Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[RocketmanUS]

From the Press Release

Each surface expedition includes a surface stay time of at least 36 hours (exceeding the stay times of both Apollo 11 and Apollo 12), two moonwalks (EVAs), the use of a standard surface expedition tool kit and cameras and optional add-on packages, accommodation of up to 50 kg of lunar experiments and other customer-provided equipment (e.g., flags, plaques, etc.) to the surface, as well as the additional accommodation of up to 50 kg of lunar samples for return to Earth, together with all necessary governmental certifications. Orbital expeditions offer a week-long stay time.

Is that 36 hour plus stay on the moon to be spent in the space suit or in a habitat? I can't see anyone wanting to stay in the suit that long or healthy.

[kkattula]

They're nuts if they honestly think they're getting any significant amount of money out of the Australian government.

How about an Australian media conglomerate? Exclusive coverage of the first Australian to travel to the Moon?

If you want to watch the first Australian on the Moon, you can only do so on (for example) stations belonging to the Southern Cross Media Group.

I understand that it is "possible" but do you really think thats going to happen?  It seems like the trend is more to produce your own industry rather than piggy backing onto someone else

More likely an Australian based mining company such as Rio Tinto or BHP Billiton might get interested in doing a bit of lunar prospecting.  But they're never going to invest 8 or 10 billion in their own space program, just to have that look.

There may well be nothing yet economically recoverable, but it may just be worth throwing a billion or so at it to have a look before your competitors do.

[Mongo62]

Sample masses returned by Apollo missions:

Sample mass / Sample container mass / Total mass

Apollo 11 : 21.7 kg / 14.7 kg / 36.4 kg
Apollo 12 : 32.4 kg / 14.9 kg / 47.3 kg
Apollo 14 : 42.9 kg / 15.0 kg / 57.9 kg
Apollo 15 : 76.8 kg / 14.0 kg / 90.8 kg
Apollo 16 : 94.7 kg / 13.9 kg / 108.6 kg
Apollo 17 : 110.5 kg / 13.4 kg / 123.9 kg

So 50 kg isn't shabby, being comparable to the early Apollo returned sample masses.

[LegendCJS]

National or personal prestige can still be had even when an individual takes a foreign-made taxi to do something cool. 

Exactly.

Say one wants to set up a small scientific base or prospecting camp on the Moon. Probably not permanently manned, but with astronauts to set it up, and occasionally visit to tend to mostly tele-operated equipment.

Hmm sounds like the goal is science.  Are there any science budgets out there that can pay for this?

There are several nations and/or corporations that could (and might want to) operate such an outpost. Yet the first hurdle of getting people on to the surface and back is too high.

Not aware of any corps that want to do moon science. Nations fund moon science however. In the last decade Japan, India, China and the US sent probes to the moon.  A well funded group of nations for sure, but China will never bite, and the budgets for all this moon science by all these nations put together aren't big enough to bank roll GS.  Especially because a lot of this budget is playing an important roll keeping the doors open in planetary science departments across the world.  That fraction of the money isn't going anywhere.

So one purchases transport from a commercial operation, then hypes up the crew personalities and on-going operations. Throw in some token contributions to the lander or other hardware, and even the transport can be spun as a 'joint mission'. 

Do you think science budgets care about "hyping up crew personalities?"  A scientific expedition funded to go do serious research and involving the best academic institution isn't going to put up with an attempt to turn the mission into an episode of (Sea of) "Tranquility Shore"

Even just painting a national flag or company trademark on the launch vehicles has PR value.

If there was actually something to this PR value wouldn't we have seen cash hungry Russia selling logo space on their rockets by now, or at least marketing the option (even if there were no takers)?

Addendum: I'm not trying to say that I don't like the GS's plan.  What I'm trying to say is that an expectation of sovereign customers is not justified either form a national prestige or a science level.  It will be the red bulls and folks like James Cameron and the ISS/ MIR space tourists that end up paying for this.  And science will still be done on the mission.  Just no sovereign customers.

[Proponent]

The capability of GS's proposed lunar-landing system seems to be somewhat less than that of an H-series Apollo mission (Apollo 14 being the ultimate example) in terms of stay time and sample return.  Given that the base-lined launch system, after the assumed performance haircut, can inject nearly 102 klb into LTO, I'm a little surprised the capability isn't greater.  Even the J-series CSM/LM stack was just 103 klb at separation.  Compared to Apollo, GS's spacecraft would have the dual advantages of hardware (especially avionics) that is five decades more advanced and the use of high-Isp propellants for LOI, if not later mission phases as well.  So what gives here?

Would I be correct in assuming that GS plans a land-anywhere-abort-anytime capability?  (It seems that these days you'd really want to allow polar landings.)  Would the delta-V requirements for this explain the relatively limited surface capability?

[robertross]

From the Press Release

Each surface expedition includes a surface stay time of at least 36 hours (exceeding the stay times of both Apollo 11 and Apollo 12), two moonwalks (EVAs), the use of a standard surface expedition tool kit and cameras and optional add-on packages, accommodation of up to 50 kg of lunar experiments and other customer-provided equipment (e.g., flags, plaques, etc.) to the surface, as well as the additional accommodation of up to 50 kg of lunar samples for return to Earth, together with all necessary governmental certifications. Orbital expeditions offer a week-long stay time.

Is that 36 hour plus stay on the moon to be spent in the space suit or in a habitat? I can't see anyone wanting to stay in the suit that long or healthy.

No issue. Look at your history on Gemini missions...

[RocketmanUS]

Sample masses returned by Apollo missions:

Sample mass / Sample container mass / Total mass

Apollo 11 : 21.7 kg / 14.7 kg / 36.4 kg
Apollo 12 : 32.4 kg / 14.9 kg / 47.3 kg
Apollo 14 : 42.9 kg / 15.0 kg / 57.9 kg
Apollo 15 : 76.8 kg / 14.0 kg / 90.8 kg
Apollo 16 : 94.7 kg / 13.9 kg / 108.6 kg
Apollo 17 : 110.5 kg / 13.4 kg / 123.9 kg

So 50 kg isn't shabby, being comparable to the early Apollo returned sample masses.

At $1.5B that is very expensive. Even if they removed the crew and replaced it with samples.

With in space fueling better to go with larger lander. Do it right the first time. Better safety for crew, have habitat there when landed plus rover from cargo landings . I would say they would have customers for that , however I can't see anyone funding this small Pod lander ( it could be used for emergency if it could be made for four crew or as a hopper ).

From the Press Release

Each surface expedition includes a surface stay time of at least 36 hours (exceeding the stay times of both Apollo 11 and Apollo 12), two moonwalks (EVAs), the use of a standard surface expedition tool kit and cameras and optional add-on packages, accommodation of up to 50 kg of lunar experiments and other customer-provided equipment (e.g., flags, plaques, etc.) to the surface, as well as the additional accommodation of up to 50 kg of lunar samples for return to Earth, together with all necessary governmental certifications. Orbital expeditions offer a week-long stay time.

Is that 36 hour plus stay on the moon to be spent in the space suit or in a habitat? I can't see anyone wanting to stay in the suit that long or healthy.

No issue. Look at your history on Gemini missions...

Was the capsule pressurized so they could remove the helmet?

[jongoff]

When somebody in a business like this says "We are talking to potential clients" it simply means that they are "talking" to people they would like to become clients. It doesn't mean they have even a hint of interest.

Similarly, when somebody in a business like this says "We have investors who are billionaires" it only means that some investors, who may be billionaires, have given them some money. It does NOT mean that they have been given lots of money. After all, a billionaire can write a check for $100K and not miss it at all. It's just walking around money. It doesn't mean that the billionaire is going to write them any serious checks.

This is unfortunately all too true. I know of some groups (won't get more specific) that were talking up their big name investors while at the same time not paying their subcontractors on time. While I don't think that big commercial projects like GLXP, and what Planetary Resources and Golden Spike are trying to do are inherently impossible today. But I do worry that swinging for the fences tends to both a) bring out more charlatans and maintain this industry's reputation for hype over substance, b) scare away investment or suck it into endeavors that don't actually have a chance of success, making it that much harder for smaller companies with solid but realistic plans to raise money (note, I'm not being self-righteous here--I don't know if Altius counts yet as having a "solid but realistic plan").

Stern was remarkably clear about what they do and do not have in terms of finances right now. But he did NOT say how much money they have in-hand. My guess is that Esther Dyson gave them a couple hundred thousand bucks, which is enough to buy some videos, hold some meetings, and things like that.

<snip>

At the Golden Spike press conference the only swag they had were pens and stickers and their thumb drives with their press kit on it. They are not rolling in dough. They need to raise it.

Yeah, I have to say that unlike some of the companies that have huge dreams and little cash, at least Alan was up-front about it. They've got a longshot, but the fact that they weren't trying to BS their way about how far they were already is a positive sign.

~Jon

[jongoff]

The capability of GS's proposed lunar-landing system seems to be somewhat less than that of an H-series Apollo mission (Apollo 14 being the ultimate example) in terms of stay time and sample return.  Given that the base-lined launch system, after the assumed performance haircut, can inject nearly 102 klb into LTO, I'm a little surprised the capability isn't greater.  Even the J-series CSM/LM stack was just 103 klb at separation.  Compared to Apollo, GS's spacecraft would have the dual advantages of hardware (especially avionics) that is five decades more advanced and the use of high-Isp propellants for LOI, if not later mission phases as well.  So what gives here?

Would I be correct in assuming that GS plans a land-anywhere-abort-anytime capability?  (It seems that these days you'd really want to allow polar landings.)  Would the delta-V requirements for this explain the relatively limited surface capability?

Could also be intentional conservatism since they're very early in the design process?

~Jon

[sdsds]

Would I be correct in assuming that GS plans a land-anywhere-abort-anytime capability?  (It seems that these days you'd really want to allow polar landings.)  Would the delta-V requirements for this explain the relatively limited surface capability?

Yes, polar landing seems like a capability they should really want to have. They discuss (in the paper by French et al.) positioning the lander in a "frozen orbit" for rendezvous. Then after return from the surface, "The  crew enters Dragon and, at a suitable time, fires the propulsion unit to return to Earth." [Emphasis added.]

LRO used a quasi-frozen orbit at 30 x 216 km for early checkout operations. But presumably plenty of other such orbits have been found?

[Pastor Bill]

"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." 
 
« Last Edit: 12/07/2012 12:42 PM by PeterAlt »

This sounds like a workable way to me for a 1 launch Moon landing with SLS, but I have to admit, I do not know enough about what GS is talking about for the weight of the lander. If I'm remembering correctly, we're looking at about 105 tons to LEO with SLS Block 1a/b, but I'm not sure what can it do through TLI? Orion is est. to be about 25 tons? What would be needed to make this work? Thank you for the help!
 

[kkattula]

National or personal prestige can still be had even when an individual takes a foreign-made taxi to do something cool. 

Exactly.

Say one wants to set up a small scientific base or prospecting camp on the Moon. Probably not permanently manned, but with astronauts to set it up, and occasionally visit to tend to mostly tele-operated equipment.

Hmm sounds like the goal is science.  Are there any science budgets out there that can pay for this?

There are several nations and/or corporations that could (and might want to) operate such an outpost. Yet the first hurdle of getting people on to the surface and back is too high.

Not aware of any corps that want to do moon science. Nations fund moon science however. In the last decade Japan, India, China and the US sent probes to the moon.  A well funded group of nations for sure, but China will never bite, and the budgets for all this moon science by all these nations put together aren't big enough to bank roll GS.  Especially because a lot of this budget is playing an important roll keeping the doors open in planetary science departments across the world.  That fraction of the money isn't going anywhere.

So one purchases transport from a commercial operation, then hypes up the crew personalities and on-going operations. Throw in some token contributions to the lander or other hardware, and even the transport can be spun as a 'joint mission'. 

Do you think science budgets care about "hyping up crew personalities?"  A scientific expedition funded to go do serious research and involving the best academic institution isn't going to put up with an attempt to turn the mission into an episode of (Sea of) "Tranquility Shore"

Even just painting a national flag or company trademark on the launch vehicles has PR value.

If there was actually something to this PR value wouldn't we have seen cash hungry Russia selling logo space on their rockets by now, or at least marketing the option (even if there were no takers)?

Addendum: I'm not trying to say that I don't like the GS's plan.  What I'm trying to say is that an expectation of sovereign customers is not justified either form a national prestige or a science level.  It will be the red bulls and folks like James Cameron and the ISS/ MIR space tourists that end up paying for this.  And science will still be done on the mission.  Just no sovereign customers.

Note:  I threw in a lot of weasel words like 'could' and 'might'. 

IMO, it's not so much about what science budgets could afford or would care about. It's about what the politicians who approve those budgets see as value for money.  $300m a year for a few satelites to study the Sun and the Earth's magnetic field? There's no votes in that. $600m a year for a Moon base and photo ops with hero astronauts and bragging rights at the UN?

The logo thing was specifically about the nation or corp paying for and flying on that mission.  e.g. Canadarm.  It's not advertising an unrelated product like sports sponsorship. It has significant emotional impact to the viewer becasue it highlights a major contribution to the effort by an entity they relate to.

For instance: if I saw a Falcon Heavy launch with Australia painted on the side, and I knew there two Aussies on board who were going to land on the Moon, plant an Aussie flag, and crack open the first tinnie* on the Moon? It'd bring a tear to my eye, and I wouldn't even mind the extra $150 in income tax ... much.


* This is another reason why a pressurised lander in essential.

[Blackstar]

Yeah, I have to say that unlike some of the companies that have huge dreams and little cash, at least Alan was up-front about it. They've got a longshot, but the fact that they weren't trying to incorrect their way about how far they were already is a positive sign.

(I suspect that "incorrect" was where the software corrected your use of the word "bull$hit")

Stern is usually pretty straightforward. He has been quite clear whenever he discusses science on commercial reusable suborbital vehicles. He has always said that the science that can be conducted on them is limited, and that much of it is currently not done at all and might have to be invented. He has been clear that it is not like there is a huge "market of science" that is out there waiting to be captured by suborbital vehicles. But people don't listen carefully to what he says and instead they jump to conclusions, thinking that if the tourist market is not strong, then the scientists are going to come along and save the day.

But that's also why I find his arguments about the available market for GS to be disconnected from the actual way things work. For example, he composed a logic chain that essentially went like this:

Lots of countries are developing lunar missions to do "science" + human space missions can gather much more information in a short period of time than robotic missions; therefore, there are a lot of countries that will pay for a ride on a human spacecraft to the Moon.

The problem with that logic is that the countries sending spacecraft to the Moon, or planning to do so, are not inherently interested in the Moon. They are interested in developing their own space capabilities, and the Moon is the easiest target beyond low Earth orbit. If it was easier to get to Venus, they would go there instead. So the "science is a market" argument falls apart here.

[kkattula]

Remember, these are just early feasabilty studies, with lots of margin built in. They haven't even settled on a propulsion method yet, so the eventual lander could be much more capable than the minimum suggested.

I do think a commercial lander able to be sent to the proposed L2 Gateway station would be an almost irresistable temptation to the USG.

[Mongo62]

Is that 36 hour plus stay on the moon to be spent in the space suit or in a habitat? I can't see anyone wanting to stay in the suit that long or healthy.

From An Architecture for Lunar Return Using Existing Assets:

However, a two‐person lander with a small, pressurized cabin that allows a longer stay on the surface was also evaluated. This cabin would be similar in dimension to the cabin of a two‐seat automobile or small airplane, and not unlike a Gemini capsule. A double wall, each capable of independently withstanding the pressure load of 5 psia with 3:1 safety factor provides redundant protection. There is no airlock. If the entire structure were made of mylar, the estimated mass increase is to accommodate the pressure load is 41 kg (90 lbm); for aluminum the penalty would be 73 kg (160 lbm). A 30% contingency is included in both cases. For conservatism, the heavier mass was used for the summary tables below but for this application the lighter plastic structure may be acceptable.

[Proponent]

LRO used a quasi-frozen orbit at 30 x 216 km for early checkout operations. But presumably plenty of other such orbits have been found?

Didn't know that.  Why was this done?  To maintain continuous radio contact with Earth during check-out?

[kkattula]

IMO, it's not so much about what science budgets could afford or would care about. It's about what the politicians who approve those budgets see as value for money.  $300m a year for a few satelites to study the Sun and the Earth's magnetic field? There's no votes in that. $600m a year for a Moon base and photo ops with hero astronauts and bragging rights at the UN?

Foreign countries fund these projects in part to support their own technological and scientific infrastructure. Plus, there's pork. (It's the other white meat. It's not just for Americans anymore.) Go look at the reasons why India has a space program. They want to keep the money inside their borders, not give it to Americans.

True, but by the same token America likes to give foreign aid to countries who spend it with American companies.

I don't think the market is India or China. Like you said they want to develop their own capabilities. It will be the countries flush with petrodollars and/or a massive inferiority/superiority complex. Or corporations who see a buck in it. Or a few wealthy individuals.

[Warren Platts]

Foreign countries fund these projects in part to support their own technological and scientific infrastructure. Plus, there's pork. (It's the other white meat. It's not just for Americans anymore.) Go look at the reasons why India has a space program. They want to keep the money inside their borders, not give it to Americans.

Yeah right... That's why the Americans are not spending hundreds of millions in Russia for rides into space....

[sdsds]

LRO used a quasi-frozen orbit

Didn't know that.  Why was this done?

I think it was to conserve propellant while they commissioned the instruments, etc. How much propellant does station-keeping in its 50 km science orbit consume? Dunno. Apparently though its enough of an advantage to lead Golden Spike to do the same. They might need their lander to loiter quite some time, with the crew still back on Earth. What's the shortest interval possible between two Atlas V launches?

[joek]

LRO used a quasi-frozen orbit at 30 x 216 km for early checkout operations. But presumably plenty of other such orbits have been found?

Some, although maybe not "plenty"; e.g., for the short version see  Bizarre Lunar Orbits; for a more in-depth treatment see Preliminary Design of Low Lunar Orbits (has some good references).