major players - center for air transportation systems...
TRANSCRIPT
Architecture ForIncreasing Space Markets
Proposal Final ReportGMU SEOR SYST 490
Submitted: December 5th, 2011
Submitted to: Dr. Lance Sherry
Submitted by: Daniel HettemaScott NealAnh QuachRobert Taylor
Sponsored By:
1
Table of Contents
Abstract.......................................................................................................................4
Context........................................................................................................................5Major Players................................................................................................................................................................5Limitations..................................................................................................................................................................13
Stakeholders..............................................................................................................15Major..............................................................................................................................................................................15Stakeholder Interaction........................................................................................................................................19Minor............................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Problem Statement....................................................................................................25
Need Statement.........................................................................................................26
Proposed Solution......................................................................................................27Architecture Requirements.................................................................................................................................28Project Objectives.................................................................................................................................................... 28
Design Process...........................................................................................................29As-Is Model Development....................................................................................................................................30To-Be Model Development..................................................................................................................................32
Simulation..................................................................................................................38Purpose.........................................................................................................................................................................38Output........................................................................................................................................................................... 38
Transitional Architecture Plan....................................................................................40Design of Experiment.............................................................................................................................................40Functional Gap Analysis........................................................................................................................................40ROI Calculator............................................................................................................................................................40Investment Plan........................................................................................................................................................41
Management..............................................................................................................42Continuing Work......................................................................................................................................................42Architecture Development Process.................................................................................................................42Project Risk.................................................................................................................................................................46Work Breakdown Structure................................................................................................................................46Project Budget...........................................................................................................................................................50Project Schedule.......................................................................................................................................................51
2
Table of FiguresFigure 1: Potential Plan vs Current Plan_______________________________________________________________________5Figure 2: Virgin Galactic Space Ship 2__________________________________________________________________________6Figure 3: Bigelowe Expandable Space Habitat BA 330________________________________________________________7Figure 4: Space Based Solar Power Satellite System___________________________________________________________8Figure 5: Space vs Terrestrial Solar Power Harnessing_______________________________________________________9Figure 6: Cost of Fuel in US______________________________________________________________________________________9Figure 7: Current Value of Rare Minerals_____________________________________________________________________11Figure 8: Yearly Cost Average of Rare Minerals______________________________________________________________11Figure 9: Robotic Gripper developed by Aaron Parness of JPL/Caltech_____________________________________12Figure 10: 2010 Government Space Budgets_________________________________________________________________14Figure 11: Overview of Potential Stakeholder Interaction___________________________________________________19Figure 12: Overview of Current Stakeholder Interaction____________________________________________________20Figure 13: Overview of Potential Business Sector Stakeholder Interaction_________________________________21Figure 14: Overview of Current Business Sector Stakeholder Interaction__________________________________22Figure 15: Potential Steping Stones___________________________________________________________________________27Figure 16: Classic Context Diagram___________________________________________________________________________29Figure 17: As-Is Operational Context Diagram_______________________________________________________________31Figure 18: To-Be Operational Context Diagram______________________________________________________________33Figure 19: Scenario Breakdown_______________________________________________________________________________35Figure 20: EFFBD Key__________________________________________________________________________________________36Figure 21: Scenario 1 EFFBD__________________________________________________________________________________37Figure 22: Scenairo 1 Simulation Output_____________________________________________________________________39Figure 23: Architecture Development Process________________________________________________________________43Figure 24: Project Budget______________________________________________________________________________________51
3
Abstract
Currently there is a large potential for ROI from a developed space market.
However, due to a lack of industry collaboration among the key industries that could
benefit from space, the ability to reach an ROI is incredibly difficult. There are
currently large limitations that need to be overcome, such as the costs to launch in
to space, as well as a lack of funding and investment. There are also
underdeveloped, and completely non-existent, capabilities and technologies that
may be needed to overcome the current hurdles stopping large ROI.
An transitional model is needed that can help bridge the gap between the
current situation the market is contained in, and a potential space market that
would deliver a high ROI for its invested industries. By modeling the current space
market and a future potential space market, we can find the key elements and
identify the largest obstacles preventing the transition from occurring. With an in-
depth analysis and sophisticated modeling, an architecture can be designed that will
create a “stepping-stone” approach to developing space, while providing
sustainability at the various levels of development.
Creating an integrated behavior model of the transitional phase will be the
key to understanding and creating a pathway to a developed space market.
Modeling complex scenarios involving the key industries involved in the space
market will allow the Integrated Behavior Model to simulate the interactions
between industries. Further modeling will allow us to augment the models to
generate more realistic simulations. By using subject matter experts and in-depth
research, a properly modeled architecture will provide the roadmap for a
sustainable path to a developed space. The final product will result in an ROI
calculator that will provide ROI figures, for all the industries involved, based on the
their investment.
4
Context
The context will cover the current resources, industries and limitations
surrounding the development of a space market. The available resources on the
moon and asteroids will be discussed as well as the potential markets available for
industries current involved. Through collaborative efforts from all industries
invested in space, a potential plan for a larger ROI is projected to be obtainable.
Figure 1 illustrates an abstract idea of the current market plans with a large gap
between the potential market plan. The objective of this experiment is to bridge this
gap.
Figure 1: Potential Plan vs Current Plan
Major Players
Tourism
“Mr. Chairman, members of the Space Subcommittee and others, it is a great
privilege to speak with you about the future of our space program. After forty years
of space exploration, space tourism has emerged as the key to generating the high-
volume traffic that will bring down launch costs, NASA’s own research has
5
suggested that tens of millions of U.S. citizens want to travel to space, with far more
if the global market is addressed. This immense volume of ticket-buying passengers
can be the solution to the problem of high space costs that plague government and
private space efforts alike.” – Dr Buzz Aldrin, testimonial before the subcommittee
on Space and Aeronautics House Committee, June 2001
In 2010, US tourism was a $758.6B industry (EITT, 2011). Tourism is a
potent catalyst for the future development of space. Space tourism will play a major
role in bringing the development of space in to the average person’s view. We
hypothesize space tourism can be sold to the public; the demand will push investors
to invest capital into space projects.
As demand and investments increase, productivity and development of space
projects may also increase, furthering the development of space. The production of
space-planes (Figure 2), planes built for multiple space flights with significantly
cheaper cost-per-flight figures, will drive prices down for space travel and pave the
way for initial short term space travel. New multiple flight space-planes use new
techniques for re-entry, thus helping to
mitigate the major problem associated with
re-usable space vehicles. A new feathering
approach technique, which will slow down
re-entry and decrease the angle of re-entry,
will help reduce the wear on vehicles during
re-entry.
Figure 2: Virgin Galactic Space Ship 2
Further down the line, and interest continues to grow and a true space
tourism market develops, space hotels can be built to accommodate longer “space
vacations.” Current hotels being developed are based on an expandable habitat
design (figure 3), which will lower costs of launch into space, and take up less area
during launch. The habitats will be shipped into space fully constructed, lowering
the costs associated with putting a space station in to orbit. Once these hotels are
6
built, they can serve dual purpose as an International Space Station (ISS) with much
greater volume and lower cost.
Figure 3: Bigelowe Expandable Space Habitat BA 330
Currently, there are two major stakeholders already actively pursuing the
space tourism market. Virgin Galactic Airways, owned by wealthy entrepreneur,
Richard Branson, is currently developing and marketing space travel for the year
2012. Virgin Galactic has designed and constructed several different space-planes
with unique abilities for making sub-orbital space luxury event, and no longer a pipe
dream of many people who have the desire to travel to space. Virgin Galactic is
currently reserving flight seats at $200,000 (www.virgingalactic.com). These trips
involve a six-minute “weightless” stop at 68 miles above the Earth’s surface,
approximately 6 miles above the Karman line, which is regarded as the boundary of
the Earth’s atmosphere and outer space.
The other major player actively investing in space tourism is Bigelow
Aerospace owner, Robert Bigelow. Bigelow has already invested $180M in his
company, and is on record for saying he will invest up to $.5B of his own money on
his space endeavors. Bigelow’s current plans include the development of
expandable habitats and a new-generation spacecraft (bigelowaerospace.com).
Testing and launching has already occurred, and with the recent alignment with
7
EIAST (Emirates Institution for Advanced Science and Technology) in January 2011,
Bigelow aims to further develop a next-generation commercial human spaceflight
program (www.bigelowaerospace.com).
Space Based Solar Power Satellites
The US energy industry last year was values at $370B in 2010. This is a large
industry that could benefit from one of the biggest and cleanest sources of energy,
solar power. Solar power harnessed in space has a much greater density than the
power harnessed on Earth. The ability to harness solar power in space and transmit
the power back down to Earth, or use the power in space, would be advantageous
over using fossil fuels to power the global economy.
Figure 4: Space Based Solar Power Satellite System
The Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) (Figure 4) system is a geostationary solar
power harnessing system that would transmit solar power from space to Earth via
microwaves. The harnessing capabilities of the SBSP system are much greater than
any Earth based system. Figure 5, from a National Space Security Office report in
2007, illustrates the large advantage of the SBSP system. With almost 1400 watts
per square meter of radiation absorption versus only an approximate 600 watts per
square meter at only the most optimal conditions (mid year at mid day), it makes
evident the advantage of a space based solar power harnessing system. With the
8
SBSP’s geostationary orbit, it would remain in view of the sun for all but
approximately 6 minutes a day, allowing its productivity to be close to 99% of its
operational time.
Figure 5: Space vs Terrestrial Solar Power Harnessing
Even after the loss of power through transmission (a transmission efficiency
of 80-90%: 1122-1260 watts per square meter), the harnessed power from the sun
is still significantly higher. The ability to harness solar power in space will also help
the sustainability of future projects in space by providing the power for these
projects.
A pentagon study shows, that If launch costs could be dropped to below
$200/lb, the energy harnessed by SBSP could be sold for approximately $.08/kWh
on Earth. Figure 6 shows a comparison of the current fuel price ranges in the US.
Fuel Type Price (¢ per kWh)
SBPS 8
Natural Gas 3.9-4.4
Coal 4.8-5.5
Nuclear 11.1-14.5
Figure 6: Cost of Fuel in US
9
Mining & Manufacturing
The mining industry is in the process of discerning between destinations, be
it the moon or asteroids. Experts say the moon is a more convenient destination for
mining, and for a manufacturing base. However, the moon is protected by the moon
treaty (http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/moon.html). While the US has not
ratified the moon treaty, they are still bound by it, and it is treated as a regulatory
hurdle to be overcome by the mining and manufacturing industries.
According to John Lewis’ (accredited author and former professor at MIT,
currently teaching at the University of Arizona’s planetary science department)
book Mining the Sky, a 1 km diameter asteroid weighs roughly two billion tons; 30
million of which are nickel, 1.5 million tons of cobalt, and 7,500 tons of platinum.
There are roughly one million of these asteroids in this solar system. The issue lies
in processing the asteroid material and refining it to these quantities. Until
refinement occurs, there will be tons of excess asteroid material, as well as payload
constraints for the return trip. It’s necessary to find a use for those resources, such
as nickel, that aren’t cost effective to bring back to Earth.
The resources available on the moon and asteroids are significant. The moon
offers many minerals, such as oxygen, silicon, iron, nitrogen, magnesium, aluminum,
and calcium. Asteroids offer many minerals as well, including but not limited to:
Iridium, osmium, platinum, helium, copper, nickel, iron, gold, oxygen, hydrogen,
nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus. NASA has identified approximately 832
asteroids of a diameter equal or greater to 1 km in diameter within Near Earth Orbit
(NEO)(NEO is defined as within 1.3 AU of the Earth, reaching to just before the
asteroid belt and the sun). The minerals humans would need at a bare minimum to
sustain life would be water and oxygen. For plant life, nitrogen, phosphorus and
potassium would be needed at a minimum. Both asteroids and the moon provide
these resources we would need for sustained life.
For metals to be mined for profitability on Earth, it would require the value
of that metal to be of a value greater than that of its costs to acquire it in space.
Figure 7 shows a table representing current values of high-valuable metals. Figure 8
10
shows a 19-year trend plot indicating the changes of values of these metals. The
large spike in the value of Rhodium is attributed to its large usage in high-definition
television screens, and is correlated with the increased demand for these
televisions.
Metal 2011 Value (US $)
Gold 1642
Platinum 1519
Rhodium 1625
Iridium 1085
Palladium 605
Figure 7: Current Value of Rare Minerals
Figure 8: Yearly Cost Average of Rare Minerals
11
The means of mining an asteroid are not well defined. Asteroid composition
will dictate the type of mining techniques necessary to gather resources from the
asteroid. Trade-off analysis needs to take place between: human asteroid mining or
autonomous robotic mining, feasible mining techniques for the different type of
asteroids (C: carbon, organic chemicals, hydrated minerals, S: distinguishable
minerals and metals, or M: mostly metal), going to the asteroid to mine or bringing
one back to Earth’s orbit, and means of attaching to, or tethering to, the asteroid
during the mining process. The feasibility of several of these methods must be
looked into since the entire procedure is currently theoretical.
New technologies, such as the latching device from JPL & Caltech (Figure 9),
are being designed to address the concerns of mining asteroids. This “specialized
claw” could be used either to tow a small asteroid back to Earth, or as a device for
attaching to an asteroid during the mining process. The feasibility of such a mission
was discussed in a four-day workshop at California Institute of Technology in
September 2011. This type of mission for bringing an asteroid back to a Lagrange
point near Earth (a point in space where the sum of gravitational pulls is equal to
zero) is possible in the future according to the CalTech workshop. This device could
also prove useful in planetary defense; being able to tow away asteroids that could
collide with Earth.
Figure 9: Robotic Gripper developed by Aaron Parness of JPL/Caltech
12
Limitations
Launch Cost
With launch costs being the largest contributor of the total costs of space
missions, it is key to lower launch costs to begin on the path towards making space
missions more feasible. Many industries will be relying on technology
breakthroughs and advancements that will drive down the price per pound index of
launching into space. Until these costs reach a more realistic price point, a realistic
return on investment will be hard to sell.
The most current price goals of $1000 per pound are projected to be reached
by SpaceX in 2013. SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy launch vehicle will be projected to launch
in early 2013, and with a schedule of at least 4 launches annually will be projected
to reach the $1000 milestone (SpaceX.com). The Falcon heavy has an estimated
payload capacity of up to 53,000 kg, placing the Falcon heavy in the Super Heavy
classification (50,000 kg) for launch vehicles.
Technology
Robotics
Currently the technology in today’s robotics is not at a level to make it
feasible to use as a means of mining. Remotely controlled robotics lacks the
precision and control that a miner would be able to possess during on site mining.
Latency issues, along with dexterity, make robotics a poor choice in this technology
age.
Life Sustainability
Nitrogen, while abundant on Earth, is far less prevalent in Space. Nitrogen is
a necessary nutrient for plant growth, and being able to establish a presence in
space involves having nitrogen to grow food. A ton of regolith on the moon contains
about 100 ppm of Nitrogen. Any chance of sustaining plant life in space would
require nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium, which will not likely be gathered on
13
site. (Harrison Schmitt, 2005)
(http://www.ncagr.gov/cyber/kidswrld/plant/nutrient.htm#Nitrogen)
Funding
Last year, only an estimated $71B was spent globally by governments on
space programs. NASA’s 2010 budget was only $18.7B, approximately .6% of the
entire US federal budget. Figure 10 illustrated the budgets of the larger space
programs across the globe. NASA has the largest budget of all of the space capable
countries, however, only approximately $5.6B of that budget is spent on space
exploration. In order to achieve a space market, more investment needs to be made.
Country Space Program Budget
USA $18.7B
China $1.3B
Russia $3.8B
India $1.25B
Figure 10: 2010 Government Space Budgets
Lack of Collaboration
All of these plans focus on overcoming the difficulties in their own respective
area. While the solar powered satellites may reference a need for a reduced launch
cost, they have to plan to overcome that obstacle. In the same regard, while the
mining plan realizes that they need to use solar energy as the initial power source,
they do not address how the solar panels would be constructed or placed in space.
As shown there is a need for a plan that unites all of these design plans. A strong
interdependent architecture needs to be constructed that shows how progress in
one design aids the progression of another.
14
Stakeholders
MajorThe space exploitation architecture being developed has many stakeholders.
The primary stakeholders consist of the groups that will further develop space, such
as the governments helping push forth the effort to develop, as well as the Mining
and manufacturing companies that will provide the resources outside of Earth to
create the physical framework in space. The secondary major stakeholders consist
of the entire Earth’s population.
Governments
Governments around the world all have a stake in space. Their objectives
include expanding their domain, boosting their economies, and protecting the
people that they govern. Dated legislation such as the Moon Treaty serves as the
only guideline for space exploration. The Moon Treaty bans any state from claiming
sovereignty over any territory of celestial bodies, and no space capable countries
have ratified the treaty, rendering it a failed treaty. Serious consideration
concerning policy must be undertaken by governments to prevent the misuse of
space. The expansion of a government’s domain encompasses both economic gains
and military presence. Because governments are looking to expand their domain,
prospective space-faring countries may feel entitled territory in space in which to
expand, and conflict could easily arise from the tension associated with this land-
grab.
Government’s third objective, to protect the people they government, is also
a major issue concerning space. In addition to the risk of military conquest in space,
governments must also undertake planetary defense. An asteroid that is en-route to
Earth must be deterred in some manner to prevent a catastrophic disaster, and it is
the government’s responsibility to develop a plan to neutralize this threat. However,
there’s an inherent problem here: there is no effective means of detecting asteroids.
15
It is imperative that awareness of asteroids improve in addition to developing
strategies for neutralizing the threat of an asteroid collision.
Insurance
The insurance companies have a potentially large stake in the future of space
exploration and development. Space development and exploration companies will
be insuring their various pieces of equipment, and as an insurance company, the
ability to lessen the likelihood of damage to these insured pieces of equipment is
critical in maximizing profit and cutting cost to the customer. If the insurance
companies invest in creating methods to help eliminate or minimize damage to
equipment, it would benefit their bottom line.
A good starting point for insurance companies would be space debris
collection. According to CelesTrak at the Center for Space Standards and Innovation,
of roughly 37000 satellites in space, around 58% of them are inactive. This creates a
hazardous environment for the remaining 42% of functioning satellites. Moreover,
these dead satellites collide, causing more clutter in Earth’s orbit. Removal of this
debris is imperative, both to reduce the cost of insuring satellites, and to reverse the
current trend. (http://celestrak.com/satcat/boxscore.asp)
Mining & Manufacturing
The objectives of the mining industry are simple. These companies wish to
utilize resources of Near Earth Asteroids and the moon. Some asteroids are
comprised principally of iron and nickel of a very pure grade that would require
minimal refining compared to that found on Earth. In addition, these asteroids
contain metals that are rare on Earth. Mining on Near Earth Asteroids is considered
a green endeavor as well, reducing the amount of mining that takes place on Earth.
The mining industry’s objective is to find and flesh out the means of mining in outer
space. The question of manned or autonomous missions is an important one to ask
as well. Another important obstacle to be overcome is the development of mining
techniques in space.
16
Mining techniques on Earth leverage gravity which is less prevalent in space.
Gravitational pull depends on the mass and size of an object. The gravitational pull
on the moon is one sixth that of Earth’s gravity, 1.622 meters per second squared,
and asteroids in general have several order of magnitudes less. Mining will need to
augment existing techniques on Earth as well as develop new techniques that can be
used in space.
(http://education.ksc.nasa.gov/esmdspacegrant/LunarRegolithExcavatorCourse/
Chapter5.htm)
With regards to manufacturing, there are opportunities to utilize the
conditions of space as well. Space is a sterile environment with a hard vacuum,
microgravity, and access to both solar heating (as well as power) and intense
cooling. Microgravity is useful for creating large-scale engineering projects that do
not need excessive focus on stress design. Also, it is possible to leverage the surface
tension in microgravity, which renders liquids into perfectly round spheres, to
create ball bearings in space. The objectives of manufacturing are to utilize the bulk
and rare materials of space by means of techniques employed on Earth, make
changes to those techniques that are currently infeasible in space, and develop new
techniques that utilize the conditions of space.
Tourism
The tourism industry already has a large interest in space travel (i.e. Virgin
Galactic, Bigelow Aerospace), and is attempting to make space travel available to
civilians. The introduction of space as a travel destination will open the doors to
furthering space development. If space tourism becomes successful, it will
germinate the idea of space development in the minds of human-kind. Currently, the
exclusivity of these pioneering ventures carries a large price tag (currently $200k to
$20m price range). The sustainability of such endeavors has yet to be determined.
The development of tourism is also hindered by the high price of servicing
destinations in space. For example, the maintenance of a tourism destination in low
Earth orbit, say a hotel, involves shielding from radiation, oxygen, food, power,
water, and station keeping (the thrust necessary to keep in orbit) that must all be
17
brought from Earth. The same issues are present for destinations in
geosynchronous Earth orbit and in space. Either the price of launching these
materials needs to decrease, or the majority of these resources need to be found in
space.
Earth’s Population
The improvement of space infrastructure and the development of space also
have a huge impact on the population of Earth. A successful expansion of the mining
and manufacturing industries means less of an impact on the Earth’s environment.
Likewise, mining, manufacturing, and energy reception in space provide the Earth’s
population with more resources and products.
There are also potential new techniques developed in space that can improve
the quality of life for the Earth’s population. An example of this is crystal formation
which is much more fine and pronounced in the conditions in space. Specifically, the
growth of insulin protein crystals in space lead to a better understanding of insulin
which can allow pharmaceutical companies to better treat the symptoms of
diabetes.
(http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1998/notebook/
msad22jul98_1/)
Energy
The energy industry’s objective is to provide energy to Earth and space at
minimal detriment to the environment. Energy provision on Earth is subject to
government regulation that protects the environment. The abundance of clean
energy in space, in the form of solar energy, will likely be the mainstay of energy
provision for space. However, launch costs do not presently facilitate launching
solar panels manufactured in Earth. Either the cost of launching into space needs to
decrease or a means of developing solar panels in space by mining and
manufacturing would need to occur.
Even taking into consideration the lower efficiency of solar panels produced
using space materials; the energy industry can utilize the conditions of space to
18
create massive solar panel farms. These farms would not require significant
structural integrity due to the microgravity of space.
Stakeholder Interaction
Figure 11: Overview of Potential Stakeholder Interaction
To help illustrate the interactions between the stakeholders, a diagram of the
potential interactions was developed, depicted in Figure 11. For the sake of
simplicity, the four stakeholders that comprise the various industries considered in
this project have been grouped together and are explored in more depth in a later
diagram. This diagram depicts three cycles: Earth’s population provides investment
to the business sector which in turn provides products, resources, and services back
to the Earth’s population; government receives funding in the form of taxes from the
Earth’s population and provides security and law; government receives funding in
19
the form of taxes from the business sector and provides regulation and contracts to
the business sector. Unfortunately, there’s a lack of investment in the business
sector regarding space. As a result, there is a limited market that restricts these
industries from providing resources, goods, and services to the Earth’s Population,
as depicted in Figure 12. This lack of interest reflects the low prioritization of space
for the Earth’s population which is more concerned with current events like the
state of the economy and political affairs.
Figure 12: Overview of Current Stakeholder Interaction
20
A separate stakeholder diagram was developed to depict the interactions
between the industries in the business sector. This diagram can be seen in Figure
13.
Figure 13: Overview of Potential Business Sector Stakeholder Interaction
Mining and manufacturing have been placed the center of our diagram to
express its importance. Note also that the roles of each industry have been
explained in their respective boxes. This diagram also contains two major loops:
mining and manufacturing provide finished products to the energy industry which
demands these products; mining and manufacturing provide finished products to
tourism which demands these products. There’s also a less significant loop between
mining & manufacturing and insurance: mining and manufacturing provides
products to insure, and insurance provides coverage for these products and assets.
In general, insurance provides coverage for all of the investments of these various
industries.
21
Figure 14 depicts the stakeholder interaction in space in present
circumstances. No mining and manufacturing or energy is present in space.
Furthermore, insurance costs are too high due to the inherent risk of space, and
tourism is underdeveloped. The expansion into space for these industries requires a
staggering amount of investment, and these industries are only considering space
independently. This lack of collaboration between industries hinders the
development of space completely, limiting humanity’s exposure to space. There is a
“win-win” scenario here: collaboration between industries to develop space can
allow the interactions depicted in this diagram to occur. The supply of resources by
energy and mining and manufacturing does not presently exist in space because
there isn’t sufficient demand for those resources in space.
Figure 14: Overview of Current Business Sector Stakeholder Interaction
Tension:No collaboration
betweenIndustries
22
MinorAlong with the major stakeholders, there are also minor stakeholders that
will benefit from space mining. These stakeholders include: robotics, launch,
command and control, the farming industry, telecommunication and the
entertainment business.
Robotics
Fully or partially automated missions necessitate agile robotic equipment
capable of carrying out the task of mining. Extensive coding and mechanical design
are required to facilitate more advanced and reliable robotics that can handle the
job, as well as minimize error. This is especially true when considering the new
techniques required to facilitate mining in space. The mining industry must work in
conjunction with robotics to develop techniques that can feasibly be performed by
robots.
Launch
Launch facilities that provide an area to launch into space are another
stakeholder. As mining and manufacturing companies begin to expand their
industry into space, these launch facilities will get more traffic. This increased
traffic may require additional launch facilities.
Command & Control
Likewise, the command and control industry that provides communication
for these missions will also need to expand as the various industries embark into
space. These groups serve as the administrative element of missions in space that
oversee launching, landing, and mission control.
Telecommunications
Also associated with robotics and command & control is the
telecommunications industry. The means of communication between command &
control and those entities, robotic or human, on the mission, as well as
communication between the humans on the mission and the robotic equipment all
23
require telecommunications. Advancements to this field are necessary to address
high latency times for issued commands to robotic equipment.
Farming
The farming industry is also a stakeholder. Sustaining life in space involves
developing farming techniques that can handle the harsh environment of space. The
lack of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in space that are necessary to cultivate
plants must be addressed. Any manufacturing or mining outpost in space that must
support humans must provide food in a sustainable manner.
Entertainment
The entertainment industry is also a minor stakeholder with a broad range of
influences. Movies can and should begin to foster the idea of proceeding into space.
The same way “2001: A Space Odyssey” inspired people about the future of space,
we must continue in this manner to inspire people to embark into space. Likewise,
the publicity generated from pioneering space ventures like the moon landing in
1969 also serve to inspire the Earth’s population to be invested in space monetarily
as well as personally.
24
Problem Statement
There are potentially large markets that can utilize the resources and
benefits of space. However, the capabilities to utilize those resources do not cost
effectively exist in current markets. Through an incremental “stepping stone”
approach, the architecture will show the order for the development of capabilities to
attain resource utilization in space.
25
Need Statement
Currently, the required investment needed to capture space resources is too
high. A high-level architecture that shows how through an incremental “stepping
stone” approach the total investment could be lowered, as industry collaboration is
increased. The architecture will provide a road map for industry investments with a
minimum of 1.5x return on investment from a total investment of less than one
trillion dollars annually.
26
Proposed Solution
In order to develop mining and manufacture in space a high-level transitional
architecture is designed to show how industry collaboration can be used to further
develop capabilities for space development. The design will show through a
sequence of stepping-stones (Figure 15) how investment in capabilities could be
reduced from the current market position.
Figure 15: Potential Steping Stones
First we look at the potential market in space such as Hotel, Space Tourism
and Garbage Collection. The outcome of these investments enables new technology
such as propulsion and would improve life support. A step forward would be Space
Power Generation and Asteroid Defense, this will improved protection for Earth
from Space artifacts and enhance international cooperation. This put us a step into
Near-Earth Asteroid Mining and Manufacturing this would provide Earth with direct
27
minerals and energy that is obtain from space such as solar power. Moving forward
lead us to Near Earth Colonies, which in return we get new living space and new
ways to improve environment on Earth.
Architecture RequirementsR.1 – The architecture shall show the overall investment from industries is less
than one trillion dollars annually.
R.2 – The architecture shall be designed such that no individual stakeholder will
invest more than 10% of overall investment.
R.3 – The architecture shall produce a plan that generates an ROI of at least
150% for all stakeholders over 5 years.
R.4 – The architecture shall be limited to three levels of functional
decomposition.
R.5 – The architecture shall produce a plan for investment into capabilities
defined as necessary for a space market.
Project ObjectivesThis project’s objectives are tied back to SPEC Innovations, the sponsor of the
project. A thesis was developed in the early stages of development for this project:
Without mining & manufacturing, the required investment from other industries
looking to expand into space will be higher. Thus, the project entails the creation of
an ROI calculator to evaluate this thesis. This ROI calculator was leveraged as a part
of SPEC innovation’s proposal for DARPA’s (Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency) 100 Year Starship. SPEC’s description for this project is as follows: “[The
project] identifies potential return on investment for space to attract commercial
and public support.”
28
Design Process
In order to better understand the problem, a Classic Context Diagram (Figure
16) was created. On the left of the diagram are the inputs that are needed to reach a
developed space where it would be possible to conduct mining and manufacturing
in space. If mining and manufacturing in space was achieved, there would be the
outputs seen on the right of the diagram.
Figure 16: Classic Context Diagram
Four major inputs are needed to reach the mining and manufacturing in
space goal. The first is investment; this input involves having people and
governments investment of money into research that develops capabilities and
technologies for space development. Second is Technology & Systems; here we
capture improvements made in space technologies. The third input is laws; as
human presence in space increases, the need for regulation becomes crucial. This
input includes not only the creation of new laws, but also the alteration of current
laws to allow industries to further expand into space. The final input is people:
29
without people’s interest in developing space, the funding that will fuel the
development of necessary technologies will be at its current, insufficient level.
This figure also has four major outputs. The first output is increased
security; the output captures the increase ability to detect possible asteroids that
would cause harm to Earth, along with the ability to mitigate that risk. The second
is power generation. Power generation implies the use of large solar panels to
collect and transmit energy to Earth and other space habitats. Third is reduced
impact on environment: by utilizing the abundance of solar energy near Earth to
provide power, Earth-based mining operations could be reduced. Finally, return on
investment; without being able to see the ROI of being in space, governments and
people are unlikely to invest in space.
In order to construct a transitional architecture, an understanding of both
the current “As-Is” and future “To-Be” models is required. It is important to know
the current state of development and the desired state of development. This
understanding is required to be able to contrast the functionality presently available
with the functionality that is required. The accuracy of the integrated behavior
model and functional gap analysis, which will be discussed later, depend on being
able to properly address the functionality required in the “To-Be.” This process is
paramount for a successful transitional architecture.
As-Is Model Development
Operational Context Diagram
In order to better understand the “As-Is” an operational context diagram was
created (Figure 17). The context diagram captures certain limiting factors: laws and
policy, launch capabilities, the population’s priorities, and funding from the
government. Also, potentially useful future technologies that are currently in
development were addressed.
30
Figure 17: As-Is Operational Context Diagram
To elaborate, laws and policy include primarily the Moon Treaty, which
inhibits progression into space. Being able to utilize the Moon as a base for going
further into space seems to be a logical step in the development of space
infrastructure, and the Moon Treaty bans any state from claiming sovereignty over
any territory of celestial bodies. As previously mentioned, it is not ratified by space-
faring countries and has been rendered dead, but will certainly be addressed as
states do embark into space. Adding to this is the current capabilities of rockets,
launch facilities and command & control. Limitations concerning launch payload
capacity, the cost per pound to get into space, and communication lag times all
contribute to the lack of progression in space.
Breaking down future technology, two examples included solar power
generation and alternative launch capabilities. Solar power generation encompasses
using solar power to provide energy, which will surely be leveraged in space.
31
Likewise, alternative launch capabilities encompass reusable space spacecraft such
as SpaceX’s Dragon capsule.
Conceptual Model
Utilizing the information gathered to construct the context diagram, a
conceptual model is formed. The conceptual model shows that there is limited
functionality in space, mostly restricted by: lack of investment, current multination
laws, high launch cost and low launch payloads, and lack of technology
development. The model also identifies that the current ROI is less than zero, which
is limiting where investment comes from. The conceptual model leads to the
conclusion that the current level of space development is well known, and thus an
executable functional model is not required.
To-Be Model Development
Operational Context Diagram
The first step to building to “To-Be” model is to create an operational context
diagram (figure 18). This context diagram shows that what is needed to be at the
desired level of space development. The diagram addresses many of the issues that
were limited in the “As-Is.” These limiting factors include: priorities, launch
capabilities, laws, and technology innovation. The model also includes potential
ways to make money in a developed space; mining, manufacturing, energy and
tourism. The underling point of this model is that in this developed space the ROI
would be greater than zero.
32
Figure 18: To-Be Operational Context Diagram
Scenario Development
With an understanding of the key areas in “To-Be,” the process for creating a
functional executable model can begin. The first step in this process is to create
scenarios that focus on the major industries in a developed space. These scenarios
start at a low level of complexity and then increase in complexity as each scenario is
developed. The idea behind constructing scenarios in this manner is that during the
process of deriving functions, many of the functions from the previous scenario can
be reused. This process is essentially a ConOps (concept of operations) that
captures the functionality of developed space. Functional development will be
discussed more below.
33
As a team, seven scenarios were developed. These scenarios each focus on
their own industry and each scenario is more complex than the last. The scenarios
are:
1. Moon Round-trip
This scenario consists of a single space ship that is launched from
Earth and proceeds to orbit the Moon. After a set number of days, the
space ship returns to Earth.
2. Debris Collection
A debris collection vehicle enters the Earth’s orbit and proceeds to
collect orbital debris. The collected debris is sorted in space.
Unneeded materials are sent to the sun and useful materials are
returned to Earth to be recycled.
3. Space Based Solar Power
A large solar power satellite is launch from via multiple launches. The
satellite is constructed and placed into geostationary orbit around
Earth. The satellite beams energy to a collecting station on Earth.
4. Lunar Hotel from Earth
Short-term living structures are launched from Earth for assembly on
the Moon. Materials for life-sustainability are continually launched
from Earth to maintain the habitat.
5. Solar Flare at Lunar Hotel
During operation of the lunar hotel, a solar flare occurs causing
equipment failure and depressurizing of one of the habitats.
Emergency measures are activated and personal are evacuated to a
secure location.
6. Space Mining
Equipment and personnel are launched to mine an M-type asteroid.
The raw ore is sent to Earth to be cleaned and sold on the market.
7. Lunar Hotel with Space Materials
A space habit is constructed utilizing materials from space. The
habitat is sustainable and requires minimal support from Earth.
34
During operation, a micrometeorite causes equipment failure.
Redundancy in the system prevents total system failure, and no
evacuation is required.
In order to better illustrate the increasing of complexity of each of these
scenarios, a table (Figure 19) is shown. The table identifies the key business, max
distance, and expected human duration for each of the scenarios.
Scenario BusinessEnvironmental
RiskLaunch
LocationMax
Distance ProductExpected Duration
1 Tourism None Earth Moon None 10 days
2Insurance/Recycling/
GovernmentsNone Earth GEO
Recycled materials, reduced
risk
3 days
3 Energy None Earth GEO Energy None
4Tourism/
ManufacturingNone
Earth/Moon
Moon HotelLong Term
5Tourism/
ManufacturingSolar Flare
Earth/Moon
Moon HotelLong Term
6 Mining NoneEarth/
Asteroid1.3 AU Ore 3 years
7Tourism/Mining/
ManufacturingMicro meteorite All 1.3 AU Hotel/Ore Long term
Figure 19: Scenario Breakdown
Functional Scenario Models
With written descriptions of the scenarios established, the process of
creating functional representation begins. Using Vitech CORE software, each
scenario was broken down into its functional elements. In order to provide a visual
representation of the functionality of the scenario, an Enhanced Function Flow
Block Diagram (EFFBD) was used. This diagram provides a visual view of:
functions, sequence of functions, and inputs and outputs.
A breakdown of how to read an EFFBD is shown on Figure 20.
35
Figure 20: EFFBD Key
Functions – Main component of the EFFBD. They have duration and cost
associated with them. Any inputs received are transformed into outputs
as the function is performed.
Input – A transmitted item that is received by a function.
Output – A transmitted item that is generated by a function.
Trigger – A type of input that is required before the function is performed.
Parallel Branches – Branches of functions that operate concurrently.
Loop – A sequence of functions that are repeated until a loop exit is
reached.
Loop Exit – Exits the current loop, allowing functions after the loop to
begin.
Exit Conditions – Possible continuing branches after a function, often
based on probability.
Figure 21 below is an EFFBD for scenario 1. The model contains all the
necessary functions to complete the scenario 1. In the model, there are three
parallel branches where each branch groups the functions that focus on: launch and
36
landing, traversing, and orbiting. The functional model is also an executable model,
which will be discussed more in the simulation section.
Figure 21: Scenario 1 EFFBD
All of the scenarios will have functional models similar to this model. In
developing the models, common functions will be carried over from the previous
model, in such as way that only the functions that are unique to that scenario are
added to the model. When scenario 7 is completed, the Integrated Behavior Model
is near complete.
Integrated Behavior Model
The Integrated Behavior Model (IBM) is the final “To-Be” model. This model
is in steady state and contains all the functionality from the scenarios. By being
built from all the scenarios, the IBM is able to identify the necessary functions and
generic assets needed for a developed space. Via simulation, the IBM can be
manipulated to provide the foundation for the ROI calculator.
37
Simulation
To simulate the scenarios and the Integrated Behavior Model (IBM), Vitech
CORE Sim will be used. CORE Sim is a function simulator that utilizes element data
to simulate an EFFBD. This tool is built into Vitech CORE and contains COREScript.
COREScript is a powerful scripting engine that allows attribute manipulation, logic
control, and more. Examples of attribute manipulation include duration for a
function or link and the cost of functions, resources and assets, and amounts of
resources.
PurposeSimulating the IBM has three major purposes. First is that simulation aids in
the validation of the functional model. While the EFFBD may appear to be correct,
simulation is able to show logical loops, logic stops, or resource errors. The second
major purpose is to show how changing an element’s attributes can affect the whole
system. For example, if the cost of capturing an asset were reduced, what
percentage change would occur on the total cost? Another example: if mining were
to utilize a semi-autonomous robot to gather ore, how much more ore could be
removed if the communications delay between controller and robot was reduced?
The final purpose of simulation is to dictate the design of the transitional
architecture. With simulation, ROI can be calculated, and necessary functions are
identified for the gap analysis.
OutputThe output of CORESim is the simulation screen (Figure 22). This screen
shows resource and functions over time. Depending on the function, resources are
consumed or created. The amount of a resource that is available is shown in the
grey bars. Below the resources is a list of functions; the green bars next to the
38
function name indicate when the function was activated for set duration. A yellow
bar indicates that a function is able to start however cannot as the function is
waiting for the trigger.
Figure 22: Scenairo 1 Simulation Output
When the simulation includes cost attributes, the cost of the investment and
the revenue can be shown. These cost values are key to determining the possible
ROI for an industry.
39
Transitional Architecture Plan
Design of ExperimentFirst a Functionality Gap Analysis will be performed. By addressing the gap
between current and desired functionality, the Integrated Behavior Model can be
constructed. Evaluation and validation of the IBM will provide the foundation for the
ROI calculator. The ROI calculator will be used to produce architecture design plans
for maximizing ROI for the investing industries.
Functional Gap AnalysisBy comparing the “As-Is” model to the “To-Be” model, a Functionality Gap
Analysis can be performed to determine what will need to be done to reach
transition from “As-Is” to “To-Be.” The FGA will identify, from the “To-Be” model,
functions that are underdeveloped or non-existent in the “As-Is” model. Limitations
from the “As-Is” will also be identified as obstacles that need to be overcome.
Furthermore, the FGA will identify necessary future capabilities and technologies
that will be needed to successfully transition from “As-Is” to “To-Be.”
ROI CalculatorThe ROI calculator is the final product of the architecture design plan for this
experiment. The calculator will allow industries to input a desired amount of
investment and then generate a potential ROI with a minimized risk factor. The
calculator will pull data from all industries and use the behavior mapped out in the
IBM to produce the results. The basis of these results is reliant upon the element
attributes of the models as well as the costs associated with the each function in all
of the models inside the ROI calculator. The resulting outputs of the calculator will
also be compared to that of the full life cycle costs of the systems involved on Earth.
The full life cycle costs will be based on those from the inception of a system, all the
40
way to the completion or disposal of a system. The comparison of these costs
numbers will help determine when it will become more cost effective to move such
systems into space.
The ROI calculator will have the capability to augment several parameters,
such as time, asset characteristics like resource consumption or generation, as well
as many other elements. This functionality will give the ROI calculator the ability to
generate ROI figures based on predicted future occurrences. An example of this
would be the discovery or breakthrough in a new technology. The impact of this
new technology could be integrated in to the calculator to generate new results
based on the new technology’s functionality.
This functionality of the ROI calculator also provides the alternatives for the
project. By selecting different paths of importance (such as developing one sector
more than another), the allocation of industry investments can be altered and used
to generate new figures based on the updated investment allocation.
Investment PlanThe investment plan generated by the ROI calculator will result in a Gantt
chart showing the sequence for capabilities and technologies that will be needed to
reach the developed space market. It will also identify the critical capabilities and
technologies needed at each “Stepping stone.” These capabilities and technologies
will be needed to reach an acceptable level of sustainability.
41
Management
Continuing WorkThe continuation of work for the project will begin with the completion of
the functional models of the 7 scenarios created for the IBM. We will need to meet
with SME as well as conduct further research to insure we have reached a level of
depth that would be acceptable to mitigate as much risk as possible from our project
due to inaccuracies. Upon the creation of the IBM, validation will also involve
evaluation by SME. Next, the Functional Gap Analysis is performed and will help
with the accuracy and development of the IBM as well. The IBM will be further
developed in the second half of this project. With the FGA, key technologies and
capabilities that are needed will be identified and integrated into the IBM. Upon
completion of the IBM, the ROI calculator will be created using the IBM. This
milestone completion will allow us to test our project thesis discussed in Project
Objectives. The project will come to its conclusion with the presentation of
recommendations and findings.
Architecture Development ProcessFor the project, the team utilized an architecture development process
(Figure X) that was provided by SPEC Innovations. SPEC has been using this
process for over 15 years across a wide array of projects. A description of each of
the steps is below.
42
Figure 23: Architecture Development Process
1. Capture and Analyze Related Documents
Capture and analyze related documents is foundation for any project.
First, using the available resources such as articles, documents, web,
library, and etcetera, capture as much information about the related
project as possible and store it in a way that is easily accessible such as a
database.
2. Identify Assumptions
Review all the data that is capture from step one. Record down any issue
that you think might affect your project. Go over the any issue and
assumption with your stakeholder so they can agree and validate what
you have issued with.
3. Identify Existing/ Planned System
Conducts a survey of the current activity related to the architecture and
make sure that you already have the available capabilities and the plan
that are taken into account. This step is to help you reduce any
43
duplication. This is where you identify your problem statement. List all
the system that this project will be interacts with. With the plan system
you want to capture when will your plan be available for evaluation.
4. Capture Constraints
Depending on the project, different constraints can arise in different form.
Constraints are a special class of requirements. Using the previous three
steps and later analysis, the constraints can be identified. Constraints can
occur at technical, schedule, and political levels and can be imposed by
external laws, policies, regulation and standards.
5. Develop Operational Context Diagram
The operational context diagram describes the overall architecture
environment. First, the type of system to be created must be determined.
Analyze what the stakeholders can get out the system. Analyze the
external systems that interface with the system, the resources the system
uses and where this system be utilized.
6. Develop Operational Scenarios
This step is where a set of scenarios is produced. Begin by creating the
simplest scenario and build 7-9 scenarios until the most complex
functionality has been captured. These scenarios represent interaction
between the user and the system.
7. Derive Functional Behavior
Derive the functional behavior from each scenario in step 6. It is important
to recognize functional overlap between scenarios.
8. Derive System Elements
The system elements are derived from the functional Behavior
9. Allocate Functions to System Elements
Traceability between the functional behavior and the system elements
occurs here.
10.Prepare Interface Diagrams
System interface is using the external connection to let the system work in
different place. An example of this is a thumb drive which uses a USB
44
adapter which will interface with a corresponding USB slot. The USB
interface serves as a channel to transfer the data in the thumb drive to
another device such as computer or lab top.
11.Define Resources, Error Detection & Recovery
Life does not always go as planned. There will always be obstacles. All
possible obstacles must be included in the scenarios developed in step 6.
Alternate routes must be developed incase this obstacle occur. A
comprehensive list of all resources that are being used in the scenario also
needs to be developed.
12.Perform Dynamic Analysis
This step must be performed concurrently with step 6, 7 and 9. Dynamic
analyses of the individual scenario and overall behavior, as constrained by
the physical architecture, must be performed
13.Develop Operational Demonstration Master Plan
Bring an expert from the field to test the experiment to see if it fits the
criteria.
14.Provide Options
It is essential that the entire problem be addressed and several solutions
for this problem are provided to your stakeholder. It is the stakeholder’s
decision to decide the solution that fits their requirements the best.
15.Conduct Trade off Analyses
Evaluate alternatives. Vary the parameters established in previous steps to
evaluate when one alternative is better than another, and conduct
sensitivity analyses on those alternatives to identify when each alternative
is favorable.
16.Generate Operational and System Views, Graphics, Briefings and
Reports
This last step encompasses the generation of diagrams, graphics, and
deliverables that pertain to the project.
45
Project RiskThere are two risks that can prolong this project. One is the validation of
integrated behavior model and the other is the incomplete gap analysis. In order to
mitigate these risks, the complexity of these scenarios needs to be increased to
generate more accurate data. Meeting with SME also allows for more accurate in the
simulation and will help validate the integrated behavior model. The other risk is an
incomplete functional gap analysis. To address this, another level of depth can be
added to the integrated behavior model to improve its complexity. This will make
the gap in functionality between the “As-Is” and “To-Be” more pronounced, making
functional gap analysis easier to conduct.
Work Breakdown Structure
Diagrams
46
47
48
Team AssignmentsTeam:
- 1.1 Capture Related Artifacts
- 2.2 Scope
- 4.1 Build
- 4.2 Validate
- 7.0 Deliverables
Daniel Hettema:
- 2.1 Customer Expectations
- 3.2.2 Scenarios
- 4.3 Simulate
49
Scott Neal
- 1.2 Stakeholders
- 2.4 Stakeholders
- 3.1.1 Operational Context Diagram
- 3.2.1 Operational Context Diagram
- 5.3 Performance
Anh Quach
- 2.5 Problem Statement
- 2.6 Need Statement
- 2.7 Proposed Solution
- 2.8 Assumptions
- 5.2 Schedule
Robert Taylor
- 2.3 Context
- 3.1.2 Major Players
- 5.1 Cost
- 5.4 ROI
Project BudgetThe members of this project estimated that the each team member would be
able to put in at maximum 13.5 hours per week for a total of 54 hours per week.
Due to initial scope issues, the group was operating behind schedule and thus
earned value was lower than originally estimated. After a project re-scoping and
clarification, the team began to operate more effectively and thus the team is now
currently under hourly budget and only slightly behind schedule. Figure X is a
graphical version of the team’s budget. During week 6, the team lost a team
member, the project was re-budgeted.
50
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 350
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
Project Budget
New BudgetActualEarned Value
Weeks
Hou
rs
Figure 24: Project Budget
Project ScheduleThe Gantt chart for the schedule is on the next pages. The critical path is
highlighted in red.
51