An Existing Market for Lunar Propellant GTO Orbit

An Existing Market for Lunar Propellant — GTO Orbit Raising as a Service Originally presented at 2019 Lunar ISRU workshop https: //www. hou. usra. edu/meetings/lunarisru 2019/pdf/lunarisru 2019_program. htm Extended and published in Planetary and Space Science 2020 Geosynchronous transfer orbits as a market for impulse delivered by lunar sourced propellant nicholas. j. bennett@student. unsw. edu. au

Risk in Off Earth Mining Financial Models nicholas. j. bennett@student. unsw. edu. a u B. Sc. (Hons) Computer Science Ph. D Candidate Software Forex, Capital Mkts Risk Management

Uber for satellites in GTOs Satellite Tug raising to GEO, but: • Direct from polar mine (no depot) • Grab satellite in GTO (customers) CLPA Fig. 70 Satellite design & launchanged (almost). Partial raise extends station keeping lifetime. Optimize satellites over time. GTO No “Chicken & Egg” / “Stag Hunt” dilemma. My goal: consider including GTOs as a reference market along with LEO, GEO, EML 1, … There are customers now 1: 10

GTOs: customers right now – how big? CLPA Fig. 70 • FAA: 120 mt commercial separation mass • 1, 500 m/s to raise • 60 mt low Isp bi-propellant • @ $11, 250/kg Space. X GTO = $675 M/year 1: 45

Used: • Mining Model • Finance Model Kornuta 2019 Applied to GTO impulse CLPA: 40 authors, 25 orgs, economic model 2: 00

CLPA implies GTO return is better than LEO CLPA Fig. 70 Major revenue & cost driver is burn ratio to move mass Sell 1 unit in: • GTO $$ 6 unit mine can deliver: • LEO: 1 unit • GTO: 2 units $10, 000 Mine 2 x LEO: $ $4, 000 Mine 6 x $8, 000 Mine 3 x • GTO Get paid for 60, deliver 45 $GTO = 2 * 4/3 = 5⅓ * $LEO 2: 55

Practical Trajectories NASAs General Mission Analysis Tool & Satellite operators: • Tug trans Earth injection into Sat launch inclination • Sat launches to tug line of nodes (not for eclipse) • Sat waits on tug rendezvous (not raise ASAP) Same launch procedures Different optimality / price tradeoff Everything has to align, but not all at the same time! 3: 40

CLPA Model + Your Estimates = IRR% 2 D sensitivity: • Achievable GTO $/kg • Burn ratio you believe 2 3 Ø Internal Rate of Return Discount Funding • Discount Risk • EML 1 LH 2 LOX or LOX 50% 20% $7, 000 / kg Lower Earth launch costs erode revenue Space. X Now • 4. 5 4: 30

GTO Impulse… a benchmarket? I hope I’ve shown: • There is a current market; $675 M/year. • CLPA mining and economic model imply GTO delivery more lucrative than LEO. • Trajectory, engineering, satellite operations imply can be provided by lunar propellant. • GTOs should be a benchmark like LEO, GEO, EML 1, etc. Do come talk to me for more details… (…lunar LOX…) nicholas. j. bennett@student. unsw. edu. au 5: 00

Tug mass & delta-v budget → Burn Ratio To GTOs: 5, 500→ 4, 400 m/s Nominal→super 2 synchronous Super 2 synchronous 3 2 Inert Mass Fractions: Lower: 12%, 16% Upper: 10%, 13⅓%, 4% How light can we go? Reader selects what is reasonable 4: 00

GTO Impulse – better than 5 x LEO Costs Mined Water Revenue H 2 O Electrolysed O 2 H 2 Useable Propellant 13% kg LEO Propellant GTO Propellant orbit replaced GTO Impulse 71% 100% EML 1 Propellant 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 60 mt of service – 45 mt cost 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2: 55

Just LOX? Costs Revenue O 2 H 2 Useable Propellant LEO Propellant kg GTO Impulse replaced orbit EML 1 Propellant “Waste” LOX 30% of mine output, 80% of propellant mass O 2 H 2 GTO LOX EML 1 LOX 11. 25 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 Best Product for the mine = best for customer? 6 7 8 9