Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}

...The only things that are needed new would be the lander, surface suits and equipment and the transfer stage for crew and lander, which can be the same system, I think.  ...

So, do you think that the construction manager business model could achieve these goals?

In the GS paper, they assert that they can build a lander for $500M, by managing subcontractors.  Yet, in the halls of Congress, the general wisdom is that a lander would be prohibitively expensive, even as a copy of the LEM.  Which of these entities is correct?

Developing a lander should be less work (~cost) than developing Falcon 1 + Falcon 9 + Dragon.

If NASA was developing the lander the Dragon could be replaced by the MMSEV.

So cost of completing rover version of MMSEV + cost of space rating MMSEV + cost of completing Morpheus + cost of space rating Morpheus + cost of developing space rated 9 engine (5 mT payload) large Morpheus.

Deliver plug & play NOFBX propulsion units via 100 day efficient trajectories.

I totally agree.  The barbeque grill and propane tank approach.  There is no pragmatic reason why this would not work.

In time, H2/O2 landers would be designed, coordinated with the ice cracking plant.

Huh? When dry mass costs $30,000 per kilogram to manufacture, it definitely is a problem. Why send a brand new lander every mission when you can use one, single lander for 20 missions?!?

Because you would need much, much more propellant.

There's no way to avoid launching propellant from Earth for the first several years of building the infrastructure.  The lander has to, the way I see it, be re-usable.  So does the cis-lunar tug which goes from LEO to L1 or LLO. 

I think the cis-lunar tug might be able to use kerolox, which I think has got to be easier to transfer than even methane/LOX.

Launching propellant from Earth and reusable lander - agree.

Operating a reusable cis-lunar tug may cost too much due to the return propellant.  So trade the operating cost of building a new tug each time against the launch cost of exp(2) = 7.39 times as much propellant.

SEP tugs may have a different cost answer to chemical tugs.

Think carefully before using different chemical fuels in the transfer tug and lander.  Different fuels mean additional problems such as extra tanks on the propellant depots, definitely not KISS.

[MP99]

323 posts and has anyone suggested to call Elon's bluff re using Dragon itself as the lander?

Over time, the same escape thrusters will also provide the capability for Dragon to land almost anywhere on Earth or another planet with pinpoint accuracy, overcoming the limitation of a winged architecture that works only in Earth’s atmosphere.

http://www.spacex.com/press.php?page=20110419

cheers, Martin

[joek]

323 posts and has anyone suggested to call Elon's bluff re using Dragon itself as the lander?

He did say land; haven't heard him metion anything about departure. (edit: Let me try that again, with tongue more firmly planted in cheek.)

[MP99]

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".

I totally agree. This was the approach taken by Kistler, with their contractors eating their lunch (launch :-). If I had $1.4B lying around, I wouldn't pay another company to launch me to the Moon. I would start my own company, SpaceX style, and hire engineers to design and construct the needed elements. The carrot of working on a Lunar landing program would induce a lot of good engineers to come work for you (including pinching a lot of engineers from existing aerospace companies). This means I won't pay $100M for Lunar spacesuits and systems. I would pay $10M or less for suits and systems we made ourselves.

D**m straight.  That is exactly how to do it.

The launchers are expected to exist by the time they plan on launching, so no need to design that part. However they should look into designing their own lander ( could buy off the shelf parts for it ).

Yeah, absolutely use existing launchers (and I say this as  LV designer).  And Dragon or equivalent crew spacecraft.  The only things that are needed new would be the lander, surface suits and equipment and the transfer stage for crew and lander, which can be the same system, I think. 

It is probably possible to design a transfer stage and lander for less than $500M, together, using SpaceX-type costing vs. conventional.  If you stick with storables for the lander, I am certain it can be done for < $300M.

The transfer stage will either require a modified Centaur or a clean sheet cryo LOX + either LH2 or LNG.  I think single-engine Centaurs can be adapted for about $200M, requiring mainly a tank stretch or the add-on tank that has been discussed.  You'd have to make sure that LM didn't overcharge for the modifications, and that would be tricky.  (AFAIK, LM/CLS and not ULA would have to provide the Centaurs, since ULA can only sell to the gov't, not to commercial firms.)

If NASA proceeds with integrating DIVH u/s as the ICPS in-space-only payload on SLS, would there be any advantage to using this in the same mode on FH instead of Centaur?

1) With it's larger prop capacity ICPS wouldn't require a stretch.

2) If launched with it's payload on FH it wouldn't require long loiter at LEO (just launch, checkout & TLI).

3) As a shorter/fatter stage, would it (with payload) be easier to integrate with FH than the long/thin Centaur? I don't believe it would be any more of a hammerhead than the planned F9/FH PLF. It might also accommodate a 5m wide lander, on the assumption that the lander will be more stable if it is wider rather than taller.

4) But, it would require a long-duration kit if it's to also perform LOI.

cheers, Martin

[HMXHMX]

Time is money, and paying for the development team to wait around for propulsion to be done is the most expensive line item in a budget.  There are storable engines and tanks that are off-the-shelf (i.e., deliver times of <1 yr) for the size range needed for a lander, which is why I'd go that way, even though I don't want to deal with storables myself.

Any ideas why they are looking at solids instead of AJ-10 / Aestus / Super Draco?

Everybody goes though these same trades.  Surveyor ended up with a solid for primary Delta V.

[HMXHMX]

323 posts and has anyone suggested to call Elon's bluff re using Dragon itself as the lander?

He did say land; haven't heard him metion anything about departure.

A Dragon as currently configured has <2000 fps of delta V.  Unless it is completely redesigned, it's not going to be able to depart from lunar orbit for earth, let alone land on the lunar surface.  And there is no room to add propellant in the aeroshell.

[Nelson Bridwell]

Outpost, with crew able to stay longer and multiple EVA with rover could be able to collect more samples, sort out what should be sent back to Earth. Ascender could take samples up to a return capsule in LLO, no crew in ascender would mean more mass of samples. Plus we would get better data on how crew is able to handle low gravity.

More for total dollar invested. Better to what till 2022 just two years later to get a better return on the investment and a foot hold with the outpost.

The geinus of Stern is that he is not going to be lulled into the same mistakes that NASA has been making over the past 5 decades.  He is not about to allow his project to die a slow lingering death from requirements creep, and he is not going to try to get funded on the basis of unreasonable low-ball cost estimates.

I have a hunch that he can do it for less than $8B, before 2020.  And once it is clear that the major hurdles have been cleared, I would be very surprised if Godeln Spike does not announce some future extended stay lunar surface exploration options.

I think his efforts are entirely worthwhile.  We don't know if it will be successful.  It is a gamble, just like Planetary Resources.  If they do not get enough orders to warrant serious development then they can bail out without loosing their shirts.  And if they succeed, then they just might have found a way to bypass the political barriers that have been holding back manned spaceflight.

[joek]

The geinus of Stern is that he is not going to be lulled into the same mistakes that NASA has been making over the past 5 decades.  He is not about to allow his project to die a slow lingering death from requirements creep, and he is not going to try to get funded on the basis of unreasonable low-ball cost estimates.

I have a hunch that he can do it for less than $8B, before 2020.  And once it is clear that the major hurdles have been cleared, I would be very surprised if Godeln Spike does not announce some future extended stay lunar surface exploration options.

I think his efforts are entirely worthwhile.  We don't know if it will be successful.  It is a gamble, just like Planetary Resources.  If they do not get enough orders to warrant serious development then they can bail out without loosing their shirts.  And if they succeed, then they just might have found a way to bypass the political barriers that have been holding back manned spaceflight.

Nominally agree.  Even if they don't succeed, they've provided much food for thought, and a counterpoint to more conventional approaches.  Still, $6.4B to first landing is serious money.  Then again, the $2.35B NRE seems a deal vs. alternatives such as the $8-10B for a lander

Granted, some other proposals provide more capability, but if the objective is to enable human access to the moon as simply, quickly and cheaply as possible--and then grow capabilities as needed/demanded--GSC's overall approach (if not the particulars), seems sound.

If nothing else, GSC has added a credible voice to the debate of what-why-how and how much, and the role of government and commercial BEO.  Win or lose, for that they should be applauded.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Decision process to choose in-house design and manufacture over purchase:

Are you the only customer for product?

      NO – Purchase to take advantage of the supplier's economy of scale. The cost will be about the same or possibly cheaper than what you can do in-house.

      YES – Does the supplier have specialized knowledge or a close analog to the product that would be difficult for you to achieve for the same price?

            YES – Purchase because it will shorten your schedule and not cost you much more than doing it in-house.

            NO – Do it in-house because paying 30% more (the supplier's added profit charge) for no reason does not make sense.

[Nelson Bridwell]

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".

Stern does not need to be the cheapest because he is the only kid on the block.  He does not have to compete on cost with ULA, ArianeSpace, Russia, China, ...

Furthermore, Stern is not a billionaire who can afford multiple Falcon 1 launch failures, and is not being bankrolled to the tune of half a billion $$$ by NASA.

And if he goes with SpaceX, the SpaceX profit margin per launch will probably be smaller than the ammortized per-launch cost of a GSC developed launcher.

By making use of what is already there, GSC can just focus on the lander and a few other components, which should be much, much simpler than trying to develop a much cheaper fully reusable booster.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

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".

Stern does not need to be the cheapest because he is the only kid on the block.  He does not have to compete on cost with ULA, ArianeSpace, Russia, China, ...

Furthermore, Stern is not a billionaire who can afford multiple Falcon 1 launch failures, and is not being bankrolled to the tune of half a billion $$$ by NASA.

And if he goes with SpaceX, the SpaceX profit margin per launch will probably be smaller than the ammortized per-launch cost of a GSC developed launcher.

By making use of what is already there, GSC can just focus on the lander and a few other components, which should be much, much simpler than trying to develop a much cheaper fully reusable booster.

See the above post about the the decision tree.

[Warren Platts]

The geinus of Stern is that he is not going to be lulled into the same mistakes that NASA has been making over the past 5 decades.  He is not about to allow his project to die a slow lingering death from requirements creep, and he is not going to try to get funded on the basis of unreasonable low-ball cost estimates.

I have a hunch that he can do it for less than $8B, before 2020.  And once it is clear that the major hurdles have been cleared, I would be very surprised if Godeln Spike does not announce some future extended stay lunar surface exploration options.

I think his efforts are entirely worthwhile.  We don't know if it will be successful.  It is a gamble, just like Planetary Resources.  If they do not get enough orders to warrant serious development then they can bail out without loosing their shirts.  And if they succeed, then they just might have found a way to bypass the political barriers that have been holding back manned spaceflight.

Nominally agree.  Even if they don't succeed, they've provided much food for thought, and a counterpoint to more conventional approaches.  Still, $6.4B to first landing is serious money.  Then again, the $2.35B NRE seems a deal vs. alternatives such as the $8-10B for a lander

Granted, some other proposals provide more capability, but if the objective is to enable human access to the moon as simply, quickly and cheaply as possible--and then grow capabilities as needed/demanded--GSC's overall approach (if not the particulars), seems sound.

If nothing else, GSC has added a credible voice to the debate of what-why-how and how much, and the role of government and commercial BEO.  Win or lose, for that they should be applauded.

And think of the pressure this is going to place on NASA. The latest NRC report is highly critical of the current "asteroid-first" policy:

Finding. Human exploration. The committee has seen little evidence that the current stated interim goal for NASA’s human spaceflight program—namely, to visit an asteroid by 2025—has been widely accepted as a compelling destination by NASA’s own workforce, by the nation as a whole, or by the international community. Although asteroids remain important subjects for both U.S. and international robotic exploration and study, on the international front there appears to be continued enthusiasm for a mission to the Moon but not for an asteroid mission. This lack of consensus on the asteroid-first mission scenario undermines NASA’s ability to establish a comprehensive, consistent strategic direction that can guide program planning and budget allocation.

Thus, it appears the current policy is going to implode on itself, forcing yet another reorientation. And there are only so many other targets: if we don't go to an asteroid, and we can't go to Mars, that leaves what? (1) LEO; (2) L1/L2; (3) The Moon? Ever more LEO won't generate support. Can't get much science done at L2. IP's want to go to the Moon. China wants to go to the Moon.

So it's quite possible that within the next year or two, NASA could be told to forget about asteroids for now, and focus on returning to the Moon. If so, given the commercial opportunity that Golden Spike represents, is the USG really going to force NASA to follow down the same old CxP road using the Eros V SHLV that can only launch once every other year?

There could be blood.....

[Nelson Bridwell]

So it's quite possible that within the next year or two, NASA could be told to forget about asteroids for now, and focus on returning to the Moon. If so, given the commercial opportunity that Golden Spike represents, is the USG really going to force NASA to follow down the same old CxP road using the Eros V SHLV that can only launch once every other year?

Logic dictates that manned missions will be canned.  Whatever you want to accomplish (short of space medicine) can be done more expiditiously with NASA's finite budget using remote-controlled or autonomous spacecraft.  Even the $3B/year ISS is supurfluous.

[Warren Platts]

Once the futility of the asteroid first mission becomes self-evident, it's going to be hard to argue that NASA should not become a "customer" of Golden Spike, especially when the cost would only be a few hundred million per year at first, and especially when IP space agencies also start getting into the act. It's the one party the NASA can't afford to miss out on.

[Warren Platts]

So it's quite possible that within the next year or two, NASA could be told to forget about asteroids for now, and focus on returning to the Moon. If so, given the commercial opportunity that Golden Spike represents, is the USG really going to force NASA to follow down the same old CxP road using the Eros V SHLV that can only launch once every other year?

Logic dictates that manned missions will be canned.  Whatever you want to accomplish (short of space medicine) can be done more expiditiously with NASA's finite budget using remote-controlled or autonomous spacecraft.  Even the $3B/year ISS is supurfluous.

Logic?!? Since when did that have to do with anything...  Politics, if not logic, dictates that the HSF program will not be canned and the money siphoned off into the SMD.

Anyways, the whole point of Golden Spike is that they can do crewed science missions to the Moon for the same or lower price as that of fancy rover missions. Therefore, it is not exactly smart to forgo human missions for robot missions that have a lot less bang for the buck.

[simonbp]

Everybody goes though these same trades.  Surveyor ended up with a solid for primary Delta V.

And so did Moonrise when they did the same trade just a few years ago.

Of course, one can't mention solid descent/ascent stages without thinking of JPL's Lunar Surface Rendezvous plan. They would send a bunch of modified Surveyors to the moon with Saturn C-3, each with a payload of a solid rocket. Then, a manned modified Surveyor would land, and the poor astronaut would have to collect all the solid rockets and bolt them to his spaceship to go home...

[Rocket Science]

Just thought I’d link my early morning madness with a Dragon Direct Lander concept with a crew of 4 to the surface. Construction commonality, increased revenue per voyage could change the equation significantly. Longer stays, increased habitation space and greater sample return.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30567.0

[Robotbeat]

Warren: I deleted that post because I thought better of it.

[alexw]

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

     AV 552 is (or will be?!) 20500 kg to LEO -- rather more than 14 tonnes. A wash with H-IIB/ECA/Proton.
     (That might even have been an original, albeit minor design consideration... there was a bit of crowing at the time of EELV that the option of DEC was inherently superior for LEO than going down the RL-10B-2 path. Of course, turns out those missions never happened... so far.)
           -Alex

[Nelson Bridwell]

Anyways, the whole point of Golden Spike is that they can do crewed science missions to the Moon for the same or lower price as that of fancy rover missions. Therefore, it is not exactly smart to forgo human missions for robot missions that have a lot less bang for the buck.

Good counter-argument!

The key is for NASA to open up a competition for an inexpensive, standardized one-way lunar lander that could be used, over and over again.  No ascent stage.  No need to return the capsule back to earth.  No need to send the capsule to the Moon.  No launch of the capsule to LEO.  No capsule.  CHEAPER, any way that you slice it.

Instead of bringing back a few kilograms of rocks to Earth, we will send the lab instruments to the Moon so that they can analyze thousands of samples for years to come.