Framework for Evaluating Customer Value and the Feasibility of Servicing Architectures for On-Orbit Satellite Servicing by Andrew Michael Long B.S. Aerospace Engineering University of Maryland, College Park 2003 Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Engineering Systems Division for the degrees of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics and Master of Science in Technology and Policy at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology MASSACHUSETTS INS E June 2005 OF TECHNOLOGY C Massachusetts Institute of Technology JUN 2 3 2005 All rights reserved LIBRARIES A uthor............................... - Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Engineering Systems Division April 30, 2005 C ertified by................................. Dai1el E. Hastings Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems Director, Engineering Systems Division Thesis Supervisor Accepted By................................ .................................. Dava J. Newman Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems Director, Te hnology and Policy Program Accepted By................................ Jaime Peraire Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics Chair, Committee on Graduate Students :AERO 2 Framework for Evaluating Customer Value and the Feasibility of Servicing Architectures for On-Orbit Satellite Servicing by Andrew Michael Long Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics and the Engineering Systems Division on April 30, 2005 for the degrees of Master of Science in Aeronautics and Astronautics and Master of Science in Technology and Policy Abstract The question that this thesis examines is whether traditional monolithic satellite designs have limited the value that the satellite market generates for the space industry. To answer this question, this thesis focuses on the "Value" that satellites generate. By examining the value that satellites offer their operators, this thesis determines if alternative methods of satellite design offer greater value than traditional satellite designs. One alternative method that is examined is on-orbit satellite servicing. On a basic level, on-orbit satellite servicing is the process of providing services to a satellite in orbit, such as: relocation, refueling, repairs, or upgrades. The purpose of this thesis is to describe and support a framework for determining the value of on-orbit satellite servicing. The framework involves examining on-orbit servicing as a competitive market and dividing that market into two sides -the customer and the provider. By examining the customer side of on-orbit servicing, this thesis identifies the reasons a customer would require servicing and thus determines the value that can be delivered to the customer. By determining the point where the value of servicing is zero, the customer's maximum servicing price can be computed. By examining the provider's side of the market, this thesis identifies the different forms of servicing that can fulfill the customer's needs. Based on a provider's forms of servicing, the provider's minimum servicing price can be determined. Finally, by overlaying the maximum servicing price with the minimum servicing price, one can determine if a feasible on-orbit servicing market exists. If any overlap exists, then a feasible range of servicing prices exists and servicing makes sense. Simply put, an overlap represents the case where a customer need exists and a provider has the ability to meet that need - hence a servicing market exists. This thesis concludes with a discussion concerning the development of on-orbit satellite servicing and how this development is not limited solely by economic and technical issues. It is the purpose of this thesis to show that on-orbit satellite servicing provides a means for escape from the traditional approach of satellite design, thereby allowing a paradigm shift towards more valuable design approaches. While some may believe that on-orbit satellite servicing provides a means to sustain current technology trends, it is argued that on-orbit satellite servicing is a disruptive technology. With disruptive technologies come the opportunities for greater value and dramatic change. On-orbit satellite servicing provides the opportunity for a paradigm shift in satellite design that can lead to dramatic new ideas, uses, and valuations of space. Thesis Supervisor: Professor Daniel Hastings Professor of Aeronautics and Astronautics and Engineering Systems Director, Engineering Systems Division 3 To: Erin, Mom, and Dad Thank you for all the support 4 Acknowledgements When I look back at this thesis and reflect on who influenced my research the most, I continually return to my advisor, Daniel Hastings. I can only begin to express my appreciation and gratitude for Professor Hastings' support. I want to thank Professor Hastings for opening my mind to the world of space systems engineering and forcing me to think outside the "black-box." Professor Hastings' ideas, motivation, and shear desire to change the nature of the space enterprise influenced me in ways that I am only beginning to understand. I am extremely grateful! My only hope is that I can remember everything.... I would also like to thank Col. James Shoemaker for his continual support of this research. This research was supported by DARPA under the GrandChallenges in Space, contract # F29601-97-0010. A special thanks goes out to all the current and past members of Professor Hastings' research group: Adam Ross, Spencer Lewis, Jason Bartolomei, Roshanak Nilchiani, Carole Joppin, and Nirav Shah. In particular I would like to thank Adam for his mind-altering conversations, Nirav for his vast intelligence and wonderful teaching ability, and Carole for getting me started on this research. I would like to thank Matt Richards for, if nothing else, reading my thesis. Matt you have been a friend, a colleague, and a great supporter. To you I leave my crazy and wonderful ideas concerning OOS. I hope they serve you well. In addition, I would like to thank Col. John Keesee for his continual support and openness by providing me with information no matter how strange or off topic my questions might have been. I would like to thank my ITAR-research group; David, Matt, Nicole, and Roland. The topic was a little strange at first, but we all learned a great deal about space policy and each other. I also want to thank all the members of the Space Systems Lab at the University of Maryland for teaching me everything I didn't know about engineering. A special thanks to Professor David Akin for teaching me everything I know about space systems. Dave, I know how you felt about my going to MIT, but I think we both know it turned out for the best. I would also like to thank all the other researchers on the Ranger Project: Walt, JM, Kiwi, Scuba, Wendy, Meghan, Eric, Russ, and Perna. You guys were a great inspirational group to work with. Finally, a great appreciation goes to Brian Roberts. Brian without your advice and support over the years I would not be the engineer that I am today. The bulk of my education as an engineer I credit to you. Finally, I would like to thank my family on both sides- this might be a first. Kevin and Sue, thanks for the all the support over the years and thank you for my lovely wife. Also, Sue thank you for all the support in my education over the years as well as for all the advice. Next, special thanks to my dog- Tag. Tag I know you cant read, but thanks for the affection, unconditional love, ball-time, and all the time you listened to my presentations. Incredible thanks go to my parents- Anne and John. I wouldn't be who I am today if it were not for the two of you. Thanks- and as dad puts it "you did good." Finally, I greatly appreciate the support of my wife Erin. Erin without you I wouldn't be where I am today. You keep me focused and have understood and supported me during my time at MIT. You give me motivation to be the best that I can be and at the same time put me in line when I stray. For all of that I am truly grateful... 5 List of Figures Figure 1-1: Spacecraft Failure Trend (Sullivan, 2001) .................................................................... 12 Figure 1-2: U.S Satellite Launch Trends (Aerospace Commission, 2002)....12 Figure 1-3: Satellite Design Life Trend (Futron, 2004) .................................................................. 17 Figure 1-4: XSS-10...................................................................................................0.... 2 F igure 1- 5: X S S-11 ...................................................................................................................................... 21 Figure 1-6: Orbital Express with ASTRO and NextSat ............................................................................ 22 Figure 1-7: Hubble Robotic Servicer Concept (Weiss and Corbo, 2005)................................................ 23 Figure 1-8: ConeXpress........................................................................................24 Figure 1-9: RTFX- Neutral Buoyancy Testing (Ranger, 1998) ................................................................... 25 Figure 1-10: RTSX-Mounted Instead Shuttle Cargo Bay (Ranger, 2002) .............................................. 26 27 N A SA 's R obonaut ..................................................................................................................27 Figure 2-l1:NPctalso1- 11: bOnau........... ............................................. Figure 2-1: