Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[RocketmanUS]

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.

Yes that concept.

The lander could use CH4/LOX or hypergolics.

They could start out with just two fuel tanks instead of four and two smaller oxidizer tanks instead of the larger one's. This would give them their small lander for two crew in space suits plus 50kg of samples. This then could easily by scaled up later. No drop tank needed.

Options-
1 ) launch fueled and send to LLO
2 ) launch unfueled and fuel in LEO then send to LLO
3 ) launch unfueled send to LLO and fuel there

There should be no problem in designing such a lander and sending it to the Lunar surface with cargo or crew by 2020.

If we were to go with their concept of what I call smash and grab then all we will have is similar to Apollo 11. How much longer would it take to finally get past Apollo era and set up an outpost.

No matter what lander is used they will have to test land it first before sending crew. So they could land a probe first.

If there are at least 15 potential customers would they not prefer a better option for a lander. Even if they don't set up an outpost someone else just might want to. GSC wants to sent up a transportation system to the moon. So I do believe they should start out by providing a lander that can do that.

We need to stop pretending that we are going back to the moon and set up plans to really go back and do more than Apollo already did. Other wise we should just use Morpheus to send probes for less cost and no risk to a crew.

If their are customers and GSC does not take up a better lander then someone else will. I see how there is money to be made here, the science benefits, and the ability for humanity to go beyond LEO and have an outpost and later a permanent presence BLEO.

To compare-
I can by a small compact car ( affordable ) and go to the lake for the weekend or I can buy a SUV to pull a boat so I can go water skiing ( greater cost , however greater return on investment ). With several friend together we can afford the better option ( work together ). So if there is several customers then they can combine their resources for a better near term Lunar exploration program that has some place to go.

[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.

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

Golden Spike's plan, I hope you'll agree, is to land people on the lunar surface in pairs using landers that are cost effective for that purpose. Their customers will decide how to use that capability. I'm suggesting an entity wanting to land a crew of four could still do so as a GS customer. More, I'm suggesting that given the existence of the GS 2-crew lander, using two of those could cost the customer less than developing their own 4-crew lander.

It's reasonable to ask, "What could customers do with the capabilities GS is offering?" It's even reasonable to ask, "How could the GS architecture achieve the objectives of the Constellation lunar sortie reference mission?"

(Meta-comment @Danderman: if you're looking for the GS Updates thread, and haven't found it, maybe you should start one. )

[RocketmanUS]

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?

Golden Spike's plan, I hope you'll agree, is to land people on the lunar surface in pairs using landers that are cost effective for that purpose. Their customers will decide how to use that capability. I'm suggesting an entity wanting to land a crew of four could still do so as a GS customer. More, I'm suggesting that given the existence of the GS 2-crew lander, using two of those could cost the customer less than developing their own 4-crew lander.

It's reasonable to ask, "What could customers do with the capabilities GS is offering?" It's even reasonable to ask, "How could the GS architecture achieve the objectives of the Constellation lunar sortie reference mission?"

(Meta-comment @Danderman: if you're looking for the GS Updates thread, and haven't found it, maybe you should start one. )

Question is how would a 4 person lander cost less than using (2) of the 2 person landers?

GSC lander to small
NASA Altair to large

Just right ( not to small and not to large and able to work with EML1/2 with in-space stage ) Spaceworks - Lunar Surface Access From EML2
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30043.0

With four crew lander. one pilot for Dragon , one pilot for lander, and two mission specialist.

Now could a Dragon with a CH4/LOX stage launched on the FH be able to do all burns from TLI to TEI? ( with two or four crew )

[Nelson Bridwell]

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.

While we are at it, let's not talk about anything that is not already posted on the Golden Spike website.  And since it is already on the Golden Spike webiste, this discussion will be redundant, and so are we...

Let's lighten up a little...

[mmeijeri]

Now could a Dragon with a CH4/LOX stage launched on the FH be able to do all burns from TLI to TEI? ( with two or four crew )

A good question. As much as I'm in favour of refueling, I'm uncomfortable with needing to refuel or even to dock with a transfer stage to get home. It's OK on the way out, but not on the way home. This constraint on the size of the fueled capsule and its transfer stage is likely to be a more severe constraint than that for the lander, which could reasonably be launched dry and only fueled in a high energy orbit.

Use of Lagrange points helps here, since circularisation into and deorbiting from L1/L2 requires meaningfully less delta-v than from LLO. This makes the job of the lander somewhat harder delta-v wise, but that's not a problem since it can be launched mostly dry.

[RocketmanUS]

Now could a Dragon with a CH4/LOX stage launched on the FH be able to do all burns from TLI to TEI? ( with two or four crew )

A good question. As much as I'm in favour of refueling, I'm uncomfortable with needing to refuel or even to dock with a transfer stage to get home. It's OK on the way out, but not on the way home. This constraint on the size of the fueled capsule and its transfer stage is likely to be a more severe constraint than that for the lander, which could reasonably be launched dry and only fueled in a high energy orbit.

Use of Lagrange points helps here, since circularisation into and deorbiting from L1/L2 requires meaningfully less delta-v than from LLO. This makes the job of the lander somewhat harder delta-v wise, but that's not a problem since it can be launched mostly dry.

Other option is to launch propulsion stage on FH and then launch Dragon on F9. That is still only two launches for crew.

Or launch tanker on FH. Launch Dragon and propulsion stage on another FH. Add more propellent to the propulsion stage from the tanker already in orbit.

So that gives several options for Dragon for LOR with lander ( 2 to 4 crew ).

With a tanker to LLO the lander could be reusable.

[mmeijeri]

Other option is to launch propulsion stage on FH and then launch Dragon on F9. That is still only two launches for crew.

Sure, but it's good to know that the capsule rather than the lander may well be the heaviest load because the capsule has to be fueled when it goes through TLI, regardless of whether it gets to LEO fueled or not and how many launches are used for it. So even though the fueled lander is likely heavier than the fueled capsule, the right comparison is between the fueled capsule and the dry lander.

It's also good to know that staging at L1/L2 rather than in LLO (or in addition to staging in LLO) can help if you are running into mass limitations.

Or launch tanker on FH. Launch Dragon and propulsion stage on another FH. Add more propellent to the propulsion stage from the tanker already in orbit.

So that gives several options for Dragon for LOR with lander ( 2 to 4 crew ).

Yes, very flexible, very good.

With a tanker to LLO the lander could be reusable.

Are you suggesting that just the tanker is crucial, or that using LLO rather than L1/L2 is crucial as well? The delta-v to / from L1/L2 is greater, but not unmanageable for a reusable lander. Not that I think reuse is crucial initially, although it would be nice if we could get it.

As an aside: if you have a small prox-ops tug, then the tanker need not be much more than a dumb propellant container.

[Danderman]

This is the thread for any news about the Golden Spike company (as opposed to discussion about what they should do).

[Danderman]

http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_22159578/companys-plan-private-moon-missions-raises-questions#ixzz2EhppLPMN

"The announcement by Golden Spike Co. created a media firestorm and immediately raised questions — both ethical and practical — about what it means if anyone who can afford the $750 million-per-seat price tag can visit the moon. It immediately created images of a Wild West-style land grab for celestial bodies."

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Now could a Dragon with a CH4/LOX stage launched on the FH be able to do all burns from TLI to TEI? ( with two or four crew )

A good question. As much as I'm in favour of refueling, I'm uncomfortable with needing to refuel or even to dock with a transfer stage to get home. It's OK on the way out, but not on the way home. This constraint on the size of the fueled capsule and its transfer stage is likely to be a more severe constraint than that for the lander, which could reasonably be launched dry and only fueled in a high energy orbit.

Use of Lagrange points helps here, since circularisation into and deorbiting from L1/L2 requires meaningfully less delta-v than from LLO. This makes the job of the lander somewhat harder delta-v wise, but that's not a problem since it can be launched mostly dry.

Other option is to launch propulsion stage on FH and then launch Dragon on F9. That is still only two launches for crew.

Or launch tanker on FH. Launch Dragon and propulsion stage on another FH. Add more propellent to the propulsion stage from the tanker already in orbit.

So that gives several options for Dragon for LOR with lander ( 2 to 4 crew ).

With a tanker to LLO the lander could be reusable.

If you launch the FH without any payload the US will have 40+mt of prop still on board. This will push 14+mt through TLI. So a FH + F9 no frills combo is one configuration needing very little if any new development to acheive. You just need something to menuver into LLO once you reach the Moon. For the Lander delivery that could be the Lander itself. For a DragonRider you would need a prop module added into the Trunk.

See this thread for the simulation run details on a payloadless FH:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30081.120

[Robotbeat]

Good post.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I mentioned the payloadless FH because it could solve several problems at once. It would be a cost increase of only $60M over using just a FH, increase the TLI capability by almost double from that others have said FH would have, and does not require any new development hardware for the EDS role reducing development time and costs significantly.

[QuantumG]

Or you could push 20 tons through TLI just by using a ~320s isp thruster. Using the upper stage of the Falcon Heavy to do TLI just doesn't make any sense.. you need to have thrusters on anything you push through TLI to actually do something when you get to lunar orbit, so why not just use those thrusters to do the TLI?

Said another way: the upper stage has a lot of dead weight that is best left in LEO.

I mentioned the payloadless FH because it could solve several problems at once. It would be a cost increase of only $60M over using just a FH, increase the TLI capability by almost double from that others have said FH would have, and does not require any new development hardware for the EDS role reducing development time and costs significantly.

Great! Now you have a FH upper stage hurtling (mostly) towards the Moon, how are you going to do mid-course maneuvering? How are you going to enter lunar orbit? Or a Lagrange orbit? It has the wrong engines for those operations.

[spectre9]

I thought the middle core is the 2nd stage?

Cross feeding allows the middle core to stage high full of fuel yes?

If not a true 3rd stage might be a good option to make FH a real BEO launch vehicle.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Or you could push 20 tons through TLI just by using a ~320s isp thruster. Using the upper stage of the Falcon Heavy to do TLI just doesn't make any sense.. you need to have thrusters on anything you push through TLI to actually do something when you get to lunar orbit, so why not just use those thrusters to do the TLI?

Said another way: the upper stage has a lot of dead weight that is best left in LEO.

I mentioned the payloadless FH because it could solve several problems at once. It would be a cost increase of only $60M over using just a FH, increase the TLI capability by almost double from that others have said FH would have, and does not require any new development hardware for the EDS role reducing development time and costs significantly.

Great! Now you have a FH upper stage hurtling (mostly) towards the Moon, how are you going to do mid-course maneuvering? How are you going to enter lunar orbit? Or a Lagrange orbit? It has the wrong engines for those operations.

The M1DVAC wil be 342s, better than your 320s thruster.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Or you could push 20 tons through TLI just by using a ~320s isp thruster. Using the upper stage of the Falcon Heavy to do TLI just doesn't make any sense.. you need to have thrusters on anything you push through TLI to actually do something when you get to lunar orbit, so why not just use those thrusters to do the TLI?

Said another way: the upper stage has a lot of dead weight that is best left in LEO.

I mentioned the payloadless FH because it could solve several problems at once. It would be a cost increase of only $60M over using just a FH, increase the TLI capability by almost double from that others have said FH would have, and does not require any new development hardware for the EDS role reducing development time and costs significantly.

Great! Now you have a FH upper stage hurtling (mostly) towards the Moon, how are you going to do mid-course maneuvering? How are you going to enter lunar orbit? Or a Lagrange orbit? It has the wrong engines for those operations.

An F9 puts up the 13mt payload into LEO (in one case the Lander which docks with the FH US in LEO then the US with 40+mt of prop and the 13mt Lander as payload does a TLI burn 3.8km/s delta V. The FH US is a short duration life time item of less than 12 hours. The Lander must have extra propelant or a trow away prop module attached to do LLO insertion burn. The 40mt of prop is very conservative value. The estimated max prop of the v1.1 US is 80-87mt and the simulation showed a payloadless FH having 61% prop left in the US arriving at a 300kmX200km 28 degree orbit. Thats 5-10mt of prop margin.

[QuantumG]

I think you're missing the point.

Why not just put a full tank of fuel on the FH and use the lander's engine to do the TLI? Run the numbers, you'll discover it beats the pants off using the FH US to do the TLI burn.

This should be obvious, the FH US is mostly empty when you do TLI, so it has a horrible mass fraction. The slightly better isp can't account for that because the rocket equation is exponential on mass fraction but only linear on isp.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

I think you're missing the point.

Why not just put a full tank of fuel on the FH and use the lander's engine to do the TLI? Run the numbers, you'll discover it beats the pants off using the FH US to do the TLI burn.

This should be obvious, the FH US is mostly empty when you do TLI, so it has a horrible mass fraction. The slightly better isp can't account for that because the rocket equation is exponential on mass fraction but only linear on isp.

The more complex you make it the more it will cost. If you need more than 13mt payload through TLI then something else will have to be done like using 2 FH's and possibly something as you suggest of a LH2 EDS as a payload on one with the real payload on the other.

GS is all about doing it for less as well as trying to develop less.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

What more complexity?

You're the one talking about modifying the Falcon Heavy.

Actually I am talking about zero mods and zero new developemnt with the F9/payloadless FH. No modifications, the FH payload in reality is an docking adapter and thats it. Once the FH US stage does the TLI burn it is discarded. BTW the Falcon US does have a minimal RCS to do orientation and settling prior to a burn. The current US has capability of doing 3 starts. 3 starts will be plenty to do this scenario.

The F9 delivers the payload into LEO which then waits on the FH to deliver its US which then docks with the previously delivered payload in LEO. After docking a TLI burn is done. The US needs no mods over what is currently planed for FH.

[QuantumG]

I must have misunderstood what you said.. because it seemed to me that you were saying a stretched upper stage could deliver propellant to lunar orbit or a Lagrange point. I'm actually confused as to what else you could possibly have been saying.