Private Moon Landing in the works?

[Nelson Bridwell]

If a commercial space firm wants to generate real revenue from space they should find a way to expeditiously retrieve useful rocks and sample from Mars for the scientific community.

How many billions would the proposed NASA+ESA sample return missions have cost?

The estimated total cost of the Mars Sample Return missions was $9.6B.

Come up with a way to pull this off for $1B, and offer it to NASA+ESA for $5B.  A profit of $4B would not be too shabby...

Likewise, although NASA already has several hundred kilograms of Moon rocks from a half-dozen near-side equatorial locations, there are quite a few researchers who would be able to obtain multi-million dollar grants to pay for access to samples near the poles or from the far side.

But none of that would require a manned spacecraft...
   

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/squyres-mars-communications-relay-orbiter-would-pass-decadal-survey-test-europa-also-a-possibility

[simonbp]

Getting somewhat back on topic, lunar samples are just as valuable, if they come from the right locations, and are collected in the correct manner.

From orbital imagery, we can figure out the relative age relationship between events on the Moon. However, to get absolute dates, you have to have an actual sample on hand in a lab able to do radioactive dating (often Pb-Pb or Pb-U, as they have the longest half-lives). There are a number of high priority sites that were identified during Constellation, and most have since had LROC high-resolution mapping, if not a stereo pair sufficient to build a DEM.

Collecting samples does not require a manned spacecraft, but it comes very close. If your sample return is anything beyond a Luna-style handful of random regolith, you need a proper sample collection rover, something at least of the complexity of the MERs, but also able to survive lunar night. Plus, you also need a spacecraft to bring the samples back. If you want to duplicate the J-mission Apollo return (~100 kg over a wide area), then it's closer to an MSL-class rover plus a very large return vehicle. In the end, that will cost almost almost as much as just sending people.

[Chris Bergin]

So everyone's aware, tomorrow we will open a new thread for the event. No word on a webcast at this time.

[Chris Bergin]

Here's the pre-event presser.

There's no webcast and the call in line "only holds 50 people", so I'm not posting that number given it's for the media.

MEDIA ADVISORY

GOLDEN SPIKE COMPANY ANNOUNCEMENT ON COMMERCIAL HUMAN LUNAR EXPLORATION

Thursday, December 6, 2012

WHO: Golden Spike Company

WHAT: The Golden Spike Company (GSC), a U.S.-based commercial space company led by former NASA Executives, invites you to attend a game-changing announcement about the future of commercial human space travel to the Moon. President and CEO Dr. Alan Stern and Chairman of the Board Gerry Griffin will unveil GSC – the first company planning to offer routine exploration expeditions to the surface of the Moon by the end of the decade. The company will provide regular and reliable expeditions at prices that are a fraction of any lunar program ever conceived until now. There will be a media conference, which will be followed by a question and answer period.

WHEN: 2:00 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. (EST)

Thursday, December 6, 2012

 WHERE: The National Press Club

Bloomberg Room

529 14th Street, NW, 13th Floor

Washington, DC, 20045

[Ben the Space Brit]

President and CEO Dr. Alan Stern and Chairman of the Board Gerry Griffin will unveil GSC – the first company planning to offer routine exploration expeditions to the surface of the Moon by the end of the decade.

By the end of the decade?!? Oh, boy! I can't wait to hear how they plan to do that!

[go4mars]

It's the fraction of cost part that grabs my eye.  Hopefully they don't mean 11/12.  Or 15/3. 

[Mongo62]

This is interesting.  Golden Spike will not be directly involved in lunar resource extraction themselves, but instead will be providing transport services for other people who wish to go to the Moon.  The "fraction of the cost" bit suggests that they will be heavily relying on SpaceX, but I don't know about the Lunar lander.

[Comga]

"... planning to offer routine exploration expeditions to the surface of the Moon ..."

That sounds like a description of their product.
Not tourism, not PGMs, not water
There can only be a few customers who could pay adequately for that.
My guesses were incorrect.
We shall see tomorrow.

[Robotbeat]

President and CEO Dr. Alan Stern and Chairman of the Board Gerry Griffin will unveil GSC – the first company planning to offer routine exploration expeditions to the surface of the Moon by the end of the decade.

By the end of the decade?!? Oh, boy! I can't wait to hear how they plan to do that!

It actually wouldn't be that hard. Just need a lander. Everything else is relatively simple or not especially time-consuming.

Put the lander in LLO with Falcon Heavy (with hypergolic kick stage).

Launch Dragon (with hypergolic kick stage) on Falcon 9, launch Falcon Heavy with extended upper stage as a departure stage, rendezvous and do the TLI burn.

It might actually work out a little better to rendezvous at EML1/2 and use just 2 Falcon Heavy launches (need a little better performing lander, but should still be doable).

[HMXHMX]

President and CEO Dr. Alan Stern and Chairman of the Board Gerry Griffin will unveil GSC – the first company planning to offer routine exploration expeditions to the surface of the Moon by the end of the decade.

By the end of the decade?!? Oh, boy! I can't wait to hear how they plan to do that!

It actually wouldn't be that hard. Just need a lander. Everything else is relatively simple or not especially time-consuming.

Put the lander in LLO with Falcon Heavy (with hypergolic kick stage).

Launch Dragon (with hypergolic kick stage) on Falcon 9, launch Falcon Heavy with extended upper stage as a departure stage, rendezvous and do the TLI burn.

It might actually work out a little better to rendezvous at EML1/2 and use just 2 Falcon Heavy launches (need a little better performing lander, but should still be doable).

They need more than just a lander.  The Dragon will require a new service module to burn into LLO and burn back to earth return at mission end.  They will also likely need a new transfer stage for the lander, since at four-place, it is going to be too heavy for a FH to boost intact to LLO (or so I surmise).

My predictions:

I think the mission is two FHs, one carrying a new (or possibly adapted Centaur IVF) transfer stage plus new lander and one carrying the Dragon and SM, both to rendezvous in LLO, and then a reprise of Apollo from there. Assuming a storable lander, it can be parked in LLO for some time.   So if they wish, they can build an inventory of landers in anticipation of their annual mission model.  Also assuming new everything for each mission (i.e., Dragons to go on display post-flight in the home countries of sponsor nations), I'd estimate the 2012 dollar cost to be $250M for the launches, and perhaps $150-200M for the expendable elements (Dragon, SM, transfer stage and lander).  I'd bet SpaceX gets the lion's share of the feast for new element fabrication, obviously.

[Bill White]

During the California Gold Rush, those who owned San Francisco based dry goods stores (and saloons!) had a far more secure revenue stream than those who actually went into the mountains and looked for gold.

Same was true for those who outfitted wagon trains in St. Louis or Kansas City.

Owning an EML Gateway and selling transportation and logistics to those who want to access the Moon is probably a better business model than actually trying to mine PGM or He3 directly.

[Danderman]

The larger issue is not their architecture, nor the paint job on their lunar lander, but rather their strategy.

Assuming they have support from billionaires, is their strategy simply to execute a mission from existing customers, or is their mandate to use seed funding from investors to go out and find the money to execute a mission?

In other words are they still facing market and investor risks, or are they facing both of those AND the technical and programmatic risks?

[ugordan]

I think the mission is two FHs, one carrying a new (or possibly adapted Centaur IVF) transfer stage plus new lander and one carrying the Dragon and SM, both to rendezvous in LLO, and then a reprise of Apollo from there.

Would a Centaur really be feasible at a SpaceX pad given how they have no LH2 infrastructure?

[Robert Thompson]

"Routine". Cold War provided a breakneck budget power source for 2 landings per year. Space Adventures provided a sustainable value for 7 ISS visits / 8 years (.875 trips per year). imho 1 (private/small nation) every three years sounds like a reasonable, sustainable, hope. 1 Zond / 2 years perhaps. imho

[HMXHMX]

I think the mission is two FHs, one carrying a new (or possibly adapted Centaur IVF) transfer stage plus new lander and one carrying the Dragon and SM, both to rendezvous in LLO, and then a reprise of Apollo from there.

Would a Centaur really be feasible at a SpaceX pad given how they have no LH2 infrastructure?

A few years ago they didn't have any LOX infrastructure, ether.  Maybe a  year to install...

Alternatively, GS could launch an Atlas with a Centaur that acts as a transfer stage, but that would be very expensive contrasted with using an FH, at least double the price.

[mrmandias]

It's the fraction of cost part that grabs my eye.  Hopefully they don't mean 11/12.  Or 15/3. 

It means they expect heavy government subsidies. 

[Robotbeat]

President and CEO Dr. Alan Stern and Chairman of the Board Gerry Griffin will unveil GSC – the first company planning to offer routine exploration expeditions to the surface of the Moon by the end of the decade.

By the end of the decade?!? Oh, boy! I can't wait to hear how they plan to do that!

It actually wouldn't be that hard. Just need a lander. Everything else is relatively simple or not especially time-consuming.

Put the lander in LLO with Falcon Heavy (with hypergolic kick stage).

Launch Dragon (with hypergolic kick stage) on Falcon 9, launch Falcon Heavy with extended upper stage as a departure stage, rendezvous and do the TLI burn.

It might actually work out a little better to rendezvous at EML1/2 and use just 2 Falcon Heavy launches (need a little better performing lander, but should still be doable).

They need more than just a lander.  The Dragon will require a new service module to burn into LLO and burn back to earth return at mission end.  They will also likely need a new transfer stage for the lander, since at four-place, it is going to be too heavy for a FH to boost intact to LLO (or so I surmise).

My predictions:

I think the mission is two FHs, one carrying a new (or possibly adapted Centaur IVF) transfer stage plus new lander and one carrying the Dragon and SM, both to rendezvous in LLO, and then a reprise of Apollo from there. Assuming a storable lander, it can be parked in LLO for some time.   So if they wish, they can build an inventory of landers in anticipation of their annual mission model.  Also assuming new everything for each mission (i.e., Dragons to go on display post-flight in the home countries of sponsor nations), I'd estimate the 2012 dollar cost to be $250M for the launches, and perhaps $150-200M for the expendable elements (Dragon, SM, transfer stage and lander).  I'd bet SpaceX gets the lion's share of the feast for new element fabrication, obviously.

Oh, yes, definitely a new service module. That's essentially what I meant by "hypergolic kick stage," even if I didn't say it explicitly.

I just didn't think it would be as complicated as a lander, not likely to be the pacing item for a 2020 mission.

[Robotbeat]

President and CEO Dr. Alan Stern and Chairman of the Board Gerry Griffin will unveil GSC – the first company planning to offer routine exploration expeditions to the surface of the Moon by the end of the decade.

By the end of the decade?!? Oh, boy! I can't wait to hear how they plan to do that!

It actually wouldn't be that hard. Just need a lander. Everything else is relatively simple or not especially time-consuming.

Put the lander in LLO with Falcon Heavy (with hypergolic kick stage).

Launch Dragon (with hypergolic kick stage) on Falcon 9, launch Falcon Heavy with extended upper stage as a departure stage, rendezvous and do the TLI burn.

It might actually work out a little better to rendezvous at EML1/2 and use just 2 Falcon Heavy launches (need a little better performing lander, but should still be doable).

They need more than just a lander.  The Dragon will require a new service module to burn into LLO and burn back to earth return at mission end.  They will also likely need a new transfer stage for the lander, since at four-place, it is going to be too heavy for a FH to boost intact to LLO (or so I surmise).

My predictions:

I think the mission is two FHs, one carrying a new (or possibly adapted Centaur IVF) transfer stage plus new lander and one carrying the Dragon and SM, both to rendezvous in LLO, and then a reprise of Apollo from there. Assuming a storable lander, it can be parked in LLO for some time.   So if they wish, they can build an inventory of landers in anticipation of their annual mission model.  Also assuming new everything for each mission (i.e., Dragons to go on display post-flight in the home countries of sponsor nations), I'd estimate the 2012 dollar cost to be $250M for the launches, and perhaps $150-200M for the expendable elements (Dragon, SM, transfer stage and lander).  I'd bet SpaceX gets the lion's share of the feast for new element fabrication, obviously.

Single stage lander may actually be simpler/cheaper, plus could be reused in the future. Hypergolic refueling is done relatively commonly on ISS (though probably you'd do it differently than Russia does, to save mass). They do intend to do several missions and even a base, and this is an obvious way to make that a little more realistic, since you wouldn't need a new lander every time.

And a single stage lander has lower dry mass, other things being equal (dry mass is roughly proportional to fabrication costs). May even lower development costs.

[HMXHMX]

President and CEO Dr. Alan Stern and Chairman of the Board Gerry Griffin will unveil GSC – the first company planning to offer routine exploration expeditions to the surface of the Moon by the end of the decade.

By the end of the decade?!? Oh, boy! I can't wait to hear how they plan to do that!

It actually wouldn't be that hard. Just need a lander. Everything else is relatively simple or not especially time-consuming.

Put the lander in LLO with Falcon Heavy (with hypergolic kick stage).

Launch Dragon (with hypergolic kick stage) on Falcon 9, launch Falcon Heavy with extended upper stage as a departure stage, rendezvous and do the TLI burn.

It might actually work out a little better to rendezvous at EML1/2 and use just 2 Falcon Heavy launches (need a little better performing lander, but should still be doable).

They need more than just a lander.  The Dragon will require a new service module to burn into LLO and burn back to earth return at mission end.  They will also likely need a new transfer stage for the lander, since at four-place, it is going to be too heavy for a FH to boost intact to LLO (or so I surmise).

My predictions:

I think the mission is two FHs, one carrying a new (or possibly adapted Centaur IVF) transfer stage plus new lander and one carrying the Dragon and SM, both to rendezvous in LLO, and then a reprise of Apollo from there. Assuming a storable lander, it can be parked in LLO for some time.   So if they wish, they can build an inventory of landers in anticipation of their annual mission model.  Also assuming new everything for each mission (i.e., Dragons to go on display post-flight in the home countries of sponsor nations), I'd estimate the 2012 dollar cost to be $250M for the launches, and perhaps $150-200M for the expendable elements (Dragon, SM, transfer stage and lander).  I'd bet SpaceX gets the lion's share of the feast for new element fabrication, obviously.

Single stage lander may actually be simpler/cheaper, plus could be reused in the future. Hypergolic refueling is done relatively commonly on ISS (though probably you'd do it differently than Russia does, to save mass). They do intend to do several missions and even a base, and this is an obvious way to make that a little more realistic, since you wouldn't need a new lander every time.

And a single stage lander has lower dry mass, other things being equal (dry mass is roughly proportional to fabrication costs). May even lower development costs.

I think that is an interesting option for GS to consider.  But an SSTO lunar lander with storables will approach a Mass Ratio of 4, so they have some trades to perform.

[Warren Platts]

I'm thinking if this is going to more than a one-off stunt that doesn't go the way of Apollo, they're going to have to go with a reusable lander. At a billion USD a pop, they can't afford to be throwing those things away. That means they'll need an SSTO and refueling. Which also means they're going to need maximum Isp which in turn means LH2/LO2.

I would say go with something along the lines of the Masten Xeus lander in it's reusable form, which can have a 5 mT payload. Now, the Apollo LEM ascender module massed close to 5 mT, but more than half of that was propellant, so they could probably make a 4-man capsule and keep everything under 5 mT.

Then maybe some sort of reusable flying depot composed of 2 Centuar segments that could possibly double as space tug for the Dragon.

Basically, it would be a mini-version of the ULA architecture....


But of course there are many ways to skin this cat: any other ideas?