Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[Warren Platts]

Plus they probably still have the blueprints for the original LEM in a dusty vault somewhere.

Work that NG did for Altair will be much more relevant for this.

Oh Brother....

I hope you're wrong about that! Altair was a horrible design for a sustainable lander IHMO--for about 20 different reasons: the fact that it was ugly was the least important!

The more I think about it, the more I worry....

Think about it: What was wrong with Masten/Armadillo/ULA?!? That is the question.... 

[Warren Platts]

The involvement of an experienced aerospace firm also appears more in line with the $9B development cost projection from GS, and with the available budget of potential clients.

You got that right! Problem is: Is that the right direction they need to be going?

7 to 9 $B is still a heck of a lot of money. Those are CxP figures. And $1.5B for a single mission is akin to Space Shuttle figures...

To make this work: any new start up needs to make a product that's 10 times better than the conventional alternative: I don't quite see that order of magnitude improvement with the skimpy missions they're offering at the price points they're offering.

To make this work: IMHO they need to knock their prices down by at least a factor of 3.... 

[go4mars]

Note the list of tasks more carefully. 

The fact that many on this site seem to assume it's a contract to build a manned lander, by the only company who's ever done it and proved it, demonstrates that the selection was effective from an optics perspective. 

The effect should be amplified in a less interested crowd. 

Hat tip to Gold-member. 

[MATTBLAK]

The involvement of an experienced aerospace firm also appears more in line with the $9B development cost projection from GS, and with the available budget of potential clients.

You got that right! Problem is: Is that the right direction they need to be going?

7 to 9 $B is still a heck of a lot of money. Those are CxP figures. And $1.5B for a single mission is akin to Space Shuttle figures...

To make this work: any new start up needs to make a product that's 10 times better than the conventional alternative: I don't quite see that order of magnitude improvement with the skimpy missions they're offering at the price points they're offering.

To make this work: IMHO they need to knock their prices down by at least a factor of 3.... 

Those numbers wont change in a hurry - they are most likely real world figures. People often agitate for cheaper manned spaceflight, especially Lunar missions. But they fail to understand that things cost what they cost; wishing them cheaper wont make it so. It will certainly take billions to set up the mission hardware and management infrastructure and the initial mission costs will be at least $1.5 billion each. In time, they may come down relatively speaking - but perhaps not if you factor in inflation.

[HMXHMX]

There's not a living human at NGC who worked on the original LM, and none that worked on the LMDE, far as I know.

This move is a reprise of Kistler hiring Northrop, or Teledesic hiring Motorola and Boeing, because some Wall Street firm told them to do so.  It will end the same way.

[Nelson Bridwell]

7 to 9 $B is still a heck of a lot of money. Those are CxP figures. And $1.5B for a single mission is akin to Space Shuttle figures...

Is it such a disaster that the Moon should be beyond the reach of a small handfull of individuals who have managed to amass vast personal fortunes?  I sususpect that they will somehow manage to find consolation elsewhere...

[RocketmanUS]

The involvement of an experienced aerospace firm also appears more in line with the $9B development cost projection from GS, and with the available budget of potential clients.

You got that right! Problem is: Is that the right direction they need to be going?

7 to 9 $B is still a heck of a lot of money. Those are CxP figures. And $1.5B for a single mission is akin to Space Shuttle figures...

To make this work: any new start up needs to make a product that's 10 times better than the conventional alternative: I don't quite see that order of magnitude improvement with the skimpy missions they're offering at the price points they're offering.

To make this work: IMHO they need to knock their prices down by at least a factor of 3.... 

They need a lander that can either land about 10klb cargo on the Lunar surface or bring two crew with some payload ( 1,050lb total from their PDF ) from LLO to Lunar surface and back to LLO with a single stage.

With one type of lander this would give them the flexibility to offer crew or cargo to the Lunar surface. Having the lander large enough to send the crew in a pressurized cabin ( SEV ) would be better, it could be built later. And that would probable be a reusable using Lunar made LH2/LOX or CH4/LOX.

Edit:
SEP could be used to bring the lander from LEO to LLO.
SEP could be used to bring a tanker ( refuel lander ) and cargo for lander, SEP could have robotic arms to help with the docking and transfer of cargo, plus with crew missions when a crew capsule arrives. SEP would then return to LEO for reuse.

NASA is looking into SEP. Others might find uses for such a SEP system.

GS could be the broker/travel agent not the designer of a SEP system, just a customer.

There's not a living human at NGC who worked on the original LM, and none that worked on the LMDE, far as I know.

This move is a reprise of Kistler hiring Northrop, or Teledesic hiring Motorola and Boeing, because some Wall Street firm told them to do so.  It will end the same way.

It will end the same way.
Why?
If there is enough funding then why would Northrop not be able to build the lander? True the people of Apollo are all probable retired by now, however can't the new generation rebuild the lander with modern tech?
Is there that much bad politics to not go to the moon?

If GS hired their own people to design and build the lander how would that be any different? Some young crowd.

[HIP2BSQRE]

There's not a living human at NGC who worked on the original LM, and none that worked on the LMDE, far as I know.

This move is a reprise of Kistler hiring Northrop, or Teledesic hiring Motorola and Boeing, because some Wall Street firm told them to do so.  It will end the same way.

Sometimes you have to hire the most expensive kid on the block, since that is the only way other companies will think that you are serious about the project.  Now if you are comparing Boeing expertise vs. masten expertise and you were going to a bank for funding--the bank/sponsor's may want Boeing's name on it just because of the experiance that they bring  and ignore the higher costs that it may also bring.

[HIP2BSQRE]

Sometimes you have to spend a little money to get more people to invest in you.  It's the cost of doing business.  yes--your cost is higher since you went with a big firm, but if you went with a smaller firm -->lower cost but smaller investment.  :-(

[HMXHMX]

The involvement of an experienced aerospace firm also appears more in line with the $9B development cost projection from GS, and with the available budget of potential clients.

You got that right! Problem is: Is that the right direction they need to be going?

7 to 9 $B is still a heck of a lot of money. Those are CxP figures. And $1.5B for a single mission is akin to Space Shuttle figures...

To make this work: any new start up needs to make a product that's 10 times better than the conventional alternative: I don't quite see that order of magnitude improvement with the skimpy missions they're offering at the price points they're offering.

To make this work: IMHO they need to knock their prices down by at least a factor of 3.... 

They need a lander that can either land about 10klb cargo on the Lunar surface or bring two crew with some payload ( 1,050lb total from their PDF ) from LLO to Lunar surface and back to LLO with a single stage.

With one type of lander this would give them the flexibility to offer crew or cargo to the Lunar surface. Having the lander large enough to send the crew in a pressurized cabin ( SEV ) would be better, it could be built later. And that would probable be a reusable using Lunar made LH2/LOX or CH4/LOX.

Edit:
SEP could be used to bring the lander from LEO to LLO.
SEP could be used to bring a tanker ( refuel lander ) and cargo for lander, SEP could have robotic arms to help with the docking and transfer of cargo, plus with crew missions when a crew capsule arrives. SEP would then return to LEO for reuse.

NASA is looking into SEP. Others might find uses for such a SEP system.

GS could be the broker/travel agent not the designer of a SEP system, just a customer.

There's not a living human at NGC who worked on the original LM, and none that worked on the LMDE, far as I know.

This move is a reprise of Kistler hiring Northrop, or Teledesic hiring Motorola and Boeing, because some Wall Street firm told them to do so.  It will end the same way.

It will end the same way.
Why?
If there is enough funding then why would Northrop not be able to build the lander? True the people of Apollo are all probable retired by now, however can't the new generation rebuild the lander with modern tech?
Is there that much bad politics to not go to the moon?

If GS hired their own people to design and build the lander how would that be any different? Some young crowd.

If GS hired their own team, it would cost them a fraction of what NGC will likely charge them.  Northrop spent something like a quarter of Kistler's money and managed to produce a handful of composite airframe components, no more.  Scaled (as one example) could have probably done the same for 10% of the cost (at that time, late 1990s).

Legacy aerospace has little to no incentive to reduce development costs from what they charge gov't customers.  To do so is very risky, since it calls into question why the price differential?  I don't say it impossible that legacy aerospace can meet GS budget targets, but I'll bet GS never manages to raise the money. A multibillion dollar GS effort is doomed to failure, just as happened to Teledesic.

I've seen this movie before.

[Rocket Science]

Great article Chris! Northop-Grumman, now that was a “no brainer”... Hard to beat perfection!   

Why is Northrup-Grumman a "no-brainer" for a moon landing system?

Is there anyone employed there who worked on the Apollo program? Is there anyone with special expertise that is relevant?

What do they know today that others don't?

Ask the Project Morpheus team...

[mmeijeri]

What do they know today that others don't?

Maybe it's more about buying credibility.

[go4mars]

I'll repeat.  Correct me if I misinterpreted.  I feel like we are watching different screens at the same drive-in theater.

I don't see their announcement as a commitment to have them build a lander or any hardware.  They are buying a tranferrable set of guidelines from a reputable group.  The cost could be rather minimal, and it's one of several 'architecture' study contracts with several groups.  My assumption, when I first read the release, was that, data in hand from this, they would have a competitive process for companies who want to make the hardware.  The hardware will likely meet requirements noted by this and other studies. 

[aquanaut99]

I've seen this movie before.

My feelings exactly...

Golden Spike company has no credibility whatsoever in my eyes (a sentiment many share, I think). By signing a deal with Northrop-Grumman, they probably hope to gain some of that credibility, but it won't work, sorry.

I predict that, in 5 or so years, everyone will have forgotten about Golden Spike.

[JohnFornaro]

"pragmatic lunar landing sites"

Yeah.  You know how Luna has lumpy gravity?  Some of those spots are actually .99 gee, and have virtually one atmo to boot.  You didn't know that?

Why is Northrup-Grumman a "no-brainer" for a moon landing system?

Well, "no-brainer" is a knee jerk reaction to the company's previous experience.  No blame, since we all have knees.

But I think that poster hopes, as I do, that NG kept the old drawings, specs, and calc sheets for the LEM.  Plus, there "should" be, out in the shed behind the garden, some extant hardware from the old days.

Of course you acknowledge that just because the old designers and builders may have died, retired, or what have you, that their work can live on for a long time, if NG has well developed librarian skills.

Plus they probably still have the blueprints for the original LEM in a dusty vault somewhere.

Which means precisely nothing. Did Boeing dust off Apollo CSM blueprints when they designed CST-100? No, they designed a new vehicle from scratch just using lessons learned from the old design.

Work that NG did for Altair will be much more relevant for this.

You contradicted yourself. "Lessons learned" means "precisely nothing"?  But your point that Altair, being more recent, and which had to have "learned" something from LEM, would be more relevant.

If GS hired their own team, it would cost them a fraction of what NGC will likely charge them.

That is the common wisdom, and with good reason, since vertical integration is a sound business model.  Up the thread, it was speculated that they'd pay a 30% surcharge for hardware, software, and brains, if GS would farm out everything.  At the same time, GS would have to design, build, and buy their own team, which would inevitably mean that they'd be poaching some of the NG talent.  That would be a challenge.  Consider the pragmatics if you were a twenty year vested veteran at NG.  You would probably think long and hard about rolling over your IRA into GS.

...I feel like we are watching different screens at the same drive-in theater. ...

They are buying a tranferrable set of guidelines from a reputable group.

I see your screen, and I say "Bingo".

[IRobot]

Golden Spike company has no credibility whatsoever in my eyes (a sentiment many share, I think). By signing a deal with Northrop-Grumman, they probably hope to gain some of that credibility, but it won't work, sorry.

I predict that, in 5 or so years, everyone will have forgotten about Golden Spike.

We should make a poll on that, I don't see any credibility on this project.

[Warren Platts]

The involvement of an experienced aerospace firm also appears more in line with the $9B development cost projection from GS, and with the available budget of potential clients.

To make this work: IMHO they need to knock their prices down by at least a factor of 3.... 

Those numbers wont change in a hurry - they are most likely real world figures. People often agitate for cheaper manned spaceflight, especially Lunar missions. But they fail to understand that things cost what they cost; wishing them cheaper wont make it so. It will certainly take billions to set up the mission hardware and management infrastructure and the initial mission costs will be at least $1.5 billion each. In time, they may come down relatively speaking - but perhaps not if you factor in inflation.

You might be right, but there might be ways: e.g., if you really want a legacy aerospace firm to build your lander, why not go with McDonnell-Douglas? They built the DC-X in 1991 for $60M, which is about $100M in today's dollars. Dust off blueprints for that, slap on a pressurized capsule, and you're good to go. Meanwhile, GSC is allocating $500M to develop their little lander. Divide that by 3, you get $167M, which compared to the DC-X cost is reasonable.

Similarly, they allocate $500M for a Lunar capable Dragon. Why should it cost that much? What do you really have to do to the existing Dragon that's going to cost half a billion USD?

The $1.5B per mission price is approaching the cost of a flagship robotic probe. Granted, having human field geologists onboard is a force multiplier in terms of the functionality delivered, so it's actually worth it from a scientific POV. The problem is, you don't see these foreign space agencies launching a lot of flagship missions. They send discovery-class missions for $500M or less. Getting the price down to $500M would be a much easier sell for these agencies IMHO, and it would get it much more affordable for private individuals to hire a mission.

Is $500M/mission reasonable? Well, if they went with an all reusable architecture, their main recurring cost is the launch costs. Even if it still took 2 FH's at $125M/each, that's $250M, leaving a 100% margin over their recurring costs.

[douglas100]

You might be right, but there might be ways: e.g., if you really want a legacy aerospace firm to build your lander, why not go with McDonnell-Douglas? They built the DC-X in 1991 for $60M, which is about $100M in today's dollars. Dust off blueprints for that, slap on a pressurized capsule, and you're good to go.

Well, I don't think a legacy design would be the cheapest option, certainly not DC-X. Just because it was a vertical lander doesn't mean you slap a cabin on it and it's a Lunar lander. We're in Lego rocket land with that. It was never designed for space, never mind Lunar landing. And it used cryogenic propellant which means some kind of boil off mitigation would be needed. Not cheap to develop.

For a quick sortie to the Lunar surface I think a small, modern, designed-for-purpose lander with storable propellant is the way to go. Kind of like the "helicopter" design already shown...

[Warren Platts]

Well, Grumman doesn't have a lot of cryo experience--correct me if I'm wrong. Does this entail that they will most likely go for the 2-stage hypergolic lander?

[Spugpow]

Re: cost

You all forget that the 1.5 billion includes amortization, and is not the cost of a single mission. After 7 or 8 missions presumably the cost could come down without any tech developments.