Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[RocketmanUS]

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.

No lander, no mission.

The lander is what they would need to work on first. They will need to test land it before crew would use it. So land probes/rovers first.  After the probes then land the needed components for an outpost ( could be added to later to make it a base ). Then send first crew to assemble the outpost and bring back some of the samples that the probes have collected.

Investors would be paying for the outpost components and landing them on the moon. GSC should be looking to make a lander that is capable of placing 10klb to 15klb of usable mass on the surface without a crasher stage. Single stage to the surface. If it carried crew then it could return then to LLO without refueling. Us CH4/LOX. If fueled in LEO then it would not need the FH ( less tanker flights if can be done with FH ), also the EDS.

No if we had an assemble station in LEO then all parts could be there and fueled. After the lander is on it's way the crew could be sent shortly after to LLO. Weather problems are eliminated as crew would be sent up before the tanks were filled by the assembly station. Assembly stations could be used for other types of missions too. Could store multiple EDS, landers, ect. at the station. Station could be designed to grow in size as needed. So it can start out small. They have stated in space propellent transfer, so that part would be developed that can work at an assemble station or tanker to EDS. So the first cargo missions could be done without the assemble station ( Atlas 55X or FH would be needed ).

So what we need now is to now what the customers want.
Flag and foot print to say they went and some samples? Or that and the ability to have a permanent base on the moon to explore and put the needed infrastructure there so they can move further out into the solar system?

Get a lander that has a future on the lunar surface and they would most likely increase that amount of investors and funds.

And no this will not help the political barriers that have been holding back crewed BLEO missions.

[Danderman]

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

 

[Robotbeat]

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

[Bill White]

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

Actually, Rocketman is spot on. Identifying what paying customers want is the critical link.

[Robotbeat]

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

Actually, Rocketman is spot on. Identifying what paying customers want is the critical link.

Paying customers want apps, cellphones, TVs, laptops, tablets, cars, food, and a trip to the beach. Let's not kid ourselves, we aren't trying primarily just to make money on whatever business. They are trying to land people on the Moon primarily, making enough money to pay for it comfortably. You cannot land on the Moon without a lander!

[RocketmanUS]

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

And I believe the concept on this thread below with CH4/LOX , the lander and cargo or SEV in LLO would be a possible way to go.
Spaceworks - Lunar Surface Access From EML2
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30043.0

Don't have the in-space stage as it it not needed for LOR. Use the lander to place cargo ( heavier than SEV/crew ) on the surface ( out of propellent ). Or use one to place SEV with crew and have propellent left for ascent. Can always add the in-space stage later for EML1/2.

Lander to use off the shelf RCS. Tanks to be pressurized with a pressurant gas ( not their own , would be needed later for reusable lander ). RL-10 CH4/LOX has been stated could be used.

I don't see this costing more to design. If SEV is not ready they could still land crew on top ( unpressurized like Apollo Lunar escape )

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

Actually, Rocketman is spot on. Identifying what paying customers want is the critical link.

Yep and that will determine the type of lander.

If all the customer wants is foot prints/flag/samples then their small lander could be they way to go. However it looks like a lot of us want to do more on the moon and explore/colonize the solar system.

We need to build the right one first and be able to make it reusable later.

[johncarpinelli]

A commercial return to the moon is the right approach. I think Golden Spike have a good chance of success. However, I'd like to see them build a moon-base robotically first. It's easier to justify billions of dollars on infrastructure than flags and footprints. Let's get a robotic propellant factory on the moon and build a habitat nearby from sintered regolith. Then the astronauts will have a destination and can stay longer.

[Garrett]

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

This whole plan depends on money. You have money, you have a lander. This is not the 1950's. Ask any of the current lander/VTVL developers what they need to make an effective* lander and I'm pretty sure their top answer will be money.
Even if an off-the-shelf lander existed, the plan would go nowhere without money. Of course, if an off-the-shelf lander did exist, then we'd be living in a world where the creation of Golden Spike probably wouldn't have been necessary.

* why use the word "effective"? If it lands, isn't it effective?

[Warren Platts]

The lander is what they would need to work on first. They will need to test land it before crew would use it. So land probes/rovers first.  After the probes then land the needed components for an outpost ( could be added to later to make it a base ). Then send first crew to assemble the outpost and bring back some of the samples that the probes have collected.

Investors would be paying for the outpost components and landing them on the moon. GSC should be looking to make a lander that is capable of placing 10klb to 15klb of usable mass on the surface without a crasher stage. Single stage to the surface. If it carried crew then it could return then to LLO without refueling. Us CH4/LOX. If fueled in LEO then it would not need the FH ( less tanker flights if can be done with FH ), also the EDS.

No if we had an assemble station in LEO then all parts could be there and fueled. After the lander is on it's way the crew could be sent shortly after to LLO. Weather problems are eliminated as crew would be sent up before the tanks were filled by the assembly station. Assembly stations could be used for other types of missions too. Could store multiple EDS, landers, ect. at the station. Station could be designed to grow in size as needed. So it can start out small. They have stated in space propellent transfer, so that part would be developed that can work at an assemble station or tanker to EDS. So the first cargo missions could be done without the assemble station ( Atlas 55X or FH would be needed ).

So what we need now is to now what the customers want.
Flag and foot print to say they went and some samples? Or that and the ability to have a permanent base on the moon to explore and put the needed infrastructure there so they can move further out into the solar system?

Get a lander that has a future on the lunar surface and they would most likely increase that amount of investors and funds.

What the above is is called "mission creep". It's too expensive and will bring everything to a grinding halt.

At first there will be no robots, no rovers, no bases, do depots, no refueling, no Lunar infrastructure, no space stations. But that is as it should be. The main idea is just get the ball rolling, and the juices flowing.

What people here perjoratively call "flags 'n' footprints" (a term I have been guilty of using as well) is not it at all. You should think of these as Lunar sample return (LSR) missions, where the samples will be caught by humans trained in Lunar field geology.

It is premature to be thinking about setting up a Lunar base. We can't just throw a dart at the map of the Moon and set up a base wherever the dart hits. You should think of the initial round of missions as scouting missions--human precursor missions, as it were.

Once we start getting our feet dirty, we can spirally expand our capabilities. That's why I really hope they can figure out the boiloff issues with the LH2/LO2 version because that one has the highest mass margins.

The heaviest lander they discuss is the 2-person, pressurized, storable lander that has a IMLLO of about 12 mT--about twice the IMLLO of the LH2 version. They note that the former is too heavy to fly under all mission scenarios (implying that it can fly under some, presumably using the FH LV's). So, 12 mT is the most we have to work with in this initial phase, meaning the LH2/LO2 lander could theoretically deliver a payload to the Moon of about 1.5 mT, not counting the mass of the lander. Thus, with the LH2/LO2 lander it might be possible to extend the stay-time by a day or two, bring a rover, maybe do some polar or Farside landings.

[Bill White]

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

Actually, Rocketman is spot on. Identifying what paying customers want is the critical link.

Paying customers want apps, cellphones, TVs, laptops, tablets, cars, food, and a trip to the beach. Let's not kid ourselves, we aren't trying primarily just to make money on whatever business. They are trying to land people on the Moon primarily, making enough money to pay for it comfortably. You cannot land on the Moon without a lander!

I agree. Land people on the Moon while making enough money to pay for it comfortably. Money isn't the goal, money is a necessary means of achieving that goal.

I also agree that the lander is the most significant piece of missing technology.

Find people willing to pay sufficiently large amounts of money to get to the lunar surface and there will be a lunar lander developed.

[kch]

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

This whole plan depends on money. You have money, you have a lander. This is not the 1950's. Ask any of the current lander/VTVL developers what they need to make an effective* lander and I'm pretty sure their top answer will be money.
Even if an off-the-shelf lander existed, the plan would go nowhere without money. Of course, if an off-the-shelf lander did exist, then we'd be living in a world where the creation of Golden Spike probably wouldn't have been necessary.

* why use the word "effective"? If it lands, isn't it effective?

That depends on whether you want to take off and come home again after you've landed. 

[Garrett]

* why use the word "effective"? If it lands, isn't it effective?

That depends on whether you want to take off and come home again after you've landed. 

I think what you're getting at is a fully reusable lander, that combines descent and ascent capabilities in to one module. Reusability is not necessarily more effective however.

[mmeijeri]

The heaviest lander they discuss is the 2-person, pressurized, storable lander that has a IMLLO of about 12 mT--about twice the IMLLO of the LH2 version. They note that the former is too heavy to fly under all mission scenarios (implying that it can fly under some, presumably using the FH LV's).

Only if you don't use propellant transfer. If you do, it's the other way round, the storable lander would be lighter and the LOX/LH2 lander would be slightly heavier. Because the difference would be slight, it's not a real problem. What is a real issue however, is that the dry storable lander would be much lighter than the fueled cryogenic lander. And since we do have propellant transfer and storage for hypergolics, but not for cryogens, that is the comparison we should be making. The approach using propellant transfer is much more flexible, much more powerful and can lead to a much earlier propellant launch market. The better is the enemy of the good here.

[mmeijeri]

Us CH4/LOX.

Why insist on a propellant type for which we don't have transfer and storage technology and which has much less mature engines when hypergolics would do? Somehow people are always shooting themselves in the foot by adding at least one gratuitous piece of fancy new hardware to an otherwise practical plan: LOX/LH2 refueling, multi-MW SEP tugs, aerobraking, a 70mT+ EDS, a 70mT+ launch vehicle, 10m+ fairings, VASMR, NOFBX, FH etc etc.

If fueled in LEO then it would not need the FH ( less tanker flights if can be done with FH ), also the EDS.

And if fueled in LLO or at L1/L2, you don't even need a large EDS. LEO to L1/L2 is a bottleneck too and pushing the lander through TLI fueled is just as unnecessary as launching it fueled.

[kch]

* why use the word "effective"? If it lands, isn't it effective?

That depends on whether you want to take off and come home again after you've landed. 

I think what you're getting at is a fully reusable lander, that combines descent and ascent capabilities in to one module. Reusability is not necessarily more effective however.

No, what I'm actually interested in is a fully reusable crew.  Disposable landers?  No problem.  Disposable crew?  Big problem.

[Danderman]

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

Actually, Rocketman is spot on. Identifying what paying customers want is the critical link.

Yep.

The rest of the technobabble here is not related to the future of Golden Spike.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

[Warren Platts]

I agree... This whole plan depends on an effective lander, all other parts are nearly available. Make a great lander (ideally with a way to efficiently refuel it), and this plan is workable.

Actually, Rocketman is spot on. Identifying what paying customers want is the critical link.

Yep.

The rest of the technobabble here is not related to the future of Golden Spike.

No bucks, no Buck Rogers.

Actually, I would say identifying a price point that customers can afford to pay is more important. There is no point in promising the entire Moon if people can't afford to pay for it.

$1.5B per bare bones mission is pushing the limit of affordability as it is.

[Warren Platts]

The heaviest lander they discuss is the 2-person, pressurized, storable lander that has a IMLLO of about 12 mT--about twice the IMLLO of the LH2 version. They note that the former is too heavy to fly under all mission scenarios (implying that it can fly under some, presumably using the FH LV's).

Only if you don't use propellant transfer. If you do, ... the dry storable lander would be much lighter than the fueled cryogenic lander.

Huh? I must be missing something because it seems to me that you still have ship the storable propellant to LLO, in a tanker presumably. Right? So you increase IMLEO and cost by including a depot/tanker--not to mention the residual propellant that will be leftover--in addition to your old-fashioned, over-weight, 2-stage, disposable, hypergolic lander!

And since we do have propellant transfer and storage for hypergolics, but not for cryogens

That is simply not true. There are guys with nothing but a GED and CDL that do it every day. The problem with the LH2/LO2 lander concept is not that it is too hard to refuel--after all, they say that's why they want it--so that it can be refueled!

[Mongo62]

The proposed missions have been criticized as being "bare bones" "flag and footprint" missions.  I thought it would be interesting to do a direct comparison with the Apollo missions:

Mission / time on lunar surface (# of EVAs) lunar surface EVA time / mass of lunar samples returned / lunar science package deployed / extra vehicle

Apollo 11 / 21:36 (1 EVA) 2:35 / 21.5kg / EASEP
Apollo 12 / 31:31 (2 EVA) 7:45 / 34.3kg / ALSEP
Apollo 14 / 33:30 (2 EVA) 9:22 / 42.3kg / ALSEP
Apollo 15 / 66:55 (3 EVA) 18:34 / 77.3kg / ALSEP / Lunar Rover
Apollo 16 / 71:02 (3 EVA) 20.14 / 95.7kg / ALSEP / Lunar Rover
Apollo 17 / 74:59 (3 EVA) 22:04 / 110.5kg / ALSEP / Lunar Rover

Early GS / >36:00 (2 EVA) ??:?? / ~50kg / GoLDSEP

Looking at this, and considering that GoLDSEP will surely be more advanced than ALSEP was, I would put the early Golden Spike lunar surface missions as more capable than Apollo 11 to 14, but less capable than Apollo 15 to 17.

I also think that later GS lunar missions would be more capable than this, as additional hardware becomes available (such as one-way cargo landers carrying habs and rovers/hoppers).  But that would not be for some time after the first landings, I assume.

[mmeijeri]

Huh? I must be missing something because it seems to me that you still have ship the storable propellant to LLO, in a tanker presumably. Right? So you increase IMLEO and cost by including a depot/tanker--not to mention the residual propellant that will be leftover--in addition to your old-fashioned, over-weight, 2-stage, disposable, hypergolic lander!

I didn't say it would have to be two-stage or expendable, just that we don't need to insist it has to be reusable. It will be useful eventually, so if we can get it it will be nice, otherwise it can wait.

But my point was that the size of the largest piece would be smaller with a dry storable lander than with a fueled cryogenic lander. There's no need to make the architecture dependent on FH or on the availability of cryogenic propellant transfer. It is wise however to make sure you can make use of it as soon as it becomes available, and to stimulate its development where possible.

That is simply not true. There are guys with nothing but a GED and CDL that do it every day. The problem with the LH2/LO2 lander concept is not that it is too hard to refuel--after all, they say that's why they want it--so that it can be refueled!

What do those TLAs mean?