure 61: Cash Flow Graph.
To analyse the effects of higher initial cost than expected, an analysis has been conducted where the initial cost is 10% and 20% higher. The analysis of the latter shows that, despite taking a larger loan to fund the project, a ROI of 76.19% after 34 years can be expected, with an Equity IRR of 9.64% and 56.56% in year 2 and 34 respectively. In the most extreme case with the assumption of the Skylon’s purchase price is at £930 million and a 30% larger initial cost of the project, the project produces a ROI of 3.88% making the project in this scenario unfeasible. Nonetheless, as the competition prices are far larger than this Spaceport’s, an increase in revenue can be achieved by demanding higher launch prices and thus increase profits to cover the greater loan repayments.
As the Skylon program is the most price sensitive and riskiest part of this project, a cost analysis using the same discount rate has been conducted that assumes no operation of Skylon will take place. The cash flow and debt repayment analysis is summarised in Figure 62. From this data, it is evident that the debt repayment can be reduced to 8 years, while still producing an annual profit, resulting in an extremely smaller amount of total interests paid. In this scenario, investors will see
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 158 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final a ROI of 118.33% after 34 years with an Equity IRR of 2.23% in year one and 31.48% annually once all debt has been repaid.
£70.00 £350.00
£60.00 £300.00
£50.00 £250.00
s
n
o
s
i
l n
l £40.00 £200.00
i
o
i
l
m
l
i
n
i
m
w
n
i
o
t
l
b
F
e
h £30.00 £150.00
D
s
a C
£20.00 £100.00
£10.00 £50.00
£0.00 £0.00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Years Cash flow after reductions (final Cash Available) Present Value of Final cash available Debt Left to pay
Figure 62: Cash Flow graph (No Skylon).
Despite this project being financially more favourable without using Skylon in the short run, with extremely reduced total interest being paid, the Skylon program adds a form of future proofing to the Spaceport. As Skylon has the capacity of sending larger payloads into more orbital circuits, it would provide the Spaceport with a significant advantage in the satellite launching market as well as potential manned orbital flights in the future, which the Skylon program is looking to expand to for scientific research only. Additionally, the advanced technologies of Skylon would immensely increase accessibility to space beyond orbital flights, making this Spaceport usable for years to come.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 159 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
16. Project Management
16.1. Work Breakdown Structure
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 160 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 16.2. MDDP Project Gantt Chart
Period Highlight: 16 Actual Start % Complete
Week PLAN PLAN ACTUAL ACTUAL PERCENT TASK ID PERSON ACTIVITY Start START DURATION START DURATION COMPLETE 02/10/2017 09/10/2017 16/10/2017 23/10/2017 30/10/2017 06/11/2017 13/11/2017 20/11/2017 27/11/2017 04/12/2017 11/12/2017 18/12/2017 25/12/2017 01/01/2018 08/01/2018 15/01/2018 22/01/2018 Week Number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 A1 All Brief and reference material assesment 1 1 1 1 100% A2 All Product specification 1 2 1 2 100% B1 MW Business case 2 2 2 2 100% B2 MG Launch vehicle 2 2 2 2 100% B3.1 AM LV infrastructure 2 2 2 2 100% B3.2 MW Auxiliary infrastructure 2 2 2 2 100% B4.1 DM Location 2 2 2 2 100% B4.2 CD Regulations 2 2 2 2 100% B5 PM Facility Operations 2 2 2 2 100% B6 DM/PM/CD Project management 2 2 2 2 100% C1 PM Template production 2 1 2 1 100% C2 All Sections construction 2 2 2 2 100% C3 PM Report compilation 3 1 3 1 100% C4 All Review 3 1 3 1 100% C5 All Submission 4 1 4 1 100% D1.1 All Launch vehicle 4 1 4 1 100% D1.2 All Mission 4 1 4 1 100% D1.3 All Location 4 1 4 1 100% D2.1 MW Telemetry (Research) 5 5 5 5 100% D2.2 MW Telemetry (Design) 10 5 10 5 100% D2.3 MG Launch pad, area and runway (Research) 5 4 5 4 100% D2.4 MG Launch pad, area and runway (Design) 9 6 9 6 100% D2.5 AM Payload preparation, LVA and LVS facilities (Research) 5 4 5 4 100% D2.6 AM Payload preparation, LVA and LVS facilities (Design) 9 6 9 6 100% D2.7 CD Fuel storage and supply (Research) 5 6 5 6 100% D2.8 CD Fuel storage and supply (Design) 11 4 11 4 100% D2.9 DM Spaceport utilities (Research) 5 5 5 5 100% D2.10 DM Spaceport utilities (Design) 10 5 10 5 100% D2.11 PM Launch site adaptation (Research) 5 4 5 4 100% D2.12 PM Launch site adaptation (Design) 9 6 9 6 100% D3 CD Sustainability 12 3 12 3 100% D4 MG Economic Evaluation 10 5 10 5 100% D5 AM Scheme Layout 8 7 8 7 100% E1 PM Template production 8 1 8 1 100% E2 All Sections construction 9 6 9 6 100% E3 PM Report compilation 15 1 15 1 100% E4 All Review 15 1 15 1 100% E5 All Submission 16 1 16 1 100% F1 All Presentation Preparation 16 2 16 2 0% F2 All Presentation 17 1 17 1 0% G1 All Poster Preparation 16 2 16 2 0% G2 All Poster 17 1 17 1 0%
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 161 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 16.3. Spaceport Project Gantt Chart
(QUARTER)
(QUARTER)
DURATION
TASK ID TASK
PLANNED
PLANNED
START Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ACTIVITY Quarter 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64
A Design 1 6 A1 Optimisation of Design 1 2 Front End Engineering A2 3 1 Design A3 Accurate Cost Appraisal 4 2 Project Handed to A4 6 1 Contractor B Construction 7 8 B1 Facility Foundations 7 2 B2 Construction of Facilities 8 7
B3 Roadways and Accessibility 8 3 to Spaceport B4 Erection of Structures 12 2 B5 Mechanical Completion 14 1 C Phase 1 15 14 ALV-2 and Virgin Orbit C1 15 50 Operations C2 Technical Evaluation 23 1 C3 Economic Evaluation 24 1 D Phase 2 29 12 D1 Extra Launch Pads Added 29 1 D2 ALV-3 Operations 30 35 E Phase 3 41 24 E1 Skylon Accessibility 41 2 E2 Skylon Operations 43 22 Link of Transport System to E3 41 6 Main-Line
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 162 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
16.4. Risk Assessment
As with the Inception Report, a risk assessment has been carried out based on the NASA risk analysis methodology, which measures risks in terms of their likelihood and severity of consequence, as shown in Figure 63 through the use of a Prioritisation Score (PS) (NASA, 2014).
5 7 16 20 23 25
4 6 13 18 22 24
3 4 10 15 19 21 Likelihood
2 2 8 11 14 17
1 1 3 5 9 12
1 2 3 4 5 Consequence
Figure 63: Risk Prioritisation Matrix showing the Prioritisation Score of each risk, with low risks shown in green, medium risks in yellow, and high risks in red (NASA, 2014).
The following risk assessment assigns each risk a PS and describes the approach taken, which is either to Mitigate (M), Research (R), Watch (W) or Accept (A) the risk, depending on its impact.
MDDP Project Risks Risk ID Risk Title PS - Approach 1.1 Manage report deadline with Semester 1 exam period 19 - M Make every team member aware of conflicting priorities so that workload can be adjusted accordingly. 1.2 Unexpectedly unavailable team member 2 – A Delegate roles accordingly.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 163 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Geopolitical Risks Risk ID Risk Title PS - Approach 2.1 Local economy becomes too dependent on the Spaceport 11 – W Regularly check the state of the local economy to ensure other industries balance out the dependency of the region on a particular industry. 2.2 Scottish Independence from the UK 12 – W In the event of another Scottish referendum, any changes to relevant regulations and laws will need to managed, in addition to any issues with ownership of the site. 2.3 Unsuccessful Brexit could involve reduction of co-operation from 22 – M mainland Europe. Ensure backup plans are in place to minimise the reduced co-operation.
Safety Risks Risk ID Risk Title PS - Approach 3.1 Propellant ignition causing large explosion 12 – W Regularly check propellant tanks and piping for leaks to ensure there is not an area that would combust in the presence of a spark. 3.2 Taxiways used for LVs and road vehicles 21 – M Implement appropriate signage around areas where both types of vehicles may be operating. 3.3 Many objects at head height causing injury risk 13 – M Provide appropriate PPE in areas where injury is a possibility. 3.4 Trip hazards in offices and other facilities 8 – M Ensure that there are no hazards in walkways and provide lockers for staff to put their belongings. 3.5 Working at heights in LV maintenance buildings 22 – M Provide relevant training and PPE to employees who will be working at heights.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 164 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Financial Risks Risk ID Risk Title PS - Approach 4.1 Inaccurate cost estimates for construction 13 - R Further cost calculations providing a greater accuracy would have to be conducted at later design stages. 4.2 Source of funding backs out 12 – A The source of funding could back out of the development, rendering it unable to continue with progression. 4.3 Unable to repay loan due its size and length 16 – W Not enough customers are obtained to meet the launch quota, resulting in a low revenue. This is especially relevant for the Skylon project, due to it high purchase cost and relatively short lifetime.
Technical Risks Risk ID Risk Title PS - Approach 5.1 LV delayed development 17 – W Should one of the planned LVs be delayed in its development or not reach maturity it would compromise the usefulness of certain facilities specifically designed for them. However, the only LV with a real risk of this is the Skylon which facilities for aren’t to be constructed until Phase 3 at a later date. 5.2 Incorrect design estimations 13 – M Many assumptions were made in designing the facilities and their functions which could prove, after their construction, invalid. This is mitigated through appropriate factors of safety.
Supply Risks Risk ID Risk Title PS - Approach 6.1 Road out of action 15 – W Inaccessible roads could result in a lack of propellant or other deliveries being delayed. This could ultimately 6.2 Insufficient capacity at water treatment works for the Spaceport 5 – R Should the water treatment plant exceed capacity there may be limited water supply and sourcing methods would have to be revisited. 6.3 Insufficient capacity at waste water treatment works 5 - R Waste water would either have to be rerouted to a different plant, or a new treatment facility would need to be constructed.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 165 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 16.5. Responsibilities Table
The following table details the section of this report that each individual team member was responsible for completing as their primary contribution. All other sections were completed collaboratively.
Section ID Section Title Team Member 5 Adaptation of Launch Site Paul Mearman 6 Control Facilities Mark Warrilow 7 Take-Off and Landing Infrastructure Michael Groehe 8 Launch Vehicle Infrastructure Antonio-Luis Martinez 9 Fuel Storage and Supply Callum Dykes 10 Utilities Daniel Moore 15 Finance Michael Groehe
17. Conclusion
The initial inspiration for the project was the development of VTOHL LVs, such as a LV option with retractable wings. However, it quickly became apparent that this on its own was not the most effective solution for a competitive launch strategy. The Inception Report explored the advantages and disadvantages of various LVs and their take-off and landing capabilities. During this Final Report, the focus of the project has shifted to the Spaceport itself. Following analysis of LV configurations, a Spaceport optimised for a number of LV configurations was deemed to be the best compromise between technical innovation and financial feasibility.
With the American launch site market becoming increasingly oversaturated, it was considered to be unprofitable for a new site to be based in the US where a number of Spaceport’s already exist. Instead, the site selected for the Spaceport will be the first major launch site in Europe, creating a lucrative opportunity for capturing market share in the small satellite launch industry. Further to this, the north of Scotland provides a prime location for high inclination orbits such as polar and SSOs.
The financial analysis carried out in this report has found the total cost of all three Phases to be £1.339 billion with a 34-year ROI of 111%. The profit in year one is expected to be £30.74 million after all reductions and once all debt has been repaid the profits are expected to be £140.17 million annually. The financial analysis when assuming Skylon is not operating, on the other hand, shows
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 166 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final that debts can be repaid in just 8 years resulting in substantially lower interest costs, while producing £4.61 million profit in year one and £65.02 million once all debts are repaid. Despite producing lower returns without Skylon, it can be argued that this scenario would be a better solution as it involves significantly lower risks by taking a smaller loan over a smaller period of time. Nonetheless, Skylon provides some form of future proofing to the Spaceport by accessing different markets.
The greatest technical risk to the project has been identified as the possible delay of the LV development. The ramifications of Brexit must also be monitored as this has the potential to seriously jeopardise the transportation of goods, movement of staff and international co-operation on projects such as the ISS. A key financial risk is if the initial loan cannot be repaid, as previously mentioned, the inclusion of Phase 3 could potentially be reconsidered to circumvent further debt.
The Spaceport features an innovative design that is prepared for new developments in the space industry. The facilities on site include a world class PPF capable of handling not just the LVs currently selected but potentially others too, leading to versatility. With a 5.5 km runway, the site boasts the longest runway in the UK, providing future proofing for spaceplanes yet to be conceived.
The site chosen has proven advantageous in some ways such as being closely located to a harbour, having the North Sea in the direction of the launch path to reduce risk from falling debris, and reduced air space traffic. However, it may not be the perfect location in the UK, for example the local nuclear contamination near the site poses some issues. The recommendation would therefore follow that the designs included in the deliverables such as floor plans, a scheme layout of both sites, and design calculations for several systems such as fuel storage may wish to still be considered even if an alternative site is chosen in the UK.
18. References
A&W Sinclair, 2018. Melvich Sand & Gravel Quarry. [Online] Available at: http://www.awsinclairquarries.co.uk [Accessed 6 January 2018].
AACE International, 2011. Cost Estimate Classification System - As applied in engineering, procurement, and construction for the process industries, s.l.: AACE International.
ABB, 2015. The MV/LV transformer substations, Woking: ABB.
Abbey Ecosse, 2016. Forss Business and Energy Park. [Online] Available at: http://abbeyecosse.com/about-us/forss-business-energy-park/ [Accessed 12 12 2017].
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 167 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
AECOM, 2012. Caithness Internal Transport Connecivity Study, Aberdeen: HITRANS and the Highland Council.
AECOM, 2017. Costing Steelwork #3: Industrial Focus. London: Building.
Aerospace Energy, 2017. AEROSPACE ENERGY STANDARD PRICES FOR DOD CUSTOMERS. [Online] Available at: https://goo.gl/72nfz5
Air Products, 2015. Safetygram 7: Liquid Nitrogen. [Online] Available at: http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/files/pdf/company/safetygram-7.pdf
Air Products, 2017. Safetygram 6: Liquid Oxygen. [Online] Available at: http://www.airproducts.com/~/media/files/pdf/company/safetygram-6.pdf
Arianespace, 2018. Spaceport Facility. [Online] Available at: http://www.arianespace.com/spaceport-facility/ [Accessed 9 January 2018].
Ayson, E. D., Dhanani, R. R. & Parker, G. A., 1970. The 747 Fuel System. s.l., Society of Automotive Engineers.
Bateman, A., 2003. Scottish Water’s Water Quality Programme. UK Water Projects Online, 2(1), pp. 157-160.
BEIS, 2017. Energy Consumption in the UK, London: BEIS.
Beutel, A. & Anderson, J., 2010. Solar Power Plant at Kennedy Supplying Electricity to Floridians. [Online] Available at: www.nasa.gov [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Binnie, C. & Kimber, M., 2013. Overview of water treatment. In: Basic Water Treatment. s.l.:ICE Publishing, pp. 27-44.
Binnie, C. & Kimber, M., 2013. Quality of water. In: Basic Water Treatment. 5th ed. s.l.:ICE Publishing, pp. 9-26.
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, 2002. 747-400 Airplane Characteristics for Aiport Planning. Seattle: Boeing Commercial Airplanes.
Boeing, 2011. Airplane Characteristics for Airport Planning. [Online] Available at: http://www.boeing.com/assets/pdf/commercial/airports/acaps/747_4.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2017].
British Council for Offices, 2013. Occupier Density Study, London: British Council for Offices.
British Geological Survey, 2017. Geological Report Information. [Online] Available at: http://shop.bgs.ac.uk [Accessed 29 December 2017].
British Geological Survey, 2017. Geology of Britain Viewer. [Online] Available at: http://mapapps.bgs.ac.uk [Accessed 29 December 2017].
British Government, 2010. Employment Densities Guide, London: British Government.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 168 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
British Standards Institute, 2016. BS EN 60079-10-1:2015. s.l.:British Standards Institution.
British Telecommunications plc, 2018. Earth Stations. [Online] Available at: https://www.globalservices.bt.com/uk/en/products/satellite_services/earth_stations?chapter=2 [Accessed 1 January 2018].
BSI, 2003. BS EN ISO 14644-4:2001: Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments - Part 4: Design, construction and start-up. London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 2005. UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: General actions - Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings. London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 2009. BS EN 1991-1-3:2003 - Eurocode 1 - Actions on structures - Part 1-3: General actions - Snow loads. London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 2009. Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-1: general actions - Densities, self-weight, imposed loads for buildings. London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 2010. Eurocode - Basis of structural design. London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 2015. NA to BS EN 1991-1-3:2003 - UK National Annex to Eurocode 1: Actions on structures - Part 1-3: General actions - Snow loads. London: British Standards Institution.
BSI, 2016. BS EN ISO 14644-1:2015 Cleanrooms and associated controlled environments - Part 1: Classification of air cleanliness by particle concentration. London: British Standards Institution.
BuildBase , 2018. Steel Reinforcement Mesh 3600 x 2000mm A142M. [Online] Available at: https://www.buildbase.co.uk/steel-reinforcement-10481-0000 [Accessed 9 January 2018].
Bureau of Reclamation, 2006. Design Guide for Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Systems, Denver: U.S Department of the Interior.
CAA, 2006. CAA Policy and Guidelines on Wind Turbines, Gatwick Airport South: Civil Aviation Authority.
CAA, 2007. CAP 637: Visual Aids Handbook, Norwich: Civil Aviaiton Authority.
CAA, 2012. Chart of United Kingdom Airspace Restrictions and Hazardous Areas. [Online] Available at: http://www.mantma.co.uk/pdf/eg_enr_6_5_1_1_en.pdf [Accessed 02 01 2018].
CAA, 2017. Factors Affecting Aviation Noise. s.l.:s.n.
Caithness Business Index, 2011. Partnership lays "foundations for the future". [Online] Available at: http://caithness-business.co.uk/article.php?id=2281 [Accessed 13 12 2017].
Canning, S. & Leitham, S., 2008. Transport for Development - Caithness Transport Infrastructure Study, United Kingdom: MVA Consultancy.
Carbon Trust, 2012. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, London: The Carbon Trust.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 169 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Carbon Trust, 2014. Warm air heating, London: The Carbon Trust.
Carbon Trust, 2017. Heating, ventilation and air conditioning, London: The Carbon Trust.
Chestney, N., 2012. UK sea energy cost could halve by 2025 - Carbon Trust. [Online] Available at: uk.reuters.com [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Chin, A. et al., 2008. CubeSat: the pico-satellite standard for research and education. s.l., s.n., p. 7734.
Civil Aviation Authority, 2014. UK Government Review of commercial spaceplane certification and operations. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/329758/spaceplane s-tech.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2018].
Civil Aviation Authority, 2016. CAA Policy and Guildines on Wind Turbines, Gatwick: Civil Aviation Authority.
Clark, P., 2017. UK wind farm costs fall almost a third in 4 years. [Online] Available at: www.ft.com [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Coastal Engineering Research Centre, n.d.. Design Guidance for Selectively Placed Quarrystone Revetment Armor Layers. [Online] Available at: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1003870.pdf [Accessed 02 01 2018].
COMAH Competent Authority, 2013. Understanding COMAH: A guide for new entrants, s.l.: Health and Safety Executive.
COMAH, 2015. The Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations. s.l.:The Stationary Office Limited.
Cooper, E., Boyd, R. & Fuller, A., 1991. The planning, design and construction of a landfill site at Seater, Caithness. Birmingham, Midland Geotechnical Society.
Cost Modelling Limited, 2018. Typical UK Construction Costs of Buildings. [Online] Available at: https://www.costmodelling.com/building-costs [Accessed 1 2018].
Croucher, D., 2011. Design and Planning, London: UK Power Networks.
Cruise Europe, 2017. Scrabster. [Online] Available at: http://www.cruiseeurope.com/port/scrabster [Accessed 12 12 2017].
Danigelis, A., 2017. Cost of Onshore Wind Energy Development Now Competitive with Gas in the UK. [Online] Available at: www.energymanagertoday.com [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 170 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final de Neufville, R., Odoni, A. R., Belobaba, P. P. & Reynolds, T. G., 2013. Airport Systems: Planning Design and Managment. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Education .
Department for Business Innovation & Skills, 2016. UK Aerospace Maintenance, Repair, Overhaul & Logistics Industry Analysis. London: Department for Business Innovation & Skills.
Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2016. UK Statistics on Waste, London: Government Statistical Service.
Department for the Environment, 2007. Draft Planning Policy Statement 18 Renewable Energy, Belfast: Department for the Environment.
Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2014. The non-domestic National Energy Efficiency Data-Framework , London: Department of Energy & Climate Change.
Deutsches Windenergie-Institut, 2001. Wind Turbine Grid Connection and Interaction, s.l.: European Communities.
Dow Chemical Company, 1994. Dow's Fire & Explosion Index Hazard Classification Guide. s.l.:AIChe.
DSRL, 2010. Dounreay Interim Integrated Waste Strategy. [Online] Available at: https://www.sepa.org.uk/media/116446/paper-15-wsu-strategy-p033-08-dounreay- interim-integrated-waste-strategy.pdf [Accessed 02 01 2018].
DSRL, 2017. Enabling Functions. [Online] Available at: https://dounreay.com/about/decommissioning-projects/enabling-functions/ [Accessed 12 12 2017].
DTI, n.d.. Annual Mean Significant Wave Height. [Online] Available at: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.dti.gov.uk/renewables/publications/pdfs/a nnualmeansignificantwaveheight.pdf [Accessed 02 01 2018].
Eaton, J. & Cohen, E., 1983. Electric Power Transmission Systems. 2nd ed. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.
Electrical Intallation, 2016. Low-voltage distribution networks. [Online] Available at: http://www.electrical-installation.org [Accessed 10 January 2018].
Ellenberger, P. J., 2010. Piping and Pipeline Calculations Manual - Construction, Design, Fabrication, and Examination. s.l.:Elsevier.
Ellis, T., 2015. Scotland's Population, s.l.: National Records of Scotland.
Ellis, T., 2016. Scotland’s Population - The Registrar General’s Annual Review of Demographic Trends, Edinburgh: National Records of Scotland.
Energy Saving Trust, 2013. At home with water, London: Energy Saving Trust.
Environment Agency, 2010. Waste acceptance at landfills, Bristol: Environment Agency.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 171 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Environment Agency, 2015. Cost estimation for channel management – summary of evidence. [Online] Available at: http://evidence.environment- agency.gov.uk/FCERM/Libraries/FCERM_Project_Documents/SC080039_cost_channel_mgmt.s flb.ashx [Accessed 02 01 2018].
Environmental and Energy Study Institute, 2010. Offshore Wind Energy, Washington D.C: Environmental and Energy Study Institute.
EPA Victoria, 2015. Siting, design, operation and, Carlton: EPA Victoria.
EPA, 2017. Electronics Donation and Recycling. [Online] Available at: https://www.epa.gov/recycle/electronics-donation-and-recycling
ESA, 2011. Skylon Assesment Report. [Online] Available at: http://knts.tsniimash.ru/ru/src/CenterInfRes/Skylon%20Assessment%20Report.pdf [Accessed 5 January 2018].
European Space Agency, 2018. Active Debris Removal. [Online] Available at: http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Operations/Space_Debris/Active_debris_removal [Accessed 2 January 2018].
European Space Agency, 2018. What is Galileo?. [Online] Available at: http://m.esa.int/Our_Activities/Navigation/Galileo/What_is_Galileo [Accessed 2 January 2018].
FAA, 2015. Airfield Standards. [Online] Available at: https://www.faa.gov/airports/southern/airport_safety/part139_cert/media/aso- airfield-standards-quick-reference.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2017].
FAA, 2016. Runway Strip & Runway End Safety Area. [Online] Available at: https://www.icao.int/NACC/Documents/Meetings/2016/ACI/D1-05-RESA.pdf [Accessed 14 December 2017].
Farokhi, S., 2014. Aircraft Propulsion. In: s.l.:John Wiley & Sons, p. 131.
FDOT, 2016. Cost Report. [Online] Available at: http://www.fdot.gov/planning/policy/economic/Airports.pdf [Accessed 21 December 2017].
Federal Aviation Administration, 2016. The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation. [Online] Available at: https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/2016_Compendium.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2018].
Federal Aviation Authority , 1989. Airport Design, Advisory Circular 15/5300-13, Washington, DC. : U.S. Department of Transportation.
Fedkin, M., 2018. s.l.:s.n.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 172 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Fillery, N. P. & Stanton, D., 2011. Telemetry, Command, Data Handling and Processing. In: P. Fortescue, G. Swinerd & J. Stark, eds. Spacecraft Systems Engineering. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, p. 440.
Foundation and Exploration Services, 2002. Borehole No. SWB3 Report, Nottingham: British Geological Survey.
Foundation and Exploration Services, 2002. Borehole No. SWB6 Report, Nottingham: British Geological Survey.
Fugro, 2004. Borehole No. GM115 Report, Nottingham: British Geological Survey.
Gering, J., 2015. 2015 Lab Construction Outlook. [Online] Available at: https://www.labdesignnews.com/article/2015/08/2015-lab-construction-outlook [Accessed 12 2017].
Gerrard, A. M., 2000. Guide to Capital Cost Estimating. s.l.:IChemE.
Google, 2017. Google Maps. [Online] Available at: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@58.576289,-3.7362847,13.9z?hl=en [Accessed 13 12 2017].
Grangeston, 2012. Socio Eonomic Impacts of Dounreay Decomissioning, United Kingdom: Highlands & Islands Enterprise, Dounreay Site Restoration Ltd .
Greenpeace, 2018. Wave and Tidal Power. [Online] Available at: www.greenpeace.org.uk [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Health and Safety Executive, 2013. Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulation. [Online].
Health and Safety Executive, n.d. Control of Major Accident Hazards (COMAH). [Online].
Heliaq Advanced Engineering, n.d. Reusability And?.
Heliaq, 2017. ALV-2 High Level Operational Concept, s.l.: Heliaq Advanced Engineering.
Heliaq, 2017. ALV-2 Introduction, s.l.: Heliaq Advanced Engineering.
Herd, A., Dempsey, R. & Van Leeuwen, W., 2013. Mission Control Center Design and Operations. In: F. A. Allahdadi & T. Sgobba, eds. Safety Design for Space Operations. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 381-384.
HM Goverment, 2013. Approved Document B2: Fire Safety, s.l.: RIBA Enterprises Ltd.
HM Government, 1974. The London-Edinburgh-Thurso Trunk Road (Luncarty Bypass) Order 1974. [Online] Available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1974/1967/pdfs/uksi_19741967_en.pdf [Accessed 03 01 2018].
HM Government, 2006. Publications and Records - Nuclear Liabilities. [Online] Available at: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060724/text/60724w0015.htm#0607 2426000088 [Accessed 02 01 2018].
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 173 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
HM Government, 2013. Construction Cost Reductions, Cost Benchmarks,& Cost Reduction Trajectories. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211105/GCS_Publi cation_2_July_2013_Departmental_Cost_Benchmarks_Cost_Reduction_Trajectories_and_Indicat ive_Cost_Reductions_v0_2.pdf [Accessed 4 January 2018].
HM Government, 2015. Approved Document M2: Access to and use of buildings, s.l.: RIBA Enterprises Ltd.
HM Government, 2015. National Space Policy: science fiction into science fact. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/national-space-policy-science-fiction-in-to- science-fact [Accessed 2 January 2018].
HM Government, 2015. Shutdown of shore test facility reactor. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/shutdown-of-shore-test-facility-reactor [Accessed 12 12 2017].
HM Government, 2017. Space Climate Observatory agreed ahead of One Planet Summit in Paris. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/space-climate-observatory-agreed-ahead-of- one-planet-summit-in-paris [Accessed 2 January 2018].
HM Treasury, 2017. Autumn Budget 2017, London: HM Treasury.
Holton, T., 2016. KSC Emergency Fire and Rescue. [Online] Available at: https://kscpartnerships.ksc.nasa.gov/Partnering-Opportunities/Capabilities-and- Testing/Support-Services/Emergency-Fire-and-Rescue [Accessed October 2017].
Household Quotes, 2018. Guide to Concrete Prices. [Online] Available at: https://householdquotes.co.uk/a-guide-to-concrete-prices/ [Accessed 9 January 2018].
Houston, S., 2017. Airport and Runway Lighting Systems Explained. [Online] Available at: https://www.thebalance.com/airport-runway-lighting-explained-282727 [Accessed 19 December 2017].
IEEE Standards Association, 2009. Standard Letter Designations for Radar-Frequency Bands, IEEE Std 521-2002. [Online] Available at: http://standards.ieee.org/findstds/standard/521-2002.html [Accessed 1 January 2018].
Index Mundi, 2017. Jet Fuel Monthly Price - Pound Sterling per Gallon. [Online] Available at: https://www.indexmundi.com/commodities/?commodity=jet-fuel¤cy=gbp
Institution of Engineering and Technology, 2008. BS 7671, London: Institution of Engineering and Technology.
Invest Caithness, 2017. Forss Business & Technology Park. [Online] Available at: http://www.investcaithness.com/property/commercial/forss-business-technology-
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 174 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final park [Accessed 12 12 2017].
Jensen, S. & Olgaard, P. L., 1995. Description of the Prototype Fast Reactor at Dounreay, Rosklide: Rise National Laboratory.
John Thompson and Partners, 2013. Charrette for Thurso, Thurso: The Highlands Council.
Kazda, A., 2007. Airport Design and Operation. 2nd ed. s.l.:Emerald, Inc..
Kingspan, 2017. Klargester Commercial Envireau. [Online] Available at: www.kingspan.com [Accessed 30 December 2017].
Konecny, G., 2004. Small satellites - A tool for Earth observation. Hannover: University of Hannover.
Krohn, S., 2009. The Economics of Wind Energy, Brussels: European Wind Energy Association.
Kutz, M., 2016. Handbook of Measurement in Science and Engineering. s.l.:John Wiley & Sons.
Lakervi, E. & Holmes, E., 1995. HV networks and substations. In: A. John & J. Platts, eds. Electricity Distribution Network Design. London: The Institution of Engineering and Technology, pp. 148-165.
Lang, H., 1947. Cost Relationships in Preliminary Cost Estimation. Chemical Engineering.
Lemaire, X., 2010. Glossary of Terms, Warwick: Warwick Business School.
Linde AG, 2017. Cryogenic Storage Tanks: LITS 2. [Online] Available at: https://www.linde- engineering.com/internet.global.lindeengineering.global/en/images/P_3_3_e_12_150dpi19_5774. pdf?v=4.0
Linek, M. & Nita, P., 2016. Airfield Pavements Made of Reinforced Concrete: Dimensioning According to the Theory of Limit States and Eurocode. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology International Journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 10(8), pp. 1099- 1102.
Lommer, 2005. A Shell jet refueller truck on the ramp at Vancouver Airport. s.l.:Wikipedia Commons.
London Economics, 2016. The Size & Health of the UK Space Industry, s.l.: UK Space Agency.
London Underground, 2006. Environment Report 2006, London: London Underground.
London Underground, 2014. Facts & Figures. [Online] Available at: https://tfl.gov.uk [Accessed 11 January 2018].
Macleod, M., 2006. Scottish Water Update, Fort William: The Highland Council.
Met Office, 2018. Rainfall - Annual average: 1981-2010. [Online] Available at: https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/public/weather/climate/ [Accessed 03 01 2018].
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 175 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Meteoblue, 2017. Meteoblue. [Online] Available at: https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/dounreay_united- kingdom_2651057 [Accessed 11 December 2017].
Meteoblue, 2018. Climate Dounreay. [Online] Available at: https://www.meteoblue.com/en/weather/forecast/modelclimate/dounreay_united- kingdom_2651057 [Accessed 02 01 2018].
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2013. Fire Safety - Buildings other than dwellinghouses. s.l.:s.n.
Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government, 2015. Access to and use of buildings: Approved Document M. London: HM Government.
Mokhatab, S., Mak, J. Y., Valappil, J. V. & Wood, D. A., 2014. Handbook of Liquefied Natural Gas. s.l.:Elsevier.
Moné, C. H. M. et al., 2017. 2015 Cost of Wind Energy Review, Golden: National Renewable Energy Labratory.
MVA Consultancy, 2008. Caithness Transport Infrastructure Study. [Online] Available at: http://www.caithness.org/regeneration/Caithness_Final_Report_March08_Final- 260308.pdf [Accessed 03 01 2018].
NASA, 2007. Space Shuttle: Mission Highlights. [Online] Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/launch/landing101.html [Accessed 19 December 2017].
NASA, 2010. Shuttle Mission Image Gallery Collection Archive. [Online] Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/images/content/424604main_jsc2010e018922_hires.jpg [Accessed 9 January 2018].
NASA, 2014. Guidelines for Risk Management, s.l.: NASA Independent Verification & Validation Program.
NASA, 2017. Mission Control Center during SpaceX Rendezvous Operations. [Online] Available at: https://www.nasa.gov/image-feature/mission-control-center-during-spacex- rendezvous-operations-0 [Accessed 9 January 2018].
National Records of Scotland, 2016. Estimates of Households and Dwellings in Scotland, 2015, Edinburgh: National Statistics.
NATS, 2018. NATS Website. [Online] Available at: https://www.nats.aero/ [Accessed 09 01 2018].
Nordex, 2014. Project: Baillie, UK, s.l.: Nordex.
NTSLF, 2018. National Tidal and Sea Level Facility: Tidal predictions for UK & Irish ports. [Online]
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 176 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Available at: http://www.ntslf.org/ [Accessed 02 01 2018].
Nuclear Information Service, 2015. Submarine test reactor at Dounreay shut down for final time. [Online] Available at: https://www.nuclearinfo.org/article/other-uk-fleet/submarine-test-reactor-dounreay- shut-down-final-time [Accessed 12 12 2017].
Office for National Statistics, 2011. 2011 Census, s.l.: s.n.
Ofgem, 2018. Feed-In Tariff (FIT) rates. [Online] Available at: www.ofgem.gov.uk [Accessed 7 January 2018].
OneWeb, 2018. Home. [Online] Available at: http://www.oneweb.world/ [Accessed 2 January 2018].
PayScale, 2017. Director of Operations Salary. [Online] Available at: https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Director_of_Operations/Salary [Accessed 4 January 2018].
PayScale, 2018. Salary Data & Career Research Centre (United Kingdom). [Online] Available at: https://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Country=United_Kingdom/Salary [Accessed 12 2017].
Power Technology, 2016. Pentland Firth Tidal Power Plant, Scotland. [Online] Available at: www.power-technology.com [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Praxair Technology Inc., 2010. Praxair Cryogenic Supply Systems: An Inside Look. [Online] Available at: http://www.praxair.com/-/media/documents/specification-sheets-and- brochures/services/bulk-praxair-cryogenic-supply-systems-p7896d130226.pdf
Protective Fencing, 2017. High Security Fencing. [Online] Available at: http://profence.com.au/companies/fencing/high-security/ [Accessed 2018].
Reaction Engines Ltd , 2010. Skylon Users' Manual. [Online] Available at: http://knts.tsniimash.ru/ru/src/CenterInfRes/Skylon%20Users%20Manual.pdf [Accessed 19 December 2017].
Reaction Engines Ltd., 2017. Reaction Engines: Events and Media. [Online] Available at: https://www.reactionengines.co.uk/reaction-engines-secures-funding-to-enable- development-of-sabre-demonstrator-engine/ [Accessed 20 December 2017].
Reddy, M. V., Nica, M. & Wilkes, K., 2012. Space tourism: Research recommendations for the future of the industry and perspectives of potential participants. Tourism Managment, 33(5), pp. 1093-1102.
Renewable Energy Systems, 2018. Forss Wind Farm. [Online] Available at: http://www.forss-windfarm.co.uk [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 177 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Renewable UK, 2018. Wind Energy Statistics. [Online] Available at: http://www.renewableuk.com [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Rennilson, J., 2003. Thurso Western Expansion Area - Development Brief, Thurso: The Highlands Council.
Robertson, B., 2006. Re-opening of sand quarry, installation of aggregate screen, rock crusher, fuel bowser,, s.l.: Sutherland Country Committee.
Ross, M., 2011. Rocket Soot Emissions and Climate Change. Crosslink Magazine, Volume 12.
Ross, M., Toohey, D., Peinemann, M. & Ross, P., 2009. Limites on the Space Launch Market Related to Stratospheric Ozone Depletion. Astropolitics, 7(1), pp. 50-82.
Sanderse, B., van der Pijl, S. & Koren, B., 2011. Review of CFD for wind-turbine wake aerodynamics. 1st ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
Sargious, M., 1975. Pavements and Surfacings for Highways and Airports. Barking: Applied Science Publishers Ltd..
Scottish Government, 2017. Renewable Energy. [Online] Available at: http://www.gov.scot [Accessed 4 January 2018].
Scottish National Heritage, 2018. A guide to managing coastal erosion in beach/dune systems. [Online] Available at: http://www.snh.org.uk/publications/on- line/heritagemanagement/erosion/appendix_1.14.shtml [Accessed 02 01 2018].
Scottish Parliament, 2003. The Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003, s.l.: Scottish Parliament.
Scottish Parliament, 2006. The Private Water Supplies (Scotland) Regulations 2006, s.l.: Scottish Parliament.
Scottish Water Solutions, 2006. Thurso WwTW & sludge treatment centre. UK Water Projects Online, 5(1), pp. 92-93.
Scottish Water, 2015. Where Water Comes From. [Online] Available at: http://www.scottishwater.co.uk [Accessed 21 December 2017].
Scrabster Harbour, 2017. Port Development. [Online] Available at: http://www.scrabster.co.uk/port-development/#Background [Accessed 12 12 2017].
Scrase, I., 2000. Energy consumption in the service sector, London: The Association for the Conservation of Energy.
SEPA [A], 2015. Flood Risk Management Strategy - Section 3. [Online] Available at: http://apps.sepa.org.uk/FRMStrategies/pdf/lpd/LPD_01_Sources.pdf [Accessed 14 12 2017].
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 178 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
SEPA [B], 2015. Flood Risk Management Strategy - Thurso Potentially Vunerable Area. [Online] Available at: http://apps.sepa.org.uk/FRMStrategies/pdf/pva/PVA_01_01_Full.pdf [Accessed 14 12 2017].
SEPA, 2015. Scotlands Environment Waste Sites Data tool. [Online] Available at: www.sepa.org.uk [Accessed 2 January 2018].
SEPA, 2018. SEPA Flood Maps. [Online] Available at: http://map.sepa.org.uk/floodmap/map.htm [Accessed 03 01 2018].
Sinnott, R. K., 2005. Coulson and Richardson's Chemical Engineering Volume 6 - Chemical Engineering Design. 4 ed. s.l.:Elsevier.
SKYbrary, 2017. ICAO Aerodrome Reference Code. [Online] Available at: https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/ICAO_Aerodrome_Reference_Code [Accessed 12 December 2017].
Solomon, S., Qin, D. & Manning, M., 2007. Climate Change - The Physical Science Basis. s.l.:Cambridge University Press.
South Staffordshire Water, 2017. Water Use in Your Business, Walsall: South Staffordshire Water.
Space IGS, 2010. Space Innovation and Growth Strategy, s.l.: s.n.
Space News, 2016. SpaceX’s reusable Falcon 9: What are the real cost savings for customers?. [Online] Available at: http://spacenews.com/spacexs-reusable-falcon-9-what-are-the-real-cost-savings-for- customers/ [Accessed 10 January 2018].
Statista, 2016. Average cost per square meter of internal area in the United Kingdom (UK) for constructing an industrial building in 2016, by region in GBP. [Online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/601846/industrial-building-cost-uk-2016/ [Accessed 4 January 2018].
Statkraft, 2016. Baillie Wind Farm. [Online] Available at: http://www.bailliewindfarm.co.uk/ [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Surrey Satellite Technology Ltd, 2018. Launch Services. [Online] Available at: https://www.sstl.co.uk/Products/Launch-Services [Accessed 1 January 2018].
The Guardian, 2008. "Robots scour sea for atomic waste". [Online] Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2008/may/25/pollution.conservation [Accessed 02 01 2017].
The Highland Council, 2013. Highland profile - key facts and figures. [Online] Available at: https://www.highland.gov.uk/info/695/council_information_performance_and_statistics/165/highl and_profile_-_key_facts_and_figures/2 [Accessed 03 01 2018].
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 179 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The Highland Council, 2013. Highland profile - key facts and figures. [Online] Available at: www.highland.gov.uk [Accessed 2 January 2018].
The Highland Council, 2014. Commercial Recycling and Refuse user guide. [Online] Available at: www.highland.gov.uk [Accessed 3 January 2018].
The Highland Council, 2017. Caithness and Sutherland Local Development Plan – Modified Proposed Plan. [Online] Available at: http://consult.highland.gov.uk/portal/dp/casplan/modified_casplan?pointId=s1473157110559#sec tion-s1473157110559 [Accessed 12 12 2017].
The Highland Council, 2017. Recycling sites - Thurso recycling centre. [Online] Available at: www.highland.gov.uk [Accessed 3 January 2018].
The Highland Council, 2017. Recycling sites - Wick recycling centre. [Online] Available at: www.highland.gov.uk [Accessed 3 January 2018].
The Highlands Council, 2014. North Planning Applications Committee – 29 April 2014 - Agenda Item 6.5, Thurso: The Highlands Council.
The University of Edinburgh, 2016. Tidal energy potential of firth revealed. [Online] Available at: www.ed.ac.uk [Accessed 5 January 2018].
The Weather Channel, 2018. Kennedy Space Center, FL Monthly Weather. [Online] Available at: weather.com [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Thisdell, D., 2011. Skylon concept could be next spaceplane. [Online] Available at: https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/skylon-concept-could-be-next- spaceplane-357546/ [Accessed 21 December 2017].
Towey, D., 2013. Cost Management of Construction Projects. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Towler, G. & Sinnott, R. K., 2013. Chemical Engineering Design - Principles, Practice and Economics of Plant and Process Design. s.l.:Elsevier.
Twort, A., Ratnayaka, D. & Brandt, M., 2000. Groundwater Supplies. In: A. Twort, D. Ratnayaka & M. Brandt, eds. Water Supply. London: Arnold, p. 114.
U.S. Department of Transportation, 2014. Federal Aviation Administration Type Certificate Data Sheet E36NE. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation.
UK Department for Transport, 2016. Airports: The Government’s View, London: UK Government.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 180 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
UK Space Agency [A], 2017. Annual Report and Accounts. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/625529/6.3324_U KSA_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_web.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2018].
UK Space Agency [B], 2017. UK Space Facitilies Review. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665552/UK_Space _Facilities_Review_December_2017.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2018].
UK Space Agency, 2017. Annual Report and Accounts. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/625529/6.3324_U KSA_Annual_Report_and_Accounts_web.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2018].
UK Space Agency, 2017. UK Space Facitilies Review. [Online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/665552/UK_Space _Facilities_Review_December_2017.pdf [Accessed 2 January 2018].
Underwood, C., 2016. Spacecraft Systems Design Lecture Notes. ENGM273: University of Surrey.
US Department of Transportation, 2013. Surface Drainage Design. [Online] Available at: https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150_5320_5d.pdf [Accessed 03 01 2018].
USACE, 1995. Design of Coastal Revetments, Seawalls, and Bulkheads. [Online] Available at: http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110-2- 1614.pdf [Accessed 02 01 2018].
Vatavuk, W. M., 2002. Updating the CE Plant Cost Index. Chemical Engineering, pp. 62-72.
Vaughan, A., 2017. Drop in wind energy cost adds pressure for government rethink. [Online] Available at: www.theguardian.com [Accessed 5 January 2018].
Virgin Orbit, 2017. LauncherOne Service Guide. s.l.:s.n.
Virgin Orbit, 2017. Service Guide. [Online] Available at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5915eeab9de4bb10e36a9eac/t/598882d003596ea150e8f3aa/ 1502118612306/service-guide.pdf [Accessed 1 January 2018].
Virgin Orbit, 2017. We are Virgin Orbit. [Online] Available at: https://virginorbit.com/
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 181 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Volio, R., 2017. Solar array project set to begin on Vandenberg. [Online] Available at: www.vandenberg.af.mil [Accessed 5 January 2018].
VTOHL Group 2, 2017. Multi-Disciplinary Design Project - Inception Report , Guildford: University of Surrey.
West, C., 2015. Recycling bins in the Library. [Online] Available at: blogs.surrey.ac.uk [Accessed 3 January 2018].
YR, 2018. Upper Dounreay, Scotland. [Online] Available at: https://www.yr.no/place/United_Kingdom/Scotland/Upper_Dounreay/statistics.html [Accessed 03 01 2018].
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 182 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final 19. Appendices
Appendix A – Revetment Calculations
Significant Wave Height:
−퐶1 퐻푠 푑 = exp [퐶0 ( 2) ] 퐻푚표 푔 푇푝
Where 퐻푠 is the significant wave height 퐻푚표 is the energy-based height of the zeroth moment, 퐶0 and 퐶1 are regression coefficients equal to 0.00089 and 0.834, respectively, 푑 is the water depth at the toe of the structure, 푔 is acceleration due to gravity, and 푇푝 is the period of peak energy density for the wave spectrum.
Armor Unit Stability: 3 훾푟퐻 푊 = 3 훾푟 퐾퐷 ( − 1) cot 휃 훾푤
Where 푊 is the required individual armor unit weight, 훾푟 is the specific weight of the armor unit,
퐻 is the monochromatic wave height, 퐾퐷 is the stability coefficient, 훾푤 is the specific weight of water at the site and 휃 is the slope of the revetment.
Layer Thickness: 푊 1⁄3 푟 = 푛푘∆ ( ) 푤푟 Where 푟 is the layer thickness, 푛 is the number of armor units that would fit within the layer thickness, 푘∆ is the layer coefficient and 푤푟 is the specific weight of the armor unit.
Surface Zone Parameter:
2 휉 = 푡푎푛휃⁄√2휋퐻푚표⁄푔푇푝
Maximum vertical height of runup: 푅 푎휉 푚푎푥 = 퐻푚표 1 + 푏휉 Where 푎 and 푏 are regression coefficients 1.022 and 0.24, respectively.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 183 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final Appendix B – Runway
British Geological Survey map and legend with the approximate location of the runway in red.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 184 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Paved Taxiway Markings according to CAP637 (CAA, 2007):
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 185 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final Appendix C – Launch Vehicle Infrastructure
Snow Load Calculation Using Eurocode 1, the snow load acting on the roof of the hangar will be calculated here.
Calculate the characteristic value of snow load on the ground, Sk, in Dounreay, Scotland: 퐴−100 푆 = [0.15 + (0.1 ∙ 푍 + 0.05)] + ( ) (NA.1) NA to BS EN 1991-1-3:2003 (BSI, 2015) 푘 525 Where: A is the site altitude above Sea Level (m) Z is the zone number given in BS EN 1991-1-3:2003, Figure C.9.
퐴 = 퐻푒𝑖푔ℎ푡 표푓 퐵푢𝑖푙푑𝑖푛푔 + 퐵푢𝑖푙푑𝑖푛푔 퐴푙푡𝑖푡푢푑푒 퐴푆퐿 퐴 = 28 푚 + 25 푚 = 53 푚 푍 = 4.5 53 − 100 푘푁 ∴ 푆 = [0.15 + (0.1 ∙ 4.5 + 0.05)] + ( ) = 0.561 푘 525 푚2
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 186 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Due to the location of Dounreay being in the north of Scotland, it can be argued that the worst case would be in an accidental design situation, where exceptional snow load is the accidental action.
∴ 푆푛표푤 퐿표푎푑 표푛 푟표표푓푠 = 푆 = 휇푖 ∙ 퐶푒 ∙ 퐶푡 ∙ 푆퐴푑
Where: Ce = the exposure coefficient
Ct = the thermal coefficient
μi = the snow load shape coefficient
퐶푒 = 0.8 (Table 5.1) BS EN 1991-1-3:2003 (BSI, 2009)
퐶푡 = 1.0 (NA.2.16) NA BS EN 1991-1-3:2003 (BSI, 2015)
휇푖 = 0.8 for a flat roof. (Table NA.2) NA BS EN 1991-1-3:2003 (BSI, 2015)
푆퐴푑 = 퐶푒푠푙 ∙ 푆푘 (4.3(4.1)) BS EN 1991-1-3:2003
퐶푒푠푙 = 2.0 (NA.2.11) NA BS EN 1991-1-3:2003 푘푁 푆 = 퐶 ∙ 푆 = 1.121 퐴푑 푒푠푙 푘 푚2 푘푁 ∴ 푆 = 0.8 ∙ 0.8 ∙ 1.0 ∙ 1.122 = 0.717 푚2
Imposed Roof Loading In addition to the calculated snow loading on the roof of the aircraft hangar, the imposed roof loading must also be considered according to BS EN 1991-1-1:2002 (BSI, 2009): The specific use of the hangar roof is for nothing other than for normal maintenance and repairs when necessary. Therefore, it is considered a category H loaded area according to table 6.9 of BS EN 1991-1-1:2002.
As a category H roof, the recommended uniform load qk is given as 0.6 (Table NA.7 (BSI, 2005)).
Total Roof Load Taking the snow load and imposed roof loading, the total roof load value can be calculated with the recommended safety factors applied (BSI, 2010). 푘푁 푞 = 1.5 ∙ 푞 + 0.8 ∙ 푆 = 1.474 푘 푚2 Uniform frame load assuming there is a frame every 8m: 푘푁 푊 = 푞 ∙ 8 푚 = 11.791 푚2 Perlin load assuming perlin spacing of 2m: 푃 = 푊 ∙ 2 푚 = 23.583 푘푁
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 187 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final Crane Loading The crane is expected to carry the load of a fully loaded LauncherOne LV. However, due to the details of the LauncherOne being minimal, it shall be conservative assumed that the LauncherOne weighs the same as a 747-400 PW4164 Pratt and Whitney jet engine. According to the U.S. Department of Transportation (2014), the Pratt and Whitney PW4164 has a dry weight of 12,900 lbs or 5,851 kg. Therefore the total load to be taken by the crane will be:
푚 퐹 = 5851 푘푔 ∙ 9.81 ∙ 1.5 = 86.1 푘푁 푐 푠2
It shall be assumed that this load will act at the most taxing position on the roof which will be at the centre of the roof where the crane is supported from.
FEA Roof Analysis Using the roof loading calculated above, a single frame of the LVS hangar will be analysed using structural analysis software SAP2000. The hangar has been drawn and the elements have been given section properties of CHS 273mm diameter 6.3mm wall thickness, steel sections, with S355 steel strength. Running the analysis using the calculated loads above (each perlin node was applied to each top chord roof node), the deformed shape of the structure was produced.
Only a small amount of deformation has occurred in the supporting columns which has therefore resulted in the overall roof deflection to be reduced. From the computer analysis, the maximum deflection of the roof at its centre has been found to be 331 mm.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 188 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final Appendix D – Fuel Storage and Supply
Fuel Tank Sizing Calculations
LOx Tank
3 The liquid volume of the tank, VL, is designed to be 250 m with the total volume, VT, able to hold 3 10% more, 275 m . To calculate the diameter of the internal tank, di, the following equation was rearranged:
4 푉 = 휋푟3 (1) 3
3 3푉 3 3 × 275 푑 = 2 × √ = 2 × √ = 8.06 푚 푖 4휋 4휋
Following this, the minimum vessel thickness was calculated using the pressure difference across the material, the tank diameter and the maximum design stress of the tank material, stainless steel type 304. The corresponding values are as follows:
• Internal pressure, Pi – 300000 Pa
• Cavity pressure, Pc – 5000 Pa • Maximum allowable design stress, 휎 – 138 MPa
The equation for the calculation of minimum internal wall thickness, ti,m, was:
푑 × (푃 − 푃 ) 8.06 × (300000 − 5000) 푡 = 푖 푖 퐶 = = 0.0043 푚 = 4.3 푚푚 (2) 푖,푚 4휎 4 × 138000000
Due to additional stresses and corrosion caused by the fluids, an additional 10 mm will be added to the thickness of the internal vessel to produce an internal wall thickness, ti, of 14 mm. In some cases, pressure vessels have wall thicknesses of up to 70 mm, so this is a relatively low value – likely caused by the internal pressure. The cavity between the two layers is filled with a material called perlite, which has a very low heat transfer coefficient so is an effective insulator. This cavity was designed at a thickness, tc, of 140 mm, which means the internal diameter of the outer shell, do, can now be calculated, as follows:
푑표 = 푑푖 + 2(푡푖 + 푡푐) = 8.06 + 2(0.014 + 0.14) = 8.368 푚 (3)
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 189 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The cavity pressure is known, and the external pressure is atmospheric (101325 Pa), so to calculate the minimum outer wall thickness, to,m, all that is needed is the maximum design stress for carbon steel, the material being used. This figure was found to be 118 MPa, and the minimum thickness was calculated using equation 2. The mimimum wall thickness, to,m, was calculated to be 1.708 mm, but again additional thickness was added for structural support. The outer wall thickness, to, was therefore designed to be 9.708 mm. A diagram, not to scale, can be seen below which shows the dimensions of the LOx tank.
Following this, the pump duty was to be calculated to help with cost estimations. It was necessary to calculate the change in liquid height there would be in order to calculate the duty required. First, the calculation of liquid height within the drum, h, was calculated. The following equation was used to solve this problem:
1 푉 = 휋푟ℎ2 − 휋ℎ3 (4.1) 3 1 250 = 휋(4.03)ℎ2 − 휋ℎ3 (4.2) 3
Equation 4.2 was solved with respect to the liquid height, which came out to be 6.59 m. It was assumed that the lowest point of the liquid would be 1 m off the ground, so the total liquid height was 7.59 m. The maximum height that the liquid would have to be pumped to for the ALV-2 boosters is around 10 m (Heliaq, 2017), which is also higher than a wing of a Boeing 747 which would therefore make the Launcher One accessible. The pressure difference between the tanks, ∆푃, is 250000 Pa, as the LOx is to be loaded into the LV at 5.5 bar. The calculation procedure is assuming there are no frictional losses within the pipe.
The first stage of the pump sizing was to find out the total work required, using the following equation (which is a modified version of the Bernoulli equation):
∆푃 푊 = 푔∆푧 + (5) 휌푙 Where: • g – Acceleration due to gravity, 9.81 ms-2 • ∆푧 – Difference in height, 2.41 m • ∆푃 – Pressure difference, 250000 Pa
-3 • 휌푙 – LOx density, 1141 kgm
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 190 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Producing a total work, W, of 242.7 J/kg. The liquid flow is user defined as 100 m3/h, which can be converted using the density above to a mass flow rate, 푚̇ , of roughly 31.7 kg/s of LOx. Following this, the hydraulic head was required to find the pump efficiency. It could be calculated, again, using a variation on the Bernoulli equation:
−∆푃 −250000 퐻푒푎푑 = − ∆푧 = − 2.41 = −24.75 푚 (6) 휌푙푔 1141 × 9.81
Using figure 5.9 from Coulson and Richardson's Chemical Engineering Volume 6 - Chemical Engineering Design (Sinnott, 2005), the total pump efficiency,휂, could be calculated to be 69%. Therefore, using the following equation the pump duty could be calculated:
푊 × 푚̇ 242.7 × 31.7 푃표푤푒푟 = = = 11150 푊 = 11.15 푘푊 (7) 휂 0.69
Non-Propellant Tank The method for the RP-1 and Jet A-1 fuel tanks were largely similar to those previously employed in the LOx tank calculation, but there were a few minor differences. The tanks for non-cryogenic fluids are horizontal and cylindrical, which are optimal for the storage of liquids. For RP-1, the
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 191 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final liquid volume of 45 m3 was chosen based on an estimation calculation for the LauncherOne’s requirements. The total volume of the tank was roughly 10% more than this, at 50 m3.
Information was found, which suggested that the aspect ratio of tank length to diameter was dependent on the internal pressure (Sinnott, 2005). The internal pressure of these tanks is atmospheric, meaning the length is roughly 3 times the diameter. Simple manipulation of the following equations allowed for the drum length to be calculated as around 8.306 m, with a radius of 1.384 m.
퐿 = 3퐷 = 6푟 푉 = 휋푟2퐿 = 6휋푟3 = 50
The next step used the diameter and pressure known, along with an obtained design stress, f, for the material being used. These figures were input into an equation to calculate the drum thickness (Sinnott, 2005).
푃푖퐷푖 101325 × 2.768 푡 = = 8 = 0.000855 푚 = 0.855 푚푚 2푓 − 푃푖 (2 × 1.64 × 10 ) − 101325
This calculation was based on the pressure in the drum and the material used to fabricate it, but not the stresses exerted by the fuel being stored. An additional 15 mm was added to the thickness taking the total wall thickness to roughly 15.9 mm.
The cavity for this type of tank contains no insulating material and primarily is used as a bund to contain any leakages from the internal layer. For this reason there does not need to be a minimum cavity thickness, so a gap of 125 mm is chosen as an acceptable value. This meant the internal length and diameter of the outer shell are 8.588 m and 3.051 m respectively. The same equation to calculate the wall thickness can again be applied.
푃푖퐷푖 101325 × 3.051 푡 = = 8 = 0.00115 푚 = 1.15 푚푚 2푓 − 푃푖 (2 × 1.35 × 10 ) − 101325
This time, an additional 8 mm is deemed a safe amount, bringing the total thickness to 9.15 mm.
Therefore the outer drum length and diameter are 8.61 m and 3.07 m.
The liquid level in the drum, h, can be calculated using the following equation:
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 192 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
푅 − ℎ 푉 = 퐿 [푅2 cos−1 ( ) − (푅 − ℎ)√2푅ℎ − ℎ2] 푅
Which was calculated to be 2.263 m, which is raised an extra 0.5 m bringing the value to 2.763 m in total. The method from herein remains the same as the LOx tank procedure, by calculating the height difference, pump work and hydraulic head, which is then used to obtain a pump power that is required.
COMAH Calculation Procedure
Substance stored Tank volume m3 Density kgm-3 Quantity in tonnes of substance LOx 250 1141 285.25 RP-1 45 840 37.8 Jet A-1 360 840 302.4
Named substance Lower tier (tonnes) Upper tier (tonnes) LOx 200 2000 RP-1 2500 25000 Jet A-1 2500 25000
The following calculation (COMAH, 2015) was carried out to determine which regulations the plant would fall under.
푄푢푎푛푡𝑖푡푦 표푓 푠푢푏푠푡푎푛푐푒 1 푄푢푎푛푡𝑖푡푦 표푓 푠푢푏푠푡푎푛푐푒 2 푄푢푎푛푡𝑖푡푦 표푓 푠푢푏푠푡푎푛푐푒 3 + + ≥ 1 푇ℎ푟푒푠ℎ표푙푑 푞푢푎푛푡𝑖푡푦 푡ℎ푟푒푠ℎ표푙푑 푞푢푎푛푡𝑖푡푦 푡ℎ푟푒푠ℎ표푙푑 푞푢푎푛푡𝑖푡푦
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 193 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Lower Tier: 285.25 37.8 302.4 + + = 1.562 ≥ 1 200 2500 2500
Upper Tier: 285.25 37.8 302.4 + + = 0.1562 < 1 2000 25000 25000
Therefore, the Spaceport will be classified as a lower tier site.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 194 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final Appendix E – Utilities
Power Usage
When calculating the energy usage of the Spaceport, a variety of methods were used. For the ALV2, Virgin Orbit, runway, LCT and MSCC rows of Table 40, the power rating of the components to be used were provided, as well as an estimated usage time per day. The peak power usage was produced by summating the values provided, and the peak daily energy usage was calculated as shown in Equation 1, where E is the energy in kWh, P is the power in kW, and t is the time in hours.
퐸 = 푃 ∗ 푡 (1)
For the rest of the buildings and components where power usage was unable to be provided, it was estimated from the number of staff within the building, the working area of the building or the building type.
For the LCT and MSCC, where the power usage for the majority of the components had already been provided, the power usage of the lighting and HVAC systems within the buildings required calculating. This was done by dividing the typical energy intensity (energy usage per square metre of floor area) (Scrase, 2000) of the respective systems by the estimated usage time for a typical air conditioned office block.
The power usage of the Thurso offices, canteen and education centre, shipping and receiving office and the facilities management and medical centre buildings was also estimated using the typical energy intensity for an air conditioned office (Scrase, 2000), but this time for the entire building, rather than individual components.
For the shipping and receiving warehouse, the average energy intensity for a warehouse of floor area between 1000m2 and 4999m2 (Department of Energy & Climate Change, 2014) was divided by the estimated daily operating time for the warehouse, to obtain the estimated average power usage of the facility.
The energy consumption of the mass transit system between the two Spaceport sites was calculated based on data for the London Underground. The energy usage per kilometer travelled was calculated by dividing the total energy consumption used to power London underground trains, which is 90% of the London Underground’s total energy usage (London Underground, 2006), by
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 195 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final the annual distance travelled by London Underground trains (London Underground, 2014). The energy usage per kilometre was then multiplied by the estimated distance travelled per day by the mass transit system of 96km, based on eight return journeys, to obtain the total energy usage per day.
The mass transit system was presumed to have the same average speed of 33kph as the London Underground (London Underground, 2014), and this was multiplied by the total distance covered by the mass transit system to obtain an estimated usage time. The peak power of the mass transit system was then calculated by dividing the daily energy usage by the usage time.
The estimated annual energy usage for each building or component displayed in Table 40 was then calculated by multiplying the peak daily energy usage by the estimated number of days that each building or component would be operating.
Proposed Power Plant
Due to the ongoing studies being conducted on the wakes generated by wind turbines, there is no definitive distance at which the turbulence effects of wind turbines can no longer be felt. However, the CAA state that measurements made 16 rotor diameters downstream of wind turbines indicate these effects can still be felt (Civil Aviation Authority, 2016). An assumption has been made that at 20 rotor diameters, the turbulence effects will no longer be noticed. The distance downstream of the Nordex N90/2500 at which the turbulence effects will no longer be noticed has been calculated to be 1,800m using Equation 2, where l is the distance downstream of the wind turbine in metres, and d is the rotor diameter in metres.
푙 = 20푑 (2)
Water
When calculating the water requirements of the Spaceports, when possible, the number of staff per building has been used to calculate the water usage, otherwise the building floor area was used to estimate the water usage and the staff/residents per building.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 196 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
The total water usage of the LCT and MSCC were obtained by multiplying the staff numbers per building by the average water consumption of 50 litres per employee for a UK based commercial building (South Staffordshire Water, 2017).
The staff numbers of the Thurso offices, canteen and education zone, shipping and receiving office and facilities management and medical centre buildings were obtained using the average intensification of space use within a UK based commercial building (British Council for Offices, 2013), with the equations used showing below in Equation 3 and 4, where A is the floor area in m2, I is the space intensification in people per m2, S is the number of staff, U is the average commercial water consumption in litres per person and w is the daily water usage in litres.
퐴 푆 = (3) 퐼
푤 = 푆 ∗ 푈 (4)
To calculate the water usage of the housing development, the number of residents within the development was first required. This was done by multiplying the number of dwellings by the average number of residents per household in Scotland (The Highland Council, 2013). Once the estimated number of residents within the development was known, this was then multiplied by the average daily domestic water usage per person in the UK (Energy Saving Trust, 2013), to obtain the estimated daily water usage of the housing development.
The number of staff within the shipping and receiving warehouse was estimated by dividing the floor area of the warehouse by the typical area per employee for a large scale warehouse (British Government, 2010). The daily water usage of the shipping and receiving warehouse, PPF, LVA and LVS buildings was then estimated by multiplying the number of staff per building by the average water consumption of 50 litres per employee for a UK based commercial building (South Staffordshire Water, 2017).
For all commercial and industrial buildings, the amount of potable and non-potable water required was calculated using data provided by South Staffordshire Water (South Staffordshire Water, 2017). This was not done for the housing development, as rainwater collection systems will not be implemented within the Spaceport’s residential properties, meaning that all water used within residences will be potable water.
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 197 of 198 MDDP – Final Report Issue: 1.5 VTOHL Group 2 Status: Final
Rainwater Collection
The average daily rainwater collection of a building can be calculated using Equation 5, where V
2 is the volume of water collected in litres, A is the area of the roof in m , and pr is the precipitation in metres. 퐴푝 푉 = 푟 (2) 1000
Refuse and Recycling
To calculate the Spaceport’s impact on the refuse and recyclable materials production, the total annual municipal waste to landfill per person and total annual household recyclable waste production per person was calculated, using Equations 6 and 7. In these equations, m is the total annual municipal waste production per person in tonnes per person, mA is the annual municipal waste to landfill in Scotland (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2016) in tonnes, p is the population of Scotland (Ellis, 2015), r is the total annual household recyclable waste production per person in tonnes per person and rA is the annual household recyclable waste production in Scotland (Department for Environment Food & Rural Affairs, 2016) in tonnes.
푚퐴 푚 = (6) 푝
푟퐴 푟 = (7) 푝
Date Issued: 13/01/2018 Page 198 of 198