Lowering the barriers to lunar sourced propellant via competitive parity pricing.

Recent remote sensing results and the current Artemis lunar exploration program have heightened interest in the potential for producing propellant on the lunar surface to contribute to the sustainability of ongoing activity in cislunar space. In this paper, we examine the case of lunar propellant competing against Earth-sourced propellant both on the lunar surface and in low lunar orbit. We restrict ourselves to providing lunar propellant for the purpose of landing cargo from low lunar orbit onto the lunar surface. In our analysis, we derive the revenue recoverable from, or value delivered by, lunar propellant by matching the cost of landing cargo using Earth-sourced propellant, rather than the cost of transporting propellant from Earth. We present the arguments in commercial and non-commercial contexts. We find that there are opportunities on the lunar surface for extracting value above the competing propellant transportation cost from Earth. When competing against Earth-sourced propellants in low lunar orbit, there are opportunities to extract more value than one could by supplying commodity propellants. The opportunities arise from expanding the factors contributing to competing costs, using combined cargo and propellant concepts of operations that deliver higher propellant efficiency, and from consolidating transportation assets with propellant supply to achieve higher capital efficiency. By using this analytical approach to transportation and transportation support services we were able to lower the barriers to the production and use of lunar sourced propellant. • Transport cost as a price proxy misses opportunities to charge more for propellant. • Integrated propellant supply & transport services can charge more. • One can charge more for lunar sourced ascent propellant than the cost of landing it. • Transport services using lunar sourced propellant do not need orbital depots. • Integrated services can bridge part of the lunar propellant viability gap. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]