Economic Assessment and Systems Analysis of an Evolvable Lunar Architecture that Leverages Commercial Space Capabilities and Public-Private-Partnerships Forward This study by NexGen Space LLC (NexGen) was partly funded by a grant from NASA’s Emerging Space office in the Office of the Chief Technologist. The conclusions in this report are solely those of NexGen and the study team authors. Date of Publication July 13, 2015 Study Team Charles Miller, NexGen Space LLC, Principal Investigator Alan Wilhite, Wilhite Consulting, Inc., Co-Principal Investigator Dave Cheuvront Rob Kelso Howard McCurdy, American University Edgar Zapata, NASA KSC Independent Review Team Joe Rothenberg, former NASA Associate Administrator for Spaceflight (Chairman) Gene Grush, former NASA JSC Engineering Directorate (Technical subsection lead) Jeffrey Hoffman, MIT Professor, former NASA astronaut (S&MA subsection lead) David Leestma, former NASA astronaut, (Cost Estimation subsection lead) Hoyt Davidson, Near Earth LLC, (Business Risk Management subsection lead) Alexandra Hall, Sodor Space, (Public Benefits subsection lead) Jim Ball, Spaceport Strategies LLC Frank DiBello, Space Florida Jeff Greason, XCOR Aerospace Ed Horowitz, US Space LLC Steve Isakowitz, former NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Exploration Christopher Kraft, former Director NASA Johnson Space Center Michael Lopez-Alegria, former NASA astronaut Thomas Moser, former NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Human Spaceflight James Muncy, Polispace Gary Payton, former NASA astronaut, former Deputy Undersecretary for Space, USAF Eric Sterner, former NASA Associate Deputy Administrator for Policy and Planning Will Trafton, former NASA Deputy Associate Administrator for Spaceflight James Vedda, Aerospace Corporation Robert Walker, former Chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology Gordon Woodcock, consultant NexGen Space LLC Page 1 Evolvable Lunar Architecture Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... 4 STUDY ASSUMPTIONS .................................................................................................. 6 1) PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS AS ACQUISITION STRATEGY ...................................... 6 2) 100% PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF LUNAR INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSETS ....................... 8 3) INTERNATIONAL LUNAR AUTHORITY TO REDUCE BUSINESS RISK ............................... 9 4) EVOLVABLE LUNAR ARCHITECTURE ............................................................................ 9 TECHNICAL ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 11 GENERAL TECHNICAL APPROACH .................................................................................. 11 ANALYSIS METHODS ...................................................................................................... 12 PHASE 1A — ROBOTIC SCOUTING, PROSPECTING, SITE PREPARATION .......................... 13 PHASE 1B — HUMAN SORTIES TO LUNAR EQUATOR ..................................................... 19 PHASE 2 — HUMAN SORTIES TO POLES .......................................................................... 23 PHASE 3 — PROPELLANT DELIVERY TO L2 & PERMANENT LUNAR BASE ...................... 25 PHASE 4+ (OPTIONAL) — REUSABLE OTV BETWEEN LEO AND L2 ............................... 27 TECHNICAL RISK ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................... 28 LIFE CYCLE COST ESTIMATES ............................................................................... 30 BASIS OF ESTIMATE ........................................................................................................ 30 Ground Rules ............................................................................................................. 30 Assumptions ............................................................................................................... 31 HISTORICAL DATA .......................................................................................................... 32 MODELING & ANALYSIS - SCOPE ................................................................................... 34 Modeling & Analysis – Drivers ................................................................................. 35 Modeling & Analysis – Context, the NASA Budget ................................................... 35 LIFE CYCLE COST ASSESSMENT - RESULTS .................................................................... 37 Frequently Asked Questions ...................................................................................... 45 Life Cycle Cost Assessment – Results Summary ........................................................ 46 Life Cycle Cost Assessment – Forward Work ........................................................... 46 MANAGING INTEGRATED RISKS ........................................................................... 48 RISK STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LOSS OF LAUNCH VEHICLE .......................................... 50 RISK STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LOSS OF IN-SPACE ELEMENTS ..................................... 54 RISK STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LOSS OF LUNAR LANDER OR ASCENT VEHICLES ......... 56 RISK STRATEGIES TO MITIGATE LOSS OF SURFACE ELEMENTS ...................................... 57 RISK STRATEGIES FOR MITIGATING LOSS OF CREW OR LOSS OF MISSION ...................... 58 RISK STRATEGIES FOR MITIGATING CREW HEALTH AND MEDICAL CONDITIONS ........... 59 CONCLUSIONS FOR INTEGRATED RISK MANAGEMENT ................................................... 60 MITIGATING BUSINESS RISKS ................................................................................ 63 WEAKNESSES OF PPP MODEL ........................................................................................ 63 MITIGATING BUSINESS RISK WITH AN INTERNATIONAL LUNAR AUTHORITY ................. 64 GOVERNANCE CASE STUDIES ............................................................................... 67 Port Authority of NY-NJ ............................................................................................ 67 CERN ......................................................................................................................... 70 Tennessee Valley Authority ....................................................................................... 72 COMSAT-INTELSAT ................................................................................................. 74 NexGen Space LLC Page 2 Evolvable Lunar Architecture AT&T (Monopoly, Regulated Utility) ........................................................................ 77 Boeing-United Airlines Monopoly ............................................................................. 78 National Parks & Private Tourism ............................................................................ 79 McMurdo Station (Antarctica) .................................................................................. 80 Open Architectures — Increasing Private Investment & Accelerating Innovation .. 83 CASE STUDY FIGURES OF MERIT (FOMS) & SUMMARY AOA ........................................ 86 PROS OF INTERNATIONAL LUNAR AUTHORITY ............................................................... 87 CONS OF INTERNATIONAL LUNAR AUTHORITY .............................................................. 88 PUBLIC BENEFITS ....................................................................................................... 89 ECONOMIC GROWTH ...................................................................................................... 89 NATIONAL SECURITY ..................................................................................................... 89 DIPLOMATIC SOFT POWER .............................................................................................. 89 TECHNOLOGY AND INNOVATION .................................................................................... 90 SCIENTIFIC ADVANCES ................................................................................................... 92 STEM EDUCATION AND INSPIRATION ............................................................................ 92 SUSTAINING AND MAXIMIZING THE PUBLIC BENEFITS ................................................... 93 APPENDIX A — STUDY TEAM BIOGRAPHIES ..................................................... 94 APPENDIX B — INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM BIOS ...................................... 97 END NOTES .................................................................................................................. 100 NexGen Space LLC Page 3 Evolvable Lunar Architecture Executive Summary This study’s primary purpose was to assess the feasibility of new approaches for achieving our national goals in space. NexGen assembled a team of former NASA executives and engineers who assessed the economic and technical viability of an “Evolvable Lunar Architecture” (ELA) that leverages commercial capabilities and services that are existing or likely to emerge in the near-term. We evaluated an ELA concept that was designed as an incremental, low-cost and low-risk method for returning humans to the Moon in a manner that directly supports NASA’s long-term plan to send humans to Mars. The ELA strategic objective is commercial mining of propellant from lunar poles where it will be transported to lunar orbit to be used by NASA to send humans to Mars. The study assumed A) that the United States is willing to lead an international partnership