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