spacelogsitics aa v3strategic.mit.edu/docs/spacelogistics.pdf · NASA’s Space Exploration Initiative • Presidential Announcement – Jan 14, 2004 – New Vision for Space Exploration

OverviewOverview

MIT (MIT (O. de WeckO. de Weck, D. Simchi, D. Simchi--Levi)Levi)JPL (R. Shishko), PSI (J. Parrish)JPL (R. Shishko), PSI (J. Parrish)

COTR (M. Steele, NASA KSC)COTR (M. Steele, NASA KSC)

October, 2006October, 2006

Interplanetary Supply Chain Management and Logistics Architectures

Inte

rpla

neta

ry S

uppl

y Chain Management & Logistics Architectures

2005-2007

MIT

JPLUSA

PSI

Interplanetary SupplyInterplanetary SupplyChain ManagementChain Managementand Logistics Architecturesand Logistics Architectures

Interplanetary Supply Chain Management and Logistics Architectures 2

NASA’s Space Exploration Initiative• Presidential Announcement

– Jan 14, 2004 – New Vision for Space Exploration (post CAIB report)– Retirement of Space Shuttle by 2010– Complete ISS and sustain until at least 2016

• New Human Spaceflight System• Constellation Program• CEV (Orion) 2014 to ISS – prime contract: Lockheed Martin (8/2006)• CLV (Ares I) OFT1 in 2012 – design work underway• Later: Lunar Missions (first sorties before 2020, then lunar outpost)• Mars Missions (post 2020)

• How can this be achieved in a sustainable manner?


Simple Network Graphs

Apollo

11 12 14 15 16 17

KSC

ISS

RSA KSC

ISS VSE

LOPS1 S3

LLO

RSA ESA JAX KSC

MARS

ISS LEO

S2 S4

LAND


0.1% launched mass = 100% value

• Mass fractions (approx. )– Propellant 93%– Vehicle Dry Mass 6.9%– Everything Else 0.1%

• Crew, Consumables, Spares, Exploration Items, Other

• Direct exploration value is generated by 0.1% of launched mass– fixed crew & cargo capacity per launch,

vehicles are given (more or less)– What to launch? How often? – How do we tradeoff between consumables

(endurance), spares (robustness) and exploration items (value)?

– Need to focus on operations & supply items

CLV – Ares IESAS LV 13.1807 metric tons24.5mT to LEO

CaLV – Ares VESAS LV 27.32902 metric tons125mT to LEO54.6mT post-TLI


Terr

estr

ial

Aer

ospa

cePast

ISCMLAProject

Past Lessons• Apollo• Shuttle• ISS

Current Exploration• HMP

Terrestrial Analogies• Military• Commercial

Current Technology• RFID

Space Logistics Analysis

• Measures of Effectiveness

• SpaceNet• Scenario

Analysis

Outreach• Space Logistics

Workshop• Publications• Academic

Coursework

Present Future


Lessons Learned: Highlights• Common inventory, tracking

– Track nested locations– Bar codes slow, tedious– Consolidate databases

• Design for maintenance– Flexible stowage– Common standards

• Account for return logistics• Increase accuracy, ease of

use of logistics systems– Reduce manual labor– Free up crew time for more

valuable activities

NASA Databases

NASA Missions

Review & Analysis

Evans W., de Weck O., Laufer D., Shull S., “Logistics Lessons Learned in NASA Space Flight”, NASA/TP-2006-214203, May 2006

Crew CommentsJohn CommonsensePhase 1/MIRNASA PLLJSC Skylab LessonsMSFC Skylab Lessons

NASA People

300 Lessons Learnedextracted from NASAdatabases

Distilled down totop-7 lessons


Terr

estr

ial

Aer

ospa

cePast

ISCM&LAProject








Analysis



Coursework

Present Future


Supply Class Development• ISS uses Cargo Category Allocation Rates Table (CCART)

– 14 major categories– works, but inconsistent use of attributes for classification, varying levels of detail– incomplete for surface exploration (e.g. surface equipment)

• Military uses a functional class of supply system1. CREW PROVISIONS1.1 Joint Crew Provisionsclothinghygienecare packages1.2 Crew Provisions/FoodUS food containersRussian food containersutensils2. CREW DAILY OPERATIONS2.1 Joint Crew Dialy Operationsoffice supplies2.2 US Crew Daily Operationscomputersvaccum cleanersfilm cassettebatteries

+

CCART Military ISCM COSShull S., Gralla E., de Weck O., Siddiqi A., Shishko R., “The Future of Asset Management for Human Space Exploration”, AIAA-2006-7232, Space 2006, San Jose, California, Sept. 19-21, 2006


Commercial Supply Chain DesignSupply Chain Network Design: place warehouses, consider potential w/h and manufacturing plants optimally, given customer distribution

Can we create a similar planning environment for space logistics ?

Supply Chain Analysis: optimize for transportation costs, availability, shipping times, inventory levels…

LogicNet (http://www.logic-tools.com)


Terr

estr

ial

Aer

ospa

cePast

ISCM&LAProject








Analysis



Coursework

Present Future


HMP 2005HMP 2005

•• HaughtonHaughton--Mars ProjectMars Project–– NASA/CSA field research station, high ArcticNASA/CSA field research station, high Arctic–– Study the Haughton impact craterStudy the Haughton impact crater–– Terrestrial analog of Mars terrain and scienceTerrestrial analog of Mars terrain and science

•• Operational analog for Martian baseOperational analog for Martian base–– Remote siteRemote site–– Similar exploration goalsSimilar exploration goals–– Complex logistics networkComplex logistics network


HMP Expedition 2005: Overview

• Research included geology, astrobiology, space suits, planetary drill, tele-medicine

• 56 researchers on-site, 683 crew days total• All supplies brought in via Twin Otter flights• Detailed Inventory ~ 2300 items (20,717 kg)

de Weck O.L., Simchi-Levi D. et al., “Haughton-Mars Project Expedition 2005”, Final Report, NASA/TP-2006-214196, January 2006


HMP: Transportation Analysis

1.O3. R

5. H

6. F

6. F

6. F

Normal Trans.

0. Dep. Point for Each Team1. Ottawa2. Edmonton3. Resolute4. Moffet USMC St.5. HMP Base6. HMP Field7. Cambridge Bay

IqaluitYellowknife

4. M

2. E

0.D 0.D

0. D

7. C

7. Y

7. I

Emergency Trans.

Cumulative Cargo Flow HMP 2005

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 19 21 23 25 27

Flight Number (according to log)

Car

go/C

rew

Mas

s [lb

s]

cum in

cum out

cum at HMP

Cargo Mass Flow

Transportation Network Analysis for HMP• Mass inflow per season ~ 20-25 mt• Analysis highlights room for improvement:

– Plan for reverse logistics– Reduce asymmetric flight usage– Smooth personnel profile

• “Robustness” more important than optimality– due to weather, emergencies, aircraft availability

Number of People Staying in Devon

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

Days from 8 July

# of

Peo

ple

30-Jun10-Jul21-Jul31-Jul7-AugBOXCAR

Personnel Profile


Terr

estr

ial

Aer

ospa

cePast

ISCM&LAProject








Analysis



Coursework

Present Future


HMP: Agent & Asset Tracking (RFID)Goal: “Smart Base” for Micro-Logistics

– Technology demonstrations– Observation/Insight for further implementation

Selected Conclusions– RFID has potential for remote bases

• dramatically improve asset management• reduce crew time spent in inventory• increase ground knowledge of base requirements

– Technical hurdles• reliability, interference, packaging

– NASA Phase I STTR to further investigate• Smart Container Development, 16.622 project

Camp Activity 07/17 to 07/19

020406080

100120140160

9:0011:0

013:0

015:0

017:0

019:0

021

:0023:0

01:003:00 5:007:00

Time of DayN

umbe

r of T

rigge

rs

Asset & Agent FlowMean Time

020406080

100120140160180200

Exp 20-4 Exp 10-4 Exp 10-2

Seco

nds

Bar Code

RFIDFormal Experiments ATV Tracking

Silver, M., Li X., de Weck O., Shull S., Gralla E., “Autonomous Logistics Technologies for Space Exploration: Experiment Results and Design Considerations”, AIAA-2006-5683, 9th International Conference on Space Operations, SpaceOps 2006, Rome, Italy, 19 - 23 June, 2006


Terr

estr

ial

Aer

ospa

cePast

ISCM&LAProject






• SpaceNet• Measures of

Effectiveness• Scenario

Analysis



Coursework

Present Future


Interplanetary Supply Chain


What is SpaceNet?

• Modeling space exploration from a logistics perspective• Discrete event simulation

– at the individual mission level (sortie, pre-deploy, re-supply,…)– at the campaign (=set of missions) level

• Evaluation of manually generated exploration scenarios with respect to measures of effectiveness and feasibility

• Visualization of the flow of elements and supply items through the interplanetary supply chain

• Optimization of scenarios according to selected MOEs• Provide software tool for users (= logisticians, mission architects)

to support trade studies and architecture analyses.

A computational environment for


Building Blocks of SpaceNet• Nodes

– Surface, Orbital, Lagrangian• Supplies

– Classes of Supply– e.g. Crew, Consumables, etc.

• Elements– Propulsive, Non-Propulsive

• Network (Time-Expanded)– Time Discretization, Orbit Dynamics

• Processes– Waiting, Transporting, Transferring– Exploring, Proximity Ops

Building Blocks

Put themtogether…


Element Type

Elements• Notion of “vehicles” is ill-defined

• Elements are indivisible physical objects that travel through the network and can– hold other supply items

(fuel=COS1, cargo (COS2-10))– be propulsive or non-propulsive– hold crew or not– always launched from Earth first– be reused, refueled, disposed of

(staged), pre-deployed– “docked” with other elements to

form a (temporary) stack on an arc• Major end-items

– e.g. Habitat, Rover, CEV

Attributes

crewcargopropellant


Time Expanded Network: Example• Define three static nodes

– = LEO– = EML1– = LLO

• Define the static arcs• Define time horizon, discretization• Define allowable transport

interval for each pair [tmin, tmax] from astrodynamics

LEO

EML1

LLO

[3, 3.7]

[3.3, 3.8]

[1.8, 2.5]

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

1

2

3

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

Simple Earth−Moon Time Expanded Network

1= LEO, 2 = EML1, 3 = LLO

time

(day

s)

LEOEML1

LLO

• generate waiting arcs• generate feasible transport arcs• time horizon = 5 days• time discretization Δt = 1 day


Exploration Capability MoEs• Exploration Capability [kg • crew-days]

Dot product of crew surface days and exploration mass (exploration items + surface infrastructure) over all surface nodes for entire scenario

• Relative Exploration Capability [0, ∞)– exploration productivity relative to Apollo 17

∏ ⎟⎟⎠

⎞⎜⎜⎝

⎛=

kaCOSk

bCOSk

atot

btot

b k

mm

ECECREC β

17

17/ ( )bk

akk ωωβ += 17

21

Apollo 17 Normalization

, , 6, , 8, ,1 1

(1 ) [ ]T S

tot ij crew i j COS i j COS i ji j

EC T N m mα= =

= Δ − +∑ ∑

Divisia Index


Scenarios• With this framework, we have modeled…

– Single ‘sortie’ missions• Constellation sortie• Apollo 17• LEO refueling in Constellation• ISRU on lunar surface

– Entire campaigns• Constellation lunar base build-up• ISS assembly and re-supply


100

1000

10000

100000

1000000

10000000

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

ConstellationLunar

Outpost

ConstellationSortie 1

Apollo 17

Apollo 11

ConstellationCampaign(4 Sorties)

ApolloCampaign

(6 Landings)

Total Launch Mass TLM [MT]

Exp

lora

tion

Cap

abili

ty E

C [m

an-d

ay-k

g]

Single Sortie

Missions

Campaignof Sortie Missions

OutpostCampaign

REC=1

REC=0.2

REC=10

REC=200

Space Logistics Trade Space Results


Payload-to-Surface vs. Propellant Architecture

• Plot shows total cargo delivered to the Moon (LSAM-AS+LSAM-DS)• Each “Architecture Number” represents a different propellant combination• Combinations with less than 676 kg of total cargo delivered are infeasible

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900-3000

-2000

-1000

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Architecture Number

Tota

l Car

go D

eliv

ered

to th

e M

oon

infeasible

[kg]

feasible

xselected asan “interesting”combination

All architectures inthis group use pump-fedLH2/LOX in the LSAM-DS

LSAM-AScargo isfixed: 676 kg


Baseline Lunar Cargo Manifest• Use SpaceNet v1.2 to generate demand for cargo• Propellant baseline: LH2/MMH/MMH, 4 crew, 7 surface days, 95% LSAM availability• Total Lunar Surface Cargo: 2,752 kg (1,003 kg non-exploration mass)

Masses shown in [kg]676 kg in LSAM-AS2076 kg in LSAM-DS

Crew Consumables per Crew Member per day: 8.325 kg

Crew Operations assumes on EVA per day (for a team of 2): 16.4 kg

Spares Mass computed with LMI Model for LSAM only, assuming 95%, availability, 17 days, no redundancy, full duty cycle: 340 kg

Baseline Lunar Sortie Manifest (LH2/MMH/MMH)

251.2, 9%

323.4, 12%

340.0, 12%

21.1, 1%

78.5, 3%

1737.8, 63%

Crew ProvisionsCrew OperationsSparesWasteStowageExploration


Maximizing Exploration Capability [EC]Lunar Sortie Duration Trade

LH2/MMH/MMH Baseline: 2,752 kg Lunar Surface CargoExploration Capability = # of crew * surface duration * exploration mass

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39

Surface Stay Duration

Mass

(kg

)

0.0

10000.0

20000.0

30000.0

40000.0

50000.0

60000.0

70000.0

80000.0

90000.0

100000.0

)Exp

lora

tio

n C

ap

ab

ilit

y (

man

-day-k

g

Non-Exploration Mass Exploration Mass Exploration CapabilityCrew Size: 4

Nominal7 days

Optimal21 days

LunarDay

stay longer, bring lessexploration mass

2752

Apollo (crew size 2)

Constellation Baseline (crew size 4)


SpaceNet – Network View

1

1 S-IC X X

1002

2 S-II X X

1003

3 S-IVB X X

1004

4 SLA X

05

5 CM X 3

3 06

6 SM X

1007

7 LM DS X

1008

8 LM AS X

100

Date: 07-Dec-1972

Day 3

Transportation from Node 1001 to Node 1501

Element(s): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Disposal

1001

1017

2009

1501

2507

Node Name Position1001 NASA KSC 29N 81W1017 Pacific Ocean 18S 166W2009 Apollo 17 Landin 20N 31E1501 LEO Parking Orbi P 296 A 296 I 292507 LLO inclined P 112 A 112 I 20

EL# EL Name TRA ACT DIS CRW

MOECrew Surface Days (CSD)

0 [man-day]Expl. Mass Delivered (EMD)

0 [kg]Exploration Capability (EC)

0 [man-d-kg]

Rel. Expl. Capability (REC)0.00 [n.d.]

Total Launch Mass (TLM)2928 [MT]

Rel. Scenario Cost (RSC)1.18 [n.d.]

Tot. Scenario Risk (TSR)0.004 [n.d.]

Up-Mass Capa. Util. (UCU)0.931 [n.d.]

1. Earth and Earth Orbit

2. Moon and Lunar Orbit

3. Node/Arc

5. Process 6. Date

7. Node Information 8. Element Information

4. Element

9. Disposal

3. Node/Arc

3. Node/Arc3. Node/Arc

10. MOE


Terr

estr

ial

Aer

ospa

cePast

ISCM&LAProject








Analysis

Outreach/Impact• Space Logistics


Coursework

Present Future


Outreach/Impact – Closing Thoughts• To meet the research objectives we:

– Studied analogies from Earth and Space– Develop a modeling environment and

software tool (SpaceNet)– Fostered the space logistics community

• We assembled a world-class team from academia, industry and government with $2.9M funding for phase I and II (22 months)

• Academic Impact– developed generic SL modeling framework– applied time-expanded networks– first time sparing demand w/commonality– journal publications: JSR, Interfaces– conferences: SpaceOps, Space 2006, IAC 2006

• Real World Impact– SpaceNet selected as logistics/operations model for NASA’s IM&S suite (NExIOM compatible)

• Validated with representative NASA missions and campaigns (Apollo, ISS, ESAS)• Transitioning to a widely applicable product for use by NASA (SpaceNet 2 JAVA)

– Supported trade studies for Constellation Program (IDAC2), NASA Technical Reports (3)– Integrated real-world experience from an analog exploration site (Haughton Mars)– Energized a very dedicated and capable group of students and researchers (~25) – a new

generation of space logisticians


Additional Information

• Interplanetary Space Logistics– http://spacelogistics.mit.edu

• Strategic Engineering– http://strategic.mit.edu


Questions?


Backup Charts


Previous Space Exploration Paradigms

• Apollo Program– 6 Lunar Surface Missions

(1969-1972)– Each Mission self-

contained (no space logistics network)

– Carry-along all supplies• “backpack model”• based on forecast

– Optimized for short-term lunar stays ~ 3 days

• Space Shuttle & ISS– Shuttle Operations 1981-– ISS is a single facility at LEO

node (since 2000)– Logistics based on regular re-

supply• Shuttle• Progress, Soyuz• Planned: ATV, HTV• based on actual demand

– Actual up and down mass capacity is different than planned

“Carry-Along” “Scheduled Resupply”

What is the next space logistics paradigm?


HMP: Inventory

Comparison by Supply Class(Full Data Set)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Propellants and Fuels

2. Crew Provisions

3. Crew Operations

4. Maintenance and Upkeep

5. Stowage and Restraint

6. Exploration and Research

7. Waste and Waste Disposal

8. Habitation and Infrastructure

9. Transportation and Carriers

10. Miscellaneous

Thousands

Total [kg]

Lunar Long Lunar Short .HMP Est HMP Actuals

• Inventoried 2300 items (20,717 kg)

• Developed inventory procedures

• Validated supply classes• Maintained inventory over

time (for use next season)

4153

2934

470

286

17617235471022

9305

102

1. Propellants and Fuels 2. Crew Provisions 3. Crew Operations4. Maintenance and Upkeep 5. Stowage and Restraint 6. Exploration and Research

7. Waste and Waste Disposal 8. Habitation and Infrastructure 9. Transportation and Carrie

10. Miscellaneous

Total Mass Inventoried 20,717 [kg]Goals: Understand, Categorize Supplies on Base- Classification of inventory- Quantify inventory (total imported mass)- Compare with prediction for a lunar base- What would it take to ‘create’ an HMP-like base?


Source: Mars Institute (http://www.marsonearth.org)

Mars (15S 175E): Gusev Crater, Spirit landing site

Earth (75N 90W): Devon Island, Haughton Crater


This is!

PolicyExploration Value Delivery System

Scientific-Economic-Security

Exploration System

Flight Systems

Ground Systems

Implementing and

Building Training andSkill Development

Maintainingand

Supplying

Exploration Enterprise

Hardware Software

Humans

Hardware Software

Humans

Exploration Value Delivery SystemScientific - Economic- Security

Exploration System

Flight Systems

Ground Systems

Designing and

Building Training andOperating

Maintainingand

Supplying

Exploration Enterprise

Hardware Software

Humans

Hardware Software

HumansCEV

Money

DeliveredValue

Risk

Sustainable Space Exploration

Crew ExplorationVehicle

This is not the sustainable system…


What applies to Space Exploration Logistics?

Modular, easily maintainable vehicles

Modular, easily upgradeable products

Elements

During in-space transit,While exploring on surface

Generated by Customers (online & retail stores)

Demand

Consumables, Spares, Exploration items, …

SKUsSupply Items

Chemical or Electric Trajectories

Transportation Links: Truck, Rail, Air, Barge, Cargo Ship

Arcs

Launch Sites, Orbital Nodes/Depots, Surface Ops

Suppliers, Manufacturers, Distributors, Retailers

Nodes

Space ExplorationTerrestrial Commercial

Concept 1Networks

Concept 2Push-Pull

Concept 3Lean

Design

While the specific details differ significantly (# of SKUs, # missions/year,…) the fundamental concepts and modeling approaches remain valid.


Network Characteristics: Time Varying Arcs• Moon

– ΔV1=3106-3110 m/s, ΔV2=840-870 m/s

– TOF: 3.3-3.7 days– 28 day cycle

• Mars– opposition, or conjunction class

missions, TOF between 150-360 days, 27 month cycle

– ΔV depends on aerobraking

-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

Units (Earth-Moon Distance)

Uni

ts (E

arth

-Moo

n D

ista

nce)

LEO - LLO1 Trajectory

MoonEarthEM-L1

0 20 40 60 80 100 120150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Dparture Date (days After 1 Aug. 2007)

Trip

Tim

e (d

ays) 13

15

15

15

15 19

19

19

19

19

19

19

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

21

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

23

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

25

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

31

How to capture the time-dependent nature of the arcs in the network?


Nested Complexity• Pocket• Container• Carrier• Module• Segment• Compartment• Element• Pallet• Assembly• Facility*• Node• Vehicle

• Item• Drawer• Kit• Locker• Unit• Rack• Lab• Platform• MPLM• Payload Bay• Fairing

• Component• Subsystem• System • SRU• LRU• ORU• CTB• M-01• M-02• M-03

*In-Space Facility (e.g., the European Technology Exposure Facility (EuTEF)

M02 Bags

SupplyItems

MPLMRacks

MPLMCargo

Integration

MPLMIn Shuttle

How to abstract thephysical complexityfor space logisticsmodeling ?


Current State of the Art: Inventory Management System (IMS) Database

Hand-heldBarcode Reader


Basic Logistics Performance MoEs

• Crew Surface Days, CSD [crew-days]Total number of crew-days over all surface nodes for entire

scenario

• Exploration Mass Delivered, EMD [kg]Total mass of exploration items and surface infrastructure delivered

over all surface nodes for entire scenario

• Total Launch Mass, TLM [kg]Total launch mass (including crew, elements, and all other COS)

for entire scenario

• Upmass Capacity Utilization, UCU [0,1]Fraction of upmass capacity (from Earth) used by COS (excluding

crew, propellants, and elements) for entire scenario


Nodes

Nodes are spatial locations in the solar system

– Surface Nodes• central body (Earth, Moon, Mars)• Latitude, Longitude

– Orbital Nodes• central body (Sun, Earth, Moon,

Mars)• apoapsis, periapsis, inclination

– Lagrangian Nodes• Body 1, Body 2, L# (1-5)


Supplies• Supplies are the items that move

through the network– What is needed at the planetary base?

• Consumables, equipment, vehicles, etc.– How to classify supply items?

• Functional classes of supply– What needs to be done? What are

essential functions?– Organize by functional classes,

regardless of• material, owner, NASA center, etc.

• Basis for supply item modeling– Model ‘demand’ for each supply class– Unified relational database for

exploration


Transport

Processes• Waiting

– Remain at same node• Transporting

– Move to new node• Transferring

– Transfer crew/supplies to different element

• Exploring– exploring a node

• Proximity Operating– rendezvous,

docking/undocking

Wait

Transfer

Can model flow of supplies, elements, crew through network


Time Expanded Network• Takes a static network and expands it in time

– using a time discretization step ΔT– new concept for multi-commodity flow problems

TEN consists of– time expanded nodes– waiting arcs– feasible transport arcs

(filtered by astrodynamics)– can define paths

Advantages– makes time explicit– enables simulation and

optimization of time-varying transportation problems

KSC

LEO

LLO

,1

,1

,1

KSC

LEO

LLO

,2

,2

,2

KSC

LEO

LLO

,3

,3

,3

KSC,1 LEO,2 LLO,3


SpaceNet Users and Goals• Diverse user base

– Mission/system architects– Mission planners and logisticians– Operations personnel– Etc…

• Support short and long-term architecture and operational decisions– What effect will vehicle (element) design decisions

have on future NASA operations and lifecycle costs?

– Should a staging area or depot be constructed? In LEO? At LOP?

– Are in-space refueling and ISRU helpful in improving performance?

– Is it better to have cargo vehicles that carry small re-supply loads or a few large pre-deploy or resupply flights?

In-Space Refueling

Staging Location


Lunar Payload Sensitivity

-0.7972-1.4457-0.76920.3437MMH/NTOMethaneH2

-0.7630-1.4427-0.76920.3437MethaneMethaneH2

-0.7909-1.5000-0.76920.3437ImprovedMMH/NTO

ImprovedMMH/NTOH2

-0.7909-1.5000-0.76920.2583ImprovedMMH/NTO

ImprovedMMH/NTO

ImprovedMMH/NTO

-0.6794-1.4457-0.76920.2822MethaneMethaneMethane

-0.6809-1.4263-0.76920.2882EthyleneEthyleneEthylene

-0.6882-1.2625-0.76920.3437H2H2H2

-0.6882-1.4263-0.76920.3437H2EthyleneH2

CEV DryMass

AS DryMass

DS DryMass

Post-TLIMassCEV Fuel TypeAS Fuel TypeDS Fuel Type

BL

Change in lunar payload-to-the-surfacefor a 1 kg increase in

dry

payload

mm∂

∂


Academic Impact• Developed abstracted framework for modeling space

exploration missions from a logistics perspective– Object-Process View of Exploration– Time-Expanded Network Formulation– Measures of Effectiveness– Impact of Commonality on Sparing Strategies

• Infusion of Earth-Analogue Research– HMP 2006

• Publications– Conferences– Journals– Edited Volume – AIAA Progress Series

• Course Materials– International Space University


Real World Impact• Condensed lessons-learned from past spaceflight

missions• Demonstrated leadership in developing space logistics

community– January 2006 Space Logistics Workshop I (54 participants)

• SpaceNet – software prototype, deployment at NASA

• Trade Studies supporting Constellation Program– IDAC2

Documents

spacelogsitics aa v3strategic.mit.edu/docs/spacelogistics.pdf · NASA’s Space Exploration Initiative • Presidential Announcement – Jan 14, 2004 – New Vision for Space Exploration