Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Some work modemeagle has been doing behind the scenes in modeling a F9+(payloadless FH to use its US still with significant amount of prop as EDS).

1) The full payload of an F9 can easily be put through TLI. It requires the FH US to have arrived on orbit with 45mt of prop. The basic assumption is the F9 payload is put up first followed by the FH. To do the opposite order FH then F9 requires some capability of reducing or eliminating LOX boiloff and to keep the RP-1 from freezing (this would not be trivial) for a duration of up to a month. The max prop residual on a good day for the FH payloadless US is actually 51mt so there are significant prop margins here. Launch cost of getting a DragonRider to LLO would be using this method $125M+$60M+$30M (reused DragonRider + prop module in Trunk) = $215M.

2) In the best case the FH US prop remaining used as EDS can put 23mt through TLI. This case would require a second FH to get that amount of payload into LEO. If you used a (~40mt $80M/launch one) FH and added a storable prop module that could be used to make up delta V and to break into LLO you could possibly get 20mt+ of payload into LLO using total LV costs of $205M + the cost of the storable prop stage (<$20M if built by SpaceX using Dracos and super Dracos and SpaceX Dragon avionics. So my launch cost estimate of getting a heavy 20mt Lander into LLO is $225M.


Total launch costs (to GS not SpaceX) of this configuration set is ~$440M for delivery of everything to LLO (includes a 20mt wet weight lander and a BEO DragonRider with extra delta V margin than a FH only BEO DragonRider flight). With a $60M margin the GS budget amount for this configuration would be ~$500M. I don't think it would be cheaper to do this any other way and it also loosens the weight requirements for the Lander.

[Blackstar]

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

And why does anybody believe this?

I'm amused at how quickly people are willing to accept these figures without asking how they were generated and by whom. NASA projects now have to get independent cost estimates, but I haven't seen anybody ask who did GS's independent cost estimates.

[QuantumG]

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

And why does anybody believe this?

When they actually start signing customers and flying, I'll believe it. Until then, healthy skepticism.

I'm amused at how quickly people are willing to accept these figures without asking how they were generated and by whom. NASA projects now have to get independent cost estimates, but I haven't seen anybody ask who did GS's independent cost estimates.

Huh? Because it's not our money they're spending? It's up to the customer to determine if GS's cost estimates are valid, impose sensible milestones to measure progress, etc.

[baldusi]

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.

Also each country issues licenses to the payload that have to comply with some space junk performance. For example, GSO craft have to be able to move themselves to graveyard orbit, LEO have to decay a certain amount of months after dying. SSO have to put themselves out of harm's way, etc.
Think about EML1/2 if they become used. GSO is already overcrowded and it's got a line of 4,238,787km. EML1/2 are points (yes, I know about Lissajous Orbits).

[RocketmanUS]

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.

Also each country issues licenses to the payload that have to comply with some space junk performance. For example, GSO craft have to be able to move themselves to graveyard orbit, LEO have to decay a certain amount of months after dying. SSO have to put themselves out of harm's way, etc.
Think about EML1/2 if they become used. GSO is already overcrowded and it's got a line of 4,238,787km. EML1/2 are points (yes, I know about Lissajous Orbits).

By permit I mean permission. Will the U.S. government allow it's people to orbit the moon and also land on it. There are to many government regulations to go through. Anyone of them can be used as an excuse to stop such a private crew mission.

Possible multi government Lunar mission(s)
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30628.0
( Nice timing this was posted today )

If this GSC concept is cheaper for the same apples to apples mission then people will ask why they don't use the commercial option. I don't see it going through for non government personnel. Keep in mind this shows that it could have been done 20 years ago.

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

And why does anybody believe this?

When they actually start signing customers and flying, I'll believe it. Until then, healthy skepticism.

I'm amused at how quickly people are willing to accept these figures without asking how they were generated and by whom. NASA projects now have to get independent cost estimates, but I haven't seen anybody ask who did GS's independent cost estimates.

Huh? Because it's not our money they're spending? It's up to the customer to determine if GS's cost estimates are valid, impose sensible milestones to measure progress, etc.

Just working on plausible cost that could be in the near term. We will have to see in the future if these cost are close our not. That is if they can get all their permits and funding with contracts.

[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.

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

Launch permits are covered by Article VII of the Outer Space Treaty.  I have not heard of any mining permits being issued under Article VI yet.
http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/SpaceLaw/gares/html/gares_21_2222.html

edit:spelling

[Comga]

post removed

[Warren Platts]

Recent (brief) interview in the Fort Collins Coloradoan:

http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312170023

Not much new except maybe this little tidbit:

Q: Where will you get your equipment from, such as rockets and spacesuits?

A: We plan to seek bids from established launch, spacecraft and spacesuit manufacturers and select winners from the proposals in each category.

Looks like the plan is to not develop their own landers and spacesuits.

[JohnFornaro]

Looks like the plan is to not develop their own landers rockets and spacesuits.

Fixed that for ya.

[yg1968]

Q&A with Alan Stern:
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312170023&nclick_check=1

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

Q&A with Alan Stern:
http://www.coloradoan.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2012312170023&nclick_check=1

I noticed this little item:

Q: How are you funded?

A: By a combination of investments and recent service sales.

I wonder what the service was and for how much.

[JohnFornaro]

$7.5B sounds like a pretty good deal to me, but I'm not the expert.

[Warren Platts]

Looks like the plan is to not develop their own [landers] and spacesuits.

Fixed that for ya. Good catch Warren!

It's pretty clear from the context that they want to contract out all major implements.

[JohnFornaro]

They appear to also expect contracting out the "spacecraft".  Unfortunately, they didn't say anything about the "lander".  It may very well be that they'd contract out the lander as well.  I typically comment on what is said.  Extrapolating from what is unsaid, in this case about the lander, is beyond my willingness to do.  That is the extent of my "fix".

*************************************

Up the thread, it was mentioned that this contracting/sub-contracting business model could add about 30% to the hard costs of the equipment, compared to a vertically integrated manufacturing model.  Considering the lander for a moment:

Here and there on the forum, there are several videos (which I'm too lazy to find, perhaps someone else can) about various landers, so it's clear that some development costs have already been incurred.  Golden Spike is clearly not going to ask me, with my clean sheet of paper, to bid on the lander that they require; there will be a very short list of companies who are seen as already qualified to bid on their lander proposal.  There is little doubt that the companies chosen would express official confidence that they could meet GS's requirements.

An important question would be, how much are these invited proposers willing to pony up the rest of the development costs for the GS lander?  How much work is still left to do on the landers that already exist?  Would GS own the lander, but not the design?  After I hit the lottery, could I buy one?  Or could anybody?

And the big question:  How much would a human operated lander cost?  GS is suggesting that they very nearly have $7.5B to spend.

[Warren Platts]

They appear to also expect contracting out the "spacecraft".  Unfortunately, they didn't say anything about the "lander".  It may very well be that they'd contract out the lander as well.  I typically comment on what is said.  Extrapolating from what is unsaid, in this case about the lander, is beyond my willingness to do.  That is the extent of my "fix".

Well, the kid said rockets, which to our ears sounds like "launch vehicles", but considering he probably covers high school basketball games when he's not interviewing Alan Stern, "rockets" to him means any spacecraft that shoots out a plume of exhaust, which would include landers.

Here and there on the forum, there are several videos (which I'm too lazy to find, perhaps someone else can) about various landers, so it's clear that some development costs have already been incurred. ... there will be a very short list of companies who are seen as already qualified to bid on their lander proposal.  There is little doubt that the companies chosen would express official confidence that they could meet GS's requirements.

That's the thing, with companies like Armadillo, Masten, not to mention ULA (or the myriad of GLXP teams), working on lander designs for years now, it may be more economical to bid out the lander to these guys, rather than trying to reinvent that particular wheel--especially if they're serious about landing by 2020.

Golden Spike is sort of like an independent oil company, which at bottom consists of a small group of people who can put together a deal. Albeit a deal using other people's money, other people's equipment, other people's technical ideas. Nothing wrong with that of course!

[Robert Thompson]

The Space Frontier | Video Dec 18, 2012

Worth seeing for the Greason bit. Otherwise, didn't know where else to put it.


pbpbpbpbp

This one has better Greason:


Space for the People 2010

[Warren Platts]

From the Golden Spike FB page:

This week our Lunar Lander Systems Team consisting of Golden Spike and 9 partner firms met in Boulder to review mission architecture, lander, EVA suit, and experiment package design progress. Awesome progress- thanks go out to all the team members!

Wish they would say more about what they decided!

And exactly who are the 9 partner firms?

Clear evidence that the lander is going to be contracted out IMO.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

From the Golden Spike FB page:

This week our Lunar Lander Systems Team consisting of Golden Spike and 9 partner firms met in Boulder to review mission architecture, lander, EVA suit, and experiment package design progress. Awesome progress- thanks go out to all the team members!

Wish they would say more about what they decided!

And exactly who are the 9 partner firms?

Clear evidence that the lander is going to be contracted out IMO.

If that is the case think of GS as financier and integrator.

[Robotbeat]

Yeah, GS doesn't seem to want to do any hardware-level engineering, which is a valid approach.

[HMXHMX]

List of partner firms:

1. XCOR
2. Paragon
3. Masten
4. Armadillo
5. SpaceX
6. ULA
7. Thin Red Line Aerospace
8. Special Aerospace Services
9. Altius?

Disclaimer: These are just my guesses obviously....

No need to guess.  The team was announced.  SpaceX is not part of it. Nor XCOR, Thin red Line, SAS or Altius.