Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

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.

In context of GS which is to get a payload to LLO. Which is a simple inexpensive way of doing it.

[RocketmanUS]

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.

Tankers should be used or we need large launchers and it will be needed when there is ISRU on the moon. Just use LLO for now, EML1/2 can wait.

If the lander was to be fueled in LLO then a tanker has to be sent. So that part would already be there when the lander would be reusable.

Reusable for a latter time when we have data on the lander systems.

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

Launch FH with a propulsion stage on top of it as the payload.
Or Launch a tanker on FH and the a FH with Dragon with part filled propulsion stage. Add propellent in LEO from the tanker, then do TLI burn.

With Dragon and part filled propulsion stage in LEO and a tanker there to top it off the Dragon + filled propulsion stage could have more propellent in it for all burns TLI to TEI. It could use the methane RL-10 ( CECE ) engines with a high ISP. Same system could be used to fill a lander in LLO without the Dragon.

Remember the first thing this concept to return to the moon is the lander. They can add the needed components to land crew later as well as a means to get crew to LLO. We don't even have the ability to get crew to LEO let alone LLO. So using funds now to get a lander to LLO so it could send down cargo is the right way to go. This also test the lander out before sending crew. There should be plenty of customers wanting to land rovers and probes to the surface. Would also help to know were to land crew later.

[RocketmanUS]

From the PDF ( pg 13 ) the Dragon will only have two people.
So will Dragon fly it's self or will these customers be trained to fly it?
That can be a problem with only two people.
With four there can be a trained pilot.

[joek]

No reason two precludes a trained pilot (or even two), even if both are also customers.  If you insist on four, you've blown GSC's budget-cost-revenue-business model-assumptions-architecture and might as well start from scratch and ignore everything GSC says in that paper.

In any case, per their document:

Although the flight vehicles will be able to complete lunar missions largely unaided, the ground team will always be available to support the flight crew. Engineering evaluations, procedures development, and crew training will be accomplished on common simulation hardware. While training and mission preparation will help the flight crew deal with and understand most possible in-flight contingencies, the ground team will be ready to support unanticipated situations.

[RocketmanUS]

No reason two precludes a trained pilot (or even two), even if both are also customers.  If you insist on four, you've blown GSC's budget-cost-revenue-business model-assumptions-architecture and might as well start from scratch and ignore everything GSC says in that paper.

In any case, per their document:

Although the flight vehicles will be able to complete lunar missions largely unaided, the ground team will always be available to support the flight crew. Engineering evaluations, procedures development, and crew training will be accomplished on common simulation hardware. While training and mission preparation will help the flight crew deal with and understand most possible in-flight contingencies, the ground team will be ready to support unanticipated situations.

So the customer has to be trained how to fly the capsule as they are the flight crew as they are the only two on board.

This would limit the amount of people that can go for the training needed to operate the capsule.

Four people on board would not be as much of a problem as some may think. Added life support is possible. The added mass of the other two would not increase the propulsion system that much in mass. They are already looking into propellent transfer and with the FH to launch the tanker it would most likely be cost effective. And with that the lander could also be fueled in LLO. It really is not that be of a leap from two to four. The capsule can handle four to LLO and a lander is with in our ability. How many can afford $1.6B compared to $.8B. Three paying customers at $.8B equals $2.4B each trip and the pilot is paid out of that . They can rent the pilot out for some work to be done on the surface for another customer or the three that are there.

[joek]

This would limit the amount of people that can go for the training needed to operate the capsule.

Can't state that as fact without a lot more information.

Four people on board would not be as much of a problem as some may think. Added life support is possible. The added mass of the other two would not increase the propulsion system that much in mass. They are already looking into propellent transfer and with the FH to launch the tanker it would most likely be cost effective. And with that the lander could also be fueled in LLO. It really is not that be of a leap from two to four. The capsule can handle four to LLO and a lander is with in our ability. How many can afford $1.6B compared to $.8B. Three paying customers at $.8B equals $2.4B each trip and the pilot is paid out of that . They can rent the pilot out for some work to be done on the surface for another customer or the three that are there.

GSC seems to think otherwise.  Sure those additional capabilities would be nice, but you've blithely added significant cost and complexity to a venture that is already very high risk and will likely be on a shoe-string budget.  Classic scope creep and the death of too many companies and projects to count.

[RocketmanUS]

This would limit the amount of people that can go for the training needed to operate the capsule.

Can't state that as fact without a lot more information.

There is a reason there are not many private pilots. It is not that easy to get a pilot license. At least one will need to know how to fly the capsule and one to fly the lander.

Four people on board would not be as much of a problem as some may think. Added life support is possible. The added mass of the other two would not increase the propulsion system that much in mass. They are already looking into propellent transfer and with the FH to launch the tanker it would most likely be cost effective. And with that the lander could also be fueled in LLO. It really is not that be of a leap from two to four. The capsule can handle four to LLO and a lander is with in our ability. How many can afford $1.6B compared to $.8B. Three paying customers at $.8B equals $2.4B each trip and the pilot is paid out of that . They can rent the pilot out for some work to be done on the surface for another customer or the three that are there.

GSC seems to think otherwise.  Sure those additional capabilities would be nice, but you've blithely added significant cost and complexity to a venture that is already very high risk and will likely be on a shoe-string budget.  Classic scope creep and the death of too many companies and projects to count.
[/quote]
I don't believe so. They are already talking this would give them a good profit. There is a lot of money to be made in R&D.

Keep in mind that they are looking to offer Lunar orbit missions also. It would not be that hard to make it for 4 crew instead of just 2. Dragon needs a SM ( LOI, TEI burns and possible added life support ), this would not be to much for SpaceX to add on after they have a crew Dragon. Use one super Draco for the main propulsion and four regular size for back up and small thrust.

As all the money will most likely not be there up front they will have to prioritize what they will develop first to last.

Will they offer crew Lunar orbit missions first or robotic Lunar landings first. They would not have crew to Lunar surface for the first paid mission as the lander needs to be tested first. So they would want to have a customer pay to send the probe to the surface. As there is to much risk to when there will be a capsule able to send crew to Lunar orbit they would be wise to put their investment money in the lander first and offer to send cargo to the surface first to be followed by crew when the crew capsule is ready.

1 ) Lander with in space fueling
2 ) Tanker for in space fueling
3 ) EDS that can be fueled in space

This is already on their list ( I don't know if they planned for the lander to be fuel in space but that would be the same tech as the other in space fueling ).

On Golden Spikes web site they are saying in 2013 they will begin an exciting public participation effort.

[Archibald]

golden Spike at the Space Review, by Jeff Foust
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2201/1

An interesting aspect of Golden Spike is their target of "15 to 20 space agencies". Bigelow also targeted that market ;

In October 2010, Bigelow announced that it has agreements with six sovereign nations to utilize on-orbit facilities of the commercial space station: United Kingdom, Netherlands, Australia, Singapore, Japan and Sweden.[9] In February 2011, Dubai of the United Arab Emirates became the seventh nation to have signed on

So are suborbital companies.
http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2009/08/21/4350546-scientists-go-suborbital?lite

Could guest astronauts be the solution ? behind them are states and governments with more money than any billionaire...

[Ben the Space Brit]

An interesting aspect of Golden Spike is their target of "15 to 20 space agencies". Bigelow also targeted that market ;

That is an interesting correlation.  I might be jumping the gun but this might indicate that there are a certain number of national space agencies who wish to at least explore purchasing human space-flight capability from commercial providers rather than developing it for themselves.

Looking in the crystal ball, does anyone have any ideas? Brazil is one name that jumps to mind as does India.

[Archibald]

The bottom line is that a) buying a seat will always be much cheaper than building your own manned ship and b) there's a long tradition there reaching back to Intercosmos and the space shuttle.

As for the countries - South Korea ? Argentina ? Canada ? Australia ? Taiwan ? Japan ? Chile ?

EDIT - I should have guessed it: as for everything on Earth, obviously Wikipedia has a list of space agencies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_space_agencies

According to the very Alan Stern himself (talking about suborbital flight !)

This is so cheap, and the applications are so good, that I expect NIH, NSF, DOD, DOE, a whole slew of federal agencies will have space efforts, just like federal agencies have boats and airplanes that they use. Literally, Aruba could afford to have a spaceflight program. ... Every country that wants to have their own space program with astronauts can go."

[MP99]

No reason two precludes a trained pilot (or even two), even if both are also customers.  If you insist on four, you've blown GSC's budget-cost-revenue-business model-assumptions-architecture and might as well start from scratch and ignore everything GSC says in that paper.

In any case, per their document:

Although the flight vehicles will be able to complete lunar missions largely unaided, the ground team will always be available to support the flight crew. Engineering evaluations, procedures development, and crew training will be accomplished on common simulation hardware. While training and mission preparation will help the flight crew deal with and understand most possible in-flight contingencies, the ground team will be ready to support unanticipated situations.

So the customer has to be trained how to fly the capsule as they are the flight crew as they are the only two on board.

This would limit the amount of people that can go for the training needed to operate the capsule.

Four people on board would not be as much of a problem as some may think. Added life support is possible. The added mass of the other two would not increase the propulsion system that much in mass. They are already looking into propellent transfer and with the FH to launch the tanker it would most likely be cost effective. And with that the lander could also be fueled in LLO. It really is not that be of a leap from two to four. The capsule can handle four to LLO and a lander is with in our ability. How many can afford $1.6B compared to $.8B. Three paying customers at $.8B equals $2.4B each trip and the pilot is paid out of that . They can rent the pilot out for some work to be done on the surface for another customer or the three that are there.

Apollo mode?

Two plus pilot in Dragon. dragon pilot left in Lunar orbit.

Customer then only needs to pilot the lander, and perhaps the Dragon could take on the majority of the rendezvous / docking workload on the return leg.

Cheers, Martin

[guckyfan]

Apollo mode?

Two plus pilot in Dragon. dragon pilot left in Lunar orbit.

Customer then only needs to pilot the lander, and perhaps the Dragon could take on the majority of the rendezvous / docking workload on the return leg.

Cheers, Martin

Or fly two landing missions simultaneously using one Dragon only with 4 crew. That would cut cost very substantially as only one Dragon flight is necessary for two missions.

However 4 rendezvouz maneuvers in Lunar Orbit become necessary. Mission complexity also rises as two landers need to be launched in a short timeframe.

[spectre9]

I like the idea of a one man expendable lander.

Star 48A/37VG solid is innovative and different.

I don't usually like solids but when you're trying to make a lander that actually has to land size and weight distribution matter. Saves having separate tanks for oxidiser.

Making the lander taller requires a bigger ladder, making the diameter larger requires bigger payload fairings on launch.

290 Isp seems very good for solids. The reliability has been proven.

Star 48 will be like a crasher stage discarded before letting liquid engines take over for the final descent.

Might be a good idea to go all NTO/Hydrazine on the descent. Extra oxidiser tank but it needs liquid for descent anyway and using some kind of 2 stage descent seems funky and complex.

Between 7000kg and 9000kg for 1 man pressurised taking a rough guess based on the numbers they've done. 2 man pressurised is 12150kg and that's the heaviest option they came up with.

Obviously you'll get the 2nd man in there for the same weight if you go for much better propulsion but that costs money and I don't think GS is going to have it. Better to shoot for easy even if it's heavy.

Managed to find the Star motor brochure. It was a bit difficult to find on ATK's new webpage 

[JohnFornaro]

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.

There would have to be some payload:  The prop transfer equipment.  How many tons would that be? Five? Resulting in 35 tons of prop?

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.

Fair enough.  Add five more tons?  So now it could put 30 tons of prop at L1?

I am talking about zero mods and zero new developemnt with the F9/payloadless FH.

I think there have to be some mods.

But still, good idea at first blush.

[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?

My point was that this might be a good way to increase revenue if they end up using the Dragon, since this type of mission is goin to cost X hundred million dollars and the Dragon's going to cost a certain amount whether its carrying two or four (assuming they can get a full weight Dragon there and back). Two people pay the lunar orbit price, two pay the landing price. With regards to qualifications: a flight physical and a helicopter pilot's licence for the landers (and maybe a pilot's licence for the orbiters), plus the obvious training. I don't think billionaire adventure types would balk at that level of preparation, considering the kinds of things they do even now. Anything else would be handled by the ground. Of course this all a new area, but I think it can happen IF they get the customers. Interesting to see what they come up with.

[HMXHMX]

I like the idea of a one man expendable lander.

Star 48A/37VG solid is innovative and different.

I don't usually like solids but when you're trying to make a lander that actually has to land size and weight distribution matter. Saves having separate tanks for oxidiser.

Making the lander taller requires a bigger ladder, making the diameter larger requires bigger payload fairings on launch.

290 Isp seems very good for solids. The reliability has been proven.

Star 48 will be like a crasher stage discarded before letting liquid engines take over for the final descent.

Might be a good idea to go all NTO/Hydrazine on the descent. Extra oxidiser tank but it needs liquid for descent anyway and using some kind of 2 stage descent seems funky and complex.

Between 7000kg and 9000kg for 1 man pressurised taking a rough guess based on the numbers they've done. 2 man pressurised is 12150kg and that's the heaviest option they came up with.

Obviously you'll get the 2nd man in there for the same weight if you go for much better propulsion but that costs money and I don't think GS is going to have it. Better to shoot for easy even if it's heavy.

Managed to find the Star motor brochure. It was a bit difficult to find on ATK's new webpage 

Historically, use of the solid is not new or innovative.

[mmeijeri]

Tankers should be used or we need large launchers and it will be needed when there is ISRU on the moon.

I feel we're talking past each other. I'm not arguing against tankers, I'm arguing in favour of them. I'm pointing out that a tanker need not be a newly developed expendable spacecraft. Instead it could be an upper stage delivering a dumb propellant container to a high energy orbit, where a reusable prox ops tug can take it through the last mile to the waiting lander.

Just use LLO for now, EML1/2 can wait.

EML1/2 is easier to reach from LEO with a small upper stage, especially if that stage uses kerolox or hypergolics, but even if it uses LOX/LH2. I think LLO could wait.

If the lander was to be fueled in LLO then a tanker has to be sent. So that part would already be there when the lander would be reusable.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. The same applies to L1/L2.

Reusable for a latter time when we have data on the lander systems.

Agreed.

[mmeijeri]

It could use the methane RL-10 ( CECE ) engines with a high ISP. Same system could be used to fill a lander in LLO without the Dragon.

Yes, in theory, and eventually. But for now we don't have CECE, and storage and transfer will be more difficult than with hypergolics. Switching to LOX/methane isn't a big gain, and losing propellant transfer and storage is a big loss.

[mmeijeri]

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

Not a big deal, and its mass fraction would be worse. It could be argued that if you use the lander for that, then its mass fraction will become worse for its main mission, but that can be solved by refueling in LLO or at L1/L2.

Thrust is a bigger argument in my opinion. LEO to L1/L2/LLO may well require a pump-fed engine for efficiency, and those are currently available for kerolox or LOX/LH2, but not for hypergolics. Unless you want to use Russian / Ukrainian engines, which would not be a bad idea. Just as using Soyuz as one of several supported capsules wouldn't be a bad idea, especially in light of its refueling technology.

But for me the obvious choice after Centaur and DCSS would be the F9 upper stage as a payload of the FH. It has a good mass fraction, good thrust and slightly higher Isp than a pressure-fed hypergolic thruster, requires very little new development and requires no consent from ULA.

[Warren Platts]

But for me the obvious choice after Centaur and DCSS would be the F9 upper stage as a payload of the FH. It has a good mass fraction, good thrust and slightly higher Isp than a pressure-fed hypergolic thruster, requires very little new development and requires no consent from ULA.

But then it wouldn't be able to throw the fully fueled Hypergolic Evolved Lunar Lander all the way to LLO....