Transcript Section 09 - International Commercial Model

International Space Station:
Investing in Humanity’s Future
UT I L I Z AT I O N
•
USC
EV O L UT I O N
•
DECOMMISSION
International
Exploration
Framework
William Russell
[email protected]
ASTE 527
December 15, 2009
Background
What we do well, and what we need to overcome
UT I L I Z AT I O N
•
USC
EV O L UT I O N
•
L I F E E XT E N S I O N
• NASA Strengths
• Capacity: Orion will seat 2X as Apollo
• Reliability: USA #1 in safe, manned exploration
• Infrastructure: ISS Access & many “COTS” suppliers
• NASA Weaknesses
– Inadequate time/funding: Ares I, Ares V, Altair, etc
– Not Top National Priority: Backseat to job creation
Proposed Solution:
International Exploration Framework for economic growth
UT I L I Z AT I O N
•
USC
EV O L UT I O N
•
L I F E E XT E N S I O N
• Give ISS partners seats on upcoming
NEO/MARS/ MOON mission in return
for financing
ISS would store exploration
supplies delivered by COTS
flights
• COTS suppliers meet this demand and
grow jobs in U.S.
• If necessary, sell mission “privileges”
for additional funding
– First footsteps on destination surface: $XXB
– Mission return off partner’s coastline: $XB
The first footprints on an exploration
mission are probably worth billions in
national prestige alone
Orion CEV could splashdown near a
partners coastline – a huge spectacle
Benefits
Harmonize our approach with our constraints
UT I L I Z AT I O N
•
USC
EV O L UT I O N
•
L I F E E XT E N S I O N
Creates US Jobs NOW with Foreign Investment
 Also further international relations & free-trade
Explore Space Despite Inadequate NASA Resources
 Little or no increase in NASA budget required
 3 Americans act as “mission hosts” on each mission
 Leverage investment in ISS rendezvous, interfaces, etc
Fully Compatible with Augustine Study




Don’t need to build additional ARES vehicle or Altair
Can leverage existing work on Orion CEV and Ares I
Utilize COTS heavily
Supports ISS beyond 2015
4. Int’l Exploration
Mission
Concept of
Operations
USC
U T I L I Z A3.
T ISS
I OMission
N • Supply
EV O L UT I O N
•
L I F E E XT E N S I O N
Depot
1. Int’l funded COTS
Pre-Supply Missions
5. Int’l Splashdown &
Homecoming
2. Int’l CEV Crew
Concept Implications
Necessary adaptations to status quo
UT I L I Z AT I O N
•
USC
EV O L UT I O N
•
L I F E E XT E N S I O N
• Political/Organizational
– NASA Charter must be adapted
to accommodate “global trade”
mindset
• Technical
– ISS must accommodate depot
size, mass & power req’ts
– Additional truss structure may
be required to depot supplies
White House is already keen on Int’l partnership
ISS initially
designed to
support a “dual
keel” for
expansion
ISS Partners
An expanded customer base for COTS services
UT I L I Z AT I O N
•
•
•
•
•
•
USC
EV O L UT I O N
•
L I F E E XT E N S I O N
United States (GDP: $13.84T)
Japan (GDP: $4.27T)
Russia (GDP: $1.29T)
Canada (GDP: $1.27T)
ESA
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Germany (GDP: $2.8T)
France (GDP: $2.6T)
United Kingdom (GDP: $2.13T)
Italy (GDP: $1.8T)
Spain (GDP: $1.36T)
Netherlands (GDP: $827B)
Belgium (GDP: $376.5B)
Sweden (GDP: $338.5B)
$2.29T
Switzerland (GDP: $303.2B)
Norway (GDP: $246.6B)
Denmark (GDP: $203.3B)
$12.98T
Mission Logistics
Fitting the puzzle pieces together
UT I L I Z AT I O N
•
EV O L UT I O N
• Modest number of Int’l
flights can accumulate
enough mass at ISS to
replace an HLV1
• ESA & Japanese Transfer
Vehicles (TV) have
enough mass to deliver
entire stages
•
Could explore use of
“common design
exploration stages”
USC
Provider
•
L I F E E XT E N S I O N
PL to ISS
# of
Missions
Total
Mass
OSC
2,000 kg
10
20,000
SpaceX
2,500 kg
10
25,000
Orion
5,000 kg
2
10,000
Japan TV
7,600 kg
1
7,600
ESA TV
7,600 kg
1
7,600
13
70,200 kg
TOTAL
1: Notional ARES-V claims 71,000Kg to TLI