Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[Chris Bergin]

Front page of the BBC site. Something NASA's never managed as far as I can remember.

[Chris Bergin]

"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)

Thanks Jim, copy that.

[mrmandias]

Re: Landers, the goal is boots on the surface, and if a lander costs a few billion dollars and a separate launch, I have to ask just what is required for a propulsion system to get a single person in a suit down to the surface and back to LLO?  Apollo 11's landing took an hour for descent, 2.5 hours walking the surface, and 3 hours back to the CM. Current suits can easily support this duration and LLO orbits are under 2 hours, so there are multiple opportunities for rendezvous.  Additional supplies can be pre-dropped far more efficiently than what is required for a manned lander, an airbag landing that is also a habitat with a suit lock comes to mind.  The LM was over 32,000 pounds, so the vast majority of the fuel was required for the lander, not the crew.  It seems like we should consider tent camping before bringing the Winnebago along for the ride.

We need to move past Apollo not less than it. The goal should not be boot on the ground. It needs to be a sustainable lower cost means for crew and cargo to the Lunar surface and crew return with some cargo.

This would be lower cost and sustainable because its lower cost.  If you get this to work, leveraging some cargo capability wouldn't be much added difficulty.

There's no question that what they're proposing is a good idea that will significantly expand our capability, its only whether they can meet their unlikely funding goals.

[Ben the Space Brit]

We need to move past Apollo not less than it. The goal should not be boot on the ground. It needs to be a sustainable lower cost means for crew and cargo to the Lunar surface and crew return with some cargo.

This would be lower cost and sustainable because its lower cost.  If you get this to work, leveraging some cargo capability wouldn't be much added difficulty.

Jim correctly pointed out that this is just 'Phase-A' - the initial 'excursion' phase.  Later phases, which are dependent on up-take of Phase-A will likely have far more capability.

[Hyperion5]

I knew there were skeptics of this, but I think John Pike set a new standard in criticizing the plans: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/06/15731458-golden-spike-space-venture-wants-to-fly-you-to-the-moon-for-14-billion?lite

"But John Pike, a longtime expert on space policy who heads GlobalSecurity.org, said he was "deeply skeptical" about Golden Spike's business plan. "If you could do it this cheap, somebody would have already done it," he told me.

Even if a lunar exploration program could be created for $8 billion, Pike said he didn't think the moonshot market would match Stern's expectations. "The implication is that they've got 20 countries that want to shoot people to the moon. I doubt it," he said.

India and China might be interested — but after that, Pike said, "How many countries are going to be prepared to spend money to be the 12th to land on the moon? ... I think a lot of these rocket men are just taking too many happy pills."" 

Taking too many happy pills.  Wow, he sure is blunt about what he thinks of their plans.  I can't imagine Golden Spike appreciated that. 

As a backup plan for Golden Spike, does anyone know how much cheaper it would be to do what Excalibur Almaz is planning and simply send men around the moon or eventually to a modest LLO space station? 

[simonbp]

If they used propellant transfer, then nations with an indigenous launch capability could simply launch propellant on their own vehicles, regardless of size.

That is an excellent point, though I am curious if it would be worth it financially. The non-US rockets that can exceed an Atlas 552 to LEO (~14,000 kg) are:

H-IIB: 19,000 kg
Ariane 5 ECA: 21,000 kg
Proton M: 22,000 kg

So, rather than the refueling approach, it would make more sense in that case to develop a low-boiloff TLI stage that could be launched as a payload by any of these vehicles. Of course, if SpaceX delivers and can offer a reusable Falcon Heavy in 2019+, the price will be so much lower than I doubt any country would still want to launch on their own vehicle.

But then, that is why it appears GSC is focusing right now on developing a lander. That's the one thing that nobody has right now, and so they are guaranteed not to step on any potential customer's toes.

[mmeijeri]

So, rather than the refueling approach, it would make more sense in that case to develop a low-boiloff TLI stage that could be launched as a payload by any of these vehicles.

That's a good idea anyway. But if you do that, you may still have to offload much of the propellant from the spacecraft and any deep space storable transfer stages to make them light enough to push through TLI with a relatively small cryogenic EDS. In a sense you've shifted the problem from needing heavy lift to orbit to needing heavy lift through TLI. Solving that by refueling requires the refueling to be done in a high energy orbit, which is what I was thinking of, rather than the more challenging use of refueling in LEO for the EDS.

[Jason Davies]

We need to move past Apollo not less than it. The goal should not be boot on the ground. It needs to be a sustainable lower cost means for crew and cargo to the Lunar surface and crew return with some cargo.

This would be lower cost and sustainable because its lower cost.  If you get this to work, leveraging some cargo capability wouldn't be much added difficulty.

Jim correctly pointed out that this is just 'Phase-A' - the initial 'excursion' phase.  Later phases, which are dependent on up-take of Phase-A will likely have far more capability.

The article on site is where "Phase A" is in the actual title of the article!

[Rocket Science]

I knew there were skeptics of this, but I think John Pike set a new standard in criticizing the plans: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/06/15731458-golden-spike-space-venture-wants-to-fly-you-to-the-moon-for-14-billion?lite

"But John Pike, a longtime expert on space policy who heads GlobalSecurity.org, said he was "deeply skeptical" about Golden Spike's business plan. "If you could do it this cheap, somebody would have already done it," he told me.

Even if a lunar exploration program could be created for $8 billion, Pike said he didn't think the moonshot market would match Stern's expectations. "The implication is that they've got 20 countries that want to shoot people to the moon. I doubt it," he said.

India and China might be interested — but after that, Pike said, "How many countries are going to be prepared to spend money to be the 12th to land on the moon? ... I think a lot of these rocket men are just taking too many happy pills."" 

Taking too many happy pills.  Wow, he sure is blunt about what he thinks of their plans.  I can't imagine Golden Spike appreciated that. 

As a backup plan for Golden Spike, does anyone know how much cheaper it would be to do what Excalibur Almaz is planning and simply send men around the moon or eventually to a modest LLO space station? 

Pike’s comment fits in there with “if man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings”. I expected better of him... They might fail or they might succeed, let them try to create a new market and see if it succeeds. It takes courage to stand up and propose a new direction and be the first. After all it is the American way... 

[LegendCJS]

Too much dreaming not enough funding.

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

I don't hold to this view, but some on this website would say that if you want a group that starts with the money but no plan that is what we have government space programs for.

(just trying to be funny here, Not trying to start anything)

[Rocket Science]

It takes courage to stand up and propose a new direction and be the first.

You don't have to be courageous. You could simply be nuts.

True enough!   But these folks don’t strike me as a bunch of nuts... History books a full of individuals that were once called nuts...  Time will tell... 

[jongoff]

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

Not at all. Some of us have been pointing out that stuff like this was possible for over a decade now on Selenian Boondocks and elsewhere.

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.

NASA operates under many constraints that have nothing to do about what approach is the technically or economically most sensible. NASA was actually working on a lunar architecture based on existing and near-term commercial LVs before Griffin got in. It was cancelled because of ego and politics, not lack of technical merit. Had the original plan been continued, one or both OSP/CEV concepts would be doing test flights right now, and we'd probably have several elements of lunar hardware in development. The problem is that many in Congress and some within NASA seem to care more about inputs (who gets paid to do work, which Center gets to run what, etc.) than they do about actual results.

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

This is the same mentality that led people to fight against LOR in the Apollo Program, and in 2012 it seems kind of silly. All of the "extra rendezvous" you get with an MLV-based system will likely be in LEO at a space facility, where you have multiple tools to sort out issues and the odds of failure are low. Yes, if you do things foolishly you can find a way to make rendezvous scarier than an aircraft carrier landing (which BTW have accident rates lower than 1 in 10,000 in spite of being much more dynamic than spacecraft docking). I'm sorry, but this canard is getting old.

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

Now this is where I agree with you. The technical case is tons easier than the business case here, and while I wish Alan's team luck, they've got a long way to go before I'll consider them at all likely to succeed. If I were them, I'd be trying to get customers to sign some sort of contingency contract with terms like this:

1- Nothing up front other than proof of having financial means to pay when the contingency contract is triggered.
2- If/when GS is able to get at least X number of customers willing to sign the same contingency contract, each of them now have to make a down payment of $XXM
3- Then periodic milestone payments after that.

That way they only have to put money down if there are enough other likeminded people that they have confidence the project can be completed. Sort of like what Kickstarter does, but with much bigger customers, bigger $$ amounts, etc.

Still think it's a crazy longshot, but not at all because of the technology or architecture. Doing an HLV any bigger than Falcon Heavy or FH+Raptor would only make this more expensive, not less.

~Jon

[Bill White]

If the GS lander is sent to LLO with one launch and crew with another launch, are there any technological reasons crew needs to fly on a GS vehicle?

What if Excalibur Almaz offered to pay for just the lander?

Or Russia, or China, or ESA (using a crewed ATV variant)?

[AS-503]

Hey QuantumG,

Did you notice the last page of the PDF that shows 5 nations flags on the Lunar surface?

The Australian flag is the only one "flying" backwards (right to left).

Could it be that even on the Moon Australia is "different"?

It reminds me of that Sesame Street song....
"Which one of these is not like the others, not like the others, not like the others...."

[Khadgars]

I knew there were skeptics of this, but I think John Pike set a new standard in criticizing the plans: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/06/15731458-golden-spike-space-venture-wants-to-fly-you-to-the-moon-for-14-billion?lite

"But John Pike, a longtime expert on space policy who heads GlobalSecurity.org, said he was "deeply skeptical" about Golden Spike's business plan. "If you could do it this cheap, somebody would have already done it," he told me.

Even if a lunar exploration program could be created for $8 billion, Pike said he didn't think the moonshot market would match Stern's expectations. "The implication is that they've got 20 countries that want to shoot people to the moon. I doubt it," he said.

India and China might be interested — but after that, Pike said, "How many countries are going to be prepared to spend money to be the 12th to land on the moon? ... I think a lot of these rocket men are just taking too many happy pills."" 

Taking too many happy pills.  Wow, he sure is blunt about what he thinks of their plans.  I can't imagine Golden Spike appreciated that. 

As a backup plan for Golden Spike, does anyone know how much cheaper it would be to do what Excalibur Almaz is planning and simply send men around the moon or eventually to a modest LLO space station? 

Pike’s comment fits in there with “if man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings”. I expected better of him... They might fail or they might succeed, let them try to create a new market and see if it succeeds. It takes courage to stand up and propose a new direction and be the first. After all it is the American way... 

I don't know, it feels more like a PR stunt than anything else.  I feel inclined to put this in the same category as the group that wants to send someone on a one way trip to Mars.

Personally, I think they would help HSF by creating a private spacestation and prove low coast to orbit with a willing and expanding customer base.

[LegendCJS]

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.

Yes, and because of this it will have to be sovereign "space science budgets" that have to be up to the task of footing this bill if there are going to be any sovereign customers, not the much larger sovereign "national prestige budgets."

[Rocket Science]

I knew there were skeptics of this, but I think John Pike set a new standard in criticizing the plans: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/06/15731458-golden-spike-space-venture-wants-to-fly-you-to-the-moon-for-14-billion?lite

"But John Pike, a longtime expert on space policy who heads GlobalSecurity.org, said he was "deeply skeptical" about Golden Spike's business plan. "If you could do it this cheap, somebody would have already done it," he told me.

Even if a lunar exploration program could be created for $8 billion, Pike said he didn't think the moonshot market would match Stern's expectations. "The implication is that they've got 20 countries that want to shoot people to the moon. I doubt it," he said.

India and China might be interested — but after that, Pike said, "How many countries are going to be prepared to spend money to be the 12th to land on the moon? ... I think a lot of these rocket men are just taking too many happy pills."" 

Taking too many happy pills.  Wow, he sure is blunt about what he thinks of their plans.  I can't imagine Golden Spike appreciated that. 

As a backup plan for Golden Spike, does anyone know how much cheaper it would be to do what Excalibur Almaz is planning and simply send men around the moon or eventually to a modest LLO space station? 

Pike’s comment fits in there with “if man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings”. I expected better of him... They might fail or they might succeed, let them try to create a new market and see if it succeeds. It takes courage to stand up and propose a new direction and be the first. After all it is the American way... 

I don't know, it feels more like a PR stunt than anything else.  I feel inclined to put this in the same category as the group that wants to send someone on a one way trip to Mars.

Personally, I think they would help HSF by creating a private spacestation and prove low coast to orbit with a willing and expanding customer base.

If it were led by Donald Trump it might be a publicity stunt just to get in the news. These folks are not a group of eccentric bored billionaires. Going to Mars is several magnitudes more challenging than going to the Moon.  We don’t need to invent new technology to go and do what we did almost a half century ago while still in the age of slide rules and vacuum tubes. Who knows, that private space station might still go up someday as well, just ask Robert Bigelow...
A lot of people can safely say “I’ve never failed at anything” but did they ever try to do something that was never done before?

[simonbp]

Still think it's a crazy longshot, but not at all because of the technology or architecture. Doing an HLV any bigger than Falcon Heavy or FH+Raptor would only make this more expensive, not less.

With the way they set it up, two launches of an expendable Falcon Heavy plus two standard dual-engine Centaurs are almost certainly going to be cheaper than four MLV launches plus two mini-depots. And if Falcon Heavy could be made even partially reusable, then the launch costs would come down to a pretty small fraction of the mission costs.

There's also the factor that with the four-launch approach, Golden Spike is probably going to have to pay for all the development of the drop-tank Centaur. If they get a ton of deposits right away, that could happen, but I think it's more likely they'll wait for SpaceX to pay for Falcon Heavy and then piggyback on that.

[Khadgars]

I knew there were skeptics of this, but I think John Pike set a new standard in criticizing the plans: http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/12/06/15731458-golden-spike-space-venture-wants-to-fly-you-to-the-moon-for-14-billion?lite

"But John Pike, a longtime expert on space policy who heads GlobalSecurity.org, said he was "deeply skeptical" about Golden Spike's business plan. "If you could do it this cheap, somebody would have already done it," he told me.

Even if a lunar exploration program could be created for $8 billion, Pike said he didn't think the moonshot market would match Stern's expectations. "The implication is that they've got 20 countries that want to shoot people to the moon. I doubt it," he said.

India and China might be interested — but after that, Pike said, "How many countries are going to be prepared to spend money to be the 12th to land on the moon? ... I think a lot of these rocket men are just taking too many happy pills."" 

Taking too many happy pills.  Wow, he sure is blunt about what he thinks of their plans.  I can't imagine Golden Spike appreciated that. 

As a backup plan for Golden Spike, does anyone know how much cheaper it would be to do what Excalibur Almaz is planning and simply send men around the moon or eventually to a modest LLO space station? 

Pike’s comment fits in there with “if man were meant to fly, God would have given him wings”. I expected better of him... They might fail or they might succeed, let them try to create a new market and see if it succeeds. It takes courage to stand up and propose a new direction and be the first. After all it is the American way... 

I don't know, it feels more like a PR stunt than anything else.  I feel inclined to put this in the same category as the group that wants to send someone on a one way trip to Mars.

Personally, I think they would help HSF by creating a private spacestation and prove low coast to orbit with a willing and expanding customer base.

If it were led by Donald Trump it might be a publicity stunt just to get in the news. These folks are not a group of eccentric bored billionaires. Going to Mars is several magnitudes more challenging than going to the Moon.  We don’t need to invent new technology to go and do what we did almost a half century ago while still in the age of slide rules and vacuum tubes. Who knows, that private space station might still go up someday as well, just ask Robert Bigelow...
A lot of people can safely say “I’ve never failed at anything” but did they ever try to do something that was never done before?

I believe Newt is part of GS correct?  What purpose does he serve other than publicity? 

Correct me if I'm wrong but we don't really know who the financial backers are other than the organization going to the bank once they line up customers.  Problem is, selling aircraft have a proven and world wide demand base with sales into the 1000's, that is a lot different than going to the bank for $8 billion saying we potentially have maybe 10 customers.  Good luck getting a bank to invest in that hence why I believe its more PR or an attempt to shape policy.

My main concern is, we don't even have proven commercial access to LEO so why are they chasing the moon?  Does SpaceX even have a LAS up and running yet? 

[RocketmanUS]

We need to move past Apollo not less than it. The goal should not be boot on the ground. It needs to be a sustainable lower cost means for crew and cargo to the Lunar surface and crew return with some cargo.

This would be lower cost and sustainable because its lower cost.  If you get this to work, leveraging some cargo capability wouldn't be much added difficulty.

Jim correctly pointed out that this is just 'Phase-A' - the initial 'excursion' phase.  Later phases, which are dependent on up-take of Phase-A will likely have far more capability.

Low price ( not really ) however nothing behind it ( foot prints and flag  ).

Phase A, should have been cargo lander first. Add in the crew cabin later. I would say there would be more customers to put probes and rovers on the Lunar surface in the near term over a person and flag.
With the Atlas V and F9/FH they could send a lander to deliver ~10,000lb to the surface of usable cargo. Then when they have a capsule able to send crew to LLO then they could add in the crew cabin to a lander instead of the cargo. I believe they got it backwards.

Exactly what can two crew do in the amount of time they would have on the surface that is worth $1.5B? And were is the back up ascent vehicle?