Shackleton Energy Company Launches Plan for First Lunar Mining Operation

[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.