Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[Chris Bergin]

It was Bolden, Garver and the NASA AAs that got the private brief the other week.

[Robert Thompson]

GS gets a FAIL on mass communications for something so EPIC... .

Well, it's out on yahoo news. Oh, and check out the first reader reactions, so encouraging... NOT.

imho My mileage is very different. I look for exothermic resentment, which indicates envy, which represents an attenuation of giggle factor, and which is a unit of market value. Lots of resentment means viable field of envy. Resentment from envy can flip based on partitioning by tribe. I'd worry if I saw a greater proportion of endothermic drive-by's or what Chris I think calls 'arm waving', which make ridicule of what should be causing resentment, iow, that maintain giggle factor. Need a good solid field of envy (the launchpad) against which market demand can thrust. imho

[simonbp]

http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/French-et-al.-Architecture-Paper-in-AIAA-Journal-of-Spacecraft-and-Rockets.pdf

Basic initial plan is Falcon 9 + Atlas 552 for launch. CSM is Dragon plus propulsion module for TEI. Centaur for TLI and LOI. Looking at a huge range of lander options.

[Chris Bergin]

Presser over.

[Robotbeat]

I like it.

I mean, as always, until you see hardware (and flying hardware), it's hard to take them TOO seriously, but it's definitely feasible, if someone wants to really pay them for it.

I really like the minimalistic lander approach. Kind of like the Russian lunar lander... (really, even the Apollo lander is minimalist compared to almost any other lander concept from ESAS to Altair, etc...). Things become a lot easier with a minimalistic approach. We'll see what the final one looks like.

And yeah, once they've demonstrated the lander, this could be a pretty cheap way to do lunar sample return. Just pay someone to go grab you a few rocks from this spot or that spot, for the price of a Discovery-class mission or so.

The cost of launch looks to be a large part of their overall per-mission cost, so they can help add some more elasticity to the supply-demand curve. Anything which can potentially add launch demand is good for the sort of over-crowded launch sector.

[Chris Bergin]

I'm sure they'll put a recording of the presser online somewhere eventually, but recorded it and due to the filesize I have to upload to the L2 thread.....but if they don't publish it, I'll try and youtube it or something and post here.

[sdsds]

The idea of launching Centaur with a drop tank, thus making it into an LEO departure stage, is apparently "from in house studies by ULA." It's a really good idea!

[manboy]

http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/French-et-al.-Architecture-Paper-in-AIAA-Journal-of-Spacecraft-and-Rockets.pdf

The unpressurized lander seems like a really bad idea (especially when you remember that Dragon's cabin cannot be depressurized) and I'm unsure how they will deal with radiation.

[Ben the Space Brit]

http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/French-et-al.-Architecture-Paper-in-AIAA-Journal-of-Spacecraft-and-Rockets.pdf

The unpressurized lander seems like a really bad idea and I'm unsure how they will deal with radiation.

Well, it is only a short-duration excursion; most of the time will be spent in the better-shielded orbiter/CRV.

[neoforce]

http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/French-et-al.-Architecture-Paper-in-AIAA-Journal-of-Spacecraft-and-Rockets.pdf

Best line of the entire paper:

It is natural to examine why PSLR can be conducted so inexpensively compared to the Constellation Program’s former $150B lunar‐return price tag. Some reasons for this include:
<4 bullets removed>
- Efficient operations, focusing on the job itself, rather than on the number of jobs created.

[corrodedNut]

So Centaur refuels itself from a drop tank? Is that really simpler/cheaper than just developing a stretched Centaur?

[sdsds]

So Centaur refuels itself from a drop tank? Is that really simpler/cheaper than just developing a stretched Centaur?

The vehicle doesn't carry the mass of the dropped tank through TLI, whereas it would need to carry the mass of a stretched tank. This drop tank strategy seems like about the simplest form of in-space propellant transfer. (In fact it isn't really a drop tank in the classic sense, is it? It's rather more a "single use depot".)

[Robotbeat]

Unpressurized lander... I like it. Makes sense to separately land a semi-permanent habitat instead of lugging it around with you. This could reduce costs by a huge amount all by itself. Even more minimalistic than the LK lander...

I'd bet they could get this down to fewer launches with just a little more development (Two Falcon Heavy launches, a hypergolic service module for Dragon), but to keep it only to currently used launch vehicles is smart.

(Are we really sure the lander is unpressurized? Could be pressurized, just without an airlock.)

[apace]

Unpressurized lander... I like it. Makes sense to separately land a semi-permanent habitat instead of lugging it around with you. This could reduce costs by a huge amount all by itself. Even more minimalistic than the LK lander...

I'd bet they could get this down to fewer launches with just a little more development (Two Falcon Heavy launches, a hypergolic service module for Dragon), but to keep it only to currently used launch vehicles is smart.

(Are we really sure the lander is unpressurized? Could be pressurized, just without an airlock.)

Read the paper, pressurized and unpressurized landers with different engines are compared. Also Dragon with larger or smaller engine module.

[manboy]

Unpressurized lander... I like it. Makes sense to separately land a semi-permanent habitat instead of lugging it around with you. This could reduce costs by a huge amount all by itself. Even more minimalistic than the LK lander...

I'd bet they could get this down to fewer launches with just a little more development (Two Falcon Heavy launches, a hypergolic service module for Dragon), but to keep it only to currently used launch vehicles is smart.

(Are we really sure the lander is unpressurized? Could be pressurized, just without an airlock.)

No airlock. They haven't decided on a lander yet. These are the four options they're looking at (from the above posted PDF).

[simonbp]

So Centaur refuels itself from a drop tank? Is that really simpler/cheaper than just developing a stretched Centaur?

It's all about loiter time. The main Centaur tank would remain empty while loitering. When the spacecraft is launched, the prop is transfered from the low boil-off drop tank to the main tank, and the drop tank dropped. So, the mass to TLI only includes the mass of the base Centaur, not any of the extra stuff that is needed for low boil-off, nor any unneeded tank mass.

[neilh]

Unpressurized lander... I like it. Makes sense to separately land a semi-permanent habitat instead of lugging it around with you. This could reduce costs by a huge amount all by itself. Even more minimalistic than the LK lander...

I'd bet they could get this down to fewer launches with just a little more development (Two Falcon Heavy launches, a hypergolic service module for Dragon), but to keep it only to currently used launch vehicles is smart.

(Are we really sure the lander is unpressurized? Could be pressurized, just without an airlock.)

Their paper lists several lander options that they're still studying: single-stage cryogenic pressurized or unpressurized with two astronauts, or two-stage storable-propellant with one astronaut in an unpressurized lander or two astronauts in unpressurized/pressurized lander.

http://goldenspikecompany.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/French-et-al.-Architecture-Paper-in-AIAA-Journal-of-Spacecraft-and-Rockets.pdf

[FinalFrontier]

Glad I am finally getting to catch up on the big news! Work has been brutal lately (as it almost always is) so I have not had much in the way of time. Been essentially coming home each day and going straight to bed.

In any event, this is excellent news. I was hoping, and waiting for the day when a large group of people and companies would step up and do this and it has finally come, and I could not be happier. From 2006-2009 the future was very unclear as far as HSF in general, or any trip to BEO. Indeed when you think about it retrospect it was essentially hopeless at the time. To see how things have worked now can only be described as a miracle, couldn't be a heck of alot better than this in a real world scenerio.

Can't wait to see these guys start debuting hardware, and I can't wait for the first flights. Hoping that those take place on Falcon.

[simonbp]

From the paper, it sounds like they might do a demo flight with just a Dragon to lunar orbit and back. Basically EM-2/Apollo 8 on a budget, with either one Falcon Heavy or Falcon 9+Atlas 552.

[Mongo62]

From the Golden Spike architecture study:

PSLR Project Cost Estimate: Non‐Recurring Development

Study Phase $0.05B
Lunar‐Capable Dragon with Prop Module $0.5B
Lander $0.5B
Centaur Integration to FH $0.2B
Crew Suits and Systems $0.1B
Mission Control, Communications $0.05B
Crew and Training $0.1B
Management and Systems Integration $0.2B
Business/Marketing/Public Outreach $0.1B
30% Reserves $0.55B

Total Development Cost $2.35B

PSLR Project Cost ROM: Flight Project to First Landing

Lunar‐Dragons on Falcon Heavy $1.05B
Centaur Upper Stages 0.50B
Landers on Falcon Heavy $1.05B
Suits and Crew Systems $0.20B
Mission Ops and Comm $0.25B
30% Reserves $0.95B

Total Flight Program Costs $4.0B


So with these development and other costs, what would be a realistic number of two-person flights needed to pay off the various incurred costs and start making a profit?