INTRODUCTION:

In order to ensure that future human lunar and Mars exploration programs are both
affordable and sustainable, it is essential to consider the impact of logistics, especially for
long-duration and multiple mission campaigns. It is important that logistics be taken into
account at an early stage in the design process, because the exploration architecture and
vehicle design undoubtedly impact logistics-related operations costs. In order to understand
the specific logistics costs associated with various exploration architecture choices, a
modeling framework and planning tool for interplanetary space logistics is required.
Terrestrial logistics and supply chain management is a highly-developed field; techniques for
efficient supply chain management have been proven very effective in the business case.
The wealth of information in this area can be applied to the interplanetary problem in order to
develop a model for understanding space logistics.

BACKGROUND:

The United States space exploration goals expressed in January 2004 call for the retirement of
the Space Transportation System (STS or Shuttle) following completion of International Space
Station (ISS) construction. Since the Shuttle is instrumental in transporting large quantities of
cargo to and from the ISS, this functional capability must be preserved to ensure ongoing station
operations in a post-Shuttle era. Fulfilling ongoing cargo transport requirements to the ISS is a
prime opportunity for NASA to reduce costs and preserve and repurpose the unique and limited
Shuttle resource by acquiring cargo transportation services commercially. Further, implementing
such a service prior to retirement of the Shuttle reduces risk to the vehicle and her crews by
eliminating their use for routine cargo transport missions while accelerating the readiness for
alternative ISS-support transportation. In January 2004, President Bush directed NASA to begin
an initiative that focuses on exploration of the Moon, Mars, and beyond. This initiative calls for
the completion of International Space Station (ISS) assembly by the end of the decade coincident
with retirement of the Space Shuttle. Retirement of the Shuttle while ISS operations are still
being conducted results in reduced capability to supply ISS logistics requirements. An
examination of existing and planned logistics carriers shows that there are deficiencies in both
capacity and capability to support ISS needs. SPACEHAB's history of space station logistics
delivery and existing ground infrastructure coupled with NASA's mandate and documented
intent to acquire commercial space systems and services when possible has led SPACEHAB to
develop a versatile and affordable cargo transport service for ISS.

CURRENT ACTIVITIES:

NASA has awarded $3.8 million to two MIT engineering professors to pursue an
interdisciplinary study for adapting supply chain logistics to support interplanetary material
transport and transfer. Professors David Simchi-Levi and Olivier de Weck of the MIT
Engineering Systems Division will spearhead the project in partnership with the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory, Payload Systems, and United Space Alliance. Sustainable space exploration is
impossible without appropriate supply chain management and unlike Apollo, future exploration
will have to rely on a complex supply network on the ground and in space. The primary goal of
this project is to develop a comprehensive supply chain management framework and planning
tool for space logistics. The eventual integrated space logistics framework will encompass
terrestrial movement of material and information, transfer to launch sites, integration of payload
onto launch vehicles and launch to Low Earth Orbit, in-space and planetary transfer, and
planetary surface logistics. The MIT-led interplanetary supply chain management model will
take a four-phase development approach:

 1. Review of supply chain management lessons learned from Earth-based commercial

and military projects, including naval submarine and arctic logistics
 2. Space logistics network analyses based on modeling Earth-Moon-i\y1ars orbits and
expected landing-exploration sites
 3. Demand/supply modeling that embraces uncertainty in demand, cargo mix, costs, and
supply chain disruptions
 4. Development of interplanetary supply chain architecture.

Examples of supply classes

 Propellants and Fuels

 Crew Provisions and Operations
 Maintenance and Upkeep
 Stowage and Restraint
 Waste and Disposal
 Habitation and Infrastructure
 Transportation and Carriers
 ISS Support
 Space Shuttle
 Progress spacecraft,Russian expendable freighter unmanned resupply spacecraft
 Automated Transfer Vehicle , expendable unmanned resupply spacecraft developed by
the European Space Agency

STATE OF ISS LOGISTICS CAPABILITY

ISS CARGO REQUIREMENTS

As of 2004, the United States Space Shuttle, the Russian Progress, and to a very limited extent,
the Russian Soyuz vehicles are the only systems capable of transporting ISS cargo. Before the
end of ISS assembly, it is anticipated that the European Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) and
Japanese H-IIA Transfer Vehicle (HTV) will be introduced into service. The US Shuttle
transports the majority of the pressurized and unpressurized cargo and provides virtually all of
the recoverable down mass capability (the capability of non-destructive reentry of cargo).
CARGO VEHICLE CAPABILITIES

An understanding of the future ISS cargo requirements is necessary to size a commercial cargo
vehicle designed to replace the Shuttle's capabilities and capacities and augment currently
planned alternative vehicles. Accurate estimates of ISS cargo transfer requirements are difficult
to establish due to ongoing changes in logistics requirements, crew tending levels, vehicle
availabilities, and the evolving role the ISS will play in NASA's space exploration and research
goals. An increased unpressurized cargo delivery requirement is shown during the years 2007–
2010. This increased rate is a result of a current plan to preposition unpressurized spares on the
ISS prior to Shuttle retirement. Provision of a commercial cargo carrier capable of transporting
unpressurized spares to supplement the Shuttle eliminates the prepositioning requirement and
aligns the estimated averages during 2007–2010 to approximately 24,000 kg for pressurized
cargo and 6800 kg for unpressurized cargo. Considering the delivery capability of the remaining
systems after the Shuttle is retired yields. Retirement of the Shuttle and reliance on the Progress,
ATV, and HTV for ISS logistics will result in no significant recoverable down-mass capability.
Further, no evidence suggests that any of these cargo transport systems can increase production
and launch rates to cover the cargo delivery deficiency.

COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY

In addition to ISS support deficiencies, alternative opportunities for a commercial cargo transport
system exist. The retirement of the Shuttle will also result in an inability to conduct Low Earth
Orbit (LEO) research independent of the ISS. A commercial payload service could serve as a
free-flying research platform to fulfill this need. As logistics support requirements for NASA's
space exploration initiative emerge, existing commercial system can be employed.

Finally, nascent interest in the development of non-government commercial space stations must
take resupply issues into consideration. Such considerations will undoubtedly be subjected to a
make/buy analysis. Existing systems which have amortized their development costs across
multiple government and non-government programs should favor a “buy” decision by
commercial space station operators. As these markets arise, commercial companies will be in a
position to provide logistics services at a fraction of the cost of government-developed systems.
The resulting economies of scale will benefit both markets. This conclusion was reached by a
Price-Waterhouse study chartered by NASA in 1991. The study concluded that the value of
SPACEHAB's flight-asset-based commercial module service with an estimated net-present-value
of $160 million would have cost the US government over $1 billion to develop and operate using
standard cost plus contracting. SPACEHAB's commercial operations and developments (such as
the Integrated Cargo Carrier) since 1991 represent further cost savings over government-owned
and operated systems.

Commercial companies are more likely to efficiently invest private capital in service
enhancements, assured continued availability, and enhanced service capability. This tendency,
commonplace in non-aerospace applications, has been demonstrated by SPACEHAB in the
commercial space systems market via continued module enhancements and introduction of new
logistics carriers.

Shortfalls in ISS cargo transport capacity, emerging opportunities, and experience gained from
SPACEHAB's existing ground and flight operations have encouraged development of
Commercial Payload Service (CPS). As a commercially developed system, SPACEHAB
recognizes that to optimize its capability and affordability requires that certain approaches in
system development and operations be taken.

The first approach levies moderate requirements on the system. Introducing fundamental
capabilities on the front end and scarring for enhanced capabilities later reduces cost to launch
and shortens development time.

The second one is the utilization of existing technology and capabilities, where appropriate. A
typical feature of NASA programs is the continual reach for newly developed technologies.
While attractive from a technical advancement perspective, this quest is expensive and often fails
to create operational capabilities. A commercially developed cargo module will maximize the
use of existing technologies (off the shelf where possible) and seek technical advances only
where system requirements or market conditions drive the need for such advances. Additionally,
costs associated with the development of spacecraft are not limited to those associated with the
vehicle systems. Significant costs associated with the infrastructure must also be considered.
SPACEHAB's existing logistics and vehicle processing facilities co-located with the Eastern
launch range and at the Sea Launch facilities enable avoidance of significant system
development costs.

Finally, SPACEHAB has realized cost and schedule reductions by employing commercial
processes instead of Government processes. As a result, SPACEHAB's mission integration
template for a Shuttle-based carrier is 14 months, compared to 22 months for a similar Shuttle-
based Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM).

RACK TRANSFER CAPABILITY

The ISS utilizes the International Standard Payload Rack (ISPR) as the primary payload and
experiment accommodations structure in all US operated modules. Transferring ISPRs onto and
off the ISS requires passage through the View the MathML source in hatch only found at the
Common Berthing Mechanism (CBM) berthing locations. The diameter of the CBM combined
with ISPR proportions typically drives cargo vehicle diameters to sizes only accommodated by 5
m payload fairings launched on Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles (EELV).

RECOVERABLE REENTRY–PRESSURIZED PAYLOADS

The Russian Progress vehicle has long served as a cargo vehicle which, upon departing a space
station, destructively reenters the atmosphere destroying all “cargo” on board. This approach
works very effectively for removing unwanted mass from a space station. However, NASA has
indicated that the return of payloads from the ISS is highly desirable. Therefore, a commercial
system must examine the implications of including a pressurized payload return capability either
in the initial design or as an enhanced feature of the service to be introduced in the future.
Providing such capability requires the incorporation of thermal protection subsystem, deorbit
targeting subsystems, landing recovery subsystems, ground recovery infrastructure, and FAA
licensure. The recovery of unpressurized payloads presents unique challenges associated with the
exposed nature of unpressurized carriers. To implement a recoverable reentry system for
unpressurized payloads requires the development of an encapsulation system. Encapsulation
activities must either occur autonomously prior to reentry or as a part of the operations
associated with loading the unpressurized cargo carrier with return cargo. In either case,
additional cost associated with spacecraft systems or increased operational requirements will be
higher than simply loading and departing a pressurized carrier for a destructive reentry.

MIXED MANIFEST CAPABILITY

Typically, the avoidance of point solutions provides flexibility for a given system to provide
variable capabilities. Designing a cargo carrier that mixes pressurized and unpressurized systems
can lead to increased cost if all associated cargo accommodations must be flown on every flight.
To avoid unnecessary costs associated with designing and flying structure that accommodates
fixed relative capacities of all types of payloads, a modular approach is taken for CPS.
Anticipated cargo transport requirements for ISS after the Shuttle is retired indicate that
dedicated pressurized and unpressurized missions can support the ISS up-mass requirements.
Utilizing common base features (i.e. service module, docking system, etc.) and modularizing the
pressurized and unpressurized carrier elements of the spacecraft assures flexibility while
avoiding point solutions.

PROPELLANT TRANSFER

The Russian Segment of the ISS (RSOS) has the capability via the probe and cone docking
mechanisms to support propellant transfer. Incorporation of propellant transfer capability
introduces international issues requiring the coordination of multiple corporate and governmental
organizations. Since ISS propellant requirements are adequately provided for by the Russian
Progress and ESA ATV, costs associated with incorporating these features can be avoided.
However, the CPS’ modular nature coupled with the inherent capability of selected subsystems
enables economical alternatives to propellant transfer should ISS needs require.

Indirect costs considered in developing the CPS architecture include licensing requirements
associated with International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) and the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) commercial launch and entry licensing requirements. ITAR licensing
drives careful selection of the vehicle subsystem suppliers. Any utilization or manufacturing of
spacecraft subsystems by non-US entities can only be implemented once the appropriate
Department of State and/or Commerce approvals are in place. FAA licensing requirements
necessitate careful selection of the launch and landing sites. Vehicles developed by a US
organized corporation, even if launched in another country, require review of the vehicle system,
operations, and safety program by the FAA to ensure that risks to people and property are within
acceptable limits