2017 Caltech Space Challenge - Lunarport: Lunar Extraction for Extraterrestrial Prospecting (LEEP)

Full text

1Student, New York University, USA, scm506@nyu.edu,*Corresponding Author; 2Student, ISAE-SUPAERO,
France, jerome.gilleron@outlook.com; 3Student, Yale University, USA, Andrew.Kurzrok@yale.edu; 4Student,
Harvard University, USA, anand@college.harvard.edu; 5Student, Ecole CentraleSupelec, France,
sonia.benhamida@outlook.com; 6Student, California Institute of Technology, USA, bpeter@caltech.edu; 7Student,
University of Washington, USA, dcrews@uw.edu; 8Student, University of Tokyo, Japan,
danielle.delatte@gmail.com; 9Student, University of Colorado Boulder, USA, manuel.diazramos@colorado.edu;
10Student, Cornell University, USA, psl58@cornell.edu; 11Student, University of Toronto, Canada, amarquis@utias-
sfl.net; 12Student, Stanford University, USA, floram@stanford.edu; 13Student, Technische Universität Berlin,
Germany, nikki.august29@gmail.com; 14Student, California Institute of Technology, USA, alex@caltech.edu;
15Student, Rhode Island School of Design, USA, itorron@risd.edu; 16Student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
USA, swald@mit.edu.
2017 Caltech Space Challenge – Lunarport:
Lunar Extraction for Extraterrestrial Prospecting (LEEP)
Shane Carberry Mogan1*, Jerome Gilleron2, Andrew Kurzrok3, Abhishek Anand4, Sonia Ben
Hamida5, Peter Buhler6, Daniel Crews7, Danielle DeLatte8, Manuel Diaz Ramos9, Padraig
Lysandrou10, Andreas Marquis11, Flora Mechentel12, Nikhil More13, Alexander Reeves14, Isabel
Torron15, Samuel Wald16
Abstract
Results from this paper were developed as part of the 2017 Caltech Space Challenge:
Lunarport to design an autonomous lunar base intended to extract resources from the surface
to convert to fuel in order to resupply shuttles in orbit. The proposal herein, Lunar Extraction
for Extraterrestrial Prospecting, LEEP, represents the winning team’s design for a
“Lunarport” and all references can be found in the original paper. The development of space
and human progress beyond our world is largely limited by the cost per kilogram to deliver a
payload to orbit. Furthermore, the current most powerful launch vehicle, LV, in the world
has a maximum deliverable payload to Low Earth Orbit, LEO, of about 29 mT. NASA is
currently developing the next generation of heavy LV but access beyond the Earth will still be
limited by existing LVs. What happens if a mission requires more performance and is it
achievable without the exorbitant cost of developing ever larger launchers? Lunarport seeks
to answer this question by going back to the moon. The ultimate goal is to explore the economic
feasibility of refueling deep-space missions with propellant harvested from the moon. Working
within a proposed budget of 1 billion dollars a year, a mining base is to be established on the
south pole of the moon to extract water frozen just beneath the surface of a permanently
shadowed crater. LEEP’s proposal incorporates high Technology Readiness Level, TRL,
systems and a highly robust, modular, fault-tolerant design to produce propellant for deep
space missions at the lunar South Pole on a short time scale and with a low risk of mission
failure. Every effort has been made to make LEEP both realistic and feasible and to design a
mission that provides direct and indirect benefits in the most cost-effective ways possible.
Nominal operating capacity is expected in the late 2020s; LEEP can resupply one mission to
Mars per year, enabling a 27.6% increase in payload delivered to Trans-Mars Injection. The
modular architecture could be expanded in the future to enable multiple missions per year,
and its modular nature means that LEEP's expansion can be completed for a fraction of the
cost of the initial system. One particularly interesting application of LEEP's architecture is in
support of refueling missions to high-energy destinations. Early numbers indicate a 250%
increase in payload delivered directly to a Trans-Saturn Injection compared to a mission that
is not refueled, for example, and the more energetic the destination, the greater the benefit.
This has direct applications for robotic exploration of the outer Solar System and for vastly
expanded mission capabilities at very little additional cost.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375
AIAA SPACE and Astronautics Forum and Exposition
12 - 14 Sep 2017, Orlando, FL
AIAA 2017-5375
Copyright © 2017 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
All rights reserved.
AIAA SPACE Forum

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Nomenclature
EUS = Exploration Upper Stage
GNC = Guidance, Navigation and Control
HEEO = High Earth Elliptical Orbit
ISRU = In-Situ Resources Utilization
IVF = Integrated Vehicle Fluids
JPL = Jet Propulsion Laboratory
LEEP = Lunar Extraction for Extraterrestrial
Prospecting
LEO = Low Earth Orbit
LLO = Low Lunar Orbit
LLS = Lunar Landing System
LRS = Lunar Resupply Shuttle
LUS = Large Upper Stage
LV = Launch Vehicle
NASA = National Aeronautics and Space
Administration
PRS = Propellant Refueling System
SLS = Space Launch System
TMI = Trans-Mars Injection
TRL = Technology Readiness Level
ZBO = Zero Boil-Off
I. Introduction
U.S. National Space Policy declares that NASA "will send humans to orbit mars and return them safely," a goal
echoed in NASA's strategic plan. The funding follows: today, nearly 19% of the agency's budget supports SLS or
Orion, the two most prominent elements of the journey to Mars architecture.
*
The United States is not alone in the
goal of Mars. European and Indian satellites currently orbit Mars alongside American counterparts, and 2020 may see
the first private departure to Mars in the form of SpaceX's Red Dragon.
To develop the technology and techniques necessary to get to Mars, NASA, in cooperation with international
partners, has constructed a roadmap of three phases to prepare for Mars: 1) Earth Reliant missions, 2) Proving Ground
missions, and 3) Earth Independent missions. Of these three, the phase of greatest relevance to lunar refueling is
Proving Ground.
In late March 2017, NASA announced the Deep Space Gateway to support Mars mission learning objectives.
†
However, the cancellation of the Asteroid Return Mission (ARM) in NASA’s FY18 Proposed Budget removes a
substantial pillar of the "Proving Ground." At the same time, there is a tremendous opportunity in the commercial
space sector by providing the infrastructure that is needed to support the businesses and ventures that drive the global
economy. Interest in cis-lunar economy is demonstrated by the interest in the Google Lunar X-Prize, the many private
start-ups and proposals, and the tremendous opportunities and wealth of resources found on the moon. Doing a
sustained mission on the moon over decades provides an infinite amount of information about how to operate in a
harsh environment not only for a two week mission, but for a long duration and sustained presence. Numerous ideas
have been proposed, but what is missing is the real, in-situ experience and increased TRL levels.
The Lunar Extraction for Extra-planetary Prospecting (LEEP) mission is the key to unlocking deep space missions,
beginning with Mars. LEEP will help NASA, partner agencies, and the private sectors develop critical deep space
technologies, starting with in-situ resource utilization, ISRU, and robotics. For NASA, LEEP would provide a
“lifeboat” for the first long-duration Orion mission and could enable a 30% increase in payload to Mars for the first
human mission.
LEEP is also the first power plant for the solar system. While the costs today are high, it is likely the forerunner
for a new industry of providing fuel as a service on orbit. This is the exact same model seen in cloud computing.
Physics remains cruel; it takes fuel to lift fuel. Why not outsource? As more entities move into orbit, offering flexible
energy and logistics services will be big business, just like it is here on earth. Now is the time and place to learn those
skills.
This project’s focus on heritage hardware and increasing TRL-6 level projects to TRL-8 and TRL-9 opens up the
options for groups who have made various proposals. From the table below and the entrants to competitions such as
the Google Lunar X-Prize, it is clear that no one nation owns interest in going back to the moon. As ESA has suggested
with Moon Village, it will take all of humanity to go back and set up permanent off-Earth habitation.
In addition to the mining capabilities that are demonstrated and developed in the LEEP project, capabilities are
*
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration FY 2016 Spending Plan for Appropriations Provided by P.L. 114-113,"
NASA, September 2016. Available online at
tps://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/fy16_operating_plan_4sept_update_0.pdf.
†
"Deep Space Gateways to Open Opportunities for Distant Destinations," NASA, March 28, 2017. Available online at
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/deep-space-gateway-to-open-opportunities-for-distant-destinations.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
enabled for other nations or missions to take part in. There has been tremendous interest in the South Pole as a place
for radio astronomy, infrared missions, a test bed for teleoperation, and sustained instrumentation
‡
. This project would
set up the infrastructure and raise TRL levels for a wide variety of technologies both on the lunar surface and in orbit.
Once assets like communications infrastructure and launch pads start to develop, other missions have an easier time
with their early stages and benefit from the lessons learned.
Mars is coming. The research accomplished by the LEEP mission will move humans on the Red Planet from
science fiction to science.
II. Methodology
A. Mission Statement
LEEP delivers an in-space refueling service to enable deep-space exploration and commercial missions. Fuel is
produced from lunar resources using autonomous extraction. The Lunarport also affords to gain knowledge and
experience as well as foster international partnerships with institutions and private companies.
B. Mission Requirements
Table 1 lists the high-level requirements and limitations considered for the mission. Most of the following
requirements originate from the statement of work delivered at the beginning of the Caltech Space Challenge.
Table 2. Mission Requirements.
Id.
Objective
Requirement
Type
Origin
Wt.
Rationale
1.1 Concept & Development
1.1.1
Budget
The design,
construction and
maintenance of the
LEEP shall be under
$1 billion per year
(with unused funds of
one year available the
next)
Constraint
Originating
100
Statement of Work:
"The design should include
a detailed construction and
operation/maintenance plan
for the ISRU station, main
hub, and refueling
subsystems, under the
constraint of an annual
budget of $1billion (with
unused funds of one year
available the next)"
1.1.2
Desirability
The LEEP shall
deliver value to the
identified
beneficiaries
Programmatic
Originating
100
Statement of Work
1.1.3
Economic
Viability
The LEEP shall be
economically viable
Constraint
Originating
100
Statement of Work
1.1.4
Technical
Feasibility
The LEEP shall be
technically feasible
Constraint
Originating
100
Statement of Work
‡
Davis, G.W. et al. "The Lunar Split Mission: Concepts for Robotically Constructed Lunar Bases." International Lunar Conference,
2005.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
1.2 Construction
1.2.1
Gain
knowledge
for future
Mars
exploration
The LEEP shall help
to gain knowledge
and experience for
future Mars
exploration
Programmatic
Originating
50
Statement of Work:
"Technologies and
operation experiences for
accessing and utilizing
lunar resources are relevant
to future Mars
exploration."
1.2.2
Human
lunar
mission
The LEEP could
allow a human
mission to the Moon
Incentive
Award Fee
Criterion
Derived
30
1.2.3
Time to
operation
The LEEP shall be
operational no later
than 2039.
Constraint
Originating
100
Statement of Work
1.3 Operation & Maintenance
1.3.1
Commercial
mining
The Lunarport could
double as a
commercial mining
base to allow the
moon's resources to
be exploited.
Incentive
Award Fee
Criterion
Derived
30
Source: (MailOnline, 2016)
1.3.2
In space
fueling
competition
LEEP shall fuel the
deep-space traveling
rocket at a lower cost
than a direct mission.
Constraint
Originating
100
Statement of Work
1.3.3
In space
fueling for
deep-space
rockets
LEEP shall fuel deep-
space traveling rocket
in cis-lunar orbit.
Programmatic
Originating
100
Statement of Work
C. Concept of Operations and Mission Architecture
Table 2 lists the years and payloads of each launch meant to send the initial equipment for the establishment and
construction the lunar base for the LEEP Lunarport. The four different launches are made using Falcon Heavy rocket.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Table 2. Concept of operations details for LEEP.
Launch Year
Deployment
2024
Power System for H2O Electrolysis;
Station on Rim meant to beam power into the dark crater for extractor units.
2026
Prospector and Multipurpose Constructor Rovers;
Delivery of equipment into a permanently shadowed crater region to prepare for ISRU
2027
Landing of H2O Extractor Rovers and Electrolytic Processing Equipment
2028
Delivery of Remaining Extractors for Full Capacity
Upon completion of the LEEP Lunarport by 2028, operations will ensue to begin fueling deep-space missions,
depicted in Fig. 2.
Figure 2. Concept of operations for LEEP.
D. Mission Design Choices
Throughout this study, several trade-offs were considered. Indeed, with the assigned annual $1 billion budget
coupled with technologies with varying TRLs, discussions led to comparing different options that were present on
different levels of the mission. Table 5 lists the questions being addressed, various options considered and the final
decisions chosen, which are bolded and underlined, for main mission design choices.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Table 5. LEEP Main Trade-Offs
Design Decision
Description
Rationale
Option
A
Option
B
Option
C
Option
D
Option
E
Option
F
1. Resource
Transfer to Orbit
What
resource to
transport
from LEEP
to Space?
Fuel for LRS
H2 / O2
H2O
Other
Volatiles
Regolith
Metals
N2
2. Rendezvous
Where
should LRS
intersect
with the
space craft?
Multiple
rendezvous
locations;
Suits
customer;
Flexibility
LEO
High Earth
Elliptical
Orbit
(HEEO)
LLO
L1
L2
LRO
3. Transfer
What to
transfer in
orbit?
Second type
of payload
required for
orbit;
Simplified
operations
Propellant
Tanks
Propulsion
Stage
4. Location
Where to
locate the
LEEP?
Presence of
water in
Cabeus crater
North Pole
South Pole
Equatorial
5. Conversion
Where to
convert
H2O to
propellant?
Surface
temperature
allow LOX
ZBO - less
water needs
to be mined;
Less mass
lifted from
lunar surface
Orbit
Surface
Orbit/
Surface
LRS
6. Storage
Where to
store
propellant?
Surface
shades
Orbit
Surface
Orbit/
Surface
LRS
7. Maintenance
Strategy
How to
maintain the
facility?
Solar panels
limit lifetime
to 15 years;
Must be
replaced
Dedicated
Replacement
Permanent
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
8. Contractual
Arrangement
Which
entity will
bear the risk
and costs of
designing
and
operating
LEEP?
Insufficient
expected
demand for
lunar
resource on
reasonable
timescale to
entice private
investment
Public
Public-Private
Private
9. Power
Production
Where to
produce
power?
Solar
concentrators
focus light
into the dark
crater for
power
Ground
Orbit
The criteria that was selected and used for the mission design selection were as follows:
1. Construction timeline: How fast can it be built and deployed?
2. Energy/Propellant output: How many yearly missions can LEEP support?
3. Fueling capacity: How much additional mass per mission can be sent to Mars with LEEP?
4. Operation & Maintenance complexity: What are the hardware maintenance and refueling operation costs?
5. TRL maturity: Does it help gain knowledge and competencies for future Mars exploration?
6. Technical risks: Does it bring high risks?
7. Cost: How costly is the development and production?
8. Partnership: Does it foster partnerships with space agencies and private companies?
The major mission trade-off involves the selection of the location where to convert H2O to fuel and where to store
fuel. The following 5 options were identified and a Pugh matrix was established, depicted in Fig. 3:
1. ISRU is located on the moon and the Lunar Resupply Shuttle, LRS, is an Exploration Upper Stage, EUS, on the
moon. The refuel happens in space. This configuration +30% increase in payload mass.
2. Similar configuration to option 1 but instead of having one EUS, multiple (2 to 4) Centaur vehicles are used on
the Moon. This configuration has a benefit of 45% of propellant.
3. In this option, the ISRU is in orbit. The Centaurs constitute the LRS system. They bring brings water into space.
Electrolysis and fuel creation happen in orbit. This configuration has a negative balance.
4. This configuration is a mix of option 1 and option 2. Centaurs are on the surface and are launching to refuel an
EUS which stays in orbit. The EUS tank is being refueled by those Centaur LRS. The EUS can be seen as a PRS,
propellant refueling system. PRS is going to its rendezvous orbit to refuel the specified mission. +70% fuel but
needs to extract 2 to 2.5 times faster.
5. This fifth option is mix of option 1, 2 and 3. The ISRU are located in the LRS (Centaurs). The rovers fill the LRS
tanks and it prepares just enough propellant to launch. It brings water in orbit to a power station full of solar
panels. Then, it starts creating the propellant for the refueling as well as for its return on the Moon. The benefit
of this +70% of more fuel but triple the extraction rate. This solution also uses an EUS in orbit as well.
Disadvantages: if a Centaur LRS breaks apart, you lose two systems. The main benefit is having no need of an
ISRU on the Moon.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 3. Pugh Matrix highlighting various mission trade-offs.
LEEP’s mission design choice was the 2nd option. However, if interest and investment in the Lunarport is present
in the future, the chosen solution can be improved and evolved towards options 3, 4 or 5.
E. Mission benefits
The primary mission benefits of LEEP for the main stakeholders is summarized in Table 6.
Table 6. LEEP Primary Mission Benefits
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
III. Results and Discussion
A. Ground-Based Operations
Ground operations are conducted to extract water from the icy lunar regolith and process it into cryogenic
LOX/LH2 fuel for the refueling tankers. Ground operation deployment consists of four launches:
1. Power System for H2O Electrolysis (2024)
▪ Station on rim to beam power into the dark crater for extractor units.
▪ Electrolyzer unit must operate continuously at 70 kW to meet fueling requirements.
2. Prospector and Multipurpose Constructor Rovers (2026)
3. Electrolyzer Unit and Extractor Rovers (2027)
4. Remaining Extractors for Full Capacity (2028)
The first payload is launched in 2024 and deploys solar focusing equipment along the crater rim to illuminate the
landing site and provide available power. The second payload delivers four rovers in 2026 into the permanently
shadowed crater region, two of which are for construction and maintenance, and two for ice deposit prospecting. The
construction/maintenance rover then deploys a solar farm within the crater region to power the in-coming Electrolyzer
unit. In 2027 the third ground payload delivers the ISRU electrolysis unit and a first batch of extraction rovers. Water
extraction and processing begins. Lessons learned are incorporated into the builds of the second batch of extraction
rovers, which are delivered into the crater as the fourth lunar surface payload in 2028, bringing the total number of
extraction rovers to twelve and the base to full propellant production capacity.
The delivery sequence of lunar surface equipment requires delivering multiple robotic rovers at once and in the
same location. This is done with a larger version of a typical retrorocket descent rover deployment shell called the
Lunar Landing System, LLS. The LLS consists of a platform, capable of receiving a modular payload that has an
integrated hypergolic bipropellant propulsion system intended for one-time use and designed to be as versatile as
possible when it comes to delivering equipment to the lunar surface. The propulsion system is an Aerozine 50/N2O4
hypergolic system. Three kinds of equipment are delivered. On the crater rim, two LLS's carrying 5 folded solar
focusing mirrors each land in typically lit regions. These deploy to their determined locations and focus solar light
into the crater. The used landing system then deploys a parabolic dish for direct-to-Earth communications.
An LLS with two prospecting rovers and two construction rovers land within the volatile-rich darkened region of
Cabeus crater. The constructors prepare crater base for the LRS, to land by clearing loose regolith with a bulldozer.
The ISRU H2O processing unit lands with retrorockets on a modified LLS without any rovers, and a total of twelve
extractor rovers are deployed in two LLS runs. It's estimated that each extractor rover can mine and deliver to the
Electrolyzer unit 40 kg/day of H2O when equipped with four Honeybee Robotics PVEx coring devices. Once the base
is fully deployed in 2028 as described, it can extract and process 90 mT of H2O per year with an Electrolyzer unit
operating at 70 kW (assuming 35 kW of water splitting power from 50% efficiency). This meets the 60 mT of
propellant required for an EUS refuel mission with ample margin for problems with extractors and for LH2 boil-off
problems.
B. Space Operations
LEEP's primary mission is to refuel spacecraft in cis-lunar space. To do so, it uses modified Centaur upper stages
as LRSs. These Centaurs are modified with composite landing legs, enhanced GNC systems, United Launch Alliance's
integrated vehicle fluids, IVF, system for reducing boil-off and vehicle complexity, and other modifications (e.g. solar
panels) as necessary depending on the performance of the IVF system. These Centaurs are refueled on the lunar surface
by an ISRU, then launch into LLO, transfer to a low-periapsis elliptical orbit around the Earth, rendezvous with a craft
to be refueled, transfer their excess fuel, and then return to the lunar surface.
The use of Centaurs leverages a mature and proven technology to decrease development costs and increase
reliability of the process, and the use of multiple smaller refueling vehicles adds redundancy and fault tolerance to
LEEP's ability to conduct refueling operations, reducing the risk associated with putting a vehicle in orbit and trusting
that LEEP will be able to resupply it. Using Centaurs and refueling the Large Upper Stage, LUS, of the SLS
computational analysis tools were developed to determine the ideal rendezvous orbit. Figure 3 illustrates the results
of optimizing rendezvous orbits for refueling an LUS using various numbers of Centaur LRSs.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 3. Trajectory Optimization Analysis.
The optimal solution is to send two refueling vehicles, because sending more LRSs represents a very large
investment in propellant production operations but does not result in a comparably large increase in payload. This
suggests that increase in mass sent to Trans-Mars Injection, TMI is approximately 28%. Keeping in mind that each
payload mass includes the empty mass of the LUS, the increase in usable payload is over 45%. Sending smaller
payloads to more energetic orbits more fully utilize LEEP's capabilities than sending large payloads to less energetic
orbits.
C. Economics & Schedule
The total non-recurring cost for LEEP is approximately $10.2B and the estimated average recurring annual cost is
$80M per year. The development of the system is spread over 12 years. The break-even point when only considering
single-launch SLS missions to TMI is 37 launches, or ~1200 mT, depicted in Fig. 4. However, the benefit to missions
to the outer planets could see significantly larger increases in payload capacity and increased value.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Figure 4. Cost vs Payload to TMI.
The development of technologies and hardware takes place over 12 years. The cost has been spread over this
period to meet budget constraints and realistic development times. System reviews have been scheduled during this
period, as portrayed in Fig. 5.
Figure 5. Design Schedule.
D. Future expansion
LEEP was conceptualized in the context of a tight schedule (boots on Mars by the end of the 2030s) and a small
budget ($1 billion per year). Because of these constraints, prospective innovations were not taken advantage of
innovations such as electric propulsion, small modular nuclear reactors, nuclear thermal rockets, and similar
technologies. However, LEEP could be upgraded with these technologies as they become available and costs decrease.
Its modular architecture makes LEEP an excellent platform for continual improvement as new technologies become
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
available, and provides an already-in-place infrastructure that allows for easy deployment and utilization of new
technologies.
E. Concept Feasibility and Risk Analysis
The LEEP annual cost is capped at $1B, but extra funds can be saved for future year’s development. This is
a significant benefit because it allows cost spreading without losing efficiency so that resources are allocated
appropriately for early concept development through fabrication, testing, and assembly. The LEEP team determined
the total system lifecycle cost using engineering build-up phasing based on the lunar emplacement schedule and
required development to meet it.
The program cost will peak in 2024 at $1.67B when the first deployment mission happens. By 2029 LEEP
only requires continuing steady-state operations where the program will also prepare for resupply missions which may
cause relatively small increases.
The cumulative cost over time, starting in 2018, does not match the available budget due to the spending
peak. The figure above shows both the LEEP cumulative cost and the maximum possible cost ($1B x years). While
the annual budget is underutilized in the early years of development, by 2026, the banked resources will be accounted
for. The difference for future projects can then be used for alternative projects as the annual costs are only a fraction
of the $1B. Cumulative costs over the duration of LEEP operations are depicted in Fig. 6.
Figure 6. Cumulative Cost over the years.
IV. Conclusion
LEEP is able to provide fuel as a service for deep space missions. This fueling service serves as an integral step
towards future manned missions to Mars but can also provide a leap into the outer solar system and beyond. Our
modular system can accommodate various supply needs. It also allows for various upgrades and advances in
technology to be easily installed into the LEEP infrastructure, if any were made during the duration of operations.
Both the public and private sector can benefit from our service. The initial mission for LEEP was to prove our
system could improve current methods on getting to Mars by the 2030’s, which was accomplished. The overall
mission, however, can be expanded upon by the private sector to fuel various types of missions in space. LEEP can
also help to promote public-private partnerships. Thus, if public and private sectors utilize our system, they can expand
the capabilities of the system allowing it to provide services for a wide range of applications in space.
Our solution to the problem given is to provide a practical system comprised of high-TRL technologies and devices
while staying under budget throughout the entire process.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Acknowledgments
All of the authors would like to thank the 2017 Caltech Space Challenge organizers, Ilana Gat and Thibaud Talon,
as well as all the mentors, Ashley Karp, Ph.D., Propulsion Engineer; Andreas Frick, Systems Engineer; Frank E
Laipert, Mission Design Engineer, Heather Duckworth, Systems Engineer, Farah Alibay, Systems Engineer; Jonathan
M Mihaly, Technologist (Co-Chair of 2011 Caltech Space Challenge), Jason Rabinovitch, Mechanical Engineer (Co-
Chair of 2013 Caltech Space Challenge); Hayden Burgoyne, VP, Spacecraft Systems at Analytical Space, Inc. (Co-
Chair of 2015 Caltech Space Challenge); Niccolo Cymbalist, Associate in Thermal Sciences at Exponent (Co-Chair
of 2015 Caltech Space Challenge), Jennifer R Miller, Systems Engineer; Sydney Do, Systems Engineer; Emily A
Howard, Mechanical Engineer; John B Steeves, Optical Engineer; Manan Arya, Technologist; Kristina Hogstrom,
Systems Engineer; Aline K Zimmer, Systems Engineer; Daniel M Coatta, Systems Engineer; Alan Didion, Systems
Engineer; Carl Seubert, Guidance and Control Engineer; Adrian Stoica, Senior Research Scientist and Group
Supervisor; Jared Atkinson, Sr. Geophysical Engineer at Honeybee Robotics Spacecraft Mechanisms Corporation and
Jessie Kawata, Creative Strategist + Industrial Design Lead.
We also thank the guest lecturers: Steve Matousek, NASA JPL; Damon Landau, NASA JPL; A.C. Charania, Blue
Origin; Kris Zacny, Honeybee Robotics; Brian Roberts, NASA Goddard; Jay Trimble, NASA Ames and Antonio
Elias, Orbital ATK.
Finally the Caltech Space Challenge is impossible without its sponsors: Airbus, Microsoft, Keck Institute for Space
Studies, Orbital ATK, Northrop Grumman, Moore-Hufstedler Fund, Blue Origin, Boeing, Lockheed Martin,
Schlumberger, Honeybee Robotics, GALCIT, NASA-JPL and California Institute of Technology.
Reference
The final paper, which includes all of the references properly cited for this work, and presentation from this
competition can be found at: http://www.spacechallenge.caltech.edu/final-results.
Downloaded by NEW YORK UNIVERSITY on September 18, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-5375