Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
May 2021 Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants Go Beyond The forthcoming decade is expected to witness a wave of missions to the Moon and Mars, and fuel supply is a major challenge to make these travels economically sustainable. The difference in the required energy to launch from Earth and from the Moon is causing people to reconsider refuelling point positions (e.g. NHRO, Near Halo Rectilinear Orbit) and contemplate using space-produced propellants. A whole production and transport value chain would have to be established on the Moon. Initial investments are sizeable (~$7B) but an economic oportunity for space propellants should exist if launch costs from Earth do not fall too much below current SpaceX standards. Capex optimization and increased scale should further improve the competitiveness of space propellants. Positive outcomes for ’terrestrial‘ applications are also expected to be significant.
Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
The Case for Moon-Produced Propellants
The next decade is expected to witness
a boom in Lunar and Mars exploration.
After 2024, NASA expects to set up a
base camp on the moon (’Artemis Base
Space-exploration-
After the space race of the 60s, there has
been an unprecedented resurgence of
Camp’) to be a long-term foothold for lunar
exploration, as well as a Moon-orbiting
driven technologies
unmanned Lunar and Mars missions since
the end of the 90s, as well as the spread
station (’Gateway’) on the NHRO (Near
Rectilinear Halo Orbit) being a site for
also have very
of space programs to various countries.
(e.g. Chinese rovers on the moon, UAE
developing the knowledge and experience
necessary to venture beyond the Moon
beneficial impacts
mission to Mars, etc.…). The next decade
is expected to witness further Lunar and
and into deep space (e.g. Mars-analog
missions). The fuel supply will then be
on ’terrestrial’
Mars exploration. a major challenge in making cis-lunar
traveling economically sustainable.
applications.
Although historically dominated by
governmental players, space exploration Furthermore, space-exploration-driven
will increasingly attract private operators, technologies often have beneficial impacts
bringing about major technical and on ’terrestrial’ applications. Safran, Airbus
business model disruptions. Indeed, at the and Ariane Group launched the ’Hyperion’
beginning of April 2021, Elon Musk’s SpaceX project, to leverage space-launcher
won the NASA $2.9B contract to build a technologies to cryogenic systems for
Moon lander, besting Jeff Bezos’ Blue Origin hydrogen powered aircraft. Technical
and others (who are, however, still relevant advances driven by this new wave of space
competitors for further missions) in the exploration are also to be expected.
contest to carry American astronauts to
the lunar surface1. A first landing on the
Moon is scheduled for 2024, and Elon Musk
recently reiterated his ambition to land
manned spaceships on Mars before 20302.
Figure 1
Chronology of major Lunar and Mars exploration programs
Globalization and privatization of exploration:
Politically-fueled two-country space race: deeper exploration to prepare for sustainable human
survey of human lunar landings presence (main projects)
1958 Pioneer prog. 1990 Hiten 2013 LADEE
1959 Luna prog. 1994 Clementine 2013 Chang’e 3
1962 Ranger prog. 1998 Lunar Prospector 2018 Chang’e 4
1965 Zond prog. 2003 SMART-I 2019 Chandrayaan 2
1966 Lunar Orbiter 2007 SELENE 2019 Beresheet
1966 Surveyor prog. 2007 Chang’e 1 2021 Artemis 1
1967 Apollo prog. 2008 Chandrayaan I 2021 Luna 25
1970 Lunokhod prog. 2009 LRO 2022 Chandrayaan 3
1970 Luna 16 2009 LCROSS 2022 Smart Lander for Investigating Moon
MOON 1972 Luna 20 2010 Chang’e 2 2023-24 Chang’e 6 / Chang’e 7
1976 Luna 24 2011 GRAIL
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
1960 Marsnik prog. 1998: Nozomi 2011: Phobos Grunt
1962 Sputnik 22 & 24 1999: Mars Polar Lander 2011: Yinghuo-1
1962 Mars prog. 1999: Deep Space 2 2011: Mars Science Lab.
1964 Mariner prog. 2001: Mars Odyssey 2013: Mangalyaan 2020 Emirates Mars Mission
1964 Zond prog. 2003: Mars Express 2013: MAVEN
1975 Viking prog. 2003: MER-A Spirit 2016: ExoMars 2016
1988 Phobos prog. 2003: MER-B Opportunity 2018: InSight
1992 Mars Observer 2005: Mars Reconn. Orbiter
1996 Mars Global Surveyor 2007: Phoenix 2020 Mars 2020 Perseverence
1996 Mars 96 2022 ExoMars 2022
MARS
1996 Mars Pathfinder
1998: Mars Climate Orbiter 2026-31 Concepts for
Mars sample returns
Exploration
Exploration programsprograms Survey/Flyby
Survey/Flyby Orbiter
Orbiter Lander/Impactor
Lander/Impactor Rover/Manned/Sample
Rover/Manned/Sam plereturn
return Diverse
Diverse
Source: Country space agencies, Corporations, Monitor Deloitte analysis
2
Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
Space-produced propellants can be a
major catalyst for space exploration.
There is no doubt that developing
viable LH2 (hydrogen) and LOx (oxygen)
The difference in
The energy required to sustain space
programs is clearly stated by the
production on the Moon will drive major
technical breakthroughs also benefiting
the required energy
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation stating the
amount of necessary propellants in terms
Earth-based technologies. to launch from
of the difference between the initial (m0)
and the final (mf ) masses of the vehicle
The major parameters influencing the
success of such an initiative will be:
Earth and from the
being proportional to an exponential of
ΔV (the maximum change of velocity of the
• the development of a stable and sizeable Moon is pushing
market for space propellants (with a
vehicle), ve being the effective ship exhaust
velocity.
regular schedule of manned and un- industrial players to
manned missions on the Moon and to
Mars); consider refuelling
A much larger ΔV (9.5 km/s to LEO) is
needed to escape Earth gravity than to
• the ability of players (both public and
private) to position themselves on the points in space
travel across cislunar space, therefore
requiring a huge amount of propellants.
different space propellants, value stages
to develop a coordinated, technically using an energy
This difference in the required energy to
launch from Earth and from the Moon
consistent and economically viable
solution; from the Moon.
is pushing industrial players to consider • the cost competitiveness of space
refuelling points (e.g. EML-1, NRHO) in space launchers, as their falling costs – currently
with an energy source (e.g. focus on LH2 mainly driven by SpaceX – may jeopardize
and LOx in our document, CH4 being also Moon-produced propellant prices which
a feasible option) that will be mined and would be highly dependent on ’Next Best
processed on the Moon. Offers’ from Earth.
Figure 2
Major routes in cis-lunar space (and associated ΔV)
Asteroids:
• Water mining
• Material mining
∆VLorem
= 0.5–2.0 km/s
ipsum
∆V = 0.8 km/s (aerobraking)
-
Shuttle for human transport
(long term: Helium-3, rare metals?)
Shuttle to • Water mining
transport • Material mining
water • Processing
and raw
∆V = 4 km/s materials
Earth to LEO Shuttle to fuel satellite transport Lunar lander
∆V = 9.5 km/s (long term: complex satellites assembeld at EML-1, EML-1 for raw
GEO LEO or
e.g;, using 3D-printing parts NRHO materials
∆V = 1.4 ipsum
Lorem km/s ∆V = 2.5 km/s
• Propellant
refining
& storage
• Manufacture
Shuttle for transport of humans ∆V = 2 km/s to
∆V = 3.8 km/s
and complex parts Mars Capture
Orbit
MARS
Potential economic space for Moon propellants,
as necessary ∆V (and thus delivered cost positions)
to reach most Mars/cis-lunar locations from Moon
surface is modest compared to that needed to leave
Earth)
GEO: Geostationary Earth Orbit - LEO: Low Earth Orbit - EML: Earth Moon Lagrange Point
Potential trade routes
Source: Study of Lunar Propellant Production (2018), United Launch Alliance
3
Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
Practical Matters: The Space Propellant Value Chain
In order to produce space propellants on To be competitive, all construction and
the Moon, a whole value chain must be operations are expected to be performed
developed, from mining ice from its source by robotic systems, the need for manned
in Permanently Shadowed Regions (PSR) on missions being limited to a few exceptional
the Moon, through processing, and all the maintenance or repair operations in case of
way to the end user as propellant. The full major damage.
infrastructure will involve major systems:
the lunar mine, propellant processing,
power, robotic services, communication/
navigation and propellant handling and
logistics (in-space and on the lunar surface).3
Figure 3
A possible Moon propellant production value-chain
Storage and
Mining Processing
Transfer
Purification Liquefaction Storage
Transport to EML1
Water purification
Water recovery
Water storage
for fuel
Electrolysis
Storage
Extraction
H2 H2 H2 procurement
Drilling /
Heating
Setup
Water Lunar On-site use
Transfer
crater O2 O2 O2
to shuttles
for fuel
prospecting procurement/
life support
Illustrative, as several mining / water recovery techniques are
being explored right now (e.g., sublimation from regolith, etc…)
Robotic Service Communication Power generation
(autonomous or assisted) and Navigation (solar and/or nuclear)
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
Source: Study of Lunar Propellant Production (2018), United Launch Alliance, Corporate websites, Monitor Deloitte analysis
4
Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
Currently, even if the economic viability of
propellant production on the moon is a
• Power generation: Two means of
generating power are being contemplated. To produce space
question mark, all technologies necessary
to perform propellants production on the
Solar power is a well-known technology
in space but would need to be located propellants on the
Moon are either in development or have
already been developed:
outside the PSR in a sunlit area, therefore
specific (and costly) power transmission Moon, a whole
• Mining: There are uncertainties about the
physical forms of lunar water, which could
infrastructure. Nuclear power plants can
function within a PSR. value chain must
include blocky ice deposits, adsorbed
molecules and hydrated minerals in PSR
As of today, many future space-propellants
ecosystems stakeholders can be identified, be developed, from
areas. Extraction of the water should
therefore be performed by direct
but many uncertainties remain, such as
their level of ambition for these activities mining ice from
sublimation so that moving large amounts
of regolith can be avoided.
and their ability to deliver effective and
viable technologies. in permanently
• Processing: Water will be broken shadowed regions,
down into hydrogen and oxygen in an
electrolyzer, which will then be liquefied through processing
for storage. Low temperatures within
craters will be a challenge for all robotic and all the way to
operations, but will make storage easier,
keeping LH2 and LOx cold, reducing power the end user.
needs.
Figure 4
Players currently developing technologies for the moon-produced propellants value chain
Prospecting and Mining Processing Depot
• NASA Research Centers • NASA Research Centers • Linde-Praxair (providing • Lockheed Martin Orbital
N2/O2 to 6 NASA space
(Johnson, Glenn, Marshall) (Johnson, Glenn, Marshall) • NASA Glenn transport mainly
flight research centers,
• TransAstra Corp + UCF • Giner Labs + Paragon contracts with ISRO,...) ? • Paragon for fuel
• Carnegie Mellon University + Technology • Teledyne Energy Systems • CSDC procurement
Astrobotic development • Skyhaven Systems Technology
Water Lunar contracts development • ULA
• Planetary Resources (ConsenSys) • Ox Eon Energy
crater with NASA contracts • NASA
• Deep Space Industries (Bradford • Air Liquide with NASA
prospecting Space) • Altius Space
• Deltion Innovation • CSDC
Robotic Service Communication Power generation
• US Naval Research lab (NRL) and Navigation (solar and/or nuclear)
• Honeybee Robotics • NASA • NREL
• Off-world • Luna Station Corp. • NASA Kilopower
• Lunar Ourpost (startup) • Atomos Space
SUPPORT OPERATIONS
5
Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
Isolated initiatives are unlikely to deliver increased funding efforts, compatible
tangible medium-term results, so entering technologies and scale in infrastructure.
a consortium with space agencies and/or
private operators (SpaceX, Blue Origin) will
be a key factor in achieving goals, including
direct integration into major programs,
Figure 5
Typical ecosystems to be developed in order to develop and fund
a moon-produced propellant enterprise
SPACE EXPLORATION ECOSYSTEM
(focused on partners and investors)
Gov. Agencies
E.g., NASA, ESA,
LSA, CNES, DLR
Gov. Research Centers Space Start-ups
E.g., NASA Johnson, Glenn and E.g., Planetary Resources,
Marshall Moon Express, PT Scientists
Venture Capital*
E.g., Space Angels, Founders
Fund, RRE Ventures, Bessemer Academic Institutions
Venture Partners, VentureEU, E.g., MIT, Colorado School
CosmiCapital (CNES) of Mines, UC Florida
Commercial
Aerospace
Private & Public Grants Enterprises**
E.g., STMD programs (NASA), E.g., Airbus, SpaceX, Blue
Horizon 2020.Europe (EU), Origin ULA, Ariane Group,
Copernicus (ESA), X Prize Bigelow Aerospace, Sierra
Nevada Corp, Astrobotic
Corporates: venture funds
and solution providers
E.g., Alphabet ventures, Tencent
ventures, ALIAD, TransAstra,
Maxar, Giner Labs + Paragon,
Linde PLC, Caterpillar, Vale
Benefits of partnership
Potential partners Funds Expertise Co-create Operationalize
& investors
Explore short-term
Grants funding: equity or grants
Venture capital*
Explore R&D
Corporate venture funds partnerships
Academic Institutions Explore
acquisitions and
Gov. research Centers joint ventures
Start-ups Explore long-term
strategic partnerships
Corporate suppliers
Gov. agencies
Commercial aerospace**
*Includes angel investors, government venture funds and space-related accelerator/incubator
support
**Refers to aerospace enterprises operating or providing solutions beyond Earth-launch/
rocket technology
6
Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
The Business Case: Propellants may be produced on the moon by 2030
The addressable propellant market in
the cis-lunar area by 2030
• Mars: one manned mission every two
years (when the Earth and Mars have
Moon-produced
Moon-produced propellants can be used
for various routes within cislunar space,
optimal relative positions, allowing
spacecrafts to enter the Hohmann
propellants can be
fuelling a broad range of vehicles (launch
vehicles, satellites/orbiters, space stations,
transfer orbit), requiring 280 t of fuel at
the Gateway station5 each trip.
used for various
spacecraft, landers/ascent modules) and
extra-terrestrial camps. They can be used The total resulting demand at EML-1
routes within
both for propulsion and life support for
manned missions.
or NRHO would then be for 240 t of
propellants/year, corresponding to a fuel
cis-lunar space,
For simplicity’s sake, we will assume that by
production of ~520 t on the Moon (taking
into account fuel necessary to power the
fuelling a broad
2030, with SpaceX and NASA successfully
reaching their objectives, Moon and Mars
cargo vehicle transporting propellants from
the lunar surface to Gateway)
range of vehicles
missions will be regularly performed, yet
still at a nascent stage.
Of course, the demand could be much
higher if several space agencies launch
and extra-terrestrial
• Moon: Two manned missions per
simultaneously coordinated Moon or
Mars missions relying on the same fuel
camps. They can
year (with the lander requiring 25 t of
propellants4 for each journey between
standards. But from a conservative
standpoint, we consider this very unlikely.
be used both for
the Gateway station and moon surface,
consistent with a 13 t dry weight
propulsion and
lander), plus one heavier cargo mission,
requiring 50 mt of propellants – which
manned-mission
is comparable to the pace of the Apollo
program.
life support.
Figure 6
Field of market possibilities for Moon-produced propellants
Space routes
Customers LEO/GTO GEO EML or NRHO LLO Moon Beyond (e.g., Mars)
Launch vehicles Fuel Fuel
Satellites / orbiters Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel
Fuel Fuel Fuel Fuel
Space stations
Life support Life support Life support Life support
Fuel Fuel Fuel
Spacecrafts
Life support Life support Life support
Lander & ascent Fuel Fuel Fuel
modules Life support Life support Life support
Extra-terrestrial surface Fuel Fuel
camps & operations Life support Life support
Typical applications
Space activities mainly concentrated on Earth orbits
Manned exploration and colonization of Moon
Unmanned exploration of Deep Space
Manned exploration and colonization of Deep Space
7
Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
Pricing of moon-produced propellants
The backstop for Moon-produced
However, these costs are subject to
controversies, as Roscosmos head Dmitry
The backstop for
propellant prices will be set by terrestrial
competition. To be attractive on the
Rogozin claims that SpaceX is dumping
prices on commercial launches6 to force
Moon-produced
market, space-produced propellants must
be sold at EML-1 cheaper than the cost
Russia out of the market, while charging
NASA as much as four times more for
propellant
of transporting them from Earth, with a
discount (e.g., 10%) necessary to cover the
government launches to make up the
difference (e.g. the $316M contract
prices will be
risks of switching from one technology to
another.
awarded by the Department of the Air
Force for the National Security Space
set by terrestrial
Currently, ’best offers’ from Earth are
Launch (NSSL) Phase 2 contract7) competition, as
driven by Space-X costs, and are in the
range of $12k/t up to EML-1/NHRO,
As launch costs drop, the value of
propellant at the lunar surface will fall.
they will have to be
extrapolated from costs to LEO of $4 k/t
(e.g. Falcon 9 launches of 15.6 tonnes
Therefore, a further sizeable reduction
of launchers costs is the major threat for
sold at EML-1/NHRO
to LEO for $62M, typically for Starlink
launches) and to GEO of 8k$/t (e.g. Falcon
Moon-produced propellants, economic
viability.
cheaper than the
Heavy launch of Arabsat-6A satellites in
April 2019: 6.46 tonnes for $90 M).
cost of transporting
Costs have plummeted in recent years, and
them from Earth
SpaceX claims to be able to propose costs
lower than ~20–30% soon (e.g. increasing
Falcon 9 payload up to 16.8 tonnes, while
decreasing costs down to $52M).
Figure 7
Evolution of launching costs up to LEO and GEO ($k kg)
Cost of heavy launchers to LEO and GEO Cost of heavy launchers to GEO
14
14 30
30
12
12
25
25
10
10
20
20
88 « «Best
BestOffer
Offer» »
« «Best
BestOffer
Offer» » 15
15 from
fromEarth
EarthtotoGEO
GEO
66 from
fromEarth
EarthtotoLEO
LEO~~ ~~11-12k$/kg
11-12k$/kg
4k$/kg
4k$/kg
10
10
44
22 55
?? ??
00 00
Delta
DeltaIVIV Atlas
AtlasVV Ariane
Ariane55 H2B
H2B Ariane
Ariane66 Proton
ProtonMM Falcon
Falcon99 Falcon
Falcon Delta
DeltaIVIV Atlas
AtlasVV Ariane
Ariane55 H2B
H2B Proton
ProtonMM Falcon
Falcon99 Ariane
Ariane66 Falcon
Falcon
Heavy
Heavy Heavy
Heavy
Existing In development
Source: Study of Lunar Propellant Production (2018), United Launch Alliance, Corporate websites, Monitor Deloitte analysis
8Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
Estimates of costs to build-up and operate the
propellant production infrastructure on the Moon
CAPEX estimates • Finally, Starlink satellites, produced
Several academic research works have in huge quantity have costs down to
investigated potential costs of Moon $2–4k/kg.
propellants production infrastructures
over the last decades (e.g., Blair (2002)8 ; In this document, we will conservatively use
Charania (2007)9; Lavoie (2016)10, …). an average of these 3 reference studies,
However, reference studies show adjusted for inflation (i.e., formulated
significant variations in estimates of in 2020 USD) as a central scenario,
performance. Differences also exist in the scaling plant size according to necessary
preferred power plant assumptions, Blair propellants production (i.e. 520 t / year on
and Charania assuming a small nuclear the Moon surface):
reactor, while Lavoie relies rather on solar • Development costs are assumed as fixed
PV panels.
• Manufacturing costs are variable with the
total mass of the facilities (43.1 tonnes)
On average, reference studies establish
infrastructure costs at ~$200k/kg of • The whole system is being delivered to
equipment: the Moon, at costs of $36k/kg
• This is to be compared with most • Propellants between lunar surface
advanced equipment sent to space, and EML-1/NHRO are assumed to be
such as recent Mars missions (Curiosity: performed by 2 Cargo vessels costing
total mass of 3.8 tonnes for $2.5B and $300M each (analogy with price paid by
Perseverance: total mass of 3.65 tonnes NASA to Lockheed Martin for 3 first Orion
for $2.2B, i.e. $600–650k/kg) or advanced spacecraft). Total CAPEX is therefore
GEO weather satellites such as GOES-U expected to amount $6.85B
($1.4B for a total mass of 2.8 tonnes i.e.
$500k/kg). Given the uncertainties on expected CAPEX
levels, a sensitivity measurement (on a
• A military telco satellite such as Syracuse
+/–50% CAPEX range) is also performed.
4 / 5, built by Thales and Airbus cost in
the ~€450M–500M range for 3.5 tonne
equipment (i.e. $150k/kg)
Figure 8
Summary of CAPEX estimates for Moon-propellants production
Blair (2002) Charania (2007) Lavoie (2016) Average (Assumptions)
Dev. Manuf. Dev. Manuf. Dev. Manuf.
Production Total t propellant/y 245 57.6 140 148
Mass kg 630 2,600 4,000
Mining
Costs $M 69 49 206 69 384 274
Mass kg 7,134 5,910 5,000
Processing
Costs $M 1,127 80 755 251 1,096 274
Mass kg 3,421 5,400 1,900
Power Plant
Costs $M 811 499 254 85 0 860
Mass t 11.2 13.9 10.9 12.0
Total
Costs $M 2,008 627 1,214 405 1,480 1,408 1,567 813
Cost / Mass 179 56 87 29 136 129 131 68
Cost /
$k/kg 8.2 2.6 21.1 7.0 10.6 10.1 10.6 5.5
Key Ratios Production
Production /
$k/kg.y 21.9 4.1 12.8 12.3
Mass
9Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants OPEX estimates To remain competitive, O&M are performed Most significant costs would occur if a completely robotic way. Extrapolating manned missions are mandatory to from existing studies3, we assume that manage major damages or failures in the all the hardware has a 10-year lifespan, lunar hardware. We estimate the cost of a and that annual costs include $28M of manned mission at a ’marginal’ $800M in a operating costs, and imately 1.1 tonnes of run-rate mode (i.e. excluding development spare parts (proportionately with the ISS)11. costs). Figure 9 CAPEX and OPEX estimates for Moon-propellants production Necessary CAPEX for lunar propellants production Necessary yearly OPEX for lunar propellants production & logistics (240 t/y at EML-1; amortization over 10 years; $B) & logistics (240 t/y at EML-1; $B) 10
Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
Closing the business case
To be viable, a lunar-produced propellants
project should yield a 20%+ return on
capital employed for its investors (i.e. the
high-end cost-of-equity levels for cutting-
edge innovation start-ups).
Initial estimates show that, with limited
discounts on propellant prices at EML-1
vs. the current situation (e.g. 10% less as
a switching trigger than Earth produced
propellants and 10% less again as a cost
reduction than launching costs from Earth),
there should be an economic space for
such projects.
Figure 10
Economic space for Moon-produced propellants at EML-1 / NHRO
CAPEX amortization of Moon infrastructure
1.2 for Mining, Power, Processing, Shuttles,
and their transportation from Earth to
Assumption : the Moon (over 10 years, CAPEX : $6,85B)
10% Discount
1.2
necessary to 0.6
switch to Assumption :
Space Propellants 10% lower 0.7
(e.g., technical costs thanks
uncertainty, to potential 1.4
technical future
switching costs, …) increase Assumed WACC : 20%
in capabilities :
0.8
12.0
reusable
launchers,
Next Best Offer
introduction
assuming healthy market
of new launchers 9.6 9.0
conditions and no state
generation (mainly
subsidies
Falcon Heavy)
e.g. $12k/kg 6.1 5.7
(Source United Launch
Alliance Chief Scientist)
Propellant Switching Trigger Technology Propellant O&M EBITDA D&A D&A D&A EBIT Equity holder Economic
Delivered Cost Improvements Price at EML-1 Development Manufacturing Transportation minimum Space
(Earth to EML-1) remuneration
Mid-term price triggers Moon to EML-1 Propellant costs
(manufacturing and delivery)
Initial estimates show that, with limited
discounts on propellants price at EML-1
vs. the current situation, there should be
an economic space for such projects
11Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
We also looked at the IRR of a lunar
propellants production project,
assuming a development and
construction phase of 5 years, followed
by 10 years at a rate sales at EML1-
NHRO of 240 tonnes per year, with
sensitivity measurements on CAPEX
levels, space launch costs evolution
and need for manned missions to
perform O&M tasks.
Figure 11
IRR of a lunar propellants production project
CAPEX variations (%) Space Launch Cost Evolution vs. 2021 (%)
0 –10 –20 –30 –40 –50
50 17.6 15.6 13.5 11.1 8.4 5.2
25 20.8 18.8 16.5 14.0 11.3 8.0
Fully Robotic 0 24.8 22.7 20.3 17.8 14.9 11.5
–25 30.0 27.8 25.4 22.7 19.6 16.1
–50 37.6 35.2 32.6 29.7 26.5 22.7
0 –10 –20 –30 –40 –50
50 15.7 13.9 11.8 9.5 6.9 3.9
Intermediate
(2 manned 25 18.7 16.8 14.7 12.4 9.7 6.6
missions
0 22.4 20.5 18.3 15.9 13.1 10.0
during
lifetime) –25 27.3 25.3 23.0 20.5 17.6 14.3
–50 34.3 32.1 29.7 27.0 24.0 20.5
0 –10 –20 –30 –40 –50
50 12.9 11.2 9.3 7.2 4.8 2.0
Manual
(5 manned 25 15.6 13.9 12.0 9.8 7.4 4.5
missions
0 19.0 17.2 15.2 13.0 10.5 7.6
during
lifetime) –25 23.3 21.5 19.4 17.2 14.6 11.6
–50 29.3 27.4 25.3 23.0 20.3 17.1
Several scenarios appear to be • Manned missions during the project
economically consistent: lifespan have a rather limited impact (each
• Acceptable (>20%) IRR levels can be mission accounting for less ~1.5 pt. of IRR).
achieved under the assumption of At LEO, however, the economic equation
constrained CAPEX (max. 25% above looks drastically different, as limited prices
central assumptions, and more likely with of Earth launches (~$4k/kg) and additional
costs improvements) and space launch fuel costs to travel from EML-1/NHRO to
costs evolution limited to ~20%. LEO undermine any opportunity to create
• In the case of stronger space launch cost value.
reductions, CAPEX should be strongly
optimized (down to 50% less than current
central assumptions).
12Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
Conclusion
The next decade is expected to witness
further Lunar and Mars exploration.
As of 2030, if the current ambition is
realized, a ~240-tonne-per-year propellant
Mastery of CAPEX
Indeed, NASA awarded SpaceX a $2.9B
contract to build a Moon lander by 2024,
market could emerge at the future Gateway
station (NHRO), with a foreseen economic
levels and also
with Elon Musk recently also recently
reiterating his ambition to land manned
viability if space launch prices from Earth
do not plummet significantly.
scale will be the
spacecraft on Mars before 2030.
Mastery of CAPEX levels and also scale
key drivers for the
The huge difference in the energy required
to launch from Earth and from the Moon
(to absorb major one-shot development
costs, through the development of
competitiveness
is pushing industrial players to consider
refuelling points (e.g. EML-1, NRHO) in cis-
complementary uses such as rovers and
human life support) will therefore be the
of space-produced
lunar space with an energy source that will
be mined and processed on the Moon.
key drivers of competitiveness at NHRO. propellants at
To produce space propellants on the
Closer refuelling locations (e.g. LEO),
however, do not appear as credible
NHRO. Closer
Moon, a whole value-chain must be
created: mining, processing, logistics
markets, with launch costs from Earth
already reaching levels below $4k/kg.
refuelling locations
and transportation, robotic operations,
communication systems and power However, technological advances
(e.g. LEO) do not
plants, the required technologies having
been currently developed or currently in
performed for space propellants
production should also have very
appear as credible
development. positive consequences on the
development of hydrogen powered
markets, with
Several players are now addressing this
nascent value chain in a rather scattered
’terrestrial’ technologies. Today, projects
such as Hyperion, driven by Airbus,
launch costs from
way, but an integrated approach today
is fundamental as isolated initiatives are
Safran and Ariane Group leverage space
technologies to develop cryogenic
Earth already
unlikely to deliver tangible medium-term
results.
systems for future hydrogen-powered
aircrafts.
reaching levels
below $4k/kg.
13Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants Glossary CAPEX: Capital expenditure CH4: Methane EML-1: Earth-Moon Lagrangian Points #1 GEO: Geostationary Earth Orbit LEO: Low Earth Orbit LH2: Liquid Hydrogen LOx: Liquid Oxygen NRHO: Near Rectilinear Halo Orbit O&M: Operations and Maintenance OPEX: Operating expenditure PSR: Permanently Shadowed Regions (on the Moon) 14
Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
Future of Mobility Contacts
Olivier Perrin Alexandre Kuzmanovic
Partner Director
Energy, Resources & Industrials Energy, Resources & Industrials
Monitor Deloitte Monitor Deloitte
France France
operrin@deloitte.fr akuzmanovic@deloitte.fr
Harsha Eashwer Singhraj Aksel Deghmani
Manager Manager
Energy, Resources & Industrials Energy, Resources & Industrials
Monitor Deloitte Monitor Deloitte
France France
heashwersinghraj@deloitte.fr adeghmani@deloitte.fr
Pascal Lim Kamil Mokrane
Senior Consultant Senior Consultant
Energy, Resources & Industrials Energy, Resources & Industrials
Monitor Deloitte Monitor Deloitte
France France
plim@deloitte.fr hmokrane@deloitte.fr
15Fuelling the future of mobility: Moon-produced space propellants
References
1. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/as-artemis-moves-forward-nasa-picks-spacex-to-land-next-americans-on-moon
2. https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1374284021379731457?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
3. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352309318300099
4. https://www.fbo.gov/utils/view?id=c520facdb1ffa46f8e5981eb14b33bd1
5. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/space.2017.0037
6. https://phys.org/news/2020-04-russia-space-chief-spars-elon.html
7. https://www.defense.gov/Newsroom/Contracts/Contract/Article/2305454/
8. h
ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/260387318_Space_Resource_Economic_Analysis_Toolkit_The_Case_for_Commercial_Lunar_Ice_
Mining/download
9. http://www.sei.aero/archive/IAC-07-A5.1.03.pdf
10. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/pdf/10.2514/6.2016-5526
11. https://oig.nasa.gov/docs/IG-14-031.pdf
16Deloitte refers to one or more of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited (’DTTL’), its global network of member firms, and their related entities. DTTL (also referred to as ’Deloitte Global’) and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL does not provide services to clients. Please see www. deloitte.com/about to learn more. In France, Deloitte SAS is the member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, and professional services are rendered by its subsidiaries and affiliates. Deloitte is a leading global provider of audit & assurance, consulting, financial advisory, risk advisory and tax & legal services. With 312,000 professionals in 150 countries, Deloitte has gained the trust of its clients through its service quality for over 150 years, setting it apart from its competitors. Deloitte serves four out of five Fortune Global 500® companies. Deloitte France brings together diverse expertise to meet the challenges of clients of all sizes from all industries. Backed by the skills of its 6,900 employees and partners and a multidisciplinary offering, Deloitte France is a leading player. Committed to making an impact that matters on our society, Deloitte has set up an ambitious sustainable development and civic commitment action plan. Deloitte 6, place de la Pyramide – 92908 Paris-La Défense Cedex © 2021 Deloitte Monitor. A Deloitte network entity
You can also read
