Showing posts with label Asteroids. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Asteroids. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Commercial Asteroid Return to Station

Back in 2010, Michael Mealing began to consider a spacecraft mission to capture and return a very small Near Earth Object (NEO) to the ISS or Bigelow module for study. He writes about business concept here. Michael’s point, humanity will only travel into the solar system if they can make money at each step. NEOs may be the next step after LEO.

Then in January, 2011, the topic of a NEO capture and return to LEO comes up again in the comment discussions on the Space Business Blog here. So Michael and I have teamed up to continue refining this business concept.

Here’s a Pencast describing the basic concept for a mission to return a small asteroid sample to a space station in LEO.  I also include a few markets that might make such a mission profitable.

brought to you by Livescribe


Moon dust legally for sale - $50K for a few small specs. 

Next, I will walk you through the spreadsheet model built to analyze what would be required for a mission like the one described in the Pencast above.

Assumptions:
  1. Spacecraft launched to LEO Space station to standby until target asteroid has been identified.
  2. Spacecraft launched from LEO space station and returning to LEO space station.
  3. Haul all propellant for round trip (no refueling).
  4. A duplicate amount of Delta-V will be required for both the trip out to the asteroid and the trip from the asteroid back to a LEO space station (assuming NO aerobraking to avoid damaging asteroid). Note: The mission’s costs could be greatly reduced if one could determine a smart engineering method to reduce the needed delta-v for the return trip to a LEO space station.
  5. Mass of dry spacecraft: 200Kg (Similar to NEAP but swap out all of NEAP's science gear for some type of grappling mechanism).
  6. Engine efficiency Isp = 342 seconds.
  7. Although spacecraft is docked to LEO space station before mission start, this model assumes no propellant boil-off or LOX top-off prior to mission start. 
  8. Since the target NEO is still undetermined, multiple Delta-V’s were modeled to reach NEO targets. Delta-V’s between 5500, 4500, 3500, and 2500 m/s were considered.
  9. Asteroid 2010 RF12 has a radius of 3.5m and a mass of 500,000kg according to NASA. Prorating these values to a radius of 0.5m gives you a sphere slightly smaller than the desired “refrigerator” in Michael Mealing’s earlier posts with a mass of 71,429Kg. This mass is larger than what I wanted to consider for a proof of concept mission, so although I include the 71K Kg mass in the analysis, I focus on target asteroid masses of 500, 300, 100, 50, 25, and 10Kg.

Conclusions:
The table below is the summary of my analysis. The columns in the table below represent the multiple delta-v’s modeled for our 200Kg spacecraft to travel from a LEO space station and AR&D with the target NEO. The rows are the various NEO masses that were considered (or – how big of a rock the mission can go out and get). The data populated (the cells with numbers) are the total mission masses for each combination of delta-v and NEO mass. The total mission mass includes all propellant needed not only to reach the NEO but to return it to LEO as well. The color coding correlates to the launch vehicle table below – Dnepr in green, Falcon 9 in orange, and Falcon Heavy in purple.






















A few Observations:
  • Finding low delta-v targets will dramatically increase the size of the asteroid one could successfully return. For example, instead of a 10Kg target at 5,000m/s of delta-v, the same spacecraft could return a 500Kg target if only 2500m/s of delta-v were needed to reach it (and at almost half the total mission mass!) – that is a lot more rock for scientists to analyze – 500kg instead of 10kg.
  • Are there ways to decrease the delta-v required to reach these targets or return from them (currently avoiding aerobraking, but maybe a small asteroid could be shielded during aerobraking)?
  • Because such small NEO objects will be difficult to spot a head of time (there are many more NEOs than we have on record - especially small ones), such a mission has to be very patient waiting on station many months/years for the “perfect” NEO to approach with the right blend of low delta-v and a mass that is “just right”. And to respond to new targets, the mission must be ready to depart the station on very short notice in pursuit of any newly identified targets.
  • Growing humanity’s knowledge of very small NEOs increases the chances of mission success.

Here is an example of the tables I built to analyze propellant needs. Here are the tables feeding the 5500 m/s of delta-v column. The colored cell in each table varies the asteroid masses. Here is the interactive spreadsheet for those that want to modify my assumptions and want to view the tables for the delta-V's modeled as well.

Delta-V 5500m/s:




































Next steps:
Michael and I plan to refine this concept over the coming months. Look for follow-up posts here on SBB and over on Michael’s blog.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Asteroid Prospecting in the Triangular Equilibrium

A few months ago I analyzed a SpaceDev/NEAP-style commercial NEO prospecting mission.

An interesting asteroid report last week has made we consider a Hybrid NEO prospecting/research mission:

A few thoughts on the timing challenges of a prospecting mission of any kind:


  • One potential market for the information gathered about the target asteroid(s) is to sell the data to those interested in mining such asteroids. 
  • Most NEO’s are in orbits whose paths cross infrequently with earth’s orbit.
  • Most “low cost” mining efforts would require a near earth asteroid to pass by earth at least two times – one pass for the prospector to prospect (sending back data) and a second pass to mount a mining expedition. Without two passes would require the venture to combine prospecting and mining into a single mission. I believe this approach to be too high risk for an investor-led venture.
  • Finding NEOs that return frequently enough to earth to attract investment dollar for a mining mission (double orbit missions) may be difficult. 
  • And the prospector company (the company that flew to multiple NEOs in search of data about asteroid composition, etc.) will have a hard time selling their data if they have to wait for the NEO to approach a second time.
  • For example: Asteroid 2006 RH120 at its closest distance from earth could be reached with only 3.8km/sec of delta-v.  According to JPL, Asteroid 2006 RH120 last approached earth on 14 June 2007 and won’t return again until 29 Oct 2028.  If your prospecting mission had gathered data on 2006 RH120, the scientific community might purchase the data gathered (yay), but commercial groups would not if the commercial ventures had to wait 20+ years to turn that data into profits.
  • Some NEOs return to earth more frequently than this example, but it illustrates a principle – prime targets for commercial NEO prospecting missions would combine a low delta-v to reach and frequent return trips to earth.

Enter 2010 SO16.

2010 SO16 is unlike most NEOs and at 7.6 km/sec of delta-v to reach, it may offer an attractive target for a NEO prospecting mission. Some quick facts:
  • Located in a similar orbit to earth’s – just 60% ahead
  • ~50x the distance to the moon
  • Very stable orbit – been there a long time!
  • May be a part of the theorized objects located at the triangular equilibrium points 60 degrees ahead of and behind the Earth in its orbit
  • Scientists may find such an object interesting because as the article put it, “If they [triangular equilibrium objects] do exist, they may represent relic material from the formation of Earth, Moon and the other inner planets”
  • 200-400 meters across - plenty of rock to prospect.

Why Prospect Asteroid 2010 SO16?
  • Pretty close to earth – so you can prospect the asteroid
  • Always pretty close to earth – so other could mine the asteroid if they determine it profitable to do so. This makes your prospecting data more valuable too.
  • Valuable as an earth observation point? Perhaps?
  • Valuable to watch for NEOs? (not sure on this point – need some engineers out there to help me). The alternative is to send a probe to Venus to watch earth – which would be easier or more valuable?
  • If 2010 SO16 is actually ejecta from earth/moon formation as some scientists have theorized, this asteroid may hold significant scientific value.
  • If 2010 SO16 is actually apart of other objects located close by, once there, additional objects may be close by to prospect as well.

Commercial value.  Scientific value.  Profitable?

Tuesday, January 25, 2011

Interview with Michael Heartsong: Asteroid Miner

In a previous post I explored how difficult it was to close the asteroid mining business case.  I mentioned the following platinum mining options in the comments section: 
OPTION 1: only bring back the useful ore by mining the asteroid "onsight" for the valuable elements. But that is silly, the critic says, why deal with all of the complexity of a remote compact mining device, instead…

OPTION 2: bring back all asteroidal material. Mine the ore for useful metals on earth’s surface. But that is silly, the critic says, now you have to deorbit massive amounts of asteroidal material (remember baseline platinum levels are 0.3%) just to get a little platinum.  How is this cost effective? Instead…

OPTION 3: keep the asteroid in orbit, mine the asteroid there and sell its contents for space purposes, like metal trusses for space stations & spacecraft, solar panel components, mass for shielding, etc. This way you avoid ever having to reenter all of that asteroidal material. But that is silly, the critic says, there is no market for the on-orbit products this solution hopes to produce. You have made the solution so complex, it will be prohibitively hard to raise the investment money for such an endeavor, plus the complexity will delay liquidity events to allow for a time-consuming development cycle (space manufacturing center, etc.). Why not develop a compact mining device that can be sent to surface of an asteroid, dig through a bunch of asteroidal material, find REMs, and just return that few hundred/thousand kilograms of valuable material to earth? And now we are back to Option 1.

Did I mention asteroid mining is hard (and the life of a critic is substantially easier).


Well, I wanted to talk to an entrepreneur who was working on closing this challenging business case of Asteroid Mining. Which of the three options would he pick (or would he pick a fourth option unmentioned)?

Michael Heartsong is cofounder of Promethean Enterprises, Inc. Michael is a finance and management consultant by day. This serial entrepreneur has been involved in six startups, two of which, have now been in operation for over twenty years. Last year, Michael was on the Space Show to talk about his new space mining company, Promethean Enterprises, Inc.

Promethean’s angle for closing the asteroid mining business case is the realization that large US aerospace companies are willing to mine asteroids today...but only if their risk was somehow mitigated.  Through contracting instead of partnership, Promethean intends to leverage the skillsets of the nations brightest engineers without having to pilfer them from Boeing.

With the right plan, the engineering skills can be bought. It’s an intriguing strategy (if perhaps unproven), a space firm whose competitive advantage is NOT engineering. You will hear in his answers below, Promethean is leaning towards Option 3 (see above for "Option 3" definition).




Q: For those not familiar with your asteroid mining white paper, can you give us a brief overview of your Asteroid Mining business concept?

Michael Heartsong: We intend to build and send robotic mining devices to asteroids; process the ore in space and turn it into propellant (water broken down into hydrogen and oxygen) and structural material. The structural material could be used to repair the International Space Station (or build a new one; or build other structures in space). And we intend to use the structural material to build a vast, many square kilometer solar-energy gathering array; turn the electricity generated thereby into microwaves; beam the microwaves down to earth, where they will be captured by a receiving antenna ("rectenna"), reconverted into electricity, and fed into the grid. In this way, we hope to be a major part of solving Earth's looming energy crisis (the Earth uses about 14 terawatts of electricity each year.

It is predicted that by 2050, we will need 40 terawatts. 75% or more of all electricity today is generated by burning fossil fuels. It is simply impossible to generate 40 terawatts (or even 25) with current technology: the stores of fossil fuels will be depleted. More importantly, we would destroy ourselves with the resulting pollution. (Remember the film, CHILDREN OF MEN in which almost all adults had become infertile). That is the Big Picture. AT the moment, it is just an idea, a vision. The next step is to turn the vision into an executable plan.

Q: That is a BIG effort – how are you proceeding?

Michael Heartsong: Our plans call for proceeding in essentially two Phases.
  1. Phase One is a Research Phase, that will last at least 1 1/2 years, probably 2. During this Phase, every aspect of the vision will be researched, contemplated, examined. We intend to prove and validate that what we are proposing can be accomplished with exiting technology (as as technology advances, what we are proposing becomes ever more achievable. We will identify providers--companies and people who can participate in the venture. This Phase will drill down to specifics: how best to move forward, at what cost; who can undertake it; how long will it take to design, build and launch one or more robots; which asteroids are the most promising and why, etc. etc . One of the products from this Phase will be a document that will demonstrate conclusively that what we are proposing is an economically viable business venture. 
  2. We would then leverage this analysis to raise the hundreds of millions (possibly billions of $$) that will be required to succeed in the venture. And execute the venture.
Q: So Phase I is “Build a Plan” and Phase II is “Execute the Plan”. How much capital do you need for this first exploratory Phase I?

Michael Heartsong: We are seeking $12.5 million of seed capital with which to finance Phase One.

Q: What industry partners are you working with on this venture?

Michael Heartsong: We have already had conversations with several people at Boeing, who are excited by our plans. We have a written invitation from Boeing to submit to them an RFP, so they can tell us how much of Phase One they would like to participate in, and at what cost. We have also had conversations with L'Garde, the premier deployer of inflatable space structures. Additional partners would be added throughout the phase as needed.

Q: Will you be incorporating a NEO surveying mission (NEAP 2.0) prior to your mining efforts?

Michael Heartsong: There is actually a great deal of information already collected about Near Earth Objects (NEO), and more being collected every day. One aspect of Phase One will be to identify the criteria on the basis of which an asteroid would be selected as a target for our mission. Phase One will also include actual spectrographic analyses of potential asteroids. We hope by the end of Phase One we will know precisely which asteroids are the best potential targets.

Q: To accomplish your plans, how much of your plans utilize existing technologies and how much requires you develop new technologies?

Michael Heartsong: What we are proposing can be accomplished with existing technology. That said, it will still require a great deal of ingenuity, imagination, and intelligence. What we are proposing is simpler than other complex projects. We have already sent vehicles to comets and asteroids, and even landed on asteroids twice. And we are NOT talking about sending a human being to an asteroid, just a faith robot. Although what we are proposing has never been done, all of the various components are achievable with existing technology. We just have to figure out how best.

We think once we are at the end of Phase One, having proven the economic viability of what we are proposing, people will be eager to invest. The challenge is raising that first $12.5 million in order to complete Phase One. Normally, when one is raising seed capital, investors are naturally concerned about the safety of their capital, and the likelihood of seeing a return. The major risk, normally, is loss of capital. We think our situation is very different – the risk is in not investing.

Q: Recent topics on this blog have included discussions about the late Jim Benson’s plan to own an asteroid. What are your thoughts on such an acquisition?

Michael Heartsong: The entire area of Space Law is something that is simply not yet developed. I know of two or three attorneys who have begun thinking and writing about it, Presumably, the development of the Western United States will provide a model. Also, the settling of the New World (the Western hemisphere) will probably provide a model. The moon is complicated. I personally don’t see anyone owning the moon. Regarding asteroids, I suspect whoever lands first can certainly lay claim to all of the mineral rights, if not the asteroid itself. (Remember that guy who tried to claim ownership of the Human Genome? Ridiculous!)

Q: What should I have asked that I didn’t?

Michael Heartsong: I will just leave you with this encouragement. I believe we are on the very cusp of an explosion in private space exploration. By analogy, where we are today with regard to space, is where society was 20 years before oil was discovered; or 10 years before Carnegie figured out how to mass produce steel; or 5 years before the computer revolution really got underway. Fifteen years from now (or 2 years from now) people will look back and wonder why everyone couldn't see what was "right before their eyes". And we think there will be a LOT of people who will kick themselves for not getting involved when they had the chance (just like a lot of people missed Google, eBay, Microsoft, etc.)

Q: If my readers want to reach you, would you leave an email address?

Michael Heartsong: Thank you again for this opportunity. I welcome any and all comments from your readers, who are welcome to contact me at michaelheartsong8 [at] gmail.com.



Colin Doughan: Thank you, Michael. 2011 is the year of raising $12.5M. When you are successful, I would like to do a follow-up interview. I feel this was a “strategy” interview. I can’t wait for the “tactics” interview where I can ask all of the questions that are “plan specific”. Thank you for your willingness to share your vision so early in your entrepreneurial process. I hope your openness is rewarded. And I wish you nothing but the best.

Tuesday, January 18, 2011

Mining Asteroids is Hard

With the costs of rare earth metals on the rise, why can’t space entrepreneurs mine asteroids for platinum and other REM’s and return the materials to earth? Shouldn’t finding so many near earth asteroids make the problem even easier to solve (less delta-v to reach these nearby asteroids)?

Usually this blog focuses on the positive – on the how you could make this happen. Today we are going to look at how hard it actually would be to close such a business case.

Assumptions:
  • Mission: Mine platinum on NEOs and return the processed ore to earth for sale and consumption. Sale of platinum sole revenue source for the mission.
  • Mining Efficiency: for every one kilogram of mining equipment launched, the machinery could mine 100 times that amount of NEO material (2500kg mining device could mine 250,000kg of NEO material)
  • Mining Device mass: 2500 kg
  • Platinum concentrations on the NEO: 0.3%
  • Price of Platinum per kilogram: $58,500
  • Mission Cost: $600M

Based on these assumptions, the sale of the platinum mined on the asteroid would cover 7% of the mission costs. This business plan stinks. Not 7%, that seems too small. Really? Only 7% of mission costs could be covered with the assumptions above? Well how elastic are these assumptions? How far would we have to modify the assumptions to get more satisfying results?

Below I explored five what-if’s:
  1. What if platinum was found in higher concentrations?
  2. What if the mining device could mine more?
  3. What if the price of platinum were higher?
  4. What if mission costs were reduced?
  5. A Hybrid what-if.
What if platinum was found in higher concentrations.
The table below shows platinum concentrations would have to exceed 4% to cover mission costs.















What if the mining device could mine more.
The table below shows the mining device would need to mine over 1300x its own mass to cover mission costs.















What if the price of platinum were higher.
The table below shows the price of platinum would need to balloon to $800,000 per kg to cover mission costs.















What if mission costs were reduced.
The table below shows mission costs would need to be reduced to $44M.













Baseline Conclusions.
  • Mining asteroids is hard
  • Platinum mining to serve terrestrial applications is ridiculously hard to justify using these baseline assumptions
  • Entrepreneurs may have to seek business plans that fundamentally change these assumptions or offer their product to non-terrestrial customers

A Hybrid what-if.

But I can’t leave a post with such reserved pessimism. The table below shows that if an entrepreneur could find a NEO with platinum concentrations significantly higher than average even while assuming a less efficient mining device, such a mission may be possible if the costs could be reduced to less than $150M.













Have fun (in a nerdy spreadsheet kind of way) building your own platinum mission by using the spreadsheet located here.

[UPDATE: I fixed the spreadsheet so readers can download the file in MS Excel]

Thursday, January 6, 2011

14 Years Later…NEAP 2.0?

In late Oct-2010, I attended The Space Studies Institute’s Space Manufacturing Conference 14. Session Two was on Extraterrestrial Prospecting. Here is the video of the presentations.


The session included presentations by:

  • Prof. Michael A’Hearn, University of Maryland
  • Brad Blair, Space Studies Institute
  • Prof. Leslie Gertsch, University of Missouri-Rolla
  • Mark Sonter, Asteroid Enterprises Pty Ltd
  • Dr. Faith Vilas, University of Arizona

A question was raised during panel discussions that went something like this:

“If a private venture was to launch a survey mission to nearby NEO’s, what scientific equipment would you recommend be included? What asteroid data would you find most valuable?”

I confirmed with Dr. Vilas this week over email, at the top of her list would be:
  1. Spectroscopic UV
  2. A device to determine object mass
  3. A device to learn more about the object’s internal structure – perhaps ground penetrating radar
When thinking about mass and power budgets, maybe these are the right scientific instruments, maybe not. But this question got me thinking about SpaceDev’s never-launched NEAP Prospector mission.

How have the economics of the mission changed over the last 14 years?

NEAP was the brain child of the late Jim Benson at SpaceDev (now Sierra Nevada). This project, first announced in 1997, was going to launch a commercial smallsat mission to an Near Earth Object:
  • Cost: Under $40M
  • Mass: 200kg
  • Destination: 1982 DB Nereus – could be reached from LEO for a delta-v of 4,979m/s
  • Launch: Secondary Payload on an Atlas V.
  • Instruments: alpha proton X-ray spectrometer to determine the elemental composition of the asteroid surface, leaving three canisters available to carry customer experiments or nano-rovers.  Another source described the instruments as: a multi-band camera for navigation and asteroid imaging, a neutron spectrometer to search for water vapor, and an x-ray proton spectrometer to map the elemental abundance of the surface.
  • Benson intended to land a probe on the asteroid and claim 1982 DB Nereus as a SpaceDev asset. I am not sure if he ever intended SpaceDev to mine Nereus. I personally feel he was more interested in pushing the issue of space property rights.
  • SpaceDev announced Nereus was worth approximately $1 Trillion.
  • Benson intended to sell the mission data on a subscription basis to scientists on earth and sell surplus instrumentation space on the NEAP spacecraft to a few lucky scientists.

NEAP 2.0?

Could a superior NEAP mission be put together today…a NEAP Prospector 2.0? If so what would it look like and what has changed since 1997?
  • Since Nereus was chosen in 1997 as the destination of the original NEAP mission, 287 NEO’s have been discovered which require less delta-v to reach than Nereus did. Although Nereus was chosen for reasons beyond just low delta-v requirements, surely one of the 287 new NEO’s would make an enticing target. For example, Asteroid Provisional Designation: 2006 RH120 can be reached from LEO for a delta-v of only 3,820m/s (23% less delta-v than 1982 DB Nereus)
  • Falcon 1e could dual manifest a NEAP 2.0 mission for about $5M. I am not sure what the cost is to launch 200kg as a secondary payload on an Atlas V, but even if it were free or comparably priced to a Falcon 1e, the timing is key for such a mission to work (NEO’s won’t wait as they pass by). So being able to launch on a vehicle (like the Falcon 1e) where you have much more say in the launch window would enhance the chance of mission success and reduce the need to spend extended time in LEO (which is how you would avoid this risk if launching on an Atlas V as a secondary payload).
  • NASA’s ILDD announcement to purchase lunar data from GLXP teams provides an intriguing precedent. Would NASA be interested in a similar arrangement on such an Asteroid mission.
  • Since 1997, smallsats and CubeSats have gained traction, acceptance, and increased capability.
  • NBC paid $600M for the US broadcast rights to the 2010 Winter Olympics with billions more committed for the coming years. I know that a private asteroid landing is not the Olympics. But there may be serious money available for the media/advertising rights for such a commercial mission. Here is one fun advertising idea I cannot take credit for (but I can’t remember who I should give credit to). Would Nike pay for an image from the surface of an asteroid of a footprint (similar to the Apollo footprint) with a Nike Swish embedded in it? I could easily see that image on the front page of the USA Today announcing commercial exploration has arrived. If Lebron is worth $90M to Nike, surely such an image is worth a good chunk of $40M?!
  • SpaceDev (Now Sierra Nevada) is not the startup it was in 1997. They can deliver more capable products than they could fourteen years ago. After a series of acquisitions and a ridiculously successful track record, I would love to see SpaceDev/Sierra Nevada involved in any NEAP 2.0 mission, even if only as a subcontractor…for poetic and Benson-honoring reasons if for nothing else.

A few Business thoughts about NEAP 2.0:
  • For you philanthrocapitalists out there, a NEAP 2.0 mission would offer some significant bragging rights among your billionaire buddies. Even if you didn’t pay for all of the mission's $40M price tag (to keep with the 1997 estimate for mission cost), $5-10M invested and a few key press releases to get the momentum going could make such a mission viable.
  • For the mission, you may want to consider a “multi-asteroid” focus (unlike NEAP 1) to increase the value of any data purchase/subscription scheme – but I will let the engineers debate that point. More asteroid…more fuel…bigger tanks…more initial mass…more cost…
  • I still like the “land-on-it-and-claim-it" strategy for media reasons alone. And it would definitely force the issue of space property rights.
  • I need to do more research into subscription models and how well they work when selling scientific data. If any of you have thoughts/links on this point…
  • I still like the idea of opening up the payload manifest to include data gathering equipment provided by other Space Agencies or universities. This is a cheap way to get others to pay for equipment that you would otherwise have to develop yourself. The sticky issue, however, would be the data rights to the information generated by a particular agency or university's onboard equipment. Who owns that data? Can you still sell that data? Would they be allowed to write their paper announcing discoveries found as a result of their on-board instrument? Again subscription issues.
A commercial asteroid mission could be performed today. No new technology is needed. We have the smallsat buses. Many (all?) of these instruments have been used for missions in the past (well, maybe not ground penetrating radar). Cheap launch opportunities are available. By the time you read this, even more NEOs may have been found. Philanthrocapitalists have already invested in suborbital and GLXP, why not NEAP 2.0?

What do you think? How is today’s environment either more or less friendly to a NEAP Prospector 2.0 mission? Fourteen years goes by quickly. Let’s not wait another fourteen.

Tuesday, August 31, 2010

Plymouth Rock - Asteroids here we Come

Lockheed Martin this week pitched a Manned Asteroid mission utilizing two linked Orion Spacecraft currently being developed by the company. Although LM admits asteroid mission planning is 100% internally funded, many within NASA have expressed an interest in the Plymouth Rock presentation. The basics:

  • Two linked Orions
  • 6 month round trip
  • 100kg sample return
  • 3 Astronauts
  • No new tech required
  • With funding could make the trip within 10 years
  • Several asteroids being considered for the 2015-2030 time frame from small to very large
The proposal is intriguing. A space entrepreneur has only has to read Mining the Sky to salivate over the potential of extraterrestrial resources available to us on asteroids. But in the near term, what I am most interested in as an entrepreneur is Lockheed’s plan to leave one of the two Orions in orbit after the manned asteroid mission - able to reused over multiple trips. This “stretch” Orion would forgo the heat shield in favor of modifications making it more conducive to long duration space flight. One Orion capsule (the one with a heat shield) would reenter with Crew and samples after each mission. The stretch Orion would remain in orbit ready for future asteroid missions or to serve as a long duration space lab in LEO.

This trend towards reusability is important and I am glad to see it promoted for three reasons:
  1. Philosophical Logic: The debate over “reuse” or “launch new” continues to rage (or at least simmer). For LM to recommend a solution that contains such a large reusable component, this means the largest defense contractor on the planet has given the nod toward near-term technologies like depots and space tugs as well. Although not mentioned in the Plymouth Rock presentation, such technologies like propellant depots and space tugs would be needed in order to prepare the stretch Orion for a follow-on mission. We have already seen companies like ULA and Boeing make recommendations for depots and tugs, but to date we have not seen much from Lockheed Martin on the subject.
  2. Altruistic Logic: For humans to become truly space faring, cost minimization of permanent space logistics must become more important than capability maximization. Reusable components are essential to create sustainable space logistics solutions.
  3. Profit Logic: A clever risk-tolerant company could make a lot of money with a reusable man-rated asset in orbit (especially if LM retains ownership after the primary mission with NASA concludes).
Here are a few secondary missions for a stretch Orion (with profit potential):
  • Become a Lunar/Mars cycler ferrying missions to and from the moon or Mars (the stretch Orion will already be capable of remote rendezvous and docking)
  • Analyze the earth using the same instruments used to analyze Asteroidal surfaces and sell the data to the science community
  • Sell experiment space on-board as a long-term space lab (much less vibration than on the ISS) – dock with ISS to take on experiments, but fly remotely without crew for long durations.
  • Fly to the moon: Commercial Lunar fly by’s (One Stretch Orion and one Dragon or Soyuz attached)
How would you make money from a stretch Orion?