Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure A Cost Saving Approach to Human Spaceflight within a 15-year Constrained NASA Budget White

Paper Submitted at the Open Invitation of the National Research Council

Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure

2013

In Response to the National Research Councils Study on the Benefits, Challenges and Ramifications of Americas Human Spaceflight Program. LiftPort Group presents a Cost-Effective Approach to Human Spaceflight within a 15-year Constrained NASA Budget.
| MICHAEL LAINE PRESIDENT, LIFTPORT GROUP | CHARLES RADLEY MSC., ADVISOR, LIFTPORT GROUP | MARSHALL EUBANKS MSC., ADVISOR, LIFTPORT GROUP | JEROME PEARSON MSC., ADVISOR, LIFTPORT GROUP | PETER SWAN PHD., ADVISOR, LIFTPORT GROUP | LEE GRAHAM (NASA HIS VIEWS DO NOT REFLECT HIS EMPLOYER) | | 8 JULY 2013

| LIFTPORT GROUP | 1307 Dogwood Hill RD SW, Port Orchard, WA, 98366 | www.liftport.com | (862) 438-5383 | laine@liftport.com

LiftPorts Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure: Affordable Response to Human Spaceflight

What are the important benefits provided to the United States and other countries by human spaceflight endeavors?
The ability to place humans in space is exciting to the public, and demonstrates the technological maturity and stature of each spacefaring nation. Such a visible and peaceful demonstration of cutting edge technology fosters foreign policy by showing Page | 1 strength without engaging in conflicti. Human spaceflight sparks the imagination and serves an instinctive need to explore. Astronauts are ambassadors for all of humanity in a very personal way. Men and women in space suits inspire people of all cultures and demographics to achieve excellence, to believe in a common cause and to pursue a noble goal. Furthermore, humans in space have unique abilities and attributes (eyes, fingers, and onsite reasoning) to pursue scientific research and commercial development that cannot be achieved by robotic means. American leadership, as demonstrated by the continuous success of human spaceflight, has led the world into an exciting 21st century. Boot prints on the Moon over 40 years ago, and more than a continuous decade aboard the International Space Station (ISS) provide inarguable proof of this.

What are the greatest challenges to sustaining a U.S. government program in human spaceflight?
Human spaceflight is very expensive. The general public does not appreciate how small the NASA budgetii is today compared to the Apollo era. Nor do they know how little can be achieved in the current budgetary climate versus their high expectations of flights to the ISS, the Moon, Mars and beyond. Yet there are potential cost-effective solutions if NASA leadership can boldly think outside the box, dare greatly, and embrace radical new ideas. A business as usual philosophy i s no longer viable; yet NASA remains persistently conservative. NASAs conservatism stems from the complex layers of its stakeholders Congressional districts, NASA Center-dependent jobs, public expectations and international political considerations paired with its own risk-averse failure is not an option cultureiii. LiftPort Group is proud to submit innovative ideas that challenge current thinking and allow NASA to continue leading by breaking the logjam and leaping forward.

What are the ramifications and what would the nation and world lose if the United States terminated NASA's human spaceflight program?
The United States is a global superpower, and the American human spaceflight program is a potent symbol of our nations status on the world stage. Termination of US human spaceflight would weaken superpower standing, disappoint friends and allies, embolden rivals and adversaries, and make our citizens lose confidence in our government and its global leadership. Weve already seen this with the recent advances in the Chinese and Russian programs. Vitally more important, however, is that the US position in the global arena depends on our technical innovation. The US economy continues to be fueled by the capital investments NASA made 50 years ago. Cutting the human spaceflight program ensures that our biosciences, materials, robotics, computing, energy, and communications industries will be weakened. The research, development, and commercialization of advanced technologies derived from human spaceflight has ripple effects on our standard of living, our financial independence, and our political soft power throughout the world. We cannot let this termination occur!

LiftPort Group | 1307 Dogwood Hill RD SW, Port Orchard, WA 98366 www.liftport.com | (862) 438-5383 | laine@liftport.com

LiftPorts Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure: Affordable Response to Human Spaceflight

The budgetary challenge The primary challenge of human spaceflight is to achieve spectacular advances in human expansion into space within significant budgetary constraints and fiscal realities. The dramatic achievements of Apollo came during a unique period of US history: the cold war where money was no object to demonstrate technological superiority. The price tag was 4% of the Page | 2 federal budget sustained over several years. This level of funding rapidly dwindled, (currently about .05%)iv and there is no possibility this heyday will return. The people of America, and the world, still look to NASA to lead; yet no human has travelled beyond Earth orbit in over 40 years. Humanity confined to Low Earth Orbit does not, and will not, inspire. This future will not drive the disruptive advances in technology that the US has historically produced. A lack of ongoing achievement and a lack of exciting goals results in declining public interest which drives further funding reductions. This is a vicious cycle. Drastic changes to current thinking are needed to overcome these challenges, or the outlook for human spaceflight, and the United States, is bleak. The way forward is the articulation of an American goal consistent with our historic spaceflight leadership. Where shall humans go next? The current debate The public yearns for NASA to send humans to Mars, but this is far beyond budget realities for many decades. Interim milestones are needed, but there is no consensus on what those should be. There is a debate primarily revolving around 3 options, 1) either sending humans to a Near Earth Asteroid (NEA), 2) return to the Moon, or 3) develop space stations with an expanded ISS and habitats at the Earth-Moon L2 Lagrange location (EML2). The public interest (and Congressional support) in an asteroid mission or EML2 is in doubtv. However, there is a clear consensus and popular appeal for developing a major permanent presence on the Moonvi. But even there, budget realities limit our options. With current technologies (i.e. using chemical rockets) missions to the Moon are prohibitively expensive. This caused the Constellation Programs projected costs ($97Bvii) to far outstrip the NASA budget projections, resulting in cancellation. On the other hand, a mission to an NEA, or EML2 is more affordable, but much less inspiring to the public. It is also less likely to realize significant commercial benefits. Game Changing Cost Reduction using the Affordable Lunar Elevator LiftPort Group encourages attention to available and innovative technologies to dramatically reduce the cost of access to the lunar surface. Specifically, we advocate a Lunar Elevator as an affordable and game changing infrastructure element. LiftPorts Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure (LSEI) will reduce the cost of lunar missions by fourfold. The Lunar Elevator has been studied in detail by Jerome Pearson et al. under NASAs Institute for Advanced Conceptsviii. Since then, LiftPort Group has established that the Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure is 1) technically feasible using current state-of-the-art technology 2) adopts many commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) components, and is 3) constructible within a single launch packageix. The concept is inherently simple: a long tether attached at one end to the surface of the Moon (at Sinus Medii facing Earth) and extends from there towards Earth through the Earth-Moon L1 Lagrange location (EML1), to a counterweight potentially as far as 250,000 kilometers from the lunar surface. This assembly is in gravitational equilibrium, and stationary relative to the Moon as it orbits around the Earth. In recent years, a new generation of COTS materials have entered industrial production with ample strength-to-mass ratio to sustain this extended structure in space. LiftPort analysis indicates that a first-generation prototype Lunar Elevator can be built and deployed in seven to ten years for as little as $800 Million (including launch vehicle costs). This first robotic-only version will weigh ~11 tons with a payload ~100 kg. It can deliver and retrieve an unlimited number of such payloads to the lunar surface. Sample returns can be lifted to the EML1 station or transported to the tip of the Elevator and dropped to Earth or Earth orbits. Placement of this Elevator infrastructure needs only a single launch via commercial heavy lift capability (e.g. Falcon Heavy, Atlas V, ATK Liberty, Stratolaunch and Delta-IV). There is an important alternative, however, with NASAs Space Launch System (SLS). A larger (~30 ton) version of
LiftPort Group | 1307 Dogwood Hill RD SW, Port Orchard, WA 98366 www.liftport.com | (862) 438-5383 | laine@liftport.com

LiftPorts Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure: Affordable Response to Human Spaceflight

the Lunar Space Elevator could be deployed with ~250 kg payload capacity. This Elevator approach can accomplish the goal of an inherently exciting project, enabling pursuit of inspiring lunar missions well within the NASA budget (and the prevailing fiscal climate) within ten years. Early in its construction, the Elevator provides easy and inexpensive sample return missions and robotic rovers on the Moon. As construction expands, the LSEI allows human-centric science, commerce, and ultimately settlement on the Moon. The LSEI is game changing it facilitates all other inner solar system development. Later versions can carry higher masses and humans to and from the lunar surface. The Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure can be expanded upon. LiftPort thinks a permanent human presence can be provided on the Moon, and at EML1, by an appropriate commercial crew vehicle or Orion. After the initial robotic system is installed, LiftPorts experts believe that in just two to four years a human-rated Elevator would provide capacity for three astronauts to the Lunar surface every three weeks. Build-out of a Lunar Elevator would begin with a robotic lunar base for prospecting. Once ore deposits are confirmed, robotic mining operations begin. A manned space station at EML1 would enable real-time operation of the robots cheaper than humans on the surface. As robotic operations expand, it will become cost effective for humans in a research station on the lunar surface to repair and maintain the robotic equipment. A major expansion of scientific activities will inevitably follow. The Benefits of Cislunar Architecture for Human Spaceflightx The cost of landing humans on the lunar surface is high due to the large delta-Vxi. Of high interest is the Earth-Moon Lagrangian point (EML1), which is accessible with a delta-V only slightly higher than for an elliptical transfer orbit used by communications satellites. EML1 is between the Earth and the Moon and would be the access point for payloads from Earth to dock with the proposed EML1 station and the Lunar Elevator. EML1 could serve as a nexus for human habitation and economic development in cislunar space. The cost of soft landing on Moons surface is 400% the cost of launching the same mass from Earth to EML1. The Lunar Elevator is a zero delta-V bridge between EML1 and the lunar surface, hence this reduces operational expenses of lunar surface missions by 4x (versus chemical rockets). For comparison, this is about 1% of the Constellation programs capital expenses. This way, an inspiring Constellation-class program becomes cost-effective within the prevailing ten-year outlook of the NASA budget. LiftPorts Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure affordably preserves American leadership in human spaceflight. Private Public Partnership One can further reduce the cost of space transportation by decreasing capital expenses, and increasing traffic volume, by partnering with private companies and attracting private investment. For example, commercial contracts could be offered for cargo delivery to EML1 and commercial opportunities can be fostered by making use of in situ resources to pay for infrastructure. Commercial Lunar Resources LiftPort Group is focused on the most promising near term lunar opportunities: rocket fuel, helium 3 and rare earth elements. Lunar Rocket Propellant A way to greatly reduce the cost of human spaceflight is to use lunar-sourced rocket propellant. There are several options for propellant on the Moon. An obvious one is the probability (certaintyxii) of water ice or hydroxylsxiii on the lunar surface,xiv xv as seen by many orbiter sensors. These can be converted to rocket propellant by several different processes. An immediate market for lunar propellant is to boost communications satellites from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to final geostationary orbit; lunar propellant would reduce this cost by a factor of eight. It would also greatly reduce the cost of missions to Marsxvi and the asteroids. One-way transport cost from LEO to EML1 is reduced by 2x. Using Lunar-sourced fuels, a one-way mission cost to Mars and asteroids are reduced 4x, and round trip to Mars by >10x.
LiftPort Group | 1307 Dogwood Hill RD SW, Port Orchard, WA 98366 www.liftport.com | (862) 438-5383 | laine@liftport.com

Page | 3

LiftPorts Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure: Affordable Response to Human Spaceflight

These cost reductions assume the cost of producing and transporting lunar propellants is small. This would be possible using a Lunar Elevator, where the cost of transporting payloads from the lunar surface to Earth is essentially zero, assuming the modest capital cost has been retired. The National Helium-3 Supply Crisis No one has built a working nuclear fusion reactor, yet there is much discussion of lunar Helium-3 (3He) isotope as nuclear fuel. Page | 4 Alas, the fusion market simply does not exist and will not in a predictable timeframe. Unfortunately, the fusion discussion has distracted the community from the large market which already exists for 3He; a market which can be profitably supplied from the Moon more cheaply than from terrestrial sources. Surprisingly, since 2001 a strong new market has rapidly emerged. 3He is in great demand since the 9/11 attacks. New demand has been driven by the US Department of Homeland Security, which needs 3He for neutron detectors at all seaports, airports and borders, to scan for nuclear material. Demand also increased from the medical sector (MRIs), and for natural gas exploration. The US 3He stockpile came from the decay of nuclear warheads; it is dwindling rapidly. In 2008 the White House imposed 3He rationing to eke out remaining reserves and supply fell from 80,000 to 14,000 liters per year. Projected demand for 3He implies that U.S. production alone cannot meet anticipated worldwide demand. xvii Global demand is now 60,000 liters per year, and the price shot up from $100/l in 2008 to $2,000/l in 2009.xviii Lunar 3He can derive ~$250 million/year.xix xx xxi Valuable metals and minerals The Moon is rich in Rare Earth Elements (REEs), as seen in new orbiter sensor data and from the lunar meteorite SaU 169xxii. Of REEs, 95% of commercial sources come from Chinaxxiii. The USA and allies have hardly any commercially viable REE mines. For years, China has manipulated the REE market xxiv xxv forcing US competitors out of business. REEs are in strong and increasing demand by high technology industry sectorsxxvi, e.g. defense and semiconductors. They are known as Strategic Minerals because they are vital to national security and the economic health of the United States. In addition to REEs, there are large quantities of meteoritic material in the lunar soil that are rich in high-value Platinum Group Metalsxxvii. Technology Efforts Several space tether demonstration missions have been flown and successfully deployed in space. These include NASA TSS1R (19.7 km deployed tether length)xxviii, the NRL TiPS (4km)xxix and the ESA YES2 (31.7km)xxx xxxi. Future technology development efforts by NASA should actively encourage development and flight testing of this key technology. Near term programs to accomplish this would thus significantly reduce the cost and technology risk for a credible Lunar Elevator. Tether materials can be mounted on the exterior of the ISS to gather durability data. More ambitious flight tests for increasing tether length will build experience and confidence for deploying and developing control algorithms to reduce technical risk. While this technology is vital to the Lunar Elevator, it is also of significant value to satellites and other in-space assets (e.g. power, etc.). Conclusion NASA should leverage the commercial resources of the Moon to bootstrap and subsidize the human spaceflight program. Installing a LiftPorts low-cost Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure greatly reduces the expense of lunar surface operations, and brings human spaceflight within the NASA budget. The Lunar Elevator permits affordable access to the abundant wealth of lunar resources. Furthermore, creating public-private partnerships to develop the newly accessible commercial resources of the Moon will enable a sustainable expansion of human spaceflight beyond Earth orbit and throughout the solar system. By those means, our nations spaceflight leadership will be revitalized. The United States will achieve an exciting and sustainable human spaceflight program to the material, scientific, and cultural benefit of our nation and the world. Respectfully submitted by: Michael Laine, President, LiftPort Group
LiftPort Group | 1307 Dogwood Hill RD SW, Port Orchard, WA 98366 www.liftport.com | (862) 438-5383 | laine@liftport.com

LiftPorts Lunar Space Elevator Infrastructure: Affordable Response to Human Spaceflight

References
1962 September, President Kennedy JF, Moon Speech https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-M9PO3z8_OU 2013 Space Foundation FY 2014 NASA Budget Comparision http://www.spacefoundation.org/sites/default/files/downloads/06.21.13%20FY2014%20NASABudget%20Update%201.pdf iii 2009 Kranz G. Failure is not an Option Simon & Schuster http://www.amazon.com/Failure-Is-Not-OptionMission/dp/1439148813 iv 2012, Kring David, NASA Center for Lunar Science and Exploration, NASA Budget as a Percentage of Federal Budget http://www.lpi.usra.edu/nlsi/multimedia/NASABudgetHistory.pdf v 2013, June, Space.com Congress Considers Nixing NASA Asteroid Mission http://www.space.com/21609-nasa-asteroidcapture-mission-congress.html vi 2012 Malik T. Neil Armstrong Remembered: Tributes to 1 st Man to Walk on the Moon http://www.space.com/17301-neilarmstrong-dies-reactions-nasa.html vii 2009 August, Government Accounting Office, Constellation Program Cost and Schedule Will Remain Uncertain Until a Sound Business Case is Established http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09844.pdf viii 2005, May, Pearson Jerome, et al., Lunar Space Elevators for Cislunar Space Development http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/1032Pearson.pdf ix 2011, Eubanks Marshall, Laine Michael, Lunar Exploration Analysis Group LADDER: The Development of a Prototype Lunar Space Elevator http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/leag2011/pdf/2043.pdf x 1993, Mendell M., Hoffman S., NASA Solar System Exploration Division, Strategic Considerations for Cislunar Space Infrastructure http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/Exploration/EXLibrary/DOCS/EIC042.HTML xi 2013, Wikipedia Entry, Lagrange V Budgets - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delta-v_budget xii 2010 Oct, NASA, LCROSS Results Released http://lcross.arc.nasa.gov/observation.htm xiii 2009 September, Pieters C.M. et al Character and Spatial Distribution of OH/H2O on the Surface of the Moon Seen by Moon Mineralogy Mapper in Chandrayaan-1 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/326/5952/568.abstract xiv 2005 Dec, Bhandari, N. Chandrayaan-1: Science goals, J. Earth Syst. Sci., 114, No 6., 701-709 http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/masterCatalog.do?sc=2008-052A xv 2012, A summary of Clementine and Lunar Prospector Results http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/ice/ice_moon.html xvi 2013, June. Spudis, P. Risky Business: ISRU and Critical Path to Mars xvii 2013 June, NASA-wide distribution letter: Dominic Benford On Behalf of the Astrophysics Division NASA Headquarters Background Information: the Supply and Demand of Helium-3 (He-3) xviii 2009 Felder, Toni US Government Agencies Work to Minimize Damage Due to Helium-3 Shortfall Physics Today 62.10 2123 http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v62/i10/p21_s1?isAuthorized=no xix 2010, 22 December, Sheam Dana, A. , The Helium-3 Shortage: Supply, Demand, and Options for Congress, Congressional Research Service Report: CRS-&-5700, R41419 xx 2011, May, United States General Accounting Office, GAO Report GAO-11-472, Weaknesses in DOEs Management of Helium-3 Delayed the Federal Response to a Critical Supply Shortage xxi 2012, January, Chemistry World, Shortages spur race for Helium -3 alternatives xxii 2012, 15 May, Lin, Y. , et al. , Very high-K KREEP-rich clasts in the impact melt breccia of the lunar meteorite SaU 169: New constraints on the last residue of the Lunar Magma Ocean, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Volume 85, p. 19 -40. xxiii 2012 Lt. Col Estep, E (USRA) Countering Chinas Dominance in the Rare Earth Element Market System http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA561277 xxiv 2012, April, Els, F. We Need to Talk about how Rare Earth Prices are Imploding Mining.com http://www.mining.com/weneed-to-talk-about-how-rare-earth-prices-are-imploding/ xxv 2010 LCDR Hurst, C.A. (USNR) Chinas ace in the hole: Rare Earth Elements Joint Force Quarterly, 59(4), 121 -126 http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/images/jfq-59/JFQ59_121-126_Hurst.pdf xxvi 2012 Yang, F. Situation and Policies of Chinas Rare Earth Industry http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/business/201206/20/c_131665123_2.htm xxvii 1991 Lunar Sourcebook - A Users Guide to the Moon, edited by Grant H. Heiken, David T. Vaniman and Bevan M. Frenc xxviii 1996, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-75.html xxix 1996, Naval Research Laboratory http://www.nrl.navy.mil/media/news-releases/1996/small-tether-satellite-deployed-by-nrl xxx 2007, European Space Agency Mission Overview, http://www.esa.int/Education/Young_Engineers_Satellites/About_YES2 xxxi 2013, Wikipedia Entry - YES2, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Engineers%27_Satellite_2
i ii

Page | 5

LiftPort Group | 1307 Dogwood Hill RD SW, Port Orchard, WA 98366 www.liftport.com | (862) 438-5383 | laine@liftport.com