Full Moon

Storage & Delivery of Oxygen & Hydrogen

for Lunar Exploration

Team Project

International Space University

Masters Program 2006/2007

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

The 2006-2007 Masters Program of the International Space University
was hosted at the International Space University Central Campus in
Strasbourg, France.
The Full Moon ‘lunar gas station cover’ was graciously developed by
William Widjaja, and drawn by Alberto Martín Montalbetti. Its purpose is
to visualize the Full Moon proposal, and in so doing, inspire the next
generation of lunar explorers as to the futures potential. The Full Moon
logo was realized by William Widjaja with the input of the team.
Please note that while all efforts have been made to ensure accuracy
and veracity in this report, ISU does not take any responsibility for the
accuracy of its content.

International Space University

Strasbourg Central Campus
Attention: Publications/Library
Parc d’Innovation
1 rue Jean-Dominique Cassini
67400 Illkirch-Graffenstaden
France
Tel. +33 (0)3 88 65 54 32
Fax. +33 (0)3 88 65 54 47
e-mail. publications@isu.isunet.edu

xii
____________________________Acknowledgements

The members of the Masters’ 2006 Team Project-2 would like to

acknowledge Walter Peeters, Nikolai Tolyarenko, John Farrow and Vasilis
Zervos of the ISU Faculty for their advice, support and guidance along
the way. A special thanks is given to Hugh Hill and Bijal Thakore, the
official TP-2 faculty liaisons, for their invaluable input throughout the
process.
We would also like to take this opportunity to express our gratitude to
the following individuals for their valuable input throughout the
development of our project:

Philippe Achilleas Institut du Droit de l’Espace et des

Télécommunications
John Blake Canadian Operational Research
Society
Arthur Guest International Space University Alumni
Robert Guinness International Space University Alumni
David Gump Transform Space
Ozgur Gurtuna Turquoise Solutions (International
Space University Alumni)
Heinz-Hermann Koelle Technische Universität Berlin
Bill Larson NASA/Kennedy Space Center
René Laufer University of Stuttgart/Institute of
Space Systems
Isabelle Scholl International Space University Faculty
Robert Shishko NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Gerald Sanders NASA/Johnson Space Center
Andrew Tinka University of California Berkeley

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

 _______________________________________Authors

Carla Adriana Arregoitia,

Mexico/Canada
Oluwaseun Bankole, Nigeria
B.Eng.Sci.
B.Tech. Electronic and Electrical Engineering
Chemical/Biochemical
Ladoke Akintola University of Technology
Engineering
University of Western Ontario

Renée Boileau, Canada Thomas Bouvet, France

B.Ap.Sc. Engineering Physics Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
University of British Columbia University of Alberta

Rodolphe De Rosée,
Israel Ojeda Coronado, Mexico
Belgium/USA
B.Sc.Computer Systems
M.Eng. Aeronautical
Universidad Autonoma del Estado de
Engineering
Hidalgo
Imperial College London

Dag Evensberget, Norway

Alexandre Fréchette, Canada
M.Sc. Industrial Mathematics
B.Eng. Mechanical Engineering
Norwegian University of Science and
Ecole Polytechnique de Montreal
Technology

Hubert Foy Kum, Cameroon Pierre Ghelardi, France

Physics and Computer Science Master of Economics Sciences Po
University of Buea University of Strasbourg

Kieran Griffith, Republic of Ireland David T. Haslam, United Kingdom

B.Sc. Aerospace Studies M.Sc. Laser Photonics and Modern Optics
Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University The University of Manchester

Jean-Sébastien Hutt, France Kenneth Izomoh, Nigeria

Commercial Engineering M.Eng. Electronic/Telecommunications
Ecole Supérieure des Technologies et des Engineering
Affaires University of Port Harcourt

Alma Krivdić, Bosnia and Herzegovina

Henrik Karlsson, Sweden
B.Sc. Applied Mathematics and Computer
Space Engineering
Science
Umea University
Eastern Mediterranean University

Violetta Kuvaeva, Russian Federation Dimitrios Lamprou, Greece

External Economic Activity, Moscow Dipl.Ing. Mechanical and Aerosnautical
Aviation Institute Engineering
State University of Aerospace Technologies University of Patras

Scott MacPhee, Canada Laure-Hélène Milhome, France

B.Sc. Major in Physics Master of Economics Sciences Po
Dalhousie University University of Strasbourg

Olawale Onifade, Nigeria Thiago Palmieri, Brazil

M.Sc. Computer Science B.Eng. Aerospace Engineering
University of Lagos Ryerson University

Shawna Pandya, Canada Andreea Lavinia Radulescu, Romania

B.Sc. Honors Neuroscience B.Sc. Mathematics
University of Alberta Trent University

Brian Schoening, USA Karanjeet Singh, Canada

B.Sc. Aerospace Engineering B.Eng. Aerospace Engineering
Purdue University/Northrop Grumman Ryerson University

Carlos Uriarte Vega, Spain William Widjaja, Indonesia

B. Law and Diploma in Economic Law B.S. Asia Pacific Management
Universidad de Navarra Ritsumeikan Asia Pacific University

xii
Jun Zhang, People’s Republic of China
Space Engineering
China Aerospace Science and Technology Masters’ 2007
Corporation

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

_______________________________________Abstract

Lunar exploration today is very different from what it once was:

previously driven by national glory and political prestige, it has now
become a quest for innovation, discovery and scientific return. This
quest is defined by a spirit of international cooperation and
partnership. The key question driving lunar exploration has changed,
too: we no longer ask “How do we get there?” but “How do we stay
there?”.
Oxygen and hydrogen directly address this question, since these
resources are essential as propellants for transportation and as
elements for life support systems. Many recent studies have looked
into In situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) for extracting these materials
from the lunar environment in order to ‘live off the land.’
However, there are missing links in the ISRU chain: while production
and extraction methods are well-researched, it is still not clear as to
how oxygen and hydrogen can be made easily accessible to the user.
The present study addresses these gaps by examining the concept of a
‘lunar gas station,’ beginning with an analysis of the markets,
customers and drivers for such a concept. This is followed by a
technical assessment of possible storage and delivery options. System
selection is performed based on existing concepts for storage and
delivery from the production site to the end user.
A storage and delivery architecture, although preliminary, is presented
based on this assessment, and is one of the first attempts to address
this gap in the oxygen and hydrogen supply chain. A subsequent
business, legal and ethical analysis evaluates the feasibility of a lunar
gas station, suggesting that the Full Moon lunar concept is best
realized in conjunction with the burgeoning private space sector.

xii
________________________________Faculty Preface

Henri Rousseau (1844 –1910) is regarded as one of the greatest Post-

Impressionist painters. His naïve paintings with brightly-colored wild
animals, birds, and jungle vegetation are considered to be some of the
most innovative artistic works of the 19th Century. However, despite
his fame today, he was rejected by the Parisian artistic establishment
during his life. They regarded this self-taught customs officer as a
worthless amateur. In fact, following his death, the Petit Journal
declared that “…Rousseau’s fame was born of the praise of few and
the scorn of many”. It seems that original and creative individuals
have frequently been given little encouragement through the ages.
Fortunately, there are many contemporary societies, institutions, and
places of learning where imagination and creativity are valued and
nurtured. The International Space University (ISU) is one such body.
Examples of innovative work at ISU are the annual team projects (TPs)
associated with the twelve-month Master of Science (M.Sc.) programs
in ‘Space Studies’ and ‘Space Management’. Approximately 25% of
students’ time during the programs is devoted to this interdisciplinary
endeavor. This year, our students had a choice between two projects:
“Space techniques supporting archaeology and heritage preservation”
(TP1) and “Helium-3 and other planetary resources: support for
humanity or folly” (TP2). In the early stages of the Masters program,
both teams undertook an extensive literature review, which they
formally presented to ISU’s faculty and invited guests in December
2006. With the knowledge acquired from this research, both teams
then focused on a very specific aspect of their chosen topic. In the
case of TP2, they decided to abandon advanced studies of Helium-3, in
favor other lunar resources. Their study, “Full Moon: Storage &
Delivery of Oxygen and Hydrogen for Lunar Exploration,” is
summarized in this Report and the related Executive Summary. The
study considers how lunar-derived oxygen and hydrogen can be stored
and delivered on the surface to support future space exploration and
utilization. For those readers unfamiliar with ISU TPs, you will note that
this Report is faithful to our university’s celebrated ‘3I’ credo:
international, intercultural, interdisciplinary. In fact, 29 men and
women from 19 different countries—with diverse academic
backgrounds—have contributed to this work.
It only remains for me to applaud the team, especially those who have
been ‘burning the midnight oil’ in recent weeks!
Associate Professor Hugh Hill, on behalf of the Resident Faculty.

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

_______________________________Student Preface

The 11th ISU Annual International Symposium, held in February 2007,

bore the title “Why the Moon?” It was attended by more than 150
space experts from around the world, and being able to participate as
full delegates was a wonderful experience for us, the ISU students. For
all attendees of this conference it became blindingly obvious that the
Moon is once again the focal point of the efforts of space agencies
around the world.
The Moon is seen both as a stepping stone towards the Red Planet and
as a goal in itself. In both cases, the Moon will teach us valuable
lessons about surviving in extreme conditions and controlling our
environment.
In situ resource utilization (ISRU), living of the land, was one of the
central topics of the Symposium. Stimulating conversation with
scientists and space industry professionals brought up some topics
related to ISRU that are not so well covered by current research. This
perceived challenge lead us, to choose “designing a lunar gas station”
as our project of the year. The project finally found itself titled Full
Moon: Storage & Delivery of Oxygen and Hydrogen for Lunar
Exploration.
The scope of our project reflect the interdisciplinary nature of ISU,
covering space science, space engineering, systems engineering,
space policy and law, business and management, and space and
society. The Full Moon report, executive summary and presentation are
the product of 8 weeks of work by our group of 29 students from 19
different countries.
The broad scope and interdisciplinary nature of our project makes it
quite unique within the extended ISRU literature. It is our belief that
the solutions we propose in Full Moon will live on beyond the report and
presentation, and form a basis for further research by individual team
members, and a reliable reference for students and researchers
wanting to keep exploring this exciting area of lunar utilization.

xii
______________________________Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... ............20

2 DRIVERS & CONSTRAINTS.................................................................. ................24

2.1 MARKET ANALYSIS FOR REFUELING.......................................................................... 24
2.2 DEMAND GRAPHS...................................................................................................39
2.3 CONSTRAINT FROM COMPETITORS..............................................................................41
2.4 CONSTRAINTS OF LUNAR TOPOGRAPHY...................................................................... 42
2.5 CONSTRAINTS OF THE LUNAR ENVIRONMENT.............................................................. 43
2.6 CONSTRAINTS FROM RESOURCE AVAILABILITY.............................................................44
2.7 CONSTRAINTS OF PRODUCTION..................................................................................47
2.8 FINDINGS: PRODUCTION SCENARIOS...........................................................................51

3 ARCHITECTURE ASSESSMENT.................................................................... .......53

3.1 CHALLENGES OF LUNAR ENVIRONMENT..................................................................... 53
3.2 SYSTEM DESIGN METHOD........................................................................................55
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF STORAGE OPTIONS ON THE LUNAR SURFACE........................................57
3.4 ALTERNATIVE STORAGE POSSIBILITIES........................................................................66
3.5 STORAGE VESSELS..................................................................................................67
3.6 INTERFACING .........................................................................................................67
3.7 ENSURING HUMAN SAFETY AND TANK HEALTH..........................................................69
3.8 TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS........................................................................................70
3.9 DELIVERY SYSTEM EVALUATION............................................................................... 75
3.10 QUALITATIVE DECISION RANKINGS FOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS....................................... 75
3.11 QUANTITATIVE DECISION RANKINGS FOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS.............................. .......78
3.12 FINDINGS: STORAGE AND DELIVERY CONCEPT RANKINGS...........................................83

4 SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE............................................................ ........................85

4.1 THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE.................................................................................88
4.2 INTERFACES............................................................................................................96
4.3 OPERATIONS...........................................................................................................99
4.4 THE SYSTEM BLUEPRINTS......................................................................................104
4.5 TECHNICAL RISKS.................................................................................................108
4.6 ADAPTATIONS FOR THE OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO........................................................... 109

5 THE BUSINESS ANALYSIS........................................................... ........................111

5.1 APPROACH AND OVERVIEW.....................................................................................111
5.2 SUPPLY OVERVIEW................................................................................................114
5.3 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS............................................................................................ 115
5.4 BUSINESS RISK ASSESSMENT..................................................................................118
5.5 COST BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS ................................................................................119
5.6 FINANCIAL MODEL .............................................................................................. 124
5.7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS...........................................................................................132
5.8 PROMOTION..........................................................................................................134
5.9 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................135

6 LEGAL & ETHICAL ISSUES............................................................ ....................137

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

 6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK: THE OUTER SPACE TREATY & MOON
AGREEMENT.....................................................................................................138
6.2 LEGAL BARRIERS: A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF NON-APPROPRIATION PRINCIPLES..............140
6.3 ENABLING PRIVATE ENTERPRISE..............................................................................142
6.4 THE PROGRESSION TOWARDS A NEW INTERNATIONAL REGIME ............................ .......143
6.5 ADDITIONAL LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: INSURANCE, RESPONSIBILITY & LIABILITY.........145
6.6 FULL MOON & ETHICAL CONCERNS.......................................................................148
6.7 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................149

7 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... ...151

8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... ..............156

A. TANK MATERIAL SELECTION....................................................................... ..165

8.1 EXTRA VEHICULAR ACTIVITIES...............................................................................165
8.2 LSAM ASCENT STAGE MASS BREAK-DOWN...............................................................166
8.3 EXTRA VEHICULAR ACTIVITIES’ CONSUMPTION............................................................166
8.4 CALCULATIONS FOR 3, 6, 9 AND 12 DAYS-MISSION.................................................... 167
8.5 WATER CONSUMPTION:..........................................................................................168

B. LUNAR HYDROGEN....................................................................................... .....169

8.6 RATIONALE FOR SOUTH POLE BASE..........................................................................170
8.7 HYDROGEN EXTRACTION........................................................................................170

C. TANK MATERIAL SELECTION....................................................................... ..172

D. SYSTEM SELECTION DETAILS...................................................................... ..174

8.8 QUALITATIVE DECISION TOOL CALCULATIONS...........................................................174
8.9 QUANTITATIVE DECISION TOOL CALCULATIONS.........................................................175
8.10 SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION METHODS.........................................................................175
8.11 SUPPLY CHAIN MODELING WITH SPACENET............................................................176

E. DELIVERY SYSTEM CALCULATIONS................................................... .........179

8.12 LSAM MODIFICATIONS FOR SURFACE DELIVERY....................................................179
8.13 M-LSAM CALCULATIONS FOR MID-LATITUDE DELIVERIES.....................................179
8.14 WHEELED ROVER CALCULATIONS......................................................................... 180

xii
_______________________________Index of Figures

FIGURE 1-1: THE FULL MOON STUDY, ITS TECHNICAL COMPONENTS

AND ITS INTERFACES WITH THE PRODUCTION FACILITY AND
USERS/CUSTOMERS............................................................................................ .......21

FIGURE 2-2: GLOBAL ROADMAP SPACE EXPLORATION................................29

FIGURE 2-3: NEAR AND FAR SIDE LUNAR TOPOGRAPHY..............................30

FIGURE 2-4: ILLUSTRATION OF SHACKLETON CRATER MOON BASE

(ESAS 2005)...................................................................................................... ..............31

FIGURE 2-5: NASA PAST AND FUTURE LANDING SITES (ESAS 2005)............31

FIGURE 2-6: SORTIE MISSIONS AT ARISTARCHUS PLATEAU (STEVENS

2007).............................................................................................................. ..................33

FIGURE 2-7: THE LSAM (ESAS 2005).................................................................. .....36

FIGURE 2-8: ANNUAL LOX DEMAND IN TONNES........................................... ....40

FIGURE 2-9: OPTIMISTIC LOX DEMAND IN TONNES......................... ..............40

FIGURE 2-10: BASELINE LH2 DEMAND IN TONNES.......................... ................41

FIGURE 2-11: OPTIMISTIC LH2 DEMAND IN TONNES.................... ..................41

FIGURE 2-12: NEAR AND FAR SIDE LUNAR TOPOGRAPHY............................42

FIGURE 2-13: EPITHERMAL NEUTRON FLUX AT LUNAR POLES .................46

FIGURE 2-14: COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES EXCAVATOR PROTOTYPE

(NASA 2007)........................................................................................... ........................48

FIGURE 3-15: SYSTEM SELECTION METHODOLOGY......................... .............56

FIGURE 3-16: STORAGE ELEMENT IN THE SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE.......58

FIGURE 3-17: TYPICAL LOX CRYOGENIC STORAGE ......................................65

FIGURE 3-18: TITAN EXPLORER THERMAL MODEL, DEEP SPACE TANKS,

SUN SHIELD (PLACHTA 2005)....................................................... ...........................66

FIGURE 3-19: ELEMENTS OF THE REFUELING SERVICE.............................. ..70

FIGURE 3-20: MOBILE AND FIXED PLATFORMS.............................................. ..83

FIGURE 4-21: MOBILE STORAGE TANKS............................................ .................91

FIGURE 4-22: DELIVERY CONCEPT COMPARISON BY RANGE AND

CAPACITY........................................................................................................... ..........92

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

FIGURE 4-23: TUG ROVER WITH TRAILER (BUFKIN ET AL. 1988)................93

FIGURE 4-24: MARS AIRBAG DESCENT BRAKE (STEIN AND SANDY 2003). 94

FIGURE 4-25: NASA LSAM BALLISTIC LANDER AND ATHLETE ROVER ....94

FIGURE 4-26: SUPPLY SYSTEM OVERVIEW......................................................... 96

FIGURE 4-27: INTERFACES BETWEEN PRODUCTION AND STORAGE

ELEMENTS........................................................................................ ...........................96

FIGURE 4-28: ARTICULATED HOSE FOR FUEL TRANSFER........................ .....97

FIGURE 4-29: EMERGENCY DELIVERY STORYBOARD......................... .........104

FIGURE 5-30: BUSINESS ANALYSIS LOGIC FLOW CHART............................. 112

FIGURE 5-31: LOW DEMAND SCENARIO OF LOX AND LH2*........................113

FIGURE 5-32: HIGH DEMAND SCENARIO OF LOX AND LH2*.......................113

FIGURE 5-33: MULTI PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP EXAMPLE FOR A

LUNAR GAS STATION.................................................................... ..........................116

FIGURE 5-34: COST ANALYSIS APPROACH FOR PRODUCTION, STORAGE,

AND DELIVERY SYSTEMS................................................................ ......................119

FIGURE 5-35: COST BREAKDOWN RESULT OVERVIEW................................124

FIGURE 5-36: FINANCIAL MODEL.................................................................. ......125

FIGURE 5-37: NET PRESENT VALUE AND IRR DISCOUNT RATE..................127

FIGURE 5-38: PRIVATE LOW MARKET DEMAND................................. ............129

FIGURE 5-39: PRIVATE HIGH MARKET DEMAND..................................... .......129

FIGURE 5-40: MPPP LOW MARKET DEMAND................................. ..................130

FIGURE 5-41: MPPP HIGH MARKET DEMAND..................................... .............130

FIGURE 5-42: MPPP HIGH MARKET DEMAND ICE PRICE SENSITIVITY. .132

FIGURE 5-43: MPPP LOW MARKET DEMAND ICE PRICE SENSITIVITY....133

FIGURE 5-44: PRIVATE HIGH MARKET DEMAND ICE PRICE SENSITIVITY

................................................................................................................ .......................133

FIGURE 5-45: MPPP HIGH MARKET DEMAND NO ICE PRICE SENSITIVITY

................................................................................................................ .......................134

FIGURE 6-46: BASIS OF THE NON-APPROPRIATION PRINCIPLE................140

FIGURE 6-47: EXPLANATION OF SAFETY ZONES AND EXCLUSIVE

ECONOMIC ZONES................................................................................................. ..143

xii
FIGURE ERROR! NO TEXT OF SPECIFIED STYLE IN DOCUMENT.-48 EVA
AND IVA ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED FOR OUTPOST GOX DEMAND (NASA
2005)........................................................................................................... ...................165

FIGURE ERROR! NO TEXT OF SPECIFIED STYLE IN DOCUMENT.-49 LSAM

ASCENT STAGE MASS BREAK-DOWN (NASA 2005)................................... .......166

FIGURE ERROR! NO TEXT OF SPECIFIED STYLE IN DOCUMENT.-50 :

DISTRIBUTION OF HYDROGEN WITHIN THE FIRST 2M OF LUNAR
REGOLITH AS SEEN BY SOURCE: (MAURICE ET AL. 2003), (2004A)............169

FIGURE B-ERROR! NO TEXT OF SPECIFIED STYLE IN DOCUMENT.-51:

QUALITATIVE DECISION TOOL INPUT FLOW...................... ...........................174

FIGURE B-ERROR! NO TEXT OF SPECIFIED STYLE IN DOCUMENT.-52:

SUPPLY FLOW THROUGH TIME-EXPANDED LINEAR NETWORK MODEL
................................................................................................................ .......................176

FIGURE B-ERROR! NO TEXT OF SPECIFIED STYLE IN DOCUMENT.-53:

SPACENET MODEL (HTTP://SPACELOGISTICS.MIT.EDU).............................177

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

________________________________Index of Tables

TABLE 2-1: US MISSION ARCHITECTURE FOR LUNAR EXPLORATION

(ESAS 2005)...................................................................................................... ..............25

TABLE 2-2: CROSS-COMPARISON OF THE DIFFERENT SPACE POLICIES. .28

TABLE 2-3: NASA TOP 10 LUNAR SITES (ESAS 2005)..........................................32

TABLE 2-4: LANDINGS ON THE MOON PER PARTY AND DATE......................37

TABLE 2-5: LSAM AND LSAM EQUIVALENT ASCENT STAGE PROPELLANT

DEMAND PER VEHICLE..................................................................................... .......38

TABLE 2-6: GASEOUS OXYGEN NEEDED FOR A SEVEN-DAY, FOUR CREW

SORTIE MISSION (ESAS 2005)........................................................... .......................38

TABLE 2-7: OUTPOSTS CONSIDERED IN THE ANALYSIS (ESAS 2005)...........38

TABLE 2-8: GASEOUS OXYGEN (GOX) FOR OUTPOST DEMAND

CALCULATION........................................................................................... .................39

TABLE 2-9: LUNAR SURFACE AVERAGE REGOLITH COMPOSITION

(SANDERS ET AL. 2006)............................................................................ ..................44

TABLE 2-10: CONCENTRATION OF SOLAR-WIND IMPLANTED VOLATILES

IN REGOLITH (SANDERS ET AL. 2006)........................................ ..........................45

TABLE 2-11: HYDROGEN VOLATILE CONCENTRATION IN POLAR

REGOLITH (SANDERS ET AL. 2006)................................................................ ........45

TABLE 2-12: ISRU PROCESSES FOR OXYGEN EXTRACTION FROM

REGOLITH (FERTILE MOON 2006; SANDERS 2007)...................... .....................49

TABLE 2-13: PROCESSES FOR OXYGEN AND HYDROGEN EXTRACTION

FROM ICE (BLAIR 2002; FERTILE MOON 2006)................................................. ..50

TABLE 2-14: EXTRACTION PROCESS OF SOLAR-WIND-IMPLANTED H2

FROM REGOLITH (FERTILE MOON 2006)..................................................... .......51

TABLE 2-15: THE FOUR ECONOMIC SCENARIOS TO BE ANALYZED

WITHIN THE REPORT...................................................................... .........................52

TABLE 3-16: LUNAR TEMPERATURE RANGE TAKEN FROM (ECKART 1999;

HEIKEN 1991)..................................................................................... ..........................54

TABLE 3-17: COLD TECHNOLOGIES RESULTS FROM ICES: MANDATORY =

X, HELPFUL = O (ID.)..................................................................................... .............62

TABLE 3-18: SUMMARY OF TANK-SUITABLE MATERIAL PROPERTIES

(WWW.MATWEB.COM).......................................................................................... ....64

xii
TABLE 3-19: MOBILE PLATFORM CHARACTERISTICS (ECKART 1999)......71

TABLE 3-20: LUNAR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (APEL 1989).................... .73

TABLE 3-21: FIXED PLATFORMS CHARACTERISTICS (APEL 1987),

(TRANSNEFT 2004), (DOPPELMAYR N.D)............................................. .................74

TABLE 3-22: QUALITATIVE METHOD RESULTS.................................. ...............76

TABLE 3-23: QUANTITATIVE SELECTION CRITERIA....................... ................79

TABLE 3-24: WEIGHTED QUANTITATIVE DECISION MATRIX RESULTS....81

TABLE 4-25: DEMAND SCENARIOS.................................................... ....................85

TABLE 4-26: PRODUCTION SCENARIOS............................................... ................86

TABLE 4-27: QUANTITATIVE DECISION TOOL WEIGHTS WITH

SECONDARY WEIGHTS..................................................................................... ........88

TABLE 4-28: COMMUNICATIONS CONCEPT COMPARISONS.........................98

TABLE 4-29: TANK DIMENSIONS.......................................................................... .105

TABLE 4-30 TANK DIMENSIONS BY MATERIAL (WWW.MATWEB.COM)...106

TABLE 4-31: ROVER POWER SYSTEM OPTIONS............................... ...............107

TABLE 4-32: ROVER WHEEL OPTIONS................................... ...........................108

TABLE 5-33: FORECASTED REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE FOR TOTAL

LIFESPAN OF 20 YEARS........................................................................... ................114

TABLE 5-34: HIGH RISK ISSUES FOR BUSINESS ANALYSIS..................... ......119

TABLE 5-35: COST CATEGORY BREAKDOWN................................................... 120

TABLE 5-36: INPUTS AND OUTPUTS FROM ISRU MODEL FOR SUPPLYING
LOX AND LH2 (FERTILE MOON 2006)........................................................... .......121

TABLE 5-37: LOX AND LH2 TANKS COST DATA FROM ISRU CASE STUDY
(BLAIR 2002)..................................................................................... ..........................121

TABLE 5-38: COST FOR PROPOSED LOX AND LH2 TANKS............................121

TABLE 5-39: PAST ROBOTIC ROVER DEVELOPMENT COST........................122

TABLE 5-40: ROVER SPECIFICATIONS.............................................................. ..122

TABLE 5-41: COST ESTIMATION RESULTS............................. ...........................123

TABLE 5-42: PRICING OF PRODUCT FOR EACH COSTUMER.......................126

TABLE 5-43: CORPORATE TAX RATES FOR SPACE FAIRING COUNTRIES

................................................................................................................ .......................127

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

TABLE 5-44: GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS FOR BUSINESS ANALYSIS..............128

TABLE 5-45: FINANCIAL RESULTS................................................. ......................130

TABLE 6-46: SUMMARY OF LIABILITY UNDER THE LIABILITY

CONVENTION (ADELTA LEGAL SPACE LAW 2007)..........................................146

TABLE A-47: QUALITATIVE TENSILE STRENGTH TABLE.............................172

TABLE 48: QUALITATIVE THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY TABLE.....................172

TABLE 49: QUALITATIVE DENSITY TABLE........................................................ 172

TABLE B-50: QUANTITATIVE DECISION TOOL FORMULAE.........................175

TABLE B-51: ELEMENTS FOR MODELING A LUNAR CRYOGEN DELIVERY

SYSTEM.................................................................................................... ...................177

TABLE C-52: LSAM MODIFICATIONS..................................................... .............179

xii
______________________________List of Acronyms

ACDPT Advanced Cryocooler Estimate

Development ICES Ice, Cloud, and land
Technology Program Elevation Satellite
ALTV Autonomous Lunar IDEST Institut du Droit de
Transport Vehicle l’Espace et des
ASC Australian Space Telecommunication
Council IGO Inter-Governmental
ASI Italian Space Agency Organization
ATHLETE All Terrain Hex-Legged IMLI Integrated Multi-Layer
Extra Terrestrial Insulation
Explorer IRR Internal Rate of Return
B2B Business to Business ISA International Seabed
B2C Business to Consumer Authority
B2G Business to ISRO Indian Space Research
Government Organization
BP British Petroleum ISRU In-Situ Resource
Utilization
CEV Crew Exploration
ISS International Space
Vehicle
Station
CLEP Chinese Lunar
ITAR International Traffic in
Exploration Program
Arms Regulation
CNAA Chinese National
ITU International
Aerospace
Telecommunications
Administration
Union
CNSA Chinese National Space
IVA Inter-Vehicular Activity
Agency
COLD Cryogenic Operation for JAXA Japanese Astronautic
the Long Duration Exploration Agency
CSA Canadian Space JPL Jet Propulsion
Agency Laboratory
CTE Coefficient of thermal KSC Kennedy Space Center
expansion L1 Lagrange point 1
DDTC Directorate of Defense LCH4 Liquid Methane
Trade Controls
EAR Export Administration LEAD Lunar Exploration And
Regulations Development agency
ELV Expendable Launch LEO Low Earth Orbit
Vehicle LeRC LeClerc Research
ESA European Space Center
Agency LH2 Liquid Hydrogen
ESAS Exploration Systems LLO Low Lunar Orbit
Architecture Study LMD Low Market Demand
EVA Extra-Vehicular Activity
LOX Liquid Oxygen
FEMP Federal Energy
LOTRAN LOcal TRANsportation
Management Program
rover
FOSR Flexible Optical Solar
LRO Lunar Reconnaissance
Reflector
Orbiter
GDP Gross Domestic Product
LRV Lunar Roving Vehicle
GH2 Gaseous Hydrogen
LSAM Lunar Surface Access
GM General Motors Module
GOX / GO2 Gaseous Oxygen LV Launch Vehicle
GNSS Global Navigation Maglev Magnetic Levitation
Satellite System MIT Massachusetts Institute
GSO Geo-Stationary Orbit of Technology
He4 Helium 4 MLI Multi-Layer Insulation
HMD High Market Demand M-LSAM Modified Lunar Surface
Access Module
ICE Independent Cost

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

MMH Metallized Gelled ROI Return of Investment
Hydrogen RP-1 Refined Petrolium-1/
MOSAP Mobile Surface RP-1 Rocket Propellant 1
Applications
Pressurized rover RSA Russian Space Agency
MPL Maximum Probable RSC Rocket and Space
Loss Energia Corporation Energia
MPPP Multi Public Private RSC Russia Space
Partnership Corporation Energia
MSFC Marshall Space Flight SDN Specially Designated
Centre National
NASA National Aeronautics SEC Shakelton Energy
and Space Corporation
Administration SEU Single Event Upset
Nav/Comm Navigation and SG Specific Gravity
Communication SM Service Module
NGO Non-Governmental
SOx Molten Silicate
Organization
NORCAT Northern Center for SPA-Basin South Pole Aitkin Basin
Advanced Technology SS Sun Shields
NPO Research & Production SSTO Single Stage to Orbit
Energia Association Energia STS Space Transportation
NPV Net Present Value System
NTO Nitrogen Tetra oxide SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses,
OFAC Office of Foreign Assets Opportunities, Threats
Control TBD To Be Decided
OHB- Orbitale UK United Kingdom
System Hochtechnologie UNCLOS United Nations
OST Outer Space Treaty Convention on the Law
PPMD Propellant Positional Of the Sea
Management Devices UNCOPUO United Nations
PPMS Propellant Positional S Committee on the
Management System Peaceful Uses of Outer
PPP Public Private Space
Partnership USML United States Munitions
PV Present Value List
RKK S.P. Korolev Rocket and VDMLI Variable Density Multi-
Energia Space Corporation Layer Insulation
Energia VIP Vacuum Insulation
RLEP Robotic Lunar Panels
Exploration Program VSE Vision for Space
RLV Reusable Launch Exploration
Vehicle

xii
Table of Units

B Billion
BP Barometric
Pressure
BUSD Billion US Dollars
ºC Celsius
CSCF Hundred Standard
Cubic Feet
F Fahrenheit
g Gravity
GGE Gasoline Gallon
Equivalent
h Hour
ISP Specific Impulse
K Kelvin
kg Kilogram
km Kilometer
KUSD Thousand US
Dollars
kW Kilowatt
m Meter
m2 Square Meter
m3 Cubic Meter
M Million
mg Milligram
MUSD Million US Dollars
MSCF Thousand Standard
Cubic Feet
Nm3 Normal cubic
meter of a gas
ppm Parts per million
t Tonne
USD US Dollar

© International Space University. All Rights Reserved.

Full Moon

_____________________________________Chapter 1
1 Introduction

Space exploration today is beginning to take on a new approach via a

focus on global partnerships. Numerous reasons have been put forth
for returning to the Moon, ranging from scientific exploration to
resource exploitation for commercial gain. Regardless of the intent, one
thing is clear: lunar activities have only just begun, and as these
expeditions increase in scale and duration, so too will the need for
supporting infrastructure in areas of life support & habitation and
transport.
The elements oxygen and hydrogen are invaluable; they address all
these needs. In addition to being essential for synthesizing water and
air for life support, oxygen and hydrogen are commonly used
propellants.
Extraction and production methods in which oxygen and hydrogen are
extracted from the lunar regolith1 have been well studied, but little
research has been done to address how these resources may be made
readily available to the user.
This report outlines a possible architecture to enable the storage and
delivery of oxygen and hydrogen on the lunar surface. Simply put, Full
Moon is a proposal for a ‘lunar gas station.’ A lunar production facility
alone will not necessarily enable lunar explorers to go where they wish.
Full Moon aims to be one of the first proposals with a complete
interdisciplinary approach to the storage and delivery architecture on
the lunar surface.

1.1.1The Full Moon project

Just as purchasing barrels of petroleum from an oil refinery is not the
optimal solution for a mother wishing to drive her children to their daily
activities, connecting directly to a regolith processing facility is unlikely
to be the optimal solution for a lunar explorer wishing to fill up her
rover to conduct a geological survey at a distant site if they are not
accessible.

1
Regolith is the term used for the layer of loose, heterogeneous material
covering solid rock on the lunar surface and elsewhere.

20
 Introduction

Figure 1-1: The Full Moon study, its technical components and its
interfaces with the production facility and users/customers.
Full Moon seeks to fill a gap in the current Moon research by proposing
a complete architecture for storage and distribution of oxygen and
hydrogen. In the distribution chain production, storage, transportation,
customer the report addresses the storage and transportation
architecture. The expected demand for lunar delivery of oxygen and
hydrogen is estimated based on current plans by space agencies. It is
assumed that sufficiently large production facilities are installed on the
lunar surface to cover this demand.
The feasibility of the project is evaluated technically, economically and
legally. To be an economically feasible alternative to simply bringing
oxygen and hydrogen along with other supplies from Earth, the cost of
producing oxygen and hydrogen gas from the regolith must be
sufficiently low that development, launch costs and depreciation costs
of a production facility are offset by the high cost of transporting
oxygen and hydrogen from the Earth on launch vehicles.

1.1.2Definition of Project Scope

During the “Moon Symposium” held at ISU in February 2007 it became
clear from several presentations and from discussions with various
experts that little work has been done on storage and transportation of
hydrogen and oxygen on the lunar surface. Storing hydrogen and
oxygen on the Moon obviously requires different solutions than
conventional storage on Earth; similarly there are considerable
differences between in-space microgravity storage of hydrogen and
oxygen such as the systems attached to the International Space
Station (ISS). The lunar surface shares characteristics with both of
these environments, but it also presents unique challenges not present
in either deep space or on the Earth.
Very extensive research has been and is being conducted in the field of
In situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) for space applications. ISRU is a wide
field, and numerous studies propose and investigate different methods
for extracting oxygen from the lunar regolith, as well as for extracting
hydrogen from water ice, should it be determined to exist in the Polar
Regions.
The requirements of potential lunar visitors are not difficult to
estimate, there exists a wide variety of proposals for going to the moon
by agencies and private companies.

21
Full Moon

In-orbit refueling of spacecraft holds great promise as a cost reducer

for space missions; however it falls outside the scope of this project. In
order to limit the scope of the project it was decided not to consider in-
orbit refueling or delivery. This allows the report to focus on surface
issues on the Moon. If a cis-lunar economy becomes a reality, it is likely
(based on orbital mechanics calculations) that propellant produced on
the Moon and shipped from the Moon will be less costly than propellant
launched from the Earth, even for satellites in Low Earth Orbit (LEO).
In Full Moon, the delivery chain of a potential in-orbit service is
considered to end at the lunar launch pad. This decision was also made
to avoid interfering with the planned team project of the 2007 Summer
Session Program, which will focus on in-orbit servicing of satellites.
Lunar ISRU promises to deliver other substances than oxygen and
hydrogen. In the near future no manufacturing is expected to take
place on the Moon, and also any byproduct of oxygen/hydrogen
production would belong to the production plant, not to the distributor.
The report focuses on the timeframe 2018 – 2047. All future dates are
estimated from current agency plans. It was deliberately chosen to
focus on the “near-term” since it is believed that this would offer more
value to the space community.
It is the hope of the authors that the analysis and conclusions of this
report will be useful to agency planners and commercial companies
considering working along with space agencies to provide a refueling
infrastructure in space. It is also hoped that this report will lay the
groundwork for future research conducted by individual members of
our team.

1.1.3Report Structure (Readers’ Guide)

The Full Moon report follows a logical flow so as to equip the reader
with an understanding of the lunar operation and business
environment. A chapter summary is given here for the convenience of
the reader interested in only specific aspects of our proposed
architecture and its interdisciplinary evaluation. However, the reader is
encouraged to read chapters in the following order as later sections
may derive heavily on earlier ones.
Chapter 1: Introduction.
Chapter 2: Drivers & Constraints. This Chapter aims to clarify the
demand for oxygen and hydrogen based on the policy of different
space agencies and estimates of the fuel consumption spacecraft
capable of landing on the lunar surface. The areas of the Moon most
likely to be visited for scientific reasons are identified, similarly the
areas most likely to be selected as possible Moon base locations.
Chapter 3: Technical Assessment. This Chapter outlines the unique
features of the lunar environment and the requirements they place
upon any lunar installations. The methods of assessment used in the
report are laid out. Various storage and transportation systems are
introduced.

22
 Introduction

Chapter 4: Recommendations for a System Architecture. Following the

analysis of the preceding chapter, this chapter outlines the architecture
proposed by the team. The location of customers, production facilities
and storage facilities are presented. The transportation systems
enabling movement of oxygen and hydrogen between production
facilities, storage facilities and customers are described, and the
interfaces enabling transfer of propellant are briefly introduced.
Chapter 5: Economic Analysis. This chapter examines the economic
feasibility of building the system outlined in the previous chapter. The
cost of producing, transporting and storing oxygen and hydrogen in
situ are compared to the cost of producing oxygen and hydrogen on
the Earth and delivering it to the Moon.
Chapter 6: Politico-Legal and Ethical Analysis. This chapter addresses
the general legal framework of space resource utilization, as well as
the specific issues concerned with the implementation of the proposed
storage and transportation architecture.
Chapter 7: Recommendations and Conclusions. The recommendations
of our team, based upon the analysis in this report, are presented.
Appendix A: Details tank material selection.
Appendix B: Explains the system selection process.
Appendix C: Details for modifications to and sizing for delivery
vehicles.

23
Full Moon

_____________________________________Chapter 2
2 Drivers & Constraints

In order to develop an adequate storage and delivery infrastructure, it

is necessary first to understand the parameters that will drive and limit
it. In any environment the primary driver is the market demand, which
this chapter assesses by answering the following questions: who are
the customers and where are they located? (Section 2.1) and what is
their demand for oxygen and hydrogen? (Section 2.2). The ability to
service them is subject to constraints, which are categorized as
physical, economic or legal. Economic constraints are linked to the
presence of competitors (Section 2.3), while physical ones encompass
the challenges of the the lunar terrain (Section 2.4), the limitation of
resources (Section 2.5) and the production facility’s capabilities
(Section 2.7). Legal restrictions originate from national and
international legislation and are discussed after the technical solution,
in Chapter 6.

2.1Market Analysis for Refueling

Conducting a market analysis is not a simple task, especially for a lunar
refueling station: the market does not currently exist as humans have
not yet returned to the Moon. Considering the substantial budgets
required to do so, it is expected that the first customers will be
government agencies. It thus becomes necessary to make lunar
surface refueling attractive enough to foster both government and
private demand, much like the construction of United States
government railroads in the 1800s helped generate new industries in
their vicinities.

2.1.1Potential Customers
Customers were identified by examining the roadmaps of space
agencies and future development plans of private companies
interested in lunar exploration. Therefore, this market analysis is based
on current plans, which are subject to change and which generally
under-estimate timelines.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
The United States (US), one of the two historic space leaders, remains
one of the references in the space sector, especially in terms of policy
leadership. After the last Apollo mission in 1976, the US lunar interests
declined with only two dedicated lunar robotic missions since then:
Clementine (1994) and Lunar Prospector (1998), both of which
remained in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO) for remote sensing of the lunar
surface. However, this trend was reversed with the announcement of a

24
new “Vision for Space Exploration” (VSE) in 2004 by President Bush,
which aims to “return to the Moon by 2020” and “with the experience
gained on the Moon”, “take the next steps of space exploration: human
missions to Mars and to worlds beyond”. His call upon NASA to “gain a
new foothold on the Moon” quickly became the cornerstone of a new
global exploration effort of the lunar surface, with many countries
following suit by declaring their own lunar intentions.
Such leadership on the international space stage was already exercised
by the United States in the past two decades by being the main
architect of the International Space Station (ISS). After the completion
of the ISS in 2010 and the retirement of the Space Shuttle, the US
plans to focus on developing the necessary technology (including a
new Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV)) to reach its goal of building a
permanent outpost on the Moon. NASA recognizes that these plans are
ambitious, as was highlighted by their current administrator: “The
United States working alone cannot fulfill the sweeping goals of the
VSE; we must maintain the strong international partnerships that have
been built during the space station era, and we must extend those
partnerships even more broadly to enable a robust human space
exploration” (Griffin 2005). This clearly opens the door for international
cooperation similar to that for the ISS, so long as it does not lie within
NASA’s critical path (Sanders 2007). NASA’s current architecture is
summarized in Table 2-1 below:
Table 2-1: US Mission Architecture for lunar exploration (ESAS 2005)
Key Decisions Architecture Date
2 missions per year
4 crew per mission
Extensive EVA
4-7 day missions 2018-
Local mobility (un-pressurized
2020
rovers)
Mix of exploration technology
and science experiments
4 lunar landings per year
Permanent base 6 months crew rotations
deployment Logistics mission between
missions & crew flights 2020-
Steady-state base Extended mobility 2030+
operations (pressurized rovers)
Emphasis on in situ resource
utilization
Missions to Mars To be decided 2035+

Russian Space Agency (Roskosmos)

As the other historical and leading space-faring nation, Russia is also
considering future lunar missions for the next decades. Even if this
vision is, for the moment, not as clear as the US VSE, the space
capacities and possibilities of this country have to be taken into
account. With its industrial, scientific and technological capabilities,
Russia will no doubt be an important player and/or partner for the
Moon exploration in the future, just as it was in the past. Russians have
acquired great expertise in orbital space stations with MIR, allowing

25
Full Moon

them to participate actively in the construction of the ISS by providing

almost half the modules.
The national agency, Roskosmos, does not yet have a strategic
approach to further space exploration. Visions for the future have
mainly come from private companies such as NPO Energia.
Nevertheless, it appears that Roskosmos is working on a long-term
vision (2020 to 2040) that will consider robotic and manned missions,
including a Moon base in 2030 (Casini 2006). It appears that the key
challenge to the implementation of this project would be the limited
budget Roskosmos, which is linked to Russia’s current economic
difficulties. One mitigation strategy used so far has been to increase
international cooperation: the European Space Agency (ESA) has
launched many of its astronauts on Russian rockets, while much of the
Chinese manned program is based on Russian technology. Similarly,
the Russians were the first to offer tourist flights to the ISS.
European Space Agency (ESA)
The European Space Agency unveiled its space exploration program
“Aurora” in 2001 prior to the VSE, with the goal of sending a series of
robotic missions to the Moon, Mars, other planets and near-Earth
asteroids. The main difference with the VSE were that the program was
robotic, aiming to assess the economic potential of space resources,
and focused on Mars, with the Moon only as an aside. Nevertheless,
ESA revised its program after announcement of the VSE and now
includes sending a manned spaceship to the Moon between 2020 and
2025, followed by a human mission to Mars by 2025 to 2030, without
much further detail (ESA 2006). This demonstrates ESA’s strong belief
in international cooperation, along with its active participation in the
ISS (ESA’s Columbus module is due to launch in 2007).
Japanese Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA)
JAXA issued its “JAXA 2025” vision in 2005 which describes Japan’s
interest in constructing and developing lunar surface infrastructure in
the long-term, with emphasis on robotic technologies (Casini 2006).
Manned missions would occur between 2025 and 2035, even though
this would probably occur via international cooperation, given the
limited budgets and the specificity of the Japanese space program. This
is reflected by the fact JAXA links for a long period ahead its programs
with the activities of other space-fairing nations, despite its growing
desire for greater autonomy in space. Although the plan’s budget has
not yet been approved by the Japanese government, one can expect
Japan to be a reliable international partner in the future, as it has been
in the past (JAXA’s ISS Kibo module is due to be launched in 2008).
Canadian Space Agency (CSA)
Canada’s space efforts are modest but highly specialized, particularly
in the field of robotics. Canadians have specialized in developing the
Canadarm for the Space Shuttle along with Canadarm 2 for the ISS.
These, along with its special status as a “cooperating state” within
ESA, underline the importance of Canada’s contribution to NASA and
ESA’s space exploration plans. As of today Canada does not have a
lunar exploration program of its own; instead it is developing
technologies that would complement that of NASA and ESA: from ISRU
robotics to scientific instruments for satellite remote sensing of the

26
Moon (Ghafoor 2007). There is no doubt that Canada will develop key
technologies for the implementation of the VSE and the Aurora
program.
China National Space Administration (CNSA)
As the third nation in history to put a man in orbit, China’s space
efforts are not to be underestimated given the country’s already large
and growing economic resources. According to the declarations of the
first Chinese “taïkonaut”, Yang Liwei, at the 2006 International
Aeronautical Congress, there is no doubt that China will follow the
steps of the Americans on the Moon (Coué 2007). Indeed, ambitious
space exploration plans have been announced by the Chinese
authorities. Although the details are rather secret, it is known that new
additions to the Long March launcher family are being developed,
along with more sophisticated Shenzou manned capsules. With respect
to the Moon, there are plans for a lunar reconnaissance orbiter,
followed by a soft lunar lander in 2010 and a sample return mission by
2030 (Id.). Manned flights and construction of a lunar base would begin
after 2030, as confirmed by C. Tangming (2007) at the ISU “Why the
Moon?” symposium.
Named “Chang’e”, the program aims to promote space science and
technology along with international cooperation. However, countries
such as the US have expressed concern over the level of involvement
of the Chinese military in the program. This reached a climax on the
11th January 2007 when China successfully performed an anti-satellite
test. The United States then announced that it was suspending plans
for developing cooperative space ventures, including a joint mission to
the Moon, which is reflected by NASA’s press statement: “We believe
China’s development and testing of such weapons is inconsistent with
the constructive relationship that our presidents have outlined” (Gertz
2007).
Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO)
As commented by Vajpayee (2005), the Indian space program is also
geared towards the Moon: “the country has made significant progress
in science and technology and India's scientific development should be
strong enough to realize its dream of sending a man on the Moon”. The
first step to achieving that goal has already been taken with the
upcoming launch of Chandrayaan-1 in 2008, prior to NASA’s Lunar
Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO), which will undertake the full 3-D
mapping of the Moon, and aim to confirm the presence of water at the
poles. According to Jayaraman (2006), the first manned landings on the
Moon would occur in 2020.
Taking this into account and considering India’s impressive economic
growth, one can easily imagine India as being one of the future major
space-faring nations involved in lunar activities. As affirmed by the
president of India, Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam, during a visit to the
International Space University on 26th April 2007: “I foresee that an
important contribution for future of exploration by India would be,
space missions to the Moon and Mars founded on space
industrialization and international cooperation.”

27
Full Moon

Emerging Countries – the Unidentified Third Party

It was decided to consider in the demand analysis an unidentified
country whose current contribution is small but who might emerge as
an important space faring nation in the near future. Such countries
could be Brazil, Indonesia, Pakistan, South Korea, etc. Alternatively, it
could represent one of the assumed international partners that may
decide not to participate in the international venture, or only partly,
such as the Italian Space Agency (ASI).
Agencies Summary
The roadmaps described above of the said agencies are summarized in
Table 2-2.
Table 2-2: Cross-Comparison of the different space policies
Program Target
Agency Policy priority
name year
Permanent base on the
Vision for
Moon as a first step to
NASA Space 2024
further manned
Exploration
exploration to Mars
Permanent base on the
ROSKOSMO Federal space Moon
2019
S program Exploration of human
resources
2020-
ESA Aurora Manned mission
2025
Vision of Construction of a base on
JAXA 2030
2005 the Moon
CNSA White paper Manned mission 2017
Indian space
ISRO Manned mission 2020
program
Shuttle Remote
Space Vision Manipulator System
CSA 2007
System (Canadarm)
International Cooperation

Private Enterprise
At the present time, few commercial activities have plans to utilize
space resources from the Moon. It is hoped nevertheless that the
presence of agencies will foster the appearance of commercial
activities, becoming in turn lunar refueling customers. As described by
the Lunar Exploration and Development Authority (Whittington 2005),
this is what NASA aims to encourage: by building the initial facilities
and handing them over to private companies for mining and production
of resources, a commercial Earth-Moon system could be initiated.
Space Tourism
Space and lunar tourism also have the potential of representing
significant commercial activity. For example, “Space Adventures” has
announced plans in the past for space tourist flights around the Moon
aboard a Russian-built Soyuz spacecraft, while Excalibur Almaz and
TransOrbital Inc aim to provide not only flights but lunar infrastructure

28
for tourists. However these claims must be taken with precaution given
that the timelines provided by these companies are usually not realistic
(Peeters 2000).
In Figure 2-2 below, one can find a “global roadmap” that summarizes
the current plans of agencies and private companies.

Figure 2-2: Global roadmap space exploration

2.1.2Customer Location
Now that the customers have been identified, it is fundamental to
understand their location, such that the architecture can be adequately
designed to cater for them. Although future plans are dynamic in time,
identifying where future customers went in the past and will go in the
future provides the best possible mapping of the market demand.
Past Landings
As part of the “space race” the Soviet Union and the United States
successfully landed 13 robotic probes on the surface of the Moon (Luna
and Surveyor programs), culminated by NASA’s six manned Apollo
landings between 1969 and 1972. Initial missions carried out surveying
of the surface, while later ones performed geological experiments
and/or returned samples back to Earth, forming the basis of what is
known today about regolith and its oxygen and hydrogen components.

29
Full Moon

Figure 2-3: Near and far side lunar topography

(http://sse.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/display.cfm?IM_ID=804)

As shown in Figure 2-3 above, all missions were on the near side of the
Moon, targeting mainly the equatorial regions. This is due to the
telecommunication relay systems needed to stay in constant
communication with Earth when one is on the far side and at the poles.
Although these sites have already been visited, they could be revisited
in the future, and thus represent potential landing sites.
Future Landings: The United States
As explained in Section 2.1.1, the United States main purpose of
returning to the Moon is to establish a lunar outpost that will be used
for scientific experimentation and as a test-bed to future Mars
exploration missions. As detailed in Allen (2007), NASA has decided to
build its outpost at Shackleton Crater at the South Pole as shown in
Figure 2-4 below.

30
 Figure 2-4: Illustration of Shackleton Crater Moon Base (ESAS 2005)
As detailed by Allen (2007), NASA believes that such a choice is safe,
cost effective, resource plentiful and flexible (see Section 3.1 for
discussion on the lunar environment). It follows that NASA will
concentrate its efforts on building the outpost there, and, given that
NASA plans to lease its facilities in order to foster private enterprise, it
makes business sense to produce and store the propellant at the same
place. Hence, the storage and delivery business considered in this
report should be based at the South Pole.
In addition to the outpost, NASA plans to perform “sortie” missions to
other locations such as those shown in Figure 2-5 below.

Figure 2-5: NASA past and future landing sites (ESAS 2005)

31
Full Moon

These “Top 10” exploration sites were selected on the basis of ISRU
potential, scientific opportunities, “Mars Analog” conditions and
geologic diversity, under a “Global Access” or “Anytime Return” policy.
The characteristic of these sites are summarized in Table 2-3 below.
Table 2-3: NASA Top 10 lunar sites (ESAS 2005)
Distance
from South
Site Interest
Pole
[km]
Base, Geology, Mars Analog,
South Pole 0
Water?
SPA Basin Floor 1 035 Geology, Astronomy
Orientale Basin Geology, ISRU (Mare &
2 187
Floor Highlands mix)
Oceanus
2 677 Geology, ISRU (Ti)
Procellarum
Mare Smythii 2 789 Geology, ISRU (Fe)
Mare Tranquilitis 3 018 ISRU (Ti)
Rima Bode 3 145 Geology, ISRU (Ti)
Central Far Side Geology, ISRU (Al, Ca),
3 492
Highlands Astronomy
Aristarchus
3 552 Geology, ISRU (solar wind H)
Plateau
North Pole 5 414 Base Alternative, Water?
Regarding missions to these sites, it is important to note the following:
• Robotic missions to the surface have been excluded, implying
that they will not be refueled. This decision was taken for two
reasons: firstly, robotic missions tend to be small-sized and are
only occasionally designed to return to Earth, thus their demand
for refueling is deemed negligible; secondly, probes are designed
on a one-off basis, for a specific mission, and thus all have
potentially different refueling tanks and needs.
• On the other hand, manned mission modules will be “mass
produced” and will require the return of the astronauts via their
Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM) ascent vehicles, thus
potentially representing a significant market. However, although
the said NASA policy does not exclude refueling in principle, it
does exclude landing quasi-empty-tanked which would pose a
problem to a refueling business. New procedures are needed
here, such as establishing the refueling medium on the surface,
before the LSAM launches from Earth (typical Earth-Moon
trajectories take three to four days). The mobile refuel depot can
be equipped with a beacon to guide the LSAM during the descent
phase (see Section 4.3.4). This would mean that aborting the
mission during descent is not ‘to orbit’ but ‘to surface’. Such an
approach may seem as a non-acceptable risk with the current
way human space exploration is foreseen. As highlighted by
Tolyarenko (2007), “new endeavors require new approaches to
ensure success”.
• In the early years, these manned sortie missions will be “Apollo-
type”: LSAMs will be launched from Earth, land at a specific site,

32
 perform their mission, then return to Earth, without passing at all
by the polar outpost (except those of course which are launched
specifically to go to the outpost). This was assumed because the
current LSAM design cannot perform multiple launches and
landings, and no other vehicle that could do so is currently in
design.
• As explained in Stevens (2007) these missions of four astronauts
will last seven days and consist of up to six days of science and
exploration, within a 75 km radius, using a pressurized rover and
driving at maximum speed of 20 km/h (72 m/s), as shown in
Figure 2-6 below. Unpressurized rovers (similar to those used
during Apollo missions) could also be used, but this would
significantly reduce the science return given that the astronauts
have a maximum Extra-Vehicular Activity (EVA) time of six to
eight hours and would have to return to the LSAM. However,
unpressurized rovers, smaller in size, could be launched with the
manned LSAM, while pressurized ones would require a dedicated
launch (ESAS 2005). Either way, these EVAs that consume water
and oxygen could represent an additional demand to the LSAM
refueling.

Figure 2-6: Sortie missions at Aristarchus Plateau (Stevens 2007)

Future Landings: International Cooperation

As described in Section 2.1.1, the roadmaps of other countries are not
as detailed as NASA’s. At the exception of ESA which describes that its
robotic program will focus on the equatorial regions, there are no
details regarding location. Therefore, it is assumed that as part of their
international cooperation with NASA, these countries will land at the
same sites as those selected by NASA. Similarly, these countries are
assumed to use NASA’s outpost, or build their complementary
modules, much like for the ISS.
Future Landings: China and the Unidentified Third Party
Given that as of today, the plans of all agencies to return to the Moon,
including that of China, are science-driven; China and the unidentified

33
Full Moon

third party are assumed to have the same sites of interest as NASA.
However, they are assumed to have build at one point a base of their
own at the South Pole, for similar reasons to NASA’s, much like bases
from different countries are close to each other in Antarctica.
Future Landings: Private Enterprise and Space Tourism
It is difficult to predict which private industries would spawn on the
Moon as agencies invest in the infrastructure. In any case, their activity
would most probably center on that of a government-owned base,
which are all assumed to be built at the South Pole. Similarly, for space
tourism: in 2006, space tourism focused on sub-orbital flights and trips
to the ISS, but in the future these will undoubtedly expand to include
Moon-bound destinations. Only trips landing on the lunar surface are to
be considered in this report, and it is assumed that these would all be
destined to polar outposts for two reasons: firstly, one expects the rich
people to prefer the option of “living like an astronaut” than perform
experiments in the field; secondly, it would be cheaper for operators
given that the traffic will be greatest at the poles.
Market: Demand Analysis
In this part the demand analysis for the lunar fuel is made. Along with
the official roadmaps, a set of assumptions is laid down and based on
those the demand for LOX-GOX and LH2 on the Moon is estimated for
the years 2018-2047. Two main scenarios are developed. The ‘baseline’
scenario, which takes into account landings on the Moon and Lunar
outposts from NASA and other agencies. The ‘optimistic’ scenario is the
‘baseline’ with the addition of demand of other parties like China and
for Mars exploration after 2035.

2.1.3Demand Scenario General Framework

Two demand scenarios are considered: baseline and optimistic.
Baseline Scenario
As mentioned in Section 2.1.1 the most likely scheme of lunar
exploration is a multinational cooperation led by NASA, in a similar way
as the ISS. Willing to return to the Moon in 2018 and develop an
outpost on the Moon after 2022, NASA will develop all the technologies
lying in the ‘critical path’: transportation and crew vehicles, ISRU,
standardization and interfaces, outpost infrastructure, communications
(NASA 2005). The rest of the agencies (ESA, CSA, JAXA, and ISRO) are
expected to provide modules on the lunar outpost, provide logistics
support and conduct their own research on the lunar surface via barter
agreements. Russia could have a more active role, by developing a
transport vehicle also, but in our analysis RSA is included in the
‘international partners’ of NASA, as the roadmaps of RSA are unclear
and mainly coming from private companies (NPO Energia) and not RSA
itself (see also 2.1.1).
China is considered to follow an individual path in exploration and
outpost development after 2030. The Chinese effort is considered to be
half that of NASA. This is an assumption, as there is no official
governmental announcement. China is included only in the business
‘high demand’ scenario for two reasons:

34
 • May want to develop own ISRU capabilities or be independent
from western supplies. Based on the current status of China-US
relations, it seems highly unlikely that China will buy supplies
from a NASA led consortium.
• As mentioned, it is not in the governmental plans yet to go to
land humans on the Moon. China could be a potential competitor
of supplies on the Moon.
A third party that is not identified today is also included in the
scenarios after 2030. Their effort could be based in already developed
technology of other countries by 2030, in a similar way that China is
currently using Russian technology for LEO flights. The third party is, as
China, included only in the ‘high demand’ scenario, as it is uncertain
and could be supplied by China.
Space tourism and private flights, are considered to take place after
2030, with destination the outpost. As the there are no definite plans, a
conservative assumption has been made that there will be a single
tourist flight to the Moon every year. Based on the tourists flying on the
ISS, and the order of magnitude higher cost of landing on the Moon, it
seems unlikely that there will be high traffic of tourists to the Moon.
The Optimistic Scenario
It is clearly stated both in the ESAS report (2005) and the VSE (2004)
that the Moon is the first step to go to ‘Mars and Beyond’. Mars human
exploration is planned for after 2035 in the NASA roadmap with a
vague architecture. In this context, lunar fuel for Mars exploration is
weighted as more realistic to raise the demand by an order of
magnitude, to examine the business case, than considering a very high
traffic between Earth and Moon. High traffic to the Moon would suggest
some kind of commercial exploitation of the Moon, which has the same
level of uncertainty with exploring Mars.
Mars exploration is assumed to begin from the Moon. This includes a
refuel station in Moon-Earth L1, and the transportation of fuel from the
lunar surface.
Mars exploration is too far in the future, and there is no definite
information in NASA and ESA roadmaps to make a solid case. To have
an estimation of the market size for lunar fuel to go to Mars, indicative
data from ESA report are used (Casini 2006), for 20 t payload delivery
to Mars using cryogenic stage fuelled from lunar fuel. The mating of
the cryogenic stage for Mars delivery and the payload is made in L1 or
LEO. In the case nuclear propulsion is used, with LH2 as propellant
(Hoffman 1997) the order of magnitude of propellant is the same
(~100 tonnes per mission) from a refuel L1 depot to Mars.
In the high demand business case, the numbers after 2035 are to
indicate an order of magnitude increase of demand, to examine the
business case, and cannot be taken as absolute values.

2.1.4Timeline Selection
A basic assumption to base the analysis is that agency roadmaps for
the Moon exploration in the 21st century go as currently planned.

35
Full Moon

Timeline for the analysis is 2018-2047. In 2018 the science NASA

landings on the lunar surface start. In 2023 the building of lunar
outpost is starting. From 2023 the demand of LOX/LH2/GOX is constant
for NASA given that NASA switches from building to servicing the
outpost. 2027 is the year into business, as there is time needed for
testing of ISRU (Sanders 2007). From this date 20 years are added to
form a business case thus the timeline of the analysis finishes in 2047.
Timeline of the analysis spans 40 years from now (2007-2047) which is
a very long time for which to predict accurate numbers.

2.1.5Demand from Landings

Lunar landings are assumed to be made with the currently proposed
LSAM vehicle (ESAS 2005). Future lunar operations, from all parties,
and tourism flights are assumed to use LSAM or LSAM-equivalent
vehicles (Figure 2-7). The amount of fuel needed, shouldn’t vary
considerably if there are different designs from different parties. In any
case LSAM design is not frozen and the figures provided in literature
may change considerably in the development phase. For this reason
differentiating between party landings doesn’t seem to make any
sense at this time, and the use of LSAM equivalent is considered to be
the simples and safest solution for the type of analysis attempted. The
assumed landings are summarized in Table 2-4. LOX and LH2 needed
per LSAM ascent vehicle is summarized in Table 2-5 below.

Figure 2-7: The LSAM (ESAS 2005)

36
 Table 2-4: Landings on the Moon per party and date
Landings/y
Party Period Type Source
ear
Science on
2018- Moon,
NASA (early) 2 (ESAS 2005)
2022 extensive
EVAs
Crew shifts
on outpost,
NASA 2023-
4 4 (ESAS 2005)
(outpost) 2047
permanent
crew
Assumption
International
2023- Science on based on
Partners to 1
2027 Moon relevant
NASA (early)
budgets
International
Based on
Partners to 2027- Crew shifts
2 ISS historical
NASA 2047 on outpost
data
(outpost)
Assumption
2030- Science on
China (early) 1 – half the
2035 Moon
NASA effort
Assumption
China 2035- Crew shifts
2 – half the
(outpost) 2047 on outpost
NASA effort
Third Party 2030- Science on
1 Assumption
(early) 2035 Moon
Third Party 2035- Crew shifts
2 Assumption
(outpost) 2047 on outpost
Assumption,
Space comparable
2030-
Tourism/Privat 1 Tourism to ISS
2047
e tourism
flights
Technical Aspects of Landing
Propulsion for the CEV service module (SM) and LSAM ascent module is
common in the ESAS report, based on LOX/LCH4 (liquid oxygen/liquid
methane), to aid in the aim of Martian exploration as CH 4 can be
produced using ISRU on Mars (ESAS 2005). Technology readiness of
LOX/LCH4 propulsion is low and in order to achieve the maturity and
safety needed for lunar exploration, it has to be tested extensively on
the ground and in the early flight of CEV to the ISS. Recently though
and after the publication of the ESAS report, there are indications of
shifting the propulsion to LOX/LH2 or other than LCH4 storable
propellants. For the analysis attempted hereafter, LOX/LH2 propulsion
is considered for the LSAM. The amount of propellants needed for a
LOX/LH2 reference engine is calculated using the Tsiolkovsky equation
(Table 2-5). Mass break-down for the ascent stage of the LSAM can be
found in the appendix, along with small discussion on oxidizer to fuel
ratio.

37
Full Moon

Table 2-5: LSAM and LSAM equivalent ascent stage propellant demand
per vehicle
Oxidizer: Propella Oxidize
Type of Fuel
fuel ratio nt r
propulsion [kg]
(Isp) [kg] [kg]
LOX/LCH4 LSAM
3.5:1 (363) 4 715 3 667 1 048
(NASA 2005)
∆u
Isp⋅ g o , mo=initial
Using Tsiolkovsky Equation:
mo = m1 ⋅ e
total mass, m1=final total mass, ISP=specific impulse,
go=9.81m/s2,
LOX/LH2 LSAM
8:1 (410) 4 134 3 644 456
(estimate)

2.1.6Demand from Life Support

GOX for LSAM and LSAM-equivalent sortie landings is also calculated
based on the standard consumption (Wieland 1994). EVA activities of a
seven day sortie consider the four hours EVA the first and last day,
eight hours EVA for the rest five days by all crew members (ESAS
2005).
Table 2-6: Gaseous oxygen needed for a seven-day, four crew sortie
mission (ESAS 2005)
Hours -
Activity Days
crew
First and last day 4 hours - 4
2
EVA crew
8 hours - 4
Sortie days EVA 5
crew
Total gaseous
24.5 kg
oxygen
Cargo flights for the outpost build-up are not considered to use lunar
fuel. For the development of the outpost expendable vehicles and
landers are expected to be used.

2.1.7Demand from Outposts

The transportation vehicle is provided by the US (STS) and all modules
were made to fit the STS orbiter. Crew rotation is made by both US
(STS) and Russia (Soyuz TMA) vehicles. A similar scheme is assumed to
be applied in the lunar outpost development and utilization. The United
States already plans to develop the transportation infrastructure and
the landing vehicles for the Moon (ESAS 2005).
Table 2-7: Outposts considered in the analysis (ESAS 2005)

38
 Astrona
Party Period Source
uts
2022-
NASA 4 (NASA 2005)
2047
2035- Assumption, half the NASA
China 2
2047 effort
Third 2035-
2 Assumption
Party 2047
It is not clear what happens to the lunar outpost after 2030 on the
official plans (ESAS 2005). Other sources mention it should pass to
private funds (Sanders 2007). In any case, for this analysis, landings
are considered to happen at the same rate throughout the timeline. At
this point we make the assumption that traffic to the Moon and size of
lunar outpost, are small and not developing over time, as indicated by
historical data of LEO space stations versus expectations.
Outpost Technical Aspects
Lunar outposts are considered to support two to four astronauts in a
constant basis (four in NASA case, two for China - Third party), and the
GOX demand is based on a standard consumption for IVA and EVA
(Wieland 1994). No oxygen loss due to airlocks, leaks or other reasons
are considered. EVAs are made by team of two (NASA 2005). The week-
plan on which the calculations are based can be found in the Appendix
A. In Table 2-8 oxygen consumption rates and GOX need per crew and
year are summarized. These values are used an as average to estimate
the GOX demand of lunar outpost in the analysis scenarios.
Table 2-8: Gaseous oxygen (GOX) for outpost demand calculation
EVA Consumption 0.96 High metabolic rate
Rate kg/crew/day (Wieland 1994)
IVA Consumption 0.84 Normal metabolic rate
Rate kg/crew/day (Wieland 1994)
No leaks, airlocks and other
Outpost
310 kg/0.31 t loss, only breathable oxygen
need/crew/year
calculated
It should be noted that the amount of GOX needed is calculated from
other sources to be higher (Sanders 2007), almost double. In this
analysis though, the amounts calculated with our method are used.

2.2Demand Graphs
Some graphs of the demand along the timeline with the assumptions
discussed, are presented in the following pages. Business-cases
specific graphs are included in Chapter 5.

39
Full Moon

LOX baseline annual demand

40.0

30.0
LOX [tonnes]

20.0

10.0

0.0
19

23

28

33

37

46
22

31

35

40

45
20

21

24

25

26

29

30

34

38

39

42

43

44

47
18

27

32

36

41
20

20

20

20

20

20
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Calendar year

NASA LSAM LOX International Partners landings LOX CHINA Landings LOX Tourism/private sector landings LOX 3rd party landings LOX

Figure 2-8: Annual LOX demand in tonnes

LOX optimistic annual demand

150.0
140.0
130.0
120.0
110.0
100.0
LOX [tonnes]

90.0
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
18

22

23

24

28

29

32

33

38

39

43

44
19

20

21

25

26

27

30

31

34

35

36

37

40

41

42

45

46

47
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Calendar year

NASA LSAM LOX International Partners landings LOX CHINA Landings LOX
Tourism/private sector landings LOX 3rd party landings LOX Mars exploration LOX

Figure 2-9: Optimistic LOX demand in tonnes

40
 LH2 baseline annual demand

5.0

4.0
LH2 [tonnes]

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
18

25

26

36

41

43
24

31

32

39

46

47
19

20

22

23

27

30

33

34

35

37

38

40

42

45
21

28

29

44
20

20

20

20

20

20
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20
Calendar year

NASA LSAM LH2 International Partners landings LH2 CHINA Landings LH2 Tourism/private sector landings LH2 3rd party landings LH2

Figure 2-10: Baseline LH2 demand in tonnes

LH2 optimistic annual demand

20.0
LH2 [tonnes]

10.0

0.0
19

25

35

41
18

23

28

38

44
20

21

22

26

27

30

31

32

33

36

37

42

43

46

47
24

29

34

39

40

45
20

20

20

20
20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

Calendar year

NASA LSAM LH2 International Partners landings LH2 CHINA Landings LH2
Tourism/private sector landings LH2 3rd party landings LH2 Mars exploration LH2

Figure 2-11: Optimistic LH2 demand in tonnes

2.3Constraint from Competitors

Now that the demand has been established, it is necessary to assess
the threat from competitors. In the case of lunar refueling, competition
will come in three forms: direct competition from competitors selling
similar products; competition from other resources on the Moon; and
competition from Earth-based products.
Given that servicing would only start in 20 years time it is difficult to
predict what the direct competition will be like, but one expects few
competitors given the high investment costs necessary. As of today
one can already identify a potential competitor: Stone Aerospace, a
Texas-based company, recently announced plans to produce oxygen on
the Moon for a Low Earth Orbit (LEO) refueling depot by 2015 (Malik

41
Full Moon

2007). Although the timeline seems unrealistic, the realization of such

a project would be a serious threat given that they would use the same
production facilities and would only need to diversify to steal market
shares. However, this could also be an opportunity for a joint venture
to reduce investment and operations costs.
Similarly, it is difficult to predict what other resource could drive lunar
and space exploration. Potential competitors could be 3He, ISRU metals
or solar power, but the technical superiority and financial feasibility of
some of these still need to be demonstrated.
Concerning competition from Earth, this will depend on the evolution of
launching costs from Earth. Importing oxygen and hydrogen could be
an alternative to ISRU production, and this is considered in Chapter 5.

2.4Constraints of Lunar Topography

Given that the topography is critical to the delivery architecture, it is
important to give it special attention. Below is a map of the lunar
topography Figure 2-12.

Figure 2-12: Near and far side lunar topography

(http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/clemen/clemen.html)
From Figure 2-12 several geological observations can be made:
• The Moon can be crudely identified as being composed of Mare
and Highland regions. The Mare are basaltic plains formed by
ancient volcanic eruptions, which given their iron-rich content
appear dark to the naked-eye. They cover about 16% of the total
lunar surface, mostly on the near-side’s upper-left quadrant
(blue/dark-grey regions in map above). Given that they are low-
lying, relatively flat regions, covered by four to five m deep
regolith (Heiken et al 1991) they are reasonably easily travelable
by rovers. It is important to note that not all low-lying regions are

42
 Mare, such as the far-side’s South Pole-Aitken Basin
(blue/purple/dark-grey zones).
• In contrast, the Highlands are the more elevated regions (green,
yellow, red/light-grey colors) and are generally heavily cratered
given their greater geological age (1-4.2 billion years). Apart from
steep-sided craters which expose bedrock, the regions are also
recovered by regolith, albeit rich in Anorthosites which makes the
Highland regions appear brighter to the naked eye. Given that
the Moon only exposes its near-side to the Earth, the far-side has
served over the years as a meteorite shield, and explains why
the far-side is significantly more cratered. Transportation-wise
this has two implications: the terrain is impractical to travel
through, and the probability of a meteorite impact is greater.
• Other geological features exist such as Rilles (lava channels),
Domes, Wrinkle-ridges and Graben, but given that they can only
be observed at a local scale, they are deemed to be a challenge
only at a local level, which is beyond the “global picture” of this
report. Lastly, as can be seen in any Apollo picture, it is essential
to remember that in all regions, the lunar surface is jotted with
boulders, which makes traveling more sinuous.
• Lastly, it is important to realize from Figure 2-12 the rapid
changes in altitude that are present on the Moon. This is
particularly true on the far-side as both the lowest and highest
points exist there (respectively -8 km altitude for the South Pole-
Aitken Basin and +8 km for the Leibnitz range (Wlasuk 2000)).
Yet again these are parameters to consider when examining
possible transportation systems.

2.5Constraints of the Lunar Environment

In addition to the topography, several key factors of the environment
will affect the delivery and storage architecture, namely:
• Illumination levels:
• With day/night cycles every 14 days the equatorial regions
prevent the use of solar power on a continuous basis.
• On the other hand, the equator receives up to 70% constant
illumination (Figure 2-4, page 31), which allows extensive use of
solar power and incremental build-up of the infrastructure. The
only downfall is the low sun inclination which causes problems for
judging distances (ESAS 2005).
• Strong thermal variations occur as a consequence of the varying
sunlight conditions:
• The equator’s temperature varies between 93 K and 373 K, while
at the equator temperatures are near-constant at 223 K ± 10 K.
However, in permanently shadowed craters temperatures are
almost cryogenic (50 K), which could cause problems when
operating machinery.
• The lack of atmosphere:

43
Full Moon

• Radiation levels are high without an atmosphere to shield,

requiring all machinery to be radiation-resistant, thereby
increasing their price.
• The near-vacuum condition requires that everything be
pressurized.
• Lunar dust:
• The dust will penetrate everywhere and interfere with machinery,
while its abrasiveness damages fabric.
• Telecommunications issues:
• Operations at the South Pole and on the Far-Side require satellite
relays since they are out of sight of the Earth. As part of its
outpost infrastructure, NASA plans to deploy such systems and it
is assumed these can be used for the delivery and storage
infrastructure proposed.

2.6Constraints from Resource Availability

Now that the conditions on the Moon have been examined it is
necessary to examine the availability of resources. Based on equatorial
samples from the Apollo, Luna and Surveyor missions, remote sensing
data from Lunar Prospector, Clementine and SMART-1, along with
earth-based astronomy scientists have been able to map, on a global
level, the resources available on the Moon (Sanders et al. 2006).

2.6.1Resource Availability: Oxygen

Table 2-9 below identifies the minerals present on the Moon, and
indicates the abundance of oxygen on the Moon.
Table 2-9: Lunar surface average regolith composition (Sanders et al.
2006)
Lunar Surface Average
Regolith
Weight %
Mineral
[Sub-wt %]

Ilmenite 15%
FeO•TiO2 (98.5%)
Pyroxene 50%
CaO•SiO2 (36.7%)
MgO•SiO2 (29.2%)
FeO•SiO2 (17.6%)
Al2O3•SiO2 (9.6%)
TiO2•SiO2 (6.9%)
Olivine 15%
2MgO•SiO2 (56.6%)
2FeO•SiO2 (42.7%)
Anorthite 20%
CaO•Al2O3•Si (97.7%)
O2
As indicated in Table 2-9, oxygen is the most abundant element on the
Moon, which bodes well for lunar-oxygen refueling business. However,

44
it is present as a chemical compound and thus must be chemically
extracted, which potentially requires large amounts of energy. The only
differences between the Mare and Highland regions are the types of
minerals present, which implies that different production methods
should be used according to the region (see Section 2.7). In addition,
different by-products could be obtained, but given that this report
focuses solely on storage and delivery and not on production, this
aspect becomes a secondary driver in terms of choosing the location
for the infrastructure. Lastly, the depth of the regolith, respectively at
4-5 m in the Mare and 10-15 m in the highlands, implies that in terms
of extractable volume, the highlands are more interesting, although the
more rugged terrain mentioned earlier could pose a greater problem.
Resource Availability: Hydrogen
In contrast to oxygen, hydrogen is absent from the chemical
composition of the regolith (Table 2-9). Instead, as confirmed by Apollo
samples, hydrogen is found as a solar-wind implanted volatile, as
shown in Table 2-10.
Table 2-10: Concentration of solar-wind implanted volatiles in regolith
(Sanders et al. 2006)
Solar-Wind Implanted Concentration
Volatile [ppm]
Hydrogen (H2) 50 – 100
Carbon (C) 100 – 150
Nitrogen (N2) 50 – 100
Helium (He) 3 – 50
3
He 0.004 – 0.02
As it can be observed the proportions are small, making extraction
difficult.
Resource Availability: Water Ice
Remote sensing measurements from Lunar Prospector, Clementine,
SMART-1 and from Earth have shown much higher hydrogen
concentrations than average at the poles and in permanently
shadowed craters, as shown in Table 2-11 and Figure 2-13 below.
Table 2-11: Hydrogen volatile concentration in polar regolith (Sanders
et al. 2006)
Concentration
Volatile
[ppm]
Hydrogen
(poles & permanently 1 500 ± 800
shadowed craters)

45
Full Moon

Figure 2-13: Epithermal neutron flux at lunar poles

(http://lunar.lanl.gov/pages/water.html)
Note: Hydrogen concentration is inferred from this data
The fact that this hydrogen is present at the poles and permanently
shadowed craters has sparked the controversy that this hydrogen
could be in the form of water ice (H2O). The reasons are the following:
• It is known that the Moon has no stable surface water due to the
lack of an atmosphere that would prevent water molecules from
dissociating upon exposure to the Sun’s ultraviolet radiation.
However, permanently shadowed craters, particularly at the
poles, receive light only from space and the lunar interior, which
would allow for “cold traps” to exist where ice could remain
stable for indefinite time spans.
• This water could have been deposited within the craters by the
very same meteorites that created them upon impact, and which
are known to be rich in water ice.
• The controversy is two-fold: firstly, whether this detected
hydrogen compound is water at all; secondly, upon the detection
methods used for estimating the quantity (see Appendix A for
discussion on the controversy). Lunar Prospector and SMART-1
purposely crashed in such regions in order to confirm the
presence of water ice but results were unsatisfactory. Future
missions such as NASA Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) and
ISRO Chandrayaan-1, both in 2008, aim to confirm this matter,
but as Dr. Bill Larson from NASA commented during a
teleconference on the 23rd April 2007 “Until we get a robot to go
there and scoop the ice out and bring it back to Earth, the
controversy will remain”. No such missions are currently planned.
If this polar hydrogen was indeed ice, this implies that it would
represent 1.5±0.8 wt% of the regolith, representing a total quantity of
2∙109 tonnes of water if all the hydrogen were water, or 200∙106 tonnes
if considering only permanently shaded areas (Javier and Michael
2006), both of which are sufficient for commercial exploitation. From

46
Figure 2-13, North Pole could hold the most water given that it has the
highest hydrogen concentration, but South Pole has the largest craters,
thus the largest permanently shadowed area. The latter theory is
deemed the most accurate by the scientific community and explains
why the South Pole is preferred over the northern one for construction
of an outpost.
Finally, given that water is composed of both oxygen and hydrogen,
and that electrolysis is a well-known relatively low energy process,
implies that perhaps only exploitation of water ice is necessary for
production of oxygen and hydrogen, at the detriment of extracting
oxygen or hydrogen volatiles from the regolith (this is discussed in
Section 2.7).

2.7Constraints of Production
Recalling Chapter 1 the topic of this report focuses only the storage
and delivery aspects of lunar surface refueling. However, given that
storage and delivery are intrinsically linked to production, it is
necessary to perform a brief overview of production, such that
accurate production prices and production rates are used as inputs.
For oxygen and hydrogen production, NASA is currently developing the
following techniques (Sanders 2007):
• Oxygen extraction via chemical reduction of the regolith.
Different methods apply to different minerals, which appear in
varying quantities across the Moon. The current plan is to deploy
a pilot-plant in 2023 and test it until 2027, date at which the
technology will be mature enough to produce 10 tonnes of
oxygen per year, per production unit (Sanders 2007).
• Hydrogen and ice-water volatile extraction from regolith.
Hydrogen-volatile extraction can be performed anywhere on the
Moon, while water extraction can only occur in permanently
shadowed craters at the poles. Deployment plans depend very
much on the confirmation of the presence of water on the Moon
by the Robotic Lunar Exploration Program (RLEP) in 2008 and
lunar sortie missions in 2018 (Sanders 2007).
These methods will be explained in further detail in the upcoming
sections, but it is important to remember that several hurdles remain in
the development of lunar ISRU due to incomplete knowledge of lunar
regolith properties related to excavation and transportation; and the
high autonomy and reliability required for the machinery.
Production: Oxygen from Regolith
According to Sanders (2007) mining oxygen from anywhere on the
Moon will require:
• Excavating regolith from the mining site and transporting it to
processing chambers. As explained by Sanders (2007) the latest
design by the Colorado School of Mines and the Northern Center
for Advanced Technology (NORCAT) have demonstrated high
excavation rates up to 150 kg of regolith per hour for a total
mass of less than 50 kg (see Figure 2-14 below), to which one

47
Full Moon

must 150 kg for support hardware allocations and on-board

power system.
• Excavation needs to be followed by pre-processing duties such as
regolith sorting, crushing and/or beneficiation2
• Chemically, electrically and/or thermally extracting oxygen from
the mineral compounds present in the regolith
• Removing and recycling the reagents used
• Collecting and purifying the oxygen produced for further storage
• Removing waste products out of the processing plant
• Potentially continue the processes for extraction of by-products
such as silicon, iron, titanium, etc. However, recalling that this
report focuses solely on storage and delivery and assumes that
production is performed by NASA (or one of its sub-contractors),
production of by-products are not relevant to this report.

Figure 2-14: Colorado School of Mines excavator prototype (NASA

2007)
Three extraction processes are currently under laboratory development
and evaluation at Sanders (2007), all of which have been extensively
studied in the “FERTILE Moon” ISU Team Project report 2006:
1) Hydrogen Reduction of Ilmenite, which is only worthwhile
performing in the Mare regions where Ilmenite proportions are
high. This is not compatible with setting up operations at the
South Pole as desired in Section 2.1.2. Furthermore, the
chemical process requires an extra input of hydrogen, which if
not produced locally must be imported from Earth.
2) Carbothermal Reduction of silicates using Methane or Carbon
Monoxide. As silicates are abundant especially in the Highlands
and at the poles, this is a suitable method for oxygen production
at the South Pole. However, if one observes the equations
involved one will realize that if hydrogen is to be produced in
addition to oxygen a constant supply of methane or carbon
monoxide is necessary; or if all the methane/carbon monoxide is

2
In the mining industry beneficiation refers to a variety of processes where
extracted “ore” from mining is reduced to particles that can be separated into
mineral (for further processing) and waste.

48
 to be recovered in the process, then a constant input of
hydrogen is required.
3) Electrowinning of the regolith using Molten Silicate Electrolysis.
As opposed to the previous two methods which are purely
chemical, this is an electro-chemical process and requires no
additional reagents. This is a method of choice as all types of
regolith minerals can be processed, implying that this method is
suitable for production at the South Pole.
Table 2-12 gives a summary of their properties based on FERTILE
Moon (2006) and the latest technology developments at NASA
(Sanders 2007):
Table 2-12: ISRU processes for oxygen extraction from regolith
(FERTILE Moon 2006; Sanders 2007)
ISRU Regolit Reagen
Process h t Specifi Specifi
Efficien
(Oxygen excavat c c
cy5
from ion rate Output mass3 power4
regolith) [kg/h]
Hydrogen
reduction of H2(g)
Ilmenite 150 0.15 1.93 1.41%
(FERTILE O2(l)
Moon 2006)
Carbo- CH4(g)
thermal or
reduction of CO(g)
15 ~0.1 1.35 ~14%
Silicates
(Sanders O2(l)
2007)
Molten None
Silicates
Electrolysis 10 0.065 1.5 21.4%
(FERTILE O2(l)
Moon 2006)
As it can be observed from Table 2-12, molten silicate (SOx) electrolysis
is the ideal method as it requires the lightest production plant and has
the best extraction efficiency. At an excavation rate of 10 kg of regolith
per hour this represents, for a production of 10 tonnes of oxygen per
year, excavating a football/soccer field to a depth of 0.4 cm (0.04 m)
each year (based on example given in Sanders 2007). Considering that
the maximum baseline demand is of the order of 40 tonnes of oxygen
per year (Section 2.1.2), this means that four football fields would have
to be harvested per year to a depth of 0.4 cm (0.04 m), which is an
insignificant surface area in industrial terms, and implies that
production can remain close to the base.

3
MassFacility (t )
ProductionRate (t / year )
4
Plant Power ( kW )
Production Rate (t / year )
5
Mass Product (kg )
MassFeedstock (kg )

49
Full Moon

In terms of power supply, building of the infrastructure at the poles

implies that there is potential for 70-80% yearly constant illumination,
making solar panels a solution of choice, which is in accordance with
NASA’s outpost-building plans (NASA 2005, 2007). From FERTILE Moon
(2006), a solar power system on the Moon will produce power at a
minimum rate of 1.82 kW/m2 and will weigh 3.02 kg/kW. Thus, a molten
silicate electrolysis plant producing 10 tonnes of oxygen per year will
weight 650 kg and require 15 kW of power, to be provided by 8.24 m2
of solar panels, weighing 45.3 kg. It follows that as the demand grows
new production plants or expansions will have to be built, along with
new power supplies.

2.7.1Production: Oxygen & Hydrogen from Water

Ice
As described in FERTILE Moon (2006) the actual process of water ice
extraction is relatively simple, requiring heating of the regolith at low
temperatures (< 873 K) for the water ice volatile to escape. It is then
captured and made to condense as liquid water. This water is then
electrolyzed into hydrogen and oxygen, which compared to the
previous three methods, is an energy-cheap process. However, the
major difficulty remains in operating machinery in the high vacuum,
40-100 K temperature environment offered by the permanently
shadowed craters at the poles.
Based on Blair (2002) and FERTILE Moon (2006) the properties of such
a production facility are summarized in Table 2-13 below:
Table 2-13: Processes for oxygen and hydrogen extraction from ice
(Blair 2002; FERTILE Moon 2006)
ISRU
Required Specific Specific
Process
regolith Mass Power
(Oxygen Outp Efficien
excavation [per [per
and ut cy
rate tonne tonne
Hydrogen
[kg/h] H2O) H2O]
from ice)
Water
extraction
from
regolith 210 H2O(l) 0.039 16.4 1%
(FERTILE
Moon
2006)
Electrolysi
s, H2(l) 11.1%
liquefactio
n&
N/A 0.01061 0.8
liquefier
radiator O2(l) 88.9%
(Blair
2002)
Total H2(l) 0.111%
extraction 210 0.0496 17.2
O2(l) 0.889%
process

50
From Table 2-13, the production plant as a whole is slightly lighter than
the oxygen production plants, at the expense though of a 12 times
higher energy consumption. However, the main advantage remains
that both oxygen and hydrogen are produced, which may outweigh the
energy issue given that solar power can easily be harnessed at the
poles. In terms of harvesting area, a 10 tonnes production of oxygen
per year would require excavation of 21 football fields to a depth of
0.4 cm (0.04 m) (or one football field to a depth of 8.4 cm - 0.084 m).
This would also produce 1.25 tonnes of hydrogen in the process.

2.7.2Production: Hydrogen from Solar-Wind

Implanted Volatiles
The extraction of solar-wind implanted hydrogen follows the same
process as extracting water ice volatiles; except that the regolith needs
to be heated up to 1 173 K (see FERTILE Moon 2006 for further details).
For that reason the method is more energy expensive as can be seen in
Table 2-14 below. It is important to note that the energy consumption
per kilogram of regolith is highly dependent on the assumed
concentration of hydrogen entrapped. Numbers given here are for the
equatorial concentration of 1 500±800 ppm.
Table 2-14: Extraction process of solar-wind-implanted H2 from
regolith (FERTILE Moon 2006)
Outpu Specific Specific Efficien
ISRU Process
t Mass Power cy
Hydrogen
H2 3.4 124 0.004%
Extraction
Table 2-14 clearly indicates that extracting hydrogen from solar-
implanted volatiles is an energy consuming process. Producing 1.25
tonnes of hydrogen per year would require 155 kW which is more than
ten times more the energy needed to produce ten tonnes per year of
oxygen using molten silicate electrolysis mentioned earlier; not to
mention that the production plant would weight 6.5 times more! This
suggests that perhaps extraction of hydrogen in this manner is
uneconomical, as claimed by Blair (2002).

2.8Findings: Production Scenarios

Based on this research, it can be assumed that NASA will build a base
at the South Pole and that the other countries will follow. Since the
majority of the demand is at the pole, it was decided to produce at the
poles too, thereby making use of NASA facilities and satisfying the US
philosophy of fostering private enterprise.
With that decision in mind, two production scenarios were identified
depending on the presence of ice:
• In the case that ice is confirmed, oxygen and hydrogen will be
produced from melting of the ice and electrolysis of the water
• If there is no ice, only oxygen is produced using Molten Silicate
Electrolysis as it is efficient and requires no reagents. It is thus
assumed that hydrogen is imported from Earth

51
Full Moon

In either case it was demonstrated that only a small area needs to be

harvested on a yearly basis to satisfy demand.
In addition, based on the agency roadmaps two demand scenarios
were identified: a baseline scenario and an optimistic one.
This implies that in total four scenarios are to be considered as shown
in Table 2-15 below.
Table 2-15: The four economic scenarios to be analyzed within the
report
Resource Availability
Demand
Ice No-Ice
Oxygen &
Oxygen
hydrogen
production
production
Baseline <40 tonnes/year
<45 tonnes/year
molten silicate
total
electrolysis
water electrolysis
Oxygen & Oxygen
Hydrogen production
Optimisti production <140
c <165 tonnes/year tonnes/year
total molten silicate
water electrolysis electrolysis
It is then the role of the system architecture to satisfy these scenarios
within the constraints laid by the lunar environment, and determine
their financial viability.
Lastly, it is important to note that hydrogen extraction from solar-wind
volatiles has been omitted from the “No-Ice” scenario, since it would
require an extremely expensive infrastructure to satisfy a small
demand of the order of five tonnes per year for the baseline scenario
and 20 tonnes for the optimistic scenario. In the “No-Ice” case, it is
assumed that hydrogen is supplied from Earth, but distributed using
the same oxygen delivery infrastructure.

52
_____________________________________Chapter 3

3 Architecture Assessment

LOX and LH2 storage and delivery solutions for the Moon are not mere
transfers of Earth or microgravity space technology, however one
should learn from the meticulous lessons previously learned. Materials,
energy requirements and the challenges specific to the lunar
environment have to be assessed. In this chapter, the challenges of
storing oxygen and hydrogen on the lunar surface are discussed. One
must determine which materials can be used to survive this extreme
environment, whilst providing a cost effective storage capability,
keeping the product contaminant free and ready for use.
Delivery must make the storage solution useful, mobile and adaptable
to market demands it must serve. In order to do this, analytical tools
will be used. Those will be based on criteria one can predict, such as
complexity of devices and technology readiness levels.
There are specific ideas and solutions regarding storing and mobility on
the Moon and these obviously should be considered when identifying
potential solutions for the currently planned and future direction of
human utilization of the Moon. Building on this, the trade space of how
to mobilize the storage solutions and then find a way to trade off
merits and disadvantages of future term solutions have to be defined.
This is a problem of predicting future developments and technology
readiness, compared to the standard approach of trading off existing
technologies on their historical performance and profitability.
One must analyze the harsh realities of storage and transportation on
the lunar surface of hydrogen and oxygen, specifically focusing on the
challenges of the lunar environment. The following section discusses
the challenges of storage and delivery in the various forms, be that
gaseous, cryogenic liquid, or perhaps more simply as liquid or ice
water, with special regard for the specific problems associated with the
lunar environment and marries this storage form with a workable
delivery solution.

3.1Challenges of Lunar Environment

The delivery and storage systems on the Moon hold specific
challenges. The Moon’s reduced gravity, the impinging radiation, near
vacuum environment and the rapidly changing thermal regimes must
all be considered. Lunar dust has been shown to be one of the biggest

53
challenges facing lunar exploration. NASA considers it to be one of the
harshest challenges humanity must tackle in returning to the Moon and
using it successfully (Allen 2007). Lunar seismic activities and magnetic
field effects on lunar surface systems are regarded as negligible and
are not discussed further.
Reduced but Apparent Gravity
Gravity on the Moon is 1/6th of that of Earth. This reduces the structural
requirements of all equipment and makes transport issues easier and
more energy efficient. For the storage and delivery of the propellants,
convection and evaporation although existing may need augmentation
by mechanical systems to overcome the surface tension effects and
laminar flows in fluids (pumps, vacuum feed, etc).
Radiation Environment
The Moon is not protected by a dense atmosphere and a
magnetosphere as Earth. This allows electromagnetic and ionizing
radiation to reach its surface. Electromagnetic radiation emitted by the
Sun is responsible for thermal variations. Ionizing radiation consisting
of solar wind, solar cosmic rays and galactic cosmic rays should be
considered when selecting materials and when designing automated
systems (Eckart 1999).
Lunar Atmosphere
The lunar atmosphere, or exosphere, is about 14 orders of magnitude
less dense than Earth’s atmosphere, thus vacuum conditions for
materials and thermal design (Eckart 1999). Vacuum, as with the space
environment of LEO, imposes stronger design criteria on tanks
solutions. Non-metallic materials outgassing and leaking are the most
pronounced.
Temperature
The Moon creates, in general, the very same thermal conditions as a
spacecraft has to deal in Earth orbit. The day-night cycle is 14 Earth
days. The Moon also has specific cases such as deep craters which
shield all sunlight around the year. Shadowed polar craters like the
Schackleton crater have an average temperature of 40 K. These
prolonged cold periods can be used to aid the system to be more
efficient, but, impose specific design requirements different than tanks
designed for orbit, as they are not optimized for long periods of
constant eclipse.
Table 3-16 below lists the estimated average temperature of different
locations and their monthly range.
Table 3-16: Lunar temperature range taken from (Eckart 1999; Heiken
1991)
Polar Equatorial
Shadow Othe Mid-
Fron L
ed r Back Latitudes
t imb
Craters
[K] [K] [K] [K] [K] [K]

54
 Average
220<T<25
Temperatur 40 220 254 256 255
5
e
Monthly
0 10 140 140 140 110
Range

Meteorites
Lunar surface is under constantly impacted by meteorites and
micrometeorites. The velocity of these objects hitting the Moon is in
between 13 km/s and 18 km/s. Although more data are required in
order to estimate actual risks of collision, it is obvious that such
collision would be disastrous to a storage or delivery system (Eckart
1999). Debris shields, energy absorbing materials and damage tolerant
structures, like the ones used in manned ISS modules today, could be
used in the critical components of the system under study.
Lunar Dust
Lunar dust has many damaging impacts on vehicles designed for
operation in space. On the other hand, regolith can be used as
radiation and meteoroid shielding as well as thermal insulation. One
problem is the sharpness of the individual grains because of the lack of
erosion effects, as there would be on Earth. Sharpness makes them
damaging to moving and sealing parts. This scratching of intimate
equipment compromises overall lifetime. Concerning continuous
operation in the lunar environment, lunar dust presents a highly
abrasive challenge and can be highly detrimental to certain materials.
Sealing materials, solar arrays, optical properties of surfaces and
thermal coatings can all be impaired by lunar dust.

3.2System Design Method

The delivery and storage systems must be designed for vacuum
environment. The choice between systems should not be limited to the
characteristics of individual technologies alone. These systems
interface with each other and with the production facilities and
consumers, which define their function. To be meaningful for agency
plans that encompass decades, the delivery and storage systems must
also be responsive to long term changes in agency goals and in the
market or the scale of operations.
To make the decision-making process less haphazard for our delivery
and storage systems, we considered using qualitative and quantitative
decision matrices and linear network modeling.
Our system selection process went through the following stages, as
illustrated in Figure 3-15.

55
 Figure 3-15: System selection methodology

3.2.1Qualitative Decision-Making
To choose which systems to research in more detail, a decision method
was developed to compare all the options using qualitative criteria with
a simple better/worse ranking.
This method is useful when little quantitative information is known
about the choices, but there is some general knowledge of each
system. Using a matrix format reduces prejudices towards “favorites”
and confusion between long lists.
The criteria were selected based on qualities that matched perceived
consumer needs and business drivers.
The spreadsheet tallied the results in a table illustrating the relative
ratings of each option and a net “ranking”. This method was useful for
quickly eliminating the extremely unsuitable options from a large
number of choices without detailed evaluations of individual criteria.
Based on this method, there is no “best” solution. Each of these
options may be optimal for one or more consumers in one market
phase or another. To choose rationally between these disparate
elements for the most reliable and economical solution, more
quantified information is needed. To that end, a quantitative method
was also developed.

3.2.2Quantitative Decision-Making
As more details of the systems became known, comparisons of options
were made quantitatively. While there is not enough data available in
literature for comparing, the complete life cycle costs of systems that
have never been built, some available quantities can be selected to
represent the key criteria identified by business and technical needs. To
evaluate the quantities according to the relative importance of the
parameters, they are first normalized and then weighted. A sample
calculation used in the Quantitative Decision Tool is shown in Equation
1.

56
 Equation 1: Sample parameter calculation
Parameter Quantity Normalize Weighted
d
power ( kW ) 1
× ×3
max ( Powersp )
OperationalEfficiency ≡

mass (kg )

The weights were determined by polling two groups of people – the

team project members and the ISU faculty. The standard deviation of
the weights was higher for the team members than for faculty. Finally,
this method is only suited to comparing the options for one system in
isolation. As stated in the beginning, the interfaces between system
elements (especially storage and delivery) must be considered as part
of a rational design.

3.2.3Futures: Supply Chain Modeling

A complex system with many governing criteria is best chosen based
on supply chain modeling. Supply chain modeling is a computer
method for representing real world scenarios, predicting outcomes and
optimizing a complete system.
A supply chain model describes the system in some detail, including a
consistent “utility function” (usually cost or performance metrics) for
each system component.
So, the final step for selecting a lunar cryogenic storage and delivery
system in this project was to combine the team knowledge in a
concurrent engineering session. While the system selection process did
not include optimization, by using a rough qualitative method to
eliminate the worst design choices early and a quantitative method to
compare the remaining options it was possible to narrow the scope of
work before beginning concurrent engineering and to develop useful
tools step-wise along with competence in designing these tools before
the most complex step of visualizing the system with a concurrent
engineering approach.

3.3Assessment of Storage Options on the

Lunar Surface
Storage systems must meet the challenges of a lunar environment.

57
 Figure 3-16: Storage element in the system architecture

3.3.1Challenges of Stored Materials

There are challenges inherent in coming up with a useful oxygen and
hydrogen storage solution on the Moon. An effective solution must be
delivered. It has to be cost effective based on minimizing energy input,
launch mass, and development cost, whilst maximizing the ability to
store the produced or supplied products on the Moon to maximum
efficiency.
First the three main types of storage have to be discussed: gaseous,
liquid (cryogenic), or water (combined, liquid or ice). Something
consistent with all lunar challenges is that there are no truly ideal
temperature ranges for any phase of storage, but on the other hand,
energy is needed to keep the chosen storage method within the
desired temperature range.
Gaseous
Gasses are far less dense than the liquid phase. Storing as a gas
means that less can be stored in a given volume. Since cryogenic
liquids vaporize too in the tank, dealing with cryogenic storage means
dealing with gaseous phase as well.
Cryogenic Liquids
Many space missions require large quantities of cryogenic
propellants.High-energy propulsion systems will be required for space
based transfer vehicles and manned lunar and Mars missions (Gaby
n.d.). Due to the high probability of their use, there continues to be a
strong interest in developing the technologies necessary for the
management of cryogenic fluids in space environment, although there
are significant challenges involved in their long-term storage.
A Definition of Cryogenic Storage
Cryogenic liquids are the ones stored between 7 K and 207 K with
boiling points below 183 K. For some elements, lower temperatures can
make them storable in the solid phase. The reason for doing this is the
increased density of the stored substance, allowing smaller tanking
solutions rather than larger vessels for liquids and gases.
Hazards associated with cryogenic liquids include human exposure
(cold burns / frostbite), material compatibility, high pressure,

58
explosions and implosions, toxicity and asphyxiation hazard (Desert
Research Institute 2007).
At temperatures above the critical temperature, it is impossible to keep
cryogenic liquids under pressure (see Appendix B for vapor pressure
and critical points of oxygen/hydrogen). The standard method used to
deal with such cryogenic fluids, is to permit a fraction of the liquid to
boil-off. Through this method the latent heat of vaporization taken from
the liquid keeps it at the appropriate temperature in the liquid state
(Turner 2005).
Cryogenic storage introduces technological problems regardless of the
tank location (Earth, orbit, Moon). Energy input is required in the
system to keep it within the temperature margins that keep fuel liquid
and allow for transfer through piping.
Storing cryogenic liquids adds extra hazards to an already complex
problem and the hazards to the crews that will come into close
proximity with these tanks need to be addressed. However this
decision can be based on the likely location where the tanks are
placed. If the tanks are to be positioned in the dark of craters of
constant shadow, the 40 K (Luna Gaia 2006) temperatures can be used
to keep LOX and LH2 almost passively, (Blair 2002). There will be a
need to actively cool the LH2 a further 10 K down to 30 K; however, the
temperature needs of the LOX are provided by the environmental
conditions. To put this in context, to store water in the same
environment requires raising its temperature by 237 K.
Before choosing the best solution for storing of gasses on the Moon,
the tried and tested ways the commercial and space sectors tackle the
problem on the Earth have to be identified.

3.3.2LOX Properties and Considerations

Liquid oxygen a strong oxidizer. It will react with nearly all organic
materials and metals, usually forming an oxide. One of the primary
concerns in the handling of cryogenic oxygen is the possibility of a
combustion reaction if the oxygen comes in contact with incompatible
materials; however, on the Moon this is less likely due to the lack of
ambient atmosphere. It can also cause many structural materials to
become brittle. LOX density is similar to that of water at 1.41 kg/m3.

3.3.3LH2 Properties and Considerations

Liquid hydrogen is an energetic fuel with the lowest atomic weight of
any substance. Its low density leads to large tanks, which a lunar
storage infrastructure must accommodate. Hydrogen is also known to
leak through materials due to its small molecular size. Organic
materials used in seals are particularly susceptible to these leaks,
therefore materials must be used that will ensure containment of
hydrogen in all storage tanks and transfer mechanisms, to alleviate
any and all safety concerns, and to prevent significant transfer losses
(Turner 2005).

59
3.3.4Thermal Control
Thermal control and regulation are necessary to assure proper
operation of the storage system. In considering thermal control
technologies, there are two main approaches to the problem: active
and passive. In short, active requires energy for operation, but offers a
greater range and tighter temperature control. Passive, on the other
hand, essentially uses intelligent designed technologies to transfer
heat and/or exclude heat naturally based on radiation, reflection or
conduction of the structures. The ability to regulate temperatures is
more limited due to the environmental regime the system operates in,
but overall costs less to run and can be more durable due to no
powered parts. In order to store LOX and LH2 in a cryogenic state,
tanks must be able to maintain a temperature of 20 K for LH2 and 90 K
for LOX. As a result, the temperature of the storage tank must be
regulated and controlled. Cryocoolers are devices needed to reach
cryogenic status. However, the cooling of the tanks can be favored by
the lunar environment since locations like the lunar South Pole have
ambient temperatures of 40 K6. In such regions, less power would be
needed to maintain the tanks at proper temperature. Placing the tanks
in other regions of the lunar surface would require greater amount of
power to cool down the tanks, as the difference between day and night
temperatures could vary as much as 250 K. Cooling failure of the tanks
can lead to pressure increase over the tank rupture limit.
Storage location depends on following criteria:
• Physical parameters like: temperature fluctuations on storage
sites, pressure and radiation
• Distance or nearness to production and fueling sites
• Operational parameters like: accessibility and dust.
To determine storage locations, it is needed to analyze the above
mentioned criteria based on two possible scenarios regarding water
existence on the lunar South Pole. If water ice exists on the lunar South
Pole then all the operations, from production to delivery, would be
executed on the lunar South Pole, including storage. If no ice/water
exists on the South Pole, storage location will change from the lunar
South Pole, since production and customer exploration sites in the long
term would be near the lunar equator. In case of using only South Pole
as storage location, LOX and LH2 will be stored, but not water. The best
possible storage location for LOX and LH2 at South Pole is the
Shackleton crater since it has both permanently illuminated and
shadowed areas. A detailed analysis of eclipse durations showed that
two areas close to the rim of Shackleton crater, only 10 km apart, are
collectively illuminated for more than 98% of the time (Fristad 2004).
These regions are close to several areas of probable permanent
shadow that may harbor ice deposits.
Storage tanks are designed to be transportable and usable anywhere
on the surface of the Moon. To satisfy design requirements, tanks have
to be able to sustain all possible temperatures in area between the
South Pole and equator and possibly beyond equator towards the North

6
By ‘ambient’ is meant, the temperature that a body reaches under the
conduction-radiation dominated heat transfer in vacuum conditions.

60
Pole. As shown in Table 3-16, temperature on the South Pole fluctuates
over a range of 183 K while in the equatorial area fluctuation is even
more, up to 250 K. Furthermore, to prevent boil off greater than
needed (0.1%), temperatures of fluids should not to vary more than
36 K for LOX and 6 K for LH2. These high demanding conditions require
the use of both passive and active cooling.
As LOX and LH2 have different physical properties, thermal control for
LOX tank will be somewhat different than for LH2. LH2 tank will need
stronger active cooling system than LOX tank what will result in higher
energy consumption. Following, is a description on the design of the
LOX tanks to satisfy the previously mentioned requirements.
Passive Thermal Control
As mentioned previously, passive thermal control system do not
require power to be functional. In that perspective, the general
recommendations for cryogenics storage are as following:
• Lightweight, low thermal conductivity cryogenic tank struts and
support concepts
• Low thermal conductivity cryogenic tank penetrations, i.e.,
instrumentation feed through, feed-lines, vent lines
• Lightweight, insulating thermal protection schemes for use on
the Moon
• LH2 tank needs to be protected from LOX tank in order to achieve
passive cooling
• Single shade can offer passive cooling protection for LOX tanks
(NASA 2003)
The proposed solution will depend on type of tank materials however, it
is suggested to have doubled and in some cases, triple tank walls. That
is due to the brittleness of materials at cryogenic temperatures, as
mentioned above, and the level of vaporization which should be
between 0.1% and 0.5% (Tolyarenko Personal Conversation 2007).
Because tanks will be very complex it will be required to use advanced
passive control management. Example of such a system is the
Cryogenic Operation for the Long-Duration (COLD) system. It comprises
of insulation plus some other features explained below:
• Vacuum Insulation Panels (VIP)
• Variable Density Multi-layer Insulation (VDMLI)
• Propellant Positional Management Devices or System (PPMD or
PPMS)
• Sun Shields (SS)
• Settled Pressure Control (see later)
As Kutter (2005) states, “COLD technologies enable passive 0.01% per
day boil off. COLD technology is affordable for early phases of long
term storage and can be combined easily with active thermal control to
support long term conditions exceeding one year. Combining both
systems could enable thermal protection for LOX and LH2 tanks which
in theory would last for an infinite lifetime. Table 3-17 below gives

61
lifetime of each of systems’ components. The COLD technologies
inserted into ICES will parallel the mission-duration needs (Kutter
2005).
Table 3-17: COLD technologies results from ICES: Mandatory = X,
Helpful = O (Id.).
Mission duration
COLD Technologies D Week Month
Year >Year
ays s s
Vacuum Panel Insulation X X X X X
Settled Pressure Control X X X X X
Vapor-cooled Points O X X X X
Variable Density MLI O O X X X
Propellant Position
O O X X X
Management System
Sun Shield O O X X X
Enhanced technologies
Pre-launch Sub Cooling O X X
0g Pressure Control O O X
Cryocooler O O X
The specific characteristic of some of COLD components are described
in the following sections.
Variable Density Multi-layer Insulation (VDMLI)
VDMLI is one of the best thermal insulations in a vacuum, having no
problems relating to density control and performance, application
labor, and difficulty covering small and large scales. It is based on
micro-machine or micro-molded structures as stated by NASA (2006).
VDMLI is an improved insulation which “should provide lower thermal
conductivity, lower specific thermal conductivity, vacuum compatibility,
layers inherently attached to each other that support themselves,
efficient assembly and provide structural reliability” as stated by (NASA
2007). Moldings techniques used for VDMLI guarantee low thermal
conductivity for materials and low outgassing.
VDMLI is improved MLI so it will still have interior and outer layers. As it
is very important to minimize the thermal impact from outside on fluids
inside, a very low absorptivity/emissivity (α/ε) ratio will be needed.
That can be achieved by using silvered Teflon as a surface finish on the
outer blanket layer as described by Gilmore (2002). As the author
explains further “when Teflon is used, however, it should be bonded to
a durable support material such as Kapton because Teflon will lose all
mechanical strength over time as a result of the effects of charged
particles and thermal cycling”.
Interior layers should be made of aluminized Mylar (aluminized from
both sides) to enable low emittance and generation of minimal amount
of particulate contaminants as stated by (Gilmore 2002). As suggested
by (Tolyarenko Personal Conversation 2007), Kapton and Dacron could
be options too.
Furthermore as an insulation system one should not neglect the micro
sphere insulation system consisting of microscopic glass spheres within
the inner vessel, vessel whose outer skin is made out of stainless steel

62
or aluminum. A heat transfer analysis will show that there has to be a
balance between the cryocooler capacity and the insulation thickness
mainly due to the shifting day night temperatures on the Moon.
Sun Shields
Mobile tank requires sun shields which can protect it both at the South
Pole and equator. As a solution two types of Sun Shields will need to be
used: one reflecting light from Sun and the other reflecting reflected
sunlight from the Earth. One solution proposed for this issue is to use
conical radiators which reflect sunlight directly into the space (Chui et
al. 2005). Each of these conical radiators would have inner radiator,
intermediate shield and conical sunshield.
It is important to mention that both types of radiators would be placed
on the tank.
One big problem for Sun Shields is lunar dust. During Apollo missions
astronauts had to clean it every couple of hours. Sophisticated and
long lasting solutions would have to be provided before Sun Shields
could be used.
Settled Pressure Control
As mentioned above, it is necessary to use pressure control to keep
cryogenic fluids in liquid state. LOX needs to be maintained at a
pressure of 5.03 MPa7, and LH2 at 1.30 MPa (Harvard University 2003).
Thus exceeding the critical pressure would cause rapture of the tanks
and explosion may occur. Maintaining high pressure, especially for LH2,
will decrease the cooling energy requirement, but needs thicker walls
to withstand the pressure, thus higher launch mass is required (see
appendix B for the vapor pressure of LOX and LH2). The trade off
between higher pressure and lower cooling requirement would have to
be examined more thoroughly. Necessary equipment includes sensors
which will be described later in this report.
Active Thermal Control
Active thermal control includes mainly cryocoolers. Refrigeration
Systems are active thermal control systems with the purpose of cooling
liquids to achieve liquefaction point, zero boil-off and densification of
cryogens. Some the proposed requirements include:
Cryocooler systems with cooling capacity greater than 10 W in the
10 K-40 K range
Small scale tank pressure control and/or integrated tank boil off control
and liquefaction technologies for liquid oxygen or liquid hydrogen
As an example for such system, analysis will be made on the Lockheed-
Martin four-stage cryocoolers developed for JPL’s Advanced Cryocooler
Technology Development Program (ACDTP).
• As previously mentioned, cryogenic tanks need less energy
consumption to regulate and maintain cryogenic temperature
when placed in the permanent shadow of the lunar South Pole
crater. Power consumption includes the power to transfer and
transport liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen to and from the
storage tanks. Thus a robust power infrastructure is necessary.
7
Pa = N/m2

63
Some options for the power could be regenerative fuel cells combined
with solar arrays, fission reactors and Radio Thermal Generators
(RTGs).

3.3.5Materials
With regards to materials, aluminum-lithium (Al-Li) alloys seem to be
the preferred solution. They are lighter8 than conventional aluminum
alloys and there is heritage from use in the tanks of the Space Shuttle
and aviation industry. Research has also shown that there is also
preference for Teflon, stainless steel for hydrogen tanks since it is
resistant against hydrogen brittleness. Also composite materials
especially for oxygen tanks can also be considered as solutions. The
usual shape of the tank is cylindrical with double wall. This inter-vessel
space is often used for insulation. There is an inter-tank shielding which
reduces the heat transfer from the oxygen tank to the hydrogen tank.
Shades shield are highly recommended and useful for protecting the
propellant tank from solar or planetary albedo and infrared radiation.
These shade shields work best when used together with Multi Layer
Insulation (MLI) blankets. When deciding to use Teflon as a shell or
outer casing material a desired option is to use FOSR (Flexible Optical
Solar Reflector) as an MLI cover sheet. FOSR provides a low solar
absorbance and it protects from tearing and gives strength to Teflon
due to its Nomex scrim (a material used in the MLI layers for tear
limitation).
Table 3-18: Summary of tank-suitable material properties
(www.matweb.com)
Thermal Tensile
Density
Material Conductivity strength
[kg/m3]
[W/m/K] [MPa]
~450
Al-Li alloys 93.5 (T =
2 550 (temper
(AA8XXX) 298 K)
depending)
Composite
Materials (carbon-
~500
epoxy, aviation
1 750 2-21 (fiber
fibers – space
dependent)
rated, low out-
gassing resin)
Teflon 2 200 0.23 25 – 28
Stainless steel (for
cryogenic 8 030 16.3 - 21.5 up to 1 300
applications)

3.3.6Cryogenic Storage Methods: Existing

Technologies
Between 1970 and the mid-1980s a high percentage of cryogenic
research was conducted at NASA Lewis Research Center (LeRC)
focusing on cryogenic storage, supply and transfer in support of deep-
space exploration programs. Research and testing involved LH2 tank
8
Low density Lithium (Li), decrease the density of the aluminum-lithium alloy
(by ~10%).

64
thermodynamic studies, tank pressurization testing, no-vent cryogenic
fill, tank thermal control with MLI blankets and in-space propellant
technology management work (Thomsik, 2000).

3.3.7Liquid Oxygen
Oxygen requires special equipment for handling and storage. A typical
storage system consists of a cryogenic storage tank, one or more
vaporizers, a pressure control system and all piping necessary for the
fill, vaporization and supply functions.
The cryogenic tank is constructed, in principle, like a Dewar Cylinder,
such as a Thermos™ bottle. There is an inner vessel surrounded by an
outer vessel. Between the vessels is an annular space that contains an
insulating vacuum medium. This annular gap keeps heat away from the
liquid oxygen held in the inner vessel.

Figure 3-17: Typical LOX cryogenic storage

Cryogenic fluids are usually stored in properly insulated containers
designed to minimize the loss of product due to boil-off. A Dewar flask
is the most common container for cryogenic fluids Figure 3-17 above. It
is a double-walled, evacuated container made of metal or glass, with a
vacuum between the walls. In the space environment, one has a
natural vacuum and one can replace the double walled Dewar with a
single walled vessel, better still one can wrap the single walled vessel
in MLI.
• Larger quantities of cryogenic fluid require double-walled metal
containers of evacuated construction.
• Exposed glass should be taped to minimize the flying glass
hazard if the container should break or implode.
• Liquids should be transferred from the metal Dewar vessels with
special transfer tubes or pumps designed for that particular
application.

3.3.8Cryogenic Storage Methods: Emerging

Technologies
Programs undertaken at NASA Glenn Research Center in the last
decade studied new and improved denser forms of LH2 and LOX.

65
Propellants of particular interest are subcooled cryogenic propellants.
This is due to the fact that they have significantly higher density, a
lower vapor pressure, and improved cooling capacity over the normal
boiling point cryogens. Higher density propellants enable additional
propellant to be encased in a given volume, which results in improved
performance for a launch vehicle by decreasing its overall weight and
size (Thomsik 2000). “Density improvements of 10% for LOX and 8%
for LH2 are expected to reduce the gross lift-off weight of a launch
vehicle system by up to 20%” (Id.).
In Figure 3-18 below is an example of passive storage of LOX and LH2
applied to space mission concepts. The surface properties used were
based on JPL experience.

Figure 3-18: Titan explorer thermal model, deep space tanks, sun
shield (Plachta 2005)

3.4Alternative Storage Possibilities

The following storage options were considered.

3.4.1Slush Hydrogen Properties and

Considerations
Hydrogen in a solid-liquid mixture, or slush, offers the advantages of
higher density and heat capacity, when compared to the normal boiling
point of LH2. This increase in density has the potential to reduce
storage volume and consequently overall tank mass. “At a solid
fraction of 50%, slush hydrogen provides a 15% advantage of
increased density over that of normal boiling point hydrogen”
(Friedlander et al. 1991).
There are still several issues which must be resolved before slush
hydrogen can be used for space missions. These include the transfer
capability in low/micro gravity, verification and testing of insulation
systems, the definition and testing of any additional components
required for these space vehicles, as well as the ability for long term
storage (Friedlander et al. 1991).
Other forms of higher density hydrogen other than slush include liquid-
gelled hydrogen, atomic hydrogen, metalized-gelled, Earth storable

66
(NTO, MMH, RP-1) and high-energy density propellants (Thomsik 2000).
The research required to detail each high density hydrogen storage
option is beyond the scope of this report; therefore only slush hydrogen
will be considered as a storage option within the confines of our
proposed architecture.

3.4.2Storage as Water
Storing as water has the advantage of least pressure stressing the
containing vessel, yet it still requires thermal control to keep it within
the optimum range, i.e., liquid state with minimum vapor pressure, for
the lunar environment. A closed container is still necessary as boil off
will occur just like with any other method, but specialist containment
tanks need be no more complicated than an oil drum, because
pressure loading is minimal, compared to cryogenic liquids (Blair 2002)
The argument against storing as water is that one must electrolyze it
and then liquefy to use it as propellant. Having LOX and LH2 means
that combining to produce water actually gives you energy useful for
batteries etc, whilst still providing an essential life support component.

3.5Storage Vessels
Storage vessels have to be well designed to fulfill their task and one of
the requirements with regards to obtaining a durable design involves
the choice of appropriate materials as well as choosing a certain shape
and capacity.
The larger the tank, the bigger the thermal capacity and the less
difficult it is to thermally control, i.e., more efficient use of power, and
on top of all that, a lower leak/evaporation rate (Domashenko 2002). A
spherical tank offers the smallest area of contact for the same volume,
thus the less thermal capacity of walls easier thermal control.
Cylindrical tanks are less efficient in this aspect, but are easier to
manufacture and handle.
It is also suggests that evaporation can be used to chill tanks to the
required temperature, and that larger tanks have a larger thermal
capacity, going as large as demand allows makes sense (Domashenko
2002). Oversized tanks therefore offers benefits in thermal control as
well as expansion mitigation.

3.6Interfacing
When transferring the LOX and LH2, the interface must be durable and
properly fix so that it can withstand the pressure and do not leak when
transferring LOX and LH2. The connectors must also follow a universal
standard to ease the junction between the tanks and the transportation
system. In order to realize the benefits of cryogenic propellant transfer,
one must ensure the robustness and reliability of the transfer process
(Chato 2006).
Several technical challenges arise when attempting to fill cryogenic
tanks in low gravity. Thermal energy stored in the tank walls causes
high vapor generation rates, the distributions of liquid and vapor within
the tank are uncertain, and the operating pressure must be kept low, in

67
order to minimize required tank mass. These considerations have to be
taken into account in the overall storage design.

3.6.1Transfer Guidelines
A fill in Earths gravitational environment involves a tank with a top
vent kept open, in order to vent the vapor which is generated during
the filling process. This venting is responsible for maintaining low tank
pressure. In low gravity conditions, the position of the ullage (or
unfilled space in the tank) is unknown relative to the position of the
vent. This unknown ullage position can lead to venting liquid instead of
vapor, and consequently large amounts of liquid being dumped
overboard.
Filling Strategy
The no-vent fill approach is one of the most promising methods.
Initially the cryogenic tank undergoes “chill-down” (the tank wall
temperature is decreased to the boiling point temperature of the fluid
being transferred), followed by spray injection and fluid mixing to
achieve the desired thermodynamic state in the receiver tank, which
allows for filling without the need for venting. The no-vent fill also has
the potential for high rate transfers (Chato 1991). When discussing the
creation of an orbital propellant depot, it is concluded that research in
no-vent fill transfers has matured the technology to the point where it
is the recommended approach (Chato 1991).
As it is the objective of sustainable fuel accessibility architecture to
retain as much fuel as possible, venting of boil-off is not considered a
viable option for storage, except in the case that emergency release is
required. Based on the high value of hydrogen on the lunar surface and
the available research regarding filling, the no-vent fill will be the
assumed method applied to the chosen architecture.
Propellant Management
The chosen tank design including pump and piping arrangement will be
identical, only different in scale. As stated above, LH2 is deemed to be
the more valuable of the two resources, as it is either brought from
Earth or mined from the lunar surface from a smaller resource base.
Due to this higher value, the LH2 tanks will contain more significant
amount of insulation and protection, as its loss is the case of boil-off
and it would pose a more serious problem for the lunar infrastructure
(where a loss of LOX could be much more readily re-supplied).
The major components involved in the storage and transfer of
cryogenic materials include the tank, suction and discharge lines
(piping), relief valves, back pressure valves, centrifugal pumps,
strainers, shut-off valves, drainage valves and check valves. Due to the
complexity and interconnectivity of these systems, they will be
discussed here only on a conceptual level, although aspects of these
systems will be considered in the storage system design.
In terms of overall system architecture, it is recommended that the
lunar storage facility should be located adjacent to the control and
servicing facility. This setup would allow for efficient refueling and de-
fuelling of a lunar lander during service procedures.

68
3.7Ensuring Human Safety and Tank Health
In order to control the storage facilities a series of monitoring
infrastructure strategies must be installed. The two parts to be
installed is the measuring infrastructure and the communication
infrastructure to monitor the health of the storage facilities
In order to be able to measure health of the storage tanks in space the
following five methods can be used: pressure sensors, strain sensors,
optical sensors, compression mass gauge and leak sensors.
Some of the challenges that must be taken into account when handling
fluid storage and transfer involve the design of a well thought
integration of pumping and storage system equipped with the
appropriate maintenance and health monitoring solutions.
Key requirements propose the use of new technology valves for
cryogenic applications (LOX/LH2) with the main purpose of minimizing
thermal losses, and leakage especially pressure drops. Some of the
solutions include shut off control valves, flow control valves, leak proof
couplings using robust sealing technology and compatible with LOX and
LH2, low power and lightweight pump for a reasonable flow rate (up to
2 l/min), pressure control sensors and integrated tank boil off control
sensors, automated umbilical systems designed for high reliability and
safety and appropriate for ground to flight interfaces (NASA 2003).
In terms of monitoring methods high consideration must be given to
location of joints as well the number of sensors for a successful
detection and this is highly critical in detecting and monitoring leakage.
One of the best ways of leak detection is by pressure variations applied
with a systematic leakage detection method as well as a so called point
source method (application specific controllers). An application specific
controller is preferred allowing for an easier and more flexible control
system without any functionality interference of other system
components in case one fails.
Sensor selection must take into account sensors for the following
function monitoring: temperature monitoring, pressure controlling and
monitoring, fluid velocity, liquid level monitoring, leakage detection
and last but not least structural integrity.

3.7.1Assessment of delivery systems

Delivery system is the element linking the production, storage and
users elements of the architecture as Figure 3-19 shows. It follows that
it has to accommodate the “boundary conditions” of three interfaces,
in term of location, production and demand rates, form of gas to
transport, mobility capabilities. Interactions with the environment add
another “virtual interface”, which further constrains the delivery
system. Within those constraints, the delivery system should be
selected to maximize the benefit to users of refueling services. After
presenting the criteria, possible transportation options will be
discussed. They include both mobile and fixed transportation
platforms. The section will conclude on an evaluation matrix that on
the advantages and disadvantages of each transportation system.

69
 Figure 3-19: Elements of the refueling service

3.8Transportation options
The following sections will briefly describe of the possible
transportation options explored.

3.8.1Mobile platforms
Mobile vehicles allow very flexible in the sense they can accommodate
personalized user demands regarding location and time for delivery.
However, the transportation capacity is limited and energy efficiency
(amount of energy used per volume of fuel delivered) is low compared
to fixed platforms.
Level of autonomy
Manned vehicles allow real time human control, which is crucial for
complex mission requiring fast interactivity with the environment.
However, the life support systems installed onboard human pressurized
platforms to accommodate astronauts significantly add complexity,
which translates into additional costs and a lesser level of reliability.
Using un-pressurized human vehicles, designed to carry astronauts in
space suits, allow remove the vehicle built-in life support system while
maintaining a high level of interactivity. However, it will go shorter
distances, as astronauts need to return to their base for space suit life
support system servicing. It follows that it is not fit to explore remote
areas.
Robots can be appropriate to accomplish tasks of relatively low
complexity, requiring a lesser level of interactivity. Autonomous rovers
are however complex, expensive, and not prone to repair (Eckart
1999). Remotely controlled is an intermediate solution between the
capabilities of fully autonomous robots and human vehicles. The higher
level of interactivity remotely controlled vehicles entail makes them
capable of more complex missions than an autonomous robot. The
interactivity is however limited by the time delay needed to transmit
communications between humans and the vehicle.
The following Table 3-19 gives a description of the mobile systems
considered in this project.

70
 Table 3-19: Mobile platform characteristics (Eckart 1999)
Rang Terrain
Delivery Speed Capacity
e Capabilit Characteristics
System [km/h] [kg]
[km] y
Wheels are fast and efficient on smooth, hard surfaces but
lose traction on loose soil such as the sand-like regolith
100s Safe and reliable
Wheeled (custo 100 to 20 Can be made fully autonomous
5-20 Medium
rover mizabl 000 Moving parts must be designed with tolerances to withstand
e) thermal expansion due to the extreme range of temperatures
on Moon surface
Low power requirements
Good terrain capabilities
100s Excellent floatation characteristics in the lunar soil
Tracked (custo <wheele Immune to thermal fluctuations
High 500
vehicles mizabl d rovers Remotely controlled if not automated
e) Unreliable due to its high complexity
Large power requirements (10 kW/t)
Well-suited for transportation across rough terrain
aroun Terrain
1 000 – 3 Fairly easy to control, and can be fairly autonomous
Ballistic d the >6 000 independ
000 Fast and accurate landing (within 100 m)
Moon ent
Low energy efficiency
The concept of the mechanical hopper lies between walkers
and ballistic vehicles
Mechanical Can be fully autonomous
30 150 Limited 7 000
hopper Energy efficient
Technical feasibility of such vehicles has not been
demonstrated as yet

71
 System under consideration is a modified version of the NASA
LSAM. This is a ballistic delivery system that operates
Ballistic- between lunar orbit and the lunar surface with the All Terrain
wheeled- 2500 >6 000 Medium 4 000 Hex Legged Extra-Terrestrial Explorer (ATHLETE) base for
walker surface maneuverability (currently under development by
NASA).
High complexity.

72
3.8.2Fixed platforms
Fixed infrastructures are built on Earth when large quantities of
material need to transit between two fixed locations such as a
production site to a distribution center. A similar approach is likely to
be used on the Moon if a refueling station is requiring more than
several tonnes per day over a long period of time. The reason behind
this is that this quantity has to justify the large investment required for
building and maintaining the infrastructure. That is why fixed platforms
are not preferred during the preliminary phases of a lunar exploration
and utilization. At more advanced phases, the benefit of pooling large
volumes of LOX and LH2 on a fixed transportation facility may outweigh
or complement the flexibility brought by mobile transportation
platforms. Many alternatives exist for a fixed transportation system.
Five means of conveyance have been identified: cable system,
monorail/maglev train, pipelines and mass drivers. Each of them has
different range capability and is listed in Table 3-20 below.
Table 3-20: Lunar Transportation Systems (Apel 1989)
Mean of Short Range Cargo Long Range Cargo
conveyance Transportation Transportation
Cable System Yes No
Monorail/Maglev Yes Yes
Train
Pipelines Yes Yes
Mass Drivers No Yes
Even though many solutions exist for the short range or long range
situations, is it important to list their advantages and disadvantages as
well as their energy requirements in order to evaluate which one are
really compatible with lunar requirements. Table 3-21 below gives a
more detailed view of the fixed systems considered in this project.

73
 Table 3-21: Fixed Platforms Characteristics (Apel 1987), (Transneft 2004), (Doppelmayr n.d)
Delivery Range Speed Terrain
Capacity Characteristics
System [km] [km/h] Capability
Can overcome difficult terrains with
10 inclination up to 45º
Cable
(pole to pole) 20 Terrain 1 500 000 kg/h
system Thermal expansion and contraction
there can be (on Earth) independent (on earth)
(Gondola) of the cable could lead to fatigue in
multiple poles
the material and premature failure
High (large Fully autonomous and reliable
amounts of fluids The pipe also acts like a tank and
∝
Pipeline Unlimited Level ground at a flow rate up needs to be filled before used
diameter
to 10 million
High infrastructure cost
tonnes/year
Device that accelerates cargo with
extremely high g-load (up to
around the 10000 g) to very high velocities, in
Mass driver 5 300 High 300 tonnes
Moon the order of magnitude of
5,300 km/h, needs means of
deceleration/landing
Dual use system that can transport
both cargo and personnel
High infrastructure cost
High energy efficiency
Mag-lev [only 0.17-0.25 kW∙h/(Mg∙kg)]
5400 600 Medium -
trains Low energy efficiency
[specific energy consumption
between 0.165 and
0.392 kW∙h/(Mg∙kg)]
High system costs

74
Off-surface vs. Underground
Off-surface systems represent an interesting option when a large
terrain inclination needs to be overcome. This situation is present when
the propellant has to be carried from a crater to higher ground. Off-
surface systems also offer advantages against dust problems that
represent main concern of NASA for ground equipment. On the other
hand, these systems are more complex to install and also more difficult
to maintain. The cable system is by definition a system that is above
ground. But the monorail/Maglev train, steel belt conveyor, pipelines
and mass drivers can all be either on the ground or above. Only the
pipelines can be installed underground without requiring tremendous
effort.

3.9Delivery System Evaluation

Since many of the systems are novel concepts on the Moon, it is often
not possible to assess them based on historical data on performance
and cost. Therefore, they should be assessed according to criteria
relevant to users, in an objective and systematic manner that
integrates the multiplicity of criteria in a single metrics.

3.9.1Evaluation Criteria
Relevant criteria for evaluation and selection of the transportation
system include mission requirements (the drivers), and constraints.
Drivers pertain to quantitative and quantitative performance. An ideal
transportation system would match perfectly all users’ demands
regarding performance, and suit their evolution through the anticipated
lunar development scenario. On the other hand, the effort it takes to
implement the delivery system should be minimized. Following this
logic, we identified eleven criteria which are directly applicable to
transportation vehicles (Table 3-22). Note that two parameters that
were considered but not retained are “functionality” and “development
effort” because of overlap with other parameters.

3.10Qualitative Decision Rankings for

Delivery Systems
In the early research stage, the qualitative decision tool was used to
select out the options least suitable for lunar cryogen delivery, based
on a simplified set of criteria, derived from those presented earlier.

75
 Table 3-22: Qualitative method results

ImplementationEase of
Operational Efficiency
Technical Readiness

Final Ranking
Robustness
Criteria

Scalability

Simplicity
System

Pipeline, surface 5 8 4 4 9 7 #1
Wheeled 9 4 9 9 3 2 #2
Ballistic 8 0 6 8 4 8 #3
Ballistic wheeled-
7 2 7 7 2 0 #4
walker
Tracked 6 3 8 6 1 1 #4
Gondola 2 7 3 2 7 4 #4
Rail, surface 3 5 2 3 6 5 #7
Hopper 4 1 5 5 0 3 #8
Conveyor belt 0 6 1 0 5 6 #8
Pipeline, sub- #1
0 0 0 0 0 0
surface 0

Table 3-22 above highlights the relative merits of each system. The
initial ranking is based on intuitive opinions about the systems before
they were rated. Comparing the initial and final rankings, it is apparent
that the system does not agree in some respects with intuition – based
on these criteria, fixed systems seemed globally preferable to mobile
ones. This points out that the fixed and mobile systems must be
considered separately since they represent solutions for different
phases in the overall cryogen system development. With this in mind,
the simple ranking was used to reduce the research effort, eliminating
the least suitable fixed and mobile systems.
Analysis Ratings
The simple qualitative method favored the pipeline system over other
systems mainly because of its efficiency, simplicity and its technical
readiness. However, this method was not taking in account for the
overcapacity of such system neither the energy nor the cost required
for building the infrastructure. Thus selecting a system base solely on
this tool would not allow taking into consideration for the different
weights of each criteria and would be likely to indicate wrong
conclusion. But used as a cut off tool, it can clearly identify the systems
that are inappropriate and allow focusing all efforts on possible
scenario. Keeping that in mind, conveyor belt system will not be
investigated further because of its technical immaturity and the
development effort that would be required in order to make it sustain
the lunar environment. This system is also unsuited to carry either gas
or liquid in limited amount.

76
The wheel rover scored the highest in the initial iteration. It was
selected as one of the transportation options for transporting
propellant. Among the highlights of the wheeled rover concept is its
advanced technical maturity relative to other mobile vehicles, as its
technology has already be proven. Technical maturity also translates
into a good reduced development effort. Wheeled rover also scored
highest for operational efficiency and is the most scalable system. On
the robustness side, it is weaker than the tracked rover and the ballistic
vehicle. Indeed, the moving parts are unstable in a wheeled rover. It is
however considered more robust than hoppers. Simplicity is an
ingredient of robustness. It is therefore not surprising to see wheeled
rovers scoring in the median range in term of design complexity too.
The tracked rover scores well on the robustness contest, as it has been
designed for the military with demanding requirements in terms of
reliability and sturdiness. However it performs badly in term of
technical maturity. Indeed, it has never been space qualified. In
addition, the large number of parts it involves makes it the hardest
system to develop (Eckart 1999). Other major downsides of the tracked
vehicle include a low energy efficiency and little scalability. Therefore
from the above discussion it was decided to drop this concept for the
final design.
Ballistic vehicles obtained the second highest rating. They have several
disadvantages. First, they need a lot of propellant and are considered
energy inefficient (Eckard 1999). Inaptitude for scalability is another
downfall. Indeed, modifying the capacity of the payload bay is difficult.
However, good performance on the other criteria compensate for those
shortcomings. Robustness is also a key driver of the overall rating, due
to very few moving parts, smooth and stable overall structure, and
built in obstacle avoidance capability.
The ballistic-wheeled-walker is in the middle of the overall ranking. The
main advantage of this type of vehicle is that it is multi-tasked to both
fly for 1000’s km and then also do on surface maneuvering once
landed on the surface. Since it has walking capabilities it can also
encounter terrains well. It is not technically as mature as a ballistic or a
wheeled vehicle, but once it does it will be a very efficient vehicle.
Hoppers on the contrary score poorly. Regarding technological
maturity, hoppers have remained to conceptual stage as yet. They are
also one of the least robust of all options, due to numerous moving
parts and susceptibility to obstacle hitting.
Based on these results, subsurface pipeline, gondola, tracked and
hopper were eliminated from the pool of possible transport designs and
the choices for the delivery system was reduced to 6 options.
Comparing the initial and final rankings, it is apparent that the system
does not agree in some respects with intuition – based on these
criteria, fixed systems seemed globally preferable to mobile ones. This
points out that the fixed and mobile systems must be considered
separately since they represent solutions for different phases (and
accordingly different user needs) in the overall cryogen system
development.

77
3.11Quantitative Decision Rankings for
Delivery Systems
As more details of the systems became known (see Table 3-23), they
were used as inputs in the quantitative tool with criteria related to cost,
performance and robustness to determine the best of the remaining
delivery system choices. A representative metric for each of the criteria
was selected based on consistently available data. The criteria were
manipulated so that higher numbers correspond to “better” ratings and
normalized. Finally, the ratings were weighted based on team
members’ opinions and on “expert” (faculty and external contacts)
opinions separately.

78
 Table 3-23: Quantitative selection criteria

Weights
Criteria Parameters Definition of “best” Related quantity (team :
faculty)
Technical readiness
Ready the earliest Years to develop 6.4 : 8.4
(mission cost)
effortImplementation

Operational efficiency
Least energy-intensive to
(wise utilization of Specific power [W] 7.0 : 6.2
run
resources
Scalability Easiest to scale up or
(expandability of a down to change in Marginal cost (%) to double output 6.3 : 7.7
system) demand
Adaptability
(Multitasking Adaptable to other uses Other applications 5.9 : 6.3
capabilities)
Lowest capital cost to
Ease of Implementation Mass 6.1 : 8.6
install
How much it performs

Freedom of location Range [km], terrain compatibility,

Least restrictive 8.2 : 7.2
(accessibility) max. grade, regions covered

Time to deliver fixed amount to a

Delivery Time Quickest 6.3 : 7.5
fixed distance

79
 Weights
Criteria Parameters Definition of “best” Related quantity (team :
faculty)
Fewest moving parts,
Reliability lowest maintenance Maintenance cost 6.0 : 7.3
performsHow well it

requirements
Is it manned? Is it space-proven
Least likely to injure tech? Is it free of hazardous
Safety 6.2 : 4.3
someone materials and properties? Is it
stable?
Does it require a human? Can it be
Level of Autonomy Most automated 7.8 : 7.3
tele-operated? Is it fully automated?
Hardiest in lunar
Low tolerances (thermal expansion);
Resilience to Lunar environment (radiation,
imperviousness to dust; terrain 7.9 : 7.8
Environment vacuum, extreme
capability
temperatures)
The results for the qualitative and quantitative matrix methods are compared in below. The table shows the
calculated values for each system along with criteria and their relative weights.

80
 Table 3-24: Weighted Quantitative Decision Matrix Results

Contrary to the qualitative method the quantitative decision rankings lists the ballistic solution first. This is the
result of adding weighting factors to the criteria. The ballistic solution is indeed a proven technology based on the
Lunar Lander that has the ability to cover the whole Moon surface while being cost efficient. However, this solution
requires a lot of energy to deliver to the customers. Although the pipeline system would be more efficient
operationally it still falls second when taking into consideration for the infrastructure deployment effort and cost.
This system is then followed by the ballistic-wheeled-walker, the Maglev train and wheeled rover. It should be noted
that the quantitative method was not optimized for a specific scenario. This means that inputs for a system are
based on average values and that the weighting is not associated to mission requirements. Moreover, system
characteristics have a range that depends on their configuration which reduces the accuracy of the method in some
cases up to ±25%. Also, if two outposts are 1 km away from each other, the weight for freedom of location would
be reduced greatly compared to a scenario where delivery at the equator at different locations is required. This

81
 method has also other limitations. One of these limitations is shown by the delivery time criterion. Because it is
calculated using the speed and the capacity of a system without considering the number of travels that could be
done in one day. That is detrimental to a mass driver or any other fixed infrastructure that are almost continuous
application. It is important to remember that the decision matrix tool is just an aid to evaluate the relative merits of
individual systems. However, it is not suitable to evaluate the supply system architecture as a whole, and cannot be
easily adapted to include combinations of systems, which are of interest in a phased market or to compare between
different future scenarios. To make recommendations regarding the supply system architecture and its evolution in
time to accommodate the shifting lunar base plans from various agencies, a more complex decision method should
be considered, such as the “supply chain model” presented in the beginning of this chapter. However, such a
sophisticated tool has not been implemented in this work. In addition, no decision making tool can ever totally
substitute sound thinking and critical analysis of skilled engineers.
The multi-criteria decision methods show the relative merits of individual systems, but are not easily adapted to
include combinations of systems, which are of interest in a phased market or to compare between different future
scenarios. To make recommendations that are more relevant to the shifting lunar base plans from various agencies,
a more complex decision method was considered.

82
 Figure 3-20: Mobile and fixed platforms

3.12Findings: Storage and Delivery Concept Rankings

Storage and delivery on the lunar surface present interesting challenges to current and emerging technologies.
However, it seems prudent to go with those technologies both optimized for the space sector already, but taking
advantage of the lunar environment to make ones task easier.
Al-Li alloys therefore seem to suggest a workable tank material, at least in the near term, from which to design a
solution in parallel with a delivery system capable of meeting the early and later phases of demand.

83
 Delivery systems should make use also of the lunar environment specifics, where possible, but also take heed of
basic constraints imposed by the harsh dusty environment. One may consider systems more favorable, the fewer
number of moving parts they may have. Energy efficiency and time constraints will play a big role in the trade
space.
Having assessed these systems, one question remains to be addressed: which system architecture will best address
the needs of the station?

84
 Introduction

__________________________________Chapter 4
4 System Architecture

With knowledge of the drivers and constraints for a lunar liquid

oxygen and liquid hydrogen supply system, and armed with a
large number of options for storage and delivery elements from
the previous chapters, a complete system architecture can now
be selected. The selection is based on the perceived demand for
the baseline scenario described in Section 2.1.1 with a single
production facility at a south polar base in the event of ice at the
South Pole (“Ice Scenario”) and without (“No-Ice Scenario”). The
system architecture must satisfy key objectives and the identified
gaps in current literature for this baseline demand and consider
potential future adaptations for the optimistic higher demand
future (also in Section 2.1.3).
In this chapter, an “element” is defined as a major system
component, including vehicles (e.g. a cryogen delivery rover) and
infrastructure (e.g. a base habitat module). “Customer” refers to
the end user of the cryogen (e.g. NASA), “ascender” is a vehicle
operating between the lunar surface and lunar orbit, “consumer”
is the element accepting the cryogen (e.g. a NASA ascender), and
“astronaut” refers to any human in space.
The system architecture is based on certain assumptions
including demand and production infrastructure. It is also
assumed that all manufactured items must be shipped from Earth
(i.e. no in situ manufacturing for system elements and spare
parts).
The Demand
• As previously discussed in Section 2.1.1, it is assumed that a
manned lunar base, mid-latitude manned exploration
missions and Mars exploration are all potential customers
for LOX and LH2 refueling. Table 4-25 recapitulates the
demand and location of those customers.
Table 4-25: Demand scenarios
Major Rang Demand [tonnes]
Scenari Locatio
(Minor) e Per Per
o n
Customers [km] delivery year
Life support,
ascent
vehicles
Baseline Local 2 4 <40
(human
exploration
missions)

85
Full Moon

Ascent
vehicles
Baseline Equator (human 3 000 4 <8
exploration
missions)
Baseline
and
propellant
for Mars
Optimisti
Local missions, 2 ??? 100
c
life support
for
additional
bases
• The objective of the proposed architecture is to meet this
demand to the closest possible.
The Production Infrastructure
The production facility is regarded as a starting point from which
the storage and delivery systems are conceptualized. Table 4-26
summarizes the boundary conditions imposed by production
regarding the type of fuel produced, the production rate and the
location production.
Table 4-26: Production scenarios
Scenario Production Location Output
South Pole (in
Ice at South LOX and
permanently shadowed
Pole LH2
crater)
Anywhere in South Pole
No ice LOX
area
Note that the storage and delivery architecture does not vary in
these alternate (“ice” and “no ice”) scenarios. They are assessed
in the economic analysis, as the existence of on site hydrogen
determines whether or not hydrogen will need to be transported
from Earth. It is assumed that regardless of whether hydrogen is
brought from Earth or is produced on site, the storage and
delivery concepts remain the same in each timeline.
The production rate is looked at as a variable which can be
increased or decreased, dependent only on the amount of power
being supplied to it. With such a view of power requirements, and
to have the flexibility to upscale production to meet higher
demand, power supply could be achieved with a nuclear reactor,
or with solar panels located in a permanently illuminated area
close by the production facility. It should be noted however that
NASA currently considers the lunar nuclear power infeasible.
Also, the production facility is viewed to be made moveable by
the gas station transportation systems, in the case that ice or
regolith supplies become too low in the vicinity to warrant the
associated transportation costs, or in case the base must be
moved. It follows that the storage/delivery system should be
flexible enough to accommodate relocations of production.

86
 Introduction

The System Objectives

Because the storage and delivery system must support human
exploration, human safety is paramount. The system should
provide service to the predicted consumers with this as the key
design criteria.
A requirement for human safety is that critical supplies must
either accompany a human mission or be present and confirmed
before the mission is launched from Earth. The latter method is
called “pre-delivery.”
Any system for use with humans in space must not be susceptible
to a “single point failure” (i.e. there must be a built-in redundancy
to prevent a critical system from shutting down for any potential
failure).
Like fuel systems on Earth, a lunar fueling system can be full-
service (no customer action required) or self-service (the
customer is required to perform part or all of the connection to
and operation of the refueling system). Since self-service implies
customer (i.e. astronaut) training and responsibility for the correct
operation of the system, creating a human safety issue, a full-
service system is recommended. Further, since a fully-automated
is complex and potentially could pose a risk to human safety if it
fails, tele-operation is recommended.
Because of the cost of implementation and maintenance a
delivery system is expected to be flexible enough to perform more
than one task (Larson teleconference April 2007).
To fill identified gaps in NASA reports (Sanders 2007) and other
research, the system architecture must meet the following
objectives:
• Local delivery at the lunar South Pole for fuel and life
support
• Delivery to human scientific missions at the equator
• Ability of the delivery system to multi-task (modularization)
• High level of human safety, especially:
a. Elimination of single point failures (redundancy)
b. Unmanned operation to eliminate EVA and astronaut
training
c. Pre-delivery
d. Tele-operation
To weight existing concepts according to these criteria, the
selection methods detailed in Chapter 3 were used.
The System Selection Method
The delivery components for the supply system architecture were
selected based on the results of the literature review combined
with the quantitative decision tool described in 3.11. The results
were factored with secondary weights (shown in Table 4-27) to
better represent the importance of key parameters for each

87
Full Moon

scenario. The criteria with secondary weights (original team

weights factored by two) are highlighted in the table.
Table 4-27: Quantitative decision tool weights with secondary
weights

EnvironmentResilience to Lunar
Ease of Implementation
Operational Efficiency

Freedom of Location
Technical Readiness
Criteria

Delivery Time


Scalability

Reliability
Safety
Scenario

Baseline: 1
7.0 6.3 5.9 6.1 8.2 6.0 7.8 7.9
local 2.8
Baseline:
1 1
mid- 7.0 6.3 5.9 6.1 8.2 7.8 7.9
2.8 2.0
latitudes
Optimistic 1
6.4 7.0 5.9 6.1 8.2 6.0 7.8 7.9
: 2.6
This chapter proposes a supply system architecture to suit the
perceived needs of a South Pole lunar base and equatorial human
exploration missions, justifies this selection and describes the
interfaces within the system and between the system and
external elements. Operations are then described in detail,
followed by the implementation plan (“The System Blueprints”).
Technical risk is evaluated. Finally adaptations are proposed to
meet the optimistic high demand scenario.

4.1The Proposed Architecture

The main elements of our proposed supply system architecture for
LOX and LH2 on the lunar surface are storage tanks and delivery
systems.

4.1.1The Storage Solution

The assessment in this section aims to provide a set of
recommendations regarding the storage of oxygen and hydrogen
on the lunar surface. Research in this area emphasizes the need
for long duration storage of oxygen and hydrogen on the lunar
surface. This long duration storage requirement stems from the
needs of future manned lunar outposts and their associated
transportation vehicles. The following section will provide
recommendations for the near-term scenario regarding which
form of oxygen and hydrogen should be stored, the tank material

88
 Introduction

used for construction, tank shape, tank size (based on customer

demand), tank weight, tank thermal control, and storage location.
A brief long-term storage assessment will be provided later, in the
context of an infrastructure which may develop based on our
near-term recommendations.
The reasons for selecting particular storage options (such as tank
shape and material) are not as apparent as the reasons for
selecting a particular transportation system (such as ballistic vs.
rover vs. pipeline). Usually the desired thermodynamic
requirements for a given tank guide these selections, and as
detailed thermodynamic analysis is beyond the scope of this
report, a qualitative comparison of the storage options was
conducted in order to come to a final down-selection of the tank
specifications. The following set of storage objectives were chosen
as comparison criteria in order to come to a final set of
recommendations regarding the storage design:
1) Reduce tank weight
2) Maintain structural integrity for extended periods in the
lunar environment
3) Maximize capacity
4) Minimize energy consumption
5) Maintain human safety and tank health
Location
Storage locations are inherently connected to the thermal
conditions in a given lunar environment. An ideal location is one
which makes storage of LOX and LH2 “easiest”, i.e. where is less
costly energetically to store. Since the production facility and
associated infrastructure is primarily located at the South Pole,
the desired storage location for any LOX or LH2 is on the surface,
within a permanently shadowed crater. To be stored in
stable conditions LOX requires a temperature of 90 K, and LH2
requires 20 K. As shadowed locations on the South Pole can reach
temperatures as low as 40-50 K, if the location is properly chosen,
the LOX could be initially cooled with passive thermal control (zero
energy expenditure) whereas LH2 would undergo continuous,
however minimal, active cooling.
If cryogenic storage is to take place for long periods of time under
thermal conditions such as those at the equator when illuminated,
the ideal storage conditions would be subterranean. At a depth of
one meter beneath the surface, the tank surroundings could be
maintained in near-constant conditions at approximately 238 K
(Heiken et al. 1991).
If cryogenic storage is required to be mobile at the equator under
thermal conditions during the lunar day, a storage facility
(subterranean or surface) is recommended to effectively block
incoming solar radiation, and therefore minimize tank heating. In
essence the goal would be to construct an ideally insulated
structure, effectively creating an area of permanent shadow.

89
Full Moon

Tank Shape
The tank shape was chosen to be spherical, as a sphere is a
theoretically ideal pressure vessel. Spherical tank offers the least
thermal capacity and inertia, as it contains the maximum volume
with the least surface area, thus least wall material.
Tank Material
The tank material chosen for construction is aluminum-lithium
alloy (Al-Li). This material was chosen due to its technical
readiness for application, as well as its contribution to reducing
landing mass. Although carbon composites were also considered,
it was thought that the probability of micro-cracking was too high
(due to differences in the coefficient of thermal expansion of the
carbon fibers) which means that its use would have too high of a
risk for the early phases of the project (Scatteia et al. 2005). The
thermal cycling endured by the tanks may be extensive, therefore
a material that has proven to be reliable under such conditions
must be chosen.
Thermal Control
Variable Density Multi-Layer Insulation is selected since it is one of
the best thermal insulations in a vacuum, and because there are
no problems related to density control and performance, nor with
covering on small or large scales. VDMLI should have lower
thermal conductivity, vacuum compatibility efficient assembly and
provide structural reliability. An outer layer blanket should also be
installed, consisting of VDMLI, finished with silvered Teflon, to
minimize surface heating.
After comparing the options for the storage of oxygen and
hydrogen, LOX and LH2 were chosen from the forms considered
for the near-term scenario. Although more energy intensive to
store, these forms are almost certain to be used to fuel near-term
spacecraft and will therefore require delivery in these forms.
In the No-Ice Scenario, it was thought that hydrogen would be
transported from Earth in the form of LH2, in order to reduce the
launch mass of the transportation vehicle. Lunar oxygen would be
produced and stored only when a specific demand is identified, in
order to minimize required LOX storage time, and hence minimize
the energy required for refrigeration. Less energy intensive forms
of storage (such as water and ice) were also considered in this
scenario, but a more complicated infrastructure would be required
for their use. Energy storage devices (such as regenerative fuel
cells) would be required to retain the energy created during water
formation, and energy for electrolysis would be required in order
to return the oxygen and hydrogen to their LOX and LH2 forms for
delivery. This would require an infrastructure that must maintain
storage facilities for water, ice, LOX and LH2, as well as have the
facilities to convert the substances into their alternate forms
respectively. It is much easier to produce the substances one need
and maintain them for a limited amount of time, than to
overcomplicate the infrastructure unnecessarily in the initial
phases.

90
 Introduction

In the Ice Scenario, LOX and LH2 production would only take place
when a demand has been identified, and the LOX and LH2 would
only require storage pre-delivery. Ice could be separated from the
regolith, and stored as is, or could be melted into discrete sized
blocks in precisely measured quantities to simplify production of
the appropriate amounts of LOX and LH2. Storage of ice would be
in a permanently shadowed crater, or in a suitably cold area
(protected from solar heating), until the time a demand has been
identified.
The storage tanks, sized for each of the cryogens, are shown in
Figure 4-21.

Figure 4-21: Mobile storage tanks

To delivery the storage tanks, a delivery system is required.

4.1.2The Delivery Solutions

The delivery system will supply cryogens to consumers at the
lunar South Pole base (i.e. “local delivery”) and to human
missions in LSAM9-type ascenders at the equator. Emergency
deliveries have also been considered.
The delivery system options can be quickly narrowed down for
each of these three applications by comparing the element
capabilities with the requirements (see Figure 4-22).

9
“Lunar Surface Access Module” – a NASA design concept for human lunar
exploration that carries humans and cargo between lunar orbit and the lunar
surface.

91
Full Moon

Figure 4-22: Delivery concept comparison by range and capacity

4.1.3Local Delivery
Based on the assumptions for the baseline scenario, since
production and the lunar base will be co-located, all demand will
be met from the South Pole. The objectives specific to local
delivery supporting ascent modules from the base (and incidental
amounts for human exploration missions) include: a capacity of
four tonnes per delivery and a range of two kilometers. The
delivery system should be capable of moving other supplies or
performing other tasks.
Fixed infrastructure is not expected to be in place in the near-
term. Mobile systems were considered more suitable since
flexibility is an important criterion in the likely case that the base
architecture is changed or expanded. From the mobile concepts in
3.8.1, the predicted demand is best met using wheeled rovers.
While it is possible to fix cryogen tanks directly to the rover, the
system will be more flexible with removable tanks. To simplify the
operations (and avoid having separate cranes or other loading
systems for the tanks), the storage tank(s) will be carried on a
trailer, allowing the rover freedom to perform other tasks (see
Figure 4-23).
By separating the mobile element from the payload element, the
rover has the power to deliver other cargo, tow habitat modules
or perform ad hoc inspections without a trailer. It can also be
designed with a seat and a manual on-board operation system as
a back-up un-pressurized human rover. However, it would be
oversized and therefore inefficient for exploration.

92
 Introduction

Figure 4-23: Tug rover with trailer (Bufkin et al. 1988)

According to the criterion, the wheeled rover is excellent in
technical readiness and scalability, although it is among the
weakest in freedom of location and delivery time, neither of which
is critical for local deliveries (see Table 4-27). The wheeled rover
does not have the range or terrain capability to service the
equator, however.

4.1.4Equatorial Delivery
Delivery to the lunar equator implies a range of 2 500 km. The
required capacity is four tonnes per delivery as for the local case.
Again, construction of a fixed infrastructure such as roads or
pipelines is not feasible in this time frame, limiting the selection
to mobile systems with a high degree of freedom of location.
Rovers are too limited by terrain and distance. Ballistic rockets,
mass drivers and a ballistic-wheel-walker system were considered
for service to the equator. However, this introduces the problem of
descent speed.
The velocity required for a trajectory to reach the equator from
the pole is 1 660 m/s. The kinetic energy from an uncontrolled
descent at this speed would crush the vehicle and the payload. If
the journey was to be completed in “hopper” stages, even at
moderate distances (500 km) the impact velocity is still 900 m/s.
Current energy absorption methods for uncontrolled descents
include air bags, a hard shell and retro-rockets. Airbags have only
been designed for final velocities after aerobraking, such as the
Mars Exploration Rover airbags (shown in Figure 4-24) designed
for 25 m/s (Stein and Sandy 2003). Likewise, hard shells for
descent capsules are designed for impacts at speeds reduced by
aero-braking and retro-rockets. A shell designed to absorb the
total impact energy of a sub-orbital lunar trajectory would be
prohibitively heavy. A novel but undeveloped solution is a mass
catcher, a funnel-like device that directs and slows the descent
vehicle through mechanical friction, but that implies infrastructure
placed strategically throughout the region – again unlikely in the
near term.

93
Full Moon

Figure 4-24: Mars airbag descent brake (Stein and Sandy 2003)
On the other hand, ensuring a controlled descent imposes an
enormous propellant cost. Using the M-LSAM (described as the
NASA LSAM with the ATHLETE rover in 3.8.1) as a basis for
calculation, 30 tonnes of propellant are needed to deliver a four
tonne payload to the equator and return the delivery vehicle to
the pole (see calculation in Appendix ). This is within the capacity
of the M-LSAM and is eight times less costly in propellant than
delivery from Earth.

Figure 4-25: NASA LSAM ballistic lander and ATHLETE rover

(www.astronautix.com) (www.jpl.nasa.gov)
For supporting human missions, the cryogens must be pre-
delivered to the site. To prevent landing accidents, the mobility of
the M-LSAM will permit the human mission to land kilometers
away from the supplies and the ATHLETE to complete the last
stage of the delivery.
None of the other concepts are considered technically viable for
delivery to the equator without a quantum leap in design. If a
much larger market appears than is anticipated (such as an

94
 Introduction

equatorial base), infrastructure such as a network of storage sites

and road or rail networks or mass catchers, could be justified.
It is also possible to use the M-LSAM configuration for emergency
applications.
Emergency Delivery System
Since all human missions landing at the equator will need to be
fully-fueled, the only requirement for them will be emergency
support. All human missions will carry sufficient oxygen and
hydrogen for fuel and life support with a safety margin. In an
emergency, the M-LSAM is best suited to deliver quickly and “to
the door.”
If it is assumed that NASA adopts the M-LSAM, it will be
particularly suited to this phase because it will be a proven
technology and will be reusing equipment that is already on site
(a small marginal cost to make operational). This system
combines the fastest, most certain way to deliver emergency
supplies (less than two hours to the equator) with the ability to
deliver to a specific location, so that human safety is not further
jeopardized. The M-LSAM also does not require a launch pad. The
drawback in this phase is the extreme inefficiency that can only
be justified for human emergencies.
Based on the development assumption, the M-LSAM is excellent in
the technical readiness and freedom of location criterion, which
are critical for emergency use.
The ballistic component, once refueled gives rapid (less than two
hours) point-to-point delivery as far as the equator. The ATHLETE
is a combination wheeled walker rover that can roll along level
terrain at low power and climb over obstacles in a second mode.
The ATHLETE can be tele-operated either by a stranded human
mission or, if the mission is unable to do this, by the lunar base
using communications relay stations in orbit. (The combination
LSAM and ATHLETE is hereafter referred to as the M-LSAM.)
This choice was made using the quantitative decision tool with an
increased weight for technical readiness and freedom of location.
(The adjusted weights were shown in Table 4-27.)
For this system of storage and delivery elements to be compatible
with each other and with the consumer elements, the interfaces
must be standardized.

95
Full Moon

Figure 4-26: Supply system overview

4.2Interfaces
It is critical that all the systems have compatible (and therefore
standardized) interfaces. These interfaces will be used between
the storage fixed tanks and the delivery tanks, and between the
delivery tanks and the consumers. The general layout of this is
shown in Figure 4-27.

Figure 4-27: Interfaces between production and storage

elements

4.2.1Interfaces with the M-LSAM

The M-LSAM has two refueling hoses (one for LH2 and one for
LOX) articulated and actuated by a robotic arm, remotely
operated from the lunar base.
This operated hoses dock either on the full tanks at the
production-storage site to fill up the M-LSAM tanks or on the
ascender tanks at delivery.

96
 Introduction

The armed hose is shown in Figure 4-28.

Figure 4-28: Articulated hose for fuel transfer

4.2.2Interfaces with Local Servicing Rovers

Upload of full tanks on rover and download of empty tanks from
rover at the production-storage facility: juxtaposition of rover to
fixed stand, and transfer with conveyor belts.
The lunar base has the same armed hoses as on the M-LSAM,
used to transfer the life support fuel from the tank brought by a
rover.
Two robotic arms (with internal piping) will be installed in each
unit to facilitate cryogen transfer. These robotic arms will extend
from the fuel port of the tank, and will be autonomously or
remotely controlled, with the capacity to be operated manually.
The need for two arms is due to the highly explosive nature of the
two propellants, and since pipe cleaning procedures will be
minimal, each fuel must have its own delivery system.

The filling process is described as follows:

1) The “hands” of the arms are docked with the appropriate
ports on the receiving tank, and are locked in place. One
connection is made to remove vapor created during tank
chill-down, and the other for removing tank residuals and
tank filling.
2) Any residual fuel remaining in the tank is drained and
stored for later use.
3) A sprayer head is injected into the receiving tank from one
of the “hands”, and a small amount of fuel is sprayed into
the tank interior to complete the tank chill-down. The newly
created vapor is evacuated to the tanks compressor, where
it is condensed and stored for later use.
4) Once tank chill-down is completed, tank filling begins. Once
the tank is filled, all valves are closed, both arms are
unlocked, and servicing is complete.
It should be noted that each tank has individual valves that must
be opened for each interaction. All interfaces should be

97
Full Moon

standardized in order to facilitate docking and transfer

procedures. In the event a customer wishes to be serviced via a
vented fill, this can be accomplished without the need for the
sprayer and the second arm, as thermal energy will be removed
via the vapor evacuating to space.

4.2.3Communications
A communications infrastructure is necessary to support this
supply system architecture. The communications system is
assumed to be deployed and operating when lunar cryogen
supply operations begin. The communications system will link the
production facility at the pole to the mid-latitude customers via
relay stations that are either ground stations on Earth or orbiting
the Moon.
Communications is needed to perform telemetry, command and
voice communication between the delivery systems and the base.
Continuous service is required, since voice and data transfer are
needed for monitoring and commanding the mobile systems
during travel and refueling. Three earth ground stations would be
needed to ensure 24 hour communications.
It is expected the communication system will receive and transmit
in the S band and Ka band (Bufkin et al. 1988). A pros and cons
analysis is performed of the following communication concepts in
Table 4-28.
To extend the local delivery system range, “a tower antenna
would be required at the base, on the vehicle or both” (Bufkin et
al. 1988). This is called direct line communications and has a
range of 50 km and requires that there be no obstacles between
the two points. The propellant production facility will be in a
crater, so this method of communication might not be ideal. To
eliminate a large tower antenna, Bufkin et al. (1988) recommend
relay stations.
In early lunar base development stages, relay stations from Earth
are recommended. With expanded lunar activity, a network of
relay satellites and GNSS-type systems in Low Lunar Orbit (LLO)
may be justified. Or satellites can be placed in the Earth-Moon L1
point that will allow continuous communications for the near side
(Id.).

Table 4-28: Communications concept comparisons

98
 Introduction

Concept Advantages Disadvantages

-Short distances only
Direct line -Cannot relay through
+Quick and easy set-
Communicati obstacles
up
ons -Large tower antennas
required
+Large tower antennas
not required
-Cannot be used for
Relay +Good for local
relaying to equator and
Stations coverage (e.g. South
farther
Pole main base)

Relay -Need a more complex

Satellite / +Large coverage infrastructure, like putting
Earth Relay satellites in orbit
With a complete and compatible system architecture, now the
operations aspect can be reviewed.

4.3Operations
The system will provide local delivery to the South Pole base, pre-
delivery at the equator and emergency services. The servicing
method must be autonomous in all cases. The following sections
describe how the system architecture will be used to satisfy
customer service and safety.

4.3.1Storage Tank Rotation

The storage system can be described as five functional units
(assigned letters A to E) in order to simplify the architectural
description.
Unit-A is a fixed large scale storage unit partnered with the
production facility. This large unit will allow for production when all
other tanks are in use.
Unit-B will be used to support the needs of the lunar base. It is
logical to assume that the base may request or require that one
unit be filled and operated constantly for “back-up” lunar base
support, for the psychological well-being of the inhabitants, and to
be utilized if an instantaneous need arises in an emergency
situation. Therefore one unit will be assumed to be filled and in
constant use, located in the permanently shadowed crater in
order to reduce the energy demand. It should be noted that
according to Nortunado (2007), continuous operation of cryogenic
systems offer greater reliability compared to numerous thermal
transient cycles, therefore units traveling between the South Pole
and the equator will be more heavily taxed than those in the
South Pole environment.
Unit-C and Unit-D are mounted on mobile trailers and would be
used for customer servicing, moving between production facility
and launch area or lunar base.
The function of Unit-E would be that of a back-up unit in case
Units B to D shows signs of fatigue and is about to fail. The lunar

99
Full Moon

environment and its effect on a set of tanks with identical designs

cannot be predicted. The thermal conditions experienced by this
tank will be more or less constant, given that it will be located in a
permanently shadowed crater (the exception being when the
production facility is being moved). Unit-E would not be moved or
used unless it is deemed necessary. Unit-E can be moved by the
same transportation system as the production facility.
The tanks B, C and D will be rotated in order to equalize the type
and amount of stresses across the tanks, as to prevent one tank
from being stressed to the point of failure from constant use in a
more taxing role. Thermal considerations when choosing the tank
materials will therefore be of primary importance.

4.3.2Servicing Methods
The options for servicing methods are numerous and it is likely
that a combination of all of these aspects may be the only
solution that it viable regarding procedures as complicated as
those involved in fuel storage, transportation and transfer. Below
you will find a brief description of the advantages and
disadvantages of each, regarding the possible options.
Hands-on Servicing
In order to provide hands-on servicing, the M-LSAM would either
require a human pilot that could facilitate transfer upon landing or
an-unpiloted M-LSAM would be set-up with a delivery system that
the customer could easily understand and use. A human pilot has
the advantages of quick decision making capacity, unique
problem solving ability, as well as efficient motor control. Also a
human has the ability to facilitate repairs in the case of
mechanical malfunction. These aspects are not something that
can easily be reproduced in remote or autonomous systems.
However, the use of a human pilot increases the risk involved with
every delivery, increases the launch mass and fuel expenditure.
This would also require the expenditure of additional fuel to
balance the weight of the human, the additional support
structure, EVA equipment and fuel required for life support. A
manned M-LSAM is therefore not recommended, as the reactivity
and the skills of humans can be brought with an efficient tele-
operation system.
Remote Servicing
Due to communications issues with distant customers, either the
on-duty ground station or the South Pole production facility would
be responsible for remote control. In order to minimize delay
times, it is thought that ground station control is the better
choice. In terms of piloting, due to the delay times associated with
remote control from the ground station, this is not really an
option. Should something unpredicted occur, there is simply too
much risk involved due to the time required for appropriate
reaction. One counter-argument to this is the concept of passing
remote M-LSAM control to the customer on the ground. This would
result in minimal delay time, but would place the responsibility for
M-LSAM landing, payload delivery and M-LSAM return on the

100
 Introduction

customer. It would likely require extensive training in advance for

the “pilot”.
Once on the ground, remote control is much simpler. Delay time is
not the primary issue and fuel transfer could easily be directed
remotely (via the use of robotic transportation means and transfer
lines) from the ground station, South Pole station or the customer.
One advantage of this is that there is no need for human Extra-
Vehicular Activity (EVA) to facilitate this type of servicing. Should
an EVA not be possible by the customer, refueling can still be
accomplished.
Autonomy
Autonomous servicing is highly dependent on the abilities of the
intelligent systems in use. With autonomous piloting, there is
potential for extremely accurate and safe landings, and
depending on the level of program complexity, there is the
possibility of quick reactions in the case of emergency.
Autonomous service, as in remote service, would require minimal
additions to launch masses, and no additional infrastructure for
life support. Autonomous fuel transfer should be possible with the
use of standardized systems as long as sufficient and accurate
sensor data is being supplied to the program in use. This type of
servicing has no issues associated to communication delay time.
One obvious disadvantage to remote servicing as well as
autonomous servicing is that they are limited in their ability to
problem solve as well as to react quickly in case of emergency.
Although autonomous programs can be made adaptable,
unpredictable situations may arise, which a given program is not
able to compensate. Autonomous systems may also behave in an
undesirable way, due to things such as Single Event Upsets (SEU),
as sensor data could be misinterpreted. Sensor malfunction is
another worry in this case. If autonomy is the desired method, all
transfer processes should be closely monitored remotely to
ensure delivery, as well as provide the option for manual override
if necessary.
In conclusion, it is recommended to use a remotely controlled
M-LSAM, so as to associate advantages related to unmanned
vehicles, while keeping a good level of human interactive
capability to cope with occurrence of contingencies.

4.3.3Local Service with Wheeled Rovers

A wheeled rover is used as a “tow truck” and would be used to
move around mobile tank unit trailers, LOX and LH2 tanks and
supporting equipment, on a wheeled platform, as presented on
Figure 4-27. The tank units would be picked up at the production
and storage facility in the shadowed crater, and brought at the
lunar base (life support) or to an ascender coming for refuel in the
lunar base close vicinity (a few kilometers). It would come back
empty at the production facility and would leave the mobile tank
unit there for refueling. Between delivery events, the wheeled
rover would be available for other tasks, as explained in the
introduction.

101
Full Moon

4.3.4Equatorial Service with the M-LSAM

The M-LSAM will serve as the fuel transportation unit, commuting
between the launch area on the South Pole (near the production-
storage site), and the consumers, located in the equatorial region
on the near-side of the Moon. The M-LSAM will service one
customer at a time. This is a realistic estimate, as only a few lunar
ascenders (customers) will come to the Moon every year in the
near-term (low demand) scenario.
The launch area will be located at a safe distance (a few hundred
meters) from the production facility. The M-LSAM will use its
walking capabilities (ATHLETE) to travel between the launch area
and the production facility for refuel from the larger fixed storage
unit. In addition it can traverse between the landing location and
the customer upon landing.
The main risk associated with delivering fuel on the lunar surface
is the necessity of its supply to the customer. The customer’s
survival is dependent on the delivery of the fuel, if their ascender
has been launched with only enough fuel to arrive on the lunar
surface. With this in mind, the majority of the risk should be on
the shoulders of the fuel supplier, and not on the customer.
The M- LSAM will land in the area of the target (either the
ascender on the way there or the production-storage facility on
the way back) and move to within approximately 100 m using the
ATHLETE to prevent creating a dust cloud at the target, provided
the targets are properly beaconed.
The additional close range mobility to get right to the target will
be provided by the ATHLETE rover module of the M- LSAM. We
need communication between lunar base (manned) and the M-
LSAM and the customer ascender via Earth.
Pre-arrival Delivery
In the pre-delivery scenario, communications between the
customer and the supplier will be established prior to M-LSAM
launch, in order to determine their targeted landing location as
well as to meet their needs post landing. Also, visual observations
of the targeted landing area will be provided by the customer
from orbit, in order to facilitate the safe landing of the M-LSAM.
The launch trajectory will be calculated from data provided from
in orbit customer observations and observations made by the
ground stations on Earth. The M-LSAM will be launched, and will
land at the predicted customer landing site. Upon arrival, a
homing beacon will be activated to aid the customer in locating
the fuel supply on the surface, as well as assist a landing within
an acceptable range for fueling. By delivering the fuel before the
customer touches down, we minimize the risk for the customer,
and maximize the risk for the provider. Should the M-LSAM not be
able to launch for whatever reason, the customer will still have
sufficient ability to abort. Should the customer land outside of the
acceptable range, servicing will be impossible, and a back-up
LSAM will have to be sent for servicing in its place.

102
 Introduction

Post-arrival Delivery
In the post-arrival delivery scenario, communications between the
customer and the supplier will also be established prior to M-LSAM
launch. This will avoid unnecessary launches, oversized launch
payloads and inaccurate trajectories. The launch trajectory will be
calculated using observational data received from the ground
stations on Earth, which will provide the exact location of the
customer on the lunar surface. Data will be provided by the
customer regarding lunar surface properties surrounding their
landing site. From this data a preferred landing target for the
M-LSAM will be determined. Upon determination of the preferred
landing site, it is the responsibility of the customer to activate a
homing beacon at the desired location. This homing beacon will
be provided by the fuel supplier, and will be brought from Earth.
By delivering the fuel post-arrival, the risk is minimized for the
supplier. In the event that the customer decides to abort, no fuel
has been expended by the supplier. Should the M-LSAM not be
able to launch, a back-up LSAM would be launched in its place.
Should no LSAM be able to launch, the customer is left to fend for
his/her self. This scenario is acceptable provided an emergency
service is available to mitigate contingencies on the part of
customers.

4.3.5Emergency Services with the Modified

LSAM
Standard safety procedures for launch will be followed prior to
each M-LSAM delivery, including vehicle inspection and
operational testing on-site. Upon passing safety inspection, the
M-LSAM will be cleared for launch and will depart on its pre-
determined launch trajectory.
It will be requested that the customer performs a simple step-by-
step inspection of the M-LSAM prior to and after filling procedures
have taken place. This inspection will be made as simple as
possible, but will increase the probability of discovering a problem
should one arise. It will also ensure customer safety in the event
of system damage/failure. Identical launch procedures regarding
determination of ideal trajectory will take place, and operational
tests will be completed via ground station control. After customer
and operational tests have been completed, the M-LSAM will
return to the launch area.
The emergency service would be a modify service from the
equatorial general service use. Emergency delivery of propellant
will occur when the tank of a user fails. Therefore, on top of
delivery fuel, new tanks should be delivered. The payload consists
of one standard 3 600 kg LOX tank, one standard 450 kg LH2 tank
and the associated tank subsystems. This differs from the general
delivery service, where fuel is carried in M-LSAM own tanks. It is
also recommended to specifically dedicate an M-LSAM for
emergencies, which would be available anytime very shortly. This
emergency M-LSAM would be stationed in stand-by with full tanks
in the shadowed crater. As Figure 4-29 indicates, assistance in
equatorial regions could be brought less than two hours.

103
Full Moon

Figure 4-29: Emergency delivery storyboard

Admittedly, the emergency service would be very expensive to

operate. Minimizing human safety issues would however
encourage lunar exploration missions and activities on the Moon
in general.

4.3.6Maintenance
Maintenance routines must be designed for minimum human
interaction and training. This implies modular construction so
that repairs and replacements are simple sub-system swaps. It
also requires a self-diagnostic system for the vehicles to eliminate
time-intensive trouble-shooting. All vehicles will be maintained at
the South Pole production-storage site. All spare parts must be on
site, delivered from Earth.
The rovers and M-LSAM will have monitoring sensors
communicating with the base constantly providing information on
the health of the vehicle and fuel storage (e.g. pressure and
temperature). Cleaning will be performed on a regular basis to
prevent contamination and degradation of moving parts from the
abrasive lunar dust. This can be performed initially by humans
and later by robotic washers (similar to the automatic car wash at
gas stations). A back-up rover can be used to tow a broken rover
to the base for repairs. Minor repairs can be performed at the
delivery site using the tele-operation system (for getting back to
the base).

4.4The System Blueprints

The delivery and storage systems were designed in collaboration.
This section gives details of what is needed to implement the

104
 Introduction

proposed system architecture given the projected lunar

development plans.

4.4.1Storage Implementation
Storage Units will be brought from Earth as parts and will be
assembled on-site. The spherical tanks will be brought in sections
(imagine an orange cut in half, and then each half sliced into four
identical pieces). The method of assembly is not described here,
although it is assumed that a method for surface assembly can be
devised. The tank casing including subsystems will be modular,
and will also be integrated and assembled once on the lunar
surface. This will maximize volumetric efficiency of the tank
related cargo, and therefore allow for more cargo to be
transported.
Number of Tanks
The number of tanks required depends on the number of
customers needing servicing, and the desired flexibility of the
system. The overall depot capacity is only related to the number
of tanks when determining tank sizing. The objective of the
storage architecture is to avoid hindering the ability to produce
fuel at any given time, given the chance of multiple customers or
emergency needs.
Four identical 3 600 kg tanks for LOX and four identical 500 kg
tanks for LH2 will be required. The tank mass dimensions are
based on projected customer needs. The specifications for the
tanks are found in the Table 4-29. The tank masses include a 3%
loss margin for LOX and a 9% loss margin for LH2. The
specifications were calculated using the equations in Appendix B.
Table 4-29: Tank dimensions
Volume Radiu
Contents [m3] s
[m]
3 600 kg 3.2 0.9
LOX
500 kg LH2 7.0 1.2
Eight tanks (or four “units”, consisting of one LOX tank and one
LH2 tank) are necessary in order to provide a system with the
flexibility to support a lunar base, provide fuel servicing to
customers near the base and at the equator, as well as provide
minimal redundancy. One must design a system that is capable of
handling a period of high turnover in the event of its occurrence,
to provide sufficient instantaneous capacity and redundancy, as
well allow for growth.
The Tank Design
Tank masses were calculated based on tank volume, material
density and calculated thickness for the materials considered. The
materials chosen for assessment were also compared based on
their coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), as well as thermal
conductivity. High thermal conductivity and high coefficients of

105
Full Moon

thermal expansion were regarded as negative attributes, as

higher thermal conductivity means higher energy consumption,
and a higher coefficient of thermal expansion mean more thermal
stress effects due to temperature cycling. These values are listed
in the table below. Thicknesses of the inner and outer vessels
were assumed to be the same. For safety purposes, tank
thickness was not allowed to be less than 1.5 mm for LOX and
2.0 mm for LH2. The material volume required for the
construction of the inner vessel was doubled to approximate the
amount of material needed for both the inner and outer vessel
construction.
Table 4-30 Tank dimensions by material (www.matweb.com)
Tank
Tank Mass Therma
Thickness
l
CTE
Material LOX LOX Conduc
LH2 LH2 [μm/m/K]
[ [ tivity
[mm] [kg]
mm] kg] [W/m/K]
Teflon 1.5 2.0 167 457 0.2 14x10-5
Carbon
2.1 3.4 77 209 50- 100 6
composite
Stainless Steel 3.6 5.9 250 564 17 15.9
Aluminum-
1.5 2.0 85 190 88 23.6
lithium alloy
As one can see from the above, although aluminum lithium alloy
does not have the ideal thermal characteristics, its advantages in
mass are apparent. Stainless steel was found to require the
highest mass for tanks overall. In terms of thermal properties,
Teflon has the lowest thermal conductivity, as well as the lowest
CTE. Aluminum-lithium alloy has the highest CTE of the materials
assessed, and has arguably the highest thermal conductivity. With
effective passive thermal insulation, thermal stress effects and
heat flux through the tank walls should be minimized. Therefore,
based on the available data, aluminum lithium alloy is the
recommended choice for tank material.
All tanks are designed with identical sensors, compressors, valves,
ports, supports for ease of maintenance and use. All sensors are
modular and are removable to facilitate maintenance and repair.

4.4.2Local Delivery System Implementation

Two rovers are needed: one for servicing (assuming low demand,
i.e. one costumer at a time) and one for back-up for continuous
support in case of a break-down or during maintenance cycles.
The wheeled rover is fully tele-operated. It will connect to a tanker
at the production-storage site, tow the tanker to the consumer
site and connect for transferring fuel. After replenishing the
consumer, the rover returns the tanker to the production site. The
tanker will be in line for refilling.
The delivery of the lunar propellant shall be done through the use
of wheeled rovers. In that perspective, many constraints arise

106
 Introduction

with regards to the rover design. First, the rover shall be able to
cover a range of approximately two km. It must also be able to
carry a payload of 4 tonnes. On the way to the destination site,
the rover will travel over rough terrain and through regolith. The
maximum inclination due to terrain shall be 30º. The rover must
withstand a maximum temperature range between 200K and
365 K. These constraints assure the success of the mission and
also reduce the risk of failure for the rover.
Key Subsystems – Power
The rover needs power for mobility. This can be provided by
photovoltaic cells, batteries or fuel cells. Fuel cells were chosen
since they will be also used for thermal control of the propellant
tanks (see Table 4-31). Photovoltaic cells will be added to this
subsystem, providing redundancy and increasing reliability. The
total power consumed by the rover to cover a distance of five
kilometers (two kilometers to and from delivery site and one
kilometers safety margin) is 10.5 kWh (see calculation in
Appendix B).
Table 4-31: Rover power system options
Concept Advantages Disadvantages
+LOX and LH2 already -Fuel cell technology still
in production on the needs development;
Fuel Cells
Moon, so abundant therefore current reliability
supply is available status is unknown.
+Self-contained, no
-Heavy (Earth-supply
Batteries production facility
consideration)
required
-Can only be used during
daylight, cannot be the
primary power system.
-If more power is needed,
+Abundant unlimited larger bulkier solar panels
Solar supply of solar radiation. are required, not feasible on
Cells +Technology is reliable a moving rover.
-Power deteriorates with
exposure to lunar
environment (radiation,
dust), high maintenance

Wheel Configurations
The purpose of the rover wheels is to allow the rover to overcome
obstacles and drive through the lunar sand without much
resistance. They are also responsible for assuring a smooth
journey to avoid damage to the rover and the propellant tanks.
Increasing the number of wheels improves the redundancy of the
system. However, fewer larger wheels make a simpler, lighter
design. The high, thin wheels have less “bulldozing” resistance
and better clearance, but have packaging problems (Bufkin et al.
1988). After analyzing all those options, it is recommended that
the rover be designed with small wheels to increase stability and
redundancy (see Table 4-32). Also the materials of the wheels

107
Full Moon

should be metallic, but at the same time flexible. The NASA Lunar
Roving Vehicle (LRV) is designed with metallic wire mesh wheels
(Young 2007) (Rubber and plastic cannot be used due to extreme
temperatures).
Table 4-32: Rover wheel options
Concept Advantages Disadvantages
+ Increase the - Will cover lesser surface
consistency of the rover area in a given time
Smaller
+ Small, so can be - Need many small wheels
wheels
made redundant (more parts, so more
maintenance)
+ Are simpler and are
Large /
light in weight
lighter - Have packaging problems
+ Less “bulldozing”
wheels
resistance

4.5Technical Risks
Technical risks have been identified for the storage and delivery
elements.

4.5.1Storage
The highest overall risk is refrigeration failure, which would lead to
cryogen loss. The best mitigation is a dual system. Explosion,
while it has a high potential for damage, is improbable since there
are no reactants in the lunar environment (i.e. no atmosphere).
This is resolved with separation of volatiles and mitigation
strategies for individual components. Structural failure and
transfer arm malfunctions are less severe, but slightly more
probable because of the complexity of the systems.
Modularization and a local supply of pre-tested spare parts are
good mitigation strategies. Sensor failure is the most likely, but
has little impact with minor mitigation by redundancy. The least
likely or severe is a valve malfunction – this is well-proven
technology and a back-up regulated valve can mitigate this.

108
 Introduction

4.5.2Delivery
The technical risks associated with the wheeled rover and LSAM-
ATHLETE system are low to medium. The wheeled rover is a low
risk since it is a renovation of a relatively simple proven
technology. The LSAM is low risk because it is necessary for the
higher level purpose of supplying the lunar base from Earth, so
the development is assured by NASA. Both the LSAM and the
ATHLETE are based on proven technology. The simplicity of the
LSAM ballistic component and its close relation to decades of
history in rocket propulsion also greatly reduce the risk. However,
adding the complexity of the new ATHLETE rover is a moderate
risk – during use, the articulated joints and wheeled drive train
imply multiple failure modes, but these are mitigated by the
redundancy in components (multiple arms and independent wheel
shafts) and the increased terrain capability and the utility of the
whole system to delivery to an area without the rover component.

4.6Adaptations for the Optimistic

Scenario
Given an optimistic future, with potential customers supplying
cryogens to orbit for Mars missions, the proposed system
architecture will scale well.

4.6.1Scaling Up the Architecture

In the optimistic scenario, production will remain at the South
Pole. The storage and delivery system will be scaled up to meet
an estimated 150 tonnes demand per year.
In later phases of the mission, there might be a high demand for
propellant. In order to meet that demand, the delivery system will
need to be scaled up. This would mean increasing payload
capacity, turn-around time or the number of functioning vehicles
at one time.
Deliveries in the local South Pole would increase and the
individual delivery demands would be higher. To meet this, the
mobile storage tanks should be scaled without exceeding the load
of the local wheeled rover and trailer. The number of rovers may
also increase if the lunar base expands and demands become
concurrent, although it is unlikely to exceed the carrying capacity
of the original system. A third rover is recommended to provide
more redundancy for the higher demand.

4.6.2New Services
The future of lunar based propellants.

4.6.3Recommendation: A Proposed
Architecture
The recommended system architecture consists of modular
storage tanks for LOX and LH2 with standardized interfaces to a

109
Full Moon

fixed production-storage site and mobile delivery systems. For the

local baseline scenario, wheeled rovers with trailer storage tanks
are considered the most technically mature delivery system that
can easily be scaled to suit future needs at the South Pole. For the
equatorial baseline scenario, the M-LSAM (NASA’s LSAM lander
combined with the ATHLETE rover) is recommended for either pre-
delivery for human exploration missions or for emergency “door-
to-door” service anywhere in the southern hemisphere.
In the event that a Mars mission demand scenario develops, the
local delivery system can be scaled up to meet the needs of
orbital service vehicles. This begs the question - can a business
case be built to support this architecture?

110
 Introduction

_____________________________________Chapter 5
5 The Business Analysis

In Chapter 3, the primary shape and structure of storage tanks and

delivery infrastructure that make up the lunar gas station were
introduced. Once the preliminary system architecture has been
selected (Chapter 4), it is essential to evaluate the economics of
establishing them and turning it into ‘regular business’. The idea of a
lunar gas station brings a financially lucrative image to mind, but the
burden of heavy initial investment can impose a barrier to entry into
market. Through a preliminary economic evaluation carried out in the
subsequent sections, the cost of delivered LOX and LH2 on the lunar
surface is determined. Costing of products derived in space still
remains an unmastered art; hence a variation of market demand
(projections, See Chapter 2) and business models is evaluated. It is
assumed for all through the analysis that the production facility for LOX
and LH2 is in operation and that the lunar gas station storage
components are established in its vicinity. The costing, financial
strategy determination and risk analysis that follow derive heavily from
assumptions (see Section 5.1) and the reader is requested to consider
these. Different business partnerships options are evaluated to identify
the candidate organizations interested in embarking on turning the
lunar gas station to reality in the next 20 years. Finally, pricing (based
on two Market projections) is followed by considerations for new taxing
strategies.

5.1Approach and Overview

To assist the reader in understanding the factors that influenced the
final business solution the process flow of the analysis carried out is
explained in Figure 5-30. Current roadmaps detailed in Chapter 2 were
taken as market demand for storage and delivery services. To match
this demand each component of the storage and delivery process was
costed and the cost of the final product determined. Given that in the
absence of the said services, one would have to rely on launching from
Earth (product baseline), it was used to compare if the business would
be profitable for various combinations of market players. Risk, income
expectations and partnerships (business models) were used to
complement the previous pricing to result in a financial strategy to
market.

111
Full Moon

Figure 5-30: Business analysis logic flow chart

As seen recently, with the completion of the ISS, heavy investment
ventures in space business are highly susceptible to the level of
International cooperation. Chapter 2 briefly looked at different
scenarios pertaining to international cooperation. These three
scenarios: No International Cooperation, Moderated level of
International Cooperation and Strong International Cooperation, have
reflected in the financial analysis to help assess the combination of
business partnership best suited to own and operate the lunar gas
station.
Before one engages in determining if the lunar gas station is profitable,
some important considerations regarding the market demand
described in Chapter 2 (Sub Section 1.3) must be revisited. Some
modifications and assumptions used for the economic analysis are
highlighted and limitations explained in the section that follows.

5.1.1Market Demand Overview

Current Projections
According to the market research performed the baseline demand will
consist primarily by NASA (NASA 2004) and its international partners as
shown in *Data obtained from the Market demand Analysis Chapter 2.
which represents a 22 tonnes demand of LOX and 3 tonnes of LH2 per
year. The analysis carried out assumed a 20 year economic life of
business, starting in 2028. This timescale albeit too short for such a
business, is only analyzed until the year 2047 due to the difficulty in
predicting how cis-lunar market would behave in that time. it As the
lunar resources market develops, having several international
customers and a more diverse space industry, would lead to higher
market demand projection, as shown in *Data obtained from the
Market demand Analysis Chapter 2. The amounts needed on the lunar
surface are expected to be 112 tonnes of LOX and 21 tonnes of LH2 per
year.

112
 Introduction

Low LOX, LH2 Demand Market Scenario

30.0
20.0 LH2
tonnes
10.0 LOX
0.0

2028

2036
2037
2038
2039
2040

2042
2029
2030
2031
2032
2033
2034
2035

2041

2043
2044
2045
2046
2047
Year

*Data obtained from the Market demand Analysis Chapter 2.

Figure 5-31: Low Demand Scenario of LOX and LH2*

High LOX, LH2 Market Demand Scenario

200.0
tonnes150.0 LH2
100.0
LOX
50.0
0.0
2030

2035

2040

2043

2045
2028
2029

2031
2032
2033
2034

2036
2037
2038
2039

2041
2042

2044

2046
2047
Year

*Data obtained from the Market demand Analysis Chapter 2

Figure 5-32: High Demand Scenario of LOX and LH2*
For the timeline considered in Figure 5-31 and Figure 5-32 the amounts
of LOX and LH2 required are different to those deduced in Chapter 2,
as only USA and International partners were considered to establish the
costumer baseline. On the other hand, an international consortium of
USA, Russia, ESA, China and third parties resulting in Figure 5-32.
Evolution of Market and its Players
The initial market projections are based on primary lunar bases
operations that would be established and run by governmental
agencies. As the lunar bases operations develop, a business operating
the storage and delivery operations may also be able to increase the
customer base to a multitude of other businesses carrying out
commercial activities. In the economic analysis, this is reflected as
Business to Government, and Business to Business approaches as
follows:
The Business to Government (B2G) approach is the concept of an
entity whose primary customer is the government (FEMP 2003). It
addresses the fact that most high technological endeavors are started
with government support and that the market is often developed by
government. This results for the low market projection are given in
Figure 5-31.
The Business to Business (B2B) approach is the concept of an entity
whose primary customer is another business, non-governmental
related. A lunar gas station facility under such an approach would be
operated by business partners who are interested in servicing

113
Full Moon

commercial as well as scientific mission traffic. This results in the high

market projection are given in Figure 5-32.

5.2Supply Overview
The cost estimation of the lunar gas station addresses the storage, the
delivery and the production part of the architecture. For the purposes
of the business analysis of the proposed infrastructure, the cost of the
production facility and the process had to be determined. To reflect the
infrastructure required to supply the market demand projected in
*Data obtained from the Market demand Analysis Chapter 2., the
number of production plants, rovers and storage tanks to be developed
over a 20 year lifetime is provided in Table 5-33.
Table 5-33: Forecasted required infrastructure for total lifespan of 20
years
Demand Supply infrastructure to be setup
forecasted required*
Scenario
Average per
Production Storage Rovers
year (t)
plants(t) tanks (t) (t)
High
Demand 111 36 16 20
LOX, LH2
Low
Demand 25 12 8 8
LOX, LH2
* For detailed explanation please refer to Chapter 4
The business case selected that the service of the company should be
only through the delivery in a short term radius of operation up to two
kilometers, which correspond to a delivery time in approximately two
hours.

5.2.1Lunar Oxygen and Hydrogen Supply Service

Two options were considered for the approach of a lunar gas station.
The first is a self service concept requiring customers to come to the
gas station, which is not acceptable due to the variance in customer
needs. The second approach is a full service where the gas station
goes to the customer using rovers to deliver the product.
The full service option better addresses the need of the customer to
explore various regions of the Moon and was chosen as the path
forward.

5.2.2Assumptions
The economic analysis derives heavily from assumptions made for the
lunar gas station system architecture (Chapter 4). The reader is
encouraged to refer be aware of these along with ones specific to the
economic analysis, elaborated as under:
• All values are expressed in USD FY 2006 unless stated otherwise
and were translated using NASA New Start Inflation Index (NASA
2005).

114
 Introduction

• The market scenario for the lunar gas station where the operator
company performs is a natural monopoly.
• The interfaces between the production, storage and delivery
were assumed to be negligible compared to capital costs.
• The simplest system of storage and delivery were used for the
project cost analyses, and long distance services are not
included in this business case.
• Operation costs are assumed to be 12% of the total capital cost
per year.
• It is assumed that the production facility is operational in year
2028 and a communication network is already set up, resulting
in lower operational costs
• A low dependency on astronaut EVA is assumed, and costs
associated are considered negligible

5.3Business Solutions
National space policy typically emphasizes the use of commercially
available goods and services as a means of encouraging and increasing
private investments in space activity. There is already a pronounced
interest by the commercial space sector in cis-lunar activities including
re-fuelling in orbit as well as on the moon surface (refer to details in
Chapter 2). However, the major factor inhibiting entry is the high
capital required for investment and the associated risks. Here, the
main types of business solutions are examined to analyze their
effectiveness for establishing a lunar gas station.

5.3.1Public Cooperation Scenarios for

Development Phase
The possibility of the idea to come to fruition relies heavily on the
socio-political scenarios i.e. the extent to which agencies and private
industry are partnering and cooperating, often dictated by policy
changes in their countries. The three main business solutions that are
assessed for different socio-political scenarios are detailed as in Figure
5-33. It is assumed that production facilities are already set up,
primarily by NASA or a US space industry integrator. This assumption
for ‘first to market’ is purely based on evidence from published
documents, which suggests that plans of NASA and its industry
partners are further developed than those of several agencies that
have merely registered an interest in lunar activities.

115
Full Moon

Figure 5-33: Multi Public Private Partnership example for a Lunar Gas
station

No International Cooperation
The lunar gas station established in a socio-political environment
allowing no international cooperation would be owned by a single
entity private investment or government. Three possible investors are
shown in Figure 5-33 and are a private company such as a space
integrator, a national space agency, and a company based on different
joint venture concepts. Although this might be the more attractive
‘First to market’ approach, it would require a sustained flow of heavy
funds.
Even if the high initial investments are financed, the space agency
needs to maintain a strong commitment to this program and build an
important support based on opinion of the taxing paying public.
Furthermore, the market may be very small and it will be difficult to
find others customers of the lunar gas station. Consequently, in this
scenario, it is not sure if the project can be profitable.
Strong International Cooperation
This cooperation would be based on a strong multilateral cooperation
between space agencies (NASA, Roskosmos, ESA, CSA, and JAXA,
maybe ISRO or CNSA) and potentially some private companies. This
scenario corresponds to stronger interrelationships than is currently
seen for the International Space Station.
The application of this international cooperation will depend on the
evolution of the lunar exploration plans of the space agencies and their
will to cooperate for a common goal.

116
 Introduction

Moderate International Cooperation

A strong international cooperation can be difficult to implement due to
a large number of reasons: internal political issues, problems of specific
bilateral of multilateral relationships, non confidence between partners,
political rivalry and cultural differences. In the last case, the study
assumes a moderate situation resulting in some level of international
cooperation as an efficient compromise. This model is often referred to
a Multi-Public Private Partnership (MPPP) (Zervos 2005).
Referring to Figure 5-33, the venture first begins with the management
of the project being taken by different space agencies sharing the
development of the facilities. NASA can be in charge of production
facility and transportation, ESA would take charge in the storage
development and Roskosmos of the delivery, and accordingly negotiate
their use of the lunar gas station.
This relationship would lead to a change in pricing policy as well to
different partners. For example, for the main investor (NASA) the price
would be set as price of the product minus a percentage discount. This
discount could be determined by the amount of investment over a
timeframe that NASA expects to get the invested capital back for the
production infrastructure set up. The percentage of their investment in
the overall lunar gas station would also come into play in calculating
the discount. This would be done likewise for the other partners.

5.3.2Private Joint Venture Operational Phase

Considering the investment it makes economic sense to form a joint
venture to lessen the financial burden and risk on the individual
company. Offsetting the initial investment of the government reduces
the “payback” required by the private member of the PPP. It also pulls
together the expertise base of the merging companies where each
company’s specialization can be exploited within the venture.
(Hennesy 1992)
The role for the government again can take various forms. The two
depicted in the Figure 5-33 are national agency to a joint venture of
international space integrators and the other is a joint venture of a US
space integrator and a big oil company.
International Joint Venture
The national space agency contracts its main space integrator to build
up the infrastructure on the Moon surface for lunar gas station. When
the operation starts, the main national space integrators build up the
international joint venture to operate the lunar gas station. According
to the investment contributions, it can share the high risk and high cost
operation. The disadvantage of this case is inherent in the difficulty to
cooperate between different national space communities. There are lot
of limitations such as Exports Control Regulations, technology transfer
issues and security issues.
USA Joint Venture
When discussing the business of a lunar gas station the first thought to
come to mind is would big earth oil companies be interested? The big
oil companies would bring forward many benefits for the joint venture.

117
Full Moon

Not only there is a solid link in business sector, but also these
companies maintain extremely high revenue streams and spend it
heavily on corporate image.
Investing in the lunar gas station can therefore be profitable to the oil
companies since the project reinforces their advertising strategy.
Practically, their brand names could be displayed on the lunar gas
station infrastructure while their support to the project could be
highlighted in their advertisements or in media. The financial resources
provided by these companies are difficult to estimate precisely and
certainly could not cover all the costs of the lunar gas station project.
In exchange for the financial assistance from the government within
the PPP approach, the private company will be expected to pay back
some portion of that investment to the government. One method that
accommodates the financial risk undertaken by the private company is
for the private company to pay a royalty to the government. This
method will enable the government to receive a percentage of the
company’s revenues, once the project becomes commercially
successful, regardless of the company’s profits or expenses. The length
of time required is dependent upon the amount of government
investment, how much they expect in return, and the level of
profitability of the company. For the Galileo program, a good model of a
PPP scenario, the royalties are evaluated initially around 2% to 5%
(PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2001).

5.3.3Business Solutions Summary

This lunar gas station undertaking will require a heavy investment
during the project life-cycle especially at the initial phase. From the
analysis, it is deduced that the case of no cooperation results in high
investment and risk, thus making it highly improbable. It is difficult to
implement a strong international cooperation historically, which
suggests a low probability for this scenario. Based on the above
preliminary assessment, one can realistically expect the lunar gas
station to happen with minimal international cooperation, possibly at a
smaller extent than international partnerships within the ISS project.

5.4Business Risk Assessment

A risk assessment carefully examined and can be Appendix D. It
consists of identifying the hazards present and then evaluating the
extent of the risk they pose. By carrying out a risk assessment, it
should be easier to assess whether or not enough precautions are
considered to reduce the potential risk and to assess whether or not
more controls are needed to prevent harm. The highest foreseeable
risks are given in Table 5-34.

118
 Introduction

Table 5-34: High risk issues for business analysis

Type of Risk Mitigation
Feasibility of the financial Finance R&D to come with more
cost models realistic options
Market demand too small to Not be too ambitious in
justify investment infrastructure, keep it simple and
(overestimation) do not project the market too far
forward
Partnership failure Establish and sign an International
Governmental Agreement to bind
the parties that belong to the
contract
Unacceptable level of Maintain appropriate insurance
responsibility of refueling coverage and create proper
service standards for lunar surface
refueling
Current NASA policy does Work far in advance to developing
not allow landing without the business model to ensure that
fuel to return NASA can find a common ground
regarding this policy.

5.5Cost Breakdown Analysis

For space missions for lunar exploration and commercialization cost
estimation is difficult and still remains an uncharted territory (FERTILE
Moon 2006). Figure 5-34 suggests the approach that was adopted for
the estimation of cost of different components within our supply
service. Different components have been costed by analogy based on a
review of past lunar missions (both manned and unmanned) and
current space exploration proposals. This data is used to create cost
equations and assumptions that can later be used to calculate
elements of production, storage and delivery cost. The accumulation of
all these cost categories resulted in a final product price.

“ISU
Estimate
FERTILE
Production
Moon”
System cost
cost
Model

Estimate
Delivery
Specific Total
System cost
Space cost product
Mission Equation
& cost
cost data Estimate
Assumptions
Storage
System cost

Figure 5-34: Cost analysis approach for production, storage, and

delivery systems

119
Full Moon

5.5.1Cost Categories
To understand the business in supplying lunar derived products, the
costs of production, storage and supply need to be less than that of
launching products that are ‘ready-to-use’ from the Earth. In order to
do this seemingly simple calculation, one has to determine the cost of
the LOX and LH2 to the lunar gas station operator. Although, the
operator may not be producing the LOX and LH2, it is expected that
they operate in a manner similar to petroleum gas stations on Earth
and price the final product accordingly.
The cost components considered include capital costs required to
develop, construct and launch required facility components, whilst
operating costs considered are labor, costs for buying energy to run
the facility, consumables and maintenance. Although the latter
category provides a wholesome view of the costs involved, the capital
costs form the bulk of the overall costs.
The different variables that are significant for calculating the cost
largely depend on the level of the technology or process, its
technological readiness and complexity and described in Table 5-35.
Table 5-35: Cost category breakdown
Cost Element Factors Involved in Parametric
Costing Term
Capital Cost
Mining Equipment Mass and complexity of lunar
Development and production facility *
Production
Storage Equipment Mass and complexity of lunar storage
Development and facility
Production
Delivery Equipment Mass and complexity of lunar delivery
Development and facility
Production
Launch Cost Specific Earth-Moon transportation cost
(USD/kg)
Operations Cost
Maintenance and Consumable consumption rate (kg/yr),
Consumables Cost specific Earth-Moon transportation cost
(USD/kg)
Energy Cost Specific power of lunar facility, specific
cost of power (USD/kW)
Labor Cost Tele-operation costs, EVA costs
* Assumed that the facilities has already being constructed

5.5.2Launch Cost
The mass of the system is the driving component due to the high cost
of launch from earth. Based on a survey of current launch masses and
launch costs, and not considering the cost of launching to the moon
using systems that are under development, such as the CEV, the
average specific launch cost is 42 400 USD/kg (FERTILE Moon 2006).
Using this value with inflation, the launch cost for the present analysis
has been estimated to be USD 43 200/kg.

120
 Introduction

5.5.3Capital Cost
Production Cost
A tool was developed at ISU in 2006, in order to assess the cost
effectiveness of producing lunar oxygen and hydrogen in-situ by
comparing it to the price baseline of launching all materials from Earth.
This tool, named FERTILE Moon (2006), is capable of providing an
adequate cost for the production of lunar oxygen and hydrogen and
was used as an input to the cost analysis described here. The
production facility demand and processes were matched with
production processes described in Chapter 2 so as to give a close
comparable estimate.
Table 5-36: Inputs and outputs from ISRU model for supplying LOX and
LH2 (FERTILE Moon 2006)
Inputs Outputs
Production Time 30 days Process Cost: USD 26
Million
Hydrogen 333 kg Process Final USD 49
Demand Cost Million
Oxygen Demand 2 676
kg
Electrolysis yes
Option

Storage System Cost

As lunar propellant storage represents a missing link within lunar
roadmaps, it is hard to come by credible estimates of such equipment
and limited studies have looked into the issue of development costs.
The tank specific costs were sourced from NASA Exploration Team Case
study for commercial lunar ice mining as listed in Table 5-37 (Blair
2002).
Table 5-37: LOX and LH2 tanks cost data from ISRU case study (Blair
2002)
Development First Unit
Mass
Tank Cost Cost [USD
[kg]
[USD Million] Million]
LH2 Tank 450 8.4 0.78
LH2 Tank Specific 18 KUSD/kg 1.67
Cost KUSD/kg
LOX Tank 1 999 17.5 2.0
LOX Tank Specific 8.8 KUSD/kg 1 KUSD/kg
Cost
Using the tanks specific cost figures from the Table 5-37, the
development cost of the storage solution chosen within this study
(Chapter 3 and 4) is calculated by multiplying the specific cost of the
mass and thereby obtain the cost numbers in the Table 5-38. The two
types of tanks will be used for storage service.
Table 5-38: Cost for proposed LOX and LH2 tanks

121
Full Moon

M Life Development
Unit Cost
Tank ass Time Cost
[MUSD]
[kg] [years] [MUSD]
LH2 445 10 8 0.7
LOX 218 10 1.9 0.2

Delivery Capital Cost – Rovers

Rovers have been extensively used for space missions and are
developed individually, depending on their main tasks. With the
systems selected for the given study, a review of past rover
development costs was undertaken as shown in Table 5-39.
Table 5-39: Past Robotic Rover Development Cost
M Life Developing
Distance/day
Mission ass Time cost
[m/day]
[kg] [days] [MUSD]
Spirit 150 90 100 400§
Opportuni
150 90 100 400+
ty
Apollo
Moon 92km/day
208 720 190*
rover (12.6km/h)
(LRV)^
+ (Marsha 2006) (FY 2004)
* (Williams 2006) (FY 1971) ^Lunar Rover Vehicle

These rover costs are particularly high-end, given that the Mars Rovers
Spirit and Opportunity are both designed to be autonomous. The rovers
selected within the proposed architecture are not expected to perform
the same level of scientific tasks and are closer to the cost of the LRV
used during the Apollo missions (here, converted to FY2006 for
consistency) as shown in Table 5-40. The unit cost ratio compared to
the development cost is 12% and 30% according to the (NASA Cost
Estimating Handbook 2005) and (Koelle 1996), the rover unit cost is
assumed 16% of the development cost. The rover development cost is
190 million, then the unit cost is 31 million according to specifications
described in detail in Chapter 4 , with the launch cost included (USD
110 million), the unit cost is assumed to be USD 141 million per rover.
Table 5-40: Rover specifications
Mission Mass Lifetime Launch Developme Unit
[t] [years] cost nt cost cost
[MUSD] [MUSD] [MUSD
]
Rover 2.6 5 110 190 141

5.5.4Operation cost
The operation cost is assumed to be 12% of capital cost of system.
This includes the maintenance and consumables cost as well as the
labor cost according to space program historical experiences.

122
 Introduction

5.5.5Summary of Cost Estimation

The cost of producing the LOX and LH2 would affect the final price of
the product delivered to the consumer. It is only possible to fix this
production cost estimate if it can be determined whether the LOX is
derived from regolith or ice core mining. This, as suggested previously
in Chapter 3, awaits confirmation of the presence of ice on the lunar
poles. This gives two options for the costing of different market
demands, as used in Chapter 3 and 4, the ‘no-ice’ and ‘ice’ options.
As shown in the Table 5-41 the total capital and operation costs that
were identified are presented including both scenarios by having ice or
no ice on the Moon and also the scenarios having a high or low market
demand.
Table 5-41: Cost estimation results
Product Storage Delivery
System System System
Items Scenario
Cost Cost Cost
[MUSD] [MUSD] [MUSD]
Total Low market + Ice 3780 256.6 1888
Capital Low Market + No 4300 256.6 1888
Cost ice
High Market + 24035 533 4720
Ice
High Market + 158774 533 4720
No Ice
Total Low market + Ice 4500 30 226
Operatio Low Market + No 5800 30 226
n Cost ice
High Market + 13512 64 568
Ice
High Market + 9505 64 568
No Ice
In conjunction with Table 5-41, Figure 5-35 gives the cost breakdown
for the storage and delivery solutions in the architecture proposed
(Chapter 4).
Ice/ no-ice: The main difference in cost for these two scenarios is
that the two mining methods costs are different, the no-ice option
being higher. For the operator of the lunar gas station, delivery and
storage costs do not change but would reflect in the pricing for the
final product.
Mining: The price of the product has been calculated by the tool
FERTILE Moon (2006) and the reader is requested to refer to this model
to understand how its underlying assumptions have affected the final
costs presented in Table 5-41.
Storage system: The storage system is relatively a low proportion
of the final price. This is an effect of the assumptions taken during the
design of the storage system (tanks are extremely light weight), as well
as the fact that the active thermal control system has not been
included in costing. To compensate, electricity charges to be paid to
the lunar base (to run cryocoolers) were estimated and factored in.

123
Full Moon

Delivery: The delivery system represents a significant portion of the

costs, because as demand rate increases by the years, more numbers
of rovers would be required to provide more fuel. Given that the rover
life time is only five years, replacement may be needed.
Cost per Year
MUSD

200000

180000

160000

140000

120000

100000

80000

60000

40000

20000

0
High High High High Low Low Low Low
demand demand demand demand demand demand demand demand
no ice no ice Ice Ice no ice no ice ice ice
Scenario

Operational cost Capital cost Production cost Storage cost Delivery cost

Figure 5-35: Cost breakdown result overview

5.6Financial Model
The financial model assesses where the required funds come from
(revenues and financing) and what they are used for (recurring and
non-recurring expenses). This information is used to calculate the
performance of a private sector business using valuation metrics such
as the income statement documents (to show profits and losses) and
the cash flow statement.
The statements incorporate assumptions on the project’s capital
strategy, which is the choice of the debt and equity proportion used for
funding. These pro-forma statements require four types of financial
inputs that in turn rely on outputs from the demand and engineering
analyses. These inputs are:
• Revenue inputs (functions of the market share)

• The costs of investments (capital expenditures), operations,

storage and delivery
• Products sales and general administrative inputs

• Taxes and royalties

These required outputs lead the development of this integrated
engineering and economic modeling. The business economic viability is
measured using the financial selection criteria such as the net present
value (NPV) and the internal rate of return (IRR).

124
 Introduction

The way these assumptions are used and how they get to our financial
analysis are shown in the following graphic (Figure 5-36).

Figure 5-36: Financial Model

5.6.1Calculating Annual Costs and Revenues

Private Case
The financial model used here is a generic way to utilize the two
principal financial accounting documents: a balance sheet, which
shows the profits and losses of the revenue and information and a cash
flow statement that characterizes the venture’s annual cash flows.
These documents are used to calculate the performance of a private
company.
It should be noted that the analysis incorporates the assumption that
the capital invested in the project is 100% equity funded. The pro-
forma statements require different types of financial inputs that in turn
rely on outputs from the demand and engineering analyses (see
Chapter 2 and 3). These inputs are:
• Annual Revenue = (price of product) * (number of total sales)
• Annual Cost = (capital cost) + (operation cost)
• Gross Profits= (Annual Revenue) – (Annual Cost)
• Insurance = x * (Annual total Cost) where x is a percentage
• Taxes = Income tax rate/(1 – Income tax rate) * (Gross Profits)
• Contingency = y * (Gross Profits) where y is a percentage
These required outputs lead the development of an integrated
engineering and economic modeling where the final profits would be
obtained.
MPPP
For the MPPP Case, in addition to the above mentioned inputs,
Royalties to the government were added:
• Royalties= z * (Gross Profits) where z is a percentage

125
Full Moon

5.6.2Pricing Approach
It has been assumed that NASA is the largest investor followed by ESA
and Roskosmos. With this assumption, it is necessary to establish
different prices of products according to the size of the contribution
coming from each of the main investors. For example NASA may invest
mainly in plant facilities, ESA for storage systems and Roskomos for
delivery parts. The prices, based on the potential percentage of
involvement, have been identified and listed in the Table 5-42 for each
costumer.
Table 5-42: Pricing of product for each costumer
Customers Discount of price of products
(Market Share) LMD+IC LMD+No HMD+IC HMD+No
E ICE E ICE
NASA (60%) 18% 20% 25% 100%
ESA (15%) 1% 1% 1% 1%
Roskosmos 9% 9% 5% 5%
(15%)
Other Parties 0% 0% 0% 0%
(10%)

5.6.3Selection Criteria
In order to select which scenario would be better for the project, the
NPV and IRR selection criteria have been chosen to validate the
business case.
Net present value (NPV)
The NPV indicator is useful for an investor to measure the current value
of a project and gives an input to choose a profitable investment.
Assuming the project will last T years, the NPV will be:
NPV = CO + Σ [Ct / (1+r)t ]
With CO = Initial investment at time 0, which is usually negative
(PV cost) if it is an investment.
If the investment is viable, the NPV has a positive value. To know the
value of the NPV, we can use the internal rate of return (Brealey 2003).
Internal rate of return (IRR)
The IRR is defined as the discount rate which makes NPV=0. Applying
the IRR discount rate into the NPV equation, we can deduce the
following equation for the internal rate of return:
Σ Ct / (1+IRR)t = CO
As we can see graphically in Figure 5-37, which shows the financial
result in a typical investment scenario with an IRR of 39%, and the IRR
is greater than the opportunity cost of capital of 25% for the project
and which makes the business scenario economically viable.
If the opportunity cost of capital is greater than IRR, then the NPV is
negative. Therefore, when comparing the opportunity cost of capital
with the IRR of this project, is basically asking if this project has
positive NPV.

126
 Introduction

The IRR for an investment is the maximum allowable discount rate that
would yield the value considering the cost of capital and risk. This is
sometimes referred to the breakeven rate of return.

IRR at
39%

Figure 5-37: Net present value and IRR discount rate.

The preliminary analysis results in an opportunity cost of 25% as the
rate of return.
This first order financial analysis asserts that a Lunar Gas Station would
represent an economic opportunity in a Private or in a MPPP case.

5.6.4Taxes, Insurance and Discount Factor

Corporate Taxes
A key component of lunar commerce will be the manner of which
companies are taxed on the income generated by using space
resources. Current corporate tax laws pose a major threat for any
future private space endeavor. Table 5-43 reviews the current
corporate tax rates in few countries. The current value of 35% was
used within the financial analysis and estimating the pricing.
Table 5-43: Corporate Tax Rates for Space fairing countries
Income
Country Tax (%) Limitation
[USD]
United States 35 > 18 333 333
Germany 25 -
United 33 > 2 000 000
Kingdom
France 33 -

Insurance
Insurance protection is needed to offset the high risks and launch
failures associated with space business. The insurance rate is generally
in the range of 17% to 22% according a study carried out by Futron on

127
Full Moon

major brokers and underwriters. Depending on the capacity of the

placement, this rate is even higher between the range 30% to 35%
(Futron 2003). The rate proposed for this project is 20%.
Discount Rate
The discount rate for this project is assumed to be 25%. This is high
because of the advanced technology and risky nature of space
systems.

5.6.5Cash Flow Analysis and Profitability Analysis

Based on the cost of capital committed to the development phase of
the lunar project, two scenarios were considered for the financial
analysis. It is assumed that there will be ice available at the Lunar
South Pole and the lunar base is located near the pole. In contrary, the
second case assumes that there is no ice available on the Moon.
The availability of ice would have a significant effect on the profitability
of the lunar gas station. Moreover, comparing the different levels of tax
rate, a strategic choice can be made on the location of the production
and development. These analyses are based on the general
assumptions for the project’s business plan as shown in Table 5-44
below.
Table 5-44: General Assumptions for Business Analysis
Items Assumptions of Input Data
Economic Life 20 Years (2028-2047)
Propellant Mass Low Market Demand (35 t/year)
(Products) High Market Demand (Average 111
t/year)
Capacity 16% margin for production, 1-2
backup for the redundancy of the
Storage and Delivery system
Plant/tank/Rover life 7 years/10 years/5 years
time
Launch Cost (Earth- 43 200 USD/kg
Moon)
Income Tax Rate 35% of Gross Profits
Insurance Rate 10% of the Total Cost
Contingency Rate 20% of Gross Profits
Discount Rate 25%
Royalties Rate 5%
Financing methods Only equity

Two business scenarios has been considered, low market demand and
high market demand, while the cash flow graphs for both the private
(Figure 5-38 and Figure 5-39) and the MPPP (Figure 5-40 and Figure 5-
41) business ventures are as shown below. This graphics were
generated using the general assumptions in Table 5-44, the financial
spreadsheets results shown in the Appendix D and the financial results
stated in Table 5-45 expressed in values of the NPV and IRR.

128
 Introduction

Figure 5-38: Private Low Market Demand

Figure 5-39: Private High Market Demand

The cash flow graphs in Figure 5-40 and Figure 5-41 show the MPPP
business scenarios, which identify the most profitable business
opportunity.

129
Full Moon

Figure 5-40: MPPP Low Market Demand

Figure 5-41: MPPP High Market Demand

From the forecasted cash flow from the low and high market demands
with ice and no ice at the lunar South Pole shows the NPV and IRR
results as follows:
Table 5-45: Financial results

130
 Introduction

Low Market High Market

Demand Demand [HMD]
[LMD]
NPV= -701M NPV= 1.96B
Presence of Ice
Private IRR= 16% IRR= 39%
business NPV= -4.3B NPV= -28B
No Ice IRR= * IRR= *
NPV= 1.9B NPV= 6B
Presence of Ice IRR= * IRR= *
MPPP
NPV= 1.4B NPV= 776M
No Ice IRR= * IRR= *
* Not applicable.

For a 20 years life time, the private business for the low market
demand (ice and no ice) shows negative NPVs, while IRR is less
important than the opportunity cost of capital. This is also the case for
private business in high market demand but with no ice. In contrary,
NPVs are positive for all MPPP scenarios and for a private business with
high market demand and ice. These assumptions make the MPPP
business the most profitable scenario.
For the business case of high market demand with ice for the private,
the business opportunity favors the business case with the ice
scenario, with an NPV of 1.9B and an IRR of 39%, which is greater than
the opportunity cost of capital for this project. Though the profitability
is on a return at a longer projected period, this is the only
recommended business case for the private business venture. The
others private case does not meet the business proposal in the long
run of the 20 year period.
Though the MPPP business scenarios are all profitable, the profitability
trend of the low market demand is lower compared to the high market
demand trend on the MPPP chart.
The ice scenario will be more profitable if it can be more realistic and
proven, In this case, LH2 would not need to be transported from Earth
to the lunar base, which makes it more economic cost effective than
without ice.

Financial analysis conclusion

An international cooperation like in the MPPP business case is
recommended for the commercial companies that are investing in the
Lunar Gas Station. This will enable a reduction of inherent risks
associated with the business. More, MPPP has the potential to mitigate
the risks of the huge cost of investment that private business can’t do
and encourage the commercial industries in space business.
The cost estimations and revenues are optimistic for the 20 years life
time of this proposed project due to the following reasons, which may
act as limitations:
• The maximum price of the products is identified for this financial
model

131
Full Moon

• The interfaces between the production, storage and delivery

were not taken into consideration
• The simplest system of storage and delivery were used for the
project cost analyses, such as the long distance services, are not
included in this business case
• Cost estimation approach is made very broadly

5.7Sensitivity Analysis
Now that we have identified the good business scenario and assuming
an in-elastic demand in the business cases, a sensitivity analysis is
used to analyze the impact of uncertain parameters on the investment
financial forecasts and the conditions for financial viability. Key
parameters to test the sensitivity include the price of products and the
discount rate.
Sensitivity of Price of Product
This parameter is very important to influence the market and the
private company business. The minimum price of products which
makes the business profitable can then be compared with the potential
competitor price and its return expectations.
The following figures show the results of these analyses for two
scenarios. The Figure 5-42 represents a case of MPPP with high market
demand with presence of ice:

Figure 5-42: MPPP High Market Demand Ice Price Sensitivity

The Figure 5-43 represents a situation of MPPP for a low market

demand with ice presence:

132
 Introduction

Figure 5-43: MPPP Low Market Demand Ice Price Sensitivity

According to the two scenarios, the range of the product’s price is
about USD 22.9 million/t to USD 43.2 million/t for a low market
demand. In case of a high market demand, this range will be about
USD 18.6 million/t to USD 43.2 million/t.
Sensitivity of Discount Rate
Private companies use NPV and IRR to account for the perceived risk of
the venture: the higher the uncertainty, the higher the discount factor
required. Two scenarios were chosen to analyze the sensitivity of
discount rate on NPV. One is the private business case for the high
market demand and ice; another is the MPPP for high marked demand
and no ice.
For the first scenario, we can see on Figure 5-44 that the tendency of
NPV decreases slowly with a discount rate increase, which range is
from 25% to 35%, comparing to from 10% to 25%. So the range of
discount rate from 25% to 35% is suggested to evaluate the high risks
in private business scenario.

Figure 5-44: Private High Market Demand Ice Price Sensitivity

133
Full Moon

For the second scenario, the Figure 5-45 shows a similar curve but with
a higher decrease of the NPV for discount rates of 10 to 30%. Here the
suggested discount rate for the MPPP is around 40-60%.

Figure 5-45: MPPP High Market Demand No Ice Price Sensitivity

5.8Promotion
In order to mitigate marketing risks, it is important that a well
structured and defined promotion campaign is established. By having
one that promotes the investment and benefits to the costumers by
getting the product, the risk can be reduced by assuring a sufficient
market for the products. Therefore, a public promotion campaign that
shows benefits with respectable cost reduction is very important and it
should demonstrate cost-benefit relation of LOX and LH2 instead of
using Earth based propellants and also making emphasis that are not
readily available and are a life-saving necessity on the Moon.
A global promotion campaign will be less efficient than a segmented
one (Kotler, 1988) because the message will not have the same effect
on different types of targets. The promotion campaign should focus on
three main targets:
• Investors in the Lunar Gas Station
• Customers of the Lunar Gas Station
• Public opinion
Investors
The investor target is relatively small when considering the MPPP
model developed previously. Actually, in this scenario the investors are
limited to the government agency and national space integrator. So we
will focus our promotion campaign on customers and public opinion.
Customers
The potential customers have already been analyzed and has been
stated that is will be mostly space agencies such as who has lunar
missions slated for 2020. However private companies may be involved.
For example the US firm Space Adventures, who is planning to launch
lunar orbit flights. It will be more efficient to segment the promotion
campaign in order to be more efficient with the potential customers.

134
 Introduction

After some time, private customers can emerge. At this point one can
develop a specific promotion campaign for this target which will be
based on three main slogans:
• the profitability of using the Lunar Gas Station
• increase for the global corporate image
• the image of state-of-the-art technology used for commercial
purposes and that can attract customers for the customers
• the potential market is important
• response to potential technical risks are prepared and day-to-
day risks are highly controlled
• lots of potential spin-offs can be implemented for both space
and non-space activities in a relatively short-term

In order to diffuse the campaign, it will be build strong partnerships

with enterprises like this:
• Automobile industry such as GM, Honda and Chrysler since
they are leaders in hydrogen automobiles
• Oil industry such as Chevron and/or BP since they have
research on hydrogen production and gas stations
• Shackleton Crater Expedition which has plans for a low orbit
gas station presently
• Air Liquide since they supply oxygen, hydrogen and many
other gases and services to most industries, including the
supply to Ariane launchers and other spacecraft.
Public opinion
Convincing the public is very important to get a relevant promotion
campaign, because the project, by the actions of space agencies, will
be partly financed by public taxes. So space agencies will need a
continuous and strong support to achieve the Lunar Gas Station
project.
To realize this goal, different elements are proposed:
• The creation of a website to promote and educate the public.
This could help to increase the outreach process with the
public.
• A strong communication with the press, magazines and TV to
promote a state-of-the-art realization
• Develop public relation with journalists to speak about the
project

5.9Recommendations
Although preliminary, it is the hope of this first-order evaluation will
help bridge the gap that exists within plans for development of lunar

135
Full Moon

bases and their sustained operation and recommendations drawn

would aid future business plans for a lunar gas station.
For the private business, the financial analysis resulted that the
economic viability can only be justified if the high market demand and
the value of the price of products are consistent on a long term period.
This illuminate that private company maybe can make profit if the ice
is found at the lunar South Pole and if there is a high market demand.
Based on the financial analysis results, the business case that showed
a better and more feasible investment that meets the proposed
business requirements is the MPPP model; which showed to be the
most profitable in all the proposed market scenarios. The economic
viability is on a shorter term compared to the solely private investment
case, and this makes the MPPP the most attractive option for the high
technology space business scenario. Therefore a MPPP is the
recommended business solution.
According to the MPPP model price analysis, even when the product
price drops 40% due the accessibility on the Moon surface of lunar LOX
and LH2 compared with the price baseline of the product taken from
the Earth to the Moon, it is has been found that the scenario is
attractive for a business opportunity based on the assumption that the
demand does not vary according to the increase of the availability of
the product.
If the presence of ice is demonstrated at the Lunar South Pole, the cost
of developing and operating a lunar gas station would decrease
significantly, providing an attractive opportunity for commercial uses.

136
 Introduction

_____________________________________Chapter 6

6 Legal & Ethical Issues

Space activities have changed tremendously since the first artificial

satellite was launched by the former Soviet Union. These ventures no
longer consist solely of scientific research, but have since developed
into technologies capable of meeting the needs and demands of
humanity. Inevitably, such development also gives rise to the
commercialization of space activities, necessitating a legal framework.
However, while the existing legislation is well defined for developed
exploratory and scientific endeavors, the law is not nearly as clear for
developing commercial space activities. In fact, two of the treaties
governing space activities, the 1967 United Nations’ Treaty on
Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use
of Outer Space Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies,
(commonly referred to as the Outer Space Treaty or OST) and the 1979
United Nations’ Agreement Governing the Activities of States on the
Moon and Other Celestial Bodies (commonly referred to as the Moon
Agreement), give rise to multiple, and sometimes ambiguous,
interpretations regarding the legality of commercial Moon and space
activities, as will be shown.
Given the importance of commercial activity to the success of the
proposed project, it is important to identify and clarify any points of
contention within these treaties, and propose alternate suggestions
where the legislation is vague regarding the ownership of lunar land
and the exploitation of lunar resources. This chapter will therefore
briefly review the salient points of the Moon and Outer Space Treaties,
identifying sources of contention within these documents and
proposing alternatives that will enable commercial Moon activities.
This chapter also discusses other legal considerations essential to the
realization of the proposed project, including insurance, liability and
export control regulations, focusing on US protocols as a case study,
given that this country is the most capable of realizing the proposed
storage and delivery framework.
Finally, given that many legal issues arise because of underlying
ethical issues, this chapter will conclude with a review of the pertinent
ethical questions that surround the exploitation and alteration of the
lunar environment, briefly addressing how these issues may be
resolved.

137
Full Moon

6.1Overview of the Existing Legal

Framework: The Outer Space Treaty &
Moon Agreement
The 1967 OST was the first international space treaty, forming the
cornerstone of international space law and providing a basis for
subsequent international legal documents. This treaty is considered to
be a platform on which a house of more precise international legal
documents can be built. In analyzing the OST, one should understand
that it is a treaty of principles and is thus subject to broad
interpretation only.
The OST primarily addresses national activities rather than private
activities, simply because only states had space-faring abilities at the
time of negotiations. Moreover, as the OST was drafted during the Cold
War, the concern amongst the major space-faring nations, the Soviet
Union and the United States, was that the first man on the Moon not be
able to claim it in the name of his country.
Yet beyond forbidding any one nation to lay claim to celestial
territories, the OST also strives to promote both the peaceful use and
freedom of access to space, which are reflected in Article IV and
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article I, respectively (OST 1967). The former
states that “the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon
and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in
the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic
or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.” In
this sense, it could be said that a lunar gas station would serve the
interests of all countries since it would reduce the cost of lunar
ventures, making space easier to access for all. Additionally, Paragraph
2 declares that “outer space shall be free for exploration and use by all
States without discrimination of any kind, on a basis of equality and in
accordance with international law, and there shall be free access to all
areas of celestial bodies,” which can lead to the understanding that it
is possible to explore and use lunar resources.
Moreover, the OST (1967) establishes guidelines on a subject’s
sovereignty, jurisdiction and resource appropriation in space. There are
three key Articles that address commercial Moon activities (White
2001):
Article II declares that outer space, including the Moon and other
celestial bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by claim of
sovereignty, by means of use of occupation, or by any means. The
non-appropriation princicple is discussed later in this chapter in greater
detail.
Article VIII establishes that a State Party on whose registry an object
launched into outer space is carried shall retain jurisdiction and control
over such object, and over any personnel thereof, while in outer space
or on a celestial body.
Article IX, along with other largely applied international laws, prohibits
interference with the activities of another State Party, meaning that
jurisdictional authority under the OST provides most of the protection
traditionally associated with property rights, with a few relatively
insignificant limitations, making it a "quasi-territorial" jurisdiction.

138
 Introduction

From the discussion above, one can derive multiple conclusions on the
subject of a state’s rights in space. Firstly, locations can be occupied by
space objects on a first-come, first-served basis, given that the OST
promotes the equality of access to space and does not forbid human
presence on celestial bodies. Next, nations will retain jurisdiction over
their space facilities and personnel in, irrespective of nationality, and
that these nations have the right to conduct their activities without the
harmful interference from other states
Furthermore, even if commercial space enterprises seemed like a
distant possibility in 1967, the notion was still addressed on a broad
level, owing to conflicting ideologies. The Soviet Union, arguing from a
socialist perspective, contended that space activities should be carried
out solely and exclusively by states, while the capitalist Americans
rejected this argument, instead proposing Article VI. This article
declared that States Parties to the Treaty would bear responsibility for
national activities in outer space, whether or not such activities were
carried out by governmental or non-governmental agencies, thus
acknowledging that commercial space activities might take place in the
foreseeable future.
Although these aspects of the OST suggest that commercial activities
are permitted where they facilitate access to space and serve to
benefit humanity, the Treaty remains ambiguous on the subject of
commercial activities, an essential consideration for potential
commercial activities such as lunar mining.
For this reason, another treaty, the 1979 Moon Agreement was
proposed to restrict the exploitation of the Moon's resources by any
single nation. This treaty, however, was not signed by any of the
space-faring nations, having received only eleven ratifications and five
signatures in total. This treaty was thusly received mostly due to Article
11, Paragraph 1, which declares that the Moon and its natural
resources are the “common heritage of mankind (Moon Agreement
1979).” This terminology was and remains problematic as there is no
further explanation of the principle: it could be interpreted as either a
common resource (meaning a resource is freely available for all
members to use) or as common property (which is owned by all
members, but still requires permission to use). In this sense, it is
similar to the Deep Sea Bed Regime (Convention on the Law of the Sea
1982), which also refers to this principle.
The Moon Agreement also attempted to address the subject of
resource exploitation, expanding upon the principle of the freedom of
scientific investigation addressed in Article I of the OST (1967). Article
6 of the 1979 Moon Agreement declares that the States Parties to the
Treaty have the right to collect, remove and use lunar resources for
scientific purposes, on the condition that these samples are made
available to other interested states and the international scientific
community for scientific investigation. However, this Article does not
address the collection of resources for economic gain.
In sum, the Moon Agreement (1979) failed to satisfy the international
community’s interests with respect to ownership in private enterprise,
hence contributing to its widespread rejection.

139
Full Moon

6.2Legal Barriers: A Further Analysis of

Non-Appropriation Principles
As space activities continue to evolve, barriers and discrepancies on
the subject of commercial activities within the OST (1967) and the
Moon Agreement (1979) become increasingly apparent. In particular,
property rights and use of resources for economic gain have risen to
the forefront of pressing issues in international space law, with UN
members beyond the space powers calling for discussion of these
issues within the United Nations Committee for the Peaceful Uses of
Outer Space.
At the international level, most disputes regarding these issues concern
the principles of non appropriation by any means, stated within Article
II of the OST (1967), and the principle of common heritage of
humankind principle established by the article 11 of the Moon
Agreement (1979). Given the importance of property issues to the
success of commercial enterprises, this section explores the Treaties
and precedents that could pertain to commercial activities, first within
the context of land ownership, and secondly within the context of
resource ownership for economic gain.

6.2.1Non-Appropriation of Celestial Bodies

Article II of the OST (1967) and Article 11 of the Moon Agreement
(1979) declare that outer space, including the Moon and other celestial
bodies, is not subject to national appropriation by any means, including
claims of sovereignty, use or occupation. This essentially means that
outer space is an international zone and that no country can claim
property rights to space, the Moon or other celestial bodies (see ). As a
point of reference, this framework is similar to the high seas regime
(Convention on The Law of the Sea 1982), rather than the airspace
regime, which is deemed to belong to the State over which the
airspace lies, as per the Chicago Convention of 1944.

Figure 6-46: Basis of the Non-Appropriation Principle

Sources of international law are depicted by different sizes to convey
their level of importance (not to scale).

140
 Introduction

This non-appropriation principle is generally accepted as having

customary value, meaning that the principle is so universally upheld
that is also applicable to non-signatories of a treaty. This means that
even if a state wishes to withdraw from the OST (1967), the weight of
international legal opinion indicates that the treaty's provisions will be
upheld by international law.
The transition of this principle into a generally upheld principle partially
stems from the fact that no state has claimed or attempted to claim
sovereignty on the Moon or any other celestial body. As such, while
both the United States and the Soviet Union have planted flags on the
Moon as symbolic gestures, neither nation has ever laid claim to any
part of the Moon’s surface. Theoretically, it could be argued that states
have not made territorial claims because they have yet to amass the
economic and technological resources necessary to perfect a territorial
claim under international law.
However, an evolving commercial space sector has rendered the OST
and the non-appropriation principle at least partially anachronistic: as
the commercial satellite industry evolved, it became apparent that
there was a need to appropriate property in geosynchronous orbit.
Because the bulk of international opinion shifted to favor this opinion, it
is now possible to claim property in geosynchronous orbit. In this
scheme, both companies and states can claim a volume of space for
their satellites, legally exclude others from this space, and of course
can make a private profit from use of this space. The International
Telecommunications Union (ITU) is the international body designating
these property rights based upon a claim and a fee.
Despite these arguments, it is argued here that the principle of non-
appropriation is upheld as customary law, because both of the
arguments introduced above are somewhat flawed. In the first
instance, if one hypothesizes a case where a nation is indeed
technologically and financially capable of launching an expedition to
stake a claim on lunar land, the non-appropriation principle is still
generally followed by enough nations that defying it would risk
initiating international conflict. The argument is tautological: even if
the non-appropriation principle does not have customary value, this
belief is so widely held that any nation laying claim would risk
international conflict, thus further solidifying this principle as part of
international custom.
In the second instance, even if precedent demonstrates that is possible
to overturn international law by way of popular opinion, the current
international sentiment regarding the appropriation of lunar property is
not about to follow suit. If it did, the space powers would be essentially
given free reign over lunar land claims while the remaining OST
signatories received nothing in turn. The appropriation of satellite slots,
adversely, benefited the majority of parties involved.
From these arguments, it is clear that the non-appropriation principle is
widely established and firmly upheld. However, it can be said the lack
of acceptance of the Moon Agreement (1979) establishes a precedent
that the prohibition of property rights on celestial bodies, along with
are unacceptable to most nations. Hence, one can conclude that there
is a need to replace the existing solution with an alternative that
addresses the issue of lunar enterprise and property rights.

141
Full Moon

6.2.2Appropriation of Lunar Material for

Economic Benefit
While the OST (1967) and Moon Agreement (1979) clearly do not
support appropriation of land, the documents are not as clear on the
subject of resource appropriation for economic gain.
In the previous discussion on the Moon Agreement (1979), it was noted
that lunar materials may be removed and subsequently collected for
scientific benefit. However, based on precedent, there is a possibility
that an element of economic exchange may be possible: after all,
Article 6 does not explicitly forbid the use of materials for economic
gain once it has already been claimed for scientific use. For instance, in
December 1993, the Russian Federation sold a very small sample of
the lunar material from the Luna probe 16 mission for $442 000 USD
while a few milligrams of lunar dust were sold for $42 000 USD at an
auction in California in the same year. This establishes a precedent for
a government owning and selling a resource extracted from a celestial
body in outer space. In compliance with the principle of non-
appropriation of celestial territory, the seller did not claim the territory
from which the sample was taken in either case, but they clearly
claimed ownership of the material as per and derived economic benefit
from the sale of this material. Given this precedent, it might be
possible to remove lunar samples for economic gain if they are also
used for scientific purposes.

6.3Enabling Private Enterprise

Thus far, the discussion has identified inadequacies within the existing
legal framework. This section concentrates on identifying solutions that
will enable private enterprise and lunar resource exploitation, and will
be followed by a logical progression for applying these solutions.

6.3.1Enabling Lunar Land Use: Exclusive

Economic Zones and Safety Zones
As has been noted, if a facility is established on the Moon, property
rights become an issue, since it is not legal to appropriate land.
However, because the OST (1967) and general principles of
international law legally protect a state’s activities from interference by
other parties, there are solutions for protecting commercial activities.
In the discussion that follows, exclusive economic and accompanying
safety zones are proposed as means for appropriating land.
Upon the establishment of a lunar facility, one can introduce the
concept of an exclusive economic zone, whereby only one party is able
to use a specific area of lunar land for economic gain. In this case, all
other states will have free access to the zone as long as they do not
initiate commercial activities there. This enables commercial activity
without violating the principle of non-appropriation.
Of course, one must address how to allocate these economic zones.
Based on the earlier analysis of the OST (1967), places on celestial
bodies are allocated on a first-come, first-served basis, hence it makes
sense to designate these exclusive economic zones in the same way.

142
 Introduction

When introducing an exclusive economic zone, one can introduce a

“safety zone” around the facility as agreed by international parties, to
prevent potential damage and destruction to the facility. This would
permit the proprietor of the facility to exert a measure of control over
activities taking place within the vicinity of the facility (see ). Based on
the precedent used for off-shore drilling platforms based on Earth and
around the International Space Station, these safety zones can be
extended to 500 meters.

Figure 6-47: Explanation of safety zones and exclusive economic

zones.
However, this proposal does not settle all the issues concerning land
claims and interference with a state’s activities. For example, an
outside party could initiate activities in an area outside of a state’s
economic exclusive zone, even if is clear that the state planned to
extend its activities to that area. Here, it is not clear if the principle of
prohibition against harmful interference claimed by the article IX of
OST (1967) would apply.

6.4The Progression Towards a New

International Regime
In response to these impediments, one can either develop a new legal
framework or attempt to amend the OST to permit the appropriation of
property and commercial exploitation of lunar resources and to also
establish an international lunar authority to oversee commercial lunar
activities and lunar resource exploitation usage.

143
Full Moon

6.4.1Legalizing the Appropriation of Land and

Resources
To enable commercial activity, the non-appropriation principle needs to
be recalled and replaced with new regulations. However, to amend the
OST (1967), a conventional amendment is required, meaning that the
new text must be accepted by the majority of the signatories (IDEST
2007). While possible in theory, this is nearly impossible in practice
because space-faring signatories are greatly out-numbered by the
remaining signatories of the OST (Id.). Hence, it makes sense that
these non-space-faring members would not be especially interested in
enabling commercial activities on the Moon, as this would only widen
the economic gap between the OST (Id.) members.
As a potential solution, the space-faring nations wishing to undertake
commercial lunar enterprises could pay taxes to OST (Id.) members
demonstrating a clear plan to access space, but lacking the finances
and resources to do so. This proposal would facilitate the acceptance of
any conventional amendments, while enabling commercial activities on
the Moon.
However, once appropriation is allowed, lunar resources should not be
left unregulated, given that disputes could lead to armed conflicts and
militarization of outer space. Hence, a regulatory body is necessary to
regulate exploratory and commercial activities on the Moon.
Two possibilities are explored here. The first solution consists of
operating within the Moon Agreement (1979) to create a new lunar
authority to oversee lunar resource use, while the second consists of
defining regulations within a new legal framework altogether.
The Moon Agreement (1979) prohibits appropriation of lunar land and
resources for economic gain as long as no regulatory body exists to
regulate this sector. Thus, in order to exploit lunar resources, members
must abide by Article 11, Paragraph 5, which declares that States
Parties to this Treaty undertake to establish an international regime,
including appropriate procedures and regulations to govern the
exploitation of lunar resources of the moon.
The first step in implementing this solution would be the signature and
ratification of the Moon Agreement by space-faring nations, after which
point an international regime to govern exploitation of Moon natural
resources could be established (IDEST 2007). As previously noted, once
the non-appropriation and common heritage of mankind issues were
addressed, the Moon Agreement would likely be more widely accepted.
The new body would be responsible for the following activities (Sattler
2004):
• Developing guidelines for lunar exploration
• Issuing licenses and permits for space activities on the Moon
• Overseeing construction and mining operations on the Moon and
other celestial bodies
• Coordinating habitation and the placement of structures on the
Moon

144
 Introduction

• Managing accident liability and establishing of a specialized

space tribunal to resolve accident liability and legal claims
related to lunar activities
To aid in the development of the new governing body, one could refer
to the establishment of the International Seabed Authority (ISA), which
was established under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law
of the Sea, and implemented in 1994. ISA, together with the ITU, could
serve as a guideline for the operations of the new lunar activities’
regulatory body. Both of these organizations successfully address
similar regimes: ISA regulates the activities on the seabed and ocean
floor and controls the exploitation of maritime resources, while the ITU
oversees the distribution of geosynchronous orbit allocations. In some
sense, the new lunar authority would take upon the duties of both,
regulating lunar activities, overseeing the allocation of lunar land use
and controlling the exploitation of lunar resources.
Alternatively, this authority could be established outside of the frame
of the Moon Agreement, under a new international treaty governing the
exploitation of Moon resources to solve legal questions that cannot be
answered by the existing legal documents. Regardless of the method,
such an authority is crucial if commercial lunar activities are to be
realized. However, the development and negotiations process is
expected to extend for quite some time, hence justifying the adoption
of temporary national legislation in the interim.

6.4.2Temporary National Legislation

Any new national legislation should authorize the exploitation of lunar
resources until the adoption of the relevant international regime (IDEST
2007). This proposal is based on precedent. During the negotiations of
the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the United States temporarily
adopted the 1980 Deep Sea Bed Hard Mineral Resources Act to be able
to exploit deep seabed resources. France followed suit in 1981,
adopting the Act on Deep Seabed Mineral Resources.
While these immediate laws take effect, States shall begin the
negotiation of a new international regime. National legislation shall
then be amended as needed when the new international regime enters
into force as national law will then be in compliance with national law.
The need to adopt temporary national legislation is proposed because
the more concrete solutions take time to develop. Thus, it makes sense
to apply temporary solutions while developing longer term solutions,
rather than be limited in executable activities until more steadfast
solutions are implemented.

6.5Additional Legal Considerations:

Insurance, Responsibility & Liability
Assuming, for the moment, that land and resource appropriation
becomes a non-issue, there are still numerous legal considerations a
party must consider in embarking upon the Full Moon proposal.
Although most issues are presented in an international light, special
attention is given to US policy and regulations given that NASA is the
most likely and able to realize the Full Moon proposal.

145
Full Moon

6.5.1International Guidelines
As per Article VI of the OST (1967), no state permits private activities in
space without insurance, which serves to place the insured back into
the financial position it would have been in had a loss had not
occurred. This is because this Article declares that states are
responsible for authorizing and supervising the space activities
conducted by non-governmental entities. Meanwhile, Article VII of OST
declares:
Each State Party to the Treaty that launches or procures the launching
of an object into outer space, including the Moon and other celestial
bodies, and each State Party from whose territory or facility an object is
launched, is internationally liable for damages to other State Parties to
the Treaty or to its natural or juridical persons by such object or its
component parts on the Earth, in air space or in outer space, including
the Moon and other celestial bodies. (OST 1967)
Furthermore, the 1972 Liability Convention establishes rules for the
resolution of personal injury and property damage issues at the
international level, the results of which are summarized in Table 6-46.
Table 6-46: Summary of liability under the Liability Convention (Adelta
Legal Space Law 2007)
Article Type of Damage Type of Liability
Article II Damage on Earth or to aircraft Absolute Liability
in flight
Article III Damage to another space Fault Liability
object not on the surface of the
Earth
Article IV Damage to another space Joint and Several
object in outer space which Absolute Liability
subsequently causes damage
on Earth or to aircraft in flight
Article V More than one launching State Joint and Several
Liability
Lastly, with regards to the topic of legal responsibility, Article 1 of the
1975 Registration Convention establishes that a launching state has to
maintain a registry of all objects launched space and create national
legislation establishing a registration-permit system for private entities
conducting space activities. This is to help establish fault in case of
damage or destruction in case.

6.5.2US Guidelines
Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) govern liability and responsibility in
the United States. With private commercial activities limited to launch
and satellites operations, there is a lack of analogue cases for the
establishment of insurance clauses for a lunar gas station. However,
launch operations must still be addressed and are discussed here.
According to FAR, there is a three-tiered system of liability risk sharing
between the American government and a launch operator. The
government covers a statutory ceiling of USD 1.5 B, beyond which the
launch operator is personally liable up to an amount of USD 500 M,

146
 Introduction

beyond which exists a Maximum Probable Loss (MPL) statutory ceiling,

which is the maximum insurance coverage available in the world’s
market. Since the launch operator is responsible for both public and
property safety, the operator has to demonstrate the financial ability to
compensate Maximum Probable Loss (MPL) from claims by a third party
for damages claimable under the Liability Convention.
As the Full Moon project would most likely be initiated by the US
government, it could be assumed that the government itself would be
the launch operator until a private company took control and
maintenance of the lunar gas station. However, after a private
company took ownership of the gas station, it would be very difficult to
insure the maintenance of the station at this point, as no underwriter
would want to take on the risk more than 10 years after the start of
operations, due to the increased risk of technology failure due to
depreciation over time. At this point, the United States government
would be responsible for claims exceeding the MPL amount but only up
to the statutory ceiling of USD 1.5 B mentioned.

6.5.3US Export Control Regulations

Given that the United States is heavily in favor of international
cooperation for lunar missions, Export Control Regulations become an
extremely relevant topic, as these guidelines address the unauthorized
export of certain controlled items, information or software to foreign
persons or entities in the U.S. and abroad. These guidelines exist to
protect US national security and foreign policy interests.
There three different Export Control Regulations are summarized here:
Export Administration Regulations (EAR), which address “dual-use”
items, information and software designed for commercial purposes but
having military applications
Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC), which establishes economic
sanctions and regulations prohibiting trade with and/or the transfer of
payments, property or anything of value to certain sanctioned or
embargoed countries or “Specially Designated Nationals” (SDNs) of
those countries.
International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), which are enforced by
the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC).
ITAR addresses the export and import of defense-related articles and
services specifically designed, developed or modified for military
applications and listed in the United States Munitions List (USML).
These regulations state that information and material pertaining to
defense and military-related technologies may only be shared with
American Persons unless they are excluded and exempt with a DDTC
approval.
Special attention is given to ITAR here, because of its importance in
regulating the freedom of information sharing between American and
non-American entities. The strictness of these regulations, and
accompanying penalties, ranging from fines up to USD 1 M and ten
years’ imprisonment, often result in difficulties in international
partnerships.

147
Full Moon

It is for this reason that the regulations have been relaxed in the case
of international partnerships. In the case of the International Space
Station, the export control framework states that NASA is obligated to
deliver, disclose or transfer technology, data and commodities
essential for meeting its obligations in the program. This model can
serve as a reference for potential partnerships between NASA and
international entities in enacting the Full Moon proposal.

6.6Full Moon & Ethical Concerns

Ethical issues refer to those dilemmas that appeal to one’s sense of
‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ This concept is too subjective for most, so academics
and institutions alike have tried to formalize the term into a more
objective definition. The United Nations’ Commission on Ethics and
Technology (COMEST), for example, defines ethics as ‘a critical
examination consisting in moral reasoning (COMEST 1998),” whereas
Arnould (2007) defines the term as “an evaluation of what is right or
wrong according to philosophical interrogation concerning the
consequences of an activity.”
Space ethics refers to ethics in the context of human exploration of
outer space, and the topic is particularly relevant as the Full Moon
project touches on a medley of controversial issues, including the
commercialization and exploitation of lunar resources and the need to
preserve the lunar environment. Bearing that in mind, how does one
decide whether or not to proceed with the proposal?
A logical approach is to look at the issues associated with Full Moon
and oxygen and hydrogen usage, values reflected in each course of
action and then weight them against the standard values that are
generally held in high regard by society (or the organization or
organism in question) and evaluate which outcome is more reflective of
these values.
According the non-appropriation principle discussed earlier in this
chapter, space and lunar resources are considered as belonging to all
of humanity. As such, questions arise as to whether it is justifiable to
lay claim to lunar resources.
In the context of the Full Moon project, the options entail going ahead
with the project and laying claim to lunar resources with the intent of
using them for commercial purposes, or abiding by the non-
appropriation principle set out in the OST.
In rejecting the Full Moon proposal to avoid appropriating and
commercializing lunar resources, one is making a statement of belief
that all of humanity has equal claim to these resources.
Alternatively, by going ahead with the Full Moon proposal, one is
making the values statement that appropriating lunar materials to
enable lunar exploration and habitation is of greater value than having
equal access to these resources.
Broadly, the discussion then evolves into a values judgment: what is
more important to society: equality of access to resources or the spirit
of exploration and scientific discovery? Problematically, these are not
issues that are easily compared.

148
 Introduction

Moreover, the ethics involved of the Full Moon proposal is not as simple
as this. Other values come into play: the Full Moon proposal, for
example, encourages international cooperation, fostering new
networks, and on a broad level, promoting global harmony.
At the same time, the project has the potential to harm, or at least
permanently alter, the lunar environment. NASA (2000) itself said that
"the footprints left by the astronauts in the Sea of Tranquility are more
permanent than most solid structures on Earth. Barring a chance
meteorite impact, these impressions in the lunar soil will probably last
for millions of years.” It is therefore very important to consider the
impact of a settlement (mining, vehicular traffic) on the lunar
environment. The increase in space debris and the environmental
consequences of the transfer of resources that do not exist on Earth
are also to be taken into account before exploiting and mining lunar
resources. Industrial operations could, for example, result in a
significant atmosphere around the Moon which would degrade its
natural state and interfere with others' scientific and industrial
operations as well, thereby interfering with the initially stated value of
the spirit of exploration and scientific discovery.
The international scope of the exploitation and mining of space
resources adds complexity to the problem, because of the range of
values systems and cultural ethics that come into play. For example, a
socialist might choose not to pursue the Full Moon project based on the
infringement of equal access to resources. Alternatively, a capitalist
might invest in the project because of the economic benefit involved.
There is also a need to measure the risks involved with such a
program: disaster and failure represent practical considerations that
might cause one to reach a different conclusion to an ethical issue.
Lastly, ethical issues might reveal undesirable options that themselves
offer new considerations. For example, one of the main concerns with
the commercialization of space resources is that private companies act
for their personal and economical interests and not for the good of all
mankind. However, these companies could also establish a settlement
as part of their venture, and in doing, promote exploration and
scientific return.
In short, ethical implications are not easily resolved, especially not in
the context of the Full Moon project, but at the very least highlight the
values and issues at stake, and offer an added perspective to practical
matters, for example the existing legal debate with respect to the non-
appropriation principle and its continued enforcement.

6.7Conclusions
From the legal discussion discussed in this chapter, several points are
immediately clear. Firstly, while there is an existing legal framework
governing state and private activities in space, it is not at all conducive
to commercial enterprises wishing to lay claim to lunar land and lunar
resources.
This is relevant because the Full Moon project proposes to claim
ownership of oxygen and hydrogen extracted from the lunar
environment for use in its storage and delivery architecture. According

149
Full Moon

to the non-appropriation and common heritage principles of the Outer

Space Treaty and the Moon Agreement, this is not permissible.
Despite this, the fact that the Moon Agreement received such little
acceptance, combined with the precedent set by the ownership of
property in geosynchronous orbit, indicate that the international
community is becoming increasingly open to the idea of allowing
celestial land and resources to be appropriated.
Moreover, there are international principles that permit the Full Moon
concept to operate legally without violating the non-appropriation
principle, such as the concepts of exclusive economic and safety zones.
However, these are but temporary solutions. Ultimately, the entire
legal framework must be either amended or replaced with a new
framework permitting the appropriation of land and resources, and
establishing a regulatory body to oversee the ownership and
exploitation of lunar and resources. While these solutions are being
implemented, nations should adopt their own temporary national
legislation, based on the precedent set by the Convention on the Deep
Sea Bed.
Meanwhile, nations should be aware of other international guidelines of
direct bearing on the Full Moon proposal, including insurance and
liability guidelines and regulations dictating the freedom of information
sharing in a proposal that will most likely be based on international
cooperation. This is especially important in the context of American
Export Control Regulations, which are extremely strict, and not
especially conducive to international partnerships. For this, a model
similar to that established for the International Space Station should be
followed to facilitate the flow of information between international
partners.
Lastly, while ethical issues pertaining to the Full Moon project are not
easily resolved, they are valuable in highlighting the issues and values
as stake, and in adding a new perspective to practical discussions such
as legal matters.

150
 Introduction

_____________________________________Chapter 7

7 Conclusions

With regards to space exploration, the Moon is The Next Big Thing.
In recent years, the international space community has boldly and
firmly declared that lunar colonization is a challenge and a priority, to
be embarked upon in the spirit of exploration, enterprise and ambition.
Hence, the Apollo-era question of “How can we get there?” has since
evolved to “How do we stay there?”.
As noted in Chapter 1, first steps toward ‘taming’ any new, uncharted
territory lie in establishing an adequate life support infrastructure,
followed by a transportation network to ensure mobility across the
territory. However, it is all-too-often forgotten that supporting elements
themselves require supporting elements: these supporting elements
must themselves be meticulously assessed and planned for, so that
they can be designed, developed and implemented in a way that
meets the territory’s needs.
Similarly, the first missions to establish a permanent human presence
on the Moon, beginning with NASA in 2018, will require transportation
and life support infrastructures of their Moon—which will in turn require
supporting elements, namely oxygen and hydrogen for use as
propellants in vehicles, and also for air and water in life support
systems. While production and extraction methods for these resources
have been extensively studied, there is a distinct dearth as to how to
make these readily accessible to the user.
Full Moon attempted to address this need by proposing a storage and
delivery architecture for these elements, and evaluating its potential
through a comprehensive technical, business and legal analysis, the
results of which are summarized here.
As shown, the difficulties posed by the lunar environment are
numerous, and are summarized as follows:

• Extreme temperature gradients

• Long lunar night lasting 14 Earth days
• High radiation exposure
• Dust abrasion
• Rough terrain

151
Full Moon

These challenges, in conjunction with the need to supply oxygen and

hydrogen locally at the South Pole and globally to the equatorial
region, mean that that any system architecture needs to be flexible
based on demand scenarios. For example, if the optimistic scenario
reaches fruition and the Moon becomes a Mars resupply station,
demand for hydrogen and oxygen will increase, meaning that the
storage tanks must be able to hold a greater volume.
Taking all this into account, the Full Moon proposal offers a simple yet
reliable storage and delivery architecture to meet these needs, based
on a brief yet thorough technical assessment of available options.
Briefly, after identifying potential options for each of the storage and
delivery systems, the assessment consisted of qualitative, quantitative
and weighted analyses based on criteria such as performance,
reliability, cost and efficiency, a decision-making matrix and extensive
consultation with experts in the field.
The remaining candidates for each system were then integrated, using
a ‘concurrent engineering’-like approach, into a final structure that was
chosen for its simplicity of design, flexibility to adapt to different
scenarios and compatibility with other system components.
The final system architecture, designed for a basic production site-
storage-delivery-storage scenario is as follows:

• A large storage tank directly attached to the production facility

in the Lunar South Pole region. The tank is located in an area of
inside permanent shadow, protected by sunshields if necessary.
• A set of smaller tank trailers that are can be towed using a lunar
rover.
• Passive thermal control supplemented by active cooling allow
the tank to maintain cryogenic temperatures. The active cooling
is powered by a fuel cell. Storing in a permanently shadowed
crater reduces energy spent for thermal control.
• Two delivery options:
o A ballistic vehicle for delivery to higher latitudes. The
ballistic vehicle is based on the principles of rocketry and
as such its fuel usage is high; to deliver 4 tonnes of
payload, 30 tonnes of fuel is required.
o A rover for delivery to local sites near the South Pole. The
rover transports tank carts by towing them.
• An efficient interface between the storage tank and delivery
vehicle, utilizing a no-vent propellant transfer scheme. The
mechanisms required for no-vent transfer is located inside the
tank module.
• Standard interface design that are made known to all parties
wishing to travel to the Moon, such that problems with varying
transfer schemes and nozzle design are minimized.

The transportation vehicles were chosen on based on their overall

value to the customer. The ballistic vehicle was chosen as global
transport option for delivery to equatorial and distant sites, because it
is the fastest option, travelling from the South Pole to the equatorial
region in the space of hours, and is based upon reliable, proven
technology. Other alternatives, such as land-based delivery, would take

152
 Introduction

weeks, and would involve considerably more risk given the

unpredictability of the lunar terrain. Thus, although the system is more
costly and consumes more propellant than land-based delivery, it is the
most efficient system for the task required of it.
The local transportation system consists of a lunar rover. The rover is
preferable to fixed installations such as e.g. pipelines. Any fixed
transportation infrastructure would be very massive and thus the
launch costs make them unattractive. Lunar manufacturing technology
enabling the production of e.g. pipes on the Moon could swing this
balance in the farther future.
The simplicity of this system is an advantage. It reduces design costs
and involves few components, thereby improving reliability. To enable
storage of LOX and LH2 for indefinite periods in the tanks an active
cooling system is necessary. By including this in the storage unit
further standardization, some of the technological complexity of an
active refrigeration system is alleviated.
This system is scalable, and can supplemental tank units, rovers and
ballistic transport vehicles may be launched from Earth. Thus, if
demand doubles, the system can adapt to cater for this additional
demand.
Importantly, the Full Moon solution is implementable on a time scale
that reflects the roadmaps of the major space agencies: a semi-
permanent human presence is set to begin as early as 2023, while the
first phase of Full Moon is planned for 2027—meaning that the solution
will come at a time when the demand for oxygen and hydrogen is
increasing, and the market becomes more conducive to the Full Moon
proposal as a business concept.
However, even if the market demand proves to be definite and
growing, commercial success is not guaranteed. In fact, due to the high
capital investment, uncertainty of the market and long-term return on
investment, private ventures have a low-probability of succeeding due
to the high level of risk involved.
This is not to say that the Full Moon proposal should be shelved: on the
contrary, Multi-public-private-partnerships, however, are deemed to be
the best solution for success for the following reasons:

• The responsibilities for the various aspects of the lunar

infrastructure are broken up amongst multiple partners—thereby
mitigating financial risk & liability.

• Private entities can initiate commercial activities more easily

under this structure, as they only pay operations costs and pay-
back to government and government agencies, who pay for
start-up costs.

• Joint ventures with related industries such as Earth oil

companies could form the basis for corporate partnerships
allowing the private enterprise from the knowledge base of the

153
Full Moon

established partner, and the latter from the image of space

exploration.

Yet while the existing technology levels and corporate framework are
conducive to the Full Moon proposal, the present legal framework is
extremely cumbersome to the project—and all lunar commercial
activities—owing to unfavorable legislation regarding property rights
and resource exploitation. Despite this, commercial activities are still
feasible using existing legal principles such as safety and exclusive
economic zones, which respectively protect a party’s facility and their
right to exclusively conduct commercial activities within a specified
area.
This is, however, a temporary solution. A best solution would entail the
creation of a new legal framework enabling commercial activities by
rescinding the non-appropriation and common heritage principles and
by further creating a regulatory body to oversee the use and
exploitation of lunar resources. Since this is expected to be a lengthy
process, temporary national legislation could be adopted to enable
these commercial activities while existing international treaties are
amended, or while new treaties are developed and approved together.
Importantly, ethical considerations could shed light on these and other
important discussions regarding the Full Moon process.
Any entities that choose to take on the Full Moon proposal would also
do well to consider the various legal documents considering liability,
responsibility and freedom of exchange of information, all of which are
important for the applicability of the Full Moon proposal.
In short, the Full Moon concept offers a formidable challenge, which, if
realized, would take humanity another step towards establishing a
permanent presence on the Moon by facilitating accessibility to
resources essential to lunar exploration and survival, namely oxygen
and hydrogen. What is currently proposed as a simple storage and
delivery architecture for oxygen and hydrogen could be developed and
iterated, leading to solutions for newer challenges.
As the market develops, future Full Moon iterations could address the
following challenges:

• Creating an architecture for resupply at Lagrange points and in

Low Lunar Orbit for exploratory missions extending beyond the
Moon
• Incorporating new technologies to offer better, more efficient
services
• Incorporating new data and market analyses to update and/or
extend the Full Moon concept beyond the present 2050 scenario
• Designing a method for route optimization should lunar demand
increase to the point where multiple point-to-point deliveries are
no longer efficient
• Adapting the Full Moon architecture for resupply at future targets
such as Mars or the asteroids
• Adapting the Full Moon architecture for storage and delivery of
other lunar resources

154
 Introduction

The Full Moon proposal, in conclusion, is a next step in establishing a

permanent human presence on the Moon – but it is also a stepping
stone towards the future of human colonization beyond the Earth.

155
Full Moon

_____________________________________Chapter 8

8 References

Adelta Legal Space Law, n.d. Liability. [online]. Available from:

http://www.spacelaw.com.au/[cited 18 April 2007].
Allen, G., 2007. The Vision for U.S. Space Exploration. Why The Moon:
11th Annual International Space University Symposium.
Strasbourg: International Space University.
Apel, U., 1988. Comparison of Alternative Concepts for Lunar Surface
Transportation. Acta Astronautica 17, no. 4 : 445-56.
Blair, B.R. et. al., 2002. Space Resource Economic Analysis Toolkit: The
Case for Commercial Lunar Ice Mining. Final Report to the NASA
Exploration Team.
Brealey, R.A., 2003. Principles of corporate finance. 7th Edition. New
York: McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
Bufkin, A.L. and Stump, W.R., 1988. Lunar Surface Transportation
Systems Conceptual Design. Houston: NASA and Eagle
Engineering.
Casini, S., 2006. Space Exploration: a Challenge and an Opportunity for
Europe.
Chato, D., 1991. Cryogenic Transfer Options for Exploration Missions.
Conference on Advanced Space Exploration Initiative
Technologies, AAIA-91-3541., Cleveland Ohio: Lewis Research
Center.
Chui, T. et al.,2006. Cryogenics for lunar exploration. Cryogenics, 46 (2-
3), pp.74-81.
Connolly J., 2006. Radiation Detection and Dosimety Workshop.
[online]. Available from:
http://srag.jsc.nasa.gov/Publications/Workshop_2006-
04/Connolly%20-
%20Radiation%20Dosimetry%20Workshop%204-6-06.pdf [cited
2 April 2007].
Coué, P., 2007. La Chine veut la Lune. Paris : A2C Medias.
Desert Research Institute, n.d. Safety Guidelines for Cryogenic Liquids.
[online]. Available from:
http://safety.dri.edu/Hazards/CryogenicLiquidGuidelines.pdf.
[cited 15 April 2007].

156
 Introduction

Domashenko, A., et.al., 2002. Production, storage and transportation of

liquid hydrogen. Experience of infrastructure development and
operation. International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 27,
Number 7, July 2002, pp. 753-755(3). [online]. Available from:
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/els/03603199/2002/000
00027/00000007/art00152;jsessionid=3ncbunp1sbg1p.alice?for
mat=print. [cited 9 April 2007].
Doppelmayr Garaventa Group, n.d. Gondolas. Doppelmayr Garaventa
Company. [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.doppelmayr.com/default.asp?lid=2&frs=210. [cited 9
April 2007].
Dunn, B.P., 2001. Space Storage of Liquid Oxygen and Liquid Hydrogen.
[online]. Available from:
http://www.dunnspace.com/cryogen_space_storage.htm. [cited 7
April 2007].
Eckart, P., 1999. The Lunar Base Handbook. New York: The McGraw-Hill
Companies Inc.
Encyclopedia Astronautica, n.d. LSAM – Lunar Surface Access Module.
[online]. Available from:
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/lsam.htm. [cited 29 April
2007].
ESA., 2006. Aurora, the Exploration plan. [online]. Available from:
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Aurora/SEMCWB1A6BD_0.html
[cited 5 April 2007].
ESAS, 2005. NASA's Exploration Systems Architecture Study -- Final
Report. NASA. [online].
Available from:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/news/ESAS_repo
rt.html [cited 2 April 2007].
FEMP (Federal Energy Management Program), 2003. Federal Energy
Management Advisory Committee. [online]. Available from:
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/about/femac_memos_0803.ht
ml. [cited 4 May 2007].
FERTILE Moon: Feasibility of Extraction of Resources and Toolkit for In-
Situ Lunar Exploration. 2006. Masters Team Project. Strasbourg:
International Space University.
Friedlander, A. et.al., 1991. Benefits of Slush Hydrogen for Space
Missions. Cleveland Ohio: Lewis Research Center.
Freeman, M., 2004. Spirit Rover Makes Successful Mars Landing.
Executive Intelligence Review, [online]. Available from:
http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2004/3102mars_spirit.html.
[cited 14 April 2007].
Fristad, K. et. al., 2004. Ideal Landing Sites Near the Lunar Poles.
Lunar and Planetary Science 35, pp.1582-1583.[online].
Available from:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2004/pdf/1582.pdf. [cited
20 April 2007].

157
Full Moon

Gaby, J., n.d. Large Scale Cryogenic Fluid Systems Testing. NASA – TM –
109735. Cleveland, Ohio: Lewis Research Center.
Gertz, B., 2007. U.S. halts China space ventures. The Washington
Times. Available from:
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20070202-124742-
3849r.htm [cited 1 May 2007].
Ghafoor, N., 2007. Canadian Space Robotics & International Lunar
Exploration. Why The Moon:
11th Annual International Space University Symposium.
Strasbourg: International Space University.
Gilmore, D.G. ed., 2002. Spacecraft Thermal Control Handbook
.(Volume 1: Fundamental Technologies). 2nd edition. El Segundo,
California: The Aerospace Press.
Griffin, M., 2005. Michael Griffin's Comments at the Workshop on
Space Exploration and International Cooperation. NASA. [online].
Available from:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18543 [cited 2
April 2007].
Harvard University, 2003. Safe Handling of Cryogens. [online].
Available from: http://www-
safety.deas.harvard.edu/services/cryo_general.html. [cited 10
April, 2007].
Heiken, G. et.al., 1991. Lunar Sourcebook: A User's Guide to the Moon.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hennesy, J., 1992. Global Marketing Strategies. Dryden Pien, page 304-
309.
Hoffman, S. and Kaplan, D., 1997. Human Exploration of Mars. [online].
Available from:
http://ston.jsc.nasa.gov/collections/TRS/_techrep/SP6107.pdf.
[cited 2 April 2007].
Howland, J., 2007. China’s Anti-Satellite Program Alarming. [online].
Available from:
http://www.jinsa.org/articles/articles.html/function/view/categoryi
d/884/documentid/3716/history/3,2360,884,3716. [cited 7 April
2007].
Inception Study to Support the Development of a Business Plan for the
GALILEO Program, 2001. TREN /B5/23-2001, Belgium: Price
Waterhouse Coopers.
Javier, D. and Michael, B., 2006. Lunar Polar Ice: Propellant Production
Plant Study. Space Age publishing Company. [online]. Available
from: http://www.spaceagepub.com/pdfs/Diaz.pdf. [cited 26 April
2007].
Jayaraman, K.S., 2006. India's Space Agency Proposes Manned
Spaceflight Program. [online]. Available from:
http://www.space.com/news/061110_india_mannedspace.html
[cited 25 April 2007].
Kotler, P., 1988. Marketing Management. Prentice Hall, page 208-234.

158
 Introduction

Koelle, H.H., 1997. On the size optimization on heavy lift of space

transportation systems.[online].Available from: http://www.ilr.tu-
berlin.de/koelle/ILR-Mitteilungen/Archive/ILR325.pdf. [cited 17
April 2007].
Koelle, H.H., 1996. NEPTUNE 2015 – A Workhorse for Cis-Lunar and
Planetary Projects. [online].Available from: http://www.ilr.tu-
berlin.de/koelle/Neptun/NEP2015.pdf.. [cited 17 April 2007].
Kutter, B.F. et.al., 2005. Atlas Centaur Extensibility to Long-Duration In-
Space Applications. Denver, CO: Lockheed Martin Space Systems
Company.
Luna Gaia. A Closed-Loop Habitat for the Moon. 2006. Summer Session
Team Project, Strasbourg, France: ISU.
Maleter, A., 2003. Strategies to Mitigate High Satellite Insurance
Premiums. Futron Corporation. Thompson Stanley Publishers
Ltd.[online]. Available from:
http://www.futron.com/pdf/resource_center/reports/SatFinanceA
Maleter.pdf. [cited 2 May 2007].
Malik, T., 2007. Texas Firm Draws up Plans for Orbital Gas Station.
[online]. Available from:
http://www.space.com/news/070314_moon_fuelingstation.html
[cited 1 May 2007]
NASA, 2003. Space Utilities and Power. [online]. Available from:
http://www.sbir.nasa.gov/SBIR/sbirsttr2003/solicitation/SBIR/TOPI
C_F3.html, Small Business Innovation Research & Technology
Transfer 2003 Program Solicitations. [cited 29 March 2007].
NASA, 2004. The Vision for Space Exploration.[online]. Publication No.
NP-2004-01-334-HQ.
Available from:
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/exploration/main/index.html
[cited 2 April 2007].
NASA, 2005. NASA New Start Index Inflation Calculator. Cost Estimating
Web Site. [online].
Available from:
http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflation/nasa/inflateNASA.html.
[cited 30 April 2007].
NASA, 2005. Cost Estimation Handbooks and Tools. NASA JSC.[online].
Aavailable from: http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/AMCM.html. [cited 5
April 2007].
NASA, 2005. NASA Inflation Calculator.[Internet]. Available from:
http://cost.jsc.nasa.gov/inflation/nasa/inflateNASA.html. [cited 2
May 2007].
Nortunado, W., 2007. Development of Consumable Transfer Systems
for Sustainable Lunar Exploration. NASA Kennedy Space Center.
Peeters, W., 2000. Space Marketing: A European Perspective. Boston:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.

159
Full Moon

Plachta, D.W., et. al., 2005. Passive ZBO storage of liquid hydrogen and
liquid oxygen applied to space science mission concept.
Cryogenics, Volume 46, Issue 2-3, Space Direct. [online].
Available from:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6
TWR-4J0NY7N-
6&_user=1532273&_coverDate=03%2F31%2F2006&_rdoc=1&_f
mt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000053578&_ver
sion=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=1532273&md5=5ad7bc84f3b2f
a719179d417fe15f04a. [cited 8 April 2007].
Sanders, J., 2007. Overview of In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU)
Development and Planning Within NASA. ISU lecturer.
Strasbourg: International Space University.
Sanders, J., 2006. NASA In-Situ Resource Utilization (ISRU) Research &
Development. [online]. Available from:
http://research.jsc.nasa.gov/presentations/ISRUDeansConf1006.p
df. [cited 2 April 2007].
Sattler, R.,2004.Transporting a legal system for property rights: from
the earth to the stars. [online].
Available from: http://www.space-settlement-
institute.org/Articles/research_library/TransportPropRights.pdf
[cited 22 April 2007].
Scatteia, L. et al., 2005. Composite and Nanocomposite Materials
Evaluation and Assessment for Cryogenic Propellant Storage.
Prepared for AIAA/CIRA 13th International Space Planes and
Hypersonics Systems and Technologies Conference.
Stein, J. and Sandy, C., 2003. Recent Developments in InflaTable Airbag
Impact Attenuation Systems for Mars Exploration. [online].
Available from:
http://www.ilcdover.com/products/aerospace_defense/supportfile
s/MERAirbagArcachon2003.pdf. [cited 6 May 2007].
Stevens, J., 2007. Implications of Maximizing Lunar Science
Achievement on Orion/CEV and Lunar Rovers. Why The Moon:
11th Annual International Space University Symposium.
Strasbourg, France: International Space University.
Tangming, C., 2007. The New Generation of Launch Vehicles and its
Applying to China’s Lunar Exploration Program. Why The Moon:
11th Annual International Space University Symposium.
Strasbourg, France: International Space University.
Thomsik, T., 2000. Recent Advances and Applications in Cryogenic
Propellant Densification Technology. NASA Glenn Research
Center.
Transneft Company, n.d. Pipelines. [Internet]. Available from:
http://www.transneft.ru/Default.asp?LANG=EN. [cited 9 April
2007 ].
Turner, M. J. L, 2005. Rocket and Spacecraft Propulsion: Principles,
Practice and New Developments. 2nd Edition. Chichester UK:
Praxis Publishing Ltd.

160
 Introduction

Vajpayee, S.A.B., 2005. Prime Minister Reiterates. Government’s

Commitment to Improving the Lot of the SCs amd STs for
Attitudinal Change and Effective Implementation Three Day
Convention of SC/ST Members of Parliament Inaugurated.
[online]. Available from:
http://pib.nic.in/archieve/lreleng/l1299/r201299.html. [cited 7
April 2007].
White, W.N., 2001. The Legal Regime for Private Activities in Outer
Space .Space Future .[online]. Avaliable from:
http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/the_legal_regime_for_privat
e_activities_in_outer_space.shtml. [cited 15 April 2007].
Whittington M., 2005. A New Way to Explore the Moon. [online].
Available from:
http://www.washingtondispatch.com/article_10767.shtml [cited 7
April 2007].
Wieland, P., 1994. Designing for human presence in space. An
introduction to environmental control and life support systems.
NASA-RP-1324.[online]. Available from:
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/1994002293
4_1994022934.pdf. [cited 6 May 2007].
Williams, D.R., 2005., The Apollo Lunar Roving Vehicle. NASA Goddard
Space Flight Center, [online]. Availble fom:
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/lunar/apollo_lrv.html. [cited
15 April 2007].
Wlasuk, P., 2000. Observing the Moon. London: Springer.
Young, A., 2007. Lunar and Planetary Rovers – The Wheels of Apollo
and the Quest for Mars. Chichester: Springer.
Zervos, V. and Siegel, D.S., 2005. Public Private Property and Multiple
Public Private Property. Prometheus Vol. 23, No2 pp167-180.
Zhang, B. and Chui, T., 2005. Low Temperature Engineering Applied to
Lunar IN-SITU Resource Utilization. Pasadena CA: California
Institute of Technology/Jet Propulsion Laboratory.

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... ............20
1.1.1 The Full Moon project ................................................. .......................20
1.1.2 Definition of Project Scope................................................. .................21
1.1.3 Report Structure (Readers’ Guide)................................................ .......22

2 DRIVERS & CONSTRAINTS.................................................................. ................24

2.1 MARKET ANALYSIS FOR REFUELING.......................................................................... 24
2.1.1 Potential Customers......................................................................... ....24
2.1.2 Customer Location............................................................................ ...29
2.1.3 Demand Scenario General Framework..................... ..........................34
2.1.4 Timeline Selection.................................................................... ............35
2.1.5 Demand from Landings................................................................... .....36
2.1.6 Demand from Life Support............................................................ .......38
2.1.7 Demand from Outposts................................................. .......................38

161
Full Moon

2.2 DEMAND GRAPHS...................................................................................................39

2.3 CONSTRAINT FROM COMPETITORS..............................................................................41
2.4 CONSTRAINTS OF LUNAR TOPOGRAPHY...................................................................... 42
2.5 CONSTRAINTS OF THE LUNAR ENVIRONMENT.............................................................. 43
2.6 CONSTRAINTS FROM RESOURCE AVAILABILITY.............................................................44
2.6.1 Resource Availability: Oxygen............................................. ................44
2.7 CONSTRAINTS OF PRODUCTION..................................................................................47
2.7.1 Production: Oxygen & Hydrogen from Water Ice................................50
2.7.2 Production: Hydrogen from Solar-Wind Implanted Volatiles...............51
2.8 FINDINGS: PRODUCTION SCENARIOS...........................................................................51

3 ARCHITECTURE ASSESSMENT.................................................................... .......53

3.1 CHALLENGES OF LUNAR ENVIRONMENT..................................................................... 53
3.2 SYSTEM DESIGN METHOD........................................................................................55
3.2.1 Qualitative Decision-Making.................................................... ...........56
3.2.2 Quantitative Decision-Making................................................. ............56
3.2.3 Futures: Supply Chain Modeling....................................... ..................57
3.3 ASSESSMENT OF STORAGE OPTIONS ON THE LUNAR SURFACE........................................57
3.3.1 Challenges of Stored Materials.................................................... ........58
3.3.2 LOX Properties and Considerations ................................. ..................59
3.3.3 LH2 Properties and Considerations................................................... ..59
3.3.4 Thermal Control....................................................... ...........................60
3.3.5 Materials............................................................................................ ..64
3.3.6 Cryogenic Storage Methods: Existing Technologies............................64
3.3.7 Liquid Oxygen .................................................................................. ...65
3.3.8 Cryogenic Storage Methods: Emerging Technologies......................... .65
3.4 ALTERNATIVE STORAGE POSSIBILITIES........................................................................66
3.4.1 Slush Hydrogen Properties and Considerations..................................66
3.4.2 Storage as Water...................................................................... ............67
3.5 STORAGE VESSELS..................................................................................................67
3.6 INTERFACING .........................................................................................................67
3.6.1 Transfer Guidelines............................................................................. .68
3.7 ENSURING HUMAN SAFETY AND TANK HEALTH.......................................................... 69
3.7.1 Assessment of delivery systems ................................... ........................69
3.8 TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS........................................................................................70
3.8.1 Mobile platforms............................................................................. .....70
3.8.2 Fixed platforms.......................................................................... ..........73
3.9 DELIVERY SYSTEM EVALUATION............................................................................... 75
3.9.1 Evaluation Criteria................................................................. .............75
3.10 QUALITATIVE DECISION RANKINGS FOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS....................................... 75
3.11 QUANTITATIVE DECISION RANKINGS FOR DELIVERY SYSTEMS.............................. .......78
3.12 FINDINGS: STORAGE AND DELIVERY CONCEPT RANKINGS...........................................83

4 SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE............................................................ ........................85

4.1 THE PROPOSED ARCHITECTURE.................................................................................88
4.1.1 The Storage Solution....................................................................... .....88
4.1.2 The Delivery Solutions................................................................ .........91
4.1.3 Local Delivery............................................................ .........................92
4.1.4 Equatorial Delivery...................................................... .......................93
4.2 INTERFACES............................................................................................................96
4.2.1 Interfaces with the M-LSAM............................................ ....................96
4.2.2 Interfaces with Local Servicing Rovers......................................... .......97
4.2.3 Communications.............................................................. ....................98
4.3 OPERATIONS...........................................................................................................99

162
 Introduction

4.3.1 Storage Tank Rotation...................................................................... ....99

4.3.2 Servicing Methods............................................................................. .100
4.3.3 Local Service with Wheeled Rovers.............................. .....................101
4.3.4 Equatorial Service with the M-LSAM....................... .........................102
4.3.5 Emergency Services with the Modified LSAM............................ ........103
4.3.6 Maintenance.............................................................. ........................104
4.4 THE SYSTEM BLUEPRINTS......................................................................................104
4.4.1 Storage Implementation....................................................... ..............105
4.4.2 Local Delivery System Implementation................................... ...........106
4.5 TECHNICAL RISKS.................................................................................................108
4.5.1 Storage........................................................................................... ....108
4.5.2 Delivery..................................................................... ........................109
4.6 ADAPTATIONS FOR THE OPTIMISTIC SCENARIO........................................................... 109
4.6.1 Scaling Up the Architecture......................................... ......................109
4.6.2 New Services............................................................................. .........109
4.6.3 Recommendation: A Proposed Architecture .......................... ............109

5 THE BUSINESS ANALYSIS........................................................... ........................111

5.1 APPROACH AND OVERVIEW.....................................................................................111
5.1.1 Market Demand Overview..................................... ............................112
5.2 SUPPLY OVERVIEW................................................................................................114
5.2.1 Lunar Oxygen and Hydrogen Supply Service......................... ............114
5.2.2 Assumptions............................................................... ........................114
5.3 BUSINESS SOLUTIONS............................................................................................ 115
5.3.1 Public Cooperation Scenarios for Development Phase......................115
5.3.2 Private Joint Venture Operational Phase......................... ..................117
5.3.3 Business Solutions Summary................................................ ..............118
5.4 BUSINESS RISK ASSESSMENT..................................................................................118
5.5 COST BREAKDOWN ANALYSIS ................................................................................119
5.5.1 Cost Categories...................................................... ...........................120
5.5.2 Launch Cost............................................................................ ...........120
5.5.3 Capital Cost............................................................................ ...........121
5.5.4 Operation cost......................................................... ..........................122
5.5.5 Summary of Cost Estimation..................................................... .........123
5.6 FINANCIAL MODEL .............................................................................................. 124
5.6.1 Calculating Annual Costs and Revenues....................................... .....125
5.6.2 Pricing Approach...................................................................... .........126
5.6.3 Selection Criteria...................................................................... .........126
5.6.4 Taxes, Insurance and Discount Factor.......................................... .....127
5.6.5 Cash Flow Analysis and Profitability Analysis..................................128
5.7 SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS...........................................................................................132
5.8 PROMOTION..........................................................................................................134
5.9 RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................................................135

6 LEGAL & ETHICAL ISSUES............................................................ ....................137

6.1 OVERVIEW OF THE EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK: THE OUTER SPACE TREATY & MOON
AGREEMENT.....................................................................................................138
6.2 LEGAL BARRIERS: A FURTHER ANALYSIS OF NON-APPROPRIATION PRINCIPLES..............140
6.2.1 Non-Appropriation of Celestial Bodies............................... ...............140
6.2.2 Appropriation of Lunar Material for Economic Benefit.....................142
6.3 ENABLING PRIVATE ENTERPRISE..............................................................................142
6.3.1 Enabling Lunar Land Use: Exclusive Economic Zones and Safety
Zones...................................................................... .................142
6.4 THE PROGRESSION TOWARDS A NEW INTERNATIONAL REGIME ............................ .......143

163
Full Moon

6.4.1 Legalizing the Appropriation of Land and Resources........................144

6.4.2 Temporary National Legislation............................... .........................145
6.5 ADDITIONAL LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: INSURANCE, RESPONSIBILITY & LIABILITY.........145
6.5.1 International Guidelines.................................................. ..................146
6.5.2 US Guidelines.................................................................... ................146
6.5.3 US Export Control Regulations....................................................... ...147
6.6 FULL MOON & ETHICAL CONCERNS....................................................................... 148
6.7 CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................149

7 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... ...151

8 REFERENCES .......................................................................................... ..............156

A. TANK MATERIAL SELECTION....................................................................... ..165

8.1 EXTRA VEHICULAR ACTIVITIES...............................................................................165
8.2 LSAM ASCENT STAGE MASS BREAK-DOWN...............................................................166
8.3 EXTRA VEHICULAR ACTIVITIES’ CONSUMPTION............................................................166
8.4 CALCULATIONS FOR 3, 6, 9 AND 12 DAYS-MISSION.................................................... 167
8.5 WATER CONSUMPTION:..........................................................................................168

B. LUNAR HYDROGEN....................................................................................... .....169

8.6 RATIONALE FOR SOUTH POLE BASE..........................................................................170
8.7 HYDROGEN EXTRACTION........................................................................................170

C. TANK MATERIAL SELECTION....................................................................... ..172

D. SYSTEM SELECTION DETAILS...................................................................... ..174

8.8 QUALITATIVE DECISION TOOL CALCULATIONS...........................................................174
8.9 QUANTITATIVE DECISION TOOL CALCULATIONS.........................................................175
8.10 SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION METHODS......................................................................... 175
8.11 SUPPLY CHAIN MODELING WITH SPACENET............................................................176

E. DELIVERY SYSTEM CALCULATIONS................................................... .........179

8.12 LSAM MODIFICATIONS FOR SURFACE DELIVERY....................................................179
8.13 M-LSAM CALCULATIONS FOR MID-LATITUDE DELIVERIES.....................................179
8.14 WHEELED ROVER CALCULATIONS......................................................................... 180

164
 Introduction

____________________________________Appendix B
A.Tank Material Selection

8.1Extra Vehicular Activities

1.1 Weekly timetable for astronauts on the outpost

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-48 EVA and IVA

activities considered for outpost GOX demand (NASA 2005)

165
Full Moon

8.2LSAM ascent stage mass break-down

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-49 LSAM ascent stage

mass break-down (NASA 2005)

Mass break down of the LOX/LCH4 propelled LSAM, and ISP for LOX/LH4
engine are used to calculate the LOX/LH2 needed.
Oxidizer/Fuel ratio for LOX/LH2 is considered to be 8:1. Engines with
even higher ratios of up to 10:1 are desirable, as the amount of LH2
needed is reduced. The benefit of high ratio is twofold:
1. Smaller tanks for LH2 which has very low density thus high
volume and structural mass.
2. In the case there is no ice in the lunar South Pole, lander ascent
LH2 will be carried from Earth, and only LOX will be refueled on
the lunar surface. The less LH2 needed, the greater the benefit
in launch mass on Earth.

8.3Extra vehicular activities’ consumption

The following values are based on an average metabolic rate of
136.7 W/person and with a respiration quotient of 0.87 (which
correspond to the molar ratio of CO2 generated to 02 consumed) and an
average build:
• Oxygen consumed = 0,84kg/(person-day)
During an EVA, the activity level is getting greater so the value is
changing to:
• Oxygen consumed = 0,96kg/(person-day)

1) Without rovers

o Distance: 1-3km

o Without recharge

166
 Introduction

 Length: 4-hour uninterrupted operation

 Oxygen consumed = 0,16kg/person

o With recharge
 Length: 6-8 hour EVA
 Oxygen consumed = 0,32kg/person

2) With single rover

o Distance: 10-15km (walk-back)

3) With two rovers (the second rover is provided to the single

rover, so the walk-back requirement can be avoided)
o Distance: 20-30km max
o Length: 8 hours max (=crew member-suited physiological
guidelines)
o Oxygen consumed = 0,32kg/person
According to NASA and Lockheed Martin, 4 persons will be there at the
same time.
Then, in high activity metabolic load, the oxygen consumption for 4
persons will be
4*0.96=3.84kg/day

8.4Calculations for 3, 6, 9 and 12 days-

mission
About the rovers:
• Maximum rover’s speed is about 20 km/hour
• Unpressurized rovers need to return to the base at the end of
each day
• Pressurized rovers allow longer mission (3, 6, 9 or 12 days
mission)
The following calculations consider that:
• Density of oxygen: 1.429g/L=1.429kg/m3
• Density of Liquid oxygen: 1.141g/L=1141kg/m3

1)
Oxygen consumed for a 3 days mission with 4 persons:
4*0.96*3= 11.52kg
Volume of Oxygen=8.06m3
Volume of Liquid Oxygen=0.01m3=10L
2)
Oxygen consumed for a 6 days mission with 4 persons:
4*0.96*6= 23.04kg
Volume of Oxygen=16.1m3
Volume of Liquid Oxygen=0.02m3=20L

3)

167
Full Moon

Oxygen consumed for a 9 days mission with 4 persons:

4*0.96*9= 34.56kg
Volume of Oxygen=24.28m3
Volume of Liquid Oxygen=0.03m3=30L

4)
Oxygen consumed for a 12 days mission with 4 persons:
4*0.96*12= 46.08kg
Volume of Oxygen=32.24m3
Volume of Liquid Oxygen=0.04m3=40L

According to NASA’s exploration architecture study, surface missions

lasting four days will have EVAs each day.
The first (landing) and last (takeoff) days will likely have shorter
duration EVAs of four to six hours, while the middle two days will each
have a full 6- to 8-hour EVA period. Longer-duration sortie missions of
up to seven days would likely require at least one day of rest without
planned EVAs.
In the last case, the oxygen consumed for the four persons will
be: 4*0.96*6 + 4*0.84*1=26.4kg
The volume will be: 26.4/1.429=18m3

8.5Water Consumption:
3.9kg/(person-day) (included drink, water in food and metabolized
water)
3 days mission for 4 persons: 46.8L
6 days mission for 4 persons: 93.6L
9 days mission for 4 persons: 140.4L
12 days mission for 4 persons: 187.2L

168
 Introduction

____________________________________Appendix B
B.Lunar Hydrogen

Despite the hydrogen controversy, this report assumes existing data

from Lunar Prospector and Clementine and lays emphasis on how
hydrogen can be obtained from these resources. An unusual discovery
from Clementine was the non-uniformity of lunar tectonics and
mineralogy; hence analysis from Apollo sample cannot infer the entire
Moon is dry-bone (2004a). Mean concentration of solar wind implanted
hydrogen is as low as 18 ppm (Maurice et al. 2003, Lawrence et al.
2007). Because surface regolith grain exposure time to solar fluence or
meteorites/comets impacts far exceeds time needed to saturate a
grain hence additional impacts or solar wind does not alter hydrogen
concentration irrespective of latitude or longitude. (Maurice et al. 2003)

Figure Error! No text of specified style in document.-50 : Distribution of

Hydrogen within the first 2m of lunar regolith as seen by Source:
(Maurice et al. 2003), (2004a)

The graph shows a mean solar wind implantation of 50±20 ppm of

Hydrogen with concentrations above mean corresponding to small dark
craters while below mean concentrations correspond to points that
have lost their hydrogen due to heat generated during impact and
ultra-violet radiation from sun that dissociate water molecules (Maurice
et al. 2003). Permanently cold, dark shadows near the south poles
show a concentration of 190 ppm of hydrogen (equivalent to 1.5 ±
0.8% of water)
Hydrogen concentration increases towards the lunar poles and
significant concentrations are associated with large impacts craters
with shaded bottoms. Since the South Pole has the largest, coldest and

169
Full Moon

oldest craters, it is believed to have significant deposits that can be

economically extracted. (2004b)
Supposing all hydrogen in the lunar poles is trapped as water ice,
Feldman and colleagues estimate total volume could be two billion tons
of water in the upper three feet. A rough estimate of water ice deposits
that can be economically extracted exist in the bottoms of very cold,
permanently dark shaded areas of craters (-233 °C) near the south
pole average to 1.5%. The best estimate for the total shaded area
would give 200 tons of water equivalents. (Javier and Michael 2006)
Because of the low resolution of Lunar Prospector and the fact that
Clementine was not specifically deigned to detect water ice while
water may exist as ice or crystal in lunar soil, the possibility of existing
small areas with even greater concentrations cannot be ruled out.
(2004b, Maurice et al. 2003)
The controversy about lunar hydrogen centers on many unanswered
questions some of which include the mere existence of water deposits
that can be accessed, its form, distributed concentrations in regolith,
concentrated deposits, and prospecting technique.

8.6Rationale for South Pole base

Detail knowledge of lunar polar resources is essential for lunar
exploration programs; therefore a combined study of water ice near
the South Pole would have a greater effect for both exploration and
scientific applications. (Lawrence et al. 2007) other merits include
availability of clean power from near permanent sunlight, habitable
zone without 14 day lunar nights saving billions of dollars worth
spending on nuclear reactor to support life at the equator and mid-
latitudes regions, mild and favorable temperatures of about -50° ± 10°
C and possibility of having water near the south poles would be great
economic and exploration advantage.

8.7Hydrogen Extraction.
Hypothetically, hydrogen can be extracted from equatorial regolith by
heating the soil up to 700°C with 90% of the implanted hydrogen
driven off making collection difficult. On the other hand, polar water ice
requires two orders of energy less at 100° C using the base’s solar
source to evaporate melted ice which is easy to collect. Because
hydrogen concentration is small about 50 ppm, extraction is not
economically worthwhile but it turns out that the straight forward
method for extracting hydrogen can also be used to extract carbon
present in about 110 ppm. The method is still useful to extract oxygen
by reducing iron oxide in the regolith using either hydrogen or carbon
yielding oxygen and methane as products usable in methane/oxygen
engine and more efficient than hydrogen. (Ruiz et al. 2004) An optimal
performance of the extraction system is achieved by mining a high soil
maturity site with soil grains less than 20 um and in the upper 10cm
layer soil with possibility of getting hydrogen concentration of about
100ppm. (Team Project Final Report 2006)

A propellant production plant size is determined by ice concentration,

mining equipment and performance in that order. Javier and Michael

170
 Introduction

(2006) suggest an ISRU production plant with a capacity of 900 metric

tons of water per year from which about half of the water could be
electrolyzed to yield hydrogen and oxygen. Assuming south pole
based-plant, power system becomes a trivial issue due to the high
performance of the solar system. Though wireless power transmission
from solar energy and nuclear energy plants is suggested as options
for providing energy in the permanently dark shadows, however more
research into problems associated with astronauts or robots working in
extremely dark and cold temperatures is still required. (Javier and
Michael 2006) Available space, continuous sunlight and no atmosphere
on the moon makes solar power generation more efficient so that
higher temperatures can be attained at a shorter time with the
capability of scaling up as demand increases. (Houdashelt et al. 1989)

Many extraction methods exist but the least complex requiring less
equipment though higher energy compared to De Beni Carbon-Iron
Process, is electrolysis and it is assumed in this report to be best for
the production of hydrogen and hydrogen on the basis of complexity.
Chemically, two molecules of water yields tow molecules of gaseous
hydrogen and a more of gaseous oxygen. Judging from the 249 KJ per
mole as the dissociation free energy, the calculated minimum specific
power of the process is 3.84 KWhrs/kgH2O(Team Project Final Report
2006).

171
Full Moon

____________________________________Appendix C
C.Tank Material Selection

The following tables were used as an aid to choosing storage tank

materials.
Table A-47: Qualitative Tensile Strength Table
Al–Li Composite Stainles Rankin
Teflon Result
Alloy material s Steel g
Al-Li
L U L 1 #1
Alloy
Composi
te U L 1 #1
Material
Teflon L 0 #2
Stainless
0 0
Steel

Table 48: Qualitative Thermal Conductivity Table

Composi Stainles
Al–Li Rankin
te Teflon s Result
Alloy g
Material Steel
Al-Li
U U U 3 #1
Alloy
Composi
te U L 1 #2
Material
Teflon L 0 #3
Stainles
0 0
s Steel

Table 49: Qualitative Density Table

Composit Stainles
Al–Li Rankin
e Teflon s Result
Alloy g
Material Steel

172
 Introduction

Al-Li
U U L 2 #1
Alloy
Composi
te L L 0 #2
Material
Teflon L 0 #3
Stainles
0 0
s Steel

173
Full Moon

____________________________________Appendix D
D.System Selection Details

This appendix provides the details on the calculations used for

selecting the delivery system. In the last sections, it expands on
methods for modeling the complete system using academic software
called “SpaceNet.” Effort, performance and robustness are considered
key criteria.

8.8Qualitative Decision Tool Calculations

The Qualitative Decision Tool was used to evaluate each system pair-
wise with another by criteria. A set of tables was created (one per
criteria) to compare the systems by the defined “best.” The relation
between the inputs and results is shown in Figure B-Error! No text of
specified style in document.-51.
The “ranking column tallies the number of ‘U’s across the row with the
system and the number of ‘L’s in the column under the system.

Figure B-Error! No text of specified style in document.-51: Qualitative

Decision Tool input flow
While this method allowed for contradictory selections, this did not
occur often and was made apparent by systems with identical tallies.
The results were checked to counter major errors. This method was
iterated to ensure that the concepts for the criteria and particularly
“best” within that criteria were clearly the same as that intended by
the constraints.

174
 Introduction

8.9Quantitative Decision Tool Calculations

The Quantitative Decision Tool relied on the subjective choice of
appropriate quantities and formulae to ensure that “best” was
represented consistently by a higher number. The formula for each
criteria is given in Table B-50.
Table B-50: Quantitative Decision Tool formulae
Parameter Formula
Technical Readiness = 1 / time [years] to develop
Operational Efficiency = 1 / specific power
= mass [kg] / power [kW]
Scalability = 1 / (marginal cost to double output,
as % original cost)
Adaptability = # of alternate applications (listed)
Ease of Implementation = 1 / mass [kg]
Freedom of Location = % coverage of lunar surface
= area (range) / lunar surface area
Delivery Time = capacity [kg] / speed [km/h]
Reliability = maintenance cost per annum for
terrestrial analog [USD]
Safety = # of ‘yes’ answers to 5 key
questions
Resilience to Lunar = sum of ratings [1 to 3] for each of
Environment expansion tolerance, dust-
impermeability and terrain capability
Each of the calculations was normalized and weighted. In the end, the
formulae were simple and the calculations were fast. The weights for
each faculty member or student were entered in one sheet, averaged
among the faculty and students separately and the standard deviations
calculated using built-in MS Excel formulae. Secondary weights were
used in the concurrent engineering session. The scenario-specific
results were the weighted results multiplied by the secondary weights.

8.10System Optimization Methods

Some insight into multi-criteria decision making and system
optimization was provided by John Blake, President of the Canadian
Operational Research Society, Robert Shishko, Principal System
Engineer and Economist at NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Ozgur
Gurtuna, President of Turquoise Technologies Solutions. This is a
synopsis of their advised approach to this problem in more generalized
scenarios.
Blake suggested that a simple linear node network may be
implemented in Excel using the Solver package (e-mail 2007-APR-14).
Shishko noted that the MIT SpaceNet modeler
(http://spacelogistics.mit.edu/) is designed for similar problems
including a lunar surface-specific network (teleconference
2007-APR-23). The hazard with these methods is that they are only at
a heuristic stage and have not been verified with real world scenarios.
These experts agree that further work is needed in this field for space
applications to aid with better program decisions.

175
Full Moon

To optimize the cryogen distribution system, the problem can be

broken down in stages: comparing individual technological delivery
solutions; comparing different locations and number of storage sites;
describing the different architectures as a network model; running an
algorithm on the variations in the model and; weighting the results
based on the importance to the consumers and to the business case.

The Linear Network Model for the Complete Cryogen System

Computer modeling can be used to make decisions that consider
combinations of systems and time. The model represents the supply
and demand as nodes in a network linked by transportation elements.
Each transportation element can be characterized by a utility function
(such as or including cost). The problem for lunar cryogen storage and
delivery system optimization is called a “transportation problem,” more
particularly a “trans-shipment hub problem” because supplies can be
held in storage nodes (John Blake e-mail 2007-APR-14).
A sample iteration of a time-expanded network is shown below.

Figure B-Error! No text of specified style in document.-52: Supply flow

through time-expanded linear network model
From this, the optimum number and location of storage sites could be
deduced. The transport systems with the best overall utility solutions
can also be selected.

8.11Supply Chain Modeling with SpaceNet

Supply chain modeling could solve the lunar cryogen distribution
problem more realistically. This section describes a method to lay out
the problem in the modeling package SpaceNet, but the method can be
modified to suit any similar programs.

176
 Introduction

Figure B-Error! No text of specified style in document.-53: SpaceNet

model (http://spacelogistics.mit.edu)
The model is a description of the worldview for the lunar cryogen
system. The model includes a set of nodes representing predicted
production sites and fixed and mobile consumers on a spherical surface
and links (transportation elements such as the delivery systems
described in the Assessment chapter.
Table B-51: Elements for modeling a lunar cryogen delivery system
Model Components Variable Inputs Output
• terrain difficulty • number of storage • optimal location
map nodes of storage
• supply elements • storage node node(s),
(LH2, LOX) with capacity • optimal delivery
transfer and • transport capacity system design
transport losses • transport speed & (including
• production node range hybrids) across
map with rates phases or
• transport terrain
• fixed and mobile different market
capability
consumer node scenarios
• transport system
map with demand • maximized
autonomy
rates & priority system life cycle
• transport utility (or
• consumer revisit complexity minimized cost)
frequency
• transport
development lead
time
The following assumptions can be made to simplify the problem:
• There is a great circle route minimum path between any 2 surface
nodes, with the addition that the routes are weighted by a
percentage of the distance for obstacle avoidance and terrain
profile, depending on vehicle type.
• Consumers are defined as: small volumes delivered to robotic
rovers across regions; moderate high priority volumes delivered to
a habitat and; high volumes delivered to launch vehicles.

177
Full Moon

• Delivery systems may be static (e.g. pipeline) or mobile (e.g.

wheeled rover).
• Demand for the full scale base, human rovers and launch vehicles
could exceed local (lunar) supply in the far term.
The “utility function” for each delivery system element should reflect
these assumptions.
Each element will have a “utility” defined by costs and/or performance
characteristics. The engine will iterate the algorithm over variations of
the model until it finds the optimum “utility” for the whole system.
This can be minimum life cycle cost or maximum performance, for
example. For the lunar cryogen system, both consumer and business
case needs must be considered. The “utility” function must combine
these needs by either translating all the requirements into costs or
another consistent metric.
Blake recommended first optimizing site locations, then scaling each
delivery system to meet consumer requirements, then iterating to
optimize the utility function for each system type (repeat for single
node, 3 nodes, 10 nodes, say). The systems should also be compared
at different phases in the predicted market.
For node optimization, for example, LogicNet (http://www.logic-
tools.com), a commercial supply chain modeling software, uses a mass
balance equation at each node, i.e. outflow - inflow <= demand. Other
algorithms are possible.

Results
The benefits of modeling a complete system in this detail can be used
for scaling the system to different predicted markets, choosing
compatible system elements and visualizing delivery schedules. The
hazard is reliance on the results before they have been verified with
results from real world cases. This is difficult for space projects, but
with care lessons learned from complex projects like the International
Space Station could provide a baseline for methodically planning large-
scale space project.

178
 Introduction

____________________________________Appendix E
E.Delivery System Calculations

The following material provides more detail on the delivery system

selections.

8.12LSAM Modifications for Surface

Delivery
In order to use the NASA LSAM for deliveries from the lunar south pole
to the equator, the following modifications are recommended:
Table C-52: LSAM modifications
Objective or Capabilities of Recommended
Requirement Present LSAM Modification
Range 3 000 km Round trip low -
lunar orbit to
lunar surface
Payload 4t 500 kg Remove ascender,
Capacity use main
propulsion
LOX/LH2 tanks for
customer fuel
Stage Reusable reusable -
Type combined
ascender/lander
Fuel Deliver fuel to No external Add tele-operated
Transfer customer fueling/refueling hose arm
System without changing system
or removing
tanks
Surface Maneuver within No surface local Attach the
Mobility 100 m of target mobility ATHLETE wheeled-
capability walker rover

8.13M-LSAM Calculations for Mid-Latitude

Deliveries
“Delta-V” Calculation
The total “Delta-V” required for a ballistic vehicle traveling between
two points on the lunar surface is given by

179
Full Moon

where μ = 4.90279882 × 1012 m3/s

rm = radius of the Moon = 1 735 km
β = top angle (in radians) of the triangle connecting departure
point, arrival point and centre of the Moon.
This equation takes into account the initial burn required to take off
and the final burn required to land in a controlled fashion (ISU 2000).
For the lunar pole to equator range of 2 500 km, β = 1.41 radians.
Based on this, ΔVideal = 3 121 m/s. Without a controlled landing, the
impact velocity is half of ΔVideal.

Propellant Calculation
 − ∆V 
The final mass ratio, µ final = exp 
I g 
 sp o 
where Isp = the specific impulse of the RL-10 engine = 462 s
go = 9.8 m/s2
This gives a final mass ratio of 0.48
mf
The final mass of the vehicle, m f = mi × µ final , i.e. mi = .
µ final
The dry mass (i.e. final returned mass) of the stripped-down LSAM (no
ascender) with the ATHLETE rover on board is mf2 = 6 210 kg.
From this, the initial mass at the delivery location is, so mi2 = 12 940
kg.
Adding the 4 t payload, the final mass for the delivery journey is then
mf2 = 16 940 kg = mf1, which is the final mass for the delivery leg.
Dividing again by the mass ratio, the mi1 = 35 290 kg, the initial wet
mass for the vehicle with payload.
Subtracting the initial vehicle dry mass, the total propellant needed for
this trip is 29 080 kg. Since the maximum propellant that can be
carried by the LSAM is 30 319 kg (NASA presentation 2007), this is
within the limits; however, the vehicle structure should be optimized to
allow a safety margin.

8.14Wheeled Rover Calculations

Mass Estimation
The estimated mass of the rover, m rover = c ⋅ m payload
where c = 0.65 (Bufkin et al. 1988)
mpayload = 4 000 kg + 5 000 kg (tank mass) =
9 000 kg(approximately)

180
 Introduction

From this, the mass is 5 850 kg, and the total loaded mass is m rover = 5
850 + 9 000 = 14 850 kg.

Power Estimation
The estimated power required for the rover, Ptotal = a ⋅ m rover ⋅ d
where a = 0.1412 (Bufkin et al. 1988)
mrover = total mass of the rover (calculated above) = 14 850 kg
d = total distance traveled = 2 x range (2 km) + safety margin
(1 km) = 5 km
Based on this, total power requirement is 10.5 kWh.

181