A Picnic Launch...with a Delta IV Heavy

A Picnic Launch...with a Delta IV Heavy

Sepatuads.com   Januari 20, 2011   Comment  

My son and I went out to Vandenberg with a picnic lunch to watch a rocket launch and ooooh, boy, what a rocket launch. The temp was a balmy 72 degrees. The breeze was calm. The sky was blue with a few wispy clouds. No fog, which is always a potential at Vandenberg.

The launch, the largest ever out of Vandenberg, blasted off the coast of California a little after 1pm PST. As with previously launches out of Vandenberg, my son and I saw the Delta IV Heavy before we heard its powerful engines.

We both felt the launch as well as heard it – felt it in our chests as the rocket fought to alter our heart beat to its own internal rhythms. But I was expecting the noise to be commensurate with the payload size…it was not. Loud, but not overwhelmingly so. Three flames pushing to the sky.

Best picnic launch my son I have had this week!

LEO-to-GEO Tug Part 3: And Beyond...Bigelow to L1

LEO-to-GEO Tug Part 3: And Beyond...Bigelow to L1

Sepatuads.com   Desember 28, 2010   Comment  

In my FIRST post in this series, I discussed the benefits of a Falcon-tug architecture to transfer very large comsats from LEO to GEO (saving money over the Delta-IV Heavy price).

In  my SECOND post, I discussed the potential of a Falcon-tug architecture to carry a 10,000kg comsat to GEO (59% more payload than is currently possible on a Delta-IV Heavy).

In this, my THIRD post, I will discuss lagrange points. 

I do not intend to describe why one would use EML1, Rand Simberg and many others have posts on this topic if you are unconvinced.  Here is a Simberg lagrange post from 2006 in which he articulates several reasons to utilize EML1.  Instead, I will focus on the financials of such a mission. 

Using a Falcon 9/Transfer Tug architecture, what interesting payloads could you transport from LEO to EML1 (instead of GEO)? And at what cost?

The funny thing about orbital dynamics (which I am only a new student), if you can launch 10,000kg to GEO for the prices outlined in the previous posts, you can also launch 10,000kg to EML1 for even less.  Below is a visual of the Earth-Moon transportation energies (at Delta-V Scale).  It highlights how close GEO is to EML1 (and the moon for that matter) based on energy needed to get there.



Earth-Moon Transportation Energies at Delta-V Scale.
Used with permission from Brad Blair of the Colorado School of Mines.


Earth Moon Lagrange Point One (EML1) would make a interesting location for a space station and Bigelow’s Inflatable Sundancer module has a mass of 8,618kg – too large to be launched to L1 (or GEO) on an existing launcher (including Delta-IV Heavy) which top out a little over 6,000kg, but with the Falcon/tug transfer system described in these posts, a Bigelow Sundancer module could be launched from the earth's surface to EML1 for between $145-191M:

Since each station may consist of multiple Sundancer modules, some EML1 assembly may still be required.  But multiple missions to EML1 amortizes the fixed costs over more missions and could lower the price further.
Here are my Assumptions:

• Tug is launched on Falcon 9 with a dry mass of 3,000kg.
• Tug is co-manifested on a Falcon 9. Launch cost $20M.
• Tug Development paid for under contract and not a part of this analysis.
• Tug Manufacturing Costs: $50M.
• Tug refuels itself in LEO as needed between missions from additional Falcon 9 launches (10,000 kg of prop for $50M: $5,000 per kg)
• Tug lasts five years with amortization factored into price.
• Tug breakeven price listed in this analysis.
• Two missions per year assumed (but could be a mix of L1 and GEO missions).
• Operating Cost per year: $10M.
• LEO to EML1: 3800 m/s of delta-v required.
• EML1 to LEO with aerobraking: 1000 m/s of delta-v required (Note: this link indicates the EML1 to LEO trip could be performed for as little 770m/s.  1000m/s has been used for conservatism).
• Use aerobraking from L1 to LEO
• Bigelow Sundancer launched to LEO on a Falcon 9.

Observations:
1. Since propellant cost drives the price for this venture, true price reductions come not from increasing demand but from:

• Decreasing propellant usage [could be solved through advances in engine technology (VASIMR)] or 
• Paying less than $5,000 per KG for propellant [could be solved through extraterrestrial sources of propellant? Or SpaceX lowering their Falcon 9 prices due to added reusability in their first stage].

2. Once in EML1, could the tug make more money after dropping off its payload and prior to returning to LEO – what uses would you have for a tug in EML1?

• By delivering the first Station to EML1, a market is created for resupply missions.  A separate analysis would need to be done on the best way to resupply this station, but a Falcon/tug scenario should definitely be one of the options to consider for the resupply missions as well
• With L1's close proximity to the moon, what fun reasons could their be for diverting the tug occasionally (once in EML1) for lunar purposes.

3. Entrepreneurs reading this would want to calculate desired IRR to determine attractiveness of opportunity to investors. I have only considered a breakeven price.
4. Because SpaceX’s Falcon 9 becomes much more attractive for Comsat operators and for Bigelow when including a tug, SpaceX may be interested in being involved in a commercial tug venture.
5. There are going to be some elements of this analysis I get wrong. Assume I made mistakes. I welcome the corrections.


LOX/Kerosene Tug – Bigelow Sundancer to EML1 Details:

LOX/Hydrogen Tug – Bigelow Sundancer to EML1 Details:

Click here to play with the interactive spreadsheets for all three posts (in one file).

With these three posts I highlighted ways to launch comsats cheaper and larger than on a Delta IV-Heavy and to new and valuable destinations.  But LEO-to-GEO transfer tugs aren't the only way. 

One friend reviewing this analysis prior to posting was quick to mention the value of simply refueling the upper stages in LEO and bypassing the need for a LEO-to-GEO tug all-together (but needs a propellant depot instead). 

Which idea will blossom first?  The most profitable one (and the lucky one...but mostly profit).  Good luck entrepreneurs.

LEO-to-GEO Tug Part 1: Cheaper than a Delta-IV Heavy

LEO-to-GEO Tug Part 1: Cheaper than a Delta-IV Heavy

Sepatuads.com   Desember 23, 2010   Comment  

Delta-IV Heavy

In response to recent blog posts about LEO tugs servicing Iridium’s satellite constellation, readers have been asking me about other uses for orbital tugs.

One tug use that keeps coming up in our discussions is a LEO to GEO transfer tug. Such a tug would pick up a payload in LEO and transfer the payload to GEO, drop the payload off in the correct orbit, and return to LEO for its next payload.

Although there are some intriguing propulsion technologies on the horizon that make the case for such a tug easier to close, could a transfer tug be developed today with today’ s propellants to serve the extreme ends of the GEO Satellite market (projected for the next decade to be 20-25 satellites per year)?  I focused my analysis on two GEO market segments:

1. Smallsats (550kg) and 
2. Mega ComSats (6,000-10,000kg)

So I did some analysis (yay, spreadsheets!).

With current propulsion, could a LEO to GEO transfer tug work for: 

• SmallSats? NO, a LEO to GEO transfer tug could not be operated for less than the cost and performance of existing EELV rides
• Mega ComSats? MAYBE: and the rest of this post discusses my analysis as to why an entrepreneur may find a market here.

Currently the largest GEO ComSat could theoretically have a mass of 6,276kg if launched on a Delta IV Heavy (correct me if I am missing a commercial rocket offering a larger BOL value for a GEO sat). I have heard of prices for this type of launcher ranging from $150-200M (maybe more). Since such a satellite in my example would push the boundaries of the capabilities of the Delta IV Heavy, I used the upper end price point of $200M to GEO.

I am assuming a commercial customer with a 6,276kg satellite could purchase a GEO ride on a Delta-IV Heavy for $200M. My analysis considered how to transport a 6,276kg satellite from the earth’s surface to GEO for less than $200M. 

The Falcon 9 has a LEO payload limit of 10,450kg.  My analysis assumes a Falcon 9 to launch the satellite to LEO and tug to take the satellite from LEO to GEO.  I considered two propellant options for the transfer tug:

1. LOX/Kerosene at 340 ISP
2. LOX/Hydrogen at 450 ISP

The table below shows the price comparison between the baselined Delta-IV and a Falcon 9/tug combo using both propellant options. 

The Falcon 9 & LOX/Hydrogen tug combo could deliver the satellite to GEO for only $142M (a cost savings of ~30%). The LOX/Kero tug at a lower ISP shows a cost savings of 6% (more if the launch costs end up being more than $200M). I am not sure 6% cost savings would overcome the risk of introducing a tug into the satellite-to-GEO equation, but 30% savings for the LOX/Hydrogen tug ($60M!!) seems pretty tempting.


Here are my Assumptions:

• Tug is launched on Falcon 9 with a dry mass of 3,000kg.
• Tug is co-manifested on a Falcon 9. Launch cost $20M.
• Tug development paid for under contract and not a part of this analysis.
• Tug manufacturing Costs: $50M.
• Tug refuels itself as needed in LEO from additional Falcon 9 launches (10,000 kg of prop for $50M: $5,000 per kg).
• Tug lasts five years with amortization factored into price.
• Tug breakeven price listed in this analysis.
• Two missions per year assumed (8% Market Share).
• Operating Cost per year: $10M.
• LEO to GEO: 4200 m/s of delta-v required.
• GEO to LEO (with aerobraking): 1500 m/s of delta-v required.
• Use aerobraking from GEO to LEO.
• Satellite launched to LEO on a Falcon 9.

Observations:

1. Since propellant cost drives the price for this venture, true price reductions come not from increasing demand but from:

• Decreasing propellant usage [could be solved through advances in engine technology (VASIMR)] or
• Paying less than $5,000 per KG for propellant [could be solved through extraterrestrial sources of propellant? Or SpaceX lowering their Falcon 9 prices due to added reusability in their first stage].

2. Once in GEO, could the tug make more money after dropping off its payload and prior to returning to LEO? Two thoughts:

• Who would pay for prox-ops work in GEO?
• What could the tug bring back from GEO to LEO (the delta-v to return to LEO from GEO is very low with aerobraking making return payloads comparatively cheap)? Who would pay to have a payload brought back?

3. Entrepreneurs reading this would want to calculate desired IRR to determine attractiveness of opportunity to investors. I have only considered a breakeven price.
4. The Delta-IV Heavy does not fly very often. This Falcon 9/Tug solution offers increased flight opportunities in addition to the cost savings already mentioned – frequent launch opps alone may make this venture valuable to customers.
5. Because SpaceX’s Falcon 9 becomes much more attractive for Mega ComSat operators when including a tug, SpaceX may be interested in being involved in a commercial tug venture.
6. There are going to be some elements of this analysis I get wrong. Assume I made mistakes. I welcome the corrections.

LOX/Kerosene Tug Details:

LOX/Hydrogen Tug Details:

Click here to play with the interactive spreadsheets.

In the next post in this series, I will walk through the math for a 10,000kg satellite to GEO (bigger than anything currently in GEO), and the numbers look even better – all from a Falcon 9 and a transfer tug!