Commercial Asteroid Return to Station

Commercial Asteroid Return to Station

Sepatuads.com   Juni 22, 2011   Comment  

Back in 2010, Michael Mealing began to consider a spacecraft mission to capture and return a very small Near Earth Object (NEO) to the ISS or Bigelow module for study. He writes about business concept here. Michael’s point, humanity will only travel into the solar system if they can make money at each step. NEOs may be the next step after LEO.

Then in January, 2011, the topic of a NEO capture and return to LEO comes up again in the comment discussions on the Space Business Blog here. So Michael and I have teamed up to continue refining this business concept.

Here’s a Pencast describing the basic concept for a mission to return a small asteroid sample to a space station in LEO.  I also include a few markets that might make such a mission profitable.

NEO Return to Station

brought to you by Livescribe

Moon dust legally for sale - $50K for a few small specs. 

Next, I will walk you through the spreadsheet model built to analyze what would be required for a mission like the one described in the Pencast above.

Assumptions:

1. Spacecraft launched to LEO Space station to standby until target asteroid has been identified.
2. Spacecraft launched from LEO space station and returning to LEO space station.
3. Haul all propellant for round trip (no refueling).
4. A duplicate amount of Delta-V will be required for both the trip out to the asteroid and the trip from the asteroid back to a LEO space station (assuming NO aerobraking to avoid damaging asteroid). Note: The mission’s costs could be greatly reduced if one could determine a smart engineering method to reduce the needed delta-v for the return trip to a LEO space station.
5. Mass of dry spacecraft: 200Kg (Similar to NEAP but swap out all of NEAP's science gear for some type of grappling mechanism).
6. Engine efficiency Isp = 342 seconds.
7. Although spacecraft is docked to LEO space station before mission start, this model assumes no propellant boil-off or LOX top-off prior to mission start. 
8. Since the target NEO is still undetermined, multiple Delta-V’s were modeled to reach NEO targets. Delta-V’s between 5500, 4500, 3500, and 2500 m/s were considered.
9. Asteroid 2010 RF12 has a radius of 3.5m and a mass of 500,000kg according to NASA. Prorating these values to a radius of 0.5m gives you a sphere slightly smaller than the desired “refrigerator” in Michael Mealing’s earlier posts with a mass of 71,429Kg. This mass is larger than what I wanted to consider for a proof of concept mission, so although I include the 71K Kg mass in the analysis, I focus on target asteroid masses of 500, 300, 100, 50, 25, and 10Kg.

Conclusions:
The table below is the summary of my analysis. The columns in the table below represent the multiple delta-v’s modeled for our 200Kg spacecraft to travel from a LEO space station and AR&D with the target NEO. The rows are the various NEO masses that were considered (or – how big of a rock the mission can go out and get). The data populated (the cells with numbers) are the total mission masses for each combination of delta-v and NEO mass. The total mission mass includes all propellant needed not only to reach the NEO but to return it to LEO as well. The color coding correlates to the launch vehicle table below – Dnepr in green, Falcon 9 in orange, and Falcon Heavy in purple.

A few Observations:

• Finding low delta-v targets will dramatically increase the size of the asteroid one could successfully return. For example, instead of a 10Kg target at 5,000m/s of delta-v, the same spacecraft could return a 500Kg target if only 2500m/s of delta-v were needed to reach it (and at almost half the total mission mass!) – that is a lot more rock for scientists to analyze – 500kg instead of 10kg.
• Are there ways to decrease the delta-v required to reach these targets or return from them (currently avoiding aerobraking, but maybe a small asteroid could be shielded during aerobraking)?
• Because such small NEO objects will be difficult to spot a head of time (there are many more NEOs than we have on record - especially small ones), such a mission has to be very patient waiting on station many months/years for the “perfect” NEO to approach with the right blend of low delta-v and a mass that is “just right”. And to respond to new targets, the mission must be ready to depart the station on very short notice in pursuit of any newly identified targets.
• Growing humanity’s knowledge of very small NEOs increases the chances of mission success.

Here is an example of the tables I built to analyze propellant needs. Here are the tables feeding the 5500 m/s of delta-v column. The colored cell in each table varies the asteroid masses. Here is the interactive spreadsheet for those that want to modify my assumptions and want to view the tables for the delta-V's modeled as well.

Delta-V 5500m/s:

Next steps:
Michael and I plan to refine this concept over the coming months. Look for follow-up posts here on SBB and over on Michael’s blog.

Asteroid Prospecting in the Triangular Equilibrium

Asteroid Prospecting in the Triangular Equilibrium

Sepatuads.com   April 12, 2011   Comment  

A few months ago I analyzed a SpaceDev/NEAP-style commercial NEO prospecting mission.

An interesting asteroid report last week has made we consider a Hybrid NEO prospecting/research mission:

A few thoughts on the timing challenges of a prospecting mission of any kind:

• One potential market for the information gathered about the target asteroid(s) is to sell the data to those interested in mining such asteroids. 
• Most NEO’s are in orbits whose paths cross infrequently with earth’s orbit.
• Most “low cost” mining efforts would require a near earth asteroid to pass by earth at least two times – one pass for the prospector to prospect (sending back data) and a second pass to mount a mining expedition. Without two passes would require the venture to combine prospecting and mining into a single mission. I believe this approach to be too high risk for an investor-led venture.
• Finding NEOs that return frequently enough to earth to attract investment dollar for a mining mission (double orbit missions) may be difficult. 
• And the prospector company (the company that flew to multiple NEOs in search of data about asteroid composition, etc.) will have a hard time selling their data if they have to wait for the NEO to approach a second time.
• For example: Asteroid 2006 RH120 at its closest distance from earth could be reached with only 3.8km/sec of delta-v.  According to JPL, Asteroid 2006 RH120 last approached earth on 14 June 2007 and won’t return again until 29 Oct 2028.  If your prospecting mission had gathered data on 2006 RH120, the scientific community might purchase the data gathered (yay), but commercial groups would not if the commercial ventures had to wait 20+ years to turn that data into profits.
• Some NEOs return to earth more frequently than this example, but it illustrates a principle – prime targets for commercial NEO prospecting missions would combine a low delta-v to reach and frequent return trips to earth.

Enter 2010 SO16.

2010 SO16 is unlike most NEOs and at 7.6 km/sec of delta-v to reach, it may offer an attractive target for a NEO prospecting mission. Some quick facts:

• Located in a similar orbit to earth’s – just 60% ahead
• ~50x the distance to the moon
• Very stable orbit – been there a long time!
• May be a part of the theorized objects located at the triangular equilibrium points 60 degrees ahead of and behind the Earth in its orbit
• Scientists may find such an object interesting because as the article put it, “If they [triangular equilibrium objects] do exist, they may represent relic material from the formation of Earth, Moon and the other inner planets”
• 200-400 meters across - plenty of rock to prospect.

Why Prospect Asteroid 2010 SO16?

• Pretty close to earth – so you can prospect the asteroid
• Always pretty close to earth – so other could mine the asteroid if they determine it profitable to do so. This makes your prospecting data more valuable too.
• Valuable as an earth observation point? Perhaps?
• Valuable to watch for NEOs? (not sure on this point – need some engineers out there to help me). The alternative is to send a probe to Venus to watch earth – which would be easier or more valuable?
• If 2010 SO16 is actually ejecta from earth/moon formation as some scientists have theorized, this asteroid may hold significant scientific value.
• If 2010 SO16 is actually apart of other objects located close by, once there, additional objects may be close by to prospect as well.

Commercial value.  Scientific value.  Profitable?

14 Years Later…NEAP 2.0?

14 Years Later…NEAP 2.0?

Sepatuads.com   Januari 06, 2011   Comment  

In late Oct-2010, I attended The Space Studies Institute’s Space Manufacturing Conference 14. Session Two was on Extraterrestrial Prospecting. Here is the video of the presentations.


The session included presentations by:

• Prof. Michael A’Hearn, University of Maryland
• Brad Blair, Space Studies Institute
• Prof. Leslie Gertsch, University of Missouri-Rolla
• Mark Sonter, Asteroid Enterprises Pty Ltd
• Dr. Faith Vilas, University of Arizona

A question was raised during panel discussions that went something like this:

“If a private venture was to launch a survey mission to nearby NEO’s, what scientific equipment would you recommend be included? What asteroid data would you find most valuable?”

I confirmed with Dr. Vilas this week over email, at the top of her list would be:

1. Spectroscopic UV
2. A device to determine object mass
3. A device to learn more about the object’s internal structure – perhaps ground penetrating radar

When thinking about mass and power budgets, maybe these are the right scientific instruments, maybe not. But this question got me thinking about SpaceDev’s never-launched NEAP Prospector mission.

How have the economics of the mission changed over the last 14 years?

NEAP was the brain child of the late Jim Benson at SpaceDev (now Sierra Nevada). This project, first announced in 1997, was going to launch a commercial smallsat mission to an Near Earth Object:

• Cost: Under $40M
• Mass: 200kg
• Destination: 1982 DB Nereus – could be reached from LEO for a delta-v of 4,979m/s
• Launch: Secondary Payload on an Atlas V.
• Instruments: alpha proton X-ray spectrometer to determine the elemental composition of the asteroid surface, leaving three canisters available to carry customer experiments or nano-rovers.  Another source described the instruments as: a multi-band camera for navigation and asteroid imaging, a neutron spectrometer to search for water vapor, and an x-ray proton spectrometer to map the elemental abundance of the surface.
• Benson intended to land a probe on the asteroid and claim 1982 DB Nereus as a SpaceDev asset. I am not sure if he ever intended SpaceDev to mine Nereus. I personally feel he was more interested in pushing the issue of space property rights.
• SpaceDev announced Nereus was worth approximately $1 Trillion.
• Benson intended to sell the mission data on a subscription basis to scientists on earth and sell surplus instrumentation space on the NEAP spacecraft to a few lucky scientists.

NEAP 2.0?

Could a superior NEAP mission be put together today…a NEAP Prospector 2.0? If so what would it look like and what has changed since 1997?

• Since Nereus was chosen in 1997 as the destination of the original NEAP mission, 287 NEO’s have been discovered which require less delta-v to reach than Nereus did. Although Nereus was chosen for reasons beyond just low delta-v requirements, surely one of the 287 new NEO’s would make an enticing target. For example, Asteroid Provisional Designation: 2006 RH120 can be reached from LEO for a delta-v of only 3,820m/s (23% less delta-v than 1982 DB Nereus)
• Falcon 1e could dual manifest a NEAP 2.0 mission for about $5M. I am not sure what the cost is to launch 200kg as a secondary payload on an Atlas V, but even if it were free or comparably priced to a Falcon 1e, the timing is key for such a mission to work (NEO’s won’t wait as they pass by). So being able to launch on a vehicle (like the Falcon 1e) where you have much more say in the launch window would enhance the chance of mission success and reduce the need to spend extended time in LEO (which is how you would avoid this risk if launching on an Atlas V as a secondary payload).
• NASA’s ILDD announcement to purchase lunar data from GLXP teams provides an intriguing precedent. Would NASA be interested in a similar arrangement on such an Asteroid mission.
• Since 1997, smallsats and CubeSats have gained traction, acceptance, and increased capability.
• NBC paid $600M for the US broadcast rights to the 2010 Winter Olympics with billions more committed for the coming years. I know that a private asteroid landing is not the Olympics. But there may be serious money available for the media/advertising rights for such a commercial mission. Here is one fun advertising idea I cannot take credit for (but I can’t remember who I should give credit to). Would Nike pay for an image from the surface of an asteroid of a footprint (similar to the Apollo footprint) with a Nike Swish embedded in it? I could easily see that image on the front page of the USA Today announcing commercial exploration has arrived. If Lebron is worth $90M to Nike, surely such an image is worth a good chunk of $40M?!
• SpaceDev (Now Sierra Nevada) is not the startup it was in 1997. They can deliver more capable products than they could fourteen years ago. After a series of acquisitions and a ridiculously successful track record, I would love to see SpaceDev/Sierra Nevada involved in any NEAP 2.0 mission, even if only as a subcontractor…for poetic and Benson-honoring reasons if for nothing else.

A few Business thoughts about NEAP 2.0:

• For you philanthrocapitalists out there, a NEAP 2.0 mission would offer some significant bragging rights among your billionaire buddies. Even if you didn’t pay for all of the mission's $40M price tag (to keep with the 1997 estimate for mission cost), $5-10M invested and a few key press releases to get the momentum going could make such a mission viable.
• For the mission, you may want to consider a “multi-asteroid” focus (unlike NEAP 1) to increase the value of any data purchase/subscription scheme – but I will let the engineers debate that point. More asteroid…more fuel…bigger tanks…more initial mass…more cost…
• I still like the “land-on-it-and-claim-it" strategy for media reasons alone. And it would definitely force the issue of space property rights.
• I need to do more research into subscription models and how well they work when selling scientific data. If any of you have thoughts/links on this point…
• I still like the idea of opening up the payload manifest to include data gathering equipment provided by other Space Agencies or universities. This is a cheap way to get others to pay for equipment that you would otherwise have to develop yourself. The sticky issue, however, would be the data rights to the information generated by a particular agency or university's onboard equipment. Who owns that data? Can you still sell that data? Would they be allowed to write their paper announcing discoveries found as a result of their on-board instrument? Again subscription issues.

A commercial asteroid mission could be performed today. No new technology is needed. We have the smallsat buses. Many (all?) of these instruments have been used for missions in the past (well, maybe not ground penetrating radar). Cheap launch opportunities are available. By the time you read this, even more NEOs may have been found. Philanthrocapitalists have already invested in suborbital and GLXP, why not NEAP 2.0?

What do you think? How is today’s environment either more or less friendly to a NEAP Prospector 2.0 mission? Fourteen years goes by quickly. Let’s not wait another fourteen.