NASA Cost Symposium, 2018

Export Control Notice Export or re-export of information contained herein may be subject to restrictions and requirements of U.S. export laws and regulations and may require advance authorization from the U.S. Government.

Lunar Missions: Earth-orbiting or Planetary?

Mitch Lasky, Ball Aerospace Joe Hamaker, PhD, Galorath Federal (With Special Thanks to Mary Ellen Harris, the MSFC REDSTAR Librarian) Contents 2

• Motivation • Purpose • Orbit Descriptions • Earth-orbiting, Lunar, Planetary Mission Characteristics • Parametric Analysis • Historical Cost Analysis • Observations Motivation - Exploration 3 Lunar Exploration Missions 4 Power and Propulsion Element 5 NASA Exploration Campaign 6 Motivation 7

• There is a need to credibly estimate cost of lunar orbital and EM L1, L2 missions – Parametric models typically allow selection of Earth- orbiting or planetary mission § Which results in a more credible cost estimate for lunar missions?

This study excludes lunar landers Purpose 8

• This presentation will: – Explore characteristics of Earth-orbiting, lunar orbiting, EM L1, L2, and planetary orbits and what drives spacecraft design and cost – Compare results of parametric cost estimates for spacecraft using Earth-orbiting and planetary input selections

– Analyze historical spacecraft cost and mass to determine if there is a statistically valid difference in Earth-orbiting, lunar orbiting, and planetary mission cost

– Provide near- and long-term suggestions for lunar orbital and EM L1, L2 cost estimates Orbit Description: Earth-orbiting 9

• Distance from Earth – LEO • 160 – 2,000 km – HEO • 16,000 x 133,000 km – MEO • 2,000 – 35,786 km – GEO • 35,786 km

Not to scale Orbit Description: Lunar 10

EM L2 ~449,000 km

Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) 100 km

Mean distance EM L1 384,450 km ~326,400 km

~58,030 km

Apogee: 405,504 km Perigee: 363,396 km

Not to scale Orbit Description: Planetary 11

• Distance from Earth (closest approach) – Venus § 40 M km – Mars § 56 M km – Moon § 0.36 M km

– GEO § 0.036 M km Lunar Orbit 12

• Model as Earth-orbiting or Planetary?

Moon Mars 0.36 M km

GEO 0.036 M km 56 M km Lunar

E-M L1 Not to scale

E-M L2 Ø Answer requires more information than distance from Earth Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 13

• Propulsion – LEO: optional, rare – Planetary: required to reach destination – Lunar: required to reach destination

• Telecom/ADC – Pointing/Ground Station Tracking § LEO: slew s/c or gimbal antenna § Planetary: large distances require fine pointing § Lunar: Distance not as great as Planetary; fast slewing not required – RF Transmit Power § Range dependent o Planetary > Lunar > LEO o Increased mass (and cost) for TWTA and conditioning electronics Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 14

• Thermal Control & Battery Degradation ― Eclipse Cycle § LEO: ~14 eclipses/day § Planetary: destination dependent § Lunar: ~14 eclipses/day, some may be long

― Destination Dependence § Distance from sun Distance Solar Flux from Sun Solar Flux (W/m2) Body (AU) (W/m2) [Earth=1] Earth 1.000 1368 1.00 Moon 1.003 1368 1.00 Venus 0.723 2614 1.91 Mars 1.524 589 0.43 Jupiter 5.204 51 0.04 Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 15

• Autonomy (FSW) – Time delay proportional to range § Planetary > Lunar > LEO – Number of contacts depends on destination and ground infrastructure – Anomaly may become mission critical failure if response not timely – Autonomy may buy critical time Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 16

• Delta-v/Mass Constraint – LEO: Least constrained § Δv ~9 km/s – Planetary: Largest delta-v required -> more fuel -> reduced s/c mass (exotic materials, non-standard manufacturing processes) -> higher cost § Mars Δv ~15-19 km/s – Lunar Δv ~13 km/s • Critical Propulsive Events – LEO: none – Planetary: can be several § Parker Solar Probe has 5 Venus gravity assists – Lunar: § Orbit injection § Periodic orbit maintenance o Asymmetric lunar density resulting in non-uniform gravitational field Differences Between Earth-orbiting, Lunar Orbital, and Planetary Missions 17

• NASA Mission Class – LEO § Typically Class C or Class D

– Planetary § Typically Class B or Class C

– Lunar § Some Class D – LCROSS, LADEE – Less stringent parts requirements – Full-redundancy may not be required § Some Class B – GRAIL, LRO Destination Comparison 18

Parameter Propulsion Telecom Pointing/Gnd Stn Trkg Telecom Range Battery Degradation Autonomy (FSW) Thermal Control Mass Constraint Delta-V (Inner Planets) Critical Propulsive Events

1=> more benign Destination Comparison 19

Destination Parameter Earth-Orbiting Lunar Planetary Propulsion 1 3 5 Telecom Pointing/Gnd Stn Trkg 4 3 5 Telecom Range 1 3 5 Battery Degradation 3 3 2 Autonomy (FSW) 2 4 5 Thermal Control 3 3 4 Mass Constraint 1 3 4 Delta-V (Inner Planets) 1 3 4 Critical Propulsive Events 1 3 5 Total 17 28 39

1=> more benign • Lunar total not closer to Earth-orbiting or planetary totals • Destination driven characteristics imply lunar orbital mission cost is probably between Earth-orbiting and planetary mission costs Parametric Models: Spacecraft 20

• Modeling methodology – 4 different models – Results estimated for – Earth-orbiting – Planetary – Identical spacecraft MEL used – Results normalized to Earth-orbiting cost

Parametric Relative Spacecraft Cost Model Earth-orbiting Planetary SSCM 1 1.2 Commercial 1 1.2 PCEC 1 1.6 QuickCost 1 1.1

Ø Average Planetary to Earth-orbiting cost: 1.3 Lunar Orbiting: Earth-orbiting or Planetary? 21

• Based on qualitative mission requirement differences between Earth-orbiting, lunar, and planetary missions • Lunar orbital and EM L1, L2 mission requirements are a composite of Earth-orbiting and Planetary mission requirements

• 30% cost increase over Earth-orbiting mission estimated by a parametric model may be not be justified (Planetary model input selected)

• What can we learn from the historical data? Recap of 2017 Cost Results 22

• In our 2017 study, we found that Planetary Missions cost more per unit of mass than Earth Orbital and the difference could be shown to be statistically valid with t-tests and regression analysis ― Well duh ― We only did this test to warm up our t-test jets • We then showed that Lagrange missions were statistically more “birds of a feather” with Earth Orbital Missions than they were with Planetary ― Again, using t-tests and regression Methodology Differences From 2017 Study 23

• Our 2017 study of Lagrange missions used… ― Life cycle cost of the missions (Phase B/C/D/E) § Including Launch Costs ― Dollars per wet kg (because of missing dry mass data) • This 2018 study of Lunar missions used… ― Phase B/C/D (not including Phase E) ― Excluding Launch Costs ― And dollars per dry kg (we filled in missing dry mass numbers) • Why? Because Phase E, Launch Costs and dollars per wet kg added noise to the data • Plus we re-categorized Lagrange missions as Earth Orbital based on the results from our 2017 study Is There A Difference In Cost? 24

• First, we will compare the mean $/Dry kg of the three destinations – Used mean $/Dry kg (i.e., as opposed to just mean $) to correct for the scale difference in the missions

• Two sample t-tests were used to investigate if there is a difference in the mean cost of… – Earth Orbital and Planetary missions (just to warm our t-test jets) – Lunar vs Earth Orbital missions – Lunar vs Planetary missions

• We will also use regression analysis to examine the predicted cost of the three destinations Cost Database (Showing Only Lunar Missions in the Table) 25

FY2018$Ms Mass (kg) Phase B/C/D Acquisition Cost Launch Organiza Mission Less Launch Cost* We t Dry Orbit Ye ar tion(s) Other Explorer 33 (AKA IMP-D) $144 212 172 Lunar Jul-66 NASA GSFC Explorer 35 (AKA IMP-E) $71 104 84 Lunar Jul-67 NASA LaRC Explorer 49 (AKA RAE-B) $168 334 271 Lunar Jun-73 NASA (Center TBD) Clementine $120 424 227 Lunar Jan-94 NASA, Lunar Prospector $111 295 239 Lunar Jan-98 NASA Ames Lockheed Martin Lunar CRater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) $80 892 581 Lunar Jun-09 NASA ARC Gravity Recovery and Interior Laboratory (GRAIL)* $268 307 201 Lunar Sep-11 JPL Lunar Reconaissance Orbiter (LRO) $424 1915 1020 Lunar Sep-13 NASNASAA GSFC Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) $259 384 249 Lunar Sep-13 ARC, * For multi-spacecraft missions the costs reflect only Development through the First Unit

• Our database consisted of 71 missions ― 42 Earth Orbital (including Lagrange missions) ― 20 Planetary ― 9 Lunar (shown in table above) including 9 Orbital and 4 missions at L1 and L2 • Note: We left out a few available historical lunar missions which seemed to be outliers ― Surveyor (1966) was a Lunar lander ― Lunar Orbiter (1966) was a very expensive mission (~$1 billion in today’s dollars) ― Artemis P1 was a relocated THEMIS B (2007) spacecraft First Indications… 26

Ratio to Destination $/Dry Kg Earth Orbital Earth Orbital (including Lagrange) $536,272 1.00 Lunar Orbit $685,911 1.28 Planetary $765,327 1.43

• A simple dollars per dry kg calculation indicates that per kg… ― Lunar missions cost 1.28x Earth Orbital ― Planetary missions cost 1.43x Earth Orbital T-Test Comparing Earth Orbital and Planetary Missions 27

Two-sample T for $/dry kg

EO=0, PL=1 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 42 536272 267837 41328 1 20 765327 370926 82942

Difference = mu (0) - mu (1) Estimate for difference: -229055 95% CI for difference: (-418877, -39234) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -2.47 P-Value = 0.020 DF = 28

• Earth Orbital mean $/kg is $229,055 less than Planetary • It could range from $418,877 down to $39,234 less than Planetary (95% CI) ― CI does not span across zero which would cast doubt • P = 0.02 says we are ~98% confident • So this is again, “well duh”—we all know Planetary > Earth Orbital (all else held equal) T-Test Comparing Lunar and Earth Orbital Missions 28

Two-sample T for $/dry kg

EO=0, Lunar=1 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 42 536272 267837 41328 1 9 691183 360802 120267

Difference = mu (0) - mu (1) Estimate for difference: -154912 95% CI for difference: (-442591, 132767) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -1.22 P-Value = 0.254 DF = 9

• Earth Orbital mean $/kg is $173,545 less than Lunar • But it could range from $412,084 less to $64,995 more than Lunar (95% CI) ― The CI spans across zero which casts doubt • P = 0.142 does not meet the usual p<0.05 standard • So all this is saying that we are not sure Earth Orbital missions are less than Lunar missions T-Test Comparing Lunar and Planetary Missions 29

Two-sample T for $/dry kg

Lunar=0, PL=1 N Mean StDev SE Mean 0 9 691183 360802 120267 1 20 765327 370926 82942

Difference = mu (0) - mu (1) Estimate for difference: -74143.4 95% CI for difference: (-385536.2, 237249.5) T-Test of difference = 0 (vs not =): T-Value = -0.51 P-Value = 0.619 DF = 15 • Lunar mean $/kg is $7,143 less than Planetary • But it could range from $237,250 more to $385,536 less than Lunar (95% CI) ― The CI spans across zero which casts doubt • P = 0.51 does not meet the usual p<0.05 standard • So all this is saying that we are not sure that Lunar missions are less than Planetary missions Regression Analysis 30

The regression equation is $/dry kg = 707370 - 87.1 Total Dry Mass (kg) • First box, CER with dry mass only passes t-test (p=0.022) Predictor Coef SE Coef T P Constant 707370 52502 13.47 0.000 • Second box, CER with dry Total Dry Mass (kg) -87.09 37.02 -2.35 0.022 mass plus Planetary indicator The regression equation is variable passes t-test $/dry kg = 619743 - 73.0 Total Dry Mass (kg) + 217897 (p=0.049 and 0.009) EO=0, PL=1 • Third box, CER with dry mass Predictor Coef SE Coef T P Constant 619743 61886 10.01 0.000 plus indicator variables for Total Dry Mass (kg) -73.01 36.39 -2.01 0.049 Earth Orbital, Lunar & EO=0, PL=1 217897 80851 2.70 0.009 Planetary… The regression equation is ― Planetary was too $/dry kg = 843681 - 79.1 Total Dry Mass (kg) - 216965 EO - 125742 Lunar correlated with Lunar to fight its way in Predictor Coef SE Coef T P ― Lunar stayed in but with Constant 843681 77164 10.93 0.000 Total Dry Mass (kg) -79.11 37.03 -2.14 0.036 a poor p value (0.315) EO -216965 82679 -2.62 0.011 Lunar -125742 124236 -1.01 0.315 Conclusions from Statistical Analysis 31

• Planetary missions remain statistically significantly more expensive (all else held equal) than earth orbital missions ― There’s that “well duh” again • From just a $/Dry kg perspective, it appears that ― Lunar missions might be ~1.28x Earth Orbital ― And Planetary missions ~ 1.43x Earth Orbital • But the t-tests compared the mean $/dry kg of the three destinations and failed to find them statistically significantly different • And likewise, the regression analysis did not find the three destinations to be statistically significantly different • This analysis had only 9 lunar missions to consider ― And three of those had to be unearthed from their moldy graves ― (Again special thanks to Mary Ellen Harris, the MSFC REDSTAR Librarian) • Until more lunar data is available, it is difficult to be statistically conclusive about the costs of Lunar Missions relative to Earth Orbital and Planetary Missions Observations 32

• Mission characteristics comparison does not strongly indicate lunar mission more similar to Earth-orbiting or planetary mission • There may be a 30% cost increase from “Earth-orbiting” when selecting “Planetary” for spacecraft parametric models – Lunar orbital missions may not warrant this incremental cost due to mission requirements

• Statistical analysis of historical data does not strongly support correlation between Earth-orbiting and lunar orbital missions or planetary missions and lunar orbital missions

• Dollars per kilogram analysis indicates lunar orbital missions may be 28% greater than Earth-orbiting missions and 15% less than planetary missions Suggestions 33

• Near-term – Conservative option is to model lunar mission as Planetary – Lunar mission may not warrant 30% planetary tax – Model lunar orbital missions as Earth-orbiting or somewhere between Earth-orbiting and planetary • Long-term – Recommend parametric model developers collaborate with NASA and Industry to analyze available cost and technical data to recommend model input settings for lunar orbital missions Questions? 34

Pink Floyd