Golden Spike announce Phase A for commercial lunar landing missions

[QuantumG]

Problem is who would be Golden Spike's competitor for such a service?

People who actually wait until there's money on the table before announcing their plans.

[simonbp]

Golden Spike had to announce when they did, as they had started to talk to contractors. So, rather than an incorrect rumor getting out, they are being as open as they need to be to mollify any potential investors. Controlling the message (through honesty) is crucial.

[Patchouli]

I think what Bolden outlined is that a NASA developed Moon mission is not likely in our lifetimes but I don't think that a CCDev like Moon transport is excluded. Such a program started in 2017 could land people on  the Moon in early 2020's. Problem is who would be Golden Spike's competitor for such a service?

Pretty much all of the CCDev vehicles can be evolved into lunar vehicles.
Spacex made claims of being able to handle even Mars return velocities,SNC made remarks of a lunar version of DC and Boeing hinted at the CST-100 could handle a lunar returns.
The crewed Dragon pretty would would only need a propulsion module and beefed of ECLSS.
It would not surprise me if they all have over designed their vehicles some what to make the changes easier.

What's missing is a funded lander though in theory Dragon with a modified F9 upper stage could perform a lunar landing.
The same upper stage also will need to perform ascent.
Though the Dragon LAS might have enough delta V if it was mounted to a largely stripped vehicle with added propellant.

[A_M_Swallow]

Let the Centennial Challenge firms run for a few more years and Ascent stages with the 1.87 km/s delta-V needed for ascent stages will exist.  Put 10 of the engines together and we can make the lander's Descent stage.

[Warren Platts]

Problem is who would be Golden Spike's competitor for such a service?

People who actually wait until there's money on the table before announcing their plans.

As opposed to MoonEx or Shackleton?

[Robert Thompson]

With deadline now passed, a linear fit between Shackleton and GS gives a fully crowd-funded goal for a lunar centric objective no earlier than 2035. The high barrier to entry renders it difficult/impossible to give 'stretch goals'. Nano landers, imho, would break up that barrier to entry.

[JohnFornaro]

Nano-landers is along the lines of my proposal.

[Lar]

Nano-landers is along the lines of my proposal.

How small can you go? I thought at very small sizes you get much more inefficient vehicles due to cube square, min wall thickness problems, min casting size, etc

[Ben the Space Brit]

Nano-landers is along the lines of my proposal.

How small can you go? I thought at very small sizes you get much more inefficient vehicles due to cube square, min wall thickness problems, min casting size, etc

Based on their launch video, I'm pretty sure that GS are looking along the lines of the old Russian unpressurised lander idea.  So, really, the lander only has to be big enough to be stable in flight with two crew.

[JohnFornaro]

Nano-landers is along the lines of my proposal.

How small can you go? I thought at very small sizes you get much more inefficient vehicles due to cube square, min wall thickness problems, min casting size, etc

Based on their launch video, I'm pretty sure that GS are looking along the lines of the old Russian unpressurised lander idea.  So, really, the lander only has to be big enough to be stable in flight with two crew.

In one sense "nano" is a marketing term meaning "really small".  My proposal is unmanned, so I have fewer limitations on size.  My take on the GS human lunar lander is that it's Apollo on a diet.

For example, if you had an unpressurized, un-hulled (open) lander (with nothing but a handrail and the controls, a "lune-buggy" if you will, you descend from your capsule to the surface, wearing nothing but a smile and your space suit.  You toodle around on the surface for a few hours (4?), then hop on the lune buggy and back to the capsule.

The criticism would be made, in Beaker's voice, no doubt, that it would be a stunt, and that no science would be done, and critique after critique.

Whatever, I would say.

If GS could pull off a successful human landing, on the nano-scale, the only criticism that could be raised would be the sour grape critique.

The film of the stunt should be able to raise an additional $1B.

[Robert Thompson]

Yeah, this is more or less a marketing thing. Nano is becoming a fairly common descriptor of the attempt to reduce materials usage to the bare minimum required by the chemical/metallurgical properties of the medium. Satellite nanosats in microgravity have an arbitrary and appropriate 'natural unit' of 10cm3. Landers, rovers, robots in the deep gravity well of the moon will have a 'nano' scale appropriate to the materials requirements of that environment, presumably something larger than the natural unit of 10cm3. Looking at the beefy, very un-nanosat dimensions of the Google Lunar X-Prize entries, I'd say the smallest wheeled or track rover is as good a use of 'lunar nano' as we'll get. If GS could cater to a future need of 'lunar nano' vehicles, science packages and sample return, up to and including perhaps the largest Google wheeled offerings, you may get some economies, efficiencies, bundling. At any rate someone could be catering to the lowest hanging, non-HSF demands (Aitken basin sample return). GS would have to backtrack, sure. Depends if they want what they profess. There will be others. There will be some that find a way to cater.

[JohnFornaro]

... At any rate someone could be catering to the lowest hanging, non-HSF demands (Aitken basin sample return). GS would have to backtrack, sure. Depends if they want what they profess. There will be others. There will be some that find a way to cater.

With a little bit of luck, there will be others.  While it is encouraging that these private endeavors are presenting publicly, it is disconcerting to me how they deliberately overlook the preactical steps needed for their implementation.

[BrightLight]

Northrup-Grumman design/evaluation cycle for a lunar landing has been posted!
http://www.northropgrumman.com/mediaresources/pages/NewsArticle.aspx?art=http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/xml/nitf.html?d=10031950

[Lar]

Northrup-Grumman design/evaluation cycle for a lunar landing has been posted!
http://www.northropgrumman.com/mediaresources/pages/NewsArticle.aspx?art=http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/xml/nitf.html?d=10031950

Pumpkin ascent stage.. how cute! That seems about as minimal as you can get and still be pressurised (or is it unpressurised? )

[Chris Bergin]

Cool! This will work nicely with my article General Bolden's "Moon? Noooooooooooo!" article I'm going to work on tonight!

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Pumpkin ascent stage.. how cute! That seems about as minimal as you can get and still be pressurised (or is it unpressurised? )

Cosy might be a better word! Looks pressurised to me - air locks top & bottom?

Here's the caption & image is attached for ease of reference.

This figure shows a preliminary sketch of the minimalist ascent pod with surface habitat concept packaged in a five-meter diameter payload fairing. The pressurized compartments and propellant tanks easily fit in the available space. Ascent thrusters are mounted on outriggers that are folded up to fit in the payload fairing and the landing gear is folded inward. Also shown are initial side and top views of the ascent pod "Pumpkin" and the surface habitat with crew members in pressure suits. (Northrop Grumman image)

[JBF]

Hmm is there even room for a toilet in there?

[RocketmanUS]

Cool! This will work nicely with my article General Bolden's "Moon? Noooooooooooo!" article I'm going to work on tonight!

Looking forward to the article.

Pumpkin ascent stage.. how cute! That seems about as minimal as you can get and still be pressurised (or is it unpressurised? )

Cosy might be a better word! Looks pressurised to me - air locks top & bottom?

Here's the caption & image is attached for ease of reference.

This figure shows a preliminary sketch of the minimalist ascent pod with surface habitat concept packaged in a five-meter diameter payload fairing. The pressurized compartments and propellant tanks easily fit in the available space. Ascent thrusters are mounted on outriggers that are folded up to fit in the payload fairing and the landing gear is folded inward. Also shown are initial side and top views of the ascent pod "Pumpkin" and the surface habitat with crew members in pressure suits. (Northrop Grumman image)

To bad they don't show dry mass and propellant mass.

Looks better than what they showed at first.
Still think the should go with more of the Apollo LEM design to be able to get a usable cargo down mass. I think that would add a lot more customer and options for missions and combination missions.

[QuantumG]

Be great to actually have some numbers...

[RocketmanUS]

From the image it looks like from the surface habitat there could be a ladder above the surface egress hatch. If so it could be a drop down extension ladder.

There could be a problem on the ascent stage with the drop down ascent engines. If they failed to properly drop down and lock in place they would need a back up lander or LOC.

Would it not be better to remove the ascent pod and just use the habitat egress as the ascent pod too? Place main propellant tanks under the habitat with legs attached to the tanks making that the lift off platform. Have ascent tanks on the side of the habitat and use the descent engine also for ascent? Have the docking port to the Earth return capsule on top of the habitat?