Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[mmeijeri]

Heh. Some of the ULA DTAL concepts also looked like helicopters. In fact they explicitly mentioned that some operations would benefit from a bit of similarity to helicopter operations.

[spectre9]

The best part of this is it changes the conversation about what sort of lunar architectures are possible. Not that no one thought about this sort of thing before, but it's good publicity for going beyond Apollo and what we used to call the Program of Record.

The minimalistic approach is also a welcome trend to counter-act the big-ificitation that sometimes grips systems engineers (and makes landers too expensive to start actually building).

Will this actually go somewhere? I kind of doubt it.

Going to the moon on medium rockets isn't a new idea.

If it's so cheap and easy why hasn't NASA been back since they had Saturn V?

Going on a heavy lifter is the easy way that's why.

Extra rendezvous complicates the mission. More things can go wrong.

Is anybody going to have enough faith in this to put a big deposit down?

It's the kind of thing that should be getting proven out by government space agencies. In this day and age there is no public will to fund such activities. This sort of plea for private money seems like a desperate attempt to get some sort of investment in the future of space.

I see old people which is indicative of the people that have Apollo nostalgia.
...

It does seem that the most vociferous Moon-firsters are about my father's age...

Over the last couple of years NASA employees have been allowed to use the word "Mars" at public speaking events. The mentality is changing, they know what the people want. I think this could be an acceptance that the president  doesn't want to fund lunar landings and would rather direct NASA to aim for an asteroid as it gets them closer to where Bill, Charlie and Bob want NASA to go.

[mmeijeri]

If it's so cheap and easy why hasn't NASA been back since they had Saturn V?

Going on a heavy lifter is the easy way that's why.

If a heavy lifter is so easy, then why hasn't NASA been back on a heavy lifter? You can't simply wish an HLV into existence.

[Robotbeat]

Heavy lift was the /fastest/ way before you had the decades of rendezvous/docking experience we have. Heavy lift is "easiest," not cheapest. Developing a new, rarely used heavy lift launch vehicle is also an even better way that things can go wrong.

I know EOR and LOR and using medium launch vehicles isn't a new idea, but large stakeholders seem to ignore the possibility. This announcement may do no more than popularize the idea that you don't need a heavy lift rocket to land on the Moon.

[spectre9]

If I'm super rich I don't even want to go to the moon.

I just want to go to orbit. I want to see the same view Ron Garan raves about before I go running off to the lunar surface.

I do think commercial space needs to take it one step at a time.

A cheap and reliable ride to orbit would be good before claiming cheap lunar sorties are possible.

I just don't buy it.

Commercial heavy lift to GEO is another step that's being skipped here.

They might expect it to take 20 years to develop their lander... in which case maybe this could work if they get plenty of investment and don't pay anybody. 

[mmeijeri]

Hmm, on second thought, let's not get into another HLV debate. Or let's do it in another thread if we must.

[docmordrid]

Heh. Some of the ULA DTAL concepts also looked like helicopters. In fact they explicitly mentioned that some operations would benefit from a bit of similarity to helicopter operations.

Amd when I think of lunar vehicle with helicopter-like ops my minds eye defaults to an Eagle Transporter, or some variant thereof.

[Wyvern]

Do we have any indication if GS will allow small prospecting missions and other Apollo scale scientific studies?

[Nathan]

The great thing about this start-up is that Golden Spike don't actually need to find all the money needed, at least not initially. Their customers are the ones that need to find the money. Then one golden spike has a paying customer it can obtain the finance.
Having a strong team in this scenario is the main thing needed.

The question we need to be asking is: how are the customers going to obtain the funding needed? If it is government money then that is easy. A first to return could perhaps pay in part with media rights( though no where ner Olympic scale).
Pay per view Internet subscriptions to the missions may provide some finance.

[Ben the Space Brit]

To me, there is actually more unexpected logic to the spread of talent and skills in the GS board that might initially be expected.  The issue, you see, isn't the technical side of the mission.  It doesn't matter if the technical problems are solved if there is no funding.

The problem is that there is an all-pervasive meme that flying humans to the  Moon must be complex, expensive and require a Saturn-V-class launcher.  Here on this forum, it has been repeatedly demonstrated that this  is not automatically true.  However, in the wider world this isn't widely known.  Golden Spike's challenge, therefore is to convince potential investors and customers that going to the Moon is:

a) Affordable (on the scale of space missions);

b) Achievable in a reasonable time-frame;

c) Free of 'unknown unknowns' technical risks.

If they can convince people that it is not shovelling cash into a rat hole then, and only then, will investments and customers appear.  This is, of course, a marketing exercise first and foremost.

So, Golden Spike is in the unusual situation of having to market the product in order to create sufficient interest to justify building the product.  This is not without precedent in the technology sector - many of today's common consumer electronics only existed because believers were able to persuade investors that they could actually be built, would work and that people would actually be able to afford them.

[john smith 19]

The great thing about this start-up is that Golden Spike don't actually need to find all the money needed, at least not initially. Their customers are the ones that need to find the money. Then once golden spike has a paying customer it can obtain the finance.
Having a strong team in this scenario is the main thing needed.

Interesting point about the team.

I note Ester Dyson is on the Board. Ester's background is in tech newsletters and spotting emerging trends. She's had a long term interest in going to space (hence the cosmonaut training) but (for this venture) she's also been in trips on Bathyspheres so she brings an awareness of what a paying customer wants out of the experience.

As for all the current and ex- NASA people any VC's out there looking  to fund space startups like this will have 1 word on their mind.

                                       Kistler.

As for the the idea NASA would ever use this I think the TPIS is calling it correctly.

[Rocket Science]

Maybe if Nation X can brand it as 'This is a Joint Xian/American Expedition' and finesse away the lack of Xian technical involvement then it will do the trick.

There was one question near the end of the press conference from somebody who I think said he was from "Astro." He asked if they would be considering any partnerships with large non-American aerospace firms. Stern was pretty clear that they weren't considering that.

That strikes me as a big problem. No sovereign nation wants to take money that they would spend either for science or technology development and send it out of the country. They want to spend it inside their own country, developing their own capabilities. If they want a Moon program and realize that they cannot afford their own Moon program, then they will spend the money on something else inside their own borders before they will give it to some American companies. Bigelow has essentially the same flaw in their business model.

Stern used the analogy of foreign countries buying Boeing aircraft instead of building their own. But that is not comparable, because when they buy Boeing aircraft, they use them for commercial (or at least semi-commercial, or military) purposes. Science and technology development is something that countries want to do for their own economic and technological development.

So the fact that they are not considering partnering with Italy, or Russia, to enable these countries to spend some or most of the money inside their own borders, seems like an oversight.

It is interesting that the example of Boeing came up as an example. Large aircraft manufactures will subcontract certain components or airframe sections as to secure sales to foreign national airlines...

[PeterAlt]

Where do I even start on this?

A lot of points to be made (in very random order):

- Very interesting cast of characters! Alan Stern, Mike Griffin, and Newt Gingrich.

- Alan Stern was working with Blue Origin. I wonder if his work there will be folded somehow into this effort, or if he will continue working separately with them (even though the development of their biconical capsule is no longer being funded through NASA).

- Alan Stern and Mike Griffin had a falling out a few years back when Griffin was then NASA Administrator and Stern was head of NASA's Space Sciences directorate. Stern was vocally critical of Griffin's management and handling of program budgets throughout the agency. Griffin responded to the criticism by forcing Stern to be removed from his directorate position. Unless the two have been hanging out at bars lately and became friends, I don't see how the two can wipe away all that bad blood and pretend everything's hokey dokey, and suddenly trust each other! Also, Stern is now Griffin's boss, while it was the other way around at NASA.

- If this company focuses on their lunar lander, they could quite possibly sign NASA up as a customer. If there's an Orion with a crew in lunar orbit and there's also a lunar lander there by this company (and the two have compatible docking systems), it would be foolish for NASA not to take advantage of this situation and land! Of course, the usual formalities would be at play. NASA would need to solicit for commercial lunar landing taxi services for Orion crews already in lunar orbit. This company would most likely get the contract, since no other company would most likely have developed, launched, and tested such a system. Or NASA could outright attach one to an Orion on an SLS stack.

[mmeijeri]

- Very interesting cast of characters! Alan Stern, Mike Griffin, and Newt Gingrich.

Gerry Griffin, not Mike Griffin.

[PeterAlt]

- Very interesting cast of characters! Alan Stern, Mike Griffin, and Newt Gingrich.

Gerry Griffin, not Mike Griffin.

Oops, my bad!

Strike my first two points!

[Chris Bergin]

Except I do think GS has thought about this and chose to be 100% American. ITAR?

Alan Stern told me (spoke to him well before the announcement on the phone) they are ITAR compliant. It's in the article.

"also confirmed they will be ITAR compliant and will work within the regulatory regime." - question was on ITAR and bodies like ASAP on LOC etc.

[Garrett]

That strikes me as a big problem. No sovereign nation wants to take money that they would spend either for science or technology development and send it out of the country. They want to spend it inside their own country, developing their own capabilities. If they want a Moon program and realize that they cannot afford their own Moon program, then they will spend the money on something else inside their own borders before they will give it to some American companies. Bigelow has essentially the same flaw in their business model.

I understand what you're getting at, but don't forget that the idea is to give sovereigns the capability to send their own astronauts and science experiments to the Moon. That's not much different to, say, ESA science experiments hitching a ride on a NASA planetary probe/lander. Example: ChemCam and SAM on Curiosity are both joint US/France experiments.

[Jim]

Much as I'd love to believe this, as we get down the road I suspect it would require an en masse waiver of procurement regs and procedures, especially those related to redundancy and safety. Basically, many of the same regs that have hamstrung NASA's own manned program.

Huh? Those  procurement regs and procedures, especially those related to redundancy and safety are not applicable to GS.  This is commercial, they set their own standards.  The only gov't agency that would be involved is the FAA.

[Jim]

"also confirmed they will be ITAR compliant and will work within the regulatory regime." - question was on ITAR and bodies like ASAP on LOC etc.

ASAP would not be applicable to this since GS is not NASA.  The FAA would be the agency that they interface with and that is why George Nield was in the audience (he is in Blackstar's photos)

[Jim]

It's an interesting concept.  Not too complex.

But they really aren't taking advantage of the Falcon Heavy.  The individual ticket prices would be considerably less if larger numbers of people could travel at once.  Also, the costs would be a fair amount lower if some of the in-space hardware would be reusable.

But as an intermediate step, selling trips to the Moon to countries, it might give them the capital to develop the more cost-effective architecture.

This is the expedition phase, like Byrd flying to the South Pole and not DC-10's doing sightseeing flights.