Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[sanman]

I was noticing this link:

http://goldenspikecompany.com/get-involved/

Get Involved

In 2013, Golden Spike will begin an exciting public participation effort. Stay tuned…

Like what kind of public participation effort?

[MikeAtkinson]

If the Golden Spike architecture were actually built, wouldn't the NASA be legally required to buy their services?

Only if NASA wanted to land 2 people on the moon for a stay of 2 days.

Not only do NASA not have plans to land anyone on the moon, but when they did have vague plans (Altair) it was for 4 people for 2 weeks (or ~15  tonnes of cargo).

[Blackstar]

>In 2013, Golden Spike will begin an exciting public participation effort. Stay tuned…

Like what kind of public participation effort?

Stern announced that they will hold a public conference in 2013 to discuss landing sites and science goals.

[Warren Platts]

Took a look at their blog. Three admin posts. No replies. Looks like there is a surge in enthusiasm.

Um, those three posts consist of three photographes, and they're dated February 14, 2012--months before the website started online.

When they post some actual content, I expect they'll get some comments.

[Rocket Science]

I guess some folks forgot this little gem of inspiration...

Good catch!   

Ha, was a favorite of mine for 45 plus years! 
Edit to add: Scratch built one as a kid, now lost to the ages... 

[JohnFornaro]

If each mission costs $750 million for the hardware and operations, then you'd need to have 20 customers to recoup your development costs.  20 customers is about the size of their maximum potential market, according to their own estimate.

If they can pull that off, then their hardware is virtually free.  If I'm getting this correctly, then the profit would be $750M less continuing op costs and hardware replacement.

But still, you make a good point all around.

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.

An argument from authority.  But still, he's in an authoritative position, and that "Olympic" marketing approach seems sound at first blush, to me.

I look for exothermic resentment...

That is quite the turn of phrase.

http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/French-et-al.-Architecture-Paper-in-AIAA-Journal-of-Spacecraft-and-Rockets.pdf

Best line of the entire paper:

It is natural to examine why PSLR can be conducted so inexpensively compared to the Constellation Program’s former $150B lunar‐return price tag. Some reasons for this include:
<4 bullets removed>
- Efficient operations, focusing on the job itself, rather than on the number of jobs created.

Thanks for the succinct summary, which is in line with many non-expert opinions on NASA HSF.

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. ... Oh yeah and science. And freedom.

Excellent observation.  Thanks for posting.

Press conference.

Many thanks for the pix.  They appear to be a patient bunch of folks.

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

Don't forget that old people used to be young people.  Old people can remember dreams of youth and how subsequent events may have kept those dreams from realization.  Good thing they're patient.

He probably has lots of footage of my left nostril as well as me sticking my tongue out at him.

A bit too much information, but too much is better than not enough.

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.

Not talking to Ben alone, but generally observing:

Saturn V was the first attempt.  Compare the operations facilities of the shuttle and of the Apollo systems, down at the Cape.  Compare the level of technology needed to visit the Moon the first time.  Consider their line about "efficient operations" mentioned in their AIAA article.  For some reason, our government HSF programs have not considered efficiency to be a goal worthy of pursuing.

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

Gerry Griffin, not Mike Griffin.

Andy Griffin is not a member of their team either.

... 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

"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.'" 

Unfortunately, John Pike misses completely. 

It's not about being 12th.  It's about being up there in person.  Given the opportunity, does anybody on this forum care in the least whether they would be 12th on Luna or 12,000th?

[Rocket Science]

I would like to hear Chris Kraft’s take on this since he has been advocating getting on with exploring using existing vehicles... (Hint, hint Chris) 

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I did some extremely preliminary cost estimates of the 4 or 5 test flights needed to get to a manned surface landing:

1) A unmanned BEO CCV around the moon flight - $500-800M
2) A unmanned Lander flight to surface and back to LLO - $500-800M
3) A manned BEO CCV to LLO - $500-800M
4) A manned BEO CCV + Lander docking demo in LEO - $500-800M
5) A manned BEO CCV + Lander to Moon surface - $1000-1300M

These test flights spread across 2017 to 2020 would cost about $3-4.5B. Half of the total development budget. Some other development spending would still be ongoing during this time frame as well so that only a few billion and not the entire $8B would be spent prior to 2017. Probably about $2-3B. $2B spread across 4 years is only $500M per year. But this represents an average and not a steadily increasing spending as GS grows its tasks and workforce. This could be represented by: 2013-$0.1B, 2014-$0.25B, 2015-$.65B, 2016-$1B

Test flights #3 and #5 could have seats sold as well as #4. If this is done then the $3-4.5B test costs would be offset by $1-2B in revenues for customers flying astronauts on these flights.

Note: There is a question whether GS included the costs of that first manned surface flight in their $7-8B development costs value. Here I am including it as part of the overall development since that first flight is considered a test flight demonstration of capability and not an operational flight.

Also an example of the way commercial LV's are purchased for a commercial payload is:
1) 10%-20% down in earnest money to gain access to detail engineering support for the payload integration to the LV (usually done at 2-3 years prior to the NET launch date and can be as much as 5 years prior)
2) 40%-50% at 18 months prior for the LV build
3) 20% at payload arrival at launch site
4) 20% at successful launch of payload

So the point of this post is that for 2013 GS would need only about $100M or less to start everything they need to do in order to get to a 2020 landing.

[Mongo62]

If each mission costs $750 million for the hardware and operations, then you'd need to have 20 customers to recoup your development costs.  20 customers is about the size of their maximum potential market, according to their own estimate.

If they can pull that off, then their hardware is virtually free.  If I'm getting this correctly, then the profit would be $750M less continuing op costs and hardware replacement.

If hardware and operations costs $750M per flight, then that leaves $750M per flight to recoup development costs, so only 10 flights would be needed.  Financing interest costs should be low, since the payment schedules would presumably cover development expenses, plus there are plans for other revenue streams to help cover costs.

I suspect that Golden Spike can indeed sign at least 10 clients, given what little I have heard about their marketing efforts.

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead

[Warren Platts]

I did some extremely preliminary cost estimates of the 4 or 5 test flights needed to get to a manned surface landing:

1) A unmanned BEO CCV around the moon flight - $500-800M
2) A unmanned Lander flight to surface and back to LLO - $500-800M
3) A manned BEO CCV to LLO - $500-800M
4) A manned BEO CCV + Lander docking demo in LEO - $500-800M
5) A manned BEO CCV + Lander to Moon surface - $1000-1300M

These test flights spread across 2017 to 2020 would cost about $3-4.5B. Half of the total development budget. Some other development spending would still be ongoing during this time frame as well so that only a few billion and not the entire $8B would be spent prior to 2017. Probably about $2-3B. $2B spread across 4 years is only $500M per year. But this represents an average and not a steadily increasing spending as GS grows its tasks and workforce. This could be represented by: 2013-$0.1B, 2014-$0.25B, 2015-$.65B, 2016-$1B

Test flights #3 and #5 could have seats sold as well as #4. If this is done then the $3-4.5B test costs would be offset by $1-2B in revenues for customers flying astronauts on these flights.

Note: There is a question whether GS included the costs of that first manned surface flight in their $7-8B development costs value. Here I am including it as part of the overall development since that first flight is considered a test flight demonstration of capability and not an operational flight.

Also an example of the way commercial LV's are purchased for a commercial payload is:
1) 10%-20% down in earnest money to gain access to detail engineering support for the payload integration to the LV (usually done at 2-3 years prior to the NET launch date and can be as much as 5 years prior)
2) 40%-50% at 18 months prior for the LV build
3) 20% at payload arrival at launch site
4) 20% at successful launch of payload

So the point of this post is that for 2013 GS would need only about $100M or less to start everything they need to do in order to get to a 2020 landing.

In their AIAA paper, they state that development costs are going to run $2.35B and the cost for the four test flights is going to be $4.0B, so $6.4B total. These also have 30% reserves/fudge factor included, so 70% * $6.4B = $4.5B for everything. Based on this, looks like their cost per flight is going to run 0.7 to 1.0 $B, leaving a profit of 0.8 to 0.5 $B/flight.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

In their AIAA paper, they state that development costs are going to run $2.35B and the cost for the four test flights is going to be $4.0B, so $6.4B total. These also have 30% reserves/fudge factor included, so 70% * $6.4B = $4.5B for everything. Based on this, looks like their cost per flight is going to run 0.7 to 1.0 $B, leaving a profit of 0.8 to 0.5 $B/flight.

Actually you divid the 6.4B by 1.3 to get $4.9B which would make a "fudge factor" 40%-60% for the $7-8B quoted numbers for development.

Its nice to get a seperate source for the same ballbark estimates of $3-4.5B for the test program leaving $2-3.5B for the the actual Lander + etc non-test flight development costs.

As far as who will be paying for the BEO CCV, it could be a cost sharing between GS and the provider. Thats part of the unknown "fudge factor" in the GS budgets.

Lets say the BEO CCV is an upgraded DragonRider which cost ~$500M (as an example of ballpark spending that SpaceX is spending on Dragon to upgrade to DragonRider, it should not be as much since it will not be as difficult) to to do the upgrade engineering and validation tests then an additional $250M for the around the Moon unmanned test flight of a BEO DragonRider on an FH.

It would be concievable that GS would fund SpaceX at 70% or about $525M to develop and test a BEO DragonRider. SpaceX could market such a vehicle to other customers, but as the first and primary customer GS would pay up front for development for a discounted per flight rate.

[Eer]

re: the two person scout, I wonder if it's not intended, in the long run, to be used as a shuttle from low lunar obit to a habitat outpost for longer stays.  Land (without plans to take off again) supplies and material, build up a small beachhead, then your paying customers can come down, decant to the sauna and plan their foot- and buggy-based excursions.

Sure, you'll have selected the location on the basis of robotic and short-stay visits.  But, for instance, if there's a near-by supply of ice (presumes a polar destination), you could build up some of that in-sutu resource utilization still-work folks have talked about.

Anyway, I think there's a place in the overall architecture for something like this - maybe not as a freighter, but maybe as a run-about, like the Bell 47 it looks like.

[Eer]

Then, with your moon base started, use http://3dprintingindustry.com/2012/12/04/simulated-melted-moon-rocks-used-for-3d-printing/ to create the plumbing and structural materials you need to build things out a bit further. 

All this presumes you can identify a good permanent base location early-on in your studies of the environment, and that you'll have regular visitors to whom you can trade your "beads" (3d-printed hardware) for consumables and supplies you can't get form your ice mine.

Exploration has one set of needs.  Colonization another.  The real dreamers will be looking at exploration as a way to get to colonization, including identifying the economic basis for justifying moving out.  Once there's something to do on an ongoing basis, there will be communities spring up to support the doers.  We call those communities settlers.

[Nelson Bridwell]

If these folk were using NASA terminology, they would likely be referring to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7123.1A. Attached is Figure 5.2, showing "The NASA Project Life Cycle."

Phase A is "Concept and Technology Development." It ends with key decision point B, which is where project leadership decides whether to proceed to phase B, which would be "Preliminary Design and Technology Completion." Don't be in a hurry, though. You don't get to actually launch anything until the end of phase D....

Thanks!

[Warren Platts]

re: the two person scout, I wonder if it's not intended, in the long run, to be used as a shuttle from low lunar obit to a habitat outpost for longer stays.  Land (without plans to take off again) supplies and material, build up a small beachhead, then your paying customers can come down, decant to the sauna and plan their foot- and buggy-based excursions.

To be landing any habitat modules, they're going to need a 2nd lander--something that can drop a heavy payload like XEUS.

Sure, you'll have selected the location on the basis of robotic and short-stay visits.  But, for instance, if there's a near-by supply of ice (presumes a polar destination), you could build up some of that in-sutu resource utilization still-work folks have talked about.

And this is what kind of worries me: it's not clear that it would be able to reach polar destinations without some serious refueling capability somehow....

Anyway, I think there's a place in the overall architecture for something like this - maybe not as a freighter, but maybe as a run-about, like the Bell 47 it looks like.

If it could be refueled at the base, I wonder what it's suborbital round-trip radius would be?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

In thinking about development cycles, the Lander development duration prior to flight tests is going to be ~6 years. 6 years added to 2019 gives 2025 for a new lander product, say possibly a larger one-way cargo lander capable of landing 9-10mt of payload (a Bigelow Sundance module). This would be needed to start development of a Moon base whose equipment would be designed and developed by other companies and delivered to the surface by GS. Then in 2030-2031 a reusable manned lander with 2-4 passengers would make sense because of a move to permanent manning of the base at that time of 6 or more personnel would require a lot of lander flights per year with 6 months or even 1 year rotations.

[Warren Platts]

In their AIAA paper, they state that development costs are going to run $2.35B and the cost for the four test flights is going to be $4.0B, so $6.4B total. These also have 30% reserves/fudge factor included, so 70% * $6.4B = $4.5B for everything. Based on this, looks like their cost per flight is going to run 0.7 to 1.0 $B, leaving a profit of 0.8 to 0.5 $B/flight.

Actually you divid the 6.4B by 1.3 to get $4.9B which would make a "fudge factor" 40%-60% for the $7-8B quoted numbers for development.

Its nice to get a seperate source for the same ballbark estimates of $3-4.5B for the test program leaving $2-3.5B for the the actual Lander + etc non-test flight development costs.

As far as who will be paying for the BEO CCV, it could be a cost sharing between GS and the provider. Thats part of the unknown "fudge factor" in the GS budgets.

Lets say the BEO CCV is an upgraded DragonRider which cost ~$500M (as an example of ballpark spending that SpaceX is spending on Dragon to upgrade to DragonRider, it should not be as much since it will not be as difficult) to to do the upgrade engineering and validation tests then an additional $250M for the around the Moon unmanned test flight of a BEO DragonRider on an FH.

It would be concievable that GS would fund SpaceX at 70% or about $525M to develop and test a BEO DragonRider. SpaceX could market such a vehicle to other customers, but as the first and primary customer GS would pay up front for development for a discounted per flight rate.

I think they think they could save a lot of money with a reusable lander, which is why they go with an SSTO model, rather than using inelegant crasher stages and disposable descent stages.

My FUD is that they are overcharging. I think they could bring the price down a lot if they did it right. They really need to get the seat prices down to around $200M/seat.

[Nelson Bridwell]

If GSC were able to obtain an $8B commercial bank loan at a 5.25% interest rate, with a 10 year payback period, then, throwing those numbers into a bank commercial loan calculator:

Monthly installment $85.8 M
Annual Payments: $1.03 B
Total interest over 10 years: $2.3 B

Once they are in operation, they would be in the black as long as they can fly 2 or more missions per year, assuming that they can clear a profit of $500M for each mission.

Of course, it wouldn't be that simple, because they would not need all $8B up front, only spread over 8 years, and they would not be in a position to begin seriously replaying most of the loan for 8 years...

[Mongo62]

Of course, it wouldn't be that simple, because they would not need all $8B up front, only spread over 8 years, and they would not be in a position to begin seriously replaying most of the loan for 8 years...

I would expect that the actual development costs (minus test flights) of around 2-2.5 billion dollars would be mostly paid for by down-payments and "milestone attainment" payments from their customers, plus whatever other additional revenue streams they develop. They would not need to borrow a lot of money until they are ready to fly test missions (which would be when the big bucks start to be spent fairly rapidly), and by then they would presumably have sufficiently established their technical, commercial and financial viability to the banks that they should be able to secure any loans they might need.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

If these folk were using NASA terminology, they would likely be referring to NASA Procedural Requirements (NPR) 7123.1A. Attached is Figure 5.2, showing "The NASA Project Life Cycle."

Phase A is "Concept and Technology Development." It ends with key decision point B, which is where project leadership decides whether to proceed to phase B, which would be "Preliminary Design and Technology Completion." Don't be in a hurry, though. You don't get to actually launch anything until the end of phase D....

Thanks!

This if true bothers me because it indicates a non-inhouse integrator company that hires other companies to do all the development and hardware manufacture. There are inherint costs increases to hiring out of ~30% more in costs. So if this is an indication of thier business structure it has some significant managerial and contracting challenges.

In other words this would be like a NASA surrogate organization streamlined for a narrow focus and goal. It would not represent the cheapest this could be done for with a new space policy of "we do the concept and build the hardware ourselves" vs an old space policy of "we do the concept someone else buids the hardware".