Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[HIP2BSQRE]

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.

I totally agree with you.  It is a two edged sword.  You need to raise money to hire people.  Hiring people may not give you the credibility when going to the bank and asking other people for money.  We are also making some assumptions that they will not hire people to build it.  Part A maybe just trade space analysis, Part B they will actually build and do further development on their own. 

[HIP2BSQRE]

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.

So what do you think is the cost and the price to make this happen including development costs?  I agree an initial price of $500 - $750 million would be alot more easier for investors and foreign space agencies.

[Rocket Science]

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?

I wouldn't let that be a concern Warren. They pretty much invented the Lunar Lander on the 60’s. I have no problem with hypergolics for a lightweight Lander. If in the future bases come to be then ISRU will make sense...

[happyflower]

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. 

This made sense. Where does it say that NGC will be "making" the lander? It just said they are doing a study on the lander design. Did I miss something here?

[Lar]

Ok, written it up, and made it a bit meatier with the NASA side of things:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/golden-spike-northrop-grumman-lunar-lander/

Nice article but it seemed to be more about NASA and SLS than Golden Spike... not that that's a bad thing, the perspective is good.

[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.

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.

If Northrop built the lander on it's own money ( investors ) it could sell or rent ( if reusable ) to more than just one entity.  If they build a small lander then it maybe limited to GS. If they build the larger and an in-space stage then it could also be sold to those that might built the EML1/2 station. For GS the larger landed stage over a smaller one would cost more however could open them up to more possible customers.

More than one company might be willing to make a lander if there is shown to be customers for it. GS would be the travel agent.

Keep in mind that SpaceX is looking to use CH4/LOX  for their rockets. It could be good for them to work on the smaller engine for a lander first then build the larger engine for the rocket latter. The hard part is the program for the automated landing.

What do you think a lander will cost per unit in today's dollars?

For GS.
1 ) crew to orbit moon ( need Lunar capsule )
2 ) crew to land on moon ( need lander )
3 ) cargo to land on moon ( need lander )

GS either needs to have partner(s) in the capsule and lander or get the money them selves to make them their selves.

The Lunar capsule can also be used to go to EML1/2 ( good for Mars, NEA, ect. ). So the is a possible other market for the capsule for the supplier. For the lander it is only good for the moon. So that supplier will need up front money from possible customers up to first test landing. Less risk for 15 possible investors in only needing that part of the money for now. Only good if they want or are willing to settle for cargo only on the moon if crew to LLO is not available by the time a first paid lander is ready.

I believe my options for landers would be a benefit to NASA ( U.S. ) with or without crew landing or the EML1/2 station for Lunar missions. If we could justify a COTS like program for a Lunar lander that might work. Lander would have to be for a fixed price and delivery date with agreements for so many landers. Northrop to build hypergolic and SpaceX for a CH4/LOX lander could be a possible option.

In my opinion the lander is more important than the Lunar crew capsule. At least then we could get probes to the surface while we wait for the crew capsule.

Having a fixed price contract is what will be needed.

[Comga]

"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?

I will say that this is gibberish unless you can post a reputable reference and truly, truly surprise me.
Or you may have been sarcastic, which just wastes time and bandwidth.

I interpret "pragmatic" to include things like "near side" that don't need relay satellites for constant communications or the poles where lack of sunlight and continuous cold would require additional ground support equipment.

[ciscosdad]

I prefer to take the optimistic view.

Pay a reputable company to make a study that defines the trade space. Then use that to write requests for proposals that hopefully will lead to construction contracts from whatever company offers the best solution for a minimum capability 2 man lander and ascent stage. KISS and avoiding requirements creep will be the key. Scaled Composites is one possibility given their track record of innovation and out of the box thinking.
Modern composites and electronics in a small hypergolic vehicle is where it should end up, if they are successful

[Jason1701]

"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?

I will say that this is gibberish unless you can post a reputable reference and truly, truly surprise me.
Or you may have been sarcastic, which just wastes time and bandwidth.

I interpret "pragmatic" to include things like "near side" that don't need relay satellites for constant communications or the poles where lack of sunlight and continuous cold would require additional ground support equipment.

Realize who you quoted..

[Robotbeat]

I am encouraged by the news if only because it means they are really spending a little money on the project. I agree with HMXHMX that picking someone like NG is likely to increase their costs compared to doing it themselves or picking someone else. Even so, if they can rope NG into sort of investing in the project, it may not be a bad deal. I'd prefer hardware, of course.

[dcporter]

"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?

I will say that this is gibberish unless you can post a reputable reference and truly, truly surprise me.
Or you may have been sarcastic, which just wastes time and bandwidth.

"May" have been sarcastic!

Total waste of fishing line until he hooked someone.

[Rocket Science]

I am encouraged by the news if only because it means they are really spending a little money on the project. I agree with HMXHMX that picking someone like NG is likely to increase their costs compared to doing it themselves or picking someone else. Even so, if they can rope NG into sort of investing in the project, it may not be a bad deal. I'd prefer hardware, of course.

Sure it’s going to cost more but hard to argue with “pedigree”... No one else can make the claim that they successfully landed men on the Moon, saved a crew from certain death as a lifeboat and powered them home...

[Robotbeat]

Oh whatever, the only thing the same is the brand! Everyone involved with the project is gone. And the most important relevant data is public domain right now. I'd go with someone with recent interplanetary unmanned lander experience if I'm going to look for demonstrated capability. Whoever built skycrane or Phoenix (Lockheed Martin, I believe) would be far ahead of experience four decades out of date and with no relevant employees.

[Rocket Science]

Oh whatever, the only thing the same is the brand! Everyone involved with the project is gone. And the most important relevant data is public domain right now. I'd go with someone with recent interplanetary unmanned lander experience if I'm going to look for demonstrated capability. Whoever built skycrane or Phoenix would be far ahead of experience four decades out of date and with no relevant employees.

I understand your point Chris, but you can’t sell that to a customer...

[Robotbeat]

Oh whatever, the only thing the same is the brand! Everyone involved with the project is gone. And the most important relevant data is public domain right now. I'd go with someone with recent interplanetary unmanned lander experience if I'm going to look for demonstrated capability. Whoever built skycrane or Phoenix would be far ahead of experience four decades out of date and with no relevant employees.

I understand your point Chris, but you can’t sell that to a customer...

Yes you can! Might as well say only Italians can explore another world, because Christopher Columbus was born in (what is today) Italy.

Any customer who is aware that NG built the lander would know enough that they did so last 40 years ago! Anyone with near-term lander experience would win in the customer's mind.

[Rocket Science]

Oh whatever, the only thing the same is the brand! Everyone involved with the project is gone. And the most important relevant data is public domain right now. I'd go with someone with recent interplanetary unmanned lander experience if I'm going to look for demonstrated capability. Whoever built skycrane or Phoenix would be far ahead of experience four decades out of date and with no relevant employees.

I understand your point Chris, but you can’t sell that to a customer...

Yes you can! Might as well say only Italians can explore another world, because Christopher Columbus was born in (what is today) Italy.

Any customer who is aware that NG built the lander would know enough that they did so last 40 years ago! Anyone with near-term lander experience would win in the customer's mind.

Auto manufactures like Ford make claims of winning the 24 hours of LeMans, the Indy 500, and F-1 world championship in the 1960’s and what does that have to do with your econobox Fiesta. Yet they still can make that claim to sell their vehicles and remember this is commercial not NASA business as usual... It’s all about the marketing hype...

[Robotbeat]

What is better marketing hype than that your company just landed a nuclear Cooper Mini on Mars? This is a pointless argument.

[Rocket Science]

What is better marketing hype than that your company just landed a nuclear Cooper Mini on Mars? This is a pointless argument.

Come on Chris every time is has to do with the past or was done by prior generations you get riled up a bit... That’s ok, I see that every day with my students. I use it as a challenge for them to surpass what was done before...

[Mongo62]

I think that people are getting too worked up over this issue.  Northrop-Grumman is NOT being asked to design and build a lunar lander, they are simply being asked to draw up a set of specifications and guidelines for the eventual designer/builder (whoever that might be) to follow when the development pipeline reaches that point. It's a minimal but needed outlay of money, that happens to gain Golden Spike a measure of credibility with their anticipated customers.

[Robotbeat]

What is better marketing hype than that your company just landed a nuclear Cooper Mini on Mars? This is a pointless argument.

Come on Chris every time is has to do with the past or was done by prior generations you get riled up a bit... That’s ok, I see that every day with my students. I use it as a challenge for them to surpass what was done before...

You're making a claim based /solely/ on the marketing hype-ness of a company. It's entirely a thing based on opinion. The conversation can go no further.