Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[Robert Thompson]

The jape goes astray. Tragic. 

[joek]

The jape goes astray. Tragic. 

Methinks your jape is simply astray hunting the wrong syllable, quibble or subject; it's jaws are sharp yet there is no bite--for alas your jape is a joke that jives with jest and you josh us all with your kid, quip, and wisecracks?  Or do you yuck us all with such chaff, and thus you bereft of satisfaction, do proclaim, admonish, commit, condemn and enjoin us all to the abode of evildoers after death and the tragedy such entails?  Or what?

[ciscosdad]

@Joek For goodness sake don't encourage him. One is enough.

[Robert Thompson]

?

The EML2 latency has been a touchstone on the lunar threads, and I thought some light teasing wasn't too much. At any rate. I agree with RocketmanUS's concept of remotely assisted sample return; save on the training of geologists and invest/leverage remote technology with professional / employee astronauts. Geologists stay on earth with 2-3 second latency. I posted the UA rock sample link in earnest; I won't belabor it.

[JohnFornaro]

From:

http://goldenspikecompany.com/our-business/business-objectives/

Golden Spike will monetize these expeditions through:

1) Expedition sales

2) Public participation/membership in expeditions

3) Media rights, brand licensing, and expedition advertising sales

4) Expedition naming rights and merchandising

5) Sales of items flown

6) Sales of returned samples and expeditions artifacts

7) Entertainment products that market each expedition

1) This is where they make the money, I think.  They'll need a good travel agent.  Here's a shout out to Julie at Peace Frogs.

Anybody can book a flight to DC.  But if you want someone to put together a two week safari vacation for ya, with hotels, meals, site seeing, flight, tips, the whole nine yards, you book a travel agent.  Somewhere up the thread they said $750M/ flight?  Presumably you get to check one bag for free.

I imagine all the following stuff adds up to a fair piece of change:

2) If one gazillionaire member of the public books a flight, then technically, there's your "public participation".  Otherwise, this is a marketing term.  "Membership in expeditions", sounds like a KickStarter thingy, where for ten bux, you get a t-shirt.

3 & 4)  Virtually the same thing, expanded into two points for marketing purposes.  Were I rich, I would never purchase naming rights to a stadium; others make different choices.  Apparently, there's money to be made here.  Notice that no dollar amounts have been suggested other than the MSRP of the ticket.

5) When the kids were in elementary school, they did the Flat Stanley thing.  A good learning experience for children of that age, who, in this age, need a gimmick to get their attention.  Apparently, the Flat Stanley business model also works for adults, or at least they expect it to.

6) Who wouldn't want one of MJ's leather jackets?  Replicas are ok, but the real thing?  Apparently, regarding the "expedition artifacts" there's monetization to be had here also. 

Moon rocks certainly have value at first; but it is the certificate of authenticity which holds that value.  After a while, there's only but so many of those certificates which the market could bear.  No doubt there are procedures to minimize counterfeiting of the certificate.

7) And finally, plastic action figures, which, by ITAR, must be made in China.  The profit margin on these things is substantial.  This one, I don't think I remember being discussed on this forum, so there's newness, for those who value newness.

Items 2 thru 6 have all been speculated about on this forum.  Typically, these items are seen as of specious value, at least per my recollection.  Certainly, over the long term, they are specious.  But at first, novelty is a strong selling point; strong enough to put the bullet point on a presentation to investors, and maintain a serious attitude.

Item one is where the money, and the true long term value, is at.  See the whitepaper that JoeK quoted from:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30549.msg991447#msg991447

Methinks your jape is simply astray ...

Another graduate from my fictitious online school!  Dang.  I wish I could monetize this.

[HappyMartian]

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

Avoiding cost is a good idea.

How about using what is soon to be available again and was once intended for a Lunar orbital mission?

"The Vozvraschaemyi Apparat (Russian: Возвращаемый Аппарат ВА, Return Vehicle, GRAU index 11F74), or VA spacecraft, was a Soviet crew capsule, intended to serve as a manned launch and reentry vehicle. Initially designed for the LK-1 manned lunar flyby spacecraft for one of the Soviet manned lunar programs, then the LK-700 redesign, it was later repurposed for the Almaz military space station program.[7][1] The VA capsule on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum was labeled as Merkur, following a mistranslation of the original documentation – while incorrect, the name is being used in the West for the VA spacecraft and capsule."

"VA capsule

All data for TKS version, unless otherwise stated.[3][1]

    Crew size: 1 for LK-1,[7] 3 for TKS
    Total internal volume: 8.37 cubic metres (296 cu ft)
    Habitable volume: 4.56 cubic metres (161 cu ft)
    Diameter: 2.79 metres (9 ft 2 in)
    Reusable for 10 flights[3]"

From: VA spacecraft   From Wikipedia
At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VA_spacecraft



"U.K.-based space-research company Excalibur Almaz hopes to make trips to the moon if not commonplace, then certainly more routine. It plans to use modernized Soviet-era space vehicles — of which it has six — to take people on missions around the moon."

And, "Excalibur Almaz is based on the Isle of Man, a self-governing dependency of the U.K. The island is establishing itself as a space-technology cluster. According to Mr. Dula, some 30 of the world’s 54 satellite companies have operations on the island."

From: Fly Me to the Moon   By Ben Rooney  From: TECHEUROPE   June 20, 2012
At: http://blogs.wsj.com/tech-europe/2012/06/20/fly-me-to-the-moon/



It might be real useful to have several low-cost options for human Lunar mission capable spacecraft.

Edited.

[simonbp]

Their in-space vehicle is modified Dragon purchased from SpaceX, with a propulsion system added to the trunk. It's both a more modern and vastly better supported vehicle than TKS VA. I'm dubious that bringing VA to the point you could use for a lunar mission would be cheaper than modifying Dragon.

Heck, just bring VA to the point that it's safe for a LEO flight is non-trivial. There are reasons the Soviets never put people in it...

[RocketmanUS]

?

The EML2 latency has been a touchstone on the lunar threads, and I thought some light teasing wasn't too much. At any rate. I agree with RocketmanUS's concept of remotely assisted sample return; save on the training of geologists and invest/leverage remote technology with professional / employee astronauts. Geologists stay on earth with 2-3 second latency. I posted the UA rock sample link in earnest; I won't belabor it.

They can have three options.
1 ) employee astronauts
2 ) customer trained astronauts
3 ) employee astronaut and a customer trained astronaut

In any of the three options with the advancement in communications from Apollo era they will most likely have experts in many fields on Earth helping the crew on the Lunar surface for what ever their task the customer has ordered. Customer would be providing the expert on Earth and they can be based around the world.

Edit:

From:

http://goldenspikecompany.com/our-business/business-objectives/

Expedition sales

Anybody can book a flight to DC.  But if you want someone to put together a two week safari vacation for ya, with hotels, meals, site seeing, flight, tips, the whole nine yards, you book a travel agent.  Somewhere up the thread they said $750M/ flight?  Presumably you get to check one bag for free.
{snipped}

They would be the travel agency to the moon. With hopefully being able to start off with a means for crew to get to LLO ( Dragon capsule ).

So others might offer their hardware through them to potential customers?
1 ) crew to LLO ( capsule or OTV )
2 ) landers
3 ) rovers
4 ) equipment to be transported on the rovers from site to site
5 ) hab modules for outpost , bases
5 ) ect.

So I see GSC doing four things now.
1 ) seeking customers and what they want
2 ) means to transport crew to LLO
3 ) lander for crew and or cargo to Lunar surface
4 ) seeking funding for 2 & 3

Edit 2:
There concept lander for two crew would land at least 800lb ( 400lb each crew member plus their space suit ). So it could possible land a modern made Lunar rover ( ~463lb ) if it has an automated landing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Lunar_Roving_Vehicle

[JohnFornaro]

They would be the travel agency to the moon.

I think that's where the money is.  Sorry Julie; I tried.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Yes, GSC would be a travel agency in respect to travel for persons or cargo to LLO. They would also be the funding source for some of the hardware to accomplish the feat. ULA/Boeing or SpaceX would be the provider of such a service that GSC does the booking for making a percentage profit for booking the flights to LLO. With possibly two providers to deliver crew and cargo a permanently manned Moon base can be supported.

GSC could also be the travel agency for the LLO to surface if say Moon Express and Armadillo are the providers of the transport services for this leg instead of a GSC led collaboration of hardware developers and GSC being the integrator. GSC would again be the funding source for hardware development putting them in the position to do the booking and making a profit of each flight.

I think Boeing or SpaceX (there could be others as well) would welcome the encouragement (along with some cash) to do development of a BEO version of their CCV. GS would represent a flight rate of 1-2 per year for their CCV about half or equal to the flight rate for ISS and it could grow to be larger.

If GS did a BEO CCV competition starting in mid 2014 (at the end of CCiCap) then they could leverage the companies into doing additional work developing a BEO CCV at a significant cost sharing level reducing the funding needed by GS to get this segment developed. The BEO CCV development would be a more rapid program than the original CCV since mainly the BEO capabilities is what the provider have to develop and demonstrate not the ability to get humans to orbit and back to Earth.
NOTE if NASA only chooses one provider to proceed from that point it will be difficult, nearly impossible, to do a competition for BEO CCV. Meaning GS will have to use the single ISS CCV provider chosen unless one of the others continues the development completely on their own. This also means that GS must wait for NASA to award CCV final phase development awards before finalizing their mission architecture.

If NASA chooses two CCV providers for ISS (redundancy) at a flight rate for each of 1 per year I think they would jump at doubling or tripling their flight rate by providing BEO CCV flights. BTW a commercial cis-lunar capable BEO CCV would be in direct competition against the Orion and by law NASA would have to use the BEO CCV provider if it met the mission requirements such as travel to an EML1/2 Gateway station.

So if GS hasn't faded into the background by 2015 and a BEO CCV development is started, Orion and SLS could get cancelled at that time. But until then the most likely way of getting humans BEO will be SLS/Orion, so don't through SLS/Orion under the buss just yet.

[RocketmanUS]

NASA's commercial crew program should have nothing to do with this. GSC should be looking for investors for a BLEO capsule. This way it would not be tied to a government program. If the goernment program gets delayed or canceled then GSC Lunar capsule would still be able to be completed. This would only be one part of their opening projects to Lunar return. So if they pick at least the SpaceX Dragon for this then it would have funding for a Lunar model.

GSC needs around $8B for development and testing. They say they need at least 15 customers ( first mission they say at $1.4B and the others at $1.6B ). So if they can find 16 customers willing to pay $2B ( $.5B for the development and $1.5B for the mission ) that can be a good deal for some customers. The $.5B would need to be pay in installment over the next few years as things go through development and testing. Payments for the missions would need then to follow. First in gets first flight and last in gets last flight after test flight. So the first customer would have to have their deposit in before the test flights for their hardware to be ready in time for their mission.

Possible way this could go.
Four missions each year ( crew to Lunar surface ) for four years.
One mission each quarter.
2020
2021
2022
2023

Four missions a year could help keep cost down. If they had 16 missions booked to launch in a four year period then FH could possible see having two launch pads at the cape if it is the launcher.

Several things could happen. Could see a commercial venture looking to start up ISRU for propellents and another for a reusable lander to use these propellents. If this were done it could cut the price in half from LLO to the Lunar surface. It could give GSC another lander to offer in the future.

Another could place an outpost on the surface. With a hypergolic lander they stay on the surface could be longer. This investor could just want to place the outpost their and rent it with the possibility to grow it into a base.

Possible government customers ( may not be not investors )
China for an outpost. They may want to place one there.
U.S. for ISRU propellents. They may want to start up product.
They probably would not be looking at this till 2018.

There are Lunar rover that investors might develop for crew and cargo use. Rover at mission one site. After mission it could take the tool and it's self to mission two's site for reuse. Less mass each mission to take down and greater range and time needed to get from one spot to the other at a site. Could also see the SEV being rented out commercially too.

So Dragon could handle four crew round trip ( not a big issue between two and four crew ).

The lander to be able to land large enough mass as SEV and outpost modules would depend on if there is enough customers for it or one or few willing to pay for it's development. It would be in the best interest for a Lunar lander contractor to keep in mind for the lander to be able to grow in size to land a larger mass ( 10klb to 15klb ) while they may end up at first being contracted for a small two man lander. Even a two man lander should still have the ability to rescue four crew in an emergency ( good for beginning missions and later on ).

If they us a hypergolic EDS for crew that can help lower cost and risk in development as well as the time it can be stored in space. SEP could be developed be another as a tug for landerss, cargo, and propellents to LLO. It could also see uses else were for it's business case.

Edit:
At $1.6B for each mission some customers might seek out partners in their mission. Subbing part of the missions out to others would make it more affordable.

Edit 2:
For hypergolic landers.
For mission 1 there could be the mission 1 and 2 landers in LLO. Mission 2's lander would be the back up or emergency rescue lander of crew on the surface. For mission 2 the mission 3 lander would be in LLO as the back up lander. Low cost way to have a back up in place.

It could also be a way to have a capsule in LLO too. Send in an unmanned capsule to LLO before the mission 1. Then send mission 1 in. When they return to Earth they would use the capsule that was already there, rotating from mission to mission with being able to use the other as a back up. Again low cost. Would work well if missions were about 3 months apart.

[Warren Platts]

So if they can find 16 customers willing to pay $2B ($0.5B for the development and $1.5B for the mission) ...

The $1.5B is not the cost of the mission: it's the price. They took pains to explicitly point this out.

So the $64K question, not counting amortization of development costs, is:

What is their ongoing, per mission cost?

This is what I see in rough, ball park figures:

1. FH + Centaur + Dragon = $300M
2. FH + Centaur + Lander = $300M
3. Ground Support + Misc = $150M
===========================
Total per mission cost = $750M

So basically, they're looking at 100% profit.

Thus, 10 flights will pay back the development costs. At 2 flights per year, the develpment costs would be paid back in 5 years. Not bad.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

So if they can find 16 customers willing to pay $2B ($0.5B for the development and $1.5B for the mission) ...

The $1.5B is not the cost of the mission: it's the price. They took pains to explicitly point this out.

So the $64K question, not counting amortization of development costs, is:

What is their ongoing, per mission cost?

This is what I see in rough, ball park figures:

1. FH + Centaur + Dragon = $300M
2. FH + Centaur + Lander = $300M
3. Ground Support + Misc = $150M
===========================
Total per mission cost = $750M

So basically, they're looking at 100% profit.

Thus, 10 flights will pay back the development costs. At 2 flights per year, the develpment costs would be paid back in 5 years. Not bad.

At a flight rate of 2 per year, loan payback charge per flight is $350-450M using a 5% interest rate. So $1,600M-$750M-$450M= $400M.

BTW my financial model is such that each year the funding gap is filled by an individual loan with a duration of just 10 years. Initial loans have a payment plan such that payments would not start until 2019. Meaning that the loans are completely paid off in 2028 allowing for the price to drop starting in 2026 since loan payments start to taper off significantly at that time to a price of ~$1.2B by 2030.

[Mongo62]

So if they can find 16 customers willing to pay $2B ($0.5B for the development and $1.5B for the mission) ...

The $1.5B is not the cost of the mission: it's the price. They took pains to explicitly point this out.

So the $64K question, not counting amortization of development costs, is:

What is their ongoing, per mission cost?

This is what I see in rough, ball park figures:

1. FH + Centaur + Dragon = $300M
2. FH + Centaur + Lander = $300M
3. Ground Support + Misc = $150M
===========================
Total per mission cost = $750M

So basically, they're looking at 100% profit.

Thus, 10 flights will pay back the development costs. At 2 flights per year, the develpment costs would be paid back in 5 years. Not bad.

My own estimate:

Development and flight testing costs : $7.5B (Includes a 30% margin, so should be fairly realistic. Over 15 missions, that's $500M per mission.)

2 x FH : $300M (Assuming realistic price creep -- this is obviously for fully expendable versions, reusable first stage and boosters should drastically reduce the per-mission costs.)

1 x reconditioned Dragon : $50M (Probably lower than that amount, but allowing for a substantial margin.)

1 x lunar lander : $50M (Smaller and less complex than a Dragon, which sells for $70M new.  Development cost has already been accounted for above, this is the per-unit manufacturing cost.)

2 x pusher stages : no idea (Centaur would be far too expensive, don't know what GS will come up with.)

Operations and miscellaneous expenses : $150M

Total expenses : $1.05B plus cost of two pusher stages

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

To give an idea of how the launch costs of systems to put the lander and CCV into LLO the costs (cost to GS) range from $500M to $800M. Prior to the first manned landing there will be the equivelent of 2 complete missions in flight costs which is a portion of the $8B development amount meaning based on which archetecture a variance of $600M in development cost can be attribited to which eventual LV's and archetectures used.

It's not as simple as use the cheapest LV so don't think you know that the costs will be using the cheapest LV, but it is also based on which will actual work in getting stuff (CCV and lander) of the weight they will be once built to LLO. FH by itself may not be enough as well as using Centaur or another LH2 like EDS will not work, requiring some other configuration of LV's to get the items to LLO.

[RocketmanUS]

So if they can find 16 customers willing to pay $2B ($0.5B for the development and $1.5B for the mission) ...

The $1.5B is not the cost of the mission: it's the price. They took pains to explicitly point this out.

So the $64K question, not counting amortization of development costs, is:

What is their ongoing, per mission cost?

This is what I see in rough, ball park figures:

1. FH + Centaur + Dragon = $300M
2. FH + Centaur + Lander = $300M
3. Ground Support + Misc = $150M
===========================
Total per mission cost = $750M

So basically, they're looking at 100% profit.

Thus, 10 flights will pay back the development costs. At 2 flights per year, the develpment costs would be paid back in 5 years. Not bad.

I know that $1.5B is the price and not the cost.

If they can get their first 16 mission customers to come up with the estimated $8B development and testing funds then that could put them in as an investor. Meaning they could then get part of the profits as a possible share holder.

It looked to me that they were looking at four launches per Lunar landing mission.

My estimate profit was around $300M at a price of $1.6B. That is their price after the first mission. I assumed the price of $1.5B as a price they might be willing to go with if the customer was also a major investor in the development and testing phase. The $300M would be after all cost and employee salaries and divided up among the share holders minus any part that was to be reinvested.

To give an idea of how the launch costs of systems to put the lander and CCV into LLO the costs (cost to GS) range from $500M to $800M. Prior to the first manned landing there will be the equivelent of 2 complete missions in flight costs which is a portion of the $8B development amount meaning based on which archetecture a variance of $600M in development cost can be attribited to which eventual LV's and archetectures used.

It's not as simple as use the cheapest LV so don't think you know that the costs will be using the cheapest LV, but it is also based on which will actual work in getting stuff (CCV and lander) of the weight they will be once built to LLO. FH by itself may not be enough as well as using Centaur or another LH2 like EDS will not work, requiring some other configuration of LV's to get the items to LLO.

I'm looking at a hypergolic propulsion stage. No boil off, in space storage, Super Draco's propellent, and could be in common with the lander. It could be possible to launch several tankers into LEO and have them there when needed. If at different location that could give more launch windows for a crewed launch to meet up with the tanker before TLI burn.
A start before we have an assembly/depot station.

Other thing.

Just how hard will it be to get the permit to have crew orbit the moon?
How hard will it be to get the permit for crew to land on the near side/far side?

[douglas100]

What permit?

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Permits imply ownership. Last I heard the US or anyone else didn't own the Moon.

[A_M_Swallow]

Permits imply ownership. Last I heard the US or anyone else didn't own the Moon.

The US may not own the Moon but it does "own" the companies and is responsible for their outer space actions.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Permits imply ownership. Last I heard the US or anyone else didn't own the Moon.

The US may not own the Moon but it does "own" the companies and is responsible for their outer space actions.

The reason that the US issues spaceflight permits is for protection of the public not for getting to orbit doing anything in space or even the safety of the astronauts. This permit covers the launch hazards to the public as well as the hazards once whatever has been launched comes back to Earth. The US is responsible for every piece that makes it to orbit from the standpoint of hazards to the public.

edit spelling