Shackleton Energy Company Launches Plan for First Lunar Mining Operation

[Diagoras]

Shackleton Energy Company (SEC) Initiates Funding Process
for Lunar Ice Mining to Establish the World’s First Industrial Lunar Base
and Propellant Depots in Space

The process of establishing the world’s first operational lunar base and propellant depot business in space is underway as SEC launches its initial fundraising campaign. This comes in the footsteps of recent amazing new discoveries of huge deposits of propellant-feedstock ice on the Moon by NASA and other international space programs.

[tigerade]

I've read up on this Shackleton Energy Company before.  I'm 99% sure that it's pie in the sky, it's fluff.  This kind of thing would take billions of dollars, and this guy doesn't have it.  I wouldn't be eager to put down money as an investor either. 

[savuporo]

These types of "undertakings" that are so obviously 100% pie in the sky damage credibility of the entire field.


If Moller's venture didn't exist, we'd probably have flying cars by now

[Wyvern]

Isn't this by Bill Stone?  The same guy as the Bill Stone from that TED talk awhile back?

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/bill_stone_explores_the_earth_and_space.html

Huh, well I guess he got tired of waiting for the bureaucrats. 

I to have to place my doubts on this "business venture".  Despite my faith in the private sector I still believe that it will be the government that will be the one shelling out the money to make ideas like lunar colonization possible.

[Cinder]

Does sound like what Bill Stone pitched at TED so many years back. 

[Gregori]

lunacy

[douglas100]

Reminds me of LiftPort. Ever so slightly premature.

[Cherokee43v6]

lunacy

Pun intended???

[mlorrey]

Reminds me of LiftPort. Ever so slightly premature.

I dont know if it is premature to start raising capital now to develop the technology to do something in the late teens or early 20's. Thats like saying SpaceX was premature to raise capital in 2001....

[M_Puckett]

These types of "undertakings" that are so obviously 100% pie in the sky damage credibility of the entire field.


If Moller's venture didn't exist, we'd probably have flying cars by now

We will have flying cars when they can fly themselves without a human doing anything more than punching in the destination.

[docmordrid]

Besides the DoD/DARPA  Transformer (TX) "Flying Humvee" project

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/adp/Transformer_TX.html

there's also....

http://www.urbanaero.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zUu8X3HSDoIhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zUu8X3HSDoI

[Cherokee43v6]

Ah, someone has resurrected the idea of the 'Fleep'

[Wyvern]

Wasn't there an Israel military vehicle that looked just like the Ubanaero?

[docmordrid]

AirMule is an evolution of the X-Hawk, and Urban Aeronautics is a privately held company HQ'd in Yavne, Israel.

[douglas100]

I dont know if it is premature to start raising capital now to develop the technology to do something in the late teens or early 20's. Thats like saying SpaceX was premature to raise capital in 2001....

Fair enough. I just think it might be a good idea to actually have a lunar transportation system in existence first. Let's just see how much capital they manage to raise.

[Cherokee43v6]

The difference is that in 2001, the search for funding by SpaceX involved Elon going "Where is my wallet?"  I do not believe he brought in outside venture capital until around 2006 or so...

In fact he specifically had said that he wanted to avoid too much external funding for SpaceX because of the nightmare he went through with the VCs on the PayPal board making it impossible to achieve his original goals for that company.

[Moe Grills]

  They won't be the first to apply for bankruptcy protection; remember NEAP?
   Type the acronym in your search window and surf.

[Wyvern]

To get loosely back to the original topic.

Are we sure that harvesting propellant from the Moon would be cheaper than just bringing it up from Earth? 

Sure I love the image of a huge lunar propellant factory making the moon an economical goldmine, but is the cost feasible? 

I tried looking at some studies but all the ones I found (after a five second search on Google...) require me to purchase them which isn't an option for me.  Anyone more knowledgeable persons willing answer my question on the economic feasibility of lunar propellant?

[Patchouli]

These types of "undertakings" that are so obviously 100% pie in the sky damage credibility of the entire field.


If Moller's venture didn't exist, we'd probably have flying cars by now

No frivolous laws suits against civil aviation manufactures and FAA civil aviation rules that are stuck in the 1970s are more to blame then anything else for there not being flying cars yet.

NASA already developed the highway in the sky system that could enable almost anyone to safely pilot an aircraft.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/04/15/60minutes/main688454.shtml

[MikeAtkinson]

Are we sure that harvesting propellant from the Moon would be cheaper than just bringing it up from Earth? 

In general terms exporting propellant from the moon becomes less economic the further from the moon it is used. This is because some of the propellant needs to be used to transport the rest of the propellant and there is added infrastructure in tankers, depots, etc.

In general terms high usage rates are more economic than low, because of the large development costs of the mining infrastructure and potentially high fixed costs of the mining base (particularly if it needs to be manned for maintenance).

High usage rates imply low launch costs from Earth, because otherwise we could not afford to launch the non-propellant elements of missions. Lowing launch costs reduce costs for propellant from Earth by a similar factor, but reduce propellant costs from the moon proportionally by less than that as most of the lunar propellant production costs are not due to launch costs but due to development and hardware elements.

Lunar propellant production costs are fixed by the necessary development and production infrastructure, once development is started it largely determines costs for the whole term of the project, which is likely to be > 30 years. This makes it vulnerable to competition from Earth where new launcher developments are on the order of 7 years. It runs the considerable risk of being undercut by more nimble Earth based propellant launch companies.

The considerable technical, project and competition risks make it unlikely that Lunar propellant production could be commercially funded in my opinion.

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

Lunar propellant production costs are fixed by the necessary development and production infrastructure, once development is started it largely determines costs for the whole term of the project, which is likely to be > 30 years. This makes it vulnerable to competition from Earth where new launcher developments are on the order of 7 years. It runs the considerable risk of being undercut by more nimble Earth based propellant launch companies.

The considerable technical, project and competition risks make it unlikely that Lunar propellant production could be commercially funded in my opinion.

That is primary spacestation to Mars.  Spacestation to lunar surface (return) using lunar propellant can still be financially viable.

[MikeAtkinson]

That is primary spacestation to Mars.  Spacestation to lunar surface (return) using lunar propellant can still be financially viable.

The cost of propellant does not depend on the destination of the mission from the spacestation. It is no more or less viable to go to the lunar surface than to Mars.

[A_M_Swallow]

That is primary spacestation to Mars.  Spacestation to lunar surface (return) using lunar propellant can still be financially viable.

The cost of propellant does not depend on the destination of the mission from the spacestation. It is no more or less viable to go to the lunar surface than to Mars.

It does.  Given even a half competent company the sale price of its fuel will include transport costs.  Lunar refinery to lunar launch pad will be cheaper than lunar refinery to spacestation via lunar launch pad.

[MikeAtkinson]

That is primary spacestation to Mars.  Spacestation to lunar surface (return) using lunar propellant can still be financially viable.

The cost of propellant does not depend on the destination of the mission from the spacestation. It is no more or less viable to go to the lunar surface than to Mars.

It does.  Given even a half competent company the sale price of its fuel will include transport costs.  Lunar refinery to lunar launch pad will be cheaper than lunar refinery to spacestation via lunar launch pad.

So you meant "lunar surface to Spacestation".


Sure that is going to be cheaper, but also require much less propellant. So the development costs are going to be spread over far fewer tonnes of propellant. The main advantage of refuelling on the moon is that the ascent propellant does not need to be carried during descent and so the mass saved can instead be used for other payload. It is this that probably makes refuelling on the Moon with lunar propellant viable.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

That is primary spacestation to Mars.  Spacestation to lunar surface (return) using lunar propellant can still be financially viable.

The cost of propellant does not depend on the destination of the mission from the spacestation. It is no more or less viable to go to the lunar surface than to Mars.

It does.  Given even a half competent company the sale price of its fuel will include transport costs.  Lunar refinery to lunar launch pad will be cheaper than lunar refinery to spacestation via lunar launch pad.

At the same time that LV's $/kg rate decreases due to volume so would Lunar delivery to L1/L2 via EM mass driver.

[Patchouli]

That is primary spacestation to Mars.  Spacestation to lunar surface (return) using lunar propellant can still be financially viable.

The cost of propellant does not depend on the destination of the mission from the spacestation. It is no more or less viable to go to the lunar surface than to Mars.

It does.  Given even a half competent company the sale price of its fuel will include transport costs.  Lunar refinery to lunar launch pad will be cheaper than lunar refinery to spacestation via lunar launch pad.

At the same time that LV's $/kg rate decreases due to volume so would Lunar delivery to L1/L2 via EM mass driver.

L1/L2 would be the best place to make use of lunar propellant.
Though with SEP tugs Lunar propellant could be even cheaper then Earth propellant even in LEO at present launch costs.

It would take something like Skylon to make Earth launched propellant comparable to a robust ISRU setup.

Still big issue is the initial investment in building the space infrastructure.

[A_M_Swallow]

That is primary spacestation to Mars.  Spacestation to lunar surface (return) using lunar propellant can still be financially viable.

The cost of propellant does not depend on the destination of the mission from the spacestation. It is no more or less viable to go to the lunar surface than to Mars.

It does.  Given even a half competent company the sale price of its fuel will include transport costs.  Lunar refinery to lunar launch pad will be cheaper than lunar refinery to spacestation via lunar launch pad.

So you meant "lunar surface to Spacestation".

I meant both.  The cargo lander and the ascent tanker may be different vehicles.

Sure that is going to be cheaper, but also require much less propellant. So the development costs are going to be spread over far fewer tonnes of propellant. The main advantage of refuelling on the moon is that the ascent propellant does not need to be carried during descent and so the mass saved can instead be used for other payload. It is this that probably makes refuelling on the Moon with lunar propellant viable.

The propellant would probably be a different price if obtained at:

refineries on Earth
Earth launch pad
LEO spacestation and propellant depot
EML-1 depot
Mars orbit
Lunar launch pad
refinery on Moon

[Patchouli]

I meant both.  The cargo lander and the ascent tanker may be different vehicles.

At first it might be best to have a common vehicle but an idea ascent tanker could be what amounts to a rocket stage with landing gear.

A good quick and dirty tanker could be a DCSS or F9 upper stage modified with boil off reduction and a landing gear.

Spacex's Grasshopper RLV work could have an interesting spin off beyond stage recovery.

[JohnFornaro]

To get loosely back to the original topic.

Are we sure that harvesting propellant from the Moon would be cheaper than just bringing it up from Earth?

In principle, yes. 

Given several assumptions about the hardware and amortization.  Assume a very long amortization period.  All the space hardware, cis-lunar tugs and depots, would cost the same for either approach.  Assume the depot at EML-1.  The cracking plant mass would have to be launched and set up on the Moon's surface.  The prop launchers from the Earth would consume a lot more prop in getting to the depot than would the lunar launchers carrying the same payload of prop.  A lot more, on a continuing, amortized basis. 

And that's why lunar prop would win over the long term.

In the short term, the costs of the lunar base would be very expensive up front investments, making the idea much less palatable.  Mike Atkinson states it a little more lengthily.

The propellant would probably be a different price if obtained at:

refineries on Earth
Earth launch pad
LEO spacestation and propellant depot
EML-1 depot
Mars orbit
Lunar launch pad
refinery on Moon

You are using the word "price" without a sufficiently clear definition.  Of course the prices would be different.  Prop launched from Earth is virtually free, and the amortized costs of those "refineries" are very low.  The launch vehicles for that prop would be very large, and have fairly substantial ongoing costs for each launch.  The lunar cracking plant will have extremely high amortized costs at first.  The launch vehicles from the moon would be smaller, and thought to be less expensive than the ones from Earth.  However, all of the dry hardware will have to be launched from Earth.  Over time, all else being equal, the Moon would win.  But that time is many decades from now, and those hardware costs will be very high.

Anyhow.  The Shackleton E. Corp. is using a crowd funding source which will not provide the same number of necessary commas as would a traditional Wall Street investor funding effort.  Their website goes directly to FB or a canned presser.  Their business plan is a complete public unknown.

[A_M_Swallow]

You are using the word "price" without a sufficiently clear definition.{snip}

Price is the number from the invoice that ends up on the cheque.

[mduncan36]

Come on guys. This "entrepreneur" couldn't even finance a good study to plan what he claims with $1.2 million. It is at best a failure waiting to go nowhere and at worst a get-rich-quick scheme for one person.

[Cinder]

In that case hopefully it means no fallout onto his europa probe project.

[blazotron]

Come on guys. This "entrepreneur" couldn't even finance a good study to plan what he claims with $1.2 million. It is at best a failure waiting to go nowhere and at worst a get-rich-quick scheme for one person.

It's certainly no get rich quick scheme.  I know Bill personally, and can say with 100% confidence that he is in this for the exploration and to push the frontiers of humanity, not the money.  Although he is not yet well funded, he has a funding and technical plan that could work (obviously whether or not it does work is a function of many unknowns), and he is serious about this project.

[Prober]

I've read up on this Shackleton Energy Company before.  I'm 99% sure that it's pie in the sky, it's fluff.  This kind of thing would take billions of dollars, and this guy doesn't have it.  I wouldn't be eager to put down money as an investor either. 

Not very interested in this thread until now.  Just ran into material on another site.    It's 15 billion needed.

http://www.gizmag.com/gas-stations-in-space/20557/picture/148218/

[Wyvern]

15 BILLION?!

I don't care if that is the cost of an average North Sea Oil Refinery does Bill really think that he is going to generate that much money on a project as speculative as this?

[Zond]

He's collected 5512$ so far from 51 "fuelers". There's 7 days left to collect more.

http://rockethub.com/projects/3822-shackleton-energy-company-propellant-depots

[apace]

Hm, if he's serious he should not taking an image from a Nasa project and put his copyright on it. I have my questions...

[Hop_David]

To get loosely back to the original topic.

Are we sure that harvesting propellant from the Moon would be cheaper than just bringing it up from Earth?

In principle, yes. 

Given several assumptions about the hardware and amortization.  Assume a very long amortization period.  All the space hardware, cis-lunar tugs and depots, would cost the same for either approach.  Assume the depot at EML-1.  The cracking plant mass would have to be launched and set up on the Moon's surface.  The prop launchers from the Earth would consume a lot more prop in getting to the depot than would the lunar launchers carrying the same payload of prop.  A lot more, on a continuing, amortized basis. 

And that's why lunar prop would win over the long term.

It does take less prop to deliver prop from the moon. But that's not the major savings.

The major savings is lunar prop delivery vehicles could be reusable.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I think the correct statement here is surface to orbit vehicles could be made to be reusable more easily for the Moon than for Earth.

[Hop_David]

I think the correct statement here is surface to orbit vehicles could be made to be reusable more easily for the Moon than for Earth.

Thank you, that is what I meant to say.

So far as I know, the jury is still out whether practical RLVs for earth surface to orbit is doable.

Lunar surface to orbit has much smaller delta V budget (therefore less challenging mass fraction). And doesn't endure 8 km/s re-entry.

[Robotbeat]

I think the correct statement here is surface to orbit vehicles could be made to be reusable more easily for the Moon than for Earth.

Thank you, that is what I meant to say.

So far as I know, the jury is still out whether practical RLVs for earth surface to orbit is doable.

Lunar surface to orbit has much smaller delta V budget (therefore less challenging mass fraction). And doesn't endure 8 km/s re-entry.

The atmospheric reentry makes the problem easier on the way down, not harder.

The Moon has the added complication of sharp, abrasive dust over its entire surface. Earth has the added benefit of the option to use non-propulsive terminal "landing" techniques like lifting runway landings, parachutes, and splash-downs. On the way up, the Earth also has an atmosphere that can be used as part of the reaction mass. Earth also has a much greater satellite navigation and satellite communication infrastructure already in place. Also, RLVs can be easily inspected and maintained without requiring being in a pressure suit to do so (or spend huge sums to live on the Moon). The cost of man-power on the Earth is around a hundred times less on the Earth compared to the Moon (and will likely always be far less expensive). Liquid oxygen on Earth is easily produced just with fractional distillation of the air, and fuel is easily produced with fractional distillation of stuff that's pumped out of the ground.

Really, is it necessary to say all this? It's all kind of obvious when you aren't in space cadet fantasy land.

And I support reusable landers (if we're going to be doing a bunch of lunar missions), mind you.

[Warren Platts]

I think the correct statement here is surface to orbit vehicles could be made to be reusable more easily for the Moon than for Earth.

Thank you, that is what I meant to say.

So far as I know, the jury is still out whether practical RLVs for earth surface to orbit is doable.

Lunar surface to orbit has much smaller delta V budget (therefore less challenging mass fraction). And doesn't endure 8 km/s re-entry.

The atmospheric reentry makes the problem easier on the way down, not harder.

The Moon has the added complication of sharp, abrasive dust over its entire surface. Earth has the added benefit of the option to use non-propulsive terminal "landing" techniques like lifting runway landings, parachutes, and splash-downs. On the way up, the Earth also has an atmosphere that can be used as part of the reaction mass. Earth also has a much greater satellite navigation and satellite communication infrastructure already in place. Also, RLVs can be easily inspected and maintained without requiring being in a pressure suit to do so (or spend huge sums to live on the Moon). The cost of man-power on the Earth is around a hundred times less on the Earth compared to the Moon (and will likely always be far less expensive). Liquid oxygen on Earth is easily produced just with fractional distillation of the air, and fuel is easily produced with fractional distillation of stuff that's pumped out of the ground.

Really, is it necessary to say all this? It's all kind of obvious when you aren't in space cadet fantasy land.

And I support reusable landers (if we're going to be doing a bunch of lunar missions), mind you.

Haha! You're steppin' into the trap--you really don't want to go there, my friend! I recommend reverting to your usual tactic of avoiding confrontation...

[Hop_David]

The atmospheric reentry makes the problem easier on the way down, not harder.

Round trip moon to EML1 is less than just the up leg to LEO.

5 km/s vs 9.5 km/s

Then on top of the 9.5 km/s you shed 8 km/s over an hours time by aerobraking.

So this is the comparison:
moon: 5 km/s, no atmospheric re-entry
earth: 9.5 km/s plus 8 km/s re-entry.

The Moon has the added complication of sharp, abrasive dust over its entire surface. Earth has the added benefit of the option to use non-propulsive terminal "landing" techniques like lifting runway landings, parachutes, and splash-downs.

Parachutes, TPS, wings are all mass penalties and possible failure modes a lunar vehicle doesn't suffer. And as mentioned, the delta v for the ascent and landing is about half the delta v for just the up-leg of an earth to LEO round trip.

The atmospheric reentry makes the problem easier on the way down, not harder.

On the way up, the Earth also has an atmosphere that can be used as part of the reaction mass.[/quote]

Last I heard Skylon hasn't flown.

Further, slings, rail guns and other non reaction mass launches are possible on the moon. Doing stuff like that in earth's troposphere is extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Further, earth's atmosphere mandates a higher vertical ascent that increases gravity loss.

Also, RLVs

What RLVs? An RLV that can accomplish 9.5 km/s and 8 km/s re-entry still hasn't come to pass.

can be easily inspected and maintained

With a single stage, no stage recovery is needed. No reassembly is required. With no TPS needed, you don't need a standing army to check the TPS tiles.

The inspection and maintenance is far less than that needed for an earth to surface spacecraft.

Also OTV maintenance can be made easier by using ORUs.

Really, is it necessary to say all this? It's all kind of obvious when you aren't in space cadet fantasy land.

Really, is necessary to point out 9.5 km/s > 5 km/s? And on top of  a nearly double delta V budget you have a 3000 degree F re-entry?

[Robotbeat]

I see you avoided nearly all my points other than "delta-v, delta-v."

In response that there are no RLVs:
There are no RLVs, but neither are there any reusable landers.

How many RLVs are in active development, though (i.e. millions being spent on them, metal being bent)?
I count at least three:
Falcon 9 reusable (currently readying the Grasshopper VTVL testbed) http://spacex.com/multimedia/videos.php?id=0 already has proven the lightweight reentry tiles on Dragon and has attempted several first stage recoveries to no avail before switching to the Grasshopper VTVL-like concept for recovery

Blue Origin's hydrogen-powered RLV http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/index.php?itemid=28803 with some funding from CCDev2 going toward their hydrogen engine... they've already demonstrated VTVL technology with their New Shepherd program.

Skylon: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/skylon-spaceplane-engine-technology-gets-european-funding-322765/ and http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com/218-skylon-space-plane-british-engine-test.html


Plus the Air Force/Lockheed $250 million flyback booster program:
http://defensesystems.com/articles/2011/12/07/agg-air-force-reusable-booster-system.aspx

Plus whatever XCor is cooking up: http://www.xcor.com/products/vehicles/frequent_flyer_and_teledyne_brown_spaceplane.html

And plus likely whatever this apparently well-funded group is doing:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27572.0

How many fully reusable lunar landers are under active, funded development? None.

Shuttle was full of all sorts of expensive requirements that aren't strictly required for an RLV, like for large cross-range, a large minimum payload to polar orbit (even though Shuttle never launched from Vandenberg), a huge long payload bay that almost never was fully taken advantage of, a requirement to always be manned, and still it managed to be almost entirely reusable other than the external tank. It was also incredibly costly (which considering its requirement of "zip-code engineering," is a wonder it was the price it was), but it is basically fully reusable other than the drop tank.

So while it's true that neither exist right now, there has only been one single lunar lander design demonstrated that was even close to the class necessary for moving propellant around, and it was entirely expendable and very expensive. There have been countless orbital launch vehicles plus the mostly-reusable Space Shuttle. And there's something like half a dozen RLVs in active development at this moment.

Here's another point: Where does the fuel come from for a reusable lunar lander? You can't fill up a lander with regolith (even if it's slushy, which hasn't been directly verified by a lander), it must be processed with quite a large amount of infrastructure (perhaps tens of billions of dollars), none of which exists on the Moon. There are also no people on the Moon right now and no market for lunar propellant. But there are dozens and dozens of launches per year that could be served by an RLV which could also launch plenty of propellant.

If you gave an equal amount of funding... say, $5 billion, for an RLV for Earth and a reusable lunar lander (plus all the necessary infrastructure for filling up on the lunar surface for delivering propellant), who do you think would be successful? The amount of funding needed to make a reusable lunar lander PLUS all the new ISRU infrastructure and is probably more than enough to develop and demonstrate EVERY SINGLE RLV CONCEPT I listed above, including the most expensive Skylon (which wouldn't necessarily have the lowest cost per kg). And there are far more customers for putting ANYTHING in orbit versus just putting propellant into orbit.

[Robotbeat]

This idea that we should invest in a huge lunar mining operation to serve a market which doesn't exist instead of encouraging a cheap way to get into space in the first place (which could easily serve the same market plus many more new markets plus the existing launch market) is absurd. And I've wasted far too much time responding, here.

Shackleton can do whatever they want with the money they don't have, obviously, but in no way is it a substitute for inexpensive access to space. In the far future where lunar propellant mining for export makes any sense whatsoever, it will serve as a complement to cheap access to space, not as a replacement. For the Shackleton plan to be possible at all, cheap access to space will be required anyway. You need customers in order to have a business, after all.

[QuantumG]

I agree but it should be said that reusable lunar landers do make sense without ISRU - refueling at EML-1 - and there's a gradient between those two extremes with just some of the fuel or oxidizer supplied from ISRU.

[Robotbeat]

I agree but it should be said that reusable lunar landers do make sense without ISRU - refueling at EML-1 - and there's a gradient between those two extremes with just some of the fuel or oxidizer supplied from ISRU.

Oh, absolutely. I strongly support reusable landers even though I think lunar ISRU for export to, say, LEO or GSO isn't likely to be cheaper than Earth-sourced propellant for a similar additional investment in each (partly because the Earth-based side has the benefit of a ~quadrillion dollars of investment over time already) until well after several full RLVs have been fielded.

This is why I object when people compare lunar ISRU with an enormous investment in lunar infrastructure and equipment to just the ELVs we have today. The relevant comparison would be with RLVs or other (potentially cheaper) methods space access.

[Warren Platts]

I see you avoided nearly all my points other than "delta-v, delta-v."

In response that there are no RLVs:

There are no RLVs, but neither are there any reusable landers.
So while it's true that neither exist right now, there has only been one single lunar lander design demonstrated that was even close to the class necessary for moving propellant around, and it was entirely expendable and very expensive. There have been countless orbital launch vehicles plus the mostly-reusable Space Shuttle. And there's something like half a dozen RLVs in active development at this moment.

There was the DC-X; it was reusable. With its 4 RL-10 engines, it's exactly what a reusable SSTO Lunar tanker-lander would be like. Moreover, it worked in dusty environment and was turned around quickly with a small crew.

Here's another point: Where does the fuel come from for a reusable lunar lander? You can't fill up a lander with regolith (even if it's slushy, which hasn't been directly verified by a lander), it must be processed with quite a large amount of infrastructure (perhaps tens of billions of dollars), none of which exists on the Moon. There are also no people on the Moon right now and no market for lunar propellant. But there are dozens and dozens of launches per year that could be served by an RLV which could also launch plenty of propellant.

If you gave an equal amount of funding... say, $5 billion, for an RLV for Earth and a reusable lunar lander (plus all the necessary infrastructure for filling up on the lunar surface for delivering propellant), who do you think would be successful? The amount of funding needed to make a reusable lunar lander PLUS all the new ISRU infrastructure and is probably more than enough to develop and demonstrate EVERY SINGLE RLV CONCEPT I listed above, including the most expensive Skylon (which wouldn't necessarily have the lowest cost per kg). And there are far more customers for putting ANYTHING in orbit versus just putting propellant into orbit.

Marginal costs to an L1/L2 depot are what you should be looking at for an apples to apples comparison; for Earth based propellant to be cost competitive, costs to LEO would have to get down to < $100/kg. There is no way that is going to happen.

And $5B for a reusable LV on Earth isn't nearly enough.

And reusability isn't a panacea either. A reused SRB is 80% of a brand new one. Not game-changing.

And there aren't "dozens and dozens" of launches going on. I think the US had something like 18 launches last year.

And there's no point in putting propellant in orbit unless its to support BLEO exploration.

And the only BLEO exploration project that's big enough to provide a market for 500 to 1000 tonnes of propellant in LEO and that's also doable is a major Lunar IRSU base.

This is something we could be working on right now. It's actual exploration. Tech development is not exploration.

This idea that we should invest in a huge lunar mining operation to serve a market which doesn't exist instead of encouraging a cheap way to get into space in the first place (which could easily serve the same market plus many more new markets plus the existing launch market) is absurd.

You would have us twiddle our thumbs not even in LEO, but right here on Earth's surface until some sort of magic bean technology invents itself, if and when. Also, the market doesn't exist mainly because the supply doesn't exist. If we could put up a few thousand tonnes of propellant to L2, that would be game-changing and allow a truly sustainable Mars program, complete with a permanently staffed research station. That is something you should be for. You're shooting yourself in the foot by being negative about something you've never taken the time to understand.

Q: Why must we raid the HSF budget to develop commercial RLV's? The dozens and dozens of launches you mention aren't people mainly. So why not go after the science budget instead? They have more launches per year, and could really benefit from $100/kg launch services. Think they would go along with that? Why not? Isn't it absurd to be spending money on exploration before $100/kg cheap lift comes into being?

Shackleton can do whatever they want with the money they don't have, obviously, but in no way is it a substitute for inexpensive access to space.

Total straw man. Nobody here has claimed that Lunar ISRU is a substitute for "cheap lift". That's on you pardner. It's primary purpose is for moving outward, not inward back toward the Earth. You're still stuck in the old-fashioned, Apollo template of space exploration: that everything must come out of the gravity well of Earth. Boring and uncool....

And I've wasted far too much time responding, here.

You're right: arm-waving is a waste of time...

[Warren Platts]

I just watched the Bill Stone TED video. I guess it is his plan to bring it back to LEO. With aerobraking or electromagnetic braking, he probably could get back for $500/kg, maybe less.

The $15B to set up the operation I find hard to believe, however. I'd be interested to see how he plans on pulling that off. For NASA to pull that off using the ACES architecture would probably cost 10 times as much IMO.

EDIT: Bill also wants to haul plain water to LEO and then distill it there. Which will result in a lot of excess O2, unless he can convince people to buy propellant with a mass ratio of 8.

http://www.space.com/10619-mining-moon-water-bill-stone-110114.html

EDIT: Rockethub performance was pretty dismal: $5,517 / $1,200,000 = 0.46%

[Hop_David]

I see you avoided nearly all my points other than "delta-v, delta-v."

Delta V is a very important consideration. That you choose to ignore it damages your credibility.

How many RLVs are in active development, though (i.e. millions being spent on them, metal being bent)?
(snip)
How many fully reusable lunar landers are under active, funded development? None.

Your argument seems to be since development of lunar ISRU and vehicles isn't being done now, it shouldn't be done in the future. A "Stay The Course" argument.

A "Stay The Course" argument endorses the lion's share of funding to SLS and table scraps to Commercial. It endorses 7 to 8 billion per year for maybe flags and footprints to an NEO. Or maybe a brief stay on Mars. No ISRU. No thought of resource exploitation.

Like our present HSF program, lunar development would take about 6 to 8 billion per year. After 10 or 15 years you'd have substantial infrastructure. I see a series of goals for this infrastructure:
1: Propellant on the lunar surface
2: Propellant to EML1 and EML2
3: Propellant to GEO
4: Propellant to LEO

1, 2 and 4 would reduce difficulty of transportation to the moon. 3 and 4 would give a lunar base a source of revenue.

Propellant to LEO would make Earth surface to LEO RLVs more doable.

I want to see a human presence whose revenues exceed operating expense. If this is accomplished, growth of a HSF is inevitable. This is perhaps doable with a lunar base. Much less so for NEOs or Mars.

[Robotbeat]

Not my argument at all. I was merely responding (in a long-winded manner, granted) to your statement: "What RLVs?"

Delta-v is not the whole story; I am not ignoring it.

[Hop_David]

Not my argument at all. I was merely responding (in a long-winded manner, granted) to your statement: "What RLVs?"

Let me summarize: Some money is being spent or earth to LEO RLVs that don't exist yet. No money is being spent on lunar RLVs that don't exist yet.

From that you conclude lunar is a waste. A "Stay The Course" argument.

Delta-v is not the whole story; I am not ignoring it.

You correctly point out that aerobraking would be useful for earth to LEO RLVs -- Aerobraking can shave off 8 km/s from a 17 km/s round trip  delta V budget, reducing it to a more doable 9 km/s.

When you say it's an advantage over lunar, you're ignoring that lunar is much less than 17 km/s. Or even 9 km/s. It's 5 km/s.

Half the delta V budget and no need for TPS, wings, parachutes, any of that stuff. The challenges for these RLVs are far less formidable than what Musk, Bond, etc. face.

I will further note that Musk's Grasshopper video shows use of reaction mass to shed re-entry velocity, in addition to the usual aerobraking. This makes for a delta V budget even greater than 9 to 10 km/s and an even more difficult mass ratio. If his second stage could refuel in orbit, his design becomes more plausible.

[Robotbeat]

Not my argument at all. I was merely responding (in a long-winded manner, granted) to your statement: "What RLVs?"

Let me summarize: Some money is being spent or earth to LEO RLVs that don't exist yet. No money is being spent on lunar RLVs that don't exist yet.

From that you conclude lunar is a waste. A "Stay The Course" argument.
...

Nope. Not my conclusion and not my argument.

[Hop_David]

Nope. Not my conclusion and not my argument.

You have an argument?

[Robotbeat]

Nope. Not my conclusion and not my argument.

You have an argument?

According to you in your post.

[Hop_David]

Nope. Not my conclusion and not my argument.

You have an argument?

According to you in your post.

According to you that's not your argument.

So I'm asking for clarification. Do you have an argument?

[Robotbeat]

Nope. Not my conclusion and not my argument.

You have an argument?

According to you in your post.

According to you that's not your argument.

So I'm asking for clarification. Do you have an argument?

Yes, my argument is that it's worthless to compare the cost of lunar ISRU propellant in LEO to the cost of the very expensive ELVs often used now, which is often done to justify lunar ISRU.

The relevant comparison is with whatever LVs could be developed for a similar sum of investment, which you'd have to say includes RLVs. And then you have the fact that RLVs could serve other markets, so their investment costs are spread. Another point is that you likely wouldn't have a sizable market to sell lunar ISRU to unless you had cheap access to space (i.e. RLVs) in the first place. Additionally, having RLVs would make installing the lunar infrastructure needed for extensive lunar ISRU far more reasonable. In other words, I'm frustrated with the apparent opposition to RLVs coming from folks here who are in favor of huge amounts of investment for lunar ISRU instead.

I'm pretty sure the Shackleton folks are not opposed to RLVs, so my argument is not pointed towards them.

Personally, I think work on both can proceed in parallel, but it doesn't make sense to spend 11 or 12 figures on lunar ISRU in the meantime.

[Warren Platts]

Yes, my argument is that it's worthless to compare the cost of lunar ISRU propellant in LEO to the cost of the very expensive ELVs often used now, which is often done to justify lunar ISRU.

Not the case: the comparison is usually made by comparing optimistic, but not pie-in-the-sky estimates of the next generation of LV's, ELV's and RLV's. 3 to 5 $K/kg in other words. When Elon can beat $3K/kg, I'll believe. Hempsell says even Skylon's cost to LEO will be $8K/kg upon inception, and $1K/kg when in mature service.

Meanwhile, a 15,000 mT/year water operation on the Moon (about 6 Olympic sized swimming holes) would produce 10,000 mT of LH2/LO2, of which 4,000 mT could be transferred to L1/L2 with a fully reusable, SSTO tanker-lander. A Moon base self-sufficient in propellant won't be much more to operate than ISS, especially considering progressively lower, albeit marginally, launch costs from Earth. $2B/year overhead is not unreasonable, once construction of the base is more or less complete.

Thus, $2B/4,000 mT = $500/kg. If a way could be devised to use aero- or electromagnetic braking, this propellant could be transferred the rest of the way to LEO essentially for free. If done fully propulsively, the cost would be roughly $1200/kg. Those figures are cost competitive to any non-pie-in-the-sky, i.e., reasonable, prediction on what Earth to LEO costs are going to be within the next several decades.

The problem is physics, not dollars. Earth has a deep gravity well. Getting out of it is damned hard with a decent mass fraction. LV's are near the best of what is physically possible. There simply isn't much scope for improvement. Such improvements as are possible will be at the margins--there is no magic bullet in the offing.

The relevant comparison is with whatever LVs could be developed for a similar sum of investment, which you'd have to say includes RLVs. And then you have the fact that RLVs could serve other markets, so their investment costs are spread.

Essentially, you're proposing that we gut the exploration budget--again!--to fund tech development of RLV's. We've already had one $100B experiment. It was called Shuttle. The results were mixed. It did not result in massive savings over ELV's. Yes, yes, I know, there were a ton of "unnecessary" requirements like cross range capability, man-rating, down mass, etc.

But still it doesn't follow that the next generation of RLV's will dramatically lower launch costs compared to the best, next-generation ELV's.

One thing I notice with guys like you and Martijn who are relentless RLV boosters is that you never say how "cheap" is cheap enough. I get the feeling you guys will never be happy until launch costs get down to $10/kg--about what it costs to fly from New York to London.

Thus, the fact that the first $100B wasn't enough means nothing to you guys. You're fully ready to put the HSF program standby for another 15 years so the next $100B can be spent on RLV's again. And since there's no way spending this $100B will achieve $10/kg, then the third $100B will have to be spent, ad infinitum!

Honestly, here's a direct question for you Robotbeat: You tell us: If we blow off Lunar exploration in order to fund RLV's, just how cheap do you think it will get?

It's just not that easy. Skylon says $1000/kg. How is Elon's flyback booster concept going to blow that out of the water by an order of magnitude??? Keep in mind that a refurbished SRB costs 80% of brand new one. Maybe liquids will be easier to refurbish, but still, it's going to wreck havoc on your payload mass fraction. I wish them all the luck in the world, but $10/kg or $100/kg simply isn't in the cards.

Another point is that you likely wouldn't have a sizable market to sell lunar ISRU to unless you had cheap access to space (i.e. RLVs) in the first place.

Not true: a Lunar ISRU program could make available to NASA 3,000 mT per year that could be used for a sustainable Mars program for $2B/year. That's a pretty big market.

Additionally, having RLVs would make installing the lunar infrastructure needed for extensive lunar ISRU far more reasonable. In other words, I'm frustrated with the apparent opposition to RLVs coming from folks here who are in favor of huge amounts of investment for lunar ISRU instead.

Why are you going after the HSF budget? Why not take it from the Science Mission Directorate instead? What's the difference? Or leave it up to the Pentagon. They want RLV's badly enough, they will develop them. Why should NASA subsidize DoD? And if Elon et al. want to develop RLV's, nobody's stopping them. LV's are old school, and the NASA's success at developing LV's is checkered at best. NASA should be concentrating on doing something new. Exploration in other words, and as an oil man, I mean exploration in the same way that Exxon uses the word.

I'm pretty sure the Shackleton folks are not opposed to RLVs, so my argument is not pointed towards them.

Then you're argument is pointed at nobody. Nobody is opposed to RLV's. Certainly not me nor Hop David. Go ahead build them. Good Luck! But if you'll watch Bill Stone's video's and read his interviews, his analysis is exactly the same was what I just reiterated here: LV costs are NOT going to be basically free for the foreseeable future; therefore, Lunar propellant is a winning opportunity.

Personally, I think work on both can proceed in parallel, but it doesn't make sense to spend 11 or 12 figures on lunar ISRU in the meantime.

Bill Stone is proposing to spend 11 figures on Lunar ISRU. Frankly, I can't see it. Maybe he knows something I don't. But for NASA to spend 12 figures on Lunar ISRU is in line with the big 3 other projects NASA has undertaken: Apollo, Shuttle, ISS. There is no better 4th $100B project, if you ask me. Certainly, another $100B tech development project on RLV's is not it....

[Patchouli]

Essentially, you're proposing that we gut the exploration budget--again!--to fund tech development of RLV's. We've already had one $100B experiment. It was called Shuttle. The results were mixed. It did not result in massive savings over ELV's. Yes, yes, I know, there were a ton of "unnecessary" requirements like cross range capability, man-rating, down mass, etc.

But still it doesn't follow that the next generation of RLV's will dramatically lower launch costs compared to the best, next-generation ELV's.

One thing I notice with guys like you and Martijn who are relentless RLV boosters is that you never say how "cheap" is cheap enough. I get the feeling you guys will never be happy until launch costs get down to $10/kg--about what it costs to fly from New York to London.

Thus, the fact that the first $100B wasn't enough means nothing to you guys. You're fully ready to put the HSF program standby for another 15 years so the next $100B can be spent on RLV's again. And since there's no way spending this $100B will achieve $10/kg, then the third $100B will have to be spent, ad infinitum!

Honestly, here's a direct question for you Robotbeat: You tell us: If we blow off Lunar exploration in order to fund RLV's, just how cheap do you think it will get?

It's just not that easy. Skylon says $1000/kg. How is Elon's flyback booster concept going to blow that out of the water by an order of magnitude??? Keep in mind that a refurbished SRB costs 80% of brand new one. Maybe liquids will be easier to refurbish, but still, it's going to wreck havoc on your payload mass fraction. I wish them all the luck in the world, but $10/kg or $100/kg simply isn't in the cards.

Actually $100 per kg is possible if the hardware can be reused 50 to 200 times.
If propellant  was the primary the cost you could do $10 per kg.
It's not even half of 1% of the cost of present launches which can be as low as $3093 per kg with Zenit.
F9-H will offer $1500 per Kg and even vehicles like Ares V/SLS can do sub $2500 per Kg if they have STS like flight rates.

This is with expendable hardware.

Skylon has a high R&D cost and is very dependent on flight rates initially it's assumed the flight rates would be low and the vehicles subject to inspection after each flight.

But if the flight rate ramps up sub $100 per kg numbers could be possible.

[Hop_David]

The relevant comparison is with whatever LVs could be developed for a similar sum of investment, which you'd have to say includes RLVs.

Given a 9 to 10 km/s delta V budget and 8 km/s re-entry, I don't think earth to LEO RLVs are practical. Throwing money at the problem won't change this, in my opinion.

Personally, I think work on both can proceed in parallel, but it doesn't make sense to spend 11 or 12 figures on lunar ISRU in the meantime.

I believe a propellant depot lunar architecture (such as ULA's) would do a lot to bring about less expensive earth to LEO vehicles.

1) It could provide the flight rate new companies need to amortize research and design expense.

2) With lunar propellant in LEO, reaction mass can be used to shed re-entry velocity. Thus returning vehicles would not suffer the high temperature and stress of an 8 km/s re-entry. This would be make earth to LEO RLVs much more doable.

[go4mars]

We've already had one $100B experiment ... Yes, yes, I know, there were a ton of "unnecessary" requirements like cross range capability, man-rating, down mass, etc. ... Thus, the fact that the first $100B wasn't enough means nothing to you guys. Keep in mind that a refurbished SRB costs 80% of brand new one. NASA's success at developing LV's is checkered at best.

Here's something just as relevant as shuttle and its costs:  A low-cost room in the Park Hyatt Zurich costs over 700 Swiss Francs. 

Skylon says $1000/kg. How is Elon's flyback booster concept going to blow that out of the water by an order of magnitude???

Here's three things that help:
1)  Proven low-cost development of funtional, high-tech hardware (that doesn't involve miles of iconel) which isn't a diss to skylon's potential. 
2)  2 stages (or more in the case of cross-fed heavy) implies more margin and payload to orbit per unit of lift-off mass.
3)  Plans to scale up to BFR.

$100/kg simply isn't in the cards.

The river card hasn't been turned yet (Texas hold-em poker reference).

Not true: a Lunar ISRU program could make available to NASA 3,000 mT per year that could be used for a sustainable Mars program for $2B/year. That's a pretty big market.

It comes down to whether you have more faith in the "NASA mars program market" or the "everything that might go to space" market. 

Exploration in other words, and as an oil man, I mean exploration in the same way that Exxon uses the word.

Which is more likely: Rewriting the mandate of NASA to operate as a private entity akin to Exxon?  Or allowing rich dreamers to pursue their hobbies in a market economy, funded partially through mutually beneficial arrangements with governments? 
As another oil man, I've noticed that national oil companies are not very efficient at operating assets, marketing production, or innovating. 

[Warren Platts]

back booster concept going to blow that out of the water by an order o

$100/kg simply isn't in the cards.

The river card hasn't been turned yet (Texas hold-em poker reference).

lol! That's what I'm worried about: you guys want to go all in, when there's about two cards left in the deck that will make a winning hand!

[Robotbeat]

I absolutely love how high-launch-rate RLVs aren't in the cards but a fantastical moon base serving a non-existent market it. To each his own, I guess.

$3000-$5000/kg is TODAY using the likes of Proton, etc. It's not next-generation and certainly isn't RLVs. Falcon Heavy is $2400-$1500/kg (non-reusable). Any reasonable RLV is going to be considerably less than that. $100/kg is in the cards just as much as mining water on the Moon to the tune of ten thousand tons a year and shipping it to EML1 or LEO is. I guess if it makes your argument stronger, you can ignore that possibility, but I'm having an argument with a lunar evangelist, here.

[Warren Platts]

Actually $100 per kg is possible if the hardware can be reused 50 to 200 times.

Only if you assume zero operational and refurbishment costs.

Skylon has a high R&D cost and is very dependent on flight rates initially it's assumed the flight rates would be low and the vehicles subject to inspection after each flight.

But if the flight rate ramps up sub $100 per kg numbers could be possible.

That is not what's coming out of Reaction Engines. Their honest assessment is $1000/kg upon "mature service".

$100/kg is ridiculously low. It will never happen. $100/kg is the cost of Concord ticket to fly across the Atlantic Ocean, also known as "The Pond" since its only a few thousand miles. There is simply no way that flights to ORBIT are going to cost as much or less than a basic supersonic flight across the Pond.

[Warren Platts]

I absolutely love how high-launch-rate RLVs aren't in the cards but a fantastical moon base serving a non-existent market it. To each his own, I guess.

You just contradicted yourself (again):

'non-existent market for fantastical moon base' = 'non-existent market for high-launch-rate RLVs'

What you consistently fail to grasp is that RLV's and ISRU are not only not mutually exclusive, they depend on each other. Only a heavy Lunar base with an industrial focus will generate the mass flux necessary to support high flight rates of anything. And has Hop pointed out, the availability of cheap Lunar propellant in LEO would radically simplify the design of Earth to LEO RLV's. You're shooting yourself in the foot in order to spite your face!

I'm sure I know what you're hopes are: you've given up on BFR-based Mars Direct missions. At least you have enough common sense for that, I'll give you credit.

So now the latest straw to be grasped at is RLV's. This time is going to be different, right? Shuttle, Buran, X-33, Delta Clipper were all misguided abortions that failed because of human failure of imagination, and not the fact that cheap 747/Concord-cost RLV's to orbit are simply as an insurmountable engineering problem as FTL warp drive.

So your hope is now that Mars missions will provide the mass market for RLV's, and that we can shave a few years off getting to Mars if only we bypass the Moon, and gut the HSF budget--again--on tech development for RLV's--again.

Who was it that said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

$3000-$5000/kg is TODAY using the likes of Proton, etc. It's not next-generation and certainly isn't RLVs.

Uh huh... Notice you don't mention any American LV's.

Falcon Heavy is $2400-$1500/kg (non-reusable).

"IS" Meaningless statement on par with statements about the present king of France and golden mountains.

'Falcon Heavy WILL BE $2400-$1500' however, is meaningful, and hopefully true. Likely an overpromise though. There is no market for FH absent an aggressive Lunar program.

Any reasonable RLV is going to be considerably less than that.

A reasonable RLV (e.g., Skylon) will deliver launch costs that are comparable to ELV's. They will trade expensive complexity and high maintenance costs for cheap simplicity and low maintenance costs. The result will be a wash, but human passengers will prefer RLV's since they are a much more elegant mode of transportation than sitting on top of a rocket and parachuting back to Earth.

Only an unreasonable RLV will be able to deliver the 747 or Concorde cost levels that you're willing to go all in with the entire HSF space program for. Maybe you know something nobody else knows. If that's the case, please share your magic beans with the rest of us!

$100/kg is in the cards just as much as mining water on the Moon to the tune of ten thousand tons a year and shipping it to EML1 or LEO is. I guess if it makes your argument stronger, you can ignore that possibility, but I'm having an argument with a lunar evangelist, here.

You are projecting again. I am not the evangelist here. Offering the hope of 747 or Concorde-level prices if only we abandon BLEO space exploration for another decade or two is like promising 70 virgins in paradise if only you'll perform this one dirty deed.

Going to the Moon and establishing a permanently manned research station is just something we should be doing anyways, ISRU or no ISRU. It's going to cost on the order of $100B either way. So we might as well try and do some ISRU while we're there. If it fails, so what? We'll still have a permanently manned beachhead on another world and a depot-based cis-Lunar infrastructure to support it and other projects as well. A successful ISRU propellant operation will simply be icing on the cake.

However, as the dismal results of Bill Stone's attempts to raise private money demonstrate, the first ISRU operation will likely have to be government owned and operated. Once the way is paved, commercial outfits like SEP can step into the breach and start producing.

[dcporter]

I wonder if Shackleton's best move (in the world where they had money) would be to invest in putting earth propellant in LEO, in order to create the market they intend to serve with lunar matter.

[JohnFornaro]

To get loosely back to the original topic.

Are we sure that harvesting propellant from the Moon would be cheaper than just bringing it up from Earth?

In principle, yes. 

Given several assumptions about the hardware and amortization.  Assume a very long amortization period.  All the space hardware, cis-lunar tugs and depots, would cost the same for either approach.  Assume the depot at EML-1.  The cracking plant mass would have to be launched and set up on the Moon's surface.  The prop launchers from the Earth would consume a lot more prop in getting to the depot than would the lunar launchers carrying the same payload of prop.  A lot more, on a continuing, amortized basis. 

And that's why lunar prop would win over the long term.

It does take less prop to deliver prop from the moon. But that's not the major savings.

The major savings is lunar prop delivery vehicles could be reusable.

I think the correct statement here is surface to orbit vehicles could be made to be reusable more easily for the Moon than for Earth.

Thank you, that is what I meant to say.

So far as I know, the jury is still out whether practical RLVs for earth surface to orbit is doable.

Lunar surface to orbit has much smaller delta V budget (therefore less challenging mass fraction). And doesn't endure 8 km/s re-entry.

I agree with Hop David and Old Atlas Eguy about that more careful wording.  It is still the amortization of the development costs of such a system, which will prove the practicality.  And here, it is the degree of honesty with which the government can control those development costs, which will enable a realistic amortization period, thus increasing the chances of a cis-lunar market developing.

The atmospheric reentry makes the problem easier on the way down, not harder.

The Moon has the added complication of... Earth has the added benefit of...

Really, is it necessary to say all this? It's all kind of obvious when you aren't in space cadet fantasy land.

And I support reusable landers (if we're going to be doing a bunch of lunar missions), mind you.

After reading this, I also ask if it is necessary to point out all this?  Your point certainly seems to be "Stay the Course".  So what is your argument?  This?

Yes, my argument is that it's worthless to compare the cost of lunar ISRU propellant in LEO to the cost of the very expensive ELVs often used now, which is often done to justify lunar ISRU.

But that argument is incomplete.  RLV's should certainly be developed and it is truly a shame that shuttle did not improve costs, but this seems clearly to be a matter of politics running the management and procurement show at the expense of accomplishment.

Do you have a suggestion of a plan forward with RLV's?

[Patchouli]

Actually $100 per kg is possible if the hardware can be reused 50 to 200 times.

Only if you assume zero operational and refurbishment costs.

Skylon has a high R&D cost and is very dependent on flight rates initially it's assumed the flight rates would be low and the vehicles subject to inspection after each flight.

But if the flight rate ramps up sub $100 per kg numbers could be possible.

That is not what's coming out of Reaction Engines. Their honest assessment is $1000/kg upon "mature service".

$100/kg is ridiculously low. It will never happen. $100/kg is the cost of Concord ticket to fly across the Atlantic Ocean, also known as "The Pond" since its only a few thousand miles. There is simply no way that flights to ORBIT are going to cost as much or less than a basic supersonic flight across the Pond.

This is from their own site.

"The initial vehicle cost is determined by the development cost, the cost of development finance and the production cost of the machines. The SKYLON vehicle has been designed with the aim of achieving not less than 200 flights per vehicle. This seems a reasonable target for a first generation machine. Various scenarios have been examined but the uncertainty lies.      
At present the true launch cost of a typical 2-3 tonne spacecraft is about $150 million. Actual costs paid by customers vary from about one-third to one half of this due to the hidden subsidies on vehicle development, range maintenance, range activity and support infrastructure. For SKYLON, if no growth occurred and all operators flew equal numbers of the current approximately 100 satellites per year using 30 in-service spaceplanes from 3 spaceports, the true launch cost would be about $40 million per flight.
Even if the customer paid all of this, it would still represent a large reduction on current costs and would be a true transport operation.

This however is a very naive and pessimistic assumption. The real market would involve benign and aggressive operators with differing flight rates and nationally biased traffic. The total traffic would affect service and facility costs whilst profits and loan repayments would affect operators' cost. Pricing strategy would create different rates for cargo categories and human transport.
      
We expect mission costs to fall to about $10 million per launch for high product value cargo (e.g. commmunications satellites) $2-5 million for low product value cargo (e.g. science satellites) and for costs per passenger to fall below $100k, for tourists when orbital facilities exist to accommodate them.
"

[Warren Platts]

Well, if a person weighs 75 kilograms, and it costs $75,000 to go into orbit, that's $1000/kg: exactly what Mr. Hempsell, one of the main engineers at Reaction Engines said on this forum. That's still a far cry from the $7,500 you might have bought a Concorde ticket for.

[Robotbeat]

Well, if a person weighs 75 kilograms, and it costs $75,000 to go into orbit, that's $1000/kg: exactly what Mr. Hempsell, one of the main engineers at Reaction Engines said on this forum. That's still a far cry from the $7,500 you might have bought a Concorde ticket for.

Yeah, right, only 75kg is needed per person... They don't get to breathe, then.

[Warren Platts]

Well, if a person weighs 75 kilograms, and it costs $75,000 to go into orbit, that's $1000/kg: exactly what Mr. Hempsell, one of the main engineers at Reaction Engines said on this forum. That's still a far cry from the $7,500 you might have bought a Concorde ticket for.

Yeah, right, only 75kg is needed per person... They don't get to breathe, then.

Thanks for making my point better than I could.

[Warren Platts]

Getting back to Shackleton Energy Company, I'm afraid we've seen the last hurrah. Going with Rockethub had to be a last resort. Most people that try to raise money are people trying to start little independent films, or build a bungalow in Panama or someplace. Evidently, the TED talks failed to motivate any phone calls from the sort of multi-billionaires that could maybe pull it off. Now with the Rockethub attempt less than a smashing success (0.46% of the goal of $1.2M was raised), there's nothing left. There's been no response whatsoever from Shackleton or Bill Stone since the it ended that I can find on the web.

Goes to show that the Lunar mining first step is going to have to be sponsored by government.

[Robotbeat]

Well, if a person weighs 75 kilograms, and it costs $75,000 to go into orbit, that's $1000/kg: exactly what Mr. Hempsell, one of the main engineers at Reaction Engines said on this forum. That's still a far cry from the $7,500 you might have bought a Concorde ticket for.

Yeah, right, only 75kg is needed per person... They don't get to breathe, then.

Thanks for making my point better than I could.

No, they claimed $100,000 per person, not $1000/kg. Your estimate of their estimated cost to orbit for mass cargo to LEO is far off. $250/kg to LEO is an upper bound for achieving $100,000 per person to LEO.

[Patchouli]

Well, if a person weighs 75 kilograms, and it costs $75,000 to go into orbit, that's $1000/kg: exactly what Mr. Hempsell, one of the main engineers at Reaction Engines said on this forum. That's still a far cry from the $7,500 you might have bought a Concorde ticket for.

Yeah, right, only 75kg is needed per person... They don't get to breathe, then.

Thanks for making my point better than I could.

No, they claimed $100,000 per person, not $1000/kg. Your estimate of their estimated cost to orbit for mass cargo to LEO is far off. $250/kg to LEO is an upper bound for achieving $100,000 per person to LEO.

I was going to post a similar correction but to carry people they need to carry the passenger module which would have to be included into the total mass.
The 100K per passenger is carrying about 40 people.
Assuming they weigh on average 75Kg each this is only 3,000kg of human cargo.
This rest is the PAX module,cargo, and consumables.

[Warren Platts]

Here it is from Mr. Hempsell himself:

A reply to Warren

QUESTION: What are your current projections these days for bulk cargo launch prices?

From the objectives laid out in the Requirement Specification

On entry into service cost per kg = $8000 (2004)
About 80% current prices but this is a true unsubsidised cost and is less than half the true cost of current expendables.

In Mature Service (the most meaningful number) cost per kg = $1000 (2004)

Even if you look at that quote, and they get the cost per flight down to $10M ea., which requires some totally optimistic, build-it-and-they-will-come projections about what the future market will be like, thats' $667/kg for 15 tonnes of bulk cargo. More realistic is the $40M figure, so that's $2667/kg.

Once again, think about it this way: to fly on a 747 across the ocean, you can expect to pay about $10/kg.

If you want to fly on an air-breathing supersonic transport across an ocean, you can expect to pay $100/kg.

Now you guys are seriously expecting people to take you serious when you say that $100/kg is a realistic near-term to medium-term expectation.

In other words, you're saying you can get the cost TO ORBIT down to cost of a supersonic flight across the ocean or below.

Sorry guys, but that's just crazy. There is simply no way spaceflight is going to get cheaper than flying airplanes. Unless of course you know something I don't.

So that means realistic expectations are going to be at $1000/kg plus or minus a couple of hundred--as a best order of magnitude estimate of what's realistic. That's optimistic.

And at those prices, Lunar propellant makes sense. As a business venture, it's probably forlorn: think about the market: no one has more than 2 or 3 billion per year that can be spent on propellant. But if NASA were able to do that in-house, it could leverage that 2 or 3 billion into a massive amount of propellant that could prove to be truly game-changing.

[Robotbeat]

Humans have significant, um, "payload support" requirements. $250/kg of raw payload translates into $1000/kg of human, at best. Usually it's more like 8:1 ratio for an efficient capsule design.

[Warren Platts]

You're still ignoring the fact that you're ignoring Skylon's own numbers. You're more optimistic than they are. Hempsell says that even with a major SBSP project going on that's going to save the planet, $500/kg is their best estimate.

EDIT:

"For SKYLON, if no growth occurred and all operators flew equal numbers of the current approximately 100 satellites per year using 30 in-service spaceplanes from 3 spaceports, the true launch cost would be about $40 million per flight."

E.g., this: 100 satellites with 30 spaceplanes in one year. That's like 3.3 flights per spaceplane per year. A turnaround rate not much better than Shuttle. That's awful.

[JohnFornaro]

Here's something just as relevant as shuttle and its costs:  A low-cost room in the Park Hyatt Zurich costs over 700 Swiss Francs.

Which is affordable, for those who can afford it.  Not quite sure what you're getting at here.  I've thrown out a room rate of $10M/day each for two at the L-1 honeymoon suite.

I absolutely love how high-launch-rate RLVs aren't in the cards but a fantastical moon base serving a non-existent market it. To each his own, I guess.

I savor your observation how certain theories get to make some assumptions which are not allowed to other theories.

Mentioning my thoughts again, before the usual suspects misquote me:  The uhhhh, "fantastical moon base" would serve an existing market, if I had my way.  The "high-launch-rate RLV's" would serve the same market, presumably evolving into being as business begin acknowledging the sustainability of the effort.  For me, all things are possible, as long as they are done in the proper order.

I saw that "Skylon Pax Module".  I wish these people would present the early version of this, rather than the unbelievable picture shown.  It passeth all understanding to think that such a passenger load will be the first iteration of their "module".  Even the casual observer can see that the gray area labeled "life support systems" is a bogus artistic rendition.  Left unsaid of course, is the huge infrastructure which would already need to be in place before such a thing could be even imagined.

Moving back to the OP:

Come on guys. This "entrepreneur" couldn't even finance a good study to plan what he claims with $1.2 million. It is at best a failure waiting to go nowhere and at worst a get-rich-quick scheme for one person.

It's certainly no get rich quick scheme.  I know Bill personally, and can say with 100% confidence that he is in this for the exploration and to push the frontiers of humanity, not the money.  Although he is not yet well funded, he has a funding and technical plan that could work (obviously whether or not it does work is a function of many unknowns), and he is serious about this project.

Good to see Blazotron back.  Good to hear that the entrepreneur is serious about the effort.  And maybe he could demonstrate that crowd sourcing funding is a viable financial concept.  If that other site is correct, $15B is enough money to do some kind of demonstration, I'd think.  But that's a lot of money, still.

Going back to RobotBeat's continued push for Earth to LEO RLV's:  If this guy can make crowd sourced funding work, so could you, in principle.

I see you avoided nearly all my points other than "delta-v, delta-v."

Well, it is a problem that an RLV scheme would have to address.  That and aerobraking.

The amount of funding needed to make a reusable lunar lander PLUS all the new ISRU infrastructure and is probably more than enough to develop and demonstrate EVERY SINGLE RLV CONCEPT I listed above...

I don't know about that, but still, consider the crowd sourced funding mechanism.

Yes, my argument is that it's worthless to compare the cost of lunar ISRU propellant in LEO to the cost of the very expensive ELVs often used now, which is often done to justify lunar ISRU.

The relevant comparison is with whatever LVs could be developed for a similar sum of investment, which you'd have to say includes RLVs. And then you have the fact that RLVs could serve other markets, so their investment costs are spread. Another point is that you likely wouldn't have a sizable market to sell lunar ISRU to unless you had cheap access to space (i.e. RLVs) in the first place. Additionally, having RLVs would make installing the lunar infrastructure needed for extensive lunar ISRU far more reasonable. In other words, I'm frustrated with the apparent opposition to RLVs coming from folks here who are in favor of huge amounts of investment for lunar ISRU instead.

Thanks for clarifying, but I don't quite agree.  To paraphrase, what you're saying is that a trade or comparison should be made of the development of lunar ISRU prop to LEO versus the development of Earth to LEO RLV's; as an either/or comparison.  First, both of these suggestions would fail due to unsustainability; there is a lack of a market as a pre-requisite for either scheme.  Second, it is time which is the most important factor, by my reasoning.  EELV's are indeed expensive, but they exist and could be used to get the cis-lunar market creation "ball" rolling.  There is so much to be done in building an infrastructure, admittedly on taxpayer dollars at first, that should not be put off until RLV's have been implemented.

If the political sustainability can be maintained, and if public program accomplishment can be reinstated, then market competition could evolve, and RLV's could start being developed.  For example, SS3 or SS4 might be the first one to come to be.  Remember also, that lunar prop could indeed refuel those RLV's.  Also, Hop-David pointed out that propulsive braking, using lunar prop, could help RLV's as well, but that too is another technical hurdle.

[Robotbeat]

You're still ignoring the fact that you're ignoring Skylon's own numbers. You're more optimistic than they are. Hempsell says that even with a major SBSP project going on that's going to save the planet, $500/kg is their best estimate.

EDIT:

"For SKYLON, if no growth occurred and all operators flew equal numbers of the current approximately 100 satellites per year using 30 in-service spaceplanes from 3 spaceports, the true launch cost would be about $40 million per flight."

E.g., this: 100 satellites with 30 spaceplanes in one year. That's like 3.3 flights per spaceplane per year. A turnaround rate not much better than Shuttle. That's awful.

The same logic applied to lunar mining would mean that each ton of lunar water would cost at least several billion dollars (only place water is useful in orbit right now is at ISS). They were looking at the existing satellite market, not the growth market (i.e. space tourism, etc).

[Warren Platts]

Uh huh. You must have missed the part where Hempsell said that even if there was a major SBSP project that needed 10,000,000 tonnes in GEO, they could probably, hopefully get the cost down to $500/kg.

Here's an article you might find interesting:

Rockets are as close to perfect as they're ever going to get. For a few more billion dollars we might be able to achieve a microscopic improvement in efficiency or reliability, but to make any game-changing improvements is not merely expensive; it's a physical impossibility.

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2011/02/space_stasis.single.html

[Robotbeat]

And, of course, Skylon is probably the spendiest of the RLV proposals out there. It's already operating on razor-thin technical margins to get anything to LEO at all (i.e. there's a pretty big performance difference between pure equatorial and 28 degrees). I think it's the only SSTO RLV out there being actively given any funding. The rest use more than one stage (usually two). It's most certainly NOT the only thing out there, most certainly is the most expensive (development costs) RLV proposal being funded to any extent right now, and IMO doesn't beat the other RLV proposals being funded on cost per kg to LEO.

[93143]

And, of course, Skylon is probably the spendiest of the RLV proposals out there.

That might be because it's the most realistic.  London Economics reviewed their business plan, and the ESA reviewed their technical plan (the old one, not the one with the improved SABRE 4), and neither found any problems.  The only issue is that they haven't demonstrated their heat exchanger tech in an actual engine yet - so yes, it could still fail for technical reasons, but it's not likely.

SpaceX doesn't even know if what they want to do is possible, and they have no idea what it will weigh if it is.  Their cost projections are just spitballing at this point.

A while back, Skylon was estimated to cost as little as $2M per flight for very high flight rates, but that number isn't used to make a business case and you don't hear about it much (it's still in the FAQ, but who reads those?).

It's already operating on razor-thin technical margins to get anything to LEO at all (i.e. there's a pretty big performance difference between pure equatorial and 28 degrees).

Not so much, actually.  Last I heard, as I recall, they were using quite reasonable-sounding compound mass margins, and by my calculations the engine performance margin is surprisingly large for an SSTO - the vacuum Isp on the Skylon C1 is 459 seconds and would have to drop to somewhere in the vicinity of 406 seconds to eliminate the payload.  Then there are the excess hydrogen burners (ie: ramjets), which are (according to Hempsell) modelled "very conservatively" and constitute a "hidden margin"...  probably less important now with the more efficient SABRE 4 engine cycle...

The performance differences between inclinations are simply a function of the large dry mass fraction to orbit.  The Shuttle exhibited the same phenomenon, and a properly-protected Falcon 9 upper stage will too, to some degree.  It says nothing about the margins used in the calculation of those numbers.

[QuantumG]

There's a Skylon thread...

[93143]

I don't expect this to take over the thread.  If I did, I would probably not have posted it, since I don't have the time for another punch-up with Robotbeat...

You may have a point, though...

[Robotbeat]

I don't expect this to take over the thread.  If I did, I would probably not have posted it, since I don't have the time for another punch-up with Robotbeat...

You may have a point, though...

Single-stage vehicles tend to have to use a lot of "tricks" to get into orbit reusably. Skylon does have lots of such tricks. 2-stage vehicles don't need to use as many tricks to get into orbit reusably, thus their development costs are much more likely to be lower. Lower dev costs means a lower flight rate is needed to get a reasonable return on investment, which makes two-stage reusable vehicles more realistic (IMO). Thus, it's not the "end-all, be-all" of RLVs when making comparisons with lunar propellant. That was my point there, and it seems pretty reasonable (and you may well agree with it).

Skylon may be superior in the end (argument is that there are no staging events thus operations costs can be minimized compared to a two-stager), and I wish them the best of luck.

[93143]

You do have a point there; SpaceX spent well over an order of magnitude less developing Falcon 9 than REL expects to spend developing Skylon.  I can't see SpaceX sinking $15B into F9R regardless of how difficult it turns out to be (or how small the payload ends up)...

Hopefully the flight rate will get high enough that even $15B is rapidly amortized and becomes irrelevant - that $2M/flight estimate for Skylon was a fully-commercial price with dev costs accounted for.  It may be an old number...

[Warren Platts]

I don't expect this to take over the thread.  If I did, I would probably not have posted it, since I don't have the time for another punch-up with Robotbeat...

You may have a point, though...

Single-stage vehicles tend to have to use a lot of "tricks" to get into orbit reusably. Skylon does have lots of such tricks. 2-stage vehicles don't need to use as many tricks to get into orbit reusably, thus their development costs are much more likely to be lower. Lower dev costs means a lower flight rate is needed to get a reasonable return on investment, which makes two-stage reusable vehicles more realistic (IMO). Thus, it's not the "end-all, be-all" of RLVs when making comparisons with lunar propellant. That was my point there, and it seems pretty reasonable (and you may well agree with it).

Skylon may be superior in the end (argument is that there are no staging events thus operations costs can be minimized compared to a two-stager), and I wish them the best of luck.

Bottom line: to beat Lunar propellant, cost to orbit has to get down to cost of Supersonic air transport. Ain't gonna happen....