Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[RocketmanUS]

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.

Delta IV Heavy or Falcon Heavy. No need for SLS, however could be launched on SLS.

For the CH4/LOX version the tanks could be taller for smaller diameter so the lander had a less diameter to fit in the DIVH or FH fairing. Still would be shorter then the LH2/LOX version.

[sdsds]

It might be less expensive to get four crew to the lunar surface in two landers, rather than in one. Conceivably that approach might even make the mission more robust in some contingency scenarios.

[joek]

Delta IV Heavy or Falcon Heavy. No need for SLS, however could be launched on SLS.

Only thing in plan that could get any of those configurations to LLO fueled (> 34mT cryo and >43mT hypergolic) in a single launch is SLS.  Or is the plan to put them in LEO and leave them there until LEO depots, lunar ISRU or whatever is available?

[Robotbeat]

Delta IV Heavy or Falcon Heavy. No need for SLS, however could be launched on SLS.

Only thing in plan that could get any of those configurations to LLO fueled (> 34mT cryo and >43mT hypergolic) in a single launch is SLS.  Or is the plan to put them in LEO and leave them there until LEO depots, lunar ISRU or whatever is available?

Have you heard of Gemini?

[KelvinZero]

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.

There is a compromise that shouldnt scare the robophobics as much: Set goal one as just the lander of a manned architecture. This can begin to be tested with useful missions before you have your heavy lift (or depot) or ascent vehicle( or reusable version of lander )

I would like to see these guys focus more on cost/kg for any cargo rather than just manned. Otherwise it sounds like you are marketing at really rich arabs who want to go golfing for a weekend.

The unmanned missions would let you land significant multi-ton pieces of hardware. Or you could also sell cargospace by the kg for say a few hundred thousand. It is the unmanned cargos that can both find many smaller customers and make the manned missions an order of magnitude better equipped than Apollo.

..Also, I once heard a claim SpaceX offered a lunar cargo service of $80m/ton. It doesn't seem unreasonable: $80k/kg.

[Robert Thompson]

developing business for Moon Express?

Someone took down the "Google Lunar X Prize Scorecard" (http://evadot.com/glxpscorecard/) which to memory had Moon Express leading Barcelona Moon and Astrobotic in funding.

Zak has a few recent entries on http://www.moonexpress.com/news_glxp.html.

[Warren Platts]

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".

Essentially, what Rocketman is describing is a Masten XEUS, an SSTO which could do round trips with a 5 mT payload. It's hard to see how the development costs would be more than the more or less clean sheet design that GSC is apparently pursuing. After all, the Centaur itself, and the RL-10 motor have flown in space a bunch of times, the new rocket motors to enable horizontal landing have already been tested on Earth, and they've already got the software mostly figured out for the guidance. The main thing it would need is the pressurized crew capsule. Certainly 5 mT payload is plenty for four people.

Thus the problem is not the development costs, but the fact that it would triple the launch costs. There might be some savings elsewhere, so it would probably be a wash in terms of per seat price, and probably be a lot more comfortable of a ride, with more mass margin, allowing a rover, more samples returned, longer loiter time.

But you're doubling the per mission cost from $1.5B ea. to $3B ea.: (a) that reduces the number of customers that can afford to go at all; and (b), from a scientific perspective, the gain in quantity and quality of sample material is outweighed by the fact that you can now only visit half the number of sites; and (c) even if you can afford $3B it's a lot easier to cough it up on two separate occassions than all at once.

The little GSC lander is exactly the right machine for what we need now: scouting missions. These will be cheap enough to allow us to leapfrog the "robotic precursor" stage that everybody says is necessary, and allow us to get directly back to human exploration within 50 years of Apollo.

[Warren Platts]

It might be less expensive to get four crew to the lunar surface in two landers, rather than in one. Conceivably that approach might even make the mission more robust in some contingency scenarios.

Now that's an interesting new thought!

Sure, why not? Send two landers, and 4 people in the Dragon, and you can visit two sites on the Moon on a single mission for the same amount of time. It would save the cost of an extra capsule launch. Very snug!

[Rocket Science]

It might be less expensive to get four crew to the lunar surface in two landers, rather than in one. Conceivably that approach might even make the mission more robust in some contingency scenarios.

Now that's an interesting new thought!

Sure, why not? Send two landers, and 4 people in the Dragon, and you can visit two sites on the Moon on a single mission for the same amount of time. It would save the cost of an extra capsule launch. Very snug!

That's what I thought of with my Dragon Direct Descent Lander.
(4 crew in one Lander.)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30567.0

[yg1968]

I don't know if this has been posted already. But here is a very short video showing part of the press conference.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/9728933/US-company-to-offer-manned-space-flights-to-moon-by-2020.html

[Danderman]

It might be less expensive to get four crew to the lunar surface in two landers, rather than in one. Conceivably that approach might even make the mission more robust in some contingency scenarios.

Are you discussing Golden Spike's plans, or your own personal lunar mission?

[mmeijeri]

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.

The need for depots and especially LEO depots does not arise. A lander can serve as its own depot, and it can be refueled in LLO or at L1/L2, just as it could in LEO.

All of which goes against the grain of GSC's stated "head start" approach.

I agree depots go against the head start approach, which is why I think it would be unwise to develop them until we had a lot of traffic. Until then, let the lander be its own depot, and make sure you put it through TLI unfueled so you don't need a large EDS or cryogenic refueling.

[Danderman]

Has Golden Spike announced an intention to utilize propellant depots for its 2020 lunar mission?

Can we please focus this thread on Golden Spike and not your personal views on optimum lunar mission architectures?  If you must spew technobabble, please start up a new thread called "What I think Golden Spike Should Do", and discuss it over there.

[mmeijeri]

I was arguing against depending on depots.

[joek]

Essentially, what Rocketman is describing is a Masten XEUS, an SSTO which could do round trips with a 5 mT payload. It's hard to see how the development costs would be more than the more or less clean sheet design that GSC is apparently pursuing.

RocketmanUS was suggesting...

Spaceworks - Lunar Surface Access From EML2
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30043.0
...
How is this lander harder or more expensive to make than what GSC is looking at?

Much much more in comparison to what GSC is proposing.  Estimated development cost (just for that Spaceworks SEV-derived vehicle) is $8-10B--larger than GSC's entire budge to first landing.  Not tom mention a lot bigger and a heavier.

[Danderman]

I was arguing against depending on depots.

What if you "win" the argument, how does that impact Golden Spike?

IF these guys are funded, they are going to do what they want to do, not what we think they should do.

THIS thread should be about what they are doing and what they will do, not what we want them to do.

[Danderman]

Essentially, what Rocketman is describing is a Masten XEUS, an SSTO which could do round trips with a 5 mT payload. It's hard to see how the development costs would be more than the more or less clean sheet design that GSC is apparently pursuing.

RocketmanUS was suggesting...

Spaceworks - Lunar Surface Access From EML2
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30043.0
...
How is this lander harder or more expensive to make than what GSC is looking at?

Much much more in comparison to what GSC is proposing.  Estimated development cost (just for that Spaceworks SEV-derived vehicle) is $8-10B--larger than GSC's entire budge to first landing.  Not tom mention a lot bigger and a heavier.

Is there any information that leads to the conclusion that GS plans to use the Spaceworks lander, or is this just a random discussion?

[mmeijeri]

What if you "win" the argument, how does that impact Golden Spike?

IF these guys are funded, they are going to do what they want to do, not what we think they should do.

THIS thread should be about what they are doing and what they will do, not what we want them to do.

You asked, possibly rhetorically, whether GS has given any intention of buying propellant from a depot. That's not relevant to my argument since I was arguing against relying on them. If you're opposed to it, you'll have to take it up with someone else. It would be different if I were advocating use of depots, then you could reasonably say: "hey, wait a minute, they have no intention of buying from a depot."

And as for their stated intentions: the article considers refueling without specifying how. Directly refueling from a tanker spacecraft as I'm proposing would be the simplest thing to do. It seems to me that is the form of propellant transfer that's most in line with their KISS philosophy.

[Danderman]

And as for their stated intentions: the article considers refueling without specifying how. Directly refueling from a tanker spacecraft as I'm proposing would be the simplest thing to do. It seems to me that is the form of propellant transfer that's most in line with their KISS philosophy.

I believe that GS has unveiled a concept of a Centaur with drop tanks, which they describe as a sort of refueling.

[mmeijeri]

I believe that GS has unveiled a concept of a Centaur with drop tanks, which they describe as a sort of refueling.

They have also mentioned refuelable landers, though without much detail.