A Proposal for Creation of a Reusable Launch Vehicle Fleet for Lockheed Martin

1. A Proposal for Creation of a Reusable Launch Vehicle Fleet for Lockheed Martin Corwin Olson Turner Wright Tim Honker Clint Henry ASE 333T April 29th, 2004

2. Corwin Olson The Problem • Large demand among public for “Space Tourism” • No affordable access to space The Problem: Vast unrealized profits

3. Corwin Olson Demand Wish to travel to space by age group (Japan) Collins Wish to travel to space by age group (U.S.) Collins • Collins (1995) Study- 3030 people: 70% willing to spend several months’ salary • ~$1 trillion/year scale of activity (2003 estimate) Table 1: Worldwide Annual Passenger Demand for Space Tourism Commercial Space Transportation Study (1994) • “Bottoms Up” Method based on income, age, and ticket price • $60 million vs. $20 million CSTS Alliance

4. Corwin Olson Lack of Access • Affordability • Ex. Space Shuttle- $10,000/lb into orbit • All three space tourists paid $20 million • Safety • Ex. Challenger, Columbia • No vehicles designed for tourists, general public • Governmental red tape

5. Corwin Olson Why solve it? • Profit • Established infrastructure • Power Transfer • Prestige

6. Problem Unaffordable access to space Desire for Space Tourism among elite SOLUTION A fleet of reusable launch vehicles (RLV’s) Turner Wright The Solution

7. Turner Wright http://www.xprize.com/

8. Turner Wright http://www.xprize.com/

9. FULLY reusable Capable of taking off the surface of the earth Achieving sub-orbital flight Return to Earth with ALL COMPONENTS present at launch Takes everything it needs with it and back Space Shuttle is partially reusable External H2, O2 liquid fuel tank isn’t reused Turner Wright Level of Reusability

10. Turner Wright http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~thompson/shuttle/shuttle-b1b.jpg

11. Launch Options Vertical- Saturn V, STS, Apollo Horizontal- X Prize contenders Landing Options Horizontal landing (STS) Vertical landing (splashdown or over land) For RLV commercial fleet Horizontal takeoff, landing Tailored to people Turner Wright Reusable Launch Vehicles

12. Lowers the cost Safer, more reliable Dependent on consumer reliability Not federal funds Are enough people in the market? Turner Wright Why a Fleet of RLV’s?

13. X-prize $2-$20 million STS D&D $10 billion STS launch $245 million/year STS infrastructure $2.8 billion/year RLV fleet cost $250 million-$2 billion Design and Development Launches- fuel cost Mission Operations- variable Infrastructure- NOT included in estimate Landing strips, terminals, administration Turner Wright Lowering Cost

14. Suborbital flight- MUCH cheaper to travel Low orbit for tourists, not actual missions Less KE required Infrastructure Cement landing strips instead of launch pad Eventually take over airlines? Design Fuel efficient, cost efficient Different parameters than shuttle Turner Wright Why so much less?

15. Compare prices for transportation Greyhound Bus $50 Commercial Airliner $600 Concorde $10,000 Space Adventures $20,000,000 RLV fleet $10,000-$50,000 Afford the Concorde ride the RLV Possible for elite class Turner Wright How It Will Solve Problem

16. Vertical Launch Not as convenient as airlines Need to walk right up to door Vertical landing (i.e. splashdown) Costumers waiting in the ocean Picked up by aircraft carrier Not exactly best PR Turner Wright Alternative Solutions

17. Tim Honker The Solution Implementation • Creation of a Reusable Launch Vehicle though 4 stages • Increase Research & Development budget • Design Vehicle • Prototyping and Testing • Mass Production, Infrastructure support

18. Tim Honker Increase R & D • 2002 Yr. Lockheed Martin R&D budget: $860 million • Estimated Cost of 1 prototype to LH: $200 million over • 5 years • Estimated Cost to taxpayers for mature >$100 billion over • spaceplane on current schedule 40 years • Estimated Cost to LH for mature $2 billion • spaceplane in 15 years

19. Tim Honker Design of Spaceplane Spaceplane Development Strategy David Ashford

20. Tim Honker Prototyping & Testing Keys to expedited and economical production • Maximizing use of proven technology • Test new components individually • Using models for overall structure – combine new and old

21. Tim Honker Mass Production & Infrastructure Minimizing Risk, Maximizing profit • Create foundation in other stable industries • Keep other industries “invested” • Build public demand before final release Spread financial risk and lure of profit

22. Clinton Henry Third Party Involvement • Private Sector • Other companies • X-Prize competition • Space Tourists • Government • NASA • Military

23. Clinton Henry Ethics • Safety • Is the risk of failure worth sending people into space? • Service • Engineers pledge to “give the utmost of performance” • Profit • Driving byproduct of research and development • Maintaining prestige

24. Clinton Henry Recommendations • Public relations • Recognize and learn from predecessors • 1. Space Shuttle • X-33 • X-Prize

25. Clinton Henry Conclusions • Statement and description of the problem • The solution to the problem • Implementation of the solution • Other considerations

26. References Studt, T., Duga, J., “Smaller Increase Forecast for US Research Spending,” January 2002, http://www.rdmag.com/features/0201fore23.asp, (11 Apr. 2004). Ashford, David, “Spaceflight Revolution,” Imperial College Press, London, 2002. Collins, P., “Space Tourism Market Demand and the Transportation Infrastructure,” July 2003, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/space_tourism_market_ demand_and_the_transportation_infrastructure.shtml, (27 Apr. 2004). Crouch, G., “Researching the Space Tourism Market”, June 2001, http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/researching_the_space_tourism_mark et.shtml, (27 Apr. 2004). Wertz, James R. and Larson, Wiley J. “Reducing Space Mission Cost.” Microcosm Press, Torrance, CA: 1996.