Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[Martin FL]

So a modified Centaur on a Falcon Heavy?

Interesting.

No. Stern made clear at the press conference that the Falcon Heavy was simply their notional vehicle and not something they had selected. They have no baselined launch vehicle. Of course, I'm sure that nobody will listen to that statement.

Probably not, apart from the readers as it's clearly stated in the article on the front of the site.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/12/golden-spike-phase-a-commercial-lunar-landing-missions/
"As far as the vehicles that will be used to transport paying crewmembers to the Moon, the company has not yet selected a rocket of preference."

[simonbp]

So a modified Centaur on a Falcon Heavy?

Interesting.

No. Stern made clear at the press conference that the Falcon Heavy was simply their notional vehicle and not something they had selected. They have no baselined launch vehicle. Of course, I'm sure that nobody will listen to that statement.

By which you mean that Centaur will be considered part of the payload, and any vehicle that could launch a Centaur+Lander/Dragon stack to LEO would be possible? That's the impression I got from Stern's comparison to the Star 48 used on New Horizons.

Regardless, a Centaur on top of a Falcon would be tricky from a support perspective...

[Alpha Control]

A sampling of some of the press coverage today:

Washington Post 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/golden-spike-space-tourism-company-to-the-moon/2012/12/06/52eedcc8-3fc3-11e2-ae43-cf491b837f7b_story.html?hpid=z3

BBC News
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20635597

Associated Press (via WTOP News)
http://www.wtop.com/884/3146217/To-the-moon

[QuantumG]

There's a bunch of others errors in this paper relating to the Dragon. It seems they've gotten no better information out of SpaceX than us amateurs. I think Golden Spike needs to go pay SpaceX for some mission analysis. That's the only way they'll get real numbers on the Falcon Heavy / Dragon capability.

[Chris Bergin]

I think it is fair to say that all of the press questions were skeptical.

That's their job. It's not a tweet-up. Doesn't mean a jot how many people were there, it's the age of the internet and every single major publication has a story on this today. Print media is dead.

Print media will never die. People will always want something physical.

The flip side is a lot of the "it's published everywhere" is because a lot of sites simply buy the AP feed. So Seth's article will be in 100 places. However, it has gained a lot of media regardless. BBC to NBC for original content - more than I expected, to be honest.

The funding question is the biggy. This needs to avoid becoming B612 (annoucement and very little afterwards). Time will tell.

[Lurker Steve]

I just don't see how this can happen in these time frames.

The same group of companies that they plan on using for vehicles (SpaceX, Boeing / Sierra Nevada), will barely be able to service the ISS by 2017, and that's only if NASA throws a whole bunch more funding their way. How are these same vehicles going to the moon just a few years later

[mrmandias]

The "national prestige" portion confuses me.  How does hiring someone to provide your country with a service gain you "national prestige"?

On an individual level, most 'prestige' isn't displays of how much you can accomplish, but how much you can spend.

Perhaps that's true on a national level too.

Costly signalling.

The cost is part of the signal.

[pippin]

They are dropping about every name there is in the Spaceflight phone-book.

Call me negative but this sounds like one big vesting pitch to me without anything substantially behind it, yet. Compared to that Stratolaunch looks like a done deal.

[rcoppola]

So...

No funding announced.
Launch vehicles are notional
Sent out RFPs for Landers & Surface Suits


This all feels like another plan for the plan.

Too bad...At least they're trying to get something started I suppose.
And I certainly hope someone shows up with a large infusion of capital to get things going.

[mrmandias]

Question time. Could be tasty.

AP open with a question about costs/funding. "Still be in the read after numerous flights. How does this work? Who would give you money for this or take you seriously." Ouch.

Alan: We've been over this careful. We're not going to tell you what our costs are. We expect media revenue that of the Olympics for this. Naming rights on the hardware. Merchandising. This can be a money making business. Did a market study. 15-25 nations interested out there.

For context, NBC paid $2 billion for the Olympics.  Though I have a hard time seeing how the media rights could cost more than the ticket price of putting two guys and a camera on the moon, which is notionally only $1.5 billion.  Maybe the argument is that for the media rights, you get access to multiple trip rights, but in reality the first trip is going to be far more valuable than any subsequent ones and if sovereign nations are financing a trip, they are going to want to control the media for it themselves.  Still, probably a pretty valuable asset, though a wasting one.

Big sport stadium naming rights are usually in the 5-7 million range per year (see here: http://espn.go.com/sportsbusiness/s/stadiumnames.html). 

A typical Hollywood hit (one that makes north of $100 million in ticket sales), will make around $50 to $200 million in merchandising.

Every little bit helps, but finding the sovereign customers is still what its all about.

*All these figures are just me googling around and finding reputable-seeming news articles, they aren't gospel.

[Chris Bergin]

I took some photos. I won't bother posting them.

What if we all say pretty please?

[robertross]

That was a wonderful article Chris. Great job!

Very interesting proposal. I do wish them all the best to have their goals reached, must critically within budget.

The times we live in...

[robertross]

I took some photos. I won't bother posting them.

What if we all say pretty please?

(and in my 'puss-n-boots' teary-eyed look) 

[Robert Thompson]

how many people were there

I'd like to hear what proportion of seats were occupied.

[spectre9]

My initial reaction isn't a good one.

"Show meeeeeee the money" I was thinking the whole time reading through while slowly realising there is none.

It's only slightly more realistic than Mars One.

Big disappointment even with the flashy press materials.

This does nothing to advance space and infact makes space look bad.

Too much dreaming not enough funding.

Start with the money and no plan and I'll be more excited to be honest.

[Robert Thompson]

a pretty valuable asset, though a wasting one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_theory#Costly_signalling_in_hunting
"Fortunately, the CST can bring resolution to some of the gaps that the delayed reciprocity hypothesis cannot fill (Sosis 2000; Smith and Bliege Bird 2000). Hawkes (1991, 1993) has suggested that men target large game and publicly share meat in order to draw social attention or to "show-off". This favorable attention can improve a hunter’s reputation by providing information about his phenotypic quality. High quality signallers are more successful in acquiring mates and allies. Thus, CST is helpful in unravelling an array of human evolutionary puzzles because it can explain wasteful and altruistic behavior."

If you listen carefully, there is a tacit/latent ethical premium that bleeding edge gadget people get to exert over ordinary consumers, by essentially funding development of what becomes commonplace. You could say that an Apple zombie is altruistic on a certain level because the development/turnaround time for the the next tier of consumer to get the same service is pretty brief. Customers who would purchase this experience will get the certain status of having "accomplished" what superpowers cannot, will get the unassailable credence of having gained a spiritual/nonsecular perspective superior to those who have merely experienced the current (earth) Overview Effect, and being as the development/turnaround times are so long, will gain the patent and exchangeable ethical premium of funding a space age and expanding the economic sphere. This waste to the many is a ticket to counsel behind closed doors and a glory to the inner circle of constituents and economic partners who can reflect the accomplishment. Oh yeah and science. And freedom.

Edit: Or, at least, a ticket to the table...

[rcoppola]

My initial reaction isn't a good one.

"Show meeeeeee the money" I was thinking the whole time reading through while slowly realising there is none.

It's only slightly more realistic than Mars One.

Big disappointment even with the flashy press materials.

This does nothing to advance space and infact makes space look bad.

Too much dreaming not enough funding.

Start with the money and no plan and I'll be more excited to be honest.

I would have been more impressed with 2 Industry veterans standing next to 6 investors, then 10 industry veterans standing next to a slide of a market study.

[Robotbeat]

My initial reaction isn't a good one.

"Show meeeeeee the money" I was thinking the whole time reading through while slowly realising there is none.

It's only slightly more realistic than Mars One.

Big disappointment even with the flashy press materials.

This does nothing to advance space and infact makes space look bad.

Too much dreaming not enough funding.

Start with the money and no plan and I'll be more excited to be honest.

Good post.

[Robert Thompson]

24 seats, and I'd guess that 21 of them were occupied, and there were probably another 10-15 people standing.

The kind of numbers I was hoping. Thank you.

[spectre9]

Thanks guys. I was not sure where I was going with that but now I am.

You create products to take advantage of markets.

As in the money is there willing and ready at a certain price point.

Currently nobody wants a trip to the moon so why try and sell one?