The Value of the Moon

by Paul D. Spudis

  The second heavy cargo mission brings the human habitat to the Moon. While it is envisioned that the habitable areas at the outpost ultimately will be significantly larger than a single 12-ton module, initial needs are to have sufficient habitable volume to support two to four crewmembers for a month. Included in either this or the previous mission payload are radiators and heat rejection equipment, as well as a fully operational environmental control and life support system.

  Phase IV: Human Lunar Return. During this phase, we prepare the site, emplace the elements, and connect all the pieces to create a ready-to-use outpost. Those pieces include power and thermal control systems, habitats, workshops, landing pads, roads, and other facilities. Remotely operated robotic machines assemble this entire complex before people arrive. The outpost is “human-tended” and supports a crew of four for biannual visits of several weeks duration. During these periods, the crew repairs, services and operates the previously emplaced robotic assets. In addition, some of the crew will conduct local geological exploration and other science-related tasks. By the time the first crew arrives, the outpost will be producing about 150 tons of water per year, enough to completely supply the lunar transportation system with propellant.

  The lander for these human missions is a smaller, LM-class vehicle (~30 ton) rather than a lander similar to the Constellation Altair vehicle (~50 ton). Its primary mission is to transport crew to and from the lunar surface and does not contain significant life-support capability, since the crew will live in previously emplaced surface habitats while they are on the Moon. This lunar taxi becomes a permanent part of the cislunar transportation system. It is reusable and refuelable with lunar-produced propellant and can be stored either on the lunar surface or at the cislunar transport node. Because of its similarity in size and functionality to the robotic landers, common components are used so that the parts count for lunar surface maintenance can be minimized. Specifically, both landers use a common reusable cryogenic engine developed in part (or totally) for use by the robotic heavy lander, with both vehicles using a multiple engine complement for reliability and redundancy, as well as cost. Engines will be designed to be serviced or changed out on the Moon, thus maximizing the lifetime of the vehicles in which they reside.

  With refueling at the LEO depot, a cargo variant of the human lander launched on a HLV can deliver 12 tons of payload to the lunar surface. Once on the Moon, it will be cannibalized and used for parts. The lander has a dry mass of 8,300 kg and is launched from the LEO station using a Cislunar Transfer Stage (CTS), which requires about 60,000 kg of cryogenic propellant to take the lander to the Moon. Initially, the CTS will be used and discarded, but once lunar propellant production is up and running, we can reuse this element by rendezvousing in low lunar orbit with the cislunar depot. This architecture does not presume full success with extracting lunar resources, except for refueling for human Earth return. As the concept matures and our understanding of the logistics, cost, and sustainability of this approach solidifies, the lunar refueling process can expand significantly, as much as the demand will allow, to include the incorporation of the cargo landers.

  Phase V and beyond: Human Habitation of the Moon. Once the outpost has been established, initial human occupancy will consist of periodic visits designed to explore the local site and to maintain and assure the proper operation of the mining and production equipment. These visits will be interspersed with the landing of additional robotic assets to continually increase the level of production, with the aim of exporting surplus water to cislunar space. Initially, the crew will validate and ensure the propellant and water production chain, including periodic maintenance and optimization of the operations concepts and timelines. With subsequent cargo deliveries, the crew will evaluate production techniques, procedures, technologies, and tools that allow expansion to the next step in utilization (figure 7.3).

  Figure 7.3. Example of resource processing at a lunar outpost during early phases of operation. A vacuum induction furnace takes metal obtained from the regolith, melts it and pours the liquid into molds to make metallic members for construction. A crane at right is unloading a payload from a robotic lander. Electrical power is provided by solar array landers in the distance at top left. (Credit 7.3)

  Although the concept of lunar resource utilization has been studied for years, many unknowns need to be addressed, starting with basic technologies and technology applications in the lunar environment. Techniques, tools, and extensive physical and metallurgical analysis of the properties of the final products need to be examined to obtain the best products for as yet undefined applications. Research in this technology is vitally important to extending human reach in space, although habitat upkeep and propellant supply chain management has higher priority. A broad ISRU material investigation lends itself well to both international participation and commercial development. Because no single strategy or technology or method works for every application, research can be divided into discrete investigations. Toward that end, on one of the cargo missions, a materials processing laboratory is delivered. Next in priority for crew time is data on biological interaction and plant growth in lunar gravity. These investigations will examine the vitality, reaction, and long-term logistical needs for developing local food production to sustain human habitation of the Moon.

  At this stage, we may begin to recoup our investment in the outpost. Several possible models for the privatization of water processing may be viable. We anticipate that the federal government will be an early and repeat customer for lunar water, not only for future NASA missions beyond the Earth-Moon system but also for the cislunar missions of other agencies, such as the Department of Defense. Additionally, international customers will likely emerge. Whether the production facilities become commercialized before or after these markets emerge cannot be easily foreseen at this stage and in fact, is unimportant. The critical point is that we will be in a position to industrialize the Moon and cislunar space, a cornerstone in making space part of our economic sphere. We can openly share the technology developments as well as any undesirable outcomes and pitfalls from our experience, so that others can leverage what we have learned. This will enable the commercial sector to take over many lunar activities and services.

  The transition to commercial activity may occur early or late in outpost development. Part of NASA’s ultimate purpose is to expand and enhance the nation’s commercial and industrial base and this activity is to be encouraged where possible. However, in contrast to NASA’s obsession with devising an “exit strategy” for the Moon, we should instead plan to participate in lunar development for at least as long as deemed necessary for fully commercial (that is, not government subsidized) providers to emerge. Because the capabilities we are developing have critical national strategic importance, the involvement of the federal government is important to ensure continuing access to lunar resources and the capabilities they provide.

  Establishing a permanent foothold on the Moon opens the space frontier to many different uses. By creating a reusable, extensible cislunar spacefaring system, we build a “transcontinental railroad” in space, connecting two worlds, Earth and Moon, as well as enabling access to all the points in between. We will have a system that can access the entire Moon, but more importantly, we can also routinely access all of our assets within cislunar space: communications, GPS, weather, remote sensing, and strategic monitoring satellites. These satellites can be serviced, maintained, and replaced as they age.

  I have concentrated on water production at a lunar outpost because such activity provides the highest leverage through the making of rocket propellant. However, there are other possibilities to explore, including a paradigm-shifting culture to eventually design all structural elements of space hardware using lunar resources. These activities will spur new commercial space interest, innovation, and investment. This further reduces the mass needed from Earth’s logistics train and helps extend human reach deeper into space, along a trajectory that is i
ncremental, methodical, and sustainable within projected budget expectations. Instead of the current design-build-launch-discard paradigm of space operations, we can build extensible, distributed space systems with capabilities much greater than currently possible. Both the space shuttle and the ISS experience demonstrated the value of human construction and servicing of orbital systems. What we have lacked is the ability to access the various systems that orbit the Earth at altitudes much greater than LEO—MEO, GEO, and other locations in cislunar space.

  A transportation system that can access cislunar space can also take us to the planets. The assembly and fueling of interplanetary missions is possible using the resources of the Moon. Water produced at the lunar poles can fuel human missions beyond the Earth-Moon system, as well as provide radiation shielding for the crew, thereby greatly reducing the amount of mass launched from the Earth’s surface. To give some idea of the leverage this provides, it has been estimated that a chemically propelled Mars mission requires at least roughly one million pounds (about 500 tons) in Earth orbit. Of this mass, more than 80 percent is propellant. Launching such propellant from Earth requires eight to twelve HLV launches at a cost of almost $2 billion each. Such an approach does not establish a true exploration capability. A Mars mission staged from the facilities of a cislunar transport system can use propellant from the Moon to reduce the mass launched from the Earth by a factor of five.

  The modular, incremental nature of this architecture facilitates international and commercial participation by allowing their contributions to be easily and seamlessly integrated into the lunar development scenario. Because the outpost is built around the addition of capabilities through the use of small, robotically teleoperated assets, other parties can bring their own pieces to the table as time, availability and capability permit. International partners will be able to contemplate their own human missions to the Moon without the need to develop a heavy-lift vehicle by purchasing lunar fuel for a return trip. Flexibility and the use of incremental pieces make international participation and commercialization in this architecture easier than under the Project Constellation architecture.

  These are only the initial steps of a lunar return based on resource utilization. Water is both the easiest and most useful substance that we can extract from the Moon and use to establish a cislunar spacefaring transportation infrastructure. Once established, many different possibilities for the lunar outpost may emerge. It may evolve into a commercial facility that manufactures water, propellant, and other commodities for sale in cislunar space. It could remain a government laboratory, exploring the trade space of resource utilization by experimenting with new processes and products. Alternatively, it might become a scientific research station, supporting detailed surface investigations to understand the planetary and solar history recorded on the Moon. We may decide to internationalize the outpost, creating a common use facility for science, exploration, research, and commercial activity by many countries. By emphasizing resource extraction early, we create opportunities for flexible growth and for the evolution of a wide variety of spaceflight activities.

  Schedules, Budgets, Politics, and “Sustainability”: Is Any of This Possible?

  It is an article of faith in the space community that the US civil space program is woefully under-funded and should receive much more money; some advocate for at least doubling the current NASA budget. Is it really true that the space program does not receive enough money? Certainly, the space program is now funded at a much lower fraction of the federal budget (about 0.3 percent) than was appropriated at the height of the Apollo program (about 4 percent).14 But at that time (1961–68), NASA had virtually no infrastructure, including laboratories, offices, test stands, launch complexes, and supporting facilities, and little off-the-shelf technology to draw on. Much of the Apollo spending went to these ends and created a supporting network and organizational base that the agency has used and drawn upon for all of its many programs ever since.

  As we have seen, previous efforts to return to the Moon were cut short by budgetary shortfalls. In Washington, the estimates for the cost of new programs have a long history of running significantly lower than what things actually and eventually cost. Nonetheless, one problem with talking about money is that the cumulative costs for a multiyear or multidecadal program seem horrendously high.15 As implemented by the 90-Day Study to support President George H. W. Bush’s 1989 Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), the estimated cost was $600 billion; at the time, the agency’s yearly budget was a bit more than $10 billion. But that $600 billion number was the total cost of a thirty-year program and included all of the ancillary costs of facilities and overhead. Even though few federal programs could withstand such accounting scrutiny, critics used the $600 billion number as a cudgel to beat the SEI to death. One might stop and consider than in the twenty-five years since SEI was unveiled, the agency has spent about $498 billion (FY 2014) dollars, almost the same gasp-inducing number as that of the 90-Day Study. One might pause and reflect on what that sum has bought us in terms of spacefaring capability over the last two and a half decades.

  Rushing in where budgetary angels fear to tread, I now present, in table 7.1, our estimate for the cost of lunar return via the scenario described in this chapter.16 Tony Lavoie and I assumed federal budget austerity for the indefinite future and used the budget guidelines for the agency assumed by the 2009 Augustine committee as a cost cap; in effect, a maximum of $7 billion (FY2011) constant dollars per year is to be spent on “exploration systems.”17 The Augustine committee concluded that NASA could not return to the Moon under these fiscal constraints and suggested that an additional $3 billion per year would be needed to fulfill the VSE goals. We simply did not believe that conclusion and that disagreement was in part the motivation for writing our paper. We found that by carefully defining our mission objectives up front and using remotely controlled robotic systems on the Moon in the early stages of the program, we could create a permanent resource-processing outpost at one of the poles under fairly tight fiscal restrictions. Our plan costs an aggregate total of $88 billion (FY 2011) constant dollars over the course of about sixteen years. That amount includes the cost of the development of the robotic infrastructure, propellant depots, reusable lunar lander, the CEV, and a medium HLV (70 ton class). It also includes all of the commercial ELV launch costs at the then-quoted rates. At the end of this nominal program, we have an operating, human-tended polar outpost on the Moon that produces 150 tons of water per year.

  Table 7.1. Cost Data for Robotic Lunar Architecture

  All costs are in millions of US FY 2011 dollars. Cost for each mission and/or mission element shown in “Total” column at far right; yearly costs shown across bottom row; total program cost at bottom far right. Human mission costs shown in bold italic.

  Costs include two versions of Orion crew exploration vehicle (CEV), medium-class heavy lift vehicle (HLV, 70 metric ton), technology development funds, and operations costs shown at bottom.

  A critical aspect related to cost is program performance. Any human spaceflight program must show continual progress in order to maintain its level of funding. The best way to accomplish this is to attain significant and recognizable intermediate milestones on a continuing and regular basis. A manager has much more credibility when he can report program accomplishments as he asks for the next increments of funding. Part of the problem with Project Constellation was that its intermediate milestones were too few and far between. In the five years that program ran, the only significant milestone was a launch test in 2009 of the Ares-X, basically a four-segment shuttle solid-rocket booster with a dummy upper stage. When the program was cancelled in 2010, flight tests of Orion into orbit were not scheduled to begin until 2015. Lunar return was over a decade away; the Augustine Committee claimed that it would not occur until after 2030, a completely undocumented assertion but one embraced by the opponents of the VSE, who were eager to terminate the whole effort. The Constellation program’s own lac
k of near-term milestones, accomplished on a regular cadence, allowed this assertion to go unchallenged.

  By crafting an incremental program using smaller spacecraft, flight rates are dramatically increased and consequently, many intermediate milestones are achieved early and often. Yet, no capability is lost because the small pieces are operated together as a single, large “system of systems.” In addition, a program that is divided into small pieces is more robust in that it can survive budgetary storms with more resilience. Less progress is made during lean times, but some progress is still made. It is also easier to take advantage of technical breakthroughs and incorporate them into the program because system and vehicle designs are not frozen in place decades ahead of time. As mentioned, an incremental program also facilitates the integration of commercial and international partners, with more “on-ramps” and a lower bar to program entry. Moreover, the possible failure or poor performance of an individual partner has less impact on program progress and viability.

  It is difficult to sustain large-scale technological projects over periods of more than a few years. In the history of America, only a few such programs have succeeded and almost all were somehow related to national security concerns. As we shall see, the program to develop a permanent cislunar transportation system is no exception. Although I have described this program as a return to the Moon, it is also a step toward the creation of a permanent spacefaring capability. By building this system, we access on a routine basis, not only the lunar surface, but also all of the other points within cislunar space, where our national scientific, economic, and security assets reside. Other nations are well aware of the security dimensions of this capability, and some, such as China, are actively pursuing the means to possess freedom of access to this theater of operations. A program to create true spacefaring capability has many critical national benefits that transcend politics. A national bipartisan consensus has defended this nation on land, at sea and in the air for more than two hundred years. Can we afford to do less on the new ocean of space?