Private Moon Landing in the works?

[DLR]

XEUS is only a technology testbed. I suppose any space-rated version would carry the cargo in front of the Centaur, not on top, for easy access to the surface.

[apace]

XEUS is only a technology testbed. I suppose any space-rated version would carry the cargo in front of the Centaur, not on top, for easy access to the surface.

Yes, there's some footage on the spacevidcast website about this where the SEV is mounted in front of the centaur stage.

[Rocket Science]

Outside of the space community the response would more than likely be this...

http://www.socialcritic.net/first-landing-on-the-moon/

[Ben the Space Brit]

Outside of the space community the response would more than likely be this...

http://www.socialcritic.net/first-landing-on-the-moon/

I don't know.  The response, in the media at least, to the first operational flights of Dragon don't seem to mesh with that cynicism.

What I suspect will happen is that, with the first achievement of every milestone, there will be a little spike of interest: "Oh, a private company is doing that instead of NASA? Cool!" It'll never be an Apple-style customer-cult but it will make people nod and make a little note in their 'the world is shaped like this' mental index cards.  It certainly won't change their lives but, if asked, most will be able to say: "Yeah, there's that bunch of guys who are trying to go to the Moon, aren't there? They're already doing [$last_milestone]! Whodathunkit?"

Maybe it will even make the rich and ambitious wonder if there is money to be made from these new capabilities and worlds.

The real issue, in terms of public response, is that it will put pressure on NASA to be seen to be achieving something in the field of HSF.  As unfair as it would be, people would point to a future Golden Spike that is achieving stuff and ask why NASA isn't doing it too.  Politicians might even start asking why NASA is spending a google bucks to build its own rockets when an alternative is available off-the-shelf (even if that isn't strictly true).

[StephenB]

It seems to me that a private company gets a bit of a pass on criticism by some that money spend on spaceflight could be better spent elsewhere, compared to NASA. A little unfair for NASA, I think.

[StephenB]

Jeff Foust (New Space Journal): What to look for in today’s Golden Spike announcement.

[Chris Bergin]

Jeff's the good sort.

[JohnFornaro]

The key portion of that essay (in my opinion):

Pragmatism means exchanging more perfect solutions for more practical ones by using existing systems, modified to the least extent practical, to accelerate the pace of exploration.

We therefore urge an approach that obtains near-term results — i.e., human exploration beyond LEO — as quickly and as pragmatically as possible. ...

Specifically, what does this course imply? It means two things:

Establishing a commercial crew capability to LEO and the international space station as rapidly as possible...

Using the savings accrued for ... developing orbital refueling for and then human-rating one or more existing rockets to carry out simple exploration missions - such as lunar/near-Earth object flybys and orbiters - using the Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle or other crewed spacecraft that can be ready by mid-decade.

So considering the drive to keep development and running costs down, basically Falcon Heavy and Dragon, with the Dragon mated to a lunar SSTO-capable "service module", and also utilizing propellant depots.

Alan Stern and Gerry Griffin are saying exactly what I'm saying about a pragmatic approach.  The downside is that other programs, like planetary science, may need to take a temporary back seat, so that this infrastructure can be built with some public funds.  We need to get on creating a new cis-lunar economy.

[Rocket Science]

Outside of the space community the response would more than likely be this...

http://www.socialcritic.net/first-landing-on-the-moon/

I don't know.  The response, in the media at least, to the first operational flights of Dragon don't seem to mesh with that cynicism.

What I suspect will happen is that, with the first achievement of every milestone, there will be a little spike of interest: "Oh, a private company is doing that instead of NASA? Cool!" It'll never be an Apple-style customer-cult but it will make people nod and make a little note in their 'the world is shaped like this' mental index cards.  It certainly won't change their lives but, if asked, most will be able to say: "Yeah, there's that bunch of guys who are trying to go to the Moon, aren't there? They're already doing [$last_milestone]! Whodathunkit?"

Maybe it will even make the rich and ambitious wonder if there is money to be made from these new capabilities and worlds.

The real issue, in terms of public response, is that it will put pressure on NASA to be seen to be achieving something in the field of HSF.  As unfair as it would be, people would point to a future Golden Spike that is achieving stuff and ask why NASA isn't doing it too.  Politicians might even start asking why NASA is spending a google bucks to build its own rockets when an alternative is available off-the-shelf (even if that isn't strictly true).

We’ll find out soon enough Ben. The biggest news I heard today was that Justin Bieber was shut out of a Grammy nomination on this side of the pond. Now if he were to go and “Tweet” from the Moon maybe it’ll get some headlines...

[Chris Bergin]

Confirmed there's still an embargo, but they have sent out a presser now. Someone's bound to jump, but one ALWAYS respects an embargo schedule. (Says me, who once jumped after getting the wrong timezone on something I can't remember five years ago )

Our article is less from the presser (apart from some quotes) and more from background phone interviews with GS (paraphrased as content), so we're good even if someone does jump.

[BrightLight]

we manly men are patiently waiting with our plaid shirts and cigars, no churlish, girlish or any other kinds of screams from us! 

[apace]

First videos/pictures from Goldenspike Company:

[Ben the Space Brit]

@ apace,

I don't think that's the lander; it's too small - two-seats at best and no cargo capacity worth talking about.  I think that it's a hopper, a point-to-point suborbital transporter to use instead of a rover.

If it is a lander, then expect GS to stage from LLO with short-term 'excursions' for tourists or technical crews to robot ground stations.

[apace]

@ apace,
If it is a lander, then expect GS to stage from LLO with short-term 'excursions' for tourists or technical crews to robot ground stations.

Had the same idea, but it's from their promotional video... we will see ;-)

[BrightLight]

Without scale, it looks like a parking meter

[Zed_Noir]

@ apace,

I don't think that's the lander; it's too small - two-seats at best and no cargo capacity worth talking about.  I think that it's a hopper, a point-to-point suborbital transporter to use instead of a rover.

If it is a lander, then expect GS to stage from LLO with short-term 'excursions' for tourists or technical crews to robot ground stations.

Might be a precursor mini lander for a HD 3D camera to show the touchdown.

[Dappa]

Those astros are going to need some sunblock!

[Ben the Space Brit]

Without scale, it looks like a parking meter

There is a scale; look at the picture and you can see a single astronaut behind and maybe 10 body lengths away from the vehicle, whatever it is.  You can also see what is definitely a handle on the side of the transparent bubble that suggests some kind of unpressurised hatch.

I'd guess that the bubble is maybe the size as the crew compartment on the old '50s-era Bell-22 helicopter.

[BrightLight]

Without scale, it looks like a parking meter

There is a scale; look at the picture and you can see a single astronaut behind and maybe 10 body lengths away from the vehicle, whatever it is.  You can also see what is definitely a handle on the side of the transparent bubble that suggests some kind of unpressurised hatch.

I'd guess that the bubble is maybe the size as the crew compartment on the old '50s-era Bell-22 helicopter.

I was trying to make a joke...
However, without belaboring this, the image is interesting but without context its hard to understand what that is.
The idea of a simplified - astronaut is the space vehicle - approach is interesting, logical, risky, possibly the lowest cost solution but begs the question - lands on the moon and then what, IMHO other infrastructure is required. I am sure more to follow.

[Owen]

You can also see what is definitely a handle on the side of the transparent bubble that suggests some kind of unpressurised hatch.

Ignoring the pointlessness of dissecting a CG image for technical details, but it looked like a hinge to me when I first noticed  .