Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[mmeijeri]

Mission creep. Too expensive. Not an option....

What "mission creep"? I sketched a minimalist architecture, you are the one who keeps inserting gratuitous fancy new hardware.

[Warren Platts]

Um, I'm just going by what I read in the AIAA paper. Looks pretty minimalistic to me....

See attachment:

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Just because there will not be redundant boosters for a single launch task does not mean that only 1 booster will be used.

If SpaceX does not develop a Centaur like capable US for the FH then it may not work for delivering the Lander to LLO. But use of a F9 to put the Lander into LEO and then an Atlas 552 to deliver a DEC derived ACES to operate as an EDS to get the Lander to LLO would. Then using just a FH with a DragonRider on top to deliver the creww to LLO in a single launch. This was a scenareo that was outlined by GS and may be the actual used since it makes some sense and is possibly the lowest development cost/schedule risk/technical risk of the various solutions.

But using FH and DragonRider presumes that SpaceX will be interested in building a BEO DragonRider version.

At this point the LV's involved and the tasks (what payload they will launch) are not defined. That is what will be occuring during the next year or more. So that hopefully by mid 2014 the proposed elements will be known so that detail design work on the Lander can begin.

[mmeijeri]

Just because there will not be redundant boosters for a single launch task does not mean that only 1 booster will be used.

Agreed.

If SpaceX does not develop a Centaur like capable US for the FH then it may not work for delivering the Lander to LLO.

If they have FH, they could use a similarly modified Falcon upper stage instead, which could function much like Centaur. If their prices are really much lower than ULA's prices, this could still be cheaper.

But use of a F9 to put the Lander into LEO and then an Atlas 552 to deliver a DEC derived ACES to operate as an EDS to get the Lander to LLO would. Then using just a FH with a DragonRider on top to deliver the creww to LLO in a single launch. This was a scenareo that was outlined by GS and may be the actual used since it makes some sense and is possibly the lowest development cost/schedule risk/technical risk of the various solutions.

Agreed.

At this point the LV's involved and the tasks (what payload they will launch) are not defined. That is what will be occuring during the next year or more. So that hopefully by mid 2014 the proposed elements will be known so that detail design work on the Lander can begin.

I agree, but my point is that we know enough even now to make sure that each of the individual tasks is launch vehicle agnostic:

- capsule to LEO
- capsule from LEO to L1/L2/LLO
- dry lander to LEO
- dry lander from LEO to L1/L2/LLO
- lander propellant to L1/L2/LLO

Do you disagree that is the case? If so, what obstacles do you see?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

From the standpoint of delivery of crew to LLO use complete systems from seperate providers such as an FH with BEO DragonRider or an Atlas 552 with the EDS followed as fast as possible by another Atlas with a BEO CST-100 which is then pushed out to LLO. Both will get to LLO and don't represent any real technical hurdles except the short duration between Atlas launches, which is more of a mission/cost risk item than technical.

[mmeijeri]

From the standpoint of delivery of crew to LLO use complete systems from seperate providers such as an FH with BEO DragonRider or an Atlas 552 with the EDS followed as fast as possible by another Atlas with a BEO CST-100 which is then pushed out to LLO.

Both would be good options. There are more.

Both will get to LLO and don't represent any real technical hurdles except the short duration between Atlas launches, which is more of a mission/cost risk item than technical.

Even that need not be a problem if the crew is launched first and spends time on the ISS awaiting its EDS.

So does that mean you agree we can be launch vehicle agnostic?

[Warren Platts]

- capsule to LEO
- capsule from LEO to L1/L2/LLO
- dry lander to LEO
- dry lander from LEO to L1/L2/LLO
- lander propellant to L1/L2/LLO

You've got an extra LV--maybe two--an extra EDS, and an extra propellant tank.

These three or four items are not needed--especially for the H.E.L.L. lander--which will never be reused. And what about the solid rockets? Are they to be shipped separately as well?

And all this so as to avoid reliance on the FH....

And so you're looking at 6 launches altogether if FH isn't used. They were hoping to keep the launches down to 4 or less per mission. This is what I call mission creep....

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

From a standpoint of you must absolutly have to have a specific LV, yes. As to which would be best finicially no. The booster vary widly in costs. If they were of approximately the same cost then you would use whatever was available to do the job.

If you have to use a differnet booster after operations start it deffinitly can be done but affect the price of the ticket causing them to go up.

But eventually other booster which would be cheaper than even an FH may become available by mid 2020's so GS could swap to a new booster without too much trouble for the delivery of the Lander to LLO. The problem is the BEO CCV. It is a complete system from a single provider. That provider could change boosters but GS could not tell them to do it. The CCV's are heavily integrated into the booster and would need significant work to change boosters, most of it test and evaluation rather than design changes required for flight safety.

GS would be purchasing a service form the BEO CCV provider to get crew to LLO and then return them to Earth.

[mmeijeri]

@Warren:

I see you are back to being rude (HELL lander), misrepresenting people's positions and I suspect putting forward arguments you don't even believe in yourself. Have a good night, I'm going to bed, see you tomorrow.

[mrmandias]

That's still not a good reason to make yourself dependent on a single launch vehicle, especially since there is absolutely no need to do so and very good reasons not to.

Making themselves dependent on a single launch vehicle is the very least of their problems.

[Danderman]

What would be interesting is information about who at Golden Spike is handling marketing.

Mr. Zak Williams – director of marketing, Moon Express

Thank you!

What kind of success has Mr. Williams had in developing business for Moon Express?

[joek]

Depends; they've discussed three different possibibilities .  Option (3) below is not discussed in the AIAA paper, but was apparently discussed elsewhere; see Turning science fiction to science fact: Golden Spike makes plans for human lunar missions, Jeff Foust, The Space Review, Dec 10, 2012.

1. 2x launch with lunar orbit: A-552+F9
a) 1x Centaur + drop-tank on A-552
b) 1x Lunar Dragon with propulsion module on F9
- Requires a+b EOR
- Does not require Centaur-F9 integration

2. 2x launch with lunar landing: 2x FH
a) 1x Lunar Lander + Centaur-class US on FH
b) 1x Lunar Dragon with propulsion module + Centaur-class US on FH
- Requires a+b LOR
- Requires FH-Centaur integration

3. 4x launch with lunar landing: some mix of Atlas and F9
a) 1x Lunar Lander
b) 1x Lunar Lander EDS/LOI stage
c) 1X Lunar Dragon (with propulsion module?)
d) 1X Lunar Dragon EDS/LOI stage
- Requires a+b EOR; c+d EOR; and a+c LOR
- If (b) and (d) on Atlas, eliminates F9-Centaur integration.
- If (c) on F9, may be cheaper than on Atlas(?).

Maintaining an LV-agonistic approach is going to cost at least a couple extra launches.  Unclear how much more for a refuelable lander architecture, at least for the initial mission(s).  Once you get going might get down to three launches using F9 and Atlas, but how much extra up-front development will that require?

[JohnFornaro]

What would be interesting is information about who at Golden Spike is handling marketing.

Mr. Zak Williams – director of marketing, Moon Express

Thank you!

What kind of success has Mr. Williams had in developing business for Moon Express?

Alan Stern is still listed on the Moon Express page:

http://www.moonexpress.com/blog.php?id=29

[joek]

With respect to refueling using hypergolics... some rough numbers based nominally on GSC's statements, a bit of guestimating, and assuming I did the calc's right (WARNING: amateur at work; subject to correction; YMMV; etc.) ...

A. Given:
1. Single stage two-person pressurized lander
2. Hypergolic propulsion (NTO/hydrazine) Isp 310 sec (est, optimistic?)
3. Lander dry mass with payload 1800kg (big WAG, est from GSC)
4. Descent dV 2625 m/sec (given by GSC)
5. Ascent dV 2345 m/sec (given by GSC)

B. Then:
1. Total prop required ~7440kg

C. Question is then: Can we deliver ~7440kg of hypergolic propellant to the lander in LLO reasonably simply and cheaply?  Short answer: Maybe, but doubtful.
1. A "reloaded Centaur LTV" can deliver 8100kg to LLO from LEO (per GSC); maybe.
2. Current FH can deliver only 8730kg to LTO from LEO (per GSC); no joy.
3. Current F9 (v1.1); don't ask.

D. Cryo (LH2/O2 or LCH4/O2) may make it possible to throw the required propellant mass to LLO from LEO in a single launch on existing LV's, but comes with additional baggage (such as non-trivial DDT&E and possibly serious launch window constraints).  Per GSC, we would need to deliver to the lander in LLO:
1. 7229kg LO2/LCH4.
2. 4801kg LO2/LH2.

E. And if we can't deliver/store the required propellant to the lander in LLO in one throw, we're now into discussion of LEO depots and the requisite time and cost to develop.  All of which goes against the grain of GSC's stated "head start" approach.

Or we might as well stick with the approaches that GSC has outlined.  In short, maybe depot's and refeualable lunar landers someday, but the numbers and GSC's "head start" approach suggests not in the near term.

[RocketmanUS]

CH4/LOX lander, we already have test engines, good trade between LH2/LOX and hypergolics. There is a possibility CH4/LOX can be made on the moon. Not as light mass as LH2/LOX but lighter than hypergolics.

We should be able to do CH4/LOX in space transfer between the tanker and the lander or EDS by the time the lander is ready.

The first landings would not use a reusable lander.
1 ) no ISRU on the moon at that time.
2 ) do not know if the lander can be reused at that tech level
3 ) for crew safety
4 ) would be cargo landed
5 ) cost in putting the ISRU on the moon compared to just launching another lander

The lander could be made to be fueled in space so it can be launched empty  ( or near empty so it would have some control for altitude and connecting to a tanker or EDS. First model will most likely use hypergolics for RCS. Once made to be reused then RCS would use CH4/LOX.

Set the specs for the lander to place up to four crew from LLO to Lunar surface and back to LLO. Same lander to be able to place 10klb to 15klb from LLO to Lunar surface without crew. This would be a single stage with not crasher stage so it could later be made reusable, propellent CH4/LOX.

Fully fueled with cargo could be launched on Delta IV heavy or FH. FH ( cross feed ) could launch a CH4/LOX EDS when available. For cargo the EDS would do the TLI burn, the lander would do all the other burns to Lunar surface. To use to land crew it would need to have propellent added in LLO or have the EDS ( larger sized ) do all burns to LLO ( could land up to four crew ). EDS and lander could use CH4/LOX CECE engine(s).

If they can develop their Pod lander then they could develop this instead with greater options for now and the future. I don't think it would cost more to develop the cargo version and test it. For crew it could use the unpressurized idea or the SEV if it is available.

If they don't and there are customers, then who ever does will get the business. We already had the photo/video with Apollo 11 and sample grab. Now we need the next step with a Lunar outpost. This type of lander can do both types of missions.

For the customers/investors they would be able to see a better return on their investment with in about the same time frame.

To types of customers.
1 ) quick crew and sample return
2 ) outpost to a base

They can have both types with this lander. With an outpost they can keep crew there longer and just send samples back without having to send crew at the same time. Rovers can collect samples with remote control from Earth and bring then to the outpost to be sorted and sent back to Earth. They could test samples at a base ( expanded outpost ).

With the main funding on the needed lander and EDS were it belongs this could happen. Leave the crew Dragon to commercial, if modifications are needed for Lunar that can be done once they have proven LEO crew Dragon ( lower risk ). If a crew capsule is not ready in time then they could still do robotic exploration and sample return till there is a crew Lunar capsule.

Lets start out with a lander that can be made reusable if needed and can be sent also to EML1/2 ( with in-space stage or the lander stretched for added propellent ).

ISRU can add complexity and expense so it can wait till later when it can be justified by high sorties. Also when we can collect data on how well the lander can handle being in space for a given period of time before it is used again. If the lander is designed to be fuel in space then they could transfer unused propellents from the cargo landers to one of them for a test ( take off and then land some distance away ). Could at some point sent a rover with equipment to transfer the propellents.

What is the one valuable thing that can be sent from one body of mass in the universe to another that does not take a lot of effort, mass, energy? ( answer: information as it can be sent by radio )

Edit:
A customer may want to sell their Lunar samples to the general public. 5 gains of Lunar sand sealed in a transparency that magnifies their image. I can just now see the tv add. 12 easy payments and you to can have a piece of the moon. I wounder what someone would charge for that?

Edit 2:
When we have a usable lander able to deliver at least 10klb of cargo to the Lunar surface then there will be the funding for an outpost and the use of it. If there were to be not such funding then this whole idea of crew to return to the moon would not work.

Why would anyone want to fly all the way to Hawaii just for a day when they could stay for two weeks of enjoyment? Figure what it cost just to get there. That is a big expense, so they might as well stay for awhile to enjoy their trip. Same thing applies to the moon and the time to get there also.

[darkenfast]

Forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere; but isn't Dragon oversized/overweight for a two-person mission? Are they planning to send two for a landing and another two on a lunar orbit only ride?

[joek]

Set the specs for the lander to place up to four crew from LLO to Lunar surface and back to LLO. Same lander to be able to place 10klb to 15klb from LLO to Lunar surface without crew. This would be a single stage with not crasher stage so it could later be made reusable, propellent CH4/LOX.

That completely blows GSC's approach and philisophy.  It goes from a simple bare-bones "we think we may be able to do it with a bit of luck getting customers and some friendly deep pocket investors maximizing use of what exists to minimize DDT&E and risk" to "we can only do this with major government investment or insanely deep pocket investors because of the massive DDT&E and risk".

GSC is attempting to get to a human (1-2 crew) on the lunar surface repeatedly and back with the minimim investment and risk (time and money).  Every bit of baggage you add to that goal makes success less likely.  The landers they have spec'd are already stripped to tbe bones--making it able to "place 10klb to 15klb" on the surface is insane (with or without crasher stage).  And reusability?  Forget it on GSC's projected budget.

[A_M_Swallow]

Forgive me if this has been covered elsewhere; but isn't Dragon oversized/overweight for a two-person mission? Are they planning to send two for a landing and another two on a lunar orbit only ride?

Probably.

Seats can be removed from the Dragon and the space used for extra food, water and air.  Also the company may not object if their equipment is able to land 4 people on the Moon for the same cost.

[RocketmanUS]

Set the specs for the lander to place up to four crew from LLO to Lunar surface and back to LLO. Same lander to be able to place 10klb to 15klb from LLO to Lunar surface without crew. This would be a single stage with not crasher stage so it could later be made reusable, propellent CH4/LOX.

That completely blows GSC's approach and philisophy.  It goes from a simple bare-bones "we think we may be able to do it with a bit of luck getting customers and some friendly deep pocket investors maximizing use of what exists to minimize DDT&E and risk" to "we can only do this with major government investment or insanely deep pocket investors because of the massive DDT&E and risk".

GSC is attempting to get to a human (1-2 crew) on the lunar surface repeatedly and back with the minimim investment and risk (time and money).  Every bit of baggage you add to that goal makes success less likely.  The landers they have spec'd are already stripped to tbe bones--making it able to "place 10klb to 15klb" on the surface is insane (with or without crasher stage).  And reusability?  Forget it on GSC's projected budget.

Reusability is for later not now.

10klb on the surface, read this thread.

Spaceworks - Lunar Surface Access From EML2
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30043.0

In LLO the lander can place 4mt to the surface and back to LLO. If it did not have to ascend to LLO it could take down 10klb of cargo to the surface.

How is this lander harder or more expensive to make than what GSC is looking at?

I think there are more customers for a better lander with a better future.

[joek]

How is this lander harder or more expensive to make than what GSC is looking at?

Give or take, about 10x.  It's HUGE compared to what GSC is proposing--absolutely no comparision--not to mention dependent on SLS.